www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Sterilization

Did they? I mean understanding of contraception. I'm not sure of this. I'm not so much interested in finding a quote that says "non contraception', but a quote showing an understanding of contraception.

Axios

Greetings,

I think the real situation in the "contraception debate" is this...

1) The tradition of the Church, in particular as articulated by the Fathers, is very clear on the issue of contraception. Some Fathers went so far as to equivocate it with murder (!). One will try in vain to find any leniency or comprimise on this subject in the works of the Church Fathers.

2) The Christian ideal is a heroic thing; many of the things which the early took for granted (such as the 'heroic' penances that were often given for mortal sins), seem far too severe for our (relatively speaking) spiritually feeble generation.

3) Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize this. Thus, why neither generally expects severe penances from penitents, for example. Nothing objectively has changed in regard to sin; but sadly, we are fairly decadent and lazy (myself included), thus as the east would put it, a great deal of "economy" is applied.

However, the Orthodox (in general; my understanding is that some groups, like ROCOR, are still pretty strict like the RCC is on this matter) and Catholic Churches have taken different approaches and reached different solutions to this problem.

The Orthodox (in general) allow for a "responsible" use of contraceptives, in consultation with one's confessor. This is a relatively new thing (as even an examine of different modern editions of Kallistos Ware's well known "The Orthodox Church" will make clear).

The Catholic Church on the other hand has tried to be lenient (in view of people's weakness), but still be principled and ethical as possible. Thus, long observing the principles involved (the "why" of "why is contraception immoral according to the Church's tradition"), has come to the conclusion that if there are real, dire needs involved, a couple may use methods to avoid pregnancy, so long as they do not involve a violation of natural law (that is to say, so long as marital relations are "open to life").

Both approaches involve condescending towards weakness (since neither is obviously the Christian ideal). However, I think it's a hard argument to say that the Orthodox position (at least the widely held one; it's not universal by any means) is appropriate, since it seems to totally disregard Church tradition; it doesn't even seem to consider the "why" of just why the Fathers had a problem with contraception.

I feel for couples who are afraid, and can understand (very well in fact) their lack of confidence in God to provide for them and for however many children they may have. But if the response (or even leniency) towards this weakness is totally unprincipled, then strictly speaking anything is permissable. It's a "slippery slope" as some have called it (usually in reference to the connection in mainstream society between the use of contraceptives and the widespread tragedy of abortion.)

Augustine

This is exactly my point. Some Fathers did see contraception as equivalent to murder as they believed (along with many members of their society) that the father of a child passed a microscopic infant, intact, to its mother in his semen. In other words, accpeting this theory of biology, it WAS murder.

I can say that most Orthodox scientists, biologists and medical doctors now have different theories as to human reproduction.

Of course, at another time in history, it was believed that human life did not begin until 30 days after conception for males and 60 days for females. Thomas Aquinis, accepting this understanding, found abortion only became murder at that point. Anti-life propaganists oftenmake much of this. The obvious answer is that we don't look to Aquinis for teaching on biology but morality. The moral principle -- thou shall not kill -- is consistent. We now have incredable photographs of the development of fetal life and this understanding should educate us as the the proper application of ancient and Pattistic principles.

Axios

Dear Axios,

Hello, I've been following along a little. I haven't felt a desire to post because I pretty much said everything I thought I needed to in the last very large thread we had on this issue a few months ago. But here goes...

If what you argue is correct, that the Fathers had a distorted concept of what was taking place in contraception it might indeed be proper to ignore their clear and very strong anti-contraceptive witness. From what I've read, though, I don't think this is the case. Allow me to quote from a little research project I did on this topic and then I'll read your reply.

----------------------

In this article Fr. Harakas actually admits that he is not representing the traditional Orthodox belief regarding contraception.

Initially, Fr. Harakas affirms,

“Like the teaching on fornication, the teachings of the Church on these and similar issues have remained constant. Expressed in Scripture, the continuing Tradition of the Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and the canons, these views have been restated by theologians, hierarchs and local Orthodox churches in our own day.“

Then, he admits that fidelity to this above criteria is not the case when it comes to his teaching on the issue of contraception. Thus, Fr. Harakas states,

“The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception.”

Besides incorrectly attributing his teaching to the official teaching of the “Orthodox Church,” Fr. Harakas' makes a telling admission. Here he clearly acknowledges that those who accept contraception have departed from the early Church's Orthodox understanding. But Fr. Harakas attempts to justify this deviation by stating:

“Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.”

One has to wonder if this is right. Did the “earlier writers” (i.e., the Fathers) get it wrong on contraception because they misunderstood human biology? If so, this might indeed justify a “new view,” as Fr. Harakas refers to it. In the monumental book Contraception, John T. Noonan answers this charge that the Church Fathers operated under a misunderstanding of human biology. He writes,

“One might think that these terms [i.e. the Fathers condemnations of contraception] either reflect an erroneous biology which identifies man with the seed, or show that the writers are not speaking of contraception at all. Neither alternative is correct. The Christian writers are using this language rhetorically and morally, just as, rhetorically and morally, they attacked abortion as homicide and parricide. A review of (a) the relevant theories of classical biology, (b) the leading theories on ensoulment of the fetus, and (c) Roman legal terminology confirms this conclusion.”

He then explains that in Classical Biology,

“Three theories of procreation existed, all of them assigning the major role in procreation to the male seed. According to Aristotle, the male seed was the active form; the female menses provided the passive matter on which the form worked (Generation of Animals 1.20, 729a, 2.3, 737a). The view was general in the Roman world that the male seed combined with the female menses to make a fetus. It is asserted by Jerome (On Ephesians 5.30) and by Augustine (On Genesis According to the Letter 10.18.32). It appears to be the theory of the Hellenized Jew who wrote the Book of Wisdom (Wis 7:2), and of Lactantius (The Worker of God 12.6) The theory is assumed by Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 1.6.39, GCS 12:113). But under no theory was the male seed itself equal to a “man,” for under no theory was it maintained that the seed already had a soul.”

On the theory of ensoulment, Noonan writes,

“That no classical writer literally identified semen with man is clear from consideration of the leading theories on ensoulment. It is abundantly clear... that the most anyone contends is that ensoulment occurs at conception; the dominant view is that the fetus becomes a man only when “formed.” In light of such views on the fetus, no one could have confused the seed with a man or meant to say that destruction of the seed was literal homicide.”

Finally Noonan concludes,

“The essential Christian position is put by Tertullian in an attack on pagan abortion: "To prohibit birth is to accelerate homicide, nor does it matter whether one snatches away a soul after birth or disturbs one as it is being born. He is man who is future man, just as all fruit is now in the seed.' The protection of life leads to the prohibition of interference with life at the fetal stage. It is only one step to extend this protection to the life-giving process.” (Contraception, pgs. 88-91).

-from "Is Contraception Orthodox"
http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/apologetics.html

---------------------------------

I hope this helps the dialoge along

In Christ's Light,

William Der-Ghazarian

William,

I don't see the clarity you seem to in the information you presented from Dr. Noonan, one of the leading Catholic defenders of contraception.

Axios

Axios,

You side-stepped the part where Fr. Harakas admits the modern teaching on contraception is not the same as the tradition.

Also, the Project Stephanos website gives links to articles that quote from 2 separate books that were written during the time of the Fathers. These books spelled out the difference between contraception and abortion so it's safe to say this knowledge existed in the time of the fathers.

Also there several of the quotes from the fathers on contraception specifically talk about having sex and actively doing something to prevent conception. In other places they talk about abortion. Both are condemned. What's unclear about this?

Condemned in a way that does not also condemn natural family planning? I don't see that.

I guess this discussion would be helped if someone identified exactly what were the forms of contraception the Fathers spoke of? Obviously it was not the oral contraceptive.

Axios

Dear Axios,

"A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still" or so I am told. I'm not trying to force my faith on you brother. If you have considered both sides carefully then you must believe as your conscience dictates. I have a discussion of your questions in the above mentioned document if you are interested in considering this further.

IN Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

p.s. I know of Noonan's position. Yet, this does not prevent me from benefitting from his research. In fact, based on his great research, I'm not sure how he could take the position he takes. He helped me to see the Fathers teaching more clearly and believe it.

Sterilization outside of serious health related issues is immoral. Certainly not allowable so that the other partner may not conceive. It would be better for th couple to practice abstinance.
Stephanos I

Axios,

Surely the Fathers had no knowledge of modern oral contraceptives. Yet, it was the modern oral contraceptive (and it's relative "ease") that revolutionized Society as a whole and what prompted most of the Catholic dissent which many Orthodox moral theologians joined with.

Now we know that one of the ways oral contraceptives work is by preventing fertilized eggs from implantation. The OCA now says it is against the use of "the Pill" (a laudable step, I believe). I don't know how universal this rejection of oral contraceptives is in other Orthodox jurisdictions, however.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Actually Dave, the Fathers knew of the "Oral Contraceptives" which were practiced in their day. These are known as the "Pharmakeia" and are denounced in the NT and the writings of many Fathers. They were not the modern pill (as you mentioned). But the principal was still there of taking a drug orally to prevent or kill the life-giving potency of the marital act. And as such the Fathers denounced it in the strongest terms.

This topic will serve as a springboard to an announcement to my friends in this electronic community. I'm happy to announce that my wife and I have been graced by God with another child. We would appreciate your prayers as we await the coming into the world of this new unique human person.

Thanks God, and thank all of you,

IN Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian Wolfe

CONGRATULATIONS!!

Wonderful news

I pray that all will go well and your new little gift from God will be a healthy child

Thanks for the kind sentiments and prayers. My wife and I really appreciate it.

IN Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Congratulations, Ghazar! May this child love our Holy God with all his heart with all his soul and with all his mind. Amen!

ChristTeen287