www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Birth Control

"I apologize for the misstatement I made earlier in this thread."

Thank you. Honestly, I don't understand how you read that statement from the AAC to support use of the so-called "pill", as I have *never* heard that from the lips of an Orthodox priest.

"I wonder how many Orthodox fully understand this stand of the OCA on this matter, however (or agree with it)."

All Orthodox that I have discussed it with understand that the pill is forbidden, as are other devices (like IUDs) that can interfere with a fertilized egg.

The GOA's leading moral theologian, Prof. Fr. Stanley Harakas, has written more or less the same thing as the OCA synodal statement in his book "450 Questions and Answers About Orthodoxy", so it's not strictly the "OCA's view", although the OCA did take the effort to address this important matter at the level of a local church council.

Brendan

I've seen it suggested in this forum that because we are eastern we don't have to subject ourselves to the legalism of the west.
Ok, i'll accept that, sort of...

But what i will place myself under is the glory of what the eastern Church does proclaim, and it all goes back to the icon of the Trinity. Between the Father and the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is there a giant rubber wall? Because our theology of the Trinity and the Love, the movement of God within One, but in three persons: the two became one, and then there were three. God is Creator and He is Lover, and it's a great injustice when we say "sorry God, we'll let you Create when we're ready according to our own judgement". Ok, think about sex with God's help, and sex when God's not allowed to participate...

The divorce rate among non-religious people is about 50% here in the US, the same as the major Christian population (this being protestants and Catholics who use contraception). The divorce rate among couples using natural family planning is somewhere around 1%. When a family (meaning atleast a husband a wife, because they are already a family) is flooded with the grace and participation of Christ through the sacraments, every unadultered encounter between the husband and wife is a blessing to the other, bringing both closer to become the saints that we're all called to be. Once a family embraces the sin of contraception, they shut themselves off from the very grace which is their lifeblood and sustenance, and their marriage can no longer be led by Christ because He has been kicked out of the story. Just as every encounter with the Eucharist can bring a curse or blessing, depending on the state of our soul (1Cor11), so the nuptual act may bless or curse the other. If both partners are bringing sin into the act, I'm assuming that a blessing is not what they'll receive.

Besides that, I personally know women who's lives have been shattered by the medical ramifications of using contraception (through stroke, cancer, severe illness, emotional grief, infertility, and the damage left from silent abortions with breakthrough pregnancies while on the pill). The cost of natural family planning may be a book and a basil thermometer. The profits made from keeping a woman on the pill for the rest of her life, and then the medical procedures to repair damage done by the pill itself are so high that the woman loses all value to the marketers except for her ability to make them money.

And what husband wouldn't want to know that every time his wife looked into his eyes, she desired to bear fruit for him, just as the Church's desire should be to bear fruit for our Lord. My close friends have been married for three years and have been blessed with three children, one on the way. The husband works labor, but all of the children are still provided for. Their family truly contains the Love of Christ.

God doesn't say to "multiply and be fruitful" once you make six figures, or when you have the time, or when you feel emotionally ready. God says "multiply and be fruitful". He's big enough to take care of the rest.

"The divorce rate among non-religious people is about 50% here in the US, the same as the major Christian population (this being protestants and Catholics who use contraception"

I think it's actually slightly *higher* for Roman Catholics as a whole when compared with the rest of the population. Interestingly, Eastern Orthodox Christians have a significantly lower divorce rate than Roman Catholics in the United States.

"Once a family embraces the sin of contraception, they shut themselves off from the very grace which is their lifeblood and sustenance, and their marriage can no longer be led by Christ because He has been kicked out of the story."

I don't quite understand how this is not the case where the couple deliberately chooses to restrict intercourse to the non-fertile period, following so-called natural family-planning. As I understand it, the likelihood of conceiving during that period is similar to the likelihood of conceiving when using a condom during the fertile period (which also has a "failure" rate of a few percent). Percentage-wise, we're looking at similar failure rates (or perhaps an even lower failure rate for NFP during the non-fertile period, as is sometimes claimed by the most ardent supporters of NFP), so I really don't understand how the decision to restrict intercourse to the unfertile period using NFP is any more inviting to Christ, or open to the act of creation offered by God, than using a condom is .. after all, it seems like you are *more* likely to conceive using a condom than you are using NFP during the non-fertile period, so it seems like if you are using NFP to restrict intercourse to that period you're making a decision that is even more set *against* conception, in terms of the likelihood of avoiding it.


"Besides that, I personally know women who's lives have been shattered by the medical ramifications of using contraception (through stroke, cancer, severe illness, emotional grief, infertility, and the damage left from silent abortions with breakthrough pregnancies while on the pill)."

But why jump to the pill when we've just determined that the Orthodox don't support that? I agree that the pill is morally objectionable, in addition to being medically problematic. But so what? We're discussing other, non-abortificient, forms of regulating conception.

"God doesn't say to "multiply and be fruitful" once you make six figures, or when you have the time, or when you feel emotionally ready. God says "multiply and be fruitful". He's big enough to take care of the rest."

Of course, aside from noticing the apparent contempt hidden behind this statement for folks who come from various socio-economic backgrounds and who may wish to at least try to balance a career and a family, I also have anecdotes of folks who use the so-called "natural" family planning method for regulating conception.

One is a family living in Steubenville Ohio, real RC rah-rahs from FUS. Well, they've had 5 kids in 7 years and there is no end in sight, and they are living in virtual poverty. The husband? Sure, he works, but doesn't bring in enough money really to provide well for his family, or to enable them to better themselves at all in this world. But, hey, that's God's will right? As long as we keep pumping out the kids, we don't need to worry about the rest, because we've done our duty.

And then there's the well-known case of the RC family here in Manassas, Va. that recently suffered the tragic death of a young baby from being left in a minivan in the hot Virginia sun. Of course, the family had 13 kids, and the child was simply forgotten in the van (apparently this has happened before .. various children have been "forgotten" during shopping trips and the like). Well, in this case it led to a tragic death. The wife: We considered using NFP but my husband and I believe that using NFP to contracept is immoral. The elder brother: A tragic death, but at least she was baptized so we know she's in heaven (as if her lack of baptism would condemn her to hell or limbo). The D.A.: we're prosecuting for criminally negligent homicide. Good for them, he deserves it. But the real crime is the absolute irresponsibility associated with having 13 kids when one is not capable of caring for them -- materially or in a more basic sense of watching them and making sure they don't get lost or hurt (or killed). And then wrapping that personal irresponsibility in some religious righteousness, as if it was God's will for this couple to have more kids than they are capable of caring for -- thereby conveniently mitigating the guilt associated with the irresponsibility to begin with.

Fact is this: it is God's will for a married couple to have children, and the number and spacing of children must be consistent with the family's ability to care for the children -- materially, emotionally, intellectually and, well, basically. How that is achieved is up to the couple to figure out, based on their own circumstances in life, other responsibilities, financial and emotional profile and the like -- that is, in itself, the quest for holiness in one's own life, in one's own circumstances. Holiness is not a one-size-fits-all thing ... it is a thing that must be worked out among the diverse circumstances in which we all live. If a couple can raise 5 kids responsibly and well, then that is well and good, but if a couple can only raise 2 or 3 kids responsibly and well, then that is what they should do .. and ultimately only the couple can decide how to proceed in this area, and how to achieve that.

One reason perhaps for the lower divorce rate amongst those who practice NFP is that unlike contraceptives, NFP requires constant ongoing communication, and potentially periodic self-sacrifice from both parties.


Spacing babies isn't the only measure of success.

Sharon

Natural family planning is the way to go. Kudos to all you people out there who practice it. For it is in understanding our call to moderation and self-denial at times that allows us to give so completely at others. From a psychological perspective, NFP is most conducive to a healthy marital relationship because as stated before, it forces communication, it forces respect for the natural cycles of the body, and it is conducive to our spirit of fasting. Sex on demand cheapens the act and makes it more easily a self-gratifying event rather than the mutual self-giving and the notion of mutual martyrdom that is effected in a christian marriage. So much more can be said, but so much has already been posted. The spiritual and psychological are interconnected and when both aspects are respected and their needs met, we grow very close to the christian ideal, I believe.

Athanasius

I would like to agree with the last two posts in that using nfp increases self control and communication within a family. Also, because it may seem that financial and emotional situations are impossible to overcome, a family that uses nfp (most especially during trying times) is proclaiming their faith in a God who can overcome what the world sees as a complete crisis.

It seemed impractical for the widow to spend the last of her food to feed Elijah when one could have argued that she should have been responsible in trying to take care of herself and her son. Instead, with faith this "irresonponsible" woman fed Elijah, and she was supplied with more than enough food to bring her and her son through the famine.

Originally posted by Brendan:

"I think it's actually slightly *higher* for Roman Catholics as a whole when compared with the rest of the population. Interestingly, Eastern Orthodox Christians have a significantly lower divorce rate than Roman Catholics in the United States."

reply:
Yes, but the problem that she was pointing to was that couples using NFP have bedrock solid marriages. These Roman Catholics you point to are not using NFP. There is much evidence to substantiate this. BTW, what is the Orthodox divorce rate in the U.S. (just curious)? Again the divorce rate for Catholics using NFP is under 2%.

Brendan said:
"I don't quite understand how this is not the case where the couple deliberately chooses to restrict intercourse to the non-fertile period, following so-called natural family-planning. As I understand it, the likelihood of conceiving during that period is similar to the likelihood of conceiving when using a condom during the fertile period (which also has a "failure" rate of a few percent). Percentage-wise, we're looking at similar failure rates (or perhaps an even lower failure rate for NFP during the non-fertile period, as is sometimes claimed by the most ardent supporters of NFP), so I really don't understand how the decision to restrict intercourse to the unfertile period using NFP is any more inviting to Christ, or open to the act of creation offered by God, than using a condom is .. after all, it seems like you are *more* likely to conceive using a condom than you are using NFP during the non-fertile period, so it seems like if you are using NFP to restrict intercourse to that period you're making a decision that is even more set *against* conception, in terms of the likelihood of avoiding it."

reply:
Looking at this based on percentages is a western legalistic approach (I'm sorry, I've always wanted to say that to someone, they're always hitting me with that line... that felt good, no wonder they use it

No, seriously I don't think the percentages tell the real story. Ignoring the means to justify the same end, I don't think is a correct approach. Its like comparing a couple living together outside of marriage with a couple who do the right thing and get married first. Both may seek the exact same ends, life-long companionship, children, etc. Yet one is morally unacceptable and the other acceptable. Why? Because our faith teaches us this. Because the Church holds this truth to be a moral teaching revealed by God. Many would accuse us of being idiots for insisting on such moralistic principals, but even studies show that one of these practices is much more conducive to an ordered society.

Contraception has done much to disorder society. If interested in a few examples, you can look at "Contraceptive Mentality," which is chapter four of a paper I wrote called "The Two Voices in the Catholic Church on Contraception" Although the paper was written as a Roman Catholic approach to the issue of contraception, it still has some tid bits others might appreciate.

Here's the Link: http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Articles1.html

Yet I have to say that I think those who say NFP is still being "open to life," insinuating that those who use it are playing a kind of "Vatican Roulette" are not correct. We must be careful how we speak on this. Even if NFP were 100% effective in preventing birth, it would STILL be morally acceptable as opposed to A.B.C. Its moral legitamacy does not derive from its inability to be perfectly effective. Rather it is legitimate because those who use it do not defile the human sexual act as God intended it. As St. Paul once put, "the marriage bed is kept undefiled."

As I wrote in "Is Contraception Orthodox" (same link), "Yet, some might argue that there is no moral difference between Natural Family Planning and artificial birth control. This is untrue. The profound difference is this: with artificial birth control -directly disobeying the clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition- a couple deliberately impedes, frustrates and disables the life-giving potency of their marital act, rendering it sterile. A potential human being who might be on a direct trajectory to being conceived is deliberately prevented from being. But with Natural Family Planning the couple are not at all obstructing the conception of a new life in their marital act. Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season God has designed the wife to be infertile: when no new life can result. Therefore, just as there is a proper way for a man and a woman to engage in sexual relations, that is, only in the marital covenant, so too is there a proper way to limit the number of children in a family, that is, by natural means. And, just as there are proper intentions for marriage, that is for love, companionship and children, so too is there a proper reason for using NFP, only if additional children would bring great difficulty to the family.

Regarding the couples you mentioned who have so many children that they do not know how to take care of them all, I can see your point that this can be a problem. Of course accidents like the one you described happens to couples with one child too (I know of such a case near my home). So we can't necessarilly blame this accident on the number of their children. That might be the anti-life media's hype influencing the reporting.

In addition to this, say that didn't happen to that little boy and in fact he lived. Do you think he would've wished his parents had used contraception so that he wouldn't have had a chance to live, love and know God his creator?

Couples in the situation you described may or may not have been reckless with the gift of fertility that God has given them. This was their personal choice and God will judge. Church teaching does not mandate that we be reckless, just generous, self-less and moral. This is an area of Christian discipleship in Holy Matrimony that needs to be proclaimed more inorder to produce better education for those who are serious about following the Catholic Church's call to reject A.B.C.

Ofcourse on the other hand there is nothing wrong with married couples wanting to go beyond the call of duty and status quo to live heroic lives of sacrifice for their children. Part of this heroic sacrifice could be allowing a great amount of children into this world in order that they may know their loving Creator. Of course it does not appear heroic if these children are neglected. Usually this is not the case. In truth, this is a way for the married to imitate the life of sacrifcie of the monastics in our own unique way. It is a far cry from the call of America to have one boy and one girl and a nice house and a couple of nice cars and the finest universities lined up when the kids graduate from high school.

just my understanding of the topic,

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

Brendan wrote:


Sorry, Brendan, I hadn't noticed this earlier.

How long has it been the OCA policy to not permit use of the Pill?

Was it not the advent of the Pill which contributed to the evolution of thought among Orthodox on contraception?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

"How long has it been the OCA policy to not permit use of the Pill?"

Don't know, but I expect that the conciliar statement was intended to codify and clarify what had been an existing practice pastorally.

"Was it not the advent of the Pill which contributed to the evolution of thought among Orthodox on contraception?"

No, actually I don't think so. I think that the advent of life in the 20th century has resulted in an increased pastoral awareness, perhaps, of certain aspects of this question, but this is a multifaceted phenomenon, including massive changes in socioeconomic relationships, living conditions, mobility and resulting family and extended family structures and the like. Pinning it to one specific issue to the exclusion of the others is too narrow a reading of recent history, in my opinion. Of course, the church prior to the 20th century and the advent of new contraceptive technologies never, of necessity, had a well-developed position on these new non-abortificient means of preventing conceptions from occurring (although forms of "birth control" that amounted to preventing the birth of a human being once conceived have been roundly condemned by the church since time immemorial). The pastoral response of the church to these new realities was needed, with the issue of where to draw the moral line with respect to these newly available technologies. The Roman Catholic Church realized this as well, of course, but reached a different conclusion, as is well known by this point.

Brendan

"Its like comparing a couple living together outside of marriage with a couple who do the right thing and get married first."

Of course, this is an inapposite comparison. The issue here is not marriage or not, but what -- within the context of marriage and against the background of the moral impermissibility of taking a life, however recently conceived -- a couple can do to regulate pregnancies. It is not at all like the decision to engage in sex outside of marriage.

"Rather it is legitimate because those who use it do not defile the human sexual act as God intended it."

This comes remarkably close to so-called Christian Scientism, in my opinion. In effect, the same argument is raised by the Christian scientists with respect to medical care, pharmaceuticals and the like -- ie, they are not the intent of God because they are not "naturally" present, they must be interjected by us into the situation and therefore are not in accord with the Divine will. That's Christian Scientism, as far as I understand it. The marital bed is no more undefiled by a condom than is the arm of a child defiled by an IV when she needs it to recover from an illness.

"A potential human being who might be on a direct trajectory to being conceived is deliberately prevented from being. But with Natural Family Planning the couple are not at all obstructing the conception of a new life in their marital act. Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season God has designed the wife to be infertile: when no new life can result."

Ah, but this reading ignores the fact that the major contraceptive decision relating to NFP is precisely one of timing. In other words, the decision to refrain from sex during the fertile period and engage in sex during the infertile period is in itself an active, willfull, deliberate, and very pre-meditated decision to contracept. It's possible, for example, that the same potential life was intended to be conceived in month X, but the couple, by deliberately and willfully restricting their sexual union to the non-fertile part of that cycle, has utterly thwarted that potential life from coming into being. NFP does this in the same way that a condom does -- ie, by preventing the egg from being fertilized. NFP simply differs in that the "prevention" comes from the premeditated decision of the couple to withhold that sperm, to deny that sperm to the egg that could be a potential life waiting to happen in the eyes of God, and thereby thwarting its future development. In short, the decision to delay intercourse -- which is the essence of the NFP contraceptive approach -- could very well be choking the very lifeblood of a potential human being. The critical point is that decision to delay intercourse, or to restrict it to certain times of the month, is a fundamentally contraceptive act, and an act which every bit as much thwarts the coming into existence of a potential life.

Brendan,

How old were you in the 60's? The advent of the "pill" revolutionized how society viewed sexuality and contraception. (Perhaps I'm revealing how old I really am! ) The evolution of Orthodox thought on contraception dates from this period. Until this time, as Bishop Kallistos noted in his first edition of The Orthodox Church artificial means of birth control were considered unacceptable. We must also remember that it was not generally known in the 60's and 70's that one way the "pill" works is to sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb. Fr John Meyendorff shows the attitude of the times:

However, both the New Testament and Church tradition consider continence as an acceptable form of family planning. Recent Roman Catholic teaching also recommends periodic continence, but forbids the "artificial" means, such as the "pill." But is there a real difference between the means called "artificial" and those called "natural"? Is continence really "natural"? Is not any medical control of human functions "artificial"? Should it, therefore, be condemned as sinful? And finally, a serious theological question: is anything "natural" necessarily "good"? For even St. Paul saw that continence can lead to "burning." Is not science able to render childbirth more humane, by controlling it, just as it controls food, habitat and health?

Straight condemnation of birth-control fails to give satisfactory answers to all these questions. It has never been endorsed by the Orthodox Church as a whole, even if, at times, local Church authorities may have issued statements on the matter identical to that of the Pope. In any case, it has never been the Church's practice to give moral guidance by issuing standard formulas claiming universal validity on questions which actually require a personal act of conscience. There are forms of birth control which will be acceptable, and even unavoidable, for certain couples, while others will prefer avoiding them. This is particularly true of the "pill."

The question of birth control and of its acceptable forms can only be solved by individual Christian couples.... (From Marriage--An Orthodox Perspective, p. 62, first published in 1971. This quote is from the revised edition of 1984.)

In this era usage of the "pill" was viewed as a issue of `preference'...a decision left to the conscience of the couple. What is remarkable is that Fr Meyendorff's presentation was written less than a decade after the first edition of The Orthodox Church...a very tumultuous decade for society and the Church.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Brendan (or others),

Are there any published statements by the OCA or other Orthodox Churches specifically stating that using the "pill" is not permissable? I'm just trying to trace the history of this as to when it became unacceptable in Orthodox practice.

Thanks,

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave --

The only written statement that approaches anything "official" is the one from the AAC with which you are familiar -- I have never seen or heard anyone interpret that in a manner that permitted use of the so-called "pill".

Brendan

That makes sense. I had not caught the significance of the wording earlier and I stand corrected. (It would have been better if that document had not used "foetus" since that technically is not used to describe an unimplanted embryo.) Many people are unaware that the "pill" can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, however, and for them a stronger statement might be needed.

So, can we place the first official statements against the "pill" then in 1992? And that, until then, some Orthodox (as for example, Fr Meyendorff cited above) would leave that to the "personal conscience" of a married couple?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Well, I think we can place the first official statement of any kind relating to any of this to that date. Prior to that, there had been no official Orthodox statement relating to these methods of regulating pregnancy by any jurisdiction -- there had been the writings of Fr. Meyendorff, Paul Evdokimov. Fr. Stanley Harakas, and others, but not "official statements" one way or the other relating to these specific forms of regulating pregnancy. To date, I believe that OCA is the only jurisdiction that has published something dealing with this specific issue (Fr. Harakas' book is normative for Greek Orthodox in its own way, but not in the way that a synodal or concilliar statement would be) ... although I haven't reviewed the ROC's "Social Concept" recently and there could be something in there that deals with this issue briefly.