A question for Orthodox Christians

[RKO]

This is to me, one of the simplest and yet wisest and most profound statements i’ve ever read regarding this issue:

To them, openness to life is viewed in the marriage as an entirety, not within individual sexual acts.

As soon as I can work out a way to maintain my super strong personal devotion to the BVM, I could be east bound and down…( I know they love the Theotokos, but admittedly my deep devotion and reliance on her might raise a few Orthodox eyebrows…)

 

[GaryTaylor]

To them, openness to life is viewed in the marriage as an entirety, not within individual sexual acts.

Do you have the rest of the statement or thats it?

 

[truthseeker32]

True. But there is clear teaching from the Eastern Fathers on this issue. I have no problem with economia. In fact, I think the use of economia in the case of divorce is more honest than the current annulment fiasco in the Catholic church. But it seems that the Orthodox have completely abandoned the concept that contraception is sinful and now have no problem with it whatsoever, while in the quite recent past, that has not been the case.

One should also keep in mind how the process of intercourse was viewed in ancient times. There were some who believed that the entire human person was present in the sperm, and thus naturally “onanism was condemned.” Now that we understand that the sperm and egg must combine for the person to form, needing DNA from both the mother and father, one may reasonably argue that the way in which we should view contraception has changed.

I am unsure how accurate this is. Early Christians may have been more knowledgeable about conception.

 

[RyanBlack]

This is to me, one of the simplest and yet wisest and most profound statements i’ve ever read regarding this issue:

To them, openness to life is viewed in the marriage as an entirety, not within individual sexual acts.

As soon as I can work out a way to maintain my super strong personal devotion to the BVM, I could be east bound and down…( I know they love the Theotokos, but admittedly my deep devotion and reliance on her might raise a few Orthodox eyebrows…)

Unless your devotion to the Theotokos rises to the level of idolatry, there’s no reason why it should “raise a few Orthodox eyebrows.” The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have a great deal of devotion to and reliance upon the Theotokos. This is made obvious in the liturgical life of these traditions.

 

[dzheremi]

Well said, Ryan Black. You’d have to be really out there to find the Marian devotion of the Orthodox to be somehow deficient.

An example of a Marian hymn in the Coptic tradition, in English: “Rejoice, O Mary”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you have the rest of the statement or thats it?

That is my paraphrase quote from the Orthodox priest I spoke to regarding this subject.

 

[L_piperatus]

I asked an Orthodox priest and he gave me this answer:

To the Orthodox, contraception is contraception. Whether you use a technology behind it (ABCs) or not (NFP). The intention behind it is the same, to avoid conception.

But again, preventing conception to them is the same no matter what method you use.

This is totally wrong and I can easily refute it. Let’s suppose you don’t want to pay for an iPhone. You can deal with this situation in two ways:

1. Don’t buy an iPhone, and you won’t have to pay for it.
2. Steal an iPhone, and don’t pay for it.

Yes, the intention is the same, to avoid paying for an iPhone. But would anyone think that not buying an iPhone and avoiding paying for it is morally equivalent to stealing an iPhone and avoiding paying for it?

Avoiding babies is similar to avoiding paying for an iPhone:

1. Refrain from having sex and avoid babies.
2. Have sex and cheat and pervert the sexual act by using contraception.

Yes, the intention is the same, but the first way of accomplishing the goal is morally permissible, while the second way is immoral and a grave sin invariably condemned by all the Church Fathers.

You will never sell me on the fallacy that having sex with contraception is morally equivalent to not having sex at all, just like no one could convince me that stealing iPhones is morally equivalent to not buying iPhones.

Here’s a more outrageous example, to illustrate the same principle: let’s suppose you date a police officer’s daughter. Would you rather tell him:

1. I don’t want your daughter to end up pregnant, therefore I never mess around with her,

OR,

1. I don’t want your daughter to end up pregnant, therefore we are using condoms while having sex.

I mean, the man has a gun, has a Taser, you better watch what you say to him!!!

Come on, it’s just totally preposterous to suggest that the first solution to avoiding getting her daughter pregnant, i.e. behaving as a gentleman, is morally equivalent to messing around, and using condoms while having sex with her daughter!

I truly don’t get it: how can some EO priests be so blind to the truth that they regard the perversion of the sexual act, through contraception, as morally equivalent to sexual abstinence?

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is totally wrong and I can easily refute it. Let’s suppose you don’t want to pay for an iPhone. You can deal with this situation in two ways:

1. Don’t buy an iPhone, and you won’t have to pay for it.
2. Steal an iPhone, and don’t pay for it.

Yes, the intention is the same, to avoid paying for an iPhone. But would anyone think that not buying an iPhone and avoiding paying for it is morally equivalent to stealing an iPhone and avoiding paying for it?

Avoiding babies is similar to avoiding paying for an iPhone:

1. Refrain from having sex and avoid babies.
2. Have sex and cheat and pervert the sexual act by using contraception.

Yes, the intention is the same, but the first way of accomplishing the goal is morally permissible, while the second way is immoral and a grave sin invariably condemned by all the Church Fathers.

You will never sell me on the fallacy that having sex with contraception is morally equivalent to not having sex at all, just like no one could convince me that stealing iPhones is morally equivalent to not buying iPhones.

Here’s a more outrageous example, to illustrate the same principle: let’s suppose you date a police officer’s daughter. Would you rather tell him:

1. I don’t want your daughter to end up pregnant, therefore I never mess around with her,

OR,

1. I don’t want your daughter to end up pregnant, therefore we are using condoms while having sex.

I mean, the man has a gun, has a Taser, you better watch what you say to him!!!

Come on, it’s just totally preposterous to suggest that the first solution to avoiding getting her daughter pregnant, i.e. behaving as a gentleman, is morally equivalent to messing around, and using condoms while having sex with her daughter!

I truly don’t get it: how can some EO priests be so blind to the truth that they regard the perversion of the sexual act, through contraception, as morally equivalent to sexual abstinence?

Your Church does not prescribe total sexual abstinence as a method of birth control. It prescribes planning families by keeping track of the fertile periods of a woman and abstaining from sexual relations only then. It would be like stealing the iPhone from the store, and then returning it when the store does inventory, so they don’t realize that it’s missing. You still get to have the iPhone, but without consequence, so long as you abstain from using it once in a while. This method too was also prohibited by the fathers, as it would mean that a couple would be having relations with the hope that no child would result.

 

[L_piperatus]

This is to me, one of the simplest and yet wisest and most profound statements i’ve ever read regarding this issue:

To them, openness to life is viewed in the marriage as an entirety, not within individual sexual acts.

To me, it’s yet another fallacy. Let’s suppose I buy gas at my usual gas station. Well, and I’m open to paying for gas generally, but not always. So, from time to time, I will fill up the tank and drive away without paying. Having sex, but using condoms from time to time, is similar to failing to pay, from time to time, for what I buy. Can I use the argument that “I’m generally open to paying for gas”, in a court of law? Of course not. And neither should married people pervert the sexual act by contraception, trying to argue that “We are generally open to babies, just not this time”.

If you are not open to paying for gas this time, you better don’t fill up your tank this time.

And if you are not open to babies this time, you better abstain from sexual relations this time.

 

[Nine_Two]

To me, it’s yet another fallacy. Let’s suppose I buy gas at my usual gas station. Well, and I’m open to paying for gas generally, but not always. So, from time to time, I will fill up the tank and drive away without paying. Having sex, but using condoms from time to time, is similar to failing to pay, from time to time, for what I buy. Can I use the argument that “I’m generally open to paying for gas”, in a court of law? Of course not. And neither should married people pervert the sexual act by contraception, trying to argue that “We are generally open to babies, just not this time”.

If you are not open to paying for gas this time, you better don’t fill up your tank this time.

And if you are not open to babies this time, you better abstain from sexual relations this time.

If you want to use that argument, NFP is the same thing as not paying for gas from time to time. You just time it so the attendant is busy when you pull up.

The only fallacy here is that one form of contraception is superior to another.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is totally wrong and I can easily refute it. Let’s suppose you don’t want to pay for an iPhone. You can deal with this situation in two ways:

1. Don’t buy an iPhone, and you won’t have to pay for it.
2. Steal an iPhone, and don’t pay for it.

Yes, the intention is the same, to avoid paying for an iPhone. But would anyone think that not buying an iPhone and avoiding paying for it is morally equivalent to stealing an iPhone and avoiding paying for it?

Avoiding babies is similar to avoiding paying for an iPhone:

1. Refrain from having sex and avoid babies.
2. Have sex and cheat and pervert the sexual act by using contraception.

Yes, the intention is the same, but the first way of accomplishing the goal is morally permissible, while the second way is immoral and a grave sin invariably condemned by all the Church Fathers.

You will never sell me on the fallacy that having sex with contraception is morally equivalent to not having sex at all, just like no one could convince me that stealing iPhones is morally equivalent to not buying iPhones.

You didn’t refute anything. ABCs was compared to NFP, not abstinence. In both cases you got an iPhone (you had sex) and in both cases you “didn’t pay for it”. The Catholic Church endorses NFP where you have sex but deliberately choose days where the woman is not fertile to avoid conception. While NFP does prescribe some abstinence (during fertile days), it does not prescribe total abstinence. In fact a woman is only fertile a few days a month, which means in this case you get a lot of free iPhones a month.

Here’s a more outrageous example, to illustrate the same principle: let’s suppose you date a police officer’s daughter. Would you rather tell him:

1. I don’t want your daughter to end up pregnant, therefore I never mess around with her,

OR,

1. I don’t want your daughter to end up pregnant, therefore we are using condoms while having sex.

I mean, the man has a gun, has a Taser, you better watch what you say to him!!!

Come on, it’s just totally preposterous to suggest that the first solution to avoiding getting her daughter pregnant, i.e. behaving as a gentleman, is morally equivalent to messing around, and using condoms while having sex with her daughter!

I truly don’t get it: how can some EO priests be so blind to the truth that they regard the perversion of the sexual act, through contraception, as morally equivalent to sexual abstinence?

Same banana. You totally missed the point here. Sorry.

By the way, missing the point, another way to avoid conception

Sorry, I watch too much Colbert.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To me, it’s yet another fallacy. Let’s suppose I buy gas at my usual gas station. Well, and I’m open to paying for gas generally, but not always. So, from time to time, I will fill up the tank and drive away without paying. Having sex, but using condoms from time to time, is similar to failing to pay, from time to time, for what I buy. Can I use the argument that “I’m generally open to paying for gas”, in a court of law? Of course not. And neither should married people pervert the sexual act by contraception, trying to argue that “We are generally open to babies, just not this time”.

If you are not open to paying for gas this time, you better don’t fill up your tank this time.

And if you are not open to babies this time, you better abstain from sexual relations this time.

How is your example different from the Catholic Church endorsing NFP? Again, you’re getting free gas most of the time in a month using NFP.

 

[L_piperatus]

How is your example different from the Catholic Church endorsing NFP? Again, you’re getting free gas most of the time in a month using NFP.

Just tell this to the lady who was posting here on CAF in despair, because she already has seven (7) kids even though she was on NFP most of the time!

Anyway, it IS possible to abuse NFP, and it IS possible to use NFP in a sinful manner. However, to say that periodic abstinence is always sinful, you would be contradicting 2000 years of Tradition in the Church. Many saints practiced periodic, or even total abstinence in marriage. Apropos, do you also regard Holy Mary’s and St. Joseph’s total abstinence as sinful? Or, is it only periodic abstinence that you have a beef against?

But let’s turn our attention back to contraceptive sex - that’s a PERVERSION of the normal sexual act, and it’s ALWAYS sinful. Period. How could an Orthodox priest give his blessing on an intrinsically evil, perverted and sinful act, is beyond me.

What’s next, will some Orthodox priests bless unmarried couples to fornicate, single guys to masturbate, gay folks to engage in sodomy, all in the name of economy? After all, if they already decided to bless the intrinsically evil and perverted acts of using condoms and getting vasectomies/tubal ligations, why go so hard on gay people, why not exercise some economy with them as well, and bless them to have sodomy with each other? Why be so hard on single people, after they already ruled that married couples lack the self-discipline to abstain? If you bless married people to use condoms because they can’t abstain, why not also bless single folks to masturbate because they can’t abstain? Also, how about unmarried couples? If married couples already got a blessing to use condoms because they can’t abstain, why shouldn’t Orthodox priests just give a blessing to unmarried couples too, because they also can’t abstain, and let them have sex with each other and perhaps use condoms as well to avoid getting pregnant?

On a different note, can I get a blessing, on reason of economy, to go slap my former boss, because he was such an *****%^&#, and because I’m not strong enough to control myself and abstain from slapping him?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Just tell this to the lady who was posting here on CAF in despair, because she already has seven (7) kids even though she was on NFP most of the time!

Anyway, it IS possible to abuse NFP, and it IS possible to use NFP in a sinful manner. However, to say that periodic abstinence is always sinful, you would be contradicting 2000 years of Tradition in the Church. Many saints practiced periodic, or even total abstinence in marriage. Apropos, do you also regard Holy Mary’s and St. Joseph’s total abstinence as sinful? Or, is it only periodic abstinence that you have a beef against?

Periodic abstinence with the intention of avoiding the fertile periods (that is, NFP) is sinful, by the standards you have set forth. Periodic abstinence as practiced by the saints was not for this purpose, but was for ascetic purposes, which is why that type of periodic abstinence (which is still practiced by the Orthodox) does not involve avoiding fertile days, but involves abstaining from relations in connection with the fasting calendar.

But let’s turn our attention back to contraceptive sex - that’s a PERVERSION of the normal sexual act, and it’s ALWAYS sinful. Period. How could an Orthodox priest give his blessing on an intrinsically evil, perverted and sinful act, is beyond me.

The same way the Catholic Church has blessed NFP, despite the fact that NFP involves engaging in sexual relations with the full intention to engage in sexual intercourse while avoiding procreation.

What’s next, will some Orthodox priests bless unmarried couples to fornicate, single guys to masturbate, gay folks to engage in sodomy, all in the name of economy? After all, if they already decided to bless the intrinsically evil and perverted acts of using condoms and getting vasectomies/tubal ligations, why go so hard on gay people, why not exercise some economy with them as well, and bless them to have sodomy with each other? Why be so hard on single people, after they already ruled that married couples lack the self-discipline to abstain? If you bless married people to use condoms because they can’t abstain, why not also bless single folks to masturbate because they can’t abstain? Also, how about unmarried couples? If married couples already got a blessing to use condoms because they can’t abstain, why shouldn’t Orthodox priests just give a blessing to unmarried couples too, because they also can’t abstain, and let them have sex with each other and perhaps use condoms as well to avoid getting pregnant?

On a different note, can I get a blessing, on reason of economy, to go slap my former boss, because he was such an *****%^&#, and because I’m not strong enough to control myself and abstain from slapping him?

All fallacious slippery slope arguments. None of these arguments are valid.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae completely endorses NFP as a morally good form of family planning, and condemns abortion, sterilization and contraception as intrinsically evil. The people who reject HV do so, not because they find NFP to be immoral, but because they do not accept the self- discipline that goes with periodic abstinence.
2. Pope John Paul II also endorsed NFP completely, when used for the right reasons.
3. So also does Benedict XVI. They all recognize that NFP, when used for good reasons, respects God’s plan for marriage and spousal love.
4. Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii. Paragraph #53 reads: 53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by FRUSTRATING THE MARRIAGE ACT. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances. “Virtuous continence” = NFP; “frustrating the marriage act” = contraception. (Fr. Matthew Habiger OSB)

Paragraph #54 explains further the evil of contraception: 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Paragraph #59 reaffirms periodic abstinence and NFP: …. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of NATURAL REASONS EITHER OF TIME OR OF CERTAIN DEFECTS, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. “Natural reasons of time” = infertile periods; “or of certain defects” = after menopause or natural infertility.

1. The language of “primary ends” (procreation and education of children) and “secondary ends” (mutual aid, cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence) has undergone a legitimate development of doctrine. Gaudium et Spes #50 gives greater importance to the unitive, or personal, values of marital love: “Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.”

Thus, the importance within marriage for the mutual love between the spouses endures even after the nest is empty, and the children have all left. This mutual love endures even if the couple is sterile, unable to have children. And this mutual love is meant to grow and deepen all throughout the marriage. Children do not replace this mutual love of spouses. Rather, they are the natural fruit of that love.

1. NFP is not an evil, or sinful. It is God’s gift to these times for parents who need a morally good means to help them plan their family responsibly. NFP can be misused, abused, if there are no compelling reasons for delaying the next pregnancy. But the fault there lies, not with NFP, but with the wrong intentions of the couple. (Fr. Matthew Habiger OSB)

We are basically speaking about rational moral ethical souls here. NFP is embraced as the preferred method in the EO. This doesn’t mean that there are not disillusioned people in the EO CC or the OO who entertain some vain idea in ignorance of what they are involved in. Which is why they are to speak with a Spiritual Director. What do suppose a Spiritual Director will tell you? To use the Pull-Out method?

Difference being the Orthodox from my understanding believe this is still a contraceptive, only a perferred means. The CC doesn’t actually see it this way which you see above. The purpose I would assume is to restrict ridiculous forms of contraception like the Pull-Out plan. However all this said we don’t life in a perfect world, and souls will avoid Spiritual Directors for whatever reason. The will avoid honest communication with educated individuals, not take the time to read, and engage in acting off their feelings. No Church has the market cornered on Good Souls. No one can make you learn, and if you don’t seek the understanding you are subjected to you own conscience.

We practice, we learn, we read, we ask when we don’t know, we pray and through Gods Grace we may obtain the virture required to act in accord to his will, not our micky mouse insignificant feelings. I’m confident Orthodox women are using NFP and those who have a a sound religious life are teaching it to their non-thinking sisters. I would hope this continues through all aspects of Christianity to raise the conscience level.

 

[Nine_Two]

The endorcement of NFP by modern popes in light of the condemnation certain Catholics heap on us is very much the issue at hand, Gary. It is outright hypocrisy, picking and choosing when the teachings of the fathers apply, and when they do not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just tell this to the lady who was posting here on CAF in despair, because she already has seven (7) kids even though she was on NFP most of the time!

Of course condoms prevent pregnancy 100% of the time

Anyway, it IS possible to abuse NFP, and it IS possible to use NFP in a sinful manner. However, to say that periodic abstinence is always sinful, you would be contradicting 2000 years of Tradition in the Church. Many saints practiced periodic, or even total abstinence in marriage. Apropos, do you also regard Holy Mary’s and St. Joseph’s total abstinence as sinful? Or, is it only periodic abstinence that you have a beef against?

And who says the Orthodox do not practice periodic abstinence. In fact, fasting from sex is part of preparation for receiving the Eucharist. You don’t hear that from the Roman Catholic Church.

But let’s turn our attention back to contraceptive sex - that’s a PERVERSION of the normal sexual act, and it’s ALWAYS sinful. Period. How could an Orthodox priest give his blessing on an intrinsically evil, perverted and sinful act, is beyond me.

NFP IS contraceptive sex. If you are willfully avoiding fertile days, how is it not contraceptive?

What’s next, will some Orthodox priests bless unmarried couples to fornicate, single guys to masturbate, gay folks to engage in sodomy, all in the name of economy? After all, if they already decided to bless the intrinsically evil and perverted acts of using condoms and getting vasectomies/tubal ligations, why go so hard on gay people, why not exercise some economy with them as well, and bless them to have sodomy with each other? Why be so hard on single people, after they already ruled that married couples lack the self-discipline to abstain? If you bless married people to use condoms because they can’t abstain, why not also bless single folks to masturbate because they can’t abstain? Also, how about unmarried couples? If married couples already got a blessing to use condoms because they can’t abstain, why shouldn’t Orthodox priests just give a blessing to unmarried couples too, because they also can’t abstain, and let them have sex with each other and perhaps use condoms as well to avoid getting pregnant?

On a different note, can I get a blessing, on reason of economy, to go slap my former boss, because he was such an *****%^&#, and because I’m not strong enough to control myself and abstain from slapping him?

These comments wreak of ignorance. Why don’t you try to understand the Orthodox position first before you bash it on the basis of, “it doesn’t sound like what the Catholic Church teaches, therefore its wrong no matter what.”