Can anybody explain the Orthodox Christian belief about contraception?

[ralphinal]

Pious XI condemned birth control. “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.” However, where there is gray area is in the “frustrating the marriage act.” The Church has taken the idea that NFP, which uses the natural times that the body is infertial, actually falls into a different catagory. It does not frustate the marriage act but uses the fact that God made the woman infertal during that time.

Pious also took the view that the primary, and in some ways only valid, purpose of marriage is to have children and educate them. That said, Pious also said this

Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “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 right 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.”13]

In other words, it is not automatically a sin to use NFP, even according to Pious, as long as there is still a desire to have children.

 

[mariahloves]

that private matter. not to discuss in public. between marriage couple. many orthodox church only father can give blessing. some orthodox church give blessing to all if marriage couple decides necessary.
why important to you what other marriage couple do? you want to let yourself have a reason to judge? think about why it matters to you. maybe your motive has sin. maybe not. think about it.

No…lol I wasn’t trying to judge. I was just wondering, I struggle with the fact that contraception is a sin and I was just curious about what circumstances Orthodox Christians can use BC. It wasn’t like a hostile question

 

[josephdaniel29]

Please excuse my ignorance then. I assumed that whatever a Patriarch would say about the matter would be followed.

By Patriarch, I mean someone like His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,who is a leader of a Church.

Then again I am pretty ignorant.

Best,
fish90

No the Ecumenical Patriarch couldn’t make a determination like that for anyone outside of his own diocese. There are no pan-Orthodox conciliar statements on the matter although there are some local councils that have addressed the issue. If there have been local councils in a particular Church then they would take precedent. If there are no conciliar decisions it is left to the local bishop to decide.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Luvs2Learn]

artificial birth control is a huge issue. Can someone explaine when and who gave or had the authority to grant the permission to use artifical B.C.in the Orthodox church? As far as I was aware up until the 30’s no christian church allowed artificial BC. When I go to the different “canical” Orthodox websites for research they all offer essays by scholars or priests or writers. But there is no UNIVERSAL authority. I know the Orthodox believe in the colligial system, so why has there not been a universal council to discuss this issue, along with invitro fertilization and insemination. Are Orthodox now allowed these procedures as well?

Did some random Orthodox writers begin to give the ok and then the rest of the church followed? I have spoken to some very traditional Old calanderist Orthodox who say the Orth. church says no to art. BC. and then other new calanderists who say it is ok with permission. It seems like a slippery slope.
Please help me to understand how this is not frustrating to practicing Orthodox?

 

[onacloudyday]

if married couple think they need birth control then they can tell their father why they think that and then he can give blessing if agreed necessary. some orthodox church allow a blessing without having to tell their father trusting the married couple and their doctor to decide right. if woman had 2 babies in less than two years maybe her body needs to be healed first before another baby. if a husband gets hurt and can not provide for family anymore than maybe they need to not have another baby until situation resolved. im not saying that these are circustances that it is ok but in these situations they could talk to their father to ask for blessing if their church did not already give one.

contraception means anti conception. anti conception is a sin if it can kill a conception baby. abortion and iud is bad sin because it can kill. other contraception does not kill because it stop conception baby from happening. pills and nfp and condoms do not kill they stop conception from happening they are anti conception in a ok way they not kill conception baby.

No…lol I wasn’t trying to judge. I was just wondering, I struggle with the fact that contraception is a sin and I was just curious about what circumstances Orthodox Christians can use BC. It wasn’t like a hostile question

 

[onacloudyday]

practicing orthodox not frustrating. why you want to understand frustrating that not exist? that not make sense.

Please help me to understand how this is not frustrating to practicing Orthodox?

 

[onacloudyday]

God made you smart not ignorance only confused putting catholic thinking into orthodox church.

good you are a catholic you think like catholic about how church work. orthodox church is local around the bishop and eucharist. highest authority is Jesus in heaven. on earth no higher authority than local bishop. bishop can go patriarch if has problem in his church and asking for help. patriarch not like a pope authority into another bishop church. patriarch can no interfere with bishop church. patriarch is a bishop of own local church not above bishop other place.

Please excuse my ignorance then. I assumed that whatever a Patriarch would say about the matter would be followed.

By Patriarch, I mean someone like His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,who is a leader of a Church.

Then again I am pretty ignorant.

Best,
fish90

 

[josephdaniel29]

Can someone explaine when and who gave or had the authority to grant the permission to use artifical B.C.in the Orthodox church?

Jesus did. (Matthew 18:18)

I know the Orthodox believe in the colligial system, so why has there not been a universal council to discuss this issue

There is one upcoming.

Link

Whether or not this issue will be discussed has to my knowledge not yet be determined.

along with invitro fertilization and insemination. Are Orthodox now allowed these procedures as well…It seems like a slippery slope.

This is known as a slippery slope fallacy. So if the Orthodox allow ABC they’re just a few steps away from murdering babies? Surely you can see the difference between preventing fertilization (which is the goal of both ABC and NFP) and creating multiple embryos? Nothing that causes the death of a fertilized egg is allowed, under any circumstances, EVER!

Ok, now that we’ve got that straight.

Please help me to understand how this is not frustrating to practicing Orthodox?

It’s not frustrating at all. The cornerstone of Orthodox life is a very close relationship with a spiritual father. It’s very simple, consult him, he advises and you obey.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mark_a]

But only under extraordinary circumstances. It is not as if this is something which is approved of at whim.

John

Who’s whim? If it’s the priest, his office door hinges must be red hot.

We all know that 90+% of Catholics are not interested in the Church’s teachings about contraception. Are the Orthodox any more obedient to their Church’s teachings??

 

[mark_a]

Jesus did. (Matthew 18:18)
Who was the “binder” and who are the “bindees”?

Whether or not this issue will be discussed has to my knowledge not yet be determined.

 

[Luvs2Learn]

ok, I think I understand the Orthodx explanation of Articfical BC. But what I don’t understand is WHO gave this authority to change the teaching? As I said, old Orthodox texts and Bishops were against BC until sometime after the 1930’s. I can’t find any document from an actual Bishop of the Orthodox church stating that non-abortofacient birth control is permitted. The only place I have writing in favor of it is from Lay Orthodx, or Priests make statements that the currenttly a less strict attitue towards contraception has taken hold. But I can not actually find a document from a Bishop or a priest explaining when where and how the opinion changed. The GOA web site is full of articles that are written by Priests and writters but they don’t give specific quotes or names as to when the change in thought occured and by who?And also relateing it back to the first 7 councils. The Russian site, as I posted up top is the only Orthodx site that I found to give a statement as having had an authoritative council regarding the topic (authoritative for the Moscow church) but not for the rest of Orthodoxy. This is very confussing for me. I am trying to understand why the Orthodox church has not really explored this issue?

 

[PeaceSerenity]

Who was the “binder” and who are the “bindees”?

The authority to bind and loose sins was given to the apostles by Jesus and is transmitted to the bishops and the priests they ordain. I’m not sure what you mean by “binder” or “bindees”. The sins are the ones being bound, so they would be the boundees…?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Who was the “binder” and who are the “bindees”?

The bishops, we the faithful are the “bindees.”

Please post back when you find out.

That may be a while my friend.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[PeaceSerenity]

I am trying to understand why the Orthodox church has not really explored this issue?

As JosephDaniel mentioned, the Orthodox put a lot of emphasis on the relationship between spiritual father and spiritual child. There are always special cases, and the best person to address those is the spiritual father. In cases where one is getting to close to “the line”, the bishop is consulted. As our world is constantly changing and innovating, it would be inefficient for the patriarchs to keep up to date reports on what contraceptives are allowed, there are much more pressing issues in the world (I would think…). Also, seeing as the different patriarchs aren’t subordinate to one another, the issue of what contraceptives should be used would just create unnecessary friction and waste time during synods. I don’t see a real need for this to be addressed by the “higher authorities”.

 

[onacloudyday]

no teaching has been changed in orthodox. in history not as many contraception options except withdraw and nfp type methods now pills also available which do not kill conception baby. because something new available does not mean orthodox teaching changed.
you have confusing on how orthodox church is. you are used to catholic church have pope official authority over everything and everyone. orthodox church not like that. but even there is no pope infallible statement on the contraception only on pope infallibility and immaculate conception i think. catholic history show catholic teaching on things can change only now infallible pope statement not supposed to change. maybe im confusing on catholic church to.

ok, I think I understand the Orthodx explanation of Articfical BC. But what I don’t understand is WHO gave this authority to change the teaching? As I said, old Orthodox texts and Bishops were against BC until sometime after the 1930’s. I can’t find any document from an actual Bishop of the Orthodox church stating that non-abortofacient birth control is permitted. The only place I have writing in favor of it is from Lay Orthodx, or Priests make statements that the currenttly a less strict attitue towards contraception has taken hold. But I can not actually find a document from a Bishop or a priest explaining when where and how the opinion changed. The GOA web site is full of articles that are written by Priests and writters but they don’t give specific quotes or names as to when the change in thought occured and by who?And also relateing it back to the first 7 councils. The Russian site, as I posted up top is the only Orthodx site that I found to give a statement as having had an authoritative council regarding the topic (authoritative for the Moscow church) but not for the rest of Orthodoxy. This is very confussing for me. I am trying to understand why the Orthodox church has not really explored this issue?

 

[ralphinal]

When Catholics say that this developed as the need arose, Orthodox throw words like “innovation” and such around. Why is the sauce for the goose no good for the gander? This is a clear change in understanding and an innovation, or from what I have seen here it is.

Now, as far as the Spiritual Father/child thing goes, I see a lot of merit in it. I do wonder, though, where the line is drawn. If, for example, someone claims to have a medical need to masterbate, can his Spiritual father remove any sin from it? What about things like the required fasts? Can they be lifted on a case by case basis?

 

[josephdaniel29]

When Catholics say that this developed as the need arose, Orthodox throw words like “innovation” and such around. Why is the sauce for the goose no good for the gander? This is a clear change in understanding and an innovation, or from what I have seen here it is.

I see what you are saying my friend but to my mind there is a heck of a difference between allowing ABC under limited circumstances (the same circumstances that the Catholic Church allows NFP) and adding words to the Creed or the later dogmas of the Catholic Church.

In the first case it is still a sin to frustrate conception for selfish reasons but not for certain grave reasons. Both Churches agree on that point. The only difference is the Orthodox Church allows addition methods to that end than what the Catholic Church allows.

Now, as far as the Spiritual Father/child thing goes, I see a lot of merit in it. I do wonder, though, where the line is drawn. If, for example, someone claims to have a medical need to masterbate, can his Spiritual father remove any sin from it?

A spiritual father can’t remove any sin but if a person is being obedient to a spiritual father their culpability is greatly diminished.

What about things like the required fasts? Can they be lifted on a case by case basis?

Everyone’s fast is determined in consultation with their spiritual father. Everyone is at a different level of spiritual maturity and to expect the same from every person could be extremely damaging to some.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[ralphinal]

I see what you are saying my friend but to my mind there is a heck of a difference between allowing ABC under limited circumstances (the same circumstances that the Catholic Church allows NFP) and adding words to the Creed or the later dogmas of the Catholic Church.

While I understand that, doesn’t it get into the dangerous “important vs. unimportant” argument?

In the first case it is still a sin to frustrate conception for selfish reasons but not for certain grave reasons. Both Churches agree on that point. The only difference is the Orthodox Church allows addition methods to that end than what the Catholic Church allows.

Alright

A spiritual father can’t remove any sin but if a person is being obedient to a spiritual father their culpability is greatly diminished.

Everyone’s fast is determined in consultation with their spiritual father. Everyone is at a different level of spiritual maturity and to expect the same from every person could be extremely damaging to some.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Thanks. That makes sense

 

[manualman]

In my (admittedly informal) readings, it seems to me that the Sin of Onan has ALWAYS in Church history been considered to be a sin of lust because he took the woman and withdrew specifically to avoid impregnating her. In this way, he reduced sex to selfish pleasure instead of mutually self giving love. Onanism historically was defined as any such method like withdrawal or condoms (surprise, they aren’t new to history! Used to be sheep intestines…).

I’m pretty sure none of our Orthodox friends here can cite a pre-1800 patriarch or any Early Father defending the use of a condom or withdrawal for the purpose of avoiding conception. If they are honest, they are going to have to admit that it is a recent “insight” to determine that proactively defeating natural fertility can sometimes be OK depending on the situation. Note that NFP has never defeated or frustrated natural fertility. What surprises me the most is that its the catholics who recognized the difference and the crucial factor of a “sexual fast” (the NFP abstinance time) that opens the soul to hear God’s (name removed by moderator)ut on just how “serious” a couples reason for avoiding is. Usually orthodox spirituality is admittedly better at appreciating the value of fasting in hearing God’s voice… Why not this time??

EDIT:
On second thought, most catholics DON’T get it. A couple of popes ‘got it’, upheld the teaching even after the culture changed and it became unpopular and now a growing number of us are recognizing what a genius insight it truly was! THAT’s food for thought…

 

[Mickey]

I’m pretty sure none of our Orthodox friends here can cite a pre-1800 patriarch or any Early Father defending the use of a condom

When was the condom invented?

Note that NFP has never defeated or frustrated natural fertility.

I have read that it is a more efficient method of contraception than condoms.