Contraception, the Papacy and the Eastern Catholic Churches

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Hi Yall,

I’ve been discussing with my friend about the nature of the papacy in regards to the eastern catholic churches, and I mentioned both Patriarch Gregory disagreeing with the First Vatican Council on Papal Powers, and Patriarch Maximos IV disagreeing with the prevailing view on contraception in the church at the Second Vatican Council. In both instances, their stances were to be dissenting opinion from the eventual outcomes of the councils. Specifically in regards to the contraception question, were the arguments that Maximos and his fellow melkites making coming from a traditional Byzantine position that differs from the Roman position or were they advancing secular western christian ideas about sexuality? I’ve heard Romans numerous times use the fact Pope Paul ignored the calls to reform the ideas on sexuality as indicative of the holy spirit sanctifying and confirming the hallowedness of the papal primacy and powers that were affirmed at the First Vatican Council. I want to know what my fellow Eastern Catholics perspectives are on this. Thanks!

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

These are from a thread on an Orthodox board about Contraception. It’s about evenly split which is interesting.

This comment is from an Orthodox Deacon. It is interesting, as he acknowledges the majority of the Fathers cite procreation as the primary purpose of marriage. I’ve seen many orthodox try and weasel out of this, but it is true. However, there are some Fathers as he points out, that see marriage and sexual intercourse within marriage, as for the good of curtailing passions and sanctifying what otherwise might be adulterous and corrupting desires if not tempered. This is generally the prevailing view in Orthodoxy and is often contrasted with the former “Latin” view. I believe both are equally correct and inseparable from one another. In this manner, the Orientals probably have the balance preserved best. If you take only the former view, than any form of birth control, even NFP is unacceptable. However we can say, if we accept both views as one; NFP as “Birth Control” (Not contraception), for the “Spacing of Children” which is what the name NFP implies, can occur as a concession by the church in our times, for the betterment of the family as a whole. By spacing and controlling the number of children to maximize the quality of life of the family unit, and still being able to preserve the sexual union that unites the Couple.

"Regarding birth control / contraception, my own view is that the question really is, though often is not treated as, posterior to other questions which necessarily must come first. Views on contraception are irrelevant until one has first addressed the question of sexual relationships, which forms its whole base. The question of whether or not contraception is permissible is secondary to the question of what role sexual activity is to have in a relationship according to Orthodox thought.

If one believes, as many; the majority; of the Fathers have believed, that sexual intercourse is solely and entirely for the purpose of procreation, and that this is the only context in which it is a blessed and holy act, then one’s view towards the use of contraception will be well delimited: contraception’s whole purpose is to allow the sexual act to take place without procreation; thus it inverts the whole purpose of the act and transforms sexual activity into an unholy and fallen passion.

The case becomes more complicated if one believes, as some; few; of the Fathers have believed, that sexual activity has a broader purpose than solely procreative, namely that within the bond of holy marriage it can serve as a unifying expression and bond of love between husband and wife. In this view, contraception might be seen as permissible solely within the marriage union, and only insofar as it does not allow sexual activity to become a controlling or uncontrolled passion.

In this latter case, the acceptance of the use of contraception has certain pre-requisites:

The only kinds of birth control that are ever seen as permissible by those Orthodox who permit them, are those which act preventatively. Any type of contraception that interferes with human life once it has begun:e.g. abortion, the-day-after; pills, etc; amount to pure and simply murder and are absolutely forbidden.
Contraception of any sort is never to be used outside of marriage, as sexual activity is not to occur outside of marriage.

However, it should be noted that, despite the use of economy by many bishops; especially in Western countries, e.g. the USA, Western Europe; the canonical rule of the Church is that contraception is not permissible in any situation."

This comment was interesting because I think this user really sums up what has happened within Orthodoxy in some circles. The misrepresentation of Oikonomia namely.

"Granting your point’s in the last post, I don’t see how that nullifies discussion on the issue of birth control. Yes, we live by grace and by “economia” in seeking salvation as persons. And no, we do not seek merely to obey a law or set of canons as ends in themselves, but as markers on the way toward union with God. Neither of these caveats means, however, that there is no need to understand and discern the will of God as it concerns the issue of birth control and human sexuality. These are not abstractions if we ask, “how am I to keep the commandments of God.” If we cannot practice sex within the will of God as it is expressed in the Church; by the scriptures, Fathers; we can at least acknowledge our weakness and continue to struggle toward God.

There is a tendency, at least within the field of my experience and that of dear friends of mine, to interpret “economia” as a relaxing of the Church’s teaching. What happens, in effect, is that we begin by allowing for economia in a specific area of our lives: fasting, sex, prayer, etc; because we cannot keep the strict rule, but very soon, that which has been given to us as a mercy–a sort of extension of the ladder down lower to our level so that we can reach it and begin to climb–we have settled into it as a permanent residence.

There is a sort of holy tension to this Orthodox life, always struggling, always realizing that we fall short of sharing God’s glory, and yet not becoming despondent because we have found ourselves once again, day after day, in the pig trough. We cannot settle into the comfort that kills, any more than we can turn the commandments of God into a system of casuistry.

Wiping the pig slop off once again,
John"

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

This is from Bishop John Elya. Former Bishop of the Eparchy of the US.

On Birth Control

As Melkite Catholics, we freely embrace the moral teachings of the One Catholic Church of the East as of the West. We find that our own traditions support the teachings of the Church in ways that add to our celebration of faith. Since Pope Paul VI promulgated the encyclical Humanae vitae in 1968, volumes have been written by way of response. In the last few years, the wisdom of his words has become more and more apparent. In our Melkite celebration of marriage, we begin by praying with the Psalmist that the couple might one day “see their children’s children like olive branches around their table.” This poetic language captures the fundamental values of both the unitive and procreative aspects of the sacramental marital union. Just prior to crowning the couple, the priest prays that the Father will stretch forth his hand and make the two one in flesh granting them fair children for education in the faith and fear of God. The symbol of the marriage crown speaks to the glory and honor of their chaste love that is seen as a sublime gift from the Father. Our liturgy proclaims the truths of marital love that is rich in meaning and challenge.

You might agree that we live in a culture that presents great challenge to Christian couples as they live out their commitments to one another in marriage. Human sexuality is poorly appreciated in our modern culture. In Humanae vitae, the Pope writes: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.” This moral teaching poses a true challenge to many in our modern culture. We hope to deal with the issues with compassion and truth. Anything less detracts from God-given values. In his recent writings, Pope John Paul II has emphasized the fundamental value of the Christian family as a microcosm of the church itself. The theological insights of the Holy Father deserve the serious consideration of every serious Christian as we search for the fullest meaning of married life.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

This is from Archbishop Joseph Raya. Former Archbishop of Haifa in the Middle East.

Birth Control

In a world where eroticism dominates the hearts and minds of men and women, it is almost impossible to honor the Christian vision of a sexuality more precious than pleasure and more honorable than social necessity. In our days, the problems of birth control are heart rending. In his praiseworthy attempt to counteract a sexual morality falsified by a secularized society and atheistic propaganda, Pope Paul VI, who at the time of the Second Vatican Council had reserved to himself the final decision on birth control, called upon a papal commission to advise him before publishing the official Church doctrine. Over three quarters of the members, chosen by the Pope for their wisdom and reliability, offered the majority opinion endorsing a carefully qualified use of birth control, and proposed a revision of the current unqualified condemnation.

Pope Paul VI, however, disregarded their advice and published the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, maintaining the negative position. There is a present a painful tension between the supporters of rigidity in this matter, and those who believe it is unjustified. The Byzantine ceremony of Crowning glorifies Christian chastity. Chastity means integrity of the human relation, integration of the forces of life into the personalistic aspects of nuptial love, which leads the couple into the Kingdom, into the peace and harmony of life. Both fertile and childless couples go beyond the mere functional: the combine the instinctive and passionate movements of their love, integrating them into a single act of ascent of pure goodness. It is not in spite of marriage, but in its fulfillment in peace, harmony and supreme joy that couples live the supernatural and holy reality of their union, chastity.

In the embrace of love, Christian couples are chaste. They are perfectly and entirely for each other. “I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine” (Canticle of Canticles). In genuine faith, they assume their human and spiritual responsibilities, and choose the best ways, pleasing to God, to achieve what they have set out to do. Birth control is in some way their responsibility. Vatican Council II has clearly established that conscience is the most sacred core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths. The theologian Paul Evdokimos, in his study on the “Sacrament of Love”, summarizes the attitude of Eastern theology on birth control: The Church "addresses herself to evangelical metanoia, and hopes to change man and woman into a new creation, to render them charismatic; She exorcises demonic powers and protects the Gate of Life; She discerns among the spirits, and shows the pathways to ultimate liberation; She does not define the rules of social life, and does not prescribe panacaeas. . . " (p.175). The Church should never refuse to advise when advice is sought, but should not try to manipulate the intimacy of husband and wife. Patriarch Maximos IV of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem proclaimed at the Council of Vatican II, “The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber. She stands at the door.”

The Byzantine Church does indeed believe that the Sacrament of Crowning establishes the man and woman as prophets, king and queen of supernatural worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual circumstances of their lives.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

This is the exact text from the Eparchy of Newman’s website.

Contraception

Our Church’s teaching is the same as that of the whole Catholic Church throughout the world: that faithful Christians may not make use of any artificial means of contraception. Those who would like to “plan” their children’s birth are advised to use the natural methods. Natural Family Planning works with the body’s own cycles, at times this requires some discipline and self-denial, but it helps the couple to deepen their mutual love. It is not fool-proof, and that’s part of its value for Christians: that all acts of love between husband and wife are open to the gift of Life, both in the conception of a child and in the life-giving relationship of the spouses.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Little Boy Lost,

I’ll just comment on this for now, and on the rest as I absorb its contents more readily.

I’ve heard Romans numerous times use the fact Pope Paul ignored the calls to reform the ideas on sexuality as indicative of the holy spirit sanctifying and confirming the hallowedness of the papal primacy and powers that were affirmed at the First Vatican Council

I have noticed Absolutist Petrine advocates make this claim. In 2 (relatively) recent debates I had with Absolutist Petrine advocates, I encountered the claim that papal primacy won the day for orthodoxy as the Pope had overriden the wishes of the Council on the matter.

Baloney.

The only thing the Pope overrode were the recommendations of his special commission. The Council itself voted by an overwhelming majority of over 2000 votes to maintain the Church’s Traditional teaching against artificial contraception.

The issue regarding artificial contraception was not a vindication of the papal power, but rather a vindication of the collegiality of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

This comment was interesting because I think this user really sums up what has happened within Orthodoxy in some circles. The misrepresentation of Oikonomia namely.

That’s what I’ve always noticed, as well (even when I was not yet Catholic). As a Catholic, I’ve argued that the proper, patristic understanding of oikonomia may very well offer an avenue for rapprochement on a lot of issues regarding moral teaching between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

I really feel the Low Petrine view is damaging to unity. With no centralizing authority, these differences on moral issues may never be resolved.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

This comment is from an Orthodox Deacon. It is interesting, as he acknowledges the majority of the Fathers cite procreation as the primary purpose of marriage. I’ve seen many orthodox try and weasel out of this, but it is true. However, there are some Fathers as he points out, that see marriage and sexual intercourse within marriage, as for the good of curtailing passions and sanctifying what otherwise might be adulterous and corrupting desires if not tempered. This is generally the prevailing view in Orthodoxy and is often contrasted with the former “Latin” view.

I think the error comes when one tries to separate the portion highlighted in red from the portion highlighted in blue.

Those who oppose artificial birth control (this certainly cannot be said to be a Catholic versus Orthodox or a Latin versus Eastern issue) would say that ABC actually separates the two, since it attempts to purposely prevent the sperm from reaching the ova during an act of love. Whatever else proponents of ABC can claim about NFP, this is something NFP never does.

As far as the position of the Melkite Church, I have some comments/questions that can hopefully generate good discussion:

1. Does a bishop have the authority to resist the decisions of a Council of which he is a member?
2. Did HB Maximos make his statement during the debates or after the Council had promulgated its decision against the use of artificial contraception in marriage?
3. It appears that Abp Raya’s position is a mitigated form of HB Maximos’ statements at V2? Abp Raya’s position in the last paragraph does not seem to absolutely dictate that the Church has no business in the moral lives of its members, even as far as the bedroom is concerned.
4. When Abp Raya states, “the Byzantine Church does indeed believe…” is he using the term “Byzantine Church” to refer to his own Church, or to the Byzantine Tradition as a whole?

Blessings,
Marduk