Divorce, contraception and the Eastern Catholics

[Joel_PF]

Divorce and contraception are two areas where there is noted disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox. For Catholics, contraception is always wrong and it is impossible to dissolve a marriage.

For Orthodox, contraception may be a valid substitute for NFP if this method is unworkable, and the Church may economically dissolve a marriage.

How do the Eastern Catholic churches stand on these two issues?

 

[smad0142]

It is my understanding that the EC hold to the Faith and do not allow artifical contracpetion and have adopted the annulment process.

 

[stephe1987]

Eastern Catholics are in Communion with the Pope, so they are Catholic in that sense.

 

[mardukm]

Divorce and contraception are two areas where there is noted disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox. For Catholics, contraception is always wrong and it is impossible to dissolve a marriage.

For Orthodox, contraception may be a valid substitute for NFP if this method is unworkable, and the Church may economically dissolve a marriage.

How do the Eastern Catholic churches stand on these two issues?

First, I would like to point out that the Catholic Church does not oppose contraception - what she opposes is ARTIFICIAL contraception.

The following is my personal POV.

I believe the opposition to the Orthodox practice and belief on the matter is due to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the concept of oikonomia.

Orthodox will allow for contraception or divorce as a matter of oikonomia. To Catholics, these are divine laws that cannot be changed.

The tension comes about for two reasons:

First, non-Orthodox misinterpret oikonomia as a prerogative to CHANGE THE LAW. But that is not what oikonomia is.

Second, there are many Orthodox who themselves misinterepret oikonomia as a prerogative to CHANGE THE LAW. Thus, you may find some Orthodox who will claim that divorce or contraception does not miss the mark, or that “the Church has no problem with divorce or contraception.” Those are wrong attitudes and do not represent the patristic teaching on oikonomia (or on divorce and contraception, for that matter).

What oikonomia does is actually only one thing - it lessens or totally remits the usual canonical punishment associated with the violation of a certain law/canon of the Church (whether divine or ecclesiastical). Oikonomia itself is not and never a general rule, but is only ever applied in specific circumstances, according to the wise determination of a bishop or spiritual father.

Oikonomia never changes the law, MUCH LESS can one claim that oikonomia can change the DIVINE law against divorce or contraception. The law upon which oikonomia is to be applied is - BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF OIKONOMIA - to be regarded as the true norm and law for the Church - always.

So the use of oikonomia in the Orthodox Churches should not and never be regarded as an attempt to change the normative status of the Church’s laws against divorce and contraception.

I believe that when non-Orthodox understand what oikonomia actually is, and certain Orthodox return to the patristic understanding of oikonomia, the tension on the issues of divorce and artificial contraception will be greatly diminished or disappear altogether.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

My explanation above may seem a bit too theoretical for some, so let me be more concrete.

Let’s take a couple who engages in artifical contraception because it will endanger the life of the woman to be pregnant.

Western moral theory will allow for the use of artificial contraception in that instance by the principle of “double effect” (I think that is what it is called), which asserts that in this particular circumstance, since the principle purpose of the use of artificial contraception is to save the life of the woman, instead of to avoid having children, artificial contraception is acceptable. In effect, the law against artificial contraception to avoid having children does not apply because artificial contraception is not being used for the primary purpose of avoiding children.

Eastern and Oriental moral theory would say that, according to the principle of oikonomia, the law against artificial contraception to avoid having children STILL applies, because it is a universal law, but due to the special circumstances of the woman, the canonical and eternal punishment for violation of that law will be mitigated in this instance for that couple.

In both theories, the Church’s power of the keys is the effective power that permits or restricts the use of artificial contraception.

Those who miss the actual point of oikonomia will see it as a lax permission to engage in a sin that the Church forbids. A proper understanding of oikonomia will avoid that mistake.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[RyanBlack]

Let’s take a couple who engages in artifical contraception because it will endanger the life of the woman to be pregnant.

Western moral theory will allow for the use of artificial contraception in that instance by the principle of “double effect” (I think that is what it is called), which asserts that in this particular circumstance, since the principle purpose of the use of artificial contraception is to save the life of the woman, instead of to avoid having children, artificial contraception is acceptable. In effect, the law against artificial contraception to avoid having children does not apply because artificial contraception is not being used for the primary purpose of avoiding children.

This is a misapplication of the double effect, because in either case, the purpose of the use of the artificial contraceptive is to avoid pregancy. There are differences in the reason for avoiding pregnancy, but in either case, the contraceptive is being used to avoid pregnancy. In those cases where a pregnancy would endanger the life of the woman, the couple may use NFP, or permament continence. Artificial contraception is still not permissible.

What would be an example of the double effect would be a case where the wife is taking a medication that might have a contraceptive effect for a purpose entirely other than avoiding pregnancy. For example, if a woman were to take a medication for the purpose of treating some sort of cancer, and if that medication were to have a contraceptive effect (but is not at the same time abortifacient), it could be considered permissible under the principle of the double effect. In this case, the purpose is not at all to prevent pregancy, but to treat the cancer.

 

[mardukm]

This is a misapplication of the double effect, because in either case, the purpose of the use of the artificial contraceptive is to avoid pregancy. There are differences in the reason for avoiding pregnancy, but in either case, the contraceptive is being used to avoid pregnancy. In those cases where a pregnancy would endanger the life of the woman, the couple may use NFP, or permament continence. Artificial contraception is still not permissible.

What would be an example of the double effect would be a case where the wife is taking a medication that might have a contraceptive effect for a purpose entirely other than avoiding pregnancy. For example, if a woman were to take a medication for the purpose of treating some sort of cancer, and if that medication were to have a contraceptive effect (but is not at the same time abortifacient), it could be considered permissible under the principle of the double effect. In this case, the purpose is not at all to prevent pregancy, but to treat the cancer.

Thanks for the clarification. But I have read in the past that the issue of artificial contraception in terms of “double effect” is still being debated among Catholic moral theologians?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[RyanBlack]

Just to clarify, what I stated in my previous post is not based on my own readings. I’m basically taking it directly from what I was taught in a Catholic Moral Theology course (and I suppose that there are teachers of Moral Theology who would present the matter differently than did my professor). As to what you’ve said about ongoing debate concerning artificial contraception and the double effect, my guess is that what you’ve heard is correct, but I’m no authority on the matter and am not following current trends in the debate.

 

[Corki]

Thanks for the clarification. But I have read in the past that the issue of artificial contraception in terms of “double effect” is still being debated among Catholic moral theologians?

Blessings,
Marduk

It is. But you have not quited stated the two effects precisely. The principal of double effect applies if a treatment is prescribed to treat a medical condition that also has the secondary effect (double) of preventing pregnancy. The “classic” case of this is hormones prescribed for ovarian cysts or for imbalance issues that are also contraceptives.

The debate comes in regarding what steps the couple in the above case would have to do when taking the medication.

The principal of double effect doesn’t apply if the first effect is to prevent pregnancy.

The example you gave doesn’t fit the principal of double effect since the primary goal is to prevent pregnacy.

 

[JohnVIII]

I really don’t think “oikonomia” has anything to do with this. I have been Orthodox for 25 years and have never heard that the Orthodox allows artificial contraception until I came on this forum. I did a Google search about it and found a couple references that put this matter in the context of an Orthodox person’s relation to his spiritual father. The whole matter of obedience to a spiritual father (or spiritual mother) is somewhat complex, but I bet, since the spiritual heritage of Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are the same, this would be the same too. Personally I think it would be a very odd thing for a spiritual father to tell his spiritual child to use artificial contraception, but if you enter into an obedience situation with a spiritual father this sin would be on the head of the spiritual father for such a thing, not the spiritual child. There are very good reasons that a person should NOT enter into an obedience with a spiritual father if he is not qualified. How this contradicts Roman tradition I have no clue.

One form of artificial contraception is becoming a eunuch and the Orthodox Church penance for this sin is 3 years excommunication. Oikonomia could come into play hear if the sinner was given a penance of only say one year excommunication, as there are permissive canons that allow for the reduction of a prescribed penance.

 

[wanner47]

First, I would like to point out that the Catholic Church does not oppose contraception - what she opposes is ARTIFICIAL contraception.

Not quite accurate. The Church *always *opposes contraception since, by its very definition, contraception works *against *conception by artificial means.

What the Church does NOT oppose is birth control, or spacing pregnancies. NFP and complete abstinence are considered moral methods to space pregnancies.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother wanner47,

Not quite accurate. The Church *always *opposes contraception since, by its very definition, contraception works *against *conception by artificial means.

What the Church does NOT oppose is birth control, or spacing pregnancies. NFP and complete abstinence are considered moral methods to space pregnancies.

This is a matter of terminology. Whatever works against conception is not always artificial. At certain period’s of a woman’s fertility cycle, her body works against conception, so contraception is indeed going on. When a man’s sperm somehow does not have the capacity to reach the ovum, that is likewise a form of contraception, since it works against conception. But these are all natural, and the Church does not condemn such things as inherently sinful. It is only artificial contraception that the Church teaches against.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian

I really don’t think “oikonomia” has anything to do with this.

That is the rationale Orthodox often use.

I have been Orthodox for 25 years and have never heard that the Orthodox allows artificial contraception until I came on this forum.

Yes. The principle of oikonomia, when misunderstood, can seem like “permission to sin.” I think that is where the myth that Orthodox allow artificial contraception comes from. Of course, this myth is no doubt perpetuated just as much by Orthodox who also misunderstand what oikonomia actually is, and think that applying oikonomia to the use of ABC is a positive permission to use ABC normatively.

I did a Google search about it and found a couple references that put this matter in the context of an Orthodox person’s relation to his spiritual father. The whole matter of obedience to a spiritual father (or spiritual mother) is somewhat complex, but I bet, since the spiritual heritage of Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are the same, this would be the same too.

I think this is one of the sources of the misunderstanding on the issue. The claim that it is merely about “obedience to one’s spiritual father,” makes ABC in particular, and morality in general, seem to be a merely personal matter that can change according to circumstances. But that is not the way morality is understood by the Church. The Church has a definite set of moral laws, which are divine in origin. I sincerely believe that the Church has absolutely no authority to set aside the moral laws of God, no matter what the circumstance. If she does so, she has failed in her mission. At best, the Church can mitigate the punishment normally attached to the violation of those moral laws by oikonomia, or make some determination that the moral law has not actually been violated.

Personally I think it would be a very odd thing for a spiritual father to tell his spiritual child to use artificial contraception, but if you enter into an obedience situation with a spiritual father this sin would be on the head of the spiritual father for such a thing, not the spiritual child. There are very good reasons that a person should NOT enter into an obedience with a spiritual father if he is not qualified. How this contradicts Roman tradition I have no clue.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[wanner47]

Dear brother wanner47,

This is a matter of terminology. Whatever works against conception is not always artificial. At certain period’s of a woman’s fertility cycle, her body works against conception, so contraception is indeed going on. When a man’s sperm somehow does not have the capacity to reach the ovum, that is likewise a form of contraception, since it works against conception. But these are all natural, and the Church does not condemn such things as inherently sinful. It is only artificial contraception that the Church teaches against.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, you are incorrect. Contraception works by deliberately frustrating conception by artificial means. There is no such thing as “natural contraception;” it is a contradiction in terms. Contraception cannot be natural because it is not natural to use artificial hormones or devices or spermicides or latex barriers to frustrate conception.

NFP is information. That information can be used to achieve or avoid pregnancy. If a couple has reason to avoid pregnancy, then they simply abstain for a period of time. It is not contraception because there is no potential conception to frustrate; there is no sperm seeking an egg, and the natural processes of the body are not interrupted or chemically or physically altered.

 

[mardukm]

No, you are incorrect. Contraception works by deliberately frustrating conception by artificial means. There is no such thing as “natural contraception;” it is a contradiction in terms. Contraception cannot be natural because it is not natural to use artificial hormones or devices or spermicides or latex barriers to frustrate conception.

Not only does natural contraception occur in the human body, but it occurs everywhere else in nature. Nature works in cycles whereby fecundity is active only a certain period of time. All other times, conception is not possible, and nature works against conception.

NFP is information. That information can be used to achieve or avoid pregnancy. If a couple has reason to avoid pregnancy, then they simply abstain for a period of time. It is not contraception because there is no potential conception to frustrate; there is no sperm seeking an egg, and the natural processes of the body are not interrupted or chemically or physically altered.

I don’t know why you are bringing NFP into this conversation about contraception. NFP had nothing to do with contraception because there is no sexual act to begin with. But sexual acts do occur in nature during times when it is naturally impossible to conceive. During such times, natural contraception occurs.

To repeat, the Church has nothing against contraception. What the Church condemns is ARTIFICIAL contraception.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[smad0142]

Thanks for the clarification. But I have read in the past that the issue of artificial contraception in terms of “double effect” is still being debated among Catholic moral theologians?

Blessings,
Marduk

Western Catholic theologians debate the permissibility of artificial contraception under the double effect principle when the use of the contraception is not intended to be used as a contraceptive, but for another reason.

For example if we accept the premise that the hemoraging woman in Scriptures suffered from some sort of severe PMS or PMDD then some theologians would argue that she could take contraceptives, like the Pill, in order to stop the severe bleeding. In this case the intent is not to avoid conception, but to heal a serious medical problem. Therefore double effect applies because the intent is not immoral, and the desire to cure a serious, and possibly life-threatening, ailment is proportional to being open to a new life.

The problem in your example is that the intent is still immoral.

 

[wanner47]

Not only does natural contraception occur in the human body, but it occurs everywhere else in nature. Nature works in cycles whereby fecundity is active only a certain period of time. All other times, conception is not possible, and nature works against conception.

How is the natural infertile period of a reproductive cycle using artificial means to work against conception?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines contraception as “the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.” (all bolding mine)

The Church defines contraception as follows: Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], 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” (Humanae Vitae 14).

As you can see, the phase “natural contraception,” going by the definitions above, is a contradiction in terms. It’s like saying something is a “round triangle.”

I don’t know why you are bringing NFP into this conversation about contraception. NFP had nothing to do with contraception because there is no sexual act to begin with. But sexual acts do occur in nature during times when it is naturally impossible to conceive. During such times, natural contraception occurs.

No, no, no. See above. Contraception deliberately frustrates an*** imminent, ongoing, or completed sexual act***.

During the infertile phase of a reproductive cycle, there is *no *frustration. There is no contraception. It is not “natural” contraception, it’s simply part of the cycle design. The design is not meant to conceive offspring on a constant, 24/7 basis, at least not in humans and similar mammals.

To repeat, the Church has nothing against contraception. What the Church condemns is ARTIFICIAL contraception

And I repeat that the Church considers all contraception to be intrinsically evil because ALL CONTRACEPTION IS ARTIFICIAL. There is no such thing as “natural” contraception, because contraception by its very definition frustrates a sexual act that would normally cause conception (or attempt to do so) if not artificially frustrated.

What the Church does NOT condemn is spacing pregnancies, or birth control (but She acknowledges that the latter can be done with selfish or immoral intent).

It is imperative that you recognize this distinction, because the Church does not and never has condoned contraception, and she sees a very real difference between contraception and birth control. In Her documents, the Church very explicitly condemns contraception – all contraception; She does not make any mention of so-called “artificial” contraception vs so-called “natural” contraception:

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

 

[Joel_PF]

Wanner and Marduk, it seems you are debating over mere wording.

For Marduk, the word “contraception” means anything, natural and artificial, that makes the sexual act not terminate in conception.

For Wanner, “contraception” means artificial means that make the sexual act not terminate in conception.

Therefore, since both know what the Church teaches, Marduk says only artificial contraception is forbidden and Wanner says that all contraception is forbidden, but you are both speaking about the same things (condoms, pill, etc).

I have an Orthodox acquaintance, and one who is very well versed in his religion, who says that the banning of specifically artificial means of conception but the allowance of the use of spacing sexual relations to make use of the body’s natural cycles is but a legalistic differentiation, of no moral relevance, and so if the Church allows one, why wouldn’t she allow the other? Still, he, like us Catholics, views the contraceptive mentality (to think of children as a bad thing rather than a blessing) as evil; and both contraception and NFP are evil if used with this mentality.

So, I understood that allowing contraception is not oikonomia (as divorce is), but something that may be in itself moral, and that Roman Catholics (according to him) engage in meaningless technical and legalistic distinctions which do not change the morality of the act (whether, for instance, a natural process of the body is impeded or not).

 

[wanner47]

My issue is that saying that the Church condones contraception is misleading, as the church does not define NFP or abstinence (the only moral means of spacing pregnancies) as contraception (natural or otherwise).

So, I understood that allowing contraception is not oikonomia (as divorce is), but something that may be in itself moral, and that Roman Catholics (according to him) engage in meaningless technical and legalistic distinctions which do not change the morality of the act (whether, for instance, a natural process of the body is impeded or not).

It’s quite simple – not “legalistic” at all, but rather logical. NFP and mutual abstinence work with God’s design for our bodies. Contraception works against it; that is, it thwarts God’s design (and thus attempts to thwart God’s will – something that He allows but does not condone).

 

[Joel_PF]

It’s quite simple – not “legalistic” at all, but rather logical. NFP and mutual abstinence work with God’s design for our bodies. Contraception works against it; that is, it thwarts God’s design (and thus attempts to thwart God’s will – something that He allows but does not condone).

I’m not going to start a contraception debate here, but this explanation doesn’t seem very convincing. We do all kinds of things that “work against the design of our bodies”: drink coffee and energizing drinks, wear high heels, remove teeth, remove appendices, wear braces, pierce our ears, trim our nails and cut our hair, swallow saliva instead of drooling it out, etc.