E. Orthodox & Continuing Anglican Teaching on Contraception?

[Alex111]

What is the official position of the Eastern Orthodox, and specifically the Antiochian Orthodox, on contraception? Does it differ between different Orthodox churches (ie, Antiochian, Russian, etc.)?

Also, same question regarding the Continuing Anglicans-- what is their official position on contraception? I ask because I came across this statement from a Continuing Anglican Bishop, which if true would mean that the Affirmation of Saint Louis doesn’t actually mean what it appears to say:

"…I would state as a matter of fact that the Continuing Anglican Churches have no official doctrine or moral teaching on the liceity or impermissibility of the use of artificial contraception, and are very much like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which do not expressly forbid the use of ‘birth control,’ but allow the use of it to married couples under the direction, guidance and counsel of a spiritual father and confessor. Only rarely would our own people seek spiritual direction on this subject."

Source of quote: philorthodox.blogspot.com/2010/03/artificial-contraception.html

Any clarifications on this issue would be much appreciated; thanks.

 

[GKC]

What is the official position of the Eastern Orthodox, and specifically the Antiochian Orthodox, on contraception? Does it differ between different Orthodox churches (ie, Antiochian, Russian, etc.)?

Also, same question regarding the Continuing Anglicans-- what is their official position on contraception? I ask because I came across this statement from a Continuing Anglican Bishop, which if true would mean that the Affirmation of Saint Louis doesn’t actually mean what it appears to say:

"…I would state as a matter of fact that the Continuing Anglican Churches have no official doctrine or moral teaching on the liceity or impermissibility of the use of artificial contraception, and are very much like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which do not expressly forbid the use of ‘birth control,’ but allow the use of it to married couples under the direction, guidance and counsel of a spiritual father and confessor. Only rarely would our own people seek spiritual direction on this subject."

Source of quote: philorthodox.blogspot.com/2010/03/artificial-contraception.html

Any clarifications on this issue would be much appreciated; thanks.

To the extent that anyone can generalize about Anglicans, on any subject, that seems about right.

Where does the Affirmation make a statement about contraception?

GKC

 

[andrewstx]

What is the official position of the Eastern Orthodox, and specifically the Antiochian Orthodox, on contraception? Does it differ between different Orthodox churches (ie, Antiochian, Russian, etc.)?

Also, same question regarding the Continuing Anglicans-- what is their official position on contraception? I ask because I came across this statement from a Continuing Anglican Bishop, which if true would mean that the Affirmation of Saint Louis doesn’t actually mean what it appears to say:

"…I would state as a matter of fact that the Continuing Anglican Churches have no official doctrine or moral teaching on the liceity or impermissibility of the use of artificial contraception, and are very much like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which do not expressly forbid the use of ‘birth control,’ but allow the use of it to married couples under the direction, guidance and counsel of a spiritual father and confessor. Only rarely would our own people seek spiritual direction on this subject."

I an Antiochian Orthodox and I’m not sure officialy. But is seems discouraged. We are in a tiny parish and there are at least 3 baptisms coming up, after 2 last year.

Source of quote: philorthodox.blogspot.com/2010/03/artificial-contraception.html

Any clarifications on this issue would be much appreciated; thanks.

 

[Nine_Two]

His description of our practices is accuate.

 

[manualman]

What is the official position of the Eastern Orthodox, and specifically the Antiochian Orthodox, on …

From my admittedly limited experience in both worlds, this question is doomed to failure by the way it is structured above. To my knowledge, there is no mechanism in either of these groups today to formulate an “official position” on matters not clearly decided before the great schisms (or on matters cleverly disguised to pretend they weren’t decided before then).

If you have no mechanism for establishing “official positions,” than you can’t have any, no?

 

[Alex111]

Thanks everyone for the clarifications.

Where does the Affirmation make a statement about contraception?

"Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful."

It doesn’t specifically mention the word contraception, but since some contraceptive mehods (not only the Plan B pill) are abortifacients, I would take this statement to apply to contraception, if we’re taking it at face value. So, according to the above, there’s only two ways in which contraception could be acceptable. Either it’s acceptable only if one has knowledge of which methods will and will not cause early abortion (which in my opinion strongly implies the need for spiritual direction by one who’s knowledgeable on the subject); OR abortifacient contraception is acceptable because in this case the “taking of innocent life” is NOT “unjustifiable or inexcusable,” meaning we’re making an exception and saying that early abortion caused by contraception is ok.

Since the Continuing Anglican Bishop quoted in my original post says, “Only rarely would our own people seek spiritual direction on this subject,” it looks like, if what he says is true, then the approved practice of Continuing Anglicans is to permit early abortions caused by contraception. This leads me to seriously question the orthodoxy and wisdom of the Contunuing Churches. It leads me to question the very future existence of Continuing Anglicanism; if it does indeed die out it won’t be because of sheep-stealing or better propaganda on the part of Rome and Orthodoxy; it’ll be because Anglicans contracepted and aborted future Anglicans out of existence.

 

[Alex111]

From my admittedly limited experience in both worlds, this question is doomed to failure by the way it is structured above. To my knowledge, there is no mechanism in either of these groups today to formulate an “official position” on matters not clearly decided before the great schisms (or on matters cleverly disguised to pretend they weren’t decided before then).

If you have no mechanism for establishing “official positions,” than you can’t have any, no?

That is a good point. As far as I know, all Christian denominations have problems with a lot of members using contaception and abortion. But at least in the case of the Roman Church, you have Humanae Vitae, and congregations that are faithful to official Church teaching are growing and have families with lots of kids.

 

[GKC]

Thanks everyone for the clarifications.

"Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful."

It doesn’t specifically mention the word contraception, but since some contraceptive mehods (not only the Plan B pill) are abortifacients, I would take this statement to apply to contraception, if we’re taking it at face value. So, according to the above, there’s only two ways in which contraception could be acceptable. Either it’s acceptable only if one has knowledge of which methods will and will not cause early abortion (which in my opinion strongly implies the need for spiritual direction by one who’s knowledgeable on the subject); OR abortifacient contraception is acceptable because in this case the “taking of innocent life” is NOT “unjustifiable or inexcusable,” meaning we’re making an exception and saying that early abortion caused by contraception is ok.

Since the Continuing Anglican Bishop quoted in my original post says, “Only rarely would our own people seek spiritual direction on this subject,” it looks like, if what he says is true, then the approved practice of Continuing Anglicans is to permit early abortions caused by contraception. This leads me to seriously question the orthodoxy and wisdom of the Contunuing Churches. It leads me to question the very future existence of Continuing Anglicanism; if it does indeed die out it won’t be because of sheep-stealing or better propaganda on the part of Rome and Orthodoxy; it’ll be because Anglicans contracepted and aborted future Anglicans out of existence.

It seems you assume a great deal. I see that unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is condemned. I do not see a mention of contraception. And I never expect great precision in Anglican pronouncements.This is not an Anglican confession (there is none), but a statement of organizing doctrine for the original ACNA.

On the other hand, IMO, the wisdom of all Continuing Anglicans is something that would require a great deal of faith to affirm. If the Continuum fails to survive (and it is a stop-gap creature, driven by exigencies), it will be based on more mundane things, like personalities and politics, in my view. Or more blatant things, such as WO, or the historic range of belief that has characterized Anglicanism since the Elizabethan Compromise.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[mark_a]

**"…I would state as a matter of fact that the Continuing Anglican Churches have no official doctrine or moral teaching on the liceity or impermissibility of the use of artificial contraception, and are very much like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which do not expressly forbid the use of ‘birth control,’ but allow the use of it to married couples under the direction, guidance and counsel of a spiritual father and confessor. **
That would be one busy priest.

Only rarely would our own people seek spiritual direction on this subject."

That sounds about right and extremely familiar.

 

[Cavaradossi]

From my admittedly limited experience in both worlds, this question is doomed to failure by the way it is structured above. To my knowledge, there is no mechanism in either of these groups today to formulate an “official position” on matters not clearly decided before the great schisms (or on matters cleverly disguised to pretend they weren’t decided before then).

If you have no mechanism for establishing “official positions,” than you can’t have any, no?

To the contrary, the Orthodox have continued to hold synods and make decisions about newer challenges after the schism (what kind of church doesn’t hold synods?). The essence-energies distinction, is one example of such a post-schism development. The Russian Orthodox Church, for example, has released a document called “Bases of the Social Concept of Russian Orthodox Church,” which reflects the official attitude of the Holy Council towards many modern social problems, including abortion, contraception, drug and alcohol addiction, and divorce.

 

[mark_a]

To the contrary, the Orthodox have continued to hold synods and make decisions about newer challenges after the schism (what kind of church doesn’t hold synods?). The essence-energies distinction, is one example of such a post-schism development. The Russian Orthodox Church, for example, has released a document called “Bases of the Social Concept of Russian Orthodox Church,” which reflects the official attitude of the Holy Council towards many modern social problems, including abortion, contraception, drug and alcohol addiction, and divorce.

Thanks for the link.

Here’s a snippet that that I found interesting:

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

There seems to be no bottom line.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks for the link.

Here’s a snippet that that I found interesting:

There seems to be no bottom line.

Sure there is. They basically say that contraceptives which have an abortive effect are not permitted. Then they say that spouses have a duty to bring children into this world. The second paragraph says that because parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children in a comprehensive fashion, they may need to plan when the children will be born, in order to provide the best care possible. One way to do this is to abstain from marital relations. Because, however, St. Paul tells us not to defraud one’s spouse, it needs to be considered that contraception might be used for the purpose of accomplishing both. Because of the complexity of this issue, they therefore recommend that people seek the guidance of their priest on such matters. The bottom line is that because many duties are involved in marriage (child-rearing, marital relations, etc.), approaching a priest for help with finding balance in such matters is essential.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Thanks for the link.

Here’s a snippet that that I found interesting:

There seems to be no bottom line.

The bottom line is that people are responsible for their own decisions, as thinking, intelligent creatures who understand ethics. It’s pretty simple really.

 

[mark_a]

Sure there is. They basically say that contraceptives which have an abortive effect are not permitted. Then they say that spouses have a duty to bring children into this world. The second paragraph says that because parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children in a comprehensive fashion, they may need to plan when the children will be born, in order to provide the best care possible. One way to do this is to abstain from marital relations. Because, however, St. Paul tells us not to defraud one’s spouse, it needs to be considered that contraception might be used for the purpose of accomplishing both.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Because of the complexity of this issue, they therefore recommend that people seek the guidance of their priest on such matters. The bottom line is that because many duties are involved in marriage (child-rearing, marital relations, etc.), approaching a priest for help with finding balance in such matters is essential.

Are Orthodox couples really inclined to seek the guidance of their priest on such matters? I know most Catholics would not be so inclined even if the our view of contraception were the same.

From the article:

The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

From the Orthodox point of view, is “egoistic” the operative word here?

 

[Nine_Two]

From the article:
From the Orthodox point of view, is “egoistic” the operative word here?

I believe so. If a couple isn’t having a child because it would get in the way of their service of God (and that’s the actual reason, not an excuse), I don’t think it would be sinful to not have children. Likewise if a couple is unable to have children, it is not sinful.

However if a couple refuses to have a child because they don’t want to get up early in the morning, or because they want to spend the money that would be spent on a kid (or kids) on a bigger house and luxury goods, then yes, it would be a sin for them.

 

[mark_a]

However if a couple refuses to have a child because they don’t want to get up early in the morning, or because they want to spend the money that would be spent on a kid (or kids) on a bigger house and luxury goods, then yes, it would be a sin for them.

That sounds exactly like all the contracepting and sterilized folks I know.

Best wishes to you!

 

[Nine_Two]

That sounds exactly like all the contracepting and sterilized folks I know.

Best wishes to you!

In my personal opinion, the reasons that aren’t egoistic are rather rare.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Are Orthodox couples really inclined to seek the guidance of their priest on such matters? I know most Catholics would not be so inclined even if the our view of contraception were the same.

I honestly can’t say, since those matters are rather private. I suppose a priest would know the answer (as it pertains to his own parish).

From the Orthodox point of view, is “egoistic” the operative word here?

I think so. Refusing to have children simply because one doesn’t want them is not an acceptable reason. Not having children because one doesn’t have the means to raise them (emotionally or financially) is more acceptable.

 

[manualman]

To the contrary, the Orthodox have continued to hold synods and make decisions about newer challenges after the schism (what kind of church doesn’t hold synods?).

Perhaps I misunderstand the level of “official teaching” that comes out of the various collegial collaborations that have occurred outside of Rome since the great schism. Are you claiming that the teachings of these synods are authoritative “offical teaching” of Holy Orthodoxy? In other words, a patriarch that taught his flock something contrary and fundamentally incompatible with one of these synods would be subject to discipline and correction from somewhere? Please explain because I’m not familiar with this aspect of Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Perhaps I misunderstand the level of “official teaching” that comes out of the various collegial collaborations that have occurred outside of Rome since the great schism. Are you claiming that the teachings of these synods are authoritative “offical teaching” of Holy Orthodoxy? In other words, a patriarch that taught his flock something contrary and fundamentally incompatible with one of these synods would be subject to discipline and correction from somewhere? Please explain because I’m not familiar with this aspect of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Yes. A priest, for example, who denied the essence-energies distinction would probably be subject to discipline if unrepentant. Some synods, like the synod of Jerusalem are of contested authority, but others like the hesychast councils have church-wide recognition as being authoritative even though they were local councils (much in the same manner that First Constantinople developed into an Ecumenical Council, although in Orthodoxy, nothing after Second Nicaea is called ecumenical, even if it has the same authority as an ecumenical council, so the hesychast councils are not called ecumenical councils).