Orthodox accept artificial contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnityofTrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Castration is a means to prevent sexual relations by a couple–the physical joining of a man and woman. Thus, a castrated man cannot have any union with a woman. It goes well with the Gnostic view of anything of this world as evil. So, as one can see, it was not out of contraception in itself that the Gnostics did that, but to illustrate that sex is evil, and thus in order to prevent it from even happening in the first place, a man has to be castrated.
That would be an incorrect understanding of the Gnostic practice. Castration came in two forms - cutting off the penis, or to cutting off the scrotum (guys, sorry for the graphics :o). Cutting off the penis was very rare. The Fathers (such as St. Clement of Rome and St. Irenaeus) were clear that Gnostics were sexually promiscuous. So it was not that sex was evil that was the defining characteristic of Gnosticism (as far as this topic is concerned anyway), but their opposition to conception itself.
Nothing of that sort can be garnered in reading the story of Onan, as you seem to suggest. Again, contraception is a foreign concept in the ancient world–it was not a part of their society.
Contraception was indeed practiced in ancient society. Several Fathers teach against the use of charms and potions to prevent conception or birth.
Onanism generally referred to masturbation, not contraception. It’s a nice try, but no dice.
The sin of onanism consists of wasting the seed, not exclusively masturbation. It is effectively the same thing as contraception, for that is what happens. The seed that God intended for the bringing forth of new life is purposefully wasted.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Nothing of that sort can be garnered in reading the story of Onan, as you seem to suggest. Again, contraception is a foreign concept in the ancient world–it was not a part of their society. Onanism generally referred to masturbation, not contraception. It’s a nice try, but no dice.
Really? Deuteronomy 25 specifically addresses those who reject their dead brother’s wife, nowhere does it say death. Contraception is not a “new problem”, it was around in the ancient world. They are mentioned in texts contemporary to the Bible, to say this was foreign to the ancient world is wrong. Besides, I’ll bet after the first child was born, both man and woman figured out what caused it.:eek:

If Onanism is referenced to spilling seed, then yes, masturbation would fit the description. There is no reference in Genesis 38 to masturbation, only “spilling seed on the ground”, i.e. where it doesn’t belong.

I would still like the verse that is used to justify ABC’s. It seems this would be a heard teaching to defend.
 
. Contraception is not a “new problem”, it was around in the ancient world. They are mentioned in texts contemporary to the Bible, to say this was foreign to the ancient world is wrong.
Hippokratis the Greek father of ancient medicine in the 4th century B.C. was an expert on contraception as well. The Oath of Hippokratis forbade to perform abortions or to give abortive drugs (abortive potions) to women, but not so with contraception. Hippokratis and others knew many contraceptive drugs and used them in the antiquity.

Quote from science.jrank.org/pages/1761/Contraception-An-ancient-interest.html :

Contraception - An Ancient Interest

A survey of early contraceptive methods reflects an odd combination of human knowledge and ignorance. Some methods sound absurd, such as the suggestion by the ancient Greek Dioscorides that wearing of cat testicles or asparagus would inhibit contraception. Yet some early methods used techniques still practiced today.

The Egyptian contraceptive tampon, described in the Ebers Papyrus of 1550 B.C., was made of lint and soaked in honey and tips from the acacia shrub. The acacia shrub contains gum arabic, the substance from which lactic acid is made, a spermicidal agent used in modern contraceptive jellies and creams.

Aristotle was one of many ancient Greeks to write about contraception. He advised women to use olive oil or cedar oil in the vagina, a method which helps inhibit contraception by slowing the movement of sperm. Other Greeks recommended the untrue contention that obesity was linked to reduced fertility.

Roman birth control practices varied from the use of woolen tampons to sterilization, which was typically performed on slaves. Another common ancient practice, still in use today, was the prolonged nursing of infants which makes conception less likely although still possible.

Ancient Asian cultures drew from a wide range of birth control methods. Women in China and Japan used bamboo tissue paper discs which had been oiled as barriers to the cervix. These were precursors of the modern diaphragm contraceptive device.

Read more: Contraception - An Ancient Interest - Contraceptive, Methods, Women, and Practice - JRank Articles science.jrank.org/pages/1761/Contraception-An-ancient-interest.html#ixzz1hLJHMi4K

Quote from socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html :

There was no lack of birth control in the ancient world. I don’t think that there is any type of contraception known today that was not known in the ancient world: pharmacological, barrier (both chemical and mechanical), coitus interruptus, sodomy, sterilization, etc. For a brief introduction to the subject by the foremost historian of the subject, see John M. Riddle, et al., “Ever Since Eve . . .: Birth Control in the Ancient World”, Archaeology, March/April 1994, pp. 29-35. We really do underestimate the ingenuity of our ancestors. While in the past these were far from always effective or reliable, people kept trying. See John M. Riddle: Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (1992), and Eve’s Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West (1997).
For centuries, historians paid no attention to ancient accounts that claimed certain plants provided an effective means of birth control. . . . Modern laboratory analysis of various plants [including silphium, asafoetida, seeds of Queen Anne’s lace, pennyroyal, willow, date palm, pomegranate, inter al.], however, gives us reason to believe that the classical potions were effective, and that women in antiquity had more control over their reproductive lives than previously thought.
{Riddle, op. cit., p. 30}

Byzantine medical writers, esp. Paul of Aegina in the 7th C., transmitted the theories and techniques of contraception outlined by the 2nd-C. Gynaikeia of Soranos, which recommended vaginal wool suppositories and the application of olive oil, honey, cedar resin, alum, balsam gum, or white lead to prevent sperm from passing into the uterus. Paul, however, provided only one herbal contraception recipe, whereas Dioskorides had 20. In the 6th C. Aetios of Amida recommended magical protection such as wearing an amulet of cat’s liver or a womb of a lioness in an ivory tube.

{The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan (Oxford, 1991, 3 vols.), s.v. “Contraception”}

Soranus of Ephesus, physician under Trajan and Hadrian (AD 98-138), studied at Alexandria and practised at Rome. He wrote around twenty books . . . [including] Gynaecology. The latter gives valuable information on gynaecology and obstetrics in the Roman Empire. . . . Although Galen was the more influential writer for gynaecology in the Latin west in late antiquity and the Middle Ages, sections of Soranus were translated into Latin and adapted for different audiences. In the Greek east, Soranus’ gynaecology survived in the work of the encyclopaedists.

{The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. S. Hornblower & A. Spawforth (3d ed., 1996), s.v. “Soranus”}

A contraceptive differs from an abortive, for the first does not let conception take place, while the latter destroys what has been conceived. Let us therefore call the one ‘abortive’ [phthorion] and the other ‘contraceptive’ [atokion].

{Soranos Eph., Gynaeciorum libri, 1.60}

Folks, please go to the website given above to read William Klimon’s article, with much more details on ancient contraception methods (let’s not underestimate ancient science and medicine!!!) and the Early Church Fathers’ condemnation of contraceptive methods and practices.
 
Folks, please check out the links in post #163 - plenty of patristic quotes, and the Early Church Fathers clearly condemned drugs/potions/poisons that caused sterility or damaged the man’s seed, not only castration.
Drugs/potions–usually those mentioned cause abortion, not merely as contraceptives. Perhaps most are not familiar of those here, since they were herbal in nature. For those here in the Philippines, these are well-known, especially for those who go to “faith healers” and the like. These can also be bought from such places.
 
Really? Deuteronomy 25 specifically addresses those who reject their dead brother’s wife, nowhere does it say death.
I fail to see what this has to do with the issue.
Contraception is not a “new problem”, it was around in the ancient world. They are mentioned in texts contemporary to the Bible, to say this was foreign to the ancient world is wrong.
Specifically which texts?
There is no reference in Genesis 38 to masturbation, only “spilling seed on the ground”, i.e. where it doesn’t belong.
By the term itself, Onanism, it refers to both the person and the event in Genesis.
I would still like the verse that is used to justify ABC’s.
I would like to see the verse that condemns it. Genesis 38? No.
 
Abortion is the singular exception to “Whatsoever…”

Other than that…It is up to the Bishop and his pastors.

M.
Really? How about just murder? Premarital sex? Having an affair with a Priest/married man? Revenge? Pornography? Working as a Prostitute? Stripper? etc etc- Are these also “the exception” to whatsoever, or can your Bishop allow them too under binding and loosing?

Also- What exactly is your principle for saying just what are exceptions?You said it’s whatsover- now obviously considering the implications of that you have these “exceptions”- Where is the list of these exceptions?

The Church has said clearly what binding and loosing means- certainly nothing at all like what you try to imply here. Its only about communion and nothing at all about permitting sin under certain conditions. The only principle that applies is that the Divine Law can be mitigated by no-one- none at all, except God himself and he has not done so, since the revelation is closed. The Church can only exercise forgiveness and reconciliation and lessening punishment for sin- all about repentant sinners. Nothing at all about telling anyone they can transgress the law of God without committing sin. 🤷
 
I agree.

I am having a difficult time understanding your comment here. On the one hand, I competely agree with your statement highlighted in red above. On the other hand, when you say “the mitigation of the law itself” (highlighted in blue above), it appears you mean the exact opposite.

It is true that any law ALWAYS INHERENTLY consists of (1) the directive, and (2) the guilt and punishment associated with violation of the directive. When we say “law” we naturally include both concepts, but it is just as sure that the two concepts are distinguishable. Our common complaint against our Latin brethren in defense of Orthodoxy is that they cannot see that oikonomia is a mitigation of (2), not a change of (1). I guess I understand “mitigate” as a change. And I am explicitly distinguishing in my expressions (1) and (2), referring to (1) as “the law”, while you may be referring to both (1) and (2) as “the law.” But in essence, I think we are saying the same thing. Would you agree?

I don’t see a difference between what Orthodox teach with regards to oikonomia and what Latins teach with regards to the mitigation of guilt. Both are a mitigation of something that is not a change in the divine directive itself.

Blessings,
Marduk
Mardukm, what you don’t seem to get about the crux of the Latins objection is this: You guys speak of mitigation of the punishment as something that occurs before a sin is committed- which is what people are calling permission to sin. I understand that the whole issue of indulgences in Latin Catholicism rests on the Church’s power to offer this mitigation- What we do not agree about is that the church can say to you or me, that due to 1, 2, 3, difficult circumstances, you can go ahead and commit this sin without any consequences (punishment). That really is the point.

I can understand the whole issue of balancing circumstances etc. For example, I can see a place for this mitigation in the circumstances of telling a lie to save a life- infact in that case there would be no sin as the objective universal law of God is that charity trumps all other virtues and considerations, and human life and society is a greater good than all others on this Earth (exempting God of course)- so that being forced to choose between them, the Law of God is that you must choose the higher value/good and you must obey the demands of the higher virtue. Like what our Lord said in that controversy where he healed the sick on the sabbath or allowed his disciples to pick grain on the sabbath. It’s all still the Divine law that’s operating to tell us the hierarchy of goods and values and our obligations in them all. 🤷

What me and my Latin counterparts fail to see is just what value trumps both chastity and charity such as to command obedience above the Law of marriage and no contraception? Comfort? An easy life? It’s not a life at stake- so what justifies committing adultery and contraception- Both much graver than either lying or performing a work of charity or feeding yourself on the sabbath? What has happened in the last 30/40 years that has suddenly made no-contraception impossible to practice when it was strictly taught for 2,000 years? This really is the matter. To us, it’s nothing more than the church caving in to the pressures of modern secular values, when the early church preferred death itself rather than such a compromise. 🤷

Peace.
 
Drugs/potions–usually those mentioned cause abortion, not merely as contraceptives. Perhaps most are not familiar of those here, since they were herbal in nature. For those here in the Philippines, these are well-known, especially for those who go to “faith healers” and the like. These can also be bought from such places.
What does it matter that the drugs can do both?- That is, contraception and abortion? The fact is that the Fathers quoted are condemning in plain terms both contraception and abortion. You asked about patristic teaching against contraception and it has been provided. I don’t understand how you can conclude that the Fathers are not teaching exactly what they are saying! 🤷
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

John Chrysostom: "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility, where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation.
St. Chrysostom is clearly distinguishing abortion from contraception and condemning contraception as even worse! 🤷 Really these words are very plain.
 
What does it matter that the drugs can do both?- That is, contraception and abortion? The fact is that the Fathers quoted are condemning in plain terms both contraception and abortion.
Abortion is clearly condemned in the early Church. The Didache is very explicit on that. However, contraception is not clearly so, and there is clearly no early Church teaching that goes against it.
You asked about patristic teaching against contraception and it has been provided.
What have been provided are quotes that presumes they are against contraception; but as noted, they aren’t exactly against contraception. Rather, they condemn sins that happen to be contraceptive, yet the main objections of the Fathers wasn’t about contraception in itself; rather, they are against those sins.
 
Abortion is clearly condemned in the early Church. The Didache is very explicit on that. However, contraception is not clearly so, and there is clearly no early Church teaching that goes against it.

What have been provided are quotes that presumes they are against contraception; but as noted, they aren’t exactly against contraception. Rather, they condemn sins that happen to be contraceptive, yet the main objections of the Fathers wasn’t about contraception in itself; rather, they are against those sins.
:confused::confused::confused:

There is absolutely nothing unclear about those quotes! Not a one!

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive* or **condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? …

. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation."

Now, preventing the formation of a baby is proclaimed worse than killing it! In the first, no woman may take any potion to make herself unable to conceive! Or to condemn her own fecundity (fertility)! And in the first, eternal damnation is said to be the consequence for failing to repent this act!
*
The only way you can fail to see this is if you do not want to. :shrug:And may I say, you are the one making presumptions (indeed more than presumptions) by insisting that the Fathers did not mean just what they said! 🤷
 
There is absolutely nothing unclear about those quotes! Not a one!
Perhaps in your mind it is clear then?
Now, preventing the formation of a baby is proclaimed worse than killing it! In the first, no woman may take any potion to make herself unable to conceive! Or to condemn her own fecundity (fertility)! And in the first, eternal damnation is said to be the consequence for failing to repent this act!
There are herbal “potions” which are abortive in nature, and can induce abortion much earlier (even as early as 2 weeks or so if I am correct). Of course, to us who are more informed about how the fetus is formed, there is already something there; however, in the time of St. John Chrysostom, at such stage there would have been no noticeable fetus yet. So that is what he is saying–that nothing is formed yet.
 
Perhaps in your mind it is clear then?
There are herbal “potions” which are abortive in nature, and can induce abortion much earlier (even as early as 2 weeks or so if I am correct). Of course, to us who are more informed about how the fetus is formed, there is already something there; however, in the time of St. John Chrysostom, at such stage there would have been no noticeable fetus yet. So that is what he is saying–that nothing is formed yet.
Are you saying that St. Chrysostom doesn’t know that babies are formed at conception and stay in the womb nine months regardless of when the pregnancy shows (4/5 months later)? Are you saying that they did not know the difference between conception and child birth? Are you saying that they did not know the difference between destroying a pregnancy and preventing one?

Besides, who cares about their scientific knowledge? The moral/theological truth they express is clear- Artificially preventing conception (not just birth) or hindering one’s fertility is damnable 🤷!
 
Are you saying that St. Chrysostom doesn’t know that babies are formed at conception and stay in the womb nine months regardless of when the pregnancy shows (4/5 months later)?
Generally in those days “formation” would be when an observable fetus is seen; at about 2 weeks or so it would have been doubtful in those days for any to say that there is a fetus at that stage.
Are you saying that they did not know the difference between conception and child birth? Are you saying that they did not know the difference between destroying a pregnancy and preventing one?
Again, you are putting 21st century medical knowledge to a 4th century setting. Of course to you, it would be surprising that people in those days cannot tell the difference. People in those days though would have a different view of things.
 
Generally in those days “formation” would be when an observable fetus is seen; at about 2 weeks or so it would have been doubtful in those days for any to say that there is a fetus at that stage.

Again, you are putting 21st century medical knowledge to a 4th century setting. Of course to you, it would be surprising that people in those days cannot tell the difference. People in those days though would have a different view of things.
And who says that it was the science that determined the moral principle taught? The Fathers are condemning two things! Killing a fetus and preventing its formation through artificial means instead of chastity.

Whether they knew about when conception takes place makes no difference 🤷. They knew both that conception could not be prevented artificially, and that once a fetus was formed, it could not be destroyed. 🤷

Your arguments are trying to force the Fathers to speak only of killing a formed fetus when they are condemning in the strongest terms possible, both the killing and the deliberate hindering of its conception as well!
 
Marybeloved, it’s time to move on Milliardo has his mind made up and isn’t willing to consider that explicit and plain quotations you’ve provided him. You’ve already given him quotes in their own words that the EF recognize the difference between preventing pregnancy and aborting one, but he won’t listen.

There’s nothing more you can do in cases like this.
 
I think you are misunderstanding me. My point was that without Rome, one loses the True guide of the ship- one falls into error, as is the case here.

However, many people in the Catholic church have fallen into this same error and many other ones. In the US, Catholics contracept at the basically the same rate as anyone else. My point was that in spite of their seperation, many Orthodox do live lives that in many ways are virtuous.

Protestantism is an horrific heresy. That doesn’t mean that I (a Catholic) can’t learn how to live a more Christian life from Protestants in many cases. At the same time, I must pray and work for their conversion and enterance into the One True Church.

That is the point I was trying to make about the Orthodox.

Contraception: evil.
Rome: Essential.

Hopefully, I cleared things up enough that you can see we agree on that.
👍
 
Marybeloved, it’s time to move on Milliardo has his mind made up and isn’t willing to consider that explicit and plain quotations you’ve provided him. You’ve already given him quotes in their own words that the EF recognize the difference between preventing pregnancy and aborting one, but he won’t listen.

There’s nothing more you can do in cases like this.
I’m afraid you’re right, my friend. 😦 And the quotations were not provided by me, but by L Piperatus in his post #180 on page 12. However, I’m very glad to make use of them. 😉
 
Marybeloved, it’s time to move on Milliardo has his mind made up and isn’t willing to consider that explicit and plain quotations you’ve provided him. You’ve already given him quotes in their own words that the EF recognize the difference between preventing pregnancy and aborting one, but he won’t listen.

There’s nothing more you can do in cases like this.
I’m afraid you’re right, my friend. 😦 And the quotations were not provided by me, but by L Piperatus in his post #180 on page 12. However, I’m very glad to make use of them. 😉
I was about to answer Milliardo, but yeah, it’s probably a waste of time. :o Besides I have foreseen this objection that says that ancient medics and people couldn’t tell apart contraception from abortion, an objection based on ignorance, and I already addressed it at length in post #183. I already mentioned there, among other things, that both Hippokratis in the 4th century B.C., and the gynecologist Soranos in the 2nd century A.D., distinguished contraception from abortion. Plus, if Milliardo took the effort to read the articles I linked to in post #183, he could’ve educated himself regarding the scope and specific kowledge of ancient medicine, instead of speaking out of ignorance. Add to that the many instances when Early Church Fathers condemn contraceptive methods, including the spilling of semen (coitus interruptus, Onan’s sin), anal and oral copulation, contraceptive drugs, castration, and it becomes crystal clear that yes they did condemn contraception, just as they also condemned abortion and infanticide.
 
And who says that it was the science that determined the moral principle taught? The Fathers are condemning two things! Killing a fetus and preventing its formation through artificial means instead of chastity.

Whether they knew about when conception takes place makes no difference 🤷. They knew both that conception could not be prevented artificially, and that once a fetus was formed, it could not be destroyed. 🤷

Your arguments are trying to force the Fathers to speak only of killing a formed fetus when they are condemning in the strongest terms possible, both the killing and the deliberate hindering of its conception as well!
What you are saying is correct and abundantly supported by the ECF; it should never be questioned if we keep in mind that the Early Church Fathers condemned the whole range of contraceptive practices, starting with the sin of Onan (coitus interruptus - the spilling of the seed):

Clement of Alexandria: “the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged,”

for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman” (Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

The heresy that contraception is OK as long as it doesn’t cause abortion is total bunk and it originated in the 20th century. Onan spilled his seed on the ground, he used a non-abortive form of contraception, and God killed him in punishment for his transgression.

So now, we went from “artificial birth control is a sin, but allowed on reason of economy” to “artificial birth control is not a sin at all, and the Early Church Fathers didn’t really mean to condemn it”. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Really, folks, what’s next, are we going to argue that Sodom and Gomorrah were all chaste and wholesome, and God killed them all in mistake? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Someone please educate me: WHY did God KILL Onan, if non-abortive contraception is not a sin???
 
I fail to see what this has to do with the issue.
What is the sin in Genesis 38? It cannot be failure to raise up children for a dead brother, because Deuteronomy 25 gives the punishment for that and it is not death. So, why did God kill Onan? Because he spilled his seed.
Specifically which texts?
We have Greek and Roman texts that acknowledge contraception. Writings by Hippocrates generated between 430-330BCE, reference contraception. We have scrolls from Egypt dating to 1900bc that describe birth control or abortion methods. Contraception is not a new idea.
By the term itself, Onanism, it refers to both the person and the event in Genesis.
IF, Onanism refers to masturbation, why is it wrong? You seem to imply that Onanism is masturbation, but that is not in the account anywhere. Onan’s sin was spilling his seed.
I would like to see the verse that condemns it. Genesis 38? No.
If Genesis 38:10 does not address Onan’s sin as “spilling his seed”, then what is his sin? Historically, the Christian Church has always used Genesis 38 as a prohibition of contraception. In the 1930’s the Episcopalian Church broke away from that teaching, the rest of the protestant world followed. Now it seems that the Eastern Orthodox may be considering this option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top