Orthodox and birth control

[mtr01]

you seem to be saying that truth is subjective in that what was considered gravely immoral at one point in time, through science and a critical historical understanding of our church fathers and scripture, can change to good.

this is modernism and is antithetical to the orthodox faith.

contraception goes against God’s law of creation by intentionally frustrating the natural purpose and against our spouse by not accepting the life giving nature of the marital union, thereby not giving ourselves completely to one another. it’s an act that contradicts itself and is evil.

this moral judgment on contraception as held by our Holy Fathers is not based on a scientific understanding of the reproduction process but on our dignity and obligation as God’s children made in His image.

Well said Dee.

To me, any explanation of why it is permissible to allow ABC smacks of rationalization for caving to the “modern world view” of human sexuality (at the very least, it is an example of development of doctrine).

 

[Milliardo]

the orthodox, who claim to be the true bearers of Holy Tradition, are contradicting their own faith by accepting a once universally know grave evil.

The only known grave evil is abortion; contraception has not been known until fairly modern times. The Orthodox Church condemns abortion but is more cautious in totally ruling out contraception. The link should give some explanation: goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp It should be noted that while abortion and contraception are mentioned in on the part about sexual issues, it can be said that the second half of the issue on contraception can be found, at least implicitly, on the issue regarding bioethics. The general outlook of the Orthodox Church then can be summed as very much pro-life.

 

[Gofer]

The only known grave evil is abortion; contraception has not been known until fairly modern times.

The Gnostics practiced contraception, and were condemned for it.

 

[Petergee]

The Gnostics practiced contraception, and were condemned for it.

Even further back, in the time of Genesis, God considered that Onan’s use of coitus interruptus (a form of contraception) warranted the death penalty.

Pius XI and St augustine by no means condemned NFP, their words on the immorality of contraception were deliberately worded NOT to include NFP in the condemnation. (Even in St Augustine’s time, science and folklore had a rough understanding of the fact that intercourse at certain times of the cycle is more likely to result in conception.)

 

[Harmony1988]

Luckily most modern Roman Catholics aren’t as hyper-legalistic as you seem to be. Jesus came to fulfill the law because now we know the purpose of the law. Why is artificial contraception sinful? Why is artificial contraception sinful and natural family planning isn’t? After all the purpose of both is exactly the same i.e. to avoid pregnancy. Both the supposedly sinful artificial contraception and the supposedly wholesome NFP can be sinful when they are used for selfish reasons. However there are circumstances in which not having children is the best decision such as serious financial issues, serious illness and others. Both forms of contraception can be acceptable if done for non-selfish reasons.

In all reality what’s the difference between NFP and using some form of barrier method or spermicide? (those are about the only methods allowed by the Church because most others can be an abortifacient) After all pregnancy can occur with any of those methods and in both the cases of NFP and artificial contraception if a pregnancy occurs it would be by accident. Remember Jesus came to show us the purpose of the law and the purpose of both NFP and artificial contraception is exactly the same, preventing pregnancy. So logically if one method is sinful the other is as well.

As to your question I suspect that there was a time when the Catholic Church defined anything that a couple does to intentionally avoid pregnancy as gravely sinful.

Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Cannubbi

I would say having sex only when there is little or no chance of conception is “deliberately frustrating its natural power to generate life”, wouldn’t you?

Yours in Christ
Joe

I think there is more to this than meets the eye, he maybe referring to artificial contraception solely, it’s difficult to see in small excerpts.

Edit: See below post.

 

[Harmony1988]

And I was right:

1. You misinterpret Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii when he teaches:

“Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the generating of offspring, those who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature, and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.”

a) Married couples do not “deprive it [the marriage act] of its natural force and power” with the practice of rhythm because conception is still possible.

b) The footnotes in Denzinger on this quote of Pope Pius XI refer to the sinful practice of onanism — whether by interrupted copulation or by artificial instruments. There is no mention of rhythm at all.

1. It is also incorrect to say that Pope Pius XI had not referred to rhythm in his encyclical when he taught:

“Nor are those married couples to be considered as acting against the order of nature who make use of their right in the proper, natural way, even though through natural causes either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot thence result.”

a) In Moral Theology by Fr. John C. Ford, S.J., and Fr. Gerard Kelly, S.J., we find an interesting answer to those who would doubt whether this quote of Pope Pius XI was referring to rhythm:

“The fact that the licit use of the sterile period was already at that time a commonplace among theologians, the fact that the phrase ‘through natural reasons... of time’ was used, rather than ‘reasons of age’ or some similar expression, and the fact that the immediate context of the encyclical itself was concern for the difficulties of married people tempted to onanism — all these considerations convinced the great majority of theologians that Pius XI was here referring to the permissible use of the sterile periods as a means of avoiding conception. Pius XII, we may mention here, explicitly confirmed this view in 1958 (Address to Hematologists, 12 Sept. 1958, A.A.S., 50 [1958] 736), thus dispelling what little doubt had existed on this point.”

b) Thus whatever interpretation you may apply to Pope Pius XI’s “Nor are those married couples…”, Pope Pius XII has already confirmed what his predecessor meant.

cmri.org/03-nfp.html

 

[Milliardo]

The Gnostics practiced contraception, and were condemned for it.

It speaks of castration–castration is wrong since it is a form of mutilation.

 

[1ke]

I would say having sex only when there is little or no chance of conception is “deliberately frustrating its natural power to generate life”, wouldn’t you?

NO. Not at all. **Not **having sex in no way frustrates the natural end of a sex act. There is no act.

I am not having sex right now. That doesn’t mean I am frustrating the natural end of a sex act. There is no sex act to frustrate.

Only when I engage in intercourse and contracept am I frustrating the natural end of that act of intercourse.

 

[Mickey]

Only when I engage in intercourse and contracept am I frustrating the natural end of that act of intercourse.

I have seen stats that indicate intercourse during infertile periods using NFP is more effective in preventing pregnancy than condom use.

Does this mean that NFP is a more effective contraceptive than condoms?

 

[Peter_J]

josephdaniel29 et al,

In my opinion, the ideal would be for a couple to have sex so infrequently that there would be no need to birth control of any kind.

But given the hardship this would mean for most couples (couples with an average or above average level of fertility) I think a certain application of “economy” to permit more frequent intercourse is appropriate. But how? Quite frankly, I can really only see NFP being allowed under economy, not contraceptives (even the two you mentioned, spermicide and barrier methods).

 

[Peter_J]

I have seen stats that indicate intercourse during infertile periods using NFP is more effective in preventing pregnancy than condom use.

Does this mean that NFP is a more effective contraceptive than condoms?

Not quite. You should say that NFP is a more effective form of birth control.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I have seen stats that indicate intercourse during infertile periods using NFP is more effective in preventing pregnancy than condom use.

Does this mean that NFP is a more effective contraceptive than condoms?

A contraceptive is rendering the maritial act STERILE. Therefore NFP can’t be considered a contraceptive. Learn.

 

[mark_a]

In all reality what’s the difference between NFP and using some form of barrier method or spermicide? (those are about the only methods allowed by the Church because most others can be an abortifacient)

The difference is that barriers fail and conception occurs. Then the blame game starts. This is not exactly being “open to life” or a loving start to bringing new life into the world.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The difference is that barriers fail and conception occurs. Then the blame game starts. This is not exactly being “open to life” or a loving start to bringing new life into the world.

You’ve still failed to make any clear distinction between an accidental pregnancy on a spermicide and one using NFP except to say that one is “open to life”, whatever that’s supposed to mean and your strange and completely illogical assertion that if an accidental pregnancy occurs with a spermicide the “blame game” will start. As though first of all that’s relevant and second that you could possibly know that.

I just think it’s comical that you guys justify your position by saying basically it’s more likely that a couple might mess up and have a child by accident using NFP therefore it’s not a sin and artificial contraception is when they both are attempting to do the exact same thing, prevent a pregnancy.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

Pope Pius XI in his 1930 encyclical letter ‘Casti Connubii’ appears to state:

(interference with the procreative effect of intercourse is always illicit)

…]No reason whatever, even the gravest, can make what is intrinsically against nature become conformable with nature and morally good. The conjugal act is of its very nature designed for the procreation of offspring; and, therefore, those who in performing it deliberately deprived it of its natural power and efficacy, act against nature and do something which is shameful and intrinsically immoral…].

(The use of infertile period is licit)

Nor are husband and wife to be accused of acting against nature if they make use of their right in the proper and natureal manner, even though natural causes, either circumsatnces of time or certain defects, render the origin of new life impossible. Both marriage and the use of marital rights have secondary ends - such as mutual help, the fostering of reciprocal love, and the abatement of concupiscence - which husband and wife are quite entitled to have in view, so long as the intrinsic nature of the act, and , therefore, its due ordination to its primary end, is safeguarded…]

This document appears to be the basis for the modern Roman Catholic position on NFP. Is this it?

 

[Peter_J]

The difference is that barriers fail and conception occurs. Then the blame game starts. This is not exactly being “open to life” or a loving start to bringing new life into the world.

I think that your post is well-intentioned but misses the point. Even if the “blame game” doesn’t happen, use of a barrier method is still intrinsically wrong.

 

[Peter_J]

I just think it’s comical that you guys justify your position by saying basically it’s more likely that a couple might mess up and have a child by accident using NFP therefore it’s not a sin and artificial contraception is when they both are attempting to do the exact same thing, prevent a pregnancy.

Yours in Christ
Joe

“Comical” doesn’t strike me as very charitable – although I do have to acknowledge that by so saying I am probably failing to follow Matthew 7:5.

 

[josephdaniel29]

“Comical” doesn’t strike me as very charitable – although I do have to acknowledge that by so saying I am probably failing to follow Matthew 7:5.

I apologize to mark a, I meant no offense. That being said I just can’t wrap my head around the mindset of Roman Catholics. It’s my frustration that sometimes drives my less than charitable attitude.

Catholics look at things with such a legalistic mindset. Whether you use contraception or NFP the intent is exactly the same, preventing a pregnancy. Take for example the issue of divorce. Whether you call it a divorce or an annulment yet again the result (and final intent of the two parties) is exactly the same, the splitting up of a once happy relationship.

It’s almost like you totally negate the reason Christ became incarnate to begin with. He came not to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it, and He fulfilled it by showing us the purpose of the law to begin with. You have to look at the reason and the intent behind these issues, otherwise you can find yourself mired in Pharisaical legalism.

Whether you practice NFP and annulments or contraception and divorce the intent is the same.

 

[dvdjs]

I apologize to mark a, I meant no offense. That being said I just can’t wrap my head around the mindset of Roman Catholics. It’s my frustration that sometimes drives my less than charitable attitude.

Catholics look at things with such a legalistic mindset. Whether you use contraception or NFP the intent is exactly the same, preventing a pregnancy. …

It’s almost like you totally negate the reason Christ became incarnate to begin with. He came not to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it, and He fulfilled it by showing us the purpose of the law to begin with. You have to look at the reason and the intent behind these issues, otherwise you can find yourself mired in Pharisaical legalism.

Whether you practice NFP … or contraception … the intent is the same.

Actually the pharisaical legalism is on your part.

Your leglistic analysis leads you to claim some fundamental similarity because of one aspect of “intent”. However, there remains an enormous difference between the family planning by means of temporary abstinence and, for example, barrier methods of contraception. The first involves ascetic restraint - the value of which in advancing our theosis should be obvious to any Orthodox. The second involves the complete opposite - a complete setting aside of restraint. How does that advance our spirituality?

There is another point. With twenty-twenty hindsight it should be obvious to all that want Paul VI envisioned as the fruits of artifical birth control have largely been realized. See for example, The Vindication of Humanae Vitae". This poisonous fruit includes: “a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by government”. The use of artifical birth control has a ripple effect; it contributes to and reinforces these ills in a manner that ascetic sacrifice does not.

Getting back to the OP:
On another forum two Orthodox clergy are arguing about whether or not the Orthodox church does allow non-abortifacient articfical birth control. If the Orthodox church does, in fact, sanction artifical birth control, it is an innovation of the last fifty years.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Catholics look at things with such a legalistic mindset. Whether you use contraception or NFP the intent is exactly the same, preventing a pregnancy. Take for example the issue of divorce. Whether you call it a divorce or an annulment yet again the result (and final intent of the two parties) is exactly the same, the splitting up of a once happy relationship.

Whether you practice NFP and annulments or contraception and divorce the intent is the same.

One is legitimate (neutral), and the other is not(sinful). That is the difference.

Your comments on annulments also reveal you have no idea what it is. Sorry my friend; try again.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm