Questions for Eastern Orthodox Christians

[josephdaniel29]

Can you show where Tradition or the fathers condemn it? I can show you where they condemn artificiual means of contraception. On NFP they are silent. And the reason is simple, NFP follows the natural law. That’s the way God designed it to work and no father will go against that. Therefore there is no sin in NFP All other means of contraception are artificial and by being so violate the natural law and thus sinful.

They most certainly are not silent. They say that any act that frustrates conception is sinful and that the only purpose of sexual relations is to beget children. Since the purpose of NFP is to frustrate conception it most certainly falls under the proscription of the fathers as well.

“To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” - St Clement of Alexandria

“But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?” - St Jerome

“For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny” - St Augustine

It really doesn’t get any clearer than that my friend.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

HI bro. Though not an expert, I am quite knowledgeable about different types of birth control. There is no mix really. I am saying this not to boast but so that we would not waste time on definition.

Condoms and diaphragms are not considered as just birth control but could also be categorized as the ‘sin of Onan’ where the semen is being spilled not according to its intended purpose.

Bro, if your religion permits birth control, there is nothing for you to justify it other than to accept it not as a sin. Our differences is we consider them sin. I am not saying you are wrong; we just do not agree with it.

God bless you bro.

If the Catholic Church considers birth control a sin then there is no reason why it should allow NFP. Almost every patristic quote the Catholic Church uses to condemn ABC can be equally applied to NFP. Even as recently as Pope Pius the XI you have strong condemnation of any frustration of conception.

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. - Casti Connubii

Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

The reality is there is no way for you to support modern teaching on NFP from the fathers. The proof is Humanae Vitae does not reference a single father or tradition in the entire document. If the case was so strong surely Pope Paul VI would have quoted some tradition in support of his position, no?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Reuben_J]

If the Catholic Church considers birth control a sin then there is no reason why it should allow NFP. Almost every patristic quote the Catholic Church uses to condemn ABC can be equally applied to NFP. Even as recently as Pope Pius the XI you have strong condemnation of any frustration of conception.

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. - Casti Connubii

Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

The reality is there is no way for you to support modern teaching on NFP from the fathers. The proof is Humanae Vitae does not reference a single father or tradition in the entire document. If the case was so strong surely Pope Paul VI would have quoted some tradition in support of his position, no?

In Christ
Joe

First thing first bro. We make the teaching and we give the ruling – we can do as we like on what we want. If you want to use Catholic documents to dispute Catholic teaching and its ruling you fall into the same trap as the other poster here – and you cannot be right. The author of the encyclical who also gives the ruling for Catholic to follow knows what he is talking about; even if you don’t. So much about that.

I have explained to you the difference between Artificial Birth Control and Natural Family Planning. The Orthodox supports the principle of NFP, namely celibate marriage or sexual abstinence. So there is no problem with the NFP even according to your belief. Actually NFP is not exclusively birth control - it also facilitate plan for sex too. I know you may simply scorn this but we found out that this kind of thing do help marriages a lot.

As for the ABC, we consider them sinful. There are many types of ABC in use but summarily either it kills the unborn fetus or you’d simply engaged in sinful sex. These are sins by themselves even if you don’t consider ABC as sin. Killing of unborn fetus is sinful; coitus interruptus or its equivalent is sinful. So that’s the reason why Catholic consider ABC as simply not right and not allowed by God.

As for the document you and the other poster mentioned, FYI, NFP is obligatory as a subject for every pre-marriage seminar for couples who intend to get married. It is certainly absurd to write the encyclical and then follow it up with the approved teaching on NFP if NFP is not allowed in the document.

Ultimately, this is a Catholic thing. You guys allow ABC and so be it. You don’t have to feel threatened or defensive that we consider ABC as sin. Everybody is free to decide on what they do, is it not?

God bless.

 

[inkaneer]

I still see “natural” contraception as contraception. Many Orthodox I have spoken with see the RCC as allowing contraception so long as it is natural (NFP), but also see the RCC as eventually accepting other forms. Today news broke about the pope permitting condom use in certain cases. That furthers my belief that the RCC will eventually other methods of contraception. It appears the door has been swung open, but I am not rejoicing over it.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I had understood the purpose of NFP to allow married couples to engage in intercourse during non-fertile periods to avoid pregnancy. From what I understand, Casti Connubii says that any sexual act without the intention of the generation of children is against nature.

In Christ,
Andrew

Don’t go overboard on what the pope said recently. He was speaking of a specific issue and was not giving blanket approval. There is no doubt that condoms reduce the spread of STD’s. The subject group the pope was speaking about, male prostitutes. What he said was that for these individuals condom use could be a first step toward assuming responsibility. But the church doesn’t consider condoms the “moral solution” to the AIDS problem. Essentially what the pope said was that a male prostitutre who is infected with aids commits two sins with each encounter. The first sin is that of unnatural intercourse and the second is that of infecting others with AIDS. Condoms help in reducing the risk of spreading aids but do nothing to the first sin of an unnatural sexual union. It helps to keep the popre’s word in context. Anyone who thinks that this or any future Pope will declare null and void 2,000 years of Catholic teaching on this subject is a fool at best. The orthodox bishops have never been blessed with the protection of the Holy Spirit from teaching error as has the universal Bishop and successor of Peter that we call the Pope.

 

[josephdaniel29]

First thing first bro. We make the teaching and we give the ruling – we can do as we like on what we want. If you want to use Catholic documents to dispute Catholic teaching and its ruling you fall into the same trap as the other poster here – and you cannot be right. The author of the encyclical who also gives the ruling for Catholic to follow knows what he is talking about; even if you don’t. So much about that.

I don’t dispute the Church’s authority to define it’s own teachings based on the power to bind and loose, but let’s not kid ourselves and pretend it’s not a departure from the clear patristic teaching on the matter. For the fathers the sin was in the frustration of conception, not the method. It’s the Catholic Church that has tried to retroactively justify it’s modern teaching by making the sin the violation of some Aristotelean concept of natural law.

I have explained to you the difference between Artificial Birth Control and Natural Family Planning. The Orthodox supports the principle of NFP, namely celibate marriage or sexual abstinence. So there is no problem with the NFP even according to your belief. Actually NFP is not exclusively birth control - it also facilitate plan for sex too. I know you may simply scorn this but we found out that this kind of thing do help marriages a lot.

I never said there was a problem with NFP.

As for the ABC, we consider them sinful. There are many types of ABC in use but summarily either it kills the unborn fetus or you’d simply engaged in sinful sex. These are sins by themselves even if you don’t consider ABC as sin. Killing of unborn fetus is sinful; coitus interruptus or its equivalent is sinful. So that’s the reason why Catholic consider ABC as simply not right and not allowed by God.

For the sake of this discussion, i.e. questions about Orthodoxy, let’s leave abortifacients out if as they are never approved because of the risk of aborting the fetus. I’ve already explained that to you, not sure why you still bring it up.

By the same standards you condemn ABC and withdrawal the fathers would have condemned NFP, because it intentionally frustrates conception. Remeber?

“But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?” - St Jerome

Clearly couples who engage in NFP are having sexual intercourse for reasons other than the “procreation of children.” To the fathers that is clearly sinful. It’s only through retroactively changing the definitions that you could come to any other conclusion.

Ultimately, this is a Catholic thing. You guys allow ABC and so be it. You don’t have to feel threatened or defensive that we consider ABC as sin. Everybody is free to decide on what they do, is it not?

God bless.

It is indeed a Catholic thing. But as I said, let’s not pretend that the Orthodox position is some great departure from the patristic teaching and the Catholic Church’s position is not. The reality is both Churches, through the power to bind and loose, have applied economia in this case and don’t adhere the standards as strictly anymore.

In Christ
Joe

 

[inkaneer]

I don’t dispute the Church’s authority to define it’s own teachings based on the power to bind and loose, but let’s not kid ourselves and pretend it’s not a departure from the clear patristic teaching on the matter. For the fathers the sin was in the frustration of conception, not the method. It’s the Catholic Church that has tried to retroactively justify it’s modern teaching by making the sin the violation of some Aristotelean concept of natural law.

Where is the departure? The patristic teaching was against artificial means of birth control where man would interfere with the natural process of ovulation. In NFP none of this occurrs. Coitus is natural and no outside intervention is employed. NFP does take into account the natural flow of human ovulation but to say it is as sinful as any artificial means implys that God designed the ovulation process as a way to entrap mankind into sin. Somehow that just does not fit the image of an all loving God let alone an all just God…

 

[Bluegoat]

Where is the departure? The patristic teaching was against artificial means of birth control where man would interfere with the natural process of ovulation. In NFP none of this occurrs. Coitus is natural and no outside intervention is employed. NFP does take into account the natural flow of human ovulation but to say it is as sinful as any artificial means implys that God designed the ovulation process as a way to entrap mankind into sin. Somehow that just does not fit the image of an all loving God let alone an all just God…

I think the issue is intent. The Fathers seem to pretty clearly say actual intent, or at least neutral willingness, to allow procreation to occur is a requirement for moral sexual relations. From this POV, I think it would even be fair to say that having non-ABC, non-NFP, regular random sex, with the HOPE that there would be no pregnancy, might be suspect! Certainly some of them speak that strongly on the matter. Clearly NFP fails this test as much as ABC - if there was no intent to avoid pregnancy, one would not be practicing NFP (I am limiting the definition here as intent to avoid, although I know one can use to to concieve as well.)

 

[josephdaniel29]

Where is the departure? The patristic teaching was against artificial means of birth control where man would interfere with the natural process of ovulation. In NFP none of this occurrs. Coitus is natural and no outside intervention is employed. NFP does take into account the natural flow of human ovulation but to say it is as sinful as any artificial means implys that God designed the ovulation process as a way to entrap mankind into sin. Somehow that just does not fit the image of an all loving God let alone an all just God…

No, the patristic teaching was against any sexual act without the intention to conceive. NFP intentionally frustrates conception (and in some cases much more successfully than ABC), therefore it would be sinful as well.

(BTW I’m still waiting to read the patristic support for NFP )

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

No, the patristic teaching was against any sexual act without the intention to conceive. NFP intentionally frustrates conception (and in some cases much more successfully than ABC), therefore it would be sinful as well.

(BTW I’m still waiting to read the patristic support for NFP )

It may not be possible. The early Fathers believed that the sexual act was naturally fecund. There is an acknowledgement that one is less likely to conceive with age, but no idea that women have a cycle wherein it is impossible for them to conceive at a certain time.

WIth medical advances, it has been possible to identify this NATURAL (i.e., God-given) rhythm. The question is, do you work with God (i.e., with nature) to space children, or against Him (i.e., blocking conception at a time when it is ordained by God to be able to conceive).

In any case, you seem to have a very modernist idea of contraception. Contraception, Traditionally speaking, can only be understood in the context of the sexual act. But you say that contraception can occur outside of the sexual act. So as a married person, I am supposedly practicing contraception, and therefore sinning, when I am doing anything other than having sex. Simply wierd. Sorry, that’s not very believable rhetoric.

Wanting to space children as responsible parents using GOD-GIVEN means is not the same thing as not wanting children PERIOD. While the latter might be a contraceptive mentality, the former is not.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

It may not be possible. The early Fathers believed that the sexual act was naturally fecund. There is an acknowledgement that one is less likely to conceive with age, but no idea that women have a cycle wherein it is impossible for them to conceive at a certain time.

WIth medical advances, it has been possible to identify this NATURAL (i.e., God-given) rhythm. The question is, do you work with God (i.e., with nature) to space children, or against Him (i.e., blocking conception at a time when it is ordained by God to be able to conceive).

In any case, you seem to have a very modernist idea of contraception. Contraception, Traditionally speaking, can only be understood in the context of the sexual act. But you say that contraception can occur outside of the sexual act. So as a married person, I am supposedly practicing contraception, and therefore sinning, when I am doing anything other than having sex. Simply wierd. Sorry, that’s not very believable rhetoric.

Wanting to space children as responsible parents using GOD-GIVEN means is not the same thing as not wanting children PERIOD. While the latter might be a contraceptive mentality, the former is not.

Blessings,
Marduk

Two things. First, NFP can be used to not have children period just as effectively as the methods of ABC the Orthodox Church allows. Of course you have spent enough time around the Orthodox here and on other forums to know that we believe using ABC to selfishly avoid having children altogether sinful just as the Catholic Church does. That being the case not sure why you brought it up in a thread discussing questions about Orthodoxy.

Second, your position on NFP is just a modern as ABC. Want proof? Support your position that it’s okay to intentionally frustrate conception from the fathers. I’ll give you a hint, you can’t! That’s because the fathers considered the act of frustrating conception sinful, not the method.

You say that NFP is okay because it is God given and doesn’t violate “natural law” (as though God didn’t create rubber ). That most is certainly a modern interpolation based on the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotelean logic, not in patristic theology.

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Two things. First, NFP can be used to not have children period just as effectively as the methods of ABC the Orthodox Church allows. Of course you have spent enough time around the Orthodox here and on other forums to know that we believe using ABC to selfishly avoid having children altogether sinful just as the Catholic Church does. That being the case not sure why you brought it up in a thread discussing questions about Orthodoxy.

I wasn’t the one who brought up NFP in this thread.

Second, your position on NFP is just a modern as ABC. Want proof? Support your position that it’s okay to intentionally frustrate conception from the fathers. I’ll give you a hint, you can’t! That’s because the fathers considered the act of frustrating conception sinful, not the method.

Your response doesn’t even begin to address my concern. You say NFP is frustrating conception. But NFP is nothing more than abstinence at prescribed periods. So are you saying that abstinence itself is contraception? Are you saying that abstinence is a sin in the context of marriage? Those who practice abstinence to space children have the same mentality as those who practice NFP to space children. So intent is not what distinguishes ABC from NFP/abstinence - it is the means itself which is the distinguishing factor. One method works with nature (i.e., what God has given us), the other opposes nature (i.e., opposes God).

You say that NFP is okay because it is God given and doesn’t violate “natural law” (as though God didn’t create rubber ).

Rubber has infinitely more natural uses than as a contraceptive. You’ve given the “end justifies the means” rhetoric which is modernist to the core.

That most is certainly a modern interpolation based on the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotelean logic, not in patristic theology.

I don’t even know how St. Thomas and Aristotle factor into this.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[inkaneer]

It is indeed a Catholic thing. But as I said, let’s not pretend that the Orthodox position is some great departure from the patristic teaching and the Catholic Church’s position is not. The reality is both Churches, through the power to bind and loose, have applied economia in this case and don’t adhere the standards as strictly anymore.

In Christ
Joe

The Orthodox have the power to bind and loose? Since when? That power is only wielded by General Councils and the universal bishop [the pope]. Orthodox bishops are not empowered to bind and loose any more than Catholic bishops. In fact, heresy is not a stranger to Orthodox bishops.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Orthodox have the power to bind and loose? Since when? That power is only wielded by General Councils and the universal bishop [the pope]. Orthodox bishops are not empowered to bind and loose any more than Catholic bishops. In fact, heresy is not a stranger to Orthodox bishops.

That’s the Catholic opinion.

Your last line, although not denied by the Orthodox, applies equally to Catholics.

 

[mardukm]

The Orthodox have the power to bind and loose? Since when? That power is only wielded by General Councils and the universal bishop [the pope]. Orthodox bishops are not empowered to bind and loose any more than Catholic bishops. In fact, heresy is not a stranger to Orthodox bishops.

Since the Orthodox have valid orders, they have the power to bind and loose. They certainly don’t have the power to bind and loose universally, but only for their local Church.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

That’s the Catholic opinion.

Maybe according to some lay apologists, but that is not the magisterial Catholic position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Maybe according to some lay apologists, but that is not the magisterial Catholic position.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ok, it’s a Catholic’s opinion.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The Orthodox have the power to bind and loose? Since when? That power is only wielded by General Councils and the universal bishop [the pope]. Orthodox bishops are not empowered to bind and loose any more than Catholic bishops. In fact, heresy is not a stranger to Orthodox bishops.

That’s the Catholic opinion.

Your last line, although not denied by the Orthodox, applies equally to Catholics.

True, it does with one exception. That is the successor of Peter, the Pope, who was individually given the power to bind and loose [Mt 16:18,19]. But I am glad to see that you do recognize that the authority to bind and loose does indeed exist But no one person in Orthodoxy has this individual power.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Your response doesn’t even begin to address my concern. You say NFP is frustrating conception. But NFP is nothing more than abstinence at prescribed periods. So are you saying that abstinence itself is contraception? Are you saying that abstinence is a sin in the context of marriage? Those who practice abstinence to space children have the same mentality as those who practice NFP to space children. So intent is not what distinguishes ABC from NFP/abstinence - it is the means itself which is the distinguishing factor. One method works with nature (i.e., what God has given us), the other opposes nature (i.e., opposes God).

It most certainly is more than that. No only is it practicing abstinence during fertile periods It’s also intentionally having sex only when there is little or no chance of procreation. The stated purpose of NFP is to be able to have sex and not conceive. That is what is offensive to patristic teaching.

Rubber has infinitely more natural uses than as a contraceptive. You’ve given the “end justifies the means” rhetoric which is modernist to the core.

And sexual relations only have one use according to the fathers and that is to beget children. As to NFP the means certainly do not mitigate the fact that its objective purpose is to prevent conception while continuing to have sexual relations, an act that the fathers found to be gravely sinful.

BTW am I to take the fact that you haven’t presented patristic evidence in support of NFP as an admission that it doesn’t exist?

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

It most certainly is more than that. No only is it practicing abstinence during fertile periods It’s also intentionally having sex only when there is little or no chance of procreation. The stated purpose of NFP is to be able to have sex and not conceive. That is what is offensive to patristic teaching.

I don’t know where you are getting your definition of NFP. According to the USCCB, “Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy abstain from intercourse and genital contact during the fertile phase of the woman’s cycle.” This is nothing more than what the Greek Orthodox bishops taught in their 1937 encyclical.

Catholic teaching does not promote NFP for the sake of wanton sex during infertile periods. Your rhetoric here is another instance of non-Catholic misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. In other words, a straw man.

And sexual relations only have one use according to the fathers and that is to beget children. As to NFP the means certainly do not mitigate the fact that its objective purpose is to prevent conception while continuing to have sexual relations, an act that the fathers found to be gravely sinful.

Again, your argument would be according to a misinformed understanding of the Catholic teaching. A straw man.

BTW am I to take the fact that you haven’t presented patristic evidence in support of NFP as an admission that it doesn’t exist?

I already responded to this earlier. Why keep repeating it? I stated that in the Fathers’ understanding, the sexual act was naturally fecund. They had no idea about the rhythmic cycles of a woman wherein she was naturaly infertile. So I don’t know why one would expect the Fathers to make any mention of NFP.

I simply don’t understand why you try to belittle the moral correctness of NFP, especially as many of your own bishops promote it. I suspect that this is an invalid tu quoque argument - you are trying to morally mitigate the growing attitude among EO laity that contraception is no longer a sin. To balance the scales, so to speak, it is imperative for you to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is also teaching something inherently wrong. Sorry, but the Catholic teaching is pure and holy (as many EO bishops will admit). Instead of attacking straw men, better to pray that your bishops stand strong and preserve the Traditional teaching on contraception, and not give in to the desires of the many of your laity. Your prayers for the Catholic Church in that regard would also be appreciated.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[inkaneer]

Getting back to this concept of oikonomia. I asked a Russian Orhtodox priest to explain it and He asked me if I ever played the game *Monopoly *when I was a kid. I indeed did. He asked are you familiar with the card that said “Get out of jail free”? I replied I was. He then said, oikonomia was a “get out of sin free” card.