The Fathers against Contraception
By Ronald M. Criss
Though the plethora of Orthodox churches are by no means united on the issue, an official document of the Russian Orthodox Church states that while abortifacient methods of contraception (i.e., ones that may cause abortion, like most birth-control pills and IUDs) are completely unacceptable, other methods can be used with spiritual counsel, taking into account "the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances".[1]
According to a document published by the Orthodox Church of America, “Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a fetus already conceived.”[2]
As most people are well aware, the Catholic Church has always unreservedly condemned all forms of artificial contraception. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
“Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
“Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle. . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.”[3]
“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”[4]
In a previous article we showed how the Protestant allowance of unlimited divorces and re-marriages and the allowance of up to two “ecclesiastical divorces” and up to three marriages in the Orthodox churches was contrary to Scripture and tradition. Orthodox apologists like to say that they, and not the Catholic Church, are the true representatives of the Church Fathers, but what do the Church Fathers actually have to say about contraception?
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children, 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if anyone, on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 6:20 [A.D. 3o7]).
"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Council of Nicaea I: canon l [A.D. 325]).
"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Epiphanius, Medicine Chest Against Heresies, 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).
"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (John Chrysostom , Homilies on Matthew, 28:5 [A.D. 391]).
"[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5 :12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and be impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (John Chrysostom, ibid. 62:3).
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], 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. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 24 [A.D. 391]).
"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers . . . 'I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5:12] .... On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: 'For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition." If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated' [Titus 3:10]. Where then are those who dare to mutilate [sterilize] themselves, seeing that they drawn down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" (John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians, 5:12 [A.D. 395]).
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] 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 women 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" (John Chrysostom, Sermons, 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
These examples should be enough to illustrate the fact that it is the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox churches or the Protestant sects that in fact most closely represents the received tradition from the Church Fathers, indeed the teaching that even the Orthodox and Protestants both retained until the 20th Century. Indeed the words of Pope Paul VI have proved to be quite prophetic:
“Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men -- especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point -- have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”[5]
Cool Ron. Thanks for posting this. I sure agree with Rome on this issue, and now it looks like I agree with the Church Fathers. I don't know why there would not be unanimous consent amongst the Orthodox. I need to start asking. [Malachi 2:15 ~ "Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth."]
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback, and an interesting verse.
ReplyDeleteVery well done. It does seem that the Catholic Church has carried the tradition of the Fathers unchanged on this issue straight through to the current day. Thanks for sharing this.
ReplyDeleteYes, and the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants taught the exact same thing up to the 20th Century. The Orthodox still condemn abortion without realizing how contraception feeds into that, and, sadly, many Protestant sects have gone further down the slippery slope to approving abortion and euthanasia. It just illustrates why an unchanging "Rock" of authority is necessary in this world.
ReplyDeleteRon
There is no dogma about non-abortive contraception in Orthodoxy as there is in Roman Catholicism. It is for us a pastoral issue (economia) rather than a dogmatic one.
ReplyDelete"Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health" (Harakas, S., "The Stand of the Orthodox Church on Controversial Issues").
Note reference to the understanding of the biology of reproduction. This is the real issue of difference, not the notion that only one group is truly faithful to the fathers and all the rest are graceless heretics.
Often explicit in the writings of the ancients and early fathers, was the view that the male seed contained a complete human being in germinal form (cf. Aristotle and many early fathers). That is also what is behind the biblical statements that persons were "in the loins of their fathers." It was not until the 20th century that geneticists discovered half of the genetic material contributed to a new human being originates from the mother and male seed did not contain a complete human being in germinal form like an acorn or a pecan. The ancients had no category whatsoever to even frame a position on our contemporary category of "non-abortive contraceptives" pro or con. The destruction of male seed in the ancients was often presented as the murder of a human being. That is why many of the fathers opposed it -they believed it was murder (on false premises). To lift quotations from the fathers without recognition of their view of biology and cite them as commenting on a contemporary disagreement they lacked the science to even comprehend is anachronistic and triumphalistic.
Most Orthodox Christians and Protestants today hold abortion-inducing contraception is wrong. Almost all Protestants and many Orthodox have a different view of non-abortive contraceptions. Sometimes zealous Roman Catholic apologists make claims like those found here that the matter was settled by the fathers, and those who are unconvinced by the position of the modern Roman Catholic Magesterium regarding non-abortive contraceptives are not being faithful to the teaching of the fathers. But we are completely faithful to the fathers in maintaining to this day that abortion inducing contraception is still murder and still wrong, but not all contraception is murder as the ancients believed. The ancients were not infallible as to biology (neither is there any trace of even the germ of what developed into the 19th century dogma of papal infallibility in the first Christian millennium according to Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves Congar, but that is another discussion).
Aside from the question of who is morally right, the appeal to the fathers by triumphalist apologetics is silly and unconvincing, and it is unfortunate that dialog on the morality degrades to what in the final analysis amounts to a diatribe of fundamentalist-style prooftexting without due attention to context.
-David
David, "economia" is essentially church approval of sin. The suggestion that the Fathers misunderstood biology or that they opposed artificial contraception because of abortion cannot be proved or substantiated. It is simply an excuse, like economia, for abandoning the apostolic doctrine. The opinion of the Fathers is clear. The Catholic Church, and not the Orthodox churches who pretend to be the Church of the Fathers, is the true bearer of Patristic orthodoxy. As with divorce, the Orthodox have been influenced by secular opinions.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite true that not all Orthodox churches approve of birth control pills and condoms. This is simply more evidence that there is no monolithic Orthodox Church, but rather many, many ethnic and nationalist sects who may or may not be in communion and may or may not have common doctrine.
Ronald wrote: "The suggestion that the Fathers misunderstood biology or that they opposed artificial contraception because of abortion cannot be proved or substantiated."
ReplyDeleteRegrettably Ronald is flat out incorrect here (though thanks for his reply). Following are a couple of examples from Ronald's quotations where contraception was very clearly believed to be murder/abortion, which he claimed "cannot be proven or substantiated" (caps added for emphasis):
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] 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." (John Chrysostom, Sermons, 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
"[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5 :12]. And very reasonably, for SUCH A PERSON IS VENTURING ON THE DEEDS OF MURDERERS... (John Chrysostom, ibid. 62:3).
My earlier statement clearly stands: "That is why many of the fathers opposed it -they believed it was murder (on false premises). To lift quotations from the fathers without recognition of their view of biology and cite them as commenting on a contemporary disagreement they lacked the science to even comprehend is anachronistic and triumphalistic." We fully agree in with St. John that contraception if and insofar as it involves murder is wrong, but only in very recent times have we known scientifically that not all contraception involves murder. An embryo is a complete person; spermazoa or an egg is not. The extent of ancient knowledge did not reveal this distinction to the fathers. This is not a claim to be proved or substantiated (as Ronald put it), but a matter of historical record Ronald's reply simply sidesteps. It is in good faith, not some nefarious purpose, as Ronald has insinuated, to "approve sin" that we stand by our earlier remark: "It was not until the 20th century that geneticists discovered half of the genetic material contributed to a new human being originates from the mother and male seed did not contain a complete human being in germinal form like an acorn or a pecan. The ancients had no category whatsoever to even frame a position on our contemporary category of "non-abortive contraceptives" pro or con." Ancient embryology, as seems adopted by the fathers, does not have anything close to our concepts from the perspective of modern embryology. To say this is not simply being, in Ronald's words, "secular," but being true to the facts. As it happens, for most of history abortifacients were the only method of contraception allowing that included for the ancients barrier methods due to the belief that semen was an embryo.
Ronald's Roman Catholic tradition does not build the dogmatic case for Humanae Vitae upon such things in any case. Contraception is in his tradition a natural law teaching, so-called. Natural law tradition is something that any person of goodwill and intelligence should be able to reach.
As to the rest, his notions that Orthodox approve sin, abandon the fathers, lack common doctrine, use economia "as an excuse" etc., he is simply mistaken, and either betrays basic ignorance of the Orthodox Church, or is devolving into polemics. There are legitimate critiques of our Church as there are of his, but there is a difference between caricature and demonization and irenic reply. Perhaps I have formed a wrong first impression and we'll end with lively and fruitful discussion? In either case (considering today's date) on this Ronald and I can agree: "Christ is in our midst"; Merry Christmas!
David, your first quote from Chrysostom referred to abortifacient potions. At this point the Orthodox still consider abortion to be murder. This too may change with the winds of secular opinion. Neither of your quote suggest that sterilization is equivalent to murder. They simply point out what the popes have highlighted, that contraception and abortion are part of the same mentality of the culture of death. You have, as usual, cherry-picked the words of the Fathers in vain while ignoring their clear condemnation of the Orthodox doctrine:
ReplyDelete"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children, 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).
Economia is the excuse of sins condemned by the Fathers and Scripture. That is irrefutable. See again my article on The Fathers Against Contraception for citations.
Ronald wrote: "Neither quote suggest that sterilization is equivalent to murder."
ReplyDeleteWhat? In the second quotation a man who sterilizes himself is "venturing on the deeds of the murderers."
"[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5 :12]. And very reasonably, for SUCH A PERSON IS VENTURING ON THE DEEDS OF MURDERERS... (John Chrysostom, ibid. 62:3).
The first quotation also refers to prevention of conception, not just abortion, as homicide: "As often as she could have conceived or given birth, OF THAT MANY HOMICIDES SHE WILL BE HELD GUILTY..."
Ronald wrote: "Economia is the excuse of sins condemned by the Fathers and Scripture. That is irrefutable."
Can you can cite a primary source from the Orthodox Church saying economia is the excuse of sins? I'm beginning to think we cannot take you as a serious person.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Oikonomia
"That is irrefutable" [???] Assertions without demonstration or evidence do not need to be refuted if they are little more than the product of someone's overactive imagination, which is the only basis I can discern for your inflammatory claims about the Orthodox Church.
Ronald wrote "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children, 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).
This quotation is not about "preventing" and "avoiding" pregnancy but about wasting seed. That is exactly the intention of a Roman Catholic couple practicing natural family planning (NFP) have sex during an infertile period with the intention not to conceive a child (or to space their children). The NFP couple are practicing exactly what Clement counsels against -they have the intention of wasting the husband's seed. Any wasting of seed would be the equivalent of murder under Clement's view that angels implant a soul into the seed *before* conception.