[NOTE : written by the ochlophobist before he apparently went back to Rome. His article, in my opinion however, accurately reflects Orthodox theology and is very balanced. Original source is gone forever as his original ochlophobist blog no longer exists]
Contraception is a rhetorical corner Orthodox are often backed into. It is a difficult, and gravely important issue. I have been asked by several persons, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, to write a post on Orthodoxy and contraception. Hence this post. Please note that I am not an Orthodox bishop. Therefore what you read here is not in any way to be taken as authoritative Orthodox teaching. What follows in this series of posts are the occasional observations and opinions of a schmuck with a rational fear of crowds (all fear of crowds is rational as far as I am concerned).
1. I want to get Catholic polemics out of the way so that I might deal with the meat of this issue.
Catholic polemicists tend to take two rhetorical paths with regard to Orthodoxy and contraception: Orthodoxy is pro-contraception, or Orthodoxy has some bishops and some theologians who are pro-contraception and others who are not – divisiveness on an important moral issue – showing that they need a pope.
No bishop in Orthodoxy has ever issued a formal pro-contraception statement or pastoral letter. Every Orthodox jurisdiction that officially says anything about contraception teaches that contraception is sinful or imperfect. Yes, Meyendorf and Evdokimov wrote that contraception was to be allowed in some situations. But there is an irony here. That is, Charles Curran (still a RC priest, still dissenting) and his 600+ theologian friends who publicly dissented from Humanae Vitae. Or, the Winnipeg Statement, and the direct public response it got from Rome (read: none). Orthodox have bishops and theologians who disagree with certain aspects of Humanae Vitae (henceforth HV) and certain aspects of Veritatis Splendor’s affirmation of HV.
This does not mean that they are pro-contraception. This certainly does not act as a sign of Orthodoxy’s need for a pope. The RCC has a pope who has plenty of bishops and clergy who disagree with HV. They do not seem to ever get disciplined for dissent from HV alone. When RCs have a pope who will crack down on dissent from HV, they can be granted a few rhetorical points. Having shown your RC polemicist friend that there is actually a higher percentage of RC theologians and bishops who have written public statements contrary to HV than there are Orthodox theologians and bishops who have done so, the RC may move on to the “but you have no pope through which to know the truth, you have no moral anchor, you are without the keys” Papal/Divine Medium talk.
At that point simply nod a little bit, smile, and slowly back away. The fact is that when it comes to doctrine and discipline RCs have only three points of attack against us: our rejection of VatI dogma regarding the papacy, and our different disciplines regarding contraception and divorce. Go read Vat I on the papal office. Then consider the fact that our popeless Church, according to neo-Cath thought, gets only two substantial things wrong (aside from being popeless): our discipline regarding contraception and ourdiscipline regarding divorce. Good grief friends, does that scenario not beg questions?
2. A clarification needs to be made before beginning a discussion on contraception.
Reasonable Christians disagree as to the appropriate discipline with regard to non-abortive contraceptions. Reasonable Christians do not disagree with regard to abortifacient methods of contraception.
Thus, in this series of posts the question I will be dealing with is whether or not Orthodox may/should use barrier methods of contraception under certain circumstances. All Orthodox, all Christians, and all men of good will are either ignorant regarding or opposed to other forms of contraception. I am well aware of the debate which raged within Evangelicalism and conservative Christian circles in the 1990′s over the use of “the pill.” Some young trendy Evangelical doctors argued that though the pill was shown to create an atmosphere in the womb in which, when conception did occur (and it can occur while using the pill), an abortion would likely take place, these same doctors argued that science had never proven that they did take place, and that things such as hot salsa could cause a very early miscarriage, thus one is not culpable if the pill happens, on occasion, to cause a miscarriage. I am not going to debate this here. I consider such arguments hogwash, and given that there are significant other reasons to dismiss the pill as a viable Christian option (the health of the mother, especially, as the pill has been shown to cause all sorts of short and long term health problems in women), I have decided to only consider barrier methods in these posts on contraception.
3. The best general short summary of the Orthodox Church’s position with regard to contraception is this one, found in OCA websitedom:
The control of the conception of a child by any means is also condemned by the Church if it means the lack of fulfillment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc. Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.
I will be referring to this OCA statement again and again, both directly and via inference (which I have already done), in this series of posts. Please take careful note of the language of this statement. It does not endorse a strict judicial rejection of every use of contraception. Nor does it give any easy permissions. In order to better follow my “Orthodoxy and contraception” line of thought, you would be well suited to read this statement several times and be familiar with its precise language.
4. Contraception and Law. Whether one likes it or not, contraception is a judicial issue. All of the major players in the contraception debate wish to adjudicate the matter (whether they admit this or not).
Here in America contraception plays a significant role in recent judicial History. In the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision, the majority ruled that the Constitution protects a right to privacy, specifically a right to marital privacy. But the radical “right to privacy” logic along with the adoption of justice John Marshall Harlan II’s überbroad understanding of due process as articulated in his famous Poe v. Ullman 1961 dissent,changed the relationship between the state and the public moral life of citizens from that point on.
[Note: purchasing contraception is a public act. Procuring the murder of your unborn child from a practitioner of death, even if done in a back alley, is a public act. For that matter, each and every murder, even that of a mother acting alone in killing her own unborn baby, is a public act.]
In a few short years Griswold would lead to Eisenstadt v. Baird 1972, which extended the “right” to contraception to unmarried persons, and then as Wikipedia succinctly puts it,
“The reasoning and language of both Griswold and Eisenstadt were cited in support of the Court’s result in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which extended the ‘right of privacy’ to cover abortion.”
The judicial link in this country between a “right” to contracept and a “right” to abort is clear and direct. The same pattern of judicial precedent and rhetorical strategy on the part of baby murderers is seen in most Western nations. First contracept, then abort. Whether or not one thinks that contraception and abortion are related by necessity, one should shudder at the fact that the two are essentially inseparable from a political and sociological point of view. Most new forms of contraceptions which have been released in the past two decades, and most of those currently being prepared for public use, are abortifacient. There is an industry of contraception in developed countries, just as there is an industry of abortion. The two industries are very closely related. They use the same lobbyists, they are both vehicles of the pansexual consumerist deathworks, and the contraception industry helps to finance the abortion industry. For instance, Church & Dwight, Inc., makers of many consumer products including Arm & Hammer baking soda and Trojan condoms, the largest manufacturer of barrier contraceptives, is a donor to Planned Parenthood, and has worked along side PP in various political activities. Aside from Church & Dwight’s support of the death industry, simply take a visit to the Trojan website and see if you can find anything remotely acceptable to the Christian conscience. The site is a shrine to pansexualist deity, perhaps Aphrodite wearing a new nihilist dress.
In the news section adolescently labeled “The Rising Times,” recent headlines include:The Makers of Trojan Condoms visit Mardi Gras and Gay Pride Parade Gets Free Samples from the Makers of Trojan Condoms. Christians need to take careful consideration of who it is that they are associating themselves with, financially, politically, socially, and perhaps even spiritually, when they purchase a box of condoms. Many may object to my use of the word “spiritually” in the last sentence. But it should be clear to any Christian of sound mind that condom manufacturers promote and teach a spirituality of sex that is not Christian. Some persons may be able to purchase a box of condoms and completely disassociate themselves from that spirituality, just as in St. Paul’s day some could in good conscience purchase meat which had been offered to idols. But others may not be able to do such things in good conscience or free from demonic influence.
As Orthodox Christians we are taught that we need to be vigilantly aware of what is influencing us – body, soul, and spirit. In an age and place in which pansexualism isthe anti-Christian religion, it should go without saying that Christians need to be very, very careful and alert with regard to any consumption of sex related products and devices. All that said, the fact that contraceptive manufacturers are clearly associated with pansexualism and the current cult of death does not mean, in and of itself, that barrier contraceptives are “intrinsically evil” as the Catholic Catechism says (2370).
In Orthodox circles there are a few who firmly reject everything Rome has to say on the matter of contraception along the lines of Rome being (typically) too judicial and legalistic on the matter. In my opinion these arguments don’t carry enough weight. I agree with the general Orthodox take on Rome’s excessive legalism, especially with the central locus of überadjudication in the papal office. But frankly I think that the best arguments against Rome’s strict anti-contraception stance have to do with the manner in which Rome arrives at that conclusion. Rome uses a natural theology, via a “theology of the body” or some other such theological mechanism, to arrive at its theology of human sexuality.
[I am inclined to think that most of what is called “theology of the body” today is so popular and theologically vague, even imprecise, as to be rendered useless by Orthodox. While JPII’s theology of the body in the original texts is not popular (it might even be called esoteric, in the current sense of the word), it remains theologically vague, which is the curse of all personalist theologies which are derivative of Husserl and Scheler. The “theology of the body” is one of these many contemporary theological manifestations of the “Incarnational theology” fetish. If one takes issue with this or that point in such a theology, its proponent will normally suggest that one is “anti-Incarnational.” When a Western “Incarnational theology” advocate suggests that an informed Eastern Orthodox believer is anti-Incarnational we have a situation which is rich in humor. Every dogmatic point concerning the Incarnation was made using Greek patristic theological language. The entire project of Eastern Orthodox theology is intended to answer the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” Do not fret that Orthodox theology is not always in keeping with the latest philosophical/theological fads. In a few more decades it will be the “theology of something else.”]
In my opinion, these theologies of the body tend to lack a primacy of emphasis on the soteriology of the human person and the teleology of the human person.Theologies of the body do have a focus upon a sort of natural teleology of the body, but that is found to be lacking from an Orthodox perspective. From an Orthodox point of view, what a given act is naturally intended for is not the question. The question is, what is the person intended for? The answer is, theosis. Then with contraception the question becomes, in what way(s) might contraception help or hinder theosis? The answer to this question will not be couched in legal terms, as Orthodox frame it (given a modern biological framework). When it comes to how contraception affects the human spirit, things do tend to get legalistic and even deterministic when a theology of the body is employed. The intuition of this legalism on the part of some Orthodox causes them to reject Rome’s teaching regarding contraception wholesale. Which, in the end, is fine and predictable, as Rome’s teaching on contraception is not put forth in the theological language which the Orthodox Church speaks. But one must be careful here… Rome’s legalism is not the only legalism in town. The pansexualists are also very, very concerned with legally requiring you and I to accept their terms and practices.
The radical pansexualists would legally require us to embrace their terms and practices.Just as Rome seeks to influence both Church and society at large with regard to sexual issues, the pansexualists seek to influence society at large and the Church regarding sexual issues. Pansexualism is also a natural theology of sorts and has successfully sought to enculturate its theology on a universal (secular-catholic) level. One must be careful, when rejecting Rome’s legalistic terms, not to become a pawn of another legalism, one which is today far more perverse and pervasive. Some Orthodox will here point out that pansexualism’s legalism is part and parcel of the legalism which pervades the West. Sure. Fine. It really doesn’t matter on a practical level (frankly, I would rather live next door to a Roman Catholic who viewed contraception in an abstractly legalistic manner than a pansexualist fanatic who would like the state to force me to send my kids to a pansexualist public school, but perhaps some Orthodox think otherwise)[Amen – RAS] .
Our first concern should be that we respect and defend the freedom and dignity of the human image from all attack, especially all determinisms. This means that we must view the formation and growth of the human conscience in terms which are free, relational, and a matter of submission to persons and not institutions or committees which promote abstract moral determinisms, while at the same time being constantly aware of the demonic pull of idolatrous spiritualities which would bind the human person to a disproportionate attention to certain acts of the flesh, thus perversely transforming him into a Ringwraith of lust (to borrow an image from Tolkien). This is exactly the dilemma of Orthodox with regard to the “legal” aspect of contraception. Even if we agree with Rome’s conclusion on the matter, we generally do not agree with how she got there or where she takes that conclusion canonically and with regard to (in theory but not in practice) discipline. And, of course, we do not want any part of pansexualist determinism.
Thus, we need to find a way to approach this matter that is authentically Orthodox. As with most things Orthodox, there will not be a quick slogan or one liner which sums up the Orthodox “position” on contraception, though as with the OCA statement, we can articulate it in a clear manner. This means that how we approach this issue will be difficult for most Americans to stomach*. Nonetheless, it is important that we apply the Orthodox ethos to this difficult question, that we take the question of contraception and Church it, so that those Orthodox who must come to terms with contraception may do so with a well informed and blessed conscience, as servants and handmaidens of God, who offer the whole of their lives to the service of God’s Kingdom.
*A person may ask, “why is it that the Orthodox can give an immediate, short, and clear answer with regard to the question of abortion, but not to the question of contraception?” The answer lies in large part with biological considerations (which I will address in the section on Contraception and the Fathers in this series, which will deal with the differences between Aristotelian and modern biology). But there is also the matter of Orthodox teleology. In Orthodoxy, the telos of a given act (if acts of the will can even be said to have a telos, as some moderns posit) is always to be subject to the telos of the person. Likewise, within Orthodoxy the telos of the person is not determined by the perceived telosof the acts appropriate to that person. Orthodoxy is not bottom up in its anthropology. Thus the logic: sex is meant, finally, for procreation; as a married man I am to have sex; thus my sexual activity is meant, finally, for procreation – does not work in Orthodoxy. Within Orthodoxy the “telos” of the given act is derivative of the telos of the person or persons involved. I am finally meant for salvation. My wife is finally meant for salvation. As two who have become one our marriage is to serve us as we are , finally, being saved. Sex within our marriage is to serve our telos. We are not meant to serve the “telos” of a given act. Thus God’s soteriological personalism frees us from natural determinisms. This does not mean that we ignore or reject nature, quite the contrary. God intends to save me as a man, and to save my wife as a woman, and our salvation must be worked out in its proper course. But my sex and what is natural to it is meant to serve me, I am not meant to serve it. Thus, abortion always violates thetelos of a person, whereas non-abortifacient birth control does not, if one accepts a modern biology with regard to then what must be the ontological status of sperm and egg (unless one can show that the use of any contraceptive necessarily involves a willful sin such as lust, greed, selfishness, etc. to such a degree that it perverts the goodness of the sexual act, in which case non-abortifacient birth control would violate the telos of the persons involved because it would involve a sinful state contrary to salvation). When someone who accepts modern biology says that non-abortifacient contraception is unnatural, they are referring to the telos of an action, primarily, and not a person, or they refer to a person only in the sense in which their telos is subject to the “telos” of the action.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.