The Orthodox Position on Contraception
I’m reading a few books at the moment, but the one I’d like to mention today is Orthodox Christianity, Marriage & Contraception by Anthony Stehlin. I’m only about a third of the way through it so far, but I really wanted to do a short post concerning something mentioned in the first chapter….
A few months ago I decided to join an Eastern Orthodox online forum to try and soak up some more eastern knowledge. I actually found the group incredibly hostile to Catholics (especially Eastern Catholics), but that’s a post for another time.
Members of the group stated again and again that teaching in Eastern Orthodoxy has never changed, something which they contrasted to the supposed deviations of Catholicism. In response to this, I asked the group about the Eastern Orthodox position concerning contraception…
What happened in Lambeth?
You see, in times past, all Christian groups condemned contraception. This is attested to in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Even the fathers of the Protestant Reformation were virulently anti-contraception. In fact, you have to wait until 20th Century to find any Christian commendation of contraception. In 1930, following the Lambeth Conference, narrow accommodations were made by the Anglican Church to allow limited use of contraception:
“Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience”
– Resolution 15, Lambeth Conference
Following this small crack in the dam, it wasn’t long before the restrictions were discarded and, denomination-by-denomination, the rest of Protestantism came to embrace contraception.
What happened in Eastern Orthodoxy?
In response to my question about contraception on the Orthodox forum, I received a variety of replies (which I may discuss some other time), but it was emphatically denied that Eastern Orthodoxy had grown weak on this issue or that there had been any deviation in teaching.
In response to this, there was evidence that I was tempted to use, but I couldn’t quote the exact sources. Thankfully, in the first chapter of Anthony’s book, he gives the exact example of which I was thinking, together with citations. The example surrounds Timothy Ware’s book, The Orthodox Church, an extremely well respected book in Eastern Orthodox circles. The alterations which have been made through the various revisions tell us an interesting story, and paints a rather troubling picture concerning recent developments within Eastern Orthodoxy:
1963 Version
“Artificial methods of contraception are forbidden in the Orthodox Church”
1984 Version
“The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father”
1993 Version
“Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences”
Regardless of how one views contraception, I think we must at least all agree that there has been a considerable shift in the Eastern Orthodox position over the last fifty years.
Well, there has certainly been a considerable shift in Timothy / Bishop Kallistos’ opinion in any case. And the priests he hangs out with. No different than the pro-contraception Catholic priests I interacted with growing up – and they were legion.
Hey Al, welcome to RestlessPilgrim.net!
From looking at the text, it appears to be more a reflection on the shift in official Orthodox teaching, rather than the Bishop’s own opinion.
The difference as I see it is that the Catholic dissenter is exactly that, dissenting from the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, in accord with the Fathers, teaches that contraception is a grave disorder of the conjugal act. This teaching will not change, no matter how unpopular it is.
I think this is an area where Orthodox-Catholic understanding breaks down fairly regularly.
Orthodoxy unequivocally condemns contraception regardless of what some Synod says about it. You will look long and hard to find any acceptance of contraception in Orthodox thought prior to, say, 1965. Thus it’s heretical regardless of how badly many Orthodox theologians want to get invited to cooler parties. =)
Likewise, and somewhat interestingly, Catholic thought on birth control has stayed firm on the artificial side… but gotten very, very squishy on the NFP/natural side. I was taught via catechism growing up (born in 1973) that NFP could ONLY be used with ‘grave’ reasons, and that without such it was a mortal sin.
Now we have the unfortunate belief that NFP can never be contraceptive, with the implication that any such shortcoming in its use is more of (to use. Thomas Aquinas’ terminology) an imperfection vs. a sin.
This is disturbing because it ignores the reality that 1) many Catholics are using NFP as de facto birth control, including the not-uncommon practice of permanently limiting births after X number of children, and 2) it creates confusion morally by claiming that a non-act can’t really be sinful.
The former point is ease to prove – just go to your local conservative (NOT traditional!) Catholic church and ask around. The latter point hails the demotion of sins of omission, which were highly stressed back in pre-V2 days but which have fallen out of favor in the past 20-30 years.
IMHO you are blurring the lines between official church teaching and what lax clergy and lay people believe/practice.
Official Catholic teaching always has been and continues to be that contraception is grave/mortal sin.
Official Easter Orthodox teaching changed to allow for contraception.
Just one reason I am Catholic and not Orthodox.
What good then, is a synod if it isn’t binding?
But NFP isn’t contraception. It isn’t taking an act which is fertile and sterilizing it.
Do you think that has changed?
This hasn’t been my experience. Most presentations of NFP I’ve encountered will usually make a point that NFP can be used with a contraceptive mindset and this isn’t allowed.
Do you have some statistics to confirm this, or is it just your impression?
I’m afraid I’m not quite sure what you mean by this.
It cannot be denied that the vast majority of Catholics not only reject the Church’s teaching against contraception (which is confirmed in polls/surveys) but also reject the Church’s teaching that NFP can only be used for grave reasons. All you have to do is look in the pews and see how few large families there are, or study the average number of children in Catholic families. Even in devout parishes, the average number of children born to a husband and wife is far less then in places like Africa where the infant death is much higher.
The main issue at hand is a common problem in the Catholic Church: Failure to teach that the commandments of God must be incorporated into the heart and be motivated by a unadulterated love of Christ, rather than merely following the letter of the law; as such, with birth control, it really comes down to a trust issue: Do I trust God even with my family size (and timing) or do I not? If one has given one’s life completely to God, and is truly a piece of clay being molded by The Potter, then one can never say “no” to God – Our response to anything God might have for us, no matter how difficult or costly, must be the response of the Blessed Virgin; “Be it done unto me according to Thy word.” And since the primary purpose of marriage and the procreative act is of course procreation, it is obvious that “natural family planning” is neither natural nor in accordance with God’s design.
“And this again you do. You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand. You ask, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made[g] and sustained for us the spirit of life?[h] And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth.”
Malachi 2:13-15
The failure of modern Orthodox leadership clearly teach that contraception is intrinsically evil was the primary reason I could not become Orthodox, but instead knew I had to enter the Catholic Church.
Hey Kevin, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
As you point out, most Orthodox have actually departed from historic teaching on this matter. While the Catholic Church, although often inadequately taught to the faithful, still teach the truth about sex and marriage.
While it’s true that many who claim to be Catholic dismiss the Church’s teachings and have small families due to selfishness, what you need to keep in mind is that you have no idea, just looking around your parish, who they are. Many of us have small families due to: secondary infertility; series of miscarriages; ectopic pregnancy; severe physical limitations (which you can’t tell by looking); mental health struggles; lack of support, etc etc. Look up “pelvic organ prolapse” and read comment sections on websites about healing it and consider how common it is and how debilitating. You cannot tell these women to just keep getting pregnant. Look up how common miscarriage is and realize that many of these small families you disdain might have several missing babies. How about cancer? A friend of mine just had to have her ovaries removed due to cancer. How dare you judge her for not having any more kids.
You do not know how much women like me have wept, wishing we could have more babies. We do not need your ignorant condemnation on top of our suffering and bereavement.
And don’t be so quick to congratulate big family on their faithfulness. They might have a baby addiction, they might greet every baby with a groan, they might be ignoring their kids’ formation . They might be having sex recklessly and not faithfully considering whether adding to their family is even wise. You don’t know.
As for you, if you’re sitting at Mass counting other people’s kids and judging them, you may have a bigger problem than even those who use contraception.
My remark was directed at Kevin, not the restless pilgrim.
I am seriously considering Eastern Orthodoxy, but this is one thing that is holding me back……I agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. Otherwise, I’d become Orthodox.
Heya, welcome to Restless Pilgrim! What is attracting you to Eastern Orthodoxy?
Hey Catholic but Questioning: Please read my commentary above. And if you have more questions, let me know and I’m happy to answer them as a lifelong traditionalist Catholic who converted to Orthodox a couple years ago after several years of researching the different perspectives of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Just like in Catholicism, there are large swaths of people in the pews who don’t live up to the teachings of the Church. But Orthodoxy unequivocally condemns contraception.
The bigger issue you should consider – which just about everyone glosses over to my ongoing mystification – is salvation.
If you’re Catholic, and a traditional one, then all non-baptized people (with very, very few exceptions) go to Hell. Including children and infants.
I can’t seem to get Catholics to engage with this. Admittedly, those children go to “nice” Hell without pain, but are explicitly defined as being in Hell as per Lyons, Florence and Trent. And it also means that there are a lot of 9 and 10 year old in anguish in horrible Hell, since actual sin without baptism (all non-Christians, most evangelicals who don’t baptism until one makes a “decision for Christ”, etc.) leads to the fires of Hell as per Catholic teaching.
Orthodoxy not only affirms the Fathers but is much more reasonably and evocative of God’s mercy by acknowledging that God is in fact merciful and that we don’t know the status of the vast majority of people’s final destination.
I think that’s a rather hard statement to back up. Timothy Ware’s assessment doesn’t reflect this.
We can hope for the salvation of others, but we know the normative means of salvation are the sacraments which were given to the Church by Christ.
If you’d like to present your case here, I’d happily dialogue about it for a bit. It seems to me that you’re reading Catholic sources in a rather blunt fashion but then allowing for greater nuance in those of Orthodoxy. For example, if I asked an Orthodox priest “Is baptism necessarily for salvation?” surely he would say “Yes!”? Could I therefore make similar statements to those you make about the Orthodox Church’s assessment of unbaptized children?
Wow so you used to be trad….as in TLM exclusively?
Catholic but questioning: I was exclusively TLM and/or Eastern Rite. Prior to my conversion, I hadn’t attended the Novus Ordo for about 15 years. The NO is a completely new style of liturgy that is Protestantized to the extreme. It’s only gotten worse since I stopped attending, based on the (very) rare occasions where I’ve been required to attend a NO wedding or funeral.
I find this interesting because so many Trads take “extra eclesiam nulla salus” very literally!
Wow I’d love to read your conversion story.
If you’d like, we can chat offline. Trying to think of a way for us to communicate without it being public =D If you have a throwaway email address, you can share it here. Or I can try to find one. It’s probably easier to chat over the phone or Skype than for me to type it out, especially since my journey is a relatively long one.
Let me know if you want to give it a try. And keep praying and searching!
I will do that….. set up an anonymous email.
I’m happy to let this correspondence continue on my blog, but I would encourage you Catholic but questioning to take what orthros says to a knowledgeable Catholic for rebuttal. I have asked several questions concerning his assertions, but have not yet received a response.
I thought the Catholic idea of “limbo” was just that…an idea. It was never official dogma, IIRC.
Here’s the whole story.
Your comment about infants going to hell is incorrect. See the Catechism’s definition of “invincible ignorance.”
If you cannot differentiate between official teaching and the words of misguided priests, you might as well abandon religion all together. All faiths have misguided clergy. If it debunks Catholic teach that some priests are misguided, then it debunks all religions. It is an irrelevant point. The official Orthodox teaching on the subject has changed. It is also not the same among all Orthodox churches which should be alarming you. How can the “one true church” have varying teachings on issues of morality?
Many things are attracting me to Orthodoxy. I’ve been doing a lot of reading.
Can you give me an example? Additionally, have you explored the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church? I too was greatly attracted to Orthodoxy, particularly Liturgy and theological expression… but union with Rome was just too important for me to abandon Peter’s successor. There were also issues within Orthodoxy which caused concern, but these were less significant when compared to the positive case for communion with the keeper of “the keys”.
In fairness to CbQ, the Eastern Rites are Catholics playing dress-up at Orthodoxy. If you’re Catholic, be Catholic which really means Roman. 99%+ of Catholicism is Western, and the Easterners are slighted to the point of complete irrelevance.
Catholic but Questioning: Google “John Ireland” and “Alexis Toth” if you want more information about how the Unia is seen within traditional Catholicism – and know that they are seen as traitors within Orthodoxy, so they are essentially outcasts in both faiths. Post-V2 Catholicism is 180 degrees more welcoming, but at the cost of losing anything that’s even remotely traditional.
V2’s treatment of Uniates is a perfect example of “the operation was a complete success, and the patient died”.
Well, that’s not insulting at all…
Utter nonsense.
Not my experience in the slightest.
What is this “cost” of which you speak?
Not exactly a shining moment in the western Church…but what do you think that this proves?
(Incidentally, this story was retold each year at my old parish’s yearly catechesis series).
Pilgrim, the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are a theological inconsistency of epic proportions. Almost all of them are Churches that spent centuries (in some cases, even a thousand years or more) outside the Catholic Church, and then were later accepted back into the Catholic Church… *complete with* all the liturgical and disciplinary developments that occurred during the time of separation, all the spiritual writings and pastoral instructions that were composed, *and all the canonized saints* that lived while those Churches were separated from Rome.
So, as a result, the Catholic Church has canonized saints who were never in their lives in communion with Rome. Which is at the heart of the theological inconsistency. If it’s possible to become a saint (!!) without being in communion with Rome, then what exactly is the point of communion with Rome?
By retroactively endorsing everything that these Churches did while they were separated (including canonizations), the Vatican is effectively saying, at the same time, that communion with Rome is essential but also that it actually doesn’t matter.
If you truly believe that communion with Rome is essential, then you should condemn and reject most of the things that were written by the now-united Eastern Churches while they were out of communion with Rome, you should condemn most of the clergy who lived during the time of separation as schismatics who taught false teachings, and you should de-canonize all the saints who died outside of communion with Rome. A hard pill to swallow (and political suicide), but a logical necessity.
Unless you wish to say that communion with Rome isn’t important after all. In which case we would agree and welcome you with open arms.
I’m not quite sure why we’ve suddenly started talking about the status of the Eastern Catholic Churches or the necessity of union with Rome. The article was about Orthodox teaching on contraception…
Well, there was a pre-existing discussion about that between CbQ, Orthros and yourself, so I added my views on why it doesn’t make sense to consider the Eastern Catholic Churches as a serious alternative to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism.
I’m still interested in learning more about Orthodoxy.
This book would be my primary recommendation. It’s $3 on Kindle…
Bishop Kallistos Ware is not the Pope of Orthodoxy. No one is the Pope of Orthodoxy. This means that, on the one hand, no single individual can decide to change something in Orthodoxy. That is one of the reasons why we have maintained the Apostolic Tradition so well: Any change would require consensus, or at least overwhelming majority support, and an Ecumenical Council would need to be held to discuss and approve this change. That is extremely unlikely to happen, and in practice never happens.
But on the other hand, it is true that the lack of a central authority means there is no one to actively *enforce* adherence to our accepted teachings either. The teachings are still there, unchanged, on the books, but if large numbers of laity (and some clergy) decide to ignore them, there is no Vatican-equivalent to issue strongly worded condemnations of this.
The fact is, the teachings of Orthodoxy and Catholicism on the issue of contraception are the same, and the number of people in those Churches who flatly ignore them or disagree with them is also the same (they are the majority in both Churches – let’s be honest here). The only difference is that in the Catholic Church you see official condemnations of this trend from the central authority, while in Orthodoxy you don’t see them because there is no central authority.
This isn’t the first time that a certain deviation became widely popular within Orthodoxy. But all the past ones eventually faded away after a couple of centuries, and this one will go the same way. The Orthodox Church always teaches the same things. Sometimes people widely ignore those things, maybe even clergy start questioning them, but they can’t change the official teachings that are on the books that you read in seminary. So the people who ignored or questioned them grow old and die, the official teachings remain the same, the seminary books still say those things even if no one has taken them seriously for a generation, and eventually the reasons why they were ignored or questioned fade away. That is how Orthodoxy handles these matters.
Would it be faster and more efficient to have a central authority with the power to squash deviations as soon as they appear? Maybe, but then that same central authority would have the highly dangerous power to *support* deviations that it likes. Which is what Rome has done in the West.
Bishop Ware is not being prescriptive, saying what Orthodox Christians should believe, he’s being descriptive, describing what is generally believed among Orthodox today. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that Orthodox today pretty broadly do not believe that contraception is intrinsically evil and that’s a radical departure from what we find in the Fathers. I do agree that this unlikely to be ratified by an Ecumenical Council, but my reason for thinking this is that I can’t imagine the Orthodox Churches setting aside their differences and actually assembling – the recent Great and Holy Council confirmed this suspicion for me.
I’m interested in what makes you so confident that this deviation will fade away. It is rare that I come across Orthodox voices who will categorically affirm the teachings of the Fathers on this issue. The contraceptive mindset has completely taken over all other Christian communities. The trajectory of the Orthodox Churches on this issue can be tracked by just looking at the different editions of this book, and it’s not good…
You should know that the Great and Holy Council failed because it was intentionally sabotaged by the traditionalist factions, who wished to avoid any risk of an “Orthodox Vatican II”. I’m not sure how familiar you are with present-day Church politics in Orthodoxy, but it basically goes like this: The traditionalists have taken Vatican II and the ongoing disaster inside the Anglican Communion as a cautionary tale, and have established a sort of firewall against anything similar happening in Orthodoxy by taking a hardline stance against ANY kind of Great Council or Ecumenical Council being successfully convened for ANY reason – even the most innocent reasons. Because if we can’t successfully convene a Council, then we can’t change anything. From a bureaucratic point of view, boycotting every attempted Council is the best way to safeguard against modernism.
So it’s not a matter of differences *between* the Orthodox Churches so much as it is a matter of differences *within* them. Every Church has traditionalists and modernists, and inside every Church the traditionalists want to boycott Councils and the modernists want to attend them. The failure of the Great and Holy Council in 2016 was celebrated by traditionalists as a huge victory, since it probably ended any chance of an Ecumenical Council being held this century, and therefore ended the potential danger of an “Orthodox Vatican II”.
(for the record, I’m personally on the side of the traditionalists in this)
Now, back to the issue of contraception.
You are correct that Orthodox today pretty broadly do not believe that contraception is intrinsically evil and that’s a radical departure from what we find in the Fathers. However, it’s also true that Catholics today pretty broadly do not believe that contraception is intrinsically evil. Again, my point is that the situation within both Churches is largely the same, with the difference that the RCC has a central authority which can explicitly condemn this state of affairs while we have no such central authority.
What makes me confident that this deviation will fade away is the fact that no one has even attempted to justify it. There is no actual argument being made in favour of it. Everyone agrees that the Fathers unequivocally condemned contraception. Everyone knows that the Church was against it for her entire history until the 20th century. The reason the deviation has crept into the Church at all is because of a tacit acceptance of the fact that the vast majority of the laity practice contraception and the belief that there’s nothing anyone can do to change that.
So, basically, we’ve lost a cultural battle and we attempt to console ourselves with “well, maybe it’s not so bad”. That’s the reason for this deviation.
But it’s not the sort of reason that can provide a strong foundation for a permanent change. All it would take to return to our traditional strong stance is a single generation of more optimistic clergy who want to try fighting the battle again.
Regardless, the result is the same – they couldn’t get bishops who profess the same Orthodox Faith into the same room to have a conversation.
Do you think the Orthodox were any more able to call a council prior to 1930s?
…or, unfortunately, perform the functions of a Council! It seems to me rather like being given a car and then never driving it for fear that it might break down.
I’m not so convinced that there’s such universal knowledge, at least among the laity.
I’m bothered by this because it suggests that the Church should just give up the fight if the call to holiness is too difficult. Statistics aren’t good regarding abortion, but I’m glad that the Churches still teach about the dignity of human life.
A poor consolation about something which was previously considered intrinsically evil.
I think pretty much universal acceptance provides a rather strong foundation. To reverse this, it would take some very heroic priests and/or laymen to preach an extremely unpopular message to a generation which hadn’t heard traditional Orthodox teaching on this subject.
I’m going to split my response in two posts – I hope that’s ok.
Actually, the bishops are perfectly happy to be in the same room together, and in fact they’ve been meeting on a semi-regular basis – most recently in January 2016, when all the Orthodox Churches were represented in a relatively low-key meeting (one of many such meetings). It’s only when there’s a meeting officially billed as a “Great Council” or “Ecumenical Council” that many of the Churches suddenly get shy and find reasons not to attend. Low-key meetings are well-attended, official “Councils” get boycotted. This would seem odd to an outside observer, but it makes sense once you know the politics behind it. They are happy to meet, as long as there’s no suggestion that the meeting could be a momentous one that might decide to make big changes of some kind.
In defense of the traditionalist position, the functions of an Ecumenical Council in the Orthodox Church are to resolve major crisis situations or disputes that affect the entire Church. An Ecumenical Council isn’t supposed to be a regular working meeting to address mundane concerns – it’s supposed to be the court-of-final-appeal that gets assembled to hear matters that have already gone through all the “lower courts” (the various Local Synods) without any resolution. If there is no ongoing crisis or dispute that needs such a court-of-final-appeal, then there is no proper reason to hold an Ecumenical Council. This is the argument used by traditionalists to support their blanket boycott, and I agree with it.
And there definitely wasn’t any major issue on the agenda of the Great and Holy Council in 2016. In fact, the items to be discussed were shockingly trivial. It was no secret that the main purpose of holding this Council was simply to hold a Council for its own sake – to draw the world’s attention to ourselves and say “hey look at us, we’re holding Ecumenical Councils again, we’re united and determined!”.
So, I would say that driving a car around the block just to show off that you have a car isn’t much better than refusing to drive it for fear that it might break down.
Sure. The most recent General Council was in Constantinople in 1872, and condemned phyletism. Before that, there was the General Council at Jerusalem in 1672, which discussed Calvinism and officially declared it a heresy. Before that, there was the Great Council of Jassy in 1642 (no, they don’t always have to meet in years ending with 2…). We don’t hold such Councils (or Synods) very often, but we do hold them.
One of the Western misconceptions about the Orthodox Church is that we haven’t held any General Councils or even ordinary meetings (?!?) since 787, when the last Ecumenical Council took place. That is not the case at all. Regular meetings of the various patriarchs happen every few years, and the most recent General Council was, like I said, in 1872. We tend to reserve the title “Ecumenical Council” only for the most revered and important General Councils, and have basically stopped applying that title to new Councils a long time ago so as not to suggest that the “newer” Councils are of equal status with the exalted ancient Councils (I put “newer” in quotation marks because this practice of no longer using the E-word goes back to the middle ages, so for example we all abide by the decisions of the Palamite Councils of the 14th century but we still don’t give them the title of “Ecumenical Council(s)”).
That is why the attempted Great and Holy Council was called… well, a “Great and Holy Council” rather than an “Ecumenical Council”. By tradition, we have come to use the title of “Ecumenical Council” for only the first 7, and later Councils with the exact same function and authority are called by different names (generally, they are called “Great Councils” or “Great Synods”).
By the way, the most recent informal meeting of two patriarchs happened two days ago. Meetings of this kind happen several times per year.
Fair enough, I may have overstated it, and I have no actual data to back up this claim. But, from personal experience, I would say that most or all of the laity are indeed aware that contraception was strictly banned in Orthodoxy in the past. Probably most people have no idea when this changed, or why or how, but they are aware of the basic fact that a more permissive attitude began to spread within the Church at some point recently.
I would also say – again only from personal experience – that most of the laity reconcile this with their faith by imagining that the old strict ban on contraception was a matter of discipline rather than a matter of doctrine. They wouldn’t necessarily use those words, of course, but that seems to be the widespread belief: that contraception falls under the same category as the rules on fasting, for example, or the issue of whether women should cover their heads in church. Those are, of course, matters of discipline rather than doctrine. So I think it’s fair to say that there is a widespread belief among the laity that the ban on contraception was/is a matter of discipline rather than a matter of doctrine.
This belief is wrong, of course, but it’s not the same thing as ignorance of the Church’s traditional stance. In addition, I don’t think any practicing Orthodox Christian would be under the illusion that the “discipline” of refraining from contraception has been completely abandoned. Even in the most modernist parishes, refraining from contraception is still generally regarded as the ideal – even when most or all people think of themselves as unable to attain this lofty ideal.
I would say that, at worst, refraining from contraception has come to be regarded by many Orthodox laity as something akin to an ascetic exercise – something that it would be good to do, and something that the “really serious” Orthodox do, but which is beyond the ability of “normal people”. In other words, deep down, people know that they shouldn’t be using contraception and that it is wrong to do so, but they try to justify it to themselves.
Well I’m certainly not saying she should. I’m saying she did (for the most part) on this issue. I’m being descriptive rather than prescriptive. I’m also bothered by what happened, as are many other Orthodox.
Again, I would say that most Orthodox are aware of what the traditional teaching is, at least in broad terms (“no contraception allowed”). It’s not like we have priests and bishops going around proclaiming that contraception is totally okay. What we have are priests and bishops staying silent on the issue, or condemning contraception very briefly and quietly before moving on to something else. Our fault, in other words, is that we are timid in teaching the truth on this issue – not that we teach something against the truth.
And I admit this fault. I am not trying to argue that we sinners who are in the Orthodox Church happen to be perfect guardians of the Faith that we have received, heroically proclaiming the unadulterated Truth of the Gospel everywhere to all men. We should be, but of course we aren’t. We don’t have one percent of the bravery of our forefathers the martyrs, who did proclaim the Truth and proclaimed it in the face of death – not in the face of something as weak as mere social stigma. We don’t have their courage. But what we do have is their Deposit of Faith, what we do have is the unadulterated Truth of the Gospel as taught by the Apostles – even when we do a poor job of proclaiming it to the world.
Now, I can’t end without pointing out that there are clergy in the Orthodox Church who actually do loudly proclaim the truth about contraception after all – because I don’t want to give the false impression that all of us are timid on this issue. Fr. Josiah Trenham is probably the best example of someone who isn’t. (I recommend his lecture “Procreation and Contraception” linked on that page)
I should also mention a positive trend: All of the young Orthodox priests that I know, have large families. This is a great way of preaching by example. People aren’t blind – they know why their priest has a large family. And I think a single visible large family is worth a hundred fiery sermons against contraception.
I’m optimistic. The trend in Orthodoxy is generally towards a return to tradition, at least among the people who attend church regularly and among the recent converts. I don’t think a message of returning to a proper observance of our teachings would be anywhere near as unpopular as you think. Most people who come to church, want a Church that challenges them to holiness, not a Church that endorses popular culture. Those who wanted the Church to endorse popular culture have already stopped attending Liturgy for the most part, and their next generation will probably no longer identify as Orthodox. The Church will be smaller in the future, but a lot more traditional. I’m hopeful that the return to tradition will soon involve a growing rejection of contraception as well.
I also wanted to post about the internal Orthodox issues that we were talking about, particularly concerning the Great Council(s).
Actually, the bishops are perfectly happy to be in the same room together, and in fact they’ve been meeting on a semi-regular basis – most recently in January 2016, when all the Patriarchs and other Primates of the Orthodox Churches were together in a relatively low-key meeting (one of many such meetings). It’s only when there’s a meeting officially billed as a “Great Council” or “Ecumenical Council” that many of the Churches suddenly get shy and find reasons not to attend. Low-key meetings are well-attended, official “Councils” get boycotted. This would seem odd to an outside observer, but it makes sense once you know the politics behind it. They are happy to meet, as long as there’s no suggestion that the meeting could be a momentous one that might decide to make big changes of some kind.
In defense of the traditionalist position, the functions of an Ecumenical Council in the Orthodox Church are to resolve major crisis situations or disputes that affect the entire Church. An Ecumenical Council isn’t supposed to be a regular working meeting to address mundane concerns – it’s supposed to be the court-of-final-appeal that gets assembled to hear matters that have already gone through all the “lower courts” (the various Local Synods) without any resolution. If there is no ongoing crisis or dispute that needs such a court-of-final-appeal, then there is no proper reason to hold an Ecumenical Council. This is the argument used by traditionalists to support their blanket boycott: “Is there some crisis going on? Some huge dispute? A new heresy maybe? No? Then why hold a General Council?” And I personally agree with them about this.
There definitely wasn’t any major issue on the agenda of the Great and Holy Council in 2016. In fact, the items to be discussed were shockingly trivial. It was no secret that the main purpose of holding this Council was simply to hold a Council for its own sake – to draw the world’s attention to ourselves and say “hey look at us, we’re holding Ecumenical Councils again, we’re united and determined!”.
So, I would say that driving a car around the block just to show off that you have a car isn’t much better than refusing to drive it for fear that it might break down.
Sure. The most recent General Council was in Constantinople in 1872, and condemned phyletism. Before that, there was the General Council at Jerusalem in 1672, which discussed Calvinism and officially declared it a heresy. Before that, there was the Great Council of Jassy in 1642 (no, they don’t always have to meet in years ending with 2…). We don’t hold such Councils (or Synods) very often, but we do hold them.
One of the Western misconceptions about the Orthodox Church is that we haven’t held any General Councils or even ordinary meetings (?!?) since 787, when the last Ecumenical Council took place. That is not the case at all. Regular meetings of the various patriarchs happen every few years, and the most recent General Council was, like I said, in 1872. We tend to reserve the title “Ecumenical Council” only for the most revered and important General Councils, and have basically stopped applying that title to new Councils a long time ago so as not to suggest that the “newer” Councils are of equal status with the exalted ancient Councils (I put “newer” in quotation marks because this practice of no longer using the E-word goes back to the middle ages, so for example we all abide by the decisions of the Palamite Councils of the 14th century but we still don’t give them the title of “Ecumenical Council(s)”).
That is why the attempted Great and Holy Council was called… well, a “Great and Holy Council” rather than an “Ecumenical Council”. By tradition, we have come to use the title of “Ecumenical Council” for only the first 7, and later Councils with the exact same function and authority are called by different names (generally, they are called “Great Councils” or “Great Synods”).
It does rather. It sounds like they’re happy to meet as long as nothing too important is achieved.
The various jurisdictional disputes (particularly those of recent weeks) aren’t cause enough?
Yet even trivialities were too contentious for some parties?
I’ve come across his stuff before – I’m a fan 🙂
I couldn’t agree more!
The orthodox council didn’t fail for the reasons the orthodox claimed above. It failed because the bishops are practically excomunicating each other for perceived errors. the Russians doing it to the Ukrainians, and the Pharos patriarch. And The Antioch Patriarch is at odds with the Jerusalem Patriarch. None of that is about doctrine, but rather control, which is largely the same issue that keeps them from reunifying with Rome. Really a council without church representing about half the church membership is not a council at all, just a synod.
And really in light of the Orthodox way of rejecting councils, without them it is just talks amounting to nothing. not even being one in Christ Jesus.
Catholic But Questioning – I just realized that I replied to your last post instead of starting a new thread with my above comments, like I wanted to. I apologize. But I did also want to actually reply to your post, and this is that reply.
Pilgrim offered a link to a book presenting the Catholic perspective on Orthodoxy. For the Orthodox perspective, I would recommend Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick (this book is about comparing Orthodoxy with ALL other types of Christianity and even some non-Christian religions, but the Orthodox-Catholic comparison gets the most attention). There’s also a short pamphlet called Orthodoxy and Catholicism: What are the Differences?, which may be useful.
Leaving aside the topic of comparison, books that are useful introductions to Orthodoxy include this one, this one, and (if you want to get into serious theological detail) this one.
But ultimately, the best way to learn more about Orthodoxy is the same as the best way to learn more about any Christian church: actually going to visit a parish and attend the services. There’s a useful online directory for finding nearby Orthodox parishes, if you happen to live in the United States.
I hope that some of these resources (especially the books on theology) will be of interest to Pilgrim as well.
Pingback: The Consequences of Contraception | Remembering Sion
I am very interested in the Orthodox Faith. I am Impressed and inspired by the faithfulness of the Orthodox Church in its faithfulness to the Divine Liturgy. However, I am saddened and at times turned off by the hostility towards Catholics by some in the Orthodox Church. I have mostly found a very positive impression of Orthodoxy among Catholics. I pray that will be reciprocated in time. I too, believe what the Catholic Church teaches about artificial contraception. I also agree that NFP, is not artificial and therefore, not sinful when practiced by a married couple.
Hey Dominic! Welcome to Restless Pilgrim! I concur with your various points here, but I would suggest that the Catholic opposition to contraception isn’t because it’s “artificial”, but because it sterilizes the marital act.
I am still interested in Orthodox/Catholic discussion, but due to personal/family issues, I have not done much reading in the last year. I apologize.
Apart from St Jerome, who to my knowledge is the only Holy Father to specifically interpret the only text in the Bible on this issue (Onan’s death) as being the just reward for coitus interruptus, I would be interested to learn which other Early Holy Fathers you mention specifically hold coitus interrupted to be a sin? In Orthodoxy we don’t believe any one father – even a saint – speaks for the whole church or has the ability to determine morality for the whole church. Even the Holy Fathers in their individual capacities were sinful and made errors. These decisions are made in counsel (the first being recorded in the Book of Acts, notably presided over by St James the brother of the Lord, not St Peter). And even today you may find different views among holy men held on certain areas not specifically addressed by the Church in the counsels. The Popes who developed the imperial, top-down order of Catholicism were the first Protestants of the Church and sowed the seeds of Protestantism in this church (doing things their own way and abandoning the sobornost of the Orthodoxy they used to belong to). So you are coming from this discussion with a Catholic view and accordingly have misunderstood the nature of Orthodox teaching (arguing that because some bishop holds a certain view the Church teaching must in fact be in accordance therewith). Metropolitan Ware (God rest him) cannot – and no one bishop ever can – speak for the Church unless they speak in harmony with the canons of the counsels of the Church and even there the counsels have varying ranks of authority. You must go to the fathers and the counsels to find answers, which you have not done on your article. To my knowledge there isn’t much there from the early fathers on this. We Orthodox are strongly for life. But we also believe that sex within marriage was given for consolation and not only for procreation. This is an acknowledgment that not every one has the same level of strength. St Paul talks about this. However, the ideal behavior for us would also be similar to the Catholic official position. (Side Note: we don’t hold post schismatic Catholic counsels as valid so please point to the first 1054 years of Church history or to Orthodox counsels if you want to be persuasive). To my knowledge the Early Holy Fathers / Church councils don’t specifically condemn coitus interruptus because Orthodoxy has left these areas to pastoral care. Any contraceptive that destroys life is clearly sinful. I would be interested if you could point to the Early Holy Fathers or Church counsels that address this in any more detail.
Christ is risen! Welcome Father, to Restless Pilgrim!
Are you saying that the late Metropolitan was wrong in his assessment of changing Orthodox opinion?
As for other Church Fathers on the subject of contraception, I would point you to this post and this website.
The contraception question aside, this is a demonstrable argument, at least in my view, for the primacy of the papacy in Christendom. If grave matter comes down to individual biases and opinions, there’s a problem.
That there is broad dissention is another question entirely.