Natural Family Planning & Number of Children

abacabb3

Newbie
Jul 14, 2013
3,208
555
✟73,913.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Following Fr Matt's and Rus' comments, I think what Rus is trying to say is that a major problem we have is we don't give simple answers to questions.

Ask the RCs and you get: "Fornication is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, cohabitation is wrong, birth control is wrong."

Ask Orthodox you get, "Ask your priest."

The problem is though we should always STILL ask our priests (and if you are a priest, your own spiritual father or the Bishop), that does not mean we must become either so open-minded that our brains fall out or so non-committal that the modernists can very easily (and understandably!) assume they are in the right to completely discard our traditions and the Scriptures.

People are morons, myself included. We need simple answers to simple questions...not long theological textbooks and shades of gray. My wife, who doesn't read the fathers all day, needs to hear, "You should not commune if you are menstruating" or "birth control is wrong, the moral ideal is that sex is only for procreation." She should not only hear that "on the grape vine" just because these things are awkward. We all have sex and half of us menstruate. We need to talk about these things. We have been so silent on these things, that someone bringing up the historical, consensus view of the Church is viewed as wacky. This should not be, brothers.

A priest should be able to say, without wincing, just as he would have in 1930, "If you fornicate, cohabitate, or use birth control, you will not be communed."

Now, that does not mean that categorically, in every single circumstance for every single individual, this will occur. The Russian Church, in their recent 2015 document on communion, for example allows for spiritual fathers to in peculiar circumstances to commune a cohabitating, unmarried people. Now, before we go all nuts, there are obvious situations (i.e. a woman who fornicated with a man, became pregnant, repents, and now seeks to keep the family together and serve God but her boyfriend refuses to marry her.) The spiritual father, in such circumstances, must help her navigate through these waters and gives her both penance, and the conditions, which he feels will allow her to be sanctified, instead of harmed, by communion.

So, even while the Russian church obviously allows for this, that does not mean a conservative Russian priest cannot still say, "If you fornicate, cohabitate, or use birth control, you will not be communed" and mean every word of it. We can make a clear statement, and privately work out the exceptions when necessary.

And this is the key problem: we have taken private, extra-ordinary exceptions, and turned them into publicly acknowledged norms, where the priest essentially accepts "I am trying to be a l'il better" but there is no real visible change. Let's be honest--we don't want to be rocking boats.

People I respect among the clergy (this includes a Bishop), that I know to be true conservatives, essentially have been too silent on these abuses out of fear of 1. offending people and 2. being too judgmental.

The fear is that all the cradles, who have suffered from three generations of almost no catechesis, won't get it and leave. A line is trying to be toed to slowly bring them the right way. But, the cradles are disappearing--and not by death, they are just not going to church. We all know this. The Orthodox churches that are growing are converts and reverts that want vision, not mush. The ones with the immigrants are full of the very old, baby boomers and very few gen Xers, and that's it. They will be gone soon because the millenial cradles are not showing up, period.

Being afraid to rock the boat is silly, as usually churches die when they lack vision and clear stances on these things (look what happened to every mainline church which ignored Prov 29:18). Further, we have become so non-judgmental, every one knows a priest that will commune a sodomite within driving distance. At least in the north east. In fact, it is open knowledge that there is at least one Bishop of a notable jurisdiction completely on board with this heresy. Yet, these priests, and Bishop, are not de-laicized and excommunicated. This is a travesty and an embarrassment, and we exist with this simply because we have been too loose ended and too open minded.

So, perhaps I am being too charitable with Rus' position here, but I think he is trying to vent a frustration with what has been, in all honesty, a misleading tact in modern Orthodoxy. Look to the Orthodox churches that are growing. Particularly Russia. They are going reactionary, not liberal, they are offering answers, not post-modernist muddle.

I am a recent convert, so I am speaking from the little I have seen. And, I am not the least bit worried, because God always has the Church's back. The Church always prevails and it has gone through centuries of captivity, persecution, and almost completely decimation and roars back from the ashes like a Phoenix. But, that Phoenix will rise when we wake up and realize we need to clearly and succinctly communicate what we have always communicated and not care who it offends. This is the best church growth strategy there is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

nutroll

Veteran
Apr 26, 2006
2,221
1,300
47
Boise, ID
Visit site
✟277,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This is one of those subjects that comes up time and again, and I think needs to be looked at from a pastoral perspective. I think it best to look at the subject of economia (which doesn't really mean leniency, but management of the household of God) in metaphorical terms. When we see someone transgressing the rules, it is too easy to use that person as the poster child for why the rule is important, and anything that anyone says will be referred back to that person to see whether the advice squares up with how we think John or Jane Doe is acting and what they need to get straightened out.

If we have a 20 story building, and we see someone on the stairs carrying a very heavy box up the stairs when there is a perfectly functioning elevator, some will assume that we should always tell the person to take the elevator and save them the hassle of carrying their burden. Some will assume that we should always let the person carry their burden up the stairs lest they become lazy. But what we ought to do is look at the circumstances. If the person is frail and old, and struggling to carry this box up the stairs; and the contents of the box are to help his ailing and beloved wife, I think we would be right to help that man to the elevator. His heart is in the right place, and we know that he would gladly climb ten times that far if needed. Physical struggle in this case is unlikely to benefit him or the disposition of his heart, and might in fact do him and by extension his wife harm. If, however, the person is a young athlete training for strength and endurance, we would be foolish to tell him to take the elevator. He needs this and without this struggle he will lose in the contest to come.

We will not be able to help anyone if we don't know them and their motivations, their struggles, their strengths, or their weaknesses. But when you know them as a priest should (but doesn't always) you are more able to guide them. This is why priests are given the power to loose and bind sins. If the priest acts wrongly he will face judgment for it, but not from you or me, but from God. If the priest does right, whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant, he is helping others.

Fasting of any kind is an ascetical discipline, not a keeping of hard and fast rules. The marital fast is unique in that it is the only kind of fast that requires two people to keep it. Saint Paul tells us that it must be done with mutual agreement. Ideally both parties in a marriage are equally striving for the kingdom. This is not always (or I would say often) the case. In nearly all marriages, there is one spouse who struggles with sexual passions more than the other. If we give all advice based on the stronger spouse, the weaker spouse may burn with passion. If we give all advice based on the weaker spouse, they will likely never be freed from passions. It is for this reason that this must be by mutual agreement (note that it is not by the dictate of the priest, but by agreement of the spouses). A priest can give parameters, but the spouses who hopefully love one another and care for the salvation of one another must strive to find a balance between needs for physical intimacy and for spiritual growth.

It is important to note that God has not changed, nor has the Church changed, nor has human nature changed. What has changed is the societies in which we live. Indeed they are constantly changing. Our societies are generally not set up for large families anymore (to our shame). Each additional child is seen as an expense we can't afford, or that we don't have time for, rather than a valued contributor to the household economy. In agrarian societies, this was easier to see than when each child must have special classes and extracurricular activities and college funds, etc. etc. We live in a time when often one spouse is Orthodox and one is not, or one is faithful to the Church and one is not, or one is a profligate sinner and the other is not. This is why it is important that we be careful in who the Church unites in marriage. Often both spouses have been continuously inundated with inappropriate contentographic images and words and immoral lessons, and are struggling just to remain marginally chaste. Most of us are surrounded by societies that are only nominally Christian, or outright atheistic and our values are not shared by any of our neighbors.

With all of this as the background, the demands that we place on a couple may lead them to salvation, but could just as easily lead them toward pride, despair, or apostasy. Bishops primarily (and the priests whom they have appointed for individual communities) must know their people, must know what they are struggling with, what they are capable of, and give them guidance in how to approach these issues. It is not as simple as saying "if you don't want kids don't have sex." But neither should it be as simple as saying "use protection." (and yes, I know this is a euphemism, I am trying to speak colloquially).

We must give couples guidance on what marriage is, what marital relations are for, what role marriage and children play in our salvation, why we fast, all the ways that we fast, and what to do if we find ourselves fearing that we can no longer bear the struggle. This is all done better in a pastoral context (not necessarily confession) than in the handing down of rules. I think one of the benefits of speaking openly about these issues -- whether we are for contraception, against contraception, or trying to find a balance between contraception and abstention, is that people can approach their priest and begin to have a discussion. If we assume that the priest will tell us the opposite of what we want to hear, we might not bring up the subject. In doing so we take it on ourselves to direct our own spiritual lives. Each couple must decide certain things by mutual agreement, but there should be parameters and limits within which we can keep ourselves from burning with passions, or falling into pride, or falling into despair, or keeping ourselves from stagnating spiritually.

It is a pastoral matter. Ask your priest. You may find that the "liberal" priest is more strict than you assumed, or that the "hardline" priest sees what you are going through and takes a more lenient approach. It is spiritual medicine, and it is meant to be dispensed based on your symptoms, not just based on rules. If you are not the one facing the problem, keep your nose out of it. You likely don't know all the circumstances, what the couple was told, what stipulations there might be, etc. Your job is not to judge, if you have concerns about what people are up to, or what kind of advice a priest is giving, pray for them.
 
Upvote 0

abacabb3

Newbie
Jul 14, 2013
3,208
555
✟73,913.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The marital fast is unique in that it is the only kind of fast that requires two people to keep it.

The issue I believe is that the issue of sex has not been viewed as a strict matter of fasting. I have no solidified view on this, but the RCs view the issue of purposely avoiding having children in the sexual act as a violation of natural law (i.e. its immoral). While I cannot think of a father who worded it quite like that, I can think of fathers that explicitly said that Christians have sex "only for procreation" and that those who don't "make a harlot out of their wife." Augustine even explicitly rejected NFP for these reasons (see paragraph 65 here). So, even without natural law, its not like we lack hard and fast prohibitions, with rationales, from the fathers. Even if they are not politically correct.

I bring up natural law simply because it shows that this issue has always been viewed with a higher emphasis on morals and not ascetic discipline. It is interesting that while 1 Cor 7 speaks of this issue in terms of discipline, that the fathers almost universally do not. The only way to square the two is that those who don't have the discipline are simply to attempt to have a lot of children.

Hence, while I view pretty much all things discretionary on the part of the spiritual father on an individual basis, this does not negate that publicly the Church should be preaching hard and fast rules as they always have. These two things do not run into contradiction.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm on board with the idea of pastoral care, and economia IS a thing that is necessary. I agree that hardly anyone can immediately and in all things begin living an ideal Christian life; who among us does? What I don't see from you is the acknowledgement of pastoral care that literally lets the Christian standards drop because people can't handle them, for people IN the Church, and that that can and does lead to a general falling away from even trying to live those standards; that the Church -a large number of individuals and local churches and Churches - can literally go the way of the world.

And that's what I see; the treatment of Christian standards as a purely personal matter between one and one's priest has led to a situation where the mass of Orthodox Christians I know really thinks that the standards are unobtainable and unnecessary; sour grapes. Too many families in both my town (in the world) and parish here in Russia have broken up because of these attitudes, and that is a visible consequence, and I have to teach some of the kids from those broken families. Maybe we would pay more attention if it were suicides instead of divorces, but there is something common to both, as GKC pointed out: the death of love and the death of life. And contraception is another modern thing that says we cannot, need not, and will not handle life.

So you folks can keep talking about pastoral concerns, and I agree that they exist and that we can't always be about rules, but I see the apotheosis of that approach right under my nose, I see the complete abandonment of the rules unless one happens to feel like following them, and zero exhortation to our brothers and sisters to live as we should. No one's talking about judging any individual's standing before God, but we OUGHT to judge that evil is evil and sin is sin, and that we ought not to live the way of the world. The problem is that the modern Orthodox can't even tell that the Christian way really IS different from that of the world, that it calls us to accept children that are sent to us, to love our wives at least as much as we ought to love our enemies, and that what the world does is not and should not be our measuring stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kristos
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm on board with the idea of pastoral care, and economia IS a thing that is necessary. I agree that hardly anyone can immediately and in all things begin living an ideal Christian life; who among us does? What I don't see from you is the acknowledgement of pastoral care that literally lets the Christian standards drop because people can't handle them, for people IN the Church, and that that can and does lead to a general falling away from even trying to live those standards; that the Church -a large number of individuals and local churches and Churches - can literally go the way of the world.

And that's what I see; the treatment of Christian standards as a purely personal matter between one and one's priest has led to a situation where the mass of Orthodox Christians I know really thinks that the standards are unobtainable and unnecessary; sour grapes. Too many families in both my town (in the world) and parish here in Russia have broken up because of these attitudes, and that is a visible consequence, and I have to teach some of the kids from those broken families. Maybe we would pay more attention if it were suicides instead of divorces, but there is something common to both, as GKC pointed out: the death of love and the death of life. And contraception is another modern thing that says we cannot, need not, and will not handle life.

So you folks can keep talking about pastoral concerns, and I agree that they exist and that we can't always be about rules, but I see the apotheosis of that approach right under my nose, I see the complete abandonment of the rules unless one happens to feel like following them, and zero exhortation to our brothers and sisters to live as we should. No one's talking about judging any individual's standing before God, but we OUGHT to judge that evil is evil and sin is sin, and that we ought not to live the way of the world. The problem is that the modern Orthodox can't even tell that the Christian way really IS different from that of the world, that it calls us to accept children that are sent to us, to love our wives at least as much as we ought to love our enemies, and that what the world does is not and should not be our measuring stick.

I don't think anyone really has disputed this, rus.
 
Upvote 0

nutroll

Veteran
Apr 26, 2006
2,221
1,300
47
Boise, ID
Visit site
✟277,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps you can post the Orthodox rules on sex then and we can have a discussion on how those rules have been interpreted over the centuries. Because every rule must be interpreted, not by the laity, but by those who are given authority and responsibility to do so. I also suspect that there is a lot more going on spiritually in your example than just people indulging in sex with contraception. I suspect this because we get a lot of Russians moving here with incorrect or bizarre ideas about marriage, but also about a lot of other things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kristos
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nutroll

Veteran
Apr 26, 2006
2,221
1,300
47
Boise, ID
Visit site
✟277,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The issue I believe is that the issue of sex has not been viewed as a strict matter of fasting. I have no solidified view on this, but the RCs view the issue of purposely avoiding having children in the sexual act as a violation of natural law (i.e. its immoral). While I cannot think of a father who worded it quite like that, I can think of fathers that explicitly said that Christians have sex "only for procreation" and that those who don't "make a harlot out of their wife." Augustine even explicitly rejected NFP for these reasons (see paragraph 65 here). So, even without natural law, its not like we lack hard and fast prohibitions, with rationales, from the fathers. Even if they are not politically correct.

I don't think it is accurate on the basis of that quote to say that Augustine explicitly rejected NFP. While the description may sound like NFP, it was a rejection of Manicheanism. They rejected the begetting of children as evil, but did not similarly reject the sexual act. As a priest, I would reject someone using birth control because they thought the begetting of children was evil, but would not necessarily counsel a couple with several children that they must abstain from sexual relations because they are not ready for more children just yet.

I think it better to say that sex is for marriage, rather than sex is for procreation. Marriage is meant to be salvific. It is too teach us obedience, unconditional love, serving others, humility, and a host of other virtues. Children are part of how marriage saves (or at least they are a usual but not necessary part). Without sex, there can be no begetting of children, but sex is not only for that. It is also for strengthening the bond between husband and wife. One can certainly "make a harlot out of their wife" but I don't think Saint Augustine had in mind an Orthodox Couple trying to avoid burning with passion without having more children than they feel equipped or prepared to care for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmyMatt
Upvote 0

abacabb3

Newbie
Jul 14, 2013
3,208
555
✟73,913.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think it is accurate on the basis of that quote to say that Augustine explicitly rejected NFP. While the description may sound like NFP, it was a rejection of Manicheanism. They rejected the begetting of children as evil, but did not similarly reject the sexual act. As a priest, I would reject someone using birth control because they thought the begetting of children was evil, but would not necessarily counsel a couple with several children that they must abstain from sexual relations because they are not ready for more children just yet.

I think it better to say that sex is for marriage, rather than sex is for procreation. Marriage is meant to be salvific. It is too teach us obedience, unconditional love, serving others, humility, and a host of other virtues. Children are part of how marriage saves (or at least they are a usual but not necessary part). Without sex, there can be no begetting of children, but sex is not only for that. It is also for strengthening the bond between husband and wife. One can certainly "make a harlot out of their wife" but I don't think Saint Augustine had in mind an Orthodox Couple trying to avoid burning with passion without having more children than they feel equipped or prepared to care for.
I don't think this is a fair view of Augustine. He writes in "On the Good of Marriage" against a Pelagian:

"Then follows the connection of fellowship in children, which is the one alone worthy fruit, not of the union of male and female, but of the sexual intercourse" (par 1).

"Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence, although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting of children, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bring to pass some good." (par 3)

"For, although it be shameful to wish to use a husband for purposes of lust, yet it is honorable to be unwilling to have intercourse save with an husband, and not to give birth to children save from a husband. There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant. Therefore whatever that is immodest, shameless, base, married persons do one with another, is the sin of the persons, not the fault of marriage." (par 5)

"For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman." (par 12).

It's superfluous to quote more. I am sure those in favor of softening the blow against the fathers' view on birth control will simply move the goal posts, but Augustine did not have this idea in isolation. It is arguably in the Didache itself (possibly apostolic), cited by Athenagora (2nd century), St Clement of Alexandria, and so on throughout the Patristic period.

To distill the mind of the fathers on this, sexuality is a passion. When used to beget children, it is blameless. When used to satisfy lust, as long as no birth control method is used, it is a pardonable venial sin. To not have children is a mortal sin if we take literally the writings of some fathers (i.e. Chrysostom calls it "worse than murder.") So, I think at the very least, we should say that while birth control may not really be worse than murder, it is certainly on the level of venial sin and we should be able to call sin "sin" within the Church.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
from who?
Is it not obvious?

In general, though, I have to say I think abacabb mostly, but not entirely right. And I would say that the bald fact that not only the fathers, but all of Christendom until 1930 condemned “birth control”, the term achieving wide usage only in the 20th century, which GK Chesterton rightly identified as an evil euphemism. It’s important to grasp what evil euphemisms are, and that we unconsciously use some in ignorance of their nature on a regular basis, and that, as we learn that they are indeed both evil and euphemisms, we should stop using them. (“Birth prevention” would not be euphemistic, by contrast.).

So it’s not reliance on one father, who might have gone wrong on the point, but on the entire Church throughout history, which obviously agreed that attempting to prevent the birth of children is evil and contrary to God’s plan and design.

I don’t think abacabb is right, and do not see that consensus of the Church, on the idea that the marital act conducted within marriage is itself a sin, only the attempt to prevent the natural consequence (children) of the act. That does seem like a case of a father going off the deep end if that is the case. But “birth control” really is. And I have been as guilty as anyone. A priest, or even a mass of priests contradicting that today, doesn’t make them right. Massive falling away is both possible and predicted.

The entire argument of feeling “equipped and prepared” to take care of children seeks to ignore this and to embrace modern language and deny the reality of evil euphemisms, and is based on a view of marriage, not as a form of martyrdom, but as a means of fulfilling one’s own needs, both real and perceived, rightly or wrongly. Children can do fine in poverty, though we may not want to live in it. That is understandable. But our faith offers no “Get out of poverty free” card. And believe me, I am preaching to myself as well.

It is right to desire to offer compassionate pastoral care. It is wrong to compromise our teachings, and in granting economia, to forget ourselves that it IS in fact a falling away from our standards, and that if economia becomes common, even the rule, then no one will be encouraged to uphold the standards.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Is it not obvious?

In general, though, I have to say I think abacabb mostly, but not entirely right. And I would say that the bald fact that not only the fathers, but all of Christendom until 1930 condemned “birth control”, the term achieving wide usage only in the 20th century, which GK Chesterton rightly identified as an evil euphemism. It’s important to grasp what evil euphemisms are, and that we unconsciously use some in ignorance of their nature on a regular basis, and that, as we learn that they are indeed both evil and euphemisms, we should stop using them. (“Birth prevention” would not be euphemistic, by contrast.).

So it’s not reliance on one father, who might have gone wrong on the point, but on the entire Church throughout history, which obviously agreed that attempting to prevent the birth of children is evil and contrary to God’s plan and design.

I don’t think abacabb is right, and do not see that consensus of the Church, on the idea that the marital act conducted within marriage is itself a sin, only the attempt to prevent the natural consequence (children) of the act. That does seem like a case of a father going off the deep end if that is the case. But “birth control” really is. And I have been as guilty as anyone. A priest, or even a mass of priests contradicting that today, doesn’t make them right. Massive falling away is both possible and predicted.

The entire argument of feeling “equipped and prepared” to take care of children seeks to ignore this and to embrace modern language and deny the reality of evil euphemisms, and is based on a view of marriage, not as a form of martyrdom, but as a means of fulfilling one’s own needs, both real and perceived, rightly or wrongly. Children can do fine in poverty, though we may not want to live in it. That is understandable. But our faith offers no “Get out of poverty free” card. And believe me, I am preaching to myself as well.

It is right to desire to offer compassionate pastoral care. It is wrong to compromise our teachings, and in granting economia, to forget ourselves that it IS in fact a falling away from our standards, and that if economia becomes common, even the rule, then no one will be encouraged to uphold the standards.

no, I don't think it is obvious, at least on this particular thread. I don't really see any hard evidence here of a point that really refutes what you said. the closest I can see is contraception can be permissible, and then practically everyone follows that to ask the priest or bishop.

and, being a priest, I am well aware of what economia is.
 
Upvote 0

nutroll

Veteran
Apr 26, 2006
2,221
1,300
47
Boise, ID
Visit site
✟277,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't think this is a fair view of Augustine. He writes in "On the Good of Marriage" against a Pelagian:

"Then follows the connection of fellowship in children, which is the one alone worthy fruit, not of the union of male and female, but of the sexual intercourse" (par 1).

"Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence, although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting of children, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bring to pass some good." (par 3)

"For, although it be shameful to wish to use a husband for purposes of lust, yet it is honorable to be unwilling to have intercourse save with an husband, and not to give birth to children save from a husband. There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant. Therefore whatever that is immodest, shameless, base, married persons do one with another, is the sin of the persons, not the fault of marriage." (par 5)

"For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman." (par 12).

It's superfluous to quote more. I am sure those in favor of softening the blow against the fathers' view on birth control will simply move the goal posts, but Augustine did not have this idea in isolation. It is arguably in the Didache itself (possibly apostolic), cited by Athenagora (2nd century), St Clement of Alexandria, and so on throughout the Patristic period.

To distill the mind of the fathers on this, sexuality is a passion. When used to beget children, it is blameless. When used to satisfy lust, as long as no birth control method is used, it is a pardonable venial sin. To not have children is a mortal sin if we take literally the writings of some fathers (i.e. Chrysostom calls it "worse than murder.") So, I think at the very least, we should say that while birth control may not really be worse than murder, it is certainly on the level of venial sin and we should be able to call sin "sin" within the Church.
Did you read Augustine's "Of the Good Marriage?" Or just pull random quotes from it from a site? Because even the things that you quote which seem clear cut are not generally saying what you claim, and many things agree completely with what I have been saying. Chrysostom and several canons that were accepted ecumenically say what I've been saying. They don't go so far as to say that birth control is acceptable, but that the marital act is important for marriage quite apart from procreation and should not be abstained from for long or without mutual agreement lest one fall into sin, fornication, or adultery.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Kristos
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nutroll

Veteran
Apr 26, 2006
2,221
1,300
47
Boise, ID
Visit site
✟277,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Is it not obvious?

In general, though, I have to say I think abacabb mostly, but not entirely right. And I would say that the bald fact that not only the fathers, but all of Christendom until 1930 condemned “birth control”, the term achieving wide usage only in the 20th century, which GK Chesterton rightly identified as an evil euphemism. It’s important to grasp what evil euphemisms are, and that we unconsciously use some in ignorance of their nature on a regular basis, and that, as we learn that they are indeed both evil and euphemisms, we should stop using them. (“Birth prevention” would not be euphemistic, by contrast.).

So it’s not reliance on one father, who might have gone wrong on the point, but on the entire Church throughout history, which obviously agreed that attempting to prevent the birth of children is evil and contrary to God’s plan and design.

I don’t think abacabb is right, and do not see that consensus of the Church, on the idea that the marital act conducted within marriage is itself a sin, only the attempt to prevent the natural consequence (children) of the act. That does seem like a case of a father going off the deep end if that is the case. But “birth control” really is. And I have been as guilty as anyone. A priest, or even a mass of priests contradicting that today, doesn’t make them right. Massive falling away is both possible and predicted.

The entire argument of feeling “equipped and prepared” to take care of children seeks to ignore this and to embrace modern language and deny the reality of evil euphemisms, and is based on a view of marriage, not as a form of martyrdom, but as a means of fulfilling one’s own needs, both real and perceived, rightly or wrongly. Children can do fine in poverty, though we may not want to live in it. That is understandable. But our faith offers no “Get out of poverty free” card. And believe me, I am preaching to myself as well.

It is right to desire to offer compassionate pastoral care. It is wrong to compromise our teachings, and in granting economia, to forget ourselves that it IS in fact a falling away from our standards, and that if economia becomes common, even the rule, then no one will be encouraged to uphold the standards.

I know that you have great respect for Chesterton, but he is not a Father of the Church, nor can he be relied upon for the consensus of the Fathers.

You completely misunderstand me when I speak of being "equipped and prepared." I am not speaking of careers or finances or houses or cars or anything of the sort. I am speaking of our ability to parent or children in such a way that they will seek the Kingdom of Heaven. Raising three young children, I can say how difficult a task this is. It ought to be approached in the fear of God, with prayer, patience, and love. Sometimes we know that we are severely deficient in these areas and need to work on developing these virtues. Children will naturally assist in our development of these virtues if it hearts are receptive to the work of God, but if we are not receptive it can be destructive to parent and child alike.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I know that you have great respect for Chesterton, but he is not a Father of the Church, nor can he be relied upon for the consensus of the Fathers.

You completely misunderstand me when I speak of being "equipped and prepared." I am not speaking of careers or finances or houses or cars or anything of the sort. I am speaking of our ability to parent or children in such a way that they will seek the Kingdom of Heaven. Raising three young children, I can say how difficult a task this is. It ought to be approached in the fear of God, with prayer, patience, and love. Sometimes we know that we are severely deficient in these areas and need to work on developing these virtues. Children will naturally assist in our development of these virtues if it hearts are receptive to the work of God, but if we are not receptive it can be destructive to parent and child alike.

And this is the line where we differ, and I think you differ from historic Christendom, which absolutely includes Orthodox Tradition, and which all breakaway forms of Christian faith agreed upon until very, very recently. I have four kids. tell me about it. Talking about developing virtues is like telling young people not to have children until they are "ready". No one is EVER "ready". Children are a life-changing event, and you deal with it by having them, not evading them until you are "ready".

And I do not refer to Chesterton anywhere where he contradicts our Tradition, but I jolly well will when he specifically defends it, as a modern "interpreter" of what the fathers, and ancient and medieval Christians always understood, when he backs the consensus of the Faith and modern Orthodox buck it.

What you say now was not generally accepted anywhere even one century ago, let alone by Orthodox. And I do not speak about your words that the raising of children ought to be approached with prayer, patience and love, which are quite right. I mean specifically your admission of contraceptives as an option, and whether you admit it or not, that admission has become absolutely the norm among most Orthodox in the West, and arguably even where I sit. The hardest thing now is finding anyone who will say what everyone used to say about them, including the fathers.
 
Upvote 0

abacabb3

Newbie
Jul 14, 2013
3,208
555
✟73,913.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did you read Augustine's "Of the Good Marriage?" Or just pull random quotes from it from a site? Because even the things that you quote which seem clear cut are not generally saying what you claim, and many things agree completely with what I have been saying. Chrysostom and several canons that were accepted ecumenically say what I've been saying. They don't go so far as to say that birth control is acceptable, but that the marital act is important for marriage quite apart from procreation and should not be abstained from for long or without mutual agreement lest one fall into sin, fornication, or adultery.
Wow, this went from polite disagreement to accusations real fast.

If you actually looked at the links embedded in the words of the quotes you would have seen that those quotes come from the New Advent link to the book itself and I think your reply here is a bit of a lame, and bad, attempt to explain it way. Augustine is obviously talking about sex within marriage in the sense that many fathers speak of it. I understand you keep getting thumbs up for your kind of indirect justifications of birth control, but let me address this directly:

1. No father endorsed birth control, period.
2. Several fathers specifically said the sexual act, even within marriage, was sinful without the intent to produce children (we just quoted Augustine, and on the top of my head Athenagora, St Hippolytus, and St Clement of Alexandria can be listed. Other men who were not saints, like Lacantius, also repeated the same exact thing). What I find mind boggling is that we are still, at this point, pretending that these men 1. did not really say these things and 2. that this was not really a view among the fathers.
3. No fathers endorsed sexuality purely for enjoyment's sake, period.
4. No ecumenical canon, or quote from Chrysostom says this is an issue without an objective moral basis.

Because of the preceding, while we can all pretend that the view of fathers that viewed sexuality has a "blameful [sic] passion" as opposed to a "blameless passion" was a minority view, what we absolutely cannot pretend the fathers believed was that they would have approved of birth control. This is because we simply lack any fathers endorsing birth control and only have statements of them rejecting it.

Let's apply the painful pro-birth control logic to any other issue among the fathers. The fathers all reject the Jewish sabbath, some very explicitly. Let's pretend in the 22nd century, that observing the Saturday sabbath becomes the dominant mode among the laity. When an inquirer asks about this, he is told "Ask your spiritual father." Others make similar replies and say, "The fathers did not really mean that! They were just the extremists."

What's the point of looking at the patristic view of the matter if we are going to ignore all of their explicit statements with the excuse, "That's not enough fathers, so I'm not convinced it's bad, so therefore it's good." This should not be brothers! If we apply this to any other issue, it would be inexcusable. So, why is it excusable with birth control?

I'll end with a quote from St John Chrysostom, which not so coincidentally comes up from his exegesis of "And make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof:"

Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?

So, the preceding quote is obviously against abortion itself. Granted, it is not entirely clear what Chyrsostom, medically, thought abortion was. If you read further, it is clear he thinks that "potions" had this effect, and he might have thought chemical means of birth control killed the seed to a child in the womb.

Nevertheless, while Chrysostom definitely considered abortion itself worse that murder, and might have due to his medical ignorance actually thought any prevent of the birth of a child was worse than murder, this is not the point in this conversation. Look how he explains himself: "Why then do you abuse the gift of God," i.e. the ability to have children? Is not the obvious teaching that the procreative act is for "childbearing" and not "slaughter?" Wouldn't this be consistent with his teaching to not make provisions for the lust of the flesh?

I'm not here to say I have not sinned with birth control in the past or I might not in the future. This is something my wife and I will work out, with our priest, depending upon our sanctification and other spiritual matters. However, for anyone to claim it is "Orthodox" to say that birth control is not "bad" and that any fathers had a positive view of sex acts which purposely avoided the possibility of having children are fundamentally dishonest with the fathers and 19 centuries of Orthodoxy.

Rus brought the issue of lack of clarity up. This is really what I'm fighting about--not the issue of talking to your priest, because that's exactly what I do. But, I can say with clarity what my spiritual father and former bishop, before I changed jurisidictions, said--birth control is bad. We are sinners and do bad things. Okay, now that we got that out of the way, the better question is how we move forward in our sanctification.

What we don't need to hear are long winded justifications about how the fathers "did not really say that" or "the Orthodox Church never really taught that" or other silliness. Just whip out Kallistos Ware's first edition of the Orthodox Way. He had no problem identifying the issue as the whole Church did--birth control is wrong. Let that be known to any observers of this thread that are looking for a straight forward answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

Kristos

Servant
Aug 30, 2006
7,379
1,068
Minnesota
✟37,552.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hello everyone! Christ is risen!
This is a good thread because it has encouraged me to look at my own behavior, which very often falls short. While I don't particularly enjoy judging myself, it is important to at least have the correct measuring stick.

I think the best advice my grandmother gave me was "you will never be ready to have children until you do." I have three now and they are all a blessing.

I keep having to remind myself that continence is a virtue (contrary to what the world says). I'm not very good at it, so I will keep trying.

I love my wife very much. Marriage is sacrament, no? A mystery if you will. I think we do need to do better teaching this and understanding it ourselves. My god-daughter recent married. I love the Orthodox marriage service. It reminds me of everything that marriage is supposed to be, can be, should be.

Sorry for the random thoughts. Peace!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: abacabb3
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nutroll

Veteran
Apr 26, 2006
2,221
1,300
47
Boise, ID
Visit site
✟277,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't think this is a fair view of Augustine. He writes in "On the Good of Marriage" against a Pelagian:

"Then follows the connection of fellowship in children, which is the one alone worthy fruit, not of the union of male and female, but of the sexual intercourse" (par 1).

In the same paragraph, it is clear that having children is the only thing that one cannot have in another kind of relationship, and on this account it is called the one alone worthy fruit.

"Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence, although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting of children, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bring to pass some good." (par 3)

Again, within the same paragraph, he says that there is good apart from the begetting of children that extends even to older couples who marry even if they are not totally chaste (i.e. they are engaging in sexual intercourse even though they are not begetting children). Children are an important part of marriage (which I have never, ever argued against) but they are not a necessary component of each sexual act.

"For, although it be shameful to wish to use a husband for purposes of lust, yet it is honorable to be unwilling to have intercourse save with an husband, and not to give birth to children save from a husband. There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant. Therefore whatever that is immodest, shameless, base, married persons do one with another, is the sin of the persons, not the fault of marriage." (par 5)

He is saying that it is shameful to seek just the pleasure of sex but in such a case, the marriage bed is undefiled so long as the husband and wife insist on faithfulness to one another. Marriage bridles lust. What is done in marriage would not be considered chaste outside of marriage, but marriage is given to us as a chaste way to avoid falling into even greater sin. He says earlier in the paragraph "perhaps this may, not without reason, be called marriage, if it shall be the resolution of both parties until the death of one, and if the begetting of children, although they came not together for that cause, yet they shun not, so as either to be unwilling to have children born to them, or even by some evil work to use means that they be not born." So long as one is not trying to avoid children altogether or aborting them it is still marriage even if it is not the ideal.

"For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman." (par 12).

He is clear in this paragraph that a married couple may go beyond the begetting of children, saying later in the paragraph "an advance beyond moderation in demanding the due of either sex, for the reasons which I have stated above, is allowed to married persons as matter of pardon" It seems from your bolding of the word pardonable that you are trying to make the case that sex for pleasure is a sin that is forgiven, I would argue that the patristic teaching is more that the pardon is given by marriage itself, rather than being a confessible sin. What is sin outside of marriage is not within marriage (this is not broad sexual license as some would say, but does mean that married couples may enjoy the sexual act even when children are not likely or even possible).

It's superfluous to quote more. I am sure those in favor of softening the blow against the fathers' view on birth control will simply move the goal posts, but Augustine did not have this idea in isolation. It is arguably in the Didache itself (possibly apostolic), cited by Athenagora (2nd century), St Clement of Alexandria, and so on throughout the Patristic period.

To distill the mind of the fathers on this, sexuality is a passion. When used to beget children, it is blameless. When used to satisfy lust, as long as no birth control method is used, it is a pardonable venial sin. To not have children is a mortal sin if we take literally the writings of some fathers (i.e. Chrysostom calls it "worse than murder.") So, I think at the very least, we should say that while birth control may not really be worse than murder, it is certainly on the level of venial sin and we should be able to call sin "sin" within the Church.

ETA I have addressed your quotes from Augustine in the quoted text above. My comments are in red.

The sexual urge is indeed a passion, and must be brought into proper use. When used to beget children it is blameless. When it is used to fight against lust, fornication, and adultery, or where it strengthens the community of marriage, it is also blameless. It is allowed to married parsons as Saint Augustine said. Finally, I would quote from paragraph 15: "For they had them in the work of begetting children, not in the disease of desire, as the nations which know not God. And this is so great a thing, that many at this day more easily abstain from all sexual intercourse their whole life through, than, if they are joined in marriage, observe the measure of not coming together except for the sake of children. Forsooth we have many brethren and partners in the heavenly inheritance of both sexes that are continent, whether they be such as have made trial of marriage, or such as are entirely free from all such intercourse: forsooth they are without number: yet, in our familiar discourses with them, whom have we heard, whether of those who are, or of those who have been, married, declaring to us that he has never had sexual intercourse with his wife, save with the hope of conception? What, therefore, the Apostles command the married, this is proper to marriage, but what they allow by way of pardon, or what hinders prayers, this marriage compels not, but bears with." People often speak of sexual activity outside of conception as an evil, and even if they don't want to put it that way, they will say "if you don't want more kids and are too fertile, then don't have sex." This is what I have been saying all along. The only difference is that I have said that in some cases contraception might be a part of the equation for a couple as a pastoral issue, not as a broad license given within the Church. The only reason I waded into this morass at all is that Rus was saying that we shouldn't be asking our priests because they're all modernists and will speak lies and deception to their parishioners (a paraphrase of Rus to be sure, but that's the sense his words gave me). Ask your priest. The marriage bed will be undefiled, even if what is allowed in a particular circumstance is not the ideal. That is one of the beautiful things about the sacrament of marriage. It is for salvation of the fallen, not those who are already saved.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Kristos
Upvote 0