Russian Orthodox Church okays use of condoms

Interfax ^ | 23 November 2010, 14:07

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Religion

---

	News

23 November 2010, 14:07

Russian Orthodox Church okays use of condoms

Moscow, November 23, Interfax - The Russian Orthodox Church has said the use of condoms is acceptable following a similar statement made by Pope Benedict XVI of the Catholic Church last week.

"The Foundations of the Social Policy of the Russian Orthodox Church distinguishes between abortive and non-abortive contraception. Priests can allow people to use the latter," head of the synodal Department for Church and Society Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said in an interview with Interfax-Religion.

However, Father Vsevolod added that it does not mean that the Church approves of "any egoistical decisions made by spouses not to have children."

Speaking about the use of condoms by people who are HIV-positive, Fr. Vsevolod called on these people to "seriously think whether they should have sex because infection can spread not only by direct sexual contact."

The British daily The Guardian reported on Monday, citing a statement by the Holy See, that Pope Benedict XVI intends to consider condom use by observant Catholics in certain situations. Excerpts from a collection the Pope's interviews were published earlier, and in one of those interviews the pope said condom use is justified in some situations.

The statement issued by the Vatican states that the pope agrees that condom use reduces the risk of contracting AIDS.

At the same time, the pope's treatment of the topic considers exceptional situations "in which a sexual act presents a true risk for another's life," Vatican Press Office Director Rev. Federico Lombardi said in a statement. "In such a case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality," rather, the use of the condom to lessen the danger of contagion may be "a first act of responsibility" and "a first step on the path toward a more human sexuality" rather than acting to put another's life at risk, Rev. Lombardi said in his statement.

Nevertheless, he said in his statement that the pope's comment neither "reforms nor changes" church teachings, which prohibits observant Catholics from using condoms.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Your thoughts?

From a recent AP article, Conservatives at odds with Vatican over condoms,

Germain Grisez, a prominent moral theologian who advises bishops, said that promoting condoms as protection against disease would be "pernicious" because it assumes a person does not have the capacity to make good, moral choices. He lamented that the pope's comments "can be — and are being — misused to sow doubt about Catholic teaching."

"Many of Jesus' own sayings were misused, and he no doubt foresaw that they would be misused. But he nevertheless said what he thought would lead to salvation those who were open to his teaching," Grisez wrote in an e-mail. "I assume that Pope Benedict's intention in speaking out as he does is similar to Jesus' intention. But Benedict's judgment about what to say may not be as sound as Jesus' judgment was."

I agree with Grisez.

[ZAROVE]

As ever, the media distorts hat is actually said, and leaves out part of it. The Pope is not changing Catholic Teaching, nor is the Orthodox Church really Changing anything.

this is not really news. Its a deception.

[The_Reader_David]

The subtitle appended by the poster is disingenuous and I think we Orthodox would appreciate it if it were removed. The Russian Church merely reiterated its previously established position.

Quoting from The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church:

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

As a practical and pastoral matter, the Orthodox forbid the use of abortifacient contraceptives, and expect the decision to use non-abortifacient contraceptives to be undertaken in consultation with the married couple's spiritual father, and never for the purpose of preventing all offspring--circumstances where pregnancy would be a threat to the life of the woman possibly excepted.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Apparently, the Russian Orthodox have accepted barrier methods for quite some time.

From their site,

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The subtitle appended by the poster is disingenuous and I think we Orthodox would appreciate it if it were removed. The Russian Church merely reiterated its previously established position.

On the contrary, the article from Interfax (which I think is of Russian origin?) gave the distinct impression in the first line of the article that the Russian Orthodox were simply following the lead of Rome:

"The Russian Orthodox Church has said the use of condoms is acceptable following a similar statement made by Pope Benedict XVI of the Catholic Church last week.

However, as it appears this was a false impression created by Interfax itself (and certainly nothing disingenuous on this poster's part), I'll humbly request the RM to edit the title.

[ZAROVE]

As I said, they aren’t Changing anything. This is not news. They have said this for years. The media acts as if they are Changing their stance to show how the Churches change doctrine, crumbling before Modernity, so as to help he image of a decaying and irrelevant Christendom which never kept the same beliefs.

Truth is generally ignored.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

As a practical and pastoral matter, the Orthodox forbid the use of abortifacient contraceptives, and expect the decision to use non-abortifacient contraceptives to be undertaken in consultation with the married couple's spiritual father, and never for the purpose of preventing all offspring

Is this the position held by all Orthodox, or only the Russian Orthodox?

What is the difference between this Orthodox viewpoint, and that expressed by the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in 1930:

Resolutions from 1930

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. 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.

Voting: For 193; Against 67.

[The_Reader_David]

Ah, well, some Komsomolized reporter at Interfax didn’t know this represented no change in the Russian Orthodox Church’s position, just a reaction to the kerfuffle about the Pope of Rome’s latest statement.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

As I said, they aren’t Changing anything. This is not news. They have said this for years.

Frankly, I was not aware the Orthodox had officially caved on this before posting this thread. I'm shocked and gravely disappointed.

[Mad Dawg]

If this weren't the Religion Forum, I'd be mentioning fertilizer found in or near the paddocks where the bulls are kept.

Who said, "A lie can get halfway around the world while truth is still putting its boots on"? (I'm NOT saying YOU lied. The Lamestream Media did.)

The following is an inadequate analogy for what the Pope was talking about:

Suppose I were a bank robber. Suppose my M.O. were to enter a bank and wave a firearm around and threaten mayhem and slaughter if my demands were not obeyed.

Now suppose one day I decided not to put any cartridges in my magazine, because I'd decided that I really didn't want to take the risk of hurting anyone.

That would be a moral step forward for a bank robber. He's still wrong to rob banks, to 'assault' people with a firearm, loaded or not. But he IS showing some faint sign of a moral sensitivity.

To make it a better analogy, suppose that instead of injecting each person in the bank with a drug which would immobilize them, I decided I'd just tie them up, because it's safer.

It's better because tying people up is wrong, as is condom use. But my entertaining the idea of this wrong thing is motivated by a heightened awareness of the needs of others. So it is (a) a moral step forward but (b) still immoral and illicit.

Prostitution is wrong. Using condoms is wrong. But IF a male prostitute uses condoms with the intention of protecting clients - he is still intending a great many deeds which are objectively wrong. BUT he is also showing the faint flicker of an ember of conscience which MIGHT, by the grace of God, one day be fanned or blown into a fire.

IN Elliot's Murder in the Cathedral Becket turns away from what he terms "the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason."

Here our subject is doing the wrong thing not for THE right reason, but for a reason which nonetheless exhibits some moral awareness.

[FormerLib]

Frankly, I was not aware the Orthodox had officially caved on this before posting this thread.

The Orthodox don't draw the line on tortured definitions of "artificial" vs. "natural" but on intent.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

It appears there is not consensus among the Orthodox regarding contraception.

Contraception

From OrthodoxWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contraception is the term used to describe an intentional prevention of the conception of a child. This term may also be used to describe the intentional prevention of pregnancy, which may be defined differently from conception. Synopsis

Opinions about contraception have varied in the Orthodox Church. There is complete unanimity that no form of contraception that is abortifacient is acceptable and there are definitive ecumenical canons that proscribe abortifacients. The Fathers of the Church, such as Ss. Athanasius the Great, John Chrysostom, Epiphanios, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Caesarious, Gregory the Great, Augustine of Canterbury and Maximos the Confessor, all explicitely condemned abortion as well as the use of abortifacients. However there are a range of opinions on the issue of non-abortifacient contraception.

1) There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.

2)There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.

3)There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons. The statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America follows along these lines, as does "The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," section XII. 3, which was approved by the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.

While some local churches have issued official statements on this issue, it is not an issue that has been clearly defined by the entire Church.

Vocal opponents to the prevailing view of contraception in Orthodoxy today include [incomplete]: Bp. Hilarion of Vienna [ROC], Bp. Artemije of Kosovo [SOC], Fr. Josiah Trenham, Fr. Patrick Reardon, Fr. John Schroedel and Fr. Patrick Danielson.

[Kolokotronis]

“The Foundations of the Social Policy of the Russian Orthodox Church distinguishes between abortive and non-abortive contraception. Priests can allow people to use the latter,” head of the synodal Department for Church and Society Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said in an interview with Interfax-Religion.”

This has been the position of the Orthodox Church for as long as the matter of contraception has made any difference to me. Sometimes Interfax Religion gets the story wrong in English. In the Orthodox Church, the matter of condom use, or for that matter of any non-abortifacient contraceptive, is, and has been, left to the husband and wife and their spiritual father. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a grave sin, so grave a sin that it has the effect of barring one from the sacraments, (live together without being married and have a sexual relationship and the only sacrament available to you is confession) so the condom issue in those circumstances is secondary.

I can assure you that while the Russians might have said they support +BXVI’s attitude (if it is his attitude)on condom use by prostitutes, male or otherwise, that isn’t saying much. The conduct engaged in with or without a condom is egregious enough.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

See my post # 2. Look at the lengths we have to go to in order to defend the orthodoxy of the Pope's condom statements.

I think that, sitting around in private with a bunch of well -educated Thomistic - trained fellow Catholics, there would be nothing whatsoever wrong with throwing out his comments for some robust heart-felt debate on a Friday night over a few brews.

On the other hand, throwing out these comments in a post/anti-Christian pop culture, out of context, without clarification, as L'Osservatore Romano did, was not only grossly imprudent but represents the malfeasance that has come to typify L'Osservatore Romano and the Vatican bureacracy in general since VII.

The Pope should have known better than to use a book targeted at a largely secular audience to introduce such a difficult and nuanced discussion. L'Osservatore Romano did know better than to throw out that excerpt out of context, without clarification. They had an agenda, and clearly derailed the launching of the Pope's book as a result.

The Pope should have known better!

It was grossly imprudent to introduce this issue in this manner, and he should have foreseen that.

And L'Osservatore Romano should be shut down completely for their treachery in this regard.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The Orthodox don't draw the line on tortured definitions of "artificial" vs. "natural" but on intent.

So the Orthodox do not accept the principles of Natural Law as we understand them? (This is an honest question.)

[Kolokotronis]

“Fr. Josiah Trenham, Fr. Patrick Reardon, Fr. John Schroedel and Fr. Patrick Danielson.”

Doc, trust me on this one, these guys DO NOT speak for Orthodoxy; they don’t even speak for their own jurisdictions. They are not hierarchs though a couple at least have the egos of hierarchs They are all, so far as I know, converts and confirmed Westernizers, as their sermons demonstrate. Among many cradle Orthodox they are NOT well thought of or particularly respected as theologians.

Bishop Artemije has been defrocked the by the Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church for “questionable business practices”, hardly a person anyone would want to be identified with. He as recently as mid November was defiant to the Synod and insists he still may offer public liturgies. He is attempting to foment a revolt against the Synod and the Serbian Patriarch.

[Houghton M.]

“The Orthodox don’t draw the line on tortured definitions of “artificial” vs. “natural” but on intent.”

Neither do Catholics “draw the line” between “artificial” versus “natural.”

All contraception is forbidden in Catholic teaching. Intent cannot make the immoral moral.

Natural family planning is not contraceptive. It involves abstaining from the conceptive act. Contr-ception starts the act then blocks it’s natural meaning (ception). NFP refuses to start the act at all, so nothing gets contra-ed.

The line is not between artificial and natural.

But, just in passing, to draw a line between natural and artificial is not “tortured.”

[Brian Kopp DPM]

It appears there has been a "development of doctrine" among the Orthodox in regard to contraception over the last half century. Note the summary in this medical journal citation:

1983 Sep;11(9):1053-5.

[The Greek Orthodox Church and position regarding birth control]

[Article in French]

Kapor-stanulovic N, Beric BM.

Abstract

PIP: The Christian Orthodox Church has 100-150 million baptized members worldwide. Its official position on fertility regulation is little known among nontheologians. The Christian Orthodox Church is resolutely opposed to all attempts to permit induced abortion, and has been since its earliest history. In the 4th century the aborting woman was considered in the same category as a murderer, and the position was reiterated through the centuries in the canons of the Church. However, the common practice of Church members differed greatly from the official position. During the Roman period and the 1st years of the Christian era, abortion and the exposure of newborns were very common. Many of the earlier arguments in favor of abortion that were countered by the Church are still offered. The liberalization of abortion legislation in the US was opposed by American Christian Orthodox Church members. The Church's position on contraception is less well known than its stand on abortion. Several official publications have condemned family planning, regarding it as a form of prostitution within the family and as a sin. The official position of the Greek Orthodox Church was set forth in an encyclical written in 1937, which recommended abstinence as the only legal method of avoiding conception. The position of the Christian Orthodox Church on abortion and contraception is fundamentally identical to that of the Roman Catholic Church. Because the position of the Christian Orthodox Church on birth control, which has been fixed for centuries, has not been officially debated and has not been communicated to the members, it has not fully guided daily life. One might suppose that members of the Christian Orthodox Church are freer of church control of their fertility behavior than are Catholics.

PMID: 12279632 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Compare that to this (bold emphasis added) Wiki entry:

Alternate views

Until about 1970, the Eastern Orthodox Church generally opposed the use of contraception. Since that time a "new consensus" was said to have emerged. This new view holds that contraception is acceptable within a Christian marriage if 1), the means of contraception is not abortifacient, 2) it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father^[why?] and 3), children are not completely excluded from the marriage,^[43][44][45] which is found in a chapter called "The foundation of chastity", by Germogenos of Shimanovo

I thought the Orthodox criticized Rome for "development of doctrine."

Is this not an example of a development in moral theology, i.e., that which was previously condemned as illicit is now seen as licit?

[Mad Dawg]

The Pope should have known better!

Yes, he should. However it is hard to believe how sloppy, ignorant, and agenda driven the lamestream media are. I can well imagine a man of good will failing to think that what he said would be wrenched out of context and presented as something entirely different.

But it was a blunder, and as in the case of most blunders of generals, the penalty will be paid by us private soldiers trying to clarify and explain.