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]

To say this is a matter of “moral theology” is meaningless in terms of any consequences for Orthodox Christians. I understand you think we should follow the Roman course

Can the Orthodox teaching on homosexuality change too?

Is sacramental marriage a disciplinary canon too?

I don't care if you follow Rome or not, but you should follow the continuous universal teachings of Christianity from the time of the Apostles.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

if in fact the Synod of the Church of Greece had presumed to “order” Greeks not to use birth control, every Greek, from the old yiayas and papous to the youngest marrieds would, after they stopped laughing, immediately gone out a bought every available condom in the kingdom.

And if the Synod of the Church of Greece had presumed to “order” Greeks not to have an abortion...?

[mlizzy]

a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

That statement, if I'm reading it correctly, in itself pushes me 99% of the way to Sedevacantistism.

I think maybe you are reading it incorrectly Steve. And can you tell me if sedevacantists feel they are receiving the True Body of Christ in the Eucharist? This can only be impossible as they have left Rome. I do understand their plight, but not their actions. I went to a TLM again this past Sunday and was just consumed by it, the beauty [even though it was in the basement of a church, while the NO was upstairs at the same time], the reverence ... so extraordinary.

One of our daily Mass (this is a different parish from the TLM) priests is an outstanding priest. I went to him for Confession on Saturday, and since I'm hearing impaired, I was able to have face-to-face, and I was just blown away [wrong terminology, but you get it I'm sure] with his spirituality. He's an Indian priest, about the size and weight of Bobby Jindal, and is as soft-spoken and kind and gentle a man as can be. He closed his eyes during the whole Confession; I've never had a priest do that before. When I told him I would not be able to hear his advice after confessing, he just gave me my penance and that was it. Most priests will talk to me anyway, even though I can't decipher a thing that's being said.

My husband asked him today after Mass if he knew the Latin Mass, and he said that he did not, and when my husband mentioned how much I loved the TLM, Fr. said he would have to learn it. So instead of being enticed to leave the Roman Church, we might all request of our solid priests that they learn the TLM. It never hurts to ask, right?

[Salvation]

Sad. I guess they need our prayers so that they don’t become extinct.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Indeed. As I said above, I was not aware the Orthodox had officially caved on this before posting this thread. I’m shocked and gravely disappointed.

[steve86]

We have one young priest in the area — different diocese but right next door — learning the TLM but he has celebrated only two Tridentine Masses AFAIK. The priests who regularly celebrate the TLM are in their 80s and 90s. Regularly here means only a couple of times a month, unfortunately. I really don’t have any contact with NO priests.

I know that Roman Popes through the ages have said and done lot of stupid things but still retained their places in the Apostolic Succession. I will revise my sedy approximation to 9.9% which leaves me a way to go.

[mlizzy]

So do you travel for the TLM? Or do you still go to NO Masses? Great to hear about the young priest who is learning. Do you have everything memorized in the TLM? That is to say, can you follow along in Latin? It seems almost everyone around us was doing a great job in following, but we had to use the books provided. I hope to get this down someday. :)

[steve86]

I have to follow along, like a little kid, in my English-Latin Missal with illustrations (COALITION ECCLESIA DEI). But it serves its purpose.

A couple of weeks ago I took my mom to the TLM in Yakima, WA and it was really nice with a little choir. She claims the priest is in his 70s being 20 years his senior but I think he is in his 80s. He still has very strong and audible voice and she is probably right.

Attending an NO is out of the question for me — my blood pressure skyrockets and I would probably have a stroke.

[steve86]

Attending an NO is out of the question for me — my blood pressure skyrockets and I would probably have a stroke.

Never a good idea to endanger one's faith which is what that would do. I also stay away from books written by recent Popes.

[Campion]

However, what will the Church say to the next logical query, "If it may be morally praiseworthy for a prostitute to use a condom, what about the spouse of someone suffering from AIDS?"

What is the other alternative? Sexual acts, to be moral, must be an expression of love between spouses. (That's a necessary, not sufficient, condition, obviously.) Knowingly risking the transmission of an often-fatal disease isn't an act of love.

Now if you're talking about a woman whose husband won't take abstinence for an answer and who is therefore essentially being raped (within marriage) and who for some reason can't physically leave, perhaps that begins to approach what the Pope is talking about. But that is (we'd hope) a fairly rare and contrived situation. (The unitive aspect is obviously already seriously damaged in this case.)

Does the Church then fall back on the principle of double effect?

Double effect doesn't come into play in the consensual homosexual case. We're talking only "less evil" or "comparatively morally praiseworthy", while double effect establishes the absolute morality of an action.

And one of the principles of double effect is "the good effect cannot be achieved by any other means". Since here, the good effect (non-transmission of disease) can be achieved by abstinence, double effect doesn't apply.

Does that which is intrinsically illicit, i.e., contraception, become no longer intrinsically illicit because of situational ethics?

By definition, something intrinsically illicit cannot become licit because of extraneous factors.

However, the condom itself is not illicit (it's just an object), but using it as a contraceptive is.

In the homosexual case, "contraception" isn't at issue -- the act itself is already "contraceptive" and gravely sinful. A condom can't make it more contraceptive than it already is.

In the case of a woman who fears rape, she is not carrying a condom so she can enjoy non-procreative sex (that is, it's not intended as a contraceptive), but to try to protect herself from contracting a disease as a result of a violent attack (and to make the attack itself less invasive). That seems to me to be justifiable on a double-effect basis, since there is clearly no other way to achieve the end*, and the intent need not be to prevent conception.

*Although I personally have no objection to .357 magnum rape prophylaxis in preference to a condom.

[Kolokotronis]

“So basic principles of moral theology, established since the early Church, are nothing more than disciplinary to the Orthodox, and can be abrogated at any time?”

To the extent that those principles are not dogma, and some arguably are, the answer is yes. I’d suggest, however, that Rome certainly has no corner on the maintenance of the “basic principles of moral theology”.

“And to think that years ago I toyed with the idea of heading east”

Good thing you didn’t, I suppose.

[FormerLib]

All contraception is forbidden in Catholic teaching.

Does that include so-called Natural methods?

Intent cannot make the immoral moral.

Indeed, the Orthodox teach that not wanting to have children is a moral failing. That is the intent. The methodology of avoiding fertilization is akin to arguing the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

[Kolokotronis]

“Can the Orthodox teaching on homosexuality change too?”

I don’t know. It hasn’t thus far and of course we’ve done a rather better job of keeping them out of the ranks of the clergy and away from the altar boys than you folks have.

“Is sacramental marriage a disciplinary canon too?”

No, the mystery of marriage is dogmatic. It is so important in the Orthodox Churches that we, unlike you folks, bar unmarried people of the opposite sex living together or active homosexuals from all of the sacraments except confession. No doubt Rome finds the use of condoms by married people a far more grave matter than profanation of communion. Or has Rome now decided that sex outside of marriage, gay or otherwise, is no longer a sin, or perhaps only a venial sin? Is it true that communion is handed out at your Masses to people who haven’t been to confession first or who have not fasted as required by the canons...or have those disciplinary canons been abrogated?

“I don’t care if you follow Rome or not, but you should follow the continuous universal teachings of Christianity from the time of the Apostles.”

With all due respect, Doc, Rome is in absolutely no position to be dictating to Orthodoxy about the “continuous universal teachings of Christianity from the time of the Apostles.” Try telling your kids, the Protestants.

[FormerLib]

With all due respect, Doc, Rome is in absolutely no position to be dictating to Orthodoxy about the “continuous universal teachings of Christianity from the time of the Apostles.”

Well said, thank you.

[Kolokotronis]

“And if the Synod of the Church of Greece had presumed to “order” Greeks not to have an abortion...?”

Likely the same effect. Greeks aren’t into obedience much. I remember years ago I was down in Greece when our State Department put out a directive that Americans were not to travel to some Dogvomitstan. One of my cousins laughed and said that if the Greek government ever did anything like that, the Greeks would be lined up all the way from the airport back up Syngrou to Syntagma Sq., miles, to get a ticket.

The abortion rate in Greece is slightly over 13% of pregnancies. For a comparison, Spain’s is 18%, Italy’s about 9.5% and Germany’s about 14.5%. So, Greece isn’t good, but it’s better than some.

[Kolokotronis]

“Sad. I guess they need our prayers so that they don’t become extinct.”

Dear lady, we Orthodox are the chief among sinners. We will appreciate your prayers no matter what the purpose.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

All contraception is forbidden in Catholic teaching.

Does that include so-called Natural methods?

Natural Family Planning is not morally equivalent to contraception. But that argument hinges on Natural Law, which none of you Orthodox have affirmed as a basis for morality on this thread so far. So at this point, I think it would be pointless to make that distinction, unless you can affirm the Orthodox do recognize Natural Law principles.

The methodology of avoiding fertilization is akin to arguing the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

Not for those who recognize, understand and accept Natural Law principles.

[Teófilo]

Does the Church then fall back on the principle of double effect?

How is this a "fall back" position? It is a valid moral principle.

Besides, Catholic moral principles become an element when the person in question begins the road to repentance and conversion of life and manners. The others care less about the principles of living a good, moral life. They can't or won't reason morally.

"Concessions" to double-effect are only relevant to those who are beginning to walk in Christ.

-Theo

[FormerLib]

That is correct, we do not affirm ‘Natural Law’, whatever that might be defined as, as the basis of morality.

We Orthodox rely on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Faith first delivered to the Apostles and preserved in the Orthodox Catholic Christian Church.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think I see what you're trying to get at: it is your view that there would be no moral difference between an "artificial" or a "natural" act of contraception. Is that correct?

If that's what you mean, then you are right. For instance, injecting something into your sex organs to make your copulations sterile, would be wrong even if it were a whopping big dose of your very own natural hormones. Or using a condom to block the fertility of an act of intercourse would be wrong, even if you could pick condoms right off a tree.

It's not a question of "natural" vs "artificial" in that sense. It's a question of using a good means to a good end. If it's a good, prudent decision not to have a baby, then one should do that without attacking a baby (abortion) AND without attacking the fertility (contracepting your sex acts).

It's the latter -----changing the nature of honest-to-God sex ---- which constitutes the objectionable aspect of contraception.

And this is distinguishable from the question: are you trying to avoid/postpone a pregnancy? Because that in itself is not sinful. There can be very good reasons to want to avoid/postpone a pregnancy. And if there are good reasons, one can do this with perfect innocence, as long as the way you do it (the "means") is also good.

What I'm doing here, is distinguishing means from ends. If the end is justified (we're refraining from kids for now) and the means is good (we're refraining from fertile sex for now), then God bless you, all is well.