The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?

(USCCB) ^ | 29th October 2003 | North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

[Catholicguy]

O.K. I know you have the Fr. Francis book, right? I will start the bidding at $10.00. I suggest we let the auction go until, oh, I dunno, how about 6:00 p.m. today e.s.t.

[findingtruth]

It's really quite useless trying to convince the Latins that NFP is a form of contraception.

What is really mystifying is that our Catholic Moral Theology handbooks explicitly call it birth control and contraception.

Catholic moral theology handbooks written by whom? Calling NFP birth control is legit. Calling it contraception would be hard to square with this:
Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, #80-81. "With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: 'Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it' (cf. Rom 3:8)...
"In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: 'Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God'(1 Cor 6:9-10)."

Or with this, from the CCC: "The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality." (quoting Humanae Vitae)

Perhaps the handbook to which you are referring is merely careless in its its language. On the other hand, we could be looking at a deliberate attempt to undercut the Church's teaching against contraception by intentionally confusing contraceptive practices with sexual abstenance.

There are plenty of Catholic theology books, written by people like Richard McBrien and others with great sounding credentials, who intentionally promote heresy.

[findingtruth]

I take that back. The Catechism wasn't quoting Humanae Vitae there. It was quoting Familiaris Consortio.

[FormerLib]

Calling it contraception would be hard to square with this: Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, #80-81. "With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: 'Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it' (cf. Rom 3:8)

How would properly calling this a contraceptive sexual practice be hard to square with a statement about committing an evil act. Is the NFP an evil act?

[findingtruth]

How would properly (sic) calling [NFP] a contraceptive sexual practice be hard to square with a statement about committing an evil act.

It is hardly credible (to Catholics, at least) that the Pope would endorse a practice which he himself agrees is an evil act.

Is the NFP an evil act?

Not unless you think there is a divine commandment requiring couples to perform the conjugal act at times when the woman is known to be fertile.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Sorry, I checked it out from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary and read it.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Catholic moral theology handbooks written by whom? Calling NFP birth control is legit. Calling it contraception would be hard to square with this:

Another lawful means of family limitation is "periodic continence" or "rhythm," the deliberate avoidance of conception by restricting intercourse, temporarily or permanently, to the days of natural sterility on the part of the wife. Many of the faithful are under the impression that the system has received the unqualified approval of the Church, that it constitutes a form of "Catholic Birth-Control." This is not completely true. (Para. 2622 in MORAL THEOLOGY, JOHN A. McHUGH, O.P. And CHARLES J. CALLAN, O.P., REVISED AND ENLARGED BY EDWARD P. FARRELL, O.P., 1958)

contraception - noun, the intentional prevention of pregnancy; the use of contraceptives (Concise Oxford Dictionary)

contraceptive - adj. & noun, adj. preventing pregnancy, noun, contraceptice device or drug

birth control - noun, the control of the number of children one conceives, esp. by contraception

birth control pill - noun, the contraceptive pill

"avoidance of contraception" = contraception = birth control =/= artificial contraception =/= artifical birth control.

You are creating a distinction in words which does not exist in language. Hence "artifical contraception" and "artificial birth control". Thus in the previously cited text, this sentence:

"Those who have not been spoiled or misled by contraceptive propaganda or advice, instinctively regard artificial birth-control as well as onanism with disgust. (ibid, 2621)

[findingtruth]

Interesting. I see this sort of thing with the Montanism, the SSPX, etc. It's the more-Catholic-than-the-Pope sort of thing.

[FormerLib]

It is hardly credible (to Catholics, at least) that the Pope would endorse a practice which he himself agrees is an evil act.

I have yet to see anything suggesting the Pope has written that condemns using the contraceptive practice of the rythym method to be evil. Because of this, there is nothing to be considered in light of your posted quote.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I would also point out that I analogized the artifice of NFP to that of 'the pill' because both involve a regimen of activity intended to prevent conception taking place regularly and outside of the context of sexual intercourse.

The distinction drawn by Catholics and endorsed by the Orthodox at the time of Humane Vitae is this:

In NFP/Rhythm, although conception is unlikely, it is not impossible even if everything is done "right", and nothing is done to attempt to prevent this small possibility. Studies have shown that pregnancy can possibly occur from intercourse on almost any day of the month, although it is most likely to be regularly around the period of days 9-19 of a typical menstrual cycle. The intent in using this method is to minimize the likelihood of pregnancy, but to allow nature to take its course if God and the female body provides.

With artificial contraceptives, if everything is done "right" the possibility of pregnancy is by definition zero. Pregnancy then still occurs because of failures on the part of the people using the devices to do so completely correctly. But the intent is to physically prevent pregnancy with a moral certainty of 100%.

Aritifical contraception using barrier devices is rather like chewing food and then spitting it out before swallowing (contraceptive pills and the like are more like taking drugs to purge one's stomach via vommitting). One enjoys the taste without receiving the possibility of its natural use of nourishment. I don't think there is a Christian around who maintains it would be morally okay to "eat" an entire meal in this way - chewing and spitting without swallowing.

The natural result of eating is to deposit masticated food in the stomach, where it may or may not be digested depending upon other factors (health of the person, digestability of the food, etc.). The natural result of intercourse is to deposit semen against the cervix where it may or may not be able to go and fertilize an femal ovum depending upon other factors (female fertility on that day, vitality and concentration of the spermatozoa, etc.). From this can be seen why NFP can be termed "natural", because it is not against nature and does it no injury, while the contraceptive pill is not, because it alters nature by injuring it.

A last thought, direct sterilization can also be seen to be wrong by the same analogy to eating. It would be rather like having a doctor go in and sever our stomach from our throat so that food can never have its intended effect. That it is also a bodily mutliation is another mark against it.

[findingtruth]

It is hardly credible (to Catholics, at least) that the Pope would endorse a practice which he himself agrees is an evil act.

I have yet to see anything suggesting the Pope has written that condemns using the contraceptive practice of the rythym method to be evil. Because of this, there is nothing to be considered in light of your posted quote.

I made my original comment to a Catholic (at least I think Hermann's a Catholic), who in turn was citing a theology book written by a Catholic. If NFP is contraception, and if the Pope has condemned contraception as evil, then if follows that the Pope is endorsing a practice he himself agrees is evil.

I realize this idea may seem perfectly acceptable to you non-Catholics, who think the Pope has his doctrines all screwed up anyway. However, for a Catholic who supposedly accepts the authority of the Pope, that is another matter. If a Catholic wants to claim that NFP is contraception, he runs smack up against Familiaris Consortio, Veritatis Splendor, and the CCC. That is why I questioned the orthodoxy of that theology book. As I observed, it appears to be an example of more-Catholic-than-the-Pope posturing, comparable to what we are seeing these days from the SSPX.

[findingtruth]

The distinction drawn by Catholics and endorsed by the Orthodox at the time of Humane Vitae is this

Where did you find that analysis?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Its what I've been taught by the Church (and ALWAYS held, even as a child before my conversion - I was very anti-contraception). The comparison of eating and intercourse is my own creation. I hope it edifies you.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I am a Catholic. I am simply making distinctions in words which are necessary in English to fully explicate the matter. There is no distinction in the English Language between "against conception" and "contraception". Thus, our English distinction of artifical contraception/birth control verus natural methods.

When the Pope condemns "contraception" I understand this to refer to "artificial contraception". I do not understand it to refer to periodic or total abstinence with an intent to avoid pregnancy (or indirect sterilization).

[The_Reader_David]

Objectively, even used correctly with regard to their intended purpose, all contraceptive methods commonly in use only make conception less likely. There are 'failure rates' computed for scrupulously correct use.

Interestingly, the contraceptive method often cited by Latin canonists as a scriptural basis for regarding contraception as 'inherently evil', the coitus interruptus of the infamous Onan, even 'correctly used' has a higher 'failure rate' (i.e. conception rate) than does NFP correctly used.

Ultimately I think the differences on this one come down to different patristic emphases between the two communities: the Latin West focusses on Blessed Augustine's treatment of concupicence and his idea that offspring somehow are the only sufficient justification for sexual intercourse, while we tend to think more in line with St. John Chrysostom's homilies on marriage in which he makes clear that in light of the Resurrection, the consolation of offspring is no longer the core purpose of marriage, or indeed of sexual intercourse within marriage. It may also be that the Western approach to morality which puts more emphasis on motive than does the Orthodox approach somehow contributes to the difference also.

It is also curious that 'onanism' so prominent in Western canonists' catalogues of sins is nowhere mentioned as a grave sin in any of the Ecumenical Canons or the canons of the Fathers incorporated by reference by the Ecumenical Councils.

[FormerLib]

If NFP is contraception, and if the Pope has condemned contraception as evil, then if follows that the Pope is endorsing a practice he himself agrees is evil.

NFP is contraception according to the definition posted by you. It sounds as if we are discussing semantics here, not theology.

[findingtruth]

NFP is contraception according to the definition posted by you.

Well yes, by your interpretation of the definition NFP or, for that matter choosing not to exercise conjugal rights for any reason could be considered contraception. Looks like you're trying to trying to define onanism so broadly that almost anyone could be said to be practicing it, and so it really shouldn't be considered as sin.

[findingtruth]

we tend to think more in line with St. John Chrysostom's homilies on marriage in which he makes clear that in light of the Resurrection, the consolation of offspring is no longer the core purpose of marriage, or indeed of sexual intercourse within marriage.

Hey dude, I'm glad to hear you like John Chrsostom. Well then, maybe we can agree after all!
John Chrysostom
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

"[T]he man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, ‘I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (ibid., 62:3).

[findingtruth]

It is also curious that 'onanism' so prominent in Western canonists' catalogues of sins is nowhere mentioned as a grave sin in any of the Ecumenical Canons or the canons of the Fathers incorporated by reference by the Ecumenical Councils.

The councils generally didn't issue definitions unless a doctrine were in dispute. If they had wanted to quote some, there were plenty:
Clement of Alexandria
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus
"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]).

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).

Epiphanius of Salamis
"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

[findingtruth]

Hey, since you don't go with Catholic teaching, you might want to try some Orthodox teaching. This is from http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ274.HTM:
Contraception: Early Church vs. Eastern Orthodoxy

by William Klimon

Orthodoxy on the Morality of Artificial Contraception: Recent Changing Standards

In the first edition, first printing (1963) of The Orthodox Church by Timothy (Kallistos) Ware - a widely-cited and authoritative source on Orthodox teaching -, the author states (page 302):

Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church.

The first edition, revised 1984 version of The Orthodox Church, however (NY: Penguin Books, page 302), states (emphasis added):

The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father.

The second edition, revised 1993 version of The Orthodox Church reveals even further alarming departure from Orthodox and previously universal Christian Tradition (page 296; emphasis added):

Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences.

Or note another statement from a revered Orthodox Patriarch, in 1968:

We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God's help to continue your mission in the world.

{Telegram from Patriarch Athenagoras to Pope Paul VI, 9 August 1968, reprinted in Towards the Healing of Schism, ed. & trans. E.J. Stormon (1987), p. 197}

I have heard Orthodox clerics today, on the other hand, encourage the use of contraception. There is a "green" streak in Orthodoxy that has led some, e.g., to jump on the overpopulation bandwagon.

Clearly, Orthodoxy is compromising with the spirit of the age with regard to this issue of the permissibility of the use of artificial contraception and methods of birth control. The following historical survey of Christian Tradition makes that indisputable. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has remained faithful to the constant Tradition in the Church, which universally condemned artificial contraception until the Anglicans, in their 1930 Lambeth Conference, first permitted it, for use in "hard cases" only.