[Kolokotronis]

" We need a reliable source that clerifies the limits."

Since when is "yiayia-ology" not a reliable source? (Yiayia means grandmother). :)

[kosta50]

I would like to clarify the position of the Orthodox Church on the subject of contraception and address some truths about Church and sex, now and in the past. It is a little lengthy, but I think it is worth it.

First, let me start with the Catholic arguments. The RCC does no longer teach that marital sex should be for procreation purposes only. The act (or the "deed" as they call it) must be "life-giving" and therefore "natural."

For the action to be sound in its general nature it is required that the parties to it are a man and woman married to one another and that their natural bodies are joined in life-giving intercourse.

Thus, if the act is itself is not natural, but involves mechanical or chemical barriers that prevent or terminate conception, the "deed" is not condoned. However, the "deed" is condoned even if the couple is no longer capable of producing life, as long as the "deed" is "life-giving."action is generative of its kind even though a baby cannot be born from it because of other conditions, as when the woman is sterile or already pregnant.

This is very interesting, because it does not address the man. If his "life-giving" function is impaired, and no life-giving "deed" can be accomplished (i.e. no seed), it would seem that such marriage could not continue in the "deed." So no seed, no deed [regardless of the need?]

The definition of the "deed" also begs the question of the "motive," that is -- under what circumstances is such a deed permissible, i.e. "should husband and wife seriously intend to have a child whenever they have intercourse and should they try to restrict intercourse to those times when the conception of a child is possible?" The position of the RCC seems is clear:

The answer is negative. There are other valid reasons for intercourse besides procreation. These are the healthy expression of passion, the fostering of mutual love, the strengthening of the sacramental bond of marriage. These are worthy motives, implying the human love and devotion of marriage, including more than the mere appetite for pleasure, which is not a sufficient motive for any action. The intention of trying to have a child is not necessary as a [sic] regular motive.

What is the Orthodox position"? The Orthodox Church is less legalistic, and therefore, as the primitive Church, has different theologians whose opinions are somewhat different from others and on which the Church had no universal teaching (i.e. has not been addressed by an Ecumenical Council). Thus we find that the EOC has some general agreements on this issue:

1. since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;

2. contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.

There are those, with whom conservative Catholics would find agreement

Some authors take a negative view and count any use of contraceptive methods within or outside of marriage as immoral (Papacostas, pp. 13-18; Gabriel Dionysiatou). These authors tend to emphasize as the primary and almost exclusive purpose of marriage the birth of children and their upbringing. They tend to consider any other exercise of the sexual function as the submission of this holy act to unworthy purposes, i.e., pleasure-seeking, passion, and bodily gratification, which are held to be inappropriate for the Christian growing in spiritual perfection...It must be noted also that, for these writers, abortion and contraception are closely tied together, and often little or no distinction is made between the two.

Then there are

Other Orthodox writers have challenged this view by seriously questioning the Orthodoxy of the exclusive and all-controlling role of the procreative purpose of marriage (Zaphiris; Constantelos, 1975). Some note the inconsistency of the advocacy of sexual continence in marriage with the scriptural teaching that one of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7).

Surprisingly, if not ironically, both of these have their roots in Church history and teachings of select fathers.

However, most authors

... emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love.

Personally I always wanted to ask our Catholic brethren on what grounds is the use of medications and or artificial devices allowed in the prevention and suppression of "natural" diseases, or extending life beyond the "natural" death, whereas the same are not in the "natural deed" of sexual intercourse, and how is man's inability to produce a "life-giving" act reconciled with Church's view that only "life-giving" act is acceptable when such act is impossible (i.e. damage to the sperm-generating structures if man's reproductive organs)?

Historical perspective of interest. St John Chrysostom taught that

It was for two reasons that marriage was introduced so that we may live in chastity [sophrosyne] and so that we might become parents. Of these the most important reason is chastity . . . especially today when the whole inhabited world [he oikoumene] is full of our race.

Unfortunately, the Greek orthodox Church in America interprets this to mean that he considered the purpose of marriage "primarily the satisfaction of the sexual drive." [?] If anything, he was advocating chastity through marriage, and then procreation, not satisfaction of the sexual drive.

The EOC considers any conception outside the marriage or within marriage that is not agreed upon by both partners as unacceptable

...artificial insemination of unmarried women, or of married women without the consent and cooperation of the husband, is rejected by the Orthodox, in the first instance as a form of fornication, and in the second as duplicity and a form of adultery (Galanopoulos, pp. 455-456).

In medieval Russia, the OC treated sex as necessary evil literally speaking.

Sex was the Church's number one concern, in terms of sin, carrying heavier penances than even murder, theft, or child neglect. Women being little more than walking, talking sexual temptation, couldn't get a break in Orthodoxy's web of sexual philosophy. A woman's period was, at the same time, both proof that she had failed to conceive -further defiling any sexual activities that might have occurred--, and a glaring reminder of how a man had to defile himself in order to obey God's command to multiply. Further, a woman could not even enter a church while she was experiencing her period.

The number of times a woman attended church on Sundays in a given month were noted, and coming four Sundays in a row was proof of transgression, and brought with it heavy penance. Such penance could be up to 3 years denial of the sacraments, especially if it were proved that she had taken communion. Contemporary accounts, surely trumped up to scare women into line, had God turning one poor woman into a horse for taking communion during her cycle, and another stuck by lightening for inadvertently walking over the grave of a saint while thus "unclean." Though nothing further is known of the horse, the latter woman later repented and was cured of her period.

Orthodox writings decried the physical union of man with woman as base and squalid, even in marriage. Sex was for the sole purpose of procreation, and that only because of Eve's folly. St John Chrysotom, one of the most famous philosophers of Orthodoxy, explained that it was actually the Word of God that provided the divine magic of procreation, and that had Eve not led to mankind's ejection from Eden, some other, less base, way of procreating would have been bestowed upon them by God. Thus, though procreation was a duty, the very act that allowed it was a defilement rooted in original sin. The Church urged a celibate life for the married, with the exception of procreation.

St. Augustine said

"I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." (Christian Attitude, by James Brundage, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987, p. 85)

Augustine and others at that time considered sex a subject of grave danger "in part because they believed that sexual feelings and urges, particularly the reactions of the genital organs, were not fully under the control of the human will," and given that many saw sex as something that resulted as a consequence of man's Fall from God, as a power intrinsically evil.

In general, Gnostics, including Origen who castrated himself, believed that Adam and Eve had no sexual temptations in Paradise and that sex therefore resulted from the "original sin" and that, as such, its essence was sinful. This was not alien even to mainline "orthodox" teachers.

As the time progressed, the Church was becoming stricter with regard to sex and the definition of familia. The Roman family was nothing like ours. The man in the familia was not part of it; familia was his possession, and it included his wife, children, servants, slaves and live stock.

Generally intercourse was forbidden

• When one's wife is menstruating, pregnant, or nursing
• During Lent, Advent, Whitsun Week, or Easter week On feast days, fast days, Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday
• During daylight [!]
• If you are naked [!]
• If you are in church [!]
• Unless you are trying to produce a child [p. 162]

  The Catholic Church (and very possibly the Orthodox as well) also taught and still teaches that married partners have an obligation to "submit" to each other whenever one of them desires sex. This was put into a law by Pope Alexander III. Under this teaching, this obligation remains in force even if one of the partners acquires a contagious disease, such as leprosy [p. 335]

  It is also interesting to note that "Fornication between unmarried persons was declared [sic] heresy in 1287.

  How can an act be heresy is beyond me. It may be a heretical act, but not heresy.

  In conclusion, it is obvious that the Church did not teach uniformly on the issue of sex, marriage and its purpose in the past as it doesn't today. The EOC has no special councils that address the issue as doctrinal. It is therefore invalid to demand or condemn the Church by leaving the decisions as to what is permitted to a bishop. Any reconciliation of the East and the West will have to recognize that, in absence of a formal conciliar decision, such prerogative of bishops will have to be honored at least in the East.

  It is obvious that both the Church of the East and West altered significantly their attitudes toward sex, and its purpose in marriage throughout history and under different social circumstances, and therefore cannot claim it as Tradition. Both remain committed to condemning sex outside of marriage, which both consider a Sacrament.

  It is important to remember that our Savior did not address these issues in any detail, and was not in His salvific message.