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.

[Kolokotronis]

“But some Orthodox strongly disagree, including both laity and hierarchs. And as far as I can see, there is nobody in Orthodoxy who actually has the authority to say what is, or is not, “THE” Orthodox teaching on this and other disputed questions.

If there is, I would like to know who that would be.

Correct me, Brother K, if I have expressed this incorrectly.”

You have it just right, dear lady. No man (or woman), thank God, speaks for the Orthodox Church. Only a council can do that and even then if what the council proclaims is not accepted by the Laos tou Theou, it is no dogma. For example, +Paul VI, in contradiction to what his theologians advised, promulgated Humanae Vitae making the Roman Church’s condemnation of artificial birth control dogmatic. The Roman Catholic laity has spoken clearly on this matter with the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic women and men using artificial birth control (90% of child bearing age American women in 2002; about the national average (which I suppose is relatively a good thing since Roman Catholic women abort their children at a rather higher rate than Protestant women). From an Orthodox pov, 42 years of rejection of supposed dogma by the Laity probably would be taken as a sure sign that what had been promulgated as dogma was no dogma at all.

Like I said before, our system is not Rome’s system and Rome’s system is not ours. That’s why there’s a schism.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

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.

Better than Russia...

Russia's President Wants to Turn Around Population Decline

James Brooke | Moscow30 November 2010

Russia's president devoted the largest part of his annual State of Russia speech to reversing Russia's population decline.

If Russian couples have a third child, they will get a baby bonus, better health care, and free land to build a house or dacha, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev promised in his annual State of Russia speech.

Political analysts were hoping to hear about missiles or democracy. Instead they got babies.

Twenty years ago, just before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kremlin ruled an empire with a population slightly larger than that of the United States. Today, Russia has less than half the population of the United States.

And Russia's population of 142 million people is aging fast, a sign of bigger drops ahead, President Medvedev said.

The president said Russians will have to increase birth rates to overcome the demographic ax blow of the 1990s. Due to the post-communist economic collapse, there may not be enough fertile age women for Russia to maintain its population size. Mr. Medvedev, the father of one child, said two will not do. It must be three.

Mr. Medvedev also called for a Russia without orphanages. He said Russian families should adopt Russian children.

He also said donations to child-care organizations should be made tax free and penalties should be raised for selling alcohol to minors.

In a nod to Russia's aging population, Mr. Medvedev said he is raising pensions and wants to cut inflation in half. He also said he would like to raise the share of Russian-made pharmaceutical drugs to half of those sold in the country.

What he did not say is that Russia compensates for its aging workforce by importing about 10 million laborers a year from Central Asia. After the United States, Russia is now the second-largest importer of workers. This influx of overwhelmingly Muslim workers creates tensions in Russia, where the population is largely Orthodox Christian.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

From an Orthodox pov, 42 years of rejection of supposed dogma by the Laity probably would be taken as a sure sign that what had been promulgated as dogma was no dogma at all.

From a Catholic point of view, 42 years of rejection of dogma by the Laity probably could be taken as a sure sign of the beginnings of the Great Apostasy foretold in scripture.

[Kolokotronis]

“I’m not convinced that anyone within Orthodoxy has or had the authority to make this change on a moral theology issue that has been constant and universal since the early Christians, based on Scripture.”

No one person does, Doc. The Laos tou Theou certainly does, though. if Rome had a similar praxis, you wouldn’t have a dogma about artificial birth control either.

“Calling it nothing more than “disciplinary” doesn’t make it so.”

For us it does. Remember, we’re not Roman Catholics.

“We’re not talking about changing a church discipline like not eating meat on Fridays, or even the discipline of a married vs celibate clergy.”

Why not? For us, this issue is at best disciplinary.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

[Kolokotronis]

“From a Catholic point of view, 42 years of rejection of dogma by the Laity probably could be taken as a sure sign of the beginnings of the Great Apostasy foretold in scripture.”

That argument was used in 1054, and later after the rejection of the False Union of Florence. You can use it now if you want, but the track record of that prediction hasn’t been so good.

[Kolokotronis]

The Russian situation is a disgrace. By God’s grace it will improve. 70 years of godless communism and monstrous oppression of The Church was bound to give the Evil One an in with the people.

[FormerLib]

Orthodoxy has no intent on changing the clear teachings on Scripture

Good.

As per St. Augustine:

You can stop right there, Doc. Saint Augustine is not to be confused with Scripture.

Keeping that in mind will make your discussions with Orthodox go much smoother.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

If all of Orthodoxy, all of Protestantism, and 90% of rank and file Catholics reject a principle of moral theology that has been universally and continuously taught since the time of the Apostles, does that not cause you any concern?

This is not like 1054 or the 1430s.

This is a generalized apostasy by all Christians.

With the notable exception of a faithful remnant.

[FormerLib]

“He was being a wise guy”

I do that a lot, Doc. It’s like a “Natural Law” for Greeks...

You know, that's one of those things that I figured that everyone knew.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Saint Augustine is not to be confused with Scripture.

Ok, wise guy ;-)

That was Saint Augustine's explanation of Genesis 38, which was held throughout Christianity up till the Anglicans caved in 1930, followed within decades by the rest of Protestantism and finally the Orthodox.

I have yet to see a valid reason for Orthodoxy's "new consensus" on this issue, given their historical universal condemnation of contraception in union with Saint Augustine's views of scripture, i.e. Genesis 38.

[FormerLib]

Abstinence, whether short-term or long-term, is not contraception...

No, but having sex when your knowledge of biology indicates that the female is not fertile, is.

The only difference is the shibboleth of "natural" versus "artificial", but we find that to be wholly unconvincing.

[FormerLib]

I have yet to see a valid reason for Orthodoxy's "new consensus" on this issue, given their historical universal condemnation of contraception in union with Saint Augustine's views of scripture, i.e. Genesis 38.

This is only my own opinion, but I believe the rise of non-abortofacient contraception rendered the point moot.

[Mrs. Don-o]

As I understand it, though, the Laos tou Theou is necessarily a conservative force: it represents the laity's fidelity to the teachings of the Fathers, and thus to the received truths of the Faith.

It is not meant to be a force for cultural accommodation, continuous modernization, or anything of the sort.

It's by no means a matter of "majority rules." If it were, I suppose the whole Church in the East should have gone Arian; since hierarchs like Athanasius (Contra Mundum) were for years a small minority. If majority rules, then the correct Orthodoxy in the Levant would be Muslim, since the majority of Syrian and Palestinian Orthodox had gone over to Islam by sometime in the 13th century. If the majority rules, contraception is OK. Gay marriage, too, if the majority goes for it sometime in the next 30 years and the Laos tou Theou detects this as the "new" will of the Holy Spirit.

[That last is not just a sarcastic remark. If the purpose of marriage is simply the formation of stable unions and coition as the expression of physical love between adults, with any relation to procreation being optional --- as contraception-advocates claim --- then homosexual unions could be approved in the future if liberalizing trends continue.

It's not without precedent. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints” (Links)]

But back to the subject of heterosexuals choosing sexual acts deliberately turned away from procreation:

Can you tell me one Church Father or Orthodox Theologian before, say, 1917, or even before the 1960's, who approved of the use of contraceptives?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"No, but having sex when your knowledge of biology indicates that the female is not fertile, is [contraception]."

This is incorrect. Sexual union itself, unaltered, can be naturally infertile, but there is no act of "contracepting" if there is no act that opposes or turns off fertility.

Surely you can see this. A married couple who go on having intercourse for decades after the wife's menopause, are not year after year performing acts of "contraception." They're just enjoying sexual union as God made it. They haven't done anything to thwart or nullify God's design.

You may disagree that deliberately turning an act of sexual intercourse against fertility, is wrong. OK, you disagree. I get that. But I'm just asking you to see that that's different from simply accepting sex the way it is.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

This is only my own opinion, but I believe the rise of non-abortofacient contraception rendered the point moot.

Huh?

Non-abortifacient contraception has been around literally for millenia. That was Onan's sin in Genesis 38. Sheepskin condoms date back to the early days of the Roman Empire.

Abortifacient contraceptives were introduced on a wide-scale basis with the modern IUD in the 1920s, and the abortifacient birth control pill in the 1950s/1960s.

Since non-abortifacient contraception has been around literally for millenia, how can their "rise" be used to justify a change in Orthodox teaching on barrier methods in the 1970s?

Or did you mean that the rise of abortifacient contraceptives in the last century somehow justified the use of non-abortifacient contraception?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The only difference is the shibboleth of "natural" versus "artificial", but we find that to be wholly unconvincing.

How about addressing the distinctions raised in post #62.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

“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

I'm beginning to wonder...Athanasius Contra Mundum?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Interestingly enough, I just discovered that the entry on Contraception at orthodoxwiki.org has changed dramatically over the last several years.

Here is how it was phrased in 2007:

Until about 1970, all Orthodox churches opposed the use of contraception. Since that time a "new consensus" has emerged, mostly, but not exclusively in America. This new view basically holds that contraception is acceptable within a Christian marriage if:
1) the means of contraception is not abortifacient, 2) if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and 3) if children are not completely excluded from the marriage. The statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America follows along these lines:

• http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19.

This "new consensus" has not gone unchallenged. Some teach the traditional view of the Church, that it is sinful to artificially separate the pleasure of intercourse from God's purpose of procreation. Others hold a view somewhat similar to the Roman Catholic position, which would allow family planning in principle, i.e., Natural Family Planning, while at the same time opposing contraception—many Orthodox hierarchs and theologians from around the world lauded Humanae Vitae when it was issued. A few think the "new consensus" position is too conservative and more freely allow contraception.

Many people, on all sides, believe that this change in thinking on this issue of contraception has not received adequate examination. Too often it has become tied up in identity politics, with various groups accusing the other of western influence. It is true that this discussion is closely related to a number of complex issues that have not fully been addressed in Orthodox theology. Roman Catholics are sometimes bewildered by how the Orthodox Church could allow such a change in teaching. One might respond by saying that the dynamics of the Orthodox tradition function much differently than Rome's, and that this issue must be worked through in a manner quite different from a magisterial decree.

It must be noted that the Fathers of the Church, such as Ss. Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, John Chrysostom, Epiphanios, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Caesarious, Gregory the Great, Augustine of Canterbury and Maximos the Confessor, all explicitely (sic) condemned contraception, whether abortive or non-abortive. As of yet, there is yet to be a single Orthodox Saint who did not consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin.

Vocal opponents to the current secularized view of contraception in Orthodoxy include [incomplete]: Bp. Hilarion of Vienna [ROC], Fr. Josiah Trenham, Fr. Patrick Reardon, Fr. John Schroedel

Here's how it appears today:

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.

Forgive me for the impression that our Orthodox brethren are being a bit disingenuous on this thread about this subject. There is far more dissension within their ranks on this issue than they care to admit.

[FormerLib]

Interestingly enough, I just discovered that the entry on Contraception at orthodoxwiki.org has changed dramatically over the last several years.

Heck of an Orthodox authority you're quoting there, Doc.

Welcome to OrthodoxWiki, a free-content encyclopedia and information center for Orthodox Christianity that anyone can edit.

I wonder who might have composed your 2007 reference?