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]

This is an excerpt of an article, The Orthodox Christian Marriage from a magazine called "Orthodox America," supposedly "Published with the blessing of Archbishop Hilarion, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia." Regardless of whether it reflects the current views of Orthodoxy, it does lay out some of the historical views of Orthodoxy on contraception:

Having said all this, what exactly is the Church's teaching concerning birth control?

The practice of artificial birth control - by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device - is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Likewise, the Romanian and Russian Churches, to name just two others among many - have more than once, in former times, spoken out against this practice. It is only in recent times, only in the generation since World War II, that some local Churches (the Greek Archdiocese in this country, for example) have begun to teach that it "might" be all right to practice birth control in certain circumstances, as long as this is discussed with the priest beforehand and has his agreement.

Obviously, the 1937 special encyclical of the Church of Greece condemning birth control was in response to the Lambeth Conference of 1930.

So again, one must ask, what is the difference between the modern Orthodox viewpoint which you all are voicing, 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.

[redgolum]

Can someone give me an actual run down of what was said? My Catholic in laws are convinced that condoms (and the pill by extension) are now all ok.

And if the statements I have seen are close (condoms ok in only grave circumstances) than I have wonder if no thought was given to the progression the Church of England began when it gave the OK to contraception in similar circumstances.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

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.

Or that his "own" newspaper would wrench that one excerpt out of context and, in violation of the Vatican's own media embargo, publish it without context or commentary.

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.

I'm just not willing to even try to defend this one. He has set back pro-life work on this subject by decades for this irresponsible remark. Condoms fail at preventing pregnancies 5 to 15% of the time, and women can only get pregnant 7 out of 28 days in a cycle. But a sex partner can get AIDS 28 days out of 28 days, so condom failure rates at preventing AIDS are at least 30%. Should the Pope recommend playing Russian Roulette with 2 bullets out of six, instead of 5 out of 6, just because some people will always play Russian Roulette?

Of course not.

Neither should he ever repeat the lie that condoms reduce the risk of AIDS. Condoms give a false sense of security at best. Their effectiveness at decreasing the chances of AIDS is dismal at best.

The Church shouldn't be in the business of encouraging this lie, or giving it any credibility whatsoever.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I have wonder if no thought was given to the progression the Church of England began when it gave the OK to contraception in similar circumstances.

Yeah, sigh ... See post #21.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Its impossible to explain it concisely, which is the crux of this condom conundrum:

Pope Approves Restricted Use of Condoms? – M.J. Andrew, TAC

Understanding Pope’s Dilemma on Condoms – Jimmy Akin, NCRgstr

Condoms, Consistency, (mis)Communication – Thomas Peters, AmP

Pope Changed Church Condoms Teaching? – Q. de la Bedoyere, CH

A Vatican Condom Conversion? – Mollie, Get Religion

Pope: Condoms, Sex Abuse, Resignation & Movie Nights – John Allen

What The Pope Really Said About Condoms in New Book? – Janet Smith

Ginger Factor: Pope Approves of Condoms! – Jeff Miller, The Crt Jstr

The Pope and Condoms – Steve Kellmeyer, The Fifth Column

Condoms May Be ‘First Step’ In Moralization of Sexuality – Cth Herald

Pope Did Not Endorse the Use of Condoms – Fr. Zuhlsdorf, WDTPRS?

Did Pope Change Teaching About Condoms? – Brett Salkeld, Vox Nova

[ZAROVE]

I didnt voice any view, I simply said that this is not News. Its been around for a long while now. I mean, its not liek this is 1941...

All I am saying is that the Orthodox really haven’t said anythign they haven’t been saying for about 30 years now. Maybe 40.

They also tehcniclaly haven’t changed any actual Doctriens regarding Birt COntrol, this is just a sot of “Find the gap” Mentality.

It may be distasteful but it is what it is, and its still not News.

[Alex Murphy]

Ping to read later. Thank you for posting this, and for your later posts re the Lambeth conference.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

“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.

Well said, thank you.

[Campion]

Can someone give me an actual run down of what was said? My Catholic in laws are convinced that condoms (and the pill by extension) are now all ok.

What he said was nothing different than what Catholic moral theologians have said for years. In essence, to use a condom in a homosexual act to prevent the spread of disease may be morally praiseworthy, though of course the act itself is still gravely wrong.

There can be no question in such cases of separating the unitive and generative aspects of the sexual act. There is no generative aspect at all, and the unitive aspect is non-existent as well, because the act attempts to unite two people who cannot be sexually united at all according to natural law.

Orthodox Catholic moral theologians have used the same reasoning to argue that a woman who is at serious risk of rape (e.g., someone doing charitable work in a war zone) can carry a condom with her and attempt to persuade her rapist to use it. The unitive aspect of the act is completely destroyed already, so there can be no question of separating the unitive from the procreative.

This argument has absolutely nothing to do with anything married couples do, and so your in-laws are very seriously mistaken. (Do they live in the Diocese of Lincoln, NE? A quick call to Bp. Bruskewitz will set them straight! :-))

[Brian Kopp DPM]

All your points are valid, and I thank you for offering them.

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?"

Then there can be no argument that "There is no generative aspect at all, and the unitive aspect is non-existent as well."

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

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

[Brian Kopp DPM]

For context, this is what the Pope said in his recently released book, Light of the World:

From Chapter 11, "The Journeys of a Shepherd," pages 117-119:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen.

Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

[Kolokotronis]

“I thought the Orthodox criticized Rome for “development of doctrine.” “

Indeed we do. Teachings surrounding contraception in the Orthodox Church, unlike in the Church of Rome, are neither dogmatic nor doctrinal and never have been. To the best of my knowledge, there has never even been a canon against it unless it is a local one. And if such a canon or canons existed, they were disciplinary, not dogmatic. And Doc, disciplinary canons are subject to change, like the Western canons forbidding Christians to avail themselves of the services of Jewish doctors or Eastern ones forbidding Christians to ride in a public conveyance with Jews or pagans.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

According to the medical journal abstract I posted earlier,

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.

Have you seen this document? I honestly doubt such a document would be "disciplinary" when its dealing with a topic of moral theology such as this.

We're not talking about not eating meat on Fridays.

We're talking about moral theology in which the Church Fathers agreed on the interpretation of a scriptural passage (Genesis 38):

191 AD - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children

"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." (2:10:91:2) "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (2:10:95:3).

307 AD - Lactantius - Divine Institutes

"[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" (6:20)

"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" (6:23:18).

325 AD - Council of Nicaea I - Canon 1

"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy"

375 AD - Epiphanius of Salamis - Medicine Chest Against Heresies

"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" (26:5:2 ).

391 AD - John Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew

"[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 [sterilization]" (28:5).

393 AD - Jerome - Against Jovinian

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1:19).

419 AD - Augustine - Marriage and Concupiscence

"I am supposing, then, although are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (1:15:17).

522 AD - Caesarius of Arles - Sermons

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (1:12).

[steve86]

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.

[Kolokotronis]

“The practice of artificial birth control - by which is meant “the pill,” condoms, or any other kind of device - is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.”

The author of the article, another convert priest, apparently had a limited facility with Greek. The encyclical did not condemn or anathemize anything and even if it did, as I said, at best it was a disciplinary canon (but it in fact was not a canon)which can be abrogated at any time. That’s the way our system works.

BTW, Doc, 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. The Synod wasn’t that stupid. Latins accept “orders” from their hierarchs. We don’t, unless we want to.

[Salvation]

I don’t believe this anymore than I believed the statement by the Pope.

It’s just the media trying to get their headlines.

[sitetest]

Dear Dr. Brian Kopp,

Myself, I'm not sure I'd have said “morally praiseworthy,” but rather, “subjectively less evil.”

Pope Benedict's point was not that the use of the condom wasn't evil, but rather that the intention of the use of the condom, to lessen harm to another (whether it actually accomplishes that or not), is a sign that the individual is giving a little more thought to trying to do what is right.

It's a step from deeper muck to not-quite-as-deep muck, but it's still muck.

The acts are still intrinsically evil, but at least there may be some awakening of conscience that is starting in that the male prostitute now gives thought to the well-being of another, no matter how objectively wrong are his acts and his perceptions.

Thus, when we change this:

“If it may be morally praiseworthy for a prostitute to use a condom, what about the spouse of someone suffering from AIDS?”

to this:

“If it may be less evil, subjectively, for a prostitute to use a condom, what about the spouse of someone suffering from AIDS?”

We see things a little better. Perhaps it is a little less evil, subjectively. But it's still gravely evil.

From my perspective, that doesn't get one very far.

sitetest

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Unfortunately, our Orthodox brethren here have informed us this is indeed not true, because the Orthodox accepted barrier methods at least thirty years ago. So this is not news, the Orthodox have permitted condoms for several decades now.

[Kolokotronis]

Doc, when the Orthodox Church intrudes into the lives of its laity, absent a dogma from a council (which is inapplicable here)the most it would do is promulgate a disciplinary canon...and that can be changed even by something as simple as disuse. The Orthodox system is NOT the Roman system. Our theologians talk about theology all the time, our synods and individual hierarchs issue encyclicals on all sorts of matters, but none of them have the force of anything unless they are a sort of disciplinary canon. 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, which as you know was recommended against by +Paul VI commission on the subject, but we don’t and probably won’t.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

as I said, at best it was a disciplinary canon (but it in fact was not a canon)which can be abrogated at any time.

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?

Dang.

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