Is
there a Traditional view of Contraception?
It has become commonplace for Orthodox theologians to assert that there is no
traditional position on the subject of contraception.[1]
Paul Evdokimov writes, for example:
In the age of the Church Fathers,
the problem of birth control was never raised. There are no canons that deal
with it. The ancient collections of penitential discipline are no longer
entirely applicable; moreover they say nothing on the subject…One must
therefore start from the patristic spirit [italics his] and not from a
precise, inexistent teaching.[2]
What does the data show? Is it
possible to discern a traditional teaching on contraception?
Contraceptives were not unknown in the ancient world. Soranos of Ephesus,
for example, in his 2nd century Gynecology, outlines ancient
theories and techniques of contraception.[3]
He distinguished between those things which prevented conception and those
things which affected a fetus already conceived.[4]
He wrote, for example: “A contraceptive differs from an abortive, for the first
does not let the conception take place, while the latter destroys what has been
conceived. Let us, therefore, call the one ‘abortive’(phthorion) and the other
‘contraceptive’ (atokion).”[5]
In A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, Paul Veyne
offers the following description of the situation in ancient Rome:
Abortion and contraception were
common practices, although historians have distorted the picture somewhat by
overlooking the Roman use of the term “abortion” to describe not only surgical
practices that we would call abortion but also techniques that we would call
contraceptive…All classes of the population certainly made use of contraceptive
techniques. Saint Augustine, who speaks of “embraces in which conception is
avoided,” gives no indication that these are rare; he condemns the practice,
even between legitimate spouses. Augustine distinguishes between contraception,
sterilization by means of drugs, and abortions, only to condemn them all… Saint
Jerome, in his twenty-second epistle, speaks of young girls who “savor their
sterility in advance and kill the human being even before its seed has been
sown,” an allusion to a spermicidal drug.[6]
From this it seems clear that the Fathers would not have been ignorant of the
practice of contraception. What then did they have to say?
The
Fathers
Laying aside those texts from the Fathers which deal with the question
Onan (Gen. 38:9)—a major area of discussion, let us instead examine other
patristic texts related to the question of contraception.
Hippolytus writes (c. 225), concerning some Christian women married to men
of lower social status: “on account of their prominent ancestry and great
property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn
commoners, they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to
expel a fetus which has already been engendered”[7]
According to Lactantius (c. 307):
[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.[8]
St. Epiphanos of Salamis, in his polemics against the Gnostics, writes (c.
375), “They exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not
in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for
corruption.” [9]
Titus, Bishop of Bostra in Asia Minor writes (c. 363):
But indulging in pleasure more
frequently, they [the Manichees] hate the fruit that comes necessarily from
their acts; and they command that bodies be joined beyond what is lawful and
restrict and expel what is conceived and do not await births at their proper
time, as if birth alone were dangerous and difficult.[10]
Although St. John Chrysostom is the Father most often appealed to in
Orthodox sources to support acceptance of contraception, it does him an
injustice to read this into his work.[11]
Chrysostom strongly criticizes those who use potions and incantations or other
means to avoid having children. He writes (c. 390):
Why do you sow where the field is
eager to destroy the fruit? Where there are medicines of sterility? 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…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 contemn the gift of God and fight with His laws?
What is a curse, do you seek as though it were a blessing?… 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…[12]
[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.[13]
According to Dubarle, Augustine offers “the most detailed, the most
doctrinally systematic” condemnation of contraception.[14]
For example, Augustine writes (c. 419):
It is one thing not to lie [with
one’s wife] except with the sole will of generating: this has no fault. It is
another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within the limits
of marriage: this has venial fault. I am supposing that then, although you are
not lying 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.
They give themselves away, indeed, when they go so far as to expose their
children who are born to them against their will; for they hate to nourish or
to have those whom they feared to bear. Therefore a dark iniquity rages against
those whom they have unwillingly borne, and with open iniquity this comes to
light; a hidden shame is demonstrated by manifest cruelty. Sometimes this
lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons
of sterility, and, if these do not work, extinguish and destroy the fetus in
some way in the womb, preferring that their offspring die before it lives, or
if it was already alive in the womb to kill it before it was born. 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.[15]
A final source, Caesarius of
Arles, writes (c. 522):
“Who is he who cannot warn that no
woman may take a potion 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.”[16]
In his book, Noonan provides a chart of the positions of the Church
Fathers. Most, he indicates, believe that sexual intercourse should only be
used for procreation within marriage. A few, such as Chrysostom, held that
intercourse was acceptable within marriage even when procreation could not be
realized. [17]
With this in mind, acceptance of the rhythm method or Natural
Family Planning could be seen as a liberal position.
The
Penitential Tradition
Because of the nature of the genre, penitential texts are more straightforward.
One of the earliest sources is the Council of Ancyra (c. 372), which
decreed:
If any woman has fornicated and has
killed the infant thence born or has desired to commit an abortion and
kill what she has conceived, or to take steps so that she may not conceive,
either in adultery or in legitimate marriage, the earlier canons decreed that
such women might receive communion at death; we, however, in mercy judge that
such women, or other women who are accomplices of their crimes, should do
penance for 10 years.[18]
Noonan notes that one version of the earliest available Greek penitential,
written between the 8th and 10th centuries and attributed
to St. John the Faster, denounces as a very serious sin “the drinking of a
drug, as a result of which one cannot further procreate.”[19]
The Armenian Penitential of David of Ganjak (d. 1140) strongly denounces
coitus interruptus:
Certain evil men, in the course of
fornication or in order to spite their wives, act contrary to Creation, that
is, they spill the seed of procreation which the Lord established for the
increase [of His creatures], which act is cursed by the church of God. If
anyone is possessed by the Evil One and does this many times, he shall be
classed among the murderers. But the vardapets, considering his heavy penance,
may reduce the period.[20]
Noonan notes that Dowsett
believes this work to reflect older Eastern tradition rather than Anglo-Saxon
or Irish influence.[21]
More recent Russian manuals follow along similar lines.[22]
Severe penances were prescribed for those who used contraceptives, which were
also commonly associated with pagan practices.[23]
In her survey of Slavic penitential material, Eve Levin discusses how
contraception was perceived:
From the medieval Slavic
perspective, contraception, abortion, and infanticide were similar offenses;
provisions against birth control did not always distinguish among them. All
three represented the same thing: an attempt to forestall the introduction into
the world of a new soul. For that reason, all three offenses were sometimes
called dusgube’e, literally, “the destruction of a soul.”[24]
She adds,
“Serbian epics…presented women who used contraceptives as burning in Hell
for their failure to bear the number of children God had intended.”[25]
In both patristic and medieval thought the practice of contraception was often
associated with abortion and infanticide.[26]
Why was contraception routinely equated with abortion? Was it simply that
medical knowledge was not very advanced, or was something more fundamental
going on?
A recent theory set forth by Roman Catholic theologians John Ford, Germain
Grisez, Joseph Boyle and John Finnis attempts to address this
question.[27]
Finnis explains:
The old canon law embodied an
understanding of contraception more accurate than neoscholastic theology’s. To
contracept, one must think that some behavior is likely to cause a new human
life to begin, and that such a beginning of new life could be impeded by some
other behavior one could perform, and one chooses to perform the latter with
the intention that new life not begin… Choosing to contracept is simply
contralife, whatever else may then be said, and rightly said, about the morally
significant features of the sexual act performed as contracepted. Thus,
the church’s universal canon law, from its inception until 1917 [when the Roman
Catholic Code of Canon Law was issued] (and thus too those Fathers whose
thought was crystallized in this canon), identified contraception as a wrongful
act precisely because, as a choice, it is contralife.[28]
There is also some association in ancient times between the use of such potions
and sorcery. The Greek word pharmakia contains both in its range of
meanings. As Levin makes clear, this association, and indeed, connection
in practice, seems to have persevered through “modern” pre-revolutionary
Russia.[29]
John M. Riddle, in his book Eve’s Herbs: A History of Contraception and
Abortion in the West, sets forth the thesis that knowledge of
contraceptives and abortifacients had to go underground and be preserved as
“witchcraft” because the Church was intent on suppressing such knowledge of
fertility.[30]
Conclusion
Although the evidence presented contains certain ambiguities, a consistent
picture does emerge. Diverse sources from Ireland, Italy, North Africa, Greece,
Serbia, Russia, and the Syrian Orient all attest to the fact that
contraceptives were condemned by the Church. Until very recently opposition to
contraception was commonly recognized as the traditional position. Francis
Edgecumbe writes: “The traditional attitude has been strictly to forbid
all employment of contraceptives, and even to discourage the so-called ‘rhythm
method’.”[31]
Father Gregory Naumenko, writing in Orthodox Life, offers a similar
perspective:
The true Church of Christ has never
in the past given her blessing for such a practice. This is clearly stated in
the Book of Needs (Trebnik), where, in the Order of Confession, among
the questions addressed to women we find the following: “Did they wear herbs so
as not to have a child,… or whether someone poured something into her womb so
as not to conceive, or ate some herb…She is to desist and be excluded for six
years.” Here the Book of Needs draws support from a ruling of the Sixth
Ecumenical Council. Thus, the use of contraceptives goes against not only the
spirit and purpose of the Christian marriage and the teachings of the Fathers
and Doctors of the Church, but also goes against the clear and direct decrees
and laws of the Church.[32]
It should be noted that it was not
until 1930 that any mainstream Christian group officially endorsed the use of
contraceptives. The Christian world had been universally opposed to the use of
contraceptives until that time.
[1]
‘Contraception’, referring to something which is specifically directly against
conception, is used throughout this thesis rather than the more general ‘birth
control’ or ‘family planning’.
[3] See John T.
Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic
Theologians and Canonists, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1986),
13ff. Noonan’s work is a classic with regard to the history of contraception.
It should be noted that Noonan was among those who dissented from Humanae
Vitae. In his book, he argues in defense of contraception. See also Dona J.
Lethbridge, “Ancient Methods of Fertility Regulation,” chapter thirteen of Dona
J. Lethbridge, Ph.D., R.N. and Kathleen M. Hanna, Ph.D., R.N., Promoting
Effective Contraceptive Use (New York: Springeer Publishing Co., 1997), and
John M. Riddle, Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the
Renaissance (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).
[4] A. M.
Dubarle, O.P. “Le Bible et Les Pères ont-ils Parlé de la Contraception?” in La
Vie Spirituelle Supplement (1962): 588. Soranos’ chapter on contraception
was preserved by the 7th century Byzantine writer Paul of Aegina
(Noonan, 13).It is interesting to note that many other translators in the
patristic period left it out of the Gynecology—see Keith Hopkins,
“Contraception in the Roman Empire” in Comparative Studies in Society and
History 8 (1965-1966), 132. Hopkins also notes that there is evidence of a
general decline of contraceptive knowledge beginning in the 4th
century ad (p. 150n.).
[5] Soranos, Gynaecia
1.60, qtd. in Hopkins, 137-138. While Soranos and many of the Fathers seem
quite clear, Hopkins does point out that there was not always a clear
delineation made in the ancient world between the two (see p. 137-138 and 150).
[6] Paul Veyne,
ed. A History of Private Life, Vol. I: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium,
trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1987), 12.
[11]
Basilio Petrà points this out as a specific weakness in his review of J.C.
Larchet, Pour une Èthique de la Procréation: Éléments d’Anthropologie
Patristique. Intrams Review 5:2 (1999), 229.
[12] Homily
24 on Romans; quoted in Noonan, 98. William Basil Zion, in his book Eros
and Transformation (New York: University Press of America, 1992) also
recognizes that “contraception is ruled out by St. John insofar as it violates
the laws of God”; see p. 241. Hopkins concurs that Chrysostom was speaking
about contraceptives and not merely abortifacients, see p. 137.
[13] Homilies
on Matthew (28:5); qtd. in Noonan, 95. See Noonan for a discussion about
the interpretation of this passage.
[17] Noonan's
chart appears on pp. 57-58. In Homily 5 on First Thessalonians (PG
62:426); Chrysostom states that “…no one blames a man who has lawful
intercourse with his wife into old age…” See Noonan, 78 for further discussion
of this point. Noonan notes the Pauline character of Chrysostom’s views.
[18] Chapters
from the Synods of the Eastern Fathers 77, in Martin of Braga’s Opera,
p. 142; qtd. in Noonan 149). The text cited represents a variant reading,
perhaps expanded by Martin of Braga himself.
[20] The
Penitential of David of Ganjak, trans. C.J.F. Dowsett (Corpus Scriptorum
Christianum Orientalium CCXVII; Louvain, 1961), no. 54; qtd. in Noonan,
168n.
[22] Eve Levin, Sex
and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700 (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 1989), 175-176. For a survey of penitentials and
manuals of confession in the Greek tradition, see Basilio Petrà, Tra
Cielo E Terra: Introduzione alla teologia morale ortodossa contemporanea.
Bologna: EDB, 1992.
[27] This
argument also has the distinction of not being dependant on a notion of
biological teleology. For a summary and critique of this approach see Janet
Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later (Washington, DC: CUA Press,
1991), 105-107 and 340-370.
[28] John
Finnis, Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision, and Truth (Washington, DC:
CUA Press, 1991), 85-86.
[31] See Francis
Edgecumbe, “Orthodox Reactions to Humanae Vitae” in the Eastern Churches
Review 2:3 (1969): 305.
No comments:
Post a Comment