Which is Truly Orthodox: NFP or Contraceptives?

[Jean-Serge]

I am entirely against NFP. The term is a deceit. Natural Family Planning: taking one's temperature daily is not natural at all!Admitting such practice is a catholic influence.

[Matthew]

That may be. But then on the Holy Mountain, and in most TOC parishes we find icons in the raphaelite and other Western styles of portraiture. Hence, they also can be judged for admitting into the worship of the Church Catholic influence!

At any rate, what I want to see are Orthodox canons that show NFP is outside Orthodox practice.

[Jean-Serge]

At any rate, what I want to see are Orthodox canons that show NFP is outside Orthodox practice.

This method was invented in the 19th century... how can canons talk about it. There is no difference between NFP and other contraceptive means regarding their goal. What is criticized in contraception is not the mean, but the goal.

[Maria]

Exactly. Sorry, I no longer have the quote as my son "cleaned" my computer hard drive, but St. John Chrysostom lived in an age that believed human sperm contained a little man or woman inside it, so he did condemn contraceptive and abortive potions and procedures as homicidal. Mutual abstinence to set aside time for prayer was one thing. Deliberately wasting seed was considered murder.

At any rate, what I want to see are Orthodox canons that show NFP is outside Orthodox practice.

This method was invented in the 19th century... how can canons talk about it. There is no difference between NFP and other contraceptive means regarding their goal. What is criticized in contraception is not the mean, but the goal.

[jgress]

Exactly. Sorry, I no longer have the quote as my son "cleaned" my computer hard drive, but St. John Chrysostom lived in an age that believed human sperm contained a little man or woman inside it, so he did condemn contraceptive and abortive potions and procedures as homicidal. Mutual abstinence to set aside time for prayer was one thing. Deliberately wasting seed was considered murder.

At any rate, what I want to see are Orthodox canons that show NFP is outside Orthodox practice.

This method was invented in the 19th century... how can canons talk about it. There is no difference between NFP and other contraceptive means regarding their goal. What is criticized in contraception is not the mean, but the goal.

I always wondered how they could believe that seed contained little men and women, with the mother contributing nothing, and then maintain that Christ took flesh from His Mother alone, without seed. Where did the flesh come from?

Also, how could they believe that and reconcile that with daily observation, which shows that we inherit characteristics from both our parents?

[jgress]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preformationism

Well it turns out I wasn't being fair to the ancient philosophers: "preformationism" DOES recognize that we inherit characteristics from both parents. They just consider the mother to contribute a kind of "substrate" on top of what the seed contributes. But even without the mother, they seemed to believe the seed contained fully formed humans.

We now know this isn't correct, but it's not totally wrong, either. While a sperm cell on its own is not the same as a zygote, i.e. doesn't have a complete genome, having only DNA from the father, it is still human in a sense. It certainly has the potential to develop into a human. So I quite understand the argument against artificial contraception. I don't think it should be put on the same level as abortion, however. I don't think you can argue that it constitutes a kind of murder, in other words, assuming that we're talking about true prophylactic contraception, not things like the "morning-after pill", which are actually a kind of abortifacient. I think this is an area where we should admit some pastoral leeway, rather than dogmatize about it the way the Catholics do.

[Maria]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preformationism

Well it turns out I wasn't being fair to the ancient philosophers: "preformationism" DOES recognize that we inherit characteristics from both parents. They just consider the mother to contribute a kind of "substrate" on top of what the seed contributes. But even without the mother, they seemed to believe the seed contained fully formed humans.

In addition to the genetic DNA contained in the egg, the mother does provide a kind of substrate: maternal mitochondria DNA. The successful sperm only contributes genetic DNA, but not the cellular "substrate" which consists of many organelles such as the mitochondria, which are the source of cellular energy. From studies of mitochondria DNA, scientists have determined that we did descend from a common Eve.

We now know this isn't correct, but it's not totally wrong, either. While a sperm cell on its own is not the same as a zygote, i.e. doesn't have a complete genome, having only DNA from the father, it is still human in a sense. It certainly has the potential to develop into a human. So I quite understand the argument against artificial contraception. I don't think it should be put on the same level as abortion, however. I don't think you can argue that it constitutes a kind of murder, in other words, assuming that we're talking about true prophylactic contraception, not things like the "morning-after pill", which are actually a kind of abortifacient. I think this is an area where we should admit some pastoral leeway, rather than dogmatize about it the way the Catholics do.

That the Roman Catholic Church does allow NFP is remarkable. I remember my mom complaining about the "Russian Roulette" method of natural birth control, which did not work as it was neither scientific nor took into account the individual variations in females due to constitution, stress, sickness, climate, and diet.

p.s. Years ago, I was certified to teach The Couple to Couple Sympto-Thermal Method. They have an excellent workbook. If NFP is used properly, it can be a blessing for infertile couples too. My husband and I were blessed with a son, who otherwise might not have been born as I discovered that I have a borderline thyroid disorder that contributed to my infertility. If I had not been using the CCL charts, I would not have discovered that my morning temperatures were abnormally low (96.0 or even lower). Shortly after my son was born, my doctors took me off thyroid, so I was not able to have any more children. Involuntary sterilization? The FDA does not want thyroid to be used to achieve pregnancy.

However, my thyroid was probably damaged due to the Nevada Nuclear Tests and enormous doses of potassium iodide taken in the 1950s when I was a wee child as neither my mom nor my dad had any signs of low thyroid.