I have a problem with this approach, in that it is not consistent with the Orthdodox perspective on marriage (see John Meyendorff, “Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective”, according to which marriage is first and foremost a “mysterion” or sacrament that has (to use Meyendorff’s words), “no utilitarian purpose”. By this, he meant that marriage cannot have as its rationale either procreation or securing of property, or any other “secular” objective. Its sole purpose is to serve as a sign of the relationship between God and man, Christ and the Church and the persons of the Trinity with each other. He points out that before the New Covenant opened immortality to all, man attempted to gain vicarious immortality through progeny (and also by increasing the fortune of his house through advantageous unions). With the New Covenant, this rationale falls away.
From this starting point, I will go on to address the issue of artificial contraception. As an Orthodox Christian (albeit one in communion with Rome), I do not think that the kind of absolute, legalistic position being espoused here is consistent either with the Orthodox theology of marriage (in which the begetting of children is a fruit of marriage, not a purpose of marriage), or with the principle of oikonomia whereby the Church has an obligation, in its “stewardship” of souls, to take into account individual circumstances and human frailties. In other words, one size may not fit all. The assumption seems to be that a married couple ought to use natural family planning, or none at all. Yet even the most sophisticated methods of NFP are not effective for all women, and some women may have very good reasons NOT to become pregnant. Similarly, there may be very good reasons for a man to use a barrier method of contraception (i.e., a condom) within marriage; e.g., the man (or woman) is infected with HIV, and the use of a condom would reduce the risk of cross-infection (to defuse incipient moments of sanctimony, let us assume that the infection was received through a blood transfusion). Now, in Latin moral theology, this would (or should) be covered by the principle of double effect, but there are many absolutists who would say that the rule against contraception is absolulte, and that the only alternative for the couple is continence. But that, of course, imposes upon them an heroic lifestyle (celibacy) that is not for every person, and should not be imposed in any case.
The late Melkite Archbiship Joseph (Raya) of Nazareth (may his memory be eternal), was a very wise and gentle man, a spiritual father to many people, Catholic and Orthodox alike. In his book, “Crowning–the Christian Marriage”, which is used by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church as a wedding preparatory text, he wrote at some length about contraception in a balanced and humane way:
From Crowning: The Christian Marriage, by Archbishop Joseph (Raya)
Birth Control
In a world where eroticism dominates the hearts and minds of men and women, it is almost impossible to honor the Christian vision of a sexuality more precious than pleasure and more honorable than social necessity. In our days, the problems of birth control are heart rending.
In his praiseworthy attempt to counteract a sexual morality falsified by a secularized society and atheistic propaganda, Pope Paul VI, who at the time of the Second Vatican Council had reserved to himself the final decision on birth control, called upon a papal commission to advise him before publishing the official Church doctrine.
Over three quarters of the members, chosen by the Pope for their wisdom and reliability, offered the majority opinion endorsing a carefully qualified use of birth control, and proposed a revision of the current unqualified condemnation.
Pope Paul VI, however, disregarded their advice and published the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, maintaining the negative position. There is a present a painful tension between the supporters of rigidity in this matter, and those who believe it is unjustified.
The Byzantine ceremony of Crowning glorifies Christian chastity. Chastity means integrity of the human relation, integration of the forces of life into the personalistic aspects of nuptial love, which leads the couple into the Kingdom, into the peace and harmony of life. Both fertile and childless couples go beyond the mere functional: the combine the instinctive and passionate movements of their love, integrating them into a single act of ascent of pure goodness. It is not in spite of marriage, but in its fulfillment in peace, harmony and supreme joy that couples live the supernatural and holy reality of their union, chastity.
In the embrace of love, Christian couples are chaste. They are perfectly and entirely for each other. “I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine” (Canticle of Canticles). In genuine faith, they assume their human and spiritual responsibilities, and choose the best ways, pleasing to God, to achieve what they have set out to do. Birth control is in some way their responsibility. Vatican Council II has clearly established that conscience is the most sacred core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths.
The theologian Paul Evdokimos, in his study on the “Sacrament of Love”, summarizes the attitude of Eastern theology on birth control: The Church “addresses herself to evangelical metanoia, and hopes to change man and woman into a new creation, to render them charismatic; She exorcises demonic powers and protects the Gate of Life; She discerns among the spirits, and shows the pathways to ultimate liberation; She does not define the rules of social life, and does not prescribe panacaeas. . . “ (p.175). The Church should never refuse to advise when advice is sought, but should not try to manipulate the intimacy of husband and wife. Patriarch Maximos IV of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem proclaimed at the Council of Vatican II, “The Church does not penetrate into the nuptial chamber. She stands at the door.”
The Byzantine Church does indeed believe that the Sacrament of Crowning establishes the man and woman as prophets, king and queen of supernatural worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual circumstances of their lives.