Childbearing in Marriage

The Orthodox Church’s esteem for childbearing is publicly declared in the Orthodox marriage service, which includes multiple petitions for the fruitfulness of a couple’s union, such as: “That He will grant unto them the enjoyment of the blessing of children . . . let us pray to the Lord” (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, n.d.). Childbearing is indeed understood to be a great blessing of marriage and therefore is quite naturally hoped and prayed for within the marriage ceremony.

At the same time, the primary purpose of marriage in the Orthodox understanding is not procreation—instead, it is the sacramental union of the couple who work to secure each other’s mutual deification, a theme also evident in the marriage service. Furthermore, marriages in the Orthodox Church are sacramentally valid whether they include children or not, as affirmed by Saint John Chrysostom (2003, 76): “But suppose there is no child; do they remain two and not one? No; their intercourse effects the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment.” Childbearing is considered a beautiful and good possibility within a marriage, but it is not definitive of marriage.

Also found in the marriage service is the conviction that new human beings are good, that the arrival of a new person in the world is cause for rejoicing, such as in this line: “That He will make them [the married couple] glad with the sight of sons and daughters, let us pray to the Lord” (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, n.d.). Encapsulated here is a bit of theological anthropology, a reminder of how Orthodox Christians fundamentally understand what it means to be human. When we encounter a new human being who has come into the world, we are ideally “glad” at the sight of him or her. Humans are the pinnacle of God’s creation, created in the image and likeness, created to grow in communion with God, called to eternity. Because of this, each time a new human being comes into the world, an event of cosmic proportions takes place, and awe, thanksgiving, and—as it says here—gladness are the proper reactions.

Another aspect we see at work in this petition from the marriage service is the broadly held expectation within Orthodoxy that marriages will be—at least at some point in their history—open to children. We even pray for grandchildren, as it says in the marriage prayer: “That they [the married couple] may live to see their children’s children” (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, n.d.).

Children do not define marriage, yet marriage is ideally open to children because childbearing is a godly act, a special participation in the act of bringing another new unique, precious human person into the world. In childbearing, we imitate and participate in God’s creative powers. Procreation involves creative capacities that ought not be squandered or ignored. Human life is good and meant to be generated and shared.

Our caregiving powers are also creative and profound, and they may be exercised by welcoming non-biological children into a marriage. A recent document from the Orthodox Church, the statement commissioned and released by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 2020, For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church (FLOW), presents adoption and fostering as parental vocations alongside biological parenthood: “Some of the children who enrich the new household created by a marriage may be the fruit of the couple’s sexual union, while others may be adopted, and still others may be fostered; but all are equally welcome within the sanctuary of the family and the body of the Church” (Hart and Chryssavgis 2020, §23). Welcoming adopted or fostered children into a family is not a new social phenomenon, but often adoption is presented as an afterthought, as a last option after a couple is not able to conceive, in both Orthodox and other contexts. So, the inclusion of these situations in FLOW may be an example of the Orthodox Church affirming these paths to parenthood in light of today’s questions and pressures around abortion and reproductive technologies. (I reference FLOW several times in this article, and I wish to disclose I was a member of the commission that composed the document.)

Whether biological or adoptive, the Orthodox ideal is that children are part of married life. They do not define marriage, but they are a natural reflection of the plentitude of the divine nature (Breck 1999; Guroian 2004; Meyendorff 1975).

Abortion

Childbearing is still held as an ideal within marriage, and human life is understood to be innately good and precious. Therefore, the Orthodox Church continues to condemn abortion as the taking of human life. This conviction is perhaps the most unchanging, most unwavering conviction of the Orthodox Church regarding childbearing and can be traced from the earliest days of Christianity to contemporary times (see ancient documents such as the fourth-century Didache, as well as the writings of early Christian thinkers such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Basil). This is also an area of noticeable overlap across the autocephalous churches today; for example, both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate—though at odds in other ways—continue to condemn the practice of abortion.

The Russian Orthodox Church’s 2000 statement Basis of the Social Concept states: “Since the ancient time the Church has viewed deliberate abortion as a grave sin. The canons equate abortion with murder” (Russian Orthodox Church 2000, XII.2). The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s FLOW states: “From the first generations of Christians, therefore, the Church has abhorred the practice of elective abortion as infanticide” (Hart and Chryssavgis 2020, §25). Both documents also contain a noteworthy level of compassion for women who have experienced abortion, acknowledging the variety of circumstances and pressures that often lead to an abortion. From Basis of the Social Concept: “Without rejecting the women who had an abortion, the Church calls upon them to repent and to overcome the destructive consequences of the sin through prayer and penance followed by participation in the salvific Sacraments . . . The struggle with abortion, to which women sometimes have to resort because of abject poverty and helplessness, demands that the Church and society work out effective measures to protect motherhood and to create conditions for the adoption of the children whose mothers cannot raise them on their own for some reason” (Russian Orthodox Church 2000, XII.2). From FLOW: “The Church recognizes, of course, that pregnancies are often terminated as a result of poverty, despair, coercion, or abuse, and it seeks to provide a way of reconciliation for those who have succumbed to these terrible pressures. Inasmuch, however, as the act of abortion is always objectively a tragedy, one that takes an innocent human life, reconciliation must involve the acknowledgment of this truth before complete repentance, reconciliation, and healing are possible” (Hart and Chryssavgis 2020, §25).

The one perceived change in Orthodox teachings is to address with leniency and compassion extreme situations in which a woman’s life is at risk. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church (2000, XII.2) states: “In case of a direct threat to the life of a mother if her pregnancy continues, especially if she has other children, it is recommended to be lenient in the pastoral practice. The woman who interrupted pregnancy in this situation shall not be excluded from the Eucharistic communion with the Church provided that she has fulfilled the canon of Penance assigned by the priest who takes her confession.” This sentiment is echoed in FLOW:

The Church does recognize, however, that in the course of some pregnancies there arise tragic and insoluble medical situations in which the life of the unborn child cannot be preserved or prolonged without grave danger to the life of the mother, and that the only medical remedy may result in or hasten the death of the unborn child, contrary to all that the parents had desired. In such situations, the Church cannot pretend to be competent to know the best way of proceeding in every instance, and must commend the matter to the prayerful deliberations of parents and their physicians. It can, however, offer counsel, as well as prayers for the healing and salvation of all the lives involved. (Hart and Chryssavgis 2020, §26)

Even though overall remarkably consistent across time and space, some questioning of the received position on abortion in the Orthodox Church is beginning. One Orthodox thinker tentatively proposes an alteration to the Orthodox Church’s understanding of abortion, using scientific developments in our understanding of fertilization to potentially “provide a basis for the question of the beginning of human life” (Woloschak 2017, 15). The Greek Orthodox Archbishop Elpidophorous of North America recently made remarks about women and their “choice” that left many Orthodox wondering if he was proposing a revision to Orthodox teaching on abortion:

We affirm the gift and sanctity of life—all life, born and unborn. As Christians we confess that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God. Every life is worthy of our prayer and our protection, whether in the womb, or in the world. We are all responsible for the well-being of children. We are their ‘keepers,’ and cannot shirk from our accountability for their welfare. At the same time, we also affirm our respect for the autonomy of women. It is they who bring forth life into the world. By His incarnation, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ assumed human nature, through His conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. She freely chose to bring Him into the world, and God respected her freedom. We can and must make the case for life, both born and unborn, by our own example of unconditional love. (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America 2022)

Other than these exceptions and the recent nuance to such extreme situations, the Orthodox Church has deemed unnecessary and inapplicable any change to its position based on technological advances that have allowed us a better understanding of the process of conception and the development of life in utero or based on technological advances that allow for abortions to be safer for the woman involved. Instead, the ancient conviction of the goodness of human life and its beginnings in the womb continue to determine the Orthodox Church’s stance on abortion.

Contraception

Most of the Orthodox world, perhaps to varying degrees, has had ready access to contraception for sixty odd years since oral contraceptives became widely available in the 1960s. At the same time, contraception itself is not something new. Contraception was present in the ancient world, though an understanding of the mechanics of conception and contraception was lacking. Today, the fact that contraception is so ubiquitous, is relatively safe, and gives couples a high degree of control over conception has prompted the Orthodox Church to refine and expand its encounter with contraception, while maintaining that an openness to children within marriage is ideal.

A provisional acceptance of contraception is present in church statements today. Generally, the judicious, prayerful, provisional, and exceptional use of safe, non-abortive contraceptive methods is condoned. For example, in 1992, the Orthodox Church in America Synod released the following statement as part of a larger document of affirmations on marriage, family, sexuality, and the sanctity of life: “Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a fetus already conceived” (Orthodox Church in America 1992). We hear the appreciation for the sacramental union of the couple and the unitive quality of marriage in the affirmation that marital sexual union is not exclusively concerned with procreation. We also hear the normative principle that human life is innately good and a source or gladness or joy in the rejection of forms of conception that would harm or abort a fetus. The Orthodox Church in America synod has, therefore, accepted the use of contraception within these parameters and within a larger vision of a marriage ideally being open to children at some point.

FLOW states: “The Orthodox Church has no dogmatic objection to the use of safe and non-abortifacient contraceptives within the context of married life, not as an ideal or as a permanent arrangement, but as a provisional concession to necessity” (Hart and Chryssavgis 2020, §24). The condoning of the provisional use of contraception in marriage is often expressed as an acknowledgment that physical health problems may preclude childbearing for some couples, and in recent statements the Orthodox Church acknowledges there may be other problems such as psychological or spiritual health that would warrant use of contraception. FLOW continues: “The Church anticipates, of course, that most marriages will be open to conception; but she also understands that there are situations in which spiritual, physical, psychological, or financial impediments arise that make it wise—at least, for a time—to delay or forego the bearing of children” (Hart and Chryssavgis 2020, §24).

The Russian Orthodox Church’s Basis of the Social Concept also clearly distinguishes between non-abortive and abortive contraception methods and affirms the couple’s discernment when it comes to contraception: “But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union [see Russian Orthodox Church 2000, X. 4]. The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin” (Russian Orthodox Church 2000, X.II.3).

One of the great benefits of this approach, in which most marriages are expected to be open to childbearing at some point and the judicious use of contraception is condoned, is that it helps Orthodox Christians avoid one of the biggest psychological and spiritual pitfalls of widespread contraception: a false sense of control of one’s fertility and one’s body. The persistent openness to children in the Orthodox context means we will ideally welcome them even when contraception fails, as it sometimes does!

Interestingly, the Orthodox Church’s stances on contraception are typically general; there is no specific stance on individual types of contraception beyond the ban on abortifacients. Convictions and practices are largely left to the discernment of clergy and laity, sometimes in conjunction with each other, sometimes not. This is possibly a source of confusion for some Orthodox Christians—both pastors looking to guide their flocks and couples choosing a type of contraception—because some widely available forms of contraceptives are abortive or have an abortive back-up function, such as the copper IUD, which may not always be apparent to consumers (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2017). While it may be challenging for both those in the position of advising couples on these matters and for the couples themselves to wade through the technicalities of different contraceptive methods, it seems the Orthodox Church generally prefers to leave the specifics to the faithful.

Reproductive Technologies

As with contraception, the Orthodox Church has no dogma about particular reproductive technologies, but it has begun to address the larger issues around reproductive technologies to some extent.

The Orthodox understandings of marriage and the value of human life are the touchstones of assessing whether a given reproductive technology is licit. The central assessment of reproductive technology in Orthodox statements centers around two questions. First, is human life being sacrificed in efforts to help conceive human life? FLOW addresses this concern:

The Church has no objection to the use of certain modern and still-evolving reproductive technologies for couples who earnestly desire children, but who are unable to conceive without aid. But the Church cannot approve of methods that result in the destruction of “supernumerary” fertilized ova. The necessary touchstone for assessing whether any given reproductive technology is licit must be the inalienable dignity and incomparable value of every human life. As medical science in this area continues to advance, Orthodox Christians—lay believers and clergy alike—must consult this touchstone in every instance in which a new method appears for helping couples to conceive and bear children, and must also consider whether that method honors the sacred relationship between the two spouses. (Hart and Chryssavgis 2020, 24)

The second question for evaluating reproductive technologies is: Does the technology honor married life, as referred to in the last line of the quotation from FLOW? Just as in the case of types of contraception, the specifics of reproductive technologies are not always addressed in Orthodox statements, but there appears to be a growing consensus that the relationship between spouses is violated by the introduction of any third-party reproductive material. This understanding appears to be broadly held by Orthodox sources, as heard in this statement from the Synod of the Orthodox Church in America (1992): “Married couples may use medical means to enhance conception of their common children, but the use of semen or ova other than that of the married couple who both take responsibility for their offspring is forbidden.”