Birth Control and Infallibility

[EtienneGilson]

Laugh all you want but the patristic age was operating under an erroneous conception (no pun intended) of human generation. Thus they often confused contraception with abortion and many other things. Simply look at the CA track on it and you will see that none of the patristic quotes directly deals with contraception.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “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” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that 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” (Divine Institutes 6:20).

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, “If anyone in sound health has castrated 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” (Canon 1).

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you 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]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

Here is a passage from Aristotle’s On the Generation of Animals whichi gives some insight into what the ancients believed the sperm really was:

Now, in all living things in which the male and female are not separated the semen (or seed) is a sort of embryo; by embryo I mean the first mixture of male and female; hence, from one semen comes one bodys—for example, one stalk of wheat from one grain, as one animal from one egg (for twin eggs are really two eggs). But in whatever kinds the sexes are distinguished, in these many animals may come from one emission of semen, showing that the semen differs in its nature in plants and animals. A proof of this is that animals which can bear more than one young one at a time do so in consequence of only one coition. Whereby, too, it is plain that the semen does not come from the whole of the body; for neither would the different parts of the semen already be separated as soon as discharged from the same part, nor could they be separated in the uterus if they had once entered it all together; but what does happen is just what one would expect, since what the male contributes to generation is the form and the efficient cause, while the female contributes the material.

etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/generation/genani1.html

 

[Sherlock]

EtienneGilson:

Laugh all you want but the patristic age was operating under an erroneous conception (no pun intended) of human generation. Thus they often confused contraception with abortion and many other things. Simply look at the CA track on it and you will see that none of the patristic quotes directly deals with contraception.
Here is a passage from Aristotle’s On the Generation of Animals whichi gives some insight into what the ancients believed the sperm really was: etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/generation/genani1.html

Quote Aristotle all you want, but the Church’s teaching stands upon principles that aren’t going to be changed by science one way or the other. If you want to construct some fanciful justification for why you don’t agree with Church teaching, you’re free to do so. However, it doesn’t change Church teaching.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EtienneGilson:

Laugh all you want but the patristic age was operating under an erroneous conception (no pun intended) of human generation. …

They were also operating under the guidance of God with regard to doctrines of faith and morals.

 

[EtienneGilson]

itsjustdave1988:

They were also operating under the guidance of God with regard to doctrines of faith and morals.

And today’s theologians and bishops I assume are not? The patristics had just as many problems as the modern theologians and from a orhtodox perspective maybe more. Look at Abelard’s Sic et Non to see just how frequently the patristics disagree. Not to mention the fact that some of the greatest writers like Origen and Turtullian died holding heretical beliefs.

Earlier in this thread someone asked for a list of bishops who have discented. Since I recently purchased a book by Cardinal Martini and Umberto Eco called Croire en Quoi? and the issue of contraception comes up… I thought I would give the good Cardinal’s name, along with Cardinal Journet, and many other bishops, abbots and theologians apparently not guided by the Holy Spirit.

Since neither of you (Dave and Sherlok) have mounted a defense of the patristic criticism I levelled against them, I take it that the criticism is accurate in part, if not in total. The fact remains. Likewise the patristics also held the near universal view that Adam and Eve were historical characters though science has proven that wrong and Catholicism has followed suit.

The fact that Brian Ingram called Jacques Maritain and Germain Grisez “liberal scholars” is indicative that the great majority of the defenses of Humanae Vitae are motivated more out of piety than knowledge. Both those men are considered conservatives and Grisez even agrees with the ban on contraception though Grisez had smashed the natural law arguments prior to HV. The fact that pope Paul nonetheless argued from natural law anyways indicates that he was either ignorant of Grisez’s work or simply ignored it. Either way that is hardly a good foundation for an encyclical.

No one has yet come up with an explination why Pope Paul VI didn’t write another encyclical in the seven years following HV when he had written 7 (was it seven?) before HV
.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Etienne,

You have made a number of baseless statements in your posts that you take as fact, but with no backup. they are only opinion.

Your 1-sentence criticism of the theology of the body in which you simply dismiss it away with a hand-waving is not a real criticism, but your own personal opinion. Opinions are fine, but you are presenting them as fact.
So why respond to suppositions that are not based in fact, but in opinion?

 

[EtienneGilson]

Dan-Man916:

Etienne,

You have made a number of baseless statements in your posts that you take as fact, but with no backup. they are only opinion.

Your 1-sentence criticism of the theology of the body in which you simply dismiss it away with a hand-waving is not a real criticism, but your own personal opinion. Opinions are fine, but you are presenting them as fact.
So why respond to suppositions that are not based in fact, but in opinion?

Call my claims baseless all you want but in my brief condemnation of theology of the body (in two seperate posts) I gave the reasons I do not care for it.

1. it is based on personalism and phenomenology; fickle branches of philosophy (if even philosophy given the form it took under JPII)
2. It uses a naive and overly literal approach to scripture; especially concerning the creation account in Genesis of Adam and Eve
3. It advances a concept of the Trinity contrary to the Orthodox position, a position considered orthodox within Catholicism according to the Treaty of Brest which brought millions of Ukrainians into the Catholic Church.

I am sorry but I do not have much time to elaborate. Here is John Paul II’s theology of the body ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

and here is one of many thread dealing with the Orthodox Church and contraception forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=95038

 

[msproule]

EtienneGilson:

No one has yet come up with an explination why Pope Paul VI didn’t write another encyclical in the seven years following HV when he had written 7 (was it seven?) before HV.

It was six. Nobody has responded because this point probably has little to do with the discussion. Why must there be an explanation anyway? It is not as if he stopped writing altogether. For better or worse, there was that Missale Romanum, remember?

Twice now under this topic you have inferred that lack of action on the part of the Holy Father somehow supports your position. First it was the observation that Pope Benedict XVI has not yet publicly condemned contraception, and now it is this.

Pope Paul VI may have underestimated the level of dissent within the Church, but that still does not diminish the authority of his teaching.

 

[msproule]

EtienneGilson:

1. it is based on personalism and phenomenology; fickle branches of philosophy (if even philosophy given the form it took under JPII)

So? Even if true, what difference does this make?

1. It uses a naive and overly literal approach to scripture; especially concerning the creation account in Genesis of Adam and Eve

That is one opinion.

1. It advances a concept of the Trinity contrary to the Orthodox position, a position considered orthodox within Catholicism according to the Treaty of Brest which brought millions of Ukrainians into the Catholic Church.

Admittedly, I have not read all of the documents. If you can find the time, can you please provide a specific example of this contradiction? Even the authors of the treaty indicate that the Holy Spirit debate is one of semantics so I am really struggling with this point.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

And today’s theologians and bishops I assume are not?

They certainly are guided by the Holy Spirit. However, as Scripture affirms, man has the free will to reject the Holy Spirit. If anyone dissents from that which the Catholic Church taught everywhere, always, and by all, then they dissent with de fide catholica, and as such commit the sin of heresy.

Look at Abelard’s Sic et Non to see just how frequently the patristics disagree.

Could you please cite the patristic evidence that asserted contraception was *not *contrary to the will of God? I’d like to see this evidence.

I’d also like to know which Bishop today is teaching that contraception is not contary to the will of God. You asserted that one Cardinal. Could you give us *his *words and a source please? Nonetheless, there have been heretical bishops in the past, but that doesn’t amount to much, does it? In what way is the sensus fidei governed by a heretical bishop. Doctrine comes from the authentic magisterium, who teach in accord with the scope of their authority. Bishops cannot teach contrary to Catholic doctrine, and when they do, they teach outside their magisterial authority.

John XXIII asserted, “In essentials unity, in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity.” There’s certainly disagreement in patristics, but I’ve not seen any such disagreement with regard to the immorality of contraception. This is an essential matter according to the Church. It has never been a doubtful matter which is afforded liberty.

I don’t need to here the various theories as to their explanation of biology and ensoulment, as that is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The salient issue is whether contraception–the use of human acts to render sex non-procreative–is immoral. Is there patristic evidence that asserts that this is NOT immoral?

John T. Noonan–who dissents with the papal encyclical *Humanae Vitae *(1968)–wrote a book called *Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (1965) *It is probably the most detailed treatment on the subject in existence. “***Noonan himself affirmed in 1965 that no Catholic theologian had ever approved contraception.” ***(cf. MSgr George Kelly, *Keeping the Church Catholic, *pg. 37-38). Noonan, the detached scholar of 1964-65 stated, *"**Never had it been admitted by a Catholic theologian that complete sexual intercourse might be had in which by deliberation, procreation was excluded." *(John Noonan, Contraception, 438). And yet later he was not so detached, and absurdly claimed (contrary to his own prior claim) that the teaching of Humanae Vitae was only personal opinion of the pope.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Adam and Eve were historical characters though science has proven that wrong and Catholicism has followed suit.

Rubbish. Science has proven nothing of the sort regarding our our first parents. They’ve offered many postulates, none of which constitutes proof. On the contrary, Physicist and Nobel-Prize winning Biochemist, Francis Crick, when he commented upon the origins of life, said, “there is too much speculation running after too few facts.” (*Life Itself, Its Orign and Nature, *1981). This seems true of what science has proven about the origins of human life as well.

Nor has the Catholic Church rejected the teaching that all of humanity from from one man and one woman. See *Humani Generis *37:

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

 

[Palamite]

Etienne is essentially correct - the big concern for the Church Fathers who addressed this topic was the relationship between “contraception” (though refering to it in this way is anachronistic - it implies a lot of things that would not have occured to them) and abortion. To put the matter simply, in laymen’s terms, the pre-scientific understanding saw the relationship of the “male seed” to the fetus as being analogous to the relationship between an acorn on a tree and an acorn embeded in the earth. That the woman had an equal contribution to make (ovum) to conception was simply unknown to them.

Regardless of whatever the Anglican rationale was for revisiting this issue, it was precisely the recognition of the actual concern of the Church Fathers (bloodshed/murder) as it related to the facts made manifest by modern science which caused the Orthodox Church to modify it’s pastoral position on the topic of family planning. This is made very clear, for example, in an official position document (Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church) issued by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000. A relevent passage (for the document deals with far more than simply this issue) reads…

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. 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, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

That such a revision of a position which is not dictated directly by explicit “divine revelation” or the “infallible magisterium” as Roman Catholics would put it, should not be a scandal to anyone, let alone Roman Catholics for the same has occured in their communion regarding the issue of abortion. While it is true that the Fathers taught abortion to be a grave sin and bloodshed, there were practical differences throughout Christendom as to whether or not canonical penalties exacted against women who procurred abortions ought to be undifferentiated. This was because it was commonly believed (again, on the basis of primitive science) that the newly conceived child was perhaps not “ensouled” because it did not have a human form or wasn’t “quickened” until later in pregnancy. Obviously we know better than this now, if only because we know that from the moment of conception the fetus is definately living/biotic and undeniably human (human DNA - a code which will not change from conception until that human dies at a ripe old age.) Thus the differences that were being drawn on this issue in terms of the gravity of the offence committed would no longer make much sense.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

EtienneGilson:

And today’s theologians and bishops I assume are not? The patristics had just as many problems as the modern theologians and from a orhtodox perspective maybe more. Look at Abelard’s Sic et Non to see just how frequently the patristics disagree. Not to mention the fact that some of the greatest writers like Origen and Turtullian died holding heretical beliefs.

It is a mistake to view the Church Fathers’ writings as if they had some sort of canonical authority. These men were not infallible. Yet it is an even greater mistake to ignore what the Fathers had to say. It clear they knew the difference between abortion and contraception and condemned both. No Father defended either practise

The difference between abortion and contraception was known in the Roman world. Soranus of Ephesus, physician under Trajan and Hadrian (AD 98-138), studied at Alexandria and practised at Rome. He wrote around twenty books . . . [including] Gynaecology. The latter gives valuable information on gynaecology and obstetrics in the Roman Empire. .
He wrote;
"A contraceptive differs from an abortive, for the first does not let conception take place, while the latter destroys what has been conceived. Let us therefore call the one ‘abortive’ phthorion] and the other ‘contraceptive’ atokion]. {Soranos Eph., Gynaeciorum libri, 1.60} "

EtienneGilson:

The fact remains. Likewise the patristics also held the near universal view that Adam and Eve were historical characters though science has proven that wrong and Catholicism has followed suit.

Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The *Catechism *states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

EtienneGilson:

The fact that Brian Ingram called Jacques Maritain and Germain Grisez “liberal scholars” is indicative that the great majority of the defenses of Humanae Vitae are motivated more out of piety than knowledge.

I did not call or imply that they were. Also piety and knowledge are not mutually exclusive.

Pax

Brian

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Etienne is essentially correct…

If this is true, then it would not be too difficult to actually show that he is correct on the forum. Can you prove through citing patristics that they were referring only to abortion when they discussed the immorality of contraception?

I have no doubt that ancient Judaic understanding of spilling the seed was understood similarly to the shedding of life itself. However, it’s a far stretch to postulate based upon this that the early Church would have taught differently, only if had known more about biology.

I’ve read John T. Noonan’s Contraception, and I don’t share Etienne’s conclusion about how contraception was viewed by Catholic theologians and canonist of the past 2000 years.

For example, **St. Clement of Alexandria **(before AD 202):

“Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to 'be fruitful and multiply. ’ He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations… . . Why, even ureasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.” (Paedagogos 2, 10)

I detect no reference to abortion, but do find that St. Clement asserting that we can know from nature how we ought to behave in accord with God’s will. St. Clement is arguing that sex is not simply a means to gratify one’s sensual pleasure, not a means of indulgence, but instead is a human act which ought to be open to procreation. Consequently, human acts which render sex non-procreative are immoral.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Palamite:

Etienne is essentially correct - the big concern for the Church Fathers who addressed this topic was the relationship between “contraception” (though refering to it in this way is anachronistic - it implies a lot of things that would not have occured to them) and abortion. To put the matter simply, in laymen’s terms, the pre-scientific understanding saw the relationship of the “male seed” to the fetus as being analogous to the relationship between an acorn on a tree and an acorn embeded in the earth. That the woman had an equal contribution to make (ovum) to conception was simply unknown to them.

Regardless of whatever the Anglican rationale was for revisiting this issue, it was precisely the recognition of the actual concern of the Church Fathers (bloodshed/murder) as it related to the facts made manifest by modern science which caused the Orthodox Church to modify it’s pastoral position on the topic of family planning. This is made very clear, for example, in an official position document (Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church) issued by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000. A relevent passage (for the document deals with far more than simply this issue) reads…

That such a revision of a position which is not dictated directly by explicit “divine revelation” or the “infallible magisterium” as Roman Catholics would put it, should not be a scandal to anyone, let alone Roman Catholics for the same has occured in their communion regarding the issue of abortion. While it is true that the Fathers taught abortion to be a grave sin and bloodshed, there were practical differences throughout Christendom as to whether or not canonical penalties exacted against women who procurred abortions ought to be undifferentiated. This was because it was commonly believed (again, on the basis of primitive science) that the newly conceived child was perhaps not “ensouled” because it did not have a human form or wasn’t “quickened” until later in pregnancy. Obviously we know better than this now, if only because we know that from the moment of conception the fetus is definately living/biotic and undeniably human (human DNA - a code which will not change from conception until that human dies at a ripe old age.) Thus the differences that were being drawn on this issue in terms of the gravity of the offence committed would no longer make much sense.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Palamite:

Etienne is essentially correct - the big concern for the Church Fathers who addressed this topic was the relationship between “contraception” (though refering to it in this way is anachronistic - it implies a lot of things that would not have occured to them) and abortion. To put the matter simply, in laymen’s terms, the pre-scientific understanding saw the relationship of the “male seed” to the fetus as being analogous to the relationship between an acorn on a tree and an acorn embeded in the earth. That the woman had an equal contribution to make (ovum) to conception was simply unknown to them.

The Roman world knew the difference between the two Soranus of Ephesus, (AD 98-138), physician under Trajan and Hadrian, spelt out the difference in his book Gynaecology, so the Fathers would have been aware of the difference.

Hippolytus
“[Christian women with male concubines], 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 [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion]” ( 9:12 [A.D. 225]).

Many passages in the Fathers link contraception to abortion, (As did H.V and does the Catholic Church today in its reference to the culture of death) as does this one:

St. John Chrysostom.
“Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? for even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?” St. John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans (emphasis added)

St. Jerome speaks of “chemical contraception,” but once again in a linkage with abortion:
“Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder”. St. Jerome, Letter XXII:13. To Eustochium (emphasis added)

Palamite:

That such a revision of a position which is not dictated directly by explicit “divine revelation” or the “infallible magisterium” as Roman Catholics would put it, should not be a scandal to anyone, let alone Roman Catholics for the same has occured in their communion regarding the issue of abortion. While it is true that the Fathers taught abortion to be a grave sin and bloodshed, there were practical differences throughout Christendom as to whether or not canonical penalties exacted against women who procurred abortions ought to be undifferentiated. This was because it was commonly believed (again, on the basis of primitive science) that the newly conceived child was perhaps not “ensouled” because it did not have a human form or wasn’t “quickened” until later in pregnancy. Obviously we know better than this now, if only because we know that from the moment of conception the fetus is definately living/biotic and undeniably human (human DNA - a code which will not change from conception until that human dies at a ripe old age.) Thus the differences that were being drawn on this issue in terms of the gravity of the offence committed would no longer make much sense.

The difference in Canonical penalties is irrelevant, the action in itself contraception or abortion were seen as serious sins it just shows the degree of culpability that the Church saw in the actions

Pax

Brian

 

[Lorarose]

Simply look at the CA track on it and you will see that none of the patristic quotes directly deals with contraception.

I have sought the advise of many priests on this issue.
The priest that I have found to be the most “orthodox” from a very orthodox diocese surprised me one day.
He said this was the topic he chose to examine for his thesis.
According to him, one of the requirements for a teaching to be considered infallible is that it must be shown the teaching existed from the beginning.
He was not able to demonstrate that it did.
This isn’t to say that such evidence will never be discovered (some ancient documents were only discovered relatively recently).

He submitted the opinion that, as of now, the evidence that this teaching existed from the beginning could not be proven.
His thesis was accepted, and he was not reprimanded.

 

[JOHNYJ]

With all this hot air the simple fact is that Humane Vitae is not infalible.Oh there are those that want to make it infalible,but.It isnt !

 

[Palamite]

itjustdave1988,

If this is true, then it would not be too difficult to actually show that he is correct on the forum. Can you prove through citing patristics that they were referring only to abortion when they discussed the immorality of contraception?

It’s near impossible to prove a negative. Rather, I’d be happy to place within context supposed patristic “proof texts” of the RC position.

Your question is much like asking me to prove the Church Father’s didn’t have an issue with parting one’s hair down the middle.

I have no doubt that ancient Judaic understanding of spilling the seed was understood similarly to the shedding of life itself. However, it’s a far stretch to postulate based upon this that the early Church would have taught differently, only if had known more about biology.

It’s not difficult to believe at all, since the question of family planning is one that is not clearly addressed in the divine revelation itself - rather it is an ethical/pastoral question answered in part on the basis of divine revelation, and in part upon observation of nature.

“Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to 'be fruitful and multiply. ’ He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations… . . Why, even ureasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.” (Paedagogos 2, 10)

The main problem with utilizing passages like this is that they are just as problematic to the contemporary Roman Catholic “NFP is ok” position. Read your snippet again - “Why, even ureasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.”

The passage is doubly problematic, since not all of the Fathers were agreed that a married couple having relations without the express intention of procreating was in fact “outrageous.”

It’s funny to read this thread - it would seem that whenever the Fathers contradict or undercut the RC position we are told “they’re not personally infallible”…yet they become undeniable authorities whenever they appear to support said position. Which is it?

St. Clement is arguing that sex is not simply a means to gratify one’s sensual pleasure, not a means of indulgence, but instead is a human act which ought to be open to procreation.

You’re sticking words into the Saint’s mouth. He says nothing of simply being “open to life” - he says quite plainly, that having sexual relations within marriage “without intending children” is an outrage against nature.

 

[Palamite]

Brian Ingram,

Hippolytus
“[Christian women with male concubines], 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 [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion]” ( 9:12 [A.D. 225]).

I looked for the citation, but failed to find anything like this in St.Hippolytus’s Refutation of All Heresies book 9, chapter 12. This leads me to believe you did not read this first hand, but are simply quoting so called “apologetical tracts” which are notorious for giving this kind of information out of context (and in this case, with improper citation.

[qoute]Many passages in the Fathers link contraception to abortion, (As did H.V and does the Catholic Church today in its reference to the culture of death) as does this one:

You’re confusing the causual link which H.V. made between contraception and abortion, with the direct link that some of the Fathers made between the two (because they believed wasting the seed to be a species of abortion.)

Both the passage you give from St.John Chrysostom and the one from St.Jerome, refer to abortion. As I said previously, the type of clear distinction we make between contraception and abortion would not have been possible with the knowledge they had available to them. Nor do I see how “that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception” is even possible; how do you murder someone when they’ve not been conceived? You can’t - however if you believed what we’d call a “new fetus” to be essentially the same as the “male seed” (except that it’s implanted in the womb), then it is easy to fathom how this is possible. It is not truthful to project distinctions we are only now capable of upon those labouring under primitive conceptions of human biology.

The difference in Canonical penalties is irrelevant, the action in itself contraception or abortion were seen as serious sins it just shows the degree of culpability that the Church saw in the actions

Actually it’s very relevent, because it demonstrates that even the RCC is open to reconsidering it’s appraisals of moral issues when new evidence appears.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Palamite:

Brian Ingram,
I looked for the citation, but failed to find anything like this in St.Hippolytus’s Refutation of All Heresies book 9, chapter 12. This leads me to believe you did not read this first hand, but are simply quoting so called “apologetical tracts” which are notorious for giving this kind of information out of context (and in this case, with improper citation.

My mistake in not checking for proper citation. It is in Refutation of All Heresies book 9, chapter 7 towards the end.

Palamite:

You’re confusing the causual link which H.V. made between contraception and abortion, with the direct link that some of the Fathers made between the two (because they believed wasting the seed to be a species of abortion.)

Maybe they did in regards Coitus interruptus, however to say that in all instances they saw contraception as abortion is incorrect. If they did then the conclusion is that ALL sexual intercourse that did not end in conception was abortion because the seed was wasted.

Palamite:

Both the passage you give from St.John Chrysostom and the one from St.Jerome, refer to abortion. As I said previously, the type of clear distinction we make between contraception and abortion would not have been possible with the knowledge they had available to them.

Clearly you are mistaken on both points as I have shown the Roman world knew the difference between abortion and contraception Soranus of Ephesus wrote;
"A contraceptive differs from an abortive, for the first does not let conception take place, while the latter destroys what has been conceived. Let us therefore call the one ‘abortive’ phthorion] and the other ‘contraceptive’ atokion]. {Soranos Eph., Gynaeciorum libri, 1.60} "

Palamite:

Nor do I see how “that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception” is even possible; how do you murder someone when they’ve not been conceived?

It is a figure of speech, in that a person who would have been conceived and born was prevented by contraception. Not murder literally but figuratively

Palamite:
Actually it’s very relevent, because it demonstrates that even the RCC is open to reconsidering it’s appraisals of moral issues when new evidence appears.

Lets us look at the present situation any Catholic who has or assists in an abortion faces instant excommunication, whereas
a Catholic who commits adultery does not.
In both cases it is a mortal sin, so it is wrong to tie canonical penalties to moral teachings as though they are one and the same.

Pax

Brian