I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
And you know this how? Professors of theology disagree with you, so what makes you the all-knowing expert in theology?
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I disagree that “wanting children” and “intending children” are the same thing, as you seem to imply. I can want children, but not actually intend to have children. To intend children, the conjugal act is required in which no human act deliberately renders the conjugal act non-procreative. To not intend children in the conjugal act requires an act of will which renders sex non-procreative.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I’m not asking you to prove a negative. The claim was that the fathers intended abortion when they taught against contraception. Where does one derive this claim? There are many fathers who taught against contraception and it had nothing to do with abortion. The the context doesn’t support the assertion.
If patristics supported the dissenting view, then I’m sure John T. Noonan would have showed us this evidence by now. Instead,* Noonan admitted “**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).
P
Palamite
Guest
itsjustdave1988,
i) Passages which clearly speak of abortion and cannot possibly be construed as being about what we’d call “contraception” (the use of abortifacient potions, binding cords about a woman’s waist to expel a new fetus, etc.)
ii) A concern related to abortion, due to the mistaken belief that there was a more similar relationship between the male seed and the new fetus than actually exists. There was no notion of an “ovum” in the period that this subject was first discussed and became an ethical consideration. Nor did they even have a knowledge of what “sperm cells” were as we now know them (ex. that tens of millions of them are expelled during the male climax, yet only one of these will possibly fertilize an egg; the rest will literally die in a woman’s body and be expelled), but had some vague notion that the entire ejaculate was “the seed”. All of this led to the basic belief that what distinguished the seed from the fetus, was implantation and the opportunity to develop and at some point (the “when” was argued about) be ensouled by God. Citing moral guidance which was not drawn from Divine Revelation but was the result of a natural law argument based upon (incorrect) biological information simply will not do - in fact it violates the spirit within which such Fathers wrote, since their concern was not some obscure “theology of the body” or anything like this, but an abhorance for murder or anything that came close to it.
iii) Another class of Patristic texts which touch on this topic are those from Fathers who taught that the only good reason for a married couple having sexual relations, was for the purpose of procreating. This wasn’t simply being “open to life” to put it in RC-speak - to project that into the text is anachronistic. No, they taught that the only good reason to have sex in marriage was to make a baby. You even have someone like St.Augustine, who thought even enjoying sex (even if your purpose was to “make a baby”) was at least somewhat sinful. These Fathers, to varying degrees, would have interpreted NFP and the whole normative RC attitude on marital relations to be licentious. However, there are other Fathers (most conspicuously St.John Chrysostom) who hold contrary opinions - for example St.John taught quite plainly that “becoming one flesh” in marriage did not refer only to the begetting of a child, but was also fulfilled simply in the act of sexual union itself. As to why certain Fathers held the type of rigorous views they did, the answer is manifold. In part, it might have been overzealousness for the higher calling of celibacy/virginity, with normal continence in marriage being seen as a kind of “almost as good” choice. In part, it was probably not a little bit due to the influence of pagan Hellenic ideals as found in Stoicism or Neo-Platonism which tended to treat the natural goods of this world in a contemptuous way. However when all is said and done, the mind of the Church has been that the more extreme views erred in excess, and come dangerously close (if not at times transgressing) the Apostolic forbidding of any teaching which would revile nature or portray it as utterly incompatible with the life of grace. This is a tendency which the Church has always had to fight with, even from the beginning (ex. those who went beyond simply recommending a celibate life to teaching that marriage was somehow dirty or even outright sinful and fallen.)
It is precisely because of these considerations, that it is untenable to outright define so called “artificial” methods of family planning as “inherently sinful”, and most especially so if one wants to use the Church Fathers as a basis for such an idea. The matter becomes outright ludicrous when one joins to this the RC permissiveness for NFP, which would undoubtedly have offended a fair cross section of the “stern Fathers” on this topic.
The context of any passages I’ve seen relating to this topic falls into one of these categories…
i) Passages which clearly speak of abortion and cannot possibly be construed as being about what we’d call “contraception” (the use of abortifacient potions, binding cords about a woman’s waist to expel a new fetus, etc.)
ii) A concern related to abortion, due to the mistaken belief that there was a more similar relationship between the male seed and the new fetus than actually exists. There was no notion of an “ovum” in the period that this subject was first discussed and became an ethical consideration. Nor did they even have a knowledge of what “sperm cells” were as we now know them (ex. that tens of millions of them are expelled during the male climax, yet only one of these will possibly fertilize an egg; the rest will literally die in a woman’s body and be expelled), but had some vague notion that the entire ejaculate was “the seed”. All of this led to the basic belief that what distinguished the seed from the fetus, was implantation and the opportunity to develop and at some point (the “when” was argued about) be ensouled by God. Citing moral guidance which was not drawn from Divine Revelation but was the result of a natural law argument based upon (incorrect) biological information simply will not do - in fact it violates the spirit within which such Fathers wrote, since their concern was not some obscure “theology of the body” or anything like this, but an abhorance for murder or anything that came close to it.
iii) Another class of Patristic texts which touch on this topic are those from Fathers who taught that the only good reason for a married couple having sexual relations, was for the purpose of procreating. This wasn’t simply being “open to life” to put it in RC-speak - to project that into the text is anachronistic. No, they taught that the only good reason to have sex in marriage was to make a baby. You even have someone like St.Augustine, who thought even enjoying sex (even if your purpose was to “make a baby”) was at least somewhat sinful. These Fathers, to varying degrees, would have interpreted NFP and the whole normative RC attitude on marital relations to be licentious. However, there are other Fathers (most conspicuously St.John Chrysostom) who hold contrary opinions - for example St.John taught quite plainly that “becoming one flesh” in marriage did not refer only to the begetting of a child, but was also fulfilled simply in the act of sexual union itself. As to why certain Fathers held the type of rigorous views they did, the answer is manifold. In part, it might have been overzealousness for the higher calling of celibacy/virginity, with normal continence in marriage being seen as a kind of “almost as good” choice. In part, it was probably not a little bit due to the influence of pagan Hellenic ideals as found in Stoicism or Neo-Platonism which tended to treat the natural goods of this world in a contemptuous way. However when all is said and done, the mind of the Church has been that the more extreme views erred in excess, and come dangerously close (if not at times transgressing) the Apostolic forbidding of any teaching which would revile nature or portray it as utterly incompatible with the life of grace. This is a tendency which the Church has always had to fight with, even from the beginning (ex. those who went beyond simply recommending a celibate life to teaching that marriage was somehow dirty or even outright sinful and fallen.)
It is precisely because of these considerations, that it is untenable to outright define so called “artificial” methods of family planning as “inherently sinful”, and most especially so if one wants to use the Church Fathers as a basis for such an idea. The matter becomes outright ludicrous when one joins to this the RC permissiveness for NFP, which would undoubtedly have offended a fair cross section of the “stern Fathers” on this topic.
G
gam197
Guest
Not only the breakdown of society…
When we apeak to ABC and other methods of artificial control, health is of concern. Condoms have long been associated with ecampsia in women , which is life threatening during childbirth. Death during childbirth has always been an issue. Even with the best of medical, pregnancy frightens every female, pregnant or not…(latex rejection/ allergy)
Birth control pills have been associated with gall bladder disease,plus all kinds of deteriation of health resulting in adnormal paps and hysterectomies.etc. We know smoking harms the body. The female young body is not meant to be constantly dosed with artificial estrogen and progestin.
Many females ask, do males care?
When we apeak to ABC and other methods of artificial control, health is of concern. Condoms have long been associated with ecampsia in women , which is life threatening during childbirth. Death during childbirth has always been an issue. Even with the best of medical, pregnancy frightens every female, pregnant or not…(latex rejection/ allergy)
Birth control pills have been associated with gall bladder disease,plus all kinds of deteriation of health resulting in adnormal paps and hysterectomies.etc. We know smoking harms the body. The female young body is not meant to be constantly dosed with artificial estrogen and progestin.
Many females ask, do males care?
E
EtienneGilson
Guest
How my statement:
EtienneGilson:
Furthermore, how my statement that theology of the body relies on a naive and overly literal interpretation of the creation account can be construed as an argument for polygenism is likewise indicative of the frequent grasping at straws that occurs concerning this issue.
While many people posted that science has not proven polygenism I could care less because it is an orthodox catholic position that the creation of our bodies can be viewed in an evolutionary sense: Humani generis: “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”
Thus the whole polygenism/monogenism debate aside, theology of the body still draws from an overly literal reading of genesis.
can possibly be interpreted as meaning all patristic writings confused abortion and contraception is indicative of a “straw man” defence. Often the patristics confused the issue such as in the CA tract. Often the patristics also dealt exclusively with sexual relations and intending to have children. When the patristics dealt with it in the later sense they also always condemned sexual relations without the express intention of having children, such as in the previous quote from St; Augustine. The patristic view, if translated directly to modern society would likewise be that NFP is heretical since the ethics of intention were dominant. The Noonan quote displays as much.
Furthermore, how my statement that theology of the body relies on a naive and overly literal interpretation of the creation account can be construed as an argument for polygenism is likewise indicative of the frequent grasping at straws that occurs concerning this issue.
While many people posted that science has not proven polygenism I could care less because it is an orthodox catholic position that the creation of our bodies can be viewed in an evolutionary sense: Humani generis: “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”
Thus the whole polygenism/monogenism debate aside, theology of the body still draws from an overly literal reading of genesis.
P
Palamite
Guest
itsjustdave1988,
Those Fathers who are typically cited as evidence of the modern RC position, when not speaking of abortion, are men of the opinion that one ought not to have sexual relations with their spouse save for the express purpose of “making babies”. No “open to life” nonsense - no, they would have found the whole NFP business to have been a conspiracy to faciliate “lust”. Suffice it to say, both of our churches do not regard such a harsh position as being truthful, pastoral, or even morally correct (given what the Scriptures say very plainly about marriage and it’s goodness and cleaness - even quite specifically “the marriage bed”).
In which case, NFP stands condemned - the only time NFP-timed-sex is “procreative” is if something goes awry (not unlike a condom breaking or medication not being taken properly.) It’s just pharisaic hair splitting to pretend there is a moral difference between the two “types” of situation. How anyone can honestly call sexual acts specifically timed to when a woman is not able to procreate “procreative” just baffles me. It’s so silly that I do not even know what to say other than “you’re crazy”.
Which is funny since NFP deliberates precisely in this direction - to have sexual encounters with one’s spouse without procreation. If one “reads the signs” right, procreation can be excluded from the equation. That this method can and does fail is of no consequence, since the same thing can be said of so called “artificial” methods.
Those Fathers who are typically cited as evidence of the modern RC position, when not speaking of abortion, are men of the opinion that one ought not to have sexual relations with their spouse save for the express purpose of “making babies”. No “open to life” nonsense - no, they would have found the whole NFP business to have been a conspiracy to faciliate “lust”. Suffice it to say, both of our churches do not regard such a harsh position as being truthful, pastoral, or even morally correct (given what the Scriptures say very plainly about marriage and it’s goodness and cleaness - even quite specifically “the marriage bed”).
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Your interpretation of patristics notwithstanding, what Noonan conceded in 1965 still remains true…no Catholic theologian ever admitted that complete sexual intercourse might be had in which by deliberation, procreation was excluded. Saying that they “would have” if they understood biology as well as we do today is absurd, and implies the early fathers were teaching on their own, without the help of Divine guidance.
NFP is “planning.” It is used to attempt to plan when to have children. It’s “willful actions” consists solely in these: planning, sex, and abstinence. These three will acts are not inherently immoral. Thus NFP is not inherently immoral. It can be immoral. In marriage, we are called to “be fruitful and multiply.” If a married couple rejects that calling from God then that is immoral, not based upon its inherent relation to the God-willed purpose of each conjugal act, but in relation to the purpose of marriage.
Abstinence is not immoral, otherwise Mary and Jesus have much explaining to do. NFP does not prevent sexual intercourse from resulting in conception, because each conjugal act, procreation is not deliberately or intentionally prevented (by act of human will). When those who practice NFP have sex, they do no “act of the will” which renders sex non-procreative. The only thing that renders sex non-procreative through NFP is nature, not any intentional act of human will. “Intention” involves an act of deliberate willfulness, your poor interpretation of Clement notwithstanding.
What will act during intercourse prevents conception for those practicing NFP? None. Non-procreative sex among validly married couples is not immoral and never has been in ecclesiastical history. On the other hand, throughout all of ecclesiastical history, human acts which willfully render marital sex non-procreative has been condemned by the early Church and the Church throughout history as immoral. That’s the patristic evidence, that’s the magisterial teaching.
That other Christians have waivered on this issue is a shame, as it is contrary to early Church teachings.
When the question unambiguously surfaced in the Catholic Church, what was the unequivocal reply? Was that reply before or after Humanae Vitae? The modernists in the Church would have us believe that the question was not answered until 1968, and even then dissenters like Noonan would have us believe that Paul VI was only giving his “personal opinion.” On the contrary, as his well-researched text of 1965 makes clear, contraception was always illicit in the Church. Always. What happened when modernists held their breath thinking the Church would reverse its dogmas? They were disappointed. It 1972, Paul VI said of their disappointment…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
From a natural law point of view, sex has a biological purpose. Sperm has a biological purpose. It belongs where it belongs. Ovulation is designed in such a way for a biological reason. That reason is geared toward procreation. Marital sex is not simply biological, but unitive. However, God does reveal his will for us through biology, too. To indulge in sexual acts while at the same time intentionally acting contrary to that act is a conflict in logic and the purposeful biological design for sex. It is contrary to St. Clement’s teaching, current modernist claims notwithstanding.
A sinful act requires an act of will. That’s the difference between intention and mere desire…willfulness. Thus, Fr. Martin D. O’Keefe, professor of Ethics explains the natural law argument like this…
A sinful act requires an act of will. That’s the difference between intention and mere desire…willfulness. Thus, Fr. Martin D. O’Keefe, professor of Ethics explains the natural law argument like this…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Non-procreative sex is not immoral. Human acts which render sex non-procreative is immoral. If by nature, marital sex is non-procreative, then one is not intentionally acting contrary to God’s will.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
St. John Chrysostom called contraception worse than murder, “for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans). Do you hear homilies like this anymore? Have the Eastern Orthodox abandoned St. John’s “stern” teaching against contraception?
What was St. John talking about, condoms? No. The method often used in ancient times, according to John T. Noonan’s text Contraception was to place a mixure of noxious substances inside the woman so as to kill or prevent the formation of a human being. Animal dung was one such substance used. Today we call this an abortificant contraceptive. It attempts to prevent conception, but just as in St. John’s day, if conception occurred, it also acted as an abortificant.
Catholic scholar John T. Noonan–who would later dissent with Humanae Vitae and call it a “personal opinion” wrote in 1965:
The propositions constituting a condemnation of contraception are, it will be seen, recurrent. Since the first clear mention of contraception by a Christian theologian, when a harsh third-century moralist accused a pope of encouraging it, the articulated judgment has been the same. In the world of the late Empire known to St. Jerome and St. Augustine, in the Ostrogothic Arles of Bishop Caesarius and the Suevian Braga of Bishop Martin, in the Paris of St. Albert and St. Thomas, in the Renaissance Rome of Sixtus V and the Renaissance Milan of St. Charles Borromeo, in the Naples of St. Alphonsus Liguori and Liege of Charles Billuart, in the Philadelphia of Bishop Kenrick, and in the Bombay of Cardinal Gracias, the teachers of the Church have taught without hestitation or variation that certain acts preventing procreation are gravely sinful. No Catholic theologian has ever taught, ‘Contraception is a good act.’ The teaching on contraception is clear and apparently fixed forever.
[John T. Noonan, Jr., *Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (1965), p. 6]
What was St. John talking about, condoms? No. The method often used in ancient times, according to John T. Noonan’s text Contraception was to place a mixure of noxious substances inside the woman so as to kill or prevent the formation of a human being. Animal dung was one such substance used. Today we call this an abortificant contraceptive. It attempts to prevent conception, but just as in St. John’s day, if conception occurred, it also acted as an abortificant.
Catholic scholar John T. Noonan–who would later dissent with Humanae Vitae and call it a “personal opinion” wrote in 1965:
The propositions constituting a condemnation of contraception are, it will be seen, recurrent. Since the first clear mention of contraception by a Christian theologian, when a harsh third-century moralist accused a pope of encouraging it, the articulated judgment has been the same. In the world of the late Empire known to St. Jerome and St. Augustine, in the Ostrogothic Arles of Bishop Caesarius and the Suevian Braga of Bishop Martin, in the Paris of St. Albert and St. Thomas, in the Renaissance Rome of Sixtus V and the Renaissance Milan of St. Charles Borromeo, in the Naples of St. Alphonsus Liguori and Liege of Charles Billuart, in the Philadelphia of Bishop Kenrick, and in the Bombay of Cardinal Gracias, the teachers of the Church have taught without hestitation or variation that certain acts preventing procreation are gravely sinful. No Catholic theologian has ever taught, ‘Contraception is a good act.’ The teaching on contraception is clear and apparently fixed forever.
[John T. Noonan, Jr., *Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (1965), p. 6]
J
JOHNYJ
Guest
First even Paul VI didn’t say it was.Second a pope must " specificaly state " that something is !
Oh,like I said there are people that would make it so.There are those that would make anything a pope said infalible. They would make Popes divine and that is heresy and should be.
D
dcdurel
Guest
Vatican I’s definition concerning the exercise of papal infallibility: “. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]
THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
Unless one of these is missing, the Pope is teaching infallibly.
Which one is missing in Humane Vitae ?
Clearly all the tests of infallibility are met. Thus, of course Humane Vitae is infallible. There is not a single test of infallibility that is missing.
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
I suppose one could submit a dubium to the vatican regarding HV, my guess is none of our naysayers have the moxy to do that.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Pope Benedict XVI has stated that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (on the impossibility of ordaining women as priests) was not an exercise of papal infallibility. Which of your four tests is not met in this case?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
According to Vatican I, nothing. For this reason, very many theologians are of the opinion that Ratzinger was mistaken.
B
BillP
Guest
Thanks for the laugh, but you owe me a keyboard. Mine was ruined when the coffeee came spurting out of my nose.
So according to your theologians, Popes only speak infallibly when they are defining something as infallible. When they say something isn’t infallible then they aren’t infallible but subject to error? I love it!!
Catch 23!
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Ratzinger was not Pope at the time. That is why I referred to him as Ratzinger and not Benedict
In fact, when Ratzinger was elected Pope, although people were generally ecstatic, there was some minor trepidation because he had in the past expressed some views that were not quite in line with Magisterial teaching.
Remember, even if he said today that a certain teaching was not infallible, that statement itself could be erroneous as long as he didn’t present it in an infallible manner.
I’m not saying that I think he was wrong, only that many believe he was. Although I do trust Benedict (and Ratzinger)above most others, I do have a hard time reconciling his view of OS with the definition of Papal infallibility in Vatican I.
I don’t know if OS was infallible or not, only that it doesn’t matter. It was a Papal instruction and requires assent.
F
fix
Guest
I know this may be off topic, but what about this?:
Responsum ad Dubium
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium…
newadvent.org/library/docs_df95os.htm
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
There is no doubt that the teaching itself is infallibe, the only question is whether OS was an exercise of ex cathedra Papal infallibility.
- Status