Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

[wanner47]

I’m glad we agree on that, since that is the subject matter which is being discussed: action, not non-action. So there is no reason to discuss an irrelevant subject.

NFP includes both action and non-action, otherwise it is not NFP anymore…it is simply abstinence.

NFP provides information. It is up to the couple in question to decide whether to act or not to act based on that information – and whether they act or not act is based upon their careful and prayerful discernment.

 

[Mickey]

I could be wrong, in which case I will certainly offer an apology to josephdaniel, but it seems to me that his argument was that anything that frustrates conception is morally wrong – and it seems to me he was arguing that NFP frustrates conception.

It is more likely that Joseph is saying that you cannot legalistically condemn something like condom use, when NFP can also be a very effective contraceptive act (relations during infertile periods).

But I will stop speaking for Joseph and let him answer for himself.

 

[wanner47]

It is more likely that Joseph is saying that you cannot legalistically condemn something like condom use, when NFP can also be a very effective contraceptive act (relations during infertile periods).

But I will stop speaking for Joseph and let him answer for himself.

If that’s his argument, it’s a weak one. Not only because NFP does nothing to prevent or inhibit already ejaculated sperm from reaching an egg (unlike condoms), but also because condoms violate the unitive aspect of a completed marital act by placing a physical, artificial barrier between the man and woman.

NFP is nothing but information provided to the couple, and based on that information they choose to either unite in a fully unitive and procreative marital act, or to prayerfully abstain by mutual consent.

 

[Mickey]

If that’s his argument, it’s a weak one.

On the contrary, it is a strong one. When used to prevent pregnancy, NFP is more effective than condoms. Couples can come together knowing there is no chance to conceive. In fact, I believe that the Vatican is still studying condom use on a limited basis.

 

[wanner47]

On the contrary, it is a strong one. When used to prevent pregnancy, NFP is more effective than condoms. Couples can come together knowing there is no chance to conceive. In fact, I believe that the Vatican is still studying condom use on a limited basis.

To my knowledge, the Vatican is studying no such thing. Do you have a source that says otherwise?

If your argument is that God’s design for a woman’s menstrual cycle is brilliant, I have no rejoinder, because I quite agree.

Effectiveness (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the morality of the act. If condoms had a 99.9% user success rate, they would still be immoral, and they would still violate the unitive aspect of the marital act.

Let me ask you this, Mickey. Who, or what, causes the infertile phase of a woman’s cycle?

 

[Warrior1979]

Effectiveness (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the morality of the act.

The Church disagrees. If effectiveness has no consideration in the Church’s stance, then there is no reason to put conditions on having the marital act with full knowledge it is in the infertile period and with a strong likelihood of not having children.

 

[Mickey]

If condoms had a 99.9% user success rate, they would still be immoral, and they would still violate the unitive aspect of the marital act.

I think it is NFP that has about 99% success rate with preventing conception.

Let me ask you this, Mickey. Who, or what, causes the infertile phase of a woman’s cycle?

You do not know!?! Oh my!

 

[Mickey]

Do you have a source that says otherwise?

Some [Catholic] bishops and cardinals have argued, for example, that a married couple in which one spouse has AIDS may reasonably be expected to use condoms to prevent transmission of the deadly disease.

Another source said that after looking more closely at the question, the church experts decided it was premature for the Vatican to make a comprehensive statement on the theological and pastoral aspects of condom use, in part because there was not unanimity of opinion, and in part because many believed that discussion of the theological nuances would only invite confusion in the media and among Catholics.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901232.htm

The question of whether condom use in some circumstances may be morally acceptable is a separate and more difficult question, Father Faggioni told Catholic News Service.

“You could say officially that it remains under study,” one source said.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901232.htm

 

[FromTheAshes777]

Not at all. Pre-scientific outlook on fertility was inded the notion that the semen was a form of seed and the womb akin to soil. But from there, your interpretation goes off the rails. Theologians of the day did NOT consider the semen as already present human life, rather most of them believed that transformation occured later. I suggest you peruse the forums here on abortion related “ensoulment” arguments where pro-aborts attempt to discredit the catholic pro-life stance by citing (accurately) saints and early fathers who speculated on exactly how long after the ‘seed was planted’ it took before ensoulment occured (i.e. a human was formed). The pro-abortion crowd often labors under the impression that because the early church didn’t initially recognize early abortion as murder that it didn’t recognize it as sinful. That, as any serious investigator soon learns, is not the case. The Church has always condemned abortive procedures (which are not modern) as sinful, even when the primitive biology of the day didn’t yet recognize it as the termination of a life, but more like conventional contraception.

Church condemnation of contraception was, thus, the original foundation for her consistent rejection of abortion. The later biological advances in understanding that allowed us to recognize abortion as the killing of a distinct human being came later.

So no, I’m not having it both ways. A modern articulation of NFP is simply not possible in the vocabulary and scientific comprehension of the EF period. The thread premise is entirely faulty.

excellent post!
:clapping:

 

[wanner47]

The Church disagrees.

Source?

If effectiveness has no consideration in the Church’s stance, then there is no reason to put conditions on having the marital act with full knowledge it is in the infertile period and with a strong likelihood of not having children.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What conditions are you talking about?

 

[wanner47]

I think it is NFP that has about 99% success rate with preventing conception.

That’s the method effectiveness rate, assuming perfect use. The user effectiveness rate is lower and varies depending on the method used (STM, Creighton, Marquette, Billings, etc.) and the type of study conducted.

You do not know!?! Oh my!

Of course I know; I’m wondering what your belief is in this regard.

Who or what causes a woman’s cycle to become infertile? Put another way, what does the couple do to render the sex act sterile?

 

[Rence]

Nobody has any issue with abstaining during any time, just as nobody has an issue with not sinning. There is most definitely an issue with specifically having sex with full knowledge the woman is in her infertile cycle, otherwise the Church wouldn’t need to address the issue or attach conditions to it.

No one is denying that only having sex during infertile times can be sinful if abused. However, though the Church addressed NFP, they gave individual families guidelines to use, and call them to use them prayerfully and do not dictate a list of do’s and don’ts. They allow individual families the independence to evauluate their own situation and apply the rules of using NFP to them. The problem is when people have the audacity to point to families other than their own, and claim that their reasons for not having a child isn’t good enough, isn’t grave enough or isn’t serious enough. The fact of the matter is, the Church did NOT dictate how many children a family should have. They never said it was sinful to have one or two children. Times are different now than they were centuries ago. Some families raise large families very well. Others are struggling with small families for many reasons, not just monetary. To claim that people should just not have sex in their marriage if they’re not willing to have another child isn’t fair and is NOT a teaching of the Church. If the Church doesn’t require it, one is overstepping their bounds by claiming others are required to do this. People who are called to have large families are doing so,and doing so very well. Perhaps the reason why someone is so compelled to dicate the family dynamics of another family is because they themselves are being called to have a large family and are reflecting that in their views. But it’s important to understand that one’s calling isn’t everyone’s calling.

 

[wanner47]

Some [Catholic] bishops and cardinals have argued, for example, that a married couple in which one spouse has AIDS may reasonably be expected to use condoms to prevent transmission of the deadly disease.

From this article:

The pope did not get into the specific question of whether in certain circumstances condom use was morally licit or illicit in AIDS prevention, an issue that is still under study by Vatican theologians.

You are being misleading when you suggest that the Vatican is considering allowing condom use for all married couples, whether infected with AIDS or not. Be that as it may, Vatican theologians don’t have the final say; only the Magisterium does.

Another source said that after looking more closely at the question, the church experts decided it was premature for the Vatican to make a comprehensive statement on the theological and pastoral aspects of condom use, in part because there was not unanimity of opinion, and in part because many believed that discussion of the theological nuances would only invite confusion in the media and among Catholics.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901232.htm

Once again, in context! Let’s look at the text before the above paragraph.

But sources told CNS in mid-March that the doctrinal congregation’s action on the report has been quietly put on hold, at least for the moment.

“You could say officially that it remains under study,” one source said.

The question of whether condom use in some circumstances may be morally acceptable is a separate and more difficult question, Father Faggioni told Catholic News Service.

“You could say officially that it remains under study,” one source said.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901232.htm

This article speaks only about condom use by those infected with AIDS, not all married couples. Your assumption is flawed.

 

[Rence]

I am asking you to show me how you know this. Surely something as definitive as an infallible statement is clearly defined somewhere.
Can you show me an official document which corroborates this?

Um, do I have to take the time out of my day to do this? I don’t mean to be rude, honestly, but you’re a forum master. Perhaps I’m unfairly expecting too much of a forum master of CAF, but surely you have such documents at your disposal? If I am, just let me know.

We know that infallible statments are linked to such things as , “let it be anthema”, and “we declare” and other such phrases used in a statement regarding an infallible statement. Therefore if you use the list of references at the end of HV, you can go back and read them.

For example, the parts that reference the CCC are infallible teachings. Why? Because when the Pope put together the CCC, he “declared” in his introduction that these were teachings of faith and morals “by the Magiesterium” and were required of Catholics. In the CCC, artificial birth control is forbidden. However, guidelines are given to use NFP. Therefore, NFP is not forbidden.

 

[Rence]

It is more likely that Joseph is saying that you cannot legalistically condemn something like condom use, when NFP can also be a very effective contraceptive act (relations during infertile periods).

But I will stop speaking for Joseph and let him answer for himself.

Well, if that’s the case, then Joseph is definitely not alone. Many Catholics have trouble with this part of the teaching, and the teaching itself, and it’s a big stumbling block for them. This is such a big stumbling block due to what you describe that I can see why some people would convert to the Orthodox faith over this (as well as other things).

Hey, I never said I agreed with it I just regurgitated the rules. He never asked me my opinion though…

However, part of being Catholic (and maybe Orthodox too), is obeying the rules even though you may think some rules are complete malarkie because you supposedly have faith in the teaching ability of the Church, and that it has the fullness of Truth. Granted, the rules that I think are complete malarkie don’t affect day-to-day decisions in my life due to my life situation. So it would be arrogant of me to claim that I know what I would do in another person’s situation. But I think you get the picture.

 

[SonCatcher]

A spin off of the popular thread asking Protestants to defend ABC. There are traditionalist Catholics who say NFP is sinful for the same reasons ABC is. The principal Catholic document on the subject Humanae Vitae contains not a single patristic quote to support its conclusions. So now I put the question to Catholics. Defend NFP from the Fathers.

I originally thought the purpose of this thread was an exercise in apologetics to improve understanding of Chruch teaching concerning NFP (perhaps even temper the other mentioned perennial threads), especially concerning your later statements of nonobjection to NFP, itself. Unfortunately, all I have seen is attack on any attempt of using patristics for just the purpose proposed. No wonder this has become YAAT (Yet Another ABC Thread).

 

[Mickey]

That’s the method effectiveness rate, assuming perfect use.

Yes.

Of course I know

Then there is no reason to ask me. I know how NFP works.

 

[wanner47]

Yes.
Then there is no reason to ask me. I know how NFP works.

I’m not asking about NFP. I’m asking about a woman’s menstrual cycle.

Who or what causes the infertile phase of a woman’s menstrual cycle? Why is this question so difficult for you to answer?

 

[Mickey]

This article speaks only about condom use by those infected with AIDS, not all married couples. Your assumption is flawed.

No it’s not. I believe that the Vatican will one day approve condom use for AIDS and STD’s and then perhaps the ultimate decision will be left to the spiritual father. Time will tell.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Mickey
It is more likely that Joseph is saying that you cannot legalistically condemn something like condom use, when NFP can also be a very effective contraceptive act (relations during infertile periods).

I would agree that the argument is a strong one, that’s why many people have trouble with this teaching. But I still think Joseph was condemning having sex during infertile times exclusively (without exceptions or rationales) and saying that the early Church Fathers forbade it. If his argument is that NFP is the same as ABCs with regards to frustrating conception, then how is it that both Catholics and Orthodox can use it, and in addition, Orthodox can use ABCs? If the early fathers condemned sex during infertile times in order to prevent pregnancy than 1) why are the Orthodox doing it, and 2) they would have condemned ABCs as well as NFP.