Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

[Warrior1979]

Well, you’re talking about the reasonableness of the Church’s NFP doctrine, so here is wisdom: God created woman to have a natural monthly fertility cycle. God could have, of course, created woman to always be fertile, but He did not. Why? What other loving reason is there other than the fact that God does not want a married couple to lose the unity of their marriage, or to fall to temptation, simply because they have a serious need to delay childbirth? Here is Pope Paul VI alluding to this in his prophetic passage in Humanae Vitae:

As I noted earlier, it’s solely based in Catholic Church tradition, and you’re confirming it by your citation.

So it’s entirely okay to intentionally time sex so as to frustrate the procreative process?

The only difference between this and ABC is the manner in which the procreative process is frustrated. Both are being used as birth control.

 

[firstmode]

Apocalypse of Peter (100 to 130 ad)

26 And hard by that place I saw another strait place wherein the discharge and the stench of them that were in torment ran down, and there was as it were a lake there. And there sat women up to their necks in that liquor, and over against them many children which were born out of due time sat crying: and from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were they that conceived out of wedlock () and caused abortIon.

wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/apocalypse-of-peter/

 

[firstmode]

Genesis 38:9-10*(New International Version, ©2011)

9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Genesis 38:9-10*(New International Version, ©2011)

9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Sorry, that does not apply to this thread. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[josephdaniel29]

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.

So can we just drop the pretension of being true to patristic tradition and admit that the teachings of Humanae Vitae are in fact something new?

 

[StrawberryJam]

So can we just drop the pretension of being true to patristic tradition and admit that the teachings of Humanae Vitae are in fact something new?

Only if one can concede that it is new to allow for bc.

Innovators, all of you.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

So can we just drop the pretension of being true to patristic tradition and admit that the teachings of Humanae Vitae are in fact something new?

The only thing new addressed by Humanae Vitae was whether the birth control pill was contraception. Other than that it was just a reaffirmation of the constant teaching of the Church. Contraception was already condemned by Pius XI in Casti Connubii so there really wasn’t a possibility for Paul IV to contradict any of the teaching already set forth.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well, you’re talking about the reasonableness of the Church’s NFP doctrine, so here is wisdom: God created woman to have a natural monthly fertility cycle. God could have, of course, created woman to always be fertile, but He did not. Why? What other loving reason is there other than the fact that God does not want a married couple to lose the unity of their marriage, or to fall to temptation, simply because they have a serious need to delay childbirth? Here is Pope Paul VI alluding to this in his prophetic passage in Humanae Vitae:

That’s all wonderful and beautiful, but it has no basis in tradition or the fathers. Quite frankly it sounds like a quite elaborate attempt to justify a break with the fathers. Look at these quotes from this very website.

Clement of Alexandria

“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 [A.D. 191]).

How is intentionally waiting to have sex when you know the woman is infertile not wasting seed?

Here is Clement again.

“To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” (ibid., 2:10:95:3).

The entire purpose of NFP is to “have coitus” and not procreate.

Lactantius

“God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring” (ibid., 6:23:18)

Again, this rules out NFP entirely.

Jerome

“But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?” (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

Is there really anything else to say?

Link

Now you can go on about “natural law” (speaking of natural law, most creatures in nature have sex only when the female is fertile, not the other way around), and you can beg the question as to why God designed us the way He did, and you can speak about the damage our contraceptive culture does; but in the end none of that comes from Apostolic Tradition.

If we are honest we have to admit that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on this subject in order to accommodate modern society, a fact that many traditionalist Catholics are more than happy to point out.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The only thing new addressed by Humanae Vitae was whether the birth control pill was contraception. Other than that it was just a reaffirmation of the constant teaching of the Church. Contraception was already condemned by Pius XI in Casti Connubii so there really wasn’t a possibility for Paul IV to contradict any of the teaching already set forth.

So where is the teaching on NFP set forth?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Where is the teaching of the fathers on many matters?

You are so caught up on this one. Sounds like a pesonal matter at this point.

Are we limited to what can be done and can not be done based on the early father’s imput?

Hypothetical.

An orthodox christian and his wife who is also an orthodox christian that were born in the US and both are of Irish backround decide to adopt female babies from China.

What do the fathers have to say about this? Should we tell them that they can not since we see no mention of this in their writings/musings?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Where is the teaching of the fathers on many matters?

You are so caught up on this one. Sounds like a pesonal matter at this point.

Are we limited to what can be done and can not be done based on the early father’s imput?

Hypothetical.

An orthodox christian and his wife who is also an orthodox christian that were born in the US and both are of Irish backround decide to adopt female babies from China.

What do the fathers have to say about this? Should we tell them that they can not since we see no mention of this in their writings/musings?

Well now you’re getting a little silly and defensive. The point is not that everything we do should be found verbatim in the fathers, the point is the vast majority of patristic quotes Catholics use to condemn ABC are just as easily applied to NFP. It’s not just that it’s not found in the fathers, it’s that it is overtly condemned by the fathers.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well now you’re getting a little silly and defensive. The point is not that everything we do should be found verbatim in the fathers, the point is the vast majority of patristic quotes Catholics use to condemn ABC are just as easily applied to NFP. It’s not just that it’s not found in the fathers, it’s that it is overtly condemned by the fathers.

Overtly condemned?
You have yet to make that case.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented 87to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit. - Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Well now you’re getting a little silly and defensive. The point is not that everything we do should be found verbatim in the fathers, the point is the vast majority of patristic quotes Catholics use to condemn ABC are just as easily applied to NFP. It’s not just that it’s not found in the fathers, it’s that it is overtly condemned by the fathers.

1. The only methods available were contraceptive so of course having sex while avoiding procreation would be condemned.

2 . development is still possible… which I guess is the whole point of the this thread, but still

 

[Good_Daughter]

Clement of Alexandria

“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 [A.D. 191]).

How is intentionally waiting to have sex when you know the woman is infertile not wasting seed?

Do you think Clement and the Early Church Fathers believed that pregnant and menopausal women who have relations with their husbands are acting sinfully?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Do you think Clement and the Early Church Fathers believed that pregnant and menopausal women who have relations with their husbands are acting sinfully?

I don’t know, did they?

And…

What possible bearing does that have on the discussion?

 

[mark_a]

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.

In my opinion, Catholics do a little too much defending NFP and not enough defending large families.

 

[Luke65]

What possible bearing does that have on the discussion?

You seriously don’t understand? If you’re going to interpret these general quotes from the Church Fathers in an absolute sense so as to preclude NFP, then you will have to interpret them, if you’re an intellectually honest person, to be condemning married couples having sex when the wife is pregnant or past menopause. This is very basic logic. But you seem to be an easily, and conveniently, confused fellow.

 

[StTommyMore]

Please do not feed the troll

 

[Hesychios]

Please do not feed the troll

What troll?