Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

[Warrior1979]

The birth control pill is abortifacient. Furthermore the philosophy behind ABC and NFP are at odds.

You might want to review your facts. Birth control pills are designed to prevent ovulation. If there is no ovulation, there is no pregnancy, thus there can be no abortion.

The remote possibility exists that an egg could be released, and the egg could be fertilized and not implant. However, that possibility also occurs naturally, such as when having sex during “infertile” periods.

NFP says: I do not wish to have children right now (note this can still be abused), so I will work with my body, paying attention to the natural biorhythms, and prevent conception through discipline.

“I do not wish” is not a reason to practice NFP.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Then why, if you don’t mind me asking, isn’t the birth control pill permitted? The physical form of the act is procreative same as with NFP. Conception does not take place because the woman is infertile at the time of intercourse same as with NFP

The birth control pill does change the physical form of the act by altering a woman’s body. The change takes place internally in the female when eggs are witheld. It’s this physical change that makes the pill effective.

 

[Rence]

As far as I know the Fathers knew nothing of sperm and egg. Are you implying that christians must never reason beyond 1,700 year old scientific bases???

I have to disagree with that (not to argue whether the Fathers were for or against NFP). I’m just saying they were more knowledgeable than we give them credit to have been. Sure, they didn’t attend Harvard, but what they did do is…

These people raised goats, sheep and camels. If they were slaves or servants, they tended their superiors’ horses and other animals. They were farmers and their livelihood depended on their farming skills. There was no Walmart or Kroger’s down the road for meat, milk, cream, butter and cheese. They had to be able to make a palatable product for themselves, their families and to sell to travelers if need be, and for their bosses. They knew when their animals were in heat, and when the time was right to breed them. I think you all are not giving them enough credit.

For example, a male goat in rut (wanting to breed) smells awful (for reasons that may be too much information to some folks on this forum). If your female goats are not separated from these males in rut, the milk they produce will be awful, just awful. Seriously, if a male goat in rut rubs up against a milking doe, that milk will taste like the buck and all his kinda gross deeds. If a milking doe smells that buck, the same occurs. You must keep your does separated from your bucks by a good distance in order to produce a good product. If you don’t do this, the doe will take in the scent of the buck and as a result the milk, butter and cheese will have a gahd-awful taste. Therefore, a goat farmer worth his weight in salt will separate their bucks from their does. Not only that, bucks are a bit dangerous to handle sometimes, and they can challenge humans. Kids shepherded the flocks. Getting rammed by a ram or buck is dangerous, and they’re just mean sometimes.

Therefore, if you keep your bucks separate from your does, you need to recognize when your does go in heat, and bring your doe to your buck for breeding (or vice versa). They have average cycles, just like women. They go through changes, just like women. Their cervical fluid changes, just like women. Sure, women don’t do some of the outrageous things that mares, ewes, does or cows do (or maybe some of them do…it’s very difficult to abstain in a woman’s fertile time after all)… but that just makes them a little harder to read but not impossible!

I do think these primitive folks did know a bit about a woman’s cycle. I’m sure they didn’t know all we know now. But I’m betting that if they saw signs of breeding readiness in goats, sheep, cows, horses, camels, etc, they were able to put two and two together with women as well. They really share a lot in common with women, including cervical fluid (one of the most important signs of fertility in women who are either trying to conceive or trying not to conceive).

Just saying… They weren’t as ignorant as we centuries-later folks think they were…

 

[SonCatcher]

OP - I think you may have dismissed these quotes too readily:

I looked at one website, Scripture Catholic, and found two quotes which directly support the NFP teaching:

“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.” Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 (A.D. 307).

“If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.” Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 (A.D. 522).

And there are many indirect references on that webpage too, like this one from the Sacred Scriptures:

“Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7:5)

As we can see, it is not intrinsically evil for a husband and wife, “by mutual consent”, to abstain from sex “for a time”. We saw Lactantius allow it specifically due to poverty, while Caesarius did not specify any conditions. God bless.

This due to the fact that NFP is regarded by the Church as an alternative to total abstinence provided by modern medical knowledge (as opposed to an alternative to ABC). There could have been no statement on it before the modern time on modern NFP.

We have the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church until His return. Since the Holy Spirit guides the Church without fail, we can be confident that what she teaches is correct.

 

[SonCatcher]

Good Daughter;7742407:

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?

It is the very reason the Church allows NFP in the first place. Those behaviors were always permitted and never condemned. The Church recognized that using NFP to abstain during the fertile times was the same thing.

Of course, the Church recognizes NFP can be abused, like those who commit adultery during pregnancy or post-menopause. Thus, the allowance for NFP carries the warning against abusing its knowledge.

 

[StTommyMore]

You might want to review your facts. Birth control pills are designed to prevent ovulation. If there is no ovulation, there is no pregnancy, thus there can be no abortion.

The remote possibility exists that an egg could be released, and the egg could be fertilized and not implant. However, that possibility also occurs naturally, such as when having sex during “infertile” periods.

“I do not wish” is not a reason to practice NFP.

The facts are this: The pill in addition to preventing ovulation, also prevents implantation in the case of fertilization.

 

[Warrior1979]

The facts are this: The pill in addition to preventing ovulation, also prevents implantation in the case of fertilization.

The facts are this: it is possible, but improbable.

Another fact: the same exact hormones occur in the body, and the same exact scenario can occur with attempting to have sex only during infertile periods. Statistically it will actually increase the percentage of times this will occur, since fertile times are eliminated from the stats.

 

[SonCatcher]

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

St. Augustine, considering his background, is hardly an impartial resource on sexual matters. Yet, since this is the only “Church father” who apparently spoke on the subject of periodic abstinence, I will work with it.

Context is critical. St. Augustine was responding to Manichean heresy, to which he had formerly been an adherent. Read the passage that opens the above quote:
“For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers—that is, those in the second grade among you—are allowed to have wives. After you have said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask,** Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation**?”

The Manichees believed it wrong to conceive children in the first place. Thus, they endeavored to use periodic abstinence to permanently avoid having children.

St. Augustine’s condemnation is not of the practice (periodic abstinence) but of the false teaching against begetting children.

 

[StTommyMore]

The facts are this: it is possible, but improbable.

Another fact: the same exact hormones occur in the body, and the same exact scenario can occur with attempting to have sex only during infertile periods. Statistically it will actually increase the percentage of times this will occur, since fertile times are eliminated from the stats.

If it happens from the natural body processes, it is an act of God. If it the side effect of a toxin, then you are culpable.

 

[Warrior1979]

If it happens from the natural body processes, it is an act of God. If it the side effect of a toxin, then you are culpable.

Birth control pills do not have toxins; they have hormones that naturally occur in the human body.

 

[StTommyMore]

Birth control pills do not have toxins; they have hormones that naturally occur in the human body.

Do your research. Anything which causes the body to malfunction could be considered a toxin.

 

[StTommyMore]

prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Nah. When NFP is practiced properly to prevent conception, it is a more effective contraception method than condom use.

:

If NFP was a more effective contraception method than condoms, all the pagan world would be using NFP. PlannedParenthood must advocate NFP over condoms, wrong. When I was a non-Catholic, I carried a condom in my wallet not a booklet on NFP. Read some testimonies of Catholic couples using NFP and one would realize how difficult it is.

 

[SonCatcher]

If NFP was a more effective contraception method than condoms, all the pagan world would be using NFP. PlannedParenthood must advocate NFP over condoms, wrong. When I was a non-Catholic, I carried a condom in my wallet not a booklet on NFP. Read some testimonies of Catholic couples using NFP and one would realize how difficult it is.

off topic, but… a couple of issues with the statement.

first, NFP does not permit relations during the fertile time for couples seeking to avoid pregnancy. most so-called “family planning” agencies are concerned about indulging lust without constraint.

second, condoms have the secondary “purpose” of reducing the spread of STDs for those committing fornication or adultery.

 

[StTommyMore]

If NFP was a more effective contraception method than condoms, all the pagan world would be using NFP. PlannedParenthood must advocate NFP over condoms, wrong. When I was a non-Catholic, I carried a condom in my wallet not a booklet on NFP. Read some testimonies of Catholic couples using NFP and one would realize how difficult it is.

It is more effective. But here is the rub: it takes discipline, dedication, and training. ABC is easy, but also destructive.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

It is more effective. But here is the rub: it takes discipline, dedication, and training. ABC is easy, but also destructive.

That is my point. NFP is not easy at all.

 

[Shin]

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

So very true.

 

[Warrior1979]

Do your research. Anything which causes the body to malfunction could be considered a toxin.

Do more research. Estrogen and Progestin are hormones naturally occurring in the human body. You get more “toxins,” as you like to define, each day simply by eating the typical western diet.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I guess a couple who uses NFP to space children is just as procreative as a couple who are not engaging in sex when they are working (and not having sex) so they can make enough money to support their family.

Two entirely different things. The entire point of NFP is to be able to continue to engage in sex and not conceive. In fact, a couple utilizing NFP can have sex fifteen times a day if they please when the woman is not fertile.

I think you are just trying to demonize the concept of “contraception” in order to present an actually invalid tu quoque argument against the Catholic Church.

I’m not trying to “demonize” anything. I’m simply pointing out the inconsistency of the modern Catholic teaching in reference to the fathers.

We should not mistake the idea of contraception with the idea of artificial contraception. Contraception occurs in nature all the time, and God made it that way. Not having sex (no matter what your motive) is itself an act of contraception. There is nothing inherently evil or contradictory to the Natural Law of God when one engages in mere contraception.

Well then don’t have sex if you want to avoid conception. That was the only method acceptable to the fathers.

ARTIFICIAL contraception is a different thing altogether. ARTIFICIAL contraception by definition is an attempt to obstruct the NATURAL order of God - i.e., the flow of sperm to egg DURING the sexual act.

But there is no egg for the sperm to flow to with NFP, and the couple in question uses very unnatural, modern science to insure there is no egg.

It is what occurs DURING the sexual act that distinguishes the natural goodness of contraception from the inherent evil of ARTIFICIAL contraception.

Defend that from the fathers.

NOT having sex when the woman is fertile (natural contraception) is completely different from
having sex and PREVENTING the sperm from meeting the egg when the woman is fertile (artificial contraception).

But literally the only purpose of NFP is to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg. It’s like I’m in the twilight zone here. :hypno:

 

[Warrior1979]

prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm

I have an issue with relying on sources with an agenda. Sites like you cited start with a conclusion and cherry-pick the “facts” to “support” the conclusion.

In layman’s term, the site basically says the 3-5% of the time eggs might be fertilized and not implant. Of course, their support is sketchy, at best. They also don’t offer a control group. What is the percentage of times that non-implantation does not occur naturally? If it is 3-5%, then the reasonable conclusion is that is a simply a naturally occurring event.