Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

[josephdaniel29]

Ah, perhaps we really are at the heart of the matter then. In catholic philosophy and theology, it is permissible to apply principles revealed in Scripture and Tradition to reason and science and thence to attempt to draw out further conclusions that necessarily follow from the more basic divinely revealed principles. We believe that there really cannot be any conflict between Revelation and Reason (since God is the author of both).

No amount of “reason” can make 2+2=5. The fathers (with the exception of maybe St John Chrysostom) explicitly condemned sex for any reason other than procreation. That is in direct conflict with the modern Catholic teaching on NFP.

 

[josephdaniel29]

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

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.

The only reason it’s a alternative is because the modern Catholic Church has decided the consensus of the fathers no longer applies to it.

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.

Says you.

 

[Shin]

No amount of “reason” can make 2+2=5. The fathers (with the exception of maybe St John Chrysostom) explicitly condemned sex for any reason other than procreation. That is in direct conflict with the modern Catholic teaching on NFP.

If you can provide prudent and modest quotes, I’d like to see as many as possible.

I’m sure if people actually paid attention to their spirit as well as their letter there would be good effect.

You also might be able to critique the matter based on the authoritative weight of what has been said about NFP specifically so far within the Church.

Hmm.

 

[StTommyMore]

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.

Hate to break it to you, but everyone has an agenda. I prefer the pro-life agenda.

 

[Warrior1979]

Hate to break it to you, but everyone has an agenda. I prefer the pro-life agenda.

Abraham Lincoln and Stephan Douglas both had agendas. The difference was that Lincoln knew the issues on both sides of the debate and was able support his conclusion. Douglas got tore up in the debates because he started with a conclusion, and didn’t have all his ducks in a row when he had to support it.

It’s one thing to have a laudable agenda. It’s another thing to start spewing out incomplete or erroneous information to support it.

When it comes to religious issues, people will actually respect those that simply state that their basis is faith alone; Billy Graham is an example of such a person. People have little respect for those that claim scientific basis for their faith and then don’t show up when asked to provide the evidence to support that basis.

 

[Warrior1979]

Abraham Lincoln and Stephan Douglas both had agendas. The difference was that Lincoln knew the issues on both sides of the debate and was able support his conclusion. Douglas got tore up in the debates because he started with a conclusion, and didn’t have all his ducks in a row when he had to support it.

It’s one thing to have a laudable agenda. It’s another thing to start spewing out incomplete or erroneous information to support it.

When it comes to religious issues, people will actually respect those that simply state that their basis is faith alone; Billy Graham is an example of such a person. People have little respect for those that claim scientific or other logical basis for their faith and then don’t show up when asked to provide the evidence to support that basis.

 

[StTommyMore]

Abraham Lincoln and Stephan Douglas both had agendas. The difference was that Lincoln knew the issues on both sides of the debate and was able support his conclusion. Douglas got tore up in the debates because he started with a conclusion, and didn’t have all his ducks in a row when he had to support it.

It’s one thing to have a laudable agenda. It’s another thing to start spewing out incomplete or erroneous information to support it.

When it comes to religious issues, people will actually respect those that simply state that their basis is faith alone; Billy Graham is an example of such a person. People have little respect for those that claim scientific basis for their faith and then don’t show up when asked to provide the evidence to support that basis.

So you have finally revealed your idol. Reason is above faith. Very sad. What is wrong with accepting what the Church demands, even if you don’t fully understand why? Instead of clinging to your own beleifs until the Church can “prove” her position, is it not better to accept the Church’s teachings, and then seek to find out why? As the Scriptures say, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.” (Proverbs 3:5)

 

[Mickey]

If NFP was a more effective contraception method than condoms, all the pagan world would be using NFP.

If done properly…NFP is a more effective contraception method than condoms.

When I was a non-Catholic, I carried a condom in my wallet not a booklet on NFP.

And?

Read some testimonies of Catholic couples using NFP and one would realize how difficult it is.

My wife and I used NFP to prevent contraception (for various reasons) when we were RC. It is extremely effective.

You seem to be saying that NFP is acceptable because so many people do not know how to use it…hence they conceive when they are trying to contracept.

 

[Mickey]

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

I think the Pope recently condoned the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.

 

[Mickey]

I prefer the pro-life agenda.

 

[Biedrik]

I think the Pope recently condoned the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.

No, no he didn’t. I have the actual book where the media alleged that he did such a thing. He was asked a question on the topic of contraception, and he said that using condoms is never moral, but sometimes their use may be a sign that someone may be reconsidering what they do, such as a male prostitute using condoms to protect his clients. However, what they’re doing is still gravely immoral. It’s like a bank robber deciding to use blanks so that he doesn’t hurt anyone during a robbery. He’s still committing a great evil, but he’s trying to change it. In the next paragraph of the book he goes on to condemn condoms as an unacceptable solution. So no, the Pope never condoned the use of condoms in any circumstances.

 

[Mickey]

No, no he didn’t.

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

I heard that the Pope assembled a panel of scientists and theologians to consider the narrow question of whether to allow condoms for married couples, one of whom has HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

 

[Warrior1979]

I prefer the pro-life agenda.

I should add that this implies that one that does not believe the method use in NFP does not have a pro-life agenda. This is simply to broad of a stroke. The reason why many don’t agree with the reasoning behind NFP is that other forms of birth control do not result in what the Catholic Church defines as an abortion. The effect is exactly the same, though the means is different.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So you have finally revealed your idol. Reason is above faith. Very sad. What is wrong with accepting what the Church demands, even if you don’t fully understand why? Instead of clinging to your own beleifs until the Church can “prove” her position, is it not better to accept the Church’s teachings, and then seek to find out why? As the Scriptures say, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.” (Proverbs 3:5)

Have we not come to this point by large in the US? The idea of seperation of church and state has taken us into a era so far from a Christian life as a country its astounding. How there can be denial of the supernatural in this period is amazing.

We have evil calling us evil as a country today? How are we doing?

GT

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Hate to break it to you, but everyone has an agenda. I prefer the pro-life agenda.

This seems as much as admitting you don’t believe it because it is true, but you believe it because it suits your agenda.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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:

.NFP is also used to ensure sperm meet the egg, for couples trying to conceive.

No amount of “reason” can make 2+2=5. The fathers (with the exception of maybe St John Chrysostom) explicitly condemned sex for any reason other than procreation. That is in direct conflict with the modern Catholic teaching on NFP.

Catholic teaching on the procreative requirement for the marital embrace still exists. It has not changed since the time of the Fathers.

 

[manualman]

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. …

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

Great post, but I don’t think it actually leads where you think it does. I absolutely agree that folks today don’t give enough credit for what earlier peoples DID comprehend. More precisely, I’d argue that peoples in the past generally had much better observation skills than we do today.

But that reality still supports my position. They most likely DID have the skills to observe fertility symptoms and recognize fertile times precisely for the reasons you state. They didn’t have the modern understanding about sperm and egg, rather their model was one of seed and fertile soil (the womb not always being fertile, for reasons they had no explanation for), as I described above. You’re probably right that I seemed to imply a complete ignorance of the concept of fertility variation that would fly in the face of their animal husbandry experience.

But step back and look at how the EF typically operate. Whenever there was a sinful practice, there was somebody there to denounce it. The culture of preaching was much heavier on denunciation of error and wrongdoing than it is today. So the ABSENCE of any EF denouncing the practice of abstaining during fertile times for the purpose of avoiding conception compared to the abundance of denunciation of contraceptive practices (i.e. NOT abstaining, but actively defeating fertility by other means) is a telling indicator. The EF clearly did NOT see NFP and ABC as the same thing or they wouldn’t have condemned the one while seeing nothing worth mentioning in the other.

 

[manualman]

joesphdaniel,

Would you be so kind as to provide some EF quotes that demonstrate your assertion that the consensus of the EF is that sex is for nothing other than making children? I am rather dubious of the assertion.

My suspicion is that you haven’t looked at context adequately. The early church sprang up in a period of history in which the general sexual morals were even worse than in our own time. Debauchery was often even part of pagan religious rituals of the day (especially fertilty gods, of course). New converts coming over from previous lives of serious sin sometimes need a drastic course of self-discipline to break long entrenched sinful habits. If Larry Flint today converted to the faith, he might need some spiritual direction involving some brutally tough ascetical practices to develop a bit of self-discipline. Read out of context by others not from the same background, some serious distortions and misunderstandings could occur. Follow?

I’m interested in any quotes you can provide, but don’t be surpised if I respond by checking out the context

 

[Rence]

That is precisely my point. Practically every quote I’ve seen Catholics marshal to condemn ABC could just as easily be applied to NFP.

No it can’t. ABCs are either physical barriers (condoms), which interfere with the unitive properties required. Or they are hormone therapy, which interferes with implantation (the Church claims), which Catholics consider abortive in nature. NFP is neither abortive, nor interferes with the unitive properties required. So, regardless of whether you are a proponent of ABCs or a proponent of NFP, no you cannot put NFP and ABCs in the same boat. They are entirely different.

Not only that, NFP requires discernment each time it is used, and it requires discipline especially since the woman desires the marital embrace most when she is most fertile. This is what makes the discernement an ongoing process. ABCs do not require discernment because they are affective when used propertly.

It seems the fathers for the most part condemned anything that frustrates conception.

I have not seen one single proof of this. And a few people have asked you to provide it. I understand you though: you can’t provide it because it doesn’t exist. This is merely how you privately interpret documentation provided, and like everyone else, you have a stumbling block. With prayer and patience and trust in the Church, maybe you will overcome this stumbling block

I wonder if that’s why Humanae Vitae doesn’t contain a single patristic quote to support its teaching.

Humanae Vitae lists quite a few references after it’s completion. Either you believe the Church has the “fullness of Truth” or you don’t. Either you believe that the Pope and/or Magisterium is infallible in teachings of faith and morals, or you don’t. This encyclical is a teaching of the Pope on matters of faith and morals, and contains infallible teachings within it. If you don’t believe, then nothing can convince you of the Truths of the Church, and it’s useless to keep asking for “proof” when it keeps being given to you. Then you’re not asking for proof that NFP is allowed (because we know it is), but you are challenging the teaching ability of the Church.

Hey, I understand your frustration. I’m considered by some a Cafe Cathlolic just like you by some. There are some things I just don’t accept because I don’t understand them and they don’t make sense to me. We just choose different plates off the menu. Isn’t that why we have been told that teachings are not up to “private interpretation”? Here, I’ll give it to you like it’s given to me in other matters: That’s why we have teachers (the Church leaders) to help us. There are hundreds of documents in the Vatican library at the disposal of the Church leaders. Surely they are more capable of understanding them than we are…we who do not have their training, education and knowledge.

 

[Rence]

Would you be so kind as to provide some EF quotes that demonstrate your assertion that the consensus of the EF is that sex is for nothing other than making children? I am rather dubious of the assertion.

And you should be The Church has bent over backwards to defend the unitive properties of the marital embrace, and the marital embrace itself. But someone will always complain on either side of the fence. Either someone will complain that sex is only for procreation, or someone will complain that the untive properties are not so important as to protect it that much (in other words, that the Church goes overboard by restricting usage of IVF, ABCs etc, in order to protect the marital embrace). We all have our stumbling blocks. For some, this issue, no matter which side of the fence one is on, is a stumbling block.

The former comes mostly from the idea that women are brood mares, and almost sex objects, and somehow expected to have children every year until they just can’t anymore. The latter comes mostly from the idea that sex on demand is expected in a marriage, without limitations. Both are at opposite ends of the spectrum, both victimize the people actually involved in the marriage. The Church itself isn’t that cruel.