Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

[josephdaniel29]

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.

 

[manualman]

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???

The basis is plain moral theology. It can not be sinful to refrain from partaking in an act that is good, but not morally imperitive. If you are aware of any Tradition or Patristics which dictate an imperitive for married couples to have intercourse every day, PLEASE forward it to me so I can show my wife!

 

[josephdaniel29]

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???

The basis is plain moral theology. It can not be sinful to refrain from partaking in an act that is good, but not morally imperitive. If you are aware of any Tradition or Patristics which dictate an imperitive for married couples to have intercourse every day, PLEASE forward it to me show I can show my wife!

Strike one.

 

[manualman]

 

[Luke65]

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.

 

[josephdaniel29]

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

None of these quotes support NFP.

“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).

Okay… This quotes says if it is advisable for the couple to space children they should abstain from sex altogether, not have sex only when it’s almost practically impossible to conceive.

“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).

Again, same idea. If you don’t want to have children become celibate, not have as much sex as you want when the woman can’t conceive and then abstain when she is fertile.

“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)

St Paul recommends this to facilitate prayer, not to frustrate conception.

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.

Totally irrelevant. No one is arguing abstaining from sex is “intrinsically evil.” Not only do these quotes not support NFP, they actually condemn it. The two patristics quotes specifically state celibacy is the only acceptable way for a married couple to avoid having children. The entire purpose of NFP is to prevent conception without celibacy.

Want to give it another shot?

 

[Luke65]

None of these quotes support NFP.

Okay… This quotes says if it is advisable for the couple to space children they should abstain from sex altogether, not have sex only when it’s almost practically impossible to conceive.

Again, same idea. If you don’t want to have children become celibate, not have as much sex as you want when the woman can’t conceive and then abstain when she is fertile.

No, you’re making Lactantius and Caesarius flatly contradict the Word of God with your false interpretation of their words. St. Paul said “for a time”. Why? “so that Satan will not tempt you”.

St Paul recommends this to facilitate prayer, not to frustrate conception.

Totally irrelevant. No one is arguing abstaining from sex is “intrinsically evil.” Not only do these quotes not support NFP, they actually condemn it. The two patristics quotes specifically state celibacy is the only acceptable way for a married couple to avoid having children. The entire purpose of NFP is to prevent conception without celibacy.

Want to give it another shot?

 

[josephdaniel29]

No, you’re making Lactantius and Caesarius flatly contradict the Word of God with your false interpretation of their words. St. Paul said “for a time”. Why? “so that Satan will not tempt you”.

Yes, but the “why” we’re discussing is preventing conception. The way to achieve that, according to the quotes you provided, is for the couple to be celibate, “for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.”

The entire purpose of NFP is to allow a couple to not be celibate, and still not conceive. That is in direct opposition to the quotes you provided.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

Yes, but the “why” we’re discussing is preventing conception. The way to achieve that, according to the quotes you provided, is for the couple to be celibate, “for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.”

I would agree with you on the first quote. On the second quote, not so much. I would personally point out that St. Augustine wrote that having sex without wanting to have children is at best a venial sin (though he stated that using artificial means to not have children is a mortal sin).

The entire purpose of NFP is to allow a couple to not be celibate, and still not conceive. That is in direct opposition to the quotes you provided.

Actually, I’ve never read a Magisterial document that states the purpose of NFP is to NOT be celibate and not conceive. I’m pretty sure this is just gossip spread around by non-Catholics. The purpose of NFP according to Magisterial documents is to help couples understand when they CAN have children. What they do between those times ---- well, can you give a specific statement from Magisterial sources on the matter? Many use the method to HELP them have children.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Warrior1979]

I love a good logical train of thought, but when it comes to NFP, I simply don’t get it. As Mr. josephdaniel implies, the support is incredibly weak, at best. It’s based in Catholic Tradition, which means you’ll never convince anyone other than devote Catholics with your arguments.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The Early Fathers did not tell us if we should use weed killers or pesticides on our property either.
Their silence of a matter is not a condemnation of it.

 

[manualman]

Give it up guys, he’s not going to concede a point unless you produce an EF quote that explicitly endorses NFP by name (a ridiculous stance since the name and the very concepts of fertility were poorly understood in those days).

It’s a farce similar to “Can God create something so heavy that He can’t lift it?”

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Define " for a time". could it be a day? 2 days? a week? 3 hours? Any for those anwers would be,could be correct. so abstaining “for a time” as quoted above could and does include any and and all time frames would work. The key is by mutual concent.

 

[Orielensis]

Give it up guys, he’s not going to concede a point unless you produce an EF quote that explicitly endorses NFP by name (a ridiculous stance since the name and the very concepts of fertility were poorly understood in those days).

It’s a farce similar to “Can God create something so heavy that He can’t lift it?”

Actually, I think he’s making a perfectly valid point. He is not asking for someone to provide a quote that endorses NFP by name, but one which permits behaviour which is substantively the same.

Now, if you say that the concepts of fertility were so poorly understood in those days, it seems like this could also be applied to the traditional Catholic rejection of, say, condoms. Given that people used to believe that the male seed contained human life (sperma to zoa, just as an embryo did, would this explain the traditional Catholic rejection of ABC?

It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways…

 

[josephdaniel29]

Actually, I think he’s making a perfectly valid point. He is not asking for someone to provide a quote that endorses NFP by name, but one which permits behaviour which is substantively the same.

Now, if you say that the concepts of fertility were so poorly understood in those days, it seems like this could also be applied to the traditional Catholic rejection of, say, condoms. Given that people used to believe that the male seed contained human life (sperma to zoa, just as an embryo did, would this explain the traditional Catholic rejection of ABC?

It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways…

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

It seems the fathers for the most part condemned anything that frustrates conception. I wonder if that’s why Humanae Vitae doesn’t contain a single patristic quote to support its teaching.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

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

It seems the fathers for the most part condemned anything that frustrates conception. I wonder if that’s why Humanae Vitae doesn’t contain a single patristic quote to support its teaching.

That is why I think it is unfair to ask protestants to defend their use of ABC. It should be protestants: defend your rejection of the catholic church.

What you see in the early Church are condemnations of early abortion (or what was believed to be an early abortion) and unnatural vice like sodomy, onanism, masturbation ect. Once it was established that contraception was not an early abortion, the Catholic Church did not begin to accept contraception but rather rejected it as an unnatural vice instead of an abortion. Later on it was pointed out that the couple need not engage in sex when the couple is known to be fertile, so you have the development to accepting NFP.

 

[manualman]

Actually, I think he’s making a perfectly valid point. He is not asking for someone to provide a quote that endorses NFP by name, but one which permits behaviour which is substantively the same.

Now, if you say that the concepts of fertility were so poorly understood in those days, it seems like this could also be applied to the traditional Catholic rejection of, say, condoms. Given that people used to believe that the male seed contained human life (sperma to zoa, just as an embryo did, would this explain the traditional Catholic rejection of ABC?

It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways…

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.

 

[StrawberryJam]

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

It seems the fathers for the most part condemned anything that frustrates conception. I wonder if that’s why Humanae Vitae doesn’t contain a single patristic quote to support its teaching.

Well, if you are correct that the fathers “for the most part” condemned anything that frustrates conception- then why do the Orthodox keep women on one side of the church while “unclean”? I can’t imagine that they are allowed to have sexual relations with their husband if they are too unclean to even sit next to their husbands in church.

It would be a bit insulting to think that suddenly after leaving church they became “clean enough” to have relations with.

 

[Luke65]

Yes, but the “why” we’re discussing is preventing conception. The way to achieve that, according to the quotes you provided, is for the couple to be celibate, “for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.”

The entire purpose of NFP is to allow a couple to not be celibate, and still not conceive. That is in direct opposition to the quotes you provided.

Why do you substitute your word, “celibate”, for their words, “abstain” and “chastity”? Surely you know that celibacy refers to a permanent state, while to abstain means to temporarily give up something good, and chastity, in this context, also refers to a temporary state? Why the bait 'n switch?

As I said in my first post, these quotes “support” the Church’s NFP doctrine. They go to the heart of the matter: it is not necessarily illicit for a married couple, by mutual consent, to temporarily abstain from sex for the purpose of not having a child. You obviously cannot produce a single quote from Scripture or the Fathers condemning this. I know I’ve never seen one.

But this is what I continually see from Orthodox and Protestants - a whole lot of straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Nowhere have we seen in Church history the concept of NFP condemned. But we have a unanimous record, from Scripture and Tradition, of the Church condemning contraception. And yet, both Protestants and now Orthodox say that contraception is no longer sinful. The Gates of Hell have prevailed over them precisely because they have separated themselves from Peter, to whom the promise was made by Our Lord. So now we see them trying to say that there is something wrong with the Catholic doctrine on NFP. There’s nothing new under the sun…

“Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church.” ~ St. Jerome

 

[Luke65]

I love a good logical train of thought, but when it comes to NFP, I simply don’t get it.

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:

16… If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.20

The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

1. Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men – especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point – have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.

Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

Consequently, if the mission of generating life is not to be exposed to the arbitrary will of men, one must necessarily recognize insurmountable limits to the possibility of man’s domination over his own body and its functions; limits which no man, whether a private individual or one invested with authority, may licitly surpass. And such limits cannot be determined otherwise than by the respect due to the integrity of the human organism and its functions, according to the principles recalled earlier, and also according to the correct understanding of the “principle of totality” illustrated by our predecessor Pope Pius XII.21

1. It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: Too numerous are those voices – amplified by the modern means of propaganda – which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a “sign of contradiction”,22 yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter, without ever being able to declare to be licit that which is not so by reason of its intimate and unchangeable opposition to the true good of man.