Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

[Rence]

Great post, but I don’t think it actually leads where you think it does.

I do

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.

Yep! We agree. The Church is not shy about telling us what they teach is right or wrong. Surely, we would not have gotten Humanae Vitae if NFP was forbidden. Either JPII was a heretic and was errant in his teaching, or he was a Pope teaching on matters of faith and morals and was doing so with the help of the Holy Spirit. You can’t condemn NFP without claiming that JPII was wrong, and if you’re saying he’s wrong, then no proof will convince you that the teachings of NFP in a marriage is a sound and correct teaching of the Church.

 

[manualman]

Rence, I mistook your direction as disagreeing with me earlier, my apologies.

Btw, Paul VI wrote HV. Pius XI wrote the earlier and somewhat less comprehensive Casti Connubi. JPII is famous for his Theology of the Body which further expands the ideas behind how the unitive and procreative aspects are both so crucial that they really aren’t even separate at all. But given josephdaniel’s self-description, I’m not sure he’s terribly impressed by Petrine teaching authority…

 

[Rence]

Rence, I mistook your direction as disagreeing with me earlier, my apologies.

Btw, Paul VI wrote HV. Pius XI wrote the earlier and somewhat less comprehensive Casti Connubi. JPII is famous for his Theology of the Body which further expands the ideas behind how the unitive and procreative aspects are both so crucial that they really aren’t even separate at all. But given josephdaniel’s self-description, I’m not sure he’s terribly impressed by Petrine teaching authority…

LOL, yep, you’re right. I don’t know why I put JPII in my posts. Thank you for the correction

 

[Mickey]

This encyclical is a teaching of the Pope on matters of faith and morals, and contains infallible teachings within it.

Really? Which teachings within this encyclical are infallible and which ones are not? How do you know which teachings are infallible? Is there a statement that declares certain teachings within this encyclical to be infallible?

 

[StTommyMore]

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

I am opposed to ABC because it is against the teaching of the Magisterium. I do believe it is true, and it is a known fact that the pill can prevent implantation, and as such, is abortifacient.

 

[StTommyMore]

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.

Wrong. You cannot be truly pro-life and accept ABC, multiple methods of which can cause abortions (such as the pill and IUD)

 

[StTommyMore]

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.

This never happened. If one parter has tested positive for HIV, then it is reasonable to expect they live in chastity, out of love. This comes down to the sexualization of the culture. The marital embrace is presented as the highest of all goods. The highest of all goods is total self-sacrifice.

 

[Mickey]

This never happened.

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

 

[Warrior1979]

Wrong. You cannot be truly pro-life and accept ABC, multiple methods of which can cause abortions (such as the pill and IUD)

I said nothing of IUDs…that is something you brought in to support your argument. I referenced only birth control pills, which contains naturally occurring hormones. As noted earlier, at best, there is a very small likelihood of fertilization and nonimplementation while using pills. The problem is that you cannot establish that it is not simply a naturally occurring event. The same exact situation can occur while having marital relations at times when the conditions are not ideal in the body; e.g., NFP.

 

[Warrior1979]

So you have finally revealed your idol. Reason is above faith. Very sad.

Lots of people throughout history have used faith above reason…with tragic results.

What is wrong with accepting what the Church demands, even if you don’t fully understand why?

Who says I don’t accept what the Church demands? Just FYI, even though it is none of your business, I don’t use contraception, nor NFP. In your opinion, is that disobedient and non-acceptable?

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?

You apparently do not understand what an exchange of ideas is. I am here to discuss and learn about issues. Your offerings are woefully lacking, and most certainly not helping the Church’s position.

As the Scriptures say, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.” (Proverbs 3:5)

My saying: “Do not trust those that have no insight.”

 

[Rence]

Really? Which teachings within this encyclical are infallible and which ones are not? How do you know which teachings are infallible? Is there a statement that declares certain teachings within this encyclical to be infallible?

If you have a hard time figuring out which statements are infallible and which are not by the references, you need to ask your priest about it. For example, the statements pertaining to the Church’s teachings on birth control are infallible.

Humanae Vitae, as the other encyclicals, are teachings of faith and morals by popes. They were specifically written to teach the masses. They were specifically written to call Catholics to obey its contents. Therefore, they are binding by virtue of the fact that they are teachings of the divine authority of the Vicar of Christ, who teaches through the popes, magisterium and teaching body of the Church. Remember what Jesus said, “He who hears you, hears Me!”. If you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and renders the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals to be infallible teachings, then you can’t really question the infallible teachings in Humanae Vitae.

I’m not really sure how one can argue that Humanae Vitae contains infallible teachings without denying the teaching ability, guided by the Holy Spirit, of the Pope and a Catholic’s obligation to answer the call to obey the teachings

 

[StTommyMore]

Lots of people throughout history have used faith above reason…with tragic results.

Who says I don’t accept what the Church demands? Just FYI, even though it is none of your business, I don’t use contraception, nor NFP. In your opinion, is that disobedient and non-acceptable?

You apparently do not understand what an exchange of ideas is. I am here to discuss and learn about issues. Your offerings are woefully lacking, and most certainly not helping the Church’s position.

My saying: “Do not trust those that have no insight.”

Again you place yourself above God. I quote scripture, you rely on your own insight.

If we wish to proceed securely in all things, we must hold fast to the following principle: What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines. For I must be convinced that in Christ our Lord, the bridegroom, and in His spouse, the Church, only one Spirit holds sway, which governs and rules for the salvation of souls. For it is by the same Spirit and Lord who gave us the Ten Commandments that our Holy Mother Church ruled and governed.–St. Ignatius of Loyola

This means that if the Church says that there is a difference between ABC and NFP, making the former intrinsically evil, and the latter acceptable under some circumstances, then in order to be faithful to God, i must accept it to be true, even if I do not understand it. As for your snide remark about the evils caused by the faithful, the greatest evils of the modern world grew out of the so-called enlightenment, which attempted to elevate each individual to be their own god.

 

[StTommyMore]

I said nothing of IUDs…that is something you brought in to support your argument. I referenced only birth control pills, which contains naturally occurring hormones. As noted earlier, at best, there is a very small likelihood of fertilization and nonimplementation while using pills. The problem is that you cannot establish that it is not simply a naturally occurring event. The same exact situation can occur while having marital relations at times when the conditions are not ideal in the body; e.g., NFP.

Any likelihood of causing abortion is too great.

 

[Warrior1979]

Again you place yourself above God. I quote scripture, you rely on your own insight.

No.

You place me above God. Who gave you the right to do that?

You apparently cannot separate discussion from the individual. The Church has discussed this and a plethora of issues over the course of time, and most certainly opinions were not unanimous. Does this mean that those individuals within the Magisterium that had views contrary to what the final outcome was placed themselves above God? According to your logic, it must.

Do you have anything to offer besides baseless accusations?

 

[Warrior1979]

Any likelihood of causing abortion is too great.

Then, according to this reasoning, NFP is simply not acceptable.

 

[SonCatcher]

SonCatcher;7749368:

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.

Says God incarnate:
[BIBLEDRB]John 14:26[/BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB]John 15:26[/BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB]John 16:13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

The fathers could not have had a consensus on something that was unknown to them. Just like you point out that no father has spoken to defend NFP, no father has spoken to condemn it (Augustine, as I stated, was condemning Manichaeism).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh don’t be so sure now, Jam. I’m pretty sure St. Cyprian wrote some diatribes about Roundup and Diazanon sprays!

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Mickey!

Nice to see a post from you brother. I haven’t “seen” you in a while!

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

 

[StTommyMore]

Then, according to this reasoning, NFP is simply not acceptable.

You keep saying this, but have not explained what you mean. NFP never causes abortions.