Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

[StTommyMore]

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?

You hold your opinions top be superior to the teachings of the Church. You have made this abundantly clear that your opinions are to be held supreme above all other views, even without evidence. You have not used a single Magisterial document or a single Passage of scripture to back up your opinions. In fact you haven’t used anything other than the your own ideas. Also, neither you nor I have Magisterial authority, so the debates among the bishops of the past are irrelevant. Where in the magisterium has NFP been condemned? If you read Humanae VItae you will see that HH Pope Paul VI was concerned about responsible parenting, which includes regulation of family size. TO address these concerns, parents with grave reason can use NFP, but not artificial contraceptives. There is a philosophical difference, which has already been explained.

 

[Warrior1979]

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

Yes I have…repeatedly. However, being that it is against your preconceived notions, it does not register.

To bring the discussion down to its most basic level, the hormones that are present in birth control pills are the same hormones that are present in the human body. What happens with birth control pills can, and does, happen without them. Fertilized eggs don’t always implant regardless of whether one is or is not taking birth control pills.

Interesting enough, the sources you cited earlier indicated that the non-implantation rate is very small, say 3%-5%. I don’t know if that source is correct, but lets say it is. If that is the case, then the non-implantation rate for those using birth control pills would be less than the non-implantation rate just be simply having sex…and by a lot.

 

[wanner47]

Yes I have…repeatedly. However, being that it is against your preconceived notions, it does not register.

To bring the discussion down to its most basic level, the hormones that are present in birth control pills are the same hormones that are present in the human body. What happens with birth control pills can, and does, happen without them. Fertilized eggs don’t always implant regardless of whether one is or is not taking birth control pills.

Interesting enough, the sources you cited earlier indicated that the non-implantation rate is very small, say 3%-5%. I don’t know if that source is correct, but lets say it is. If that is the case, then the non-implantation rate for those using birth control pills would be less than the non-implantation rate just be simply having sex…and by a lot.

… you do realize the difference between spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and procured/induced abortion, don’t you?

What you seem to be saying is that all death is murder if we allow it to happen, even if we don’t intend for it to happen. For example, if my grandmother dies of natural causes, your claim is that I murdered her.

I wrote a blog post on the differences between abortion and miscarriage… perhaps you should read it.

As to the OP, I recommend Is NFP A Heresy?

Long story short – if NFP is immoral, then God has allowed his Church to fall into error and the gates of hell have prevailed against it, thus Christianity is a lie and the entire discussion is moot.

As our understanding of the reproductive system has developed over time, so has our understanding of the doctrines involved with being open to life. Since the 1800s, the Church has taught that periodic continence is not sinful, even when used with the intent to space pregnancies. I trust that the Church has the legitimate authority to make that determination.

 

[Warrior1979]

You hold your opinions top be superior to the teachings of the Church. You have made this abundantly clear that your opinions are to be held supreme above all other views, even without evidence.

Once again, you have to resort to this type of misinterpretation because you cannot objectively support your position. When one cannot support their position, they have to resort to attacking the person that inquires about their position.

You have not used a single Magisterial document or a single Passage of scripture to back up your opinions.

Since you are so familiar with the Magisterial documents and scripture, please point me to the sources that discuss my specific questions. I am interested especially in the ones concerning egg non-implementation while using birth control pills versus when one does not. And, because of your source citations, why a methodology causing greater egg non-implementation is more acceptable.

 

[StTommyMore]

Once again, you have to resort to this type of misinterpretation because you cannot objectively support your position. When one cannot support their position, they have to resort to attacking the person that inquires about their position.

Since you are so familiar with the Magisterial documents and scripture, please point me to the sources that discuss my specific questions. I am interested especially in the ones concerning egg non-implementation while using birth control pills versus when one does not. And, because of your source citations, why a methodology causing greater egg non-implementation is more acceptable.

It has become clear that you are not interested in what the Church teaches, but rather, you simply want to win an argument. For this reason I will leave off responding to you. Good night and God bless.

 

[Warrior1979]

… you do realize the difference between spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and procured/induced abortion, don’t you?

I sure do. I also understand that not all fertilized eggs implant. When it happens when one simply has sex, it is called miscarriage. When one takes naturally occurring hormones, and a miscarriage occurs, it is referred to many on this forum as an abortion. The cause and effect is exactly the same in both cases…there is absolutely no physical difference.

The only argument one can make is that this miscarriage should occur without taking the hormones. Fact is, though, miscarriage will occur far less when one is on the pill.

What you seem to be saying is that all death is murder if we allow it to happen, even if we don’t intend for it to happen. For example, if my grandmother dies of natural causes, your claim is that I murdered her.

More nonsense.

Long story short – if NFP is immoral, then God has allowed his Church to fall into error and the gates of hell have prevailed against it, thus Christianity is a lie and the entire discussion is moot.

This is the default fallback.

“Well, I can’t support my position, so I’ll take cover by throwing out the Magisterium card.”

You comment was also far reaching. You’re making a that is something in Catholicism were wrong, all of Christianity is a lie, Catholic and non-Catholic. Extreme positions discredit not only one’s own credibility, but there entire cause.

 

[wanner47]

I sure do. I also understand that not all fertilized eggs implant. When it happens when one simply has sex, it is called miscarriage. When one takes naturally occurring hormones, and a miscarriage occurs, it is referred to many on this forum as an abortion. The cause and effect is exactly the same in both cases…there is absolutely no physical difference.

How can one “take” hormones that are “naturally occurring”?

The only argument one can make is that this miscarriage should occur without taking the hormones. Fact is, though, miscarriage will occur far less when one is on the pill.

What are you talking about? Who is taking hormones when using NFP? Do you know what NFP is?

More nonsense.

Can’t respond to it, can you? Well, then, I accuse you of killing my grandfather because you sat back and did NOTHING when he died.

This is the default fallback.

“Well, I can’t support my position, so I’ll take cover by throwing out the Magisterium card.”

You misunderstand. The Magesterium is my support. I trust in Christ, therefore I trust in the teaching authority of the Church that He established.

I’m assuming you don’t trust Christ or His Church?

You comment was also far reaching. You’re making a that is something in Catholicism were wrong, all of Christianity is a lie, Catholic and non-Catholic. Extreme positions discredit not only one’s own credibility, but there entire cause.

If the Catholic Church has taught error in a single matter of faith and morals, it means that the gates of Hell have indeed triumphed and Jesus’ promise was a lie. If Jesus lied, Christianity is false.

 

[Warrior1979]

It has become clear that you are not interested in what the Church teaches, but rather, you simply want to win an argument.

Actually, I am interested in what the Church teaches and not interested in winning an argument. Not only haven’t you provided a logical train of thought, but you couldn’t even provide Magisterial documents or scripture after I asked (and after you criticized me for not doing the same).

 

[mardukm]

How can one “take” hormones that are “naturally occurring”?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Warrior1979]

How can one “take” hormones that are “naturally occurring”?

Cholesterol is naturally occurring. In fact, the human body makes all its needs; no cholesterol from outside sources is necessary. Yet everyone, vegans excepted, choose to take in cholesterol from their environment.

How can one “take” cholesterol that is “naturally occurring?”

Can’t respond to it, can you? Well, then, I accuse you of killing my grandfather because you sat back and did NOTHING when he died.

Are you a comedian?

I’m assuming you don’t trust Christ or His Church?

You’re assuming that because one doesn’t believe in the Catholic Church, they don’t trust in Christ. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t take that position.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

NFP…ay yay yay…one of the main reasons my wife and I bailed on Catholicism to begin with…I better get out of this thread!

 

[wanner47]

Cholesterol is naturally occurring. In fact, the human body makes all its needs; no cholesterol from outside sources is necessary. Yet everyone, vegans excepted, choose to take in cholesterol from their environment.

How can one “take” cholesterol that is "naturally occurring?

You do realize that the hormones in the Pill are artificial versions of the ones that “naturally occur” in our body, right, and are taken in MUCH HIGHER concentrations then would naturally occur in a woman’s body?

What hormones are taken when a woman uses NFP? I’ve been charting my cycles since 2003 and I’ve never taken any sort of hormone.

Are you a comedian?

No. Your premise is that if the ends are the same, intent doesn’t matter; therefore, if a woman miscarries naturally it is the same as procuring an abortion. Given that premise, you killed my grandfather because he died and you did nothing to save him.

You’re assuming that because one doesn’t believe in the Catholic Church, they don’t trust in Christ. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t take that position.

If one has invincible ignorance of the fact that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, then one’s culpability is lessened in that regard. However, as a faithful Catholic, I do believe that Christ founded the Church and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against her. If the Church has taught error in faith or morals, then the gates of hell have indeed triumphed and Christ was a liar.

 

[Warrior1979]

I have to conclude that a great number of Catholics cannot support their position on this issue, nor have thought this issue through.

There are very knowledgeable Apologists who have, in fact, addressed this issue. Unfortunately, those ready to point fingers and judge others have obviously not familiarized themselves with their work…complete with references…which is a shame.

Thanks for playing.

 

[wanner47]

I have to conclude that a great number of Catholics cannot support their position on this issue, nor have thought this issue through.

Uh oh! Looks like you know when you’re beaten. Are you slinking away instead of answering my question about what hormones a woman takes while charting her cycles, and the nature of the hormones in artificial contraception?

Figures.

There are very knowledgeable Apologists who have, in fact, addressed this issue. Unfortunately, those ready to point fingers and judge others have obviously not familiarized themselves with their work…complete with references…which is a shame.

Thanks for playing.

Once again…

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

 

[josephdaniel29]

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.

And absolutely identical in so far as their intended purpose is to frustrate conception.

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 also takes a good bit of discipline to case and rob a bank. Not sure what bearing it has on this discussion in reference to patristics.

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

Well I’m sorry I haven’t responded to your queries with sufficient speed. Some of us do have to work for a living.

Here is a selection of quotes from EWTN.

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” ( 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

How is intentionally waiting until the woman is not fertile not wasting seed?

Clement of Alexandria

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

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

Lactantius

“[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. 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” ( 6:20 [A.D. 3o7]).

“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).

Epiphanius

“They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption” ( 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

The purpose of NFP is to “prevent the conceiving of children.”

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?” ( 1: 19 [A.D. 393]).

Speaks for itself.

Augustine

“For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny” (ibid., 22:30).

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.

Of course I don’t believe in the “teaching ability” of the Roman Catholic Church. That goes without saying. What I am challenging is the historic consistency of this particular teaching. The fathers say X, and the modern Catholic Church says Y - there is obviously a break somewhere.

 

[wanner47]

And absolutely identical in so far as their intended purpose is to frustrate conception.

How, exactly, does NFP frustrate conception?

 

[wanner47]

The fathers say X, and the modern Catholic Church says Y - there is obviously a break somewhere.

Actually, your interpretation of the fathers says X. That is entirely different. The Church, which has teaching authority, interprets them differently.

Since Jesus entrusted teaching authority to his Church and not “josephdaniel29 on Catholic Answers Forums,” I think I’d tend to believe what the Church teaches as opposed to what you teach.

 

[josephdaniel29]

How, exactly, does NFP frustrate conception?

By taking active steps to make sure that when the couple copulates the woman cannot conceive.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Actually, your interpretation of the fathers says X. That is entirely different. The Church, which has teaching authority, interprets them differently.

Since Jesus entrusted teaching authority to his Church and not “josephdaniel29 on Catholic Answers Forums,” I think I’d tend to believe what the Church teaches as opposed to what you teach.

If it’s your position to accept what the Church says simply because the Church says it then you’ll have no problem explaining away what is a clear contradiction. If that is the case then don’t waste anymore time reading my posts.

 

[wanner47]

By taking active steps to make sure that when the couple copulates the woman cannot conceive.

What active steps would those be?