From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[Blacksword]

You’re wrong on all of the above. Like I said, you took it all out of context. You are only placing your personal interpretation on the quotes. My explanation, in contrast, reflected the actual teaching of the Church where the purpose of the marital union has been clarified and explained for us, and is not contradicted in any by those quotes. That’s not my personal opinion, it’s the clarification provided by the Catholic Church. If I were a member of the “church of Warrior1979” I might give your interpretations some more consideration…but as it stands, I’m Catholic.

So, do you have a passage or quote yet that states that contraception, specifically, is a matter for personal discernment? Or was that conveniently left unaddressed?

Ok, no, I’m not going to let this pass. No, no, no! Lol, what Warrior said is EXACTLY what the clear, objective, undeniable, plain reading of those quotes says!!! You are the one here doing incredible mental gymnastics to twist these quotes, contort them, and blur their clear intent in order to make it fit with the Church’s current understanding of the dual and EQUAL purposes of sexuality: procreation and unitive pleasure giving between spouses.

Look, these quotes absolutely hold that sex for ANY reason other than procreation is wrong, and NFP fails these mens’ teachings for the same reason ABC does. And that’s ok, since these MEN were not infallible, were not proclaiming these writings as such as some sort of ex cathedra statement of the Pope, or anything the like approaching infallible dogma. The current prohibition on ABC notwithstanding (which also is NOT infallibly proclaimed and therefore MUST admit of the possibility of some degree of error), these quotes from these early church fathers are flawed and hold an extreme position on the matter rightly rejected by even the current church. I’m reading some of The Fathers Know Best, I love the early fathers, but they were men, and prone to err like any other. They are an invaluable resource for understanding early things like the Catholicity of the early church, the holdings of required infant baptism for salvation, etc., but they were not, and individually did not, claim to speak for God infallibly on all matters of their day. So you can hold to the current Church teaching without torturing these quotes, so don’t bother trying.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

. The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

 

[Calliso]

Ok, no, I’m not going to let this pass. No, no, no! Lol, what Warrior said is EXACTLY what the clear, objective, undeniable, plain reading of those quotes says!!! You are the one here doing incredible mental gymnastics to twist these quotes, contort them, and blur their clear intent in order to make it fit with the Church’s current understanding of the dual and EQUAL purposes of sexuality: procreation and unitive pleasure giving between spouses.

Look, these quotes absolutely hold that sex for ANY reason other than procreation is wrong, and NFP fails these mens’ teachings for the same reason ABC does. And that’s ok, since these MEN were not infallible, were not proclaiming these writings as such as some sort of ex cathedra statement of the Pope, or anything the like approaching infallible dogma. The current prohibition on ABC notwithstanding (which also is NOT infallibly proclaimed and therefore MUST admit of the possibility of some degree of error), these quotes from these early church fathers are flawed and hold an extreme position on the matter rightly rejected by even the current church. I’m reading some of The Fathers Know Best, I love the early fathers, but they were men, and prone to err like any other. They are an invaluable resource for understanding early things like the Catholicity of the early church, the holdings of required infant baptism for salvation, etc., but they were not, and individually did not, claim to speak for God infallibly on all matters of their day. So you can hold to the current Church teaching without torturing these quotes, so don’t bother trying.

Exactly exactly exactly! Both NFP and contraception violate those claims! But like you pointed out they were falliable claims made by fallialbe men! And the current thing with NFP and contraception isn;t considered infalliable which still means there is room for human error!

 

[Nate13]

Ok, no, I’m not going to let this pass. No, no, no! Lol, what Warrior said is EXACTLY what the clear, objective, undeniable, plain reading of those quotes says!!! You are the one here doing incredible mental gymnastics to twist these quotes, contort them, and blur their clear intent in order to make it fit with the Church’s current understanding of the dual and EQUAL purposes of sexuality: procreation and unitive pleasure giving between spouses.

Look, these quotes absolutely hold that sex for ANY reason other than procreation is wrong, and NFP fails these mens’ teachings for the same reason ABC does. And that’s ok, since these MEN were not infallible, were not proclaiming these writings as such as some sort of ex cathedra statement of the Pope, or anything the like approaching infallible dogma. The current prohibition on ABC notwithstanding (which also is NOT infallibly proclaimed and therefore MUST admit of the possibility of some degree of error), these quotes from these early church fathers are flawed and hold an extreme position on the matter rightly rejected by even the current church. I’m reading some of The Fathers Know Best, I love the early fathers, but they were men, and prone to err like any other. They are an invaluable resource for understanding early things like the Catholicity of the early church, the holdings of required infant baptism for salvation, etc., but they were not, and individually did not, claim to speak for God infallibly on all matters of their day. So you can hold to the current Church teaching without torturing these quotes, so don’t bother trying.

No, you both take these quotes farther than any of the early Church Fathers did. They say sex MUST be procreative. We can only have sex if we are willingly to allow it to be in a way that is procreative. YOU guys take it one step further and IMPLY that they condemn couples who see any unitive meaning in the act. They do condemn couples who have sex in a non-procreative way to attempt to gain the unitive meaning of sex, but they do not condemn the unitive meaning anywhere in these quotes. They condemn having sex for the sake of pleasure, because very simply that is lust. If that is what the unitive meaning is for you, two people helping each other experience pleasure, then yes they are condemning that. If the unitive meaning is about two people giving all of themselves to the other person in a completely unselfish way it does not. Maybe you don’t understand unitive sex? Sex for the sake of pleasure is condemned in Galatians as well if you aren’t sure… You both know your arguments drop flat if you cannot discredit the early Church’s views on sex and thus will probably only see these quotes as you wish to see them. I would hope others can approach them much more honestly.

 

[Nate13]

Here are some more quotes:

“If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy” (Canon 1).

The First Council of Nicaea which defined Christ’s divinity, A.D. 325

“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 195

“I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

Augustine, A.D. 419

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps.”

Augustine, Against Faustus, 15:7, A.D. 400

“Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with His laws? Yet such turpitude. The matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks.”

John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24, A.D. 391

“In truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization].”

John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5, A.D. 391

 

[Calliso]

No, you both take these quotes farther than any of the early Church Fathers did. They say sex MUST be procreative. We can only have sex if we are willingly to allow it to be in a way that is procreative. YOU guys take it one step further and IMPLY that they condemn couples who see any unitive meaning in the act. They do condemn couples who have sex in a non-procreative way to attempt to gain the unitive meaning of sex, but they do not condemn the unitive meaning anywhere in these quotes. They condemn having sex for the sake of pleasure, because very simply that is lust. If that is what the unitive meaning is for you, two people helping each other experience pleasure, then yes they are condemning that. If the unitive meaning is about two people giving all of themselves to the other person in a completely unselfish way it does not. Maybe you don’t understand unitive sex? Sex for the sake of pleasure is condemned in Galatians as well if you aren’t sure… You both know your arguments drop flat if you cannot discredit the early Church’s views on sex and thus will probably only see these quotes as you wish to see them. I would hope others can approach them much more honestly.

Actually according to many of those quotes they seemed to be clearly stating that sex is only for the purpose of procreation. I mean really explain to me how you think these men would have reacted if you told them about NFP? Do you really think that they would say oh hey its fine for you to chart carefully and purposely only have sex with your wife during the non fertile times to specificially avoid procreation? It is clearly to anyone that is not twisting those quotes around that they clearly condemn both contraception and NFP!

 

[Nate13]

Actually according to many of those quotes they seemed to be clearly stating that sex is only for the purpose of procreation. I mean really explain to me how you think these men would have reacted if you told them about NFP? Do you really think that they would say oh hey its fine for you to chart carefully and purposely only have sex with your wife during the non fertile times to specificially avoid procreation? It is clearly to anyone that is not twisting those quotes around that they clearly condemn both contraception and NFP!

Find me a quote from one of the Early Church Fathers that tells a barren women she cannot marry. If your interpretation is correct, they would condemn the marriage of a woman known to be barren since in no way could her marriage be ordered towards children.

 

[sacredcello]

Actually according to many of those quotes they seemed to be clearly stating that sex is only for the purpose of procreation. I mean really explain to me how you think these men would have reacted if you told them about NFP? Do you really think that they would say oh hey its fine for you to chart carefully and purposely only have sex with your wife during the non fertile times to specificially avoid procreation? It is clearly to anyone that is not twisting those quotes around that they clearly condemn both contraception and NFP!

NFP is meant to used to space children for a “just reason”, not to endure in a childless marriage or to be used selfishly. One reason this is not stressed in NFP classes is that by embracing NFP, each individual act of the marital embrace is open to life and, thus, the cumulative effect of being open to life with each act has the effect of opening the couple’s heart to God’s will for more of His children. That is why you will see large families with those who practice NFP. It’s not that the method doesn’t work to avoid children, but that the couple’s hearts were changed by the practice of NFP (open to life) and they themselves became more open to life. It is a very countercultural thing…children. The world says they are a burden. But NFP couples, by and large, know differently. Oh, and if they have a serious health reason to avoid pregnancy, they do not have to resort to poisons, mutiliations or other unnatural devices which stain the marriage bed.

 

[Calliso]

“for no other purpose than the generation of offspring”

This quote is the one that stood out to me in particular. But tell me how could you take that quote and twist it to mean that using NFP to purposely avoid procreating BUT still have sex is ok??

 

[Blacksword]

No, you both take these quotes farther than any of the early Church Fathers did. They say sex MUST be procreative. We can only have sex if we are willingly to allow it to be in a way that is procreative. YOU guys take it one step further and IMPLY that they condemn couples who see any unitive meaning in the act. They do condemn couples who have sex in a non-procreative way to attempt to gain the unitive meaning of sex, but they do not condemn the unitive meaning anywhere in these quotes. They condemn having sex for the sake of pleasure, because very simply that is lust. If that is what the unitive meaning is for you, two people helping each other experience pleasure, then yes they are condemning that. If the unitive meaning is about two people giving all of themselves to the other person in a completely unselfish way it does not. Maybe you don’t understand unitive sex? Sex for the sake of pleasure is condemned in Galatians as well if you aren’t sure… You both know your arguments drop flat if you cannot discredit the early Church’s views on sex and thus will probably only see these quotes as you wish to see them. I would hope others can approach them much more honestly.

Lol, and I wish you would approach it honestly, funny how that works isn’t it? They don’t explicitly condemn a unitive aspect of sex because they explicitly don’t allow that there IS one at all! And selfless giving of sexual pleasure to one another is part and parcel of the unitive aspect of sex. Now your position is that sexual pleasure is coextensive with sinful lust?! That’s absurd on it’s face! Let me get this straight: you’re saying God designed sexuality to be the most intensely physically pleasurable sensation and experience one can have in this life, and then expressly condemns ANY and ALL actual enjoyment of that pleasure?! Riiiiiight…Have you actually had sex? If so, did you find it pleasurable, and enjoy said pleasure? SINNER!! Get thee to a confessional and repent now! LOL! I might be misunderstanding you, and that might not have been your intent, but it sure sounds like that’s actually what you said.

I am NOT, however, misunderstanding anything about what the early fathers’ quotes provided mean. The intent could NOT be more crystal clear: sex is ONLY for procreation, and if you’re not trying to conceive, then no mas! And dont anyone dare start enjoying the act, whatever you do!

 

[Calliso]

NFP is meant to used to space children for a “just reason”, not to endure in a childless marriage or to be used selfishly. One reason this is not stressed in NFP classes is that by embracing NFP, each individual act of the marital embrace is open to life and, thus, the cumulative effect of being open to life with each act has the effect of opening the couple’s heart to God’s will for more of His children. That is why you will see large families with those who practice NFP. It’s not that the method doesn’t work to avoid children, but that the couple’s hearts were changed by the practice of NFP (open to life) and they themselves became more open to life. It is a very countercultural thing…children. The world says they are a burden. But NFP couples, by and large, know differently. Oh, and if they have a serious health reason to avoid pregnancy, they do not have to resort to poisons, mutiliations or other unnatural devices which stain the marriage bed.

Yes but what I am asking is based on those quotes we have do you really think the early church fathers would have approved of NFP? Of purposely avoiding sex during the fertile time but still having it during the infertile time? I seriously doubt it I think the only think they would have approved on is abstaining period.

 

[Calliso]

Lol, and I wish you would approach it honestly, funny how that works isn’t it? They don’t explicitly condemn a unitive aspect of sex because they explicitly don’t allow that there IS one at all! And selfless giving of sexual pleasure to one another is part and parcel of the unitive aspect of sex. Now your position is that sexual pleasure is coextensive with sinful lust?! That’s absurd on it’s face! Let me get this straight: you’re saying God designed sexuality to be the most intensely physically pleasurable sensation and experience one can have in this life, and then expressly condemns ANY and ALL actual enjoyment of that pleasure?! Riiiiiight…Have you actually had sex? If so, did you find it pleasurable, and enjoy said pleasure? SINNER!! Get thee to a confessional and repent now! LOL! I might be misunderstanding you, and that might not have been your intent, but it sure sounds like that’s actually what you said.

I am NOT, however, misunderstanding anything about what the early fathers’ quotes provided mean. The intent could NOT be more crystal clear: sex is ONLY for procreation, and if you’re not trying to conceive, then no mas! And dont anyone dare start enjoying the act, whatever you do!

Once again exactly I mean will quote this quote again “for no other purpose than the generation of offspring” That quote couldn;t be more crystal clear. It does not say for uniative purposes it does not say anything about bonding between husband and wife not that quote makes it clear that sex was seen as something only for procreation. NFP would have been seen in the same light as any other contraceptive. The only form of NFP that migth have been tolerated is NFP to HAVE kids not avoid.

 

[Nate13]

Alright here is the full quote.

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).

Lets suppose that the Early Church Fathers did not see a difference between what we call the unitive aspect of the sexual act and seeking sex for pleasure. Now I often wonder what you guys consider the “bonding” part of the sexual act or the “unitive” aspect of the sexual act, because the Early Church Father’s are right on when they condemn seeking sex for the desire of pleasure is wrong. That is lust plain and simple. It might be lust mixed with good intentions, but it is lust. The unitive aspect of marriage is gained when two people give themselves completely to each other. It would be like the bond you would feel for someone if you were drowning in a river, and they jumped in risking their life to save you. Now if you got out of the water and the person said alright I saved you now can I have $10,000 dollars, that act wouldn’t mean as much would it? A true act of self-less love creates a bond that envelopes what the Church teaches the unitive aspect to be and is no where put down by the Early Church Fathers. There is another bond Utilitarian in nature, that basically revolves around the idea of “I’ll help you out, and you help me out so we can both be happy”. The Early Church Fathers do condemn having sex in search of this kind of bond and rightly so. Either they make no mention of the true unitive bond, assume it to be self evident, or assume it’s incredibly easy to look back at scripture and find the many many passages that explain how we are to love our spouses. We are to love our spouses as Christ loves the Church. We should also take into context who they were speaking to in these passages. My question to you is could it be that the Early Church Fathers enveloped the true meaning of unitive sex into the idea that it must be procreative since no act can be truly unitive unless it is ordered towards being procreative?

 

[Nate13]

Also here is the letters from Lactantius from which that quote comes from. I’d also add that even if you discredit this Early Church Father it does not discredit the bunch of them haha.

newadvent.org/fathers/0701.htm

haha if you try and look at this quote in context at this link its the only Chapter that is still in Latin. Also even a cursory look into Lactantius: Divine Institutes shows that it was written as a repose to pagan criticism and persecution of Christianity. It is no wonder that his language is incredibly strong because its a refutation of paganism.

 

[Bookcat]

This has been the constant teaching of the Church…from the early days…it is not a new thing.

As the document from the Church called the vademecum for confessors notes:

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4,].

Yes unfortunately in 1930 among some Protestant Christians there was a change in some of their rejection…(they had rejected it…as had their leaders…since they began) and this has unfortunately gotten worse and worse with more forgetting what has been since the early days. But then again I think some have seen that this was the wrong move and have returned to the right understanding.

It has been rejected by Christians from the early days. Contrary to the action of the pagans in the surrounding “culture” at the time…such as the Roman culture…the early Christians rejected …contraception, abortion and the exposing of babies (murder), adultery, homosexual acts, the savage entertainment of the games, fornication, idolatry etc etc. The early Christians were a sign of contradiction in the midst of dark culture of death. Which in some ways is similar to the culture that surrounds us today.

The early Christians condemned these things as ways of death…they lived very differently than the culture around them. We too in the midst of a culture looking more like theirs…must do the same. We are to continue as they did…walking as children of light.

As an early Christian text put it:

There are two ways. The way of death and the way of life.

*And great is the difference between the two.
*

 

[Blacksword]

Also here is the letters from Lactantius from which that quote comes from. I’d also add that even if you discredit this Early Church Father it does not discredit the bunch of them haha.

newadvent.org/fathers/0701.htm

haha if you try and look at this quote in context at this link its the only Chapter that is still in Latin. Also even a cursory look into Lactantius: Divine Institutes shows that it was written as a repose to pagan criticism and persecution of Christianity. It is no wonder that his language is incredibly strong because its a refutation of paganism.

And the fact that he was writing in refutation of paganism doesn’t make his words on this issue any less obviously wrongheaded and extreme than they are on their face. What you have in these early church father writings are the non-infallible, error-prone writings of MEN…men who were coming towards an important spiritual truth yes, but who were stumbling toward that real truth slowly, with dim vision, with lack of full knowledge of science, biology, human psycho-sexuality, and other important formative knowledge, men who had prejudices of their own and cultural misconceptions of their time. In other words, fallible people like all of us. Yes, they had great wisdom about some things, yes, they carried and passed on much of the great spiritual truths of the Gospel and teachings of Christ handed on to the Apostles, but to pretend they did so perfectly and without error is to make them into something they weren’t and could never have been. And something none of them ever claimed to be. The Church has come into better understanding and grown in the knowledge of truth since their day…I contend perhaps there is more understanding yet to come…but let’s be real, the Church’s teaching today on the particulars of this issue does not comport with what these men were saying.

 

[Nate13]

And the fact that he was writing in refutation of paganism doesn’t make his words on this issue any less obviously wrongheaded and extreme than they are on their face. What you have in these early church father writings are the non-infallible, error-prone writings of MEN…men who were coming towards an important spiritual truth yes, but who were stumbling toward that real truth slowly, with dim vision, with lack of full knowledge of science, biology, human psycho-sexuality, and other important formative knowledge, men who had prejudices of their own and cultural misconceptions of their time. In other words, fallible people like all of us. Yes, they had great wisdom about some things, yes, they carried and passed on much of the great spiritual truths of the Gospel and teachings of Christ handed on to the Apostles, but to pretend they did so perfectly and without error is to make them into something they weren’t and could never have been. And something none of them ever claimed to be. The Church has come into better understanding and grown in the knowledge of truth since their day…I contend perhaps there is more understanding yet to come…but let’s be real, the Church’s teaching today on the particulars of this issue does not comport with what these men were saying.

Do you also claim scripture contradicts itself as well? Some Protestants love to point to the verse in Matthew I believe that says “call no man Father” as well as the verse that says “there is only one Mediator, Jesus” and bash the priesthood. Are you not doing something similar to them? You look at one line, condemn it, and say they were on the wrong track. I’m simply asking is it possible that they were writing from a certain perspective to a certain group of people and thus spoke in a language that they would understand. I believe Protestants also struggle with Romans vs. James because they seem to obviously contradict each other with respect to faith alone vs faith and works. However when we look at who the audience was for each of these Letters we see why the author spoke as he did and that they don’t contradict each other. Why is it you are able to look at these situations in context and not take these verses absolutely literally, but refuse to think this possible of the Early Church Father’s writings and give them any due credit?

 

[ahs]

Yes but what I am asking is based on those quotes we have do you really think the early church fathers would have approved of NFP? Of purposely avoiding sex during the fertile time but still having it during the infertile time? I seriously doubt it I think the only think they would have approved on is abstaining period.

…and to Blacksword and Warrior1979, etc…

Those quotes do not condemn periodic continence. The Church to whom those Chruch Fathers belong and profess their Faith is clear and concise, as early as many of those writings that sex has unitive value. St. Augustine, St. Franice DeSales, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Gregory I, etc…have all written as such.

It was wrong of me to use those quotes without clarifying the facts for you and I wrongly assumed that every reader of the thread would know Church teacing…this article will do what I failed to:

catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

“It should be noted that some of the Church Fathers use language that can suggest to modern ears that there is no unitive.aspect to marital intercourse and that there is only a procreative.aspect. It is unclear whether this is what some of them actually thought or whether they are intending simply to stress that sexual activity becomes immoral if the procreative.aspect of a given marital act is deliberately frustrated. However that may be, over the course of time the Church has called greater attention to the unitive.aspect of marital intercourse, yet it remains true that the procreative.aspect of each particular marital act must not be frustrated.”

And there is still another matter that has not yet been addressed. We still have not seen any Church writing or Scriptural passage that condones contraception or states that contraception is a matter of personal discernment.

-ahs

 

[searching04]

Sexual relations with Contraception are contrary to the love of marriage
and are simply not “marital relations”. In fact it is meaningless.
Even a couple who are not married can “feel” their sexual relations are good etc… Feelings are not the measure here.

cormacburke.or.ke/node/282

No, it is not contrary to the love of marriage, not at all. According to the church it is, but the church is assuming what is in couples’ hearts and their beliefs (oh, yeah - we’re not allowed to believe something different than what the church tells us in this area). And it is in no way meaningless, not by a long shot, because if so, it does indeed solidify that the church has determined sex is only for having kids.

 

[Bookcat]

No, it is not contrary to the love of marriage, not at all. According to the church it is, but the church is assuming what is in couples’ hearts and their beliefs

Umm…the Church is speaking of the objective reality.

It is true no matter what another may want to believe.

(as to “meaningless” the article explains what he means by the term)