This is a very arrogant statement. And ignorant of history and theology.It does not change the fact that the Church’s father’s understanding of procreation was not good enough.
The Church continues to go with it. The procreation understanding is very shaky in this light.
.
Well…Was it necessary to know about the ovum in order to observe that female fertility was a cyclical thing? I would not have thought so, though it can be difficult to put oneself in the position of people with a different knowledge base than ours.
The Church teaches that a determination not to have children removes the right toWell…
“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” (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
Where does the unitive aspect fit here?
If the knowledge of the specific fertile days was there would they allow to have sex only on those days?
Otherwise it would be a contradiction to the previous quote.
It’s obvious they did not know about the ovum. If they knew how it would affect the definition of the procreative sex?
… because Church’s teaching stands on the Church’s fathers understanding of procreation.This is a very arrogant statement. And ignorant of history and theology.
**And I am curious as to why you keep using the world “the Church Fathers” ** And then cherry pick statements. You are aware that the teaching on procreation throughout all of human history has been dictated by God himself, who happens to know a tad more than Ol Doc Mcstuffins Down the street…
I wrote this earlier, see my point 1:The Church teaches that a determination not to have children removes the right to
Marry. Where does the unitive relationship fit then? It doesn’t.
I think it’s clear that man has long known that there is only a probalistic chance that sex will lead to pregnancy. When did man learn that the probability changes with the point in time in the cycle? I don’t know.… because Church’s teaching stands on the Church’s fathers understanding of procreation.
The Church wants to be consistent with the Church’s fathers.
Why did the Church’s fathers asked to have a sex in a specific way?
How was the specific way to have sex (man finishing in woman) related to procreation in their minds?
What part of the “Fathers” understanding of procreation was off? Did it apply to all of the Fathers or just one or two?… because Church’s teaching stands on the Church’s fathers understanding of procreation.
The Church wants to be consistent with the Church’s fathers.
Why did the Church’s fathers asked to have a sex in a specific way?
How was the specific way to have sex (man finishing in woman) related to procreation in their minds?
The Church has addressed #1 in detail. What has it not addressed?I wrote this earlier, see my point 1:
*There are two parts in my response.
This second part is a real question what does the procreative mean in #1.
- The procreative sex in marriage or no sex at all is becoming a big moral issue. The Church might address it in more detail.
- Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
The #1 is big issue because #2 is not understood properly.
Better understanding of #2 leads to addressing #1 in a better way. *
St. Clement of AlexandriaTo have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature - The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3, 191 A.D.St. AugustineFor 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. - Against Faustus 15:7 22:30, 400 A.D.They did not know about the relationship between the ovum and the period because the discovery of ovum is not even 200 years old.
So the question stands:
*Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
*
I am sorry to admit this but it is the truth. The CC"s that I know never taught NFP. They mentioned it but never taught it. Most women my age go on BC pills without question. If this is so important to the church than this topic should take precedence when we decide to get married. The CC is at fault for not teaching and catechizing properly. We need more people like Bishop Fulton Sheen. It is almost as if we have to be self taught. If we don’t know what to look for than how can this be done.This is a view of sex, science and history that I cannot accept. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for it. The Church has been aware of fertility and the times of it for as long as we have records for.
We must be careful not to be too elitist in our idea of knowledge and look down upon others.
Trust me, we are not as advanced as we like to think. Many women today have no clue about their cycles or any such knowledge of their own reproductive systems, they are put on birth control and sent on their way.
Are you saying that under the leadership of God and the Holy spirit that the Church has operated in ignorance and that because of our scientific discovery of a microscopic thing, sexuality, and it’s rules should be redefined. If so, congratulations, that is what the world has done!
You make a case that something other than a wish for a child most often drives couples toward sex. But nothing that you’ve referenced says one ought take measures to avoid conception.visionsofdaniel.net/paperStPaulOnSex.htm
I am sorry to admit this but it is the truth. The CC"s that I know never taught NFP. They mentioned it but never taught it. Most women my age go on BC pills without question. If this is so important to the church than this topic should take precedence when we decide to get married. The CC is at fault for not teaching and catechizing properly. We need more people like Bishop Fulton Sheen. It is almost as if we have to be self taught. If we don’t know what to look for than how can this be done.
I am kind of annoyed at the stance that some people make here. I have menorrhagia and needed to be put on BC at a young age as it was the only way to control the bleeding. My periods are so irregular that I cannot even calculate my fertility cycle. Therefore should I abstain from sex at all because it is not procreative? This is ridiculous. Now, I know that lusting for sex merely for the pleasure is not conducive to a stable emotional marriage but to forgo sex altogether is not natural either.
Taken from 1 corinthians 7:
“4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 **Do not deprive each other except perhaps 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. **6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.”
“Paul had no concern for procreation. He literally believed the world would end during his lifetime, so he advised against any new enterprises, including marriage and business ( 7:29 -31), and he advocated celibacy. Yet this is the context of Paul’s notorious comment, “Better to marry than to burn [with passion]” (7:9). Far from demeaning sex, Paul was recommending it for people with intense sexual urges, not for having children, but for the pleasure, comfort, and mutual bonding that sex provides. He was probably influenced by the Song of Songs, a collection of blatantly erotic-romantic poetry that somehow made its way into the Bible, also never mentions procreation, and portrays sexual lovers as equals because of their passion for each other.” visionsofdaniel.net/paperStPaulOnSex.htm
That started about 200 years ago.I think it’s clear that man has long known that there is only a probalistic chance that sex will lead to pregnancy. When did man learn that the probability changes with the point in time in the cycle? I don’t know.
Should older couples not marry if they are past the child-bearing age? Or if a woman is born infertile…can she not marry?dluna, the purpose of marriage is to produce children.
Here are more quotes: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTMWhat part of the “Fathers” understanding of procreation was off? Did it apply to all of the Fathers or just one or two?
In what way is the current Church wrong in Her understanding of procreation?
You are doing an outstanding job of not blatantly stating your point. But perhaps it would be better if you just did.
What moral truths are you talking about?The Church has addressed #1 in detail. What has it not addressed?
I don’t know the answer to #2. Perhaps Onan was their guide? Since there was nil or limited capacity to identify fertile periods with any reliability, how could they have asked for sex only during it? The bottom line is that they did not, and the Church never has. The same moral truths have been exposed both with and without detailed scientific knowledge!
Did you read what Pope Pius XII wrote? It is morally acceptable when there is a grave reason.What moral truths are you talking about?
The Church’s Fathers are clear in what they say; sex is only “for the procreation of children”!
Are you going to deny that?
NFP helps avoiding of the conception. People want to have sex but they want to avoid conception. They do not do sex for procreation of children.
They do not do as the Church’s Fathers say they should do.
This is not the same moral truth!
Did you read the Church’s Fathers? Sex is only “for the procreation of children”. No exceptions.Did you read what Pope Pius XII wrote? It is morally acceptable when there is a grave reason.
The act itself has to be 100% procreative. NFP makes perfect sense and has been allowed by the Church. Early Church fathers did not have NFP or the medical technology to find out what is really going on. Back then if someone was sterile/infertile then BOOM! No marriage for you. Today we are such an advanced society that some fertility issues and such can be solved.What moral truths are you talking about?
The Church’s Fathers are clear in what they say; sex is only “for the procreation of children”!
Are you going to deny that?
NFP helps avoiding of the conception. People want to have sex but they want to avoid conception. They do not do sex for procreation of children.
They do not do as the Church’s Fathers say they should do.
This is not the same moral truth!
We were married in the mid 80’s. NFP was only mentioned in our marriage preparation course along with the other methods of ABC. The pros and cons of each method were provided. There was no statement that NFP was the only acceptable way to avoid pregnancy in the eyes of the Church. I recall that we were also told that the RCC teaching on ABC was not infallible! If we were interested in NFP, there were a few couples (a handful) that would be available to teach it on a volunteer basis only.visionsofdaniel.net/paperStPaulOnSex.htm
I am sorry to admit this but it is the truth. The CC"s that I know never taught NFP. They mentioned it but never taught it. Most women my age go on BC pills without question. If this is so important to the church than this topic should take precedence when we decide to get married. The CC is at fault for not teaching and catechizing properly. We need more people like Bishop Fulton Sheen. It is almost as if we have to be self taught. If we don’t know what to look for than how can this be done.
I am kind of annoyed at the stance that some people make here. I have menorrhagia and needed to be put on BC at a young age as it was the only way to control the bleeding. My periods are so irregular that I cannot even calculate my fertility cycle. Therefore should I abstain from sex at all because it is not procreative? This is ridiculous. Now, I know that lusting for sex merely for the pleasure is not conducive to a stable emotional marriage but to forgo sex altogether is not natural either.
Taken from 1 corinthians 7:
“4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 **Do not deprive each other except perhaps 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. **6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.”
“Paul had no concern for procreation. He literally believed the world would end during his lifetime, so he advised against any new enterprises, including marriage and business ( 7:29 -31), and he advocated celibacy. Yet this is the context of Paul’s notorious comment, “Better to marry than to burn [with passion]” (7:9). Far from demeaning sex, Paul was recommending it for people with intense sexual urges, not for having children, but for the pleasure, comfort, and mutual bonding that sex provides. He was probably influenced by the Song of Songs, a collection of blatantly erotic-romantic poetry that somehow made its way into the Bible, also never mentions procreation, and portrays sexual lovers as equals because of their passion for each other.” visionsofdaniel.net/paperStPaulOnSex.htm
Well, the question that I am asking: “Is the current definition of procreative the same as the Church’s Fathers definition of procreative?”The act itself has to be 100% procreative. NFP makes perfect sense and has been allowed by the Church. Early Church fathers did not have NFP or the medical technology to find out what is really going on. Back then if someone was sterile/infertile then BOOM! No marriage for you. Today we are such an advanced society that some fertility issues and such can be solved.
Besides, God would not have made it pleasurable if that was not part of his intention. The way some people sound, it’s like you peform some robotic routine to see if it had any effect (childbirth).