Is constant use of natural family planning a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mercuriel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps you ought provide some references, both to what was said, and to what level of teaching authority attaches to the statements by these persons.
Quotes from some Church Fathers:

Clement of Alexandria - “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature”

Augustine - “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage…”

Jerome - “Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?”

I got these quotes from here: catholic.com/tracts/contr…-sterilization

I don’t know how the Catholic Church determines what Tradition is capital ‘T’ and lower case ‘t’. Can you shed light on that?
 
Quotes from some Church Fathers:

Clement of Alexandria - “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature”

Augustine - “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage…”

Jerome - “Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?”

I got these quotes from here: catholic.com/tracts/contr…-sterilization

I don’t know how the Catholic Church determines what Tradition is capital ‘T’ and lower case ‘t’. Can you shed light on that?
Probably not with sufficient erudition. However, statements of holy men do not constitute Church teaching nor Tradition.

The link you quote seems to be invalid/broken.
 
Trying to express this without causing offence etc, please bear with me.

I understand totally that chemical contraception can be abortofacients, but not why eg condoms cannot be used especially in cases as above where there is sound medical reason not to get pregnant.
The Church holds that God intends all the aspects of conjugal relations to be bound together - that which is unitive and that which is procreative. Neither attribute is to be removed from the act.

Thus, the opposition to contraception stands quite apart from the opposition to chemicals which may kill a child.
 
Probably not with sufficient erudition. However, statements of holy men do not constitute Church teaching nor Tradition.

The link you quote seems to be invalid.
Typing in ‘contraception and sterilisation catholic’ on google should get you the catholic answers page.

I find it interesting that even they on that page seem to concede some of my point:

‘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.’
 
Typing in ‘contraception and sterilisation catholic’ on google should get you the catholic answers page.

I find it interesting that even they on that page seem to concede some of my point:

‘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.’
But why is that in itself a concern? Is it your belief that no Church Father ever errored? Do you assign to every statement by a Church Father the status of “Church teaching”?
 
But why is that in itself a concern? Is it your belief that no Church Father ever errored? Do you assign to every statement by a Church Father the status of “Church teaching”?
That is not my belief. But multiple Church Father’s saying arguably the same thing becomes more problematic for me. How can you neatly and consistently dismiss this witness whilst simultaneously affirming their witness in other areas?
 
That is not my belief. But multiple Church Father’s saying arguably the same thing becomes more problematic for me. How can you neatly and consistently dismiss this witness whilst simultaneously affirming their witness in other areas?
One is guided by Church teaching, not isolated statements of holy men.
 
That is not my belief. But multiple Church Father’s saying arguably the same thing becomes more problematic for me. How can you neatly and consistently dismiss this witness whilst simultaneously affirming their witness in other areas?
It is to Peter who was given the keys…by Christ.

Tis to the Teaching Office of the Church given by Christ that we look for this answer. Yes the Church Fathers are very important - but they also could respond in say only a partial way - prior to the Church thinking and teaching about this or that matter.

In this area - those that make mention of what you note - are working in only partial light. They do not even know how fertility works. As the Church came to understand the nature of the matter here - she discerned that yes when there is a need - one does not have to abstain entirely - but observe rather periodic continence (while remaining open to life of course).
 
Such is simply his (Lactanius) quote…

Not what the Church teaches per se.

(they did not know how fertility worked in 307…)
Too many “theologian” here that feel they are correct in pronouncing what is right and what is wrong. Many things are taken out of context. It’s the holier than thou attitude. 🤷
 
Too many “theologian” here that feel they are correct in pronouncing what is right and what is wrong. Many things are taken out of context. It’s the holier than thou attitude. 🤷
Not sure why your commenting there on my post. For such does not fit.
 
First off, nobody is obligated to have sex with his/her spouse all the time.

Until about 1600-1700, the constant practice of the West was to designate certain days and seasons of the years as periods when everybody was supposed to be fasting from sex.

For example, Lent and Advent. (And yes, that’s a big reason why the Church refused to hold weddings during Lent or Advent.) Also, pretty much any other day when Catholics were supposed to fast from food or abstain from meat, they were supposed to be abstaining from sex.

Therefore, it was a lot easier for couples to abstain from sex entirely, either for reasons of prayer as St. Paul recommended, or for other serious reasons. And it was reasonably common to have spouses decide mutually to live as brother and sister, often because there was no other way for them to live out their religious vocation, or because they had already had kids and were now called by God to do something else.

On the other hand, the Church is well aware that fasting from sex is difficult on married life, at least for some people. Sexual fasting is no longer imposed in the West. This was done in the hope that married men and women would find it easier to remain faithful and that prostitution would no longer have a reason to exist. (Also, to discourage Catholics from becoming Protestant, and encourage Protestants to become Catholic without too much effort.) But nobody ever said that couples weren’t allowed to sexually fast at all, and they can do it whenever they feel like, and for whatever reasons. (Unless you become a Gnostic couple who hate the human body and the existence of the material universe. Then you two might get forbidden the sexual fasting thing.)

Meanwhile, natural family planning is not something that was envisaged by the early Church Fathers. But abstaining from sex during fertile periods was something understood in theory and it was permissible. (Unlike the various abortifacients and anti-fertility techniques that the Fathers condemned in the strongest terms.) Marriages along the pattern of St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary were considered a bit weird, but were fine as long as you weren’t doing it out of contempt for sex, children, and the material world.

Understanding the Fathers on marriage means understanding the actual words they use. A word for marriage that implies “having sex” is not the same as a word for marriage that implies “partnering up” or “yoked together.” The purpose of a sermon on “Kids are good and the earth was made by God, not some weird Builder or flawed emanation” is different from the purpose of a sermon on “Religious life is awesome! Do it! Here are a bunch of ways that work!” You have to look at things in context.
 
That is not my belief. But multiple Church Father’s saying arguably the same thing becomes more problematic for me. How can you neatly and consistently dismiss this witness whilst simultaneously affirming their witness in other areas?
No one dismisses the Fathers, you misunderstand stand them by no understanding who they were writing to and what they were communicating in that writing. Not reading Greek and Latin and having to rely on translation is another problem. To understand Augustine one must first understand the Machinean heresy and the whole body of his writings.
 
Quotes from some Church Fathers:

Clement of Alexandria - “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature”

Augustine - “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage…”

Jerome - “Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?”

I got these quotes from here: catholic.com/tracts/contr…-sterilization

I don’t know how the Catholic Church determines what Tradition is capital ‘T’ and lower case ‘t’. Can you shed light on that?
The Church Fathers have stressed that intercourse ALWAYS has to be open to life. That is why contraception has been an evil and constant Church teaching from the beginning and can never be changed.

But to add to what the Church Fathers said, there is also the unitive part of intercourse which for one helps the couple fight against concupiscence. Maybe the Fathers talk about this unitive aspect as well? I forget its either a doctrine or dogma of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top