T
tolstoy
Guest
Yes. The church is wrong on this matter.
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
As Fone Bone 2001 posted in another thread: ‘To “use NFP” is, objectively speaking, simply to measure fertility. What prevents pregnancy is the subsequent abstinence._And obviously that’s not contraception, since there’s no sex to contracept in that case.’
That is the heart of the matter!
Contraception gravely immoral; NFP praiseworthy for serious reasons
Clear cut:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].
That is a clear denial of the Christ the Son of God who gave us His Church with His authority to teach faith and morals, not tolstoy nor Tom, Dick or Harry.
Such a mere opinion is gravely wrong.
T
tolstoy
Guest
Sorry Ana - I must have misunderstood your original posting.
I thought you asked if the Church was wrong regarding NFP to which I responded that, yes, it is wrong. I’m not sure why you would ask a question and not allow and answer?
I thought you asked if the Church was wrong regarding NFP to which I responded that, yes, it is wrong. I’m not sure why you would ask a question and not allow and answer?
N
Nimeniton
Guest
NFP is done to measure the times that it is considered safe to have sex without procreating (infertile period) and to identify the times when sex should be avoided (fertile period). The motive is in both the fertile and infertile situation to avoid conception. So NFP measures both the period of possible fertility and possible infertility - the purpose being to avoid conception.
True
No! During a woman’s infertile period their sexual acts are directed to avoiding procreation because they believe it to be the infertile period and because they took the trouble to record temperature to identify the infertile time. Taking the trouble to obtain facts (temperature) to discover the best times to have sex and not get pregnantis actually doing something to hinder procreation. Avoiding sex also is doing something to hinder procreation. The only way to ensure procreation is to have sex during known fertile times. This is something that Orthodox Jews understand. The rhythm method and abstinence are methods that deliberately frustrate procreation.jogc.com/abstracts/full/200802_WomensHealth_1.pdf
S
searching04
Guest
M
manualman
Guest
I confess that I read just the OP then skipped here for a response. Sorry, I’m just tired.
The bottom line here is one of an irrational fear of science and reason. Behind the fine words is a mindset that God has abandoned the Church and no longer fills its leaders with the Grace to authoritatively teach, interpret and discern the truth in regards to new discoveries and new issues, so all we can rely on is the reliable judgement of dead saints (presumably saints canonized before all these “questionable” popes came along…)
Th early fathers didn’t have thermometers, charts or a comprehension of sperm and egg. Thus, it’s really no surprise that they were unable to give us guidance about how to view these scientific advancements. What I cannot comprehend is why anyone would find Augustine and Ambrose reliable teachers, but not Pius XII, Paul VI and John Paul II.
And it isn’t merely authority that justifies the ‘rules.’ These latter three have laid out quite clearly the fundamental rational difference between making a decision to refrain from intimacy when prudence requires the couple not get pregnant and the act of sterilizing the sex act itself, which radically changes the very nature of the exchange. In the former, the couple live in accordance with the way GOD made women fertile only some of the time, in the latter man seeks to forcibly disassociate sex with fertility, making the basic blunder of assuming that he comprehends all the effects thereof.
The couple that uses condoms or pills fundamentally changes sex so that it no longer has anything to do with babies. They’re trying to violate the basic natural law that sex, marriage and babies are facets of a single issue (human sexual intimacy) and create a scenario where those are three different subject. But that dog don’t hunt and the proof is in the collapse of chastity and marital fidelity in our society.
NFP couples on the other hand, by having to abstain during fertile times (with serious reason, mind you) retain the basic link that sex, marriage and babies are all tied together. For them, they never become separate subjects and the primal power of healthy human sexual intimacy remains intact. The obvious evidence of THIS assertion is in the many thousands of NFP users throughout this country among whom the divorce rate is nearly zero. Among my catholic friends and family who practice contraception the dicorce rate is greater than half. Among my numerous friends and family who struggle to stay faithful to Church sexual teachings, the divorce rates is ZERO. I frankly can’t understand how people cannot see this!
P.S. The other major empirical difference is family size. Ask NFP couple you know well enough to discuss such matters with and you’ll find some with ‘oopsie babies.’ But you’ll find MORE “oh what the heck babies” than oopsie ones. These are the major reason that NFP couples have larger families. Among contracepting couples, there is almost no such thing as an “oh what the heck baby.” They are either ‘planned’ or ‘unplanned.’ They’ll just look at you funny if you ask about ‘what the heck’ babies. The reason is because NFP and contraception are fundamentally and substantially different. For the contraceptors, sexuality plays no role anymore in “planning” family size.
The bottom line here is one of an irrational fear of science and reason. Behind the fine words is a mindset that God has abandoned the Church and no longer fills its leaders with the Grace to authoritatively teach, interpret and discern the truth in regards to new discoveries and new issues, so all we can rely on is the reliable judgement of dead saints (presumably saints canonized before all these “questionable” popes came along…)
Th early fathers didn’t have thermometers, charts or a comprehension of sperm and egg. Thus, it’s really no surprise that they were unable to give us guidance about how to view these scientific advancements. What I cannot comprehend is why anyone would find Augustine and Ambrose reliable teachers, but not Pius XII, Paul VI and John Paul II.
And it isn’t merely authority that justifies the ‘rules.’ These latter three have laid out quite clearly the fundamental rational difference between making a decision to refrain from intimacy when prudence requires the couple not get pregnant and the act of sterilizing the sex act itself, which radically changes the very nature of the exchange. In the former, the couple live in accordance with the way GOD made women fertile only some of the time, in the latter man seeks to forcibly disassociate sex with fertility, making the basic blunder of assuming that he comprehends all the effects thereof.
The couple that uses condoms or pills fundamentally changes sex so that it no longer has anything to do with babies. They’re trying to violate the basic natural law that sex, marriage and babies are facets of a single issue (human sexual intimacy) and create a scenario where those are three different subject. But that dog don’t hunt and the proof is in the collapse of chastity and marital fidelity in our society.
NFP couples on the other hand, by having to abstain during fertile times (with serious reason, mind you) retain the basic link that sex, marriage and babies are all tied together. For them, they never become separate subjects and the primal power of healthy human sexual intimacy remains intact. The obvious evidence of THIS assertion is in the many thousands of NFP users throughout this country among whom the divorce rate is nearly zero. Among my catholic friends and family who practice contraception the dicorce rate is greater than half. Among my numerous friends and family who struggle to stay faithful to Church sexual teachings, the divorce rates is ZERO. I frankly can’t understand how people cannot see this!
P.S. The other major empirical difference is family size. Ask NFP couple you know well enough to discuss such matters with and you’ll find some with ‘oopsie babies.’ But you’ll find MORE “oh what the heck babies” than oopsie ones. These are the major reason that NFP couples have larger families. Among contracepting couples, there is almost no such thing as an “oh what the heck baby.” They are either ‘planned’ or ‘unplanned.’ They’ll just look at you funny if you ask about ‘what the heck’ babies. The reason is because NFP and contraception are fundamentally and substantially different. For the contraceptors, sexuality plays no role anymore in “planning” family size.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Oh, boy! Another NFP thread. No wonder people send popcorn smileys.
Ok, here we go…
1) Pharsea is gay Catholic website. It supports ideas which most Catholics would not support. Thought you should know. However, the author is quite educated in Catholic theology and some of his writings can make things difficult for “mainstream” thinkers.
2) In matter of NFP, and generally contraception, he is quite right in his approach. Catholic Church claimed sexual intercourse has only procreative aspect, while all other ends were deemed insufficient. This has radically changed in last two centuries.
**3) ** It is incorrect that Catholic Church and medical science were unaware of fertility circles of women. Augustine in 4th Century forbids tracking of menstruation in order to detect infertile period.
4) To answer the question from the topic title, Church can bind whatever it sees as contrary to Scripture and Tradition. However, my personal opinion is that certain aspects of Tradition have been disclosed from the faithful. Maybe in order to avoid scandal. However, it didn’t work very well, as can be seen by Pharsea’s usage of Church History to prove his point (regarding contraception).
Ok, here we go…
1) Pharsea is gay Catholic website. It supports ideas which most Catholics would not support. Thought you should know. However, the author is quite educated in Catholic theology and some of his writings can make things difficult for “mainstream” thinkers.
2) In matter of NFP, and generally contraception, he is quite right in his approach. Catholic Church claimed sexual intercourse has only procreative aspect, while all other ends were deemed insufficient. This has radically changed in last two centuries.
**3) ** It is incorrect that Catholic Church and medical science were unaware of fertility circles of women. Augustine in 4th Century forbids tracking of menstruation in order to detect infertile period.
4) To answer the question from the topic title, Church can bind whatever it sees as contrary to Scripture and Tradition. However, my personal opinion is that certain aspects of Tradition have been disclosed from the faithful. Maybe in order to avoid scandal. However, it didn’t work very well, as can be seen by Pharsea’s usage of Church History to prove his point (regarding contraception).
D
derfrel
Guest
I’ve been reading some of the pros and cons about married folks having sex when they are aware that the woman cannot conceive a child. Frankly it amazes me to think that
so many of us apparently don’t behave in what I would consider to be a “natural” manner. And the thought that came to mind which I hesitate to believe that any normal Catholic would follow is that, in marriage, once the woman had reached an age where she never had
periods that all sex should come to a halt.
so many of us apparently don’t behave in what I would consider to be a “natural” manner. And the thought that came to mind which I hesitate to believe that any normal Catholic would follow is that, in marriage, once the woman had reached an age where she never had
periods that all sex should come to a halt.
M
manualman
Guest
It’s not adequate to claim Augustine in your corner unless you can either quote him or provide the citation so people can cross check you.
In my experience, the quotes people dredge up prove ONLY that the Church developed doctrine on the procreative aspect of human sexuality faster than she has the unitive aspect. I have no doubt that you can produce EF quotes galore citing the supremacy of the procreative function and also have no doubt that you can cite many EF sources denouncing lustful behavior even within marriage (one symptom of which CAN be the use of legitimate means of avoiding pregnancy for illegitimate reasons). But I highly doubt your claim that Augustine forbade people from abstaining from sexual intimacy during known fertile times when they had a serious reason to avoid pregnancy.
Prove me wrong.
P.S. Please recall the way infallibility works. It doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get all the answers right immediately and on demand. It only prevents wrong answers from being promulgated officially. The EFs DID far earlier and faster recognize the way God had intentionally linked sex to procreation than they did recognize the value of sexual intimacy for the building of the marriage relationship. But the uneven progression over time in no way constitutes a refutation of the Church’s claim to infallible teaching authority.
C
Chrono13
Guest
St. Augustine was member of Mani sect prior to joining Catholic Church. Afterwards he engaged in ferocious arguments with his ex-faith. One of the issues was their practice of NFP.It’s not adequate to claim Augustine in your corner unless you can either quote him or provide the citation so people can cross check you.
In my experience, the quotes people dredge up prove ONLY that the Church developed doctrine on the procreative aspect of human sexuality faster than she has the unitive aspect. I have no doubt that you can produce EF quotes galore citing the supremacy of the procreative function and also have no doubt that you can cite many EF sources denouncing lustful behavior even within marriage (one symptom of which CAN be the use of legitimate means of avoiding pregnancy for illegitimate reasons). But I highly doubt your claim that Augustine forbade people from abstaining from sexual intimacy during known fertile times when they had a serious reason to avoid pregnancy.
Prove me wrong.
P.S. Please recall the way infallibility works. It doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get all the answers right immediately and on demand. It only prevents wrong answers from being promulgated officially. The EFs DID far earlier and faster recognize the way God had intentionally linked sex to procreation than they did recognize the value of sexual intimacy for the building of the marriage relationship. But the uneven progression over time in no way constitutes a refutation of the Church’s claim to infallible teaching authority.
“Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.”
(St. Augustine, Against Manichaeans, chapter 18)
As for the idea of “developing doctrine”, one can only take a glance on radicality in example to discard it. Does God need teaching that sex is only for procreation to conclude centuries later that it has wonderful nature of unity? I believe not. This was not genuie apostolic development.
M
manualman
Guest
Your comprehension of Manicheanism is too shallow to see what it is you are reading.
As I recall, the Ms were so completely convinced that the material world is fundamentally evil that they opposed the conception of children, thinking of it as an injustice to the new generation to inflict a physical existence on them. So Augustine’s denunciation is not fundamentally about using NFP to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons. Its is about using NFP due to a faulty mindset that procreating new children is a fundamentally evil act. Augustine rightly chides them for their logical inconsistancy: they thought it evil to make babies, but still rationalized making love, the nature of which is fundamentally bound up in makin’ babies. They were being hypocrites.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Manicheanism:
“St. Augustine (especially “De Moribus Manich.”) strongly inveighs against the Manichæan’s repudiation of marriage. They regarded it as an evil in itself because the propagation of the human race meant the continual imprisonment of the light-substance in matter and a retarding of the blissful consummation of all things; maternity was a calamity and a sin …”
Sorry, strike one. More swings?
And you don’t seem to understand revelation either. God looks rather different from the teachings of Jesus compared to those of Moses, no? Did God change? Did it take him that long to “find Himself?” No! It took that long for mankind to advance in corporate comprehension of the incremental revelations God gave. General revelation closed with the death of the last apostle, but that doesn’t mean our comprehension of what we had received was instantly complete. We humans have puny intellects compared to God. We can easily take 2,000+ years to fully comprehend what has been given to us.
As I recall, the Ms were so completely convinced that the material world is fundamentally evil that they opposed the conception of children, thinking of it as an injustice to the new generation to inflict a physical existence on them. So Augustine’s denunciation is not fundamentally about using NFP to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons. Its is about using NFP due to a faulty mindset that procreating new children is a fundamentally evil act. Augustine rightly chides them for their logical inconsistancy: they thought it evil to make babies, but still rationalized making love, the nature of which is fundamentally bound up in makin’ babies. They were being hypocrites.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Manicheanism:
“St. Augustine (especially “De Moribus Manich.”) strongly inveighs against the Manichæan’s repudiation of marriage. They regarded it as an evil in itself because the propagation of the human race meant the continual imprisonment of the light-substance in matter and a retarding of the blissful consummation of all things; maternity was a calamity and a sin …”
Sorry, strike one. More swings?
And you don’t seem to understand revelation either. God looks rather different from the teachings of Jesus compared to those of Moses, no? Did God change? Did it take him that long to “find Himself?” No! It took that long for mankind to advance in corporate comprehension of the incremental revelations God gave. General revelation closed with the death of the last apostle, but that doesn’t mean our comprehension of what we had received was instantly complete. We humans have puny intellects compared to God. We can easily take 2,000+ years to fully comprehend what has been given to us.
M
manualman
Guest
Oh, and btw, what Augustine said is still fully compatible with catholic teaching today. If a couple desires to marry but fully intends to NEVER have children (as would the Manis Augustine was refuting), the Church tells such people that this attitude is an impediment to marriage; they cannot marry.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Sorry, but Augustine is very clear. His attack on Manichaeans is that NFP is used “for the gratification of passion”. Gnostic dualism they hold is his second point. This can be seen if we broad text a little…Your comprehension of Manicheanism is too shallow to see what it is you are reading.
As I recall, the Ms were so completely convinced that the material world is fundamentally evil that they opposed the conception of children, thinking of it as an injustice to the new generation to inflict a physical existence on them. So Augustine’s denunciation is not fundamentally about using NFP to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons. Its is about using NFP due to a faulty mindset that procreating new children is a fundamentally evil act. Augustine rightly chides them for their logical inconsistancy: they thought it evil to make babies, but still rationalized making love, the nature of which is fundamentally bound up in makin’ babies. They were being hypocrites.
Sorry, strike one. More swings?
And you don’t seem to understand revelation either. God looks rather different from the teachings of Jesus compared to those of Moses, no? Did God change? Did it take him that long to “find Himself?” No! It took that long for mankind to advance in corporate comprehension of the incremental revelations God gave. General revelation closed with the death of the last apostle, but that doesn’t mean our comprehension of what we had received was instantly complete. We humans have puny intellects compared to God. We can easily take 2,000+ years to fully comprehend what has been given to us.
“For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this (begetting) is the only good excuse for such intercourse (…)Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.”
Augustine believed that copulation is by default evil, and that begetting is only excuse for intercourse. NFP can’t be allowed in this logic, since it is as contraceptive as every other method to avoid pregnancy.
As for development of mankind, I can only repeat my previous comment. Idea that sex is only for procreation surely did not come from apostolic origin. Common people knew sex is unitive long before Church Fathers, during their age, and afterwards. What were they developing that was so fast?
C
Chrono13
Guest
No it’s not. For Augustine, if there are just reasons to avoid pregnancy, pair must abstinate until situation gets better.
A
ahs
Guest
This is not so. In one of the last “NFP” threads, there were quotes provided from not only Augustine, but from Gregory I and Aquinas as well, that showed they recognized a unitive purpose to sex and that sex was not an evil by default. It may be a couple days before I can post those, but if no one does it first, I will provide these to you.
At any rate, the Church is very clear in praising the use of the martial embrace during infertile times while condemning contraception…see my previous post where I quoted HV. The Church does not contradict Herself, nor has Her Doctrine changed in this matter. The fact that you may not understand it is another matter entirely.
C
Chrono13
Guest
I participated in many of those threads, and I doubt you will provide anything new. But, by all means, feel free to post them again.
One must know that even if important sources do accept sexual unity as legal side of intercourse, this does not mean they would see NFP any different then contraception. About this, we can talk later.
What I understand and don’t is for God to judge. And objective reader of this thread.
A
ahs
Guest
Then you probably already know which ones I am referencing. No, it won’t be new information. That’s why I have a hard time understanding why you would suggest that the EF’s saw sex an evil by default…Aquinas actually states exactly to the opopsite. And Augustine and Gregory never said that…it’s only one of the many “conclusions” people erronously come to when they try to understand the EF’s.
Nor does it mean they would view NFP as immoral. Only the Church can know how they understood these things…and we have the answer form the Church…which has been posted over and over again.
I apologize. I did not mean to suggest that I don’t think you understand. I said “**may **not understand”, not “do not understand”.
C
Chrono13
Guest
No quotation given has done much to change my mind. Augustine claimed orgasm transfers original sin to baby. Gregory the great said sex (only) for procreation is ideal, while all other is “not of virtue”. St. Thomas, as Pharsea has noted, had specific view of female sterility and how it is to be approached. The list goes on…
And these things do damage once they are recalled by enemies of the Church.
Let’s try with this…
Church claims NFP was not known prior to 19th century, and this makes their position pretty odd. Not only to faithful, but to people of good faith with elemental knowledge of medicine.
They simply can’t teach this. And they can’t teach Church Fathers had same system of natural law ethics as Humanae Vitae.
A
Abu
Guest
“Lets try this”!! Pure trial and error, unable to assent to infallible doctrine against contraception. We don’t deal in speculation but in facts of biology and the natural law, God-given. Since Christ, who is God, gave us His Church to teach in His Name anyone feeling that they know better has no use for the Son of God and has the same “I” trouble that Adam and Eve had – the arrogance of pride.
Since Christ’s Church built Western civilization through Her faithful sons and daughters, including medicine, such pride is revealing as to the lack of real knowledge and the denigration of Christ through His Magisterium.
There is no licit dissent.
- Status