Is the Church wrong about NFP?

[ahs]

For those interested…the quotes I had discussed with Chrono13:

Gregory the Great’s Regula Pastoralis is commonly cited to show where EF’s saw any sex act that was not procreative being “immoderate”…or something to that effect. It is often used incorrectly, as with other writings, to show how EF’s saw sex as some necessary evil or inherently sinful act. However, here the document proceeds to distinguish between immoderate intercourse and sex outside of the fertile period:

…when the married have intercourse with each other even incontinently, they still avoid lapse into sin, and are still saved through mercy. For they find as it were a little city, wherein to be protected from the fire; since this married life is not indeed marvellous for virtue, but yet is secure from punishment…But the married, in this course of conduct, then preserve their lives as it were in a small city, when they intercede for each other by continual supplications. Whence it is also rightly said by the Angel to the same Lot, See I have accepted your prayers concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city for the which you have spoken Genesis 19:21. For in truth, when supplication is poured out to God, such married life is by no means condemned. Concerning which supplication Paul also admonishes, saying, Defraud not one the other except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer 1 Corinthians 7:5. (Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii)

Still, others may point to St. Thomas Aquinas claiming that he held also to “Augustinian beliefs”.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin. (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)

I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious… (Summa Theologica Supplement Question 41)

Further, even St. Augustine recognized a unitive aspect to intercourse:

For of these certain [goods] are necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning: certain for the sake of health, as meat and drink and sleep: certain for the sake of friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: for hence subsists the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendly fellowship is a great good. (Of the Good of Marriage, Section 9).

Whether one agrees with the teaching on NFP, or not, is irrelevant. The fact is, the Church is clear about its teaching on NFP and to refute that teaching based on one’s own merit is dissent from Church Teaching. The burden of proof is not on those who accept the Teaching of the Church in their submission to Church Authority. The burden therefore becomes a cross to bear…of accepting the Teachings of the Church with faithful obedience even though the teaching may not be understood. (author unknown…someone from this site and I wish I could remember the person…I liked this so much that I copied into a letter I’ve been writing… )

So, in summary, at the very least we must admit that we might really not know exactly what the Early Fathers would have thought about NFP. What we DO know is that the Popes who HAVE spoken directly on the topic, have spoken in direct support of it…with just reasons, of course. In fact, our most recent Pope has once again clarified for us what the Truth of the matter is:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?
   2368-2369
   2399
   The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
2. What are immoral means of birth control?
   2370-2372
   Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation. (Compendium of the Catechism, Pope Benedict XVI)

 

[Nate13]

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.

Have you ever progressed in learning something and come to a greater and greater understanding as you moved on? Is everything you say pure gold the first time you attempt to explain something? Have you ever looked back at something you said earlier in life and thought to yourself how stupid it was? Some of these men were attempting putting words to concepts and teachings for the very first time in ways that people could understand. Their failings are just a look into their progression of thought and how they came to a close and closer understanding of God’s plan.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So I can’t help but wonder the difference between the forms of contraception: why is using a pen and paper (to keep track of the body cycles) any different than a condom? The intended result is the same. Dress it up however you want, both prevent conception.

No one disputes that the intention is the same (if the couple is using NFP to avoid pregnancy).

The intention, however, is not the issue. Such an intention can be moral if good reasons justify it.

The issue is the object of the act itself. Contracepting any given act of intercourse is intrinsically immoral. If one abstains to avoid pregnancy (NFP simply telling them when to do so), it’s not contraception, because there’s no sex going on to contracept.

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

You need to learn the difference between the intention and the object of an act with a moral character.

Does “taking the trouble to obtain facts (temperature) and to discover the best times to have sex and not get pregnant” constitute “doing something to hinder procreation”?

If you mean does it constitute the intention to avoid pregnancy, then yes, of course it does. No one denies this, and the Church is perfectly fine with it (if you have just reasons to do so).

If you mean does it constitute contracepting actual acts of intercourse, then no, it doesn’t. The acts of intercourse that would require contracepting in order to avoid pregnancy don’t happen at all.

The 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.

Well said!

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.

Well said here, too!

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.

Okay, first of all, this statement is an anachronism. NFP didn’t exist before the twentieth century. Guessing at fertile vs. infertile times is not NFP, which uses modern scientific methods to calculate fertile times in a demonstrable and reliable way, with great precision.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

“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)

Thank you for providing the quote.

It seems what he objects to here is the Manichaeans’ ideologically grounded anti-procreative mentality. He objects to the fact that their ideological motive for this practice - avoiding the “entangling” of another soul in flesh - proves that they do not consider procreation a principal reason for sexual activity.

A Catholic couple who uses what NFP shows them to avoid pregnancy are not necessarily proceeding from a motive that inherently denies procreation’s significance in sexual activity. The Manichaeans’ very philosophical worldview is Augustine’s target there.

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.

Precisely.

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.

NFP didn’t exist until modern times.

The notion of avoiding pregnancy by periodic abstinence is older, of course, but only until modern times did we have the science to calculate fertile vs. infertile times reliably.

So it’s perfectly accurate to say that NFP didn’t exist until modern times. We belittle the scientific precision of modern NFP systems if we simply act as though NFP is synonymous with “rhythm methods.” It is absolutely not.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

For those interested…the quotes I had discussed with Chrono13:

Gregory the Great’s Regula Pastoralis is commonly cited to show where EF’s saw any sex act that was not procreative being “immoderate”…or something to that effect. It is often used incorrectly, as with other writings, to show how EF’s saw sex as some necessary evil or inherently sinful act. However, here the document proceeds to distinguish between immoderate intercourse and sex outside of the fertile period:

…when the married have intercourse with each other even incontinently, they still avoid lapse into sin, and are still saved through mercy. For they find as it were a little city, wherein to be protected from the fire; since this married life is not indeed marvellous for virtue, but yet is secure from punishment…But the married, in this course of conduct, then preserve their lives as it were in a small city, when they intercede for each other by continual supplications. Whence it is also rightly said by the Angel to the same Lot, See I have accepted your prayers concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city for the which you have spoken Genesis 19:21. For in truth, when supplication is poured out to God, such married life is by no means condemned. Concerning which supplication Paul also admonishes, saying, Defraud not one the other except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer 1 Corinthians 7:5. (Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii)

Still, others may point to St. Thomas Aquinas claiming that he held also to “Augustinian beliefs”.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin. (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)

I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious… (Summa Theologica Supplement Question 41)

Further, even St. Augustine recognized a unitive aspect to intercourse:

For of these certain [goods] are necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning: certain for the sake of health, as meat and drink and sleep: certain for the sake of friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: for hence subsists the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendly fellowship is a great good. (Of the Good of Marriage, Section 9).

Whether one agrees with the teaching on NFP, or not, is irrelevant. The fact is, the Church is clear about its teaching on NFP and to refute that teaching based on one’s own merit is dissent from Church Teaching. The burden of proof is not on those who accept the Teaching of the Church in their submission to Church Authority. The burden therefore becomes a cross to bear…of accepting the Teachings of the Church with faithful obedience even though the teaching may not be understood. (author unknown…someone from this site and I wish I could remember the person…I liked this so much that I copied into a letter I’ve been writing… )

So, in summary, at the very least we must admit that we might really not know exactly what the Early Fathers would have thought about NFP. What we DO know is that the Popes who HAVE spoken directly on the topic, have spoken in direct support of it…with just reasons, of course. In fact, our most recent Pope has once again clarified for us what the Truth of the matter is:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?
   2368-2369
   2399
   The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
2. What are immoral means of birth control?
   2370-2372
   Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation. (Compendium of the Catechism, Pope Benedict XVI)

Great research! Thank you.

I’m not surprised; I’ve often found that those who dig up anti-sex EF quotes tend to take them out of context at least a little…

 

[Chrono13]

“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.

I’ve just tried to approach my point from different perspective. If biology and natural law were observed different in the past by bishops,their current generation can’t deny that.

This has nothing to do with pride and dissent. One is not a heretic, if he speaks on solid ground of Tradition and Church History. If one is correct, he is so even if mute.

 

[Chrono13]

Husbands and wives are to be admonished to remember that they are joined together for the sake of producing offspring; and, when, giving themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure, to consider that, though they go not outside wedlock yet in wedlock itself they exceed the just dues of wedlock. Whence it is needful that by frequent supplications they do away their having fouled with the admixture of pleasure the fair form of conjugal union… And, while in the most honourable estate of matrimony allowing to them something of pleasure, [St Paul] added, “But this I say by way of indulgence, not by way of command” [1 Corinthians 7.6]. Now where indulgence is spoken of, a fault is implied; but one that is the more readily remitted in that it consists, not in doing what is unlawful, but in not keeping what is lawful under control. Which thing Lot expresses well in his own person, when he flies from burning Sodom, and yet, finding Zoar, does not still ascend the mountain heights. For to fly from burning Sodom is to avoid the unlawful fires of the flesh. But the height of the mountains is the purity of the continent. Or, at any rate, they are as it were upon the mountain, who, though cleaving to carnal intercourse, still, beyond the due association for the production of offspring, are not loosely lost in pleasure of the flesh. For to stand on the mountain is to seek nothing in the flesh except the fruit of procreation. To stand on the mountain is not to cleave to the flesh in a fleshly way. But, since there are many who relinquish indeed the sins of the flesh, and yet, when placed in the state of wedlock, do not observe solely the claims of due intercourse, Lot went indeed out of Sodom, but yet did not at once reach the mountain heights; because a damnable life is already relinquished, but still the loftiness of conjugal continence is not thoroughly attained. But there is midway the city of Zoar, to save the weak fugitive; because, to wit, when the married have intercourse with each other even incontinently, they still avoid lapse into sin, and are still saved through mercy. For they find as it were a little city, wherein to be protected from the fire; since this married life is not indeed marvellous for virtue, but yet is secure from punishment… (Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii)

(Note: first part of paragraph was added for better understanding)

One does not have to be theologian to see what Pope Gregory’s points are. Sexual pleasure is problematic, and even in case of marital embrace fault is implied if the pair does not strive only for fruit of procreation.

However, in case of married couple, embrace without exclusive desire to beget a child is “secure from punishment” (altough not marvellous from virtue). These people are “midway” to perfection.

Church has abandoned this doctrine. We do not claim intention of begetting is standard of calling intercourse moral or not.

There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin. (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)

St. Thomas is much more sex-friendly then the rest of traditional sources. But, traces of stoicism can still be felt. Even above, mutual comfort is act of justice (not love) while taking a wife with lust is small sin.

Thomas, however, clearly rejected NFP:
The emission of the semen then ought to be so directed as that both the proper generation may ensue and the education of the offspring be secured.Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin. I mean a way in which generation is impossible in itself as is the case in every emission of the semen without the natural union of male and female: wherefore such sins are called “sins against nature.” But if it is by accident that generation cannot follow from the emission of the semen, the act is not against nature on that account, nor is it sinful; the case of the woman being barren would be a case in point.

Since infertile period is not an accident, but regular part of human life, intercourse on such day- if done on purpose- is sinful. A pair can have intercourse on that day only if they don’t chart it.

 

[Chrono13]

I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious… (Summa Theologica Supplement Question 41)

Choice of Aquinas’s words suggests Augustinian approach in passage. “Rendering the debt” was still sinful in bishop of Hippo’s notebook.

Further, even St. Augustine recognized a unitive aspect to intercourse:
For of these certain [goods] are necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning: certain for the sake of health, as meat and drink and sleep: certain for the sake of friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: for hence subsists the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendly fellowship is a great good. (Of the Good of Marriage, Section 9).

This quote is surrounded by claims sex without desire of begetting is venial fault. For example, three paragraphs before, saint will write:

Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage.

And later…

Therefore the Apostle allows not marriage as matter “of pardon:” for who can doubt that it is extremely absurd to say, that they have not sinned, unto whom “pardon” is granted. But he allows, as matter of “pardon,” that sexual intercourse, which takes place through incontinence, not alone for the begetting of children, and, at times, not at all for the begetting of children; and it is not that marriage forces this to take place, but that it procures pardon for it; provided however it be not so in excess as to hinder what ought to be set aside as seasons of prayer, nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men. For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust.

These points suggest alternative interpretations of your quote. Mainly, that sex is good for fellowship if done only for procreation.

Whether one agrees with the teaching on NFP, or not, is irrelevant. The fact is, the Church is clear about its teaching on NFP and to refute that teaching based on one’s own merit is dissent from Church Teaching. The burden of proof is not on those who accept the Teaching of the Church in their submission to Church Authority. The burden therefore becomes a cross to bear…of accepting the Teachings of the Church with faithful obedience even though the teaching may not be understood. (author unknown…someone from this site and I wish I could remember the person…I liked this so much that I copied into a letter I’ve been writing… )

Church knew about infertile periods and forbid their observance for exercising sex without procreative intent. There is nothing to agree or disagree about this. One is not heretic or dissident if he quotes objective truth and recalls fact of Church history. As a matter of fact, too many sacrifices were made by layman to follow that ban in the past. We must honor them.

So, in summary, at the very least we must admit that we might really not know exactly what the Early Fathers would have thought about NFP.

We know of their belief in sex as purely procreational activity, which is the root of the ban. And principal reason why tracking fertilty was seen as sinful.

 

[Chrono13]

Have you ever progressed in learning something and come to a greater and greater understanding as you moved on? Is everything you say pure gold the first time you attempt to explain something? Have you ever looked back at something you said earlier in life and thought to yourself how stupid it was? Some of these men were attempting putting words to concepts and teachings for the very first time in ways that people could understand. Their failings are just a look into their progression of thought and how they came to a close and closer understanding of God’s plan.

Just look what we are talking about!

These people said sex is only for begetting children, and claimed all other intercourses are of suspicious nature. Now, do you honestly believe revelation required such theory in order to conclude sex is beautiful (centuries later)? As mentioned, people before “these men” believed otherwise, and also after them. Were they more understandable of God’s plan then theologists?

Do you believe apostoles left Church with teaching that had to evolve to such phase? And one can easily ask, did Catholic layman accept this “phase of revelation” in early centuries, or they had more “Humanae Vitae” approach, claiming joy is actually part of unity, not lust.

 

[ahs]

One does not have to be theologian to see what Pope Gregory’s points are. Sexual pleasure is problematic, and even in case of marital embrace fault is implied if the pair does not strive only for fruit of procreation…

Church has abandoned this doctrine. We do not claim intention of begetting is standard of calling intercourse moral or not.

Apparently one DOES need to be a Theologian to understand it, and a Historian to boot, otherwise there would be no confusion and back-and-forth as we see going on. You can interpret Gregory’s words however you wish…the Church has not abandoned anything, she has CLARIFIED what the TRUTH is. Christ gave Her that duty and Authority, otherwise we’d end up just like the protestants with 40,000+ different interpretations of Scripture, etc… You may not agree with the Church, but She is correct in Her clarification of Truth…over and over again…as She makes it crystal clear what Her position is regarding family planning.

Thomas, however, clearly rejected NFP:
The emission of the semen then ought to be so directed as that both the proper generation may ensue and the education of the offspring be secured.Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; …

That’s where you are getting things mixed up. NFP is not where a couple engages in an act that renders procreation impossible. NFP, if used properly, renders every act that takes place in it natural way…nothing is added or taken away by the couple. NFP is also abstaining during the fertile period. As mentioned already, a couple cannot remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place. The Church has clarified and re-stated this fact time and time again. Sex during the infertile time, for an NFP couple, is still ordered toward procreation because the act is engaged in naturally and that act is conducted whereby the “emission of the semen then [is] so directed as that both the proper generation may ensue and the education of the offspring be secured” should God desire that the wife’s fertility be present at her normally infertile time.

Now, whether you feel that the purposeful timing of sex based on charts is sinful or not…is not relevant. The EF’s never said such a thing and the Church Herself has already spoken. If you disagree, I suggest you write the Pope and let him know that you believe him to be in error.

Since infertile period is not an accident, but regular part of human life, intercourse on such day- if done on purpose- is sinful. A pair can have intercourse on that day only if they don’t chart it.

• PLEASE provide the Church document where this is stated as such…and not something that you can so easily misinterpret or misunderstand…provide where the Church has CLEARLY stated these words.

The issue is the object of the act itself. Contracepting any given act of intercourse is intrinsically immoral. If one abstains to avoid pregnancy (NFP simply telling them when to do so), it’s not contraception, because there’s no sex going on to contracept…

Just look what we are talking about!

These people said sex is only for begetting children, and claimed all other intercourses are of suspicious nature…Do you believe apostoles left Church with teaching that had to evolve to such phase?

“Suspicious nature” does not equal “sinful”. It equals “something that needs more thought or discernment” (in my opinion). The Church is a Living Church, whose Teachings do not change, but constantly grow…from Truth, through Truth, and into Truth. The Church has not contradicted Herself in these Teachings, as one of our past Popes had clarified for us.

At the very least we must admit that we might really not know exactly what the Early Fathers would have thought about NFP. What we DO know is that the Popes who HAVE spoken directly on the topic, have spoken in direct support of it…with just reasons, of course.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Just look what we are talking about!

These people said sex is only for begetting children, and claimed all other intercourses are of suspicious nature. Now, do you honestly believe revelation required such theory in order to conclude sex is beautiful (centuries later)? As mentioned, people before “these men” believed otherwise, and also after them. Were they more understandable of God’s plan then theologists?

Do you believe apostoles left Church with teaching that had to evolve to such phase? And one can easily ask, did Catholic layman accept this “phase of revelation” in early centuries, or they had more “Humanae Vitae” approach, claiming joy is actually part of unity, not lust.

Would Pope Gregory or Saint Thomas Aquinas approve of a pregnant woman having relations with her husband?

 

[manualman]

… I’ve often found that those who dig up anti-sex EF quotes tend to take them out of context at least a little…

Precisely. Chrono appears to have no familiarity with the concept of cultural context. Augustine, like all good writers and speakers, spoke to his audience and addressed what THEY needed to hear in his judgement. Even philosophers and theologians can sometimes phrase remarks in such a way as to be badly misunderstood outside their original context. Chrono utterly fails to consider just how utterly different the Manichean worldview is from ours today and how Augustine’s goal of combatting that affected his choice of words.

For the Manis, creating children was evil. That is the central point you MUST keep in mind when reading Augustine’s writings addressing them. He is speaking to THEM and pointing out to them that if creating children is evil, then there can be no goodness in sexual contact. This is still true today, as evidenced by a couple’s eligibility for annulment if they can prove that one or both NEVER intended to have children.

As for Aquinas, again context. In his day, semen was thought to be the seed and the womb merely soil. It was a mystery as to why that soil was fertile sometimes and not others. From the entirety of Aquinas work, it is clear that he opposed any form of male sexual release that resulted in the semen ending up somewhere other than the “soil.” This writing cannot be extrapolated out to the totally different scientific understanding of sperm and egg to assume that he’d oppose the use of knowledge about when GOD made the woman infertile to decide when to be intimate or not. If you’re going to make that argument, you’d better be ready to show how he opposed post-menopausal couples from being intimate. Betcha a cold beer you can’t!

 

[Nate13]

Would Pope Gregory or Saint Thomas Aquinas approve of a pregnant woman having relations with her husband?

Exactly. If either of these men truly thought having sex when there was no possibility of procreating was wrong, they would have called out the most obvious example of such which is during pregnancy. Provide a quote where any of the Early Church Father’s calls out having sex while pregnant as wrong and we will talk.

In regards to this let me highlight some words for you:

Thomas, however, clearly rejected NFP:
The emission of the semen then ought to be so directed as that both the proper generation may ensue and the education of the offspring be secured.Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin. I mean a way in which generation is impossible in itself as is the case in every emission of the semen without the natural union of male and female: wherefore such sins are called “sins against nature.” But if it is by accident that generation cannot follow from the emission of the semen, the act is not against nature on that account, nor is it sinful; the case of the woman being barren would be a case in point.

Notice St. Thomas says women who are barren are not doing wrong in having sex. Women who are pregnant are not at fault. Women who are not currently fertile are not at fault. I also point to the language he uses where he talks about the act being “directed”. I’m sorry but its very clear to me at least that St. Thomas sees any unaltered act of vaginal intercourse to be directed towards the proper generation of a new life regardless of the fertility of the woman as he specifies himself when he specifies that barrenness would not exclude someone from having sex.

 

[Chrono13]

Apparently one DOES need to be a Theologian to understand it, and a Historian to boot, otherwise there would be no confusion and back-and-forth as we see going on. You can interpret Gregory’s words however you wish…the Church has not abandoned anything, she has CLARIFIED what the TRUTH is. Christ gave Her that duty and Authority, otherwise we’d end up just like the protestants with 40,000+ different interpretations of Scripture, etc… You may not agree with the Church, but She is correct in Her clarification of Truth…over and over again…as She makes it crystal clear what Her position is regarding family planning.

One surely does not have to be theologian to read what Pope wrote, and what he meant by it. Not to mention that most historians (especially those not belonging to Catholic mainstream) agree that sex was only fit for procreation in the past.

Church today does not teach that morality or justability of the marital act is measured by couple’s exclusive will to procreate children. Nor it sees intercourse without such intent as act of lust.

Sex during the infertile time, for an NFP couple, is still ordered toward procreation because the act is engaged in naturally and that act is conducted whereby the “emission of the semen then [is] so directed as that both the proper generation may ensue and the education of the offspring be secured” should God desire that the wife’s fertility be present at her normally infertile time.

This is very problematic. Woman simply can’t beget during infertile period. Unwanted pregnancy occurs if couple does not recognize woman* is fertile*. And this is completely other situation. NFP is not open to life, since life only happens if it fails as control technique.

The semen spilled during infertile period is rejected by woman’s body and thrown outside. Couples having sex on purpose during infertile period do so with desire for semen to be destroyed. This clearly counters Thomastic system of thought that semen must be ejaculated for generation.

And, once again, there is Nives paradox. If God wants child to be begotten, NFP is useless. You will not change God’s will, since outcome of intercourse is not determined by fertility, but by will of The Almighty.

Now, whether you feel that the purposeful timing of sex based on charts is sinful or not…is not relevant. The EF’s never said such a thing and the Church Herself has already spoken. If you disagree, I suggest you write the Pope and let him know that you believe him to be in error.

• PLEASE provide the Church document where this is stated as such…and not something that you can so easily misinterpret or misunderstand…provide where the Church has CLEARLY stated these words.

If we are talking about writings of the saints, we are talking outside of “Church documents” since saints are not sources of them (pontiff and magisterium are). If St. Thomas denied NFP, no Church document will change that.

“Suspicious nature” does not equal “sinful”. It equals “something that needs more thought or discernment” (in my opinion). The Church is a Living Church, whose Teachings do not change, but constantly grow…from Truth, through Truth, and into Truth. The Church has not contradicted Herself in these Teachings, as one of our past Popes had clarified for us.

“Suspicious nature” means it is sinful, but each theologian had specific idea why.

At the very least we must admit that we might really not know exactly what the Early Fathers would have thought about NFP. What we DO know is that the Popes who HAVE spoken directly on the topic, have spoken in direct support of it…with just reasons, of course.

Does that mean we can’t say Popes of the past observed sex in completely other way? The one which would not allow NFP?

 

[Chrono13]

Would Pope Gregory or Saint Thomas Aquinas approve of a pregnant woman having relations with her husband?

Pope Gregory would see it venially sinful. Thomas, I doubt.

 

[Nate13]

Pope Gregory would see it venially sinful. Thomas, I doubt.

Uh Pope Gregory said it would be “an act of justice” as you quoted before. It would only be venial if it resulted in lust, which would have nothing to do with whether it happened while the woman was pregnant or not.

 

[Chrono13]

Exactly. If either of these men truly thought having sex when there was no possibility of procreating was wrong, they would have called out the most obvious example of such which is during pregnancy. Provide a quote where any of the
Early Church Father’s calls out having sex while pregnant as wrong and we will talk.

I believe I have done so with Regula Pastoralis and St. Augustine. Pregnancy is not arbiter of morality- intention is. Sex during this state of womanhood is as sinful as in case woman is not pregnant, and pair “satisfies lust”.

Notice St. Thomas says women who are barren are not doing wrong in having sex. Women who are pregnant are not at fault. Women who are not currently fertile are not at fault. I also point to the language he uses where he talks about the act being “directed”. I’m sorry but its very clear to me at least that St. Thomas sees any unaltered act of vaginal intercourse to be directed towards the proper generation of a new life regardless of the fertility of the woman as he specifies himself when he specifies that barrenness would not exclude someone from having sex.

Infertile period is part of woman’s fertility circle. Meaning, woman in infertile period is not barren, as common sense tells us. To have sex during this period just because it makes conception impossible is problematic (sinful to Thomas?) , since it avoids fertility of a fertile woman.

If you have sex with woman which is infertile because she is infertile, you are having acts which are not directed to proper generation. Case point, Thomas would not allow marrying a sterile woman because she is sterile. Her sterility is an accident, but merrying her because of that is not.

 

[Nate13]

I believe I have done so with Regula Pastoralis and St. Augustine. Pregnancy is not arbiter of morality- intention is. Sex during this state of womanhood is as sinful as in case woman is not pregnant, and pair “satisfies lust”.

Sex is a disordered desire for sexual pleasure. Just seeking sexual pleasure is not lust as long as it is within the proper context. In my mind St. Thomas laid it out very clearly that the proper context is within vaginal intercourse between a married couple. When St. Thomas referred to an “accident” when he was talking about barrenness he wasn’t referring to having sex with a woman when you didn’t know she was barren. He was referring to the state of the woman in being barren as being the accident. Or in other words a woman being infertile at that point and time. By your reasoning a barren woman could not have sex if she knew she was barren. Its only ok as long as she doesn’t know she is barren…

Infertile period is part of woman’s fertility circle. Meaning, woman in infertile period is not barren, as common sense tells us. To have sex during this period just because it makes conception impossible is problematic (sinful to Thomas?) , since it avoids fertility of a fertile woman.

If you have sex with woman which is infertile because she is infertile, you are having acts which are not directed to proper generation. Case point, Thomas would not allow marrying a sterile woman because she is sterile.

“If you have sex with woman which is barren because she is barren, you are having acts which are not directed to proper generation.”

Yes I agree with this statement whether you plug in barren or infertile. The problem is NFP is not about having sex with a woman while she is infertile. Its about not having sex with her while she is fertile assuming serious reason to avoid doing so. Actually though sometimes NFP can be all about having sex with the woman while she is fertile for the purpose of trying to have a baby. There is definitely as much possibility to abuse the situation as there would be if the woman was completely barren though.

 

[Chrono13]

Sex is a disordered desire for sexual pleasure. Just seeking sexual pleasure is not lust as long as it is within the proper context.

That’s not what Early Fathers percieved. They generally viewed sex is either done for procreation, or for lust. In former, it is not sin, in latter, it is tolerable in marriage.

When St. Thomas referred to an “accident” when he was talking about barrenness he wasn’t referring to having sex with a woman when you didn’t know she was barren. He was referring to the state of the woman in being barren as being the accident. Or in other words a woman being infertile at that point and time. By your reasoning a barren woman could not have sex if she knew she was barren. Its only ok as long as she doesn’t know she is barren…

Can’t say that I agree. Thomas uses the same reasoning as most people do. A woman not in fertile period is not considered barren, nor do we say that some accident happened to her. We actually call her fertile, since she has healthy fertility circle.

Thomas by accident means illness or injury which made woman infertile, and this usually meant permanent infertility (being barren).

However, Thomas does not claim such woman should abstinate (and neither have I said otherwise). Since her bareness is accidental, no blame rests on intercourse. But having sex with barren woman becase she is barren is not accidental, since intercourse came because of woman’s bareness.

Even more, a woman which is not barren can have sex during infertile period, as long as it is not because she is infertile. And that means charting is out of the question.

Yes I agree with this statement whether you plug in barren or infertile. The problem is NFP is not about having sex with a woman while she is infertile. Its about not having sex with her while she is fertile assuming serious reason to avoid doing so. Actually though sometimes NFP can be all about having sex with the woman while she is fertile for the purpose of trying to have a baby. There is definitely as much possibility to abuse the situation as there would be if the woman was completely barren though.

Abstinance during fertile period is not an issue, as there is no emmision of semen. Which is not in case if couple charts their ejaculations to infertile period.

 

[lucky4075]

It’s important to remember that while looking at what the early Church fathers had to say about certain things is good and useful to help point you in the right direction, I don’t think any of them were considered individually infallible by themselves. It’s also very important as others have stated to look at what they say in the context of their time period/ experience.

Fact of the matter is the Catholic Church teaches the will of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore “is the Church (with a capital C)” “wrong about such and such” are mutually exclusive statements. The Church would never tell you something is morally sound if it was sinful, its not possible.