Is the Church wrong about NFP?

[Good_Daughter]

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

Pope Gregory wanted married couples admonished in matters of venial sin?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Thomas, however, clearly rejected NFP.

He couldn’t have, since NFP didn’t exist in the thirteenth century.

Let me repeat what you thus far refuse to admit: “NFP” does not refer to abstaining to avoid pregnancy. “NFP” refers to exclusively modern scientific methods which calculate with great precision a woman’s fertile and infertile times by charting her natural cycle.

Stop with the academically sloppy anachronisms.

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.

(a) All of your analyses of the quotes you’ve provided fail to distinguish between the object and the intention of a particular instance of the marital embrace.

(b) Perhaps more significantly, these Church fathers and theologians rightfully express reservations about spouses’ using each other for mere pleasure - as opposed to the act’s true unitive purpose, what St. Thomas called “mutual comfort.” The Church today agrees with them that such utilitarian use of sex is wrong - but these same fathers and theologians leave unaddressed the possibility or impossibility of rendering “mutual comfort” and using sex properly in a unitive sense, while still intending to avoid pregnancy. Without the context of that possibility, of course they forbade attempts to take advantage of a woman’s cycle to avoid pregnancy. The very reason they found it problematic can indeed make it problematic, as the Church acknowledges today. The only difference is that today the Church’s teaching has considered the matter enough to be able to describe more accurately when it would be okay and when it wouldn’t.

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!

The clarity and insight of your replies are admirable and most useful, manualman!

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

The act still is. The intention is not. Distinctions, distinctions…

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.

Some of them do seem to have that view: the fact that it is a false dichotomy, however, is what justifies the Church’s development on this issue.

What happens if the couple’s motive is neither procreation nor lust?

They didn’t consider that possibility. The Church today has.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

One can only agree to what you are saying. But fundamentally, no Church document ever dealt with this specific stream of teaching in the past. And it made huge difference.

As a matter of fact, most official sources are avoiding to note that this phase ever existed in Church history. As a matter of fact, many unofficial sources are claiming it never happened.

 

[Chrono13]

Pope Gregory wanted married couples admonished in matters of venial sin?

What do you mean by word in italics?

 

[Chrono13]

He couldn’t have, since NFP didn’t exist in the thirteenth century.

Let me repeat what you thus far refuse to admit: “NFP” does not refer to abstaining to avoid pregnancy. “NFP” refers to exclusively modern scientific methods which calculate with great precision a woman’s fertile and infertile times by charting her natural cycle.

Stop with the academically sloppy anachronisms.

How could I refuse to admit such plain fact?

What I say is that limiting sexual activity to infertile periods was known technique long before Thomas. And using these periods to have sex without procreative outcome was seen contrary to virtue. The fact that science has developed does not change that practice was condemned by default. It’s not detection, but what you do with detected.

(a) All of your analyses of the quotes you’ve provided fail to distinguish between the object and the intention of a particular instance of the marital embrace.

I must say, if I proved one thing, it is that subject, object and intention are very clear in Early Church Fathers. Sex (object) is just only if couple (subject) wants children in intercourse (intention). If they don’t, they are sinning venially- something modern approach denies.

](b) Perhaps more significantly, these Church fathers and theologians rightfully express reservations about spouses’ using each other for mere pleasure - as opposed to the act’s true unitive purpose, what St. Thomas called "mutual comfort."The Church today agrees with them that such utilitarian use of sex is wrong

But Church Fathers expressed opinion that couples are using each other every time they have sex without desire for children.

The act still is. The intention is not. Distinctions, distinctions…

Of course. But *intention *is what counts in St. Thomas. Having sex with infertile woman is neutral act. Having sex with woman because she infertile is intention.

Some of them do seem to have that view: the fact that it is a false dichotomy, however, is what justifies the Church’s development on this issue.

Church stance surely did not have to develop over doctrine that sex is bad if not practiced for procreation. Also, the fact that Casti Connubii stresses so much Augustine, but never reflects his objective stance seems problematic (at least to me).

What happens if the couple’s motive is neither procreation nor lust?

They didn’t consider that possibility. The Church today has.

Yes. After 2000 years of layman saying it all along.

 

[Nate13]

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.

A quote in one your own posts speaks against this simplistic approach:

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)

However lets ask ourselves why they didn’t get that sex for “mutual comfort” was as important as it was? I believe its based in the fact that a woman was seen as to be fertile 100% of time even if at times a woman was more fertile than others. By the principles of natural law, they came to the conclusion that God created every act of intercourse to be fertile and capable of childbearing. It seemed apparent that this was the overriding purpose of sex above all others. Based on their knowledge this would be the right assumption. However we came to realize that women are really only created to be fertile 1/3 of the month. Applying the same principles of natural law with this knowledge we reach different conclusions about the importance of “mutual comfort” than Aquinas would have. Aquinas’ line of thought was not wrong though, he just reached a slightly different understanding because of the knowledge he was basing his conclusions on.

You can refuse to acknowledge this difference, and ignore the principles of thought Aquinas and Gregory were operating under or you can appreciate the principles they put words to and reach see how the conclusions they reached were based on the knowledge they had at the time. If you have read JPII’s writings on this subject you would notice how he uses the same principles that St. Thomas did while applying the knowledge we have of the human body today. The Theology of the Body is all about learning about God by studying our bodies which were created in his likeness.

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).

Exactly, he thought the only reason a woman would be infertile at any given point is by accident or by purposefully trying to make themselves infertile. When he applied the principles of natural law to this, he came to the conclusions he did. However we now know differently about women’s fertility and thus we reach different slightly different conclusions when we apply the principles of natural law.

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 because she is barren is not accidental, since intercourse came because of woman’s bareness.

Is a woman being infertile 2/3rd’s of the month her fault? No its not… thus the same line of thought applies here as does to barrenness. We can actually deduce what St. Thomas would have concluded if he had known how a woman’s body actually worked from what he said about barrenness. A woman has no more control over being barren than she does being infertile 2/3rds of the month.

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.

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.

Your assumptions make complete sense if you believe women to be fertile 100% of the time. The fact is we know better now and this has an impact on how the principles of natural law are applied. If your curious as to why this changes things read the Theology of the Body.

 

[lucky4075]

“As a matter of fact, most official sources are avoiding to note that this phase ever existed in Church history. As a matter of fact, many unofficial sources are claiming it never happened.”

I don’t think I understand what you are saying, what phrase? NFP? ‘NFP’ as we would commonly call it hasnt been around all that long. What matters to us today in 2011 is what the Church teaches. Teaching doesn’t change, it becomes clarified over time. The early fathers disagreed about many different things, thankfully today we live in a time when we have clarity over those issues.

 

[Chrono13]

However lets ask ourselves why they didn’t get that sex for “mutual comfort” was as important as it was? I believe its based in the fact that a woman was seen as to be fertile 100% of time even if at times a woman was more fertile than others. By the principles of natural law, they came to the conclusion that God created every act of intercourse to be fertile and capable of childbearing. It seemed apparent that this was the overriding purpose of sex above all others. Based on their knowledge this would be the right assumption. However we came to realize that women are really only created to be fertile 1/3 of the month. Applying the same principles of natural law with this knowledge we reach different conclusions about the importance of “mutual comfort” than Aquinas would have. Aquinas’ line of thought was not wrong though, he just reached a slightly different understanding because of the knowledge he was basing his conclusions on.

Do you think it is possible to say that Aquinas would not change his opinion even with knowledge we have today?

It’s pretty basic really. If intention is all that matters, why would more precise knowledge of cycle change anything? Thomas would probably allow sex during infertile period, but would counter charting it, since it would be direct attempt to frustrate generation.

You can refuse to acknowledge this difference, and ignore the principles of thought Aquinas and Gregory were operating under or you can appreciate the principles they put words to and reach see how the conclusions they reached were based on the knowledge they had at the time. If you have read JPII’s writings on this subject you would notice how he uses the same principles that St. Thomas did while applying the knowledge we have of the human body today. The Theology of the Body is all about learning about God by studying our bodies which were created in his likeness.

Gregory certainly wouldn’t sign Theology of the body. This has nothing to do with his surrounding culture or level of medical science present during his age. It was simply matter of intention that made intercourse fine or not. Ideal was sex only for procreation, and everything else was observed through that standard.

Exactly, he thought the only reason a woman would be infertile at any given point is by accident or by purposefully trying to make themselves infertile. When he applied the principles of natural law to this, he came to the conclusions he did. However we now know differently about women’s fertility and thus we reach different slightly different conclusions when we apply the principles of natural law.

I can only speak once again that scientific advancement has not brought anything new for Thomastic thought. If man ejaculates in woman because science tells him she is infertile, that is slippery terrain.

Is a woman being infertile 2/3rd’s of the month her fault? No its not… thus the same line of thought applies here as does to barrenness. We can actually deduce what St. Thomas would have concluded if he had known how a woman’s body actually worked from what he said about barrenness. A woman has no more control over being barren than she does being infertile 2/3rds of the month.

And again, these things are of little importance. If she knows that she is infertile or barren, it makes no difference. Problems arise if she has sex precisely because she is in that state.

Your assumptions make complete sense if you believe women to be fertile 100% of the time. The fact is we know better now and this has an impact on how the principles of natural law are applied. If your curious as to why this changes things read the Theology of the Body.

I believe my assumptions hold sense no matter the woman’s fertility.

Theology of the body did not answer my questions. Let’s say it’s my fault.

 

[Chrono13]

“As a matter of fact, most official sources are avoiding to note that this phase ever existed in Church history. As a matter of fact, many unofficial sources are claiming it never happened.”

I don’t think I understand what you are saying, what phrase? NFP? ‘NFP’ as we would commonly call it hasnt been around all that long. What matters to us today in 2011 is what the Church teaches. Teaching doesn’t change, it becomes clarified over time. The early fathers disagreed about many different things, thankfully today we live in a time when we have clarity over those issues.

I was reffering to phase of teaching that sex is only for procreation. It was quite long, and quite influental.

 

[Nate13]

Do you think it is possible to say that Aquinas would not change his opinion even with knowledge we have today?

It’s pretty basic really. If intention is all that matters, why would more precise knowledge of cycle change anything? Thomas would probably allow sex during infertile period, but would counter charting it, since it would be direct attempt to frustrate generation.

Yes I know he would change his opinion and clarify his position based on his stance on barrenness. He believe infertility was a “abnormal” condition. Current knowledge shows it to be a normal condition 2/3rds of the time in women.

Gregory certainly wouldn’t sign Theology of the body. This has nothing to do with his surrounding culture or level of medical science present during his age. It was simply matter of intention that made intercourse fine or not. Ideal was sex only for procreation, and everything else was observed through that standard.

Yes, its based on the assumption that every act of intercourse was inherently designed to be fertile. This is incredibly important if you understand how natural law works. Instead based on current knowledge of how a woman’s body works we see that women were designed so that almost 2/3rds of the time sex is inherently infertile. This fact shows that the unitive function of sex is just as important as the procreative aspect. They thought infertility was always an “abnormal” state. Now we find that infertility has been designed as a “normal” state a majority of the time in women. This is why we needed the Theology of the Body.

I can only speak once again that scientific advancement has not brought anything new for Thomastic thought. If man ejaculates in woman because science tells him she is infertile, that is slippery terrain.

And again, these things are of little importance. If she knows that she is infertile or barren, it makes no difference. Problems arise if she has sex precisely because she is in that state.

I believe my assumptions hold sense no matter the woman’s fertility.

Theology of the body did not answer my questions. Let’s say it’s my fault.

You are correct. Thomastic thought remains the same and was correct. The new knowledge shows that it applies differently than he would have believed.

I’d also point out the contradiction in your own reasoning. On the one hand you say Thomas was ok with sex when a woman was barren even if she knowingly had sex while she was barren. On the other hand though you say having sex while a woman is infertile is wrong if she knows she is infertile.

 

[Nate13]

I was reffering to phase of teaching that sex is only for procreation. It was quite long, and quite influental.

Based on the belief that all sex was fertile. They were right in their line of thought and their application of principles to the knowledge they had. The knowledge they had though was wrong and thus the conclusions change slightly when you change the knowledge the conclusions were based on.

Another way of thinking about this is they had an argument based on premises. One of their premises was wrong. The theology of the body took the argument, fixed the premise, and came to new conclusions.

 

[Chrono13]

Yes I know he would change his opinion and clarify his position based on his stance on barrenness. He believe infertility was a “abnormal” condition. Current knowledge shows it to be a normal condition 2/3rds of the time in women.

I’m pretty sure Thomas knew that not every sexual act would end in conception. What was his explanation or belief regarding this is unknown. He certainly did not call woman which did not beget after sex barren or infertile.

Yes, its based on the assumption that every act of intercourse was inherently designed to be fertile. This is incredibly important if you understand how natural law works. Instead based on current knowledge of how a woman’s body works we see that women were designed so that almost 2/3rds of the time sex is inherently infertile. This fact shows that the unitive function of sex is just as important as the procreative aspect. They thought infertility was always an “abnormal” state. Now we find that infertility has been designed as a “normal” state a majority of the time in women. This is why we needed the Theology of the Body.

I don’t think that Theology of the Body was triggered because science revealed 2/3rds of cycle is barren. After all, why would infertile period mean sex is meant to be unitive? Unity in marriage is not bound by (in)fertility.

To Thomas, natural law is that emission of semen is directed towards generation. Or, better said, that it is not directed towards anything else. In case of NFP, semen is directed to it’s own demise.

You are correct. Thomastic thought remains the same and was correct. The new knowledge shows that it applies differently than he would have believed.

I am open to suggestion that Thomas would not see newfound facts in that way.

I’d also point out the contradiction in your own reasoning. On the one hand you say Thomas was ok with sex when a woman was barren even if she knowingly had sex while she was barren. On the other hand though you say having sex while a woman is infertile is wrong if she knows she is infertile.

If woman knows she is infertile, and simply because of this reason she engages in sexual intercourse, then act is done precisely because generation can not occur.

If woman knows she is infertile, but has sex for other reasons (such as marital comfort), act is not done because generation can not occur as is thus acceptable.

Marrying a woman which is barren is not a sin. Marrying her because she is barren is a sin.

 

[Chrono13]

Based on the belief that all sex was fertile. They were right in their line of thought and their application of principles to the knowledge they had. The knowledge they had though was wrong and thus the conclusions change slightly when you change the knowledge the conclusions were based on.

Another way of thinking about this is they had an argument based on premises. One of their premises was wrong. The theology of the body took the argument, fixed the premise, and came to new conclusions.

They did not believe all sex was fertile, and even if they have, this wouldn’t change much. For Church Fathers, it was intention of the couple to concieve that mattered the most. No matter the fertility, or act.

Theology of the body never acknowledged previous bans were formed on medical mistake. It’s promoters always speak of “constant tradition”, not “new conclusions” or “premises which were wrong and are now fixed.”

 

[Nate13]

I’m pretty sure Thomas knew that not every sexual act would end in conception. What was his explanation or belief regarding this is unknown. He certainly did not call woman which did not beget after sex barren or infertile.

Yes, but I believe he would have argued every act had the potential for conception don’t you? Even with our current understanding of women this is true in principle. Every act of vaginal intercourse normally has the potential for conception. He talked about every act of sexual intercourse being “directed” towards procreation. That wording sounds incredibly similar to current Church teaching doesn’t it…

I don’t think that Theology of the Body was triggered because science revealed 2/3rds of cycle is barren. After all, why would infertile period mean sex is meant to be unitive? Unity in marriage is not bound by (in)fertility.

To Thomas, natural law is that emission of semen is directed towards generation. Or, better said, that it is not directed towards anything else. In case of NFP, semen is directed to it’s own demise.

No, the fact that 2/3rds of sex is close to 100% infertile implies that the procreative function is not 100% the purpose of sex. How could anyone claim the procreative function was the only reason for sex when sex is only really fertile 1/3rd of the time? The fact that 2/3rds of sex is almost completely infertile implies the unitive function of sex is much more important than thought beforehand. The unitive function went from being an added benefit, to an equally important purpose to the procreative purpose of sex.

“To Thomas, natural law is that emission of semen is directed towards generation.”

The Church uses very similar language to this and takes it to mean very simply that tab A must go into slot B during the actual act in order for it to be directed towards generation. What makes you believe that Thomas thought it meant more than that?

I am open to suggestion that Thomas would not see newfound facts in that way.

If woman knows she is infertile, and simply because of this reason she engages in sexual intercourse, then act is done precisely because generation can not occur.

Agreed, this would be wrong.

If woman knows she is infertile, but has sex for other reasons (such as marital comfort), act is not done because generation can not occur as is thus acceptable.

Agreed. This is what NFP is about. NFP is not about having sex because a woman is infertile. The couple is having sex for the unitive purpose of sex, i.e marital comfort.

Marrying a woman which is barren is not a sin. Marrying her because she is barren is a sin.

Agreed.

 

[Abu]

The fundamental errors of those against Christ’s Church is to presume that She is unable to teach infallibly, and to fail to understand the consensus of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

St. John Chrysostom also affirmed the sacrament of love in marriage and acknowledged the unitive purpose:
“The procreation of children in marriage is the ‘heritage’ and ‘reward’ of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3). It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into ‘one flesh’ (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.). The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the ‘sacrament of love.’” 19
Note:
19. St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Ephesians 20, PG.
forum.ancient-future.net/index.php?showtopic=315

The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”
The reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
[cmri.org/03-nfp.htm]](http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.htm])

Catholic Medical Weekly
cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/03/on-contraception.html
A great website:
“Pope Sixtus, in the late 1500’s, condemned simultaneously contraception and abortion.[10] The Holy Office under Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) handed down several decisions condemning contraception, noting that the wrongness of contraception is a wrong against human nature. That is, it is not a “situational” wrong, but is a universal wrong against the nature of man, as is abortion and infanticide.[11]
[W. E. May, *Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000.
[10] pg 144
[11] pg. 371.”

 

[Nimeniton]

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

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

.

Perhaps you need to give your opponents some credit! However, intention is tied up with the morality of the action in this case. When you have sex during a known infertile period you have both the act and the intention. In this case the intention is to avoid procreation and the deliberate carrying out of the sexual act ensures it. So you have both intention and object

I]It is a commonplace among moralists that the intention is the chief among the determinants of the concrete morality of a human actnewadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm

Abelard holds that only intention matters in determining whether an act is good or bad. tb.becket.net/writ-abelard.html

The morality of any act is based on three fonts (or sources):

(1) the intention or purpose for which the act is done,
(2) the inherent moral meaning of the act as determined by its moral object,
(3) the circumstances of the act, especially the consequences.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm#01

1. The intention is to avoid procreation
   2.The act of avoiding procreation is wrong
   3.The consequences of the act is that procreation is avoided

 

[Abu]

Nimeniton #75,

1. The intention is to avoid procreation
   2.The act of avoiding procreation is wrong
   3.The consequences of the act is that procreation is avoided

The action is not using God-given probably fertile periods for serious reasons. Co-operation with God is what Catholics are meant to follow.

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].

 

[melt7355]

I was happy to hear from the person who addressed the issue of having intercourse after the productive age. I was about to question the morality of sex after menopause, not for my own purposes but for the purpose of argument. I think part of the reason the church fathers condemned sex during the infertile period was because so few babies at that time lived after birth. Preventing pregnancy was in effect preventing the furthering of the human race. The question of sex after menopuase follows on the same lines. During the MIddle Ages, people rarely lived beyond their reproductive years. So the issue was moot. Things are different today. People are living longer and babies are surviving. That does not mean I support the idea of birth control. However, I would like to ask how couples like the Duggars (who are not Catholic but espouse the same ideas on birth control) actually support so many children? Is the Catholic Church prepared to assist couples who give birth to more children than they can afford?

 

[ahs]

Hi, I could not tell if you were asking these just to make a point or if you were really wanting an answer…so I’ll answer just in case.

… I would like to ask how couples like the Duggars (who are not Catholic but espouse the same ideas on birth control) actually support so many children?

They are frugal and earn enough income to financially support that many children. God gives them the Grace for everything else.

Is the Catholic Church prepared to assist couples who give birth to more children than they can afford?

In so far as offering the Sacraments and a place to worship, and aiding those in need, yes, the Church is always there to help. But it is not the Church’s responsibility to provide for each family. That is the responsibility of the parents. That is why a couple must prayerfully discern and make wise decisions about whether or not to space the birth of children, all the while, living in accordance with God’s Truth.

 

[Ana_v]

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.

Does this mean that the marriages between the saints who lived as brother and sister – never consumated the marriage – were invalid marriages (presuming they entered the marriage without the intention of consumating, and therefore without the intention of ever having children)?