Is the Church wrong about NFP?

[Chrono13]

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…

However, acts of NFP are directed towards refusal of semen, and as such have no potential for conception. Conception only occurs if the intention fails to realize.

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.

I eagerly await papal encyclical which will say knowledge of menstural cycle prooved sex is 33% procreative

Sorry. I know what you mean, and logic which you use. But realization that woman is fertile in rythmic manner did not trigger theological thought. Laymen were telling clergy that sex is unitive long before that. Simply because it is so evident in act itself.

Also, if it is natural to be infertile for a woman, artificial contraception would also be allowed, since it would simply create something natural.

“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?

Since NFP says slot A goes to slot B only when slot B is not working And if it is done on purpose, you can put slot A wherever you want.

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.

Of course NFP is all about woman being infertile. Couple is having sex on specific day to thwart procreation, not because this day makes unity better. As a matter of fact, unity must exist even if intercourse is done on fertile day.

Agreed.

Then, NFP is evil ,because pair knowing woman is infertile, is having sex because she is infertile.

 

[Chrono13]

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

Chrysostom had some wonderful thoughts, even when he spoke about marital sex. Too bad that didn’t follow up.

He was also sometimes very strict about same things

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.”

Actually, Pope Sixtus commanded judges to kill those using and selling contraceptives, since they were seen as assasins.

Are we to obey?

 

[bltp2011]

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)?

I don’t think so… Our Blessed Lady and St. Joseph entered marriage without the intention of consumating it, yet their marriage is considered valid, right? They had the intention, and actually nevery consumated it.

 

[Chrono13]

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].

A lot of questions arise.

First, there is no such thing as “probably fertile periods” if God is master of creation. No child will avoid it’s conception, neither will it be concieved if Lord does not wish it that way.

This generally makes NFP quite useless in natural law. If nature is under God, and pair is open to life, they will not effect conception by charting.

Second, if there is nothing to contracept in case of NFP, then why should couple use it only for serious reasons? There is nothing in the act suggesting such approach.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 #83
if there is nothing to contracept in case of NFP, then why should couple use it only for serious reasons? There is nothing in the act suggesting such approach.

This poster exhibits an alarming inability to reason and confuses everything for himself, all the time.

NBR has been discovered by Catholics to enable the married to conform to God’s natural moral law. Faithful married Catholics know that to refuse to offer and receive the procreative and unitive truths of marriage by any means are serious evils unless they abstain from the marital act for just and serious reasons.

Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 16:
“The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

“But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”

there is no such thing as “probably fertile periods” if God is master of creation. No child will avoid it’s conception, neither will it be concieved if Lord does not wish it that way.
This generally makes NFP quite useless in natural law. If nature is under God, and pair is open to life, they will not effect conception by charting.

There is no such thing as 100% certainty by which we know, without exception, always what will occur – instead a high expectation which is precisely what we expect with NBR which follows God’s created human nature as He made it for us to know and understand.

It is Her faith in reason, in accord with fidelity to Christ’s teaching, which resulted in the Catholic Church building Western civilization.

Natural Birth Regulation is very effective when used sensibly. NFP families, whether Couple to Couple or Billings followers, report an astonishingly low divorce rate — one informal study puts it at 1.3 percent, as compared with about 50 percent in society at large. Natural Birth Regulation is natural, avoids the devastating effects of the “pill”, encourages self control and respect for the dignity of human life, and is of the order of 99% effective among the uneducated. Mercedes Wilson claims an effectiveness rate of 99 percent among “the poorest of the poor” in Guatemala. “There’s no excuse anymore to pretend that only those with strong religious convictions can follow natural family planning,” she writes.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Having sex with infertile woman is neutral act. Having sex with woman because she infertile is intention.

**But when a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy has intercourse, their motive is not “because she is infertile.” That is the condition that allows them - *in *their particular motive - to do so.

Their intention is what Saint Thomas described as “rendering mutual comfort.”**

If man ejaculates in woman because science tells him she is infertile, that is slippery terrain.

You know Church teaching today doesn’t disagree with this. It depends on whether the couple has just reasons for attempting to postpone pregnancy.

This is entirely compatible with Sacred Tradition, which - as expressed in the quotes you’ve provided - expresses reservations about taking advantage of the infertile period, recommends against it, etc. Nowhere is it regarded as objectively sinful, since, well, self-evidently the object of the act is not at issue.

Do you see the continuity here between then and today, Chrono?

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])

Thanks for the citation, Abu. Such quotes are great for context.

It is a commonplace among moralists that the intention is the chief among the determinants of the concrete morality of a human act

newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm

I believe that - as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, and as I’m sure Chrono and others believe as well - that all three components of a moral act - object, intention, and circumstances - must be morally acceptable for the act to be good.

If even one of those is morally corrupt, the act itself is immoral.

So we agree and do not dispute that the intention must be good or neutral for the act to be ethically acceptable.

1. The intention is to avoid procreation

Not necessarily immoral from the Catholic perspective if there are just reasons for it, as numerous citations in this thread attest, like the Pius IX one from Abu that I quoted above.

2.The act of avoiding procreation is wrong

“Avoiding procreation” is a motive, not an act’s object. It belongs more in the purview of intention. The objects of moral acts that are relevant for this discussion are:

sexual intercourse
contracepting/sterilizing an act of intercourse

Thus the object of the acts involved are not in dispute among those in this thread: we all agree that the object of sexual intercourse is morally acceptable, and we all agree that contracepting/sterilizing an act of intercourse is intrinsically immoral.

The question is on whether it is ever morally legitimate to take advantage of a woman’s infertile period to avoid pregnancy. While there are potential moral dangers to this practice, the theology and philosophy behind the matter, as well as consistent Church teaching, show that this can be morally acceptable for appropriate reasons.

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)?

That’s a great question, to which I don’t know the answer. I think it counts as marriage in some sense, although self-evidently it’s a rather different arrangement with different purposes than regular earthly marriage.

Sort of like the marriage between the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph: valid marriage? Yes. Marriage by the definition we normally expect on an earthly level? No, it’s something very different and unique.

 

[mathematoons]

In our contraceptive culture, it’s hard not to rebel against everything that looks even a little bit like contraception.

However, we can agree that abstaining during fertile periods is not a sin. The issue is sex during infertile periods. If that’s a sin, then married couples are stuck only having sex a few days a month. I’m not called to marriage, so I can only imagine how much harder that would be than NFP.

Furthermore, you can only use NFP for grave reasons. A lot of people seem to miss this.

Still, I have trouble with this teaching. My priest says everyone has trouble with at least one doctrine, because God’s ways are not ours.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

In our contraceptive culture, it’s hard not to rebel against everything that looks even a little bit like contraception.

However, we can agree that abstaining during fertile periods is not a sin. The issue is sex during infertile periods. If that’s a sin, then married couples are stuck only having sex a few days a month. I’m not called to marriage, so I can only imagine how much harder that would be than NFP.

Furthermore, you can only use NFP for grave reasons. A lot of people seem to miss this.

Still, I have trouble with this teaching. My priest says everyone has trouble with at least one doctrine, because God’s ways are not ours.

I do not believe the bolded wording above is correct. My Catechism says, at No. 2368 : “For ***just ***reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children.” (Emphasis mine.) The “just” standard would seem to be very different than “grave.”

 

[Good_Daughter]

What do you mean by word in italics?

To admonish is to give strong instruction. You would admonish about something important.

You note that Pope Gregory wanted husbands and wives “admonished to remember that they are joined together for the sake of producing offspring”. That didn’t mean they had to try or desire to make a baby every time they had relations. If it did, a great number of pregnant and menopausal women (who knew themselves incapable of conceiving) would have been barred from relations with their husbands. No such restriction has ever been part of Catholic teaching.

 

[Nimeniton]

The action is not using God-given probably fertile periods for serious reasons.

.

I do not know what serious reasons you have in mind but I can’t think of any that would not apply to the use of natural and artificial contraceptive methods alike. And all artificial methods are condemned irrespective of intention and/or result. NFP is often defended on the grounds that it is not avoiding pregnancy but merely postponing it; the babies are being spaced out or such like. But those who use artificial methods can and do use them with exactly the same motivation. It is probably also true that some use artificial and natural methods intending never to become pregnant. So the only consistent difference is the artificiality or considered naturalness of the methods used.

One certainly gets the impression that the ethics in this case is based on the assumption that natural is good and artificial is bad - a questionable assumption in my opinion.Personally, I would consider taking one’s temperature every day to identify fertile and infertile periods as not exactly natural!

 

[Nimeniton]

…

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN):
“…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…”

I just want to emphasize that I have just addressed this in my response to your own personal quote. In effect I point out not only the results but the intention can be the same with NFP and artificial contraception. With due respect to the late father he does not seem to have addressed that the intention can be the same in both cases (or even countenanced it as a possibilty?).

 

[Abu]

Nimeniton #89
But those who use artificial methods can and do use them with exactly the same motivation.
#90: In effect I point out not only the results but the intention can be the same with NFP and artificial contraception. With due respect to the late father he does not seem to have addressed that the intention can be the same in both cases (or even countenanced it as a possibilty?).

The revered Fr Stephen Torraco, post #76, makes clear;

1. “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.”
   So here we have the unbridgeable gulf between NBR and contraception.
2. intent
   Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on June-16-2006:
   “First of fall, it should be pointed out that the prevention of conception is NOT the primary purpose of natural family planning. The primary purpose of NFP is to enable husband and wife to cooperate with God as co-creators as knowingly and as willingly as possible. In so doing, husband and wife deepen their marital bond and their exclusively marital spirituality.
   Secondly, NFP is morally legitimate as a means of prevention of conception for serious reasons and contraception is not because NFP respects and does not violate the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act in God’s created design. Contraception violates that link. Taking insulin and high blood pressure medicine has as its aim assisting God’s created design in the human body. Contraception has no such aim. It aims at violating that design.”
   tinyurl.com/cgr8x5c

Fr Torraco has certainly pointed out that NBR may be misused, as can any good in life, by referring to “for the sake of argument, for serious reasons” – see post #76. Reasons must be serious and just.

In *Casti Connubii *(II, 59), 1930, issued after the Anglican rupture in 1930 of the common understanding up to that time against contraception, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

 

[Nimeniton]

The revered Fr Stephen Torraco, post #76, makes clear;

1. “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.”
   So here we have the unbridgeable gulf between NBR and contraception.

The procreative meaning, I have assumed to mean the intention to procreate but the use of the infertile period is a deliberate act to avoid procreation **at that time. ** if not necessarily permanently.With regard to the unitive meaning, I am assuming this means something like giving mutual comfort and strengthening the marriage relationship. Both these meanings/intentions are available for those couples who use artificial contraception.

What is not clear to me is what rupture he is speaking of for what can apply in one case also seems to apply in another case. Why is there no such rupture in NFP?

 

[otjm]

Discussions such as this amuse me; I was always taught that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and will always protect the Church in matters of both Faith and Morals. which is another way of saying that the Church cannot err when teaching either Faith or Morals. An since NFP is allowed by the Church, which in doing so is teaching about Morals, why is the question posed?

Sorry if this gets a bit close to “The Church said it, I believe it, and that ends it”, but we would not have such discussions were people to accept the first sentence.

 

[Chrono13]

This poster exhibits an alarming inability to reason and confuses everything for himself, all the time.

NBR has been discovered by Catholics to enable the married to conform to God’s natural moral law. Faithful married Catholics know that to refuse to offer and receive the procreative and unitive truths of marriage by any means are serious evils unless they abstain from the marital act for just and serious reasons.

Once again- if there is nothing to contracept during infertile period, why is the technique used only in cases of just and serious reasons? Humanae Vitae does not offer clarification on this issue.

There is no such thing as 100% certainty by which we know, without exception, always what will occur – instead a high expectation which is precisely what we expect with NBR which follows God’s created human nature as He made it for us to know and understand.

Negative- each conception is ALWAYS willed by God, as well as each lack of conception. NBR is not “efficent” since it does not interfere with outcome of the act. Using NBR will not evade child which is bound to be born, neither will it concieve child which is not in God’s plan.

Natural Birth Regulation is very effective when used sensibly. NFP families, whether Couple to Couple or Billings followers, report an astonishingly low divorce rate — one informal study puts it at 1.3 percent, as compared with about 50 percent in society at large. Natural Birth Regulation is natural, avoids the devastating effects of the “pill”, encourages self control and respect for the dignity of human life, and is of the order of 99% effective among the uneducated. Mercedes Wilson claims an effectiveness rate of 99 percent among “the poorest of the poor” in Guatemala. “There’s no excuse anymore to pretend that only those with strong religious convictions can follow natural family planning,” she writes.

Initial (and official) research leading to Humanae Vitae showed completely other picture. If I remember the number correctly, cca. 70% of Roman Catholics who participated in research reported technique is lowering the quality of their marriage. These were people loyal to the Rome, and were asked to tell the truth as if it is their duty.

Lower divorce in case of couples using NFP can be tied to their religious backgrond. Most people using the technique are practicing Catholics who are forbidden to divorce and remarry. This makes things much more different.

And, once again, there is no such thing as “efficiency” of NBR. If God wants a child to be begotten, nothing is efficent to stop or lower the outcome.

 

[Chrono13]

But when a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy has intercourse, their motive is not “because she is infertile.” That is the condition that allows them - *in *their particular motive - to do so.

Their intention is what Saint Thomas described as “rendering mutual comfort.”

Mutual comfort is not bounded by fertiltiy (meaning, it has to be practiced even during fertile periods). Act is done because she is infertile, (with intention that semen will be destroyed after ejaculation).

This is entirely compatible with Sacred Tradition, which - as expressed in the quotes you’ve provided - expresses reservations about taking advantage of the infertile period, recommends against it, etc. Nowhere is it regarded as objectively sinful, since, well, self-evidently the object of the act is not at issue.

Do you see the continuity here between then and today, Chrono?

The writings of the saints refer to the different approach to the doctrine. One which claims using infertile period in order to have sex without conception is unacceptable.

While I understand your approach, we simply can’t bypass the evident. To say these two doctrines are same, or are capable to co-exist is slippery terrain.

I believe that - as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, and as I’m sure Chrono and others believe as well - that all three components of a moral act - object, intention, and circumstances - must be morally acceptable for the act to be good.

If even one of those is morally corrupt, the act itself is immoral.

Fine, but it still doesn’t change my point. Intending to have relation without procreation was unacceptable by Church Fathers, and any action- natural or not- which was used to achieve this intent was unaccepted too.

So we agree and do not dispute that the intention must be good or neutral for the act to be ethically acceptable.

We can do even that. Where we differ is how Church viewed the intent of having relation without desire of children.

“Avoiding procreation” is a motive, not an act’s object. It belongs more in the purview of intention. The objects of moral acts that are relevant for this discussion are:

sexual intercourse
contracepting/sterilizing an act of intercourse

No.

The only things relevant for discussion are:

intent
and how it was observed by Church

 

[Chrono13]

To admonish is to give strong instruction. You would admonish about something important.

You note that Pope Gregory wanted husbands and wives “admonished to remember that they are joined together for the sake of producing offspring”. That didn’t mean they had to try or desire to make a baby every time they had relations. If it did, a great number of pregnant and menopausal women (who knew themselves incapable of conceiving) would have been barred from relations with their husbands. No such restriction has ever been part of Catholic teaching.

They are admonished to remember they are to procreate, and practice realtions without admixture of pleasure.

Pope Gregory claimed only sex for procreation is natural and praiseworthy, and all other motives for relation are infested with human selfishness (which wants pleasure and pleasure alone) . Yet, these motives are pardoned on account of marriage. As long as couple is graviting to having sexual life only for begetting children. That’s more or less his point in the quote.

 

[Abu]

Nimeniton #93
Why is there no such rupture in NFP?

Because there is nothing to contracept; it is abstention from intercourse. Precisely what singles are meant to be until marriage – chaste. God-given and Catholic developed, built on reason and faith which only Catholic theologically- based action could develop rationally. There is no mutual masturbation such as in contraceptive intercourse denying procreation.

The misuse of NBR may be compared to the misuse of alcohol – St Paul advises to “take a little wine for thy stomach’s sake” (1Tim 5:23) a good action, he does not condone becoming drunk on wine – clearly a misuse which he condemns as a bad action in Gal 5:21. Denying procreation by NBR without serious reasons is unworthy of our human nature.

In *Casti Connubii *(II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

otjm #93
since NFP is allowed by the Church, which in doing so is teaching about Morals, why is the question posed?

Perhaps by some who don’t know that God gave us a human nature bound to His natural laws, and His Son, Jesus the Christ, who gave us His Church and Magisterium to ensure that the truth is available for all who seek it.

Chrono13
why is the technique used only in cases of just and serious reasons?

Precisely because the purpose of marriage is to cooperate with God for providing children. The sneerers and jeerers at God, Christ and His Church, only try to push their prejudices – ignore them. God killed Onan for contraception – leaving us with the example.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I do not know what serious reasons you have in mind but I can’t think of any that would not apply to the use of natural and artificial contraceptive methods alike. And all artificial methods are condemned irrespective of intention and/or result. NFP is often defended on the grounds that it is not avoiding pregnancy but merely postponing it; the babies are being spaced out or such like. But those who use artificial methods can and do use them with exactly the same motivation. It is probably also true that some use artificial and natural methods intending never to become pregnant. So the only consistent difference is the artificiality or considered naturalness of the methods used.

One certainly gets the impression that the ethics in this case is based on the assumption that natural is good and artificial is bad - a questionable assumption in my opinion.Personally, I would consider taking one’s temperature every day to identify fertile and infertile periods as not exactly natural!

You are quite correct about the irrationality of “natural vs. artificial” in this case. That dichotomy is a red herring.

What the Church considers to be always immoral is to contracept or sterilize actual acts of intercourse. Intending to have sex that won’t result in a baby may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances.

See immediately below for more details:

What is not clear to me is what rupture he is speaking of for what can apply in one case also seems to apply in another case. Why is there no such rupture in NFP?

With contraception, it’s not necessarily the motive the Church objects to, but rather the fact that they are contracepting/sterilizing an act of intercourse - rendering a specific act of love-making incapable of conception.

NFP can indeed, according to the Church, be abused if the couple’s motive is bad (i.e. avoiding children permanently, for superficial reasons, etc.)

Objectively, though, using NFP to avoid pregnancy doesn’t involve any acts whose object is immoral: no act of intercourse is contracepted. The sexual intercourse they have is already infertile on its own without any intervention on their part… and the fertile intercourse they might otherwise have had doesn’t happen, doesn’t exist, at all during that period.

Thus there’s no actual act to contracept.

Pope Gregory claimed only sex for procreation is natural and praiseworthy, and all other motives for relation are infested with human selfishness (which wants pleasure and pleasure alone) . Yet, these motives are pardoned on account of marriage. As long as couple is graviting to having sexual life only for begetting children. That’s more or less his point in the quote.

Church teaching today - as well as the writings that have influenced it and/or show its influences, like JPII’s theology of the body - seem to disagree with the very principle that sex for any motive other than procreation is inherently selfish.

If that were true, then what Church fathers like Pope Gregory I wrote would be not only true but a complete picture.

We do not dispute his logic, but rather his premises. That is entirely fair development. Pope Gregory accurately described the moral norms for the possibilities he envisioned: sex for procreation vs. sex for selfish motives.

Today, the Church seems to recognize that there are other possibilities. I think St. Thomas knew there were other possibilities as well.

One cannot force what Pope Gregory said to apply a moral scenario he did not envision.

 

[Nimeniton]

Discussions such as this amuse me; I was always taught that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and will always protect the Church in matters of both Faith and Morals. which is another way of saying that the Church cannot err when teaching either Faith or Morals. An since NFP is allowed by the Church, which in doing so is teaching about Morals, why is the question posed?

Sorry if this gets a bit close to “The Church said it, I believe it, and that ends it”, but we would not have such discussions were people to accept the first sentence.

This site is open to non Catholics who may and often do not accept the church’s authority.I am not a Catholic. I personally believe the church can err and has done so. But theat is a matter for another thread.