Is the Church's teaching on contraception (today) consistent with the Early Church's?

[Ana_v]

Exactly what the questions says.

But first, just some background:

I was reading a blog post titled “The Reformers and Contraception”, wherein a few contexualized quotes were provided for evidence that the mainline Protestant position on contraception today (pro-contraception), is at complete odds with the historical Protestant position.

Then there’s the comment thread. The comments are quite interesting. The ones of concern to me, are namely those left by the person who goes by the handle “Constantine” (and who I assume, is a Protestant, as he states “Now what happens next is incredibly interesting. It is a great example of what happens to a doctrine that departs from Sola Scriptura and relies on human tradition”).

This is among the things he wrote (but I would encourage going to the comment section itself to read what else he wrote):

Which of course, brings us to the funniest part of the show . In my first post to you, I mentioned that the Catholic Church had indeed changed its doctrine on contraception almost 60 years ago. You apparently think I’m making that up. Let me prove it to you.

The Augustinian doctrine held sway in the “catholic” church from his death (a.d. 430) until modern time. One of the aspects of the Augustinian doctrine was that any sex – and we mean ANY sex – whose purpose was not procreation was prohibited. So having sex in the “sterile period” was mucho verboten. But in 1951, enter stage left, his infallible holiness, the very Vicar of Christ – Pius XII! Let’s hear from Catholic historian, Paul Johnson what happened:
But in 1951, Pius XII in an address to Italian Catholic Midwives, stated that use of the so-called ‘safe period’ as a system of birth control was lawful, provided the intention was justified by circumstances. Such a compromise undermined the Augustinian teaching since Augustine had specifically denounced use of the safe period in his The Morals of the Manichees; and the concession was also fatal to Augustine’s whole doctrine of marriage. Moreover, use of the safe period systematically tended to raise the question of whether it was legitimate to stabilize the period artificially; and if this were conceded, it became almost impossible to a [sic] draw a workable moral distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ contraception.” (Johnson, op.cit., p. 512)
So none less than Pius XII himself reverses 1500 years of Catholic teaching on contraception and marriage by gratuitously reversing Augustine! There it is – the about-face I promised you.

I understand the Church has doctrinal development. However, I have never understood doctrinal development as entailing a case of where doctrine “X” later becomes “~X” (or vice versa) as that would mean doctrinal contradiction.

Constantine is arguing, that the Church in the past taught, that it is not morally permissible for married couples to have sex during the infertile period, so as to avoid pregnancy. Whereas, the Church teaches now that NFP is morally permissible.

 

[Redratfish]

Exactly what the questions says.

But first, just some background:

I was reading a blog post titled “The Reformers and Contraception”, wherein a few contexualized quotes were provided for evidence that the mainline Protestant position on contraception today (pro-contraception), is at complete odds with the historical Protestant position.

Then there’s the comment thread. The comments are quite interesting. The ones of concern to me, are namely those left by the person who goes by the handle “Constantine” (and who I assume, is a Protestant, as he states “Now what happens next is incredibly interesting. It is a great example of what happens to a doctrine that departs from Sola Scriptura and relies on human tradition”).

This is among the things he wrote (but I would encourage going to the comment section itself to read what else he wrote):

I understand the Church has doctrinal development. However, I have never understood doctrinal development as entailing a case of where doctrine “X” later becomes “~X” (or vice versa) as that would mean doctrinal contradiction.

Constantine is arguing, that the Church in the past taught, that it is not morally permissible for married couples to have sex during the infertile period, so as to avoid pregnancy. Whereas, the Church teaches now that NFP is morally permissible.

I am unfamiliar with the Augustinian doctrine, I would make him provide evidence that #1, such a thing actually existed, #2, if the Papacy ever actually taught it, #3 the development of the current dogma.

I am interested to see what others say

 

[Urbano_Macchi]

A teaching of St. Augustine is not necessarily the official teaching of the Church. St. Augustine was fighting the Manicheans, who believed that it was immoral to engage in any procreative sex. Thus it could be argued that St. Augustine was arguing against using NFP to postpone having children indefinitely (an action that is still condemned by the Church today).

Nevertheless, the Church never had an official position on “calendar methods” until the science was able to make such methods a viable option, and from the earliest the Church has allowed it to be used in certain circumstances.

 

[Bookcat]

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4,]. Vatican City, February 12, 1997. Alfonso Card. López Trujillo

 

[Bookcat]

Yes…contraception has been and is an evil.

 

[thistle]

Exactly what the questions says.

But first, just some background:

I was reading a blog post titled “The Reformers and Contraception”, wherein a few contexualized quotes were provided for evidence that the mainline Protestant position on contraception today (pro-contraception), is at complete odds with the historical Protestant position.

Then there’s the comment thread. The comments are quite interesting. The ones of concern to me, are namely those left by the person who goes by the handle “Constantine” (and who I assume, is a Protestant, as he states “Now what happens next is incredibly interesting. It is a great example of what happens to a doctrine that departs from Sola Scriptura and relies on human tradition”).

This is among the things he wrote (but I would encourage going to the comment section itself to read what else he wrote):

I understand the Church has doctrinal development. However, I have never understood doctrinal development as entailing a case of where doctrine “X” later becomes “~X” (or vice versa) as that would mean doctrinal contradiction.

Constantine is arguing, that the Church in the past taught, that it is not morally permissible for married couples to have sex during the infertile period, so as to avoid pregnancy. Whereas, the Church teaches now that NFP is morally permissible.

Some of the early Church Fathers expressed opinions on various issues which were not Church doctrines. Just because they wrote something does not make it a Church teaching.
For example, St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception but because it was not Church doctrine in his day he was free to express his opinion.

 

[Chrono13]

If you wish my honest opinion, this person is pulling your leg. While he is right regarding Augustine (and majority of Church Fathers) speaking of “sex only for procreation” that doesn’t mean Sola Scriptura is legal or any of protestant oral traditions.

It is, however, a spicy topic for more conventional Catholic believer to talk about Fathers regarding this issue.