I
Image_of_God
Guest
My point exactly.The line of defense Augustine makes is clear. He, indeed, attacks the Manichaens because of their desire to avoid procreation totally, but supports this with additional stoic arguments. We certainly can’t say he would allow such fertility technique, no matter the reasons, or their gravity, since for him- sex is only for procreation.
The majority of the Church Fathers? By what means do you assert this? I’m ready to concede on this point if you show me. Is St. Augustine your idea of the majority of the Church Fathers?This is simply because majority of Church Fathers were concentrating more on the intent of the act.In order for act to be moral, procreation had to be intended, not opened as possibility. And since the whole story of NFP is how to avoid procreation, you have a theological issue with these early Christians.
We could certainly argue that at a point in time a lot of theologians in the Church thought that unbaptized babies go to a place called Limbo. Today, however, I’d say that most theologians argue that it is possible for such babies to go Heaven, but the means are not known to us. Does that amount to a change in teaching? I think not.Let’s say -at least to stress something else- that I can’t answer this one. Does it mean that Church mainstream didn’t see sex that way until very recently? Do you have documents which speak of unitive nature of marital sexuality? Which document until Casti Connubii speaks of sex as “gift”?
I won’t deny that the Church’s attitude towards sex has changed, but to argue that is a change in teaching is a bit of a stretch. Most people in the Church today support contraception. About a half-century they did not. Has the Church’s teaching changed?
The point of the last quote was to address your claim that St. Gregory says that having intercourse without a procreative intent was a sin. He quite clearly says it is not. “They still avoid lapse into sin” means they are not sinning. I do concede however, that the sophist attitude is there, but I disagree with the rest of your assessment.With all due respect, the issues are present. St. Gregory speaks that people who have sex only for procreation are “faulty” and “out of control”. The last sentence may simply talk about mortal sin, not venial, which is the teaching of St. Augustine.
Augustine is the one who wrote most of theological background to sexual issues. It seems not all of theories he has are originally his, but were shared as mainstream of Catholics in first centuries.
I do not doubt that some of the Catholics at the time shared Augustine’s theories. But to that say *most *of them or even *all *of them did is a bit too much. The fact of the matter is that most of the Fathers (I think I make a very reasonable assertion) do not write on this topic. They probably did not find it important enough to write about. Castii Connubii explicitly says NFP is permissible even if St. Augustine says it’s not.Casti Connubii has problem that it never distances itself from stoic Augustine. You can’t read “This is what Augustine wrote, and was practiced, but it was wrong, and we won’t do that anymore.”