NFP and contraception

[LaSainte]

Posts #96, 390, 583 – some take a while to learn.

They were also told when NOT to have relations, such as during menstruation, an infertile time. If anything, this information only serves to bolster the idea that the Church would have disapproved of using infertile times to avoid pregnancy.

So you’re saying that fertile cycles were known about (as also indicated by St. Francis) but that the only writings we can find from the early Church are writings which specifically stress that the main purpose of sex is to conceive and any other type of sex is merely tolerated and is borderline sinful according to some, to say NOTHING of actually attempting to AVOID pregnancy while having sex.

Unless someone can point to a writing which would indicate otherwise, I see zero reason to think that this practice would ever have been tolerated by the early Church.

 

[copperblade]

If the Church fathers and early popes would have approved of these practices, please point me to some writings that would indicate that it would be acceptable to intentionally AVOID conception while still enjoying the physical aspects of sex. Chrono13 has already pointed out MANY sources that indicate just the opposite, how the early Church and fathers specifically told us that sex’s primary goal is procreation and that sex during menopause, etc. was merely tolerated, but I have seen NOTHING to indicate the licitness of ever attempting NOT to conceive while still engaging in sex.

If they knew what we know today scientifically about procreation, do you think they would have been against NFP too, or do you just mean they would have put NFP in the same category as other contraception?

 

[LaSainte]

If they knew what we know today scientifically about procreation, do you think they would have been against NFP too, or do you just mean they would have put NFP in the same category as other contraception?

Probably both. They almost certainly would have been against NFP though.

Basically, NFP IS contraception, the rest is just semantics. Sure, the sperm go into the vagina, but the couple is going to GREAT lengths to ensure that they simply swim around and die there. If the couple calculates it right, they might as well be swimming around in a toilet bowl, and this is certainly the intent. Anything else is considered a complete failure of the method.

 

[Chrono13]

Quick answers today. I have a lot of work.

Chrono,
I have found your explanations to be good and well thought out. But I do see one major flaw that I noted, earlier up-thread, that many theologians make too. You are using “procreation” and “begetting” interchangeably. They are not interchangeable. (Goodness I am using that word a lot lately!) You are referencing St. Augustine as having said it is sinful without “procreative intent.” But then you are also saying he is saying it, “without intention of begetting.” Which one is it? They are not the same thing.

I don’t know what you mean. Sexual intercourse with desire to beget a child is an intercourse with procreative intent. If you don’t have this specific desire, you don’t have moral ground for sexuality in Augustinian thought.

Now *here *is what the studies about Augustine actually say he was saying: He said that it is likely to lust after one’s own spouse, even while in the process of begetting, begetting wasn’t his point there.

Such studies have big problems. They usually have agenda to suggest as if Augustine was teaching “Theology of the Body” almost two thousand years before John Paul II. We have quoted enough Augustine to know better. He was always underlining begetting as the only thing in sexual intercourse.

Please really think about what you are asserting, Chrono. You are perpetuating a myth that can lead to strife in marriage. I have encountered many people who believe it, and it is harming their marriage. They believe, based on your same assertions, that as long as they are “making a baby,” then their sex is what God wants, even though they are actually harming each other through lust. (Even though it is venial sin, it still does damage to the marriage.) St. Augustine was an authority on lust, having been so closely related to it for so many years.

I am not perpetuating anything but the idea that clergy had a specific approach to sexuality in past, and today they are ignoring it’s reality. And this becomes frustrating both to them, and to layman.

 

[Chrono13]

And for further clarification on St. Augustine. I have been rereading the quotes again and there is a consistent misinterpretation happening. Some people quoting him have forgotten the context. Some are disregarding his audience.

If you don’t know the audience and the idioms of the time, early writing is very easy to misrepresent. My theologian friend, a student of Dr. Waldstein’s, has what he calls a “dumb example that works to explain it.” He says, “If I walked up to you in modern America and said, ‘knock’ you would not know what I was trying to say. But if I walked up to you and said, ‘Knock knock?’ you would know how to respond. That is an idiom.” Please know your audience and idioms as you seek to understand the Early Church Fathers and Scripture.

Great- no problem with this. But what are you suggesting? That I have somewhere ignored or bypassed what Augustine meant because he was writing to specific people? If so, you have to be more concrete- where have I done this?

I mean, he said sex was sinful. No gnostic or idiom has given him anything to conclude that. He could have easily stated that sex is unitive and procreative.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Probably both. They almost certainly would have been against NFP though.

Basically, NFP IS contraception, the rest is just semantics. Sure, the sperm go into the vagina, but the couple is going to GREAT lengths to ensure that they simply swim around and die there. If the couple calculates it right, they might as well be swimming around in a toilet bowl, and this is certainly the intent. Anything else is considered a complete failure of the method.

NFP (to avoid) is merely recognizing the fertile days, and avoiding intercourse around those days. Pregnancy is avoided because sexual intercourse is avoided.

Really, sex on a non fertile day would still remain infertile irrespective of intent.

Are we not allowed to have sex on a non fertile day?
Why is it a non fertile day?
Did I make it that way?

As for “sperm simply swimming around and dying”. Even if a woman conceives, only one does the job. The rest still “swim around and die.”

 

[Chrono13]

Excellent post, LittleDeb (#572)
Simply, the Fathers and Doctors considered sexuality in marriage, and they considered it in the three main attributes of offspring + conjugal faith + the sacrament. Sexuality outside of marriage was fornication or adultery or bestiality or sodomy. The repeated mighty aversion to these facts is the phobia.

They considered it so alright, but not in the way you are suggesting. Sexuality was something connected with offspring. As for conjugal faith, it was seen couple shares the burden of sexual desire which is always connected to sin.

Contraception was banned because the Fathers knew from Sacred Scripture that offspring was the main purpose of sex within marriage. (Post #376). The errors of Stoicism were exposed in post #242, as St Augustine knew.

This is very problematic, as Fathers claimed offspring is the only purpose of sex in marriage. Arguments of #242 were refuted few replies later.

As for Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae, we all know what they claim. Now we talk about how that works with Catholic morality in the past.

 

[Chrono13]

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?

Literally no Church Father, apart from St. Clement of Alexandria , expressed different opinion from St. Augustine. And even he said *“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” * and “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” (

Most quotes used to prove Fathers were against contraception, also prove that they thought sex is only for procreation.

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.

But Church acknowledged that Limbo existed as theological possibility, while we don’t hear officials talking about how they imagined sexuality just 200-300 years ago. This is because Limbo theory is abandoned, and contraception ban is maintained.

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.

You will have difficulty to prove one can go without other.

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.

He speaks of sex without procreation intent as “faulty” and “without control”. He will later say such intercourse goes outside of couple’s marital rights.

While speaking of pair who doesn’t sin with such “faulty” act, he probably talks about mortal sin- following Augustine.

 

[Chrono13]

Your quote does not in anyway negate what Good Daughter’s quote is saying or her conclusions about it. St. Francis De Sales in her quote quite clearly says that intercourse does not cease to be holy even in times when procreation can’t be expected (like pregnancy or sterility) provided that the laws of generation are followed (the intercourse is done in a way that would result in procreation if it weren’t for the circumstances). One can have intercourse in “excess” even if a child resulted from it every time. St. Francis de Sales’ ideas on this topic clearly coincide with the Church’s teaching on NFP and can be seen as a kind of precursor to it.

Maybe we should remind that stoics, such as Augustine, also considered sexuality good and holy. However, it can only be good while serving the procreation. Anything above it is too much.

That this is so, we see also in De Sales writ, where he, talking about sexuality, connects with Augustine:
S. Augustine says that it is the great fault of men to want to enjoy things which they are only meant to use, and to use those which they are only meant to enjoy. We ought to enjoy spiritual things, and only use those which are material; but when we turn the use of these latter into enjoyment, the reasonable soul becomes degraded to a mere brutish level.*

What is this “only use” of sexuality that is opposite of enjoyment? The answer is clear. Procreation. And having sex without desire of it’s “only use” is doing it for enjoyment.

 

[Chrono13]

Here are the posts on the thread where I go through the history of the topic at hand:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7997972&postcount=8
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7999017&postcount=17
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7999118&postcount=18

Chrono, I hope by reading them (if you so choose) you’ll find that Church history on this topic is inconsistent with how you are presenting it. The Church did not just change its mind in the mid 19th century about this issue.

This would open new sub-topics, which were not drawn so far. For example, when you quote Trent…
“He then adds: Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children. It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime ** nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.”
…and then conclude this council never talks about NFP. because…

1. They were not aware of these methods
2. They were aware of infertile periods, but did not think the use of them were wrong.

This is very difficult to accept. It seems very evident that Trent has not, or would never, allow NFP in order to control fertility.

 

[Chrono13]

I just wanted to clarify. This is very incorrect. What St. Francis de Sales means by “laws of generation” is that intercourse must happen in a way in which procreation would occur if it weren’t for the circumstances preventing it. It must always be procreative or more explicitly capable of procreation. He explicitly says that intercourse is good even when the married couple don’t expect a child to come from it (like during times of pregnancy). And with that, I would say he is of the same mind with St. Thomas Aquinas who says something similar in his Summa Contra Gentiles.

But this is exactly what Augustine taught as well, so there is nothing incorrect in my post.

 

[sacredcello]

Also sacredcello, it is not the physical act of putting one’s hand inside one’s body that I think the Church would have objected to, it is instead the VAST lengths and expenses that some couples go to in order to enjoy sex while avoiding children. This would never have been allowed before the 1800s.

I would like to reiterate that the expense of NFP is minimal. The purchase of a book, thermometer and chart all comes with the Main NFP series. That’s it! Oh, and to replace the battery on the thermometer every 2 years (about $5.). Mine is still going strong after 2 1/2 years.

Again, I believe the Church Fathers would have approved of a method which is simultaneously a study of theology (Theology of the Body) and a study of the sexual powers which would allow couples to make a virtuous decision about their family size, and that couples would be able to do so frugally (unlike those today who spend thousands of dollars on ABC over the course of time).

May I ask why you are going to such VAST lengths and expense of time to try to prove your point? Do you really believe that the practice of ABC is virtuous or that the Early Church Fathers would allow abortifacients/condoms/mutilation within the marital embrace at some point in the future? They were all consistent in condemning these practices in their time and their writings hold true today, as evidenced by Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubii and Theology of the Body. Marriage is sacred and holy. It has never been written about as anything but holy by the Church Fathers or by Popes in our time, or in Sacred Scripture . Chastity is at the center.

 

[Chrono13]

Speculation is a useless exercise. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church knew the Sacred Scriptures advising abstinence.

A 12 to 14 day period of abstinence has been practiced by Orthodox Jews for approximately 3,000 years, based on Leviticus.
ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

While the laws of Leviticus forbade the marriage act during menses and for a week thereafter with great fertility for the Jewish people, this was not linked in any medical or scientific way to NBR (NFP) until in the mid-nineteenth century French researchers dealing with domestic animals discovered a relationship between certain bodily discharges and fertility. Scientists and others quickly wondered whether this was likewise true in humans. They speculated that a woman was fertile during her menstrual flow and infertile thereafter.
catholic-truth.info/apologetics/birthcontrol.htm

As you have preceded my reply- Abstinence was practiced by Jews for the same reasons Catholics should do today- to concentrate more on prayer and fasting. This has nothing to do with fertility, because people who are abstinent during fertile days are doing so in order to avoid birth. And you can pray during infertile periods as well.

As was already proven many times, fertility circles were known and used much earlier then 19th Century.

Your sources indicate you know about term “pharmakeia”. Why are you avoiding discussion about it’s link to medical contraception?

 

[sacredcello]

Basically, NFP IS contraception, the rest is just semantics.

Incorrect. If NFP were the same thing as contraception, then we would not be talking about it right now, because everyone would just use NFP to plan their families. If there were no difference between them, then why wouldn’t everyone choose the method that is safe, easy and effective (NFP)? Why? Because there is a real difference. NFP requires virtue. It requires a conversion of heart to the values of the Gospel. It requires that we submit our mind, heart and will to live accordance with our own nature, how God created us.

 

[copperblade]

This would open new sub-topics, which were not drawn so far. For example, when you quote Trent…
“He then adds: Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children. It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime ** nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.”
…and then conclude this council never talks about NFP. because…

1. They were not aware of these methods
2. They were aware of infertile periods, but did not think the use of them were wrong.

This is very difficult to accept. It seems very evident that Trent has not, or would never, allow NFP in order to control fertility.

So the answer is your conclusion to the question: why was contraception equivalent to murder?

 

[LaSainte]

NFP (to avoid) is merely recognizing the fertile days, and avoiding intercourse around those days. Pregnancy is avoided because sexual intercourse is avoided.

Really, sex on a non fertile day would still remain infertile irrespective of intent.

Are we not allowed to have sex on a non fertile day?
Why is it a non fertile day?
Did I make it that way?

As for “sperm simply swimming around and dying”. Even if a woman conceives, only one does the job. The rest still “swim around and die.”

There is nothing wrong win sex on non-fertile days (except for the ancient Jews, for whom sex during menses was forbidden). It is ONLY having sex on infertile days, with the SPECIFIC INTENT of preventing procreation that the Fathers and early Church would have considered sinful.

 

[copperblade]

If there were no difference between them, then why wouldn’t everyone choose the method that is safe, easy and effective (NFP)? Why? Because there is a real difference. NFP requires virtue. It requires a conversion of heart to the values of the Gospel. It requires that we submit our mind, heart and will to live accordance with our own nature, how God created us.

So people use contraception just to be evil? If NFP is the safe, easy, and effective method, you have to at least give one good reason why people don’t use it. Perhaps it’s not that safe, easy, or effective? Or perhaps people have special circumstances?

 

[LaSainte]

Incorrect. If NFP were the same thing as contraception, then we would not be talking about it right now, because everyone would just use NFP to plan their families. If there were no difference between them, then why wouldn’t everyone choose the method that is safe, easy and effective (NFP)? Why? Because there is a real difference. NFP requires virtue. It requires a conversion of heart to the values of the Gospel. It requires that we submit our mind, heart and will to live accordance with our own nature, how God created us.

The reason I am going to such lengths to assert with Chronos13 that NFP would surely have been considered illicit by the early Church is because 1.) it is true, and jumping through linguistic hoops in an attempt to deny that fact denies 1853 years of Church tradition to serve a personal agenda, and 2.) the whole basis for the supposed “infallibility” of Church teaching on ABC and NFP is that Church teaching has NEVER changed on the matter, which is completely untrue! Teaching about marital sexually DID change, in 1853 when it was first allowed that couples could have sex while trying not to conceive through the use of rhythm planning. Before this, it was taught and written that marital sexuality was primarily for procreation and that any sex during INCIDENTALLY infertile times was merely tolerated. The idea that someone would be permitted to plan sex only during infertile times to AVOID children is in no way supported by any Church documents or writings prior to the 1800s.

 

[LaSainte]

And the fact that NFP supposedly requires virtue while all other forms of contraception are depraved and unhealthy is simply part of the lingo and propaganda spread around by its proponents. People don’t choose ABC because they are sex-hungry animals. They choose it because it is easier and because they trust it more than NFP.

For the real definition of CONTRACEPTION, let’s look at he Oxford English Dictionary:

the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.

Clearly, NFP is included among “other techniques” that prevent conception. Only supporters of NFP try to discern a semantic difference where a true difference is negligible if not non-existent.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

And the fact that NFP supposedly requires virtue while all other forms of contraception are depraved and unhealthy is simply part of the lingo and propaganda spread around by its proponents. People don’t choose ABC because they are sex-hungry animals. They choose it because it is easier and because they trust it more than NFP.

For the real definition of CONTRACEPTION, let’s look at he Oxford English Dictionary:

the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.

Clearly, NFP is included among “other techniques” that prevent conception. Only supporters of NFP try to discern a semantic difference where a true difference is negligible if not non-existent.

Clearly, NFP is not contraceptive.

I am not preventing pregnancy by having sex on a non fertile day.

I am avoiding pregnancy by avoiding sex on a fertile day. That’s how it works.