NFP and contraception

[Chrono13]

Objective, yes. And, I am objectively basing my procreative intent on a more current understanding put forth by Blessed John Paul II…not St. Augustine. God created us to love as he loves. We do not contracept because there would be no procreative or unitive intent. It would be (unnaturally) sterile and non-unitive.

As far as I know, John Paul II never said NFP, when done to space children, is having procreative intent. Even Humanae Vitae confirms that couple doesn’t want a child in that case.

The big problem is that, from what it seems, both Humanae Vitae and John Paul II invested a lot in idea that they only continue what St. Augustine taught. As if understanding of sexual intercourse never changed.

 

[sacredcello]

As far as I know, John Paul II never said NFP, when done to space children, is having procreative intent. Even Humanae Vitae confirms that couple doesn’t want a child in that case.

The big problem is that, from what it seems, both Humanae Vitae and John Paul II invested a lot in idea that they only continue what St. Augustine taught. As understanding of sexual intercourse never changed.

John Paul II spoke extensively about the virtue of chastity which is at the very heart of marriage. It is in his later talks on the Theology of the Body where he elaborates on the writings of St. Paul in Sacred Scripture (not Augustine).

Okay, my husband is a professional philosopher who is currently writing his second book on the subject of the natural law. He tells me that the natural law can change only by addition and there can be development in the natural law. He says that St. Thomas Aquinas writes of this in the Summa. I am not trained in philosophy, so I cannot speak about it, but I will get my husband to find the quote in the Summa. Okay? Not until Monday, though, because I am leaving for work now and will be gone til then. Talk to you later.

 

[LaSainte]

The data is grossly misrepresented in that article. Here are the conclusions in the abstract of the study:

Again, more information is better. If couples have one or more miscarriages, they can receive medical care to correct the problem. Even if they are trying to avoid a pregnancy, their medical treatments can improve their health (improve PMS symptoms, etc) as well as avoid the recurrence of another miscarriage.

Isthat from the same study, or is this from a different study refuting the first?

 

[Chrono13]

John Paul II spoke extensively about the virtue of chastity which is at the very heart of marriage. It is in his later talks on the Theology of the Body where he elaborates on the writings of St. Paul in Sacred Scripture (not Augustine).

The problem is that NFP would not be seen as chaste in past.

Okay, my husband is a professional philosopher who is currently writing his second book on the subject of the natural law. He tells me that the natural law can change only by addition and there can be development in the natural law. He says that St. Thomas Aquinas writes of this in the Summa. I am not trained in philosophy, so I cannot speak about it, but I will get my husband to find the quote in the Summa. Okay? Not until Monday, though, because I am leaving for work now and will be gone til then. Talk to you later.

Oh, by any means- his addition to this heated discussion would be marvelous! But only if time permits. I have studied philosophy for two years. Ended up with arts.

From what I know, natural law is definite and universal. Interpretations can change and vary, together with additions.

At one point, we will have to ask ourselves what was clerical interpretation of natural law in the past. Meaning, the discussion is not about law itself, but with clerical specifics.

 

[LIT56RD]

Indeed, truth does exist and can be discerned through applying faith and reason. Obedience, yes. But, not blind obedience. It is only blind obedience when our conscience has been so formed by the world, by our parents’ dissent, by our friends who are not Catholic by the newspapers which represent the Church as antiquated and by the modern academic (non-Biblical) view of sexuality which presents homosexual and unnatural acts as something we should all accept, as an issue of social justice. When our conscience is formed as such, it is our obligation to put aside those outside sources, or to scrutinize them more carefully through the lens of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial sources. Only then can we say “Yes” to the Lord. The Church, after all, is not only the Bride of Christ, but is also His Mind. We are called to think and reason through our faith. Someone made a snarky comment, "well, if the Church says so, then okay….I guess I’ll just be like Bill Clinton then and twist the definition of what “is” is." That is not what the Lord is calling us to do. We have to go deeper. During the catechumenate, candidates for confirmation go through what is called “Scrutinies”. It is a form of minor exorcism. That is perhaps what is needed if our mind is so shaped by the world. We have to scrutinize those worldly influences that are not helpful to us in practicing our faith with a pure heart.

This is the entire basis for all of the Catholic church.

 

[Warrior1979]

It’s not the facts that are a problem. It is how you are interpreting them to mean that NFP is wrong.

I’m not stating that NFP is wrong…that’s you’re interpretation of what I’m saying, which is incorrect. I’m just stating, as supported by data supplied by pro-life Catholic doctors, that miscarriage is more likely to occur when eggs are fertilized during the infertile period versus the fertile period. It’s simply a fact.

As I said earlier, this is helpful for the couple to know so that medical treatment can be given, so there does not need to be another repeat miscarriage. It is actually a case for more knowledge is better so that medical treatment can solve the problem. Not a situation of “oh, let’s avoid medical care and keep on having miscarriages.”

You keep focusing on this point. There is no reason to do so. It’s simply a natural event that doesn’t need to be “solved.” It’s just the having sex during the infertile period encourages this event, as supported by data provided by pro-life, Catholic doctors.

 

[Image_of_God]

He sure did. He reminds the reader what Augustine taught about sex: that it should be practiced because of it’s use (and we all know what is use of sex for Augustine), not for enjoyment (ie. anything else).

The chapter is called “The Sanctity of the Marriage Bed”, meaning he talks about sex, not videogames.

I am aware of that. But the quote from St. Augustine is speaking of worldly things in general. The same attitude must be taken even in the context that St. Francis quotes him in. The division between using a worldly thing (intercourse included) and enjoying it (if you mean the basic meaning) is not strict. I think what Augustine had in mind with “enjoy” was excessive attachment.

Condition such as pregnancy or sterility will not make the act evil. Even having sex on infertile day of the cycle is not bad.But when this condition is used specifically to avoid procreation (for example, if man marries sterile woman so he could have sex without children) it is problematic. Same goes with NFP. To have sex on infertile day because it is infertile, is not accidental- thus, not acceptable.

Whoever St. Francis de Sales is addressing probably knows that during pregnancy a woman cannot procreate. At least, we know for certain that St. Francis knew this. If they didn’t know that pregnancy was a time when one could not conceive, then they surely found out when the read St. Francis’ work. And if they knew this fact, perhaps they were not using the pregnancy period as a means to avoid conception, per se, (they’d have to have gotten pregnant very often) but they are having relations knowing that procreation will not result. According to your interpretation of St. Augustine, that would be a venial sin, and according to your interpretation of St. Clement, “wasting the seed”. And according to your interpretation of St. Francis himself, they would be enjoying intercourse, but not using it for purposes of procreation (clearly they can’t be because they know the woman is not able to conceive at the time). If that were indeed correct, St. Francis would be contradicting himself in the same chapter. But instead he says that it’s not a sin even when the couple knows they won’t conceive (clearly a pregnant or sterile woman knows she will not) provided that they have intercourse in a way that would result in conception if it weren’t for the sterility or the pregnancy.

Same as St. Augustine. Nobody ever claimed that the belief sex is only for procreation would forbid barren or pregnant couples to have intercourse.

That is exactly what you have been claiming. If sex is solely for procreation, as you said St. Augustine said very clearly earlier in the thread, then barren and pregnant couples could NOT have sex without sinning. For what purpose would they be doing it?
They can’t be doing it with a procreative intent because they cannot procreate (at least at the time). Of course, St. Thomas and St. Francis argue that there are other reasons for intercourse and therefore having relations even at times when one knows one is infertile is not sinful.

Let’s go further with Thomastic thought. By it’s “essence”, woman is “fertile” as some accident has to happen for her to become “infertile”. Yet, woman in infertile period of the menstrual cycle is not in essence infertile- since she theoretically can conceive.

I think we should agree on our object. I was speaking of act itself previously, but you now speak of woman. Woman is a substance. In this case, fertility and infertility are accidents. They are not essential to the woman. Obviously she would still be a woman whether she were fertile or infertile. Hence, St. Thomas argues that a man who has intercourse with a woman even though she is sterile is not sinful, since it is only accidentally so as oppose to essentially like in the “sin against nature”.

This is common sense. A woman is not considered “barren” while in infertile period.

She certainly can be, in so far as she cannot conceive at that time.

Since cycle is not accident, but something of the woman’s essence, you can’t tag infertile period as accident. It would be like saying sleeping is an accident to being awake.

Sleeping and being awake are both accidents. If one of them were essential, the other could not happen because it would be essential to a person. The person would cease to be themselves if they were awake or a sleep. That is not the case with fertility or infertility. If fertility were essential, then a woman would always have to be fertile to be a woman. Therefore, they are both accidental (nonessential).

They surely can not. They are not accidents.

However, if you are having sex on infertile day by accident, it is not sinful. If you chart, such sexual act is not an accident- it is planned in advance with desire to ejaculate semen without chance of providing generation.

What has to be understood is that when St. Thomas uses the phrase “by accident” he is not talking about a mistake. He is talking about nonessential properties i.e. fertility. St. Francis de Sales rightly considers pregnancy and sterility (and I think it’s property to consider infertile periods as such also) as accidental conditions because a woman would still be a woman even without them.

 

[Image_of_God]

The data is grossly misrepresented in that article. Here are the conclusions in the abstract of the study:

Again, more information is better. If couples have one or more miscarriages, they can receive medical care to correct the problem. Even if they are trying to avoid a pregnancy, their medical treatments can improve their health (improve PMS symptoms, etc) as well as avoid the recurrence of another miscarriage.

As I suspected, its the information is based entirely from Professor Bovens. LaSainte should note that Bovens is a philosopher not a scientist. His article has been quite controversial and his conclusions far from universally accepted. In fact, this article from the New York Times concludes that:

“Fertility experts say that there is little evidence to support this assumption but that there are some indications it may be valid.” (emphasis added)

Of course, as the article indicates, it might be true. But due to little evidence there shouldn’t be any reason why it is being posted as if it were absolute truth.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13, #757
There is a catch, however. If pair doesn’t chart, this is because they don’t care about outcome of their intercourse. If they do, they have intent of having sex without conceiving, and this is unacceptable for stoic moral value.

False, as usual. We don’t follow the stoics.

It is Christ’s Catholic Church through Her Sacred Scriptures, especially in Genesis 38, with God killing Onan, St Paul in his Epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians and to Titus, Her Fathers and Doctors, Her Tradition and Her Magisterium which has raised marriage to the height of a sacrament from the beginning and protected the sanctity of the marital union from the errors of the Manicheans, the Stoics, from abortion and contraception and every other perversion of reason and faith.
The dissenters don’t know that with St Augustine’s heralded return to Christ and His Church he had given up Manichaeism.

His opposition to the Stoics is clear:
“The system of Pelagius can today be better understood than heretofore. Pelagius doubtless denied original sin, and the immortality and integrity of Adam; in a word, the whole supernatural order. But the parent idea of his system, which was of stoic origin, was nothing else than the complete “emancipation” of human liberty with regard to God, and its limitless power for good and for evil. It depended on man to attain by himself, without the grace of God, a stoic impeccability and even insensibility, or the absolute control of his passions. It was scarcely suspected, even up to our time, what frightful rigorism resulted from this exaggeration of the powers of liberty. Since perfection was possible, it was of obligation. There was no longer any distinction between precepts and counsels. Whatever was good was a duty. There was no longer any distinction between mortal and venial sin. Every useless word merited hell, and even excluded from the Church the children of God. All this has been established by hitherto unedited documents which Caspari has published (Briefe, Abhandlungen, und Predigten, Christiania, 1890).

“(3) The system of St. Augustine in opposition to this rests on three fundamental principles:
•God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;
•man remains free, even under the action of grace;
•the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.”newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

#781: But in case of Church History or intent of sexual act- you will have to confess that NFP and condoms are the same thing. Person who uses infertile periods in order to avoid fertility is rejecting his spouse’s nature,

Contraception was banned because the Fathers knew from Sacred Scripture that offspring was the main purpose of sex within marriage. (Posts #386, 374).

The Magisterium has always affirmed the natural law, has never condemned using the infertile periods, has affirmed their right use when they became known, and no one can take the place of the Magisterium.

Confusion and misrepresentation are the hallmarks of dissenters.

 

[Warrior1979]

The Magisterium has always affirmed the natural law, has never condemned using the infertile periods, has affirmed their right use when they became known, and no one can take the place of the Magisterium.

Confusion and misrepresentation are the hallmarks of dissenters.

FWIW, I’m not confused. It is a fact that the miscarriage rate is higher when using the infertile period. That’s a fact. Giving your statement that the Church approves the use of the infertile period, it must follow (though implicitly) that the higher miscarriage rate is also acceptable. That is the logical conclusion. There is no way around it.

The confusion arise with many because it implies taking part in increasing the miscarriage rate naturally is okay, where as doing so “artificially” (say the pill) is not.

 

[Good_Daughter]

“Illicit, but permitted.”

Illicit means prohibited. So which is it?

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979
It is a fact that the miscarriage rate is higher when using the infertile period…that the Church approves the use of the infertile period, it must follow (though implicitly) that the higher miscarriage rate is also acceptable.

This poster seems blissfully unaware that God has provided the infertile period; he is assuming that God doesn’t know what He is doing, implying that God didn’t know what He was doing in creating human nature, and implying that He didn’t know what He was doing in giving His Church His authority to teach infallibly on faith and morals.

As sacredcello aptly made clear (post #792):
“The data is grossly misrepresented in that article. Here are the conclusions in the abstract of the study:
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is no excess risk of spontaneous abortion among the pregnancies conceived during natural family planning use. However, among women with a history of pregnancy loss, there is an increased risk of spontaneous abortion associated with preovulatory or postovulatory delayed conceptions.

“Again, more information is better. If couples have one or more miscarriages, they can receive medical care to correct the problem. Even if they are trying to avoid a pregnancy, their medical treatments can improve their health (improve PMS symptoms, etc) as well as avoid the recurrence of another miscarriage.”

Christ’s Church has been empowered to define truths of faith and morals and thus to condemn contraception, and encourages science to discover the laws of God’s Creation.

 

[copperblade]

From what I know, natural law is definite and universal. Interpretations can change and vary, together with additions.

That was my understanding of Aquinas as well–because things can be deduced by logic, interpretations may change when more truth (information) is known about the details. (For example, how conception actually works.)

 

[Abu]

Chrono13
From what I know, natural law is definite and universal. Interpretations can change and vary, together with additions.

No interpretations can change the principles of the natural law which we have seen even pagan Cicero acknowledge: “whether advanced by pagans, Christians, or Jews, natural law philosophy seeks to vindicate principles accessible to, and thus binding upon, every reasonable person.

“It is precisely because the natural law is held to be accessible to reason and thus binding on all rational persons irrespective of religious faith or its absence that St Paul could say in his Letter to the Romans that
‘…it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law that will be justified. When the Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness….’ ” (Rom 2:13-15).
The Clash of Orthodoxies, Dr Robert P George, ISI Books, 2001, p 161]

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=827
The Natural Law
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | June 23, 2011
“One of the clarifying points in a brilliant new book on natural law from Ignatius Press is that we do not come to know the natural law by being taught it by others. The book is J. Budziszewski’s What We Can’t Not Know.

“St. Paul condemns the pagans for deliberately rejecting the knowledge of God and right living that came to them through the natural world itself, something which they can’t not know.

“The fourth witness is natural consequences. The point here is that when we deviate from the natural law, in the long run bad things happen. Our perception of these consequences is common, though not guaranteed.”

 

[Chrono13]

I am aware of that. But the quote from St. Augustine is speaking of worldly things in general. The same attitude must be taken even in the context that St. Francis quotes him in.

Sorry- even if Augustine was referring generally about worldly things, the topic De Sales discusses is marital sexuality and nothing else. The context is very evident.

And if they knew this fact, perhaps they were not using the pregnancy period as a means to avoid conception, per se, (they’d have to have gotten pregnant very often) but they are having relations knowing that procreation will not result.

This is fine, but people using NFP to space children are using the infertile period per se which is the crux of the matter why De Sales wouldn’t approve the practice.

He says that it’s not a sin even when the couple knows they won’t conceive (clearly a pregnant or sterile woman knows she will not) provided that they have intercourse in a way that would result in conception if it weren’t for the sterility or the pregnancy.

This is not false, but the main question is whether De Sales would call pregnant woman “sterile”. While she can’t beget a child during pregnancy, fertility is still part of her being.

That is exactly what you have been claiming. If sex is solely for procreation, as you said St. Augustine said very clearly earlier in the thread, then barren and pregnant couples could NOT have sex without sinning. For what purpose would they be doing it?

For the purpose of augustinian “Marital debt”, ie. lowering the sexual tension.

They can’t be doing it with a procreative intent because they cannot procreate (at least at the time). Of course, St. Thomas and St. Francis argue that there are other reasons for intercourse and therefore having relations even at times when one knows one is infertile is not sinful.

Only if the act occurs during infertile period because of “lack of control”. But seeking act during infertility specifically because it would be infertile is attempt to ejaculate without chance of generation.

I think we should agree on our object. I was speaking of act itself previously, but you now speak of woman. Woman is a substance. In this case, fertility and infertility are accidents. They are not essential to the woman. Obviously she would still be a woman whether she were fertile or infertile. Hence, St. Thomas argues that a man who has intercourse with a woman even though she is sterile is not sinful, since it is only accidentally so as oppose to essentially like in the “sin against nature”.

This will probably go to broaded discussion, but let’s try…

It is possible to say fertility is essential to woman, and sterility is accidental, since woman are by their nature fertile. In case of sterility, fertility still exists as essentiality of woman, but is voided by accident. (“Fertility is still there, but something happened to it.”)

This is important because it makes fertility cycle specific. The infertile period does not make woman “sterile”, it is part of her being fertile.

If fertility were essential, then a woman would always have to be fertile to be a woman.

But since infertile period is essential for healthy natural fertility cycle, she doesn’t have to be fertile all the time. As a matter of fact, woman with non-stop fertility would be so only in case of accident.

He is talking about nonessential properties i.e. fertility. St. Francis de Sales rightly considers pregnancy and sterility (and I think it’s property to consider infertile periods as such also) as accidental conditions because a woman would still be a woman even without them.

As I said, one needs to see whether fertility was seen essential to womanhood. If you would take the fertility from a woman, she would still be woman, because *accident * took the fertility, not her nature.

 

[Chrono13]

The dissenters don’t know that with St Augustine’s heralded return to Christ and His Church he had given up Manichaeism.

I never said Augustine didn’t give up Manicheaism. Where have you read such thing?

“(3) The system of St. Augustine in opposition to this rests on three fundamental principles:
•God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;
•man remains free, even under the action of grace;
•the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.”newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

The stoic philosophers were actually pagans, and had no desire whatsoever to speak about Christian God. When one says Augustine is stoic, it means that his way of thinking is stoic. And on that way he can come to different conclusions then other stoics. Or other Christians.

Contraception was banned because the Fathers knew from Sacred Scripture that offspring was the main purpose of sex within marriage. (Posts #386, 374).

These posts were replied. Fathers believed offspring was the only (not main) purpose of sex in marriage.

The Magisterium has always affirmed the natural law, has never condemned using the infertile periods, has affirmed their right use when they became known, and no one can take the place of the Magisterium.

It would be difficult to prove that “natural law” of the past is the one we use today in defending our ethics. We have already established that Augustine knew about infertile periods, and has prohibited copulation on these days if intent was sex without begetting. This means he had other interpretation of nature and it’s laws. And if clergy took his view during ages, one will find difficulty in proving that teachings have universal nature of magisterium.

Confusion and misrepresentation are the hallmarks of dissenters.

I’m not confused, and my interpretations are not proven missed by your side.

 

[Chrono13]

Illicit means prohibited. So which is it?

Augustine would repeat my previous comment.

 

[Chrono13]

That was my understanding of Aquinas as well–because things can be deduced by logic, interpretations may change when more truth (information) is known about the details. (For example, how conception actually works.)

Yes. There is a catch in theology. What happens when newly discovered truth reveals previous natural ethics were not right? A lot of things.

 

[Chrono13]

No interpretations can change the principles of the natural law which we have seen even pagan Cicero acknowledge: “whether advanced by pagans, Christians, or Jews, natural law philosophy seeks to vindicate principles accessible to, and thus binding upon, every reasonable person.

Sure they can. Interpretation of nature greatly changes what is believed to be it’s laws. For example, if sex is only for procreation, it can’t be practiced for expressing love. If sex is for procreation and unity, it can.

“One of the clarifying points in a brilliant new book on natural law from Ignatius Press is that we do not come to know the natural law by being taught it by others. The book is J. Budziszewski’s What We Can’t Not Know.

However, interpretation of nature is greatly influenced by culture or technology it has. You simply can’t say various cultures of the world have the same approach to nature and it’s laws.

“The fourth witness is natural consequences. The point here is that when we deviate from the natural law, in the long run bad things happen. Our perception of these consequences is common, though not guaranteed.”

Yes. For example, Catholics supporting French Revolution is natural consequence when you expect them to believe sex is only for procreation and similar things.

 

[LaSainte]

Abu, if you read the data of the study, it states that there is a 1.8% higher chance of a woman miscarrying when she conceived at a non-optimal time (i.e.) using NFP. women who had experienced miscarriages before were 22% more likely to miscarry.

Now, 1.8% may not seem like much, if we were talking about the pill here instead of NFP, people would of course be saying that even 1.8% is too much of a chance to take on a possible abortion.

So what is the answer here? Is this acceptable simply because the MEANS are condoned by the Church? I’m guessing that you’re going to have people come out and say that it falls under the principle of double-effect, that since the resulting miscarriages/abortions are unintended, then it’s morally o.k.

But we do have to remember that with the pill, the chances of miscarriage/abortion are probably not even as great as this, since its true function is to first suppress ovulation altogether.

Would this make condoms the more moral choice of the three? It would if the concern is actually to prevent the death/miscarriage/abortion of embryos.