But even though he is talking about marital sexuality, St. Augustine’s original intent must still be understood. Marital sexuality, like other worldly things, cannot easily be distinguished between its use and its enjoyment.
However, in Augustine’s view, the procreation is easily distinguished as the only natural use of intercourse, while enjoyment is simply present. It is not even secondary end.
He may have, but he may have not. I bet, however that he probably would have given the fact that the Church teaches it and St. Francis was a devout follower of the Magisterium.
This is that tricky part of the discussion. If I am right, and Church mainstream taught up to 1800s that sex should be practiced only for procreation, it will be difficult to explain how Magisterium “works”. I mean, bishops of today would probably have a hard time explaining how this teaching fits in their theology of hierarchy.
I think it’s important to refresh ourselves of your original assertion (the true crux of the matter) and let us not lose sight of it. You originally stated that St. Augustine believed sex was solely for procreation and that the Church taught that up until the 1800’s. While I did not doubt that St. Augustine taught thus, I did doubt whether your belief that it was Church teaching was correct. At least St. Francis and St. Thomas taught differently and I know the latter would certainly not have dismissed anything the Fathers said if it really were a matter of doctrine.
So far I offered two quotes of St. Francis which suggest his belief was indeed so. Thomas, as I have stated long ago, is somewhat on his own on certain things.
That St. Francis de Sales is telling his audience that it’s okay (even holy) to have intercourse when it is known that the woman will not be able to conceive is a big step in favor of NFP, though it’s not exactly it. What he is obviously suggesting is that procreation is NOT the sole purpose of marriage of intercourse.
But this is following Augustine, who also approved of infertile sex in case of martial debt, which was still seen as excess and venial fault.
The procreation IS the sole purpose, while others are tolerated.
In fact, he says explicitly that it is the “first” and “primary” end which indicates other ends as well. That in itself contradicts your original assertion that the Church has taught universally from its beginning to the mid-1800s
that sex was solely for procreation.
Take into account, he speaks of procreation as primary end of marriage, not of marital intercourse. This is the usual misinterpretation. Marriage and marital sexuality are not the same thing. Marriage, for stoic, has blessings of procreation, mutual aid and sacrament. But sexuality has only procreation end, while it’s unity is mainly in “helping in the burden of lust”.
The main idea is that St. Francis is saying that even when you know you can’t conceive, the marital act is still holy provided it be done in a certain way. That is the reason I posted the quote. It is clearly against your idea that sex is for procreation only.
Once again, sex is only for procreation, while other uses are simply tolerated. They are practiced against the nature of sexuality, but their practice doesn’t change the sacredness of act.
YIf, however, you are now establishing that he taught otherwise, you would be contradicting your original premise. And if that is the case with couples where the woman happens to be barren, why is it not also the case where neither of the person in the couple are barren?
You got me wrong. Sex for procreation and sex for marital debt are two separate cases. First is without fault. Second is venial sin, because it is done to satisfy lust, which according to Augustine didn’t exist prior to Fall of man.
Augustine said sex for procreation is the only natural way of doing it, while the other case is merely tolerated. This is why barren couple can have sex- their act is wrong, but tolerated.
Case of a couple which is not sterile… they can have sex on infertile day if they simply can’t control themselves. And since you can’t chart days you will lose control, the use of technique would literally be “how to have infertile sex between two fertile people”.
Clearly in the case of a couple where the woman is either pregnant or sterile, having intercourse is without chance of generation and deliberate (they are fully aware that generation cannot result). But both St. Thomas and St. Francis say that it is not sinful in those cases. Neither of them adds a conditional clause that the couple must be “lacking in control” (I’m not sure what you mean exactly). That is something of your invention.
By lack of control, I meant what Augustine said about marital debt. If one spouse can’t control his desire, he can preform an act with the other- **no matter the fertility.
**. There is venial fault, however.
The bold part is important. Act with sterile woman is fine if you simply have the moment of weakness. But having sex on the day of infertility because conception is not expected is not the same case. Such act is not done because of weakness, but of desire to have unprocreative sex.
The final answer is that St. Thomas and St. Francis simply tolerate sex between sterile partners. But to them, a woman in infertile period is not sterile, since *infertility *is part of fertile circle. To have sex on infertile day because of marital debt is tolerated. To have sex on purpose because of infertility, is an attempt to ejaculate without chance of generation.
). In the same chapter St. Francis uses the example of eating and food to express his idea of sex. Here is what he says: