NFP and contraception

[sacredcello]

I’m not really seeing your point here.

My point is three-fold. First, this study is about detectable pregnancies, so there is no way of knowing how many embryos are lost to miscarriage before implantation as a result of conception with optimal timing, due to causes such as chromosonal abnormality, poor egg or sperm quality, poor movement through the fallopian tube, etc. The likelihood of this being the case (that there are just as many or more miscarriages during this very delicate time than there are later), is very high. However, the difficulty of proving this, is the same as a study which would be undertaken to prove the abortifacient action of the Pill. You would have to collect every drop of menstrual fluid, etc. If you follow the logic that is being used to say that “NFP leads to miscarriage”, then you could just as easily say that “Trying to conceive leads to miscarriage”. So, the conclusions would be that no one should have sex???

Secondly, the “non-optimally timed conceptions” in this study which ended in miscarriage were not shown to be outside the window of what NFP defines as the fertile phase. It mentions “outside of 48 hours” as non-optimal. But, this is still within the window of fertility according to NFP rules. It is not a foregone conclusion that NFP-users who are strictly following the rules would even conceive at all.

Thirdly, there is no proof that the “non-optimally timed conceptions” in this study which ended in miscarriage were ill-fated due to the timing. If these same couples were to have conceived during “optimal timing”, the pregnancies still might have failed, but we might never have known about it because they ended before or around the time of implantation. The data is titillating, but it does not prove that “NFP causes an increase in miscarriage”. And, these were the conclusions of the medical doctors who undertook the study. I agree with their conclusions.

 

[LaSainte]

Actually, the doctors who undertook the study were in agreement that for those who had suffered past miscarriages, the increase in miscarriage for those practicing NFP who had a non-optimally timed conception was much, much greater.

And I don’t think that your point about not knowing whether one conceived and miscarried before implantation in his particular study has any bearing on anything.

 

[Warrior1979]

Where does it say in any Church document that the Pill is immoral due to its abortifacient potential?

I made a response to your statement:

Yet, this is not the only reason that the Pill is immoral.

You’ve stated it’s immoral, and now you are stating that it’s not immoral. No wonder these arguments go on for pages…the line of reasoning is a moving target.

It does not spell this out in any encyclical such as Humanae Vitae

We must be reading different copies…mine is from the Vatican site. Please read the second paragraph of “Unlawful Birth Control Methods.” If you’re going to comment, please note that it refers to “birth control,” not “contraception.”

It would be largely an increased risk of death, otherwise the Pill would not have been classified as a Group I carcinogen.

I am very happy that I am not married to a man who would suggest to me that “oh, well, honey, it’s an increased risk of death for some causes…why don’t you go ahead and take it because I don’t care to undertake the discipline of self mastery”

I can make similar arguments about just about any modern medicine…in fact, most are worse.

 

[sacredcello]

Actually, the doctors who undertook the study were in agreement that for those who had suffered past miscarriages, the increase in miscarriage for those practicing NFP who had a non-optimally timed conception was much, much greater.

Yes, and this brings us full circle to my earlier point that repeat miscarriage is often a treatable condition. The NaPro Technology doctors have been helping women who have these difficulties with great success for many years now. They have much different protocols than mainstream OB/Gyn and RE’s who tend to use the Pill as a band-aid for everything. Though, it is not entirely their fault because these Pill-based protocols are housed in the computers of the insurance companies, and any doctor or patient who tries to go against it will have to suffer.

In any case, here are some of the causes of miscarriage listed on the Pope Paul VI Institute for human reproduction:

Causes
Often, the reasons for repeated miscarriage is not known. Sometimes, however, it has a definite cause. Examples of known causes include:

  - Hormone imbalance
  - Illnesses in the mother
  - Disorders of the immune system
  - Abnormalities of the uterus
  - Environmental and lifestyle factors
  - Chromosomal problems

If you have had more than one miscarriage, each may have had a different cause.

popepaulvi.com/ncfwh-evaltreat.htm#miscarriage

If a couple has a miscarriage, but they are not trying to conceive another child, then NaPro Technology can still help them, because the woman will likely have other health issues related to PMS, painful periods, etc… The same treatment that will prevent repeat miscarriage will also bring relief for PMS and give some pain relief.

And I don’t think that your point about not knowing whether one conceived and miscarried before implantation in his particular study has any bearing on anything.

It does if we are talking about the dignity of the unborn. Some are extrapolating that “NFP causes miscarriages”, when, in fact, miscarriages are most likely occurring at the same or higher rate during the time before implantation (this study doesn’t prove otherwise).

 

[sacredcello]

You’ve stated it’s immoral, and now you are stating that it’s not immoral. No wonder these arguments go on for pages…the line of reasoning is a moving target.

No, I never changed position. The Pill is immoral on many different levels. What I did say is that you won’t find any Church document that states that the Pill is immoral specifically because of its abortifacient action. This was your point earlier…you said that the Church should get out of the details. I said, the Church has never stated the abortifacient potential as a reason for it being immoral. I said that laypeople have done so and have helped us to understand the Church’s position better. Endocrinologists and gynecologists have written about it and helped us to understand based on their expertise and knowledge of the reproductive system.

We must be reading different copies…mine is from the Vatican site. Please read the second paragraph of “Unlawful Birth Control Methods.” If you’re going to comment, please note that it refers to “birth control,” not “contraception.”

I looked at the Vatican site, which is worded differently than my copy of Humanae Vitae, however, neither of these states that the Pill is an abortifacient. It states that, “above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.” This is not referring to the Pill, but to direct abortion. Nevertheless, all forms of “birth control” (if you prefer that term), which perpetually or temporarily sterilize sex, are unlawful.

But, this is not the point that we were discussing earlier. You were saying that the Church should have ruled otherwise in regard to contraception, because if Holy Mother Church were aware of that study which you claim proves that “NFP causes miscarriages” (it does not), then She would have had to rule differently. I am asking, how should the Church have ruled otherwise, when there was never any specific mention of the Pill as an abortifacient? All forms of contraception or artificial “birth control” (since you prefer that term), are immoral on many different levels, not just the abortifacient, or ill-health-causing or harm to society, or cause for divorce, etc. They are immoral because they are an offense against God and against marital love.

I can make similar arguments about just about any modern medicine…in fact, most are worse.

Yes, and if we are truly followers of Blessed John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, we will not abuse our bodies by poor eating habits, lack of exercise, sleep and other lifestyle choices which bring about poor health. If we take care of ourselves, we lean on these medications only in case of emergency, not as a matter of course. Unless, there is some genetic condition, in which case, modern medicine can be of great help. But, you are right that there are bad side effects to many medications. However, to stop a healthy reproductive system from functioning, as in the case of the Pill, there are exceptionally serious health consequences.

 

[Abu]

Great posts sacredcello.

Facing Reality:
On St Augustine. sex and marriage from Msgr Cormac P Burke:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

'In his debate with Julian, he makes it clear that it is not pleasure which he criticizes: “because pleasure can also be honourable”; [32] and he is content that Julian admits that pleasure can be both licit and illicit. [33]

'…summing up what we have so far established. The essential goods of marriage—offspring, fidelity, the unbreakable bond—are vigorously defended and praised by Augustine, who presents them as the laudable blessings of the married state. He also proposes the goodness of sexual differences, and of the intimacy and pleasure of marital intercourse: all of these given by God. The disorder that he draws attention to resides in our sense appetite (which, once again, is good in itself), [35] and that disorder makes itself particularly felt in the area of sexuality. His reserve, then, is not about the goodness of marriage, but about the force and effect of *libido *or the *concupiscentia carnis *which, he says, "is not a good that proceeds from the essence of marriage, but an evil which is the accident of original sin. [36]

Concupiscence in marriage
'What then, for Augustine, is carnal concupiscence, if it is not the pleasure of sexual intercourse? [37] It is that “disobedience of the flesh” as a result of which the human will “has lost all proper command for itself over its own members”;[38] “that carnal appetite which impels man to seek feelings because of the pleasure they give, whether the spirit opposes or consents to this.” [39]

'It is that disordered aspect of sexual desire which breaks away from man’s will and from the rational ordering of the sex appetite; which so often makes him experience sexual desire when satisfaction of that desire is either impossible or illicit; which blurs his moral sense, inspiring that his mind reproves: actions that are to be judged “non concupiscendo, sed intelligendo”. [40] In a word, concupiscence is the compelling tendency to seek pleasure independently of reason or will. [41]

'The husband who cares for his wife will at times find himself in the throes of this conflict. He realizes perhaps that his wife does not want intercourse, and yet he does: or, more accurately, his instinct does. He would wish to have his sexual nature readily obedient to the call of his will, to the control of reason; yet finds that his instinct does not easily obey. He has to master it. This difficulty which he experiences, this “struggle between will and libido,”[46] this threatening presence, also within marriage, of sexual selfishness, constitutes the evil of concupiscence which, according to Augustine, married people must learn to use well.

'Augustine, along with the whole Catholic tradition of moral teaching, insists that it is precisely because the body is good that it can be used wrongly. So in a characteristic passage, he contrasts the virtuous use of the evil of ‘libido’ (i.e., the ordered use of sexuality despite the disorder of concupiscence) by married people, and the sinful misuse of the good of the body by the unchaste.[54]

'Concupiscence constantly threatens to dominate both the married and the single; it has, as Augustine says, “to be mastered by the chaste,” [55] and chastity, further, is a gift of God. [56]

'In this context, it should be emphasized that awareness of the presence of a selfish element in the realm of sexuality is not the result of formal religious training. On the contrary, it is natural to each person to be aware of this problem, [57] lust as it is natural for each one to be aware of that something wrong with his or her nature which Christians have traditionally called original sin, and which prompts “desires against which the faithful also have to battle.” [58] The Church does not accept that it is being pessimistic in urging people to fight against the bad tendencies of fallen nature. This is realism not pessimism. To say we cannot win in the fight would be pessimism; we can win—with Christ, [59] not without him. But to say that there is no fight to be fought, is a form of Pelagianism.

“Augustine points out how concupiscence is moderated by “parental affection”: and says that “a certain gravity or depth of meaning is given to the intense pleasure of intercourse when husband and wife reflect that their union tends to make them father and mother.” [69] Once again we see that he has nothing to say against pleasure, but insists on the need to reflect on the meaning lying behind an act as pleasurable as intercourse. [70]

'…these personalist values to be naturally found in the marriage act are destroyed if one deliberately denaturalises the act by contraception. If spouses allow pleasure to matter too much to them, they are in danger of taking rather than of giving, and of so losing the sense of mutual donation. Conjugal chastity will help them keep the truly personalist values paramount in their minds: i.e., the reaffirmation, by means of intercourse, of their spousal relationship, shown in the sharing of open-to-life procreativity. These higher motives express and preserve their good will. And then, as Augustine says, the good will of the spouses leads and ennobles the ensuing pleasure (which is had and enjoyed), but their good will is not led and dominated by that pleasure. [73]

 

[sacredcello]

Please, LaSainte. You have shown yourself better than this hurtful, inaccurate argument. I am THE poster child for NFP. If there is a weird problem, or a reason to limit family size and space pregnancies, I have probably dealt with it. (Have I mentioned that I have saintly husband who works very hard and is an amazing father? He is also a chronic and severe sleepwalker. Trying to chase a giant, naked man back into the house at 2 am while nine months pregnant, is no easy task.)

Your family sounds wonderful, LittleDeb. Your comment about your husband and how he is sometimes a giant sleepwalking, naked man made me laugh out loud. But, I’m sure it isn’t funny when it happens!

If we never conceive again, we will have lived our marriage very virtuously. No one in their right mind would tell us that we need to be hoping for an “oops” (I hate that term) to be more virtuous. Just because some people are confused on the so-called “failure rates” of NFP, doesn’t make it more virtuous to conceive when you didn’t intend. NFP is about the natural design. There are no “failures” in God’s plan or His design.

Good points, LittleDeb. And, since we are all created in God’s image and likeness, it does not even require a Catholic instructor couple or a Catholic context in order to learn NFP. However, if fertility awareness is taught in the context of the theology of the body and some insights into the theology of the family are given, then couples who have this knowledge are more likely to develop virtue (i.e. not to use NFP selfishly). You are right, it is not about hoping for an “oops” to make it more virtuous.

That brings me to your other point. Even IF the study you cite is true, one would be a *spontaneous *abortion. The other, a *procured *abortion. HUGE difference. One is by natural design, the other by man’s thwarting of the natural design.

This is an important distinction.

You make the point of the woman who gives up trying to conceive because it is too “emotional” to keep miscarrying. But you stop your example early, yet again. It doesn’t apply to the chronically infertile. Show me that the couple who keeps trying and keeps miscarrying has sinned. They haven’t. A miscarried baby meets her parents in heaven. An aborted baby is the death that cries out for justice. I am thankful for all those little ones I might have conceived. In heaven I will have the large family that our fallen nature has denied me here on Earth!

Our children in heaven are no less loved and cherished than if they were alive on Earth today. Natural miscarriage (at optimal or non-optimal conception times) will never be equivalent to abortion/contraception. Yet, they are being used in this thread as a means of arguing that contraception is licit.

 

[sacredcello]

Contraception is wrong. I used to practice contraception but I do not do so any longer. I finally decided that it is not worth the risk of losing my soul. That said, contraception can cause you to become permanently sterile, and yes, I am talking about so called “temporary” methods too.
.

Hello, Holly! You are not the only one who has been harmed by contraception.

What you are saying, is, indeed, true. The pill affects cervical mucus because the artificial hormones (artimones) damage the cervical crypts which produce it, leading to less CM overall, and what CM is produced may be of a lower quality. The damage can take months to heal, and for some women it never does.

You should know, though, that NaPro Technology can help. It may take awhile, but the damage can sometimes be reversed through certain treatments, such as vitamin B-6 therapy, etc.

 

[Chrono13]

I have never ejaculated in my life. I have never attempted to ejaculate either. I am female and therefore incapable of it. BUT, in your absurd statement, you actually have hit the point that the Church is making about natural design. I cannot find your earlier quote, please forgive me for not digging further. But you have also argued that the infertile phase of the *cycle *of fertility was *not *designed to avoid conception. What please was it designed to do then? Men do not have a “cycle.” Men are fertile from puberty until death. Most ejaculations do not generate. There is **nothing **there to join. “To make honey, bee need young flower, not old prune.” (Extra points to everyone who can name the quote!)

Ejaculation, as part of natural intercourse, should be preformed so that generation is possible. Since it is impossible to beget during infertile period, having sex purposely on such day because semen will be destroyed is sinful on the account of intent. The only way how child can be conceived is in case couple fails to detect fertility. Meaning, if NFP fails.

You can have sex on infertile day, or in case of sterility, but it is moral only if you do so without intent of using such state.

The rabbit doe ovulates every single time she has sex. There are barbs on the buck’s penis that cause it. When she is pregnant, she will not have sex. Only humans have truly infertile sex. (Some people argue dolphins do too, but I haven’t known if they have sex while pregnant.) It isn’t like God didn’t know how to design a completely fertile animal.

Most fauna usually have infertile periods and these are not used in nature to control fertility. As for dolphins, they are not believed to have or use “infertile sex” but seem to have it for pleasure. Maybe even “unitive” dimension of their relationship. There were some claims that they are also capable of performing rape.

The important fact is that human *females *have a cycle of infertility, while still maintaining the ability to have infertile sex. Human males do not have a cycle of infertility. God didn’t design it that way because He was interesting in confusing people about their sinfulness. (“Are we attempting to beget?”) He designed it that way so that every sexual encounter in humans did **not **result in begetting.

The Church did not share your opinion in the past.

Do you really think that he made pregnant women infertile because He wanted those men to go off and impregnate other women? If so, I know of a few religions who would welcome you with open arms. I doubt you think that, but your argument leads there

.

Yes, horrible religions as Old Testament Judaism and Early Christianity whose leading saint on sexual issues (St. Augustine) claimed polygamy is forbidden because of Roman practice, not natural law.

There have been many efforts in recent history to go back and fix faulty translations. Many current theologians say that the word “lust” was often used in more translations than the original warranted. St. Augustine wasn’t nearly as harsh as we have been led to believe. He didn’t believe any sex was *subjectively *sinless, but he had words other than “lust” to describe the sin.

I’m sorry, but Augustine’s claims are very clear and have nothing to do with bad translations. He said parent’s orgasm transfers the original sin to child. Now how can you translate that in a different way?

Please tell me Chrono, in addition to answering the purpose of the infertile design, please answer this: At what point would the couple under Augustinian’s watch have known that their sex was acceptable since it had resulted in a “procreation?” Do you think that with a confusing interpretation like that, do you think that you would have had couples skipping Communion and going to Confession all the time to confess this “sin” of sex?

From everything we know about nature, it is difficult to prove that infertile period is some kind of defensive mechanism, which can be used only for “grave reasons”. If for nothing else, it would be much more perfect if he had such use. I mean, you are supposed to check your vaginal fluids and body temperature in order to detect it. It is was for spacing births in “grave situations” it would be much more evident.

Couple had to intent begetting in Augustinian thought. Procreation didn’t have to come, it only had to be intended during act. Without this, the act was venial sin. It wasn’t required to be reported in confession as such, but was pardoned by prayer or fasting.

However, it is very tricky to answer… what happened to layman who said sex without desire of begetting is not at all sinful? It seems such person would be guilty of mortal sin of dissidentism.

HINT: You are *not *the first person to misinterpret St. Augustine.)

I am more then ready to confess my misses, if they are proven. However, more then one conservative during this discussion confirmed Augustine is indeed stoic on this matter.

 

[Chrono13]

I agree. But my point is that the use of a thing and its enjoyment cannot be explicitly divided. We also need to figure out in what ways does St. Francis think marriage intercourse can be used.

It was certainly divided in Augustine. As a matter of fact, while pleasure was not attacked per se, it was still perceived as negative element.

Do you have a source for this?

I have read this in the book, but don’t remember exactly which one (much ink was spilled over that topic). I will check it out, but any source dealing with their correspondence would acknowledge.

Furthermore, by your reasoning a woman who is pregnant needs to hope she procreates again while she is having relations? This doesn’t make any sense. A rule is not a wish. Neither is the “order appointed for the procreation of children” (another translation) a wish.

This seems suggested by St. Augustine, but since for him the pregnant or sterile woman has no natural reason for intercourse, such activity would simply be described as venial sinful marital debt.

I think what he means by “rules of generation” is a certain way of having intercourse (ex. The Rule of St. Benedict). He probably has something like Onanism in mind (hence he recalls the story of Onan). According to him, intercourse should be done in a way that would lead to procreation even in spite of conditions preventing it.

Now, we can re-open the part where St. Thomas speaks how ejaculation must have a chance to achieve procreation. Since, by default, it is impossible to beget on infertile day, using NFP is done specifically to ejaculate with desire for sperm to be thrown out. And this indeed happens, unless pair misses to detect signs of fertility.

 

[Good_Daughter]

By “rhythm” the article referring to NFP users, although perhaps they placed it under the umbrella of “rhythm”. Let’s face it, nobody uses the rhythm method as we Catholics understand it anymore.

No LaSainte, rythm and modern NFP are two different things. Your article refers specifically to rythm a number of times and goes on to detail a ‘problem’ inherent to the rythm method. The umbrella is NFP, rythm falls under it. Would you trust the science if the author didn’t bother to get the label right?

If you are correct about your description of the most conservative forms of NFP, hen how do you explain the failure rate? How would it be possible for ANYONE to become pregnant using it? The fact is that it can and does fail, and when it fails for a woman with a tendency to miscarry, the chances of spontaneous abortion/miscarriage rise by 15%. Is this acceptable? Apparently.

NFP fails because couples ‘cheat’ or have inaccurate information (a problem alleviated with better education). The only way to fix the miscarriage ‘problem’ you present is to forbid couples from having natural sex on the ‘fringes of fertility’ whether they’re trying to avoid or achieve pregnancy (as modern NFP does). Even couples not actively trying to avoid or achieve would have to abstain at that time. Would that be acceptable?

 

[LaSainte]

Yes, and this brings us full circle to my earlier point that repeat miscarriage is often a treatable condition. The NaPro Technology doctors have been helping women who have these difficulties with great success for many years now. They have much different protocols than mainstream OB/Gyn and RE’s who tend to use the Pill as a band-aid for everything. Though, it is not entirely their fault because these Pill-based protocols are housed in the computers of the insurance companies, and any doctor or patient who tries to go against it will have to suffer.

In any case, here are some of the causes of miscarriage listed on the Pope Paul VI Institute for human reproduction:

popepaulvi.com/ncfwh-evaltreat.htm#miscarriage

If a couple has a miscarriage, but they are not trying to conceive another child, then NaPro Technology can still help them, because the woman will likely have other health issues related to PMS, painful periods, etc… The same treatment that will prevent repeat miscarriage will also bring relief for PMS and give some pain relief.

It does if we are talking about the dignity of the unborn. Some are extrapolating that “NFP causes miscarriages”, when, in fact, miscarriages are most likely occurring at the same or higher rate during the time before implantation (this study doesn’t prove otherwise).

The whole poin is that IF a woman does NOT want to conceive, but has repeated problems with miscarriage, then her use of NFP would cause a huge spike in miscarriages if/when it failed. As far as I know, my mom’s friend who had this problem did not have any other issues that required treatment. So this massive spike in miscarriages IS ACCEPTABLE, period. Just say it.

Also, I am still not sure why you are so insistent on pre-implantation miscarriages. They haven’t/can’t be measured and there is no point in speculating on it without information. The information we DO have is clear.

 

[LaSainte]

No LaSainte, rythm and modern NFP are two different things. Your article refers specifically to rythm a number of times and goes on to detail a ‘problem’ inherent to the rythm method. The umbrella is NFP, rythm falls under it. Would you trust the science if the author didn’t bother to get the label right?

NFP fails because couples ‘cheat’ or have inaccurate information (a problem alleviated with better education). The only way to fix the miscarriage ‘problem’ you present is to forbid couples from having natural sex on the ‘fringes of fertility’ whether they’re trying to avoid or achieve pregnancy (as modern NFP does). Even couples not actively trying to avoid or achieve would have to abstain at that time. Would that be acceptable?

They were using NFP. The study itself says they were using NFP and relied on charting of he couples for information. It was the article, NOT the study, that got the name wrong.

Would it be acceptable to further narrow the window of sex for the couple who practices NFP? Well, it would certainly be more moral than to go around knowingly causing miscarriages wouldn’t it? For couples not practicing NFP it is a non-issue, because they wouldn’t know this information, would be unaware of the status of their fertilityand would not be intentionally using a method that relies on miscarriages as a part of its success rate.

 

[Chrono13]

On another note, you claimed that he like St. Augustine thought sex was for procreation only and sex between infertile couples is only permitted, but still sinful. Now that it has been shown that St. Francis did NOT think so, but thought that sex was also for purposes of uniting (and sex between two sterile people is not sinful in any sense), you have now modified your position and said, “yes, it’s not sinful, but only in so far as they desire to beget”. Why would a pregnant woman desire to beget again after she has already conceived? :

Since, to Augustine, procreation is the only excuse for sex. An act must be justified in accordance to his view of natural law in order to be clean of venial transgression.

Since pregnant woman does not have such excuse, she also has no natural or moral reason for intercourse. The only moral solution for her would be desiring sex to beget another child (impossible in nature, but possible as intent) or providing marital debt to her husband (which would still include venial sin).

 

[Chrono13]

They are saying two different things (The phrase “as if it were” is key). The first one makes sense the second one doesn’t. Rather it says intercourse should always be done with the hope of begetting even though such a hope may sometimes not exist . It’s like the saying that “I played the violin just as if it were my own”. The clause “as if it were” implies that it, in fact, is not my own. Likewise with the statement from St. Francis. He’s saying that “the marriage debt should always be rendered…as if it were with the hope of begetting children”. He’s talking about the way intercourse is had (rendered) all the while implying that “the hope of begetting children” does not in actuality exist. To wit, he is saying what I have been saying he says, that sex should be procreative (capable of procreation) even though it does not result in procreation.

I will do something what was rarely done in discussions similar to this. I will admit you are right, and I was wrong.

It seems that De Sales indeed approved unity in sexual intercourse. However, the fact that discussions regarding “procreation-only” continued show that Church did not embrace such theories in their completeness.

 

[Chrono13]

Chrono13’s reasoning is riddled with nonsense, from the beginning.

My mistake was that I attributed too much Augustine to De Sales. Meaning, you just called Augustine riddled with nonsense.

Chrono 13 has shown repeatedly that his prejudices interfere with logical reasoning, and he is now incapable of acknowledging truth, fact and the meaning of either.

At the contrary, I am always ready to confess my mistakes and misinterpretations when they occur. I am not like somebody who claims science or Church did not know about rhythm method prior to modern era.

I am a Catholic seeking truth. If somebody points it, I am more then happy to embrace it in my search.

The contorted efforts to assume NBR was known at the time of the Early Fathers is just one example of the obsession.

Oh, come on, Abu. You should have stopped with this the first time I quoted St. Augustine’s disapproval of tracking days after menstruation in order to have non-procreative sex.

The second obsession is the attempt to portray NBR, as developed, as a Catholic fetish, and to discredit the use of this part of God’s creation of human nature as a killing field.

I simply find it difficult to believe God created this period as something to be used in “serious reasons” to have sex without kids.

The third obsession is to discredit Christ as God the Son in transferring His authority to His Church to infallibly teach the truths of faith and morals.

You wish. I would be very stupid to think so. I simply say that “faith and morals” had their specific moments during Church History and no authority can deny them. If Augustine and bishops of his time claimed sex is only for procreation, there is no pope who can say they have not.

 

[Chrono13]

'…summing up what we have so far established. The essential goods of marriage—offspring, fidelity, the unbreakable bond—are vigorously defended and praised by Augustine, who presents them as the laudable blessings of the married state. He also proposes the goodness of sexual differences, and of the intimacy and pleasure of marital intercourse: all of these given by God. The disorder that he draws attention to resides in our sense appetite (which, once again, is good in itself), [35] and that disorder makes itself particularly felt in the area of sexuality. His reserve, then, is not about the goodness of marriage, but about the force and effect of *libido *or the *concupiscentia carnis *which, he says, "is not a good that proceeds from the essence of marriage, but an evil which is the accident of original sin. [36]

Again, speaking of marriage and not of marital intercourse.

Concupiscence in marriage
'What then, for Augustine, is carnal concupiscence, if it is not the pleasure of sexual intercourse? [37] It is that “disobedience of the flesh” as a result of which the human will “has lost all proper command for itself over its own members”;[38] “that carnal appetite which impels man to seek feelings because of the pleasure they give, whether the spirit opposes or consents to this.” [39]

Missinterpretation. Disobedience of the flash to St. Augustine is his idea that genital organs were in power of ration before the fall of mankind. He thought Adam could move his genitalia as we move hands. This is why human will “lost command over it’s members”. It didn’t lose command during intercourse, but when Adam sinned.

'It is that disordered aspect of sexual desire which breaks away from man’s will and from the rational ordering of the sex appetite; which so often makes him experience sexual desire when satisfaction of that desire is either impossible or illicit; which blurs his moral sense, inspiring that his mind reproves: actions that are to be judged “non concupiscendo, sed intelligendo”. [40] In a word, concupiscence is the compelling tendency to seek pleasure independently of reason or will.

However, the only way why augustinian ration, or reasonable will, would seek intercourse is for procreation. This is how Burke avoids the hot potato of stoicism. He says “Augustine says sex should be used rationally” but never acknowledges what is rational use to Augustine. And what happened when secular society read Augustine? Not something nice to Burke.

'The husband who cares for his wife will at times find himself in the throes of this conflict. He realizes perhaps that his wife does not want intercourse, and yet he does: or, more accurately, his instinct does. He would wish to have his sexual nature readily obedient to the call of his will, to the control of reason; yet finds that his instinct does not easily obey. He has to master it. This difficulty which he experiences, this “struggle between will and libido,”[46] this threatening presence, also within marriage, of sexual selfishness, constitutes the evil of concupiscence which, according to Augustine, married people must learn to use well.

Now, this is simply Burke speaking Theology of body. Augustine would not sign this.

“Augustine points out how concupiscence is moderated by “parental affection”: and says that “a certain gravity or depth of meaning is given to the intense pleasure of intercourse when husband and wife reflect that their union tends to make them father and mother.” [69] Once again we see that he has nothing to say against pleasure, but insists on the need to reflect on the meaning lying behind an act as pleasurable as intercourse. [70]

Not really. It simply says there is meaning to the pleasure while couple intends procreation. It is very evident how Augustinian quote and Burke’s explanation separate.

'…these personalist values to be naturally found in the marriage act are destroyed if one deliberately denaturalises the act by contraception. If spouses allow pleasure to matter too much to them, they are in danger of taking rather than of giving, and of so losing the sense of mutual donation. Conjugal chastity will help them keep the truly personalist values paramount in their minds: i.e., the reaffirmation, by means of intercourse, of their spousal relationship, shown in the sharing of open-to-life procreativity. These higher motives express and preserve their good will. And then, as Augustine says, the good will of the spouses leads and ennobles the ensuing pleasure (which is had and enjoyed), but their good will is not led and dominated by that pleasure. [73]

Now, this argument blows up the moment we remember Augustine’s writings on NFP. He actually sounds much coherent then the promoters of this technique. They say using NFP makes couple more devoted to each other since they are not blocking their fertility. For Augustine, that is absurd. How can anyone tell these spouses are not keeping their fertility for themselves? The entire system is established to provide them sex without begetting a child. As a matter of fact, the only way how child is conceived in this case is if they fail to recognize the fertility of a woman. What kind of openess to life it is, when life happens only if somebody fails to do something?

 

[Warrior1979]

I said, the Church has never stated the abortifacient potential as a reason for it being immoral.

We are clearly not reading the same documents. This is clearly addressed in “Unlawful Birth Control Methods.”

I looked at the Vatican site, which is worded differently than my copy of Humanae Vitae, however, neither of these states that the Pill is an abortifacient. It states that, “above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.” This is not referring to the Pill, but to direct abortion. Nevertheless, all forms of “birth control” (if you prefer that term), which perpetually or temporarily sterilize sex, are unlawful.

Note that “above all” does not mean “only,” it simply means that particular circumstance is viewed differently. In other words, direct abortion is viewed more seriously than other types of abortion, but it by no means excludes other types of abortions.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

…

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

The Pill would most definitely fall under this description, especially if one wants to argue that it is an abortificient. There is simply no way around it.

But, this is not the point that we were discussing earlier. You were saying that the Church should have ruled otherwise in regard to contraception, because if Holy Mother Church were aware of that study which you claim proves that “NFP causes miscarriages” (it does not), then She would have had to rule differently. I am asking, how should the Church have ruled otherwise, when there was never any specific mention of the Pill as an abortifacient?

Since the argument is false at the outset, so is the conclusion.

Do you really believe that abortifacients are acceptable by the Church?..this discussion is getting more amusing with each post.

 

[Chrono13]

Father Richard M. Hogan, in his book called “Is NFP Good?” continues:

St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, taught that marriage and sexual intercourse were for procreation. Spouses should intend procreation when they engage in the marital act. He realized that sexual intercourse could be used as a remedy for concupiscence, but he taught that spouses who did this were guilty of a venial sin. Augustine does indicate at one point that marital relations can express friendship, and so it seems that he does leave the door open to intercourse as an expression of fidelity. This development pointed to what was to come.

This is so much better then Burke Abu quoted for last few days.

Augustine indeed claimed sexuality can express friendship, but this quote has to be seen in context. He almost immediately after writing this started to talk about sinfulness of sex without desire of procreation and venial fault of marital debt.

Now, I have a question to ask…Am I the only one who finds unitive dimension of marital sexuality developing for more then 1500 years a little odd?
Was this development of Holy Spirit? And how are we to cope with fact that most couples, if we are to use a little Decameron and wit, knew sex was unitive despite bishops claiming otherwise? As have pagans, who have no part in God’s hierarchical guidance?

I mean, did God need all those centuries to reveal something so evident? Was this step “sex is only for procreation” really something He intended? Were people who invented this system really under His guidance? Are we really to believe that Catholics, for untold centuries, had to have sex only for procreation in order to be faithful?

 

[Good_Daughter]

They were using NFP. The study itself says they were using NFP and relied on charting of he couples for information. It was the article, NOT the study, that got the name wrong.

And that’s a science article? Do you have a link to the study? I have to wonder why couples seeking to avoid pregnancy were having sex at those times. The ‘fringes of fertility’ is still fertility. They either cheated knowingly or they lacked sufficient information to practice NFP effectively.

Would it be acceptable to further narrow the window of sex for the couple who practices NFP? Well, it would certainly be more moral than to go around knowingly causing miscarriages wouldn’t it?

These couples don’t cause miscarriages, they cause conception. Causing a miscarriage is induced abortion. LittleDeb explained the difference.

For couples not practicing NFP it is a non-issue, because they wouldn’t know this information, would be unaware of the status of their fertilityand would not be intentionally using a method that relies on miscarriages as a part of its success rate.

Couples not practicing birth control (NFP or otherwise) could still be having sex on the ‘fringes of fertility’. Regardless of how often they miscarry, they are taking the same chance as couples practicing inaccurate NFP.

NFP doesn’t rely on miscarriages as part of its success rate, it relies on proper identification of a woman’s fertile and infertile times. For a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy, miscarriage is an indication of failure.