NFP and contraception

[ddarko]

I am well aware of the conclusion and expected someone to bring it up.

But what you have also done is quoted a saint that affirmatively states that action to prevent offspring is unlawful and wicked, and thereby affirmed NFP is a no-go.

The fact that conditions are placed on NFP is an absolutely clear indication that there is a problem preventing the begetting of children even problematic by natural means.

While you are challenging Abu, are you sure about your own logical competency?

Because that story of Onan speaks of a case where Onan HAS SEX with his spouse and prevented offspring.

God is not going to condemn Onan because he didn’t have SEX with his wife during a certain time. That is a morally neutral act that depends on reasons and intentions.

What you are doing here is stating that abstinence from SEX during a certain time INTERVAL is an INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL act. IT IS NOT. No where does the Scripture/Tradition say such a thing. That would actually be moronic for someone to say something like that anyway.

Do you understand that?

And hence, it NFP, which is to abstain from sex for a time interval i.e. fertile time, may be practiced with right REASON.

Btw, if your assertion is that it is immoral to have sex during infertile time, that is even MORE MORONIC because couples who are infertile won’t be able to have sex according to you

God Bless

 

[Warrior1979]

While you are challenging Abu, are you sure about your own logical competency?

Yes. In fact, the starting point for my discussion is in complete agreement with the Church, as noted below.

What you are doing here is stating that abstinence from SEX during a certain time INTERVAL is an INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL act. IT IS NOT. No where does the Scripture/Tradition say such a thing. That would actually be moronic for someone to say something like that anyway.

You clearly do not understand NFP. It includes both abstinence AND sex during the infertile period. If you disagree, your disagreement is not with me, but rather Pope Paul VI. It discussed and cited repeatedly in this thread.

Btw, if your assertion is that it is immoral to have sex during infertile time, that is even MORE MORONIC because couples who are infertile won’t be able to have sex according to you

As usual, you are misinterpreting to support your own preconceived notions. There is nothing wrong with having sex that just so happens to occur during the infertile time. OTOH, once the couple starts abstaining during the fertile period and having sex during the infertile period for the purposes of avoiding children, then there is a problem, as evidenced by the Church placing conditions on it. Once again, if you disagree, you disagree with the Church, not me.

With regard to infertile couples, what they can’t do is have sex that is “ordered to procreation,” since they can’t procreate…that is, without doing wordplay and making words mean what they don’t.

 

[Warrior1979]

With regard to Onan, obviously the result would have been the same if he had practiced NFP. Serious reason to practice NFP did not exist. Furthermore, the issue was “not producing offspring,” not “contraception.”

 

[ddarko]

Yes. In fact, the starting point for my discussion is in complete agreement with the Church, as noted below.

You clearly do not understand NFP. It includes both abstinence AND sex during the infertile period. If you disagree, your disagreement is not with me, but rather Pope Paul VI. It discussed and cited repeatedly in this thread.

As usual, you are misinterpreting to support your own preconceived notions. There is nothing wrong with having sex that just so happens to occur during the infertile time. OTOH, once the couple starts abstaining during the fertile period and having sex during the infertile period for the purposes of avoiding children, then there is a problem, as evidenced by the Church placing conditions on it. Once again, if you disagree, you disagree with the Church, not me.

Ok first, this is better. At least now we are getting close I feel.

NFP is practiced with an intention of avoiding children. That’s obvious. BUT, the person who practices NFP also has sex with the mindset that if God were to give him a child, he/she will accept the child.

Thus, the full intention of the person, if as above, is still open to new life. He just has licit reasons to avoid having children now (financially incapable of supporting for an example). But he is ready to accept new life. He is also not violating the marital acts complete giving.

So his intention in the end to try and avoid children but accept them if God still gives – is not immoral
and his sex act satisfies complete giving of each other.

Therefore there is nothing immoral in that case. Do you see what I mean? If you disagree, you are going to have to tell me, which part violates natural law or morality.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

With regard to Onan, obviously the result would have been the same if he had practiced NFP. Serious reason to practice NFP did not exist. Furthermore, the issue was “not producing offspring,” not “contraception.”

I am not sure you got the full verse.

“**Intercourse **even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented”

Intercourse means SEX btw.

So contrary to your belief, it is not saying that it is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Then everyone whose not having sex every passing moment of their fertile existence would be sinning.

God Bless

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979, #1131
But what you have also done is quoted a saint that affirmatively states that action to prevent offspring is unlawful and wicked, and thereby affirmed NFP is a no-go

Even more puerile.

1. Having crashed and burned on denying the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception in #1101, both in *Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae
2. He now crashes and burns by denigrating Pope Pius XI who quoted St Augustine affirming that contraception by Onan (withdrawal) caused God to kill him. Of course NBR is not involved, but the blind who lead the blind don’t want to see it. That’s precisely why they close their eyes to the clear distinction between virtue and vice.

The fact that conditions are placed on NFP is an absolutely clear indication that there is a problem preventing the begetting of children even problematic by natural means.

The inability to reason is endemic when blinded by egoism, a selfism that is unable to assent to the protection of the Holy Spirit on the Popes against teaching error in faith and morals, and the creation by God of fertile and infertile periods in womankind.

The right use of NBR is comparable to the right use of self-defence – without a serious reason one is guilty of grave sin by killing an attacker.

#1134
With regard to Onan, obviously the result would have been the same if he had practiced NFP. Serious reason to practice NFP did not exist. Furthermore, the issue was “not producing offspring,” not “contraception.”

Will the errors never cease? Some like this poster make their own trouble and never learn.

God killed Onan because of his contraception.
Post #489:
“Onan’s sin
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on May-14-2006:
The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground–a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient–they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.”

Post #305:
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ”

 

[copperblade]

HV isn’t infallible either. Few things actually reach the level of infallible.

I’m sorry to go back on a previous post, but why isn’t HV infallible?

 

[Chrono13]

Several things…

First, Humanae Vitae is not infallible document. It bases it’s argument on idea of universal magisterium, which proved to be extremely problematic claim once previous teaching is taken with objective mind. In past, bishops considered sex without desire of begetting unnatural (against natural law), hence forbidding periodic continence for fertility control.

People who say there was no knowledge of infertile period or Church explanation to it are in error, and proceeding with this theory only makes room for criticism. have sex on specific day in order to make semen rejected and destroyed is very similar to Onan (in both cases, intention is to destroy the semen).

Also, there seems to be tendecy to say that NFP is open to life as if conception is possible while woman is infertile. This is bizzare thinking. The only way woman will get pregnant is if the pair misinterpreted the signs of fertility. In other words, if technique doesn’t succeed.

And finally, until somebody doesn’t explain why Onan’s wife Tamar doesn’t preform her religious duty and reports wasting the seed of her husband to religious leaders, we have a problem with interpretation of the passage. Similar to protestants.

 

[ahs]

I’m not sure what makes a document fallible or infallible or what ever.

HV is an Encyclical, and therefore carries teaching authority. Catholics are bound to the teachings within it by virtue of the fact that it is an Encyclical.

RP was not an Encyclical, it was a book addressed to clergy instructing them how to form their thoughts and conduct their duties. It has no teaching authority attached to it, and Catholics are not bound to the teachings within it.

 

[Chrono13]

I’m not sure what makes a document fallible or infallible or what ever.

HV is an Encyclical, and therefore carries teaching authority. Catholics are bound to the teachings within it by virtue of the fact that it is an Encyclical.

RP was not an Encyclical, it was a book addressed to clergy instructing them how to form their thoughts and conduct their duties. It has no teaching authority attached to it, and Catholics are not bound to the teachings within it.

At that time, clergy was to teach that sex is only for procreation, and Regula served as medium for communicating the teaching (which was held as magisterium’s decision). To say that RP did not have teaching authority is problematic, since bishops of the time were thinking otherwise.

 

[Nate13]

I’m really confused by this discussion. Why do we continue to debate what the Church has taught and whether you guys can find some kind of logical inconsistency in its history? Would that change whether contraception is morally wrong? Start another thread if you want to talk about whether the Church has been constant in its teaching on this issue or has contradicted itself.

 

[ahs]

To say that RP did not have teaching authority is problematic, since bishops of the time were thinking otherwise.

I think it could be reasonably argued otherwise if someone has access to the actual book. I have yet to actually find anything within in except what you have quoted. I did find this from wikipedia:

“The personal, intellectual and moral standards Gregory enjoined did not closely reflect 6th century realities: for example, one letter from the Bishop of Cartagena (Book II, letter 54 in Gregory’s collected correspondence) praises the book, but expresses a reserve that it might prove beyond ordinary capacities.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regula_Pastoralis

Given the fact that no one else besides you has supposed access to this literature, the above comment is no less credible than your claim that bishops of the time held RP to be authoritative. Apparently there were some who did not. And while it was recommended at a series of councils, there is no suggestion that it was ever adopted into Doctrine…which explains why it is so difficult to find any reference to it other than wikipedia. I can’t find it anywhere on any official Church site.

+1 on Nate13’s suggestion. Start a new thread on that topic and let’s get back to morality in this one.

 

[Image_of_God]

Problem to those who hang their hat on the “continuous unchanged teaching of the Church,” really. That the Church has changed position on the things taught is really much more obvious in other areas (not part of the topic of discussion).

If you’re like me, and you’re not convinced that the institution of the Catholic church is protected absolutely from any error, then it’s no problem at all. The spirit of the catholic Church (notice the change in capitalization for this reason) that we profess faith in the creed is not diminished by a change.

Jesus promised to protect the Church from all error for he did not leave us orphans. That promise is sufficient for me. I have studied the various areas where changed has been suggested (Usury, slavery, etc.) and I have not reached the same conclusion you have. But as you have said, that isn’t for here.

 

[Image_of_God]

I think it could be reasonably argued otherwise if someone has access to the actual book. I have yet to actually find anything within in except what you have quoted. I did find this from wikipedia:

“The personal, intellectual and moral standards Gregory enjoined did not closely reflect 6th century realities: for example, one letter from the Bishop of Cartagena (Book II, letter 54 in Gregory’s collected correspondence) praises the book, but expresses a reserve that it might prove beyond ordinary capacities.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regula_Pastoralis

Given the fact that no one else besides you has supposed access to this literature, the above comment is no less credible than your claim that bishops of the time held RP to be authoritative. Apparently there were some who did not. And while it was recommended at a series of councils, there is no suggestion that it was ever adopted into Doctrine…which explains why it is so difficult to find any reference to it other than wikipedia. I can’t find it anywhere on any official Church site.

+1 on Nate13’s suggestion. Start a new thread on that topic and let’s get back to morality in this one.

Do not doubt the honesty of Chrono here.

You can find Pastoral Rule here.

 

[ahs]

Do not doubt the honesty of Chrono here.

You can find Pastoral Rule here.

THANKS!! My apologies to you, Chrono13, if led any to doubt.

 

[ahs]

Okay, so this is fromBook III Chapter 27…the same chapter as the first RP quote:

“when the married have intercourse with each other even incontinently, they still avoid lapse into sin, and are still saved through mercy. For they find as it were a little city, wherein to be protected from the fire; since this married life is not indeed marvellous for virtue, but yet is secure from punishment. Whence the same Lot says to the angel, This city is near to flee unto, and it is small, and I shall be saved therein. Is it not a little one, and my soul shall live in it Genesis 19:20? So then it is said to be near, and yet is spoken of as a refuge of safety, since married life is neither far separated from the world, nor yet alien from the joy of safety. But the married, in this course of conduct, then preserve their lives as it were in a small city, when they intercede for each other by continual supplications. Whence it is also rightly said by the Angel to the same Lot, See I have accepted your prayers concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city for the which you have spoken Genesis 19:21. For in truth, when supplication is poured out to God, such married life is by no means condemned. Concerning which supplication Paul also admonishes, saying, Defraud not one the other except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer 1 Corinthians 7:5.” (Regula Pastoralis, Book III, Chapter 27)

I admit that I don’t fully understand what is being said there, but does that not indicate that continence and incontinence were seen as separate from immoderate intercourse? Help me understand that better…it sounds to me like he is suggesting a married couple is not in sin to remain incontinent despite a non fertile period.

 

[Image_of_God]

Maybe I wouldn’t go as far as saying that pleasure in sex encourages wish to have children, but it seems to be a vital part of nature.

It is, but it should never be so important as to be an end in itself.

I don’t mean that. I simply stress that in past, Church was reffering sexual morality to how couple acts toward begetting. If begetting was intent, sex was ok. If not, sex was concupiscence.

St. Augustine clearly says that if begetting was the intent, sex was not merely ok, but good. Also, St. Augustine makes it clear in his other writings that it is possible that sexual intercourse would have existed before the fall (before concupiscence even existed). Hence, concupiscence and sex are NOT equivalent. The concupiscence, according to him is that the pleasure in sex is not completely under the control of the partakers.

However, Augustine sees each act without procreative intent creeping of sinner. This is important to note, because modern interpretators have a habit of forgetting this.

That is, in part, because he assumes that if a couple are not having sex for procreative reasons, they are doing so for lust.

You can abandon a child with belief that sex is only for procreation

That is not at all what I was saying. People who are having sex for explicitly procreative reasons are less inclined to abandon their children because that’s the very reason their having sex. That is obvious.

I’m sorry if I am pushing too much, but I really want to know your opinion. Do you think idea of sex being unitive had to be developed for centuries?

Not per se. St. Augustine did recognize a unitive aspect to intercourse:

" For of these certain [goods] are necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning: certain for the sake of health, as meat and drink and sleep: **certain for the sake of friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: for hence subsists the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendly fellowship is a great good.
**" (Of the Good of Marriage, Section 9).

When the Fathers speak of having sex for reasons of procreation, it seems to stand to reason that union is also implied. However as to an understanding that sex without an intention to procreate could indeed be good and unitive, it appears that took time. St. Albert the Great seems, at least to me, to be the first to suggest it could be, but there could have been earlier.

But only reason for sex is procreation in Augustine’s world, meaning only rational arousal is the one with intent of begetting. If you wish to learn more about this, research his idea how sex looked like before the fall.

That’s not true. St. Augustine says that even people who use sex for reasons of procreation use the evil of concupiscence albeit to a good end. Concupiscence is a matter of fact after the fall and as such there is no rational arousal.

Not really. “It” is not sexual desire, but sexual arousal, which is sinful to Augustine since genital erection is not under command of will.

Whether sexual desire or sexual arousal, my interpretation remains the same. It is not sinful unless St. Augustine would be contradicting himself when he says sex for reasons of procreation is without fault. It is not the sexual intercourse that is faulty, but the fact that the pleasure involved is not under full control of reason.

I showed a quote where St. Augustine *explicitly *confirms the goodness of sex…a quote that it appears you conveniently ignored.

 

[copperblade]

I’m really confused by this discussion. Why do we continue to debate what the Church has taught and whether you guys can find some kind of logical inconsistency in its history? Would that change whether contraception is morally wrong? Start another thread if you want to talk about whether the Church has been constant in its teaching on this issue or has contradicted itself.

I think the typical way for people to approach NFP vs contraception is to ask, “hey why isn’t contraception allowed? I think NFP is the same thing!” What happened in this thread was the opposite: the question became “why is NFP allowed?”

As for whether or not something is right or wrong, I agree history or no, the morality of a thing does not change over time.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 (self described Catholic searcher), #1139
First, Humanae Vitae is not infallible document.

Anyone who won’t accept truth is not really searching, but trying to dictate error as has been shown here ad nauseam. No document is infallible; the definition made by the Pope or Ecumenical Council in a document is infallible.

Refer to post #514:
“1) As the doctrine against contraception pertains to morals, the infallible dogma in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I, reaffirmed in Vatican II (*Lumen Gentium *25), declares the infallibility of the Pope in such teaching to the whole Church.

“2) Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, teaches infallibly: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (II, 56).”

1. Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, 14: “Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

ahs
I’m not sure what makes a document fallible or infallible or what ever.

No document is infallible. The definition of a truth of faith or morals is infallible, as defined by a Pope to the whole Church as supreme Pastor. The fact of the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception was addressed to me personally through EWTN, upon which you can rely:

Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that **the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility **not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), **moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), **and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.” [My emphasis].

You need to become conversant with the teaching of the Church in Vatican I on papal infallibility which is readily available from:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
“The definition of Papal Infallibility
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

“So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”

The three levels of teaching are:

1. Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2. Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3. Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
   ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[Image_of_God]

Okay, so this is fromBook III Chapter 27…the same chapter as the first RP quote:

“when the married have intercourse with each other even incontinently, they still avoid lapse into sin, and are still saved through mercy. For they find as it were a little city, wherein to be protected from the fire; since this married life is not indeed marvellous for virtue, but yet is secure from punishment. Whence the same Lot says to the angel, This city is near to flee unto, and it is small, and I shall be saved therein. Is it not a little one, and my soul shall live in it Genesis 19:20? So then it is said to be near, and yet is spoken of as a refuge of safety, since married life is neither far separated from the world, nor yet alien from the joy of safety. But the married, in this course of conduct, then preserve their lives as it were in a small city, when they intercede for each other by continual supplications. Whence it is also rightly said by the Angel to the same Lot, See I have accepted your prayers concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city for the which you have spoken Genesis 19:21. For in truth, when supplication is poured out to God, such married life is by no means condemned. Concerning which supplication Paul also admonishes, saying, Defraud not one the other except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer 1 Corinthians 7:5.” (Regula Pastoralis, Book III, Chapter 27)

I admit that I don’t fully understand what is being said there, but does that not indicate that continence and incontinence were seen as separate from immoderate intercourse? Help me understand that better…it sounds to me like he is suggesting a married couple is not in sin to remain incontinent despite a non fertile period.

Well, to start, St. Gregory probably did not even know infertile periods existed. And as such, it is irrelevant when approaching St. Gregory’s teaching. That said, to have intercourse incontinently, is to have intercourse more than for procreation (i.e. for reasons of lust and fulfillment of pleasure). Chrono’s interpretation appears to be correct in so far as he says the phrase “lapse into to sin” means falling into mortal sin. It’s implied that couples having intercourse for reasons merely of pleasure
commit venial sin, but not mortal sin.

But reading it this second time, I found an interesting sentence:
“But the height of the mountains is the purity of the continent. Or, at any rate, they are as it were upon the mountain, who, though cleaving to carnal intercourse, still, beyond the due association for the production of offspring, are not loosely lost in pleasure of the flesh. For to stand on the mountain is to seek nothing in the flesh except the fruit of procreation. To stand on the mountain is not to cleave to the flesh in a fleshly way.” (Pastoral Rule, Chapter 27)

If I am understanding the bolded correctly, it appears that St. Gregory is saying that those who have intercourse, even without a procreative intent, are without sin provided they are not doing it merely for pleasure.