NFP and contraception

[Good_Daughter]

And what is the moral relevance of a strictly physical form, which can be, as you say, dissociated from any intention or internal disposition of the couple?

The physical form is dissociated only in theory, for discussion purposes. A good discussion helps us to see the deep, real-life connection between the physical and the spiritual.

Why is a particular “physical form” a moral imperative?

The form of the marital embrace is meant to be the physical manifestation of a spiritual reality.

 

[BRZ]

There is a difference between trying to get why the Catholic Church teaches something as they do and calling them “wrong” for doing so. The reasons why the Catholic Church teaches something are very well explained already. There are many resources you can read, including books and encyclicals on these topics. If you want to know more, read those. They explain it very well. The problem is that people refuse to accept those reasons as truth. This becomes a matter of faith. Nothing can be proven to be truth 100%, there is always some faith involved. If the Pope and the Bishops declare something as the truth we as the followers of Christ are obligated to follow their teachings, whether we disagree or not. Arguing about something is not learning about it, even if you think it is, it isn’t.

Calling the Church wrong on something on a public forum and trying to argue your point is public dissent. This is not a small matter, although you may not think so. It is okay to disagree with something but even if we disagree, we must accept it as truth even if just on faith alone. You think this is difficult, and it is because it requires a lot of trust. If you believe the Catholic Church is the true Church, though, this is easy. I have no problem with accepting all Church teachings as truth because I know they come from God. Here is an excellent quote to show my point that Abu posted in another thread:

All talk of “licit dissent” is wrong as the Pope and the CDF have made very clear. No “reason” suffices.
Sections 25-31 covers “not irreformable” teaching even for theologians in the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, for those who “feel” that they cannot give “intellectual assent,” they have “the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.” (31).

"There is no right to dissent, and in fact, this is because the teaching of Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25, is clear as to even non-infallible doctrine on faith or morals:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
For the non-infallible doctrines the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 23, affirms: “This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” And #36: “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

The Pope and Bishops have made it very clear that NFP is acceptable and all forms of artificial contraception are not. To openly dissent on this is most likely sin. I also saw a great post by a priest who often posts on here about this. He talks about how we in the West are far too used to our “freedoms” and “rights” and too quick to question instead of accepting authority. Accepting “wrong” authority certainly would be foolish but accepting the authority of the Church, for Catholics, is something that we must all accept 100%. We should not be so quick to disagree or argue with teachings of the Church no matter what anyone here may say. They would be wrong.

 

[Joel_PF]

I know exactly what the Church is, but the Church is not only the people that make it up, it is also the buildings, the ministry and administration and the authority from God that goes with it.

FIRST OF ALL, sorry for the “are you catholic?” part of my last post to you. I didn’t mean it as an attack on your faith or as if I doubted it; I just wanted to underscore the difference between the genuinely Catholic position (the Church is composed of all Catholics, including laymen, plus the souls in Heaven and Purgatory) and the common distorted position (The Church is some external body issuing orders and teachings). Anyway, I see how it can be offensive, and I was being driven by an excessive reaction to other members telling me I’m not Catholic; so please don’t take it as a sign of animosity.

Going back to the topic: does every single word out of a bishop’s pen carry with it the absolute authority of God, meaning that it can’t be wrong? Of course not! God exercises His authority through human means, and only very rarely is this authority exercised in a final and absolute way, which is the infallible pronouncements of the Pope, which are few (as it should be).

Now, in no way do I disrespect the authority of priests, bishops and much less the bishop of Rome. In fact, I think disagreeing with what one perceives as a bad argument, and promoting discussion of it, is part of the duty of Christian obedience. You see, the bishops give arguments to support their position. So they expect it to have a solid rational foundation. What if these arguments fail? Well, if they want to have rational grounds for their position, and not merely to impose it on everyone, then they’ll welcome an honest and truth-seeking discussion of these arguments. Provided that it’s done in a spirit of mutual respect and genuine concern for the truth, not as a mask of rebellion and rejection of their God-given authority.

You have the free will to choose to question what you like, but in reality as Catholics we are not to question the truth that is revealed to us through the Holy Spirit by our Pope and Bishops. You are in no place to question in all honesty. It is up to the Bishops and Pope to determine these things, not up to us.

I’m sorry, but I think this mentality has done untold evils to the Church. A layman is not to forsake his own reason, which is the highest part of his being, and leave that “inconvenient burden” of thinking about important things to his bishop. He should take an active part in it. The development of the Church depends also on the laymen.

Do you think the bishops and the Pope are supermen, spiritual entities with a direct line with God and who know by Divine illumination what is true or false? They are like you and me: they read, they study, they talk, they discuss, they argue, they pray. Sometimes they learn from knowledgeable laymen too. Reason is not bound up with authority.

I’m no saying each person should rashly parade his own opinion and not heed what his superiors think on the matter, reflecting centuries of reflection from saintly men. However, if you tell me that as Catholics it is not our place to use our reason, and that we should shut up our mouths and our minds and just take in everything the authorities say just because they are in authority, to the point of even accepting as sound arguments that are fallacious; well, I think that is a disservice to the Church which we are members of. Furthermore, I think it is a sin, for it is the denial of the image of God in us, of that which makes us human. As I said, it is an attitude closer to Islam.

If you think that you ought to accept something and yet you don’t know the reasons for that teaching, by all means take it on authority alone and do your best to learn the reasons. But if after that you still think, on good grounds, that there are flaws in the arguments, voice them.

One of the big merits of Vatican II is encouraging the faithful to use their own God-given powers of reason and their spiritual autonomy. The Catholic position is the hardest of all to sustain, for it is in the middle way between the “each man his own pope, no hierarchy” of Protestantism and the “submit, submit, obey, obey, don’t think” of Islam. But this position is possible. For too long the faithful have been seen as mere sheep to be kept in obedience. What was the result of this? We see it today in our empty churches (thankfully, a crisis that is now beginning to be overcome!): external compliance was seen as more important than internal conviction. But externals depend on internal realities to exist for long.

Jesus teaches us to be obedient, not proud and dissident. Perhaps you should practice a little humility and you can ask any priest, ask the apologists on Catholic answers, ask your Bishop and I guarantee that they will tell you that you need to accept what the Pope and Bishops, the catechism, etc. teaches us even if you do not agree.

Can you force your mind to believe something, even against strong reasons to the contrary?

Believe me, plenty of people tell me THAT I have to accept this particular teaching on contraception. I’ve had not a few laymen hurl anathemas at me. But what I’m looking for is people telling me WHY I should accept the teaching.

You must accept it is truth and pray that you will come to understand the revealed truth in time. There is another post which a priest started on these forums which explains this very well, you should read it.

Your advice of praying more I will accept gladly, but the part about accepting the teaching, well, for that I’m still depending on you to give a good convincing argument. Because right now I can’t even believe that most people who claim to be convinced with the “don’t thwart the goals of our natural faculties” argument really do think it is convincing.

 

[Joel_PF]

Nothing can be proven to be truth 100%, there is always some faith involved.

No-one here is asking for a 100% certain mathematical proof; that is impossible in ethics. I am looking for one convincing reason, something that makes sense and is reasonable.

Calling the Church wrong on something on a public forum and trying to argue your point is public dissent. This is not a small matter, although you may not think so.

I’m not saying the Catholic Church is wrong. I’m saying the arguments used by many bishops and some popes are unsound.

In his only extant letter St. Pope Clement speaks of the phoenix as being an actual, existing animal. Should we not disagree publicly with that?

You do have a point: is a public discussion forum the place to do it? Perhaps not, but I’ll tell you that if not here, I don’t think I can even find a place with knowledgeable Catholics do discuss it with.

All talk of “licit dissent” is wrong as the Pope and the CDF have made very clear. No “reason” suffices.

See how anti-reason your mind is operating right now? You say that we ought to adhere to what authority says because… the authority says so.

Instead of accusing of sin and threatening us with eternal damnation, why don’t you at least give me some links with good defenses of the positions against all contraception? I am familiar with the arguments of Humanae Vitae; perhaps I have missed something in it, that you think would be useful to correct me? (Remember I’m looking for arguments; “faith seeking understanding”, and not more authoritative affirmations of the teaching.

Accepting “wrong” authority certainly would be foolish but accepting the authority of the Church, for Catholics, is something that we must all accept 100%. We should not be so quick to disagree or argue with teachings of the Church no matter what anyone here may say. They would be wrong.

So you think it is best to assent to error in non-infallible teachings (which, by definition, might be wrong) just to be on the side of what the current authority says than to follow Truth with all your mind?

Furthermore, stop using only “The Church”. I know there are even bishops who dissent on contraception. So, please say to who you are referring: popes, bishops, priests, laymen. Did you know that there exist disagreements between the Popes even in moral matters? Have you read, for instance, the encyclicals on economics starting from Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum up to John Paul II’s Centesimo Anno? Did you know that, despite general agreement with regards to principles and ideals, there are disagreements over particular concrete moral positions?

No-one here is disagreeing over the principles of the discussion: the immense value of having children, the error of those who see new life as an evil characteristic of the current contraceptive mentality, etc. What is being discussed is: is contraception wrong in each and every case? Even Pope Benedict XVI recently alluded to the fact that the use of condoms in certain contexts reflects a moral and positive preoccupation.

 

[BRZ]

No-one here is asking for a 100% certain mathematical proof; that is impossible in ethics. I am looking for one convincing reason, something that makes sense and is reasonable.

I’m not saying the Catholic Church is wrong. I’m saying the arguments used by many bishops and some popes are unsound.

In his only extant letter St. Pope Clement speaks of the phoenix as being an actual, existing animal. Should we not disagree publicly with that?

You do have a point: is a public discussion forum the place to do it? Perhaps not, but I’ll tell you that if not here, I don’t think I can even find a place with knowledgeable Catholics do discuss it with.

See how anti-reason your mind is operating right now? You say that we ought to adhere to what authority says because… the authority says so.

Instead of accusing of sin and threatening us with eternal damnation, why don’t you at least give me some links with good defenses of the positions against all contraception? I am familiar with the arguments of Humanae Vitae; perhaps I have missed something in it, that you think would be useful to correct me? (Remember I’m looking for arguments; “faith seeking understanding”, and not more authoritative affirmations of the teaching.

So you think it is best to assent to error in non-infallible teachings (which, by definition, might be wrong) just to be on the side of what the current authority says than to follow Truth with all your mind?

Furthermore, stop using only “The Church”. I know there are even bishops who dissent on contraception. So, please say to who you are referring: popes, bishops, priests, laymen. Did you know that there exist disagreements between the Popes even in moral matters? Have you read, for instance, the encyclicals on economics starting from Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum up to John Paul II’s Centesimo Anno? Did you know that, despite general agreement with regards to principles and ideals, there are disagreements over particular concrete moral positions?

No-one here is disagreeing over the principles of the discussion: the immense value of having children, the error of those who see new life as an evil characteristic of the current contraceptive mentality, etc. What is being discussed is: is contraception wrong in each and every case? Even Pope Benedict XVI recently alluded to the fact that the use of condoms in certain contexts reflects a moral and positive preoccupation.

Joel, everything you just quoted as my words were not my words. As I said, I was quoting what Abu posted in another thread but those words are the words of POPES. Not mine. The CDF states that all licit dissent is wrong, the Pope has also said this, these are not my words, perhaps you confused that. And no, the logic is not that we obey authority because authority says so, the logic is that we obey the authority of the Church because GOD says so. You can argue whether God gave authority to the Church but then you would be arguing a completely different concept and your belief in Catholicism may be put to the question at that point.

You are asking for valid points to defend the stances of NFP and contraception but they are already there. The problem is not that they are sound or unsound, the problem is your unwillingness to accept them as correct. You should then ask yourself, do you trust the Bishops and the Pope to have the right answers when it comes to matters of faith?

You are correct that they are people, but that is why they do make arguments and they do quote scripture and discuss these issues together and come to conclusions which are guided by the Holy Spirit. This is not something that one Bishop says as his opinion and you have a choice to follow it or not. This is what all the Bishops and the Pope have concluded is truth. It is YOUR responsibility to follow those teachings, it is not their responsibility or mine to prove it to you. That is where you are fundamentally wrong.

Don’t you see the pride in your words? You are unable to accept what they say as truth and want them to prove it to you. You must conform to the Church’s teachings whether you agree or not, this is the reality. You can choose to not accept it and you can choose to go on thinking anyway you well please. That is your God given right as a Human with free will, but it doesn’t change the reality of the truth or the fact that you are wrong. I mean no offense and I am not judging or saying anything about hell and brimstone and fire. That isn’t what I am saying.

I am a very argumentative person and I question everything but I never question the Church because even if I do not understand something fully I understand that the Church is guided by God and has his stamp of approval and that is enough for me to accept things I don’t understand. Even if the Church was wrong in this matter and has been teaching it wrong from the beginning, the simple fact that they say it is okay for NFP and not okay for artificial contraception MAKES it wrong. Peter and his successors were given the authority, the keys to the kingdom, to bind or loose on Earth and in Heaven. My argument to you is that the simple fact they say it is wrong, makes it wrong and it is impossible for the Church to go against the will of God.

 

[BRZ]

No-one here is disagreeing over the principles of the discussion: the immense value of having children, the error of those who see new life as an evil characteristic of the current contraceptive mentality, etc. What is being discussed is: is contraception wrong in each and every case? Even Pope Benedict XVI recently alluded to the fact that the use of condoms in certain contexts reflects a moral and positive preoccupation.

Joel, I wont stop using the Church because this is what is defined as Church teachings. It is not an opinion. The use of artificial contraceptions is grave matter which means, given the requirements, a mortal sin. There is nothing more serious than a mortal sin. You can argue whether or not NFP is truly good, but you can’t argue against contraception. This is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and as the Church sees it, in the Bible. This will never change and as long as the Catholic Church teaches that NFP is okay, it will be okay. This is why we have a Pope and we are not like the protestant churches following whichever way the wind blows. If the Pope says something is okay, it is, it is that simple.

You are completely misunderstanding what Pope Benedict XVI said. He NEVER alluded to the fact that the use of condoms in certain contexts is a good thing. What he alluded to was that given the choice of infecting someone with Aids or using a condom, it might be more moral to use a condom than not to. THIS DOES NOT change the fact that using the condom was grave matter and may be a mortal sin. It is just probably not worse than intentionally inflicting Aids on someone which would also be grave matter and possibly a mortal sin. This is no different than saying it might be better if the woman was raped rather than killed. Both are equally evil and terrible acts but the murder might be slightly worse. This is a ridiculous statement to use to try to validate your argument.

Anyway, please do not take anything I said the wrong way. Even though you do not see it, I am trying to help you in what I think is right. I think that you need to see that the part of your problem is your inability to humbly accept the authority of the Pope and the Bishops. I could be wrong but this is how I feel. I wont say any more on this because it is getting no where but I will pray both for you and myself so that we both might have the truth revealed.

 

[Joel_PF]

The big question is: can the consensus of bishops and popes for centuries on a concrete moral problem change? It seems clear that yes, it can. As was the case with the charging of interest, with slavery (which was at first seen as a tolerable evil and only recently condemned as evil in itself), the use of torture (same thing), freedom of conscience and religion (notice that traditionalist groups are specially keen on this point, because it was something that underwent a big change in the 20th century), whether baptized Catholics who leave the faith should be killed or not, subjected to torture or not.

The doctrine is always developing, though its essential core doesn’t change. And the development happens by experience and discussion. This is helpful to the Church.

I’m not denying the authority of the Pope or any bishop, just pointing out that maybe they are wrong in this point. Perhaps the Orthodox position on this matter is more reasonable. Do you think that this is an absolute impossibility?

I make mine the prayer you propose. The peace of Christ for you.

 

[BRZ]

The big question is: can the consensus of bishops and popes for centuries on a concrete moral problem change? It seems clear that yes, it can. As was the case with the charging of interest, with slavery (which was at first seen as a tolerable evil and only recently condemned as evil in itself), the use of torture (same thing), freedom of conscience and religion (notice that traditionalist groups are specially keen on this point, because it was something that underwent a big change in the 20th century), whether baptized Catholics who leave the faith should be killed or not, subjected to torture or not.

The doctrine is always developing, though its essential core doesn’t change. And the development happens by experience and discussion. This is helpful to the Church.

I’m not denying the authority of the Pope or any bishop, just pointing out that maybe they are wrong in this point. Perhaps the Orthodox position on this matter is more reasonable. Do you think that this is an absolute impossibility?

I make mine the prayer you propose. The peace of Christ for you.

Contraception is something which has been taught as wrong since the beginning I would argue. I honestly believe that this is something which is never going to change. I truly believe that contraception makes the sexual act impersonal. This is supposed to be a personal experience and you are making it impersonal and touting irresponsibility. Let’s face it, contraception leads to many great evils and honestly, people aren’t supposed to be using NFP nonchalantly. It is supposed to be used for a serious reason. Not just because you “feel” you aren’t ready for children. People who use NFP for the wrong reasons are most likely guilty of sin.

I can think of no arguments which have not been said already to convince you. All I can say is that I believe that with NFP, even if the chances are very low to conceive, it is still possible if it be the will of God in a natural way. I believe it is all in your perception and intent. When you use condoms or any other means of contraception you are willingly choosing to go against the will of God. If you tie your tubes or get a vasectomy you are making your body incapable of having children. Wrongfully using condoms you can of course still get pregnant but if used correctly there is no chance since the semen will not be inside the woman. I think that it doesn’t matter that there is a chance you might get pregnant, I think the problem lies in the fact that you are knowingly and willingly removing any chance of it at least in intent. With NFP even though your chances may be almost nil to have children, it is still possible naturally if it be God’s will. Of course God can do anything and could still make you get pregnant regardless of if even you have sexual relations, as in the case with Mary. But we know that in every other case it is God’s will that He work through natural means and he most likely won’t break that. So, I wouldn’t say it is about possibilities or chance or whatever, I would say it is more about the willingness, the intent, etc.

I am currently planning to use NFP for what I believe are valid reasons but I am using it with regret and with still being open to children if it should happen. And since we are using natural means, it could still be possible in a natural sense. I understand it in my mind but it is difficult to explain. So I may be rambling a bit but what I am trying to say is I think it centers around our intent and perception of it. Those who are using NFP are either doing so to get pregnant, which is fine or are using it for valid reasons to not get pregnant but with great regret and still with an open mind to God’s will, while those who use condoms and other contraceptives may be doing the same thing but are doing it in a more impersonal and selfish way where, at least in their mind, they are completely unwilling to have children or be a part of God’s plan. They are much more profoundly saying, "I don’t want children, God’s will doesn’t matter because of (insert reason here). They may think they are doing the right thing but in reality they are being selfish and not to mention supporting an industry which is used for many other very bad purposes. Does that make any sense at all?

 

[Abu]

BRZ
Thank you for many excellent posts.

Joel PF, (#115).
Fr. Torraco’s argument seems fallacious, as it relies on the faulty premise that it is wrong to separate or prevent natural ends of a natural faculty (#92). The argument that seeks to condemn contraception based on the fact that it “perverts a natural faculty” is singularly unsound, as the application of the same principle to the case of walking shows

The example shows nothing of the kind.
Pope Paul VI makes clear in HV I, 4:
“No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in Her Magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (1) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)”
Note:
(3) See Mt 7. 21.

Further, the doctrine against contraception is infallible and dissent from any doctrine is illicit.

On usury
Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave the meaning of usury: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”

Joel PF
every Catholic thinker and Pope considered any lending at interest to be usurious and therefore sinful.

To infer that the Church was wrong on usury as an example that She is wrong on contraception is baseless – She wasn’t as can seen from the Lateran Council.
There never was any doctrine that was later contradicted. The absolute principle, still valid, is that it is wrong to make a profit if one is not contributing something – and in the earlier days of the Church lending money was not seen to be contributing anything. But as the function of money changed to something productive, the moral teaching reflected the new function of money in society.

Doctrine can develop – doctrine is never contradicted in development.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13
Casti Connubii is the first Church document which concluded that sexuality is connected with love. Now why is that?

False, engendered by the false emphasis on “sexuality” rather than marriage.
The infatuation with the assumption of stoicism as shaping doctrine is false. ‘It would be absurd to expect love to be ‘free of emotion’ as the Stoics and Kant did.” (Blessed John Paul II, Love And Responsibility, William Collins, 1981, p 154). That was not all that was absurd, as seen in the nonsignificance of the individual in Stoic thought.

The Church teaches through Her Magisterium, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Her Scriptures give the lie to the foolish assertion above, as though married love and sexuality were foreign to each other in the Church!

St Paul on love in marriage:
“Husbands love your wives just as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for Her.” (Eph 5:25).
“Husbands love your wives, and do not be bitter towards them.” (Col 3:19).
“…train the younger women to be wise, to love their husbands and their children, so that the word of God be not reviled.” (Tit 2:4).

We also have the Council of Trent:
CCC1661: “The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life." [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1799].

Though not primary, Pope Pius XI did refer to the Church’s teaching on the ends of marriage in CC, when he condemned the direct interference with the life process: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.” (II, 59).
This once again shows the right direction of St Augustine in moving to “mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness.”

As was proven, Augustine forbid NFP, since his interpretation of nature was different then the one we see today, #129.

Still false. Repetition of a falsehood doesn’t make it true. Willful, misrepresentation over St Augustine that “Husband and wife owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children—which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality—but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse(12) [See: Logos: Marriage and the Prophylactic Use of Condoms - by Luke Gormally], is by implication extended to St Paul.

[Re NBR] Now, what happened to nature in 3rd century that we didn’t come to this conclusion?

Because there was no knowledge of infertile periods for reasoned use until the mid-nineteenth century, post #96.

You are suggesting that infertile periods are some kind of “final resort” in nature and that nature considers them a mean in “extreme cases”. Nothing in nature and it’s laws suggest that. How can one conclude that something in nature was created to be used only for grave situations?

By the use of God-given reason, based on faith in the teaching of Christ through His Church. God created human nature with these periods, and to use them only would be contrary to the procreative end of marriage. See post #149 for Pope Paul VI’s teaching on the indisputable fact of the Church’s competence in interpreting the natural moral law.

 

[Abu]

Joel PF, #143
For too long the faithful have been seen as mere sheep to be kept in obedience. What was the result of this? We see it today in our empty churches (thankfully, a crisis that is now beginning to be overcome).

False.
This is the fantasy that is oblivious to the dissent which produced the crisis in Christ’s Church – due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, and are referred to in Christ Denied TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens – and resulted in the false “spirit” of Vatican II.
It included the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae by Karl Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism. The seminaries were filled with dissenting formators. It is the laxity and the dissent that corrupted so many and reduced fidelity to a meaningless confusion for many.

#144: See how anti-reason your mind is operating right now? You say that we ought to adhere to what authority says because… the authority says so.

BRZ is correct – there is no licit dissent when the Magisterium affirms what Christ taught in dogma or doctrine: “He that hears you hears Me.”

#147: can the consensus of bishops and popes for centuries on a concrete moral problem change? It seems clear that yes, it can. As was the case with the charging of interest, with slavery (which was at first seen as a tolerable evil and only recently condemned as evil in itself), the use of torture (same thing), freedom of conscience and religion (notice that traditionalist groups are specially keen on this point, because it was something that underwent a big change in the 20th century), whether baptized Catholics who leave the faith should be killed or not, subjected to torture or not.

“Consensus” is of itself no guarantee and never has been as the basis for authority in dogma and doctrine as Vatican II has confirmed. Not on usury, not on slavery, not on freedom of conscience or religion, nor on anything else has the Church contradicted any doctrine, and never will.

 

[Chrono13]

Chrono, you do know the real reason behind the Church’s stance on contraception, right?

There are many. And certain are not in fields of theology.

 

[Chrono13]

Do you have a direct quotation to back this claim?
As far as I know, St. Augustine taught there couldn’t be a sexual act without at least some venial sin, on account of excessive desire. In other words, sex in itself was not evil, but our desires were so disordered on account of original sin that sex couldn’t anymore happen without our desires going out of their correct bounds. St. Thomas famously disagreed with this, saying that between married individuals sex can take place with no sin, and that therefore it is good and virtuous.

I meant “evil” in accord with Augustine’s view that every intercourse has a dose of sinfulness, since even those 100% procreative include lust. But the best interpretation of “lust” in Augustine’s writings is common sexual arousal.

If you ask me, St. Thomas is always somewhere between stoicism and himself.

He had a very rationalistic conception of the proper functioning of man. For him, in the state of original justice, the male member would become erect by a conscious decision of the man to engage in sexual activity with his wife, and never on its own on account of physical desire.

Stoic by default

You are yet to show that he condemned NFP in itself. Your quotation shows he condemned NFP used as a means to not having children at all, as the gnostics who did it because they considered child-bearing was evil. This use of NFP is condemned (rightly, in my opinion) even today.

We all know what Augustine meant in that quote Even if one reads the citation as you suggest, you still have some rough edges which don’t fit. His underlining that sex needs marriage in order to be “excused” comes to mind. If marital procreation is the sole excuse for legitimate intercourse, tracking infertility is avoiding the only mean which can justify such relation.

And you have also yet to show that the Church tradition made such a sharp separation between the marital embrace and the mutual support and unity which is one of the goods of married life. After all, according to your reading of Catholic tradition the “mutual support” of married couples would not differ from the support of friends, brothers and parents. The distinguishing mark of the married friendship is sex, so I find it strange that it would not be considered to be a part of the union which Catholic writers always applauded in marriage.
Do you have direct evidence that they divided sex and marital friendship in this way?

Isn’t it obvious? Augustine said marriage is good, yet marital sex is influenced by original sin, always has at least venial fault , perfect only in impossible case when done without pleasure and in need of procreation…

Marriage has three blessings- procreation of children, mystical bond of sacrament and mutual care. In those three, the unitive nature of sex was seen only in manner that one spouse, with regret, needs sex, and the other spouse, with regret, needs to provide it .It was not a matter of emotion and love, but of duty and debt.

 

[Muze]

Theoretical question:

Would Onan have been put to death for using NFP to avoid fathering a child for his dead brother?

 

[EvelynEVF]

I don’t know if the penalty would have been so severe, but he certainly would have sinned, because he would have been using NFP to avoid children completely, not to space them for serious reasons. In that culture, refusing to permit a woman to conceive was consigning her to shame and most likely poverty.

 

[Good_Daughter]

There are many. And certain are not in fields of theology.

Please, share these many, non-theological reasons for Catholic teacing on contraception.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Theoretical question:

Would Onan have been put to death for using NFP to avoid fathering a child for his dead brother?

I’m not sure Onan could have practiced NFP without full participation of his wife. She obviously wanted to have the son…

 

[Muze]

I’m not sure Onan could have practiced NFP without full participation of his wife. She obviously wanted to have the son…

But at that time, the woman was under the control of the man. If he said to take your temp every morning and record it, she was required to do so.

Which bring us back to the question: Would Onan have been put to death for using NFP to avoid getting her pregnant?

 

[BRZ]

Sorry but your question is pointless. They had no knowledge of NFP. You are asking a hypothetical that serves no purpose.

 

[Muze]

Sorry but your question is pointless. They had no knowledge of NFP. You are asking a hypothetical that serves no purpose.

It serves the purpose of exploring whether NFP is really an accepted form of contraception based upon the story that the RCC uses to outlaw contraception.