NFP and contraception

[Muze]

God has created the woman with fertile/infertile periods, and has NOT commanded that only the fertile periods be used in marriage. Ipso facto, used wisely for serious reasons such a procedure can be morally good.

This would seem to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. If sex is to be both unitive AND procreative, then ANY effort to avoid the procreative, whether by artificial means or by choosing to seek out and avoid sex on procreative days and only engage in sexual activity on non-procreative days would seem to violate this teaching directly.

 

[Chrono13]

This would seem to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. If sex is to be both unitive AND procreative, then ANY effort to avoid the procreative, whether by artificial means or by choosing to seek out and avoid sex on procreative days and only engage in sexual activity on non-procreative days would seem to violate this teaching directly.

Indeed. Also, take into account the *intent * of couple. If act is procreative and unitive, then couple needs to engage both with desire to beget, and provide unitive hug. Which rules NFP out.

 

[razredge]

That would be easy to swallow.

They are avoiding, much more, the fact that sex was seen as “procreation only” activity for most of history.

Yes, it never did make sense to me how the sexual act can be unitive and procreative when you time it so that conception is nearly impossible.

Indeed I find with many of the arguments for NFP, what the Church has done is define the terms of the argument so that it can only lead to support for NFP, ‘begging the question’ if you will - for example their convulted definition of ‘procreative’ - it certainly shows that casuistry is alive and well today.

What else I found out only last week that was quite dishonest was how they claim that the Pill is an abortifacient (which it is in certain rare cases where it prevents implantation) but they don’t tell us that the exact same thing happens with NFP, except far more often! (because the Pill stops ovulation while NFP doesn’t)

 

[jilly4ski]

What else I found out only last week that was quite dishonest was how they claim that the Pill is an abortifacient (which it is in certain rare cases where it prevents implantation) but they don’t tell us that the exact same thing happens with NFP, except far more often! (because the Pill stops ovulation while NFP doesn’t)

I think you are confused about biology. The Pill stops one from ovulating, but obviously it fails as people have become pregnant on the pill, there is a mechanism in the pill that could cause an early (before implantation) abortion of a fertilized egg.

In NFP, the egg is not fertilized so in no way is letting an egg pass unfertilized immoral and thus cannot be even compared to an abortion.

Your misunderstanding of the basic biology should tip you off that you should not be commenting on this topic.

 

[razredge]

I think you are confused about biology. The Pill stops one from ovulating, but obviously it fails as people have become pregnant on the pill, there is a mechanism in the pill that could cause an early (before implantation) abortion of a fertilized egg.

In NFP, the egg is not fertilized so in no way is letting an egg pass unfertilized immoral and thus cannot be even compared to an abortion.

Your misunderstanding of the basic biology should tip you off that you should not be commenting on this topic.

Ahem, no, i’m correct - the incidence of zygotes/blastocysts failing to implant is higher in NFP than on the Pill due to the fact that the Pill stops ovulation,
I was actually a bit shocked when someone said that and to make sure I asked for clarification - see this page of this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=557351&page=13

 

[BRZ]

There is no point in arguing with people who just are unable or unwilling to understand, and I mean no offense by this. You can show them all the logic in the world and they will always fail to understand. The Church is not wrong in this matter and no matter what you may think or say, it means nothing. NFP is acceptable according to the teachings of the Church. Contraception is not acceptable. It is very simple and does not require further debate.
Let those who disagree continue to disagree, in the end all will see the truth. I will put my faith and trust in the Church guided by the Holy Spirit and you can continue to put your trust in yourself which is guided by a fallen and sinful nature.

 

[jilly4ski]

Ahem, no, i’m correct - the incidence of zygotes/blastocysts failing to implant is higher in NFP than on the Pill due to the fact that the Pill stops ovulation,
I was actually a bit shocked when someone said that and to make sure I asked for clarification - see this page of this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=557351&page=13

So you are comparing active abortion via Pill to a natural miscarriage??? Again you are completely ignorant of morality and biology.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Ahem, no, i’m correct - the incidence of zygotes/blastocysts failing to implant is higher in NFP than on the Pill due to the fact that the Pill stops ovulation,
I was actually a bit shocked when someone said that and to make sure I asked for clarification - see this page of this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=557351&page=13

With NFP if a blastocyst fails to implant it is likely because it is not viable. The Pill on the other hand is alleged to prevent the implantation of an otherwise viable, healthy blastocyst.

But as far as I can tell there is no consensus that the Pill does have any effect of the rate that a blastocyst fails to implant. The Pill kills campaign really overplayed their hand IMHO.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

So you are comparing active abortion via Pill to a natural miscarriage??? Again you are completely ignorant of morality and biology.

No I believe he is saying that if a blastocyst does fail to implant it is not due to any action of the pill but is rather simply a natural occurrence. And given that NFP never suppresses ovulation like the Pill more blastocysts will fail to implant with NFP than the Pill.

 

[jschutzm]

SO, from that perspective, isn’t using NFP to prevent procreation, but continuing to have intercourse specifically at other times when procreation is not possible a sin, then?

(Thanks for the specific wording.)

I think the incorrect assumption, or oversimplification, here is that it is impossible for a women to get pregnant during infertile times.

The Biological REALITY is that even though she is not in a fertile time, it is still possible that she becomes pregnant.

So the couple is still “OPEN” to the procreative aspect of the sexual union. They have not taken ARTIFICIAL means to block this possibility, as they do with contraception.

So they are still somewhat open to the possibility and therefore still cooperating with God’s overall plan for them.

if God wills it, seeing that they are not using a condum or “the pill” etc. etc. - they could still get pregnant at that time. – It happens.

Therefore, since the couple has not taken overt and artificial steps, they must acknowledge this possibility and engage in sex, still knowing that they COULD become pregnant.

That is one of the KEY differences.

The man must still regard his wife, whole and complete, accepting her body as it is, fertility and all, accepting her femininity and viewing her as a potential mother to the child they MAY conceive of, that very night, if they choose to engage in sex. - even if this is her least fertile period.

The wife… should have the same regard for her husband - accepting him fully, including his fertility.

Contraception divorces this aspect from them, separates their sexuality from their fertility and desires to unite with only part of what TRULY makes them human and a sexual creature.

Contraception can too often lead the couple to view their own fertility as a complication, a messy side-effect, and something which is wrong with them or should be represeed.
With artificial contraception, you don’t have to know much about your biology. Just slip on a condom, take a pill, spray some spermicide, etc. and you can forget your biology, your fertility and that of your spouse’s.

It is much harder to use NFP to divorce one’s fertility from their essential humanity and to treat biology and sexuality as separate. - Because it works WITH it, not against it.

 

[jschutzm]

I guess another key concept here is that we ALWAYS have a right to NOT do something. Abstinence is moral and is within everyone’s right.

Very few times is abstaining from something ill-moral. And so abstaining from sex when you know your spouse is the most fertile is not ill-moral. You are simply choosing to NOT do something, which is OK.

On the other hand…
When we choose to take action… we must be careful to make sure our actions are moral.
It is much easier to argue that artificial contraception is illmoral because in that case you are taking specific action to engage in an act, but avoid its natural consequence.

There are also health risks associated with some contraception, as well.

You MAY be trying to argue that NFP is also ill-moral. And maybe you truly believe that. There are those who argue that you should just have sex whenever, and let God choose when you get pregnant, if you have 10 kids… so be it.

However, we must be clear. One can not that NFP is ill-moral and use THAT fact to justify contraception.

That would be like saying that since Alcohol is legal… so should ALL drugs. If you disagree with the Church’s stance that NFP is moral, that is one thing. But arguing that therefore ALL contraception is moral, is not a sound argument.

 

[choose_to_love]

@chrono: it is your contention that Augustine saw the only purpose of sexuality is for procreation, correct? That sex was “pardonable” b/c it resulted in children?

I suggest that you are reading him wrong. It is lust, disordered desire, that Aug. objects so strongly to. For instance: ’ 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] One specially interesting passage shows the methodical way in which he deals with his adversary, declining to let him score debating points by reading ideas into Augustine’s writings which he has not put there, or by accusing him of things he has not said. He will go along with Julian when the latter lists the God-made and therefore praiseworthy aspects of the sexual relationship; but he will not let himself be drawn further.
When Julian affirms (as if Augustine had denied) that marital intercourse, with its intimacy, with its pleasure, with its semination, are from God and therefore in their own way to be praised, Augustine rapidly ticks off these “non-arguments”—Dixit “cum calore”; dixit “cum voluptate”; dixit “cum semine”—which are irrelevant to their debate, since Augustine is in full agreement that these are good things given by God. “But,” he (Aug.) goes on, “Julian, who says of all of this (making points which I have never called into question), does not mention precisely what I say is bad in intercourse: carnal concupi-scence or libido.” [34]’

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.pdf

Whew! IMO, this is a really difficult subject for discussion boards, because there is so much detailed and nuanced info which has to be (or attempted to be) condensed for the space available for realistice readability.

 

[Muze]

I think the incorrect assumption, or oversimplification, here is that it is impossible for a women to get pregnant during infertile times.

The Biological REALITY is that even though she is not in a fertile time, it is still possible that she becomes pregnant.

So the couple is still “OPEN” to the procreative aspect of the sexual union. They have not taken ARTIFICIAL means to block this possibility, as they do with contraception.

So they are still somewhat open to the possibility and therefore still cooperating with God’s overall plan for them.

Well, the same possibility remains with contraception. There is no 100% guarantee, except abstaining.

if God wills it, seeing that they are not using a condum or “the pill” etc. etc. - they could still get pregnant at that time. – It happens.

It happens when they do. At a somewhat higher percentage, if you beleive the RCC.

Therefore, since the couple has not taken overt and artificial steps, they must acknowledge this possibility and engage in sex, still knowing that they COULD become pregnant.

That is one of the KEY differences.

Except that it isn’t a difference. All contraception, both artificial and NFP fail

The man must still regard his wife, whole and complete, accepting her body as it is, fertility and all, accepting her femininity and viewing her as a potential mother to the child they MAY conceive of, that very night, if they choose to engage in sex. - even if this is her least fertile period.

As is the case with artificial.

The wife… should have the same regard for her husband - accepting him fully, including his fertility.

Contraception divorces this aspect from them, separates their sexuality from their fertility and desires to unite with only part of what TRULY makes them human and a sexual creature.

Except that NFP (according to the RCC) has as good or better success rate at contraception as artificial.

Contraception can too often lead the couple to view their own fertility as a complication, a messy side-effect, and something which is wrong with them or should be represeed.

As does NFP, except with NFP, the woman is constantly measuring her biology, living in fear of pregnancy.

With artificial contraception, you don’t have to know much about your biology. Just slip on a condom, take a pill, spray some spermicide, etc. and you can forget your biology, your fertility and that of your spouse’s.

About as much as you can with NFP.

It is much harder to use NFP to divorce one’s fertility from their essential humanity and to treat biology and sexuality as separate. - Because it works WITH it, not against it.

But it still works against procreation, something that the RCC says must be present in all sex.

 

[Muze]

I guess another key concept here is that we ALWAYS have a right to NOT do something. Abstinence is moral and is within everyone’s right.

Very few times is abstaining from something ill-moral. And so abstaining from sex when you know your spouse is the most fertile is not ill-moral. You are simply choosing to NOT do something, which is OK.

So, abstaning from an act to intentionally avoid the procreative aspect of sex, in spite of the fact that the Church says that sex should be procreative AND unitive isn’t sin?

On the other hand…
When we choose to take action… we must be careful to make sure our actions are moral.
It is much easier to argue that artificial contraception is illmoral because in that case you are taking specific action to engage in an act, but avoid its natural consequence.

Isn’t taking the woman’s temperature each day an attempt to avoid the natural consequence? Isn’t engaging in sex in the days leading up to the fertile period so that the fertile period can be avoided an active attempt to avoid the natural consequence?

There are also health risks associated with some contraception, as well.

And some benefits.

You MAY be trying to argue that NFP is also ill-moral. And maybe you truly believe that. There are those who argue that you should just have sex whenever, and let God choose when you get pregnant, if you have 10 kids… so be it.

The argument is that NFP is no different than any other form of contraception in that it actively seeks to avoid the procreative aspects, and thus the RCC’s acceptance of NFP as a contraceptive is inconsistent with its own teachings.

However, we must be clear. One can not that NFP is ill-moral and use THAT fact to justify contraception.

That would be like saying that since Alcohol is legal… so should ALL drugs. If you disagree with the Church’s stance that NFP is moral, that is one thing. But arguing that therefore ALL contraception is moral, is not a sound argument.

Well, the specific question was about the consistency of the RCC’s position on NFP with respect to contraception as a whole.

 

[Joel_PF]

False, also.
Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the decrees of councils and popes condemn the taking of interest on loans to the poor and the greed of usurers, but say nothing about the charging of interest in general.

Please, actually go to the sources before spreading misinformation. Here is the relevant article of the Summa, proving that what I’m saying is right: usury was seen as each and every charging of interest, no matter how small or to whom.

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q78_A1.html

Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful.

I actually agree with you: the Bible has nothing against charging of interest per se. God’s divine Scripture was right all along. But the Church Fathers held the usury=interest view, and every major Catholic thinker did up to the Modern Age. St. Thomas, in the article I quoted above, interprets this biblical passage in the opposite way: Jews were forbidden to charge interest of other Jews (their brothers) because it was in itself immoral, and we should treat every man as a brother. Just read it.

With free enterprise as developed by the Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “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.”
Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.

You are making a host of confusions here, both conceptual and historical. I won’t derail the thread, just point some of them out: interest has nothing to do with the risk of non-payment and its associated risk premium. That is to say, even in a risk-free world there would exist positive interest rates.
Secondly, the consensus up to modern times was that the risk of not being paid did not justify the charging of interest.
Finally, paying a fine for paying back the loan too late is different from charging interest. It was, however, one of the many means business people used to bypass the prohibition of usury: they agreed to pay back the loan after the date on the contract with a fine.

The Franciscan St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) was perhaps the first theologian to recognize that time of use had an economic value and, at least in certain cases, might be licitly compensated.

I think the first was Giles of Lessines, but he is a minor figure anyway, and he in no way made a defense of interest charging based on his affirmation that a present good is more valuable than the same good in the future. In fact, he condemned usury because it involved income with no work.

St. Bernardine, despite his economic genius and his analysis of entrepeneurship, reserved his most virulent attacks to usurers, whom he saw as all those who charged interest.

Sorry, I have studied this issue (usury) directly and read the authors themselves, while you speak from hearsay. If you are interested, the best study on the matter is by John T. Noonan “the scholastic analysis of usury”.

There had been massive theological dissent from Humanae Vitae, and if Fr Torraco of (EWTN) who was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network, is not good enough, you can study the infallible declaration in Casti Connubii of Pius XI which counteracted the fall of the Anglican church in the U.K. to the contraceptive mentality, and the infallible statement in Humanae Vitae after the advent of the Pill.

I’m more interest in the arguments than in the supposedly infallible character of this or that declaration, which many Catholics will unfortunately flaunt for any position they defend.

I know that Grizes and Finnis offer a defense of the immorality of contraception totally unrelated to the “perverted natural faculty”. Maybe we could discuss it here, though I don’t think it is particularly convincing. I heard Ronheimer has a different defense, and that it is very good (a friend of mine, an Opus Dei numerary, told me it was the only argument against contraception that he read and thought “Ah! this is it!”), though I never saw it. Perhaps someone here knows it?

BTW walking on a treadmill is useless as an attempt to ridicule the reality of natural law. Since when has using normal aids to health and well-being become “unnatural”? Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being.

I agree with you. 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.

One thing that I think could be discussed is: is there a particular contraceptive mentality which goes necessarily hand in hand with the use of contraception, and which does not accompany the use of NFP? Or can both practices, NFP and contraception, be used with the same mentality?

 

[BRZ]

What is the point of these arguments? Seriously. I don’t get what you are trying to accomplish. You are never going to change the teachings of the Church. You can argue your point all you like, perhaps you need to because deep down something tells you that you are wrong but need to keep fighting to justify your belief.

Regardless of what you think, the Church has specifically said what it’s teachings are regarding this matter. If you disagree, that is your choice as a Human being with free will. Continue on your way and continue to believe as you wish, but arguing here on these forums about it will get you no where. The true believers will never be swayed and those who lack in faith who are easily swayed by words will not change the reality of the truth which is taught by the Church.

People come here to learn about what is right or wrong according to the Catholic faith which they profess. Those of you who come here to argue and complain about everything are only wasting your time in a fruitless venture. You can choose to believe what you wish as is your right, but stop trying to lead people astray who are trying to find the truth of the Catholic Church. There is no arguing with the Church on these matters. The truth is black and white, although there are circumstances where people may have less of a culpability for a sin, the fact that they committed sin is not up for question. NFP is acceptable and all artificial contraceptions are not. There is no grey area in this matter according to the Church.

 

[Joel_PF]

So the couple is still “OPEN” to the procreative aspect of the sexual union. They have not taken ARTIFICIAL means to block this possibility, as they do with contraception.

No contraception is 100% effective. A couple may use contraception but be open to procreation should they conceive a child. “We’ll take the steps to prevent it, but if she gets pregnant we will fully accept it.”

The moral difference cannot boil down to different probabilities of conception occurring. After all, no contraception is 100% effective. And if you say it is too close to 100%, well, then would it be all right for a husband to poke a tiny hole on the condom and then use it? He is open to procreation, he is just trying to diminish its probability.

if God wills it, seeing that they are not using a condum or “the pill” etc. etc. - they could still get pregnant at that time. – It happens.

Therefore, since the couple has not taken overt and artificial steps, they must acknowledge this possibility and engage in sex, still knowing that they COULD become pregnant.

The same is valid with condoms and the pill. There is always the risk that they won’t work. So the couple can be equally open to new life while using them.

That is one of the KEY differences.

The man must still regard his wife, whole and complete, accepting her body as it is, fertility and all, accepting her femininity and viewing her as a potential mother to the child they MAY conceive of, that very night, if they choose to engage in sex. - even if this is her least fertile period.

The wife… should have the same regard for her husband - accepting him fully, including his fertility.

A couple that is waiting for the infertile days to have sex is NOT accepting fertility fully, no way around that. They are, in fact, trying to avoid fertility. In fact, NFP couples who do not want to have a child right now will do things like

Contraception divorces this aspect from them, separates their sexuality from their fertility and desires to unite with only part of what TRULY makes them human and a sexual creature.

Why is waiting for infertile days that happen naturally morally different from making a certain day an infertile day through some artificial means?

Contraception can too often lead the couple to view their own fertility as a complication, a messy side-effect, and something which is wrong with them or should be represeed.

NFP couples do all that is in their power to ensure that they only have sex on days the woman cannot conceive a new baby. Isn’t that the equivalent of seeing fertility as an undesirable side effect during that part of their lives?

With artificial contraception, you don’t have to know much about your biology. Just slip on a condom, take a pill, spray some spermicide, etc. and you can forget your biology, your fertility and that of your spouse’s.

Knowing biology is a good thing; but it doesn’t quite cut as a relevant moral reason why one should engage in NFP and not in contraception.

It is much harder to use NFP to divorce one’s fertility from their essential humanity and to treat biology and sexuality as separate. - Because it works WITH it, not against it.

Does “biology” now have the character of a moral imperative? If men are biologically disposed to find women other than their wives sexually appealing, should we follow or go against this very biological urge?

 

[Joel_PF]

What is the point of these arguments? Seriously. I don’t get what you are trying to accomplish. You are never going to change the teachings of the Church. You can argue your point all you like, perhaps you need to because deep down something tells you that you are wrong but need to keep fighting to justify your belief.

Perhaps…
Or perhaps I see this as an area where there is a widespread error that needs correcting; an error with grievous consequences for many members of the Church, who are told they can’t contracept and are offered no rational support for this commandment.

When we look at the past, at the history of usury, for instance (a moral teaching which did change), we forget that for centuries honest businessmen were condemned as immoral, and sometimes denied Sacraments, for a perfectly honest practice which we nowadays see for what it is.

As a member of the Church, it is even my duty to help correct what I think, so far with good reason, is an error of the bishops.

Regardless of what you think, the Church has specifically said what it’s teachings are regarding this matter. If you disagree, that is your choice as a Human being with free will. Continue on your way and continue to believe as you wish, but arguing here on these forums about it will get you no where. The true believers will never be swayed and those who lack in faith who are easily swayed by words will not change the reality of the truth which is taught by the Church.

It will get me nowhere, but it might give other people, those who value reason and see it as an integral part of being Catholic, a new light on these very important matters.

Those of you who come here to argue and complain about everything are only wasting your time in a fruitless venture. You can choose to believe what you wish as is your right, but stop trying to lead people astray who are trying to find the truth of the Catholic Church.

Have you thought for a moment that maybe I am not trying to lead people astray, but to lead the to the truth?

There is no arguing with the Church on these matters.

Are you Catholic? Are you aware that we are all members of the Church, that it is not a metaphysical entity but a group of people here, in Purgatory and in Heaven? I’m not arguing with the Church. I’m arguing within the Church against other equally, perhaps even more so, faithful Christians on a point I think they are mistaken.

I find the attitude of some laymen strange. Whereas the bishops and popes are always giving arguments, reasons, for the teachings they propose, you are only stomping your feet and trying to shut off all debate. “Submit mindlessly or leave us alone”. That is the attitude of Islam, not of Christianity.

 

[Chrono13]

@chrono: it is your contention that Augustine saw the only purpose of sexuality is for procreation, correct? That sex was “pardonable” b/c it resulted in children?

I suggest that you are reading him wrong. It is lust, disordered desire, that Aug. objects so strongly to. For instance: ’ 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] One specially interesting passage shows the methodical way in which he deals with his adversary, declining to let him score debating points by reading ideas into Augustine’s writings which he has not put there, or by accusing him of things he has not said. He will go along with Julian when the latter lists the God-made and therefore praiseworthy aspects of the sexual relationship; but he will not let himself be drawn further.
When Julian affirms (as if Augustine had denied) that marital intercourse, with its intimacy, with its pleasure, with its semination, are from God and therefore in their own way to be praised, Augustine rapidly ticks off these “non-arguments”—Dixit “cum calore”; dixit “cum voluptate”; dixit “cum semine”—which are irrelevant to their debate, since Augustine is in full agreement that these are good things given by God. “But,” he (Aug.) goes on, “Julian, who says of all of this (making points which I have never called into question), does not mention precisely what I say is bad in intercourse: carnal concupi-scence or libido.” [34]’

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.pdf

Whew! IMO, this is a really difficult subject for discussion boards, because there is so much detailed and nuanced info which has to be (or attempted to be) condensed for the space available for realistice readability.

I don’t have time to reply on every claim by monsignour Burke, but I see how he approaches these topics. It is more or less typical system of reading Augustine if you are close to mainstream. While I have maximum respect, I believe monsignour can not defend his position. And interpretation of St. Augustine’s writings.

For example, he makes no distinction between “marriage” and “marital act”. He correctly reads that Augustine sees goods of marriage (procreation, sacrament, unity). Problem is that he connects these blessings with act itself. That would be outrage to Augustine, who claimed- more then once-that sex is evil even in marriage.

Burke’s interpretation of Augustinian lust, or concupiscence, is that “disordered aspect of desire which breaks away from ration” and “seeks pleasure only”. This is not false. But that is not all. Augustine, under influence of stoicism, claimed that only rational use of sexuality is procreative. Thus, every act which is not, by intent, procreative, is “seeking pleasure”. This is why NFP is forbidden by his logic. If you wish to beget a child, and begetting is *only * rational reason for sexuality, you are certainly not going to seek infertile periods.

 

[Chrono13]

What is the point of these arguments? Seriously. I don’t get what you are trying to accomplish. You are never going to change the teachings of the Church. You can argue your point all you like, perhaps you need to because deep down something tells you that you are wrong but need to keep fighting to justify your belief.

Regardless of what you think, the Church has specifically said what it’s teachings are regarding this matter. If you disagree, that is your choice as a Human being with free will. Continue on your way and continue to believe as you wish, but arguing here on these forums about it will get you no where. The true believers will never be swayed and those who lack in faith who are easily swayed by words will not change the reality of the truth which is taught by the Church.

People come here to learn about what is right or wrong according to the Catholic faith which they profess. Those of you who come here to argue and complain about everything are only wasting your time in a fruitless venture. You can choose to believe what you wish as is your right, but stop trying to lead people astray who are trying to find the truth of the Catholic Church. There is no arguing with the Church on these matters. The truth is black and white, although there are circumstances where people may have less of a culpability for a sin, the fact that they committed sin is not up for question. NFP is acceptable and all artificial contraceptions are not. There is no grey area in this matter according to the Church.

The point is that Catholic clergy can’t speak of “constant teaching” when you have 19 centuries of stoic doctrine that sex is only for procreation. These theological issues are extremely problematic, because- in core of the matter- Catholic layman must choose between loyalty to hierarchy and loyalty to Catholic history. And that is unacceptable.