NFP and contraception

[Abu]

Chrono13, #236
clergy adopted pagan philosophy in order to ban contraception

False as always.
God intends marital union as an earthly image of His own Trinitarian “exchange of love.” It’s also a “promise” of our destiny to share in the love of the Trinity through Christ. “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:31-32). It is to reveal, proclaim, and anticipate the union of Christ and the Church.
This was the basis for the teaching of that great giant of the faith, St Augustine, and of the other Fathers of the Church.

#253
sex was told to be moral only if you wish to beget a child. How NFP comes into story? It was regarded as contraception, because intent of the act (not means to achieve that intent) was what made act moral or not.

Any barrier used to prevent conception was banned.

Blessed John Paul II says that there “is no other human reality which corresponds more, humanly speaking, to that divine mystery” (Eph 5:31-32) [Dec. 30, 1988].

Further, Blessed John Paul II affirms St Augustine’s teaching in Love And Responsibility, Collins 1981, p 44:
The NT commandment demands love for others, for persons, as Blessed John Paul II reminds us, and he affirms that St Augustine differentiates between “pleasure for its own sake, with no concern for the object of pleasure, and this is what he calls uti.” The other attitude “finds joy in a totally committed relationship with the object precisely because this is what the nature of the object demands, and this he calls frui. The commandment to love shows the way to enjoyment in this sense – frui in the association of persons of different sex within and outside marriage.”

“While the teaching [against contraception] was always there…the Magisterium expressed itself with vigor whenever the need arose…the list of such declarations would be interminable. In country after country and in every country, bishops and councils forbid ‘contraceptive portions,’ ‘herbs or other agents so you will not have children,’ ‘spilling the seed in coitus,’ ‘coitus interruptus,’ ‘poisons of sterility,’ ‘avoiding children by evil acts,’ ‘putting material things in the vagina,’ and ‘causing temporary or permanent sterility.’ These and similar statements occur in ecclesiastical documents before the end of the thirteenth century.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 370).

We’ve seen in post #226 that the DIDACHE, one of the earliest written disciplinary documents from the infant Church (100-150 A.D.) condemned both abortion and contraception, as well as the Fathers of the Church, the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (1148-1241), the Council of Trent and the infallible doctrine in Casti Connubii of Pius XI and in Humanae Vitae of Paul VI – consistent and from the earliest times.

In Casti Connubii, Pius XI refers to that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

The dissenters and the confused seem unable to understand the facts of history and of the Catholic Church.

 

[Chrono13]

Was the marital debt considered obligatory?

It was obligatory to provide it when asked.

I missed where the *Song of Songs *narrative was called ‘foolish’, but that’s still a long way from ‘condemned’.

When Theodore’s student claimed literal interpretation wouldn’t be told even by silly woman.

 

[Chrono13]

False as always

You are simply repeating your copy/pastes as if they weren’t responded by my side. You rarely provide a direct answer to questions (aside from “false, as always”). Shame. You don’t look like somebody who couldn’t hold his ground.

I will reply again. As St. Paul said, one shouldn’t be tired of repeating if it is for Christ.

God intends marital union as an earthly image of His own Trinitarian “exchange of love.” It’s also a “promise” of our destiny to share in the love of the Trinity through Christ. “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:31-32). It is to reveal, proclaim, and anticipate the union of Christ and the Church.
This was the basis for the teaching of that great giant of the faith, St Augustine, and of the other Fathers of the Church.

No. That is Christopher West and Theology of the body. It has nothing to do with St. Augustine who said sex is only for procreation (and, in case of marital debt, venial sin).

Any barrier used to prevent conception was banned.

No. Any action which would be taken with *intent *to prevent conception was banned. Including barriers. Including NFP.

Further, Blessed John Paul II affirms St Augustine’s teaching in Love And Responsibility, Collins 1981, p 44:
The NT commandment demands love for others, for persons, as Blessed John Paul II reminds us, and he affirms that St Augustine differentiates between “pleasure for its own sake, with no concern for the object of pleasure, and this is what he calls uti.” The other attitude “finds joy in a totally committed relationship with the object precisely because this is what the nature of the object demands, and this he calls frui. The commandment to love shows the way to enjoyment in this sense – frui in the association of persons of different sex within and outside marriage.”

That is the theological problem of conservative approach. Augustine’s *frui *of the sexuality is *procreation * only, and using sexuality for anything else (for example, showing love to your spouse) is not using it for it’s natural cause.

Collins uses Augustine’s systematization, but fails to fill it up with Augustine’s ratio. He says “Augustine taught that we need to use sex for it’s natural use” but doesn’t mention that, for Augustine (and most Church fathers) only natural use of sex was begetting of children.

“While the teaching [against contraception] was always there…the Magisterium expressed itself with vigor whenever the need arose…the list of such declarations would be interminable. In country after country and in every country, bishops and councils forbid ‘contraceptive portions,’ ‘herbs or other agents so you will not have children,’ ‘spilling the seed in coitus,’ ‘coitus interruptus,’ ‘poisons of sterility,’ ‘avoiding children by evil acts,’ ‘putting material things in the vagina,’ and ‘causing temporary or permanent sterility.’ These and similar statements occur in ecclesiastical documents before the end of the thirteenth century.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 370).

We should remind Hardon that tracking woman’s menstrual cycle in order to detect infertile period was also on the list.

And why was all that forbidden? Hardon is not ready to answer. Because sex was told to be only for procreation.

We’ve seen in post #226 that the DIDACHE, one of the earliest written disciplinary documents from the infant Church (100-150 A.D.) condemned both abortion and contraception, as well as the Fathers of the Church, the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (1148-1241), the Council of Trent and the infallible doctrine in Casti Connubii of Pius XI and in Humanae Vitae of Paul VI – consistent and from the earliest times.

Didache forbids usage of magical potions, and they were not used only for contraception. Fathers of the Church forbid NFP, and decretals of Pope Gregory IX are probably on the same track, as well as Trent. Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae are inconsistent with this logic, as NFP is key proof.

In Casti Connubii, Pius XI refers to that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

Since bishops of the past forbid contraception on completely other logic, which banned NFP and every other act with intent of limiting procreation (no matter whether it is “natural”, “open to life”, “artificial” or “useful”) there is no “universality of time” and no base for calling the teaching infallible.

The dissenters and the confused seem unable to understand the facts of history and of the Catholic Church.

I’m confused about many things in life. But not this one. I know where I stand, what I defend, how my arguments work and what they are formed on- Catholic moral tradition, it’s History, writ and fact.

In other words- the truth. And truth sets free.

 

[Good_Daughter]

It was obligatory to provide it when asked.

So, Catholicism taught obligatory sinning?

When Theodore’s student claimed literal interpretation wouldn’t be told even by silly woman.

The comment seems more literary than theological. Also, as I’ve mentioned, that’s a far cry from condemning the sexual passion in the *Song of Songs *narrative.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13, post #260,
the theological problem of conservative approach…Augustine’s frui of the sexuality is procreation only, and using sexuality for anything else (for example, showing love to your spouse) is not using it for it’s natural cause.
Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae are inconsistent with this logic

How pathetic – right in the face of Pius XI who emphatically declared “openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition” when His Holiness quotes St Augustine in Casti Connubii: tinyurl.com/4ajk
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: 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.”

Pope Pius XI often quotes the revered St Augustine, including:
55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
Note:
45. St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.

I know where I stand, what I defend, how my arguments work and what they are formed on- Catholic moral tradition, it’s History, writ and fact.

This sort of mindless fantasy, totally misrepresenting the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, dissenting from the Magisterium and denying the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception – ridiculing the Magisterium – has no place in any factual discussion for Catholics.

Ridiculing Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, has no place here, either:
51. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)
Note:
14. Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930)

The final straw is this joker’s transformation of Blessed John Paul II’s affirmation of the teaching of St Augustine in Love And Responsibility, Collins 1981, p 44, as “Collins uses Augustine’s systematization….but fails to fill it up with Augustine’s ratio.” What arrogance – trying to show he trumps Blessed John Paul II, and can’t even get the reference right!

 

[Observer3]

This topic seems to get brought up at least twice a week. The fact is, no one knows that ABC is bad. It’s all based on faith, or fear as I believe. Notice how the church keeps changing their stance over the years. Once they taught sex was only for procreation, now it’s for both procreation and unity of marriage. Obviously they were wrong on one of these points of view, so the church (and all churches) are flawed because the views represent men, not God. No one really knows for sure what God’s view is, since we all are an observer of this world.

NFP and ABC have the same intent. That makes them very similar, although one is highly more effective. You must decide for yourself if you want to live a life based on chasing unrealistic ideals, or a life of balance and practicalness. ABC also contributes to helping reduce the problem of overpopulation.

 

[Chrono13]

So, Catholicism taught obligatory sinning?

Well, clergy generally adopted that view. Augustine said that Paul allowed marriage although it was sinful (because of sex).

The comment seems more literary than theological. Also, as I’ve mentioned, that’s a far cry from condemning the sexual passion in the *Song of Songs *narrative.

The comment is alright. No theologian approached Song of Songs differently up to 19th Century.

 

[Chrono13]

How pathetic – right in the face of Pius XI who emphatically declared “openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition” when His Holiness quotes St Augustine in Casti Connubii: tinyurl.com/4ajk
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: 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.”

Where can we see here what *frui *to Augustine is?

Pope Pius XI often quotes the revered St Augustine, including:
55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
Note:
45. St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.

And Augustine, as we have mentioned, sees NFP as preventing conception. And you still haven’t answered my question regarding Tamar’s duty in story of Onan.

This sort of mindless fantasy, totally misrepresenting the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, dissenting from the Magisterium and denying the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception – ridiculing the Magisterium – has no place in any factual discussion for Catholics.

So you say, I am a dissenter, denier, ridiculer and lover of fantasy.

Fine.

Now, answer my questions.

Ridiculing Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, has no place here, either:
51. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)
Note:
14. Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930)

Rest you rage, fellow forumer. I have no intention of ridiculing things much less important then Gaudium et Spes. But nobody can deny that we have a theological issue to solve regarding stoicism in “tradition”. You can fight modernism, but you can’t fight the History of the Roman Catholic Church.

The final straw is this joker’s transformation of Blessed John Paul II’s affirmation of the teaching of St Augustine in Love And Responsibility, Collins 1981, p 44, as “Collins uses Augustine’s systematization….but fails to fill it up with Augustine’s ratio.” What arrogance – trying to show he trumps Blessed John Paul II, and can’t even get the reference right!

People much more pious then me would not feel responsible for arrogance as you suggest. But if I have harmed your beliefs, or if I have misinterpreted your reference take my sincere apologies.

What is Augustine’s *frui *of marital intercourse? If answer is *procreation *and *procreation only * (aside now carrying the burden of marital debt) who can say otherwise? Pope? Modernists? Protestants? Atheists? Communists?

Augustine is Augustine. And he will stay that, as well as his ideas of sexuality.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13, #265
you still haven’t answered my question regarding Tamar’s duty in story of Onan.

You are so preoccupied with your own prejudices you failed to see the reference to Pope Pius XI’s answer in post #167, and what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church held.

Onan was killed for his unnatural act of withdrawal.
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.’ ” [See Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on *Christian Marriage, Casti Connubii, 1930, #55. Note 45.].
Note:
45. St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.​

Also Fr John Echert is an authority on Sacred Scripture
**ONAN
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN): **
The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text–spilled his seed on the ground–and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church–and nature–that contraception is mortally sinful.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Well, clergy generally adopted that view. Augustine said that Paul allowed marriage although it was sinful (because of sex).

To teach obligatory sinning is contrary to Catholicism. Do you have a link to your source for Augustine’s comment?

The comment is alright. No theologian approached Song of Songs differently up to 19th Century.

No theologian condemned the sexual passion it contains either. For the record, I agree that it’s best to look past the narrative and see the higher allegory. Properly ordered sexuality is always supposed to help us see the higher allegory.

 

[mark_a]

You must decide for yourself if you want to live a life based on chasing unrealistic ideals, or a life of balance and practicalness.

And leave God out of the picture? Can you show from scripture where contraception is condoned?

ABC also contributes to helping reduce the problem of overpopulation.

That’s what Margaret Sanger would have folks believe, and what Planned Parenthood is selling.

 

[Chrono13]

To teach obligatory sinning is contrary to Catholicism.
Do you have a link to your source for Augustine’s comment?

This could be a good start:

• For thus says the Scripture (“Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin. Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh - and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage.

No theologian condemned the sexual passion it contains either. For the record, I agree that it’s best to look past the narrative and see the higher allegory. Properly ordered sexuality is always supposed to help us see the higher allegory.

The sexual passion was under attack even outside of Song of Songs. And naturally, nobody was allowed to trace it in the text, since such desire was seen “problematic”.

 

[Chrono13]

You are so preoccupied with your own prejudices you failed to see the reference to Pope Pius XI’s answer in post #167, and what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church held.

Onan was killed for his unnatural act of withdrawal.
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.’ ” [See Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on *Christian Marriage

, Casti Connubii, 1930, #55. Note 45.].
Note:
45. St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.​

Also Fr John Echert is an authority on Sacred Scripture
**ONAN
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN): **
The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text–spilled his seed on the ground–and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church–and nature–that contraception is mortally sinful.

Rest easy, for I take your posts seriously, and weight their claims in good manner. I feel such approach is mutual, despite your rising of tensions.

Your post, quoting respected Pius XI and Echert, did not contain explanation why Tamar did not report Onan’s spilling of the seed. Onan had duty to beget a child, and Tamar had duty to report if he declined, to the elders. This was not done. She was not punished for her lack of responsibilty, even after Onan was slayed.

This is probably the biggest problem with conventional Catholic interpretation.

 

[Joel_PF]

We’ll probably search in vain for an explicit condemnation of NFP. However, given that Catholic traditionalists view NFP in a very bad light (and I’m guessing they took it from their priests and teachers, who were themselves taught by conservatives in the beginning of the 20th century), I wouldn’t be surprised if it were universally seen as equivalent to other forms of contraception. Our kind of open and positive attitude towards sexuality is very new in Church writings. A side-effect of laymen being on the sidelines (and happily accepting their purely passive role) for far too long. Perhaps Easter Christian, who have married priests, have developed some kind of positive literature on sexuality?

Before the middle of the 20th century the main question for moralists was how to do it without sin. Contrary to some Fathers, and following Aquinas, the official position has generally been that it is perfectly possible for sex to be sinless, and therefore virtuous; but it was also seen as having to intend procreation.

Perhaps someone with some knowledge of Renaissance and Modern Age confessionary manuals may give some light on how contraception was dealt with. If only Antonius Diana and other princes of casuistry were available online…

 

[Observer3]

And leave God out of the picture? Can you show from scripture where contraception is condoned?

That’s what Margaret Sanger would have folks believe, and what Planned Parenthood is selling.

It isn’t condoned, but it’s only condemned in modern writings. Christ or God never said it was bad, only men with pencils and writing objects did. Scripture is just scripture, it’s not the voice of God. It’s up to you if you want to have faith in man or God. I choose not to put too much faith into man, especially on extreme points of view. We know no one in this world is without flaws, and often put beliefs on people for their own agendas.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 (#270)
why Tamar did not report Onan’s spilling of the seed…This is probably the biggest problem with conventional Catholic interpretation.

The attempts ad nauseam to discredit the Popes and the faithful Catholic apologists on everything is symptomatic of the dissenter. Here it is because it doesn’t suit the poster. As St John teaches of even the New Testament: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

The Church has affirmed his objective behavior of masturbation and coitus interruptus as sinful, and this is the teaching.

The Church uses Humanae Vitae (HV) 14 and 16 and Familiaris Consortio (FC) 32 as the references for contraception in the Catechism. And FC #32 refers also to HV #12, 13, 14, and Gaudium et Spies #51, which in turn, item 51 refers to Casti Connubii. Casti Connubii cites Onan in Genesis. The act of masturbation is prohibited for the same reason as contraception.

 

[razredge]

And leave God out of the picture? Can you show from scripture where contraception is condoned?

Can you show from scripture where contraception is forbidden?

Can you show from scripture that stoning to death of adulterers, slavery, polygamy, genital mutilation, genocide etc are condoned, encouraged even?

I sure can - IMHO scripture, the Old Testament in particular should not be read as a divine almanac on moral law.

 

[Good_Daughter]

This could be a good start:

• For thus says the Scripture (“Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin. Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh - and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage.

This is a beautiful quote, thanks, and I think it applies as much today as when St.Augustine first wrote it.

St.Paul teaches that the marital embrace may be used to combat lust but that it is permissable, not obligatory to do so. The other way to fight lust is continence, much more difficult, affording more of an opportunity for a person to rely on God’s grace and grow in holiness. St.Augustine’s comment is on the inherent sinfulness in fighting lust with sex, likely due to our fallen nature, rather than any sin attatched to the embrace itself.

The sexual passion was under attack even outside of Song of Songs. And naturally, nobody was allowed to trace it in the text, since such desire was seen “problematic”.

We’re looking specifically at Song of Songs, not outside it, so I don’t follow your comment.

 

[samiam1611]

. St.Augustine’s comment is on the inherent sinfulness in fighting lust with sex, likely due to our fallen nature, rather **than any sin attatched to the embrace itself. **

What an excellent point. I never thought of it quite that way before. :tiphat:

 

[Chrono13]

We’ll probably search in vain for an explicit condemnation of NFP. However, given that Catholic traditionalists view NFP in a very bad light (and I’m guessing they took it from their priests and teachers, who were themselves taught by conservatives in the beginning of the 20th century), I wouldn’t be surprised if it were universally seen as equivalent to other forms of contraception.

Certain “ultra-traditionalists” would surely agree with you. But even they are afraid to note the stoic influence on nature of sex in theology.

A side-effect of laymen being on the sidelines (and happily accepting their purely passive role) for far too long. Perhaps Easter Christian, who have married priests, have developed some kind of positive literature on sexuality?

Secular sources suggest that laymen were dissent almost to the point of mockering the sexual ethics of then-stoic religious figures. Decameron would be the best source.

Before the middle of the 20th century the main question for moralists was how to do it without sin. Contrary to some Fathers, and following Aquinas, the official position has generally been that it is perfectly possible for sex to be sinless, and therefore virtuous; but it was also seen as having to intend procreation.

The last part of the quote is crucial for an objective approach to this topic. Even if contraception is evil, it was not forbidden on grounds we would call fair by today’s understanding.

Perhaps someone with some knowledge of Renaissance and Modern Age confessionary manuals may give some light on how contraception was dealt with. If only Antonius Diana and other princes of casuistry were available online…

That would be great, indeed. Confessionaries are important part of the story, since they were means clergy used to decline Eucharist to laymen in case of their dissent. And one would probably find many exotic reasons in them why religious life was declined to the layman. Most of them dealing with sex.