NFP and contraception

[Chrono13]

How many people have sex for procreating children is irrelevent to our discussion.

Of course it is! These people are only respecters of (stoic) natural law.

Because St. Augustine taught there was no sin in procreating children, he was teaching that the marital act isn’t inherently sinful.

The logic of Augustine goes a little more then that. There is no sin in procreation, but everything more then that part of act is sinful.

That’s a really good question. I think that our fallen nature makes it difficult to impossible to experience fleshly gratification without some degree of selfishness, even if it’s very little. I don’t worry about it though. God knows our nature and He makes up for what we lack.

As I said, I agree. But are theologists of body teaching that?

I’m sure clergy knew the difference between narrative and allegory. If they chose to favour allegory to the exclusion of narrative in their writing, that was their prerogative.

Now, to be favour of something automatically means there is something else less favour. And clergy simply stated only one interpretation exists.

]That’s a beautiful excerpt from St. Jerome on Song of Songs, thank you. In the first line, he disagrees with an opponent who thinks the book is only about marriage. His ‘virginity’ explanation that follows is looking at another level of allegory.

I will need proof that Jovanius sees Song of Songs *only *as marital song.

 

[Chrono13]

Natural law and sexual ethics is actually a pretty interesting field of study. It is not impossible to understand, though it takes effort and a great deal of thought. I’d like to perhaps note, though it’s hardly a direct response to your point, that the “what’s the difference?” line of argument gave birth to most modern sexual perversions. There’s no doubt it birthed the modern homosexual movement.

I disagree. This seems more like an attempt to construct an argument then use it in a raw matter.

“It cannot be denied that in both cases the married couple, for acceptable reasons,” (for that’s how he imagined the case) “are perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and mean to secure that none will be born.”

And the problem is clear: this would never be accepted in past. In case of sex being moral only with intent of begetting, having sex on infertile day *because it is infertile * is contrary to natural law.

But contraceptive intercourse is faulted, not on account of this further intention, but because of the kind of intentional action you are doing. The action is not left by you as the kind of act by which life is transmitted, but is purposely rendered infertile, and so changed to another sort of act altogether.

In considering an action, we need always to judge several things about ourselves. First: is the sort of act we contemplate doing something that it’s all right to do? Second: are our further or surrounding intentions all right? Third: is the spirit in which we do it all right? Contraceptive intercourse fails on the first count; and to intend such an act is not to intend a marriage act at all, whether or no we’re married. An act of ordinary intercourse in marriage at an infertile time, though, is a perfectly ordinary act of married intercourse, and it will be bad, if it is bad, only on the second or third counts.

You simply want to stress that contraceptive act is evil, while NFP is not, altough they both share good intention- prevention of new life coming to world.

My response is that Church Fathers would never accept such system, as well as Church Moral theology up to 19 Century. For them, procreation was the only excuse for sexual intercourse and doing anything to bypass procreation was wrong. Intention was what made act moral or not- not the means this intent is achieved.

If contraceptive intercourse is permissible, then what objection could there be after all to mutual masturbation, or copulation in vase indebito, sodomy, buggery (I should perhaps remark that I am using a legal term here - not indulging in bad language), when normal copulation is impossible or inadvisable (or in any case, according to taste)? It can’t be the mere pattern of bodily behaviour in which the stimulation is procured that makes all the difference! But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example. I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all.

With much respect, this is an attempt to connect the other side with homosexuals and their intentions.

In terms of nature, there are things which are useless- such as masturbation or homosexual intercourse. They have no value to nature, which doesn’t mean- paradox- they are damaging it. Mystical part of sexuality is crucial in St. Paul’s teachings (our bodies are Temples of Holy Spirit… don’t touch the clothes of promiscuous…) and procreation is not the sole arbitar of act. Homosexuality could be forbidden on these grounds.

The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices die hard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who proclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition."

Let us define the Christian tradition.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Really? Every single Catholic source I’ve ever read/heard regarding NFP/contraception has made these claims. To me, that constitutes as the Church telling me.

I don’t really think anyone can really say the Church is NOT an NFP promoter. Not from what I’ve experienced anyway.

Catholicism claims to teach faith and morals infallibly. NFP is biology. If you took a bad CPR course that was advertized at your church, would you say the Church was wrong in its CPR teaching?

Personally, I find NFP/Fertility Awareness much easier to learn from secular sources. They tend not to feature those annoying “smiling couples”.

Maybe you’d like my diocese, there is no NFP promotion here whatsoever!

 

[Dikaios]

What do you think about others that have used reason to come to their conclusions? An excellent example would be Buddhism, who have an extremely well thought out and detailed philosophy. Basically, their philosophy needs no revelation, and they have come to a different conclusion.

I’d say they are much closer to truth than a materialist atheist? I don’t exactly understand what your point is here. I didn’t say following reason as best you can will always lead you to absolute truth every time. But arguments made by Buddhists, for example, should be approached by Catholics with reasoned responses to determine whether their arguments are in fact sound.

I also didn’t say there was no place for revelation in the world. I simply intended to argue that reason grounds “faith,” and that faith should not be used how you were using it. We should not make appeals to it when we fail to understand something that is nuanced and difficult. This is something that atheists and other decent philosophers mock. And for good reason.

For example, if I remember correctly, earlier in this thread you (or someone) said you’d prefer a response like “because the Church said so” as compared to the more philosophical arguments you were receiving. That sort of “just because” answer is simply dangerous. That sort of answer drives people away from truth and, consequently, the Church. Even if the previous responses didn’t give the best answer, at least they were giving actual answers.

Brilliant philosophers have developed the answer you are looking for; seek them out. A bit of advice on anything you approach, but especially as it relates to sexuality: the answer is rarely ever “there’s actually no difference” especially when you have an enormous past telling you that there is. Even if the past didn’t articulate the difference as beautifully as it could, the attempt to articulate it speaks to truth.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Of course it is! These people are only respecters of (stoic) natural law.

Or they just like babies.

The logic of Augustine goes a little more then that. There is no sin in procreation, but everything more then that part of act is sinful.

Procreation* is *the act.

As I said, I agree. But are theologists of body teaching that?

I don’t think it’s contrary to what they teach, but I’m not sure. Let’s just savour the fact that we agree on something!

Now, to be favour of something automatically means there is something else less favour. And clergy simply stated only one interpretation exists.

Clergy have given more than one interpretation (God and Church, virginity). Something less favoured doesn’t cease to exist.

I will need proof that Jovanius sees Song of Songs *only *as marital song.

St. Jerome makes that claim in the first line of quote you provided.

 

[Dikaios]

“And the problem is clear: this would never be accepted in past. In case of sex being moral only with intent of begetting, having sex on infertile day *because it is infertile * is contrary to natural law.”

This is inaccurate. I imagine it was not accepted in the past for the same reasons it would not be accepted today. That is, entering into a marriage with the intent of never begetting children would be wrong. Using NFP to avoid ever having children would likewise be wrong. Or, likewise, only seeking out infertile women to marry so you never have to worry about children would also be wrong. This would be an immoral further intention. While having sex with an infertile woman, because she is older, would not be wrong—even if no child is possible in that moment.

I also don’t quite understand your argument that sex is only moral if it has the intent of begetting (at least how you frame it). I feel like you perhaps some pieces of ancient philosophy and constructed this view. You are conflating intent and means here and are implying that further intent is all that matters in determining the morality of an action. This is sloppy.

There is a significant moral difference between preventing something from creation—through action—and not creating something—through inaction. Even if the intent is identical.

“You simply want to stress that contraceptive act is evil, while NFP is not, altough they both share good intention- prevention of new life coming to world”

Intention of the final result is not the only means of determining if something is moral or not? Both do share good intentions (at least in good couples), while both do not share good means.

“My response is that Church Fathers would never accept such system, as well as Church Moral theology up to 19 Century. For them, procreation was the only excuse for sexual intercourse and doing anything to bypass procreation was wrong. Intention was what made act moral or not- not the means this intent is achieved.”

This is also inaccurate. I also don’t really understand how you come to this conclusion either. Natural law is absolutely concerned with the means. I don’t actually know where you are getting this “intention was what made act moral or not” stuff. The final intention of an act clearly is a requirement in calling that act good, but that was hardly the only requirement.

“With much respect, this is an attempt to connect the other side with homosexuals and their intentions.”

No, it’s not. At least not how you are framing it here. Further, I do think homosexual intentions are good. The intention to be sexually fulfilled is a good intention. Likewise, the desire to be prudent in family planning is a good intention. In both cases, the means is what is at issue. This is something that moderns have a lot of trouble understanding, but intention can be pure while intended action can be impure.

“In terms of nature, there are things which are useless- such as masturbation or homosexual intercourse. They have no value to nature, which doesn’t mean- paradox- they are damaging it. Mystical part of sexuality is crucial in St. Paul’s teachings (our bodies are Temples of Holy Spirit… don’t touch the clothes of promiscuous…) and procreation is not the sole arbitar of act. Homosexuality could be forbidden on these grounds.”

I’m sure someone could easily argue that “useless” has no moral value as you’re using it here. Or, they could also argue that those things do in fact have a use. Masturbation relieves sexual tension and further encourages a healthy sexual appetite. In a lot of people, I’m sure it helps them get through the day. Homosexual intercourse allows homosexuals to feel sexually and emotionally fulfilled. I’d imagine that’s very useful to their lives—as useful as it is to any heterosexual.

It could easily be argued that masturbation and homosexuality can serve the purpose of spiritual fulfillment (the end purpose of a human being), as I noted above. In fact, I’m sure many homosexuals cannot even conceive of living without the love they receive from their lovers, cannot even imagine any sort of fulfillment in life without the closeness they feel through sex. Their actions are not immoral in that they are aimed at the wrong thing; their actions are immoral in that they are immoral means of attaining that fulfillment. In fact, the aim of a decent homosexual person and a decent heterosexual person are quite similar: emotional and spiritual fulfillment. This is why I mentioned homosexuality. If you stop there, and many people do, you get to the conclusion that homosexual sex is completely justified—if the intent is the same in both cases, and heterosexual sex is justified, then homosexual sex is justified.

I’d also like to point out that the end purpose of a human being is not procreation, as you’re implying here. Spiritual fulfillment is that end. This spiritual fulfillment can be acquired in any number of ways, but it may only be acquired in moral ways. The means, again, is at issue here. And it may only be acquired in moral ways, because committing a bad means—even if the end intent is good—frustrates that overall end purpose of spiritual fulfillment.

You are taking natural law in a strange direction honestly. It’s almost as if you’re leaning toward an idea that if I, for whatever reason, get aroused near my wife but calm myself down because I don’t think it’s an appropriate time to have sex, then I have committed a sin in frustrating the end purpose of my penis, our marriage, and myself. Or, that if I think the time is inappropriate because I don’t want more children at that time and choose to control myself, that I’ve done the same thing as having sex with her with a condom on. This is clearly absurd.

“Let us define the Christian tradition.”

Yes, and not fit it into the box you have constructed here.

 

[Debora123]

This is inaccurate. I imagine it was not accepted in the past for the same reasons it would not be accepted today. That is, entering into a marriage with the intent of never begetting children would be wrong. Using NFP to avoid ever having children would likewise be wrong. Or, likewise, only seeking out infertile women to marry so you never have to worry about children would also be wrong. This would be an immoral further intention. While having sex with an infertile woman, because she is older, would not be wrong—even if no child is possible in that moment.

No, there was a point in time when “NFP” (which back then would just be the rhythm method), WAS considered illicit no matter how many kids you had or didn’t have. Chrono is quite right on that one.

 

[Chrono13]

Or they just like babies.

In stoic way of thinking, it is not important whether you like babies or not- as long as you have sex only with desire to beget them.

Procreation* is *the act.

It is *possibility *of act.

Clergy have given more than one interpretation (God and Church, virginity). Something less favoured doesn’t cease to exist.

They gave many interpretations- but not the literal one, since sexuality was suspicious.

St. Jerome makes that claim in the first line of quote you provided.

Not really. He doesn’t claim Jovanius sees *only *marital enjoyment in Song of Songs.

 

[Chrono13]

This is inaccurate. I imagine it was not accepted in the past for the same reasons it would not be accepted today…

One must admit, it will be hard to prove that.

I also don’t quite understand your argument that sex is only moral if it has the intent of begetting (at least how you frame it). I feel like you perhaps some pieces of ancient philosophy and constructed this view. You are conflating intent and means here and are implying that further intent is all that matters in determining the morality of an action. This is sloppy.

At this point, I’d like to stress that this was teaching of Church Fathers, and was reflected in various ways up to 19th Century.

There is a significant moral difference between preventing something from creation—through action—and not creating something—through inaction. Even if the intent is identical.

But if intent is amoral, whatever you do to accomplish it is amoral as well.

Intention of the final result is not the only means of determining if something is moral or not? Both do share good intentions (at least in good couples), while both do not share good means.

This is the crux of the matter- in theological past, having sex without intent of begetting was unnatural, sinful. Whatever you do to have sex without begetting was against the nature.

This is also inaccurate. I also don’t really understand how you come to this conclusion either. Natural law is absolutely concerned with the means. I don’t actually know where you are getting this “intention was what made act moral or not” stuff. The final intention of an act clearly is a requirement in calling that act good, but that was hardly the only requirement.

I dare to say, you are mistaken. Natural law is all about intentions.

Everything created has some use in the nature. To use something morally, during usage you have to *intend *the result for which the thing is created. And, since theology up to 19th Century observed procreation as the only usage of sexual act, contraception was forbidden. And this is the problem for us today.

NFP is, by this logic, as contraceptive as other techniques of fertility control.

It could easily be argued that masturbation and homosexuality can serve the purpose of spiritual fulfillment (the end purpose of a human being), as I noted above. In fact, I’m sure many homosexuals cannot even conceive of living without the love they receive from their lovers, cannot even imagine any sort of fulfillment in life without the closeness they feel through sex. Their actions are not immoral in that they are aimed at the wrong thing; their actions are immoral in that they are immoral means of attaining that fulfillment. In fact, the aim of a decent homosexual person and a decent heterosexual person are quite similar: emotional and spiritual fulfillment. This is why I mentioned homosexuality. If you stop there, and many people do, you get to the conclusion that homosexual sex is completely justified—if the intent is the same in both cases, and heterosexual sex is justified, then homosexual sex is justified.

These are wise words. But since most homosexuals would not achieve fulfillment with heterosexual spouse, further questions regarding their religious life emerge.

You are taking natural law in a strange direction honestly. It’s almost as if you’re leaning toward an idea that if I, for whatever reason, get aroused near my wife but calm myself down because I don’t think it’s an appropriate time to have sex, then I have committed a sin in frustrating the end purpose of my penis, our marriage, and myself. Or, that if I think the time is inappropriate because I don’t want more children at that time and choose to control myself, that I’ve done the same thing as having sex with her with a condom on. This is clearly absurd.

LOL

One simply has to stress that during act, if you wish not to beget, you are against the natural law the way stoic Catholics claimed. If one has sex on infertile day, because it is infertile, he does so with intent to have intercourse without begetting. And since intercourse is only for begetting, such sex is sinful.

Yes, and not fit it into the box you have constructed here.

Truth will go out of the box, whoever tries to close it inside.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

In the days of King Herod of Judaea there lived a priest called Zechariah who belonged to the Abijah section of the priesthood, and he had a wife, Elizabeth by name, who was a descendant of Aaron.

6 Both were upright in the sight of God and impeccably carried out all the commandments and observances of the Lord.

7 But they were childless: Elizabeth was barren and they were both advanced in years.

8 Now it happened that it was the turn of his section to serve, and he was exercising his priestly office before God

9 when it fell to him by lot, as the priestly custom was, to enter the Lord’s sanctuary and burn incense there.

10 And at the hour of incense all the people were outside, praying.

11 Then there appeared to him the angel of the Lord, standing on the right of the altar of incense.

12 The sight disturbed Zechariah and he was overcome with fear.

13 But the angel said to him, 'Zechariah, do not be afraid, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth is to bear you a son and you shall name him John.

14 He will be your joy and delight and many will rejoice at his birth,

15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord; he must drink no wine, no strong drink; even from his mother’s womb he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,

16 and he will bring back many of the Israelites to the Lord their God.

17 With the spirit and power of Elijah, he will go before him to reconcile fathers to their children and the disobedient to the good sense of the upright, preparing for the Lord a people fit for him.’

18 Zechariah said to the angel, ‘How can I know this? I am an old man and my wife is getting on in years.’

19 The angel replied, 'I am Gabriel, who stand in God’s presence, and I have been sent to speak to you and bring you this good news.

If the ancient church up until recently thought that it was sinful to have relations without the goal being a child…why were Zachariah and Elizabeth still intimate? Especially when it notes that both were impeccable in carrying out the Lord’s commandments.

Zachariah is obviously shocked at the Angel’s revelation. Elizabeth was barren, he knew she was barren yet they were intimate, yet impeccable.

 

[Chrono13]

If the ancient church up until recently thought that it was sinful to have relations without the goal being a child…why were Zachariah and Elizabeth still intimate? Especially when it notes that both were impeccable in carrying out the Lord’s commandments.

Zachariah is obviously shocked at the Angel’s revelation. Elizabeth was barren, he knew she was barren yet they were intimate, yet impeccable.

You should have asked clergy at that time

 

[Dikaios]

But if intent is amoral, whatever you do to accomplish it is amoral as well.

Intent is clearly important, but it’s merely one part of determining the moral value of an action. There is intent to use something appropriately. And there is intent to bring about a result. They are two, separate intents. One not necessarily overlap the other.

I dare to say, you are mistaken. Natural law is all about intentions.

Everything created has some use in the nature. To use something morally, during usage you have to *intend *the result for which the thing is created. And, since theology up to 19th Century observed procreation as the only usage of sexual act, contraception was forbidden. And this is the problem for us today.

NFP is, by this logic, as contraceptive as other techniques of fertility control.

Intending to ejaculate into a vagina, where semen gets into the vagina, is precisely following the purpose of the penis. With or without procreation. In a single instance act of sex, if the penis does not ejaculate inside of the vagina, its purpose has been thwarted. As you pointed out, you have to intend ejaculation into a vagina—not a fertile vagina. (More on this below). The further intention of procreation does not follow necessarily. That is an intention that applies to marriage in a larger way, not to sex as a single act.

You can intend to use a penis, by itself, properly while not necessarily intending the further result of conception. I can use my hand without thwarting its purpose of grabbing, holding, and touching by masturbating with the further intention of orgasm. But my further intention of orgasm is wrong because the purpose of the orgasm is to get semen into a vagina. I can use my hand with its purpose in mind to work to build for the further intention of making money. This would be entirely licit, as the use and the further intention are proper. But I could also use my hand improperly, by say, mutilating it for someone else’s pleasure, for money. The goal of making money, of supporting myself, is good. The intentional use of the hand is bad, as it thwarts its inherent purpose. The goal of creating a stable family is good, but the use of contraception in that it intentionally stops the semen from getting into the vagina is bad.

Contraception serves two purposes. One, to stop procreation. Two, to stop semen from entering into the vagina—or with other birth control methods, to prevent, by outside force, the semen making it to the egg/fertilize the egg, as by its purpose. NFP serves one, the first, and it does nothing like the second. It does not prevent fertilization in any conceivable way. The act of having sex with your wife without contraception in that moment does not thwart the purpose of any instrument of the body. The first purpose, holding off procreation, is licit and can be morally justified; it can be an act of prudence and love. The second is not. These two things are not the same.

These are wise words. But since most homosexuals would not achieve fulfillment with heterosexual spouse, further questions regarding their religious life emerge.

But they likely would (or certainly argue that they do) achieve some sort of fulfillment with a homosexual partner. Intention is not the only thing that matters with respect to sexual ethics (or any ethics for that matter). That’s all I was getting at. After all, a homosexual couple who really wants children and has intercourse every day to bring that about is hardly committing a licit act. Because the means of bringing about that further good intention (which, I might add, it *is *a good intention) is a misuse of the particular objects’ (particularly their penises) purposes.

One simply has to stress that during act, if you wish not to beget, you are against the natural law the way stoic Catholics claimed. If one has sex on infertile day, because it is infertile, he does so with intent to have intercourse without begetting. And since intercourse is only for begetting, such sex is sinful.

This whole claim “intercourse is only for begetting” is a faulted premise to begin with. And perhaps something you ought to work through. Again, I think you are reading the Church fathers in a totally dangerous direction. And even if they did say something similar to this, you are dodging the issue by ignoring the argument. For example, I doubt you would say that a couple who chooses to have sex when the woman is infertile (by date or condition), but intended children all the same, is committing a sin. If intercourse is only for begetting children, as you claim here, they would not be committing an act that would beget, as has been pointed out, by its very nature. Following your reasoning, they would be committing sin; they would just be masturbating into one another.

Taken further, I think it could easily be argued that if I intend for a future something to occur, despite knowing that it is by its very condition impossible, I am not intending it at all. Intending to make a table by swimming around in the ocean is not intent to make a table. It is by its nature impossible to make a table by swimming around in the ocean, even if that’s what I intend to do by swimming. To say that I intend to make a child by having sex with a woman who happens to be infertile (that I know about, but intend all the same) is quite similar. Unless you think a woman who happens to be infertile that week is praying beyond all hope that her infertile condition would somehow, though miracle I guess? create a new life. Of course, she could probably intend conception by swimming around in the ocean as well; that’s just as likely to happen after all. This, I think as well, is absurd. Unless you are willing to argue that couples may not have intercourse if they are infertile.

 

[Chrono13]

Intent is clearly important, but it’s merely one part of determining the moral value of an action. There is intent to use something appropriately. And there is intent to bring about a result. They are two, separate intents. One not necessarily overlap the other.

But if sex is only for procreation, *using * act properly is only with intent of procreative result.

Intending to ejaculate into a vagina, where semen gets into the vagina, is precisely following the purpose of the penis. With or without procreation. In a single instance act of sex, if the penis does not ejaculate inside of the vagina, its purpose has been thwarted. As you pointed out, you have to intend ejaculation into a vagina—not a fertile vagina. (More on this below). The further intention of procreation does not follow necessarily. That is an intention that applies to marriage in a larger way, not to sex as a single act.

I will try to reply as a stoic would. Penis is erected to provide procreation, and if it, on purpose, ejects semen in vagina which is infertile (as in case of NFP) it’s act is against natural law.

Contraception serves two purposes. One, to stop procreation. Two, to stop semen from entering into the vagina—or with other birth control methods, to prevent, by outside force, the semen making it to the egg/fertilize the egg, as by its purpose. NFP serves one, the first, and it does nothing like the second. It does not prevent fertilization in any conceivable way. The act of having sex with your wife without contraception in that moment does not thwart the purpose of any instrument of the body. The first purpose, holding off procreation, is licit and can be morally justified; it can be an act of prudence and love. The second is not. These two things are not the same.

This is difficult to accept.

First, for stoic morality (and it was mainstram for majority of Church history), anything done to stop procreation (only purpose of sex) is sinful. This automatically makes NFP morally corrupted. Sexuality without intent of begetting can never be licit and morally justified, since the only excuse for intercourse would be thwarted.

Second, the whole idea of NFP is to make semen rejected and destroyed. The whole intent of people using NFP is to get it out (or what is left of it) before it has a chance to fertilize egg. Now, let us ask in simple manner: where people using the condom want sperm to finish? Outside. And people using NFP? Outside as well.

But they likely would (or certainly argue that they do) achieve some sort of fulfillment with a homosexual partner. Intention is not the only thing that matters with respect to sexual ethics (or any ethics for that matter). That’s all I was getting at. After all, a homosexual couple who really wants children and has intercourse every day to bring that about is hardly committing a licit act. Because the means of bringing about that further good intention (which, I might add, it *is *a good intention) is a misuse of the particular objects’ (particularly their penises) purposes.

I can agree, but allow me to hold my position for a few more turns. Is their misuse of penises against nature, or useless to nature?

I am not allowing homosexuality by this statement. I simply wish to see where the discussion will lead us.

This whole claim “intercourse is only for begetting” is a faulted premise to begin with. And perhaps something you ought to work through. Again, I think you are reading the Church fathers in a totally dangerous direction.

What Church Fathers wrote is not a matter of our opinion. One can suggest several interpretations of their work, but at one point we will have to accept a certain concrete matter in their texts.

If I am mistaken, it will be impossible for me to prove they were stoics (“intercourse is only for begetting”). But if this is true, nobody is dissenter for stressing the way of their thought.

It could be only unwise to write about these things on open forum as this one. But fundamentally, sooner or later we will have to deal with this topic.

And even if they did say something similar to this, you are dodging the issue by ignoring the argument. For example, I doubt you would say that a couple who chooses to have sex when the woman is infertile (by date or condition), but intended children all the same, is committing a sin. If intercourse is only for begetting children, as you claim here, they would not be committing an act that would beget, as has been pointed out, by its very nature. Following your reasoning, they would be committing sin; they would just be masturbating into one another.

The thing is, again, in intention. It is not bound by fertility cycle. Spouses can have relation on infertile day if they intend begetting (“Let’s try at least, darling!”) and such intercourse is fine for stoic ethics. But if they have sex on infertile day in order to destroy semen , they literally intend to masturbate in each other.

This, I think as well, is absurd. Unless you are willing to argue that couples may not have intercourse if they are infertile.

This is where the idea of “marital debt” comes. Although unnatural and venial sinful, spouses can have relation without desire for children to relieve themselves of sexual tension. This is why sexuality was not forbidden for sick or old. They still had to provide intercourse, on account of “lustful weakness” of themselves, or their partner.

 

[razredge]

You’re quite welcome. It was a very confusing, disappointing time for my husband and I, but we came out learning a lot.

As for the rest of your info… wow, that’s interesting. I’m surprised JPII wrote that. I guess maybe I don’t quite understand what he means? Is he saying that contraception is NOT an intrinsic evil that can lead un repented Catholics to Hell??

Basically, he means to say that the Church cannot change it’s stance on contraception without calling infallibility into question - that was the major reason for disallowing the Pill given by those who dissented from the majority report of the commission - rather than a moral reason.

The majority report agreed upon by all 40 lay people, 7 of the 9 bishops, 8 of the 16 theologian priests and 6 of the 7 cardinals of the commitee, gave these reasons for allowing the Pill:

The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman–that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives–makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control

However a small minority of the commission led by the archconservative Cardinal Ottaviani (who also opposed separation of Church & State and religious liberty at Vatican II) dissented from the majority view stating that the Church could not change it’s teaching without damaging papal infallibility as JPII stated in the minority report.

The fact that the church’s stance on contraception is a political rather than moral one is readily apparent by the unprecedented dissent (compared to any other Church teaching) from laity, theologians, bishops (note the dissenting statements issued in response to Humane Vitae) and clergy (only something like 16% of priests think using contraception is intrinsically evil)

Plus, the Vatican itself under Pius XI (who promulgated Casti Connubi) held a controlling share in Istituto Farmacologico Serono di Roma, Italy’s largest manufacturer of birth control products - so it certainly had no qualms in profiting from contraception.

But if sex is only for procreation, *using * act properly is only with intent of procreative result.

Yes, they simply cannot argue against this premise since not only do the Church Fathers affirm this but even from a secular perspective - ie. from biology, the only intrinsic purpose of sex is for reproduction.

 

[Dikaios]

I will try to reply as a stoic would. Penis is erected to provide procreation, and if it, on purpose, ejects semen in vagina which is infertile (as in case of NFP) it’s act is against natural law.

Again, this would make illicit all forms of sex between infertile couples or intercourse between couples where the wife is not fertile for a certain period of time. Biblical record clearly supports otherwise. Ejecting semen into a vagina that is infertile is not by its nature against the natural law. I illustrated that last post.

First, for stoic morality (and it was mainstram for majority of Church history), anything done to stop procreation (only purpose of sex) is sinful. This automatically makes NFP morally corrupted. Sexuality without intent of begetting can never be licit and morally justified, since the only excuse for intercourse would be thwarted.

NFP, as I illustrated before, does not stop procreation. You are also ignoring the distinction that has been made between intentional act and further intention. This is where you need to focus, I think.

Second, the whole idea of NFP is to make semen rejected and destroyed. The whole intent of people using NFP is to get it out (or what is left of it) before it has a chance to fertilize egg. Now, let us ask in simple manner: where people using the condom want sperm to finish? Outside. And people using NFP? Outside as well.

I don’t quite know what you mean by “outside” here. The man is giving all of himself to a woman, even if they are practicing NFP. He is not holding anything back. He does intend for his semen to go in a different place than if he were having sex during her fertile period. Further, if the egg were fertilized, he would be doing nothing to stop that from occurring. This further points to the similarity (and acceptability) between non-contraceptive NFP sex and non-contraceptive sex without planning.

I can agree, but allow me to hold my position for a few more turns. Is their misuse of penises against nature, or useless to nature?

I am not allowing homosexuality by this statement. I simply wish to see where the discussion will lead us.

Well, I don’t know what you mean by “useless” honestly. Something does not have to create something else to be useful. It’s a misuse because it’s against its inherent nature. A man, his penis and all, is for a woman. That said, a man and a woman could come together and try as hard as they can but create no child. I would hardly say their union is “useless.” Further, if two homosexuals came together I would probably not say their union was useless either. They cultivated love and intimacy—very useful. They just did so through improper means. The usefulness of the action seems like a side issue to me.

What Church Fathers wrote is not a matter of our opinion. One can suggest several interpretations of their work, but at one point we will have to accept a certain concrete matter in their texts.

If I am mistaken, it will be impossible for me to prove they were stoics (“intercourse is only for begetting”). But if this is true, nobody is dissenter for stressing the way of their thought.

It could be only unwise to write about these things on open forum as this one. But fundamentally, sooner or later we will have to deal with this topic.

I find the way you present this a little strange honestly. The current leaders of the Church know what you know—and more. Hundreds, thousands of books have been written on just this topic. There is no danger writing about what you think the Church fathers said. There’s no big secret here.

The thing is, again, in intention. It is not bound by fertility cycle. Spouses can have relation on infertile day if they intend begetting (“Let’s try at least, darling!”) and such intercourse is fine for stoic ethics. But if they have sex on infertile day in order to destroy semen , they literally intend to masturbate in each other.

I find this a bit weak honestly, especially since they would effectively be thwarting the “only purpose of sex.” They both know it won’t happen; they are using their bodies for pleasure despite knowing that it will give them nothing in return. Like splashing around in the water—but more fun.

This is where the idea of “marital debt” comes. Although unnatural and venial sinful, spouses can have relation without desire for children to relieve themselves of sexual tension. This is why sexuality was not forbidden for sick or old. They still had to provide intercourse, on account of “lustful weakness” of themselves, or their partner.

This sounds like a very endsjustifythemeans kind of reasoning. Me genoito! I don’t think this is what Paul meant at all. I don’t think rendering the marital debt is ever to be understood as a sinful (venial or otherwise) act. It’s something you owe by nature of the relationship. It only becomes a sin when you withhold it—a breach of the contract. I would hardly say upholding the contract could ever be a sin (all things being equal). Also, it would be very difficult for marriage to be seen as a sacrament following this reasoning. “I am binding you together before God—but the relationship will definitely regress into a sinful state of affairs—because she is going to age; sorry. But it’s alright now!”

 

[Abu]

Chrono13, #335
How can we conculde from nature that something is created only for grave reasons? Animals have infertile periods as well, and they are not using them for their “natural use”.

An excellent example of the misuse of reason, and the inability to understand clearly expressed facts and reality – precisely why the prejudices against the Church are so vitriolic. An inability to see the difference in God’s creation betwen mankind and animals is so common these days.

“Our status as the only rational, moral animal is the source of our natural belief that human beings are distinct from other animals. That is the origin of all laws against murder, for the notion of “murder” assumes that killing a human being is fundamentally distinct from killing a chicken, and that the murderer actually had the moral freedom not to kill (otherwise, jailing the man would make as much sense as jailing the knife). Let go of this fundamental assumption, and soon killing anything will be considered murder (as some animal rights activists maintain).”
Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Benjamin Wiker holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University.

 

[Debora123]

Basically, he means to say that the Church cannot change it’s stance on contraception without calling infallibility into question - that was the major reason for disallowing the Pill given by those who dissented from the majority report of the commission - rather than a moral reason.

The majority report agreed upon by all 40 lay people, 7 of the 9 bishops, 8 of the 16 theologian priests and 6 of the 7 cardinals of the commitee, gave these reasons for allowing the Pill:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control

However a small minority of the commission led by the archconservative Cardinal Ottaviani (who also opposed separation of Church & State and religious liberty at Vatican II) dissented from the majority view stating that the Church could not change it’s teaching without damaging papal infallibility as JPII stated in the minority report.

The fact that the church’s stance on contraception is a political rather than moral one is readily apparent by the unprecedented dissent (compared to any other Church teaching) from laity, theologians, bishops (note the dissenting statements issued in response to Humane Vitae) and clergy (only something like 16% of priests think using contraception is intrinsically evil)

Plus, the Vatican itself under Pius XI (who promulgated Casti Connubi) held a controlling share in Istituto Farmacologico Serono di Roma, Italy’s largest manufacturer of birth control products - so it certainly had no qualms in profiting from contraception.

Yes, I understood it after I went back and read it again. I was kinda in a hurry and read it wrong the first time

I had actually heard about that before too. This isn’t the first time I’ve come across evidence suggesting that the Church refuses to allow certain forms of contraception out of fear of how it’s going to look. It makes me sad.

 

[Abu]

Catholics faithful to Christ accept His mandate protecting His Church from teaching error on faith and on morals. They assent to all of His teaching through His Church.

Dissenters make up their own prejudices based on their feelings.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13, #335
what Church Fathers proclaimed as natural law. For them, sex was only for procreation, and because of that, the only intercourse respecting natural law is the one with intent of begetting.

False as usual. These prejudices are worthless against facts that with all the magic and drugs recommended, St Augustine specifically stated 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.”

Reality with St Augustine
“St Augustine was the great Father of the Church who exposed the errors of Manichaeism. It was Augustine, too, who wrote most extensively against the practice of contraception, which those who were influenced by Manichaeism had come to defend on ideological grounds.” (Fr John A Hardon,S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 369).

In commenting on St Paul’s “If they cannot control the sexual urges, they should get married” (1 Cor 7:9), St Augustine sees this as specifically addressed to those who have trouble with sexual control, and tells them “not to suppose that even marriage is an infallible means of self-control….the unmarried who do not control their sexual impulses run the risk of ‘begetting children in disgrace or avoid having offspring by a degraded form of intercourse.’ But the unmarried, too, may be ‘lawfully wedded spouses who resort to this last; for intercourse with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked whenever the conception of children is prevented.’ ”

So, “St Augustine did not mean, no more than St Paul, to have this taken universally, as though marriage was only a remedy for passion, or as though persons cannot enter the sacred state of matrimony for very noble reasons that have nothing to do with merely bridling one’s passions.” (Op. cit. p 369).

Elizabeth Anscombe observes that St Thomas makes the point that “a man ought to pay the marriage debt if he can see the wife wants it without her having to ask him. And he ought to notice if she does not want it. This is an apt gloss on St Augustine’s ‘mutual service’, and it destroys the basis for the picture which some have had of intercourse not for the sake of children as a little bit sinful on one side, since one must be ‘demanding’, and not for any worthy motive but purely ‘out of desire for pleasure’. One could hardly say that being diagnosable as wanting intercourse was a sin!”
[Elizabeth Anscombe is one of the foremost scholars of philosophy in the second half of the twentieth century, and her article on *Contraception And Chastity gives the reality of the arguments on sex in marriage in Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius, 1993, p 127].

 

[razredge]

I had actually heard about that before too. This isn’t the first time I’ve come across evidence suggesting that the Church refuses to allow certain forms of contraception out of fear of how it’s going to look. It makes me sad.

It should make us sad, this kind of legalism, rooted in blind tradition is precisely what Christ taught against.

It seems to happen rather often unfortunately - for example it is the same reason why there are still Catholics who believe the sun goes around the earth - Since the Pope declared Galileo’s beliefs heretical, they believe the Church’s about face acceptance of modern cosmology undermines papal infallibility:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=525105&page=25