Mary_Gail_36
New member
Well Zacharia was completely shocked poor man, so I’m not sure if he had intent. He didn’t say, “Oh thank you, we’ve been trying so hard to have a baby.”
He was confused on how it could be possible.
- Status
He was confused on how it could be possible.
C
Chrono13
Guest
I say this with more sympathy then wish to provoke… you are wonderful, Abu! I ask you which bishop today claims NFP was allowed prior to 19th Century, and you succeed in finding a way how to talk about 1968 and how I am dissident to Vatican II. You really think that is successful dodge of the question?
Should we try YES/NO question? Is there a single bishop in United States of America which claims Church was not opposed to NFP in the past?
, Our Sunday Visitor
Honestly, you know by now how the argumentation works. We are not here to discuss whether Church forbid contraception. We all know the general stance. The question is: on what grounds? On what premise of natural law? Can you prove that Sixtus didn’t see NFP as contraception? Can we accept that we had stoic ethic?
I have responded to this absurd accusation here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7958027&postcount=368
You suggest I gave even a slightest assertion that humans are equal in ration to animals? Oh, come on! People reading this are not dumb, they see what kind of mess you got yourself into. And what you are trying to pull.
I don’t intend to boast on such weak argumentation. Man is creation of God, and he is God’s image. Who denies that, denies the faith. And is a heretic of great mistake!
You are too smart to feel like that at this point in discussion.
D
Debora123
Guest
But the thing is, he wasn’t doing anything to try to prevent it from happening. What we’re trying to convey to you here is that purposely trying to avoid children (even if by natural means, for good reasons) was illicit at one point, although it is licit now. I think the point is that morality has changed, even though it’s supposed to be completely, 100% infallible.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Which brings us to conclusion it is not infallible.
That doesn’t mean one should not consider Magisterium as official and authentic source. But they can’t ask loyalty to hierarchy on expanse of tradition.
We need to pray and look with meekness of heart what Good Lord wants us to do.
D
davidv
Guest
So what? It is still the truth and truth doesn’t change. That proper relation of sexual relations in the context of marriage remain unchanged since the “beginning”. John Paul II presents are very scholarly treatment of this in his Theology of the Body.Which brings us to conclusion it is not infallible.
When those appointed by God to be our shepherds are ignored to satisfy ones owns whims of desire, there is not much meekness of heart in evidence.
D
Debora123
Guest
What is “the truth?” Is it that using natural means of avoiding children for serious reasons is LICIT? Or is it that it’s ILLICIT? Because that in particular certainly HAS changed.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
If sex during infertile periods was wrong, then Zacharia and Elizabeth were sinning. They were impeccable. So sex during infertile periods could not be sinful.
God made us to be able to be intimate at any time of the month. He only made women capable of conceiving a few days a month.
I’m not sure any one on this thread has proven that the Church only condoned relations on 3 or 4 fertile days a month.
D
Debora123
Guest
What we’re saying is that at one point in time the Church didn’t approve of purposely trying to avoid pregnancy by any means, including naturally.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
Not in all cases. You said earlier in the thread that couples satisfying the marriage debt, which was considered a moral thing to do, were not obligated to desire conception.
I’m trying to reconcile our points of view.
Humans are capable of both great evil, due to our fallen nature, and great good, due to our divine creation. Maybe things that are good and offer great pleasure are difficult for us to enjoy perfectly in this life. Can a chocolate lover indulge without even a trace of gluttony? Is it possible to engage in the marital act without a trace of lust? I can’t do either of these, and I try really hard. My imperfections don’t change the goodness of chocolate or sex though.
Maybe the Church Fathers knew about the goodness of marital relations but, unlike modern theologians, they chose to take a cautionary approach in their writing, based on their understanding of human nature. It’s possible that modern Catholic thinkers have chosen a different focus regarding the marital embrace, without denying what the ECFs taught.
A
Abu
Guest
The sorry state of disputants peddling dissent is well illustrated by the regurgitation of much misrepresentation on St Augustine, as well as maligning the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Popes and Councils, so as to belittle the infallible doctrine on contraception.
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.
She also affirms that “the Christian Church has always set its face against contraception from the earliest time as a grace breach of chastity. It inherited from Israel the objection to ‘base ways of copulating for the avoidance of conception’, to quote St Augustine.”
She refers to the earliest recorded Christian observation in the third century on the use of contraceptives by the freeborn Christian women of Rome married to slaves as the children were slaves under Roman law which was a deterrent to having children. She explains that “the author writes like a person mentioning a practice which Christians at large must obviously regard as shameful. From then on the received teaching of Christianity has been constant.”
Elizabeth Anscombe states that St Augustine’s teaching was a “landmark” standing as a “signpost” in Christian teaching and that he wrote against the Manicheans, as we know. She shows that St Augustine’s teaching against base ways of copulating is “perfectly in line” with St Thomas’s definition of the “sin against nature” – deviant acts such as bestiality and sodomy, which definition has been “colossally important.”
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.
She also affirms that “the Christian Church has always set its face against contraception from the earliest time as a grace breach of chastity. It inherited from Israel the objection to ‘base ways of copulating for the avoidance of conception’, to quote St Augustine.”
She refers to the earliest recorded Christian observation in the third century on the use of contraceptives by the freeborn Christian women of Rome married to slaves as the children were slaves under Roman law which was a deterrent to having children. She explains that “the author writes like a person mentioning a practice which Christians at large must obviously regard as shameful. From then on the received teaching of Christianity has been constant.”
Elizabeth Anscombe states that St Augustine’s teaching was a “landmark” standing as a “signpost” in Christian teaching and that he wrote against the Manicheans, as we know. She shows that St Augustine’s teaching against base ways of copulating is “perfectly in line” with St Thomas’s definition of the “sin against nature” – deviant acts such as bestiality and sodomy, which definition has been “colossally important.”
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
NFP won’t help you avoid pregnancy any more than a blueprint for a house gives you a place to live. It’s abstinence that helps couples avoid pregnancy. Why do you think Catholicism approved total but not periodic abstinence?
D
davidv
Guest
Really? I have been following this thread all along. The only things offered to support this claim have been private interpretation of documents, often snipits taken out of context.
Teachings with regard what is sin, or not, is what morality is. The Church is protected from teaching error in this regard. Any apparent evidence that the Church has declared that something that was once sin is now not sin, is an error of interpretaion on the part of the reader of the Church documents.
D
Debora123
Guest
Yes, I know how NFP works. I’ve used it.
That doesn’t take away the fact that the practice of using it used to be frowned upon by the CC.
A
Abu
Guest
It’s wise to get to know the facts on Natural Birth Regulation and its history.
catholic-truth.info/apologetics/birthcontrol.htm
While the laws of Leviticus forbade the marriage act during menses and for a week thereafter with great fertility for the Jewish people, this was not linked in any medical or scientific way to NBR (NFP) until in the mid-nineteenth century French researchers dealing with domestic animals discovered a relationship between certain bodily discharges and fertility. Scientists and others quickly wondered whether this was likewise true in humans. They speculated that a woman was fertile during her menstrual flow and infertile thereafter.
Response Non esse Inquietandos—“Sacred Penitentiary.”
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”
The reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
cmri.org/03-nfp.htm
catholic-truth.info/apologetics/birthcontrol.htm
While the laws of Leviticus forbade the marriage act during menses and for a week thereafter with great fertility for the Jewish people, this was not linked in any medical or scientific way to NBR (NFP) until in the mid-nineteenth century French researchers dealing with domestic animals discovered a relationship between certain bodily discharges and fertility. Scientists and others quickly wondered whether this was likewise true in humans. They speculated that a woman was fertile during her menstrual flow and infertile thereafter.
Response Non esse Inquietandos—“Sacred Penitentiary.”
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”
The reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
cmri.org/03-nfp.htm
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
Right, you mentioned that in an earlier post. My point is, NFP just provides information that can be used to avoid pregnancy, achieve pregnancy or monitor health. Having sex during infertility does nothing to keep a couple from getting pregnant. The ‘purposely’ trying to avoid pregnancy is achieved through abstinence, so condemning NFP for that reason would be like condemning complete abstinence as well.
The practice of using it is still frowned upon by the CC. NFP is only permitted for couples with serious reason to avoid pregnancy, it’s not meant to be the norm. I know you’re saying it used to be entirely illicit, and I wonder what source tells you that.
D
Debora123
Guest
Yes, once again, I know how it works.
It is achieved through going to great lengths to figure out when you are infertile so that you can have sex only on those days, knowing it will not result in procreation. I’m not the one condemning NFP here, all I’m saying is that the Church used to. Don’t ask me why. I only mentioned it to prove a point.
Lol, yes, that’s why I keep stressing that it was frowned upon for ANY reason. Not just illegitimate ones.
Well it’s one of those things I’d always known about, don’t remember where/when the first time I heard it was. I also know a few members here on CAF have brought it up and talked about it on multiple separate occasions, and actually sited sources and all. I couldn’t tell you what the sources are… I wanna say one of them might have been something St Paul said, and another something St Augustine said, and other things here and there, but I can’t remember for sure. It doesn’t surprise me though, we all know the Church has gone through some periods of being very anti sex.
D
Debora123
Guest
Here, I did a quick google search and these are just the first couple things I found. I’m sure there are better sources out there though, I just don’t feel like digging around for them haha.
They’re long, but you can read them if you’d like:
lisashea.com/lisabase/aboutme/birthcontrol.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning
They’re long, but you can read them if you’d like:
lisashea.com/lisabase/aboutme/birthcontrol.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning
Mary_Gail_36
New member
From Lisa Shae:
Deborah, does she seem in line with the Church?
.
Deborah, does she seem in line with the Church?
D
Debora123
Guest
It’s really none of my concern whether or not she’s inline with the Church.From Lisa Shae:
.
Deborah, does she seem in line with the Church?
I didn’t post it to judge the author, I posted that because it contained historical facts about the Church.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
I believe the church should reverse its decision on artificial contraception. God commanded early man to be fruitful and multiply, for obvious reasons. We have done so to the tune of 7 billion people now inhabiting this planet. I seen nothing in the Bible that says be fruitful and multiply ad infinitum. At what point do we set zero population growth as a goal? We already cannot feed, house or clothe all of the 7 billion people who now live here. Can the planet sustain 10 billion people? How about 20 billion? What about 50 billion? Unless God gives future generations the ability to travel at light speed and colonize other planets, at some point it will become ridiculous to continue to be fruitful and multiply.
- Status