NFP and contraception

[samiam1611]

I think Debora is right. These quotes might be helpful:

"Most Patristic fathers “agreed that the marital act was for . . . procreation” and that
spouses should “intend children when they engaged in sexual intercourse.” "
~From a paper titled “The Moral Regulation of Birth”
Roman Catholic Teaching on Conjugal Love and Responsible Parenthood

From Catholic.com and a few other sources:

Clement of Alexandria:

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature"

Augustine:

“For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust”

Athenagoras:

“Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children”

Lactantius:

“God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring”

(emphasis added)

I guess this does not specifically address abstinence in marriage, but it certaintly contradicts current teachings, that spouses “need not explicitly intend procreation" with each act.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I’m not the one condemning NFP here, all I’m saying is that the Church used to.

But your Wikipedia source says the Church’s “first recorded official statement on periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy is from 1853”. It’s a statement of approval too (for couples with legitimate reasons). * If *Wiki is reliable, then the Church never condemned NFP.

Don’t ask me why. I only mentioned it to prove a point.

Which you backed up with this source:

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.

That’s a head-scratcher coming from an intelligent poster like you.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I think Debora is right. These quotes might be helpful:

"Most Patristic fathers “agreed that the marital act was for . . . procreation” and that
spouses should “intend children when they engaged in sexual intercourse.” "
~From a paper titled “The Moral Regulation of Birth”
Roman Catholic Teaching on Conjugal Love and Responsible Parenthood

From Catholic.com and a few other sources:

Clement of Alexandria:

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature"

Augustine:

“For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust”

Athenagoras:

“Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children”

Lactantius:

“God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring”

(emphasis added)

I guess this does not specifically address abstinence in marriage, but it certaintly contradicts current teachings, that spouses “need not explicitly intend procreation" with each act.

So if nature made a couple infertile, and they knew it (ie. pregnancy, menopause), how could they follow the teaching of the Fathers and “explicitly intend procreation” during sex?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It’s really none of my concern whether or not she’s inline with the Church.

I didn’t post it to judge the author, I posted that because it contained historical facts about the Church.

I’m not judging the author. Her writing is not in line with Chuch teaching.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So if nature made a couple infertile, and they knew it (ie. pregnancy, menopause), how could they follow the teaching of the Fathers and “explicitly intend procreation” during sex?

Of course! That’s why I brought up Zacharaia and Elizabeth, they were old, Elizabeth was barren. Yet they were described as following God’s Law impeccably!

 

[Warrior1979]

But your Wikipedia source says the Church’s “first recorded official statement on periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy is from 1853”. It’s a statement of approval too (for couples with legitimate reasons). * If *Wiki is reliable, then the Church never condemned NFP.

Based on this information, it would be more correct to state the approval started in 1853, and that the Church never condemned NFP after 1853.

Abstinence in and of itself simply isn’t an issue. Abstinence for married couples is fine if they both agree. It only becomes an issue once it is utilized as a tool for married couples to avoid having children. Once the intent of not having children arises, and the means for doing so is abstinence, you’ve got a problem on your hands…well, at least prior to 1853.

 

[LaSainte]

Of course! That’s why I brought up Zacharaia and Elizabeth, they were old, Elizabeth was barren. Yet they were described as following God’s Law impeccably!

Indeed. It would seem that there was once quite a rift between the teachings on sexuality of the Early Fathers and that which is stated in the Bible. It looks like the Church can make a mistake after all. This one was obviously later amended. Is it so outrageous then that some think the Church’s current teaching on ABC might be a little too strict considering the past?

 

[Abu]

It is wise to get to know the facts on Natural Birth Regulation and its history.
Some shepherds mislead and corrupt the flock entrusted to their care, as do some presidents like Jack Kennedy, who denigrated the role of Catholicism and conscience in the public square.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=812
Cardinal Cushing was the first prominent American Catholic to advance the now-familiar argument that it is morally permissible to vote for acceptance of a practice that the Church regards as gravely immoral. Today, that “personally opposed, but…” argument is regularly invoked by supporters of legal abortion. But in the 1960s, it was used by Cardinal Cushing to justify acceptance of legal contraception.

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on May-07-2007: **
“By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Reason alone enables us to know that, by its very nature, masturbation is contrary to the purpose of genital activity. The purpose of genital activity between husband and wife is to GIVE love and to GIVE life, NOT to GET pleasure. Not that there is anything wrong with sexual pleasure. However, the pleasure is supposed to be expressive of self-GIVING between husband and wife, not self-GETTING.”

Thus does contraception express the degradation of marital love.

The Church Fathers certainly didn’t know anything about NBR and could not write about what was not discovered in outline until around the 19th century (post #390). Of course they are not against abstinence in marriage, and Onanism is condemned.

 

[Warrior1979]

Of course they are not against abstinence in marriage,

Do you mean “not against abstinence in marriage,” or “not against abstinence in marriage for the purpose of impeding procreation.”

Those are obviously two very different things, and are the heart of the discussion. Did the early Church fathers really state that it is okay to abstain for the purpose of impeding procreation?

 

[LaSainte]

Do you mean “not against abstinence in marriage,” or “not against abstinence in marriage for the purpose of impeding procreation.”

Those are obviously two very different things, and are the heart of the discussion. Did the early Church fathers really state that it is okay to abstain for the purpose of impeding procreation?

Even the Church today doesn’t allow for a Josephite marriage to take place without a special dispensation if I am correct about canon law. If anyone has the citation, that would be helpful. It seems that even Mary and Joseph’s marriage may have been considered invalid under current canon law, or would her pregnancy with Jesus negate that? I’m not trying to be disrespectful, so if someone can please clarify that would be great! Clearly, their marriage was valid in the eyes of God! Today, you MUST be open to having children to contract a valid marriage, aka, open to having sex with your spouse. If you have NO intention of having kids, the marriage is invalid

 

[Debora123]

Do you mean “not against abstinence in marriage,” or “not against abstinence in marriage for the purpose of impeding procreation.”

Those are obviously two very different things, and are the heart of the discussion. Did the early Church fathers really state that it is okay to abstain for the purpose of impeding procreation?

Yes.

Also, there is a difference between complete abstinence, and only having sex on the days that a couple KNOWS will not result in procreation.

 

[Debora123]

St Augustine here makes quite clear what the Church’s position was on rhythm method before the 20th century.

Possibly the earliest Christian writing about periodic abstinence was by St. Augustine. In the year 388, he wrote, “Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time…?” The Manichaeans (the group the early church father St. Augustine wrote of) believed that it was immoral to create any children, thus (by their belief system), trapping souls in mortal bodies. Augustine condemned them for their use of periodic abstinence: “From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust.”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It is wise to get to know the facts on Natural Birth Regulation and its history.
Some shepherds mislead and corrupt the flock entrusted to their care, as do some presidents like Jack Kennedy, who denigrated the role of Catholicism and conscience in the public square.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=812
Cardinal Cushing was the first prominent American Catholic to advance the now-familiar argument that it is morally permissible to vote for acceptance of a practice that the Church regards as gravely immoral. Today, that “personally opposed, but…” argument is regularly invoked by supporters of legal abortion. But in the 1960s, it was used by Cardinal Cushing to justify acceptance of legal contraception.

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on May-07-2007: **
“By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Reason alone enables us to know that, by its very nature, masturbation is contrary to the purpose of genital activity. The purpose of genital activity between husband and wife is to GIVE love and to GIVE life, NOT to GET pleasure. Not that there is anything wrong with sexual pleasure. However, the pleasure is supposed to be expressive of self-GIVING between husband and wife, not self-GETTING.”

Thus does contraception express the degradation of marital love.

The Church Fathers certainly didn’t know anything about NBR and could not write about what was not discovered in outline until around the 19th century (post #390). Of course they are not against abstinence in marriage, and Onanism is condemned.

I wanted to touch on something some posters are not seeing…NFP was not understood in the way it is now until the mid-20th century.

A rudementary understanding did come about in the 1800’s and the Church touched upon it at the time. Truth is timeless…and the task of the Church is to apply the truth to new innovations and inventions.

It would be as if one would claim “IVF wasn’t specifically condemned by the Church Fathers…so the Church currently can’t condemn IVF now”

The Church specifically said that couples who practiced continence during the cycle were not to be disturbed.

NFP is not contraception. The Church specifically condemed contraception, since the beginning.

 

[Debora123]

I wanted to touch on something some posters are not seeing…NFP was not understood in the way it is now until the mid-20th century.

A rudementary understanding did come about in the 1800’s and the Church touched upon it at the time. Truth is timeless…and the task of the Church is to apply the truth to new innovations and inventions.

It would be as if one would claim “IVF wasn’t specifically condemned by the Church Fathers…so the Church currently can’t condemn IVF now”

The Church specifically said that couples who practiced continence during the cycle were not to be disturbed.

NFP is not contraception. The Church specifically condemed contraception, since the beginning.

You’re right, “NFP” back then wasn’t what it is today, but that’s totally beside the point. NFP is the means of using a women’s cycle to differentiate fertile time vs infertile time, and have sex accordingly. As you can see, St Augustine condemned such practice.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Based on this information, it would be more correct to state the approval started in 1853, and that the Church never condemned NFP after 1853.

I was discussing official Church statements as per Debora123’s Wikipedia quote. If you know of an official statement by the Catholic Church prior to 1853 that universally forbids periodic abstinence as birth control, please let me know. I’ve always been a bit skeptical of Wikipedia.

Abstinence in and of itself simply isn’t an issue. Abstinence for married couples is fine if they both agree. It only becomes an issue once it is utilized as a tool for married couples to avoid having children. Once the intent of not having children arises, and the means for doing so is abstinence, you’ve got a problem on your hands…well, at least prior to 1853.

So, even in the direst of circumstances, Catholics were not to stop having sex? Unless they both agreed they were too tired? Maybe I’d undersand better if you gave a source for your views.

 

[Good_Daughter]

St Augustine here makes quite clear what the Church’s position was on rhythm method before the 20th century.

The Manichaeans were using periodic abstinence to avoid chilren entirely. St. Augustine condemned that as does modern Catholiocism.

St. Augustine’s teaching in the quote you provided lines up perfectly with modern Catholic teaching. (Sorry, I wasn’t sure how to quote your quote.)

 

[Warrior1979]

I was discussing official Church statements as per Debora123’s Wikipedia quote. If you know of an official statement by the Catholic Church prior to 1853 that universally forbids periodic abstinence as birth control, please let me know. I’ve always been a bit skeptical of Wikipedia.

So, even in the direst of circumstances, Catholics were not to stop having sex? Unless they both agreed they were too tired? Maybe I’d undersand better if you gave a source for your views.

Those supporting NFP can’t seem to focus on anything other than abstinence. Abstinence can be practiced by anyone; there is nothing about it particular to marriage.

What is particular to marriage is marital relations, and that’s all that matters. Forbidding abstinence or not forbidding abstinence is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the use of the infertile periods for the purpose of birth control, and that’s the focus of the discussion. The sin occurs once one has marital relations during the infertile period for the purposes of avoiding procreation, and that issue needs to be focused on and addressed.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Those supporting NFP can’t seem to focus on anything other than abstinence. Abstinence can be practiced by anyone; there is nothing about it particular to marriage.

What is particular to marriage is marital relations, and that’s all that matters. Forbidding abstinence or not forbidding abstinence is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the use of the infertile periods for the purpose of birth control, and that’s the focus of the discussion. The sin occurs once one has marital relations during the infertile period for the purposes of avoiding procreation, and that issue needs to be focused on and addressed.

I’m going to appeal to basic logic on this one. Marital relations during the infertile period don’t keep you from getting pregnant. Abstinence during the fertile period does.

 

[Debora123]

I was discussing official Church statements as per Debora123’s Wikipedia quote. If you know of an official statement by the Catholic Church prior to 1853 that universally forbids periodic abstinence as birth control, please let me know. I’ve always been a bit skeptical of Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia quote I put up on my last post (a few posts up) was taken from this source right here:

Saint, Bishop of Hippo Augustine; Philip Schaff (Editor) (1887). A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume IV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co… pp. On the Morals of the Manichæans, Chapter 18

It comes directly from St Augustine.

 

[Corki]

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.

1. The Chuch didn’t make a decsions on artificial contraception. There is nothing to reverse. The Church has taught for almost 2000 years that contraception is immoral.
2. Overpopulation is a myth. A dangerous one that is used by many to create oppression and to discriminate against ethnic groups.

usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03ruse.shtml

pop.org/