J
jrgiancola
Guest
Corky … duh, which world do you live in? Overpopulation a myth?
- Status
C
Corki
Guest
Read the links.
D
Debora123
Guest
Are you sure he meant abstinence to avoid children entirely? I don’t see where he specified that when he wrote the following:
Also, from Pope Pius XI:
It seems like the rule was pretty clear - the purpose of sex is only for having children. Don’t have sex unless procreation is intended.
I don’t see where they make any exceptions or specifications.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
I was referencing your quote fom post #393, not #407.
D
Debora123
Guest
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
The first quote is part of St. Augustine’s teaching on the error of the Manichaeans who “believed that it was immoral to create any children”, so yes, I’m sure he meant abstinence to avoid children entirely (according to your quote).
The second and third are similar to the quote you provide from Pius XI, a modern pope. This shows the consistency in teaching from the time of the Church Fathers to the twentieth century.
So how did a Catholic couple intend procreation when having sex during pregnancy?
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
No big deal. Sometimes all these quotes and posts make my head spin a little.Ah, gotcha.
Sorry
D
Debora123
Guest
Well then maybe it was illicit to have sex during pregnancy?
All I know is those quotes definitely made is sound like having sex for any reason other than procreation was sinful. I personally don’t see how they can mean anything else.
M
mark_a
Guest
This seems odd since hormonal contraception, now proven to be abortificient, was originally one of the technicalities that helped a Christian society to jump the mental hurdle of barrier contraception Onanism.I believe the human error to be small and insignificant in light of the greater picture, but still present nonetheless in a few issues. Barrier contraception to be one them.
The more things change. . . . . .
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Let me try to explain St. Augustine quote you brought up:Well then maybe it was illicit to have sex during pregnancy?
All I know is those quotes definitely made is sound like having sex for any reason other than procreation was sinful. I personally don’t see how they can mean anything else.
St. Augustine is condemning the reason for the abstinence, mainly that having children was immoral. The manichaeans were heretics, who believed that anything physical was evil. The body was evil because it kept the soul trapped.
The manicheans did not think it was right to have children at all.
I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to most NFP users that they have serious reasons. But we are not permitted to use NFP because we think babies have evil bodies. Our understanding of God would be totally corrupt.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Once again, the teachings of St. Augustine:
Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable chastity consists. For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers—that is, those in the second grade among you—are allowed to have wives. After you have said this with great noise and heat, (heretic) I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? 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, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage.
St. Augustine, “On marriage and lust”
Several points are to be understood.
First, this quote, without any suspicion, proves that rhythm method was known to the ancient people, and used to avoid procreation. Nobody can say that this method was discovered later, or that Church Fathers were ignorant of this phenomena.
Second, some have suggested that this quote forbids only NFP when used in order to completely leave couple without children. This is because teachings of Mani were that begetting was sinful, since he claimed holy soul is trapped in material body. This isn’t a bad interpretation but there are some pretty obvious parts of the quote which don’t support such perception. First, we can see that Augustine understands marital sexuality as sinful (“Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage…”). Second, the strong rhetoric about procreation in marriage is also present which supports stoic understanding (“you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense (for procreation), although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse”.
What is Augustine suggesting? That sex is only for procreation, and in order for intercourse to be moral, pair needs to have sex with desire of begetting. Since practicing of NFP is connected with desire of sexual intercourse without procreative finale, it is against the ethic suggested by Augustine. Pretty clear.
Now, regarding usage of fertility cycling… You need to understand that intent is what makes the act moral or not. It is not forbidden to have sex on infertile day if you have *intent *of begetting. Just because it is less likely for pair to conceive does not make it wrong, if they wish to beget.
Apart from procreation, Church theologians of early years acknowledged “marital debt”. This was idea: marital sex is permitted even without desire of procreation in order to avoid fornication and adultery. But such intercourse is venial sin. And against nature, which says sex is only approved for procreation. It was pretty hard to follow such teaching.
This sphere of teaching is usually bypassed by defenders of common Catholic approach in 20th Century, for reasons of scandal. However, many Catholic intellectuals expressed the opinion that these arguments are too heavy to be left without explanation. Are they dissidents? Or simply loyal to the truth of Church History?
We live in God’s home. We should act as God’s children and pursue our Lord’s will. And we can’t do that without spirit of charity and objectivity. After all, we need to teach our children the history of Catholic Church.
Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable chastity consists. For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers—that is, those in the second grade among you—are allowed to have wives. After you have said this with great noise and heat, (heretic) I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? 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, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage.
St. Augustine, “On marriage and lust”
Several points are to be understood.
First, this quote, without any suspicion, proves that rhythm method was known to the ancient people, and used to avoid procreation. Nobody can say that this method was discovered later, or that Church Fathers were ignorant of this phenomena.
Second, some have suggested that this quote forbids only NFP when used in order to completely leave couple without children. This is because teachings of Mani were that begetting was sinful, since he claimed holy soul is trapped in material body. This isn’t a bad interpretation but there are some pretty obvious parts of the quote which don’t support such perception. First, we can see that Augustine understands marital sexuality as sinful (“Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage…”). Second, the strong rhetoric about procreation in marriage is also present which supports stoic understanding (“you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense (for procreation), although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse”.
What is Augustine suggesting? That sex is only for procreation, and in order for intercourse to be moral, pair needs to have sex with desire of begetting. Since practicing of NFP is connected with desire of sexual intercourse without procreative finale, it is against the ethic suggested by Augustine. Pretty clear.
Now, regarding usage of fertility cycling… You need to understand that intent is what makes the act moral or not. It is not forbidden to have sex on infertile day if you have *intent *of begetting. Just because it is less likely for pair to conceive does not make it wrong, if they wish to beget.
Apart from procreation, Church theologians of early years acknowledged “marital debt”. This was idea: marital sex is permitted even without desire of procreation in order to avoid fornication and adultery. But such intercourse is venial sin. And against nature, which says sex is only approved for procreation. It was pretty hard to follow such teaching.
This sphere of teaching is usually bypassed by defenders of common Catholic approach in 20th Century, for reasons of scandal. However, many Catholic intellectuals expressed the opinion that these arguments are too heavy to be left without explanation. Are they dissidents? Or simply loyal to the truth of Church History?
We live in God’s home. We should act as God’s children and pursue our Lord’s will. And we can’t do that without spirit of charity and objectivity. After all, we need to teach our children the history of Catholic Church.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
No, of course it is licit.Well then maybe it was illicit to have sex during pregnancy?
All I know is those quotes definitely made is sound like having sex for any reason other than procreation was sinful. I personally don’t see how they can mean anything else.
Elizabeth and Zacharaia were old/barren. They were the holy parents of John the Baptist. Zacharaia was the high priest, who had access to the Holy of Holies in the temple.
Deborah, I would recommend reading Dietrich Von Hildebrand, and his wife Alice von Hildebrand. They have touched upon these topics, maybe their wrotings would be helpful to you.
D
Debora123
Guest
Well then how would you explain his other quotes I posted? Or the quote by Pope Pius XI?
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I think this is too strong a statement. Of all the Church Fathers, I think that St. Augustine is the only one who mentions the practice of the Manicheans (what you call the rhythm method). There is no evidence that all the Church Fathers knew about it considering how difficult and long communication was in those days. Also consider the fact that St. Augustine was a Manichean himself at one point. That would also explain why he perhaps knew more about their beliefs than other Church Fathers.
I think that the point that they are making and a point aptly made is that the purpose of the paragraph is not so much to condemn their methods, but to condemn their belief that procreation is wrong. I think that those who would make a condemnation of the rhythm method out of the paragraph, while understandable, are reading too much into it. Elsewhere, St. Augustine says that a procreative intent is required in order for the conjugal act not to be sinful. There would lie greater evidence for your case in those places. But that is something gathered not strictly from the paragraph itself.
You are definitely right. St. Augustine condemned sex without a procreative intent. And some other Church Fathers did as well. But most say nothing about it or at least nothing that we know of. I think it is important to distinguish between the opinions of theologians and the view of the Magisterium. While the opinions of theologians can change over time, the view of the Magisterium (is said to) remain constant. Hence, while St. Thomas Aquinas still considers generation to be an important part of the conjugal act, he could say this later on:
St. Thomas Aquinas:
From the bolded part, I think that it is right to assume that St. Thomas Aquinas thinks a procreative intent is not necessarily necessary. And it is likewise probable that the Scholastics of his time and the Thomists that followed him thought likewise.
[CONTINUED]
A
ac_claire
Guest
I get where you’re coming from, but just wanted to point out that St. Augustine was never a pope and thus wasn’t gifted with then chrism of infallibility when he taught on matters of faith and morals.
Not to say we should throw out what St. Augustine taught, but what other popes have since taught about NFP has greater authority than St. Augustine’s opinions on the (maybe) ancient form of the rhythm method.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I would think that you are wrong in this area. I think you are stressing Augustine too much and making his opinions that of the Church. It is important to note that the Church, while accepting a lot of Augustine’s ideas, also rejected some (some of his theories on Predestination and the fate of Unbaptized Infants come to mind). And while I don’t doubt that your statements above represent those of Augustine, it needs to be known that in the end, the Magisterium did not adopt his view. It also needs to be known that the first time the Magisterium addressed the issue was in the middle of the 19th century, as you have stated earlier. Since that time, the Church, I think has been consistent on the issue that periodic continence is acceptable.
As stated earlier, Church theologians do help the Magisterium, but they are NOT synonymous. Many theologians thought that baptized infants go to limbo, but it certainly wasn’t a teaching of the Church. They are indeed separate entities to some extent. Hence, the division between a large body of theologians and the Magisterium today.
There are areas where I think it can be argued that Church teaching has changed (not that I necessarily agreed). But this certainly is not one of them. Your belief that it has comes from a misunderstanding between the function of theologians and the Magisterium (the pope in concert with the bishops). Theologians, whether they be clerics or laypersons, do help the Magisterium, but they aren’t synonymous.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Good daughter is doing an excellent job of explaining this. I am just jumping in to offer my support and help.Well then how would you explain his other quotes I posted? Or the quote by Pope Pius XI?
What you are seeing is writings being taken out of context. You are sourcing someone else’s interpretation of some of the documents. If you are interested in understanding the quote from Pope Pius XI, I am happy to go over it with you, in full context, using sources from the Magesterium.
I was asked by someone else to come and try to help because this thread is going down a similar path as many before it. There will always be people who will equate contraception with NFP. Quotes from St. Augustine are most often used. Plain and simple, those who say that St. Augustine is condemning NFP do not understand his role as doctor of the Church, his personal journey to overcome his own sinful behavior, and most importantly, they don’t understand how Church teaching is passed down. St. Augustine’s writings were his, and his alone. He was not a “mini Magesterium.” He did not have the chrism of infallibility. Those people who quote him, and that one line in particular, are doing so with one agenda: to try to prove the Church wrong. She is not wrong. She will never be wrong.
I don’t know how much you know about the history of St. Augustine, or how much you want to know. When looking at anyone’s writings, you must know to whom he is writing and for what purpose. That is vital. Otherwise you will see more and more what you are seeing in this thread, a snippet taken out of context, to push an agenda.
I am a very longtime member here at CAF. I have not been around much recently because there has been a resurgence in this type of behavior. Since you sound like you are genuinely seeking answers, I decided to offer any help you might want. (Of course your screen name appealed to me too.) This topic is dear to my heart because it is the contraception issue that brought be back to full union with the Church. Periodic continence has never been condemned by the Church, despite what is being promoted in this thread. Now, I *will *say that it was condemned by many protestants shortly before the Lambeth decision of 1930 that allowed for contraception in the Anglican church. The Catholic Church has a very good practice of teaching on the local level. It is not until there is wide-spread misunderstanding that the Church reiterates and clarifies the teachings. The wonderful, amazing *Catholic *document, Casti Connubii, was written in the same era as the *Anglican *Lambeth Conference of 1930 was taking place. They hold completely opposing viewpoints on marriage. I highly recommend Casti Connubii. But do read it at the source, completely in context. Here at the Vatican website.
I hope that helps.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
The one thing I still do love about CAF is when multiple people, at the same time, come in and say very similar things. 
ac claire and Image of God:
Excellent replies!!!
ac claire and Image of God:
Excellent replies!!!
A
ac_claire
Guest
Thank you, you too.The one thing I still do love about CAF is when multiple people, at the same time, come in and say very similar things.
ac claire and Image of God:
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Oh yes, and Mary Gail is also doing a wonderful job! Excellent recommendation!!
- Status