NFP and contraception

[Image_of_God]

Well then how would you explain his other quotes I posted? Or the quote by Pope Pius XI?

Before I address your quote there is a small complaint I must make. Forgive me and I hope you take it assuming my best intentions (with the hope that if I ever forget you might grant me the same grace). When you addressed the quote to MaryGrail, you did not provide a source for the quote (at least what document it is from). Therefore it is difficult for her or for others who might want to address your point to do so with satisfaction because they can’t find what context it’s from. But I will assume it’s from Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii.

In the aforementioned encyclical, Pope Pius XI only deals directly with contraception a short time. But in that section that he does, he says this:

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
Castii Connubii

LittleDeb with great kindness has already provided the link to the encyclical so I won’t post it again.

This paragraph contradicts your own conclusions. It implies (at least) that periodic continence is morally permissible. It also says clearly that “the use of matrimonial rights” are not for procreation only, but also that there are “secondary ends” such as “the cultivating of mutual love”. He maintains only that the act be ordered to its primary end—procreation. This mention of secondary ends is important because Pope Pius XI is the first pope (that I know of) to mention them so explicitly (although the Council of Trent does says something of them).

Now looking at your quote, I think that what Pius XI is saying when he says “deliberately frustrate” is an active action against conception. That is to say, it is not permissible to render an act infertile which would otherwise (most likely) be fertile or to alter the marital act through the inclusion of objects. Such is the chief difference between NFP and contraceptives.

 

[Image_of_God]

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!!!

Thank you! Although I must humbly admit, I’m only trying my best.

 

[Abu]

It is wise to get to know the facts on Natural Birth Regulation and its history.
Thank you Image of God, and that quotation from Pope Pius XI in *Casti Connubii *is in my post #150, but the dissenters make their own trouble by ignoring the facts and many never accept truth.

The facts are once again here:
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea1.asp
Apologetics and birth control
By JOHN F. KIPPLEY
'Researchers in the mid-1920s discovered for the first time in recorded history that ovulation occurs approximately two weeks before the start of the next menstruation. This physiological reality is at the basis of all forms of natural family planning. At Lambeth in 1930 the Anglican bishops drew a false dichotomy between permanent abstinence and contraception; that is, they seemed unaware of the possibility of periodic abstinence and seemed to think that the only alternatives to unlimited pregnancies were total abstinence or contraception.

'In fact, there had been medical speculation about an infertile time of the woman’s cycle since the mid-nineteenth century. Questions about the morality of confining relations to the infertile time had been addressed to the Vatican during the last half of the 1800s, and the practice had been approved.

‘Thus, long before calendar rhythm became a practical possibility, its theoretical possibility had been foreseen and had been approved. This is all part of the context for this statement in Casti Connubii: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth” (II, 59).’

And as you cite:

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

(It is Casti Connubii, II, 59).

We recall (post #309) that 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]](http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.htm])

 

[LittleDeb]

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.

I just now saw this. I am an NFP promoter. I know a lot of NFP promoters. Everyone speaks from different experiences. Of course, everyone hears from different experiences too.

Debora123, NFP is information. “NFP,” as it is known, does nothing for marriage. It can’t. Only the couple has that option, to do something with the information.

That being said, Debora, your act of contraception might seem to be working now. That is one of the reasons it is so deadly to marriage. What contraception does to a marriage is very sneaky. It is the long term toll that it takes on marriage. Honestly, if the effects were instantly apparent, few people would use it.

NFP promoters don’t say that NFP* in and of itself* is “great for marriage.” But the tools you learn are good for marriage. There are other ways to learn those tools besides NFP, but NFP does, yes, force you to learn them quickly, and practice them seriously.

Periodic continence is extremely beneficial to marriage. (And I do mean extremely beneficial.) Our Eastern Rite Catholics practice it as part of their abstinence sacrifices. The fact that so many in the Western Church find abstinence so difficult is shown clearly in our society. Either society is having too much of an effect on us, or we are not standing up for morality enough. Abstinence is a form of self control. When you have self-control, it no longer feels forced upon you. (G.K. Chesterton had a lot to say about people running from the difficult things that God asks of us.) I remind those who are past child bearing years to keep embracing the graces of periodic abstinence. In times of infertility, periodic continence can be very good for the couple too!!

But the most important thing to get across when I promote NFP is: Do not rely on anything but God! If you or someone you knows “charts in terror” please get that point if you get nothing else. If you are truly petrified of the results of sex so much that you have turned away from Church teaching toward contraception, then the understanding of sex and marriage has a fairly serious hole in it. I say this point in bold because I know of so many couples who are public about their use of contraception, yet privately come to me and say how much they hate “feeling used.” (among many other complaints.) AND In every single culture where the use of contraception is accepted, the abortion rate follows right along. Contraception says, “I don’t* want *sex to make babies.”

The *tools *necessary to use NFP are what is good for marriage. The use of NFP tends to bring the struggles in a marriage up to the surface. Having the struggles exposed is a very good thing! It means you can rip it out at the root. If you bury the problem, you just give it time to grow.

If you are really, really struggling with NFP then God is trying very hard to tell you something. I can promise you that it is *not *that you are the rare exception and contraception is not going to tank your marriage. (Not all destroyed marriages end in divorce. Some just limp along for years in a zombie-like state.)

Please, please don’t let contraception dictate your marriage. The long term effects are numerous. Please give God another chance to prove that He really has your best interest at heart. He has a better plan for you than that. Do not put your faith in something that will fail you. Many people who get pregnant while using condoms will say, “Well, see. God really wanted this baby to happen!” But then that baby’s whole life, there is always that undertone of “mistake” or “accident.” If you or your spouse are scared to get pregnant, please face that issue head on. Please do not lean on contraception if periodic continence is difficult. Practice continence more often, not less.

You can look back through my posts. I don’t say that NFP is a cure-all. The most common thing I say about marital sex is: “For great sex: pray before sex, pray during sex, and pray after sex. That leads to the most mind-blowing experience there is!”

 

[razredge]

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.

Good work Deb - and Mary Gail is committing the argumentum ad hominem to suggest that a person’s views automatically voids their arguments.

Fact is as I’ve showed from other sources - the Church’s stance on contraception makes no sense what so ever, not with regards to adherence to tradition or to moral arguments either.
The widespread dissent among Catholics (and bishops, cardinals and priests as well) shows this. The Church’s stance only makes sense from the standpoint of papal infallibility, which was the major reason for banning artificial contraception as Karol Woyjtyla himself stated.

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.

I must say, this is a rather silly argument I’ve come across - as it obviously only applies to those who believe in creationism and not evolution.

 

[razredge]

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.

Yes, it relies on modern science just as much as the Pill does.

And those that say

Having sex during infertility does nothing to keep a couple from getting pregnant

is a ridiculous self-contradiction - how are they going to get pregnant? Osmosis? Alien abduction?

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…

Chrono brought it up earlier. This site has a good summary on early Church teachings on contraception and the purpose of sex:
turretinfan.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/natural-family-planning-and-the-traditional-view-on-sexual-relations/

For example this quote by St Augustine unambiguosly singles out the rhythm method:

…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. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit.

– Augustine, On the Morals of the Manichaeans, Chapter 18, Section 65

Augustine continues:

For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust. [Rom. i. 26, 27] And yet it pertains to the character of marriage, not to exact this, but to yield it to the partner, lest by fornication the other sin damnably. But, if both are set under such lust, they do what is plainly not matter of marriage. However, if in their intercourse they love what is honest more than what is dishonest, that is, what is matter of marriage more than what is not matter of marriage, this is allowed to them on the authority of the Apostle as matter of pardon: and for this fault, they have in their marriage, not what sets them on to commit it, but what entreats pardon for it, if they turn not away from them the mercy of God, either by not abstaining on certain days, that they may be free to pray, and through this abstinence, as through fasting, may commend their prayers; or by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife.

– Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Sections 11-12

Corky … duh, which world do you live in? Overpopulation a myth?

Presumably, one he shares with the geocentrists and six day creationists

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

 

[sacredcello]

Six months before our wedding day we spent $500 on an NFP machine to aid me in my charting so that we could be safe and good to go once we were married.

I charted and used my NFP machine everyday. I did not understand why I needed to use NFP and couldn’t just use condoms, but I spent a great deal of time and money doing it anyway.

It is unnecessary to purchase an OPK in order to practice NFP. The Sympto-thermal method requires only a chart (very inexpensive) and a thermometer (less than $10). Once you have the knowledge from either a Home Study course or the Main NFP series class, you are set for life. There are no further costs…except about $5 for a book of charts every two years. Compare that to $150 - $300 on condoms annually, and it makes good sense for your budget, your health, your relationship with God and your marriage. You love your spouse better when you place God first in your life.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

The question is: if knowledge of NFP didn’t go around, how come the teaching that sex is only for procreation has?

We should also keep the global scale in mind. Majority of Church Fathers were teaching intercourse is fine only with desire of begetting. Since NFP is allowing the opposite, you don’t need a quote from Church Father specifically attacking rhythm method. Each theologian with such approach is an opponent of such birth control.

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.

Augustine attacks the idea that followers of Mani use intercourses to satisfy lust, and not to beget children. Since sex is only for begetting, each act whose procreational possibility is thwarted by usage of NFP is contrary to nature.

While Augustine indeed attacks gnostics on ground of their desire to live without children, his defense shows different pattern then the one we would expect. He speaks of sinfulness of marital sexuality and procreation as an excuse for it.

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.

Church has addressed this topic a few times during history (for example “Regula Pastoralis” of pope Gregory claimed sex is only for procreation and couple must take care not to feel pleasure during intercourse- bishops agreed).

The main problem with certain Church documents (such as Casti Connubii) is that it talks about “constant teaching” and does massive citations of Augustine- as if he or Church never teached sex is only for procreation. This makes it difficult to believe that there is this “university of time”, since contraception was forbidden on completely other ground. Bishops can’t bypass the teachings of the past as they are.

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.

At the contrary.

To have sex on purpose when woman is infertile (for the reason she is infertile) is ejaculating semen without possibility of generation. It is not sinful to accidentally have sex on infertile day (for example, if couple is not charting), but if this is done on purpose, it is sinful to Thomas. The only way how generation can emerge from this intercourse is if NFP fails. And things are not judged by their failure, but by their usage.

To marry a woman who is barren so to have sex without children is sinful. To marry her because you are in love with her, makes her bareness accidental, and is allowed.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

Two things are important.

Popes have expressed praise of stoic thinking, as mentioned “Regula Pastoralis” suggest. Anti-sexual decisions during history also contribute to that point. No Church document up to Casti Connubii doesn’t see marital sexuality as unitive, loving thing. This means a lot.

Now, second thing is the way how recent documents interpret Church history. They give impression as if Church Fathers (and bishops after) always agreed there is some “secondary, unitive end” of marital intercourse- and that this teaching must be continued in order for us to be on their track. Such bypass of the fact is problematic. No pope or bishop has authority to ignore or boycott what reality is, especially if it is reality of Church.

 

[Chrono13]

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.”

But what is clerical “Magisterium” teaching today? That Church did not, for 19 Centuries, claimed sex is only for procreation? It certainly seems so. This can not be done, for it is an open bypass of Church History. What has happened, has happened- and no pope or bishop today can say that these things were not such in the world of popes and bishops in the past.

This is the biggest problem with Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae. They choose their own questions, and give their own answers- and at the end, they fail to give an objective understanding of Church History.

 

[Abu]

It is wise to get to know the facts on St Augustine and Marriage.
The misrepresentation of St Augustine is endemic to some dissenters, and the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explodes the myth.

therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_003.htm
Saint Augustine and Christian Marriage
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
“We have much to learn from Augustine, but not the least is that the teachings of the Catholic Church have not substantially changed in the past 1500 years.

“But that is precisely why we had better take another look at Augustine, lest we mistake the myth for the man, and dismiss as unimportant the one great witness of Christian tradition on whom the Second Vatican Council mainly relied for its understanding of Christian marriage.

“If we look closely at the doctrine on marriage in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, we shall find that all the basic premises of this document on the meaning and responsibilities of marriage are the premises of Saint Augustine. Not only is Augustine’s famous treatise on ‘The Good of Marriage’ directly used by the Council, but what Augustine said the Council canonizes with its authority, as the Church’s Magisterium has been canonizing over the centuries.

“What makes Augustine especially relevant is that his stand on contraception and marital indissolubility taught then is being taught still – an eloquent witness to the Church’s doctrinal stability and a warning rebuke to those who would water down the teachings of Christ to accommodate the Gospel to the world.

“Augustine had the enemies of Christian marriage in his day, and we have them in ours. What he wrote then is worth hearing now, because the Christian marriage he defended needs defense today, and for much the same reasons, seeing that the opposition to Christ and His message of salvation has not essentially changed.

“Augustine says a great deal about the duties of Christians to live up to their fundamental purpose.
He distinguishes two kinds of sins that a couple commit against this first blessing of marriage:
The first sin he calls mortal, and equates it with fornication and adultery for gravity, when the married couple deliberately seek to prevent conception while enjoying intercourse.
Since Augustine’s time, the Church’s hierarchy, notably the Popes, have been quoting Augustine in this matter – being sure that they were reflecting the Church’s constant tradition. He speaks of “evil appliances,” used in his day. They were evil then and they are evil now, only they have since become more sophisticated.

“The second kind of sin he calls venial, which may come as a surprise to some people. Augustine has been much maligned on this point. He says that when marital intercourse is had without the use of contraceptives but performed with what we might call “a contraceptive frame of mine,” it is nevertheless wrong and venially sinful.

“What can this mean? It can mean that a couple do not use physical contraceptives but when they have intercourse they either selfishly hope they will not have a pregnancy, or selfishly do not want a conception, or when their only purpose in having intercourse is to enjoy the pleasures of sex, they do not sin gravely, but they do sin venially.

“Why should Augustine say this? Because Christians, in his estimation, should never become so preoccupied with the sexual experience as to ignore either the procreative purpose of intercourse, or the unitive purpose of intercourse.

“In other words, marital intercourse should not be self-directed but altruistic. It should express a selfless love directed to another person beyond the individual married spouse.”
[My emphases].

 

[Chrono13]

ovided the link to the encyclical so I won’t post it again.

This paragraph contradicts your own conclusions. It implies (at least) that periodic continence is morally permissible. It also says clearly that “the use of matrimonial rights” are not for procreation only, but also that there are “secondary ends” such as “the cultivating of mutual love”. He maintains only that the act be ordered to its primary end—procreation. This mention of secondary ends is important because Pope Pius XI is the first pope (that I know of) to mention them so explicitly (although the Council of Trent does says something of them).

This is another problem of Casti Connubii. Augustine acknowledges secondary ends of marriage as sociological bond- but not of marital intercourse. It is marriage which is here to give procreation, cultivating of love and sacramental bond- but not the marital sexuality which gives only procreation (and marital debt).

Now looking at your quote, I think that what Pius XI is saying when he says “deliberately frustrate” is an active action against conception. That is to say, it is not permissible to render an act infertile which would otherwise (most likely) be fertile or to alter the marital act through the inclusion of objects. Such is the chief difference between NFP and contraceptives.

This logic has it’s flaws, and the biggest one is that it is not shared by Church Fathers.

 

[Chrono13]

The misrepresentation of St Augustine is endemic to some dissenters, and the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explodes the myth.

Let’s see what revered Fr. John A Hardon says, and compare it with teachings of Augustine of Hippo.

“If we look closely at the doctrine on marriage in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, we shall find that all the basic premises of this document on the meaning and responsibilities of marriage are the premises of Saint Augustine. Not only is Augustine’s famous treatise on ‘The Good of Marriage’ directly used by the Council, but what Augustine said the Council canonizes with its authority, as the Church’s Magisterium has been canonizing over the centuries.

If this were true, you would have little trouble answering my question “Which bishop of United States of America states NFP was unknown to Church?”

“What makes Augustine especially relevant is that his stand on contraception and marital indissolubility taught then is being taught still – an eloquent witness to the Church’s doctrinal stability and a warning rebuke to those who would water down the teachings of Christ to accommodate the Gospel to the world.

The last week on this discussion board makes this claim difficult to believe. Augustine’s stand on contraception is that it is evil on the ground sex is only for procreation, and this is not taught still.

“Augustine says a great deal about the duties of Christians to live up to their fundamental purpose.
He distinguishes two kinds of sins that a couple commit against this first blessing of marriage:
The first sin he calls mortal, and equates it with fornication and adultery for gravity, when the married couple deliberately seek to prevent conception while enjoying intercourse.

And he makes it very clear that tracking fertility is type of preventing conception.

“The second kind of sin he calls venial, which may come as a surprise to some people. Augustine has been much maligned on this point. He says that when marital intercourse is had without the use of contraceptives but performed with what we might call “a contraceptive frame of mine,” it is nevertheless wrong and venially sinful.

“What can this mean? It can mean that a couple do not use physical contraceptives but when they have intercourse they either selfishly hope they will not have a pregnancy, or selfishly do not want a conception, or when their only purpose in having intercourse is to enjoy the pleasures of sex, they do not sin gravely, but they do sin venially.

“Why should Augustine say this? Because Christians, in his estimation, should never become so preoccupied with the sexual experience as to ignore either the procreative purpose of intercourse, or the unitive purpose of intercourse.

This is clearly and utterly wrong, as every person with knowledge of Augustinian writ will have to agree.

Preoccupation with sexual experience, to Augustine, is an act without exclusive intent of begetting a child. You can be “open to life”, and take your wife with love, it will still be sinful if you do not engage in intercourse specifically for begetting a child.

This is why Augustine was opposed to NFP. The one who practices it wants sex, but not begetting, and is misdeeding by default.

“In other words, marital intercourse should not be self-directed but altruistic. It should express a selfless love directed to another person beyond the individual married spouse.”

Since sex is only for procreation, everything above the necessity of conceivement is done for self-seeking. There is nothing altruistic about it. Sex for procreation is natural, what is beyond that is unnatural.

One should take Hardon’s writings with distance.

 

[Abu]

It is wise to know the evils of contraception and of the contraceptive mentality.

The life and fidelity of the revered Fr John Hardon, S.J., is now being investigated for beatification.

From Vatican II (Gaudiem et Spes)
tinyurl.com/4hvy3
“But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. (#50).

“Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14) (#51)
Footnote 14 includes: Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930

See: tldm.org/news6/contraception.htm
The constant teaching of the Church was again stated on March 1, 1997 when the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life. Included in this document is the following statement:
The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony) and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of life (n. 24)

tinyurl.com/3e39y79
Answer by Judie Brown on Aug/23/2010 (EWTN):
Father John Hardon, SJ explains:
Contraception denies a married woman the right to a fully human love of body and spirit. Instead it substitutes a love that selfishly seeks the pleasures of marital intercourse without either giving the husband the children he desires, or giving God the human beings that He wants to bring into the world.

Contraception denies a married woman the right to a faithful and exclusive love. It has opened the door to such massive infidelity and promiscuity as were unknown even in the worst days of decadent pagan Greece and Rome.

Contraception especially, and by definition, deprives a married woman of the right to a love that is creative of life. It debases a woman to the level of harlotry and steals from her what a woman’s whole nature cries out for – to be a mother

 

[Chrono13]

**

The life and fidelity of the revered Fr John Hardon, S.J., is now being investigated for beatification.**

That is fine, but if he receives beatification, this won’t change his writings on Augustine.

From Vatican II (Gaudiem et Spes

 

[Warrior1979]

Read the links.

I read the one from the USCCB site. As expected, it glossed over the important points, misrepresented others, and took the extreme position to support the author’s view.

The China policy is clearly misrepresented. What the author didn’t say is that the policy is a complete reversal of what previously existed. Mothers used to be encouraged to have as many children as possible. In fact, those that had greater than 10 were held in high esteem. If this program was such a success, then why was it reversed?

Second, the one-child policy is not entirely represented correctly. Those families in the countryside, which is the larger portion of the population, may have a second child if the first is a girl.

There are also other factors at play. There simple aren’t enough jobs in China. People are forced into early retirement in order for the younger generation to have jobs. The Chinese know when the youth get angry, the government gets overthrown.

While I do think the Chinese policy is extreme, it doesn’t mean the underlying issues are to be ignored. They have over 1 Billion people, can barely support the number of people they have, and are aggressive seeking resources around the world in order to sustain themselves…and this is a resource rich country with a much lower standard of living than, say, the U.S.

Lastly, it treats resources at infinite. As expected, it also ignores the factors surrounding finite resource use…very relevant since modern society, and current population levels can only exist because of them.

FWIW, I base my discussions on facts. The distracting sideshows simply help to hide the truth in order to get people to support one’s position.

 

[Warrior1979]

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.

Common sense dictates that these two things are not independent of each other. Abstinence is not a sin (barring limited circumstances…one spouse refusing marital relations with no good cause, etc.). The sin arises not because of the no-action during abstinence, but rather the action taken during the infertile period. Hence the reason why the Church has placed restrictions on it.

It’s easier to argue from the no-action abstinence point of view. Arguing from the action point of view creates the conflict. That’s because most sin arises from action, not no-action.

 

[Image_of_God]

The question is: if knowledge of NFP didn’t go around, how come the teaching that sex is only for procreation has?

We should also keep the global scale in mind. Majority of Church Fathers were teaching intercourse is fine only with desire of begetting. Since NFP is allowing the opposite, you don’t need a quote from Church Father specifically attacking rhythm method. Each theologian with such approach is an opponent of such birth control.

My point was that the quote itself was not specifically attacking the rhythm method. To use it as if it were is a bit dishonest because the purpose of that quote was to act the Manichaens beliefs against procreation. I am aware of other articles on the internet to use that quote as if it meant that the rhythm method is being condemned. Such reasoning has to come from other works from St. Augustine, but not this one.

While I do think that your belief that the majority of Church Fathers were teaching intercourse is reasonable, I think you’ll have trouble actually substantiating it. So few of them actually wrote about the necessity of a procreative intent and one in particular, St. Jerome, mentions it so passingly as it might appear to be of such little importance. You are missing the idea that St. Augustine is the ONLY Church Father we know of who mentions anything close to the rhythm method in writing. No other Church Father does. So whatever you have written above is purely speculative and not based on actual fact. (I personally find the speculation reasonable, but that doesn’t make it true). In the end, you can’t base your arguments on pure speculation, you have to base it on what is actually written.

Augustine attacks the idea that followers of Mani use intercourses to satisfy lust, and not to beget children. Since sex is only for begetting, each act whose procreational possibility is thwarted by usage of NFP is contrary to nature.

While Augustine indeed attacks gnostics on ground of their desire to live without children, his defense shows different pattern then the one we would expect. He speaks of sinfulness of marital sexuality and procreation as an excuse for it.

I am not doubting that Augustine was against the use of conjugal acts accept for procreation. I have agreed with you previously. But you need to show where the Magisterium (Ecumenical Council, Pope in public document, etc.) agrees with him. You have yet to show that.

Church has addressed this topic a few times during history (for example “Regula Pastoralis” of pope Gregory claimed sex is only for procreation and couple must take care not to feel pleasure during intercourse- bishops agreed).

On the contrary this is said:
Pope St. Gregory the Great:

And, while in the most honourable estate of matrimony allowing to them something of pleasure, he added, But this I say by way of indulgence, not by way of command. Now where indulgence is spoken of, a fault is implied; but one that is the more readily remitted in that it consists, not in doing what is unlawful, but in not keeping what is lawful under control. Which thing Lot expresses well in his own person, when he flies from burning Sodom, and yet, finding Zoar, does not still ascend the mountain heights. For to fly from burning Sodom is to avoid the unlawful fires of the flesh. But the height of the mountains is the purity of the continent. Or, at any rate, they are as it were upon the mountain, who, though cleaving to carnal intercourse, still, beyond the due association for the production of offspring, are not loosely lost in pleasure of the flesh. For to stand on the mountain is to seek nothing in the flesh except the fruit of procreation. To stand on the mountain is not to cleave to the flesh in a fleshly way. But, since there are many who relinquish indeed the sins of the flesh, and yet, when placed in the state of wedlock, do not observe solely the claims of due intercourse, Lot went indeed out of Sodom, but yet did not at once reach the mountain heights; because a damnable life is already relinquished, but still the loftiness of conjugal continence is not thoroughly attained. But there is midway the city of Zoar, to save the weak fugitive; because, to wit, when the married have intercourse with each other even incontinently, they still avoid lapse into sin, and are still saved through mercy.

Pastoral Rule Book 3 Chapter 27
newadvent.org/fathers/36013.htm

Thus, St. Gregory the Great clearly says that to have intercourse incontinently (he most probably means without procreative intent although I might be wrong) a couple does NOT sin. Here his opinion appears to be in conflict with that of St. Augustine who said in On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book 1, Chapter 16) that to engage in the conjugal act incontinently (without always having a procreative intent) is at least a venial sin.

The main problem with certain Church documents (such as Casti Connubii) is that it talks about “constant teaching” and does massive citations of Augustine- as if he or Church never teached sex is only for procreation. This makes it difficult to believe that there is this “university of time”, since contraception was forbidden on completely other ground. Bishops can’t bypass the teachings of the past as they are.

I cannot in honesty doubt that there has be a shift in the opinion of theologians on these matters over time. But what is problematic in your approach is that you rely so heavily on St. Augustine. His teachings on marriage and concupiscence are not infallible and the Pope quite rightly took from them what was in line with Church teaching and did without what was not.

 

[Image_of_God]

At the contrary.

To have sex on purpose when woman is infertile (for the reason she is infertile) is ejaculating semen without possibility of generation. It is not sinful to accidentally have sex on infertile day (for example, if couple is not charting), but if this is done on purpose, it is sinful to Thomas. The only way how generation can emerge from this intercourse is if NFP fails. And things are not judged by their failure, but by their usage.

To marry a woman who is barren so to have sex without children is sinful. To marry her because you are in love with her, makes her bareness accidental, and is allowed.

I think what St. Thomas means here with “by accident” is “by circumstance” (I hope I’m right on this one). He commonly uses the term “accidental” to mean circumstantially as as opposed to “essentially”. Upon this I think your understanding is incorrect. Obviously to marry a woman who one knows is barren so that one may not have children is sinful. One should obviously marry out of love and with the hope of having children. But upon marrying her and later finding out that she is barren, it is NOT sinful to have relations with her since the nonprocreativeness of the act is only by accident and not essentially so (by its very nature) like in the sin against nature example that St. Thomas Aquinas provides.

This is another problem of Casti Connubii. Augustine acknowledges secondary ends of marriage as sociological bond- but not of marital intercourse. It is marriage which is here to give procreation, cultivating of love and sacramental bond- but not the marital sexuality which gives only procreation (and marital debt).

You continue to identify problems with Casti Connubii, but treat St. Augustine as if he were infallible. It’s as if there were no problems with St. Augustine reasoning. Pope Pius XI took from Augustine only what he believed to be right like numerous theologians and Popes before him. I’m sure you would do likewise.

This logic has it’s flaws, and the biggest one is that it is not shared by Church Fathers.

Please substantiate what most of the Church Fathers thought with actual sources or else I’ll have to dismiss it as mere speculation on your part and therefore not contributing anything substantial to our discussion.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Well then maybe it was illicit to have sex during pregnancy?

And while breastfeeding, after menopause, during menstruation… There would be many situations, even in the time of the Church Fathers, where it would be impossible for a couple to ‘intend proceration’ during sex. These situations apply to many couples, yet none of the Fathers, nor Pius XI called for abstinence at those times.

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.

Consider that we’re reading these documents a couple thousand years later and in translation. (Shakespeare isn’t always clear to us and he wrote in modern English.)

The simplest explantion I’ve heard is that Catholicism requires couples to have sex that is literally and physically ‘pro-creative’ or, in favour of creation. Sex favours creation, regardless of fertility, whenever a couple completes the act naturally. I probably heard something like this from LittleDeb, and now that she’s on the thread, I bet she’d be happy to elaborate if you find my explanation falls short. She’s chatty though, so don’t say I didn’t warn you.