NFP and contraception

[Good_Daughter]

Yes. If using ABC is intrinsically evil, then there is never a circumstance in which it could be justified, correct? Doesn’t the Church teach that we may never do evil so that good may come of it?

Catholicism teaches that ABC disorders the marital act. Rape is not the marital act.

 

[LaSainte]

Ok, so a rapist with AIDS does not increase his sin by wearing a condom, nor does a woman sin by asking her rapist to wear a condom. But a married couple sins mortally when they use a condom.

So if somebody was in a non-marital sexual relationship for 10 years and went to confession, they are not obliged to confess using the Pill during those years, even though it can cause abortions to occur? Or would the use of contraceptives per se not be a sin but the fact that the person knew they can cause abortions still a sin?

 

[LittleDeb]

Ok, so a rapist with AIDS does not increase his sin by wearing a condom, nor does a woman sin by asking her rapist to wear a condom. But a married couple sins mortally when they use a condom.

And rape is not fornication nor the marital act.

A device to prevent unjust aggressors in a rape (spermicide, or condoms for example) is not a contraceptive device. It might look the same, it might act the same, but that does not make the *device *intrinsically evil. All murder is intrinsically evil. Some murders are committed whilst plunging a knife into the chest. While it could be looked at as “essentially the same thing” it does not make a scalpel used in surgery intrinsically evil because some people are murdered that way.

Same goes for the devices used for contraception. The devices themselves are neutral. The devices and medications have a purpose only and entirely related to helping rape victims. The same device to protect or help a rape victim is the same device many people use in marriage. That should speak loudly to our culture, yet for some reason, it doesn’t.

 

[LittleDeb]

~HV #15

“Whatsoever:” could use some clarification …If a woman is using ABC to cure a bodily disease (i.e. my blessed Mirena for menorrhagia) BUT is very very VERY thankful that she can “licitly” use a highly effective birth control that is much easier than NFP, is that really licit? Thankful = intent = sin?
Already pretty much know the answer to this one, but what is your opinion on someone who barely has a disease…like her periods kind of suck more than average but are not causing her anemia or anything like that…and she secretly is like HAHA I thwarted that rule!
Is being essentially thankful for a disease (or “disease” depending on how honest she is being) equivalent to intending contraception? Is any degree of relativism allowed?

Mirena’s main mechanism is to cause abortion. Supposedly, it does release some hormones to try to suppress ovulation, but it seldom works. Mirena thins the lining of the uterus. That is what it is designed to do. Since pregnancy has been defined by the medical profession as staring at implantation, they get to legally call those abortifacient devices “contraceptives.” The couple of women (non-Catholic) I have known who were on it, started charting and discovered that they were often ovulating, so they chose a better path to help their health.

Since we are not allowed to give out medical advice here, I can’t say much. NFP would be very simple to practice if progesterone levels were up and then the heavy periods would cease. It pains me so much to read that there are doctors still doing that awful treatment to women even after all these years. They deserve so much better! I *can *say that it was my horrible female troubles that led me back to full union with the Church. So, in other words, “Been there. Done that.” Now I am healthy the way God designed me.

In answer to the question, if the woman has been mis-advised by her doctor that her problem requires it, she *might *be able to claim invincible ignorance, but I wouldn’t bet my soul on it. I have talked to unmarried Catholics who have the intention of contracepting once they marry. Some were advised by priests that they are already in a state of venial sin, but not mortal. To be a mortal sin requires an action with full consent of the will.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

The line of defense Augustine makes is clear. He, indeed, attacks the Manichaens because of their desire to avoid procreation totally, but supports this with additional stoic arguments. We certainly can’t say he would allow such fertility technique, no matter the reasons, or their gravity, since for him- sex is only for procreation.

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.

This is simply because majority of Church Fathers were concentrating more on the intent of the act.In order for act to be moral, procreation had to be intended, not opened as possibility. And since the whole story of NFP is how to avoid procreation, you have a theological issue with these early Christians.

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.

Let’s say -at least to stress something else- that I can’t answer this one. Does it mean that Church mainstream didn’t see sex that way until very recently? Do you have documents which speak of unitive nature of marital sexuality? Which document until Casti Connubii speaks of sex as “gift”?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

With all due respect, the issues are present. St. Gregory speaks that people who have sex only for procreation are “faulty” and “out of control”. The last sentence may simply talk about mortal sin, not venial, which is the teaching of St. Augustine.

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.

Augustine is the one who wrote most of theological background to sexual issues. It seems not all of theories he has are originally his, but were shared as mainstream of Catholics in first centuries.

Casti Connubii has problem that it never distances itself from stoic Augustine. You can’t read “This is what Augustine wrote, and was practiced, but it was wrong, and we won’t do that anymore.”

 

[Chrono13]

I was in a hurry, so made a few typos. So I repair them, in order for clear discussion

*Do you have documents which speak of unitive nature of marital sexuality? *

This was meant: do you have any documents, councils or anything similar up to 19th Century which see sex as unitive and bonding?

With all due respect, the issues are present. St. Gregory speaks that people who have sex only for procreation are “faulty” and “out of control”. The last sentence may simply talk about mortal sin, not venial, which is the teaching of St. Augustine.

This is a typo. I wanted to write "With all due respect, the issues are present. St. Gregory speaks that people who dont’ have sex only for procreation are “faulty” and “out of control”.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The line of defense Augustine makes is clear. He, indeed, attacks the Manichaens because of their desire to avoid procreation totally, but supports this with additional stoic arguments. We certainly can’t say he would allow such fertility technique, no matter the reasons, or their gravity, since for him- sex is only for procreation.

Earlier in this thread, you said that St. Augustine permitted the marital act to help with lust and that the marital debt could be rendered regardless of whether a couple had the ability to ‘intend procreation’ (ie. during pregnancy). The truth is, for him- sex is not only for procreation. Why do you keep asserting something you yourself have acknowledged as false?

This is simply because majority of Church Fathers were concentrating more on the intent of the act.In order for act to be moral, procreation had to be intended, not opened as possibility. And since the whole story of NFP is how to avoid procreation, you have a theological issue with these early Christians.

No, Catholic married couples have never had to ‘intend procreation’ for sex to be moral. Sex in times of known infertility (ie. pregnancy, menopause) has always been morally acceptable.

In another thread, Image of God provided a qoute from St. Francis de Sales:

“Since the procreation of children is the primary and principal end of marriage, it is never lawful to turn away from the required order. Nevertheless, it is not possible to effect it in some particular circumstances as in the case of barrenness or pregnancy which prevents begetting and generation. In such case sexual intercourse does not cease to be just and holy provided the laws of generation are followed.”

The principle behind NFP (whether common knowledge or not) was explicitly defended by this saint. (Thanks to Image of God for a great quote.)

Casti Connubii has problem that it never distances itself from stoic Augustine.

Considering that a problem could be a clue that you’re misunderstanding something.

 

[LaSainte]

I don’t think one had to INTEND procreation, but I also think it’s fairly clear that NFP, or anything that specifically tried to AVOID procreation while still enjoying the sexual act would have been unacceptable for most of Church history. Having sex during infertile times was not considered a sin, but deliberately having sex ONLY during infertile times so as not to conceive would have been considered sinful.

 

[Chrono13]

Earlier in this thread, you said that St. Augustine permitted the marital act to help with lust and that the marital debt could be rendered regardless of whether a couple had the ability to ‘intend procreation’ (ie. during pregnancy). The truth is, for him- sex is not only for procreation. Why do you keep asserting something you yourself have acknowledged as false?

I have stated, and I repeat, that Augustine claimed intercourse without desire of children is venial sin. Permitted on account of marriage.

For Augustine, sex *is *only for procreation. To have it for other reasons is against nature, but can be tolerated if couple feels remorse for venial transgression.

No, Catholic married couples have never had to ‘intend procreation’ for sex to be moral. Sex in times of known infertility (ie. pregnancy, menopause) has always been morally acceptable.

This is not true. Sex during infertility was allowed for marital debt, and that was still considered sinful.

In another thread, Image of God provided a qoute from St. Francis de Sales:

“Since the procreation of children is the primary and principal end of marriage, it is never lawful to turn away from the required order. Nevertheless, it is not possible to effect it in some particular circumstances as in the case of barrenness or pregnancy which prevents begetting and generation. In such case sexual intercourse does not cease to be just and holy provided the laws of generation are followed.”

Laws of generation? What does this mean?

Here is another quote of St. Francis de Sales:
" Marital intercourse is certainly holy, lawful and praiseworthy in itself and profitable to society, yet in certain circumstances it can prove dangerous, as when* through excess the soul is made… sick with venial sin**, or through the violation and perversion of its primary end, killed by mortal sin; such perversion, detestable in proportion to its departure from the true order, being always mortal sin, for it is never lawful to exclude the primary end of marriage which is the procreation of children. "*

What is "“excess” which makes sexuality dangerous for soul in venial matter? Isn’t this a trace of Augustine?

 

[Chrono13]

Elizabeth Anscombe names the Manicheans, against whom St Augustine taught, saying that they “first aimed to restrict intercourse altogether to what they thought were infertile times and also to use contraceptive drugs.”

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. 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 125-127.

Elizabet Anscombe can’t change the writings of Saint Augustine, or claim he didn’t mean what he specifically stated.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Would someone be able to give me the origin of the St. Francis de Sales quote (name of document or talk) Thanks.

 

[Chrono13]

Would someone be able to give me the origin of the St. Francis de Sales quote (name of document or talk) Thanks.

This could be a good start:
ccel.org/ccel/desales/devout_life.v.xxxix.html

 

[Good_Daughter]

…deliberately having sex ONLY during infertile times so as not to conceive would have been considered sinful.

What makes you say this, right after saying one doesn’t have to intend procreation? Before answering, would you please read Little Deb’s explanation of ‘procreation’ in post #520?

 

[Corki]

I don’t think one had to INTEND procreation, but I also think it’s fairly clear that NFP, or anything that specifically tried to AVOID procreation while still enjoying the sexual act would have been unacceptable for most of Church history. Having sex during infertile times was not considered a sin, but deliberately having sex ONLY during infertile times so as not to conceive would have been considered sinful.

It’s possible that it could have been considered sinful. But that’s not a bad thing nor does it negate the fact that NFP is a perfectly legitimate practice if used for serious reasons today. For most of the Church’s history, little was known about ovulation, maternal health or the causes of infertility. As science changed, the Church’s teaching developed to be consistent with the science and medical knowledge. What has stayed consistent is the committment to be open to life and the immorality of contraception.

Just because something was considered a sin at one time doesn’t mean it is an unchangeable teaching regarding faith or morals. It used to be a sin to eat a sandwhich two hours before Communion or to attend (even without participating) a Protestant church service.

 

[Chrono13]

It’s possible that it could have been considered sinful. But that’s not a bad thing

It is if you were supposed to obey such ethic.

For most of the Church’s history, little was known about ovulation, maternal health or the causes of infertility. As science changed, the Church’s teaching developed to be consistent with the science and medical knowledge. What has stayed consistent is the committment to be open to life and the immorality of contraception.

The knowledge of ovulation is of little importance for the teaching sexuality is just for begetting children.

 

[Corki]

The knowledge of ovulation is of little importance for the teaching sexuality is just for begetting children.

That’s not the teaching of the Church.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I have stated, and I repeat, that Augustine claimed intercourse without desire of children is venial sin. Permitted on account of marriage.

For Augustine, sex *is *only for procreation. To have it for other reasons is against nature, but can be tolerated if couple feels remorse for venial transgression.

This is not true. Sex during infertility was allowed for marital debt, and that was still considered sinful.

The bolding is mine. Look what you’re saying, Chrono13. Sex without ‘procreative intent’ is not allowed, except when it is permitted, tolerated or allowed.

I reread your St. Augustine quote:

• For thus says the Scripture (“Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin. Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh - and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence?** This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt ***on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage.

He says the marital act without ‘procreative intent’, “incurs not the imputation of guilt.” In modern english, married couples who have sex without trying to make a baby are doing nothing wrong.

 

[Chrono13]

That’s not the teaching of the Church.

For some time, this was the teaching.

 

[Corki]

For some time, this was the teaching.

so?

 

[Chrono13]

The bolding is mine. Look what you’re saying, Chrono13. Sex without ‘procreative intent’ is not allowed, except when it is permitted, tolerated or allowed.

I have said that sex without such intent is sinful (evil by it’s nature) yet permitted/ tolerated/ allowed because of the marital bond. This bond doesn’t make it without sin, but grants pardon for it.

I reread your St. Augustine quote:

He says the marital act without ‘procreative intent’, “incurs not the imputation of guilt.” In modern english, married couples who have sex without trying to make a baby are doing nothing wrong.

Reread once again:
“This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself.”

Put in other words:

Marriage is not guilty because of such (sinfull) intercourse, since it makes sinfulness pardonable.

People who have sex without desire of children are doing it wrong, but their transgression is pardonable.