NFP and contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Muze
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
My point exactly.
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.
The majority of the Church Fathers? By what means do you assert this? I’m ready to concede on this point if you show me. Is St. Augustine your idea of the majority of the Church Fathers?
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”?
We could certainly argue that at a point in time a lot of theologians in the Church thought that unbaptized babies go to a place called Limbo. Today, however, I’d say that most theologians argue that it is possible for such babies to go Heaven, but the means are not known to us. Does that amount to a change in teaching? I think not.

I won’t deny that the Church’s attitude towards sex has changed, but to argue that is a change in teaching is a bit of a stretch. Most people in the Church today support contraception. About a half-century they did not. Has the Church’s teaching changed?
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.
The point of the last quote was to address your claim that St. Gregory says that having intercourse without a procreative intent was a sin. He quite clearly says it is not. “They still avoid lapse into sin” means they are not sinning. I do concede however, that the sophist attitude is there, but I disagree with the rest of your assessment.
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.”
I do not doubt that some of the Catholics at the time shared Augustine’s theories. But to that say *most *of them or even *all *of them did is a bit too much. The fact of the matter is that most of the Fathers (I think I make a very reasonable assertion) do not write on this topic. They probably did not find it important enough to write about. Castii Connubii explicitly says NFP is permissible even if St. Augustine says it’s not.
 
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?
Your quote does not in anyway negate what Good Daughter’s quote is saying or her conclusions about it. St. Francis De Sales in her quote quite clearly says that intercourse does not cease to be holy even in times when procreation can’t be expected (like pregnancy or sterility) provided that the laws of generation are followed (the intercourse is done in a way that would result in procreation if it weren’t for the circumstances). One can have intercourse in “excess” even if a child resulted from it every time. St. Francis de Sales’ ideas on this topic clearly coincide with the Church’s teaching on NFP and can be seen as a kind of precursor to it.
 
Here are the posts on the thread where I go through the history of the topic at hand:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7997972&postcount=8
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7999017&postcount=17
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7999118&postcount=18

Chrono, I hope by reading them (if you so choose) you’ll find that Church history on this topic is inconsistent with how you are presenting it. The Church did not just change its mind in the mid 19th century about this issue.
 
Chrono,
I have found your explanations to be good and well thought out. But I do see one major flaw that I noted, earlier up-thread, that many theologians make too. You are using “procreation” and “begetting” interchangeably. They are not interchangeable. (Goodness I am using that word a lot lately!) You are referencing St. Augustine as having said it is sinful without “procreative intent.” But then you are also saying he is saying it, “without intention of begetting.” Which one is it? They are not the same thing.

IF St. Augustine DID say that sex was sinful while not trying to beget, then we have a different discussion. (We raise the issue of translations, too.) But the main issue you will have raised, (if that is what St. Augustine *actually *said,) is that he was not pope. While he is a doctor of the Church and his writings hold more weight than some, he was NOT protected infallibly on faith and morals. Casti Connubii said that it was NOT sinful to have sex without trying to beget. It was written by a pope. Pope Pius the IX said it was “consistent teaching of the Church,” that infertile sex was not sinful. So even *IF *(and that is a big fat IF,) Augustine’s beliefs were what you are saying, a Pope trumps a doctor of the Church on teaching of faith and morals.

Now here is what the studies about Augustine actually say he was saying: He said that it is likely to lust after one’s own spouse, even while in the process of begetting, begetting wasn’t his point there. His point was that if (he believed it was more when, not if) spouses lusted for their own spouse, it was a *venial *sin. Due to his background he found it hard to fathom that a couple could have sex without lust. He believed it was possible to be lust-free, but that most people weren’t. He was pointing out that most people would be in a constant state of sin, most of the time, so if you were going to be lusting it was better to be lusting while begetting. What he DID say about *procreation *was that if you do not keep procreation intact, you are, by the very nature, lusting, It was the sin of contraception that made that *mortal *sin, even within marriage. His point was, the whole reason to have sex while breaking the design, was entirely lustful. On all of these teachings he is entirely correct and they are what is referenced in Casti Connubii.

It appears that later theologians were reiterating that it was *venial *sin “pardonable” lust, that was present in marriage, not a mortal sin, due to being married. . But that contraception is what tipped it to mortal sin.

Please really think about what you are asserting, Chrono. You are perpetuating a myth that can lead to strife in marriage. I have encountered many people who believe it, and it is harming their marriage. They believe, based on your same assertions, that as long as they are “making a baby,” then their sex is what God wants, even though they are actually harming each other through lust. (Even though it is venial sin, it still does damage to the marriage.) St. Augustine was an authority on lust, having been so closely related to it for so many years. To really embrace St. Augustine’s writings is to try to free up marriage from lust. I have higher hopes than Augustine that it is possible in this life. Through prayerful periodic continence, many couples have found a profound joy in sacrificing and are often freed from lust.
👍 Good work, Little Deb!
 
Laws of generation in his writings are more or less same as in Augustinian writ.
I just wanted to clarify. This is very incorrect. What St. Francis de Sales means by “laws of generation” is that intercourse must happen in a way in which procreation would occur if it weren’t for the circumstances preventing it. It must always be procreative or more explicitly capable of procreation. He explicitly says that intercourse is good even when the married couple don’t expect a child to come from it (like during times of pregnancy). And with that, I would say he is of the same mind with St. Thomas Aquinas who says something similar in his Summa Contra Gentiles.
 
Can anyone here say with total honesty that they truly believe that if the Church fathers and the early popes had known about NFP, they would have considered it morally acceptable to use this information in order to specifically and intentionally AVOID pregnancy while still having sex?
 
Can anyone here say with total honesty that they truly believe that if the Church fathers and the early popes had known about NFP, they would have considered it morally acceptable to use this information in order to specifically and intentionally AVOID pregnancy while still having sex?
I think they would have said it’s sinful, because it’s still “wasting seed” to do so with the intention of avoiding pregnancy. I think the belief that the seed is sacred is a hint of how they thought, which is to say they thought that seed was essentially a human being waiting to be planted. I get the impression that some people on this forum likewise equate wasting seed with a “tiny abortion” of sorts.
 
LaSainte
Can anyone here say with total honesty that they truly believe that if the Church fathers and the early popes had known about NFP, they would have considered it morally acceptable to use this information in order to specifically and intentionally AVOID pregnancy while still having sex?
Speculation is a useless exercise. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church knew the Sacred Scriptures advising abstinence.

A 12 to 14 day period of abstinence has been practiced by Orthodox Jews for approximately 3,000 years, based on Leviticus.
ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

While the laws of Leviticus forbade the marriage act during menses and for a week thereafter with great fertility for the Jewish people, this was not linked in any medical or scientific way to NBR (NFP) until in the mid-nineteenth century French researchers dealing with domestic animals discovered a relationship between certain bodily discharges and fertility. Scientists and others quickly wondered whether this was likewise true in humans. They speculated that a woman was fertile during her menstrual flow and infertile thereafter.
catholic-truth.info/apologetics/birthcontrol.htm
 
Speculation is a useless exercise. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church knew the Sacred Scriptures advising abstinence.

A 12 to 14 day period of abstinence has been practiced by Orthodox Jews for approximately 3,000 years, based on Leviticus.
ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

While the laws of Leviticus forbade the marriage act during menses and for a week thereafter with great fertility for the Jewish people, this was not linked in any medical or scientific way to NBR (NFP) until in the mid-nineteenth century French researchers dealing with domestic animals discovered a relationship between certain bodily discharges and fertility. Scientists and others quickly wondered whether this was likewise true in humans. They speculated that a woman was fertile during her menstrual flow and infertile thereafter.
catholic-truth.info/apologetics/birthcontrol.htm
The point is, I think it is fairly obvious from their writings that the early Church would have been appalled at the idea of charting and planning one’s sexual experiences based solely on the objective of NOT conceiving-and to say this is in no way a stretch.

Thus, it’s hard to say that the teaching here is CONSTANT when we all know that NFP Never would have been allowed.

This has NOTHING to do with the Jews and their practice of abstinence for reasons of ceremonial cleanliness.
 
LaSainte
we all know that NFP Never would have been allowed.
Puerile assumption. Thank God faithful Catholics don’t offer fantasies but the natural moral law with which human nature has been endowed by God, as even the pagans acknowledged, and the constant teaching of Christ’s Church based on that law and Her mandate from Christ.
 
Puerile assumption. Thank God faithful Catholics don’t offer fantasies but the natural moral law with which human nature has been endowed by God, as even the pagans acknowledged, and the constant teaching of Christ’s Church based on that law and Her mandate from Christ.
Bull. The Church and the people in it make educated assumptions about what the early Church would have taught and believed all he time. It’s extrapolation, and if you read these early writings, it is more than clear what they perceived to be the role of marital sexuality, and sex while actively trying NOT to procreate certainly had no place in a marriage.

Partial-Birth abortion and the hydrogen bomb were not written about specifically by the early Church either, but based on their writings and beliefs, we apply what we know of the teachings of Christ and the early Church to our current world situation on countless issues.

The truth is that you cannot honestly tell yourself that the early Church would have approved in any way of NFP, so in this sense, I would say that the teaching and mindset of the Church regarding this issue has certainly NOT remained constant.
 
LaSainte
I would say that the teaching and mindset of the Church regarding this issue has certainly NOT remained constant.
Such a personal prejudice is irrational and evidences ridicule of the tradition of Christ’s Church explicitly affirmed by the Popes, and implies ridicule of these great Doctors and Fathers who used the Sacred Scriptures and thought through the issues of the time. But it is such prejudices for thought that are so glaringly obvious in the world of today.

Faithful Catholics know what is right because they accept the natural moral law and they assent to what Christ’s Church teaches through Her Magisterium not the fantasies of others. Neither do they waste time on idle speculation.
 
Say what you will, but not one person here has honestly stated that they believe the Church Fathers and early Church would have allowed NFP, because if we are all being honest with ourselves, we know they wouldn’t have.
 
Say what you will, but not one person here has honestly stated that they believe the Church Fathers and early Church would have allowed NFP, because if we are all being honest with ourselves, we know they wouldn’t have.
I am honestly stating that the early Church Fathers would have allowed NFP if such scientific knowledge was available to the faithful at that time. Since accurate knowledge of the fertile times in a woman’s cycle was unavailable at that time, the Church Fathers made no mention of charting.

What the early Church Fathers did emphasize was the importance of the procreative meaning to the marital act, i.e., there could be no contraceptive agents, herbal potions or sin of onanism. It was not sinful to have relations with one’s spouse during the infertile times. These infertile times were not accurately known, except during pregnancy and menopause. Lust was considered sinful in marriage then, and it still is today. Having sex during the infertile time is not equivalent to lust. As LittleDeb has pointed out, it is possible to harm marriage through a misinterpretation of St. Augustine’s writings. He did not mean that each and every act of sexual intercourse had to result in a baby.
 
I am honestly stating that the early Church Fathers would have allowed NFP if such scientific knowledge was available to the faithful at that time. Since accurate knowledge of the fertile times in a woman’s cycle was unavailable at that time, the Church Fathers made no mention of charting.

What the early Church Fathers did emphasize was the importance of the procreative meaning to the marital act, i.e., there could be no contraceptive agents, herbal potions or sin of onanism. It was not sinful to have relations with one’s spouse during the infertile times. These infertile times were not accurately known, except during pregnancy and menopause. Lust was considered sinful in marriage then, and it still is today. Having sex during the infertile time is not equivalent to lust. As LittleDeb has pointed out, it is possible to harm marriage through a misinterpretation of St. Augustine’s writings. He did not mean that each and every act of sexual intercourse had to result in a baby.
There is a HUGE difference between it not being sinful to have sex during what happen to be infertile times and having sex ONLY during infertile times, on purpose, in order to achieve sexual pleasure without conceiving. A close reading of these texts stresses in no uncertain terms that the primary function of sex is and should be procreation and sex at other times is merely tolerated. Had it occurred to Hess individuals hat people would be charting and graphing and taking temperatures and putting their hands inside their own bodies to check cervical position and mucous testing and spending hundreds of dollars on ovulation predictor kits in order to AVOID children while still being able to have sex, these men would have been appalled.

I think anyone who honestly reads these early writings and somehow gleans that such would have been acceptable is seriously kidding themselves.
 
There is a HUGE difference between it not being sinful to have sex during what happen to be infertile times and having sex ONLY during infertile times, on purpose, in order to achieve sexual pleasure without conceiving.
Current NFP instruction also places importance on a virtuous application of the rules and makes a distinction between “NFP” and “Responsible Parenthood”. NFP is not to be used indefinitely to avoid all possibility of children, unless there are serious or just reasons, such as a medical risk, to give just one example. However, the pedagogical approach that is being taken by CCL is that of allowing couples to come to this realization through their own inductive reasoning, rather than stating explicitly that, “Contraception is sinful, because…” Due to the culture of moral relativism in which we live, there needs to be a new approach to teaching what the Church has always held to be true.
Had it occurred to Hess individuals hat people would be charting and graphing and taking temperatures and putting their hands inside their own bodies to check cervical position and mucous testing and spending hundreds of dollars on ovulation predictor kits in order to AVOID children while still being able to have sex, these men would have been appalled.
There is nothing offensive or appalling about momentarily touching the body in a non-sexual manner each day. Would the Church Fathers have been appalled by women having an annual pap-smear? What about a mammogram? Even if they would have been, how is this relevant? Are you going to avoid having an annual doctor’s exam because St. Augustine might have been appalled? That is part of the advancement of science which the Church has always embraced. As far as the hundreds of dollars on OPK’s…those are specific only to the Marquette method, and an OPK is unnecessary to the effective practice of NFP. The cost-effectiveness of NFP (even including the cost of an OPK) so far surpasses the cost of ABC in the area of family planning that there is actually no comparison. Once you have the knowledge and practice of NFP as part of your normal every day life, the cost is extremely minimal, unlike the ongoing very high cost of ABC. I imagine the early Church Fathers would praise a method that would allow couples to plan responsibly and frugally which would allow Christian couples to share more freely of their resources with the poor.
I think anyone who honestly reads these early writings and somehow gleans that such would have been acceptable is seriously kidding themselves.
I am insulted that you would insinuate that I am “seriously kidding myself”. I have been intellectually honest in my thinking about NFP and its place in the history of the Church, and I have spent considerable time studying it. The fact is, that Pope Paul VI encouraged the faithful to continue studying and to come to a fuller understanding of marital love. He encouraged the formation of apostolates such as the Couple to Couple League for this purpose. Blessed John Paul II devoted much of his papacy to explaining the constant teaching of the Church in his talks entitled Theology of the Body. The language which he used in order to explain the consistent teaching of the Church on marriage and chastity and purity of heart is phenomenological and it is pure genius. It is not a *new *teaching, however.
 
There is a HUGE difference between it not being sinful to have sex during what happen to be infertile times and having sex ONLY during infertile times, on purpose, in order to achieve sexual pleasure without conceiving. A close reading of these texts stresses in no uncertain terms that the primary function of sex is and should be procreation and sex at other times is merely tolerated. Had it occurred to Hess individuals hat people would be charting and graphing and taking temperatures and putting their hands inside their own bodies to check cervical position and mucous testing and spending hundreds of dollars on ovulation predictor kits in order to AVOID children while still being able to have sex, these men would have been appalled.

I think anyone who honestly reads these early writings and somehow gleans that such would have been acceptable is seriously kidding themselves.
I have to strenuously disagree with you. There are those popes much wiser than any of us who read those early writings and understood quite well that it was pointing directly to the modern day understanding of NFP. Pope Pius IX, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI, just to name a few in the last and current centuries.

The “charting and graphing” is just the science of it. What is the most important part is that Scripture advises *prayerful *periodic continence. That is what they are talking about. If your circumstances make conception ill-advised, prayerful periodic continence has *always *been the remedy. That is not new information. The key is *prayerful *continence. To be continent has never been sinful. Choosing *when *to be continent is done through prayer. Fertility cycles **were **known and they were allowed and encouraged to make use of them.

Another modern error is to believe that just because certain things were not described for modern “scientific times” that they really didn’t know what they were talking about. The idea of a “mini abortion” from spilling of the seed is one often brought up. Modern people say, “See, it was abortion those early people thought was happening, so that is why they put the death of Onan in Scripture, not contraception.” Incorrect. God knows how babies are made. *God *would not kill Onan because the people around him “didn’t know science.” My friend, the student (now graduated) of Dr. Waldstein says, “That is the egotistical thinking of, ‘We are modern. We are smart. They are old, so they were dumb’.”

We almost lost an understanding of the the fertility cycle. In the OT when the Jewish people needed to *grow *their population they were told, by law, when to *have *relations. (I think someone already referenced this. Whomever did, please refresh my memory.) They are accurate for fertility. How can anyone read Scripture and deny that any society lacked an intuitive understanding of fertility. The descriptions might seem strange to our modern ears, but they are still correct. There are extra-biblical writings that note “red show” as infertile, and “white show” as fertile. It is not the big mystery many modern people believe.

I do grant you that ***exclusive *use of the infertile phase is serious. No one here denies that. To be unable to bask in the blessings of many babies is very serious. A family with few children has historically been one that everyone prayed for, because something serious was going on to keep that couple from the blessings of children. (Still true actually.) And at the same time, to become completely celibate was something done *only *when called by God to it. Few married couples have been called there.

Those of us who are called to a smaller family due to our difficult circumstances find it very strange that other people are calling us to total celibacy. Why would you ask of us what God hasn’t? **He **says the door is still open. **He **says that our circumstances might change. **He **says if we are faithful, He might call us to more blessings. **He **might lift the burden that makes it necessary not to conceive. To close that door because modern people misunderstand the constant teaching of the Church, is to us, very strange.

Through prayerful periodic continence, God makes it very clear what His plan is for each couple. Some people are called to continence during fertility, and some are called to it during infertility. But it is clear in Scripture. Many, if not most couples, will be called to continence at some times during their lives.
 
Excellent post sacredcello!! 👍 I didn’t see it until after my post. Your points are very valuable.
 
LittleDeb
In the OT when the Jewish people needed to grow their population they were told, by law, when to have relations. (I think someone already referenced this. Whomever did, please refresh my memory.)
Posts #96, 390, 583 – some take a while to learn.
 
If the Church fathers and early popes would have approved of these practices, please point me to some writings that would indicate that it would be acceptable to intentionally AVOID conception while still enjoying the physical aspects of sex. Chrono13 has already pointed out MANY sources that indicate just the opposite, how the early Church and fathers specifically told us that sex’s primary goal is procreation and that sex during menopause, etc. was merely tolerated, but I have seen NOTHING to indicate the licitness of ever attempting NOT to conceive while still engaging in sex.

Please do not cite St. Paul, as the type of abstinence to which he was referring clearly had nothing to do with avoiding children intentionally.

Also sacredcello, it is not the physical act of putting one’s hand inside one’s body that I think the Church would have objected to, it is instead the VAST lengths and expenses that some couples go to in order to enjoy sex while avoiding children. This would never have been allowed before the 1800s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top