NFP and contraception

[sacredcello]

The reason I am going to such lengths to assert with Chronos13 that NFP would surely have been considered illicit by the early Church is because 1.) it is true, and jumping through linguistic hoops in an attempt to deny that fact denies 1853 years of Church tradition to serve a personal agenda

Wow, so that is what Blessed John Paul II was up to during a large portion of his papacy in which he gave 129 talks entitled Theology of the Body in order to explain to the modern world the consistent teaching of the Church. He was jumping through linguistic hoops in order to deny facts and to serve a personal agenda. And, this is what he was doing as Archbishop of Krakow, when he published Love and Responsibility. I had no idea that he was a such a bald-faced liar and that he willfully misled the faithful in such a duplicitous manner. I’ve made a mental note of it.

 

[sacredcello]

Literally no Church Father, apart from St. Clement of Alexandria , expressed different opinion from St. Augustine. And even he said "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" and “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” (

Most quotes used to prove Fathers were against contraception, also prove that they thought sex is only for procreation.

Yes, the Fathers were against contraception and NO, it does not prove that they thought that offspring must result from every act of intercourse. Procreative meaning of sex must be intended and this is still true today. Nothing has changed. There is now and there always has been a small chance of pregnancy during phase III of a woman’s cycle (although the accurate knowledge that we have of this now was not available to the Early Church Fathers), so the procreative meaning is there, regardless of the desire in your heart to avoid or to conceive.

The bolded parts refer to the sin of Onanism (unnatural acts) and to abortifacients (herbal). These do grave injustice to the dignity of the human person and marriage.

 

[copperblade]

They choose it because it is easier and because they trust it more than NFP.

Of course! Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion because everyone would just be using NFP anyway.

 

[sacredcello]

This is very difficult to accept. It seems very evident that Trent has not, or would never, allow NFP in order to control fertility.

This is an assumption on your part. I do not make that assumption, especially in light of all the papal encyclicals written in the 20th century which **explicitly **state that NFP is licit. I would certainly not base my decision-making on personal assumptions about what the Church Fathers didn’t say about NFP because they did not have enough information, i.e. there was no charting in those days, because the temperature sign was unknown until it was discovered in the 19th century.

 

[copperblade]

Is there anyone in this thread old enough to remember what it was like before Vatican II? I’ve read that (regardless of official doctrine) it was not “allowed” prior to the 1960’s.

 

[sacredcello]

Of course! Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion because everyone would just be using NFP anyway.

Most people trust ABC more than NFP, because they have no experience with NFP. The reason for this is due to the fact that information about contraception has been drilled into us since childhood. Also, the parents are often silent on the subject, or worse, they are in favor of “sex education” which amounts to a completely biased presentation which basically encourages early sexual experiences before marriage. Leaving the education of children on such an important matter to the school sex-ed program is completely irresponsible, but parents go along with this because it validates the immoral behaviors in their own marriages, so this is the vicious cycle of ignorance that is perpetuated.

 

[copperblade]

This from the 19th Century thread:

After you have said this with great noise and heat, (heretic) I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation?* Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.*** In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage.
St. Augustine, “On marriage and lust”

 

[sacredcello]

Is there anyone in this thread old enough to remember what it was like before Vatican II? I’ve read that (regardless of official doctrine) it was not “allowed” prior to the 1960’s.

What is official doctrine, and what normal people actually believe is an interesting point. It was never an official doctrine that sex on infertile days was immoral. Did some people believe it out of ignorance? Perhaps. Casti Connubii was written in 1930 and it was stated that sex on infertile days was licit. I don’t know how many people were aware of it. But, then, large families were considered a blessing by most people in pre-Vatican II times. It was only with the emergence of the post-modern system of values that children began to be looked upon as burdens or something to be avoided at all cost. This is truly unfortunate and is only a recent development.

 

[copperblade]

What is official doctrine, and what normal people actually believe is an interesting point. It was never an official doctrine that sex on infertile days was immoral. Did some people believe it out of ignorance? Perhaps. Casti Connubii was written in 1930 and it was stated that sex on infertile days was licit. I don’t know how many people were aware of it. But, then, large families were considered a blessing by most people in pre-Vatican II times. It was only with the emergence of the post-modern system of values that children began to be looked upon as burdens or something to be avoided at all cost. This is truly unfortunate and is only a recent development.

I don’t think the question of having sex on infertile days is at stake here. I think the question is the morality planning your sex around fertility. There’s a difference. No one would rightly argue that having sex on infertile days is immoral in itself. Likewise no one would argue that not having sex on fertile days is immoral in itself. The question is about intent and the purpose of sex. We already know that to use NFP to have a completely childless marriage is immoral.

The article I had read before (and I wouldn’t be able to find it now, as it was quite a while ago) didn’t necessarily say it was doctrine. But it did bring up the point that the culture within the Church was against any kind of limits to procreation, and that priests were having a hard time counseling couples who felt they had a moral obligation to space out their children. The article at least implied that NFP was somewhat of a compromise made to allow couples this outlet without allowing contraception.

 

[sacredcello]

The article I had read before (and I wouldn’t be able to find it now, as it was quite a while ago) didn’t necessarily say it was doctrine. But it did bring up the point that the culture within the Church was against any kind of limits to procreation, and that priests were having a hard time counseling couples who felt they had a moral obligation to space out their children. The article at least implied that NFP was somewhat of a compromise made to allow couples this outlet without allowing contraception.

The opinion expressed in this article that you are referencing is exactly that: an opinion. I’ve heard people say such things, and perhaps there are some genuinely good points made, but the fact is that the Church does not dictate to us how many children we must have. One might make the point that using NFP after having 1 or 2 children for the remainder of 20+ fertile years of marriage is selfish, but each couple is unique and, therefore, the Church, in Her wisdom, has not set down lists of what constitutes grave or serious reason and what does not. As an NFP instructor, I have been taught NOT to judge couples for their reasons in trying to avoid conception. We might not have any idea of their circumstances. All we can do is witness to them that children are a blessing from God and leave it at that.

The question is about intent and the purpose of sex.

This has been answered innumerable times in this thread. The meaning and purpose of sex is that it is both procreative and unitive. Even if a couple is limiting relations to phase III-only with the intent to avoid conception, there is still a chance of conception, however slight. Yet, the act itself has not been thwarted by devices, medications or mutilation, so it retains the procreative meaning. And, sometimes, a baby results!!!

(often a baby results while using ABC, as well, but the procreative meaning has been attacked by the use of devices, etc., to keep a baby away, as if it were an unwelcome intruder)

 

[Chrono13]

So the answer is your conclusion to the question: why was contraception equivalent to murder?

I don’t know what you mean. If you simply ask me why contraception was regarded as serious as murder… well, I simply think this gravity was reserved for abortion, not contraception, in Trent’s writings.

 

[Chrono13]

And the fact that NFP supposedly requires virtue while all other forms of contraception are depraved and unhealthy is simply part of the lingo and propaganda spread around by its proponents. People don’t choose ABC because they are sex-hungry animals. They choose it because it is easier and because they trust it more than NFP.

I can agree. We already have a young wife on this topic claiming NFP brought instability to her marriage. And she seems very devoted and caring for her marital duties. Hopefully, she still reads.

It should also be noted that theological body researching the topic before Humanae Vitae was written brought unbiased, raw data. Majority people involved in research, devoted and loyal Roman Catholic couples, reported that NFP is harming their marital bond.

While the commission was only of advising nature, it seems unfair that after II. Vatican such info is not taken in consideration. If nothing, Church could search for better alternatives. Now we are expected to promote something we ourselves considered bad. It has nothing to do with authority. Things work in practice, or not.

 

[Chrono13]

This is an assumption on your part. I do not make that assumption, especially in light of all the papal encyclicals written in the 20th century which **explicitly **state that NFP is licit. I would certainly not base my decision-making on personal assumptions about what the Church Fathers didn’t say about NFP because they did not have enough information, i.e. there was no charting in those days, because the temperature sign was unknown until it was discovered in the 19th century.

The enyclicals in 20th Century claim they only follow what was already established by Church authorities in the past. That is difficult to prove on every field.

The Church Father Augustine forbid tracking days after menstruation in order to have sex on infertile day. You didn’t need thermometers or charts in 4th century- what was known about this technique was enough for stoic logic to forbid it.

 

[Chrono13]

Is there anyone in this thread old enough to remember what it was like before Vatican II? I’ve read that (regardless of official doctrine) it was not “allowed” prior to the 1960’s.

As far as I know, it was allowed. Church allowed usage of this method during 19th Century, but one can question how many people have read that decision.

 

[sacredcello]

It should also be noted that theological body researching the topic before Humanae Vitae was written brought unbiased, raw data. Majority people involved in research, devoted and loyal Roman Catholic couples, reported that NFP is harming their marital bond.

I know some of these “devoted and loyal RC couples” who were of child-bearing age during the commission and who continue to dissent by opposing the consistent teaching of the Church against contraception. My DH and I speak about this in our witness talk which we give in Class 1 of the Main NFP series. It is very sad, indeed, that my husband was raised Catholic, but his father still has a hatred for the Church very deep in his heart, even though he goes to Mass every week. The very first time I met him, at our engagement dinner, in a fancy restaurant, he lifted his finger in the air and pointed it at me and exclaimed with hatred and venom, “THE RHYTHM METHOD DOESN’T WORK!” We were so astonished, because we hadn’t even brought up the topic, but he wanted us to know where he stood on the issue. I didn’t even bother to tell him that NFP is not the rhythm method, because I didn’t want to risk another round of the pointy finger. Unfortunately, I have met many others like this who consider themselves “loyal and devout”, but who are nearly intolerable to speak with because their hatred runs so deep. It is very sad that the virtue of chastity is so despised by many, both within the Church and in mainstream culture. The Church is not meant to teach secularism. But, that is what very many think should be the case.

 

[sacredcello]

The enyclicals in 20th Century claim they only follow what was already established by Church authorities in the past. That is difficult to prove on every field.

Have you read any of the encyclicals? To claim that they are simply rehashing old doctrine prohibiting contraception is to speak unjustly against these Popes who are quite prophetic in their writings.

May I recommend a short book by the late Rev. Richard M. Hogan called “Is NFP Good?”. It explains the Theology of the Body by Blessed John Paul II very well and it is quite readable.

The quote from Blessed John Paul II, who helped to write the Minority Report leading up to the publication of Humanae Vitae is being terribly misused both here in this thread and in others. Some are claiming that he was trying to prevent the faithful from questioning the validity of papal infallibility on the issue of ABC. This was not his point at all. If you have read Love and Responsibility which he published some years before the commission, you will know that there was never even a question that the Church should declare the immoral to be moral. Pope Paul VI felt it was necessary to have a commission, because of new developments such as the Pill, etc., but there was never any doubt in the mind of Blessed John Paul II that the Church should initiate a breakdown in morals and begin an attack on the family and the unborn. No, what he meant in that quote, was simply to point out the obvious…to claim ABC is moral now would be to claim that it was moral in the past. But, he never thought that it was moral in the past, nor was he even implying this. It is seriously wrong to twist the words of this soon-to-be-saint to claim that he was only thinking of papal infallibility and not about the atrocities that would be brought about in the every day lives of people through an acceptance of ABC.

 

[LaSainte]

The enyclicals in 20th Century claim they only follow what was already established by Church authorities in the past. That is difficult to prove on every field.

The Church Father Augustine forbid tracking days after menstruation in order to have sex on infertile day. You didn’t need thermometers or charts in 4th century- what was known about this technique was enough for stoic logic to forbid it.

Yes, this. There may not have been the level of accuracy and knowledge that we have today surrounding a woman’s cycle and her fertility, but Augustine knew enough about having sex only during infertile times to condemn it. Also, as has already been stated by Abu, the idea of using FERTILE times in order to procreate was known and used by the Jews of he OT and yet all of the writings that have been produced from the early Church and fathers are quite insistent that the procreative aspect of sex is of ultimate importance, while sex during times that HAPPEN TO BE infertile is merely allowed, and certainly nothing even comes close to saying that the use of infertile periods alone in order to prevent conception would have been permitted. An honest reading of these texts actually points to quite the opposite.

Again, if anyone can produce a text from before the 1800s which indicates that such a thing would have been permissible, that would be helpful in making a case for the “constant teaching of the Church” argument, otherwise, it’s really just a twisting of Church history.

 

[Chrono13]

I know some of these “devoted and loyal RC couples” who were of child-bearing age during the commission and who continue to dissent by opposing the consistent teaching of the Church against contraception. My DH and I speak about this in our witness talk which we give in Class 1 of the Main NFP series. It is very sad, indeed, that my husband was raised Catholic, but his father still has a hatred for the Church very deep in his heart, even though he goes to Mass every week. The very first time I met him, at our engagement dinner, in a fancy restaurant, he lifted his finger in the air and pointed it at me and exclaimed with hatred and venom, “THE RHYTHM METHOD DOESN’T WORK!” We were so astonished, because we hadn’t even brought up the topic, but he wanted us to know where he stood on the issue. I didn’t even bother to tell him that NFP is not the rhythm method, because I didn’t want to risk another round of the pointy finger. Unfortunately, I have met many others like this who consider themselves “loyal and devout”, but who are nearly intolerable to speak with because their hatred runs so deep. It is very sad that the virtue of chastity is so despised by many, both within the Church and in mainstream culture. The Church is not meant to teach secularism. But, that is what very many think should be the case.

Maybe you didn’t understand what I wanted to say. Commission wanted an honest opinion and objective experience of Catholic couples practicing NFP. They concluded that majority of couples who participated in the research did not value this technique very much. As a matter of fact, a very high number claimed it was dangerous for their relationship. It is not their opinion, but their experience- something commission wanted to hear, since this was it’s job.

 

[sacredcello]

Maybe you didn’t understand what I wanted to say. Commission wanted an honest opinion and objective experience of Catholic couples practicing NFP. They concluded that majority of couples who participated in the research did not value this technique very much. As a matter of fact, a very high number claimed it was dangerous for their relationship. It is not their opinion, but their experience- something commission wanted to hear, since this was it’s job.

I understood you very well. These couples have had their consciences formed by secularism, rather than by the values of the Gospel. Certainly, it was fine for them to express their viewpoints, as this was the purpose of the commission, but the primary purpose of the commission was to gather information so that the Church could speak to the modern world about the Gospel as it relates to the family. The purpose was never to take a vote to see who wins.

It is our job as faithful Catholics to continue to learn about our faith and to form our consciences accordingly, not to persist in error by treating papal encyclicals as yesterday’s trash and maintaining our views which have been fashioned by secular academia.

 

[sacredcello]

There may not have been the level of accuracy and knowledge that we have today surrounding a woman’s cycle and her fertility, but Augustine knew enough about having sex only during infertile times to condemn it.

Again, if anyone can produce a text from before the 1800s which indicates that such a thing would have been permissible, that would be helpful in making a case for the “constant teaching of the Church” argument, otherwise, it’s really just a twisting of Church history.

None of the Popes in the 20th century have “twisted Church history”. To say such a thing is utterly condescending. Do you really think that you know more than Pope Pius XI, Pope Paul VI and Blessed John Paul II combined?

Forgive me for reposting, but this has already been answered by LittleDeb:

And for further clarification on St. Augustine. I have been rereading the quotes again and there is a consistent misinterpretation happening. Some people quoting him have forgotten the context. Some are disregarding his audience.

Some of the groups he is writing about held that marriage was NOT designed for children. Some groups held the idea and forced people to remain celibate, while others allowed people to “marry” but conception was unlawful. (Kind of like China but without even one child allowed.) I emphasize forced in that sentence. Celibacy is to be embraced by those to whom it is given.

And, most importantly, that St. Augustine was an important figure, but he was not a Pope.

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.

{snip}

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.