NFP and contraception

[Chrono13]

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.

Yes, I have read them. And they talk about “constant teaching” and similar recalls of old doctrines.This is what I meant by my posts.

As for prophetic nature of their writings… I can agree only to certain level.

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.

Thank you. I generally know much about Theology of the Body, but it is always nice to learn something new.

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.

The main problem with his remarks (as well as that of minority report, and to a large degree of Humanae Vitae) is that he took position before defining it. As if Catholic Church never taught sexuality is only for procreation. This later came to aid critics of the teaching. It was dream come true for them.

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.

But his theological argumentation brought shock when Humanae Vitae allowed NFP, contrary to the writing of St. Augustine of Hippo and other Church Fathers who disallowed sex without intent of procreation.

By this, I do not show disrespect for this great Pope. I simply state the obvious: sex without procreative intent (as in case of NFP) was always seen as immoral prior to 20 century (if we talk about Church documents) . After Humanae Vitae, and later Theology of the body, it is much more difficult for conservatives to defend their ground, since they have to bypass objective view of Roman Catholic moral tradition up to 19th century.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

This is simply not true. After Second Vatican Council, it was felt that laymen should have their share of communicating Church life. In case of NFP, they shared their view: it was damaging their relationship. If it was the only moral solution to modern family, it was a bad solution.

The commission did not ask secularists, but active Church members who were using NFP. They simply asked them how they felt about it. And got their answer.

I am not treating papal encyclicals as trash. I am simply loyal to the tradition as it is, not as it suits the theological need.

 

[Chrono13]

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?

The question at one point is not who is Pope, but what is Church tradition. And you will agree, we can’t choose between these two sources.

If these popes claimed Church has never taught radical stoicism, then huge sacrifices of Catholic layman to uphold the clerical teachings during history were in vain. This is unacceptable.

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

LittleDeb is right, however she doesn’t answer anything. Prove that I have misinterpreted Augustine because of his audience, and you will have your point.

 

[sacredcello]

This is simply not true. After Second Vatican Council, it was felt that laymen should have their share of communicating Church life. In case of NFP, they shared their view: it was damaging their relationship. If it was the only moral solution to modern family, it was a bad solution.

Yes, I understand that laypeople should be invited to the table. No problem there. The red flag for me is this idea that “NFP is damaging” their relationship. This is an extremely secular viewpoint. It doesn’t matter that they attend Mass every week and do various good deeds, etc. If their hearts are so inclined to reject the values of the Gospel in their marriage, as evidenced by their opinion that the virtue of chastity (or lack thereof) was harming their marriage, then their consciences have not been properly formed.

“It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless” (Jn 6:63).

The commission did not ask secularists, but active Church members who were using NFP. They simply asked them how they felt about it. And got their answer.

Active Church membership is not a sign of loyalty to Christ or to His Bride, the Church. I’ve only been a Catholic for 15 years, and I know that very well. There are many wolves within the Church who wish to tear down the fabric of faith and morals and do so by staying within her ranks and positioning themselves close to priests whom they may influence with their dissent.

And, how was it that these people were claiming that NFP was damaging to their relationship? What did they have to compare it to? Were they using ABC before the commission, but, for the purpose of the commission, decided to practice NFP in order to give their opinion? If so, isn’t it obvious that there would be “damage”, as in, the requirement of developing virtue that they had no experience with in the past? Or, if they were previously using no method at all and were only letting the babies come whenever God blessed them, and then they suddenly starting practicing NFP in order to give their opinion to the commission, wouldn’t if follow that there was “damage” in that they had previously enjoyed a more open embrace, and now were limiting their relations? What is the context for the claim, and by that, I mean, what are they comparing it to in order that they are able to claim “objectivity”?

 

[Image_of_God]

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.

Whenever you quote something, you should always provide a link or at least name a source.

That said, I am aware of that quote and it’s been impossible for me to get the full context of it because every translation of The Instructor leaves the chapter where that quote is from almost entirely in Latin. But what remains to be said is that most Fathers, as far as I know, say absolutely nothing about the topic. I think that is reasonable grounds to consider it was not an important held belief at the time.

But Church acknowledged that Limbo existed as theological possibility, while we don’t hear officials talking about how they imagined sexuality just 200-300 years ago. This is because Limbo theory is abandoned, and contraception ban is maintained.

In the Middle Ages St. Thomas Aquinas among other theologians taught that it was okay for couples that were infertile to have intercourse. Is that not vainly waisting the seed, since as you say the Fathers said sex is only for procreation? Granted, St. Thomas had a far better understanding of the Fathers than you or I and he seems to arrive at a different opinion than the one you claim the Fathers held. I think it is probably correct to say that the position was NOT considered de fide.

He speaks of sex without procreation intent as “faulty” and “without control”. He will later say such intercourse goes outside of couple’s marital rights.

While speaking of pair who doesn’t sin with such “faulty” act, he probably talks about mortal sin- following Augustine.

True, he says its faulty and without restraint, but my point was that you are making a distinction that he does not. I am sure that if St. Gregory actually intended that, he probably would have said so. Consequently, the phrase “avoid lapse into sin” should be simply read for what it says. The couple avoid lapse into sin

 

[copperblade]

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.

Sorry, I was insinuating the reasoning behind the seed being sacred was that they thought it was essentially a person who hasn’t been conceived yet… which is why the connection is made that it’s just as bad as murder.

 

[copperblade]

I understood you very well. These couples have had their consciences formed by secularism, rather than by the values of the Gospel.

How do you know? If they asked people who used NFP, that indicates to me they weren’t the most “secularized” people. If you go down this path, you will be forced to admit that the Vatican II was wrong in bringing the lay to the table, because they’re just too secular.

 

[Image_of_God]

Maybe we should remind that stoics, such as Augustine, also considered sexuality good and holy. However, it can only be good while serving the procreation. Anything above it is too much.

That this is so, we see also in De Sales writ, where he, talking about sexuality, connects with Augustine:
S. Augustine says that it is the great fault of men to want to enjoy things which they are only meant to use, and to use those which they are only meant to enjoy. We ought to enjoy spiritual things, and only use those which are material; but when we turn the use of these latter into enjoyment, the reasonable soul becomes degraded to a mere brutish level.*

What is this “only use” of sexuality that is opposite of enjoyment? The answer is clear. Procreation. And having sex without desire of it’s “only use” is doing it for enjoyment.

The full paragraph goes as this:

Let everyone use this world according to his calling, but in such manner that he does not engage his affection in it and remains as free and ready to serve God as if he did not use it. “It is the great evil of man,” says St. Augustine," “to desire to enjoy the things which he should only use, and to desire to use those which he should only enjoy.” We should enjoy spiritual things but only use corporal. When their use is turned into enjoyment, our rational soul is also changed into a brutish and beastly soul.

His point in quoting Augustine is that we should avoid using worldly things (intercourse included) in such a way that will cause excessive attachment and that we are unable to turn to serve God quickly. The quote does not address how intercourse ought to be used. The use could equally be said to be bonding.

That said, this does not address or even contradict the quote that was being previously discussed where St. Francis de Sales *explicitly * states that intercourse, even when procreation is not expected does not cease to be good provided that it is done in a way where procreation would result if it were not for the infertile circumstances. And the reason, I believe (I may be wrong), that you avoid discussing it is because it clearly betrays a perspective that supports (or would support) NFP contrary to your premise.

 

[Abu]

The malformation is obvious and the inability to reason is repeated ad nauseam.

LaSainte, #598
Basically, NFP IS contraception

The basic error revealed again, which is why some can’t reason.

**Clear cut:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

copperblade, #623
The question is about intent and the purpose of sex

Since the morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention as the Church has clearly expressed, God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.

As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is in accord with natural law.

 

[Image_of_God]

This would open new sub-topics, which were not drawn so far. For example, when you quote Trent…
“He then adds: Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children. It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime ** nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.”
…and then conclude this council never talks about NFP. because…

1. They were not aware of these methods
2. They were aware of infertile periods, but did not think the use of them were wrong.

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

The council clearly says that using medicine to prevent conception is wrong. It says nothing of other things. It matters little what they would have said. It only matters what they actually said. That is how the grace of infallibility works.

 

[copperblade]

As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is in accord with natural law.

What are the grave reasons? My perception of NFP is that it’s being used to space out kids. I doubt it’s always a grave reason.

 

[sacredcello]

But his theological argumentation brought shock when Humanae Vitae allowed NFP,

The shock was not that NFP was allowed, it was that everyone expected the Church to lift the ban on contraception. It was widely talked about for nearly a decade with many theologians speculating that the Church would change and priests were advising couples to “use their conscience” which was a euphemism for “go ahead and use ABC.” Then, when Humanae Vitae was published, it received scorn from Catholics and non-Catholics around the globe. Pope Paul VI was deeply hurt by this reaction and he didn’t publish again for quite some time. My heart breaks at how alone he must have felt and rejected. This man is very dear to me. His courage and conviction to speak the truth is heroic.

 

[sacredcello]

How do you know? If they asked people who used NFP, that indicates to me they weren’t the most “secularized” people. If you go down this path, you will be forced to admit that the Vatican II was wrong in bringing the lay to the table, because they’re just too secular.

My question to Chrono13 still stands, as he seems to know more about how the couples were chosen for the commission. I don’t know if the couples were already using NFP before the commission undertook its work, or if they agreed to use it for the length of the study. That would be interesting to know. If couples were already using it, and this was the basis for their being chosen, I still say that their views expressed are secular. NFP “damaged” their relationship? In comparison to what other method of family planning? ABC? Freely having children without any spacing? It makes a difference.

The practice and development of virtues such as chastity and purity of heart and mind can never be damaging. That is, unless a couple is so orientated to sex for pleasure/bonding/unity and totally cut off from the procreative meaning, as is the case with ABC. This is the only context that I can see for NFP to be damaging – when it is compared to an immoral method, then it can be said to be difficult or even damaging, but the damaging was done prior to the practice of NFP. Even if that damage was only done mentally, by the intellectual acceptance of ABC.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13, #635
he [Pope Paul VI] took position before defining it. As if Catholic Church never taught sexuality is only for procreation.
But his theological argumentation brought shock when Humanae Vitae allowed NFP, contrary to the writing of St. Augustine of Hippo and other Church Fathers who disallowed sex without intent of procreation.

False. Even the Council of Trent taught: “If anyone says, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.” (Canon 8)
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT24.HTM

Also shows continual ignorance of Casti Connubii, 1930, and inattention to the given facts.

Copperblade, #645
What are the grave reasons?

The Holy See teaches that “serious motives,” and “proportionately serious reasons,” are needed in order to use NFP to avoid, or to decrease the likelihood of, conception.

Pope Pius XI in *Casti Connubii *gives the Church’s teaching on the ends of marriage, when he condemned the direct interference with the life process, while affirming the marital right during infertile times: “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.” (II, 59).

Pope Paul VI:
“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

“But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.” (Humanae Vitae, 16).

 

[Abu]

The continued lack of knowledge is displayed repeatedly.

copperblade, #612
If NFP is the safe, easy, and effective method, you have to at least give one good reason why people don’t use it.

There is no “IF it is safe and effective”, it is in accord with the natural moral law, and it is used with enormous efficiency by very ordinary people, who appreciate sound morality instead of contraception. Societies are satiated with sexual pleasure, ignorance of the natural moral law, and an inability to reason from basics – very telling reasons why, as evidenced here, sound morality is decried.

Wilson’s Family of the Americas Foundation now teaches NFP in more than 100 countries, including China.

EWTN News Story 10-July-2003 – Catholic World News Brief
“Unlike the rhythm method, the Billings method does not depend on a stable menstrual cycle. Numerous independent trials have confirmed the 99 percent success rate of the Billings Method, including a recent study following thousands of women for more than a year. If any further proof is needed, the method has been regularly used up to date by over 2,686,400 fertile couples in China for avoiding pregnancy with an overall success rate of approximately 99 percent.”

Mrs Mercedes Arzú Wilson is founder and President of Family of the Americas Foundation since 1977.
She has received three Honorary Doctor Degrees and numerous awards for her work in the pro-life/family movement, most recently from Franciscan University at Steubenville. (Doctor of Humane Letters 2006)
In 1994, she was appointed as a founding Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life by Blessed John Paul II, and continues to defend life from the moment of conception until its natural end.
omsoul.com/catalog/wilson-mercedes-arzu-m0102.html

Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on July-19-2003
“It might of use to note that Mother Theresa and her Missionaries of Charity have had remarkable success in teaching uneducated and illiterate families the methods of Natural Family Planning in Calcutta. While there is much work to be done in this area, it would not be fair to assume that the Church is doing NOTHING in terms of trying to combat the evils of contraception and abortion in Third World Nations. The war against Life is rampant enough in our developed countries! Perhaps when more ‘privileged’ Catholics stop contracepting in their marriages, it will be easier to find funding and teachers for the purpose of educating poor families in Third World Nations about NFP.”

 

[LittleDeb]

Well, we are still off and running! I keep seeing the argument brought up that, “NFP wasn’t explicitly allowed until around 1858, so Church teaching has changed.” Please know that with that argument you are seeking to undermine the dogma of the Immaculate Conception too. It wasn’t “declared” until 1854. Yet again, the Church clarifies as questions arise. That it didn’t need clarifying until the 1850s speaks quite well of the consistent teaching on periodic continence for avoiding and spacing conception.

The other argument has been a misuse of the so-called “commission of contraception and NFP.” It isn’t being represented correctly by those using it to bolster an idea contrary to Catholic teaching. The commission was to determine** if** the* newly invented hormonal contraception* (The Pill) was ***equal ***to NFP. That was the one and only purpose. The question that was being researched was, “does the Pill create a naturally infertile environment so it could be accepted on the same grounds as periodic continence?” The answer was no. The Pill was still an attempt to thwart the natural design, so even if it “felt like NBR only easier,” as many people described, it was not a moral method for spacing birth.

I am actually pretty shocked at how badly the Commission is being misrepresented here. It does not bolster your argument to misuse your source when there are those of us who can resource people who were alive and having babies when these points in history were taking place. My mother had a 4 day old baby when Humanae Vitae came out in 1968. Yes, everyone thought that the ban on contraception would be lifted, including my mother. My parents had been using NFP already, just like their relatives had during the 40s and in each generation before. They were not looking for an approval of NFP. They were looking for an approval of the Pill.

My parents stayed faithful to the Church while many of their friends didn’t. My parents are celebrating 47 years of a very wonderful marriage. Most of their friends who turned from Church teaching are now divorced… including my own godparents. While it was shocking to many people that the Pill was not embraced, it was evident within 20 years how prophetic Pope Paul VI had been. My own mother was pretty upset at the time. Now she looks back on him as a wise shepherd who kept her from jumping off of a cliff.

When you use a source, please use it from the Vatican itself. “I found it in an article that says,” does not hold water. If I feel like going through a lot of dusty books, my parents own original versions of the documents. (Including all of the documents from Vatican II. I wonder if those are worth any money. Hahahahaha.) My parents marital history is smack dab in the middle of these major upheavals in The Church. Their wedding Mass was celebrated the last weekend before the new Mass was introduced. The changes began at advent of 1964. My parents were married Thanksgiving weekend of that same year.

 

[LaSainte]

Abu, I love how you cite an inability to reason on my part when I cite the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of contraception (which includes NFP) and then to support his claim, you cite EWTN. Is that a joke? Keep up the good, unbiased work there, tiger.

 

[LaSainte]

Sacredcello, how can you honestly believe that the only reason that one might find NFP to be harmful to their relationship would be if they are somehow depraved and obsessed with sex-“secularized” as you put it?

Did it even cross your mind that there are people like my grandmother who have more faith in their little fingers than most people will ever know, who have attended daily mass for over 50 years, who pray the rosary everyday, and yet still found NFP to be a burden on their lives and marriages? My grandmother had one ovary that ovulated on one day and then another that ovulated 2 weeks later. She was literally either fertile or menstruating ALL THE TIME, and was often fertile WHILE menstruating. There was no safe window for her. She had 8 kids, whom she cared for all day, went to sleep the minute her husband got home from work (after cooking dinner for 10 of course), woke up 4 hours later, worked at a factory for 8 hours, attended morning mass on her way home and made it home in time to start cooking breakfast and packing lunches for 10 people. This she did for years, and they were still flat broke (we’re talking, the kids got a pair of new shoes and a pair of jeans that she ha made them for Christmas and that was it broke). Do you think she was just “secularized”? Is that why she didn’t see NFP as such an amazing blessing?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

For the real definition of CONTRACEPTION, let’s look at he Oxford English Dictionary:

the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.

Clearly, NFP is included among “other techniques” that prevent conception. Only supporters of NFP try to discern a semantic difference where a true difference is negligible if not non-existent.

Abu, I love how you cite an inability to reason on my part when I cite the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of contraception (which includes NFP) and then to support his claim, you cite EWTN. Is that a joke? Keep up the good, unbiased work there, tiger.

NO! NFP is not listed.(not clearly at all!)

NFP works by avoiding sex to avoid pregnancy.

One can conceive only when fertile.

The fact that sex is allowed when one is infertile does not prevent pregnancy. Irrespective of intent, if infertile one cannot conceive.

Intent does not cause the infertility. It occurs naturally periodically.

NFP is not contraception and the Oxforde dictionary did not clearly prove that it is.

 

[LaSainte]

NO! NFP is not listed.(not clearly at all!)

NFP works by avoiding sex to avoid pregnancy.

One can conceive only when fertile.

The fact that sex is allowed when one is infertile does not prevent pregnancy. Irrespective of intent, if infertile one cannot conceive.

Intent does not cause the infertility. It occurs naturally periodically.

NFP is not contraception and the Oxforde dictionary did not clearly prove that it is.

Oh dear. This is SO NOT DIFFICULT to understand. NFP is indeed a “deliberate use of a technique to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse”, PERIOD! And will you people please STOP setting up this strawman argument that sex during infertile phases is permitted? NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT! What we are arguing is that sex, when timed specifically in order to avoid pregnancy using highly sophisticated and accurate scientific techniques, WOULD HAVE BEEN illicit in the early Church! This IS a contraceptive practice. One wishes to have sex, and employs scientific knowledge, measurements and techniques in order to AVOID CONCEPTION! This is the very definition of CONTRA(against)CEPTION(conception).

Seriously, STOP. Please. It is simple English derived from Latin. STOP TWISTING IT!