NFP and contraception

[Image_of_God]

It was certainly divided in Augustine. As a matter of fact, while pleasure was not attacked per se, it was still perceived as negative element.

I see. But as I hope I have shown, to St. Francis one is merely permissible, the other is praiseworthy.

I have read this in the book, but don’t remember exactly which one (much ink was spilled over that topic). I will check it out, but any source dealing with their correspondence would acknowledge.

I will have to look into this myself. I’ll get back to you on it.

This seems suggested by St. Augustine, but since for him the pregnant or sterile woman has no natural reason for intercourse, such activity would simply be described as venial sinful marital debt.

I’ve agreed. But in the case of St. Francis (and St. Thomas) this is not the case at all. To them, intercourse serves other purposes.

Now, we can re-open the part where St. Thomas speaks how ejaculation must have a chance to achieve procreation. Since, by default, it is impossible to beget on infertile day, using NFP is done specifically to ejaculate with desire for sperm to be thrown out. And this indeed happens, unless pair misses to detect signs of fertility.

Your reading of him is still somewhat incorrect. I will elaborate further later.

 

[copperblade]

Now, I have a question to ask…Am I the only one who finds unitive dimension of marital sexuality developing for more then 1500 years a little odd?
Was this development of Holy Spirit? And how are we to cope with fact that most couples, if we are to use a little Decameron and wit, knew sex was unitive despite bishops claiming otherwise? As have pagans, who have no part in God’s hierarchical guidance?

I mean, did God need all those centuries to reveal something so evident? Was this step “sex is only for procreation” really something He intended? Were people who invented this system really under His guidance? Are we really to believe that Catholics, for untold centuries, had to have sex only for procreation in order to be faithful?

I know I am not able to answer those questions for you. But a legalistic way of looking at morality seemed to be part of what Jesus spoke against. If you consider that God judges men by their hearts, perhaps the answers vary depending on the man.

 

[LaSainte]

And that’s a science article? Do you have a link to the study? I have to wonder why couples seeking to avoid pregnancy were having sex at those times. The ‘fringes of fertility’ is still fertility. They either cheated knowingly or they lacked sufficient information to practice NFP effectively.

I believe the link to the study was provided earlier and someone may even have a link to the NFP charts
These couples don’t cause miscarriages, they cause conception. Causing a miscarriage is induced abortion. LittleDeb explained the difference.

Then couples who use the pill don’t cause miscarriages, they cause conception. The miscarriages are a “double effect” of using the pill as a result of it’s failure to prevent ovulation, not an intended result. Can’t have it both ways.

Couples not practicing birth control (NFP or otherwise) could still be having sex on the ‘fringes of fertility’. Regardless of how often they miscarry, they are taking the same chance as couples practicing inaccurate NFP.
Sure they could, but they would be doing so unknowingly. Also, NFP couples are more likely to be having sex on what they think are the first or last days of infertility because of the fact that they have been/are going to be abstinent
NFP doesn’t rely on miscarriages as part of its success rate, it relies on proper identification of a woman’s fertile and infertile times. For a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy, miscarriage is an indication of failure.

These people would be having very early miscarriages and not een necessarily know they were pregnant

 

[Chrono13]

I see. But as I hope I have shown, to St. Francis one is merely permissible, the other is praiseworthy.

I agree to that. St. Francis acknowledged the unitive nature of sexual act. However, the promoters of Augustinian view were still more or less considered mainstream even centuries after De Sales.

I’d also like to say that Casti Connubii should have done more emphasis on St. Francis, then attempting to construct St. Augustine as “unitive” promoter.

I will have to look into this myself. I’ll get back to you on it.

I don’t think it’s here, but it is great book:
books.google.hr/books?id=ZFbjyIn6j4oC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=the+concept+of+sexual+pleasure+in+Catholic+moral+tradition&source=bl&ots=vE0ix55etd&sig=6SSY8oOI-FSTxY6GBvN49KYgauM&hl=hr&ei=tYwLTpWxDo_ItAaw062-Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Chrono13]

I know I am not able to answer those questions for you. But a legalistic way of looking at morality seemed to be part of what Jesus spoke against. If you consider that God judges men by their hearts, perhaps the answers vary depending on the man.

I agree, but I don’t think I am that legalistic. What would happen if somebody in early Church said “Hey, sex is not just for procreation!”

 

[samiam1611]

I agree, but I don’t think I am that legalistic. What would happen if somebody in early Church said “Hey, sex is not just for procreation!”

Heretic!!! Anathema!!!

hehe sike

 

[Chrono13]

Heretic!!! Anathema!!!

hehe sike

Seems so. Now, isn’t that just great?

 

[Chrono13]

Now as for this difference between “NFP” and “rhythm method”… I really think it is just avoiding the obvious. NFP is advanced form of rhythm method. It is not some other form of fertility control. It is simply detecting the infertility period with additional parameters such as mucus or body temperature.

 

[Chrono13]

These people would be having very early miscarriages and not een necessarily know they were pregnant

That is big problem.

I must admit I am not an expert on these medical topics. However, it seems reasonable that weak sperm or old egg would make the outcome of conception suspicious. I also have certain belief (again, I am not an expert) that such eggs usually “collapse” before their arrival in uterus. If this scenario is real, then I guess that it happens more often then we would like to believe. Might be wrong, but one could go as far to say that each and every woman had at least once such event in her body during fertile age.

And in case of NFP, this scenarios would be even more often.

 

[Good_Daughter]

LaSainte:
Then couples who use the pill don’t cause miscarriages, they cause conception. The miscarriages are a “double effect” of using the pill as a result of it’s failure to prevent ovulation, not an intended result. Can’t have it both ways.

Good Daughter:
Couples who use the pill induce abortion by use of a chemical that makes the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation for a new baby IF the pill ever acts as an abortifacient. It’s only an unintended result for some couples, others couldn’t care less and some would gladly intend that result, as long as they don’t end up with a baby in the end. I find the ‘pill as a potential abortifacient’ argument weak at best and it’s not the reason Catholicism prohibits the pill as birth control. I never asked to have it both ways.

LaSainte:
Sure they could, but they would be doing so unknowingly. Also, NFP couples are more likely to be having sex on what they think are the first or last days of infertility because of the fact that they have been/are going to be abstinent.

Good Daughter:
Couples using no birth control who read your study and come to your conclusion would know as well as you do that they may be having sex on days that increase their chance of miscarriage. Should they observe fertility signs to avoid sex on those days, thus reducing their chance of miscarriage? If so, NFP users actually have an advantage in this regard. Why exactly does abstinence make NFP couples more likely to be having sex on first or last days of infertility?

These people would be having very early miscarriages and not een necessarily know they were pregnant

Miscarriage (early, late, known or unknown) means conception took place. When you’re using birth control that indicates either method or user failure.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I agree, but I don’t think I am that legalistic. What would happen if somebody in early Church said “Hey, sex is not just for procreation!”

You mean like when they said sex is also for satisfying the ‘marital debt’?

 

[Chrono13]

You mean like when they said sex is also for satisfying the ‘marital debt’?

Marital debt was still considered against nature. That is why it was venial sin.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Marital debt was still considered against nature. That is why it was venial sin.

According to Church Fathers, was sex for the marital debt prohibited or permitted?

 

[Chrono13]

According to Church Fathers, was sex for the marital debt prohibited or permitted?

Is this question troubling your faith?

 

[Warrior1979]

I find the ‘pill as a potential abortifacient’ argument weak at best and it’s not the reason Catholicism prohibits the pill as birth control.

If it is assumed to be abortifacient, then it is most definitely one of the reasons it is prohibited. Taking the position that it is not means that abortifacients can be permitted under certain circumstances.

Why exactly does abstinence make NFP couples more likely to be having sex on first or last days of infertility?

That’s a leading question, putting the situation in the wrong perspective.

Look at it this way. Assume the following. Let’s say two people person run across the street four times a month without looking. Two weeks of the month there is no traffic.

Person #1 runs across the street once a week.

Person #2 runs across the street twice a week, but only during the two weeks that there is traffic.

Statistically, who will get hit more by traffic?

The exact same reasoning can be applied to the situation at hand.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Is this question troubling your faith?

Only in your willingness to answer it.

According to Church Fathers, was sex for the marital debt prohibited or permitted?

 

[Chrono13]

Only in your willingness to answer it.

According to Church Fathers, was sex for the marital debt prohibited or permitted?

I am willing. As I have been so far.They claimed marital debt is, in itself, bad- but permitted in spite of being bad.

It was prohibited to say it is not bad.

 

[Abu]

The incomprehension of Chrono 13 knows no bounds (#910):

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
**St Augustine “in his debate with Julian, he makes it clear that it is not pleasure which he criticizes: “because pleasure can also be honourable”; [32] **He also proposes the goodness of sexual differences, and of the intimacy and pleasure of marital intercourse: all of these given by God. The disorder that he draws attention to resides in our sense appetite (which, once again, is good in itself), [35]”

Again, speaking of marriage and not of marital intercourse.

Obviously an inane conjecture, the hangup of all of Chrono 13’s misconceptions.

’He would wish to have his sexual nature readily obedient to the call of his will, to the control of reason; yet finds that his instinct does not easily obey. He has to master it. This difficulty which he experiences, this “struggle between will and libido,”[46] this threatening presence, also within marriage, of sexual selfishness, constitutes the evil of concupiscence which, according to Augustine, married people must learn to use well.

'Augustine points out how concupiscence is moderated by “parental affection”: and says that “a certain gravity or depth of meaning is given to the intense pleasure of intercourse when husband and wife reflect that their union tends to make them father and mother.” [69] Once again we see that he has nothing to say against pleasure, but insists on the need to reflect on the meaning lying behind an act as pleasurable as intercourse. [70]

‘…these personalist values to be naturally found in the marriage act are destroyed if one deliberately denaturalises the act by contraception. If spouses allow pleasure to matter too much to them, they are in danger of taking rather than of giving, and of so losing the sense of mutual donation. Conjugal chastity will help them keep the truly personalist values paramount in their minds: i.e., the reaffirmation, by means of intercourse, of their spousal relationship, shown in the sharing of open-to-life procreativity. These higher motives express and preserve their good will. And then, as Augustine says, the good will of the spouses leads and ennobles the ensuing pleasure (which is had and enjoyed), but their good will is not led and dominated by that pleasure. [73]’

Burke…never acknowledges what is rational use to Augustine

Wow! Only such blind adherence to personal prejudice by Chrono13 is unable myopically to see the plain intent of St Augustine. Such fantasizing against Vatican II and the Popes who have lauded St Augustine for his insights into sexuality in marriage implies that they are dupes, and dishonest. Chrono13 arrogantly claims the intelligence to trump Ecumenical Councils and Popes.

“Augustine is conscious not only of the procreative ordering of marriage, but also of its unitive value….Augustine’s doctrine of the triple bona of marriage—proles, fides, sacramentum [14] — should be read not merely in an institutional context (as is normally done), but also precisely in personalist terms. The penetrating analysis of the three-fold matrimonial bona has never lost relevance over 1500 years. [15]”

 

[sacredcello]

Ejaculation, as part of natural intercourse, should be preformed so that generation is possible. Since it is impossible to beget during infertile period, having sex purposely on such day because semen will be destroyed is sinful on the account of intent. The only way how child can be conceived is in case couple fails to detect fertility. Meaning, if NFP fails.

You can have sex on infertile day, or in case of sterility, but it is moral only if you do so without intent of using such state.

Dear Chrono13,

I would like to ask you a personal question, and please feel free to ignore it if it is too personal. You said last week that you “don’t like the idea of going out with this, but I am seeking Catholic truth on these matters.” Many of us have come to CAF for one reason or another to seek answers for our own lives. That is honest, and I appreciate your honesty.

I am wondering about your interest in St. Augustine. You keep coming back to him and his focus on the procreative intent. So, I would like to ask you, what does this mean for you personally? I don’t know if you are male/female or single/married, and that is not my question or any of my business. Here is my question: what is the exact question that you are weighing in your mind? Is the question something like, “Should I only be having sex (assuming I am married) for the purpose/intent of making a baby each and every time, or is it morally permissible to rely on NFP to space my children?”

Again, you don’t have to say, because I know this is personal stuff. But, you keep hammering this point about the procreative purpose and seem to neglect that St. Augustine also spoke of it as an expression of fidelity. In any case, St. Augustine does not speak for the Church (he was not a pope), and since there have been so many magisterial documents which are based on the development of the natural law which has taken place over the centuries. (I’m going to get my husband to find that quote from St. Thomas Aquinas for me, but he is too busy right now). I just wonder if you are really planning to live your life according to the austerity of St. Augustine, and to neglect the development which has taken place, including all of the writings of the saints that took place afterward?

 

[Abu]

Why the Church refers to the Fathers and Doctors, including St Augustine especially, is clear.
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

'Now, while Augustine’s defence of marriage is centred on its procreative finality, it is inexact to suggest that he had (to use the modern expression) no “personalist” understanding of the conjugal relationship. In his treatise on Continence, he strongly defends the goodness of sexual difference and of the union of husband and wife. [6] Of particular importance is his work De bono coniugali, written to refute the accusation of Manicheism made by Jovinianus against the Catholics.

'In the opening chapter, Augustine clearly sets forth the broad human foundation on which he grounds the goodness of marriage: man’s sociable nature and the natural value that man finds in friendship. It is only after laying down that human sociability finds its first natural expression precisely in marital society, that he goes on to indicate what it is that distinguishes the married relationship: i.e., the fact that it involves a man and a woman not in any mere ordinary friendship, but in a procreative society. [7]

'Elsewhere in the same work, within the dominant concept that marriage is meant for procreation, we find further clear notes of what may be termed conjugal personalism. Augustine argues explicitly that there are other ends to marriage, besides procreation, which also make it good. Observing that “it is proper to inquire for what reason marriage be good,” he goes on, “And this seems to me not merely to be on account of the begetting of children, but also on account of the natural association between the two sexes,” [8] whose mutual faith he describes as “the first fellowship of humankind in this mortal state.” [9]

’He insists on the value of love between husband and wife, and how the ordo caritatis unites those whom age or misfortune may have deprived of children: "Now in good although aged marriage, even if the vigour of youth between man and woman has faded, the order of charity between husband and wife remains in its fullness." [10]

'He presents fidelity as an exchange of mutual respect and service, [11] and insists too that “the bodies of the married too are holy, when they keep faith to one another and to God.” [12] And in his later work on widowhood, he writes: "The good of marriage is always a good indeed. In the people of God it was at one time an act of obedience to the law; now it is a remedy for weakness, and for some solace of human nature.”[13]

The “bona” of matrimony
’As can be seen from these passages, Augustine is conscious not only of the procreative ordering of marriage, but also of its unitive value….Augustine’s doctrine of the triple bona of marriage—proles, fides, sacramentum [14] — should be read not merely in an institutional context (as is normally done), but also precisely in personalist terms. The penetrating analysis of the three-fold matrimonial bona has never lost relevance over 1500 years.’ [15]