NFP and contraception

[Good_Daughter]

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.

Then we can accurately say Church Fathers permitted sex for procreation and to satisfy the marital debt. That’s two reasons.

Regarding some of your recent thoughts on Catholic teaching, scripture provides a foundation for the unitive aspect of sex, beginning with Genesis 2:24, “That is why man leaves his father and mother and is attached to his wife, and with her becomes one flesh.”

If you meant to express genuine concern for my faith in your recent post, thank you for your kindness.

 

[samiam1611]

That may be true, but that fact alone would be enough to make it illicit. If you can think of licit examples of abortifacients, I’d like to know what they are, and why they are licit.

Ormeloxifene is used as a contraceptive but the current understanding of its method of action makes it a technically a contragestive, not contraceptive. Contragestives do not prevent conception but do prevent implantation, which some consider to be equivalent to abortion.
Ormeloxifene is also approved for use as a treatment for dysfunctional uterine bleeding, so if a woman has dysfunctional uterine bleeding, it is not against the rules to use, even though she may be having little itty bitty miscarriages every now and then.

So no, since there are substances that prevent implantation that can be used licitly, the fact that they prevent implantation is not one of the reasons they are forbidden (for people who do not have a medical reason to use them.)

Natural methods are the only ones allowed if one does not have a medical condition whose treatment incidentally renders one infertile; the effect any of these methods have on eggs, sperm, zygotes, or embryos is apparently irrelevent to the Church when determining if the method is licit.

 

[Abu]

LaSainte, #940
Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae and then told theologians to continue to study the matter? Sounds to me like he knew that the total ban on ABC is not an infallible doctrine.

Do you not know of the development of doctrine? Doctrine can develop without contradiction so that there is a better understanding and explanation of the immutable truths.

Both *Casti Connubii *(1930) and Humanae Vitae (1968) contain the infallible doctrine against contraception as established clearly in this thread, posts #210, 218, 514.

 

[Image_of_God]

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 agree partially, but however mainstream they were, they were not able to influence the Council of Trent. The Council, unlike some of the Fathers, did not think marriage was solely for procreation. In fact, the Council does places the procreative purpose of marriage (not the act) second to that of companionship:

We have now to explain why man and woman should be joined in marriage. First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age. [The unitive aspect]

A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture. Hence the Angel, when informing Tobias of the means of repelling the violent assaults of the evil demon, says: I will show thee who they are over whom the devil can prevail; for they who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut out God from themselves and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. 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. [The procreative aspect]

A third reason has been added, as a consequence of the fall of our first parents. On account of the loss of original innocence the passions began to rise in rebellion against right reason; and man, conscious of his own frailty and unwilling to fight the battles of the flesh, is supplied by marriage with an antidote by which to avoid sins of lust. For fear of fornication, says the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; and a little after, having recommended to married persons a temporary abstinence from the marriage debt, to give themselves to prayer, he adds: Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. [The “remedy of concupiscence” aspect which is also mentioned in concupiscence]

It is most likely that the Council influenced St. Francis’ ideas.

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Matrimony.shtml

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

You didn’t need to go through the trouble. I found the quote myself. It’s from Bede’s work on the History of the Church in England.

It says:

“Lawful commerce, therefore, must be for the sake of children, not of pleasure; and must be to procure offspring, not to satisfy vices. But if any man is led not by the desire of pleasure, but only for the sake of getting children, such a man is certainly to be left to his own judgement, either as to entering the church, or as to receiving the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which he, who being placed in the fire cannot burn, is not to be forbidden by us to receive. But when, not the love of getting children, but of pleasure prevails, the pair have cause to lament their deed.”

You were definitely right. St. Gregory does think that sexual relations should be for procreation only. He does think that there is some shame to the marital act (any pleasure). It can certainly be said that St. Gregory’s history in the monastery might have impacted his views on sex in marriage. But when reading, one should also pay attention the fact that he says this:

“For though divers nations have divers opinions concerning this affair, and seem to observe different rules, it was always the custom. of the Romans, from ancient times, for such an one to seek to be cleansed by washing, and for some time reverently to forbear entering the church.”

It appears if I am reading the work correctly, that St. Gregory was aware that there were different opinions on the matter to do you agree?

Look under the eight question here.

 

[Abu]

Developments
Telemedicine Fertility Monitor As Successful As IVF
July 1, 2011
New Zealand born Mr. Husheer, who started his company, Cambridge Temperature Concepts, straight after being awarded a PhD from the chemistry department at Cambridge University says the fertility monitor, called DuoFertility, is as effective as conventional IVF.

“We published a peer-reviewed paper that showed that six months use of the monitor has the same success rate as a round of IVF. ”

They are confident that unpublished research which uses additional data will show that a year of use is better than IVF.

So confident is Mr. Husheer, that the company offers a money-back guarantee. If a woman is not pregnant after 12 month’s use, and has complied with the instructions, then the company will refund the £495. The Wall Street Journal]

DuoFertility comprises a small sensor, slightly larger in diameter than a €1 coin, which a woman wears under her arm, affixed with medical tape. The sensor, which can take up to 20,000 readings a day, has to be worn all night and preferably during the day as well. It is designed to fit into the natural pocket under the arm.

“This change in temperature is only about 0.3ºC measured over the whole month,” said Mr. Husheer. “But a woman’s temperature can change by as much as 2.5ºC a day.” The technology to do that, which is patented, came directly from Mr. Husheer’s PhD in instrumentation, finding signals hidden among very noisy data.

Full article at: tinyurl.com/3bcy8qk

 

[Image_of_God]

Then we can accurately say Church Fathers permitted sex for procreation and to satisfy the marital debt. That’s two reasons.

Regarding some of your recent thoughts on Catholic teaching, scripture provides a foundation for the unitive aspect of sex, beginning with Genesis 2:24, “That is why man leaves his father and mother and is attached to his wife, and with her becomes one flesh.”

If you meant to express genuine concern for my faith in your recent post, thank you for your kindness.

You are right in a sense. In so far as the two Fathers in question go (St. Augustine and St. Gregory the Great) there can be no doubt that they believed that marriage was for 1.) procreation and 2.) remedying of concupiscence. But the latter purpose was only by means of indulgence and so they say it was a venial sin to do the marital act for that one. But because so little of this teaching is said by the fathers, I am very hesitant to say that the aforementioned opinion is one that all the Fathers held. It is not something like the doctrine of the Trinity where it can be ascertained without doubt that (virtually) all of the Fathers held it and so it is highly likely that others held other opinions. From my reading of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, with the exclusion of barren couples, his opinions are generally the same as St. Augustine and St. Gregory the Great. However, he seems to diverge from them in a certain point by saying that the pleasure from marital act is not a thing to be shunned but is good in itself. In his work, St. Thomas Aquinas seems to imply that there was no consensus about the issue even in his time. In the end however, even with the importance of the St. Thomas at the Council of Trent (the first mention of the issue by the Magisterium it seems), they ultimately decided not to go with St. Thomas’ distinction. Instead, they say the purpose of marriage is threefold: 1.) Unitive 2.) Procreative 3.) Remedy of Concupiscence. The quote I posted earlier shows this view. It seems that during this time (St. Francis de Sales was around this time) the understanding that the marriage (and marital act) was not only for procreation, but for unitive purposes also. During this time there seems to be more of a distinction between sex for unitive purposes and for pleasure, the former being praised and the latter being merely permitted (like before). I will get back to St. Thomas later.

I am hoping that this topic is not causing trouble to your faith. I will certainly pray for you if it is. Maintaining the faith of members here in the Magisterium and the Church was my concern which is why I began addressing the questions to begin with. I hope you are alright.

 

[Chrono13]

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] **

I never claimed Augustine was against pleasure in intercourse (he wasn’t very found of it, tough). You should reply my posts as they are, not answering points I never made.

'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.”

 

[Chrono13]

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?

Thanks for this open and warm moment in discussion.

I, as many others, am greatly confused how topics of sexual background have been addressed by Church. Not only in recent, but also in ancient ages. The Catholic Church shows pattern which is difficult to understand once the cards are really on the table. And this strange position is slowly taking our credibility.

St. Augustine of Hippo, together with many Church Fathers, showed extreme radicalism regarding sexuality. Their writings have been considered as unquestionable and non-negotiable for almost 2000 years, creating considerable challenges for layman who were required to obey them in order to be considered faithful. Today, official sources are quite unfair to these saints and (what is even more problematic) to countless layman sacrifices which were done in past to satisfy their teachings. Such situation is difficult to accept from objective intellectual standpoint.

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?”

My question is “What are we to believe today?” The Church in the past forbid contraception because they thought sex is only for procreation. Today they speak of “universality of time” and “constant teaching”. Such theory is extremely unstable, and unconvincing. It has nothing to do with authority or dissent- for there is no authority capable of, for example, claiming NFP was unknown or allowed in the past. It was known, and it was forbidden.

Such claims also lower the credibility of the Catholic religion in secular society. If we are to interpret our history as if some things never happened, our critics will do contrary, and pull some pretty difficult points.

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.

This fidelity was linked to procreation as intent, not as possibility. The couple could feel emotion and pleasure during intercourse as long as they intended child.

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?

One might now ask “Who develops natural law?” Are people in Vatican researching philosophical (much more then scientific) ideas of nature? Now, why it took these people centuries to develop the idea that sex has unitive dimension, while it was so obvious? I mean, an uneducated peasant in Middle ages was quite skeptical about their claims sex is only to be practiced for begetting children. This was certainly not “development of doctrine”.

And things get even more complicated when you wonder how far can conservatives in the Church defend that this was not so in the past, and that Church never taught sex is only for procreation.

As for me, I don’t think sex is only for procreation. It should be understood as a field where many Christian virtues can be expressed. But one of them is also adherence to the historical truth. The conservatives have no right in living according to their own rules and asking of Church history to be something that it is not. They need to accept this.

And I am a single male.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 (#170)
Marriage is not sex. And can not be seen, especially in theological writings, as the same term.

St Augustine speaks of sex in marriage, not fornication or adultery; so does the Council of Trent – both of the unitive love within marriage. A conjugal act that is sterile because of natural rhythms, age, or disease is incompatible with one that has been deliberately “sterilized” by the deliberate choice of the spouses.

The attempts by Chrono13 to separate sex from marriage misrepresenting St Augustine and others has been the petard on which he has been hoist from the start.

#961
One might now ask “Who develops natural law?” Are people in Vatican researching philosophical (much more then scientific) ideas of nature? Now, why it took these people centuries to develop the idea that sex has unitive dimension, while it was so obvious? I mean, an uneducated peasant in Middle ages was quite skeptical about their claims sex is only to be practiced for begetting children. This was certainly not “development of doctrine”.

The unitive aspect of sex was known from the beginning:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
When Julian affirms (as if Augustine had denied) that marital intercourse, **with its intimacy, with its pleasure, with its semination, are from God **and therefore in their own way to be praised, Augustine rapidly ticks off these “non-arguments”—Dixit “cum calore”; dixit “cum voluptate”; dixit “cum semine”—which are irrelevant to their debate, since Augustine is in full agreement that these are good things given by God. But, he goes on, Julian, who says of all of this (making points which I have never called into question),

Already in De bono coniugali, in a passage where he compares nourishment and generation, he had insisted that sexual pleasure, sought temperately and rationally, is not and cannot be termed concupiscence. [30]

Chrono#13 has failed to understand the truth presented to him – the ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

No interpretations can change the principles of the natural law which we have seen even pagan Cicero acknowledge. Dr George affirms: “….whether advanced by pagans, Christians, or Jews, natural law philosophy seeks to vindicate principles accessible to, and thus binding upon, every reasonable person.

“It is precisely because the natural law is held to be accessible to reason and thus binding on all rational persons irrespective of religious faith or its absence that St Paul could say in his Letter to the Romans that
'…it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law that will be justified. When **the Gentiles **who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness….’ ” (Rom 2:13-15).
The Clash of Orthodoxies, Dr Robert P George, ISI Books, 2001, p 161]

Don’t you know that St Paul characterizes lesbian and homosexual activity also as a heinous sin in Rom 1:26-32, “shameful”, from a “debased mind”, “error” as well as “against nature”?

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=827
**The Natural Law
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | June 23, 2011 **
“One of the clarifying points in a brilliant new book on natural law from Ignatius Press is that we do not come to know the natural law by being taught it by others.
The book is J. Budziszewski’s What We Can’t Not Know.
“St. Paul condemns the pagans for deliberately rejecting the knowledge of God and right living that came to them through the natural world itself, something which they can’t not know."

how far can conservatives in the Church defend that this was not so in the past,

His failure to discern that the natural law is known from the beginning is his second major impediment to understanding Catholic doctrine, and his assertions about “an uneducated peasant” shows not only his distortion of history but also his arrogance re the Magisterium, and his political agenda in labeling apologists for truth as “conservatives”.

 

[Abu]

northlandcatholic.blogspot.com/2011/06/father-richard-hogan-has-died.html

Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Father Richard Hogan has died
.
Eternal Rest Grant Unto Him, O Lord,
and Let Perpetual Light Shine Upon Him;
May His Soul, and All the Souls of the Faithful Departed,
Through the Mercy of God, Rest in Peace.
Amen.
Father Hogan died of complications relating to diabetes and a congenital liver problem.

 

[Image_of_God]

Thanks for this open and warm moment in discussion.

I, as many others, am greatly confused how topics of sexual background have been addressed by Church. Not only in recent, but also in ancient ages. The Catholic Church shows pattern which is difficult to understand once the cards are really on the table. And this strange position is slowly taking our credibility.

St. Augustine of Hippo, together with many Church Fathers, showed extreme radicalism regarding sexuality. Their writings have been considered as unquestionable and non-negotiable for almost 2000 years, creating considerable challenges for layman who were required to obey them in order to be considered faithful. Today, official sources are quite unfair to these saints and (what is even more problematic) to countless layman sacrifices which were done in past to satisfy their teachings. Such situation is difficult to accept from objective intellectual standpoint.

It is not necessarily true that because some Fathers taught such and such that it was once Church teaching. I mention this because St. Augustine had many writings that were not accepted by the Church…some of his vigor on Predestination is an example. I have researched the matter in some depth and have been unable to find an amount of mention of substance from the Fathers to make it into teaching.

My question is “What are we to believe today?” The Church in the past forbid contraception because they thought sex is only for procreation. Today they speak of “universality of time” and “constant teaching”. Such theory is extremely unstable, and unconvincing. It has nothing to do with authority or dissent- for there is no authority capable of, for example, claiming NFP was unknown or allowed in the past. It was known, and it was forbidden.

The bolded cannot be proven with certainty. More than a quote from St. Augustine is needed to prove this especially given that what he was talking about is under great dispute. NFP was not discovered until the 1800s, hence the lack of its mention until then.

Such claims also lower the credibility of the Catholic religion in secular society. If we are to interpret our history as if some things never happened, our critics will do contrary, and pull some pretty difficult points.

This fidelity was linked to procreation as intent, not as possibility. The couple could feel emotion and pleasure during intercourse as long as they intended child.

One might now ask “Who develops natural law?” Are people in Vatican researching philosophical (much more then scientific) ideas of nature? Now, why it took these people centuries to develop the idea that sex has unitive dimension, while it was so obvious? I mean, an uneducated peasant in Middle ages was quite skeptical about their claims sex is only to be practiced for begetting children. This was certainly not “development of doctrine”.

With a little more research, I have difficulty finding how this doctrine was held during the Middle Ages.

And things get even more complicated when you wonder how far can conservatives in the Church defend that this was not so in the past, and that Church never taught sex is only for procreation.

As for me, I don’t think sex is only for procreation. It should be understood as a field where many Christian virtues can be expressed. But one of them is also adherence to the historical truth. The conservatives have no right in living according to their own rules and asking of Church history to be something that it is not. They need to accept this.

And I am a single male.

I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of how Church teaching actually works. Simply because something is said by a Church Father does not mean it is Church teaching. They certainly do have a right to opinion on matters undecided. Indeed, even in St. Thomas’ time, people believed differently on this issue than St. Augustine. That said, I don’t think their teachings on sex and procreation are as farfetched as you may think them. I mean that as to say that today, just as in their day, people will do the craziest things to have sex without having children (i.e. abortion). In those days, some of the methods were even more gruesome.

 

[sacredcello]

Thanks for this open and warm moment in discussion.

It is good to be honest about what these concepts really mean when it comes to our own faith life. Thank you for sharing a bit about your own life.

I, as many others, am greatly confused how topics of sexual background have been addressed by Church. Not only in recent, but also in ancient ages. The Catholic Church shows pattern which is difficult to understand once the cards are really on the table. And this strange position is slowly taking our credibility.

The Church’s teaching on holiness within marriage is not at all abstract or hard to understand. The specific language used to describe the call to holiness in marriage has developed and has become more personalistic, but holiness has always been at the center, and that has not changed. There is no lack of credibility, because we are all called to be saints from age to age.

St. Augustine of Hippo, together with many Church Fathers, showed extreme radicalism regarding sexuality. Their writings have been considered as unquestionable and non-negotiable for almost 2000 years, creating considerable challenges for layman who were required to obey them in order to be considered faithful. Today, official sources are quite unfair to these saints and (what is even more problematic) to countless layman sacrifices which were done in past to satisfy their teachings. Such situation is difficult to accept from objective intellectual standpoint.

As Image of God has aptly said, and has been repeated numerous times here, St. Augustine was a great saint, but his writings are not official Church teaching. Many saints have been wrong throughout history on important matters. St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Yet, despite the fact that he was wrong about this, it is not problematic for us today because we now have an infallible doctrine which supersedes St. Thomas’ personal opinion. Now, before you jump all over this and say that, “yes, but there were many more people throughout the history of the Church who DID believe in the Immaculate Conception, just as there were many people who DID believe that St. Augustine’s writings were official teaching on sexuality…” That may be true, to some extent. We can’t really know what the average layperson (peasant) in the Middle Ages (to cite your example) was taught. It may very well have been that homilies were similar to the way they are today. I have been a Catholic for 15 years now, and I have only heard 1 sermon where the priest mentioned the prohibition of contraception. Do you think it was any different then? Keep in mind children are always present in Church. Books were rare treasures, not for the average person. The internet was nonexistent. Do you really think that the average person was knowledgeable about the writings of St. Augustine? My husband is a philosophy professor who did his undergraduate at a Catholic university and has his PhD and he has still not read the City of God!!! I find it incredible to think that the average person in the Middle Ages would have had any idea about St. Augustine. Aside from the peasant’s knowledge (or lack thereof) of theology, we have to consider the context of the time. Children were extremely valuable as contributing members of the family. Unlike today, where we view them as a financial liability…children in past times were necessary to help on the farm, to run the household. A child was not just another mouth to feed, but he/she came into the world with hands to help. Even city dwellers did not view children with the disdain that we do today. J.S. Bach had 20 children (13 of them lived). Yet, these children did not cut down on his productivity as a composer, in fact, they contributed to it. Many of his masterpieces were written as pedagogical pieces for his children to learn music.

My question is “What are we to believe today?” The Church in the past forbid contraception because they thought sex is only for procreation. Today they speak of “universality of time” and “constant teaching”. Such theory is extremely unstable, and unconvincing. It has nothing to do with authority or dissent- for there is no authority capable of, for example, claiming NFP was unknown or allowed in the past. It was known, and it was forbidden.

There is nothing unstable at all about holiness. Contraception was forbidden in the past, not merely because sex was (in part) for procreation. It was forbidden because the act itself is evil. It attacks the dignity of the spouses and marital love.

If there were a papal encyclical or apostolic exhortation from pre-1800 which stated the unitive dimension of the marital act were forbidden and couples were only allowed to have sex for the explicit purpose of procreation and only during their fertile times, I would then agree with you that the teaching is unstable. However, this is not the case. We have Augustine, Thomas, Bonaventure and Alphonsus Liguori all stating that sex was both for procreation and fidelity, and conjugal friendship and that these meanings could be implicit (except, perhaps in the case of Augustine, but he was not a pope).

Such claims also lower the credibility of the Catholic religion in secular society. If we are to interpret our history as if some things never happened, our critics will do contrary, and pull some pretty difficult points.

We are not interpreting anything contrary to how they happened. The Catholic religion is despised by secular society and always will be. What secular society thinks of the virtues of purity of heart and mind and chastity within marriage are not concerns of ours as we are to be disciples of Christ.

(continued)

 

[sacredcello]

One might now ask “Who develops natural law?” Are people in Vatican researching philosophical (much more then scientific) ideas of nature? Now, why it took these people centuries to develop the idea that sex has unitive dimension, while it was so obvious? I mean, an uneducated peasant in Middle ages was quite skeptical about their claims sex is only to be practiced for begetting children. This was certainly not “development of doctrine”.

And things get even more complicated when you wonder how far can conservatives in the Church defend that this was not so in the past, and that Church never taught sex is only for procreation.

Father Hogan did an excellent job of showing the the development of doctrine that has taken place over the centuries on the topic of holiness within marriage, including in our time when the more personalistic language has been incorporated by Blessed John Paul II. Please review the posts from last week which includes Father Hogan’s writings.

Now, I have to say, your choice of the word “conservatives” in this context is completely wrong. There are times when it would be appropriate to use the word “conservative” to describe a certain trend, for example, those who prefer the Tridentine Latin Mass, or a certain political viewpoint. However, when it comes to the infallible teachings of the Church, these are not conservative or liberal. If one does not accept the teachings of the Church, or if one obstinately refuses to abide by them, it is proper to say that such a person is dissenting, or even excommunicated.

Personally, I do not consider myself a conservative. I am not a Republican, but, rather I am a liberal/progressive (I voted for Ralph Nader in the last 3 Presidential elections) who loves Holy Mother Church and all of her teachings. So, you can see that the use of the word conservative does not apply to the topic we are discussing.

As for me, I don’t think sex is only for procreation. It should be understood as a field where many Christian virtues can be expressed. But one of them is also adherence to the historical truth. The conservatives have no right in living according to their own rules and asking of Church history to be something that it is not. They need to accept this.

When I have relations with DH, I am not necessarily thinking of adherence to historical truth. Holiness is what we are aiming for, and, I believe, it is pleasing to the Lord. We have never committed the evil of contraception-use in our marriage, nor unnatural acts. Procreation is also at the center. We have been TTC for some time now, and hope that the Lord will grant us the blessing of children. One thing that has developed for me, personally, is that I now see children as a blessing and something to be desired. In my younger years, and even up until recently, I always saw children as a liability, something to be avoided. The immersion in secular values is so pernicious.

Again, you mention conservatives. I don’t know who exactly you are referring to here. But, I am not one of those. This is an inappropriate choice of words for the topic we are discussing. The terms “conservative” and “liberal” are more appropriate for topics about decisions of the temporal order, such as whether to go to war in the Middle East, or what to do about social justice. These are political topics where that type of vocabulary is appropriate. When it comes to the teachings on faith and morals of our Catholic faith, it is more appropriate to use the words “orthodox” (for a faithful believer) or “dissenting” (for one rejects the truth).

And I am a single male.

Good to know! I wish you the best in your spiritual journey. If you choose to marry at some point, you will, of course, have to decide all of these things together with your wife. She may not wish to be used sexually through contracepted acts, so you will have to take that into account as well. I’ve been down that road myself (having been used sexually through the availability of contraception) and I have found the teachings of the Church to be the most liberating thing that has every happened to me. Truly, I mean it without exaggeration.

 

[Image_of_God]

Sacredcello, you have given the most excellent response…better than I could have. Thank you.

 

[Chrono13]

Then we can accurately say Church Fathers permitted sex for procreation and to satisfy the marital debt. That’s two reasons.

That would be clumsy to say. Sex for procreation was not “permitted”, because there was nothing to object to it. Marital debt was seen as lust gone free, but permitted despite this.

Regarding some of your recent thoughts on Catholic teaching, scripture provides a foundation for the unitive aspect of sex, beginning with Genesis 2:24, “That is why man leaves his father and mother and is attached to his wife, and with her becomes one flesh.”

If only we interpreted this line the way you suggest. So many Catholics would be spared from suffering.

If you meant to express genuine concern for my faith in your recent post, thank you for your kindness.

I have. It’s difficult sometimes to be faithful to Church and the reality of it’s teachings.

 

[Chrono13]

I agree partially, but however mainstream they were, they were not able to influence the Council of Trent. The Council, unlike some of the Fathers, did not think marriage was solely for procreation. In fact, the Council does places the procreative purpose of marriage (not the act) second to that of companionship.

I dare to say that most, if not all, Church Fathers didn’t teach that procreation is the only end of marriage. Even Jerome would probably approve the loving of the spouses. They simply claimed sexual acts should be intending procreation in order for sex to be justified.

With this in mind, I doubt Trent was giving something new. Their blessings of marriage (unity, procreation and cure for fornication) are more or less of Augustinian thought.

There are some shaky grounds, however. For example, the system introduced by Tobias (that act should be done more with desire of children then satisfaction of lust) would probably exclude practice of NFP (using medical means to avoid conception). Also, chapter “The Use of Marriage” might suggest some stoic infleunce, insofar St. Jerome’s quote is hard-boiled stoicism.

You were definitely right. St. Gregory does think that sexual relations should be for procreation only. He does think that there is some shame to the marital act (any pleasure). It can certainly be said that St. Gregory’s history in the monastery might have impacted his views on sex in marriage.

St. Gregory had some pretty strange ideas. He claimed any pleasure was sinful in itself. Yet, just because marital intercourse is by default marked with sin in his theory, doesn’t mean marriage is sinful.( Nor do we, in so saying, assign matrimony to be a fault; but forasmuch as lawful intercourse cannot be had without the pleasure of the flesh, it is proper to forbear entering the holy place, because the pleasure itself cannot be without a fault. For he was not born of adultery or fornication, but of lawful marriage, who said, “Behold I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother brought me forth.” )

I’m quoting this to make it easier for some people to understand how the same theologians in the past who said sex is evil or bad had no trouble saying marriage is holy and praiseworthy.

As for monastery, we should really ask ourselves what was going on inside them to produce people who said sex is only for procreation. I mean, St. Gregory’s teachings have literally been accepted by whole magisterium, and at that time layman were in big trouble.

“For though divers nations have divers opinions concerning this affair, and seem to observe different rules, it was always the custom. of the Romans, from ancient times, for such an one to seek to be cleansed by washing, and for some time reverently to forbear entering the church.”

It appears if I am reading the work correctly, that St. Gregory was aware that there were different opinions on the matter to do you agree?

Probably he was more concentrating on how these nations cleanse themselves after sex, then whether they thought cleaning was needed at all.

 

[Abu]

The Reality of the Development of Doctrine
The great Australian lay theologian Frank Sheed, founder of the Catholic Evidence Guild, also affirmed the combination of the procreative and unitary purposes of the marriage act against contraception in his writing in 1960, the latter serving the former.

Sexual union in marriage “is a right, not to any sexual union but to normal sexual union, the union by which, in way of nature, children are conceived. Abnormal sexual unions are forbidden to the married as to everyone else; abnormalities in the normal sexual union – all the ingenious trickeries that interfere with it to prevent children being conceived – are likewise forbidden….it must be done generously or it is not being done duly… it is a union of personalities, expressing itself in the union of bodies.

“The denaturing of the marriage act is one of the two modern assaults on marriage…when husband and wife do have sexual union they shall have it in its integrity. They may know that procreation is impossible – for instance, because there is a child already in the womb, or because the wife has passed the age of child-bearing. They may feel that procreation is undesirable – because foe great danger to the wife’s health or a desperate economic situation – and therefore restrict the act to times when conception is improbable. Provided they have the union in its integrity, not deforming or distorting or mutilating it, doing nothing to interfere with the course of nature, then they are within their rights. Such uses of sex still serve sex’s primary purpose: they serve the children already born, by making the marriage a firmer, warmer, lovinger thing; if no children are, or can be born, they still serve sex’s primary purpose, for they help to add one more strong and happy marriage to the whole institution of marriage, and it is upon the institution of marriage that the new-born generations depend.”
[See *Society And Sanity, Frank Sheed, Sheed And Ward, 1960, Chap IX, Marriage and the Law of God].

Msgr Cormac P Burke now brings out the development of doctrine in *Humanae Vitae *(1965), the process of a deeper understanding through faith and reason.
cormacburke.or.ke/node/984
**The De-humanization of marital sex
May/05/2011 **
‘Certainly Humanae Vitae condemned contraception in unambiguous terms. “The Church… teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (no. 11). It is correct to say that there is nothing new here. But then, in pivotal words, Paul VI gives the root reason for this teaching: “This particular doctrine… is based on the inseparable connection … between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act” (no. 12). Now here indeed (and this is all-important to our present theme) we do have something new. Here in fact a new principle is enunciated which permits a much deeper anthropological and theological analysis of the conjugal act: the principle that its unitive significance and its procreative significance are inherent to it, in inseparable connection.

‘This insight of Paul VI is now firmly established in magisterial doctrine. The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them” (no. 96).’

 

[Chrono13]

Developments
Telemedicine Fertility Monitor As Successful As IVF
July 1, 2011
New Zealand born Mr. Husheer, who started his company, Cambridge Temperature Concepts, straight after being awarded a PhD from the chemistry department at Cambridge University says the fertility monitor, called DuoFertility, is as effective as conventional IVF.

“We published a peer-reviewed paper that showed that six months use of the monitor has the same success rate as a round of IVF. ”

They are confident that unpublished research which uses additional data will show that a year of use is better than IVF.

So confident is Mr. Husheer, that the company offers a money-back guarantee. If a woman is not pregnant after 12 month’s use, and has complied with the instructions, then the company will refund the £495. The Wall Street Journal]

DuoFertility comprises a small sensor, slightly larger in diameter than a €1 coin, which a woman wears under her arm, affixed with medical tape. The sensor, which can take up to 20,000 readings a day, has to be worn all night and preferably during the day as well. It is designed to fit into the natural pocket under the arm.

“This change in temperature is only about 0.3ºC measured over the whole month,” said Mr. Husheer. “But a woman’s temperature can change by as much as 2.5ºC a day.” The technology to do that, which is patented, came directly from Mr. Husheer’s PhD in instrumentation, finding signals hidden among very noisy data.

Full article at: tinyurl.com/3bcy8qk

I believe Catholic layman expect a device which will prove infertility in woman’s cycle. And if it fails, that their authors pay for upbringing, education, food and accommodation for a child.

 

[Chrono13]

St Augustine speaks of sex in marriage, not fornication or adultery; so does the Council of Trent – both of the unitive love within marriage. A conjugal act that is sterile because of natural rhythms, age, or disease is incompatible with one that has been deliberately “sterilized” by the deliberate choice of the spouses.

Augustine speaks of sex in marriage as purely procreational activity which can only be “marital” if the desire is conception. If the case is marital debt, it is merely a tolerated activity on account of marriage. This is important to note. Also, having sex on purpose during infertile days for Augustine is abuse of natural cycle, as was proven by direct quotes. A woman having infertile period is not “sterile”, since sterility is not observed from moment, but general condition. Infertile period is *part *of fertile woman. Sterility is not.

The attempts by Chrono13 to separate sex from marriage misrepresenting St Augustine and others has been the petard on which he has been hoist from the start.

If that were my points and intentions, I would look very silly.

The unitive aspect of sex was known from the beginning:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
When Julian affirms (as if Augustine had denied) that marital intercourse, **with its intimacy, with its pleasure, with its semination, are from God **and therefore in their own way to be praised, Augustine rapidly ticks off these “non-arguments”—Dixit “cum calore”; dixit “cum voluptate”; dixit “cum semine”—which are irrelevant to their debate, since Augustine is in full agreement that these are good things given by God. But, he goes on, Julian, who says of all of this (making points which I have never called into question),

I have never stated that Augustine said otherwise.

Already in De bono coniugali, in a passage where he compares nourishment and generation, he had insisted that sexual pleasure, sought temperately and rationally, is not and cannot be termed concupiscence. [30]

You were asked what is “rational use” of sex to Augustine. You have not answered, and continue to quote something that lacks explanation.

Chrono#13 has failed to understand the truth presented to him – the ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law:

As was already stated, many cultures and individuals acknowledged the natural law, but since their interpretation of nature was different, they concluded different approaches to various things. Church Fathers, for example, claimed that only natural use of sex is procreation, thus concluding sex without desire of begetting is contrary to nature. Note the desire, not “openness to life”. This is principal difference between their “nature” and “modern” approach.

No interpretations can change the principles of the natural law which we have seen even pagan Cicero acknowledge. Dr George affirms: “….whether advanced by pagans, Christians, or Jews, natural law philosophy seeks to vindicate principles accessible to, and thus binding upon, every reasonable person.

As mentioned above, what is rational to one culture or individual, is not rational to other. They can approach nature in different angle, and conclude different things.

“It is precisely because the natural law is held to be accessible to reason and thus binding on all rational persons irrespective of religious faith or its absence that St Paul could say in his Letter to the Romans that
(Rom 2:13-15).
The Clash of Orthodoxies, Dr Robert P George, ISI Books, 2001, p 161]

But, again, you simply can’t say that aspects of nature have not changed since the time of Paul. Procreation as the prime example.

His failure to discern that the natural law is known from the beginning is his second major impediment to understanding Catholic doctrine, and his assertions about “an uneducated peasant” shows not only his distortion of history but also his arrogance re the Magisterium, and his political agenda in labeling apologists for truth as “conservatives”.

I have stated numerous times that natural law was known from the beginning, but that it’s practice was different then today. An uneducated peasant believed sex is not only for procreation, while he was prompted to believe opposite- a very problematic position indeed.

Sorry if you found my “conservatives” politically tacky. I thought the context was clear.

 

[sacredcello]

That would be clumsy to say. Sex for procreation was not “permitted”, because there was nothing to object to it.

There were, indeed, objections to sex for the purpose of procreation. The Manichaean heresy was widespread. It thrived between the third and seventh centuries, and at its height was one of the most widespread religions in the world. Manichaean churches and scriptures existed as far east as China and as far west as the Roman Empire.

Before becoming a Christian, Saint Augustine was a member of the Manichaean sect for eleven years, whose founder taught that Adam and Eve resulted from the Devil’s children having sex, and procreation was just another evil part of the Prince of Darkness’ creation.

The defense of sex for procreation was an important contribution to the Church made by St. Augustine, in light of the heretical Manichaean view that procreation only brought more evil into the world.