NFP and contraception

[Abu]

Chrono13, #972
Augustine speaks of sex in marriage as purely procreational activity which can only be “marital” if the desire is conception.

Still false – unless and until the reality is accepted this prejudice will remain. Post #933 shows clearly as a falsehood that St Augustine “speaks of sex in marriage as PURELY procreational”.

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

Still false – the natural law as we have seen doesn’t change, contraception is always gravely sinful, and the procreative and unitive ends of marriage, always known and acknowledged, are better understood through the development of doctrine. Only prejudices and irrationality cloud the understanding of some.

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
“marital intercourse, with its intimacy, with its pleasure, with its semination, are from God….Augustine is in full agreement that these are good things given by God.

“As can be seen from these passages, Augustine is conscious not only of the procreative ordering of marriage, but also of its unitive value….

“It is that disordered aspect of sexual desire which breaks away from man’s will and from the rational ordering of the sex appetite; which so often makes him experience sexual desire when satisfaction of that desire is either impossible or illicit; which blurs his moral sense, inspiring that his mind reproves: actions that are to be judged "non concupiscendo, sed intelligendo. [40] In a word, concupiscence is the compelling tendency to seek pleasure independently of reason or will. [41]

‘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.

“St. Augustine’s insistence that marital sex is truly rational only if it is open to procreation may seem, at first sight, to have neglected the personalist value of sexuality. A closer analysis, however, should lead us to ask whether there is any true personalism that is anti-procreative; i.e., whether sex deliberately separated from its procreative orientation has rational and personalist conjugal meaning.

“Note 45. That there is something to purify in marital sexuality is expressly recalled by Vatican II when it speaks of how our Lord has “healed” (“sanare”), perfected and elevated" conjugal love, also in its physical expressions (Gaudium et Spes, n. 49; cf. Familiaris Consortio, n. 3). Divine grace is needed to heal the wounds of sexual concupiscence.”

And as we have seen contraception is irrational, unnatural, and always condemned.

 

[Image_of_God]

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.

My purpose of saying that is that there is indeed an inconsistency of thought in so far as some Church Fathers like Justin Martyr said that the only purpose marriage served was for procreation and others like St. Augustine who thought otherwise.

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.

As I mentioned before, I think you are stretching the word “medicine” in an abnormally broad way and probably not what the Council had in mind. Of course, what really matters is not what they intended to say, but what they actually said.

In NFP its not the medical knowledge that’s preventing conception, it’s only the abstinence during fertile periods. If such periods could be known without the use of charts and certain instruments, the result would still be the same. That is not the case with birth control pill. It is the pill (the medicine) itself preventing conception. If the pill were not taken (and each person is fertile of course) conception would most likely result. And considering that the Council Fathers were most likely addressing the use of potions and drugs to cause sterility the later case is most likely (even definitely) what they had in mind.

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.

What was going on inside of them is quite obvious—the asceticism that taught avoiding pleasure. Their fasting, their almsgiving, their prayers…all about giving up the pleasures of this world. When such thinking is transferred to the marital act, the resulting thought is obvious, yet understandable. If your claim that St. Gregory’s teachings have been accepted by the whole magisterium (especially his teachings on pleasure in the marital act), then it is unlikely that St. Thomas would have disagreed with him. St. Thomas says that the pleasure of the marital act is itself good in his Summa Theologica (the Matrimony Supplement).

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

The idea though is that St. Gregory was quite aware that other places thought about and dealt with the situation differently. He is simply expression the custom of the place he is from. And by the way, such a practice is not infallible or set in stone and can easily change.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

My faith is imperfect but fine. That being said, I’d take any prayers you’d be willing to send my way! I get so much out of your knowledgeable posts, thanks for your kindness.

 

[Abu]

Msgr Cormac Burke brings out the essence of St Augustine’s thought with great clarity which enables us to see why he was so relied on in Vatican II’s references to sex, marriage and contraception.

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
By Monsignor Cormac Burke a priest of the Opus Del Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and teaches at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

“No one has ever questioned the extraordinary quality of St. Augustine’s mind. Some, however, consider that mind to have been stained by a pessimistic streak, especially with regard to sexuality; [1] and they feel that Augustine’s subsequent influence—proportionate to the quality of his mind—has left the Church’s thought burdened, right down to our days, with a negative and defective ethic on sexuality and marriage.
This appreciation does justice neither to Augustine nor to the tradition of Catholic sexual morality. Augustine’s outlook, like that of every man, was marked by the experiences of his past. But the Manicheism of his early days remained for him a darkness from which he had emerged, and not a source of recurrent pessimism. [2] Once he began to walk in the light of the faith, his vision of sexuality and marriage became more and more sharpened and refined by his efforts, in controversy, to keep a Catholic balance between the extremes of Manicheism, on the one hand, and Pelagianism, on the other.

“The Manichean attack on procreative marriage
With regard to marriage, a first accusation against Augustine is that he sees only its procreative dimension, to the exclusion of its other aspects. Now it is certainly true that marriage for Augustine is primarily a procreative society. One understands this emphasis better, if one remembers the incredibly insane Manichean tenets he had to combat.

“……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]

“The Pelagian exaltation of sex
Augustine’s writings on sex and marriage aimed to combat not only the negative views of the Manicheans, but also the over-optimistic views of the Pelagians. With regard to his anti-Pelagian works, it is also important to bear in mind the nature and terms of the debate in which he sought to defend a Christian understanding of sexual morality against a naturalistic exaltation of sex.

“In his controversy with the Pelagians, the main point that is of interest here is the nature of concupiscence. The Pelagians maintained that concupiscence is a natural good, [22] and is evil only in its excesses. [23] Augustine holds that it is in itself a disease or disorder, [24] which accompanies man as a consequence of original sin.

“In his teaching on concupiscence, St. Augustine was of course following in the footsteps of St. Paul, who so bitterly complained to the Romans about the sin-engendered concupiscence which held him captive, and who so forcefully expressed his longings to be freed from the law of sin that dwelt in his members. [25]

“Augustine makes it clear that what he regards as the disorder of concupiscence is not synonymous with sexual pleasure either.

“This point needs to be specially stressed since, given the vigor with which Augustine criticizes the yielding to concupiscence, a superficial reader might easily be led to conclude that he is criticizing the actual seeking of pleasure itself in marital intercourse. A proper reading shows that this is not so.

“So much modern “sex education” is in effect trying to instil into young people’s minds the idea that there is no such thing as a good or bad use of sexuality: that all use of the body is in fact indifferent. **Augustine, along with the whole Catholic tradition of moral teaching, insists that it is precisely because the body is good that it can be used wrongly. So in a characteristic passage, he contrasts the virtuous use of the evil of ‘libido’ (i.e., the ordered use of sexuality despite the disorder of concupiscence) by married people, and the sinful misuse of the good of the body by the unchaste.[54]

“Augustine had first to defend marriage and sexuality against the Manichean tendency to treat them with contempt or hatred, and later had to continue to defend them against the Pelagian tendency to treat them as if there were nothing delicate or problematic about them.”

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

I’m referring to the two purposes of sex. I may be alone on this, but I see your commentary on St. Augustine’s teaching as applicable to modern Catholic teaching. Using birth control (total abstinence/NFP) is not supposed to be the default lifestyle for Catholic married couples. We are still normally supposed to have sex intending to create babies. Restricting sex is only to be done prayerfully and for serious reasons. Earlier in this thread, LittleDeb talked about using NFP due to her serious health issues. She also reminded us that God can change such a situation at any time, putting us in a better position to welcome a new baby into a family. Do many of us who use NFP really pray for that? It’s just something to think about.

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

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but I am intrigued. Would you elaborate?

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

I know what you mean. You’re an honest person though, and you seem to be making a real effort for your faith. May God bless you for that.

 

[Chrono13]

Quickes, and for some older posts Sorry, I am busy, but the discussion is very fertile.

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.

It really depends what “teaching” means. The fact is that you literally have extremely long periods of Church History (literally the first 1000 years) where this is the leading (if not the only) thought on the subject.

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.

Sorry, I can’t accept that. Augustine is angry with the idea of people measuring days after menstruation in order to have sex without chance of procreation. There is no doubt the technique existed and was practiced. Plus, he was introduced to it by heretics, who were actively promoting it as part of their teaching.

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

If you wish my opinion, the “procreation only” ethics evolved into shapeless theology with no clear line of thought. Sex was seen as suspicious activity. It would probably be attacked even more if it weren’t necessary for begetting children. However, it seems layman were never really eager to accept radical interpretations. This is possibly the main reason why discussion was never settled.

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.

This is fine, but at one point we simply must accept that stance Church Fathers had on this issue was taken as part of “tradition” which was to be obeyed. Even if we today don’t accept those stoic doctrines, people in the past have, and ordered layman to obey them on account of “binding authority”.

Also, clarity in theology is sometimes lacking. For example, Casti Connubii uses a lot of Augustine, but never goes into saying “Oh, by the way, those stoic things he said, he was very wrong” And why is that? Because clergy in the past didn’t think he was wrong. And have done quite a lot of stress to layman Church and Catholic marriage.

 

[Image_of_God]

Quickes, and for some older posts Sorry, I am busy, but the discussion is very fertile.

It really depends what “teaching” means. The fact is that you literally have extremely long periods of Church History (literally the first 1000 years) where this is the leading (if not the only) thought on the subject.

I quoted St. Gregory earlier (in his response to St. Augustine of Canterbury), who was quite aware of different opinions on the matter. Add that to the fact that few Fathers out of the many we know say anything about this topic and even among those who do, the thought is not as harmonious and concurrent as you think.

Still you seem very eager to say that it was so for the first 1000 years. But by doing so, you seem to imply that the ideas that came at the beginning of the second millennium spouted out of thin air, which they probably didn’t.

Sorry, I can’t accept that. Augustine is angry with the idea of people measuring days after menstruation in order to have sex without chance of procreation. There is no doubt the technique existed and was practiced. Plus, he was introduced to it by heretics, who were actively promoting it as part of their teaching.

That is NOT NFP. That St. Augustine would have condemned periodic continence from his writings I have agreed elsewhere, but to claim that he knew what NFP is…that is a bit dishonest. He certainly did not.

If you wish my opinion, the “procreation only” ethics evolved into shapeless theology with no clear line of thought. Sex was seen as suspicious activity. It would probably be attacked even more if it weren’t necessary for begetting children. However, it seems layman were never really eager to accept radical interpretations. This is possibly the main reason why discussion was never settled.

If you know there was “no clear line of thought” and that the “discussion was never settled” why do you speak as if it was something set in stone?

This is fine, but at one point we simply must accept that stance Church Fathers had on this issue was taken as part of “tradition” which was to be obeyed. Even if we today don’t accept those stoic doctrines, people in the past have, and ordered layman to obey them on account of “binding authority”.

My point has been and remains that if such was a firmly established tradition, St. Thomas Aquinas would not have contradicted it so easily. He was not that kind of theologian. Yet, none the less, he does. Even in his time some theologians held a stricter opinion than even St. Gregory.

Also, clarity in theology is sometimes lacking. For example, Casti Connubii uses a lot of Augustine, but never goes into saying “Oh, by the way, those stoic things he said, he was very wrong” And why is that? Because clergy in the past didn’t think he was wrong. And have done quite a lot of stress to layman Church and Catholic marriage.

But why would he have to do that? He could have done that, but he is not obligated to do so. In so far as the actual quotes he uses goes, he maintains their integrity. That’s what you do whenever you quote somebody because, to wit, whenever you quote somebody else, there’s going to be something you disagree with. You aren’t required to mention your disagreement except if that’s the point in quoting them.

It should be mentioned that while St. Augustine’s teachings differ somewhat from Modern Catholic teaching, it is not as if a 360 degree turn was made.

 

[Chrono13]

Msgr Cormac Burke brings out the essence of St Augustine’s thought with great clarity which enables us to see why he was so relied on in Vatican II’s references to sex, marriage and contraception.

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
By Monsignor Cormac Burke a priest of the Opus Del Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and teaches at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

“No one has ever questioned the extraordinary quality of St. Augustine’s mind. Some, however, consider that mind to have been stained by a pessimistic streak, especially with regard to sexuality; [1] and they feel that Augustine’s subsequent influence—proportionate to the quality of his mind—has left the Church’s thought burdened, right down to our days, with a negative and defective ethic on sexuality and marriage.
This appreciation does justice neither to Augustine nor to the tradition of Catholic sexual morality. Augustine’s outlook, like that of every man, was marked by the experiences of his past. But the Manicheism of his early days remained for him a darkness from which he had emerged, and not a source of recurrent pessimism. [2] Once he began to walk in the light of the faith, his vision of sexuality and marriage became more and more sharpened and refined by his efforts, in controversy, to keep a Catholic balance between the extremes of Manicheism, on the one hand, and Pelagianism, on the other.

I believe I have provied sufficient explanation why these approach can not be taken as objective. I respect your opinion, as well as that of prelate Burke, but at one point you simply fight the facts. And that simply can’t hold ground. Or Catholic position.

 

[Chrono13]

I’m referring to the two purposes of sex. I may be alone on this, but I see your commentary on St. Augustine’s teaching as applicable to modern Catholic teaching. Using birth control (total abstinence/NFP) is not supposed to be the default lifestyle for Catholic married couples. We are still normally supposed to have sex intending to create babies. Restricting sex is only to be done prayerfully and for serious reasons. Earlier in this thread, LittleDeb talked about using NFP due to her serious health issues. She also reminded us that God can change such a situation at any time, putting us in a better position to welcome a new baby into a family. Do many of us who use NFP really pray for that? It’s just something to think about.

The thing is, for Augustine, there is only one purpose of sex. Procreation. The other, marital debt, is not it’s purpose, but tolerated.

For Augustine, having sex during infertile period is as sinful as having it during fertile without desire of begetting. In best case, it would be tolerated evil. But most likely, it would be forbidden.

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but I am intrigued. Would you elaborate?

Imagine yourself living in age where confessor asks you whether you agree that sex is only for procreation.

I know what you mean. You’re an honest person though, and you seem to be making a real effort for your faith. May God bless you for that.

Thank you. May He share His blessings on you and your family as well.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

I have, and I simply can’t ignore that Father Hogan thought there was nothing wrong with idea that sex is only for procreation. He mentions Augustine, and then jumps to Aquinas, altough you have one third of Christain history between them. And what was taught in that period? Stoicism.

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.

I am sorry if I created confusion regarding conservatism. It had nothing to do with politics, but current theological position in the Church. Conservatives were thought to be honest and practicing Catholics, supporters of current stance on matters we talk about. Next to them are Traditionalists (Latin Mass etc.) who are loyal to some older ways of devotion. They usually have more objective stance regarding contraception ban through history. I am something in between, to be honest. I do believe that one needs to be loyal to Magisterium, but must not deny the historical fact of stoicism.

 

[Chrono13]

I quoted St. Gregory earlier (in his response to St. Augustine of Canterbury), who was quite aware of different opinions on the matter. Add that to the fact that few Fathers out of the many we know say anything about this topic and even among those who do, the thought is not as harmonious and concurrent as you think.

These opinions were not regarded important for Gregory. Also, they don’t seem to counter his doctrine that any pleasure is sinful. He was not acting as if the matter is free choice, or that doctrine is forming.

I can’t accept the argument that Fathers are not clear or constant regarding this issue. Literally every attack on contraception comes from this stoic teaching (Clement: “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” Lactantius: the genital ’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring) … these are “procreation only” lines.

Still you seem very eager to say that it was so for the first 1000 years. But by doing so, you seem to imply that the ideas that came at the beginning of the second millennium spouted out of thin air, which they probably didn’t.

To tell the truth, I am under impression that teachings of the second millennium came from idea “let’s pretend that didn’t happen.”

That is NOT NFP. That St. Augustine would have condemned periodic continence from his writings I have agreed elsewhere, but to claim that he knew what NFP is…that is a bit dishonest. He certainly did not.

With maximum respect, but what is NFP then periodic continence? It is just a rhythm method with more accurate fertility detection.

If you know there was “no clear line of thought” and that the “discussion was never settled” why do you speak as if it was something set in stone?

I don’t. Catholic clergy speaks of constant traditions and interrupted teachings, as if we never taught sex is only for begetting.

My point has been and remains that if such was a firmly established tradition, St. Thomas Aquinas would not have contradicted it so easily. He was not that kind of theologian. Yet, none the less, he does. Even in his time some theologians held a stricter opinion than even St. Gregory.

I am skeptical that he contradicted much, or any, at that matter. He is somewhat more liberal, but always keeps the stoic in himself strong.

But why would he have to do that? He could have done that, but he is not obligated to do so. In so far as the actual quotes he uses goes, he maintains their integrity. That’s what you do whenever you quote somebody because, to wit, whenever you quote somebody else, there’s going to be something you disagree with. You aren’t required to mention your disagreement except if that’s the point in quoting them.

One is to disagree with, the other is to construct the teaching from quotes. Are values of unity, procreation and sacrament present in marital act, according to Augustine? Not really. And they are presented like that by default.

The final result is Burke’s interpretation of Augustine (check links of Abu). Educated and influental Catholic says Augustine never thought sex is only for procreation. As far as he goes, Augustine was teaching theology of the body in 4 CE. And then layman people take “Confessions” in hand, check what Augustine really meant, and clergy loses credibility.

It should be mentioned that while St. Augustine’s teachings differ somewhat from Modern Catholic teaching, it is not as if a 360 degree turn was made.

Right. But 310 degree was made.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The thing is, for Augustine, there is only one purpose of sex. Procreation. The other, marital debt, is not it’s purpose, but tolerated.

For Augustine, having sex during infertile period is as sinful as having it during fertile without desire of begetting. In best case, it would be tolerated evil. But most likely, it would be forbidden.

St. Augustine wrote of two purposes for sex, procreation and satisfying the marital debt. He considered sex for procreation good and sex to satisfy the marital debt venially sinful, but he still permitted it due to its purpose of helping to extinguish lust.

Tolerated but forbidden? Truthfully, St. Agustine’s writing is much less contradictory than you would have us believe.

 

[copperblade]

Is it true that Pope Paul VI asked the commission to re-examine the Church’s position on birth control to find a way to change the position without rendering papal authority incredible? If so, it seems that NFP was the answer to that request.

 

[Abu]

copperblade
Is it true that Pope Paul VI asked the commission to re-examine the Church’s position on birth control to find a way to change the position without rendering papal authority incredible? If so, it seems that NFP was the answer to that request.

Obviously not:

1. as post # 390 refers to Pope Pius IX, who in 1853 replied to a dubium from the Sacred Penitentiary submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France: “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
   [cmri.org/03-nfp.htm]](http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.htm])
2. as post #150 quotes from *Casti Connubii *of Pius XI, 1930, which reaffirms the moral use of the infertile period. (II, 59).

You seem as frightfully uninformed and confused as a one or two others, and unable to face the facts.

 

[samiam1611]

Obviously not:

1. as post # 390 refers to Pope Pius IX, who in 1853 replied to a dubium from the Sacred Penitentiary submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France: “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
   [cmri.org/03-nfp.htm]](http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.htm])
2. as post #150 quotes from *Casti Connubii *of Pius XI, 1930, which reaffirms the moral use of the infertile period. (II, 59).

Thank you for reminding us of these important documents.

You seem as frightfully uninformed and confused as a one or two others, and unable to face the facts.

Well that’s uncalled for. People come here to get informed sometimes.

 

[Abu]

samiam1611
Well that’s uncalled for. People come here to get informed sometimes.

Some come just to offload prejudices and learn nothing.

That poster was specifically informed of Pius XI’s reaffirmation of the use of the infertile periods in Casti Connubii, in post #648 .

 

[paperwight66]

I quoted St. Gregory earlier (in his response to St. Augustine of Canterbury), who was quite aware of different opinions on the matter. .

Are you sure you mean St. Augustine of Canterbury? Surely you mean St. Augustine of Hippo? Quite a different chap. Well, a totally different millenium for a start.

 

[Image_of_God]

These opinions were not regarded important for Gregory. Also, they don’t seem to counter his doctrine that any pleasure is sinful. He was not acting as if the matter is free choice, or that doctrine is forming.

His writing only indicates that such opinions exist. He does not state what they are, nor does he state that he condemns them. He merely states the custom and view of the Church he serves (Rome) and he agrees with as the position that St. Augustine should follow.

Consider this: St. Augustine was a monk in Rome. Wouldn’t you think St. Gregory would presume that St. Augustine knew about this matter? Or perhaps he didn’t…

I can’t accept the argument that Fathers are not clear or constant regarding this issue. Literally every attack on contraception comes from this stoic teaching (Clement: “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” Lactantius: the genital ’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring) … these are “procreation only” lines.

A general rule of thumb I follow with (I think) great confidence is that if something was not discussed at one of the Ecumenical Councils during the First Millennium, it was not considered important enough and it was probably not universally binding or universally agreed upon. That is not to say that it could not have been a common position, or even the majority position, however.

To tell the truth, I am under impression that teachings of the second millennium came from idea “let’s pretend that didn’t happen.”

Hardly the case if you are aware of the fierce debates that came from the Late Middle Ages about this issue. Some held incredibly strict opinions (sex for the sake of pleasure was a mortal sin) and others held more moderate opinions (sex could indeed be a virtuous act). To be honest, I still suspect that St. Augustine is at the root of the Church’s current teaching. Recall the three goods of marriage discussed by Augustine: Offspring, Fidelity and Sacrament. Augustine accepted that one could preform the marital act for the sake of the first good and permitted the marital act for the sake of the second. But what about the third? That is the seeming springboard of Theology of the Body.

With maximum respect, but what is NFP then periodic continence? It is just a rhythm method with more accurate fertility detection.

NFP is a form of periodic continence, but there are obviously other forms. The claim that St. Augustine condemned NFP is something used to maximize positions such as yours, but it is absurd. St. Augustine did not know what NFP was and it is difficult to presume what he would have taught had he the biological knowledge we have now.

I don’t. Catholic clergy speaks of constant traditions and interrupted teachings, as if we never taught sex is only for begetting.

Now if we look at Church teaching as an overwhelming whole, it has been amazingly consistent and some are not happy about that. As to specific teachings, things get complicated, as the discussion at hand shows.

I am skeptical that he contradicted much, or any, at that matter. He is somewhat more liberal, but always keeps the stoic in himself strong.

Good Daughter is right. St. Augustine could not have been as contradictory as you make him sound. Sex for the sake of lust was permitted, yet frowned upon, but prohibited. Something cannot be permitted and prohibited at the same time.

Right. But 310 degree was made.

In my mind, not even a 180 degree turn was made. From sex having a sole purpose of procreation to having it as a primary purpose, not a big step is needed.

To have you know, my position on this matter rests firmly in belief of Jesus’ words and the idea that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church from all error.

 

[Image_of_God]

Are you sure you mean St. Augustine of Canterbury? Surely you mean St. Augustine of Hippo? Quite a different chap. Well, a totally different millenium for a start.

No, I fully intended St. Augustine of Canterbury. That is who St. Gregory send to evangelize to England.

 

[Image_of_God]

I should say another thing about St, Augustine’s teachings on marriage. When it comes to this topic of marriage and his teachings, St. Augustine is one of the most misunderstood and falsely represented figures in history. It is indeed St. Augustine who takes a positive view of marriage and affirms it as good, protecting it from the well-intentioned extremism of his contemporaries (St. Jerome in particular). This goodness of marriage is really the topic of his work On The Good of Marriage. In that work, St. Augustine exposes a rich and beautiful reflection on marriage and marital sexuality, though he, like any other is liable to error. I was incorrect in suspecting, I know that St. Augustine’s thought is one of the chief inspirations of Modern Catholic Teaching in this area.