NFP and contraception

[Chrono13]

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.

Sorry for a delay of answer.

Augustine believed that purpose of marital debt came after the Fall, meaning it was not part of the original God’s design.

Marital debt was bad by itself, but allowed never the less (as I have mentioned many times). It was never forbidden as an act. But to say there was nothing wrong with it, was suspicious.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

Something similar. Commission was to examine the situation in Church History, Tradition and then- present reality. It didn’t do a good job, if you ask me.

Pope Pius IX allowed usage of NFP in 19th Century, but did not say that it is to be used only in “problematic situations”. That came with “Humanae Vitae”.

 

[Chrono13]

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…

He reffers to opinions regarding ritual washing and how are people to clean themselves (from sexual pollution). He is not mentioning opinion that sex does not make people polluted.

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.

Layman were required to obey decisions even if they were not part of Ecumenical Councils, similar as today. If you were forbidden to recieve Communion because you thought sex can be practiced for love, then Councils are not your biggest problem .

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.

Augustine’s gradation goes the other way. Offspring is sacred, fidelity is bad but tolerated, and sex is not sacramental (since it contains sin). If you need two thousand years of teaching this to come to Theology of the body, well… who knows what awaits us?

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.

Sorry- I simply can’t accept that my position is maximizing anything. Periodic continence has only one form, and it is very basic (abstaining on specific day). Tracking your temperature or mucus is just a technique to see whether it is a day for continence or not.

Augustine forbid tracking the menstruation cycle in order to detect infertile period. To say “but that is not NFP” is simply a huge moral relativism we usually condemn in others. Infertile period is sole base of any natural fertility technique, and using it with desire to have sex without conception is- to Augustine and stoic fathers- an abuse of nature.

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.

But these teachings are the root of the Church position. And if things get complicated at roots, what happens at branches?

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.

Good Daughter misquoted me. She though I was talking about marital debt, while I was talking about sex during infertile period.

Marital debt was permitted altough frowned upon. Sex during infertile period was considered marital debt as long as it happened because of uncontrolled lust. To track fertility in order to to have unprocreative sex was forbidden. It involved non-permitted desire.

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.

Jesus certainly had nothing to do with the idea sex carries the burden of sin. He was with the peasants on that one, not with bishops.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Sorry for a delay of answer.

Augustine believed that purpose of marital debt came after the Fall, meaning it was not part of the original God’s design.

Marital debt was bad by itself, but allowed never the less (as I have mentioned many times). It was never forbidden as an act. But to say there was nothing wrong with it, was suspicious.

No problem on the delay. I agree with your statement on the fall.

I never said ‘there was nothing wrong with’ marital debt. We can celebrate the good of marital love without thinking it’s perfect.

Good Daughter misquoted me. She though I was talking about marital debt, while I was talking about sex during infertile period.

They’re often the same thing. Even when they think themselves infertile, marital debt is another reason for a couple to have sex. If you feel I’ve misquoted you, you can tell me directly.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

I think that St. Augustine’s words are as valuable today as they ever were. That’s hard to see if we lack a clear understanding of those words or of current Catholic teaching. My own theology is pretty basic, but I find the logical consistencies between St.Augustine’s teaching and modern Catholic teaching easy to spot (especially when you point them out).

 

[Nate13]

I believe St. Augustine was coming from the viewpoint that there are lots of ways in which people were trying to make the sexual act non-procreative, but there were not many people who were trying to make it less pleasurable haha. He warned of the pleasure of sex because of how easy it is to lust. I mean who hasn’t had a lustful thought while having sex? Who has never been distracted and thought more about the pleasure they were getting from sex rather than the other person involved and had selfish thoughts? This is what Augustine warns us about and rightly so. Did Jesus not tell us that if our hand caused us to sin we should cut if off rather than lose the kingdom of heaven? I believe it is under this thinking that Augustine spoke as he did about the sexual act. In no way does he contradict what the Catholic Church continues to teach today. For me it reminds me of the story about the prostitute and the three priests. Two of them turned their heads, yet one continued to look at her. The other two rebuked him, but the priest had a pure heart and saw the beauty of the women as it was intended to be and how it was being wasted. I believe Augustine was basically saying look away if you can’t control your self, but continue to strive to see the sexual act and your wife as God intended it to be.

 

[Chrono13]

No problem on the delay. I agree with your statement on the fall.

I never said ‘there was nothing wrong with’ marital debt. We can celebrate the good of marital love without thinking it’s perfect.

But we are not really teaching people that having sex without exclusive desire of procreation is wrong.

They’re often the same thing. Even when they think themselves infertile, marital debt is another reason for a couple to have sex. If you feel I’ve misquoted you, you can tell me directly.

You are right about misquoting. Sorry about that, I caught that after writing you the reply.

Having sex on purpose when conception is impossible is not the same thing as marital debt. The former is not bound by fertility circle.

I think that St. Augustine’s words are as valuable today as they ever were. That’s hard to see if we lack a clear understanding of those words or of current Catholic teaching. My own theology is pretty basic, but I find the logical consistencies between St.Augustine’s teaching and modern Catholic teaching easy to spot (especially when you point them out).

That is fine, and one can embrace such theory. But one must admit criticism is also having it’s strong points, and they are difficult to deny, mostly that Augustine’s definition of lust is “everything in sex which is not by intention procreative” (while modern teaching goes in way that lust is everything in sex not procreative by it’s nature). .

 

[Chrono13]

I believe St. Augustine was coming from the viewpoint that there are lots of ways in which people were trying to make the sexual act non-procreative, but there were not many people who were trying to make it less pleasurable haha. He warned of the pleasure of sex because of how easy it is to lust. I mean who hasn’t had a lustful thought while having sex? Who has never been distracted and thought more about the pleasure they were getting from sex rather than the other person involved and had selfish thoughts? This is what Augustine warns us about and rightly so. Did Jesus not tell us that if our hand caused us to sin we should cut if off rather than lose the kingdom of heaven? I believe it is under this thinking that Augustine spoke as he did about the sexual act. In no way does he contradict what the Catholic Church continues to teach today. For me it reminds me of the story about the prostitute and the three priests. Two of them turned their heads, yet one continued to look at her. The other two rebuked him, but the priest had a pure heart and saw the beauty of the women as it was intended to be and how it was being wasted. I believe Augustine was basically saying look away if you can’t control your self, but continue to strive to see the sexual act and your wife as God intended it to be.

This is not Augustine. This is Theology of the body.

 

[davidv]

This is not Augustine. This is Theology of the body.

So? The Theology of the Body was presented to the faithful, and any others who chose to listen, by the Pope in his capacity as teacher. As such, it has to rate high on the scale of definitive teachings.

 

[ahs]

Augustine forbid tracking the menstruation cycle in order to detect infertile period. To say “but that is not NFP” is simply a huge moral relativism we usually condemn in others. Infertile period is sole base of any natural fertility technique, and using it with desire to have sex without conception is- to Augustine and stoic fathers- an abuse of nature.

It doesn’t matter what Augustine taught if his belief on the matter contradicts the belief of the Supreme Pontiff. Um, what year as Augustine a Pope, by the way?

NFP was addressed by the Magesterium as early as 1853, then again by the Pope in 1880, then also in Humanae Vitae and in Theology of the Body.

Familiaris Consortio, which is often pointed to as condemning NFP, actually NEVER condemns periodic continence, but call it “virtuous continence” and proceedes to condemn onanism and contraception.

The Magesterium of the Church and the Supreme Pontiff, the infallible See of Peter, has only ever supported the use of periodic continence (NFP) when a couple has a just cause.

If you want to disagree with the Church on matters of Doctrine and decisions made by the Pope, go for it. But don’t sit there trying to condemn Catholics for adopting the teachings of the Church.

ahs

 

[Image_of_God]

He reffers to opinions regarding ritual washing and how are people to clean themselves (from sexual pollution). He is not mentioning opinion that sex does not make people polluted.

Different customs imply a different understanding of the topic at hand. When St. Gregory speaks of the different opinions concerning “this affair”, he is referring to the custom and the theology that gave rise to it.

Layman were required to obey decisions even if they were not part of Ecumenical Councils, similar as today. If you were forbidden to recieve Communion because you thought sex can be practiced for love, then Councils are not your biggest problem .

The forbidding of particular people from Communion for a particular reason is in part a matter of discipline and therefore subject to change. Hence, the same custom that St. Gregory mentions is not continued in the Roman Church today.

Regarding you statement concerning sex being practiced for love I don’t think that the people of those times see things in the way you see them.

Augustine’s gradation goes the other way. Offspring is sacred, fidelity is bad but tolerated, and sex is not sacramental (since it contains sin). If you need two thousand years of teaching this to come to Theology of the body, well… who knows what awaits us?

I think you’ve made a mistake. To St. Augustine offspring, fidelity and sacrament are the three goods of marriage. Sex for the sake of having children is good. Sex for the sake of avoiding fornication is a venial fault on the person who needs it. And why would it not be? The person who has sex merely for pleasure makes his partner an instrument of such. If I am correct, to St. Augustine, sex is not bad in itself, tainted it may be. It is the concupiscence that is bad.

Sorry- I simply can’t accept that my position is maximizing anything. Periodic continence has only one form, and it is very basic (abstaining on specific day). Tracking your temperature or mucus is just a technique to see whether it is a day for continence or not.

Let me pose this question: Did St. Augustine know about NFP? Did he condemn it? If you cannot answer yes to the first question, the second one is already a no.

Augustine forbid tracking the menstruation cycle in order to detect infertile period. To say “but that is not NFP” is simply a huge moral relativism we usually condemn in others. Infertile period is sole base of any natural fertility technique, and using it with desire to have sex without conception is- to Augustine and stoic fathers- an abuse of nature.

.
I will admit that it is possible that he frowned upon it because of his emphasis on procreative intent. However, it is inaccurate to state that St. Augustine in writing forbid such a thing. Regarding the quote I think you are addressing, St. Augustine is more at opposition with the Manichaeans reasons for abstaining from sexual intercourse than he is with the actual abstinence. Hence he says:

“Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.” (On the Morals of the Manichaeans, Chapter 18)

But these teachings are the root of the Church position. And if things get complicated at roots, what happens at branches?

NOT all of them are, but most of them are. And you ought to concern yourself not just with the small part that isn’t, but even more so with large part that is.

Good Daughter misquoted me. She though I was talking about marital debt, while I was talking about sex during infertile period.

Marital debt was permitted altough frowned upon. Sex during infertile period was considered marital debt as long as it happened because of uncontrolled lust. To track fertility in order to to have unprocreative sex was forbidden. It involved non-permitted desire.

To my knowledge, only Augustine speaks of any kind of periodic abstinence and even there he does not explicitly say it was forbidden. Therefore, from where did you get this idea that it was forbidden?

Jesus certainly had nothing to do with the idea sex carries the burden of sin. He was with the peasants on that one, not with bishops.

Jesus said that the gates of hell would not stand against his Church. That includes error. That was what I meant.

Furthermore, you have no idea what Jesus’ opinions were on this matter since they are not written in the Bible. But with faith I say that they are the same as the Church’s.

 

[Image_of_God]

This is not Augustine. This is Theology of the body.

I personally find Nate’s post to be quite in the spirit of St. Augustine.

 

[Image_of_God]

But we are not really teaching people that having sex without exclusive desire of procreation is wrong.

I think that here lies the problem. In the teaching of St. Augustine and some other Church Fathers, having sex for the sake of procreation is good. Having sex merely for pleasure is a venial sin. Having sex as an expression of union is simply not discussed. It would be later that this would be discussed.

That is fine, and one can embrace such theory. But one must admit criticism is also having it’s strong points, and they are difficult to deny, mostly that Augustine’s definition of lust is “everything in sex which is not by intention procreative” (while modern teaching goes in way that lust is everything in sex not procreative by it’s nature). .

Yes and it’s a solid theory. St. Augustine’s teaching on marriage is more than just whether having sex without a procreative intent is venially sinful.The great majority of his teaching on this topic is union with the current Catholic understanding and for that reason Pope Pius XI quotes him frequently in Castii Connubii. It is your focus on this one aspect that makes St. Augustine and the current Church thinking worlds apart. Your understanding also perpetuates an inaccurate perception of St. Augustine and his teachings.

 

[ahs]

It’s too late to edit my post…I referenced Familiaria Consortio as calling it “virtuous continence”. That is not correct. I had meant to reference Casti Conubbii as saying that (which it does).

Sorry for the mis-reference.

 

[sacredcello]

Chrono13,

I would agree that Jesus is NOT with the arrogant dissenting theologians such as Charles Curran who led the faithful away from Truth after the publication of Humanae Vitae. However, I don’t agree that peasants had a different view than what was taught by the Church in their time. Children were considered a blessing, unlike today. Children come into the world with hands to help. In farming communities, large numbers of children were necessary. But, not only necessary, they were viewed as blessings. You are painting a very inaccurate picture of how things were. The Church did not burden the peasants.

Here is an interesting article called Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later by Prof. Janet Smith.

In teaching that contraception is intrinsically immoral, the Church is not imposing a disciplinary law on Catholics; she is preaching only what nature and the gospel preach. By now we should have learned — the hard way — that to defy and overindulge our sexual nature, to go against the laws of nature and God, is to inflict terrible damage on ourselves as individuals and our society as a whole.

— Janet Smith is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Dallas.

 

[Abu]

sacredcello
Chrono13,
You are painting a very inaccurate picture of how things were. The Church did not burden the peasants.

Here is an interesting article called Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later by Prof. Janet Smith.

In teaching that contraception is intrinsically immoral, the Church is not imposing a disciplinary law on Catholics; she is preaching only what nature and the gospel preach. By now we should have learned — the hard way — that to defy and overindulge our sexual nature, to go against the laws of nature and God, is to inflict terrible damage on ourselves as individuals and our society as a whole.

— Janet Smith is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Dallas.

Some people make their own trouble, and compound it by never learning – Chrono13 has given ample evidence of that twin malady ad nauseam.

 

[Chrono13]

So? The Theology of the Body was presented to the faithful, and any others who chose to listen, by the Pope in his capacity as teacher. As such, it has to rate high on the scale of definitive teachings.

But it is not Augustine.

 

[Chrono13]

It doesn’t matter what Augustine taught if his belief on the matter contradicts the belief of the Supreme Pontiff. Um, what year as Augustine a Pope, by the way?

Supreme Pontiffs after Augustine expressed their agreement with the saint. Pope Gregory the Great being the case point.

NFP was addressed by the Magesterium as early as 1853, then again by the Pope in 1880, then also in Humanae Vitae and in Theology of the Body.

However, stoicism was affirmed with Regula Pastoralis and series of Councils which approved it’s approach.

If you want to disagree with the Church on matters of Doctrine and decisions made by the Pope, go for it. But don’t sit there trying to condemn Catholics for adopting the teachings of the Church.

ahs

It is impossible to agree with the clergy on matters of Church History if their approach contradicts it. No authority can make interpretation of truth which bypasses the foundation of it.

 

[ahs]

Supreme Pontiffs after Augustine expressed their agreement with the saint. Pope Gregory the Great being the case point.

However, stoicism was affirmed with Regula Pastoralis and series of Councils which approved it’s approach.

It is impossible to agree with the clergy on matters of Church History if their approach contradicts it. No authority can make interpretation of truth which bypasses the foundation of it.

Okay, so you are suggesting we have Papal encyclicals that contradict one another?
So, what exactly did Pope Gregory the Great say, in a Papal decision, regarding periodic continence being condemned? The earliest Papal decision I’ve found on periodic continence was in 1853, in support of it.
Further, if periodic continence were truly condemned at any time, how could it have possibly made it’s way into the CCC as an approved, and praised, method (with just reason)? The answer is that it could not.
The fact that it is approved in the CCC is testament that you have misunderstood what encyclical or papal writings you are referring to…but let’s see them just for the sake of argument. (If these quotes have already been posted and I missed them, please direct me. )

ahs

 

[Chrono13]

Different customs imply a different understanding of the topic at hand. When St. Gregory speaks of the different opinions concerning “this affair”, he is referring to the custom and the theology that gave rise to it.

The theology was that sex is infected with sin. All customs deriving from this are problematic per se.

The forbidding of particular people from Communion for a particular reason is in part a matter of discipline and therefore subject to change. Hence, the same custom that St. Gregory mentions is not continued in the Roman Church today.

But if the reasons are bizzare, then you have a case of denying layman their religious right.

Regarding you statement concerning sex being practiced for love I don’t think that the people of those times see things in the way you see them.

I have no reasons to believe so. The writings of St. Gregory seem pretty clear on the subject. Layman were probably dissenting on these teachings. But that is another story.

I think you’ve made a mistake. To St. Augustine offspring, fidelity and sacrament are the three goods of marriage. Sex for the sake of having children is good. Sex for the sake of avoiding fornication is a venial fault on the person who needs it. And why would it not be?The person who has sex merely for pleasure makes his partner an instrument of such. If I am correct, to St. Augustine, sex is not bad in itself, tainted it may be. It is the concupiscence that is bad.

Because for Augustine, partner is not an arbiter of copulative morality. Procreation is. How you handle your spouse is not what he is concerned about. What you intend during intercourse makes it moral/natural or not.

Therefore, concupiscence is not selfish using of other body to satisfy one’s needs. Rather, it is everything sexual without intent of procreation.

Let me pose this question: Did St. Augustine know about NFP? Did he condemn it? If you cannot answer yes to the first question, the second one is already a no.

But since answer on both questions is “YES”, there is nothing to object.

I will admit that it is possible that he frowned upon it because of his emphasis on procreative intent. However, it is inaccurate to state that St. Augustine in writing forbid such a thing. Regarding the quote I think you are addressing, St. Augustine is more at opposition with the Manichaeans reasons for abstaining from sexual intercourse than he is with the actual abstinence.

Not really. The Manichaean teaching that materia is evil does not counter the belief sex is only for procreation. When they used infertile periods to avoid the conception, they stepped on Augustine’s toe, since such practice does challenge the “procreation only” agenda.

NOT all of them are, but most of them are. And you ought to concern yourself not just with the small part that isn’t, but even more so with large part that is.
To my knowledge, only Augustine speaks of any kind of periodic abstinence and even there he does not explicitly say it was forbidden. Therefore, from where did you get this idea that it was forbidden?

By default, every Church Father or theologian who expresses belief sex is only for procreation, is an opponent to periodic abstinence and it derivates (such as NFP). The Augustine only confirms this logic.

Jesus said that the gates of hell would not stand against his Church. That includes error. That was what I meant.
Furthermore, you have no idea what Jesus’ opinions were on this matter since they are not written in the Bible. But with faith I say that they are the same as the Church’s.

If Church behaves as if clergy never taught sex is only for procreation, that is spicy topic. Jesus is truth incarnate, and does not need bypasses and avoidance of fact to proove His point and rebuke the falsehood.