NFP and contraception

[Image_of_God]

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

There is a difference between saying sex is sinful itself and that sex is infected with sin. St. Augustine could not have meant the former, otherwise, even sex for the sake of procreation would be with sin.

The fact that sex is infected with sin cannot be disputed. St. Augustine brings up the excellent point that every good deed is done in the light of the day, except sex. He does not doubt that sex for the sake of procreation is definitely a virtuous act, but that there is something wrong with it, for one doesn’t (rightfully) do it out in the open.

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

But who said that the reasons were bizarre? St. Augustine brings up excellent point as to the reasons he holds the beliefs he does. That does not mean that they are correct, but they are not bizarre and something everyone married couple should consider.

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.

The context tells a different story. It is most probable that since there was not universally binding canon on the topic at hand that there was some variation of thought. There is no doubt that St. Gregory’s position is clear, but while St. Gregory regards sexual pleasure as something to be shunned, St. Augustine regards it as a good from God, with due limits.

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.

St. Augustine is most certainly concerned with how one handles their spouse. He bases the fostering of love in marriage more on the order of charity than on sex. In other words, how you treat your spouse in all areas of life is more important that having a good sex life.

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

You should be careful to note that St. Augustine uses the term “concupiscence” rather broadly and he doesn’t always mean bad by it. According to St. Augustine even a couple who has sex with the intention of procreation is using concupiscence, albeit to a good end.

If a couple is not having sex for the sake of procreation St. Augustine and St. Gregory assume that they are having sex merely for pleasure which is a venial sin. Pope Innocent XI in the 1600s maintains that sex merely for pleasure is a venial sin as does St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. St. Francis de Sales maintains this view also, even while saying it is not necessary to have a procreative intent for every marital act. It appears that current Church teaching maintains this view as well. The Catechism says that “sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” The divergence is whether every sexual act must have a procreative intent.

As such, it has appeared to me that there was a gap in St. Augustine’s thinking. For they regarded sex as only for procreation. However they regarded having sex incontinently as a venial sin, by which they meant sex merely for pleasure is a sin.

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

I am rereading the passage and I think you are right on this. But, again, St. Augustine is the only one who mentions it explicitly.

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.

I never said it was. I said that the passage you are glossing, it does not appear that St. Augustine is condemning periodic abstinence. Such an idea has to come from St. Augustine’s emphasis on procreative intent in his other works.

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.

I completely agree with this.

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 prove His point and rebuke the falsehood.

I don’t think the Church is behaving that way. Here, Archbishop Burke presents an honest commentary of St. Augustine’s teaching on procreation in marriage. You dismissed Abu when he presented the commentary, but Burke’s work might help clear up some inaccuracies regarding St. Augustine’s teaching you have been perpetuating.

You are right to say that Jesus is Truth Incarnate, which is all the reason why I have complete trust in his words: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it!” The Church has not err nor will it ever!

 

[sw85]

I’m a bit confused about RCC teaching on NFP and contraception.

My perception is that the RCC thinks that any emission of sperm that doesn’t have the potential to cause procreation is wrong, including oral sex, anal sex, and using condoms. This is also the basis for the RCC being against any contraception.

Except NFP. Clearly NFP is intended to avoid procreation by determining which days of the month a woman is fertile, and not engaging in sex on those days, thus creating the circumstance where the couple only emits sperm on days where that sperm doesn’t have the potential to cause procreation.

But in the case of other forms of sex and contraception, that’s morally wrong.

Why is it acceptable to avoid procreation through biology and calendar watching, but unacceptable to avoid procreation through alternative methods of emission, and contraceptives?

Morality (from a natural law standpoint) consists in using your faculties in a manner consistent with their end.

The end of the sexual act is procreation.

Therefore, sexual morality consists in using the sexual faculty in a manner consistent with procreation (even if procreation doesn’t result).

 

[Abu]

Image of God
Here, Archbishop Burke presents an honest commentary of St. Augustine’s teaching on procreation in marriage. You dismissed Abu when he presented the commentary, but Burke’s work might help clear up some inaccuracies regarding St. Augustine’s teaching you have been perpetuating.

Chrono13 suffers from egoism and is quite unable to accept reality on the basis of fact.

May I mention that the Cormac P Burke is a Monsignor, not an Archbishop and outstanding in his field. For interested readers, here is a tribute from Ed Peters at:
tinyurl.com/3pt2xxu

**Thursday, May 25, 2006
Dr Ed Peters: Msgr. Cormac Burke’s canon law website **
For those of us who have more than a passing interest in Canon Law, this looks to be great news:

Msgr. [Cormac] Burke is that unusual kind of man who has maintained extensive scholarly output while performing Church work at the highest levels; in him, we have the chance to see how a canonical judge (one with a common law formation at that) adjudicates actual cases, and how the same man reflects on those issues as an academic. Thus, his decision to launch a personal website, featuring many of his books, articles, and judicial sentences, is very exciting news. His materials (often entire works) are now available in several languages.

Read Dr. Peters’ overview of retired Rotal Judge, Msgr. Cormac Burke’s, important canon law website here: tinyurl.com/3q3oyxx

 

[copperblade]

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.

The real issue is the Church today looks at each sex act individually. When St. Augustine condemns the practice of avoiding fertile sex, he does not mean that the act of not having sex on infertile days is sinful. He must mean the act of willfully planning to have sex only on certain days is sinful–not even the act of having sex itself.

The question is completely reframed today–the Church does not allow a couple’s marriage to be “open to life” over a long period of time, but requires it to be “open to life” for each act. In other words, sex is sort of micro-managed so that each act is deemed sinful or not on its own basis without looking at any externalities.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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

Maybe not ‘wrong’, but certainly less desirable. Dr. Scott Hahn has compared a couple using NFP to an individual attending Mass and remaining in the pew instead of receiving the Eucharist. Once we subtract the modern spin, constant teaching on this issue is easier to see.

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.

No worries about the misquoting, I think we’ve got it all sorted out.

I agree, the marital debt is not bound by fertility. A couple certainly may have sex during infertility though, (whether they know their fertlity or not) to satisfy the marital debt.

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). .

If St. Augustine thought sex without ‘procreative intent’ lustful, it was only to a venial degree. Also, in speaking against contraception, He stated well before modern teachers that sex is meant to be procreative by its nature.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The real issue is the Church today looks at each sex act individually. When St. Augustine condemns the practice of avoiding fertile sex, he does not mean that the act of not having sex on infertile days is sinful. He must mean the act of willfully planning to have sex only on certain days is sinful–not even the act of having sex itself.

The question is completely reframed today–the Church does not allow a couple’s marriage to be “open to life” over a long period of time, but requires it to be “open to life” for each act. In other words, sex is sort of micro-managed so that each act is deemed sinful or not on its own basis without looking at any externalities.

Catholicism teaches that marriage is ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. This is a general teaching (some couples are unable to have children). Catholicism also teaches that each sex act must be ordered to procreation and unity. This is a more specific teaching.

St. Augustine condemned the practice of avoiding fertile sex for members of a religious sect (Manichaeism) who thought matter (and consequently bearing children) intrinsically evil. Modern Catholicism also condemns such practice. This was discussed earlier in the thread, maybe before you joined, copperblade.

It is interesting that St. Augustine condemned this rudimentary form of ‘pregnancy avoidance NFP’ for the Manichaees but he didn’t condemn it in any other situation.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

But are we really to accept that idea of sexuality as expression of love had to be developed for thousands of years? Isn’t it fairly obvious that sex is wonderful gift? Especially when layman expressed knowledge of unitive nature (in art, poetry etc.) And Jews before them?

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.

I do not believe so. What happens when people read Augustine and compare it with Casti Connubii? Many get puzzled. And literally all have this hidden frustration that document and saint are not as close as they would wish.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

Curran’s theories are not what I would pick when discussing Humanae Vitae. But Jesus certainly wasn’t defending people who challenged Catholic marriage with stoicism.

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.

From what we know of secular literature (such as Decameron), peasants had their share of thought. Children are considered blessing even today, but since new economical systems are present, birth control is used to keep family in practical state. This is something we can discuss later, but fundamentally, point is that contraception in modern world is not sexual, but economical device.

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

Hmmm…

 

[Chrono13]

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.

Gregory claimed sexual pleasure was sinful, but sexual activity required for procreation. Because of this, acts were to be preformed only when conception was intended- and this by default is against periodic continence.

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.

Because cathecisms were not in practice before 16th century.

As for quotes, the main point at this time should be what were the reasons contraception ban was practiced, and what was the natural law system applied to the ban.

 

[sacredcello]

but fundamentally, point is that contraception in modern world is not sexual, but economical device.

That is interesting. If contraception is not sexual, but is an economical device, then why wouldn’t couples choose a method that is more effective? NFP has higher effectiveness rates as a method (Sympto-thermal method has 99% effectiveness rate) than any hormonal or barrier method. And, it doesn’t cause strokes, cancer or fatal blood clots.

I think we both know the answer, by the way. Contraception does not require a couple to have to make virtuous decisions or to fulfill a calling to holiness by living a chaste life. In order to be effective, NFP requires discipline and self-mastery which are loathsome concepts to the secular worldview.

 

[Chrono13]

There is a difference between saying sex is sinful itself and that sex is infected with sin. St. Augustine could not have meant the former, otherwise, even sex for the sake of procreation would be with sin.

He meant the former alright…
*… yet, whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust. Now, this ardour, whether following or preceding the will, does somehow, by a power of its own, move the members which cannot be moved simply by the will, and in this manner it shows itself not to be the servant of a will which commands it, but rather to be the punishment of a will which disobeys it. It shows, moreover, that it must be excited, not by a free choice, but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on this very account it produces shame.
BOOK I, CHAPTER 27
*

The fact that sex is infected with sin cannot be disputed. St. Augustine brings up the excellent point that every good deed is done in the light of the day, except sex. He does not doubt that sex for the sake of procreation is definitely a virtuous act, but that there is something wrong with it, for one doesn’t (rightfully) do it out in the open.

What is your point exactly? Do you agree that every sexual activitiy is sinful for some reason?

But who said that the reasons were bizarre? St. Augustine brings up excellent point as to the reasons he holds the beliefs he does. That does not mean that they are correct, but they are not bizarre and something everyone married couple should consider.

His point is that sex is sinful when begetting is not in mind (no matter the openess to life). If this is not bizzare, it is not objective as well.

The context tells a different story. It is most probable that since there was not universally binding canon on the topic at hand that there was some variation of thought. There is no doubt that St. Gregory’s position is clear, but while St. Gregory regards sexual pleasure as something to be shunned, St. Augustine regards it as a good from God, with due limits.

You have a saint asking for advice of Pope (St. Augustine of England to St. Gregory the great) on sexual matters. The pope responds with stoicism, which is later approved by various medival councils. If canon does not exist, it is probably because the matter was taken as obvious. Or, to make it clearer, because saints taught sex is only for procreation, that premise was considered part of tradition, and traditions are not in need of canon to be uphold.

St. Augustine is most certainly concerned with how one handles their spouse. He bases the fostering of love in marriage more on the order of charity than on sex. In other words, how you treat your spouse in all areas of life is more important that having a good sex life.

You know what I meant If you wish to show respect to your wife, you need to intend begetting during sex according to Augustine.

The divergence is whether every sexual act must have a procreative intent.

Which is a HUGE problem, since it makes NFP acceptable or not.

As such, it has appeared to me that there was a gap in St. Augustine’s thinking. For they regarded sex as only for procreation. However they regarded having sex incontinently as a venial sin, by which they meant sex merely for pleasure is a sin.

I am rereading the passage and I think you are right on this. But, again, St. Augustine is the only one who mentions it explicitly.

I do believe so as well. But it does not matter. Saints don’t mention contraceptive practices that much. They are more stressing the system behind why they are forbiden.

I never said it was. I said that the passage you are glossing, it does not appear that St. Augustine is condemning periodic abstinence. .

That would be difficult to prove. It is very clear.

I don’t think the Church is behaving that way. Here, Archbishop Burke presents an honest commentary of St. Augustine’s teaching on procreation in marriage. You dismissed Abu when he presented the commentary, but Burke’s work might help clear up some inaccuracies regarding St. Augustine’s teaching you have been perpetuating.

I have read Burke’s work, and most of his points were touched and replied during this discussion. He bypasses key points of Church History which make his case very difficult to hold.

You are right to say that Jesus is Truth Incarnate, which is all the reason why I have complete trust in his words: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it!” The Church has not err nor will it ever!

Whoever claims that there was no premise of stoicism in Catholic morality makes an error. And Jesus is not on his side.

Jesus also told Peter “Feed my sheep”. And that means, hold the truths and share them with flock. Don’t bypass the facts.

 

[ahs]

Gregory claimed sexual pleasure was sinful, but sexual activity required for procreation. Because of this, acts were to be preformed only when conception was intended- and this by default is against periodic continence.

You’re telling me his opinions and thoughts. I’m asking which Papal Encyclical or which decision from the Magesterium of the Church took those thoughts and made them into Church teaching. The reason you can’t point to the exact one is because it doesn’t exist.

There DOES exist, however, 2 Papal Encyclicals (Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae) and 2 official Magesterium decisions (1853 and 1880) that approve the use of NFP.

Because cathecisms were not in practice before 16th century.

It doesn’t matter when the CCC was written. The CCC contains the teachings of the Church for all time and the Church cannot approve an act that is contrary or disordered to natural law. The very fact that NFP is praised and approved in CCC is a testament to the fact that it is neither contrary or disordered to natural law.

As for quotes, the main point at this time should be what were the reasons contraception ban was practiced, and what was the natural law system applied to the ban.

Contraception and NFP are not the same thing. Contraception is a thwarting of the marital act. NFP is not. For a better explanation, read “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresey?” by Rev. Brian Harrison.

 

[Image_of_God]

But are we really to accept that idea of sexuality as expression of love had to be developed for thousands of years? Isn’t it fairly obvious that sex is wonderful gift? Especially when layman expressed knowledge of unitive nature (in art, poetry etc.) And Jews before them?

I would like to leave the bolded question for you to answer. I will only answer that you only have to look around to see that sex is not as idealistic as you are presenting it. The way that some people present sex in popular music is not exactly as a “wonderful gift”.

I do not believe so. What happens when people read Augustine and compare it with Casti Connubii? Many get puzzled. And literally all have this hidden frustration that document and saint are not as close as they would wish.

To be honest, I need to read more. But with the difference of whether a procreative intention is required for every sexual act, I don’t think there is much of a difference. Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is quite Augustinian, especially on its discussions on concupiscence.

 

[Image_of_God]

He meant the former alright…
*… yet, whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust. Now, this ardour, whether following or preceding the will, does somehow, by a power of its own, move the members which cannot be moved simply by the will, and in this manner it shows itself not to be the servant of a will which commands it, but rather to be the punishment of a will which disobeys it. It shows, moreover, that it must be excited, not by a free choice, but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on this very account it produces shame.
BOOK I, CHAPTER 27
*

Your very own quote shows that St. Augustine held “the very embrace” to be “lawful and honourable”. That only proves the point I was making. He does not consider sex sinful in itself. But he does not deny that sex is effected by concupiscence (but not intrinsically sinful). And to be honest, neither can you or I.

What is your point exactly? Do you agree that every sexual activitiy is sinful for some reason?

No. My point is that in sex there is something to be ashamed of. Why do people do it in secret? Why is pornography wrong? If sex is a perfectly good act between a married couple, which it is, why is it shameful for them to do it in public? Could it have something to do with concupiscence?

His point is that sex is sinful when begetting is not in mind (no matter the openess to life). If this is not bizzare, it is not objective as well.

That’s his point, but not his reason. His reasoning is quite difficult to counter. When people have sex without intending to procreate they are quite at risk of begetting a child they do not love. Casey Anthony and her situation is a case in point. Abortion is another. Even, around Augustine’s time, unwanted children were fed to wild beasts. an unwanted child born? Augustine’s reasoning is hardly unsound. Perhaps his point is incorrect, but it is truly fortified and you cannot dismiss the fact.

You have a saint asking for advice of Pope (St. Augustine of England to St. Gregory the great) on sexual matters. The pope responds with stoicism, which is later approved by various medival councils. If canon does not exist, it is probably because the matter was taken as obvious. Or, to make it clearer, because saints taught sex is only for procreation, that premise was considered part of tradition, and traditions are not in need of canon to be uphold.

For one thing, if I take your position that laypeople believed in sex for unitive purposes in opposition to the clergy then it was not that “obvious”. The obviousness of this teaching cannot be accept also because the Pelagians and Manichaeans were certainly at odds with it. It is surprising that despite this opposition, an Ecumenical Council did not rule on it. For another thing, that a tradition does not need a canon is not true. Tradition clearly held that there were seven sacraments, yet the Council of Trent still needed to uphold them with canons.

I don’t understand what you mean by saying that the Church approved Stoicism. Even if the Church did approve Stoicism, it does not follow that it was accepting all stoic ideas, much less stoic ideas regarding intercourse.

Finally, you still haven’t given a good explanation as to why St. Gregory mentions the existence of other opinions, or customs if you will, on the matter. Your last explanation does not suffice given the context.

You know what I meant If you wish to show respect to your wife, you need to intend begetting during sex according to Augustine.

You speak the truth here.

Which is a HUGE problem, since it makes NFP acceptable or not.

It is not a huge problem, for the infallible teachings of the Church rest in her Magisterium, not in individuals, though well-regarded.

I do believe so as well. But it does not matter. Saints don’t mention contraceptive practices that much. They are more stressing the system behind why they are forbiden.

The saints don’t deal with this topic that much in general.

That would be difficult to prove. It is very clear.

I have already gave a response to this issue. I’m surprised you missed it as it was in a post you quoted from.

I have read Burke’s work, and most of his points were touched and replied during this discussion. He bypasses key points of Church History which make his case very difficult to hold.

But we’re dealing with a particular topic (which Burke’s article discusses in detail) and therefore your readings of him in terms of Church History are irrelevant and cannot be used to dismiss it.

Whoever claims that there was no premise of stoicism in Catholic morality makes an error. And Jesus is not on his side.

I don’t know where I denied this. The very idea of Logos is stoicism. I would be a fool to deny that.

Jesus also told Peter “Feed my sheep”. And that means, hold the truths and share them with flock. Don’t bypass the facts.

No one is bypassing facts. Though you might have the facts, it does not follow that you are interpreting them correctly.

 

[Abu]

St Augustine’s opposition to the Stoics is clear:
“The system of Pelagius can today be better understood than heretofore. Pelagius doubtless denied original sin, and the immortality and integrity of Adam; in a word, the whole supernatural order. But the parent idea of his system, which was of stoic origin, was nothing else than the complete ‘emancipation’ of human liberty with regard to God, and its limitless power for good and for evil. It depended on man to attain by himself, without the grace of God, a stoic impeccability and even insensibility, or the absolute control of his passions.”
newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

To get a realistic understanding of St Augustine, to counter the speculation, the excerpts below are from a study by a priest of the Opus Del Prelature, a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), who teaches at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
By Monsignor Cormac Burke
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

 

[ahs]

Sorry, I forgot to post the link to the article, “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresey?”

Here it is: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

And a brief bio on the author: catholicism.org/author/fatherbrianharrisonos

ahs

 

[Chrono13]

Chrono13 suffers from egoism and is quite unable to accept reality on the basis of fact.

I bless your insults, since they show your virtues. But there are better ways to express your faith.

Msgr. [Cormac] Burke is that unusual kind of man who has maintained extensive scholarly output while performing Church work at the highest levels; in him, we have the chance to see how a canonical judge (one with a common law formation at that) adjudicates actual cases, and how the same man reflects on those issues as an academic. Thus, his decision to launch a personal website, featuring many of his books, articles, and judicial sentences, is very exciting news. His materials (often entire works) are now available in several languages.

Sounds nice. Hopefully, the site will give better arguments then those given in text you linked.

 

[Chrono13]

The real issue is the Church today looks at each sex act individually. When St. Augustine condemns the practice of avoiding fertile sex, he does not mean that the act of not having sex on infertile days is sinful. He must mean the act of willfully planning to have sex only on certain days is sinful–not even the act of having sex itself.

That is correct reading of Augustine.

The question is completely reframed today–the Church does not allow a couple’s marriage to be “open to life” over a long period of time, but requires it to be “open to life” for each act. In other words, sex is sort of micro-managed so that each act is deemed sinful or not on its own basis without looking at any externalities.

There are many problems with calling NFP open to life. By default, it is completely impossible for a woman to concieve when in infertile period. The only way how conception does happen is when couple fails to interpret the signs of fertility. And it is difficult to accept that something is moral on account of human error.

As for externalities, you are right. The point of Church fathers were that every action done in order to provide intercourse without conception is sinful. Modern approach is different. It claims action is fine if it is not inside of intercourse itself. NFP is thus allowed, because action is taken outside of act.

 

[Chrono13]

Maybe not ‘wrong’, but certainly less desirable. Dr. Scott Hahn has compared a couple using NFP to an individual attending Mass and remaining in the pew instead of receiving the Eucharist. Once we subtract the modern spin, constant teaching on this issue is easier to see.

Which is bizzare, since NFP is taught to be in accordance with natural law.

I agree, the marital debt is not bound by fertility. A couple certainly may have sex during infertility though, (whether they know their fertlity or not) to satisfy the marital debt.

That’s great.

If St. Augustine thought sex without ‘procreative intent’ lustful, it was only to a venial degree. Also, in speaking against contraception, He stated well before modern teachers that sex is meant to be procreative by its nature.

To be honest, he said sex is meant to be procrative by it’s intent.

 

[Chrono13]

That is interesting. If contraception is not sexual, but is an economical device, then why wouldn’t couples choose a method that is more effective? NFP has higher effectiveness rates as a method (Sympto-thermal method has 99% effectiveness rate) than any hormonal or barrier method. And, it doesn’t cause strokes, cancer or fatal blood clots.

The technique rised it’s effectiveness only in last few decades. And it still doesn’t cover the human error factor.

I think we both know the answer, by the way. Contraception does not require a couple to have to make virtuous decisions or to fulfill a calling to holiness by living a chaste life. In order to be effective, NFP requires discipline and self-mastery which are loathsome concepts to the secular worldview.

You are right, to degree. But not to the end.

First, people abstaining for fertility control do it for practical reasons. Not for chasity. To say otherwise would be as saying that starving person is training self-mastery of fasting. It is not the virtue which is leading them to abstinence. It is neccessity required for stable economical situation. We can praise them, but only to an extent. Abstaining for prayer is much more worthy then for fertility control.

Second, it is wrong to say artificial contraception does not allow self-mastery and chaste life.For example, pair using condoms can agree to abstinate for two months in order to dedicate themselves to prayer (as Paul suggested). Pair using NFP will have two infertility windows to practice their acts in that time.

Finally, the Commission of Humanae Vitae took Catholic testimonies very seriously when couples claimed sex according to fertility cycle is damaging their relationship. People of good faith would probably go even further.