NFP and contraception

[Image_of_God]

Or more to the point… you could say that it’s the act of planning out/discovering what days are the days you shouldn’t have sex on to avoid pregnancy that’s the problem. Of course if it just happened randomly there wouldn’t be any sin, because the intent isn’t there. There’s a difference between a couple who just accidentally only had sex on infertile days, and those who do it on purpose.

Problematic to whom? St. Augustine or the Catholic Church?

 

[Warrior1979]

Compendium of the Catechism --issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

BTW, thanks for the reference, because it demonstrates that periodic continence is only part of the issue, not the entire issue that others are making it.

 

[Bookcat]

BTW, thanks for the reference, because it demonstrates that periodic continence is only part of the issue, not the entire issue that others are making it.

Your welcome…that little text issued by Pope Benedict XVI…puts things very succinctly.

 

[copperblade]

Problematic to whom? St. Augustine or the Catholic Church?

Problem to those who hang their hat on the “continuous unchanged teaching of the Church,” really. That the Church has changed position on the things taught is really much more obvious in other areas (not part of the topic of discussion).

If you’re like me, and you’re not convinced that the institution of the Catholic church is protected absolutely from any error, then it’s no problem at all. The spirit of the catholic Church (notice the change in capitalization for this reason) that we profess faith in the creed is not diminished by a change.

 

[davidv]

Problem to those who hang their hat on the “continuous unchanged teaching of the Church,” really. That the Church has changed position on the things taught is really much more obvious in other areas (not part of the topic of discussion).

You have no valid evidence to make this claim, especially when you leave the term “change” undefined. No one has shown that the specific writings of St Augustine are, or were part of Catholic teaching. Besides that it is a red herring, as the teaching on contraception and NFP have not changed.

If you’re like me, and you’re not convinced that the institution of the Catholic church is protected absolutely from any error, then it’s no problem at all. The spirit of the catholic Church (notice the change in capitalization for this reason) that we profess faith in the creed is not diminished by a change.

Your lack of being convinced has abolutely no bearing on the correctness of Catholic teaching.

The spirit of the Catholic Church is the Holy Spirit, who is God and is free of all error. The

John.16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

 

[copperblade]

You have no valid evidence to make this claim, especially when you leave the term “change” undefined. No one has shown that the specific writings of St Augustine are, or were part of Catholic teaching. Besides that it is a red herring, as the teaching on contraception and NFP have not changed.

I will admit to no evidence that could probably convince you is valid. Perhaps people in this thread could convince me that evidence presented here is invalid. I’m still interested after all these pages of reading what people have to say. I will say that my opinion has already been changed by this thread as more evidence has been presented on the subject.

I don’t think the definition of “change” is the issue… I think you mean the definition of “official teaching,” right? The problem is that definition has changed depending on what era you’re living in. Here’s a question: were popes in fact infallible before the 1800’s or were they only infallible retroactively going forward? It must be the former, right? So that means if you lived before 1800’s your definition of what is an official church teaching is different than today.

As for the actual writings of Augustine, I don’t think anyone has claimed they are currently considered an official doctrine. However given the evidence such as from Regula Pastoralis, I think the burden of proof now lies on the those who think Church never taught that NFP was sinful to show that the Church did not hold that position. Again, if you lived in previous era’s your idea of what was “official” was different.

JP2 said: “If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930… This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned.”

I think the Catholic church has in the past done that–condemned people who were later exonerated. To claim that the writings of St. Augustine were not somehow considered as official Catholic teaching in the past (even if they are not considered as such today) seems to be a case of cherry-picking “official” vs “unofficial”

I will admit that going forward, it will be a lot harder to do such a thing. But that’s a whole other can of worms.

Your lack of being convinced has abolutely no bearing on the correctness of Catholic teaching.

I agree–that is a logical statement. I felt as though I was asked my opinion, and I wanted to clarify that while I see an inconsistency in the history, it doesn’t bother me.

The spirit of the Catholic Church is the Holy Spirit, who is God and is free of all error.

I can’t disagree with you there either.

 

[copperblade]

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

That’s interesting. What does “external pressure” mean? Isn’t economic hardship also “external pressure”? I’m trying to imagine a “serious reason” that is not the result of “external pressure”–maybe something was lost in translation.

 

[Bookcat]

That’s interesting. What does “external pressure” mean? Isn’t economic hardship also “external pressure”? I’m trying to imagine a “serious reason” that is not the result of “external pressure”–maybe something was lost in translation.

It means the Govt. telling one that one can have only 1 child (or similar)

We are not speaking of external pressures of economic things…or other external events…such can be serious reasons.

(and for that matter …for those who are under such a govt. it can be argued that for them it is a serious reason…so they do not get serious punished etc…but it is not right for the govt to do that…that is the point of that line)

 

[Chrono13]

You are right, but only in part. I think, even more so, that the pleasure in sex is a means to encourage couples to have children. I would think that few people would engage in intercourse if it were not pleasurable and consequently, few people would have children.

Maybe I wouldn’t go as far as saying that pleasure in sex encourages wish to have children, but it seems to be a vital part of nature.

Where our agreement breaks off is if you deny that there is anything wrong with the pleasure. There certainly is and it has a lot to due to concupiscence.

I don’t mean that. I simply stress that in past, Church was reffering sexual morality to how couple acts toward begetting. If begetting was intent, sex was ok. If not, sex was concupiscence.

As shown above, what you say is good and I and Augustine agree with it (at least in part). But it is important to note that we don’t have full control over our pleasurable sensations. We have a craving for pleasure and as such, there is a “hole” for lust to creep into whereby a married couple can use each other merely for the satisfaction of that urge. And that is undeniably a sin.

However, Augustine sees each act without procreative intent creeping of sinner. This is important to note, because modern interpretators have a habit of forgetting this.

Jewish teaching was imperfect on many levels. Christ came to perfect it. As such, just because the Jews taught such and such on a particular subject does not give it a blank check of acceptance (divorce laws and polygamy are cases in point), especially when it does not deal with the subject of God directly. And if you are including among the laymen who knew of the unitive nature of sex those who fed their children to lions and abandoned their children to die and used potions to induce sterility, then I would say that things do not look very good.

You can abandon a child with belief that sex is only for procreation

I’m sorry if I am pushing too much, but I really want to know your opinion. Do you think idea of sex being unitive had to be developed for centuries?

As I’ve mentioned before, St. Augustine uses the word “concupiscence” more freely than the official Church. In his use, it is not always bad. If I have St. Augustine understood correctly, the concupiscence of the evil sort is not sexual arousal itself. It is the sexual arousal is not subject to reason.

But only reason for sex is procreation in Augustine’s world, meaning only rational arousal is the one with intent of begetting. If you wish to learn more about this, research his idea how sex looked like before the fall.

“It [sexual desire] 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. This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Chapter 27).

I see nothing in here that Theology of the Body would disagree with. In fact, I know that I can find a quote from Pope John Paul II’s talks that are similar to what St. Augustine says above.

Not really. “It” is not sexual desire, but sexual arousal, which is sinful to Augustine since genital erection is not under command of will.

 

[Abu]

copperblade
JP2 said: “If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930… This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned.”

Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

Blessed John Paul II was affirming clearly the utter absurdity of any consideration that contraception is NOT evil in itself, to the Commission studying the question of the contraceptive Pill before Humanae Vitae was issued by Pope Paul VI. The Anglican ecclesial communion had decided to sanction contraception at its Lambeth Conference in 1930.

The issue is put in stark relief: that the Holy Spirit would have to contradict the Christ
who had expressly taught that the Holy Spirit would protect His Church always from teaching any error in faith and morals.

“But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

St John counsels you: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

The Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

It’s time to face reality.

 

[Chrono13]

*"
There is nothing here against periodic continence or the planned timing of intercourse. It admonishes “immodest intercourse”. Where do you see periodic continence as immodest? That is not stated or implied here. *

Immodest intercourse is one which includes sexual pleasure, because pleasure was considered sinful. Sex was to be practiced only for begetting of children, thus periodic continence was out of the question.

You might infer it if you adhere to the writings of St. Augustine, but St. Augustine’s writings are not Church Doctrine and we are not bound to them .

 

[Abu]

With all the dissenting rubbish spewed out, and inability to reason, much less to reason with faith, it is worth recalling the words of the Son of God – the Way the Truth and the Life – who not only died for us but gave us His Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit – precisely what the dissenters cannot stomach.

As Blessed John Paul II incisively explained, a denial of the infallible doctrine in *Casti Connubii *(Pope Pius X, 1930) would mean the total refusal to accept and assent to Christ’s mandate:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

And as sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Egoism, or as convert psychologist Dr Paul Vitz calls it selfism, is the dominant theme of this dissent – self-worship. Basically “I will not serve”.

 

[Chrono13]

With all the dissenting rubbish spewed out, and inability to reason, much less to reason with faith, it is worth recalling the words of the Son of God – the Way the Truth and the Life – who not only died for us but gave us His Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit – precisely what the dissenters cannot stomach.

As Blessed John Paul II incisively explained, a denial of the infallible doctrine in *Casti Connubii *(Pope Pius X, 1930) would mean the total refusal to accept and assent to Christ’s mandate:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

And as sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Egoism, or as convert psychologist Dr Paul Vitz calls it selfism, is the dominant theme of this dissent – self-worship. Basically “I will not serve”.

Egoism is indeed danger to Christian mind. But I do not ask service of myself, neither I wish to encourage dissent.

You have expressed, and hold, firm belief that Chruch had no knowledge of NFP prior to 19th century. The history of Church proved you were wrong. Why are you attacking me, as it was me who learned of infertile period and forbid, or allowed, it’s usage? Why do I have to answer your bites? Are you defending the Church that way-or what you wish Church to be?

Do I judge you? Not. I simply state the truth. It would be just, even if I would join your attempt to bypass the evident.

“Feed my sheep!” is not giving the authority. It is actually a command to be obeyed. And how can one grant such wish of good Lord? By telling people that stoicism wasn’t part of our teaching? Who will believe that, and respect the Church past?

 

[Warrior1979]

With all the dissenting rubbish spewed out, and inability to reason, much less to reason with faith, it is worth recalling the words of the Son of God – the Way the Truth and the Life – who not only died for us but gave us His Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit – precisely what the dissenters cannot stomach.

As Blessed John Paul II incisively explained, a denial of the infallible doctrine in *Casti Connubii *(Pope Pius X, 1930) would mean the total refusal to accept and assent to Christ’s mandate:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

And as sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Egoism, or as convert psychologist Dr Paul Vitz calls it selfism, is the dominant theme of this dissent – self-worship. Basically “I will not serve”.

Are you trying to say that we should all be mindless robots and ignore the intellect that God gave us? Your argument seems to be that the Church is right, end of discussion. That’s not going to convince anyone of anything.

BTW, it should be noted that the Catholic Church is not the only Church with Apostolic lineage, nor is it the most conservative. There are important differences between these Church’s regarding faith and morals.

 

[ahs]

With all the dissenting rubbish spewed out, and inability to reason, much less to reason with faith, it is worth recalling the words of the Son of God – the Way the Truth and the Life – who not only died for us but gave us His Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit – precisely what the dissenters cannot stomach.

As Blessed John Paul II incisively explained, a denial of the infallible doctrine in *Casti Connubii *(Pope Pius X, 1930) would mean the total refusal to accept and assent to Christ’s mandate:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

And as sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Egoism, or as convert psychologist Dr Paul Vitz calls it selfism, is the dominant theme of this dissent – self-worship. Basically “I will not serve”.

Thank you for this refreshing call to reality. I can admit to my own egoism at one point in this thread and I hope that has not distracted from my original purpose of defending a teaching of the Church.

My final comment on the matter: I submit myself entirely to the teaching authority of the Church, and I pray the same for all members of this forum. I recognize the Catechism of the Catholic Church as holding the official teachings of the Church within it and subject myself to those teachings.

In Christ,
ahs

 

[Abu]

ahs
Thank you for this refreshing call to reality. I can admit to my own egoism at one point in this thread and I hope that has not distracted from my original purpose of defending a teaching of the Church.
My final comment on the matter: I submit myself entirely to the teaching authority of the Church, and I pray the same for all members of this forum. I recognize the Catechism of the Catholic Church as holding the official teachings of the Church within it and subject myself to those teachings.

Thank you, ahs, for that refreshing identification of the purpose of offering truth, so as to combat error. May your journey continue to be with Him, in Him and through Him.

Warrior1979
Your argument seems to be that the Church is right, end of discussion.
BTW, it should be noted that the Catholic Church is not the only Church with Apostolic lineage, nor is it the most conservative.

As crystal clear, Christ only built ONE Catholic Church, to which he gave His authority and protected Her from teaching error through the Holy Spirit. The substantiation of His teaching through Her on the total evil of contraception, and the legitimate use of His creation in human nature in providing the infertile periods in NBR, have all been well expressed clearly.

She is faithful to Him; “conservative” does not properly identify Her mission. Christ has no other Church. Catholics endeavour to be faithful to Christ in His Church. No other Christian assembly has the authority of Christ’s Supreme Vicar – the Pope, nor can they have Ecumenical Councils approved by him.

Opposing the Magisterium of Christ’s Church is dissent, as Blessed John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987]

The facts are once again here:
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea1.asp
Apologetics and birth control
By JOHN F. KIPPLEY
‘Researchers in the mid-1920s discovered for the first time in recorded history that ovulation occurs approximately two weeks before the start of the next menstruation. This physiological reality is at the basis of all forms of natural family planning. At Lambeth in 1930 the Anglican bishops drew a false dichotomy between permanent abstinence and contraception; that is, they seemed unaware of the possibility of periodic abstinence and seemed to think that the only alternatives to unlimited pregnancies were total abstinence or contraception.

‘In fact, there had been medical speculation about an infertile time of the woman’s cycle since the mid-nineteenth century. Questions about the morality of confining relations to the infertile time had been addressed to the Vatican during the last half of the 1800s, and the practice had been approved.

‘Thus, long before calendar rhythm became a practical possibility, its theoretical possibility had been foreseen and had been approved.’

 

[ddarko]

Are you trying to say that we should all be mindless robots and ignore the intellect that God gave us? Your argument seems to be that the Church is right, end of discussion. That’s not going to convince anyone of anything.

BTW, it should be noted that the Catholic Church is not the only Church with Apostolic lineage, nor is it the most conservative. There are important differences between these Church’s regarding faith and morals.

Just to add to what Abu said above,

NO, you are not called to be mindless robots. You are called to use your God given brain to FIND OUT which Church/Religion to believe in. After you discover the Church, you don’t second guess it. You give full assent to it.

So yes, the Church is right, end of discussion.

As for the apostolic lineage problem, you just need to remember the primacy of Rome as can be discovered by performing a historical analysis using the book of Acts and other early church writings.

So if those “other” apostolic lineage claiming church’s have strayed from what the Roman Bishop and Bishop’s in union with him have proclaimed, THEN THEY ARE IN ERROR.

And btw, its precisely with those kind of things that you can use your God given brain to analyze.

But to claim that I don’t believe in the Holy Trinity because I can’t understand it or I don’t believe that practicing NFP is not immoral because I don’t understand it is NOT a viable position for a Catholic.

God Bless

 

[Warrior1979]

Opposing the Magisterium of Christ’s Church is dissent,

You continually confuse inquiries into particular issue with dissent. While I question the reasoning behind the issue, I have never said that the Church is wrong, and I am obedient to the Church on the matter. You’re so enraptured with being right you can’t see the forest through the trees. Put your pride aside and stop the childish finger-pointing nonsense.

 

[Warrior1979]

Just to add to what Abu said above,

NO, you are not called to be mindless robots. You are called to use your God given brain to FIND OUT which Church/Religion to believe in. After you discover the Church, you don’t second guess it. You give full assent to it.

So yes, the Church is right, end of discussion.

I have ascented as noted in the prior post. Now provide a coherent line of reasoning…if you can.

 

[ddarko]

I have ascented as noted in the prior post. Now provide a coherent line of reasoning…if you can.

For what exactly?

If you’ve given full assent, the coherent line of reasoning is not much of a use. One does not believe doctrine because there is coherent understanding present about it.

If none of the attempts at making sense to you by others have succeeded, it is a cross for you to carry the burden of not knowing how it must be at this time.

You will be in my prayers.

God Bless