NFP and contraception

[ddarko]

I’m really confused by this discussion. Why do we continue to debate what the Church has taught and whether you guys can find some kind of logical inconsistency in its history? Would that change whether contraception is morally wrong? Start another thread if you want to talk about whether the Church has been constant in its teaching on this issue or has contradicted itself.

I have to agree with you here 100%. I am a little tired at the amounts of threads trying to disprove one church teaching using another church teaching understood according to their own interpretation.

I think people forget that Teachings of the Church are part of Tradition. Thus, the Church is the authoritative interpreter and teacher of Scripture and Tradition.

The people who insist that “this teaching in the past says that but now it says this → so its wrong” is not doing anything much different from a Protestant who claims “this is what it says in Scripture and this is what is taught → so it’s wrong”.

In the Protestant case, he is misinterpreting Scripture, and in this case, people are misinterpreting Tradition.

God Bless

 

[Good_Daughter]

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

What is bizarre about Dr. Hahn comparing an NFP user to one who refrains from taking the Eucharist? The ideal is for us to attend Mass and recieve communion along with the grace it imparts. If we’re not in the proper state to do so, we should abstain. Likewise, the ideal for married couples is no birth control, but if serious reasons arise, we should abstain from relations.

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

But permitted even without ‘procreative intent’.

Here’s a hypothetical for you: Imagine I’m a pregnant Catholic wife living at St. Augustine’s time and I want to follow his teaching. My husband would like to engage in relations. Is it more sinful to have relations with him, knowing I would not be ‘intending procreation’, or to deny him the marital debt?

 

[Chrono13]

I’m really confused by this discussion. Why do we continue to debate what the Church has taught and whether you guys can find some kind of logical inconsistency in its history? Would that change whether contraception is morally wrong? Start another thread if you want to talk about whether the Church has been constant in its teaching on this issue or has contradicted itself.

It would certainly shake the explanation that contraception is immoral. And I don’t think we need another thread for this. Topic is nfp and contraception, and we are discussing why it was the same thing 200 years ago.

 

[Chrono13]

THANKS!! My apologies to you, Chrono13, if led any to doubt.

No offence taken.

 

[Chrono13]

Okay, so this is fromBook III Chapter
I admit that I don’t fully understand what is being said there, but does that not indicate that continence and incontinence were seen as separate from immoderate intercourse? Help me understand that better…it sounds to me like he is suggesting a married couple is not in sin to remain incontinent despite a non fertile period.

Indeed so. For stoics, status of fertility is not crux of matter. It is ok to practice sex during infertile period-however, if this was done for a reason of avoiding begetting, it is a sin.

The mentioned connection between nfp and onanism can be an example. People using Nfp intent semen to be rejected and thrown outside of woman, while those who simply have sex on infertile day have no such wish.

Nfp to stoics is not “continence”, it is “waiting for lust”.

 

[Nate13]

For everyone who keeps complaining that NFP and contraception are the exact same thing, tell me why you don’t just use NFP if they are the same?

 

[copperblade]

For everyone who keeps complaining that NFP and contraception are the exact same thing, tell me why you don’t just use NFP if they are the same?

I haven’t used either in my marriage. However, I have been in a situation where NFP wasn’t going to work reliably, and we were told not to get pregnant by the doctor for health reasons. That’s what made me really realize how the Church’s stance on contraception in general is more legalistic rather than spiritual: we would have been open to having another child immediately if it weren’t “unadvisable” by the doctors.

 

[Abu]

copperblade, #1156
the Church’s stance on contraception in general is more legalistic rather than spiritual

With the woman taken in adultery (Jn 8:3), Christ’s last words were “sin no more” meaning do not breach the sixth commandment – He was certainly not warning her to be less legalistic in future!

So, Christ the Son of God is not legalistic. He doesn’t have a mere “stance” and neither does His Church. The infallibility imparted by Christ to all doctrine on faith and morals to the whole Church defined by His supreme vicar is non–negotiable. Thus, Christ’s Church imparts and upholds His laws.

Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction may provide the information and/or direction which may be of help which will not conflict with reality.
popepaulvi.com/ncfwh-evaltreat.htm

 

[Chrono13]

With the woman taken in adultery (Jn 8:3), Christ’s last words were “sin no more” meaning do not breach the sixth commandment – He was certainly not warning her to be less legalistic in future!

So, Christ the Son of God is not legalistic. He doesn’t have a mere “stance” and neither does His Church. The infallibility imparted by Christ to all doctrine on faith and morals to the whole Church defined by His supreme vicar is non–negotiable. Thus, Christ’s Church imparts and upholds His laws.

You are just trying to give impression that copperblade called Jesus a legalist.

Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction may provide the information and/or direction which may be of help which will not conflict with reality.
popepaulvi.com/ncfwh-evaltreat.htm

You are welcome to use their arguments in this discussion.

 

[Chrono13]

St. Augustine clearly says that if begetting was the intent, sex was not merely ok, but good. Also, St. Augustine makes it clear in his other writings that it is possible that sexual intercourse would have existed before the fall (before concupiscence even existed). Hence, concupiscence and sex are NOT equivalent. The concupiscence, according to him is that the pleasure in sex is not completely under the control of the partakers.

But what would constitute pleasure “under” control?

That is not at all what I was saying. People who are having sex for explicitly procreative reasons are less inclined to abandon their children because that’s the very reason their having sex. That is obvious.

But nobody does so And those who do have it only until they recieve certain number of children.

" For of these certain [goods] are necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning: certain for the sake of health, as meat and drink and sleep: **certain for the sake of friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: for hence subsists the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendly fellowship is a great good.
**" (Of the Good of Marriage, Section 9).

This was already explained. It is probably the only quote in which Augustine suggests there is more in coitus then procreation, but doesn’t go far in explanation. Furthermore, his “procreation only” arguments follow shortly after, meaning they have to be taken into consideration.

Most satisfying interpretation of the quote is that it includes begetting intent besides the unitive/friendship intent. This can also be attributed to St. Gregory’s quote in Regula Pastoralis regarding “mountain” you quoted. Basically, if you are having sex with intent of procreation, you might as well enjoy pleasure and unitive nature of intercourse.But if you are not intending procreation, it triggers some things.

When the Fathers speak of having sex for reasons of procreation, it seems to stand to reason that union is also implied. However as to an understanding that sex without an intention to procreate could indeed be good and unitive, it appears that took time. St. Albert the Great seems, at least to me, to be the first to suggest it could be, but there could have been earlier.

Well, you have marital debt already in Augustine, altough it is still considered bad.

That’s not true. St. Augustine says that even people who use sex for reasons of procreation use the evil of concupiscence albeit to a good end. Concupiscence is a matter of fact after the fall and as such there is no rational arousal.

We are talking about the same thing St. Augustine claimed concupiscence is required for coitus (there he probably meant simple sexual arousal). He also introduced the idea that pleasure in sex transfers original sin to child.

Whether sexual desire or sexual arousal, my interpretation remains the same. It is not sinful unless St. Augustine would be contradicting himself when he says sex for reasons of procreation is without fault. It is not the sexual intercourse that is faulty, but the fact that the pleasure involved is not under full control of reason.

That is not wrong, but fundamentally, reasonable intercourse for Augustine would be the one in which pair doesn’t notice the pleasure

I showed a quote where St. Augustine *explicitly *confirms the goodness of sex…a quote that it appears you conveniently ignored.

If I remember correctly, it was introduced in this discussion before. But long time ago.

 

[Chrono13]

What is bizarre about Dr. Hahn comparing an NFP user to one who refrains from taking the Eucharist? The ideal is for us to attend Mass and recieve communion along with the grace it imparts. If we’re not in the proper state to do so, we should abstain. Likewise, the ideal for married couples is no birth control, but if serious reasons arise, we should abstain from relations.

Because, if something was given to us “by nature”, it can not be less ideal. If infertile period was created for birth control in serious situations, it is *natural *to use it in this cases. People who are not in state to recieve Eucharist are not there “by nature”. Indeed, God’s mercy is there to help them, but it is mercy, not rule.

But permitted even without ‘procreative intent’.

As long as you remember it is considered bad and against natural law.

Here’s a hypothetical for you: Imagine I’m a pregnant Catholic wife living at St. Augustine’s time and I want to follow his teaching. My husband would like to engage in relations. Is it more sinful to have relations with him, knowing I would not be ‘intending procreation’, or to deny him the marital debt?

Since satisfying marital debt is not bound by fertility, it would be smaller sin to engage in relation. You can be fertile and engage in activity without desire of begetting- this is against “augustinian natural law”, but permitted.

This is like walking on grass next to a sign forbidding that. If you do it on purpose, you are in serious violation. If you wish to help somebody lying on the grass, you are still violating the rule, but that is permitted.

 

[Warrior1979]

No document is infallible;

How puerile.

Oh, wait, you agree with me.

 

[Warrior1979]

The inability to reason is endemic when blinded by egoism, a selfism that is unable to assent to the protection of the Holy Spirit on the Popes against teaching error in faith and morals, and the creation by God of fertile and infertile periods in womankind.

How puerile and deceptive.

The Church places conditions on the use of the infertile/fertile periods for avoiding children. If they’re natural, there shouldn’t be a problem. Oh…wait…the Church recognizes there is a problem, hence the reason they place conditions on their use. Not my rules or interpretation…that from the Church.

God killed Onan because of his contraception.

The sin is simply that Onan disobeyed God. The method of disobeying is not relevant, since all methods to avoid God’s will are immoral. ABC, withdrawal, NFP, or abstinence doesn’t matter, because they are used to disobey God. Period.

 

[Chrono13]

Anyone who won’t accept truth is not really searching, but trying to dictate error as has been shown here ad nauseam. No document is infallible; the definition made by the Pope or Ecumenical Council in a document is infallible.

Your aggression is part of your care for Church. I am glad there is passion with such motive. But I don’t think people reading this discussion will share your “ad nauseams”. Definitions of “Humanae Vitae” were that contraception ban was part of universal magisterium. Since then, people of your knowledge and reputation are slow to answer certain questions which arouse.

1. Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, 14: “Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

This is the root of the matter. How far can we defend the point of view that this body expresses teaching “once more” after we take Church history in the consideration?

“The definition of Papal Infallibility
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

This system is fine until you reach statements regarding universal magisterium, which are problematic once stoicism comes into game. Pope can excercise this authority on his ground, but can’t interfere with Church History (he can’t say, for example, periodic continence was unknown in the past, or that ethical system behind the ban was allowing practice).

When Humanae Vitae was introduced to the world, it was said it is fallible (by it’s own spokesman , Monsignor Ferdinando Lambruschini).

 

[Chrono13]

The sin is simply that Onan disobeyed God. The method of disobeying is not relevant, since all methods to avoid God’s will are immoral. ABC, withdrawal, NFP, or abstinence doesn’t matter, because they are used to disobey God. Period.

The story of Onan always triggered questions. It seems from narrative that destruction of semen is indeed the issue. However, it is not known whether the act was evil, or motives behind it made it bad. It seems Onan was not much into pleasure and lust, but in gain he could recieve from limiting the family of dead brother.

 

[Warrior1979]

The story of Onan always triggered questions. It seems from narrative that destruction of semen is indeed the issue. However, it is not known whether the act was evil, or motives behind it made it bad. It seems Onan was not much into pleasure and lust, but in gain he could recieve from limiting the family of dead brother.

One of the obvious problems with the “destruction of seed” argument is that it appears that judgment on the immorality of the act is inconsistent. Why isn’t his judgment applied to everyone else for “spilling their seed?” If the punishment is for directly disobeying God, the story makes sense and does not bring the inconsistent judgment into the picture.

 

[Chrono13]

One of the obvious problems with the “destruction of seed” argument is that it appears that judgment on the immorality of the act is inconsistent. Why isn’t his judgment applied to everyone else for “spilling their seed?” If the punishment is for directly disobeying God, the story makes sense and does not bring the inconsistent judgment into the picture.

Because usually spilling of seed in case of Onan is connected with direct intention to destroy it. As far as I remember, the only other case of similar nature is in case of nocturnal pollution, where petition is ritual washing. And there is no intent of destruction in that case. The matter is not discussed very much.

 

[Warrior1979]

Because usually spilling of seed in case of Onan is connected with direct intention to destroy it. As far as I remember, the only other case of similar nature is in case of nocturnal pollution, where petition is ritual washing. And there is no intent of destruction in that case. The matter is not discussed very much.

It still doesn’t explain the differences in the meting out of justice.

 

[Chrono13]

It still doesn’t explain the differences in the meting out of justice.

I think it does. If destruction of semen is the intent, then act of onan is realization of the intent. If the former is evil, the latter is forbidden. In case of pollution, this is not the case. And since contraception is based on destroying semen, it is forbidden on that logic.

 

[Warrior1979]

I think it does. If destruction of semen is the intent, then act of onan is realization of the intent. If the former is evil, the latter is forbidden. In case of pollution, this is not the case. And since contraception is based on destroying semen, it is forbidden on that logic.

So why isn’t everyone that commits this act slain by God?