NFP and contraception

[copperblade]

What’s the answer? Who knows, but Case #2 is more logically consistent. Case #1 can creates problems from man’s perspective, since what God and man are bound by are different (I’ll leave it at that to avoid derailing the thread).

Or that particular act of (non-)procreation was somehow more important to God’s plan than usual…

 

[Good_Daughter]

Thank you. We’re actually very happy, and get along really well. It’s really no big deal–there really is so much more to life after all.

copperblade, I would never infer from your posts that you had any marital difficulties. My concern was more for the frustration you seemed to express regarding Catholic teaching on marriage. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re in a happy marriage, you handle abstinence more gracefully than anyone I’ve encountered on CAF, myself included! Maybe you should be giving out advice in the Family Life forum…

 

[Image_of_God]

But what would constitute pleasure “under” control?

Pleasure that is subject to reason—in other words, the intensity and its timing could be subject to reason. Because of the fall, there is no such thing.

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

It is not for me or you to judge the intentions of others. However, even still the essence of my statement still stands: no one would, in their right mind, destroy the fruits of their labor.

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.

My purpose in posting the quote was to show that St. Augustine obviously understood that there was a unitive dimension to intercourse. I made clear after I posted it that it was to be understood alongside St. Augustine’s emphasis on procreative intent.

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.

Not so. St. Gregory clearly recognizes that the aforementioned group of people are “cleaving to carnal intercourse”. Further he mentions that they are doing it “beyond the due association for the production of offspring”. Obviously the couple is having intercourse more frequently than a couple who has it just to have children and as such they are not intending to have children every time. The chief difference between this group of people (on the mountain) and the latter (in the city) is that these are not “loosely lost in pleasure of the flesh”. These people are not be confused with the people who “seek nothing in the flesh except the fruit of procreation” (that wouldn’t make any sense. However, they can be understood as the people who do not “cleave to the flesh in a fleshly way”.

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

The marital debt is understood to be using intercourse for reasons of lust and is as such a venial fault.

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.

Settled then about the first sentence.

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

I don’t know about that.

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

Which then begs the question why you continue to insist that St. Augustine taught that intercourse was sinful or “tolerable”. Something cannot be sinful and good at the same time. St. Augustine taught that intercourse when had for reasons of procreation was not sinful or merely tolerable, but truly good.

 

[Image_of_God]

I think, after much thought, that I should leave this discussion. It has been informative for me and I hope that everyone who reads this discussion will be informed in the truth.
Thank you. God bless.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 #1190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu
The certainty of the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception in Casti Connubii and in Humanae Vitae comes from the dogma in Vatican I (post #1150), reaffirmed by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25):
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
How many pontifical decisions during history have such nature, but are not in effect anymore?

And how can decision be final if certain systems of doctrine, such as teaching regard in the past, are problematic?

Pope could have said “ban of nfp was incorrect, it’s ok”. But too much stress was made on the contrary, and it seems we are now to believe as if stoicism never existed or that massive sacrifices done by layman in order to hold the teaching were also non-existant.

That this confused egotist is quite unable to give up his prejudices, and therefore unable to assent to the infallible doctrine of Christ’s Church against contraception, clearly and constantly from the beginning, is the major lesson to be learned as to how reason and faith are denigrated by selfists.

That the use of NBR, like all morally valid methods that make use of God’s created nature for mankind, has been affirmed since the 1800’s even before the scientific developments that have made it so useful.

The obvious weaknesses in the assumptions are:

1. That “pontifical decisions” of discipline, or strictures applicable to those who knowingly rejected the faith, are confused with infallible doctrine, by the blind.
2. That prejudice and selfism are huge satanic barriers to truth –we know that pride was the reason for the FALL.
3. That the effects of the dissent following Vatican II still leave scars. The idea of the pet “majority opinion” favoured by some here, in the commission formed to study the “Pill”, is a case in point.
4. That the birth dearth that has overtaken the Western world and is now showing up in the rest is a salutary reminder to the grave evils of contraception and abortion.

 

[Image_of_God]

Before I go, there was a quote (or a couple of quotes) from St. Thomas Aquinas that I thought I should share with everyone, I think it establishes his opinion with clarity:

“There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin.” (, pg. 80Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas)

He says elsewhere:
“I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust.” (Supplement Question 41*Summa Theologica *)

I think these should put to end any speculation that St. Thomas believed that intercourse was only for procreation and not for union or that he believed that it was sinful.

 

[Abu]

Thank you, Image of God, for this and your other contributions to truth.

Some never learn and make their own trouble therefore.

 

[ahs]

Before I go, there was a quote (or a couple of quotes) from St. Thomas Aquinas that I thought I should share with everyone, I think it establishes his opinion with clarity:

“There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin.” (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)

He says elsewhere:
“I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust.” (*Summa Theologica *Supplement Question 41)

I think these should put to end any speculation that St. Thomas believed that intercourse was only for procreation and not for union or that he believed that it was sinful.

That is awesome knowledge to be known! Hope you don’t mind if I use this…I’m writing a short essay on “The Truth About NFP” (not for publishing or anything…just for my own entertainment and as a reference for future debates).

Thanks for posting!
ahs

 

[Warrior1979]

That this confused egotist is quite unable to give up his prejudices, and therefore unable to assent to the infallible doctrine of Christ’s Church against contraception, clearly and constantly from the beginning, is the major lesson to be learned as to how reason and faith are denigrated by selfists.

What you are discussion here is just fantastic, wild speculation. Exactly how do you know who does and who does not assent to the Church’s position against contraception? Do you have cameras in everyone’s bedroom?

In my own case, I’m the epitome of assenting to what the Church wants…no contraception and no NFP. How exactly am I not assenting? Are you confusing discussion on a subject with assent?

That confused egoist that you see might be the one in the mirror, not the one on the forum.

1. That the birth dearth that has overtaken the Western world and is now showing up in the rest is a salutary reminder to the grave evils of contraception and abortion.

That’s actually a whole separate issue. Population eventually does reach a steady state for a who host of reasons, one of which could be contraception and abortion. But it has also reached a steady state in various primitive cultures that don’t use birth control.

 

[Nate13]

I’m not out to prove it one way or the other. I simply look at the story and try to interpret it’s meaning. There can be several conclusions:

1. 
   *]God slew Onan for using an immoral natural means to avoid offspring (which some are referring to as contraception). If this interpretation is correct, it means that God may mete out justice at any time and any way he sees fit…which in this case appears to be once in the history of man.
   *]God gave Onan an order and Onan disobeyed, thus he slew him. In this case, the means to disobey God is irrelevant. The is because any means used to disobey God is objectively immoral.
   
   What’s the answer? Who knows, but Case #2 is more logically consistent. Case #1 can creates problems from man’s perspective, since what God and man are bound by are different (I’ll leave it at that to avoid derailing the thread).

1. 
   Haha I completely agree with you that in and of itself this passage is easy to muddle and no decision one way or the other can be found. However this passage when looked at in the context of everything else in the Bible and the teachings of the early Church father’s makes it apparent.
   
   Also, I’ve done a lot of reading lately and I have come to see that a lot of the misunderstanding of the difference between NFP and contraception stems from a misunderstanding of marriage and love. I would recommend to anyone who is struggling with this issue to read “Good News about Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. He does a great job on answering all the “what if’s” and “why’s” behind NFP vs contraception and has lots of great analogies that help make it clearer. There is about 20 pages in the book devoted to talking about contraception and NFP, however the beginning of the book starts by explaining marriage and love as the Church sees it and especially through the writing of John Paul II. Another great read of the subject is “Open Embrace” by Sam and Bethany Torode. They are a newly wed couple that are Protestant and are a testament to the fact that using NFP isn’t just all about “doing what the Church tells us”. After reading these two books I think a lot of this confusion between NFP and contraception stems from not understanding the true depth to what marriage and love really is. If anyone is serious about trying to find answers about this definitely at least give “Good News about Sex and Marriage” a look. It will answer all the questions you have about NFP and contraception plus some you haven’t even though of yet haha.

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979, #1199
Are you confusing discussion on a subject with assent?

Since Chrono13’s dissent was addressed, your confusion is ongoing.

Warrior1979, #1101
HV isn’t infallible either.

Having been shown that it is Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) and EWTN, pointing this out very clearly (Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002, post #1150) – that two Popes have specifically defined infallibly against contraception in two Encyclicals – such public opposition to the Magisterium is dissent.

The persistent misrepresentation lies in the fact that “Revelation also contains moral teachings which per se could be known by natural reason. Access to them, however, is made difficult by man’s sinful condition. It is a doctrine of faith that these moral norms can be infallibly taught by the Magisterium (17).” (Donum Vitae, CDF, 1990).
“Notes
(17) Cf. Vatican Council, I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, ch. 2: DS 3005.”

Dissent is “public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church.” (*Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian *Donum Veritatis], CDF, 1990, #32). There is no room for speculation here.

The public opposition that has been aired here is precisely that the Magisterium doesn’t know that both NBR and contraception are the same and so cannot speak infallibly on defining contraception as a grave evil, while declaring that NBR is praiseworthy for serious reasons.

#1164
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.

Public opposition to the Magisterium, instituted by the Christ to teach His Will – dissent through egoism.

 

[Warrior1979]

The public opposition that has been aired here

Don’t be so quick to judge. Maybe people don’t use their real names for a reason. This forum allows people to discuss various issues about the Church anonymously.

is precisely that the Magisterium doesn’t know that both NBR and contraception are the same

Quite frankly, we all know the differences. If the Church defines them differently, then they are different. But it doesn’t change the fact that both are used to avoid having children. The issue simply deals with why one method to avoid children is valid and the other isn’t.

dissent through egoism.

Not to be confused with assent through egoism. Assent through egoism, by constantly throwing up the same thing over and over in people’s faces in an egotistical and prideful manner, tends to chase people away from a cause…not really something a Catholic should be doing.

 

[copperblade]

I think accusations of egoism are incorrect:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/

Since no one here is claiming to be disobedient of church ruling, but rather simply discussing the logic behind church ruling, I don’t think it’s a case of being self-serving.

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979, #1131
The fact that conditions are placed on NFP is an absolutely clear indication that there is a problem preventing the begetting of children even problematic by natural means.

The confusion is endemic and open neither to faith nor reason.
“Revelation also contains moral teachings which per se could be known by natural reason. Access to them, however, is made difficult by man’s sinful condition. It is a doctrine of faith that these moral norms can be infallibly taught by the Magisterium (17).” (Donum Vitae, CDF, 1990).
“Notes
(17) Cf. Vatican Council, I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, ch. 2: DS 3005.”

#1133
With regard to infertile couples, what they can’t do is have sex that is “ordered to procreation,” since they can’t procreate…that is, without doing wordplay and making words mean what they don’t.

Ad nauseam the egoism which rejects the plain meaning conveyed by the Magisterium.

catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/cdfdv.htm
Nevertheless, marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation. (Cf. POPE PIUS XII, Discourse to the taking part in the Second Naples World Congress on Fertility and Human Sterility, 19 May 1956: AAS 48 (1956) 471-473.)

Thus, fertilization is licitly sought when it is the result of a “conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh”. (Code of Canon Law, Can. 1061. According to this Canon, the conjugal act is that by which the marriage is consummated if the couple “have performed (it) between themselves in a human manner”.)

#1164
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.

Ad nauseam the dissent from the Magisterium which lauds the correct use of NBR.

 

[Warrior1979]

Abu,

I really feel sorry for you. I hope you’re not that obnoxious and closed minded in real life.

 

[Abu]

St Paul makes it clear that while we seek the Kingdom as children, as we grow up we must put away the things of a child (1Cor 13:11).

One of the rules for even theologians is “the principle which affirms that Magisterial teaching, by virtue of divine assistance, has a validity beyond its argumentation, which may derive from a particular theology.” *Donum Veritatis *(Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian), 1990, CDF, #34].

So attempts endlessly to misrepresent Christ’s message through His Church fail to recall how He spoke to His own Apostles when they misrepresented His teaching. To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18). (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

 

[Chrono13]

Pleasure that is subject to reason—in other words, the intensity and its timing could be subject to reason. Because of the fall, there is no such thing.

But why would intensity of pleasure, or even it’s duration, make it reasonable or not? As a matter of fact, why would lowering these aspects make intercourse more reasonable? The Book of Tobit might give us some suggestions, but it doesn’t seem that we are teaching anymore intercourse must be done “more for children, then for lust.”

My purpose in posting the quote was to show that St. Augustine obviously understood that there was a unitive dimension to intercourse. I made clear after I posted it that it was to be understood alongside St. Augustine’s emphasis on procreative intent.

But if this unitive dimension is subordained to procreative intent, it is still problematic.

I guess one could say that this “unitivity” was more as a sidenote then dimension of the intercourse. I don’t have time to search for the quote, but there is one where Augustine describes how beautiful sex only for procreation is, and concludes that pair benefits from such relation.

Not so. St. Gregory clearly recognizes that the aforementioned group of people are “cleaving to carnal intercourse”. Further he mentions that they are doing it “beyond the due association for the production of offspring”. Obviously the couple is having intercourse more frequently than a couple who has it just to have children and as such they are not intending to have children every time. The chief difference between this group of people (on the mountain) and the latter (in the city) is that these are not “loosely lost in pleasure of the flesh”. These people are not be confused with the people who “seek nothing in the flesh except the fruit of procreation” (that wouldn’t make any sense. However, they can be understood as the people who do not “cleave to the flesh in a fleshly way”.

The quote can also be applied to people who, next to desire of begetting in the single intercourse, seek pleasure. But even if this is not so, the beginning of the chapter mentions that marriage is formed only for procreation and pleasure makes it exceeding in rights of marriage. The paragraph simply re-examines Augustine’s marital debt, as can be seen from the fact that those in the city are cosidered “unperfect”.

Which then begs the question why you continue to insist that St. Augustine taught that intercourse was sinful or “tolerable”. Something cannot be sinful and good at the same time. St. Augustine taught that intercourse when had for reasons of procreation was not sinful or merely tolerable, but truly good.

We have both comfirmed that, when done with desire of children, sex is not sinful by intention (as opposed to one used for marital debt) however, it still includes lust which makes it sinful because of the pleasure it provides. So, while such intercourse is good because of procreation, and even because of relief, it still includes evil because of unreasonable pleasure.

 

[Chrono13]

I think, after much thought, that I should leave this discussion. It has been informative for me and I hope that everyone who reads this discussion will be informed in the truth.
Thank you. God bless.

Sorry to hear that. Hopefully, you will change your mind.

You too, Daughter! It is a pleasure to have such peers.

 

[Chrono13]

Before I go, there was a quote (or a couple of quotes) from St. Thomas Aquinas that I thought I should share with everyone, I think it establishes his opinion with clarity:

“There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin.” (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)

He says elsewhere:
“I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust.” (*Summa Theologica *Supplement Question 41)

I think these should put to end any speculation that St. Thomas believed that intercourse was only for procreation and not for union or that he believed that it was sinful.

I can only reply that I always comfirmed that Aquinas is specific about these matters. For example, even in these quotes you can see that intercourse is allowed as a thing of justice (secular?), not of love. They have right to couplate for comfort, but it is not unitive nature od their marriage which makes it fine, but the juridical proclamation.

To make things a little spicier… sorry for immodesty, but it is required for this discussion. St. Thomas Aquinas is attributed that he forbid any sexual position apart from man-on-top. Sources indicate the reason for this is that they lowered chance of conception. While I don’t have time to search for exact quote, it is fair to say Church did upheld this teaching. This position is known as “missionary” because it was only allowed to native americans by missionaries. It was the only one “natural”, but Church abandoned this ban.

 

[Chrono13]

Another great read of the subject is “Open Embrace” by Sam and Bethany Torode. They are a newly wed couple that are Protestant and are a testament to the fact that using NFP isn’t just all about “doing what the Church tells us”. After reading these two books I think a lot of this confusion between NFP and contraception stems from not understanding the true depth to what marriage and love really is. If anyone is serious about trying to find answers about this definitely at least give “Good News about Sex and Marriage” a look. It will answer all the questions you have about NFP and contraception plus some you haven’t even though of yet haha.

This could come as a surprise to you, but Sam and Bethany Torode retreated their statements about blessings of NFP. They concluded NFP poses a threat to stability of marriage (similary as report to pontifical commission of Humanae Vitae). If I remember correctly, Torodes had four children, two of them unplanned and concieved during breastfeeding. They are now divorced. Their story is considered one of the biggest flaws of NFP support.