Thoughts on contraception

[mpartyka]

John T. Noonan wrongfully supports contraception, or at least he did in the past. Therefore I would be careful about anything he writes about contraception from the “Catholic” perspective.

Well, yes, that’s what the author of the article says, too:

In the end, we would not recommend this book by John Noonan to the normal, casual reader. There is just too much chance for being led astray by Noonan’s seemingly scholarly opinions…I believe that there are many gems in this book: the problem is finding them and clearning the dirt off them.

I was more interested in what you thought of the arguments put forward by the article itself in its evaluation of Noonan’s book, not the arguments of the book by Noonan that is being reviewed.

–Mike

 

[DavWan]

Well, yes, that’s what the author of the article says, too:

I was more interested in what you thought of the arguments put forward by the article itself in its evaluation of Noonan’s book, not the arguments of the book by Noonan that is being reviewed.

–Mike

I found the article seems to undercut you in two areas:

"This issue is not an east versus west thing, [35] but all the Church Fathers agree on this: contraceptives, generally speaking are not allowed. All the Fathers could have said with Saint John Chrysostom, “Why sow where reaping is impossible?” [36] The context of this quote was women who had altered themselves so that they could not become pregnant. The direct context does not directly deal with the forms of contraception most often used today (though it does deal with some of them); however, regardless of the method mentioned, the essential point that Saint John is making is valid: it is sinful to take actions which will prvent the potential for having children, and then to have sex. For the Fathers, who saw procreation as one of the main reasons for having sexual relations, it was impossible to endorse the concept of trying to avoid having children while having sexual relations.

This would be like going to Church and saying that you don’t want to be in communion with God, that you don’t want to experience salvation, and that you don’t want to go to heaven. The obvious question that arises is: then why are you in Church? In much the same way, if people were having sex while purposely trying to avoid having children, the question arose: “why? for what purpose? to what end?” There may have been other jusitifiable reasons for having sex, but no one could not decide that they would have sex because of these other reasons and try to avoid pregnancy. Saint John Chrysostom doesn’t just call contraception sinful, but he says that having sex while trying to avoid children is “worse than murder”. (Saint John the Chrysostom undoubtedly meant to equate contraception and murder here in the same way that Saint John the Theologian equated hatred of a brother with murder in his First Epistle–1 Jn. 3:15)

This section seems to reject your claims that:

1. *]there’s nothing wrong with non-abortifacient contraception (barrier methods)
   *]the ECFs held that procreation was the only reason for having sexual relations.
   
   NFP requires abstinence to avoid pregnancy. The marital act is allowed to take its course when performed with no prevention of the way the act works. Barrier methods of contraception make marital acts themselves infertile by preventing the natural form of the act take place. Ergo, NFP does not equal Contraception.
   
   QED

 

[JDaniel]

I wonder what advice a pope would have gotten if he had convened a commission of advisors at the height of the Arian heresy to investigate the teachings of Arias. Methinks he would have gotten opinions reflecting the majority at the time: Arianism.

Take a step back and look at our culture and society today. Abortion, divorce, promiscuity, homosexuality, resurgent polygamy, sexual abuse, pornography, rape, on and on and on…

Our age is more screwed up on the subject of the meaning of sexuality than perhaps any era in christian history. That right there ought, in the mind of the prudent, to discount ANY new and revolutionary theology that seeks to repudiate historic catholic teaching on sexual matters.

We quite simply are creatures of our culture and must always be wary of the influence that culture has upon us.

Sorry guys, I’m sticking with the Church.

Hear, hear! Oh, and, here, here!

jd

 

[mpartyka]

Here’s the points that I was hoping people would take away from the article:

According to Saint John of Damascus, “In Paradise virginity held sway”. Saint John here teaches what many of the Fathers of the Church teach: that there were no sexual relations before the fall of Adam and Eve. Sexual relations, then, were not part of our original nature, but rather, sex was given to us after we fell from communion with God…

The author is correct. From what I’ve read so far, St. Augustine is the only ECF who believed that sexual intercourse was the means by which God’s command to Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful and multiply,” would have been carried out had they remained free from sin.

…most Fathers would not have found Augustine’s teachings on the subject of sexuality at all unorthodox. For instance, according to Noonan, Augustine taught that “in the marital act there is satisfaction of sexual desire, a result which Augustine does not treat as good.” Regardless of how much it might conflict with our modern sensibilities, this quote of Augustine is not something that most Church Fathers would have found unacceptable.

This also is true. St. Gregory the Great, for example, wrote, “…even the lawful intercourse of the wedded cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh…the pleasure itself can by no means be without sin.” (Letters, Book XI, Epistle LXIV)

One of the main reasons the early Church gave for sexual relations within marriage being a proper thing was, as Saint John said, avoiding fornication (cf 1 Cor. 7). Saint John of Damascus said: “good is marriage on account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to he caromed into unlawful acts. Good is marriage for those who have no continence” Most other Fathers more or less echo this sentiment.

The second reason given by the early Church for having sexual relations was procreation, and this reason was supported by almost all the Fathers…Augustine believe that it was a sin, albeit a minor one, for a couple to have sexual relations without the express intention of having children. And Augustine says elsewhere that: “…once married, one may not avoid children. It is lawless and shameful to lie with one’s wife where the conception of offspring is avoided.” Most others in the west affirmed roughly the same views that Augustine had, though some went even further than Augustine, such as Saint Gregory the Great…

Whatever else we might say, almost all the Fathers–both east and west–could agree that, at the very least, procreation was a justifiable reason for having sex (having even possibly salvific consequences–1 Tim. 2:15), and that avoidance of fornication was also a worthy reason. Finding other justifiable reasons, however, is not so easy…

Some theologians believe that sexual relations is a spiritual experience (forms a spiritual connection), and that this in itself is a justifiable reason for having sexual relations. This concept, as the theologians would have to admit, has no patristic support for it whatsoever…If anything, the theanthropic body of Christ, the Church, saw sexual relations as interfering with spirituality, not facilitating it (cf Matt. 19:10-12; 1 Cor. 7).

In summary, the ECFs only explicitly recognized two valid reasons for sexual relations in marriage:

1. Procreation.
2. To keep oneself from fornication.

Where, in any of this, is the recognition or acknowledgement by the ECFs of the “unitive ends” of sex within marriage?

The Fathers were not against the methods of birth control, but the very intention of having sex while trying to avoid pregnancy. NFP does just that: allows people to have sexual relations knowing with an extremely high degree of accuracy that the female cannot become pregnant…having sexual intercourse knowing that a women cannot get pregnant is just as much a usage of a method of contraception as using a condom or other such device would be…the Fathers spoke again the very intention of having sex while trying to not have children…

I find this argument particularly interesting in light of Humanae Vitae’s acknowledgement that the intentions of NFP-using and ABC-using couples are the same – to have sex while making as certain as they rationally can that no pregnancy will result from the sex act. Moreover, Humanae Vitae acknowledges that the couples’ intentions to prevent pregnancy are legitimate and justifiable, which runs contrary to the stance of the ECFs’ view of such intentions.

In other words, if the ECFs opposed the intent to have sex while trying to avoid pregnancy, and if the Church today teaches that this intent is actually legitimate and justifiable, doesn’t that necessarily mean there has been a change in Church teaching concerning sexual relations in marriage?

(Now, someone may argue that NFP doesn’t really constitute “trying to avoid pregnancy”, but that argument is ridiculous. If you want to have sex on Tuesday, but you postpone having sex until Thursday because you believe that pregnancy is much less likelier to result on Thursday, you have definitely “tried to avoid pregnancy” via your willful abstinence.)

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

And, lest we leave out any mention of marital celibacy:

…we have been astounded by the way that most Orthodox Christians have reacted to the idea of celibacy wtihin marriage. Caution, of course, is to be expected; we have experienced a much greater negativity when this subject has come up, though, than merely people being cautious. The only explanation we can come up with is that people 1) are concerned for the safety of those talking of such a path, and 2) most of these people are totally unaware of what their Church teaches on the subject, or of the numerous saints who have followed this path, and have unknowingly had their beliefs colored by the secular culture’s views of marriage and celibacy…

What the Church thought about married people living in a celibate state is a different story altogether: for not only did the Church Fathers not condemn such a situation, but they often times advised and commended this lifestyle (we have already, in fact, noted that some saints suggested this lifestyle for those who were unable to have children). Blessed Augustine, Saint Cyprian, and Tertullian counsel people to become celibate within marriage, as do many other Fathers. Noonan mentions that “The holy wives Jerome knows have ‘in the very relationship of marriage imitated the chastity of virgins,’” and Blessed Jerome mentions elsewhere that we can “even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity.” It is also worthy of note that the Apostle Thomas counselled a newly married (pagan) couple to embrace the Gospel and to remain virgins…

Metropolitan Philaret sums up the Orthodox view on marital celibacy well: “Christian marriage is a single life lived by two in unification. With the years, marital life only strengthens, becomes deeper, more spiritual. Of course, passionate love, connected with each person’s natural sexual inclination and purely physical attraction, also enters into Christian marital love. In a truly Christian marriage, however, such passionate love enters into the attachment only incidentally, and never has such a significance and strength as in non-Christian marital unions. In the lives of saints, we see a multitude of examples in which Christian spouses, through mutual agreement, renounced sexual life, either from the very beginning of the marriage or even after forty years. It is noteworthy that in such a marriage, when the ascetic-spouses live ‘as brother and sister,’ their mutual love is distinguished by a special strength of devotion, all-embracing fidelity and mutual respect. Thus does Christianity consecrate, elevate and transform a marriage union.”

For those who are interested in doing a bit more research in this area, though, it might be helpful to mention a few Saints from Church history who were celibate within marriage. Perhaps the best known of the contemporary Saints who remained celibate within marriage was Saint John of Kronstadt (with his wife Elizabeth Constantinovna). Saint Julianna of Lazarevo and her husband also decided to become celibate in marriage (after having several kids, and Saint Julianna wanting to devote her life to seeking God by becoming a sort of “monastic in the world”). Demetrius The Vinedresser (12th Patriarch of Alexandria), Venerable Theophanes the Confessor of Sygriane, and Malchus the Syrian are but a few more examples. Reading books on the lives of Saints, one cannot help but find all sorts of further examples of celibacy chosen within marriage.

I’m curious to know if any Catholics here have ever been counseled, in public or in private, to abandon sexual relations in marriage and attempt marital celibacy.

–Mike

 

[DavWan]

When all is said and done, Mike, you haven’t proved your point. You are merely repeating it. One quote of St. John Chrysostom does not prove “all” the ECF.

 

[mpartyka]

When all is said and done, Mike, you haven’t proved your point. You are merely repeating it. One quote of St. John Chrysostom does not prove “all” the ECF.

St. John Chrysostom was called the most moderate of all the ECFs by the author, who then concluded:

The Fathers were not against the methods of birth control, but the very intention of having sex while trying to avoid pregnancy.

Are you saying that this is not a true statement?

–Mike

 

[DavWan]

St. John Chrysostom was called the most moderate of all the ECFs by the author, who then concluded:

Two points:

1. *]That the author says John Chrysostom was most moderate does not make it so
   *]There are well over 100 ECF. Can you demonstrate they all taught the same?
   

   Are you saying that this is not a true statement?

   –Mike

   Your statement is a distortion. Do you hold “The Ends justify the means”?
   
   Seeking to delay pregnancy through absitinence(NFP) is not the same as using the sexual act while frustrating the potential for procreation.
   
   But as you made the allegation, you prove it is true and universally held.

 

[mpartyka]

That the author says John Chrysostom was most moderate does not make it so.

I believe the author is correct for two reasons. First, I’ve read everything available online (i.e., free) that the ECFs have written, and I have not come across an ECF with a more moderate view that St. John Chrysostom’s. Second, when I revealed my findings to an Orthodox priest that all the ECFs were of the mind that the only good reasons for having sex were (1) procreation and (2) avoiding fornication, he said, “Really? What did Chrysostom have to say about it?” which tells me that St. John Chrysostom is indeed known as most moderate in Orthodox circles.

There are well over 100 ECF. Can you demonstrate they all taught the same?

Only the ones that actually explicitly taught on the subjects of marriage and sexuality. I could probably deliver a good percentage of that total just by buying myself a copy of John T. Noonan’s book Contraception, but I’m not willing to fork up the $40 it would take to buy a copy.

Besides, even if I could do it, would it matter to you? Or would you take rad314’s stance that no matter how much evidence I present to the contrary, the Church is never wrong and never changes? Because if you’re going into any kind of study with that presupposition at the forefront, you’re only going to see what you want to see.

Your statement is a distortion. Do you hold “The Ends justify the means”?

I hold that when we have new information about the means in question, we ought to reevaluate our stance on its morality. Thanks to science, there’s something we know now that the ECFs never did, and I think it changes everything. (This goes back to my 2nd question from my original post.)

Seeking to delay pregnancy through abstinence (NFP) is not the same as using the sexual act while frustrating the potential for procreation.

Funny…I can’t think of anything more frustrating for a poor sperm than to show up with flowers and candy only to find there’s no egg at home…

But, seriously, let’s say you’re right, and naturally frustrating the potential for procreation via abstinence during fertile periods (NFP) is not the same as using the sexual act while artificially frustrating the potential for procreation using non-abortifacient contraceptives (ABC). All that demonstrates, though, is that one method is different from the other, not that one is morally right and the other is morally wrong. I would argue that the ECFs’ limited knowledge of human biology led them to understand the reproductive process in such a way as to think that ABC is “intrinsically evil”, when in fact it’s no more “evil” than NFP.

–Mike

 

[DavWan]

So let me get this straight… you are trying to argue from a group of ECFs that you claim said that the procreation aspect is the only valid aspect that contraception is a valid behavior in marriage?

I think your arguement is too fundamentally flawed to bother responding to.

NFP is abstinence. It means that during a woman’s fertile period, you don’t have sex. That is sinful? If so consider what that means, that one can only have sexual relations during a woman’s infertile period if they are invincibly ignorant that she is infertile.

However, contraception is the sin of Onan, where the act was used but fertility was rejected:

Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Gen 38:9-10)

If you can’t see the difference between temporarily abstaining from sex and having sex while refusing procreation, I fail to see that there is any point to continuing this.

But remember, you have yet to prove any change in Catholic teaching. Instead, you have only insisted on your own interpretations.

 

[mpartyka]

So let me get this straight… you are trying to argue from a group of ECFs that you claim said that the procreation aspect is the only valid aspect that contraception is a valid behavior in marriage?

No, my argument has two parts to consider.

The first part is that Church teaching concerning sexual relations in marriage has changed. The ECFs taught that it was wrong (though permissible) for a married couple to engage in sexual activity where procreation is not the desired goal. The Church today teaches (e.g., in Humanae Vitae) that it is okay for a married couple to do so provided they do not use ABC. The intent to have sex without procreation in view was considered wrong before, and now it is not considered wrong. That is a change.

The second part is that the ECFs’ knowledge of human reproduction was limited in such a way that the paradigm they did understand caused ABC to appear intrinsically evil when, in fact, it wasn’t. I haven’t even gotten to this argument yet.

NFP is abstinence. It means that during a woman’s fertile period, you don’t have sex. That is sinful?

The ECFs judged sinful (though excusable) the intent of such abstinence, not the abstinence itself.

However, contraception is the sin of Onan, where the act was used but fertility was rejected:

Unfortunately, Onan’s sin is a bit more complex than just using the withdrawal method. Onan practiced contraception (1) in spite of the fact that his wife desired children and (2) because he knew the children he sired would not be legally considered his but his brother’s. So, did God kill Onan for using contraception, or did he kill Onan for a combination of reasons, contraception being one?

But remember, you have yet to prove any change in Catholic teaching.

I don’t know what would constitute adequate proof to you. I’ve already encountered one Catholic whom no amount of proof would ever satisfy. My study of the ECFs yielded the same results as the study of an Orthodox Christian who personally takes a stance on contraception contrary to mine – if that’s not objective confirmation of what the ECFs taught, I don’t know what is.

–Mike

 

[LittleDeb]

Ack!!! I can’t take it anymore! Please, please, please Mike, stop using the term ‘procreation’ as interchangeable with ‘reproduction!’ They do not mean the same thing! I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not *intentionally *insulting all the infertile couples here. But I finally must demand that you stop.

An infertile marital act is still procreative! Just because an infertile couple cannot reproduce does not make their act “non-procreative.”

Your misunderstanding does not only include the ECFs but it seems that the Victorian era and the Anglican Lambeth conference are having a huge influence on your further misunderstanding. The term ‘procreation’ was mis-used as a euphamism for pregnancy during the Edwardian and Victorian eras and continued even into the 1950s. The Anglican Lambeth conference of 1930 (a Protestant group) continued the misapplication which the Orthodox erroneously followed.

Procreation means- ‘ordered toward creation’ It DOES NOT mean- “successfully reproduced.” If you look at my profile it says, “Love NFP.” I love NFP because knowing my fertility helped us to conceive our babies the way God designed!

Barrier methods of ABC are very old. Some of the earliest were animal skins. Please *stop *the modernist behavior that we are currently so much “more advanced” so condoms are some kind of “good development.” They aren’t. They are bad for marriage. Scripture has instances of non-abortive chemical contraception too. They are condemned! One of the points of Onan was to point out that withdrawl is NOT natural to the marital act. While it does not involve anything brought into the act from outside, it is still an unnatural act.

Please, please, please stop your assertion that it is wrong to know the fertility of a woman. You seek to put us back as property with such nonsense!! Nowhere is knowledge of fertility condemned. The only thing condemned, even by your own examples, is marriage without thought to parenthood.

Please, please stop your hurtful and untrue assertion that an infertile act is non-procreative! There are people who read here who never post and they are being hurt by your cruel comments. The Puritan and Victorian eras are not representative of healthy sexuality. Please stop getting your misinformation from there.

You are trying to tear down the Church and her teachings and convert people away. That is a bannable offense at CAF. Please stop!

Your OP assertion is invalid because it is founded on an incorrect assumption. We are NOT smarter than the ECFs! Development of doctrine has to do with sheer passage of time. The more time we have to ponder something, the more deeply we can understand it. The fact that you don’t understand this illustrates your lack of understanding of the Magisterium.

The Church is a very old Bride. She doesn’t change. She has grown wise with age, but she is still the same Bride! She doesn’t die off and get replaced with a younger, smarter Bride. She still has the same mind she had with the ECFs.

Scientific development has always reinforced what the Church already knew, morally. Contraception is BAD for marriage, always has been, always will be. Full stop. Your assertions to the contrary will not change that.

 

[Rico_S]

Your OP assertion is invalid because it is founded on an incorrect assumption. We are NOT smarter than the ECFs! Development of doctrine has to do with sheer passage of time. The more time we have to ponder something, the more deeply we can understand it. The fact that you don’t understand this illustrates your lack of understanding of the Magisterium.

The Church is a very old Bride. She doesn’t change. She has grown wise with age, but she is still the same Bride! She doesn’t die off and get replaced with a younger, smarter Bride. She still has the same mind she had with the ECFs.

“Development of doctrine has to do with sheer passage of time…She doesn’t change. She has grown wise with age…”

How is growing wise not changing? How is developing over time not changing?

The OP has done a pretty convincing job showing that the ECF’s view of sexuality differs from current church’s view…namely that the unitive is ignored…and that in fact. Now the defenders are quick and correct to note that while the focus of the ECF’s is on the procreative aspect of the union, their lack of tying the unitive aspect together with the procreative is not necessarily a denial of the unitve aspect. So, technically, one can argue that the ECF teachings weren’t in error, but rather their teachings on the conjugal act are incomplete…which kind of goes along with your thoughts that Chruch’s doctrine develops over time. But it does seems contradictory to claim that the teachings have not change in light of given evidence and your claim that the “development of doctine has to do with the sheer passage of time.”

Now ECF views do not necessarily equal church teaching, but when all of them seem to be on the same page on this one topic, it seems difficult to imagine that their views were far removed from that of official church teaching.

Please, please, please stop your assertion that it is wrong to know the fertility of a woman. You seek to put us back as property with such nonsense!!

Where did he assert that? I think he quoted an EFC whose view was looking to identify fertile times and then avoiding intercourse during that time is intrinsically wrong.

Procreation means- ‘ordered toward creation’ It DOES NOT mean- “successfully reproduced.” If you look at my profile it says, “Love NFP.” I love NFP because knowing my fertility helped us to conceive our babies the way God designed!

While I don’t think he is necessarily looking at the definition of procreative to mean “successfully reproduced,” I do agree that it is often misunderstood…at least in terms of what the church intends it to mean–ordered toward procreation. Intercourse during the infertile time is not necessarily unprocreative… however, if the definition of procreative is “ordered toward creation” I think that one could easily argue that NFP is not procreative…actually seems quite obvious, really. And I think that based on some of the snipets from the ECF that mparty has produced, I am inclined to think they would readily agree.

–Rico

 

[mpartyka]

An infertile marital act is still procreative! Just because an infertile couple cannot reproduce does not make their act “non-procreative.” Procreation means- ‘ordered toward creation’ It DOES NOT mean- “successfully reproduced.”

Agreed, but in the mind of the ECFs, knowing beyond the shadow of any doubt that the woman or man is infertile and engaging in sex anyway would be construed as a seeking after pleasure rather than a seeking after procreation. While such behavior was considered excusable by the ECFs on account of the sacrament, it was by no means condoned by them.

Please stop the modernist behavior that we are currently so much “more advanced” so condoms are some kind of “good development.”

But I’m not making that argument. If you think that’s where I’m going with my second question in the original post, you’re incorrect.

One of the points of Onan was to point out that withdrawl is NOT natural to the marital act. While it does not involve anything brought into the act from outside, it is still an unnatural act.

But why is it considered such a heinous act by the Fathers when it clearly isn’t considered such by the “man on the street”? That’s where my second question is going.

Please, please, please stop your assertion that it is wrong to know the fertility of a woman.

I didn’t say that. St. Augustine did. He argued that the Manichaeans tracked women’s fertility so that they could experience the pleasure of sex without bearing children. How is that any different from NFP (when used as a mode of contraception)?

Your OP assertion is invalid because it is founded on an incorrect assumption. We are NOT smarter than the ECFs!

“Smarter” is not the word I’d use. “More knowledgeable than they with regard to the human reproductive process” fits better. If they knew what we today know, would they have raised as strenuous objections to ABC, or would they have adopted the more lenient stance that prevails today in most of Christendom? That’s the question I’m raising.

–Mike

 

[LittleDeb]

“Development of doctrine has to do with sheer passage of time…She doesn’t change. She has grown wise with age…”

How is growing wise not changing? How is developing over time not changing?
–Rico

You and I have been in these threads before. The definition you are trying to use is the same one used by people who call a fetus “potentially human.” Authentic Truth doesn’t change. Our ability to express that Truth may wax and wane, but the Truth stays the same.

If unaltered marital acts are procreative, then they are so objectively.

 

[Rico_S]

The definition you are trying to use is the same one used by people who call a fetus “potentially human.”

What definition am I trying to use??? I am acknowledging the church’s defintion as “ordered toward procreation”

If unaltered marital acts are procreative, then they are so objectively.

Ok.

 

[DavWan]

Mike:

What you have to prove, but have not is:

That the teaching of the Church contradicts earlier teachings. If the Fathers addressed the imporance of fertile acts (as opposed to the Roman acts) this does not prove that the Fathers opposed unitive ends.

One can take part in the marital act without seeking to actively become pregnant without sin. One cannot take part in the marital act actively seeking to prevent the natural biological functions of the marriage act from happening (whether by barrier or by artificially changing the function of the body).

You have yet to prove periodic abstinence is the same as actively preventing the marital act from performing as it is designed to.

So, sorry. You have yet to prove anything of your claims. You have only demonstrated your personal view of what “the ECF” taught (even though this is based on very limited sample), but failed to prove the Church once contradicted itself.

We don’t need to defend the claims of the Church until you can provide active proof of contradiction.

If active contraception = NFP, then logically an infertile person marrying is guilty of contraception. Can you prove that infertile people were incapable of marriage in the views of Christian teaching?

Before you argue your claim, you need to clean up your logical errors and provide proof, because quite frankly you have provided none.

 

[LittleDeb]

Agreed, but in the mind of the ECFs, knowing beyond the shadow of any doubt that the woman or man is infertile and engaging in sex anyway would be construed as a seeking after pleasure rather than a seeking after procreation. While such behavior was considered excusable by the ECFs on account of the sacrament, it was by no means condoned by them.

Nothing? Not even a “sorry my wording seemed inconsiderate?” At least please apologize for the inflammatory statements you have made about the infertile.

I don’t agree that the ECFs believed as you do. I believe that all of protestantism and sadly the Orthodox have reinterpreted that into their current beliefs. “It is okay to contracept sometimes as long as over the course of the marriage we are basically procreative,” is where that thinking has led to. That is not what the ECFs said. They said every act must remain procreative.

But I’m not making that argument. If you think that’s where I’m going with my second question in the original post, you’re incorrect.

It would be much more helpful if you would just state your purpose then instead of making people guess what you are trying to say.

But why is it considered such a heinous act by the Fathers when it clearly isn’t considered such by the “man on the street”? That’s where my second question is going.

Well your experience with the “man on the street” is very different than mine then. I have had many people come to me to talk about overcoming the emptiness of withdrawl. It is bad for marriage regardless of what your “average” man says. It is specifically devastating to women. Some don’t even know that withdrawl is the reason for their feelings of emptiness and isolation. The ones who do are very aware of it.

I didn’t say that. St. Augustine did. He argued that the Manichaeans tracked women’s fertility so that they could experience the pleasure of sex without bearing children. How is that any different from NFP (when used as a mode of contraception)?

Says you. We agree that those are the words on the page. How we interpret those words are two totally different things. You don’t get to redefine the word ‘contraception.’ It is not yours to redefine. To be actively contracepting one must be engaged in a sexual act. St. Augustine was condemning gnostic marriage, void of babies. You can keep trying to argue the other, but you won’t get anywhere.

“Smarter” is not the word I’d use. “More knowledgeable than they with regard to the human reproductive process” fits better. If they knew what we today know, would they have raised as strenuous objections to ABC, or would they have adopted the more lenient stance that prevails today in most of Christendom? That’s the question I’m raising.

–Mike

Okay I’ll bite. “More knowledgable than they with regard to human reproductive process.” You’re still wrong. We aren’t more knowlegdable about the morality of the human reproductive process. Furthermore, you have already shown that they had a working knowledge of NFP. They knew more about the science of basic reproduction than your average “man on the street” does currently. (Sadly enough.)

Your arguments are just not congruent. In one breath you say, “They didn’t know this.” In the next you use a resource that says they did. You can’t have it both ways! Either people are objectively in a state of sin everytime they have non-reproductive sex OR knowledge of fertility is condemned!

By your arguments you are condeming the *design *of human sexuality. You are basically arguing that to know one’s state of infertility puts one into at least venial sin. God made the signs so incredibly easy to see that any idiot can interpret them…even this idiot, me!!

You are further arguing that marriage, especially the act of marriage, is objectively sinful about 26 out of 28 days. Yet earthly marriage is compared to heavenly marriage!! Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church, His bride. Celibacy and fasting are considered superior on earth yet heaven is shown as a marriage and a vast banquet!

I will say it one last time. I disagree with your understanding of the ECFs. That you equate NFP to contraception shows me the starting point of your errors.

 

[mpartyka]

The OP has done a pretty convincing job showing that the ECF’s view of sexuality differs from current church’s view…namely that the unitive is ignored…and that in fact. Now the defenders are quick and correct to note that while the focus of the ECF’s is on the procreative aspect of the union, their lack of tying the unitive aspect together with the procreative is not necessarily a denial of the unitive aspect. So, technically, one can argue that the ECF teachings weren’t in error, but rather their teachings on the conjugal act are incomplete…

Which is more reasonable to believe, though – that the ECFs, some of whom may have been married themselves at some point, were completely ignorant of the unitive aspect of conjugal relations (which would totally justify sexual intercourse apart from the purpose of procreation), or that the ECFs simply didn’t believe that any such unitive aspect of conjugal relations existed? (Consider this especially in light of the ECFs’ recommendations toward marital chastity. How do you reconcile what the ECFs saw as the high calling of marital chastity with the notion that engaging in sex without the intention of procreating is good for a marriage?)

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

What you have to prove, but have not is: That the teaching of the Church contradicts earlier teachings. If the Fathers addressed the importance of fertile acts (as opposed to the Roman acts) this does not prove that the Fathers opposed unitive ends.

Like I just posted above, it does demonstrate that they were either utterly ignorant of any such thing as “unitive ends”, or rather that they didn’t believe in such a thing as “unitive ends”.

One can take part in the marital act without seeking to actively become pregnant without sin.

You state that as if this is something the ECFs believed, but it clearly isn’t.

You have yet to prove periodic abstinence is the same as actively preventing the marital act from performing as it is designed to.

After contemplating this in many ways, I think you’re right. NFP and ABC are two different things, even though the intent is the same. The question, then, is whether ABC is the “intrinsic evil” it’s made out to be.

If active contraception = NFP, then logically an infertile person marrying is guilty of contraception. Can you prove that infertile people were incapable of marriage in the views of Christian teaching?

In ye olden days before the advent of hysterectomies and such, exactly how was one supposed to know that he/she was infertile before getting married and finding out by experience?

–Mike

P.S.: I just discovered that people who are functionally impotent (e.g., castrated male, female with too small a vaginal opening to penetrate) aren’t allowed to marry in the Church. Interesting!