A
Abu
Guest
False assumptions about men and women with no proof, in the face of facts, signify what iconoclast William James described: “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
Why do most people ignore the Church's teaching on contraception?
- Status
X
Xantippe
Guest
Many female animals are very obvious about going into heat and, as Hoosier Daddy points out, farmers are keenly interested in figuring out when it’s happening so as to make the best of the breeding season.
Human females are less obvious about going into heat, but we do have a fertility cycle that is obviously connected to fertility (as menstruation generally ceases when a woman is infertile or less fertile).
So, although the exact mechanics of what is going on took a long time to figure out, the rough outlines have always been in plain sight.
K
kptrs
Guest
I’m sorry for your loss, MomaMary8. :bighanky:
B
Burt_Macklin
Guest
St Augustine writing against the Manicheans in the 4th century appeared to know something about a method of periodic abstinence.
"Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh?‟
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Yeah, that would be bad if I were doing that. But I’m not. I’m pointing out that what that person (Allegedly) wrote is absolute bunk. And it is ignorant of common sense, and history. I have repeatedly asked you exactly where in the CCC that is. Please. Cite it. Perhaps it is part of a forward or something but if this is written in the CCC the actual document, then we have found the white whale that every Traditionalist is looking for. Proof that the CCC is WRONG about something. In post 122 you cite this exact wording in the CCC. But it does not reference a paragraph number but a page number. I cannot find this online.
I suspect it is either two things. Either it is the mistaken opinion of a man who was a great theologian but used poor wording in this one small issue without thinking. Or it was added by someone else and attributed to him. Note, I am not saying that his contributions to the CCC or his contributions about theological issues are wrong but only this one small part. The historical part. It is tough too, because people in the 70s had no idea about the internet and some jerk checking every single thing you ever wrote against an infinite amount of information. Back in the 70s I would be limited to whatever free book Time/Life gave away on TV…
So, here is the “proof”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.v.xx.html
Now that is the relevant part to the refutation of the original contention. But please, everyone read the whole article. It is incredibly rich with theology of sexuality and proof that the Church has long had a better grasp than we do now on sexuality and theology.
That is the 300s…
It proves my allegation that those idiotic people born pre space age
Actually understood more than we give them credit for. And it shows the Church has LONG understood this issue. It proves NFP can and has been done with a contraceptive and lustful mentality. It DOES NOT prove that NFP is wrong. But it does prove that the CHurch appears to be more educated on this than we think. And why wouldn’t it, with Christ’s infinite knowledge at the helm.I hate revisionist history and the ego of each generation thinking it is soooooo much smarter than the last. It is a form of the sin of pride.
Now, please cite in the CCC where it says that no one knew of fertile times of abstaining.
People might be saying “Hoosier, it is no big deal, it is an off the cuff statement that is going off on a tangent.” It is a HUGE deal. This is my biggest pet peeve of all time. It goes against history, which if it were up to me would be akin to blaspheme… And when we do this not only to we embrace our own ignorance and grow our own smug pride but we defame and belittle Billions of people who have lived before us who cannot defend themselves. We call them stupid and we take the greatness of theology and logic and bend it to our own will without any sort of respect for the wisdom of the Church, the Fathers or of God. And in this particular case, we bend it to the satisfaction of our own genital urges…
Turns out it is WE who are marring same sex people and completely misunderstanding simple biological processes. Not those who came before.
L
loumeland
Guest
NFP, as well as the “unitive” purpose in marriage, is a new phenomenon.
In light of our tangent into history: Must we conclude that all the marital relations that were going on before the 20th century that lacked this fundamental purpose (without going into details- lots of people were having sex as a chore only to procreate) were “intrinsically disordered”?
In light of our tangent into history: Must we conclude that all the marital relations that were going on before the 20th century that lacked this fundamental purpose (without going into details- lots of people were having sex as a chore only to procreate) were “intrinsically disordered”?
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Of course not. That is swinging too fat the other way.
What is your basis for people viewing sex as a “chore” before the 20th century. That marital love was created by God to be non unitive?
W
white_sheep
Guest
The unitive aspect of it has been taught by various saints and theologians for a long, long time.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Most animals and even most primates have a different type of fertility cycle than we do.
Bunnies for example, don’t even have a fertility cycle. They have induced fertility. Mama bunny can get pregnant right after giving birth, if papa bunny is interested. Papa bunnies tend to always be interested.
Also, most other animals mate only when in heat (except for some types of primate and some types of sea mammals) So Farmer Smith would know if the sheep were in heat, because he’d sea Papa Ram being very interested in Mama Ewe, and very grumpy with other Rams.
(My dad was a farmer…
)
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
From my horse and ranch days and my youth spent in 4H assisting a vet, I can assure you that knowledge of animal’s cycles are common. But please… lets not get too graphic. I don’t need to relive some of those experiences…Most animals and even most primates have a different type of fertility cycle than we do.
Bunnies for example, don’t even have a fertility cycle. They have induced fertility. Mama bunny can get pregnant right after giving birth, if papa bunny is interested. Papa bunnies tend to always be interested.
Also, most other animals mate only when in heat (except for some types of primate and some types of sea mammals) So Farmer Smith would know if the sheep were in heat, because he’d sea Papa Ram being very interested in Mama Ewe, and very grumpy with other Rams.
(My dad was a farmer…
X
Xantippe
Guest
Not really. See Genesis 2:18, "“It is not good that the man should be alone.”
Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
Or see Mark 10:7-8, “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.”
The word “unitive” isn’t in those passages, but the idea of unity is.
U
Usige
Guest
Actually what is new is the normative acceptance that the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital union **should **normally be separated.
That is the whole lie behind contraceptives in that it says the unitive aspect should be held in higher regard than the procreative aspect. Indeed, that the procreative aspect is not even necessary if one doesn’t want; simply chose the aspect one wants instead of seeing them as part of a whole. God joined the two for a reason and we see the continuous breakdown in relationships when either is emphasized over the other. In some cases the procreative only aspect was over emphasized in the past and now, western society as a whole, overemphasizes the unitative aspect. God never intended that they be set in opposition to each other, but to be part of a whole of human sexuality. It is only because of the fall that many call foul that we have to accept both.
In an ideal world (i.e. the Garden) NFP wouldn’t matter because both aspects would be lived in harmony with God’s design. People wouldn’t see fertility as a burden to be dealt with or children an evil to be put up with. They would be joyous at being co-creators in God’s design. Because of the fall, mankind continues to throw away God’s gifts and grinds them under their heals to live out their will rather than His.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
NFP ie. natural family planning didn’t need such a description prior to artificial family planning. It had been the norm without need of a definition. It’s not a ‘new phenomenon’. Same with the distinctions unitive and procreative. No distinction was needed prior to mans capacity to separate them as a lifestyle. As far as people only having sex as a chore to procreate before modern times… I’m assuming you’ve said that as a joke to stir people up.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Unitive purpose in marriage is a new phenomenon? “for this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24) This sounds pretty unitive to me. How do you get more united than becoming one flesh? And this sounds pretty ancient to me–as part of Gods original design.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Yes! Peter Kreeft in the Philosophy of Jesus in a chapter entitled Jesus and Sex mentions this. portalconservador.com/livros/Peter-Kreeft-Philosophy-of-Jesus.pdf
It’s in section IV Jesus Ethics chapter 5 and it starts on page 126 of the book I borrowed from a local library. Here are a couple of quotes:
"Moral relativism is the new orthodoxy among our mind-molders in media and education. And almost all the justifications for the new moral relativism are sexual. No one wants a morality of “any* thing goes” or “different strokes for different folks” or “live and let live” or "don’t be judgmental “when it comes to ecology, or economics, or penology, or terrorism, or even smoking. Only sex.”
“Sex is the god of our world, our culture. It is our most non-negotiable demand. The teaching of Christ’s faithful Church about sex is the main reason the world hates and fears the Church, for the Church is “judgmental” about our society’s addiction and its real religion. Christ revolutionizes the Sexual Revolution. How does He do that? Not by opposing religion to sex but by opposing real religion to false religion. From Freud’s point of view, religion is a substitute for sex; from Christ’s point of view, sex is a substitute for religion.”
“The Sexual Revolution could not have happened without two causes, or conditions: (1) religious passion declined, and (2) the Pill enabled us to separate sex from procreation and lifelong responsibility.”
“The most radical change of the Revolution was not in behavior. There have been all sorts of wild explosions of sexual behavior before in history, notably in dying Rome. The real revolution has been in thought. “All that we do is made from our thoughts,” says Buddha, at the beginning of the Dhammapada. What Pope Paul VI prophetically called “the contraceptive mentality” was a more radical change than anyone foresaw, except Aldous Huxley in Brave New World. Contraception separates sex from babies. That is like separating food from nutrition, or eyes from seeing, or ice makers from ice, or churches from saints. (We do that too; how many of us see the Church first of all as a saint-making machine? But that’s how St. Paul saw it. Remember that, and all the epistles light up.)”
It is a book worth reading.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Perfect! I think this might be what the poster was trying to say. That our focus on the separation of the two aspects is a newer phenomenon. This is why perhaps the church’s addressing of nfp as a newer theology is misunderstood. As we can see the church has addressed this issue in the past. But it is only now that abc is so widely used that the church put a name to the idea of natural birth control. Not necessarily for everyone to use but as a merciful alternative to a people who have adopted hedonistic views of marriage and sex. A meet people where they are type of solution.
A
ALoveDivine
Guest
What seems to be often overlooked is just how economically unviable it is to have big families these days…well unless you’re rich of course. Us poor people don’t have the luxury of being able to have lots of kids. If you can only afford a studio or a 1 bedroom apartment, you can’t have a lot of kids, the apartment will kick you out. Then where do you go? If you can barely afford to keep your own stomach full, how are you going to feed children?
The reality is, both parents may work full-time jobs and still not be able to keep up with the cost of living. Add multiple children to that and it becomes absolutely impossible to even survive without welfare and/or charity. So though in an ideal world of rainbows and unicorns we would all “accept God’s gifts” and have lots of kids, in the real world that would spell devastation and ruin.
Here’s a question for you all-or-nothing types, if NFP doesn’t work for a couple and they won’t or can’t abstain, is it licit or just for them to have children and put them up for adoption, because they are poor and can’t provide for them? Let’s say after kid 2 no more can be supported by any means, shall kids 3 and 4 and 5 be put up for adoption? I can’t see any other option if there is zero justifiable situation to use contraception.
The reality is, both parents may work full-time jobs and still not be able to keep up with the cost of living. Add multiple children to that and it becomes absolutely impossible to even survive without welfare and/or charity. So though in an ideal world of rainbows and unicorns we would all “accept God’s gifts” and have lots of kids, in the real world that would spell devastation and ruin.
Here’s a question for you all-or-nothing types, if NFP doesn’t work for a couple and they won’t or can’t abstain, is it licit or just for them to have children and put them up for adoption, because they are poor and can’t provide for them? Let’s say after kid 2 no more can be supported by any means, shall kids 3 and 4 and 5 be put up for adoption? I can’t see any other option if there is zero justifiable situation to use contraception.
M
Memaw
Guest
This is something you need to settle before marriage. To participate in someone else’s sin is NOT the right thing to do. You can’t drive the get-away car even if you don’t go in and rob the bank. You can’t drive someone to an abortion mill even if you don’t approve of abortion. If you know she is going to sin ahead of the marriage, you need to think seriously before getting married under those circumstances. Talk to a priest. I’m sure this would come up in Marriage preparation classes. Trusting in God’s Mercy is NO excuse for sinning. In order to make a good Confession, one must be sorry, amend our life and avoid the near occasion of sin. How are you going to do that if your married to it? God Bless, Memaw
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Oh man… I’m not going to take the bait on this. Several posters on this thread have battled with the poverty aspect ad nausium. Ok maybe I will nibble the bait a little…
I don’t know your location but your English is good and you obviously have Internet access so let’s assume it is a modern western country. USA perhaps. Calling for special moral exemptions based on poverty in the modern western world is as silly as it gets. We litterally live in extravagant ways with even our welfare including money for technology and education for every single child… Let’s not cry starvation or birth control pills when some pretty poor third world families are pretty happy to be living and walking in God’s grace. Does that mean we should not ever take into account finances when discerning a child? Of course not. But let’s not walk away sad and mopey like the rich man…
- Status