www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Natural contraception 'effective'

Using condoms certainly wouldn't square with the Church fathers. The only thing that would square perfectly with the Church fathers would be to have sex on occasion for the purpose of producing offspring and then ceasing sexual relations when one became too old to bear children. For most of the fathers (there are notable exceptions in the Syriac tradition) that would be the goal for Christians. Married couples who failed to live up to the goal but came together out of the necessity of lust would still be in the Church as long as they did nothing to prevent conception or expell the fetus. NFP would not have been considered different from other forms of birth control. The fathers would have seen it as a way to satisfy lust. St. Augustine explicitly condemns the manicheans for this practice. For most of the fathers, sexual pleasure is an accidental biproduct and related to the Fall. Prior to the fall, there would have been no sexual reproduction (St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximos the Confessor) or there would have been sexual reproduction but with no sensual pleasure (St. Augustine). Augustine argues that the only pleasure God originally intended for intercourse was the rational pleasure of knowing that one is procreating according to God's command (see Augustine's "The City of God.").

For an excellent survey of the early fathers and their (mostly negative) attitude toward sexuality and the body, see Peter Brown's "The Body and Society in Late Antiquity."

Joe

So, is this a "development of doctrine?"

It would seem so to me.

Let's not forget that the Fathers all condemned warfare as well.

NFP can assist to achieve pregnancy if the couple uses it for that reason. Chemical hormones can also be used to achieve pregnancy.

But, whether or not NFP can be used to achieve pregnancy is irrelevant. The question is whether it is morally licit to engage in the act in such a way that one times it so that it is necessarily infertile. And given the success rate of those who strictly practice NFP, we can say that from an empirical point of view, that practice NFP is arguably less open to life than using a condom or the pill which has a higher failure rate. There is no means of preventing conception that renders conception impossible, other than sterilization. This is another problem with the argument of Humanae Vitae. It condemns birth control for making the procreation impossible, yet it is only some forms of sterlization that does this.

Dr. Eric,

I don't believe in development of doctrine.

Joe

"I don't believe in development of doctrine."

That is where the East and West generally disagree. There is no way to get around that point by the use of an argument or a series of arguments.

"Chemical hormones can also be used to achieve pregnancy."

But there is a stark difference between chemical hormones which tricks a woman's body to prevent ovulation and to block the implantation of embryos in the woman's uterus and the hormones which you are describing here.

Indeed! Not to mention schism... the Church Fathers would first be rolling in their graves over state of the Church today. (instead they are shaking their heads in heaven!)

This whole thread sounds like a debate between Roman Catholic trads vs Roman Catholic rad trads. As a Catholic, as far as I am concerned, NFP is okay because the Church says so!

And what the heck is "unnatural" about NFP!?! You just do your marital duty on certain days of the month, whats so artificial about that? And by the way, as other posters have said, one can still get pregnant doing NFP. And if NFP was banned, like many Latin rad trads want, imagine the amount of people who would give up and use condoms.

Joe,

I know that the development of doctrine is anathema in Orthodoxy. And my doctorate is not in Philosophy, so please tell me where I'm committing the fallacy. But if all the Fathers taught against something or it was never made clear, and now the Church is teaching that something that was once Verboten is now OK , then either we are all damned who practice either ABC or NFP or the doctrine does develop and now one or both are now allowed.

Or, the Fathers were writing about something they had no business writing about.

Clarification, please:

I thought neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church believe in the development of doctrine. I thought that both believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit revealed all doctrine by the death of the last apostle (St. John); and, since then, the Church has simply been engaged in better understanding doctrine and better articulating doctrine.

I'm not trying to be petulant; I'm asking for a clarification on a point in the midst of this current debate.

-- John

John,

This seems to be the difference in the contemporary western Catholic view and Orthodox view of doctrine. The Orthodox view, in my mind, would be better described as "clarification of doctrine." What is already given in the deposit of the faith is simply articulated more clearly. This is the job of the Ecumenical Council.

In Catholic theological circles, development of doctrine is understood in a different way. Supposedly, there are doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and indulgences that were not given explicitly in the original deposit of faith. However, over time the mind of the Church reflects on her principle doctrines and comes to understand that these other doctrines (such as the Immaculate Conception) logically flow from the original deposit of faith, so that the body of doctrine is, in fact, increased. In a sense, it is more semi-Hegelian to my mind. And I admit it is a viewpoint that is plausible. At one time I accepted it. But I do not any longer.

Joe

I think John's expression about the "development of doctrine" is correct: "development" doesn't mean "evolution into a new thing" but "growth within the same thing"; otherwise, it becomes literally "heresy".

But there are other issues that have also been asserted in this discussion, which might be clarified. My list:

a) Is Natural Family Planning (NFP) a kind of science or a kind of technology? I would suggest it is of the nature of science (i.e., knowledge) and not technology (i.e., application of science). With NFP, the application is the only part subject to moral questioning, since acquiring knowledge for a legitimate purpose is never wrong. And I think those speaking in favor of NFP are trying to make that point, as well as the next one.

b) Given this nature of NFP, at what point is a couple "justified" or "properly motivated" to apply that knowledge in their sexual relations? My sense is: "when they have a serious reason or reasons to try to avoid having children", and that the appreciation of "serious" is up to them, though they are encouraged to be generous. And that a priest or other well-formed counselor can be helpful to them in sorting this out.

c) Somehow, an analogy was made between "lying" and "mental reservation", and the example of "lying" to Nazis about hiding Jews was used, and this was called "scholasticism".

What it is really called is "casuistry", or what we call today "a case history", and it is much used in law and business schools. The purpose is to apply one's moral principles (or legal or business concepts) to concrete hypothetical cases, thereby shedding light on whether those principles are well enunciated or poorly stated.

(When abused, as is frequent in American jurisprudence, one winds up with the contraposition of "precedents", rather than the application of higher principles to specific cases, and that is called legal positivism.)

I would say that in the case proposed, i.e., lying to Nazis who are hunting for Jews, or lying to American sheriffs who are hunting for runaway slaves, the moral question is whether those "authorities" have any right to ask the question in the first place. If not, I have no obligation to respond. If they apply pressure (guns or posses), I can respond evasively (but I am not required to do so, necessarily, especially if there are other third parties, such as family or friends, at risk.

Best regards,
Michael

Thank you, Joe !

-- John

I think you've missed the point...entirely. I also think it strange that it is mainly men who are dominating this conversation, and that you, John, seem to think yourself capable to speak on the behalf of women.



True! The use of artificial birth control encourages fear of pregnancy, encourages the idea that it is something that ought to be fought or blocked because, well, that's exactly what artificial birth control DOES. It attempts to block the natural result of intercourse between to presumably healthy individuals with healthy, normally-functioning fertilities. How is that being open to life? (And no, this is not to say, John, that every woman must be a mother...sheesh.)

Rachel, ad hominems such as "it is mainly men who are dominating this conversation," are completely unnecessary. As for the rest of the post, I find it rather subjective.

Joe