Now, I'm no advocate of NFP, but it is clearly not "intrinsically against nature".
Clare, would you say that it's not intrinsically evil and against nature (the natural law) to cherish adulterous thoughts in one's own mind? Would you say that it's not intrinsically evil and against nature to want to murder someone in one's own mind? Would you say it's not intrinsically evil and against nature to rape a woman in one's own mind? Would you say it's not intrinsically evil to degrade another in one's own mind? - If you are honest when answering these questions, you can only have come to one conclusion: that these actions is evil even when performed only in the mind.
Likewise, then, is it an intrinsically evil thought to want to play God and avoid the possible child that he would wish to send to you. It doesn't matter if NFP is natural, since the intention of avoiding a child is in it's essence, unnatural. This is the crux of the matter, the intention - and this is sadly what all advocates of NFP fails to realize, since they choose to overlook this fact, since they don't want to feel responsible for their mortal sin of child avoidance. These people act just like protestants, avoiding the core issue, completely looking the other way around.
The natural end of matrimony is child bearing. When a couple wish to entirely avoid this motive, then has it become an intrinsically evil act against nature. There is nothing natural about charts, thermometers, etc. It is not a complicated matter to understand that using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy is wrong. It is written on man’s heart that such activity is wrong.
Genesis 30:1-2 “And Rachel seeing herself without children, envied her sister, and said to her husband: ‘Give me children, otherwise I shall die.’ And Jacob being angry with her, answered: ‘Am I as God, who hath deprived thee of the fruit of thy womb?’”
We all know that God is the One who opens the womb, the One who killeth and maketh alive.
Genesis 30:22 “The Lord also remembering Rachel, heard her, and opened her womb.”
1 Kings 2:6 “The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell, and bringeth back again.”
So why would a woman who desires to fulfill the will of God make a systematic effort to avoid God sending her a new life? What excuse could such a person possibly make for going out of her way to calculate how to have marital relations without getting pregnant with the child God was going to send? Why would a woman (or a man) who believes that God opens the womb try to avoid His opening of the womb by a meticulous and organized effort, involving charts, cycles and thermometers? The answer is that those who engage in such behavior as NFP turn from God (which is the essence of sin) and refuse to be open to His will.
When a married couple goes out of its way to avoid children by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times, they are committing a sin against the natural law – they are sinning against the God whom they know sends life. NFP is therefore a sin against the natural law, since God is the author of life, and NFP thwarts His designs. Can one imagine what Jacob would have said to Rachel if she had discovered a new way to avoid “the Lord opening her womb?” He would probably have rebuked her as an infidel.
Yes, and it there is nothing intrinsically evil about not engaging in marital relations occasionally, frequently, or constantly! NFP may well be indicative of a contraceptive mentality, but the fact is, it does not involve engaging in the marital act while frustrating it. That is what is condemned as intrinsically evil.
It's nothing wrong to engage in infertile periods so long as a couple do not avoid all fertile periods deliberately and by a systematic effort by calenders and charts, which is against nature, and which FRUSTRATES THE NATURAL END, CHILD BEARING. An evil thought frustrates the natural end or law as much as an actual deed, if this was not so, then would our Lord not liken adulterous thoughts with the actual deed of adultery - only a dishonest person could overlook this fact while being presented with it.
Spouses are to have relations spontaneously, both on fertile and infertile days, and not be afraid of a possible conception if God so should grant it.
There are also non-sinful reasons why spouses cannot have relations during known fertile periods, such as the husband is on a business trip or one spouse is sick, etc. Because they did not deliberately impede the fertile period for the purpose of preventing conception, they can have relations during the known infertile period without sinning, even though they did not have relations during the fertile period. For instance, if a husband is away from home during his wife’s known fertile period and returns to his wife during her known infertile period, he can still have conjugal relations with her without sinning as long as he did not deliberately avoid the fertile period for the purpose of preventing conception (which would be a mortally sinful act of impeding conception, an intrinsic evil). In this case the spouses did not sin, even though they had marital relations only during the wife’s known infertile period.
The sin of contraception is not committed in the case of a barren womb or sterile male seed if the spouses always desire to have children if God should grant a miracle of conception. In the above mentioned cases the spouses can commit other sins of lust, if they seek to inflame concupiscence, but they would not commit the sin of contraception.
Even though the spouses believe new life cannot be brought forth, they can still perform the marital act so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. Pope Pius XI is clearly teaching that even when spouses know conception cannot take place they must still, nevertheless, desire and hope that conception will take place, and in this way subordinate the quelling of concupiscence to the primary end of childbearing. They must desire that conception occurs and hope that God grants it, even if by a miracle in the case of a sterile male seed or barren womb. The sin of contraception is committed the very instant a spouse hopes either before, during, or after the marital act that conception did not occur. That spouse would deny the primary and necessary goal of every engagement of the marital act, that is, procreation and childbearing. Even when concupiscence is being quelled during the known infertile period the desire of the spouses must be that God, nevertheless, grants conception and be overjoyed if He does. The desire of procreation, of possible child bearing, even during the infertile period, should be foremost in the minds of spouses every time they engage in the marital act.
Also, when you say that Pius XII expressed his 'private' opinion in his encyclical, (being the Devil's Advocate here) how do you justify quoting Pius XI encyclical as being infallible? :confused1:
Pope Pius XII never expressed his opinion in an encyclical, but in a speech to midwifes. Even if he did make an encyclical with his erroneous opinions, it would still have had to met certain requirements to meet papal infallibility.
I will give you the answer under Phan's statement about why Pope Pius XI's enciclical is infallible, since he asked about the same question.
I have not read either of those encyclicals yet, however in order for an encyclical to be infallible it must be ex cathedra, it must be a law for the whole church throughout the world, defined and I'm not positive on this but it must have an anethama attached or at least be binding on everyone on pain of sin.
That is what makes something infallible. There hasn't been an ex cathedra docuмent in many many years.
CONTRACEPTION IS INFALLIBLY CONDEMNED BY POPE PIUS XI
A pope can teach infallibly, not just in matters of faith, but also in matters of morals.
Vatican Council, 1870: Sess. IV, cap. 4, Definition of infallibility: “The Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA… when… he defines a
doctrine concerning faith or morals[/b] to be held by the whole Church.”
A doctrine of faith or morals becomes part of the solemn (extraordinary) magisterium when a pope infallibly defines it and hence makes it a dogma of faith or morals. Not only the ordinary magisterium but also the solemn magisterium, by an infallible definition from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii in 1930, condemn the contraceptive intent and hence any method used to carry out that intent (which includes any new methods that science and medicine had not yet invented, such as birth control pills that were introduced to the public in the early 1960’s.)
On December 30, 1930, Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Casti Connubii, engaged his charism of infallibility and condemned all forms of contraception. Casti Connubii is an encyclical addressed to the entire Church. In this encyclical, Pius XI plainly states what the Faith of the Church is on Christian Marriage. When a Pope plainly and authoritatively states what the Faith of the Church is in an encyclical to the entire Church, that represents the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, to which a Catholic is bound.
In addition, there is solemn language used by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubbii which constitutes a solemn, ex cathedra pronouncement. Note the bolded and underlined portions:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 1930: “Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime, and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it’. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have adjudged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question,
the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and the purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
These sentences fulfill the conditions of an infallible teaching regarding a doctrine of morals. The pope is addressing the Universal Church, “the Catholic Church.” He makes it clear he is proclaiming a truth, “Our mouth proclaims.” The topic deals with morals, “the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and the purity of morals.” And lastly, he binds Catholics to this teaching under pain of grave sin, “those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” This is infallible,
ex cathedra language; anyone who denies this simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. This also serves to refute those many voices today who say things such as: “there have only been two infallible statements in Church history, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.” That is complete nonsense, of course; but one hears it quite frequently.
So, it’s completely clear, according to the infallible word of Pope Piux XI, that “
any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”[/b]
THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM CONDEMNS THE CONTRACEPTIVE INTENT
A doctrine of faith or morals that is taught by the
unanimous consent of the Fathers is part of the ordinary magisterium and thus infallible:
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Session 4, AD 1546, ex cathedra: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers[/b]; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”
Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council had the following to say about this:
Pope Pius IX,
Vatican Council, Session 2, January 6th, 1870, ex cathedra: “I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith...
accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds[/u], since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures;
nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers[/b].”
The unanimous consent of the Fathers, and therefore the ordinary magisterium, condemns the contraceptive intent and hence any method used to carry out that intent (which includes the new methods that modern science has invented, such as NFP, foams, and birth control pills).
All the fathers and saints teach that the sin of contraception is committed in thought (intent) as well as in deed. St. Augustine sums it up well:
St. Augustine,
Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17, A.D. 419: “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation
by an evil prayer or an evil deed….”
The intent, the desire, or the prayer that conception does not occur during conjugal relations is when and where the mortal sin of contraception is first committed, even if no contraceptive method is used, because “
evil thoughts are an abomination to the Lord.” (Prv. 15:26) During conjugal relations spouses must always desire conception, even if for some reason it is humanly impossible. This is the unanimous teaching of the fathers and saints:
Clement of Alexandria,
The Instructor of Children, 2:10:95:3: “
To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature[/b].”
St. Jerome,
Against Jovinian 1:19, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed.
Does he imagine that we approve of any sɛҳuąƖ intercourse except for the procreation of children[/b]?”
Lactantius,
Divine Institutes, 6:23:18: “God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.”
Saint Caesar of Arles: “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN...WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens,
The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)
Clement of Alexandria,
The Instructor of Children, 2:10:95:3: “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.”
St. Jerome,
Against Jovinian 1:19, A.D. 393.: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sɛҳuąƖ intercourse except for the procreation of children?”
St. Augustine,
The Morals of the Manichees 18:65, A.D. 388.: “This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.”
St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 22:30: “For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.”
All other quotes on this subject from fathers and saints unanimously teach the same. Not one of them teaches that God allows spouses to have conjugal relations without also desiring conception. The intention of the spouses that conception does not occur during conjugal relations is the crux of the matter, the root of the mortal sin of contraception. Even before conjugal relations, spouses have committed the mortal sin of contraception if they had planned or only desired that conception should not take place during conjugal relations. Jesus teaches that sin is first committed in the heart even before a man carries out his sinful deed. He says, “
You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt. 5:27-28)
OBJECTION: The practice of NFP is something new invented by modern Science which the saints couldn’t have known about; hence their condemnations couldn’t have been about NFP, but about something else, such as Onanism.
ANSWER: Just because men have invented new ways to commit murder, such as with modern weapons that didn’t exist in the days of many of the saints, doesn’t mean that men who commit murder with these weapons are not guilty since the saints did not specifically condemn murder by the use of these new killing methods. It is the same with NFP. Spouses commit the mortal sin of contraception no matter what weapon (method) they use to attempt to prevent conception during conjugal relations. If people cannot see this, it is because they are like the evil, blind, and obstinate Pharisees during Jesus’ first coming who made laws to break God’s laws and thus lost all common sense. Even though not all dogmas can be known by reason, they never contradict reason (common sense). NFP contradicts reason, the law upon the heart, and the teachings of the ordinary and solemn magisterium.
Even though it’s a dogma of Faith that it is against the Natural Law to deliberately frustrate the natural power to generate offspring in any way, most advocates of NFP however, would like to have us believe the exact opposite. These people seem to be ignoring the fact that this new teaching of NFP (if it’s used for the reason to
avoid Children) was non existent in the Catholic Church just prior to the Vatican II revolution.