// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question on the RCC's position on Natural family planning.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question on the RCC's position on Natural family planning.

    I may be wrong but I think that the RCC allows for people to have sex during periods of time where a woman is not likely to have a child. My question is, can any Church father be cited in support of this practice?

    St. Augustine may have suggested it was immoral. (although this may refer more to a continual practice of purposely not having a children

    65. Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable chastity consists. For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers—that is, those in the second grade among you—are allowed to have wives. After you have said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? 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? This proves that you 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. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit.
    Source
    A quote from a website also has this from Clement of Alexandria:

    "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191])."
    "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid. 2:10:95:3).
    Source
    Last edited by Quantum Weirdness; 08-24-2014, 01:28 PM. Reason: Forgot to give the second source
    -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
    Sir James Jeans

    -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
    Sir Isaac Newton

  • #2
    That would be like searching the ECFs for a quote on the morality of genetic engineering or nuclear physics: they didn't know enough about the science to even be able to ask the right questions.
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
      That would be like searching the ECFs for a quote on the morality of genetic engineering or nuclear physics: they didn't know enough about the science to even be able to ask the right questions.
      Well the quotes from the church fathers suggest that they wouldn't exactly endorse it today.
      -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
      Sir James Jeans

      -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
      Sir Isaac Newton

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
        Well the quotes from the church fathers suggest that they wouldn't exactly endorse it today.
        I think most Catholic theologians would acknowledge this as a development of doctrine. I think there used to be some who said in the past that the primary or only purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. There's probably a few around today who might say something like this, but I think the majority would say that the two purposes (unitive and procreative) are inextricably bound together. Children are intended to have loving parents.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          I think most Catholic theologians would acknowledge this as a development of doctrine. I think there used to be some who said in the past that the primary or only purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. There's probably a few around today who might say something like this, but I think the majority would say that the two purposes (unitive and procreative) are inextricably bound together. Children are intended to have loving parents.

          So what's your position robrecht? Do you think that the early church would have seen NFP as being sin or not? Or you really can't say for sure.

          Btw, thanks for your insightful response.
          -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
          Sir James Jeans

          -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
          Sir Isaac Newton

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
            So what's your position robrecht? Do you think that the early church would have seen NFP as being sin or not? Or you really can't say for sure.

            Btw, thanks for your insightful response.
            I have never studied statements of the church fathers on issues related to this question so I wouldn't hazard a guess.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment

            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
            Working...
            X