----- Original Message -----
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Natural Family Planning Re: Pass the applesauce . . .
> At 09:44 AM 8/6/01 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
> > IMHO,
> >the real foundation of the desire to restrict sex is Augustine's
theology.
>
> I don't think that I buy this.
>
> I have always seen the Church's teaching on this area as being of the
> general vein that it is good for humans to regularly deny themselves all
> sorts of pleasures. For example, the Church used to call for Catholics
to
> abstain from meat on Fridays (and continues to call for it on Fridays in
> Lent,) the Church proscribes two days of fasting each year (Ash Wednesday
> and Good Friday), and the Church promotes the Lenten season as a time for
> fasting and abstinence of all sorts.
>
There is a strain of asceticism within the Catholic Church. I have do doubt
of that at all. But, it does not hold the central location that Augustinian
theology does within the framework of the Catholic church. He was the first
and greatest of the Doctors of the Church. Only Aquinas comes close to him
in influence.
If there was a general request to refrain from sex on Fridays during Lent,
I'd agree with your point. But, that's not the case. Couples willing to
have 20 children are not asked to refrain at all; but couples who feel the
need to limit the number of children are asked to refrain at a time when,
for most women, the biological drive for sex is the strongest. Indeed, one
shorthand way to practice natural family planning is to refrain from sex
when the women is most interested.
One question is whether the Catholic church thinks that limiting population
by decreasing the birth rate is a worthwhile goal. My impression is that
they think it is not. I have a hard time understanding this at all. I
understand taking faith based risks, but I don't see the fundamental
biblical theology that underlies the need to take such a big risk with the
future of humanity.
> I must admit that I am a bit lacking in my understanding of the *why* of
> this teaching, other than a few general themes such that through fasting
> and abstinence:
> 1) Catholics can show solidarity with the poor
> 2) The body and soul can be "practiced" for the ability to resist the
> temptation of sin
> 3) It tempers the spirit and forces the soul to concentrate on heavenly
> matters
Well, the church has shown itself tremendously ignorant with regards to sex
in marriage. First of all, with children in the house, its often a matter
of finding those rare chances when the kids are asleep and you are not too
tired. Second, the sexuality
>
> Now, I have not read St. Augustine (I know, I know, I really should) - but
> based on your description it doesn't seem to match the above.
>
No. And I'm arguing that St. Augustine's theology is much more likely to be
the true basis for the Catholic church's position than mortification of the
spirit as part of spiritual discipline. It is curious that sex when
additional children are unwanted is the focus of spiritual discipline. It
is curious that it is not tied to the Church year. It is curious that
something that is so intimately tied to the relationship of a married couple
is the prime requirement of asceticism that the Catholic church has.
I think that explanation doesn't really fit. The Catholic churches
prohibition fits the old ideal that "the only reason for sex is that virgins
might be born." much closer than it does the official explanation.
>
> I have seen studies that used the same standards for all methods of
> contraception studied - i.e. only those using the method correctly were
> counted. In those studies, NFP, condoms, and the Pill all came out
> between 90 and 98%, depending on the study.
>
Well, what I've seen is that getting cut is the only thing that is really
above 99%. The pill is high, around 98%, and others are down at 90% or
below.
Dan M.
