A reader writes:
Some NFP manuals say that it is only
morally permissible to use NFP under the condition that the use of
periodic abstinence does not present the spouses with a serious
temptation to impurity of any kind.Imagine the following scenario: the wife has some sort of condition
such that a pregnancy will severely endanger her health or life.
However, the husband thinks that periodic abstinence will present him
with temptations to impurity that he will not be able to resist.
Therefore, he concludes that he has a moral obligation not to use
NFP, and so he insists on the "marriage right," against the wishes of
his wife.He does this to avoid the sin of impurity. But certainly it is a sin
for him to insist on relations against her will, in two ways: first,
it’s the sin of lust (treating his spouse as an object by insisting on
sex against her will); and second, it’s the sin of endangering his
wife against her will.Obviously it is morally wrong to sin in these ways, even in order to
avoid the sin of impurity. There can be no moral obligation to sin.So my question is: is it official Catholic teaching that it is wrong
to use periodic abstinence if it presents a serious danger of
temptation to impurity?
I don’t know if this is a real situation or not (the reader says "Imagine the following scenario"), but I hope it is only theoretical.
To answer the question, it is not official Catholic teaching that it is always wrong to use periodic abstinence if it presents a serious danger of temptation to impurity.
The statements of the kind being encountered in NFP manuals are pastoral exhortations intended to address the situation of people who are inclined to use NFP without sufficient reason. For example, some couples just coming off of contraception might have the idea that they can just sub in NFP without recognizing the human realities of periodic continence. One partner, for whom periodic continence does not pose a challenge to purity, might then be insensitive to the needs of the other. By encouraging the partners to face the issue of whether periodic continence will pose a challenge to chastity, the partners are encouraged not only to be sensitive to each other’s needs but also to weigh the question of whether periodic continence is really justified in their circumstances or whether their situation is such that they should go ahead and have relations during a time when the act may be capable of producing new life.
Such pastoral exhortations need to be phrased carefully, however, because while it is true that one should not use periodic continence if there is a serious danger to chastity all things being equal, all things are not always equal, as in the scenario the reader describes.
I’m not sure that I agree with everything in the reader’s analysis of the scenario. For example, I wouldn’t be quick to say that "the sin of lust" is being committed. Lust is a vice–something that inclines toward sin (specifically, it’s disordered desire for sexual pleasure)–but it’s not sin itself. Lust may be a contributing factor to the situation (as may an innocently-held but misguided notion that one can never use NFP if it poses a risk of impurity), but I’d be more inclined to point out as a problem the insisting of conjugal relations without adequate regard for the wife’s physical condition and her legitimate wish to protect it.
What the husband risks doing in the scenario is the flipside of what the pastoral exhortations are meant to prevent: Being insensitive to the danger that the use or non-use of periodic continence may create.
In the scenario the reader describes, the use of periodic continence places the husband in spiritual danger (of impurity) and the failure to use periodic continence places the wife in physical danger (per the scenario, "a pregnancy will severely endanger her health or life").
At this point some could be tempted to say that spiritual dangers are incommensurate with physical ones (mortal sin–i.e., spiritual death–is worse than physical death), and so the danger to the husband in this case trumps the danger to the wife, but to immediately conclude this would be too facile.
For a start, would putting the wife in a situation where she might be in danger of her life possibly cause her to be in danger of some kind of mortal sin (e.g., misuse of the will based on anger toward her husband, or a desire to secretly use contraception, or even a desire for an abortion or miscarriage)? One can’t just look at the spiritual effects of the decision on the husband without looking at the spiritual repercussions for the wife.
More fundamentally, the "spiritual danger trumps physical danger" solution would seem to proceed from an attitude that says temptation must be avoided at all costs, and–whatever may be said for this attitude–it does not seem to be God’s.
God could effortlessly remove all temptation from the world (I say effortlessly because, as an infinite being, he has infinite resources and thus everything is equally easy to him; he does not strain or diminish his resources by doing one thing rather than another), yet he does not.
Why this is is partly a mystery, but it seems that in God’s mind there is a value to allowing us to struggle with temptation and, by his grace, grow in the spiritual life and cultivate virtue and, in the end, overcome temptation and the vices that incline us toward it.
This has implications for the way we conduct our own lives. It is not within our power to avoid all temptation, and the attempt to do so is inconsistent with living in modo humano ("in a human manner"), which moral theology holds that we are called to do. At some point, attempts to avoid temptation become counterproductive. Imagine, for example, the case of a person who attempts to avoid even the mere sight of a member of the opposite sex, lest temptation arise. Such a person is more likely to foster temptation than diminish it, since the mere sight of the opposite sex would have such an aura of forbiddenness and would induce such anxiety that the person would constantly be obsessing about the matter and stirring up temptations that otherwise wouldn’t be there.
In dealing with temptation, what we are called to is not absolute risk avoidance but rational risk avoidance as part of overall risk management. The absolute avoidance of temptation is impossible for us in this life and the attempt to achieve it will be counterproductive. What we must do is take rational measures to manage the temptations we are subject to and thus minimize the chance of falling into sin.
What measures are rational depend on a variety of factors that vary by individual and by what state the individual is in at present. It also includes factors like what effects our temptation avoidance measures will have on others.
In the scenario described by the reader, the two parties need to be as prayerful and open to each other’s situations as possible and arrive at an overall assessment of the proper approach for them to take as a couple, taking into account both the risks that the wife is subject to and the risks that the husband is subject to. Neither automatically trumps the other, and thus neither party should start with the assumption that their risks should automatically govern the situation.
Both should be asking questions like "Just how much physical risk would a pregnancy entail?" "Just how much temptation would I actually be subject to?" "What would the effects be if I insist on my way in this situation?" "What does common sense say?" "Is there some other way that we haven’t thought of–within the bounds of Church teaching–that the risks to me and my spouse could be managed?" and especially, "What would be the most loving thing to do?"
Lust is not a sin? Is that a mistype? Even Jesus clearly identified lust as a sin. The Catechism defines lust as a sin.
Good post, Jimmy!
At this point some could be tempted to say that spiritual dangers are incommensurate with physical ones (mortal sin–i.e., spiritual death–is worse than physical death)
But doesn’t the man sin mortally by endangering his wife against her will? I think the man’s choice in the scenario is between taking on the temptation to sin mortally, and sinning mortally.
First, one point some people get confused about. Desire and lust aren’t the same thing. Desire is healthy and was installed by God as a feature to help folks multiply. Desire isn’t a sin. Lust is the nasty, grabby, fallen form of desire.
Wallowing in lust on purpose, lust you give in to, is a sin. Feelings of lust that you don’t give in to are just temptations or a tendency, not sin itself.
And yes, this goes for all the “Seven Deadly Sins”. They’re only sins if you give in. You don’t sin unless you consent and go along with temptations. Otherwise, we would all just be puppets without free will, damned by body chemicals.
Jimmy,
I agree with your point but I think you’re chasing a straw man. There is no physicial danger vs. spritual danger dichotomy. Lust is a sin, endangering someone’s life is a sin. Look at this another way:
Imagine a man who is HIV positive. Doesn’t he have an obligation to abstain completely from the marital act, no matter how difficult that is?
Go Maureen!
I agree with Matt, anon, Maureen and Brier.
Certainly if I somehow became HIV positive, I would never ALLOW my wife anywhere NEAR me, sexually speaking.
A man who would risk the life of his spouse rather than deal with some temptation is a sad example of a husband.
Maureen is right.
epithumaesai, the Greek word used, doesn’t map onto the English word ‘lust’ 100%.
Epithumaesai is the word that is elsewhere translated ‘covet’.
Lust can mean zest for life, or mere sexual attraction. It can also mean sexual covetousness.
In fundamentalist circles, the error which Jimmy warns against – unnatural avoidance of possible temptation – is a reality (been there, done that), and is taught. that only exacerbates the situation, analogous to St. Paul’s description in Romans 7-8.
If I understand this modus humano properly, which is an if, then it is wrong to avoid situations that are a normal part of life, in order to avoid temptation or causing temptation – if it is a normal part of life, it isn’t causing temptation, the source lies elsewhere. (not including where attempting to tempt is a normal part of life, that is to be avoided)
Martin Luther (yes, him) said that you can’t keep the birds from flying over your head, but you don’t have to let them build nests in your hair. Is that a helpful statement?
“However, the husband thinks that periodic abstinence will present him with temptations to impurity that he [i]will not be able to resist. Therefore, he concludes that he has a moral obligation not to use NFP, and so he insists on the “marriage right,” against the wishes of his wife”
the problem is that this guy (and our culture) has transformed sex into a 600 lb gorilla that he carries on his back. he thinks if he does not feed the gorilla, it will consume him. Sex shols be a precious diamond that is cherished not a monster that must be constantly fed.
Quasimodo neither remembered to put his name on the previous anonymous nor learned to type and spell *sigh*
Eliminate the desire, eliminate the temptation. The drug companies need to address the issue with proper medication.
I think we are doped up enough, thanks… some more than others, of course (heh).
Hullucinogenics might be very helpful in making sense of J.D. Crossan, though. Suddenly it all makes sense!
Realist, so should everyone who is called to live a chaste life “eliminate the desire” in order to avoid temptation? Ot do I misunderstand you? You guys are good at finding the source of quotations: (I paraphrase)”Faith untested is no faith at all.” To eliminate temptation entirely would eliminate our ability to grow strong in our faith. And I believe that the sacrifice that is involved by not weilding to lust in conjugal relations can strengthen the marriage bond. Eliminate desire, eliminate control, eliminate sacrifice, eliminate an act of love.
Sorry, that should be “hallucinogenics”, above.
I can’t spell today, either, quasimodo. You had a good thought, though, even if you are alphabetically challenged.
OK, someone is going to have to explain to me why NFP is licit and ABC is not.
Why isn’t the bond between the uniative and the procreative as broken by the temporal barrier of avoiding relations during fertile periods as it is by physcial barrier of latex? (If abstinence was the real goal, NFP couples would abstain during non-fertile periods as well. NFP doesn’t require that, which makes it just another form of birth control.)
Why is the use of a thermometer, calendar and mathematical equations any more “natural” than the Pill?
Given that any woman has a finite number of fertile years, why is “spacing children” any different than having fewer children?
Why do I have this suspicion that NFP is OK with the RCC only because it doesn’t work worth a darn over the long term (no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP anymore than they can stay perpetually on a diet). Given human frailities NFP is a system designed and intended to fail.
I don’t remember exactly where it is said, but somewhere I remember something like the following:
A demand on one spouse against their legitimate refusal is not a marriage act.
Can someone find the quote and Jimmy would you comment?
Thanks.
“Why isn’t the bond between the uniative and the procreative as broken by the temporal barrier of avoiding relations during fertile periods as it is by physcial barrier of latex?”
The bond isn’t broken. Neither the unitive, nor the procreative are used when abstaining. They aren’t separated. With condoms, they ARE separated.
“Why do I have this suspicion that NFP is OK with the RCC only because it doesn’t work worth a darn over the long term (no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP anymore than they can stay perpetually on a diet). Given human frailities NFP is a system designed and intended to fail. ”
that is a baseless and baised argument. Where did you get such an idea?
…I have this suspicion that NFP is OK with the RCC only because it doesn’t work worth a darn over the long term
Evidence?
(no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP anymore than they can stay perpetually on a diet).
Really? Evidence?
Given human frailities NFP is a system designed and intended to fail.
Evidence?
Dave B – yes th ebond is broken every time they deliberately have relations during known infertile periods.
Evidence?
Living in the real world instead of a perfect fantasy land.
Seems to me that NFP should be as evil as ABC, as they both result in the breaking the bond between the uniative and the procreative and are both artifical and unnatural (just in different ways).
A recent study done in Germany ( i think) and reported on in Scientific American has shown that NFP is as effective as the pill.
“Why isn’t the bond between the uniative and the procreative as broken by the temporal barrier of avoiding relations during fertile periods as it is by physcial barrier of latex?”
The difference is exactly the same as that between eating a healthy diet (to avoid gaining weight) and bulemia (to avoid gaining weight). Would you really hold that one is no better than the other? In one instance you are abstaining from something, which has the added benefit of training you in self control and discipline… in the other you are indulging your appetite but unnaturally frustrating its normal function.
“Why is the use of a thermometer, calendar and mathematical equations any more “natural” than the Pill?”
Umm… because a thermometer doesn’t fiddle around with an already healthy body chemistry? Because nobody ever got cancer from doing math (as much as my son may insist the contrary)?
“Given that any woman has a finite number of fertile years, why is “spacing children” any different than having fewer children?”
First of all, married couples – all things being equal – SHOULD want children. That is church teaching as well as natural law. IF there are serious reasons to space births ( I assume you are not arguing that), NFP does this in a way that is totally in harmony with the nature of the marital act and with human physiology. In addition, a faithful NFP couple is ALWAYS open to the possibility of life. If a baby comes, it comes. The point isn’t to sacrifice everything to this idea that “we MUST not have a baby right now”.
“Why do I have this suspicion that NFP is OK with the RCC only because it doesn’t work worth a darn over the long term…”
Durned if I know. Sounds like a personal problem. And it’s just wrong. NFP works whenever it is used properly, just like anything. Do you understand that lots of people use condoms improperly, or just skip it in the heat of the moment, or forget to take their pills, or take antibiotics without knowing that can weaken the effects… do those count? Do we get to judge ALL these methods by their failures? I mean, who can possibly be expected to remember to take a pill EVERY DAY??
“…no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP anymore than they can stay perpetually on a diet”…
So, I assume you’ve tried it? Or are you saying that it’s abnormal to WANT to practice it? Nice. Much more natural to reach for a condom.
“Given human frailities NFP is a system designed and intended to fail. ”
No. Again, have you tried it? Or do you speak from your own biased conjectures? Catholicism DOES teach that children are a blessing. We’re funny that way.
If some granola-crunching field hippie/college professor had invented NFP in the Sixties as the natural alternative to all these man-made chemicals, he would have been hailed as a folk hero and would probably still be making speaking tours. It’s like… nature, man… you know? Far out.
I don’t get it… do you object to NFP because it works and results in fewer babies (just another form of birth control) or becuase it doesn’t work and is a scam perpetrated by the hierarchy?
Or do you object just because it is Catholic?
In addition, a faithful NFP couple is ALWAYS open to the possibility of life. If a baby comes, it comes. The point isn’t to sacrifice everything to this idea that “we MUST not have a baby right now”.
One could argue the same with a couple using a condom. If God wills the child, he will allow the condom to break or some other sophistry. ABC failure inside marriage rarely results in an abortion, so the prima facie case is more difficult to establish that the couple is not open to life when they use a condom.
Here is the link for the article from Scientific American. The difficulty in using NFP usually makes it very ineffective, or it least it has for all the couples I know who practice NFP. I have seen some estimates between 75-80% effective in real world applications. I don’t know if the difficulty is predicting the fertile times accurately or just that the couple can’t keep their hands off each other.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=80D25E2D-E7F2-99DF-39F66842EB6BE952&pageNumber=2&catID=4
Tim J. Best answer award.
:))
Re: Temptation. The very practical St. Francis deSales compared it to a young, woman getting an offer for “a good time” from a young man. She may well blush at the compliment hidden in the offer and no sin in that but she is to send him away. If she sits up at night and begins to think more of the offer. Therein lies the sin.
First of all, married couples – all things being equal – SHOULD want children
So how many is enough? 3? 6? 12? More? At what point has a couple adequately shown themselves to be open to life? Or is it all open ended, even to the point of endangering the mother’s health (there are only so many pregnancies a womean’s body can take).
And if NFP is as claimed, more succesful in preventing pregnancies doesn’t that make NFP less open to life than ABC? You all seem to want to have it both ways and are talking out of both sides of our mouth.
“You all seem to want to have it both ways and are talking out of both sides of our mouth.”
No, actually you are. Please clarify, do you object to NFP because it works, or because it doesn’t? We can go on from there.
“Dave B – yes th ebond is broken every time they deliberately have relations during known infertile periods.”
No, it’s not. You contradicted yourself. First you said the NFP, when used to avoid preganancy, will fail. then you say that it is impossible for couples using NFP to conceive, thereby separating the the unitive from the procreative.
But it is not impossible, while using NFP, to conceive. Only improbable. Therefore, it does NOT separate the unitive from the procreative. It merely lowers the possibility. Contraceptives however, DO separate them.
This topic brings something to mind that I have been thinking about for a while. What if a pregnancy will be very high risk, likely resulting in the death of mother and child, and the husband is unwilling/unable to practice NFP? Is the woman able to be sterilized to protect her life? Given that NFP can be a very ineffective means of birth control, when is sterilization allowed in the Catholic Church when a pregnancy will threaten the mother’s life?
So how many is enough? 3? 6? 12? More? At what point has a couple adequately shown themselves to be open to life?
There’s actually a quota to the “open to life” theme?
Or is it all open ended, even to the point of endangering the mother’s health (there are only so many pregnancies a womean’s body can take).
Actually, if you consider the many traditional Catholic families who have had as much as 9 or even 12 children, this argument would seem to fail in that regard.
There’s a helpful definition of Lust on the New Advent site, too: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm
“Or is it all open ended, even to the point of endangering the mother’s health (there are only so many pregnancies a womean’s body can take).”
A lady in the next town has had 16. She’s not a Catholic, either (Gasp! How did the Pope and the Bishops get to her? They must have brainwashed her some way… no NORMAL person could live that way!).
It IS open ended… it is open. Open to life. The IDEAL would be simply to trust God (GASP again!!) and let nature take its course. BUT NFP is okay IF there are SERIOUS reasons to use it.
Then again, we actually used NFP to help us HAVE kids. How unnatural! All that math!
Is the woman able to be sterilized to protect her life?
No.
Given that NFP can be a very ineffective means of birth control, when is sterilization allowed in the Catholic Church when a pregnancy will threaten the mother’s life?
Sterilization is allowed only accidentally. For example, a cancerous ovary may be removed.
NFP as for instance taught by CCLI is very effective. Often anitquated techniques are included in NFP statistics to lower the effectiveness number. (For example counting x days since menstration is never taught in CCLI, but such a technique would be included many statistical abstracts on the topic.)
The difference is exactly the same as that between eating a healthy diet (to avoid gaining weight) and bulemia (to avoid gaining weight).
Putting aside my surprise at finding out that bulemia was a sin (and not a pyschological disorder), I have to say that you have missed the point completely. When a couple delibrately has relations during known periods of infertilty they are breaking the bond betweenthe unitaive and the procreative. THAT is why NFP is a sinful as ABC.
because a thermometer doesn’t fiddle around with an already healthy body chemistry
Neither do condoms. And if changing already healthy body chemistry is a sin, then taking vitamins is sinful. So is drinking any form of alcohol in any quantity.
(Other points answered by MZ and gaucho)
Or do you object just because it is Catholic?
No I object because the logic is faulty, the reasoning is specious, the enforcement is hypocritical and the real reason transparently obvious.
A lady in the next town has had 16.
That certainly BEATS mine by far! WOW!
16!
The MOST I’ve heard of was 12.
Again, this would trump the stated notion by DPD that there are only so many pregnancies a woman can take.
All things considered, women are tougher than DPD gives them credit for.
Motu Proprio on April 16,Pope Benedicts birthday.
Alleluia,Alleluia.
Re: the effectiveness of NFP: You can’t really compare it with the effectiveness of condoms or the Pill or hormone shots, because NFP is an adjustable system. There’s conservative NFP and loose NFP, each with its own rules, and a whole spectrum in between.
Furthermore, NFP is adjustable according to the couple’s motivation. If they are not very serious about their reasons for using it, or if they have mixed feelings–extremely common–they will bend rules, take risks. Which if fine. It’s their decision. My point is that when a baby is conceived under these circumstances, the conception is not a failure–not a failure of the system, and not a failure of the couple, who certainly have the right and responsibility to decide not to avoid conception. Since it’s not a failure, it shouldn’t be counted as one, either statistically or anecdotally.
As for whether couples can be expected to have that much self-control: well, sometimes the only two choices are between moral heroism and mortal sin. Ask the martyrs.
When a couple delibrately has relations during known periods of infertilty they are breaking the bond betweenthe unitaive and the procreative. THAT is why NFP is a sinful as ABC.
Please clarify on this point.
You haven’t demonstrated that when a couple decides to have sex during times of infertility, that it actually breaks the bond between the unitive and the procreative and, therefore, sinful to the degree contraceptions are.
“(no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP any more than they can stay perpetually on a diet)”
Self-revelation?
The Devil can disguise himself in humility and charity, among other virtues, but never obedience.
I think that the primary objection most have to NFP, when it comes right down to it, is all about the abstaining part being natural. They cannot possibly consider how, in a world where any urge must be sated now, abstaining from sex of all things could possibly be natural. They view unnatural any type of obedience, even to one’s own will. Latex and uber levels of hormones, on the other hand…
“Sterilization is allowed only accidentally. For example, a cancerous ovary may be removed.”
Thanks for you answer. What is it that defines an accidental sterilization? I understand that sterilization to remove a perfectly functioning organ is not permitted, but what about when the reproductive system no longer functions properly? Amputating a limb is not desirable, but it is better than losing your life. It seems that the same principle would be applied for the reproductive system as for removing other body parts: they can be removed when they no longer function properly and keeping them poses a threat to the entire body.
“When a couple deliberately has relations during known periods of infertility they are breaking the bond between the unitive and the procreative.”
Good thing Elizabeth and Zachary didn’t believe that, or they never would have conceived John the Baptist.
So any couple wherein one of the spouses is infertile better keep their hands off each other and live as brother and sister! (Just “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd”).
TO clarify on my recent post above, it can essentially mean the difference between taking an item that was provided for free by a store during a certain annual storewide special event versus stealing that item.
Amputating a limb is not desirable, but it is better than losing your life. It seems that the same principle would be applied for the reproductive system as for removing other body parts: they can be removed when they no longer function properly and keeping them poses a threat to the entire body.
Wasn’t this specific notion actually discussed on the Torture threads way back when?
gaucho,
An accidental effect is unintended even if it may be foreseen. In reference to the reproductive system, the accidental effect would almost always be the loss of fertility. An action done to ameliorate the risk of impregnation done through the marital act would not be accidental, but direct. Reproduction is the intrinsic function of the sexual function organs.
I can speak for two aspects in defense of Natural Family Planning: first, it’s scientific accuracy in pinpointing fertile and infertile times, which helps couples try to achieve or postopone pregnancy, and even brings to light health issues that may be otherwise missed (i.e. infertility, endometriosis, etc). Moreover, when a couple talks openly about their reasons to postpone or try to have a baby on a regular basis (in keeping with their fertility charts), which is part of NFP, they tend to communicate about the most important things in marriage, and this leads to deepened trust, vulnerability, and happiness in their union.
The second aspect is the radical difference between a mentality that is open to life and one that isn’t. I use the “wedding invitation” analogy to explain: say a couple has an “Aunt Elvira” that they simply cannot invite to their wedding. Would it be the “same” to send her a “dis-invitation” as to simply not send her an invitation in the first place? What happens if she arrives with a “dis-invitation” versus arriving unexpectedly? In the scenario of Aunt Elvira arriving at the wedding with her “dis-invitation” in hand, the newlyweds are very upset. For example, I know young adults who have confided that they were “mistakes” because their parents’ birth control failed (to which I tell them, “YOU are always a blessing, not a mistake”).
So you see two totally different views of the value of human life emerge, one that is opposed to life from the beginning (the “dis-invitation/contraceptive mentality), and one that is open to life (which NFP strengthens). I’d rather live and promote a way that leads to this second view, which is open to and values human life.
When a couple delibrately has relations during known periods of infertilty they are breaking the bond between the unitaive and the procreative.
The logic undergirding this statement is that to be open to life means to do everything in my power to conceive with every sexual act. Which would rule out relations with those who are naturally infertile, between the elderly, and between spouses when the wife is pregnant. Which is, of course, ludicrous.
Which is precisely why that is not what being open to life means. All it means is not introducing something into the marital act that would prevent conception, if conception would naturally occur. To have relations when the marital act will definitely be infertile (e.g., when the wife is already pregnant) is part of the natural order. And thus licit.
But I know. The logic is faulty and the reasoning specious. Curses!
Good thing Elizabeth and Zachary didn’t believe that, or they never would have conceived John the Baptist.
As I recall that was a miracle announced by an angel.
As someone else pointed out God could miraculosly cause the condom to break. A much easier miracle to acomplish than getting infertile women like Elizabeth and Sarah pregnant.
Angelic announcement would be optional.
M.Z. Forrest:
Curious —
What is your opinion of a couple where one of the two actually has AIDS — would it be acceptable for the husband to use a condom if the condom wasn’t being employed as a contraceptive but rather an anti-viral agent wherein the contraceptive effects were merely side effects?
You folks who site examples of women with extraordinay large families and try to pass them off as if they were ordinary don’t seem to understand the difference between statistical norms and statistical outliers.
“As someone else pointed out God could miraculosly cause the condom to break.”
Why the hell put it on in the first place?
Esau,
I’m conflicted. I lean toward the side of saying it would be illict. Intrinsic to the sexual act is the transference of semen to the vagina. The condom does not help facilitate this, but works to the detriment of this. (KY jelly would not be illict although it is introducing foreign matter into the sex act, because it does not impede the act itself.) Pastorally, I believe doing so would be a venial matter.
You folks who site examples of women with extraordinay large families and try to pass them off as if they were ordinary don’t seem to understand the difference between statistical norms and statistical outliers.
Really?
I believe there are these places called third-world countries where, in fact, many women have many children.
I wouldn’t dare call the occurences of multiple births from the same mother in third-world countries as “outliers”. I believe they would more likely be the “norm”, all things considered.
Pope Pius XI taught about NFP in his encyclical Casti Connubii (Encyclical Letter on Christian Marriage, December 31, 1930) as did Pope Pius XII who later discussed the moral principles covering the use of the Rhythm Method as follows:
There is a vast difference between contraception and the Rhythm Method because the former consists in the abuse of the sexual powers, the later, in the non-use of these powers at certain times in the month.
A married couple may ordinarily use the Rhythm Method only when both agree to the restriction that it involves.
This method may not be used if the parties are yielding to sins of incontinence in the period of abstinence from sexual relations.
A couple may not lawfully use the Rhythm Method unless they have a very good reason for not having children, at least for the time being.
Pius XII said as well:
“We affirmed the legitimacy and at the same time the limits truly very wide of that controlling of births which, unlike the so-called ‘birth control,’ is compatible with God’s law….
Serious motives, such as those that not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic, and social so-called ‘indications,’ may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint, and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned.” (Pope Pius XII, Allocutions to Midwives, October 29, 1951, and to the Associations of the Large Families, November 26, 1951).
Why JPII needed to put together “Theology of the Body” which is subjective and has already been taught by two popes is beyond me, when the above is very clear and concise as to what is permitted and what is not. Theology of body…sounds like an “R” rated movie!
The Devil can disguise himself in humility and charity, among other virtues, but never obedience.
If it all boils down to obedience of the flock (all other arguments having failed) why bother trying to justify NFP in the first place?
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just cut to the chase and command women to breed in an “open ended” fashion?
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just cut to the chase and command women to breed in an “open ended” fashion?
Yes, although I suspect this is not the answer you were looking for. Breeding is a precept of marriage. Many are too eager to dispense with this precept.
Further to my statement above, if you were to actually exclude these data from third-world countries, you would actually have a very biased picture of things — not statistically sound at all, wouldn’t you say?
(Especially considering that third-world countries make up a signficant part of the world population)
“When a couple delibrately has relations during known periods of infertilty they are breaking the bond betweenthe unitaive and the procreative. THAT is why NFP is a sinful as ABC.”
So, anyone having good ol’ natural sex at an infertile time of the month is in sin? The horror!
Tell me, DPD… enlighten me… what is the transparently REAL reason for NFP? I mean, I actually have experience with it, where you seem to be arguing against it in order to justify your use of contraceptives, but DO go ahead…
I believe there are these places called third-world countries where, in fact, many women have many children
Where most children die in childhood, the people live in abject poverty and despair, women are subjegated and oppressed, filth and disease are rampant, hunger and malnutrition endemic, and ignorance is near universal.
Is this Catholic heaven on Earth? And if we breed in an “open ended” fashion too can we achieve this wonderful state of grace as we turn the entire planet Calcutta?
Oh joy.
Esau,
I’m conflicted. I lean toward the side of saying it would be illict. Intrinsic to the sexual act is the transference of semen to the vagina. The condom does not help facilitate this, but works to the detriment of this. (KY jelly would not be illict although it is introducing foreign matter into the sex act, because it does not impede the act itself.) Pastorally, I believe doing so would be a venial matter.
M.Z. Forrest:
Thank-you for your honesty.
However, I would argue that:
Intrinsic to the sexual act is the transference of semen to the vagina. The condom does not help facilitate this, but works to the detriment of this.
… this would actually be, as stated, merely a side effect of having utilized the condom as an anti-viral agent.
The couple would really be using it as such.
Their intention (purpose) isn’t necessarily using the condom for its contraceptive effects but rather anti-viral.
I, myself, am conflicted as well in regards to this particular moral dilemma and this is why I wanted to know what your thoughts were on this.
Where most children die in childhood, the people live in abject poverty…etc
DPD,
You are the greatest and smartest. But you still managed to miss Esau’s point. Which was that they are not statistical outliers. It is you who introduced the red herring of their living conditions…
“If it all boils down to the obedience of the flock…”
It doesn’t. Obedience is an individual thing. If all the rest of the world were disobedient, the individual would still be required to be obedient. God doesn’t seem to be open to the “Well Johnnie’s doing it, and Freddie’s doing it” excuse any more than my father was.
DPD,
at first you were arguing in a somewhat reasonable manner. It looks like you’ve abadoned that, and that’s unfortunate.
Where most children die in childhood, the people live in abject poverty and despair, women are subjegated and oppressed, filth and disease are rampant, hunger and malnutrition endemic, and ignorance is near universal.
Is this Catholic heaven on Earth? And if we breed in an “open ended” fashion too can we achieve this wonderful state of grace as we turn the entire planet Calcutta?
Oh joy.
DPD —
Did you not say:
Or is it all open ended, even to the point of endangering the mother’s health (there are only so many pregnancies a womean’s body can take).
This was what was being refuted.
Although, the fact that you have resorted to sarcasm makes me thinks your own illogical statements have frustrated even you.
Tim – if a couple knowingly and deliberately has relations with the intent to purposely avoid conception then they break the bonds between uniative and procreative and commit a sin.
HOW they break that bond (NFP’s temporal barrier or ABC’s physical/chemical barrier)is irrelevant. You may as well claim that there is a difference if murder is committed with a knife or a gun.
The Church, teaching with Her Christ-given Authority, says that NFP does not break that bond.
DPD,
You are the greatest and smartest. But you still managed to miss Esau’s point. Which was that they are not statistical outliers. It is you who introduced the red herring of their living conditions…
Thank-you, John Henry, for pointing this out more clearly to DPD.
DPD:
If you have any knowledge at all of statistics, you would know that to exclude data such as those from third-world countries would introduce a signficant bias as they would not be reflective of the overall population data.
Moreover, you cannot actually call such data “outliers” since they aren’t at all by the very nature of the data, which actually comprises the overall population data.
if a couple knowingly and deliberately has relations with the intent to purposely avoid conception then they break the bonds between uniative and procreative and commit a sin.
HOW they break that bond (NFP’s temporal barrier or ABC’s physical/chemical barrier)is irrelevant. You may as well claim that there is a difference if murder is committed with a knife or a gun.
NO it isn’t — as stated, it can essentially mean the difference between taking an item that was provided for free by a store during a certain annual storewide special event versus stealing that item.
With artifical contraception, there is definite intention by the individual, a definite break that occurs between the unitive and procreative aspects; whereas when having sex during supposed infertile periods, there isn’t a definite break since having sex during those times does not necessarily mean that pregnancy would NOT occur (in fact, it CAN and DOES happen) and, thus, there is that “open-to-life” UNLIKE with artificial contraception.
“Where most children die in childhood, the people live in abject poverty and despair, women are subjegated and oppressed, filth and disease are rampant, hunger and malnutrition endemic, and ignorance is near universal.”
I see… babies are the problem! They must be stopped! They’re coming to steal your lifestyle… they’re tunneling under your house!
That’s the Western view of children, which is why immigration can not be stopped. Some people still believe in having kids, even if we don’t.
But they’re all ignorant savages. We civilized folk know better.
if a couple knowingly and deliberately has relations with the intent to purposely avoid conception then they break the bonds between uniative and procreative and commit a sin.
DPD (the apotheosis of true logic),
It seems you are arguing that the only form of licit sex is when a) the person either knows they are fertile, or b) doesn’t know they’re infertile.
Under scenario a, the only thing I can think of to help the person know they are definitely fertile is NFP.
Under scenario b… a woman knows she is infertile for a few days after her period, and for a longer period of time before her period. So she definitely couldn’t have licit sex then either, according to your (genius) plan. So the only time she could reasonably be uncertain about her infertility, and thus have licit sex, is during that time of the month closest to her fertility.
So when it boils down to it, you are de facto arguing that the only licit sex is during a woman’s fertile phase or during a phase close in time to her fertile phase. The rest is sin.
Is this what you really believe? If so, Catholicism is much more lenient (and human) than you. If not, why the hell are you arguing this non-sense? Just a troll?
Tell me, DPD… enlighten me… what is the transparently REAL reason for NFP?
To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions (which is kind of Darwinian when you think about it).
The subjegation of women by forcing them into one and only one life role, that of brood mare, is a side benefit.
DPD:
Again —
With artifical contraception, there is DEFINITE INTENTION by the individual, a DEFINITE BREAK that occurs between the unitive and procreative aspects; whereas when having sex during supposed infertile periods, there ISN’T a definite break since having sex during those times DOES NOT necessarily mean that pregnancy would NOT occur (in fact, it CAN and DOES happen) and, thus, there is that “open-to-life” UNLIKE with artificial contraception.
I would encourage you to read JOHN HENRY’s post regarding your statement (re-READ, if you have). Extracts of which are featured below:
The logic undergirding this statement is that to be open to life means to do everything in my power to conceive with every sexual act.
Which is precisely why that is not what being open to life means. All it means is not introducing something into the marital act that would prevent conception, if conception would naturally occur.
So Tim, have you volunteered to live in the 3rd world or due you have a nice, civilized Western lifetyle?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a troll.
<To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions (which is kind of Darwinian when you think about it).
The subjegation of women by forcing them into one and only one life role, that of brood mare, is a side benefit.
DPD:
WHAT THE …???
Why do many Anti-Catholics hold this notion of Roman Catholics?
Unfortunately, this is NOT the first time I’ve heard this!
A Southern Baptist friend of mine actually said the same thing!
*sigh*
I said It further up, and I think it bears saying it again:
DPD, You contradicted yourself. First you said the NFP, when used to avoid preganancy, will fail. then you say that it is impossible for couples using NFP to conceive, thereby separating the the unitive from the procreative.
But it is not impossible, while using NFP, to conceive. Only improbable. Therefore, it does NOT separate the unitive from the procreative. It merely lowers the possibility. Contraceptives however, DO separate them.
“To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions….The subjegation of women by forcing them into one and only one life role, that of brood mare…”
Ah, the bigotry finally oozes to the surface.
DPD,
It is offensive that you think bearing children is akin to being a ‘brood mare’.
HV is pretty clear that there is a definite intention not to have child with NFP.
It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.(HV 16)
The problem with ABC is not in wanting to avoid children. The moral problem is that it violates the sex act itself. “[The Church T]eaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (HV 11)
Esau – With NFP, there is DEFINITE INTENTION by the individual, a DEFINITE BREAK that occurs between the unitive and procreative aspects – otherwise why practice NFP? Unless you are trying hard to get pregnant then by all means do so.
Having sex using ABC, there ISN’T a definite break since having sex with ABC DOES NOT necessarily mean that pregnancy would NOT occur since ABC is not perfect (in fact, it CAN and DOES happen – more frequently than with NFP if the pro-NFP literature is to be believed.)
ABC’s higher “failure” rate would seem to make it more open to life than NFP
But it is not impossible, while using NFP, to conceive. Only improbable. Therefore, it does NOT separate the unitive from the procreative.
Neither is it impossible, while using ABC, to conceive. Only improbable.
In behalf of my mother, you’d better apologize for making that statement.
“Neither is it impossible, while using ABC, to conceive. Only improbable.”
But it is intended to be impossible. Not so with good Catholics who use NFP. With NFP, it is intended to be improbable.
You’re right, David. DPD insulted every one of our mothers.
To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions (which is kind of Darwinian when you think about it).
DPD:
Your statement here makes me wonder —
Do you guys actually have tally boards to keep track of the population of Roman Catholics and data on their breeding habits?
My goodness!
Since I’ve heard this once before, it makes me wonder if you guys keep a tally count each and every time a Roman Catholic baby is born!
Further, that would not make any sense at all considering that many Cradle Catholics in the United States have ended up converting to Protestantism in their later years!
Therefore, your apparent bigotry blinds you to even these facts!
“HOW they break that bond (NFP’s temporal barrier or ABC’s physical/chemical barrier)is irrelevant. You may as well claim that there is a difference if murder is committed with a knife or a gun.”
And was it Colonel Mustard or Professor Plum?
What is this temporal barrier you keep talking about? Is that from a Tim Powers book?
If I drink one beer a day for a month, is that the same as getting drunk, since I drank 30 beers? I mean, it’s just this difference of time, which is no distinction AT ALL to a reasonable person…
How can a natural (no props or chemicals) marital act between husband and wife be illicit? Please explain. If I make love to my wife every day, am I sinning all those infertile days?. Yes or no? Are you saying that ONLY fertile sex is morally licit, and that any other time it is immoral? Please answer yes or no.
If not, is it the couple NOT having sex that is the great sin? How so? Please explain to me where the sin is in my sitting on the sofa and reading a book.
Dave – It is offensive that you think that all women should be allowed to do is have and raise children.
They are capable of doing other things, none of which they would have time for if they are busy raising 12 or more kids.
BTW, enough with the “artificial birth control”. As Bishop Sheen once said, “it has nothing do to with birth, or control”.
Esau – With NFP, there is DEFINITE INTENTION by the individual, a DEFINITE BREAK that occurs between the unitive and procreative aspects – otherwise why practice NFP? Unless you are trying hard to get pregnant then by all means do so.
WOW! That must explain why folks who actually do have sex during such periods STILL END UP GETTING PREGNANT!
THUS, the DEFINITE BREAK is only occuring in your (bigoted) mind!
No, DPD, what is offensive is your anti-Catholic bigotry.
“It is offensive that you think that all women should be allowed to do is have and raise children.”
I didn’t say that. I, personally, would rather vote for a margaret Thatcher in ’08 (is she’s pro-life) than most in these idiot men. I also applaud women who devote themselves to service of others, as Nuns.
But it is intended to be impossible. Not so with good Catholics who use NFP. With NFP, it is intended to be improbable.
Then NFP shouldn’t have the higher success rates that its proponents claim for it.
Unless you’re saying that it really is designed to fail.
DPD,
It is offensive that you think that there is something wrong with raising kids. It’s a lot harder than your job or mine.
Dave – Oh wow, you’ll let them be nuns too! How generous of you.
Maybe you all owe women an apology.
Then NFP shouldn’t have the higher success rates that its proponents claim for it.
I’ll attribute the non-sensical aspect of that statement to your failed knowledge of statistics.
David B, you approve of women who give of themselves for others, rather than selfishly gratify their appetites and egos? So do I. Men, too.
Improbable DPD, doesn’t mean probable. sigh Do I have to draw a picture?
“Maybe you all owe women an apology.”
Nah, you do. I’ll tell my two sisters, who BTW, agree with me, that you said that.
“Maybe you owe all women an apology.”
DPD owes my mother an apology for implying that she was a “brood mare”, but I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it.
If not, is it the couple NOT having sex that is the great sin?
It’s not. The sin is on the flip side of the coin, where a couple knowingly and deliberately has relations during assured infertile periods with the intent to avoid conception – and thereby breaking the bond between the uniative and the procreative.
“DPD owes my mother an apology for implying that she was a “brood mare”, but I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it.”
Heaven yes!
“It’s not. The sin is on the flip side of the coin, where a couple knowingly and deliberately has relations during assured infertile periods with the intent to avoid conception – and thereby breaking the bond between the uniative and the procreative.”
Are you getting this out of a book, or are you making it up as you along?
(REPEAT): The Church, teaching with Her Christ-given Authority, teaches that NFP does not break that bond.
(Not expecting troll to notice this time either).
“It’s not. The sin is on the flip side of the coin, where a couple knowingly and deliberately has relations during assured infertile periods with the intent to avoid conception -”
and yet, according to you, the Vatican’s (gasp, sob) evil plan is make women ‘brood mares’. Behold the illogic.
Not to repeat myself, but my 1:17 post clearly shows that the Church believes a couple using NFP intends to avoid child and does so licitly.
Regulating of births regardless of means (NPF or ABC) is a violation of the precept of marriage. One of the precepts of marriage is:
“Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.” HV 9 citing Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 50: AAS 58 (1966), 1070-1072
during assured infertile periods
That is where you fail, DPD.
The fact of the matter is that there really is no such thing — as evidenced by the pregnancies that have resulted even when sex occurred during such periods.
However, in terms of artificial contraceptives, the device is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO THWART the reproductive aspects and, therefore, BREAK the unitive and procreative!
Sex during times of fertility is just as NATURAL as sex during times of infertility whereas artificial contraceptives isn’t at all.
To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions (which is kind of Darwinian when you think about it).
Oh how I wish this was true!
Maybe then the Catholic Church would permit pre-marital sex!
Just imagine how many more babies we devious Roman Catholics could produce if we were permitted by the Church to have sex before marriage!
It would be a “license to kill”, so to speak!
Signed,
007
“Dave – It is offensive that you think that all women should be allowed to do is have and raise children.”
Okay, class, who believes that? Raise your hands… Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Your bigotry has clouded your brain. At least now you’re hand is played…
What a surprise.
Well lets look at the example of the saints…
St. Louis IX only had married on the condition that they would have relations a set number of times to have children, and this only because it was his duty to bring heirs to the throne…
Bl. Anne Catherine said that St. Anne and St.Joachim not only long periods of abstinence, but also slept in separate little houses.
So what can one conclude from this…
If you are truly wanting to sanctify your spouse and yourself, you can practice continence.
There is never excuse for a sin to be commited.
It takes a real man to to deny his instincts,
a real Catholic man.
Right on, Esau! Or allow priests to marry.
It takes a real man to to deny his instincts,
a real Catholic man.
Nicely said, Some Day!
By the way, how come you actually wear a habit?
Only Major Seminarians wear such garb!
Bl. Anne Catherine said that St. Anne and St.Joachim not only long periods of abstinence, but also slept in separate little houses.
Maybe they weren’t compatible.
Right on, Esau! Or allow priests to marry.
Hey!
Even Fr. Corapi said that it is theologically acceptable for a married man to become a priest.
In fact, I believe this is what the Eastern Orthodox folks do. That is, a married person is allowed to become a priest; but that a priest (that’s single) isn’t actually allowed to become married.
Plus, this involves a matter of discipline; but that’s besides the point, of course, for this particular thread. ;^)
Y’all need to follow DPD’s logic more carefully…
1) Catholicism is evil and stupid
2) Catholicism says NFP is okay, therefore;
3) NFP is evil and stupid
Now, go and do your research, keeping in mind that any information that does not fit the above template is unreliable.
It’s really very airtight, in its way.
Liked your post, Jimmy.
I suppose for those outside of the Church, or “CINO” the use of NFP would seem strange, absurd or the same as ABC, but it isn’t. We practice NFP. BUT, as with most things, it to can be abused.
One other comment, LUST is one of the 7 deadly sins.
************************************************
Christ is Risen, Alleluia!
The Church, teaching with Her Christ-given Authority, taught that the following:
a. Burning heretics (burning witches was a Protestant thing).
b. Torturing people by the inquisition.
c. Waging holy wars against Muslims in violation of its own “Just War” doctrine.
d. Committing genocide against the Albigensians (among others).
e. Promoting the corrupting sale of indulgences, a major trigger of the Protestant reformation.
f. Claiming until quite recently that there is no salvation outside of the church (at least we no longer have to believe in moral absurdities like Mahatma Gandhi burning in hell just because he was a Hindu).
g. Opposing the lending of money at interest.
h. Warning against the dread heresy of Americanism.
i. Though it has tried to mitigate (whenever it could) the abuses of slavery it never opposed it as an institution, and when slavery died it did so without benefit of clergy.
j. And though individual Popes have protected and sheltered Jews whenever possible, the church on the whole has until this century persecuted Jews or connived at their persecution (JPII recently apologized for such sins).
Catholicism is evil and stupid
When did I say that?
Again, WOW!
I was merely counting the seconds for that!
The STANDARD ANTI-CATHOLIC LIST!
The ulterior agenda finally comes to the surface!
DPD —
Read Contraception: Why Not? by Janet Smith. It’ll do you a world of good.
For the record, my husband and I use NFP. We’ve done so since May 2003. We successfully avoided for a year, used NFP to conceived our daughter (on the first try!) and have been using NFP since her birth to abstain.
We desperately want another child, but as we’re dirt poor, we’re using NFP to avoid until we’re in better financial circumstances.
Be that as it may, I conceived in October 2006 during what I thought was an infertile period (however, it’s likely I didn’t record my pre-ovulation temperatures accurately, which was my fault (I was being lazy), not the method’s).
My husband and I were scared to death at first, but after a lot of prayer and support from our parish priest, we began to be excited about the new life coming to bless our family.
However, I miscarried in December 2006. It was a devastating event. However, God took a bad situation and made something good come out of it. The miscarriage caused my husband and I to realize that if we did conceive while avoiding, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. And if it does happen again, we will welcome a new child into our family. As it is, we’re taking steps so that we can improve our financial situation and hopefully conceive our next child sooner rather than later.
So if being a Catholic woman who uses NFP and would like to have many children makes me a “brood mare,” I wear that title with pride.
The fact of the matter is that there really is no such thing /i>
The what is the point of NFP and its calims to superiority over ABC?
A. You would send a murderer to the chair.
How about a murderer of the soul?
And consider this:
Queen Elizabeth killed more Catholics in her reign than the Church killed heretics in 300 years.
The French Revolution double…
And Communism is off the charts…
And who critizizes that?
Okay, class, who believes that? Raise your hands… Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Tim – as a practical matter what women raising umpteen kids in an “open ended” fashion will have time for anything else? You can’t just wash your hands of the consequences of your belief.
Even if I were to provide apologetic answers to the following, I wouldn’t expect them to be heeded — therefore:
a. Burning heretics (burning witches was a Protestant thing).
(We LOVE them “WELL-DONE“!)
b. Torturing people by the inquisition.
(That was SO FUN!)
c. Waging holy wars against Muslims in violation of its own “Just War” doctrine.
(YUP! Better than a game of BATTLESHIPS!)
d. Committing genocide against the Albigensians (among others).
(BARBECUED them!)
e. Promoting the corrupting sale of indulgences, a major trigger of the Protestant reformation.
(The Church Coffers were OVER THE BRIM!)
f. Claiming until quite recently that there is no salvation outside of the church (at least we no longer have to believe in moral absurdities like Mahatma Gandhi burning in hell just because he was a Hindu).
(Everybody is welcome! Heaven is FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVE!)
g. Opposing the lending of money at interest.
(Against Usury — of course!)
h. Warning against the dread heresy of Americanism.
(Even Anti-American! WOW!)
i. Though it has tried to mitigate (whenever it could) the abuses of slavery it never opposed it as an institution, and when slavery died it did so without benefit of clergy.
(Everybody a Slave!)
j. And though individual Popes have protected and sheltered Jews whenever possible, the church on the whole has until this century persecuted Jews or connived at their persecution (JPII recently apologized for such sins).
(Yeah, right, the Church actually LOVED to persecute the Jews!)
So if being a Catholic woman who uses NFP and would like to have many children makes me a “brood mare,” I wear that title with pride.
I respect that.
But what about those women who don’t want to raise 12 or more kids, who might want a career outside of the home. Are they inherently evil and sinful?
A woman (or a man for that matter) who doesn’t want children shouldn’t get married. If one is going to get married, they should be prepared to have 10-12 of them ordinarily. That is the nature of marriage.
Esau – in terms of NFP, the method is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO THWART the reproductive aspects and, therefore, BREAK the unitive and procreative!
If one is going to get married, they should be prepared to have 10-12 of them ordinarily.
10-12 kids is not ordinary.
DPD:
Interesting that you didn’t touch on what I had said here:
Sex during times of fertility is just as NATURAL as sex during times of infertility whereas artificial contraceptives isn’t at all.
So, are you telling me, then, that having sex during times of infertility is SINFUL and UNNATURAL as the use of artificial conraceptives are?
DPD,
I have a full time job at home and wouldn’t trade it for the world. There are those who HAVE to work outside of the home to make ends meet, I applaud them and help in every way I can. But we have to examine ourselves to see if we are being selfish and doing what God wants us to.
BTW, where are you getting the “12 kids” from? That is not demanded on us. We have 3. We have a friend who wanted 15 and has 1. We have another friend who has 5 and is set up for as many as God gives them. It is different for each one couple. But for those practicing NFP, the mindset is different….we are open to God’s will…always in that regards.
b.The great demonocracy that you are now inhabiting does that to whoever there is “compelling government intrest’in/)
c.How is that? In any case, the current countries aren’t Catholic so they aren’t supposed to have the right to wage wars like that.
d.The same God ordered it to the Israelites.
AND HE BLEW UP SODOM HIMSELF!
e. Remember the victors write the history, and for the past 500 years the victors have been sons of the devil. The Church has weak humans. But not in that porportion. And dirty laundry is washed at home. Not on the door of the Cathedral.
f. That is true. And not only doctrinaly but de facto. The Church alone has the Sacraments. We need them for grace. And even with that some of worst people in the world are Catholics (take it the good way, as in the worst enemies of the Church are veiled and with in her.
Now imagine ones without that Sacraments…
g. Gain is legit. But not like the jews since olden times have lived( remember that when the Jews passed from Theocracy to Monarchy, He warned them and the most severe was that they would have to pay taxes!)
Eric, these days, 3 kids isn’t ordinary. What difference does our modern concept of “ordinary” make?
For that matter, abstaining before marriage is not ordinary these days.
I respect that.
Your comments so far indicate otherwise.
But what about those women who don’t want to raise 12 or more kids, who might want a career outside of the home. Are they inherently evil and sinful?
Having kids versus having a career shouldn’t be an “either or” choice; in fact, in most cases it’s not. It’s possible to have both; granted, in some cases it takes some juggling and sacrifice on the part of the parents, but it can be done.
That being said, if women (or men) are putting their career and/or love of a luxurious lifestyle above God, and using either as an excuse to avoid the possibility of more children, then they’re violating the first commandment.
One of my best friends is a Catholic woman who has five kids (four of whom are living; she had a child die at 20 weeks gestation), and she and her husband are trying for another. She has a very fulfilling career as a hospice nurse AND she homeschools her kids. So you see, it can be done.
What proof do you have for your assertion that any Catholic who practicies NFP will automatically have 12 kids? In my experience, the couples who have 12+ kids deliberately and mutually try for more after each previous child is weaned.
But for those practicing NFP, the mindset is different….we are open to God’s will…always in that regards.
And Christians who use ABC also claim to be open to God’s will.
What difference does our modern concept of “ordinary” make?
It makes much difference to many people. Including yours. You don’t walk down the street in yellow and pink dresses do you?
If I stuck my fingers in my ears, would you think I was trying to listen to you?
Or if I damaged my ear drums, would you still think so?
Or if I took medicine that rendered me deaf in SOME cases…would you think I were trying to listen to you?
We have nothing in/on or about our ears.
Does that make sense Tom?
And Christians who use ABC also claim to be open to God’s will.
How exactly, Tom?
If they use artificial contraceptives such as birth control pills that’s chemically designed to prevent the NATURAL procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity, how is that being open to God’s will versus having sex during supposed infertile periods, which is a NATURAL act?
Since deciding to start my family I have had 2 children in 5 years. I have not really “used” NFP though I am aware of it and the science behind it. Rather, we have never had a need to avoid having children.
Nonetheless, in 5 years of being completely open to life I have only had 2 children. It has not been particularly burdensome.
I would love to have more children. I hope that I never have to use NFP. Nonetheless, I appreciate that the Church has taken the time to develop and research fertility science. It has helped me know when my children were conceived. It will help me if I ever find myself with grave reasons to stop having children for a time.
On the other hand, prior to marriage I was a lapsed Catholic. I was on the Pill. Thank you, modern science for the gift of the Pill, and the accompanying side effects of depression, nausea, and loss of libido! Thank you for the risk of fatal blood clots or strokes! We pump women full of artificial hormones, hormones that are rated as class 1 carcinogens, and we tell them how “liberated” they are because they can have unlimited sex with men who don’t care about them! And if the pill should fail (and with a typical failure rate of 5 percent, that means 1 in 20 times it will) then we offer them the delights of an abortion, where we can surgically tear apart their infants before removing them from their wombs! Yes, the modern world loves women, children too, can’t you tell?
I have repented from my use of the Pill but even before coming back to the Church I was dissatisfied with the crappy contraceptive options out there. I researched and accepted NFP before I was even Catholic again.
And even though my husband and I have not had to use NFP, every married couple may need to practice SOME degree of abstinence. For example, my husband travels for a week at a time. During pregnancy if I felt ill (especially during the beginning months) my husband was willing to wait. My feelings are more important than his sexual need. As opposed to the image Cosmo paints, where men just must have access to sex. Take a pill, a shot, shove an IUD up your uterus or chop your fallopian tubes, just make sure the man gets unlimited access to your body!!
Please, this isn’t feminist. It’s degrading to women. Women want real love and respect, the kind these good Catholic men give them. And then it is a pleasure and a joy to stay home to raise my children for OUR family.
The argument from “women’s rights” is ridiculous, because it only defends what it thinks women should want. But it is none too quick to insult women like me, women who embrace the faith and our husbands with joy in our hearts. Only one type of woman counts, the one who buys into the pro-contraceptive, anti-life agenda.
Esau, it’s simply a fact that on other Christian forums, people claim to be following God’s will and use ABC. You can disagree with them over on their forum.
Tom, you did well to put the word “claim” in the phrase “claim to be open”, because it doesn’t ring true.
DPD, while NFP and ABC may both be done with the intention of preventing pregnancy, NFP (if practiced with the right mindset) has an attitude of “we don’t feel ready for a (or another) child right now, but they will be done”, whereas the attitude with ABC seems more like doing everything possible to avoid pregnancy, and hoping God won’t make the condom break, as one guy suggested further up the thread.
NFP at least keeps open the willingness to accept a child if God wills it, and God may respond to that. But I don’t believe He would make condoms break for someone trying to avoid pregnancy. Recalling what I can of the miraculous births in the Bible, they were all wanting a child, or (in Mary’s case) open to God’s will.
Eric,
Barring extraodinary circumstance a couple married in their early twenties can easily have 10 kids. This assumes they aren’t interfering with the natural generative process by using NFP.
This does not preclude extraordinary matters from interfering like economic conditions that may cause a couple to choose to abstain. I’ve known women to have 4 kids within 5 years, but they are the exception. From what I’ve observed, the lag between pregnancies tends to grow between each child when done naturally. Fertile or otherwise it can be difficult finding the energy to procreate when you have 5 crumb crunchers around.
Let’s crunch the numbers MZ.
A 12 ratio of kids to parents results in a growth rate of 600% per generation (assumed to be 20 years long, 5 generations per century).
Such a growth rate compounded would be equal to (1 + i)^n = 7^n (n being the numer of interations, in this case generations and i being the percentage growth rate). So in two centuries the present population wold be increased by a factor of 7^10 = almost 282.5 million. So the current population of 8,000,000,000 would increase to almost 2,260,000,000,000,000.
Earth has a surface area of 196,940,400 square miles of which about 70% is water, leaving a total land area of about 59 million square miles. The resultant population density would be over 38 million people per square mile.
Unless of course you are relying on most of these children to die horribly and prematurely from hunger, disease, war or any of a dozen Malthusian population corrections.
In fact, without literally trillions of dead children your plan won’t work. In fact the only goal of your plan appears to be huge piles of dead kids.
That’s not very pro life now is it?
H. Well America has some pretty grave issues to be discussed, the biggest one is that it is not Catholic, the others are imprudent to discuss as of yet.
I. You can’t impose a moral objection on a person who is either ignorant or not ready for it.
St. Paul says that the “law condemns” .
So that is why the Church, Maternal, slowly molded the consciences of Her children.
The missionaries did not go in and told the indians to put clothes on because they are filthy animals. No, She slowly taught them better.
The same with slavery. It was a multi-millenary custom. Does things to not go away with the bang of a gavel, but rather the formation that only a Mother can give.
J. Only the minimum effort against a hatred against Herself by the Jews.
They are cursed by the Blood of Our Lord, His Word and their failure to accept His grace.
They control the world, and have even penetrated the Church. But as if the Church was human!
She is divine in orgin, He promised that She will not be defeated by ther gates of Hell.
He also said that the Jews will be converted.
But my question is into what…
Just Another brood mare,
Amen.
MZ, you just explained why 10-12 kids is NOT ordinary.
Sex during times of fertility is just as NATURAL as sex during times of infertility whereas artificial contraceptives isn’t at all.
So if someone is murdered by “natural” means its not a sin, but if the killing is done artificially then it is?
This is what I don’t understand about DPD’s reasoning —
How is having sex during infertile periods, which is, in fact, as NATURAL an act as sex during fertile periods; how is that SINFUL to the degree that Artificial Contraceptives are, which are UN-NATURAL and duly prevent the NATURAL procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity?
Death is not natural.
We were meant never to die.
Sin is the reason we lose immortality.
So if someone is murdered by “natural” means its not a sin, but if the killing is done artificially then it is?
NO — If somebody suffering pain and apparently dies of NATURAL causes, such as a heart-attack; that’s okay.
However, if somebody suffering pain takes his life (this being UN-NATURAL), that is UNACCEPTABLE!
DPD,
I assume your calculations are based on a “perfect” enviroment, excluding disease, accidents and homicide.
That scare tatic was used before….and it doesn’t hold true.
Margaret Sanger and her evil chorts thought along the same lines….except they wanted the “weeds” to be gone (black/poor/studpid, etc).
And we do have millions of dead babies…over 40 million due to abortion.
You can brush your teeth without any food in it.
No problem.
I hope you do.
Esau, I am a “postulant”.
That is why I have a habit.
Re: the comment that knowingly having sex during the infertile times in order to avoid conception places a “temporal barrier” between the couple: I think that if the husband took that new drug they have (not really) that sloooooows down the sperm so that they don’t reach the egg before it dies–that would be a temporal barrier. Or if the woman took a drug (these they have) to delay ovulation, so that it wouldn’t occur until the sperm were dead, that would be a temporal barrier. Because it would stop something that otherwise would have happened (conception).
But it is very odd to speak of the non-act of not doing something as “placing a barrier.” If there’s nothing there to block, there can’t be any barriers. You can’t prevent something that isn’t in the process of happening. I’m a hero if I rescue a child from a house on fire, but if I just decide not to commit arson today, can I claim to have prevented the child’s death?
Someday, a baby does not sin when it dies from “natural causes.”
“O Brave New World”
-DPD
Your math is off. You need to put a death model (not for the babies, although infant mortality is still an issue) but for the old folks.
Regardless, if you remove the precept of marriage (rather than dispensing it based on specific paraemeters) you change what marriage is. Rather than being a regenerative institution in the secular sense, marriage is an institution of mutual pleasure. At that point, which we’re pretty much at in this country, there is no philosophical basis for denying divorce, polygamy, or same-sex marriage. All marriage becomes is a license to fornicate. That is a much greater evil.
But it still carries Original Sin.
That is why we are mortal.
However, if somebody suffering pain takes his life (this being UN-NATURAL), that is UNACCEPTABLE!
Perhaps it was natural for him in his state of mind.
All marriage becomes is a license to fornicate.
You don’t need a license to fornicate.
DPD:
This might be complicated for you to understand, apparently, but here it is once again —
Sex during infertile periods is, in fact, as NATURAL an act as sex during fertile periods;
Artificial Contraceptives, on the other hand, are UN-NATURAL and duly prevent the NATURAL procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity.
As for your silly comment here:
“So if someone is murdered by “natural” means its not a sin, but if the killing is done artificially then it is?”
If somebody suffering pain and apparently dies of NATURAL causes, such as a heart-attack; that is completely ACCEPTABLE, as it is a NATURAL death.
However, if somebody suffering pain takes his own life, this is UN-NATURAL; that is UNACCEPTABLE!
Thus, RESPECT for HUMAN LIFE from CONCEPTION to NATURAL death!
Rick,
You may not need a license, but most folks enjoy fornication more when they have one.
Is that what you do in marriage? Fornicate? And millions of people with marriage licenses choose to fornicate outside marriage because they enjoy it.
h. Warning against the dread heresy of Americanism.
And boy how wrong they were!
Oh wait.
Anyway, this is a crazy thread, and it’s just getting crazier. Now that DPD is arguing with MZ Forrest’s anti-NFP ideas, he’s not even arguing with the Church.
Some Day:
Bl. Anne Catherine said that St. Anne and St.Joachim not only long periods of abstinence, but also slept in separate little houses.
And THAT is as perfect example as you can get of what was wrong with a lot of good Catholics’ attitudes to sex and marriage. “If they’re holy, they must not have had sex except when they HAD to!” We’ve swung the other way now, of course.
To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions (which is kind of Darwinian when you think about it).
I know this quote came from a while back, but I couldn’t help but think, so what then is the reasoning behind the “RCC” encouraging people to take vows of celibacy?
I know this quote came from a while back, but I couldn’t help but think, so what then is the reasoning behind the “RCC” encouraging people to take vows of celibacy?
Exactly, JH!
bill912 mentioned the same thing above.
so what then is the reasoning behind the “RCC” encouraging people to take vows of celibacy?
Which story do you want to hear? Here’s one…
http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Celibacy.html
THANKS TIM FOR THAT LINK TO AN ANTI-CATHOLIC WEBSITE with all that NICE ANTI-CATHOLIC MATERIALS TO DOWNLOAD!!!!
My life is even MORE COMPLETE!!!
Nice Stories from EX-CATHOLICS such as EX-NUNS and the Like who don’t have an Axe to Grind !!!
TIM —
How about you?
Which STORY do you want to HEAR?
Speaking of EX-Catholics like EX-priests, EX-nuns, etc., how about EX-PROTESTANT MINISTERS??
TIM —
How about you?
Which STORY do you want to HEAR?
Speaking of EX-Catholics like EX-priests, EX-nuns, etc., how about EX-PROTESTANT MINISTERS??
The Journey Home
Sex during infertile periods is, in fact, as NATURAL an act as sex during fertile periods;
Doesn’t matter if it is natural, how the bond between theuniative and the procreative is broken is irrelevant. How any sin is committed is irrelelvant.
If somebody suffering pain and apparently dies of NATURAL causes, such as a heart-attack; that is completely ACCEPTABLE, as it is a NATURAL death. However, if somebody suffering pain takes his own life, this is UN-NATURAL; that is UNACCEPTABLE!
Your analogy is muddled. Nobody is a killer in the heart attack example, it just happens. There is no sinner committing a sin. OTOH the suicide example involves a sinner committing a sin.
Last time I checked, sex (whether with NFP or ABC) requires people committing the deed.
Try again, please.
Is that what you do in marriage? Fornicate?
Rick, by definition married couples cannot commit fornication. It’s why we get married.
The Coming Home Network/The Journey Home is awesome and surprisingly minimally anti-Protestant, perhaps to a fault.
Your math is off. You need to put a death model (not for the babies, although infant mortality is still an issue) but for the old folks.
True enough, but the simple compound interest formula provided a quick and dirty example as to why we just can’t breed exponentially forever. To do so results in a die off sooner or later.
We (or they rather, I’m not married) get married because of love hopefully, not lust.
Nobody is a killer in the heart attack example, it just happens. There is no sinner committing a sin.
That’s the point!
There is NO SIN — it’s a NATURAL death!
Whereas if somebody were to take their life UN-NATURALLY, that would be SINFUL and UNACCEPTABLE!
Doesn’t matter if it is natural, how the bond between theuniative and the procreative is broken is irrelevant. How any sin is committed is irrelelvant.
Is sex during fertile periods SINFUL?
AGAIN — PAY ATTENTION:
This might be complicated for you to understand, apparently, but here it is once again —
Sex during infertile periods is, in fact, as NATURAL an act as sex during fertile periods;
Artificial Contraceptives, on the other hand, are UN-NATURAL and duly prevent the NATURAL procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity.
As for your silly comment here:
“So if someone is murdered by “natural” means its not a sin, but if the killing is done artificially then it is?”
If somebody suffering pain and apparently dies of NATURAL causes, such as a heart-attack; that is completely ACCEPTABLE, as it is a NATURAL death.
However, if somebody suffering pain takes his own life, this is UN-NATURAL; that is UNACCEPTABLE!
Thus, RESPECT for HUMAN LIFE from CONCEPTION to NATURAL death!
I think the fornication lisence thing was a JOKE.
*ducks into corner*
DPD, I havn’t read the whole thread so I’m not sure where you are coming from.
If you are Catholic why not trust the judgement of the Church on this matter?
Eileen, some people, usually young unmarried ones in my experience, do think having licit sex is the main reason to get married.
DPD, the way the Catholic moral theologian uses the word “natural” is not the same way we use “natural” colloquially. Hence the confusion between you and Esau over that particular point. A murder by natural means is an oxymoron in Catholic moral theology, although it makes perfect sense in context of a Unsolved Crimes show.
This whole emphasis on NFP be good because it is “natural” (thermometers and calendars being somehow not man made or artificial).
Lots of things people do are not natural. Flying is not natural. Wearing sythetic fabrics is unnatural.
Does God hate polyester wearing frequent fliers?
See, you have no idea what ‘natural’ means in moral theology. Why don’t you read up on the issue before you try debating it?
If you are Catholic why not trust the judgement of the Church on this matter?
Well its always useful to remember than neither the ban on ABC nor Humanae Vitae itself are infallible doctrines (when it was published HV was explicitly described as not infallible).
Second, the RCC has over the centuries promoted morally repugnant teachings (see above list) and has been led by less than savory individals such as the Borgias.
So I thank God for the primacy of the informed conscience.
J.R. Stoodley, if DPD is a Catholic, he’s a CINO. But I’m betting he’ll turn out to be lapsed.
I’d think of it this way. It is perfectly natural and unsinful for a husband and wife to have sexual relations whether the woman is fertile or not. It is sinful to do something to make one spouse or the other infertile or to otherwise frustrate the procreative aspect of the marital act.
Refraining from sex during fertile periods is not a sin, generally. Having sex during infertile periods is not a sin as long as you havn’t done anything to bring about that infertility (or have repented of such action).
Therefore while one needs to be warry of the contraceptive mentality of fear of conception creaping in there is nothing intrinsically wrong with natural family planning.
Remember that the three main considerations for whether an act is moral is if it is intrinsically wrong, what the motivation is, and if there are any overriding second effects.
If there is nothing intrinsically wrong with NFP and if there are no major second effects (like too much sexual temptation in between which I doubt should be a real concern) the question just becomes motivation. If it is being done for a good reasion, like health of the wife or serious financial difficulties it can be a good practice. If it is being done for bad reasons like selfish greed (you can afford another child but would rather have more money) it is likely a bad practice.
But it is intended to be impossible. Not so with good Catholics who use NFP. With NFP, it is intended to be improbable.
Wait a minute. If I don’t intend ABC to provide 100% protection thus making conception impossible (and only an idiot would), then using ABC would notbe a sin?
Does God hate polyester wearing frequent fliers?
Is it 100% polyester?
“Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” (Lev. 19:19)
See, you have no idea what ‘natural’ means in moral theology. Why don’t you read up on the issue before you try debating it?
Eileen R:
Excellent advice to DPD!
I was wondering why he was unable to grasp something that would seem so rudimentary in Catholic Theology.
God hates sin, not human inventions. There is nothing wrong with thermometers and math. There is nothing wrong with having sex during infertile periods and not during fertile ones. There is something wrong with frustrating sex to make it infertile.
Actually, DPD my good friend Sara speaks to that in one of her Natural Family Planning Perspectives columns over at Catholicmom.com
http://www.catholicmom.com/nfp.04.htm
From “What’s in a name?”
” I have a confession to make. I don’t like the name ‘Natural Family Planning’. At all. I think it emphasizes all the wrong aspects of what NFP teachers and promoters are teaching and promoting and leads to not a little confusion about what the Church teaches about family planning.
Natural
Natural is very popular these days – natural foods, natural cleaning products, natural fiber clothing. And that is all well and good, but artificial is not synonymous with evil or immoral. Tupperware is artificial. A minivan is artificial. The plastic buttons on my blouse, the keyboard I am typing this on, anesthetics and antiseptics for life-saving surgeries, even the thermometers and ink and stickers with which couples collect and record data about their fertility are all artificial. Likewise there are natural, non-technological methods of family planning that are entirely immoral (withdrawal, sexual activity that leads to climax outside of normal intercourse).
NFP is not good because it is natural and contraception and sterilization are not wrong because they make use of modern technology or because they are artificial. Contraception and sterilization are wrong because they alter either the spouse’s bodies or sexual intercourse itself and so destroy the sacramental nature of the marital act and NFP is actually not good in and of itself, but a morally neutral tool which we can use for either good or evil (more on this in a minute). ”
If you are actually interested in learning what the Church teaches take a peek at her columns. Catholic thought on this is a lot more complex and subtle than can be treated in one thread on a blog.
John, that’s a Mosaic law, not applicable to Christians. Read up on it, its too much of a tangent for a fast paced thread like this.
Esau, I don’t think it’s intuitive. I see a lot of people making the exact same mistake all the time. A good example would be in the novel the Fifth Elephant by one of my favourite authors, Terry Pratchett, where someone remarks that using condoms “isn’t natural” and someone else bemusingly asks the character if he eats his meat raw then and lives under a tree?
It gets the guffaws, but jokes like that make it quite clear that we’re using words like “natural” to mean completely different things. We’re just so used to Catholic theological vocabulary sometimes that it’s hard to realize that other people are completely unaware it exists.
Anyone wanting to understand DPD should read Donald DeMarco and Benjiman Wiker’s book “The Architects of the Culture of Death”. DPD has drank the kool-aid. She/he is here to enlighten us lesser intelligent types (aka faithful Catholics) as to why we are hopelessly misinformed and desperately need to be enlightened. Arguing with him/her is a waste of time as he/she has no more interest in honest discussion than Bin Laden has in world peace.
DPD, if you think NFP is a crock and abc is dandy, knock yourself out. You’re wrong and all you snarky argumentation cannot and will not change it. Just be aware that us lesser intellegent types (save me..I’m celibate) will just go on practicing NFP and spitting out children like bunnies while you more enlightened types will die out because of your view that bringing children into this world is anathema to any smart woman’s ambition and lifestyle.
Of course, DPD, I can only imagine your retort (if you don’t resort to ad hominum attacks on me, the priesthood, or the Catholic Church in general) will be for me to explain NFP. But, alas, that has been done many times over (and well I might add), and you have whipped out your canned, predictable, and quite frankly, mind-numbingly boring retorts which have neither refuted (or in most cases adequately addressed) nor informed.
If I honestly thought there were even a smidgen of openness to an opposing viewpoint being valid from your perspective, then perhaps a discussion would be warranted. But your posts here would very much give evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, Tim, here’s something for you to ponder. I have been Catholic for 30 of my 41 years of life. I remember quite vividly seeing anti-Catholic comics when I was a little boy in Baptist Bible School. I can remember anti-Catholic sermons in church. In my 30 years of being Catholic I have heard tens of thousands of homilies, I have attended thousands of hours of education from grade school to post-graduate studies in Catholic schools and seminaries, and in 10 years of priesthood I have given thousands of homilies and taught hundreds of hours of classes…in all this I have not seen, given, or heard any anti-protestant anything. Maybe you, my Bible believing friend, ought to spend some time in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, and tell me who is doing a better job of following it.
Oh, and I realize some Catholics aren’t quite aware of it too. I think, with all due respect, the bit Kate copies and pastes shows that. Natural family planning is natural, in the Church’s eyes, because it doesn’t change the *nature* of marriage, not because it’s natural technology.
DPD’s above list is just the usual anti-Catholic canards. I wish that, just once, an anti-Catholic bigot would come up with something original.
DPD,
I can’t find your list above so I can’t address that accusation, but Catholics are to accept Magisterial teaching on faith and morals whether it is infallible binding teaching or not.
Christ said to his apostles, among other relevant things, “he who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me”. This authority to teach in the name of Christ was inherited through Apostolic Succession by the bishops of the Catholic Church. Their teaching is to be accepted.
Infallibility is a secondary consideration. It is a doctrine derrived from the fact that in addition to simple teaching the Magisterium may at times bind the faithful absolutely to certain teachings. When it does this, whether it is an Eccumenical Council or the Pope by himself, the binding pronouncement is infallible because if it was wrong the Church would be binding the faithful to error by the authority of Christ.
It is debatible whether the Magisterium has bound us to the teaching on contraception in this way, but it doesn’t really matter because it has made it very clear that the sinful nature of contraception is a revealed truth and therefore definitely true.
DPD:
Think of it this way —
If I were hit with a painful disease and died as a result of it; that would be a NATURAL death and ACCEPTABLE.
However, say the disease was TOO PAINFUL for me to endure; now, if I were to cause my own UN-NATURAL death through chemical/physical means, that would be a SIN, indeed, and UNACCEPTABLE.
DPD’s above list is just the usual anti-Catholic canards. I wish that, just once, an anti-Catholic bigot would come up with something original.
I don’t know. I thought the bit about blaming the Church for warning against Americanism was rather unique.
Esau, I don’t think it’s intuitive. I see a lot of people making the exact same mistake all the time. A good example would be in the novel the Fifth Elephant by one of my favourite authors, Terry Pratchett, where someone remarks that using condoms “isn’t natural” and someone else bemusingly asks the character if he eats his meat raw then and lives under a tree?
It gets the guffaws, but jokes like that make it quite clear that we’re using words like “natural” to mean completely different things. We’re just so used to Catholic theological vocabulary sometimes that it’s hard to realize that other people are completely unaware it exists.
Thanks, Eileen R.!
No kidding!
Just be aware that us lesser intellegent types (save me..I’m celibate) will just go on practicing NFP and spitting out children like bunnies while you more enlightened types will die out
Catholics and non-Catholics have just as many children.
If I’m not mistaken (again I can’t find the list so DPD may be reinterpreting it) Americanism is the heresy that Catholicism is just one of many forms of Christianity instead of the fulness of Christianity with all others as heretics and schismatics. This is still a heresy though it has spread beyond America so the name is dated.
Yes, but John, in the statistics, they’d count DPD as a Catholic, as far as I can tell from his statements here about being a dissenter. The divide isn’t between self-proclaimed-Catholics and non-Catholics.
J.R. Stoodley —
The List DPD posted is:
“Posted by: DPD | Apr 10, 2007 2:05:47 PM”
You might try using the Search function of your browser.
An approximate estimate of world population in 200 years working off of 12 births.
8 billion people. Assume 25% are between 20 and 40. Assume 50% are female. So each generation 1.5 people are created for every person presently on the earth. 25% of the people die (Those between 60 and 80 become between 80 and 100 and hence are dead.) So our adjusted growth rate is 1.25%.
(8 billion)*(1+1.25)^(200/20) = 1,552 billion people. This is a far cry from 2,260,000 billion people. This estimate is still probably high. That is 26,000 per sq. mi. Historical city densities have far exceeded 40,000/sq mi.
I find when I try to search Jimmy’s blog, my browser always crashes, actually.
John,
Most people who call themselves Catholics are heretics who have convinced themselves that there is nothing wrong with contraception. They don’t count in this way. I’m sure Catholics who accept the Church’s teaching on this matter produce more children on average than noncatholics/bad Catholics.
gtg. have fun folks.
not that they are morally obliged to try to have more children. Just clarifying. bye
The Americanist heresy is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_%28heresy%29
Yes, but John, in the statistics, they’d count DPD as a Catholic
If they didn’t, maybe your fertility numbers would be lower.
It seems to me that Americanism is one of the main problems today, though by now it’s morphed into EUism and other heresies as well. 🙂
I’m sure Catholics who accept the Church’s teaching on this matter produce more children on average than noncatholics/bad Catholics.
Or maybe they’re just celibate like you.
How, John? Do you really think people using artificial contraception have more kids than people not?
Do you really think people using artificial contraception have more kids than people not?
NFP and the Pill are equally effective according to the study.
That doesn’t answer the question, now, does it?
The vast majority of babies born in the world are not to those who practice NFP.
Eileen see:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm
So John, you seem to say that people who use the pill (or other ABC’s) are giving more births? Maybe you should do your homework and see the average size of family for those who practice NFP and those who use ABC.
The vast majority of babies born in the world are not to those who practice NFP.
Statistics abuse! Run for your lives!
That really isn’t relative to the question. A parallel: The vast majority of babies born in the Europe not to Muslims. That doesn’t mean that a) the Muslim birthrate isn’t higher than the Non-Muslim European population b) or that the Muslim population doesn’t grow more rapidly.
Most people who call themselves Catholics are heretics who have convinced themselves that there is nothing wrong with contraception.
95% of American Catholics are heretics?
They don’t count in this way.
They aren’t Catholics anymore? Have they been excommunicated?
It is a fact that more babies are born to people who use forms of birth control other than NFP. Just look about at the world and see where all the births are coming from. It’s not from the NFPers.
John, I was under the impression that only about 7% of Catholics use NFP. Most have a large family. So……
John, you’re still abusing the statistics. “More as a totality” does not equal “at a greater rate”.
So Eileena and FR RP, the goal of NFP really is to have larger families and preferably “breed like bunnies”?
Where the heck would you get that from my posts, DPD? I’m arguing with John about statistics. Stop being such a troll.
People who use condoms, pills or other forms of birth control have large families too. It’s not the exclusive domain of NFP.
Aha, so that’s what you’re getting at. I really don’t believe that many of them do compared to people using NFP. That’s a personal observation, but most people out there seem to observe it.
Of course, the statistics get all messed up by the fact that plenty of people do use artificial contraception at a certain point in their lives, then change their minds about it. How does one count these people? So, I’ll concede that it’s not clear-cut sometimes.
I also don’t think there’s any likelihood of non-contracepting folks coming *near* to the number of contracepting folks in the foreseeable future. Even if the growth rate was higher, children don’t automatically take up their parents’ POV.
Of course, the statistics get all messed up by the fact that plenty of people do use artificial contraception at a certain point in their lives, then change their minds about it.
The same applies to NFP.
children don’t automatically take up their parents’ POV.
Say hello to your children.
DPD, I’m laughing! I threw that line in there knowing you just couldn’t resist! The pity of blogging is one can’t pick up voice inflections…otherwise you could tell sarcasm when you heard it.
You gotta love it!
The same applies to NFP.
Yep. It’s the same problem. Still, a lot of surveys about Catholics’ practices tend to ask the question “Have you used artificial birth control?” The answers one gets may not be very useful.
Say hello to your children
What’s that supposed to mean? As a matter of fact, I don’t have any children. I’m twenty-three and not married. But I suspect it was meant as some form of put-down? Hmmm?
But I suspect it was meant as some form of put-down?
Only if you choose to be uncharitable.
Wow, all this shouting sure makes for a great case for bringing back “monk powder”.
Did chastity belts go out of fashion?
To complicate the statistics further, you have selection bias, e.g. a non-random sample. People who use NFP do so for one of three reasons, a) they think ABC is immoral, b) they think ABC is unhealthy, or c) they do not have access to ABC. The latter is oddly enough still prevalent in the world.
Personally, I prefer HV’s approach. HV works under the assumption that people use ABC, because they have a legitimate purpose in spacing births, even indefinately. (Similar to NFP, but the mode is illicit.)
I would speculate that if you look at the statistics, those families with more 8 children are broadly represented with a slight over representation of Catholics. The desire for a large family is typically present before marriage. I would be surprised if one took a survey of people before marraige about how many children they wanted that it would signficantly diverge in actuality.
“Wait a minute. If I don’t intend ABC to provide 100% protection thus making conception impossible (and only an idiot would), then using ABC would notbe a sin?”
That is a straw man. Do you know of anyone uses contraceptives and who is open to life in that case? In many cases, couples who were using contraceptives to block the possibility of conception abort the child.
Posted by: | Apr 10, 2007 7:12:28 PM}}} was me.
BTW, DPD, please stop calling me “Dave.” I feel like I’m talking to H.A.L. 9000.
Many is not all. So the strawman isn’t all straw.
Maybe you all owe women an apology.
You owe women (like this one) an apology.
Well, you tell me what the charitable interpretation would be.
The question, not the statement after it, refers to the straw man argument.
“Say hello” is always charitable in my mind.
I know people who use or have used contraceptives who would not get an abortion. To them, contractives were ok but abortion was not.
Oops! That’s contraceptives, not contractives. Tells you what I’ve been working on.
If you say so, John. Say hello to the other residents of Trollville.
Just my 2 cents here, but it seems that DPD has a serious assumption that A)women, if given the chance, will have 10 or more children. I think that is contraception’s greatest lie. And B) most people use NFP to avoid children. My spouse & I used NFP to get pregnant. We are hoping for a sibling for our daughter, but that may not happen. I sincerely hope you educate yourself a little bit, DPD, and realize that the largest group of people, outside of Catholicism, who are learning NFP are infertile folks–not alway religious, infertile folks either.
Have YOU educated yourself to the health costs an infertile woman endures via IVF treatments and the low rates of success? Seriously. You sound like a chauvinist. I am NOT impressed.
“Oh, and I realize some Catholics aren’t quite aware of it too. I think, with all due respect, the bit Kate copies and pastes shows that. Natural family planning is natural, in the Church’s eyes, because it doesn’t change the *nature* of marriage, not because it’s natural technology.”
Eileen, I’m not sure this is showing “all due respect”. My friend is holds a Masters degree in Physiology, has been certified to teach the Billings Ovulation Method and reads things like Humanae Vitae and JPII’s Theology of the Body “for fun” and also, I think, to get a clearer understanding of the theology behind NFP so she can teach the couples in the diocese properly.
What you wrote seemed to imply that my friend is not quite aware of Catholic moral theology. Perhaps I misread it.
But that is quite a big leap to make from my quote. Instead, I think she was addressing the problems we face when we try to explain Natural Family Planning to the 99.99 percent (low estimate) of the world who are NOT well versed in Catholic theology. NFP, unfortunately, is a confusing name which leads people to make many assumptions about Catholic teaching (like, as was discussed, it being good because it is “natural” in the commonly understood sense.)
I only even respond because I feel my friend’s credibility was undermined, which I don’t really understand since we are on the same “team”. Or more accurately in the same “family” since we are both Catholic.
Saying hello to you is enough. You pass it on.
Ignore adolescent troll. Continue discussion.
You sound like a chauvinist. I am NOT impressed.
YES! FINALLY!
Thank you, Radical Catholic Mom, for saying this to DPD!
I was thinking the same thing this afternoon when DPD made his rather condescending remarks about women.
I believe this discussion needs to have some input from marriage therapists. And giving suggestions about other methods of natural planning and problems (e.g. preventing pregnancy during menopause) also needs to be reviewed by experts not “high school” bible thumpers.
“So I thank God for the primacy of the informed conscience.”
Sorry, it doesn’t wash.
Apparently, you understand primacy of conscience no better than you understand NFP.
Pity.
Just a note on the “brood mare” comment. DPD ignored another possibility besides the wife having lots of kids and staying home to raise them. My wife and I have two small children (more eventually), and I stay home and raise them 90% of the time. We both have jobs but mine is part-time right now.
The family living renting our basement is in the same position. Young Catholic couple, wife works, husband stays home with their infant.
Just a note on the “brood mare” comment. DPD ignored another possibility besides the wife having lots of kids and staying home to raise them. My wife and I have two small children (more eventually), and I stay home and raise them 90% of the time. We both have jobs but mine is part-time right now.
The family living renting our basement is in the same position. Young Catholic couple, wife works, husband stays home with their infant.
Just a note on the “brood mare” comment. DPD ignored another possibility besides the wife having lots of kids and staying home to raise them. My wife and I have two small children (more eventually), and I stay home and raise them 90% of the time. We both have jobs but mine is part-time right now.
The family living renting our basement is in the same position. Young Catholic couple, wife works, husband stays home with their infant.
Eileen, I’m not sure this is showing “all due respect”.
How not? Are you really saying that disagreeing with how someone presents something is disrespectful? Your friend could be the smartest person in the world, well-versed in scripture, theology, and a good practicing Catholic, but I’d still find the answer you linked problematic. On the basis of the answer itself. Bringing up stuff like
I only even respond because I feel my friend’s credibility was undermined, which I don’t really understand since we are on the same “team”. Or more accurately in the same “family” since we are both Catholic.
is somewhat guilt tripping. ie “How could you criticize something a good Catholic says?”
And the answer is, quite easily, if I think it misses the point.
Now, it’s very likely that your friend does understand the point of theological vocabulary we were talking about, but my point was that even Catholics are susceptible to using “natural” and “nature” in the secular, popular sense in contexts where the Catholic theological meaning is crucial.
Answering that ‘natural family planning’ isn’t good because it’s natural, but because it’s right etc. etc. is an answer to a common objection, but I don’t think it’s a good answer. It completely buys into the popular definition of ‘natural’ and leaves the reader unaware of the distinction the Church makes about ‘natural’ vs. ‘unnatural.’
That’s not a small problem, because people are going to go on and see the Church talk about something being good because it’s “natural” or “respects the nature of marriage” and all they’ve been fed is the ‘natural’ vs. ‘artificial’ meaning. It won’t make ANY sense to them.
The prime example of this is the debate about homosexuality. The Church would say homosexual acts are unnatural, and people reply “But look, it happens in nature! How can it be unnatural?” And, as in family planning, that’s not at all what the Church means, and we really have a duty to make the distinction, not to further muddy the waters.
closing italics, I hope.
Wow, sorry I missed the onset of this thread. It’s taken me half the morning to catch up. A couple of points which seem to be missing about NFP use:
1. It can be used just as sinfully as ABC. The central analysis is the intent of the couple. Once a sufficiently grave reason to avoid pregnancy has arisen in a marriage, NFP is the moral (and best, IMO) method of identifying the fertility cycle around which to order the marital act.
2. There are multiple, effective, “methods” of NFP. The Rhythm Method is not one of them. It is outdated and does not come close to the scientific analysis of modern methods. Thermometers are not necessary in all mothods either.
3. NFP actively engages the body’s fertility and the marital bond on many levels. ABC seeks to avoid many of these issues.
Michael Sullivan,
True! I also did the “Mr. Mom” thing, staying home with our newborns, working at night (at home) and even homeschooling, eventually.
So, let no one trouble me with this chauvinism hogwash.
Eileen, it was the implication that the woman writing the column isn’t aware of Catholic moral theology that I thought was not very respectful.
I posted the column in the hopes it could help someone. I understand that you think the column “misses the point”, “is not a good answer”, and “further muddies the waters”. That’s too bad. But maybe it can help someone else.
Of course, I don’t mean to present my friend as a final arbitrator of Catholic thought on the matter of NFP, and of course Catholics can disagree on issues. I just think we should strive to do it with kindness, and not be dismissive of other’s contributions. Did I feel you were dismissive of my contribution? Yes, a bit. Was that your intention? I hope not.
Good luck to you in your studies. I’m sorry I’ve taken this thread a bit off course, but then again, that ship sailed long ago, didn’t it? 🙂
“Did chastity belts go out of fashion?”
But I suspect it was meant as some form of put-down?
Only if you choose to be uncharitable.
The posts above with the name “John” are not me
Possibly Esau or David B trying as they always do, confused as to who they are trying to imitate today and who they are pretending to be (Sort of like Mr Rodgers in the land of make believe!)
Esau is so desperate!!!
John, it is not really wise or fair to assume that it was Esau posting in your name.
You’ve been doing well… don’t quit now.
There have been numerous posters using “John” as a tag. I’d suggest something more easily identifiable.
John accuses me of posting:
“Did chastity belts go out of fashion?”
Just ONE Question — WHY THE HECK WOULD I POST SOMETHING LIKE THIS????
Maybe David B. would, but I DOUBT THAT!
DPD,
“Wait a minute. If I don’t intend ABC to provide 100% protection thus making conception impossible (and only an idiot would), then using ABC would notbe a sin?”
It would still be a sin because it is an artificial way to prevent conception. And that is always wrong.
John,
Unlike you, who sadly pretends to be more ‘catholic’ than the pope, and over the pope’s authority, I don’t pretend to be anyone other than myself. It’s a serious matter to continuously slander me as you have been.
John, I didn’t think it was you, since the person seemed not to consider themselves Catholic. But if a person signs his name John, well, that’s what you call them.
Doesn’t make them you. Or my father, who’s a John. Or my uncle John. Or any of the many, many Johns out there. It really is a common name.
Doesn’t make them you. Or my father, who’s a John. Or my uncle John. Or any of the many, many Johns out there. It really is a common name.
Thank-you, Eileen R., for your Voice of Reason, once again.
It still astonishes me that John actually thinks he’s the ‘only’ John out there.
*sigh*
Kate, it might be a language thing. I meant to communicate a nuance saying “not quite aware of.” But then I realize that ‘aware’ means both knowing something exists and keeping a close eye on it.
I meant more the latter. ie. something not being at the forefront of one’s mind.
I haven’t read the whole thread yet, since I am at work and have to fit reading into my breaks.
However I wanted to comment on the large family many children issue, and the one poster’s idea that somehow this was unhealthy or dangerous for most women.
I have nine children, oldest 33, youngest 17. I am 56 and have no physical illnesses except some osteoarthritis. When I had my ninth child my reproductive organs were stil healthy and I could easily have had more children. I have another friend who is 59, and one who is in her late forties; each of them also has nine children. And I have yet another friend in her fifties who has eleven children. All of these women are healthy, with no major health problems and no problems with their reproductive organs.
These are all close friends so I know for sure that they have no major physical problems.
A women in a town near here had 20 children. I don’t know about her general health, but she was active in her church and community and still alive the last I heard. ( Twenty seems like a lot to me, but the local talk is that they all turned out well. )
Has anyone done a study of the women in groups who have large families? For instance “Plain” people, ie, the Amish, Mormons, Hasidic Jews? Sadly, one can no longer include Catholics as a group in that list. I bet it would show that normal physically healthy women who practice good nutrition and other good general health practices, can have ten or more children without damaging their health.
Not that this speaks directly to the relative morality of contraception or NFP, and not that it is the only factor involved in choosing the size of one’s family, but the poster did bring up the issue.
Susan Peterson
Esau,someone may have addressed this, but your reasoning for why NFP is licit is partially defective. You are saying that it is ok for people to restrict sex to the probably infertile times because conception could possibly still occur then. No. It would still be licit if there were an absolute foolproof method of knowing that conception could not occur then. (If one refers to the second half of the cycle, after ovulation, after the third day of the temperature rise or the night of the fourth day past the peak mucus symptom, there pretty much is. This is a period of absolute infertility.)
The reason this is licit is that God hasn’t put any fertility into these marital acts in the first place, so one is not frustrating the natural and God intended purpose of the act. What is wrong is to put an artificial barrier (either during or in anticipation of the act such as the pill, IUD) which frustrates the natural fertility of the sexual act. During infertile periods, there is no fertility to frustrate.
The logic of this becomes much more clear if one remembers to think of individual acts. Don’t start out by asking, “What is the general intention of the couple? Answer, to avoid children now. So how does the method matter?” No, ask what they are doing in each individual act of marital intercourse. In that act, are they open to whatever possibility of new life God has put there? Is it wrong for a couple to abstain from any particular act of sex, if they both agree? No. So abstaining during the fertile times isn’t wrong. Is it wrong for them to have sex when the act might reasonably be anticipated to be infertile? No, otherwise it would be illicit for women my age to engage in marital intercourse, and the church has never said this.
Now, there is a separate question, a different question, not the same question, about the possible wrongness of the intention to avoid having children at all or at any particular time. As we all know, the intention before a marriage to avoid having children at all, invalidates the marriage. But how about the couple who decides to have only two, in order to live a comfortable suburban lifestyle and send both children to expensive private colleges? I think that few people like that use NFP rather than contraception, but there might be some. Their reasons for making this choice could be questioned; they could be making an idol of money or success or conformity to the values of their neighbors, they could be failing to trust God enough. There might indeed be sin involved. BUT if they used NFP, it would not be the sin of contraception.
Susan Peterson
Esau,someone may have addressed this, but your reasoning for why NFP is licit is partially defective. You are saying that it is ok for people to restrict sex to the probably infertile times because conception could possibly still occur then.
Susan Peterson:
Where exactly have I stated this????
I have NO IDEA where you’re getting all those things in your post above that you claim I’ve said when, in fact, I have not.
Go Susan P!;
“The reason this is licit is that God hasn’t put any fertility into these marital acts in the first place, so one is not frustrating the natural and God intended purpose of the act. What is wrong is to put an artificial barrier (either during or in anticipation of the act such as the pill, IUD) which frustrates the natural fertility of the sexual act. During infertile periods, there is no fertility to frustrate.”
Thank you, Susan. Exactly and precisely correct. I just pasted it so everyone could read it again.
Esau- What I wrote is how I interpreted these words of yours,
“With artifical contraception, there is definite intention by the individual, a definite break that occurs between the unitive and procreative aspects; whereas when having sex during supposed infertile periods, there isn’t a definite break since having sex during those times does not necessarily mean that pregnancy would NOT occur (in fact, it CAN and DOES happen) and, thus, there is that “open-to-life” UNLIKE with artificial contraception.
Posted by: Esau | Apr 10, 2007 1:02:31 PM”
Didn’t you mean by this what I took it to mean?
SFP
Susan Peterson:
Look, I have NO IDEA where you’re getting all these notions, CLAIMING that I said the things you’ve attributed to me —
The fact of the matter is that DPD claimed that having sex during the infertile period was a SIN.
I contested that saying IT WAS NOT.
My POINT was that sex during infertile periods is, in fact, as NATURAL an act as sex during fertile periods; therefore, NOT A SIN and ACCEPTABLE.
Artificial Contraceptives, on the other hand, are UN-NATURAL and duly prevent the NATURAL procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity.
He answered me with the following:
“So if someone is murdered by “natural” means its not a sin, but if the killing is done artificially then it is?”
I replied:
If somebody suffering pain and apparently dies of NATURAL causes, such as a heart-attack; that is completely ACCEPTABLE, as it is a NATURAL death.
However, if somebody suffering pain takes his own life, this is UN-NATURAL; that is UNACCEPTABLE!
Thus, RESPECT for HUMAN LIFE from CONCEPTION to NATURAL death!
How is what I said above WRONG?
Susan
You are totally correct and Esau is wrong, as you proved above. The popes before Vatican II all said that NFP is acceptable and that one can deliberatly abstain from sex during fertile periods if having a child would result in undue hardship. Esau is saying otherwise. Unlike JPII’s “Theology of the Body” which is pages and pages of blabber, Pius XI and XII have made it very clear as to what is permitted, as has even Paul VI in humanae Vitae, probably his shining moment as Pope
As I have posted on another thread:
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not artificial birth control, but rather the selective use of continence, which is one of the moral virtues
(when rightly applied).
Pope Pius XI said this is a clear option in Casti Connubii (Encyclical Letter on Christian Marriage, December 31, 1930). Pope Pius XII also discussed the moral principles covering the use of the Rhythm Method as follows:
There is a vast difference between contraception and the Rhythm Method because the former consists in the abuse of the sexual powers, the later, in
the non-use of these powers at certain times in the month.
A married couple may ordinarily use the Rhythm Method only when both agree to the restriction that it involves.
This method may not be used if the parties are yielding to sins of incontinence in the period of abstinence from sexual relations.
A couple may not lawfully use the Rhythm Method unless they have a very good reason for not having children, at least for the time being.
“We affirmed the legitimacy and at the same time the limits truly very wide of that controlling of births which, unlike the so-called ‘birth control,’ is compatible with God’s law….
Serious motives, such as those that not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic, and social so-called ‘indications,’ may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt
for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint, and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned.” (Pope Pius XII, Allocutions to Midwives, October 29, 1951, and to the Associations of the Large Families, November 26, 1951).
Susan Peterson:
The DEFINITE BREAK I was referring to in the comment cited is the very act of frustrating the natural fertility of the sexual act, as even made evident in my comment:
“Artificial Contraceptives, on the other hand, are UN-NATURAL and duly prevent the NATURAL procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity.”
You are totally correct and Esau is wrong, as you proved above. The popes before Vatican II all said that NFP is acceptable and that one can deliberatly abstain from sex during fertile periods if having a child would result in undue hardship. Esau is saying otherwise.
John:
Kindly cite where EXACTLY have I SPECIFICALLY STATED that DELIBERATELY ABSTAINING FROM SEX DURING FERTILE PERIODS is WRONG????
Please, feel free to thrown in MORE STRAW MEN!
… And John, MORE Cut-and-Paste?
Esau was mistaken in one statement he made; the one I copied and pasted into my last post. He was not mistaken for the reason that John gives, or in the way that John says he was wrong. He was only mistaken in saying that the reason having why sex in the infertile periods only is not wrong; he said it was because conception could still possibly occur then. (See his words which I cited above.)
He is pretty much right about the rest of it although I think he doesn’t understand that his use of NATURAL is different from other people’s and not always understood.
He is certainly right about what actions are right and wrong.
I also think that his reason why the use of the infertile period is not wrong has some psychological validity, even if not logical or theological or philosophical validity. When one has contracepted, and starts having sex without contraception, one (and I am speaking as a woman here) feels very exposed, very vulnerable, very “unprotected,” to be honest, almost as if one were “offering oneself up.” It is a scary feeling. There are uncertainties in the actual practice of NFP, especially for nursing mothers, and especially when one is new at it. Was that the temperature rise, or am I sick? Was that the beginning of the fertile mucus or was I just having erotic thoughts which caused lubrication? So one does feel vulnerable to pregnancy, which, after all, is something that takes over one’s body and determines a lot about one’s immediate future. It takes some abandonment to God’s will to do this, even at what should by all the NFP rules be an infertile time. And, as opposed to the reasons why the use of NFP is not wrong, I think this is one of the reasons why it is right, and psychologically immensely different from the use of contraception.
John, I don’t know where the onus against the Theology of the Body comes from. It is a difficult book (or set of addresses to read), but my poor comprehension is not a good reason to call it blather. What I do grasp of it is that it is first of all, an extended medication on Genesis “Male and female He created them” and therefore on what it means that we were made by God in two sexes with different kinds of bodies. It is perhaps an attempt to make the true meaning of “natural” understandable for modern people who are cut off from being able to understand the Aristotelian and Thomistic use of that word. As far as I know nothing in it contradicts the teaching of any previous Popes, and I would be extremely surprised if it did. Theology is an ongoing enterprise; it isn’t supposed to be finished, over and done with.
Susan Peterson
John,
You said: “Unlike JPII’s “Theology of the Body” which is pages and pages of blabber…”
Have you actually read the Theology of the Body or only commentaries about it from your favorite websites?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
He was only mistaken in saying that the reason having why sex in the infertile periods only is not wrong; he said it was because conception could still possibly occur then.
Susan Peterson:
AH! *slaps forehead*
Thanks for the clarification here, Susan!
Really, really appreciate it!
I was trying to figure out where the interpretation you got came from.
Actually (and that was my fault for not being accurate in a comment I was attempting to write rather quickly at the time), I was trying to place further stress on points revolving around the theme “Open-to-Life” as well as accentuating the “DEFINITE BREAK” in my post to DPD, which I thought could be served by pointing out (merely as an FYI, so-to-speak) that just because a couple has sex during periods of supposed infertility, there is that possibility that the woman may still get pregnant. This was to address something DPD had said — that they couldn’t at all.
What I tried to point out is that with the use of artificial contraceptives, not only is it un-natural, but it duly prevents the natural procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity; and the very fact that a couple would go as far as to the extent of using artificial devices (made with the specific purpose) to subvert the natural design of God would not at all be acceptable and is, in fact, sinful.
At any rate, I appreciate your clarification, Susan.
I welcome these instances since it actually helps me find out where have I mis-communicated something or if the content in my communication was actually wrong.
In either event, it’s a learning experience.
CORRIGENDUM:
What I tried to point out is that with the use of artificial contraceptives, not only is it un-natural and duly prevents the natural procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity; but the very fact that a couple would go as far as to the extent of using artificial devices (made for this specific purpose) to subvert the natural design of God would not at all be acceptable and is, in fact, sinful.
How many times are you going to cut and paste that paragraph?
After actually reading what I wrote in my original post, it didn’t sound quite right.
Therefore, I had to correct it.
You need to understand, for folks like me who write/speak in one language but thinks in another, it is sometimes difficult to express one’s thoughts in the prevailing language.
You’ve posted and reposted the same argument at least seven times on this thread alone. Didn’t you know? Cut and paste “duly prevents the natural procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity.”
It’s just Esau’s form of asexual reproduction.
You’ve posted and reposted the same argument at least seven times on this thread alone. Didn’t you know? Cut and paste “duly prevents the natural procreative aspects endowed by God to humanity.”
Becky,
For one, the part of a sentence/statement does not constitute a paragraph.
Second, I believe you missed the entire point as regards why the repetition of the cited comment in my exchange with DPD.
John, please back off the personal jabs. Every time I read one, my estimation of your character takes a dip, which is a great challenge to charity, so help me avoid this near occasion of sin, will ya?
A manmade wall between the men’s and women’s dorm also “duly prevents the natural procreative aspects” too.
A manmade wall between the men’s and women’s dorm also “duly prevents the natural procreative aspects” too.
Hans:
I rather enjoyed that quip! <=^) This is true especially when presented out of context and further illustrates the need for precise language and, hence, the obsession with corrigenda.
Thus, the apparent difficulty for lesser races who may actually be incapable of such precision in a language that is, in all actuality, beyond them.
It’s just Esau’s form of asexual reproduction.
I did not post the above, and anon, if you have any fortitude please post your name
Esau and David B and some of his other lemmings are trying to post using my name in their lame attempt to try and discredit me
All Jimmy A has to do is look at the IP addresses of the posts
Esau-you are so desperate, we pray for your conversion
John,
I see you are still incapable of answering a direct question.
Still I strongly recommend you actually read Man and Woman He Created Them – A Theology of the Body translated and introduced by Michael M. Waldstein. The 128 page introduction of the book alone is worth the price of the book.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Wow, the shouting continues!!!
The potential problems with NFP:
1. pregnancy during menopause leading to an increased risk of birth defects.
2. pregnancy during nursing leading to a heath risk for the mother because of improper recovery from the first pregnancy.
3. sexually frustrated spouses leading to depression/anger.
4. increased prostate cancer risk for the husbands due to reduced flow of sperm and prostate fluids.
Susan posted:
“Esau was mistaken in one statement he made; the one I copied and pasted into my last post. He was not mistaken for the reason that John gives, or in the way that John says he was wrong. He was only mistaken in saying that the reason having why sex in the infertile periods only is not wrong; he said it was because conception could still possibly occur then. (See his words which I cited above.) ”
Susan-this has already been made clear by two popes untainted by Modernism is Pius XI and XII, one does not need Esau to clarify whether sex during fertile or infertile periods is correct or not
Please know that NFP was around way before JPII talked about “Theology of the Body” which is lame modernistic composite of his talks which basically are a lot of words which mean very little, as the church has already made their teachings on contraception in Humane Vitae and NFP and the Rhythm method in Pius XI and XII clear as can be
John, I highly doubt anyone is posting in your name to try to discredit you.
Assuming you are the former “linked John” I’d recommend linking something to your name again if you want to just use John. I understand if you don’t want to use your email. I used to use my email address but got an unwelcome kind of email so I switched to the website of the Knights of Columbus, which I’m a memeber of. I guess I’m just vain and like that underline.
Anyway, either use a link or use your last initial or something. You can’t blame people for getting confused if you just use John with no link.
Inocencio posted:
“John,
I see you are still incapable of answering a direct question.
Still I strongly recommend you actually read Man and Woman He Created Them – A Theology of the Body translated and introduced by Michael M. Waldstein. The 128 page introduction of the book alone is worth the price of the book.”
Inocencio-I have read Theology of the body and then got tired, it is boring and is blabber
For that matter, anything so called “orthodox” written by JPII means nothing, because one day he talks about something Catholic and the next day he kisses Korans, prays with Moslems, worships false idols, so the mans actions are clearly heretical and apostate so what can I learn from a wolf in sheeps clothing who was loved by the world (which our Lord clearly warned us about being loved by the world as well as the wolf in sheeps clothing)
JR
Thank you for the advice, I will have to use a fake e-mail because Esau is obessessed with me (possibly physically?) and posts my e-mail address, pretends to be me in posts, uses anon posts and all kinds of lame antics as he is clearly one frustrated individual not confident in his abilities as an Apologist and possibly as a Man, but I leave that for a MD to figure out
John accuses me (yet again):
“Esau and David B and some of his other lemmings are trying to post using my name in their lame attempt to try and discredit me
All Jimmy A has to do is look at the IP addresses of the posts
Esau-you are so desperate, we pray for your conversion”
Look, John, STOP ACCUSING ME OF POSTING THINGS under your name!
On the other hand, HOW DO WE KNOW YOU DIDN’T, in fact, POST IT (especially given your past history of personal insults to me)????
It seems rather SUSPICIOUS to me that you only DISOWNED the OFFENSIVE comment once Anon with No Name had mentioned something concerning its downright demeaning aspect!
JOHN:
Obssessed with you????
IS THAT THE REASON WHY IN ALMOST EVERY THREAD, IT IS YOU WHO ARE THE ONE WHO KEEPS ON POSTING TO/ABOUT ME, JUST AS YOU HAVE HERE ON THIS VERY THREAD AS WELL AS ON OTHER RECENT ONES like “German study: NFP as effective as the Pill”???
It’s like a damn child trying to grab for attention — only in this case, it’s a closet homosexual who gets turned on by pedophile priests!
Perhaps the very VERACITY of that remark you made in the past is the very reason WHY you are so OBSSESSED!
I feel so sorry for your family.
“I did not post the above, and anon, if you have any fortitude please post your name”
John, the anonymous poster before was me. For some reason my personal info did not post.
Another “John” posted – I doubt it was Esau or David B. – more probably a common troll. They have been around lately. Your insistence that it must be Esau or David is kinda pathetic.
Just stick to the issues, everyone… pretty please?
Oh, and God… Realist wants to have a word with you because he has some suggestions on how to improve this plan for reproduction that you came up with. He thinks the whole idea needs revising. Nothing personal… he just thinks you may have had some other things on your mind and maybe dropped the ball on this one. Too much responsibility and sacrifice and not enough *whoopee* for his taste. Better living through chemistry, and all that…
Shame, shame. Jimmy is going to have to shut this thread down because you two can’t behave like gentlemen in this forum. This will deprive the rest of us of the chance to talk. Even DDD or whatever his initials are is at least pushing a point of view (Everyone needs to have sex all the time, abstinence causes all kinds of horrible problems, we definitely don’t want too many babies, so obviously contraception is not only necessary but a very good thing) rather than engaging in a personal duel.
Arguing with people like D something D is useful; it helps us to clarify what we believe and refine how we present it. But obviously this interesting thread has now degenerated right into the pit.
Good night all.
Susan Peterson
“Esau and David B and some of his other lemmings are trying to post using my name in their lame attempt to try and discredit me
All Jimmy A has to do is look at the IP addresses of the posts”
John, your lies about me are both unfounded and sinful.
Retract them, and try to illustrate to me how you are a ‘better Catholic’ than late Pope John Paul II.
Tim J.:
My sincerest apologies to you and Jimmy Akin.
However, I hope you can understand my reaction to John’s offensive remarks. I know it doesn’t make them right — but I, at least, hope you can understand, especially since he’s the one who keeps on butting in on almost each and every thread with similar posts.
I did “talk” to God via his gifts of reason and common sense. NFP by both gifts is dangerous in the many marriages to include the menopausal portion of most.
Even though this is a little off-topic of temptation, there has been a lot of discussion about the pros and cons, success and failure rates of NFP. No one has brought up the fact that NFP can be and is often used by couples when they want to have children. NFP can be used to dramatically improve the chances of conception for couples who are having difficulty and is often recommended by fertility specialists. What other ABC can make this claim?
NFP has been around for a long time and it is not just used by Catholics…
Interesting discussion.
Things I’ve noticed:
People who denigrate NFP don’t really understand it.
People who use NFP generally want large families…large families are not a result of failure of the method, but success.
People, in order to justify their preconceptions, ignore facts, twist meanings, and shift focus.
Benefits of NFP:
NFP promotes education/understanding of the woman’s body and cycle.
NFP promotes communication between husband and wife.
NFP can be taught to uneducated people, and can be used by people who can’t afford condoms.
NFP doesn’t alter the woman’s chemical balance.
NFP can be used to conceive a child…real control, not just prevention.
My brood will number 5 near the end of the year…and the oldest will only be just over 5 when the new one is born. Preceding the conception of the first child was 3 years of marriage. The only surprise has been the current pregnancy, and we weren’t really trying to avoid one (which seems to be most of the NFP “failures” I hear of).
The important thing with NFP is to use it for the right reason. Using NFP isn’t automatically licit, nor is avoiding pregnancy automatically illicit.
It is getting tedious to read through all of DPD’s posts in order to reply, but I’ve been itching to reply to some so I’ll take a crack at it already:
I come from a third-world country, where it is extremely rare to find a family with none, 1 or two children except for cases of infertility or the unusual decision to have few children. In my generation (born in the 70s), 4 is a common minimum, certainly for all the people I knew from my neighborhood or from school. I have five siblings. My mother was no brood mare by any stretch. She jointly managed the family business (winery) with my father until they closed it down (years after everyone had finished college).
A family I’m close to has 5 children. Their mother likewise co-managed the family business. Another family has 11 children, a number of whom I count as my closest friends. Their mother was a lawyer, became a judge by the time the youngest entered high school. Their father was a doctor.
My father employed many mothers from my neighborhood, some of whom had up to 5 children. They did various things in the winery, including clerical and manual work.
Surprise, surprise, the mortality rate of children in the Philippines (if UNICEF is to be believed) is not as high as you claim: less than 10% cannot be considered “most”.
On the notion of NFP and the improbability of conception (as against the impossibility of conception), intention certainly has a lot to do with it, and the intention with contraception is to prevent contraception. Sex during the infertile periods, within the NFP context, is to use those periods designed by God into women’s reproductive cycles. The former involves an explicit, willful act to excise the procreative from sex. The latter involves no such act.
Humanae Vitae makes clear distinction between one which is sex as God intended it, and sex as stubborn man would have it. The former design *includes the infertile periods* and, as a complete design, involves the unitive and procreative. Contraceptive sex interferes and foils that original design, intervening with devices and procedures which intend to foil the procreative aspects.
Not that DPD has shown up in the last few responses…
I was reading some of the earlier posts in this thread, so please forgive me if someone else has already made the following comment:
The church teach that Catholics must have as many babies as possible. If it did, we’d all be required to take fertility drugs, make sure that we were intimate during every single fertile period, and never EVER breastfeed.
Spacing children is actually PART of God’s plan for us. Most women are physically incapable of having a child every nine months (some are, but they’re unusual!)
My husband and I have never bothered with NFP — breastfeeding tends to space our kids about 2 years apart.
The people who argue that spacing=contraception (and I have met a few, especially older Catholics who DO misinterpret the Church’s teaching on this) believe that we’re sinning if we don’t wean by 4 or 5 months, because we’re “artificially” limiting our family size.
Though isn’t it odd that the natural spacing provided to most (not all, there are a few VERY fertile folks out there) couples fits with the scientific research on the best spacing of children for mom’s recovery, ease of birth, and socializing of siblings?
hmmmmm….. what an AMAZING coincidence! =)
David B posted (along with Esau as they are tandem)
“”Esau and David B and some of his other lemmings are trying to post using my name in their lame attempt to try and discredit me
All Jimmy A has to do is look at the IP addresses of the posts”
John, your lies about me are both unfounded and sinful.
Retract them, and try to illustrate to me how you are a ‘better Catholic’ than late Pope John Paul II.”
Sorry but JPII like in politics with a president is fair game. If he wants to be Pope, and accepted the position (he could have refused), he has to accept the criticism. If he did not portray himself to be the vicar of christ who is to uphold faith, morals and tradition and then go and kiss korans, pray with moslems, hindus, buddhists and change canon law to allow our lord to be given to protestants, then he would not be criticized
This is a blog for discussion and sainthood, no matter how fast it is rammed down the throat of the church is not infallible and JPII is fair game whether you like it or not
For that matter, maybe I am holier than JPII because I have not condoned heresy or apostasy by my actions but he has, so we wait for a pope to wait for the groundswell of secular love to die down for this heretic of a pope and truly examine his actions and words and then decide where he belongs in church history
David B., Tim J.:
Now do you know where I’m coming from????
Look at what John has just stated here:
“For that matter, maybe I am holier than JPII because I have not condoned heresy or apostasy by my actions but he has, so we wait for a pope to wait for the groundswell of secular love to die down for this heretic of a pope and truly examine his actions and words and then decide where he belongs in church history”
If John were Protestant, Anti-Catholic, Non-Catholic; the statement made here would perhaps not matter to the same degree — it would still be offensive to hear (and I might even respond to it), but this would certainly be understandable given the source of the comment.
However, John portrays himself as a TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC; Yet, his statements prove quite the contrary!
John, here, again, is what I said: your lies about me are both unfounded and sinful.
Retract them, and try to illustrate to me how you are a ‘better Catholic’ than late the Pope John Paul II.
“Sorry but JPII like in politics with a president is fair game.”
I was not asking you to repeat to me your slander of the late Pope. I was asking you to show me that you are the Catholic you say you are, by apologizing to me for unjustly accusing me of libeling you.
John, you obviously think of yourself as a good apologist for your “catholic” faith. Do you think that a good apologist calls those who ask him a question “lemmings”? I will leave the answer to you imagination.
BTW, the above anonymous was posted by me.
Esau,
I would agree with you, but John might think that I am your “lemming.”
🙂
Esau
Who died and made you the moral authority and judge of what is truth and not truth?
Does everyone have to fall in line with your thought and if not you blast them with all kinds of names?
Can one not discuss questionable actions by a Pope that was loved by the secular world while at the same time pedophilia was running rampant, the seminaries were emptying, the priesthood and pews were become older and sparse in age and the youth was becoming uncatechised -and he wore out the frequent flier miles?
Vatican II and JPII are two of the most divisive issues that have taken place within the church these past 40-50 years
To not discuss the merits of each, one might as well not have an open forum and discuss the weather
Esau-you can rant all you want at everyone but go to most other blogs and these topics are dicussed openly and freely, but you are a bully who tries to impose your moral authority on everyone here and one can see that from the lack of new posters who come on this board because you and your long rants and cut and pastes are so tiresome to read and really boring to be honest
John, I’ve mostly avoided responding to your comments but there is NO EXCUSE for your repeated calumnious comments about John Paul II or any of the people posting here.
btw, you are hardly in a position to call anyone’s long rants and cut and pastes are so tiresome to read and really boring to be honest since yours so frequently fit that description.
Occasionally, very occasionally, you sound conciliatory and say you are confused by what is being taught. Confusion can be clarified, but not when you persistently make calumnious comments.
“Can one not discuss questionable actions by a Pope that was loved by the secular world… ”
Which Pope was that? Certainly not John Paul II. They hated him.
“To not discuss the merits of each, one might as well not have an open forum and discuss the weather”
John, read the title of this thread, and tell me if this if the place to discuss the ‘evil’ JPII. Since it isn’t, I suggest you create you own blog. If people want to discuss this things with you, they can go there. Otherwise, stop hijacking this blog!
John, read the title of this thread, and tell me if this if the place to discuss the ‘evil’ JPII.
David B.:
That’s just it — haven’t you noticed (as in past threads) that IT IS HE who often does this?
Everybody here was engaging in a free and open discussion concerning the topic at hand EXCEPT JOHN.
In almost EVERY THREAD, NO MATTER THE TOPIC, John’s comments are usually:
1. Vatican II is EVIL and responsible for this, that, and the other thing.
2. John Paul II (as well as others associated with him like Ratzinger, Mother Teresa, etc.) was a pagan and a heretic.
Does that, at all, rise to the level of intelligent discussion that John seem to claim about his comments and participation on the blog?
I mean, even a parrot can do the same!
John, I will only say this; If your purpose in posting here was to win people ovcr to your point of view, it has been a dismal failure. I am trying hard not to judge all trads by the attitude I see reflected in your posts.
You would be much further ahead had you never bothered to post at all, as my estimation both of your character and your point of view takes a dive with almost every one of your comments. If you are wise you will quit before you dig your hole even deeper and sully the image of trads everywhere to an even greater degree than you already have.
Or you can continue and (as the proverb goes) “remove all doubt”.
Well, I’ve only read the first 150 comments or thereabouts so I apologize if someone said this already. But I had a comment on Jimmy’s post.
As to NFP and Temptation, I have found that practicing abstinence builds up the ability to defeat impurity. Remembering that I am respecting my wife by not insisting on marital relations helps me to offer up the suffering of self-denial. This suffering seems to be a particular cross to men but men seem uniquely suited to handle it. The way men can focus on a task to the exclusion of everything else is both the cause and solution to this temptation, IMHO. Sometimes, two hours of fiddling in the garage or playing GameCube can be a very loving act.
Weekly confession is also a good way to defeat particularly insistent sins, like impurity.
P.S. – That John Henry is one smart guy.
David B posted:
“”Can one not discuss questionable actions by a Pope that was loved by the secular world… ”
Which Pope was that? Certainly not John Paul II. They hated him.”
David, is that so, then please explain why on his death for example the following was stated by all of the secular world, including the catholic hater Foxman whom JPII met personally when the Passion of the Christ controversy was in full swing, but refused to meet with Mel Gibson or come out in the public forum supporting the film, saying instead that “The Pope does not comment on films”, what a cop out!”
Religious leaders from across the country praised Pope John Paul II on Saturday, saying the pope aggressively reached out to other faiths and inspired people worldwide.
The pope “revolutionized Catholic-Jewish relations,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman said the pope “normalized” relations with Jews and cited John Paul II’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
“He was a man of God in every sense and a true friend whose visionary leadership will be sorely missed,” Foxman said.
“Pope John Paul II was unquestionably the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world during the last 100 years,” said the Rev. Billy Graham. “His extraordinary gifts, his strong Catholic faith, and his experience of human tyranny and suffering in his native Poland all shaped him, and yet he was respected by men and women from every conceivable background across the world.”
“I think evangelicals also recognize that in the passing of John Paul II we may never see his likes again, and there’s a real sense of loss in that even as we continue to be greatly concerned about the institution of the papacy, we have great admiration for the man,” said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
“The pope was a man of true peace and justice,” said Pawan Deshpande, a member of the Hindu American Foundation Executive Council. “His strong commitment to human rights, democracy and interreligious dialogue will not be forgotten.”
The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said the pope “modeled unselfish compassion.”
He said the pope served as an example of how people of various faiths — or no faith — “can live and work together while enhancing the quality of life for all people.”
The pope “provided inspiration and leadership, not only to Roman Catholics but also to the greater Christian world and beyond with his uncompromising stances in favor of life and against the culture of death,” said the Rev. Gerald B. Kieschnick, president of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod.
“His voice and moral authority gave inspiration and hope to millions well beyond the Roman Catholic Church,” said the Rev. Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, in seeming to sum up the feelings of many ministers.
Seems like every faith loved this man, because he stood for NOTHING!
Gospel according to St John Chapter 15
17 These things I command you, that you love one another.
18 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.
19 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him who sent me.
22 If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
23 He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.
Epistle of St. James Chapter 4
4 Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God.
5 Or do you think that the scripture saith in vain: To envy doth the spirit covet which dwelleth in you?
6 But he giveth greater grace. Wherefore he saith: God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
John,
Don’t you think that at least one major media company would’ve reported that the pope had dung smeared on his head, prayed to shiva, etc.? And as for his praying for the coming of the messiah with the Jews, shouldn’t all Christians pray for Christ’s [second] Coming!?! Don’t you *think* that Katie Koran, sam Donelson, et al. would’ve been shouting from the rooftops if JPII Ever even suggested that the Messiah had not yet come? I don’t know why you hate JPII, But you need to find peace about this subject.
Sorry for changing the tone of the discussion, but does anyone have any advice on how to make a case for NFP instead of birth control.
Just about every priest in confession says something like “How about you yourself don’t use birth control even though your spouse chooses to?” like they’re taught to say that in seminary. It’s within the letter of the law but pretty much directly opposed to the spirit (you’re not sharing yourself completely if both people aren’t sharing). I guess I would expect the exact opposite type of advice on how to communicate the Truth better even though you’re still using birth control. I know confession isn’t the place for such detailed pastoral advice, but with so many Catholics using birth control why isn’t there a mountain of information for priests to quickly recommend. Why aren’t the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality a part of a homilies regularly at every parish?
My wife isn’t Catholic and I wasn’t practicing when we married. And to be honest I do a pretty poor job of living my faith even now that I believe. But the biggest problem is convincing her that children don’t really mean the end of your life (or at the very least that children aren’t an accessory you plan for after you’ve reached a certain point in your career). I would imagine my problem isn’t unique to ecumenical marriages. I have the books and pamphlets explaining how to use NFP. Where do I go for support that the Church is right and raising children is our calling in our marriage? It doesn’t come from the average parish or even diocese. It doesn’t come from very many other Christian churches. And it certainly doesn’t come from everyday culture. I feel like the Catholic who tries to be orthodox gets hung out to dry.