A Catholic Response to "The Scandal of NFP"

[ahs]

Part 2 of 6: Dave responds to CMTV Exec. Producer Terry Carroll. Terry’s words in black, Dave’s in blue to retain original format as it was sent to CMTV and other recipients that Terry Carroll sent it to [Dave is not aware of who these are…just that they were sent the material].

You are reasoning from within your own experience and your limited understanding of how the Church has addressed this issue over the centuries.

That’s an ad hominem fallacy, where you are trying to say that MY understanding will determine whether Michael correctly represented the Church’s teachings on NFP. Terry, you have resorted to logical fallacy twice already, and you have yet to support Michael’s message in “The Scandal of NFP” with Church teaching or any other objective fact. I, on the other hand, have quoted 8 different sources of authentic Church teaching dating back to 1853, when the issue of natural birth regulation was first addressed by the Magesterium, in order to support my argument and refute the message that Michael conveyed in this Vortex episode. This issue was not addressed much before this time, due to the lack of scientific knowledge regarding the fertility cycle.

If we are to seek a “hermeneutic of continuity” with the past, it is necessary to understand what the Church teaches today in light of what it has taught before, not merely in terms of what the Church has taught for the past 150 years or so.

So, are you saying that what the Church teaches today is different than what it taught before? Not only did I quote from Church teaching from 160 years ago, but I also quoted from modern sources such as the Cathechism (released during Pope JPII’s Papacy) and the Compendium released by Pope Benedict XVI. I have also read the opinions of several theologians (both sides of the aisle) and I am not seeing where there is any lack of “hermeneutic of continuity” in the position I am arguing. I DO, however, see where the message conveyed by Mr. Voris in this particular episode is opposed to the continuous teaching of the Church. Within my argument, I see 160 years of continuity…whereas in Voris’ message, I see a newly developed opinion by a few theologians which is not supported by the Catholic Church, and in fact contradicts it.

You did ask in your reflection where, in Church teaching, is periodic continence described as a “dispensation.” I believe you provided your own answer in the quote you include from Pope Pius XII:

“Serious motives, such as those which 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.”

Intentional limitation of marital relations to the infertile times is allowed as an** exemption **from “the obligatory, positive debt” of the marriage covenant. I consider “exemption” and “dispensation” to be synonymous here. Husbands and wives have an obligation before God to be open, always, to the blessings of children as potential new citizens of Heaven. For “serious motives,” husbands and wives may be exempt from this obligation, for short periods of time or even the entirety of their marriage.

I’m not interested in what YOU consider. I am interested in what the CHURCH considers. Mass gets a dispensation under certain circumstances because Mass is required on specific days. This dispensation is one that must be GRANTED by the Bishop or other authority. The positive martial debt has no such schedule. Michael claimed that “NFP is a dispensation”. It’s now CMTV’s burden of proof to show where the Church has explicitly granted this dispensation for couples to chart their cycles. You also bear the burden of proof to show the specific days that the Church requires a couple to have sex on, since every dispensation is related to an act (attending Mass, fasting, etc…) which has a specific requirement. CMTV does not get to make up Church teaching on a new supposed dispensation that does not exist, and then expect the Church Faithful to accept it as Church teaching. Further, Pius XII was speaking about sexual intercourse - exempting husband and wife from the positive debt for whatever period. NFP is not a withholding of the marital debt…it’s charting cycles and gathering information. Couples who practice NFP often DO have sex. Some simply choose to abstain from sex on fertile days. Or they may choose to have sex on fertile days. Unless you can show where married couples are required to have sex on fertile days in any given cycle, the claim of “dispensation” remains your opinion and is NOT supported by any Church teaching. And unless you can show that NFP is ONLY for couples who wish to avoid conception, your whole premise here falls flat. And in fact, NFP is used very often by couples TRYING to conceive. This makes Mr. Voris’ claim even more illogical because now he has just claimed that attempting to procreate with the help of charting requires a dispensation. This is why the last couple of comments in my article are so important. SOME people talk about NFP as if they are some learned authority on it, yet they have never practiced it and some don’t even know what it is.

[Parts 3, and maybe 4, will be posted sometime tomorrow…unless more discussion on 1 and 2 is desired.]

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

“Serious motives, such as those which 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.”

Intentional limitation of marital relations to the infertile times is allowed as an** exemption **from “the obligatory, positive debt” of the marriage covenant. I consider “exemption” and “dispensation” to be synonymous here. Husbands and wives have an obligation before God to be open, always, to the blessings of children as potential new citizens of Heaven. For “serious motives,” husbands and wives may be exempt from this obligation, for short periods of time or even the entirety of their marriage.

I wanted to touch on this little part. The high lighted pink part is from Casti Conubbi I believe.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of terminology. Obligatory positive debt refers to the marital debt. Marital debt is the idea that couples owe each other “relations”.

The “debt” is to each other. The result of the “debt” then is little people.

It seems as if the person responding to you believes that the debt is the pregnancy.

When a couple has relations each act must be open to the transmission of life. Meaning it cannot be corrupt in any way. Contraception corrupts the act. Other illicit sexual activities corrupt the act.

NFP does not close or corrupt the marital act. There is no exemption to the marital act being open to the transmission of life. It must always be open.

The exemption is refraining from sex. Which the couple should have just reason to do so.

I’ll use myself as an example. We started using NFP about 9 years ago to avoid. Within those 9 years I have had 3 pregnancies (2 miscarriages, 1 preemie).

Each and every act has always been open to the transmission of life. Other wise it would have been a contracepted act, or an illicit act.

 

[ahs]

I wanted to touch on this little part. The high lighted pink part is from Casti Conubbi I believe.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of terminology. Obligatory positive debt refers to the marital debt. Marital debt is the idea that couples owe each other “relations”.

The “debt” is to each other. The result of the “debt” then is little people.

It seems as if the person responding to you believes that the debt is the pregnancy.

When a couple has relations each act must be open to the transmission of life. Meaning it cannot be corrupt in any way. Contraception corrupts the act. Other illicit sexual activities corrupt the act.

NFP does not close or corrupt the marital act. There is no exemption to the marital act being open to the transmission of life. It must always be open.

The exemption is refraining from sex. Which the couple should have just reason to do so.

I’ll use myself as an example. We started using NFP about 9 years ago to avoid. Within those 9 years I have had 3 pregnancies (2 miscarriages, 1 preemie).

Each and every act has always been open to the transmission of life. Other wise it would have been a contracepted act, or an illicit act.

Thanks so much for sharing your insight and experience Mary Gail 36. Just FYI, the quote came from Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to Midwives ( ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM )

He may well have been quoting Casti Connubii, though…I don’t really know. It’s been over a year since I’ve read CC and I don’t remember if that statement is in there or not. For the sleuths, here is the link:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thanks so much for sharing your insight and experience Mary Gail 36. Just FYI, the quote came from Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to Midwives ( ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM )

He may well have been quoting Casti Connubii, though…I don’t really know. It’s been over a year since I’ve read CC and I don’t remember if that statement is in there or not. For the sleuths, here is the link:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

Thank you for the correction.

I had a very good book written in the 1960’s and unfortunately is out of print. It was Father John C. Ford, SJ. It touched on both of these writings. Sadly my copy was destroyed. It’s hard to come by.

 

[Pug]

Later, Michael says that despite the legitimate uses of NFP that it is “sold” as contraception, namely as “contraception-lite” [Michael’s words, not mine]. “*It has much more of a feeling of “hey, look, we Catholics can have sex and avoid pregnancy just like the contraceptive culture, but we don’t use ARTIFICIAL *[sic] methods, so we are square with God.”

It is for those reasons that I say, " Mr. Voris’ arguments falls into the same category of those who claim that NFP can be used with a “contraceptive mentality”."

Your quoting this helps. I remember him saying that, but honestly I ignored it as rhetoric, which I why I usually can’t profitably listen to the Vortex. Since I discounted it, I didn’t hear it, not really. I now see why you might be responding to Voris as you said.

I do think it would be sad if someone were to “sell” NFP as “contraception-lite”. NFP is not contraception at all. How confusing it would be to the couples to explain it as a natural form of contraception!

Another poster asked what kind of sin it would be to not have serious reasons to use NFP but to use it anyway. It certainly isn’t the sin of contraception.

 

[Pug]

Questions:

In all honesty, if a couple is using the information of the N.F.P. for not practicing the marital act during the fertile times of wife, in a mutual, reciprocal and bilateral agreement,** without a good, serious or grave reason, what is the type of sin?**

What is the matter of this sin??? It is a sin of selfishness about the procreation, a lack of opening to the life, or a sin of lust??? A sin of thought, a sin of behavior, or both of them???
*
How to qualify and to identify this act or this intention??? A venial sin or a mortal sin???*

If the couple together decides with no reason to avoid procreation, perhaps they are without reason avoiding their vocation and calling, perhaps even their duty. Marriage and conjugal love are ordered to procreation, etc. Here are a few quotes from Gaudium et Spes, but the whole paragraph and area are worth reading (around paragraph 50)

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted…

…Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice, married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate…

 

[CorieDreams]

God does not call the qualified, he qualifies the called.

Um…thanks for the vague philisophical answer to my practical question?

 

[CorieDreams]

I’d agree with you. Not sure where in this thread the statement to which you refer was made, but perhaps it was made by a person not married (and thus imagining how they would think/behave), or who was married at a time when they were immediately ready for children. Why must one person’s outlook, experience and reality necessarily apply to another? There is no absolute right or wrong at stake on this point.

It was stated often in the links someone posted to other threads

 

[Rau]

I wanted to touch on this little part. The high lighted pink part is from Casti Conubbi I believe.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of terminology. Obligatory positive debt refers to the marital debt. Marital debt is the idea that couples owe each other “relations”.

The “debt” is to each other. The result of the “debt” then is little people.

It seems as if the person responding to you believes that the debt is the pregnancy.

When a couple has relations each act must be open to the transmission of life. Meaning it cannot be corrupt in any way. Contraception corrupts the act. Other illicit sexual activities corrupt the act.

NFP does not close or corrupt the marital act. There is no exemption to the marital act being open to the transmission of life. It must always be open.

The exemption is refraining from sex. Which the couple should have just reason to do so.

I’ll use myself as an example. We started using NFP about 9 years ago to avoid. Within those 9 years I have had 3 pregnancies (2 miscarriages, 1 preemie).

Each and every act has always been open to the transmission of life. Other wise it would have been a contracepted act, or an illicit act.

good pickup. I would have thought the “debt” is not at issue if the couple agree to refrain from sex for certain periods.

 

[oneofmany]

Does the church expect all couples to be like the Duggars with the 19 kids and counting?

How about the woman who ended up drowning her 5 children since her husband kept telling her it was her duty to have children even though she had horrible post partum depression each time?

All families and couples are different. I think it would be best to let the couple work it out for themselves. Some want very much to have as many children as they can and are happy and some know they could not handle it. Decisions made from dealing with depression or some other personality deposition.

By the way for my BIL’s situation he and my sister had a very hard conceiving, even once. It took them 5 years before they had their boy and they eventually adopted a girl. I don’t know if God knew it would be best not to give him more children.

And for my mother they didn’t have NFP when she was having her family, plus when she told me how she was careful not to get pregnant she had it backwards. She was careful on her infertile days and not careful on her fertile days. I find it funny she didn’t have a large family with the plan she followed. I guess God knew what was best for her as well.

 

[fpt]

The moral issues of the using of the information of N.F.P. for only having conjugal sex during the infertile times of wife are linked to:

1. The mutual, reciprocal and bilateral agreement between wife and husband for practicing the sexual abstinence during fertile times of wife, in order to avoid a new baby. Is it a real agreement between them, for spacing the pregnancies and the childbirths and or avoiding a new conception of baby? **Are they on the same line, really speaking, for avoiding or for the spacings? Who has to decide of trying to have a new baby, or allowing to the nature of doing the possible conception, because of the fertile time of wife???: the husband, the wife, both of them, thus the couple? The conscientisation of the opening to life (negative way or positive way) during the fertile times of wife, a right, an obligation, a duty? **
2. The notion of serious reason or of grave reason. The nature of this serious grave reason? Are husband and wife on the same line, morally speaking, on the definition? Social reason, legal reason, medical reason of wife, of husband, of family, of present children, (physical, mental, psychological , psychical physiological), moral reason, economical reason, financial reason???
3. The lack of possible Fall in the wrong effects of the concupiscence for one member of couple or for both??? Too difficult not to have conjugal sex what can be at the spring of personnal sexual sins??? The near occasion of sexual sin due to the periodic abstinence???

4.The sin of egoism (selfishness) in the opening to the life??
The sin of lack of the conjugal sexual charity, in the battle against the wrong effects of the concupiscence?? The sin of egoism (selfishness) between spouses, in the conjugal sexual love??
The sin of the conjugal theoretical providentialism, of quietism, of fideism, of quiverfullism (quiverfull’s philosophy), in the conjugal procreation??
The sin of the dictatorship of the female hormones of the wife, in the procreation???
The sin of the dictatorship of the male hormones of the husband, in the procreation???
The sin of the parental and conjugal irresponsability, in the conjugal procreation??
The sin of lying in the fertility situation of the wife by the wife herself, the day where the marital act is done??
The sin of almost forcing the marital act by husband, in the fertility situation of the wife??

The fact of wanting to try to have a new baby has to be decided by the couple. Only, the opening to life is required by the natural law and by the catholic church.

NFP IS NOT CONTRACEPTION, IS NOT MORALLY WRONG, BY NATURE. THE USING OF THE N.F.P. RESPECTS THE OPENING TO LIFE, PER SE.

 

[ahs]

Thanks for all the continued and wonderful feedback folks!

Um…thanks for the vague philisophical answer to my practical question?

In fairness, and I’m just going off what I think was his/her point, I think he/she was saying that the couple, if they feel called to be a couple, they should trust in God to provide what they need.

However, the scenario you brought up and the question you asked are very real and reasonable. Yes, God will provide, but couples are called to make respnsible decisions and cooperate with God in being responsible. If a newlywed couples forsees a huge emotional hurdle right after Marriage, I don’t see how it would be responsible for them to jump right into TTC with NFP (trying to conceive). I’m not saying that should try to AVOID, so to speak…just that they should use their God-given wisdom and make wise choices.

…The fact of wanting to try to have a new baby has to be decided by the couple. Only, the opening to life is required by the natural law and by the catholic church.

NFP IS NOT CONTRACEPTION, IS NOT MORALLY WRONG, BY NATURE. THE USING OF THE N.F.P. RESPECTS THE OPENING TO LIFE, PER SE.

 

[ahs]

Part 3 of 6: Dave responds to CMTV Exec. Producer Terry Carroll. Terry’s words in black, Dave’s in blue to retain original format as it was sent to CMTV and other recipients that Terry Carroll sent it to [Dave is not aware of who these are…just that they were sent the material].

Probably the “exemption” or “dispensation” with which most Catholics are familiar is the situation of the obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. There are legitimate reasons to miss Mass on Sundays, but missing Mass on Sunday shouldn’t be judged any kind of “positive good” in itself. It’s what is permitted when there are good reasons. It’s actually a sorrowful thing to be unable to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. Similarly, it should be a sorrowful thing that one has circumstances in one’s life such that there is a need for an “exemption” or “dispensation” from the ordinary obligations of married life.

Yet another logical fallacy, Terry, and it’s a “two-fer” where I come from. This is all a red-herring because you are trying to detract from the argument at hand (NFP as a “dispensation”) by tossing in an unrelated topic (Mass), unless of course you are going to show that the Church has a defined schedule for marital sex, as it has for participating in the Mass. It’s also a non sequitur since it does not follow that, because Mass attendance can receive a dispensation, that therefore sex can…unless you are about to present for us the prescribed sex schedule for couples which the Church has instituted by her Authority.

Three logically deceptive arguments already Terry, and you still have yet to support ANYTHING Michael said so far in that episode.

I don’t think it is accurate to describe NFP as nothing more than “gathering information.” There is a purpose to the gathering of that information so that it may inform behavior. That information can be used well or poorly. It can be used virtuously or not.

Well, I respect your opinion, but I am going now to ask you to give me an example of how the gathering of information in NFP can be used poorly or non-virtuously. Please explain to me how it is not virtuous, or a poor decision, for a couple to decide to exercise self-control on a particular day/night and abstain from the Marital Act. You aren’t going to be able to do it, because it will necessarily require you to cross a line that Pope John Paul II has said is a “grave offence” to cross. You have to commit a “grave offence” to support you position here, or you have to concede the point.

I don’t see it as all that different from the “gathering of information” used in insider trading. There is no sin in the “gathering of information” unless that information is used immorally or illegally.Within NFP, one can use that information to inform the decision to act or not to act in a specific way, just as one can use “insider trading” information to act or not to act in a specific way.

Terry, seriously?! Logical fallacy number 4…red herring c/o strawman. And please explain what is immoral in a couple exercising self-control and abstaining from the Marital Act at any given moment. (Authentic Catholic source please.)

 

[ahs]

I don’t think it is accurate to describe NFP as nothing more than “gathering information.” There is a purpose to the gathering of that information so that it may inform behavior. That information can be used well or poorly. It can be used virtuously or not.

Well, I respect your opinion, but I am going now to ask you to give me an example of how the gathering of information in NFP can be used poorly or non-virtuously. Please explain to me how it is not virtuous, or a poor decision, for a couple to decide to exercise self-control on a particular day/night and abstain from the Marital Act. You aren’t going to be able to do it, because it will necessarily require you to cross a line that Pope John Paul II has said is a “grave offence” to cross. You have to commit a “grave offence” to support you position here, or you have to concede the point.

In case anyone is wondering how I made the leap from “…That information can be used well or poorly. It can be used virtuously or not.” to a “grave offence”, I am linking the Church’s Social Doctrine with CMTV’s implied message. For CMTV to say that a couple is using such NFP info unvirtuously or poorly, they have to have already made a judgment on whether the couple has a “serious reason” AND/OR decided that said couple should/should not actively attempt to conceive. In making that judgment/decision, they have violated the Docial Doctrine of the Church:

"*The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their **inalienable rights, to be exercised before God *with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society…” (CSDC, 234, emphasis mine)

The “grave offence” comes in here:

“…all pressures brought to bear in limiting "the freedom of couples in deciding about children constitute a grave offence against human dignity and justice” (Pope JPII, Homily In Perth (Australia) Apostolic Pilgrimage to Bangladesh, et. al., November 30, 1996, emphasis mine).

 

[Pug]

Does the church expect all couples to be like the Duggars with the 19 kids and counting?

No, certainly not. What I’ve read of Church teaching does not indicate this at all. For example, from the same place I quoted in my last post:

Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself.

I think in many cases, the first line of the quote about their own welfare would exclude having 19 living kids. Only some people have been blessed with the health and ability, etc to do that.

 

[manualman]

Mr. Vorris’ reasoning suggests that he doesn’t really comprehend why NFP is EVER licit rather than being “innately immoral” like contraception is.

Contraception tends to create a deep diving attitude in the couple in which sex is perceived as unconnected to making babies until and unless the couple WILLS a baby to be conceived. This constitutes a subtle, but real degradation in the unitive value of their relations, not just the procreative.

NFP, on the other hand, always brings the reality of sex being fundamentally about making babies back to the front and center. Every month, the couple gets faced with the best, most hormonally charged days being “ineligible” if they perceive the need to avoid pregnancy. NFP users know ALL about those days. You wonder. You ponder. Do we REALLY have a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy right now? It’s not just a difference in degree compared to having to remember to pop a pill, it’s an entirely different substance of thing.

This difference isn’t an accident, it’s a design. God’s design. God made us with the intent that sex, marriage and babies are all totally tangled up together as ONE subject. When we puny humans try to separate them out into an ala carte menu, we only cheapen things in the process.

Can NFP be abused in a sinful manner? Yes. But the system itself militates against it. God built us in a way where our desire for our spouses is linked to our family size. It’s not a coincidence that NFP users end up having larger families than contraceptive users, and the difference is mostly NOT “oops” babies. The difference is “oh what the heck” babies. That’s the proof of the innate difference, IMO. NFP pushes you back towards being open to more children. Contraception reinforces itself and pulls you away from openness to children.

There is no need to browbeat couples at the onset of NFP classes that they really shouldn’t be even doing this. NFP generally regulates itself and keeps intact the divinely inspired system for getting people to make babies. It doesn’t fundamentally break that system like contraception does (as evidence, please note that EVERY nation on earth that has widely available and socially respectable contraception has below replacement levels of fertility).

 

[ahs]

Mr. Vorris’ reasoning suggests that he doesn’t really comprehend why NFP is EVER licit rather than being “innately immoral” like contraception is.

Contraception tends to create a deep diving attitude in the couple in which sex is perceived as unconnected to making babies until and unless the couple WILLS a baby to be conceived. This constitutes a subtle, but real degradation in the unitive value of their relations, not just the procreative.

NFP, on the other hand, always brings the reality of sex being fundamentally about making babies back to the front and center. Every month, the couple gets faced with the best, most hormonally charged days being “ineligible” if they perceive the need to avoid pregnancy. NFP users know ALL about those days. You wonder. You ponder. Do we REALLY have a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy right now? It’s not just a difference in degree compared to having to remember to pop a pill, it’s an entirely different substance of thing.

This difference isn’t an accident, it’s a design. God’s design. God made us with the intent that sex, marriage and babies are all totally tangled up together as ONE subject. When we puny humans try to separate them out into an ala carte menu, we only cheapen things in the process.

Can NFP be abused in a sinful manner? Yes. But the system itself militates against it. God built us in a way where our desire for our spouses is linked to our family size. It’s not a coincidence that NFP users end up having larger families than contraceptive users, and the difference is mostly NOT “oops” babies. The difference is “oh what the heck” babies. That’s the proof of the innate difference, IMO. NFP pushes you back towards being open to more children. Contraception reinforces itself and pulls you away from openness to children.

There is no need to browbeat couples at the onset of NFP classes that they really shouldn’t be even doing this. NFP generally regulates itself and keeps intact the divinely inspired system for getting people to make babies. It doesn’t fundamentally break that system like contraception does (as evidence, please note that EVERY nation on earth that has widely available and socially respectable contraception has below replacement levels of fertility).

Amen! to that wonderful post. I think you have very concisely stated in 5 short paragraphs what it took me 5 pages to get out (in my original argument). Thanks so much for that!

 

[lizaanne]

All the voluminous posts aside - at the end of the day, I will never ever understand why anyone would ever put their spouse/marriage/family at danger by even having sex in the first place if such a dire situation were to present itself to necessitate the need for NFP.

If it’s really that bad, then don’t have sex. Yep – that’s tough. Yep – that’s a sacrifice. But marriage IS sacrifice, one for the other, and both for the family.

Your wife has a life threatening illness that would kill her if she were to get pregnant? Then why in God’s name would you EVER put her life at risk by having sex with her?

Your family is in extreme dire financial straits that another child would cause the family to become homeless? Why in God’s name would you as a couple EVER put your family at such a risk because you want to have sex?

etc.

And if the situation is not that dire, then why is NFP being used in the first place?

NFP puts your family at risk, because by its very nature it is “open to life”. Why would anyone with a ‘dire’ situation put themselves at risk at all just makes no sense to me.

Because sex is also unitive? Well, so is sacrifice.

~Liza

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

All the voluminous posts aside - at the end of the day, I will never ever understand why anyone would ever put their spouse/marriage/family at danger by even having sex in the first place if such a dire situation were to present itself to necessitate the need for NFP.

If it’s really that bad, then don’t have sex. Yep – that’s tough. Yep – that’s a sacrifice. But marriage IS sacrifice, one for the other, and both for the family.

Your wife has a life threatening illness that would kill her if she were to get pregnant? Then why in God’s name would you EVER put her life at risk by having sex with her?

Your family is in extreme dire financial straits that another child would cause the family to become homeless? Why in God’s name would you as a couple EVER put your family at such a risk because you want to have sex?

etc.

And if the situation is not that dire, then why is NFP being used in the first place?

NFP puts your family at risk, because by its very nature it is “open to life”. Why would anyone with a ‘dire’ situation put themselves at risk at all just makes no sense to me.

Because sex is also unitive? Well, so is sacrifice.

~Liza

Why is complete abstinence any more holy than periodic abstinence?

 

[ahs]

All the voluminous posts aside - at the end of the day, I will never ever understand why anyone would ever put their spouse/marriage/family at danger by even having sex in the first place if such a dire situation were to present itself to necessitate the need for NFP.

Same logical fallacy that Terry Caroll presents over and over and over. Ironic, that with all the voluninious posts, CMTV has not been able to substantiate anything it claimed in that episode with actual Chruch Doctrine. All I have received from CMTV so far are over a dozen logical fallacies and several attempts to change the subject. I believe I’m actually doing CMTV a favor in not publishing the other emails sent by Terry Carroll. The only reason I DON’T post them is because I actually DO support the work that CMTV does. But they are dead wrong on NFP, and I have provided the pertinent Catholic teaching to prove it. Still waiting on a logically sound response from CMTV regarding my original argument.

By the way, since we are discussing Catholic teaching, let’s retain Catholic terminology. The Catholic Church says “just reasons” which is had once been translated from Latin to Englaish as “serious reasons”. The Church has never associated “dire situation” with periodic continence.

If it’s really that bad, then don’t have sex. Yep – that’s tough. Yep – that’s a sacrifice. But marriage IS sacrifice, one for the other, and both for the family.

Keep in mind that abstinence must be an agreement between the spouses, and only the spouses, and only for such time as is necessary. Please don’t demean Pauls words in 1Cor 7:5 by your blanket opinion about what married couples should be doing, or not doing in the bedroom.

Your wife has a life threatening illness that would kill her if she were to get pregnant? Then why in God’s name would you EVER put her life at risk by having sex with her?

Same logical fallacy as above. Remember, we are dicussing Catholic teaching, so we need to stick with Catholic terms. “Life threatening illness” has not been used by the Church in association with NFP.

Your family is in extreme dire financial straits that another child would cause the family to become homeless? Why in God’s name would you as a couple EVER put your family at such a risk because you want to have sex?

etc.

Same as above.

And if the situation is not that dire, then why is NFP being used in the first place?

Same as above, and teatering on the edge of what Pope JPII calls a “grave offence”. Are you about to prescribe to married couples how to plan theri familes?

NFP puts your family at risk, because by its very nature it is “open to life”. Why would anyone with a ‘dire’ situation put themselves at risk at all just makes no sense to me.

Same fallacy as above.

Because sex is also unitive? Well, so is sacrifice.

~Liza

Irrelevant to the point you are making. Lots of emotion, but no objective fact. It’s also a *non sequitur *to think that, just because “sacrifice” can be unitive, that therefore we should sacrifice the unitive bonding that sex provides.

I don’t suppose you’dbe willing to actually read my OP (admittedly long) and provde some actual Church teaching to refute the claims I made about Voris misrepresenting NFP, Church doctrine, and contradicting Church doctrine? CMTV has decided not to address these charges.