Alternative to NFP in the third world

[leonie]

Believe it or not. That’s true. But this girls are not married. They are just “taken”.

There is a lot to be done. I agree Evangelization is the only hope but as some of you have pointed, I might not even see the results.
The sad thing is that this girls are crying for help and there is nothing that can be done immediately. They don’t know how to make a living on their own.

Even if they are older, their culture won’t let them “deny benefits” to their man wheather married or not.

There is some thought that rape victims can be given contraception (not abortions)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=25127

NFP is founded on a principle of love. I don’t see how rapists can be encouraged to use it.

Maybe you should invite missionaries in to evangelize these men.

 

[beeliner]

1. It isn’t contrary to ‘reason’.
2. It is contrary to Divine Law .

1. Can you give an example of ANY person, male or female, not bound by the dictates of Roman Catholicism or ultra-Orthodox Judaism ‘reasoning’ that it is wrong for them to act responsibly and limit the size of their family to the number of children they can afford and provide for, or ‘reasoning’ that should not have the number and spacing of children that they desire?
2. Can you give ANY scriptural basis for such a claim? Christ gave His Church the authority to bind and loose in ecclesiastical matters. That is not ‘Divine Law’. "Divine Law’ is divinely revealed.

TE, I know that you will refuse to accept this, but there are millions of devout, conscientious Catholics who love their Saviour and love their Church but feel nonetheless that its authority stops at their bedroom door.

The Church’s teaching authority with regard to adultery, fornication, and other such vices is based on scripture, tradition, and common law and should not be questioned.

How a married couple exercise their God-given gifts of sexual bonding and procreation is in a different category. On this subject Christ said nothing. The OT has some regulations regarding sexual hygiene but most of these are ritualistic in nature and are not binding on Christians.

Leave married Catholics alone to determine such things within their own consciences! They do not pass judgment on your sex life, please return the favor!

 

[rick43235]

First of all. It is totally untrue that NFP only works with “educated Catholics”. What a racist statement! Poor people are not stupid.

Who said anything about race? It sounds to me as if **you **are the one making assumptions about the race of these “poor people.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

TE, I know that you will refuse to accept this, but there are millions of devout, conscientious Catholics who love their Saviour and love their Church but feel nonetheless that its authority stops at their bedroom door.

The Church’s teaching authority with regard to adultery, fornication, and other such vices is based on scripture, tradition, and common law and should not be questioned.

How a married couple exercise their God-given gifts of sexual bonding and procreation is in a different category. On this subject Christ said nothing. The OT has some regulations regarding sexual hygiene but most of these are ritualistic in nature and are not binding on Christians.

Leave married Catholics alone to determine such things within their own consciences! They do not pass judgment on your sex life, please return the favor!

Beeliner, apparently I am not making myself clear.

This is not ‘my personal opinion’ here. This is not me being a witch with a capital “B” ‘passing judgment on people’s sex lives’ or refusing to ‘leave people alone’.

First, you apparently do not recognize that NFP is a perfectly reasonable way for ‘married couples’ to ‘govern the size of their families’. The Church never said that one could not use periodic continence as a responsible and NATURAL way to ‘space’ and to prepare one’s family.

Further, your remarks that the Church ‘doesn’t say anything about how couples use their sexual bond yadda yadda’ (and yes, since Christ and ‘the Church’ are ONE in authority, thank you very much, Christ did INDEED have quite a bit to say about it, unless you haven’t bothered to read at least Humanae Vitae recently) are at best your own (erroneous) opinion and at worst, an outright twisting of doctrine that you have unfortunately accepted from somebody who has given you such a false picture.

You know what, bee? There are ‘millions of devoted Christians’ who are PERFECTLY WILLING to accept anything in Christianity that they like and suits them. . .but ‘refuse’ to accept anything which they don’t think the Church ‘has authority’ to do. The biggest thing right now for this sex-saturated generation is the idea (again, completely erroneous) that married couples have absolute and complete ‘freedom’ to do whatever they choose with their sexuality. . . contraception among this, of course–because ‘they’ have full autonomy and authority. “They” are the only ones who can ‘know’ the situation. “They” can rely on their ‘consciences.’ Etc.

Balderdash! Those ‘millions’ (and I highly doubt the number is as high as you claim) have developed the same kind of ‘conscience’ that Henry VIII had. . .so tender, that it just couldn’t believe that what HE thought was ‘right’. . .wasn’t. After all, Henry was SURE that the Bible said “you shall not marry your brother’s widow” (even though there was that other pesky passage that said you should). . .and he was SURE that the Church didn’t have the AUTHORITY to ‘loose’ Catherine for the marriage that HENRY wanted in the beginning. So Henry’s conscience pushed him right into the arms of the Reformers and Henry’s sexual passion for another woman (whom he later beheaded for lack of a son, on the trumped up charge of treason) made his ‘conscience’ supreme–even though his conscience was totally, and tragically wrong, and we have suffered these last 500 years because of it.

It isn’t who 'don’t accept things, Beeliner. I accept the teachings of the Church. Every. Single. One. And all I am doing is stating the teachings of the Church. If people are defying those teachings, I will tell them that they are defying them–and that isn’t judging. . .it is simply making an observation. I don’t judge them personally–I just point out that they are, in fact, going against the teachings of the Church.

The teachings that apparently you don’t think exist (please do me a favor and read Humanae Vitae again, and also the relevant sections in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on marriage and the family, and then tell me again that 'Christ never said anything about how married people are to use their sexual bond) not only do exist, but have existed. That so many have tragically rejected them in the false belief that if they 'think it’s okay, then their conscience ‘trumps’ anything else" means only that there are a lot of people who need to know the truth that they’ve been rejecting, with the hopes that they will repent and reform.

 

[beeliner]

1. First, you apparently do not recognize that NFP is a perfectly reasonable way for ‘married couples’ to ‘govern the size of their families’. The Church never said that one could not use periodic continence as a responsible and NATURAL way to ‘space’ and to prepare one’s family.
2. Further, your remarks that the Church ‘doesn’t say anything about how couples use their sexual bond yadda yadda’ (and yes, since Christ and ‘the Church’ are ONE in authority, thank you very much, Christ did INDEED have quite a bit to say about it, unless you haven’t bothered to read at least Humanae Vitae recently) are at best your own (erroneous) opinion and at worst, an outright twisting of doctrine that you have unfortunately accepted from somebody who has given you such a false picture.
3. You know what, bee? There are ‘millions of devoted Christians’ who are PERFECTLY WILLING to accept anything in Christianity that they like and suits them. . .but ‘refuse’ to accept anything which they don’t think the Church ‘has authority’ to do.

1. If you have read my contributions to this thread, which you apparently haven’t, then you would know that I agree with that totally. NFP is fine and works well for many; still, it is rarely used among non-Catholics since other methods are more reliable, though not 100% so.
2. You are perfectly aware of what I meant. Christ condemned adultery, fornication, common-law marriage, carnality in general. He said nothing about what lawfully married couples may or may not do during their intimate relations, nor should that be the business of the Catholic Church or any other Christian denomination, especially one with a celibate clergy.
3. And there are millions who love Christ and His Church and who realize, as you seem not to, that the Church is its membership, not just its hierarchy. The hierarchy is there to serve, not rule. Their guidance in matters of morality is respected by Catholics in proportion to reason and common sense. The sensible garners more respect and obedience than the nonsensical.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

nor should that be the business of the Catholic Church or any other Christian denomination, **especially one with a celibate clergy. **Oh, I see. Of course, since they are celibate they cannot possibly understand ‘sex.’ Just as your doctor cannot possibly understand your illness unless he has experienced it himself. Or your lawyer experienced your legal difficulty. How silly of us to expect that something as overwhelmingly important as SEX needs to be ‘experienced’ by a person in order for them to have an opinion on the MORALITY of a given sexual practice.

1. And there are millions who love Christ and His Church and who realize, as you seem not to, that the Church is its membership, not just its hierarchy. Excuse me, I prefer that you not put YOUR words into MY mouth, s’il vous plait. Your OPINION is that you THINK I am attempting to impose the TYRANNY of the ‘hierarchy’ over the poor poor membership as if the hierarchy were MORE IMPORTANT. . .and the ‘membership’ not at all important. How arrogant of you! The hierarchy is there to serve, not rule. The hierarchy serves in that the Magesterium, the bishops, and the Pope maintain the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals–under which this ‘situation’ falls–and I notice that you have carefully omitted the corollary --the MEMBERSHIP has the RESPONSIBILITY of OBEDIENCE to Church teaching. They also serve, you know. And as for ruling, Christ established a KINGDOM. . .not a democracy. The bishops and priests are His --and our–servants. . .but WE AS MEMBERS have a responsibility to serve GOD and not OURSELVES. Something which I fear you have not yet been able to grasp. Their guidance in matters of morality is respected by Catholics in proportion to reason and common sense. The sensible garners more respect and obedience than the nonsensical I see that you have decided that you will ‘obey’ on the Church only on what you think ‘reasonable, and sensible’. . .whether or not it is actually TRUE or required. And nice touch trying to make it look as though anytime you ‘disagree’ it is the CHURCH’s FAULT (for not being reasonable, dontcha know).

I find it extremely (though sadly) amusing that the people who bleat about how the Church must be SENSIBLE and REASONABLE do not seem to understand that our entire FAITH (while it is both sane and reasonable) requires us to believe, as articles of faith, such seemingly ‘unreasonable’ and ‘unproveable’ ideas as that our Savior is both God and man, was born of a Virgin, died and rose again, and lives forever.

Beeliner, you appear to have no problems accepting these truths. . .but you cavil at accepting other truths because 'they don’t appear sensible or reasonable?"

I fear that you do not understand your faith one little bit.

 

[beeliner]

Beeliner, you appear to have no problems accepting these truths. . .but you cavil at accepting other truths because 'they don’t appear sensible or reasonable?"

I fear that you do not understand your faith one little bit.

No, TE, I don’t understand YOURS one little bit. I love my Church and I respect its clergy and hierarchy on matters of FAITH and MORALS.

I’m not going to ask my pastor or bishop which way I should hang the toilet paper, or whether I should choose Bud rather than Miller, or what I should or shouldn’t do in bed with my wife.

You wanna ask, ask away!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Getting back to the topic:

Since as Catholics we accept that the Church does have something to say about moral issues, and that what it has said is that contraception is WRONG. . .

The only legitimate ways of ‘spacing a family’ would be through NFP.

The only legitimate sexual actions are those which ultimately lead to both the procreative and uniatative aspects of intercourse between a married man and his wife.

Now, unfortunately, in both the Third World and our own world, people have been exposed to sad, twisted untruths. Further, certain individuals (mostly men) have twisted ‘sex’ into not an expression between two married people with the openness to creation of a new life in God, but into a self-gratification of lusts or an attempt to impose physical power and degradation over another human being. These things are tragedies. The contraceptive mentality, in attempting to separate ‘sex’ into ‘gratification alone’, ties into the twisted idea of ‘objectification’ and self-gratification which have caused the explosion of rape, seduction, perversion, and prostitution which inflict all of society today.

The contraceptive mentality, while purporting to ‘free women from the bondage of the brood mare’ has instead made women even more the objects of ‘lust’ only. It has fractured the family and made it even more likely that men view women not as potential wives but as ‘things’ to be used. For the ‘seductor’, contraception frees him from ‘responsibility’ to any child conceived, and even more separates the sexual action into something ‘just for fun’. For the rapist, the contraceptive mentality likewise, in turning women into just ‘things’, has made them less valuable than ever, and even more into 'things which he can use to bolster his own hatred and venom and anger, and to ‘blame’ for that hatred, venom, and anger.

Until we start listening to the Church–who is the voice of REASON here–we are doomed to worse and worse abuses of women–and men-- in the name of ‘sexual freedom’.

PLEASE read Humanae Vitae. It is not only reasonable, but just–and prophetic as to the evils that contraception was on the verge of bringing in 1968–and has sadly, more than succeeded in bringing about in the last 40 years.