G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I’m done, I have made my points, if you cannot see then I am the wrong individual to explain apparently.However you are still my brother in Christ.
God Bless, Gary
God Bless, Gary
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
No it’s NOT.
M:
How many bodies operate perfectly to a calendar? Very few. With NFP if pregnancy happens it happens. NOTHING is in the way. And THAT possibility is why ABC advocates absolutely have the mindset they do NOT want pregnancy to happen.
M:
No they weren’t the same.
this subject is not in line with the topic
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
Yes, it is. What purpose do you suppose NFP to have?
Sure, it’s not a guaranteed way of avoiding pregnancy, but neither is ABC.
If NFP is truly open to life, then why postpone intercourse to particular times of the month? What purpose could that possibly serve (because according to you, the purpose of NFP is not pregnancy prevention)?
H
Harpazo
Guest
Greetings, Mark.
I’ve asked this question before and never got an answer. Or was told I was being polemical.
In Christ,
Andrew
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
It reminds me of the arguments about high fructose corn syrup.Greetings, Mark.
I’ve asked this question before and never got an answer. Or was told I was being polemical.
In Christ,
Andrew
“High fructose corn syrup is all natural, see it’s made from corn!”
“But it goes through an entire battery of enzymes and chemicals to get that way.”
“Yes, but those enzymes and chemicals are natural too! High fructose corn syrup is natural!”
“But there’s no way that one can obtain sugar from corn without a high amount of processing. Would you also call Velveeta natural cheese too?”
“Well no, you see, Velveeta is different. That stuff is totally unnatural, the government even says so, but corn syrup is totally natural!”
continue ad naseum.
M
mardukm
Guest
That was taken into account in my response. I stated that the end does not justify the means. Spacing children may be the common end of NFP and ABC, but one works according to God’s Natural Law, and the other does not.
Personally, I am not as repulsed by the matter as our Latin brethren. I do understand and accept the reality of oikonomia. However, I am indeed repulsed by a defense of the correctness of ABC. I believe anyone who understands what oikonomia truly is will not go around trying to defend ABC. You can’t defend what is inherently wrong according to God’s Natural Law. ABC misses the mark. There’s no two ways about it. I can accept a defense of the use of oikonomia, but I could never accept a defense of ABC itself, because by doing so, you are defending sin.
But he is not criticizing the rhythm method. You have intentionally neglected a very impotant clause in the excerpt from St. Augustine that you quoted:
“Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? Etc.”
He was not criticizing NFP, but the COMPLETE avoidance of children in marriage because of the heretical belief that the flesh violates the integrity of the soul. If his purpose was to criticize NFP, the onus is on you to explain why he bothered to add the rest of the statement I highlighted, or the other parts following that. Your argument reminds me of the Absolutist Petrine arguments. They always like to take little snippets of texts to try to prove that the Pope has some sort of unilateral, absolute authority in the Church, but they consistently fail to take the whole context of their “evidence” into account.
That is ridiculous. I do not know of any Father of the Church, or any contemporary Orthodox theologian (Eastern or Oriental) who would admit that the intent of sex without procreation (whether accidentally or on purpose) is “the pleasure of the flesh.” When sex without procreation occurs, it is for the unitive good of the couple (a concept that goes FAAAAAAR beyond “the pleasure of the flesh”), and/or for the good of the resources of the family in order to provide an acceptable (not excessive) standard of living. As already mentioned – the ends never justify the means. It is the means that distinguishes NFP as normatively morally good, and ABC as normatively morally bad.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
The means, however, are not distinguishable in any way. Both ABC and NFP involve the same act of contraceptive sex. The means of intercourse are the exact same, both in of themselves, and relation to the ends. In no way does ABC or NFP alter behavior or mindset.
Define “natural law” and the grounds on which you define it.
That does not change the meaning of the passage. St. Augustine is criticizing the Manichean avoidance for conception (i.e. “lest the soul should be entangled in flesh”) through the rhythm method. It is the exact same issue.
Oh, Marduk, why have you betrayed your own logic? Why have you contradicted the very logic used only earlier in your post? You clearly stated that the “ends do not justify the means”, yet even now you suppose that the rhythm method was only sinful for the Manicheans because of its end (complete avoidance of children).
Actually, many of the fathers agree that even procreative sex is “of the flesh”. The point is that marriage is only permitted because of human weakness; thus the failure to persevere in celibacy is “of the flesh” (if you are interested, St. Jerome has some excellent writings on this topic).
I am not too familiar with the idea of sex being a “unitive good”. The fathers I have read believe sex within marriage to be permitted so as to preserve the spouses from sin and to procreate. I would most certainly welcome any patristics you can provide on the subject.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
“The means, however, are not distinguishable in any way. Both ABC and NFP involve the same act of contraceptive sex. The means of intercourse are the exact same, both in of themselves, and relation to the ends. In no way does ABC or NFP alter behavior or mindset.”
The means of intercourse are not the same.
ABC does alter behavior, but you cannot approach this until you see the difference.
They most certainly are distinguishable, you chose not to see the difference to validate error. And to boot, its not even your error.
First of all… HERES THE DIFFERENCE!!!
ABC is “active sex” with an Artifical contraceptive thus ABC. ARTIFICAL BIRTH CONTROL.
NFP is NON active, “chaste abstinence” there is no-sex involved, and there is nothing Artifical involved.
Listen, this is what NFP is…
NFP consists of ways to achieve or to avoid pregnancy using the physical means that God has built into human nature with absolutely no artifical birth control involved.
NFP consists of two distinct forms:
Ecological breastfeeding. This is a form of child care that normally spaces babies about two years apart on the average.
Systematic NFP. This is a system that uses a woman’s signs of fertility to determine the fertile and infertile times of her cycle.
Couples seeking to avoid pregnancy practice chaste abstinence during the fertile time of her cycle.
Thus ACTIVE or NON-ACTIVE, ARTIFICAL or NATURAL when you see this difference I’ll come back to this thread.
THEN we can “begin” to discuss the BEHAVIOR. And your not ready to hear it, you can’t even accept the simple facts of this.
Peace
The means of intercourse are not the same.
ABC does alter behavior, but you cannot approach this until you see the difference.
They most certainly are distinguishable, you chose not to see the difference to validate error. And to boot, its not even your error.
First of all… HERES THE DIFFERENCE!!!
ABC is “active sex” with an Artifical contraceptive thus ABC. ARTIFICAL BIRTH CONTROL.
NFP is NON active, “chaste abstinence” there is no-sex involved, and there is nothing Artifical involved.
Listen, this is what NFP is…
NFP consists of ways to achieve or to avoid pregnancy using the physical means that God has built into human nature with absolutely no artifical birth control involved.
NFP consists of two distinct forms:
Ecological breastfeeding. This is a form of child care that normally spaces babies about two years apart on the average.
Systematic NFP. This is a system that uses a woman’s signs of fertility to determine the fertile and infertile times of her cycle.
Couples seeking to avoid pregnancy practice chaste abstinence during the fertile time of her cycle.
Thus ACTIVE or NON-ACTIVE, ARTIFICAL or NATURAL when you see this difference I’ll come back to this thread.
THEN we can “begin” to discuss the BEHAVIOR. And your not ready to hear it, you can’t even accept the simple facts of this.
Peace
H
Hesychios
Guest
NFP is simply a concession to Roman Catholic desire not to have babies. It is not a spiritual exercise. Whether or not that was the original intention, that is what it has become, a means to limit the size of families. It is a concession church authorities have granted the faithful.
The subject is worn out.
The subject is worn out.
S
steve_b
Guest
Womens cycles aren’t perfect.
- if conception happens with NFP it is not considered a failure. That’s because the intent is NOT to introduce anything to block life from happening with each marital act.
- if conception happens with ABC, ABC is considered to have failed because the intent is NOT to have life happen under any circumstance.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The spiritual exercise here is Natural Family Planning through “chaste abstinence”. which is in line with Christianity. How is Artifical Birth Control in line with Christianity? There lies the “concession” of the EO.
“Worn Out” translates into you have no desire to defend it. So then why are you?
Peace
“Worn Out” translates into you have no desire to defend it. So then why are you?
Peace
S
steve_b
Guest
Now if you said the CC caved in to ABC because of pressure from Catholics to be like all the OTHERS who caved in on ABC, then I could buy your comment.
The sad truth is, Catholics are very disobedient on this Church teaching. They ARE using ABC instead of NFP. If they were using NFP there would be bigger families. It’s a testiment of NOT using NFP.
btw, THIS subject is WAAAAAAAAAY off topic of this thread
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Here’s a cut/paste from here at CAF Apologetics. But don’t listen to them, they follow the Pope.
The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).
Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, “If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy” (Canon 1).
Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”
John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.” (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
Peace
The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).
Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, “If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy” (Canon 1).
Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”
John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.” (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
Peace
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
This is all “ASSUMPTION”. Based on your limited experience which you chose to project to the worldwide Catholic Church. And “this” is way off topic.
Peace
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
NFP has about the same success rate as condom usage. I don’t see how using NFP instead of ABC would increase the size of families.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
When I said
you should have asked first, where my source was.
Gary,
Look again at what I said that you responded to (above).
Now consider Since “over 80% of Catholic couples contracept” your comment to me "ASSUMPTION. Based on your limited experience which you chose to project to the worldwide Catholic Church" ? is completely off the mark.
Can you honestly think it’s assumption and limited experience on my part, to say
“Catholics are very disobedient on this Church teaching. They ARE using ABC instead of NFP. If they were using NFP there would be bigger families. It’s a testiment of NOT using NFP” ?
It’s obvious no one wants to address the topic of this thread.
M
mardukm
Guest
NFP does not prevent the man’s sperm from reaching the egg during intercourse. That’s a huge difference.
God’ Natural Law are the divine Truths that (1) God placed in the heart of every human being, as asserted in Romans, and/or (2) can be perceived by God-given reason through the testimony of Nature. A classic source is St.Basil’s Hexaemeron. The writings of the Cappadocian Fathers are littered with references to Natural Law. Origen, St. Clement of Alexandria, and St, Athanasius were also proponents of this principle, as was St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus (not to mention the Latin Fathers generally).
It certainly does. Without the rest of the passage, St. Augustine’s statement would then and only then have been a condemnation of NFP. Imagine the statement “it is wrong to kill unless one is defending oneself.” Your rhetoric is like that of the person who will only take the phrase “it is wrong to kill” in total isolation from the rest of the text, and then purport to profess extreme pacificism because he managed to find a little snippet of a passage and wrench it out of context.
There is also something that you sadly fail to take into account. The fact that NFP - the effort to determine a woman’s fertifility cycle - can ALSO be used to improve the chances of having babies. So your claim that St. Augustine’s point was that NFP itself is wrong is seriously waaaaaay off base.
I haven’t betrayed my own logic. It is just that you seem to forget a basic principle in moral theology - that there are some things that are objectively bad. Do you seriously believe that the principle that “the ends do not justify the means” is mutually exclusive from the principle that there are some ends/purposes that are just plain old wrong?I think you are not telling the whole story here. Though failure to persevere in celibacy is “of the flesh,” Marriage is the Sacrament that thwarts this. Marriage is not “of the flesh” but of divine insitution. Procreative sex sanctified by marriage is not “of the flesh,” but is of the divine Natural Law of God.
Your statement here indicates that you already understand the meaning of “unitive good.” In Christian marriage, sex is not merely for “the pleasure of the flesh,” even when procreation is taken out of the equation (whether inadvertantly or on purpose - as in, to space children).
To connect this with the O.P., there are indeed several EOC jurisdictions that sanction the use of NFP. I’ve also met EO who do not believe that ABC is normative, but rather permitted only by the use of oikonomia. I have not done any comparative studies, but I would bet that these particular EO belong to those jurisdictions that sanction the use of NFP. These ones are Catholic for they represent the belief of the whole, not just in this age, but throughout the life of Sacred Tradition. Others seem to belong to groups that try to demonstrate that NFP is wrong, or only “just as wrong” as ABC (which translates to “not wrong at all”) and believe that ABC is normative. This has never been the Traditional position of the Church universal, and thus should not be considered an Orthodox, Catholic belief.
Blessings,
Marduk
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Not quite accurate. Rome is a particular church; there are many “particular churches” that together constitute the Catholic Church. In other words, the Church of Rome and the Catholic Church are not the same thing.
The claim of the papacy is that only by being in communion with the bishop of Rome, and his pre-eminent See, can the fullness of Christ’s Church subsist in a particular church.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification. The Church of the East broke communion with the Catholic Church around A.D. 431, and Oriental Orthodoxy split from the Catholic Church since A.D. 451 (they’re not in communion with the eastern Orthodox, either).
So there were multiple true churches not in communion with each other in the first millennium as well.
Yes, absolutely.
I agree that it’s the only real issue separating us. The two problems are that (a) not everyone - Catholic or Orthodox - does, and (b) even on that one issue, the Orthodox are currently unwilling to be in communion with Rome if it means accepting any kind of universal papal jurisdiction. So we still have to work out the issue of papal primacy.
That’s actually not a difference; the confusion is that “abortion” is used analogously.
Of course the Orthodox view - like any civilized, moral one - will never accept the intentional destruction of human life.
But procedures done to save the life of a pregnant woman, though called “abortions” in some context, are not morally equivalent to abortion if they don’t involve the direct killing of a human life.
For instance, double effect definitely exonerates the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, because no one kills the child - his or her death is simply foreseen and permitted for proportionately grave reasons. No objectively evil act is committed, and no evil is intended.
I’m sure such procedures are what the article means when it refers to “reluctant acquiescence to abortion.”
So? The Catholic Church doesn’t object to the intention not to get pregnant if circumstances justify it. The Church objects only to contracepting an act of intercourse, rendering the marital embrace itself closed to life.
To use NFP is simply to measure fertility. The subsequent abstinence is what prevents conception; so in that case, there’s no sexual act to contracept in the first place.
Do you understand?
The Catholic Church doesn’t regard civil divorce as inherently sinful. Sometimes a legal separation is both just and necessary. It’s just that we don’t acknowledge that *Sacramental *Matrimony can be dissolved by anything but death.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Thank you, Marduk.
Thank you again, Marduk. Well said.
It neither looks nor swims like a duck.
To use the pill, condoms, etc. is to render an act of intercourse incapable of conception.
To use NFP is to measure a woman’s fertility. The objects of the acts are entirely different. How is that hard to grasp?
The Pharisees asked our Lord the same thing. It’s this part:
“They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?’ He said to them, ‘Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.’ [His] disciples said to him, ‘If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ He answered, ‘Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.’” (Matt. 19: 7-11)
It’s also useful for couples who want to conceive a child and are having trouble doing so.
- Status