Birth Control

[Anna1345]

I HAVE posted for that very reason. I strongly believe in “Love God with all your heart, all your spirit, and all your MIND.” **This means that God is understandable. ** And I don’t see any logic between the distinction between NFP and ABC (in context remember) at this point.

Please, demonstrate it.

There is not a whole lot about Faith that is logical. You want logical? Turn to science. You want spiritual in a manner that is something greater then ourselves? Turn to God. My whole life I have learned there are things about God and all His almighty wisdom that we may never ever know or understand. We are but mere humans and if you truly beleive that God is understandable to every degree, then you are truly mistaken. Look around you… what is the “logic” behind Children dying of cancer? What is the “logic” of some of those Children miraculously living? What is the “logic” of women like me who would do anything to have a brood quiverful-style but is literally lucky to be alive with the 3 I have? What is “logical” about murder? What is “logical” about diseases that don’t kill you but that incapacitate you? There is NOTHING “logical” about those things. And if you are using God for an argument, it’s not logical either. It’s Faith. Faith in what we do not know and can not see. Faith is what is most good and Holy and of which there is a Divine plan…

 

[PassingThru]

Do you read ANY of the links I post???

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

Ummmm, That link assumes I am making some case for ABC? When did I do that?

I asked you about NFP. You said it was TOTAL self giving. I asked how that can be. I defined how I would look at Total Self Giving. You then defined total to be ONLY during an act of sex, thereby giving a technicality for NFP to be TOTAL self giving, even though I contend most people would disagree.

I dont know when you posted the link. I generally only read a portion that is brought to my attention. Maybe you did earlier. My bad if you did.

Regardless, I am not making a case for ABC. So why you went there I dont know.

Its just more definition games regardless. Always is.

Again, this is why no one is signing on to NFP. Its not that your are wrong. Its that the logic makes no sense.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Ummmm, That link assumes I am making some case for ABC? When did I do that?

I asked you about NFP. You said it was TOTAL self giving. I asked how that can be. I defined how I would look at Total Self Giving. You then defined total to be ONLY during an act of sex, thereby giving a technicality for NFP to be TOTAL self giving, even though I contend most people would disagree.

I dont know when you posted the link. I generally only read a portion that is brought to my attention. Maybe you did earlier. My bad if you did.

Regardless, I am not making a case for ABC. So why you went there I dont know.

Its just more definition games regardless. Always is.

Again, this is why no one is signing on to NFP. Its not that your are wrong. Its that the logic makes no sense.

Okay then… read the NEXT paragraph… sorry I didn’t bold it above…
From Familiaris Consortio

When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original dynamism of “total” selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.(90)

… and more from Humanae Vitae:

Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. 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. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Regardless, I am not making a case for ABC. So why you went there I dont know.

Its just more definition games regardless. Always is.

Again, this is why no one is signing on to NFP. Its not that your are wrong. Its that the logic makes no sense.

Okay, my bad… I assumed when you said you agreed with kbachler that you were defending the use of ABC.

So you’re advocating for *complete *abstinence if a couple has a serious/grave reason to avoid children at any given moment?
Or are you suggesting that serious/grave reasons to avoid having children don’t exist?

I’m not sure I understand your point of view?

 

[kbachler]

There is not a whole lot about Faith that is logical. You want logical? Turn to science.

EVERYTHING about faith is logical. There is rarely such a thing as blind faith, except in people with below average abilities, or those who choose to be blind.

The commandment is to love God with all your heart, spirit AND mind. Do you think God was being mischievious or malicious when He gave us that commandment? A commandment to use your mind makes no sense UNLESS He can be understood.

The concept that there are mysteries of faith is ONLY temporary. If one believes in eternal mysteries of faith, then we are believing in mysticism. There are things we don’t know - YET.

You want spiritual in a manner that is something greater then ourselves? Turn to God. My whole life I have learned there are things about God and all His almighty wisdom that we may never ever know or understand. We are but mere humans and if you truly beleive that God is understandable to every degree, then you are truly mistaken. Look around you… what is the “logic” behind Children dying of cancer? What is the “logic” of some of those Children miraculously living? What is the “logic” of women like me who would do anything to have a brood quiverful-style but is literally lucky to be alive with the 3 I have? What is “logical” about murder? What is “logical” about diseases that don’t kill you but that incapacitate you? There is NOTHING “logical” about those things. And if you are using God for an argument, it’s not logical either. It’s Faith. Faith in what we do not know and can not see. Faith is what is most good and Holy and of which there is a Divine plan…

There is logic to those things. And I can give examples of the logic on many different levels. (Do you really want a discussion of free will, quantum electrodynamics, string theory and other topics here?)

I had to start learning that logic at a young age. I had a close relationship at age 11 (in no way illicit) with a teacher who committed murder; I testified in the murder trial. In the same year I lost a beloved 21 year old brother. Years later my mother was buried on the date of his death.

We all have challenges. We all struggle. I don’t claim that any single one of us will ever fully understand God - but then I also wouldn’t claim that any single one of us would fully understand another person, or even a pet. There will always be gaps in knowledge. Even good scientists understand that there really is no such thing as objective reality. (Read Polyani’ wonderful book “Personal Knowledge”)

But that said, I find the idea that any good Christian would take something “purely on faith” without questioning, wthout TRYING to understand, to be highly distasteful and a shirking of our responsibility as Christians.

 

[kbachler]

Okay, my bad… I assumed when you said you agreed with kbachler that you were defending the use of ABC.

I’m NOT defending the use of ABC. I’m saying that there either needs to be a factor that clearly distinguishes ABC from NFP (+ abstinence) OR the Church should be consistent in the moral/immoral treatment of NFP & ABC. Without a clearly distinguishing factor, either BOTH NFP and ABC should be immoral, or both moral.

It is possible to make arguments defending the use of ABC (even if immoral.) That IS NOT what is happening here.

 

[Jennifer_J]

EVERYTHING about faith is logical. There is rarely such a thing as blind faith, except in people with below average abilities, or those who choose to be blind.

The commandment is to love God with all your heart, spirit AND mind. Do you think God was being mischievious or malicious when He gave us that commandment? A commandment to use your mind makes no sense UNLESS He can be understood.

The concept that there are mysteries of faith is ONLY temporary. If one believes in eternal mysteries of faith, then we are believing in mysticism. There are things we don’t know - YET.

There is logic to those things. And I can give examples of the logic on many different levels. (Do you really want a discussion of free will, quantum electrodynamics, string theory and other topics here?)

I had to start learning that logic at a young age. I had a close relationship at age 11 (in no way illicit) with a teacher who committed murder; I testified in the murder trial. In the same year I lost a beloved 21 year old brother. Years later my mother was buried on the date of his death.

We all have challenges. We all struggle. I don’t claim that any single one of us will ever fully understand God - but then I also wouldn’t claim that any single one of us would fully understand another person, or even a pet. There will always be gaps in knowledge. Even good scientists understand that there really is no such thing as objective reality. (Read Polyani’ wonderful book “Personal Knowledge”)

But that said, I find the idea that any good Christian would take something “purely on faith” without questioning, wthout TRYING to understand, to be highly distasteful and a shirking of our responsibility as Christians.

But sometimes we don’t understand, and that understanding won’t come to us–maybe until death. In that case, obedience is a virtue.

 

[PassingThru]

Okay, my bad… I assumed when you said you agreed with kbachler that you were defending the use of ABC.

So you’re advocating for *complete *abstinence if a couple has a serious/grave reason to avoid children at any given moment?
Or are you suggesting that serious/grave reasons to avoid having children don’t exist?

I’m not sure I understand your point of view?

This is a problem that comes up every time.

Again, question of logic. NFP is defined as good. ABC as bad. I, and others, see no real distinguishing characteristics that separate the two. They are different, to be sure, but why one, and not the other? That is what makes zero sense to me, and others presumably. Almost every reason to rail against ABC, applys to NFP. Its not that we want one, and not the other. Its a question of what the differences really are.

Usually, people defend NFP to the death and attack ABC mercilessly. I could care less. I am only intersted in figuring out why one, and not the other. So far, through many discussions, I have never heard a single reason that holds water other than faith. Same for this discussion, so far.

And, it ALWAYS devolves into a game of definition gymanstics. Trust me, you sound no different than any other person I have had this discussion with. A person makes a statement supporting NFP, you try to apply it equally to both, and an * suddenly appears to make it fit a preconceived definition. Another statement is made, apply equally, another *. Rinse and repeat. Had what, 3 or 4 so far, just between us…

 

[PassingThru]

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. 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. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

These are the only statements I could find that even make any sort of statement about NFP or ABC. And it gives no reason, other than, “we said so”. Again, all well and good, but hardly sound reasoning.

And, they even say “obstruct the natural development of the generative process”! I mean, come on. That is exactly what NFP does as well! Of course, this is simple. I am sure there is yet another * to explain why even though this blatently applys to NFP. It will undoubtedly involve obsessing on how you have sex, not why. Which, again, is convenient, and avoiding looking at the “whys” of NFP by simply avoiding discussing it.

Reread your post, and see if you can find one thing that explains why one, and not the other…

I will be shocked if you can find one.

 

[kbachler]

Okay then… read the NEXT paragraph… sorry I didn’t bold it above…
From Familiaris Consortio
When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original dynamism of “total” selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.(90)

But unfortunately, the above doesn’t make sense for several reasons:

1. The unitive and procreative means of human sexuality ARE SEPARABLE. In fact, the most distinguishing feature of HUMAN sexuality is that they are separable. Few species besides man are capable of separating the two, and certainly mankind can do so more than any other animal.
2. NFP separates the untive and procreative aspects.
3. Abstinence is not according to the original dynamism of total selfgiving.
4. No logical argument has been provided for a reason to highlight “without manipulation or alteration.”

See my bold, color and italics imbedded in the next part:

… and more from Humanae Vitae:

Quote:
Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. *(NOTE: So also in the latter.) *In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. (NOTE: So also in the former by the selection of timing.) 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. (NOTE: Agreement that the intention is the same.) But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. (*NOTE: The way this is stated, it is ASSUMED to be desirable. But it can be shown that this can very well be UNDESIRABLE. Moreover, why is “partial abstinence” any less acceptable than “FULL abstinence?” There are many problematic issues with this.) *And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. (NOTE: And this could happen whether a couple abstains or uses ABC during the fertile period, so this point is a non sequitur as it is not a distinguishing factor. This simply is not a well-reasoned argument.)

 

[kbachler]

But sometimes we don’t understand, and that understanding won’t come to us–maybe until death. In that case, obedience is a virtue.

Trying to understand comes first.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Love God with all your heart, spirit and mind.

All the other commandments come from these two.

Obedience is DERIVED from your love and understanding of God - NOT the other way around.

That means - I question.

 

[agapewolf]

Abstinence IS in line with total self giving.

If one person is sick, the other is giving of himself by abstaining from sexual relations…that is for the good of the other. Sacrifice is gift.

 

[Em_in_FL]

At this point my only advice is to FULLY read and pray over the words of Humanae Vitae to understand the Catholic perspective. There are logical answers to everything you have mentioned, but you are refusing to accept the definitions and redefining things yourself. Everything is beautifully defined and described in HV using logical conclusions and ideas. People don’t refuse to use NFP simply because it “doesn’t make sense”… they refuse to use it because they don’t want to truly trust the design that God has created. They’re scared and want to put their trust in secular ideas that avoid God’s (name removed by moderator)ut. The fact is NFP is good, it works, and it’s been passed to us through the church that we believe is guided by the Holy Spirit.
I can’t force you to believe that… you’ll just redefine everything to meet your own agenda.

Peace.

 

[captaincatholic]

In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

These are the only statements I could find that even make any sort of statement about NFP or ABC. And it gives no reason, other than, “we said so”. Again, all well and good, but hardly sound reasoning.

And, they even say “obstruct the natural development of the generative process”! I mean, come on. That is exactly what NFP does as well! Of course, this is simple. I am sure there is yet another * to explain why even though this blatently applys to NFP. It will undoubtedly involve obsessing on how you have sex, not why. Which, again, is convenient, and avoiding looking at the “whys” of NFP by simply avoiding discussing it.

Reread your post, and see if you can find one thing that explains why one, and not the other…

I will be shocked if you can find one.

I am jumping in here because I feel passionately about this issue. I use NFP, due to having my own health issues, managing a chronic disease, and protecting my children from prematurity or death.

NFP respects the role of the marital embrace by not denying its power. More specifically, it requires a sacrifice of the couple if they feel unable to accept the gift of life at this time. It is not pushing aside the possibility of another baby, nor is it foolhardily accepting to have children in litters like puppies. It merely acknowledges that life could occur during this fertile time, and we feel, after prayer and discussion, that we have suitably grave reason to wait for now. THat means not only do we not conceive, but we sacrifice the pleasures of the act that has the potential for conception. We don’t take a pill, or a shot, or put on a barrier and say that there is no difference. We give up our own pleasure as a sacrifice for our spouses, our existing children, our potential children, and sometimes for our own health.

That is why NFP is acceptable and NOT ABC. There are cases where NFP can be abused, or used out of fear, and those who do so risk losing the gifts that God may want to bestow on them in the form of children and a more vibrant marrriage, but that is much more rare than those blatantly ignoring the fact that they are disrespecting the great gift that is their fertility by showing their preference for convenient sex, or rationalizing contraceptives because of health or other legitmate reasons without actually HAVING those reasons to prevent them from accepting life.

ANYONE can practice NFP. There are methods where the only necessary equipment is the couple themselves, just by observing cervical mucous. There are other methods facilitated by the leaps in science and technology which allow us to know with greater accuracy when ovulation, and therefore conception, may occur. There is NO EXCUSE to use ABC when you understand that NFP is a viable and acceptable option, that it respects maleness, femaleness, and the very power of the couple to procreate, with God, to accept and bring forth new life into this world.

 

[PassingThru]

At this point my only advice is to FULLY read and pray over the words of Humanae Vitae to understand the Catholic perspective. There are logical answers to everything you have mentioned, but you are refusing to accept the definitions and redefining things yourself. Everything is beautifully defined and described in HV using logical conclusions and ideas. People don’t refuse to use NFP simply because it “doesn’t make sense”… they refuse to use it because they don’t want to truly trust the design that God has created. They’re scared and want to put their trust in secular ideas that avoid God’s (name removed by moderator)ut. The fact is NFP is good, it works, and it’s been passed to us through the church that we believe is guided by the Holy Spirit.
I can’t force you to believe that… you’ll just redefine everything to meet your own agenda.

Peace.

Please give me one definition I have redefined. One.

I welcome using plain English to describe what points you are trying to make. ie, you use Total Self Giving, which does not mean what an average person would think. Look at the blue text from kbachler. He is not being difficult or being tricky. It is pretty plain logic that he used to derive that.

Dont accuse us of changing definitions, or using “secular ideas” or pushing agendas. Thats bunk. Our questions are straight forward.

If you want to fall back and say something about how it is a matter of your faith and you find it true and fulfilling, or something similar. Great. No problems. But dont make up accusations that don’t pass a simple read. We are not that dumb just because we disagree.

We never said it wasn’t good. We never said it doesnt work. We are just pushing you to back up your assertions.

 

[PassingThru]

I am jumping in here because I feel passionately about this issue. I use NFP, due to having my own health issues, managing a chronic disease, and protecting my children from prematurity or death.

NFP respects the role of the marital embrace by not denying its power. More specifically, it requires a sacrifice of the couple if they feel unable to accept the gift of life at this time. It is not pushing aside the possibility of another baby, nor is it foolhardily accepting to have children in litters like puppies. It merely acknowledges that life could occur during this fertile time, and we feel, after prayer and discussion, that we have suitably grave reason to wait for now. THat means not only do we not conceive, but we sacrifice the pleasures of the act that has the potential for conception. We don’t take a pill, or a shot, or put on a barrier and say that there is no difference. We give up our own pleasure as a sacrifice for our spouses, our existing children, our potential children, and sometimes for our own health.

That is why NFP is acceptable and NOT ABC. There are cases where NFP can be abused, or used out of fear, and those who do so risk losing the gifts that God may want to bestow on them in the form of children and a more vibrant marrriage, but that is much more rare than those blatantly ignoring the fact that they are disrespecting the great gift that is their fertility by showing their preference for convenient sex, or rationalizing contraceptives because of health or other legitmate reasons without actually HAVING those reasons to prevent them from accepting life.

ANYONE can practice NFP. There are methods where the only necessary equipment is the couple themselves, just by observing cervical mucous. There are other methods facilitated by the leaps in science and technology which allow us to know with greater accuracy when ovulation, and therefore conception, may occur. There is NO EXCUSE to use ABC when you understand that NFP is a viable and acceptable option, that it respects maleness, femaleness, and the very power of the couple to procreate, with God, to accept and bring forth new life into this world.

Congratulations on your family and the rewards NFP brings you!

 

[Em_in_FL]

But unfortunately, the above doesn’t make sense for several reasons:

1. The unitive and procreative means of human sexuality ARE SEPARABLE. In fact, the most distinguishing feature of HUMAN sexuality is that they are separable. Few species besides man are capable of separating the two, and certainly mankind can do so more than any other animal.
2. NFP separates the untive and procreative aspects.
3. Abstinence is not according to the original dynamism of total selfgiving.
4. No logical argument has been provided for a reason to highlight “without manipulation or alteration.”

See my bold, color and italics imbedded in the next part:

Okay… I’ll answer and point out how you have redefined the words.

1. The unitive and procreative aspects can be separated. This is not MORALLY licit. The church has the authority to speak on morality so we turn to her to guide us.
2. NFP does NOT separate the unitive and the procreative. Please clarify your definitions of these terms. I have already done so within this thread.
3. Abstinence is completely in accord with the concepts of total self giving… read Familiaris Consortio for the church’s interpretation…
4. The ACT (as in, each unique instance) is not manipulated or altered. Timing may be altered, but this is not immoral.

 

[Anna1345]

EVERYTHING about faith is logical. There is rarely such a thing as blind faith, except in people with below average abilities, or those who choose to be blind.

The commandment is to love God with all your heart, spirit AND mind. Do you think God was being mischievious or malicious when He gave us that commandment? A commandment to use your mind makes no sense UNLESS He can be understood.

The concept that there are mysteries of faith is ONLY temporary. If one believes in eternal mysteries of faith, then we are believing in mysticism. There are things we don’t know - YET.

There is logic to those things. And I can give examples of the logic on many different levels. (Do you really want a discussion of free will, quantum electrodynamics, string theory and other topics here?)

I had to start learning that logic at a young age. I had a close relationship at age 11 (in no way illicit) with a teacher who committed murder; I testified in the murder trial. In the same year I lost a beloved 21 year old brother. Years later my mother was buried on the date of his death.

We all have challenges. We all struggle. I don’t claim that any single one of us will ever fully understand God - but then I also wouldn’t claim that any single one of us would fully understand another person, or even a pet. There will always be gaps in knowledge. Even good scientists understand that there really is no such thing as objective reality. (Read Polyani’ wonderful book “Personal Knowledge”)

But that said, I find the idea that any good Christian would take something “purely on faith” without questioning, wthout TRYING to understand, to be highly distasteful and a shirking of our responsibility as Christians.

Yet you still demand logic at every single post with your fingers stuck in your ears singing “la la la you’re not being logical la la la”. Did I say BLIND faith? Absolutely not. What I said was there are TONS of stuff in the world that are completely ILLOGICAL – they are called Miracles and the works of Evil. Neither of which can TRULY be explained, rationed, or understood wholly except to say it is either the Works of God or the Works of Satan.

Seriously, this topic of NFP and BC is not exactly a difficult concept. One is natural, one is not. One is in God’s Divine Plan, one is not.

You’re seriously grasping at straws.

Oh and I get you wanted to use “quantum electrodynamics” in a sentence to make you seem superior to others in your knowledge, but you might want to use it with someone else as I actually do understand it, know it and teach it (well a watered down version of it since I don’t teach the degree’d physics program) in order to achieve your goal.

You answered my point perfectly, though… If you want LOGIC turn to science, which clearly you are trying. Which tells me you are not FULLY loving God neither with your mind nor your heart when you don’t accept that there are something we just won’t understand…That’s not being blind, or (what else did you reference me as???) oh right, “below average abilities”. It’s trying to understand, then once told a reason, listening to that reason while trying to justify it with what you (generally speaking) know as God Divine plan.

It’s also convenient how you completely ignored, again, my explanation but I bet you will still say “no one has explained it logically”

 

[PassingThru]

Okay… I’ll answer and point out how you have redefined the words.

1. The unitive and procreative aspects can be separated. This is not MORALLY licit. The church has the authority to speak on morality so we turn to her to guide us.
2. NFP does NOT separate the unitive and the procreative. Please clarify your definitions of these terms. I have already done so within this thread.
3. Abstinence is completely in accord with the concepts of total self giving… read Familiaris Consortio for the church’s interpretation…
4. The ACT (as in, each unique instance) is not manipulated or altered. Timing may be altered, but this is not immoral.

Well,

1. So what he said is right, they are separable. That is the accusation of ABC. He didnt say it was moral. Where is the problem?
2. Well, thats the crux of our discussion, so its a little unfair to complain. (I think I missed your definitions, but I know I havent defined them, maybe someone has?) So, missing that one. Never had a beef with them anyway.
3. Thats a Catholic detail on definition, Ill leave that to you two. However, when you first said it, I immediately defined what I meant, which was to include the “whys” not just the “hows”. Again, if you asked someone on the street, I think the lay definition would be what I mentioned, not a more limited one.
4. Again, that is the crux of the argument. We have already agreed (I think) that you can also alter a series of acts. However, we have not explained how that is NOT a manipulation or alteration, except by Catholic decree, which is entirely circular.

What I mean when I say “change definition” is when a statement is made, which to anyone who is not in practice of memorizing HV or other documents, would reasonably mean X. I disagreement ensues, and it is later realized that particular phrase has some artificially limited definition, as decided by the Church. Well, if I had designed the iPad myself, and had detailed knowledge of its workings, you could never pin me on one single fact, no matter how plain. For example, you could jump up and down screaming that the power button is on the top right of the screen. To anyone with half a thought, they would agree. However, I may know that it is not true. In fact, that is the ONSRS or On Screen Software Reset Switch, and and the only true power switch is on the power supply circuit board, but it was removed once the prototype was finalized. See, now I was right. And I didnt redefine a thing. But you and others would cry foul, and quickly tire of the game. Does that make any sense?

 

[EasterJoy]

Trying to understand comes first.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Love God with all your heart, spirit and mind.

All the other commandments come from these two.

Obedience is DERIVED from your love and understanding of God - NOT the other way around.

That means - I question.

I don’t know where you got this idea, that the Great Commandments say what we think they say. You’ll not find it in Holy Scriptures that the faithful should test what the Apostles teach and discard what they don’t understand. Of course one can question in order to understand correctly and in greater detail, but that doesn’t mean open defiance of the Magesterium is advisable, let alone some kind of ideal. That’s simply foolish.

My son, forget not my teaching, keep in mind my commands;
For many days, and years of life, and peace, will they bring you.
Let not kindness and fidelity leave you; bind them around your neck;
Then will you win favor and good esteem before God and man.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not;
In all your ways be mindful of him, and he will make straight your paths.
Be not wise in your own eyes, fear the LORD and turn away from evil;
This will mean health for your flesh and vigor for your bones. Prov. 3:1-8

Why would a sensible person make his or her understanding of an issue into the ultimate understanding that should guide his or her actions? Surely, we can look back on our lives and realize that we have never been as good at this as we ought to be. We would not build a house according to our own understanding, ignoring engineers. We wouldn’t treat our own illnesses, ignoring our physicians, for even physicians caution each other not to treat their own conditions! In other words, most of the time, a person with a sensible mind will usually put greater stock in those who are a legitimate authority than in himself or herself, even when he or she is a legitimate authority in his or her own right. A sensible person knows how foolish it is to judge moral moral direction using himself or herself as a compass.

Look at those who have succeeded in the faith, the saints. Which of them redefined what the Church taught? Each one lived the faith in a unique way, but which one did so by opposing what the Magesterium had to say about the deposit of faith?

Your position reflects much of contemporary religious opinion, but I think it is clearly wrong-headed. I can’t extrapolate to you, but I don’t think your posts reflect a clear understanding of obedience at all.