H
hizstory
Guest
I agree.
- Status
H
hizstory
Guest
Not that what I’m about to say has any bearing on the discussion, but I’m bored and so here it goes:
I’m not a theologian or Church historian, but it seems pretty simple to me,
If you don’t want children–don’t have sex.
If you do have sex–you could have children.
After my conversion to the Catholic Church, my then wife and I attempted to use NFP after the birth of our first child. A few months later she was pregnant with #2
I’m not a theologian or Church historian, but it seems pretty simple to me,
If you don’t want children–don’t have sex.
If you do have sex–you could have children.
After my conversion to the Catholic Church, my then wife and I attempted to use NFP after the birth of our first child. A few months later she was pregnant with #2
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
A couple of things. First, no need for the condescension. We are all adults here. Second, maybe the fathers in question would condemn sexual relations after menopause or during pregnancy, but for the purposes of our discussion that’s completely irrelevant. There is a heck of a difference between a sterile couple having relations, and an otherwise fertile couple intentionally avoiding sex while fertile, and then having sex only when not fertile. That being said, lets stick to the subject at hand, which is a fertile couple taking conscious steps to be able to have sex while intentionally frustrating conception.You seriously don’t understand? If you’re going to interpret these general quotes from the Church Fathers in an absolute sense so as to preclude NFP, then you will have to interpret them, if you’re an intellectually honest person, to be condemning married couples having sex when the wife is pregnant or past menopause. This is very basic logic. But you seem to be an easily, and conveniently, confused fellow.
Now logically speaking, if we can chose to not apply these quotes to NFP, there’s no reason why we can’t chose to not apply these quotes to ABC.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
I take that to mean you don’t have an answer for the OP?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Not within your unreasonable parameters, at least not without spending an inordinate amount of time in researchI take that to mean you don’t have an answer for the OP?
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Okay.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
Catholic moral teaching on the marital embrace has not changed since the time of the ECFs in that Catholicism still requires couples to keep sex procreative. Each embrace is considered procreative if it is physically open to the transmission of life. Sex must be “the act that makes a baby”, as the Fathers might say, whether conception occurs or not.I don’t know, did they?
And…
What possible bearing does that have on the discussion?
I thought the examples of pregnancy and menopause might help to illustrate how a couple can be procreative without necessarily being fertile. Sorry if it wasn’t much help.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
I just don’t understand how a couple can be “procreative” when they are engaging in a practice specifically designed to frustrate procreation. That is totally nonsensical.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
In this thread, the only one that comes close is me.
And, I do feel I was a bit silly in making the comparisons upon reflecting.
Ultimately, I can’t defend NFP because it seems to lack percision in what is “for a time” as the bible mentions.
IMHO, catholics do spend far more time worrying about others that use bc than defining NFP reality.
H
Hesychios
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
I guess a couple who uses NFP to space children is just as procreative as a couple who are not engaging in sex when they are working (and not having sex) so they can make enough money to support their family.I just don’t understand how a couple can be “procreative” when they are engaging in a practice specifically designed to frustrate procreation. That is totally nonsensical.
I think you are just trying to demonize the concept of “contraception” in order to present an actually invalid tu quoque argument against the Catholic Church.
We should not mistake the idea of contraception with the idea of artificial contraception. Contraception occurs in nature all the time, and God made it that way. Not having sex (no matter what your motive) is itself an act of contraception. There is nothing inherently evil or contradictory to the Natural Law of God when one engages in mere contraception.
ARTIFICIAL contraception is a different thing altogether. ARTIFICIAL contraception by definition is an attempt to obstruct the NATURAL order of God - i.e., the flow of sperm to egg DURING the sexual act.
It is what occurs DURING the sexual act that distinguishes the natural goodness of contraception from the inherent evil of ARTIFICIAL contraception.
NOT having sex when the woman is fertile (natural contraception) is completely different from
having sex and PREVENTING the sperm from meeting the egg when the woman is fertile (artificial contraception).
Blessings,
Marduk
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I object to your premise from the start.
NFP is not required to be under the guidance of a spiritual consuler, or Priest.
M
mardukm
Guest
What “premise” to you think I am proposing?
What does this have to do with anything I wrote?
Blessings,
Marduk
W
Warrior1979
Guest
There are certainly physical differences, but let’s not forget that the Church frowns uponboth. One must have reason to natural reasons to contracept (intentionally avoiding sex during fertile periods).
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
Catholicism doesn’t require a couple to be procreative. The “procreative” reqirement has to do with the physical form of the act.I just don’t understand how a couple can be “procreative” when they are engaging in a practice specifically designed to frustrate procreation. That is totally nonsensical.
In other words, Catholicism teaches that married couples may procreate when they choose, but the marital embrace must be completed in the procreative form (open to the transmission of life).
M
manualman
Guest
Ah, perhaps we really are at the heart of the matter then. In catholic philosophy and theology, it is permissible to apply principles revealed in Scripture and Tradition to reason and science and thence to attempt to draw out further conclusions that necessarily follow from the more basic divinely revealed principles. We believe that there really cannot be any conflict between Revelation and Reason (since God is the author of both).
You seem to be saying that this is not an acceptable approach and that to do so is merely a “pretense” to fidelity. Since you seem inclined to fighting words, I’ll return it in kind. The above process of theology and philosophy would, indeed, be a rather hazardous approach to take in the absence of any remaining Divine protection or oversight of the results. Since the Eastern Orthodox have discarded the office of Peter’s role of being effectively the ‘Supreme Court’ of christian theology, perhaps it IS best for you folks to stick with things explicitly laid out in Scripture and Tradition and not attempt to draw true inferences from truly revealed principles. You have no authority divinely empowered to detect and denounce incorrect conclusions, so perhaps it is best to stick to what you received back when you did. In which case, you should be arguing for no use of contraception whatsoever.
M
Mickey
Guest
Nah. When NFP is practiced properly to prevent conception, it is a more effective contraception method than condom use.
In other words, chances of conception are greater with condoms.
K
KostyaJMJ
Guest
Then why, if you don’t mind me asking, isn’t the birth control pill permitted? The physical form of the act is procreative same as with NFP. Conception does not take place because the woman is infertile at the time of intercourse same as with NFP
S
StTommyMore
Guest
The birth control pill is abortifacient. Furthermore the philosophy behind ABC and NFP are at odds.
ABC says: I want to live the way I wish without consequences, so I will force my body to work how I want, so I can do what I want.
NFP says: I do not wish to have children right now (note this can still be abused), so I will work with my body, paying attention to the natural biorhythms, and prevent conception through discipline.
ABC is all about doing what you want, whereas NFP requires sacrifice (in the forms of periods of abstinence). NFP is working with creation, not forcing yourbody to function in an abnormal way.
M
manualman
Guest
Simply because of the difference in the cause of the infertility. In NFP, the couple reads the symptoms of her God-given fertility and sometimes abstains from what they desire (presumably for serious reasons). With the pill, the couple use the pill to intentionally sterilize themselves so as to get what they want, when they want it. Over time, it has the same impact as lying: cumulative damage. The cumulative result is that the couple (and the culture when large numbers participate) forget that God made sex and procreation totally tangled together. When people start to see them as separate topics, the totality of the gift of sexuality is debased into mere self-indulgence, essentially sexual gluttony. Those who don’t use ABC, on the other hand (either through NFP or total acceptance of lotsa kids), are systemically faced with the reality of sex and babies being locked together inseparably. Even when avoiding long term, the NFP couple monthly faces the reality that sex and babies are NOT separate topics.
- Status