Circular NFP reasoning

[Princess_Abby]

very interesting stuff, alan…

reading souls is a wonderful spiritual gift that a few very holy people are blessed with being able to do. are you familiar with the charismatic movement?

hope you’re feeling better and less shaken…

Abby

 

[bear06]

NFP is not even partial sterilization!!! The eggs are there, the sperm is there and the “method of transportation” is not being hindered. In fact, if God so chooses, conception can occur WITHOUT any attempt to thwart it even if a couple thinks they are not fertile.

Let’s try a different take here since Alan is still being obstinate and repeating much of the same arguments over and over even despite the answers being given. :banghead:

The gifts of the Holy Spirit which are to guide all of our actions are:
wisdom
understanding
counsel
fortitude
knowledge
piety (godliness)
fear of the Lord

Which embraces all of these? NFP or ABC?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… temporary sterilization, which HV does claim is intrinsically evil.

Where does HV claim this. You wanna get this across, then provide a quote.

HV claims no such thing.

If you mean to say that human actions that render temporary sterility for the intention of contraception is intrinsically evil, you are correct. However, this is not what NFP is about, is it? It’s about natural sex acts, and abstinence. Not one act within NFP renders anybody sterile or severes the conjugal act from its natural result.

A subtle mischaracterization of HV unecessarily creates a stumbling block for you.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Princess_Abby:

very interesting stuff, alan…

reading souls is a wonderful spiritual gift that a few very holy people are blessed with being able to do. are you familiar with the charismatic movement?

hope you’re feeling better and less shaken…

Abby

Thank you. I’m feeling great now. I am not shaken at all. I slept for about 5 minutes while waiting for kids to get out of school and I feel completely refreshed!

It’s funny that you mention the charismatic movement. My wife and I were just talking about that before I went to pick up kids from school. About 10 years ago there was some really great Catholic speaker, Marilyn-something, who led a big charismatic meeting in Wichita, as far as I know the last of its kind around here. There was a live band and the bishop was there and had Mass and everything.

Anyway she called people up to the front for some reason, and I was curious and went up there with my wife. Then Marilyn was putting her hands on people’s foreheads and they were falling down just like I’ve seen on TV. Julie and I were several deep in the crowd and while I was looking over at the band, Marilyn motioned to my wife to get me up to the front. That was really weird because there were like 100 people crowding the stage, but Julie pulled me through them up to the front.

Marilyn had pretty much a set pattern where she’d say some personal things about each person, then start the tongue-talking stuff and put her hand on heads, then they’d fall over. When she got to me she completely changed her pattern. She backed up and said, “whoa, I don’t know what’s going on with you but there’s something big here.” Then she made a few other comments, then she started the tongues thing and put her hand on my head. My knees felt a little weak, but I didn’t know if I was supposed to fall down on purpose or what until she held the mic away for a second and whispered, “it’s OK just let go” and I did, and I fell down and was completely aware but all peaceful and stuff and in another few seconds there was my wife next to me.

During a break I saw Marilyn in the hall and asked her what that was all about and she said, “I don’t know. I can’t even tell you if it was good or bad. All I know is there was something going on with you and it was something I’ve never seen before.”

I’ve had some very weird experiences since then, some of which I can’t even talk about yet. Today’s was the strongest one I’ve had that wasn’t connected to other phenomena. Every time I get something that’s even a little bit weird like this, I am reminded of what Marilyn said and wonder what she saw. At the risk of sounding boastful, I honestly believe that I have some special purpose that has yet to be revealed to me, that I constantly wonder about. It may be that I’ve already done whatever it is and don’t even know it and never will. It may be that it is something terrible or great, but all I know is what I see of life unfolding day by day. I try to take kind of a “zen” approach to just being practical and not worrying about what anything means, but I have a pretty active imagination.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

itsjustdave1988:

AlanFromWichita:

… temporary sterilization, which HV does claim is intrinsically evil.
.QUOTE]

Where does HV claim this. You wanna get this across, then provide a quote.

HV claims no such thing.

If you mean to say that human actions that render temporary sterility for the intention of contraception is intrinsically evil, you are correct. However, this is not what NFP is about, is it? It’s about natural sex acts, and abstinence. Not one act renders anybody sterile or severes the conjugal act from its natural result.

A subtle mischaracterization of HV unecessarily creates a stumbling block for you.

It didn’t exactly say “intrinsically evil” but I’m not good at all the terminology. Here’s what I was referring to, under the heading “Unlawful Methods of Birth Control” at:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Humanae Vitae:

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

I realize that temporary sterilization, whatever that even is, would seem to imply an artificial infertile condition, whereas NFP merely takes advantage of naturally occurring infertile time periods. While NFP is not making each marital act sterile, it is in fact rendering the marital union effectively sterile – temporarily.

I thought that was a brand new point that we hadn’t discussed before, but I forget things easily.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

Let’s try a different take here since Alan is still being obstinate and repeating much of the same arguments over and over even despite the answers being given. :banghead:

Awww. Sorry. I thought I was coming up with some new stuff, or at least a new slant on the old stuff.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit which are to guide all of our actions are:
wisdom
understanding
counsel
fortitude
knowledge
piety (godliness)
fear of the Lord

Which embraces all of these? NFP or ABC?

I’m not sure what you’re thinking here, but I don’t see that any of them really apply, except possibly the “fear of the Lord” one. If you think the Lord prefers one over the other, than you’ve got it.

That’s probably not what you were thinking, was it?

Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

While NFP is not making each marital act sterile, it is in fact rendering the marital union effectively sterile – temporarily.

This is where I insist upon being a stickler for terminology

NFP does not make or render a thing. NPF is 1) planning, 2) abstinence, and 3) sex. Compare these acts to those prior to my use of NFP: 1) abstinence, 2) sex. So the only thing NFP adds is planning.

Planning does not make or render any marital act sterile. It is nothing more than charting temperature and symptoms. I can do that all year long and it does not affect my wifes fertility.

Abstinence does not make or render any marital act sterile. I can do that too, for long periods (and I have ) and it does not affect my wife’s fertility. If abstinence is immoral, then Jesus and Mary have some 'splaining to do.

Sex (if done naturally, that is) does not make or render any marital act sterile. If in doubt, ask this question: does my actions before or during sex with my wife intentionally cause her not to release an ovum for procreation or for me not to release sperm for procreation? No. If ‘natural’ sex is immoral, I think a lot of us have some 'splaining to do.

So what does render my wife temporarily sterile on a cyclical basis? God.

Is God immoral for doing so? No. Am I immoral for having sex during those times when God makes my wife sterile? No. Not according to any doctrine of Catholic theology I’ve ever read.

Where’s the immoral act?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You ever look at one of those ‘magic eye’ pictures that you have to blurr your eyes to see the image? I can never see those things. Whatever you are seeing in Humanae Vitae’s teachings, I guess I’m not seeing, no matter how much I blur my eyes.

 

[bear06]

I’m not sure what you’re thinking here, but I don’t see that any of them really apply, except possibly the “fear of the Lord” one. If you think the Lord prefers one over the other, than you’ve got it.

Zoinks! You don’t see that any of them apply?!!! How is this possible? They all apply to NFP. Not to ABC.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

itsjustdave1988:

You ever look at one of those ‘magic eye’ pictures that you have to blurr your eyes to see the image? I can never see those things. Whatever you are seeing in Humanae Vitae’s teachings, I guess I’m not seeing, no matter how much I blur my eyes.

It’s funny you should mention that. I’ve never seen one of them pictures either.

What I see in HV is a concern that contraception could be abused by governments, could lead to men using their wives without concern for their feelings, could give men license to commit adultery and other problems. These are valid concerns which say nothing about any intrinsic evil of contraception but the potential for it to be abused.:yup:

Also in HV is a very oddly crafted argument that conjures up an “intrinsic evil” of contraception but at the same time allows for NFP, based on the supposed truth that each individual marital act apparently has to preserve the intrinsic procreative function along with the unitive. The more I read the argument, the more it sounds like the “truth” which is used as a basis was itself designed to support the preconceived notion that ABC is intrinsically evil. It’s almost as if the Church is afraid of the potential of ABC to be abused in the ways I mentioned above, so they constructed a “truth” to outlaw it. Clearly the Church has not documented in the Bible anything that clearly makes this connection, and her “interpretation” of Bible verses to supposedly support it are far-fetched.:ehh:

Anyway, that’s my position at the moment. It might change if the wind shifts.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

Zoinks! You don’t see that any of them apply?!!! How is this possible? They all apply to NFP. Not to ABC.

Hey, I may be book-smart, but I’m probably the most socially naive person ever.

I once got almost expelled from grade school from making a feast day card for our principal, Sister Claire James, comparing her to a cow. :bigyikes: I really liked her, and I had spent the previous summer feeding cows behind my grandmother’s house and thought she, like they, had really gentle eyes. Of course it hadn’t occurred to me that making a card saying she reminded me of a cow could be misconstrued by office workers to mean I was referring to her overweight condition. Heck, I didn’t know she was fat, or that being called a cow was an insult; I just knew I liked her. :angel1: It wasn’t until 20 years later I found about that particular problem.

Anyway, sorry. Right off the bat I don’t know what you mean. I’d like to hear how you would apply any of those virtues to NFP and ABC. I’m all for something new!

Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… so they constructed a “truth” to outlaw it.

For your theory to be convincing, those wilely Catholics must have “constructed” this “truth” very early on in Church history, as it’s common and constant teaching has been opposed to contraception for the past 2000 years.

It doesn’t seem to me you disagree with HV due to a contradiction in it’s teaching, but more that you simply don’t trust the Church. This is the root of the matter, in my opinion, and has little to do with this teaching, but more to do with incorrect ecclesiology. You seem determined to want to understand prior to having faith. That’s a doomed approach, in my opinion.

When I was a small child, my mother used to tell me not to cross the busy blvd. I didn’t understand why, but I did trust her and I obeyed her nonetheless. Why? It wasn’t due to understanding or her persuasiveness, but because I loved her and knew that she loved me. I knew she always had my best interest at heart. I had faith in her. Over time, having faith in my mother helped me to believe the truth of my mother’s teachings. I began to understand. In other words, faith precedes understanding. Later in my life, I began to think I was “smart.” I became very skeptical of all things Catholic. I wrote an essay in college siding against Catholic teaching on contraception, quoting often from the works of Fr. Charles Curran. I insisted that understanding must precede faith. I was wrong. It just doesn’t. I realized that it didn’t in other aspects of my life as a child growing up, and so I finally understood that to expect understanding to precede faith in my religious life was a false start.

The Church is your mother. She knows what is best for you and always has your best interests at heart. She sometimes makes mistakes. However, in the things she is absolutely certain about, she is never wrong. You can shake an angry fist at her defiantly while telling her you don’t understand so therefore you won’t believe. Or, you can trust her, believe her, and then you will come to understand. After many years of trying the former, I finally chose the latter. It’s made all the difference in the world.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Consider the following early Church teachings …

catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp

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.

It seems to me that the the “constructed truth” is that which was invented much later. That rationalization that has occured in modern times to make sex free and easy. On the contrary, the voice of God, speaking through both nature and His Church has stubbornly insisted upon the more difficult (and natural) path, which has been constant since the earliest writings of the Church.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

itsjustdave1988:

It doesn’t seem to me you disagree with HV due to a contradiction in it’s teaching, but more that you simply don’t trust the Church.

Actually it isn’t so much of a contradiction but a “loose connection.” It is true that I don’t completely trust the Church, in that I don’t believe she is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit is a perfect guide, but I don’t believe that any man or group of men can perfectly discern the Spirit. It doesn’t help when I hear of various bishops arguing publicly over various matters. After I’ve heard a certain amount of Bureaucratic Speak (BS) it all kind of mixes together, whether it is practices, doctrine, some bishop’s opinion, or whatever. My children are prize-winners in religion bowl and can run rings around me in matters of Catholic doctrine, but I think I am at least as knowledgeable as the average 45-year-old cradle Catholic, and much more so about the Bible for all the years of attention I have paid to it, and I see so much wrong and so much hurt done that I sometimes feel like I need to quote Jesus’ “seven woes” – as if anybody would listen.

This is the root of the matter, in my opinion, and has little to do with this teaching, but more to do with incorrect ecclesiology. You seem determined to want to understand prior to having faith. That’s a doomed approach, in my opinion.

I’m not sure what ecclesiology is, but if it means I’m not an expert Catholic theologian than it is true. I used to have a fair amount of faith, and the more I did for the Church and the world the more I lost it.

The Church is your mother. She knows what is best for you and always has your best interests at heart. She sometimes makes mistakes. However, in the things she is absolutely certain about, she is never wrong. You can shake an angry fist at her defiantly while telling her you don’t understand so therefore you won’t believe. Or, you can trust her, believe her, and then you will come to understand. After many years of trying the former, I finally chose the latter. It’s made all the difference in the world.

I’m glad you have come to this point. Perhaps I will be at this point again, but when one has an abusive mother, sometimes one has to detach for a while and then learn to trust all over again. I have no doubt that the Catholic Church is the true, original Church, but as a living body of priests and bishops she is really quite schizophrenic. It can take some serious grounding to learn to accept the full love the Church has to offer without becoming confused.

Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It can take some serious grounding to learn to accept the full love the Church has to offer without becoming confused.

I agree. Yet I suspect many students tend to blame the teacher when they are confused, rather than see the barriers they throw in the way as having anything to do with their confusion.

 

[bear06]

I’d like to hear how you would apply any of those virtues to NFP and ABC.

This one is not hard. When using NFP according to Church teachings you must use all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. When using ABC, you pretty much ignore all of them.

Dave, Alan seems to consider taking things on Faith when you don’t understand a cop out. Been there, tried that!

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

I realize that temporary sterilization, whatever that even is, would seem to imply an artificial infertile condition, whereas NFP merely takes advantage of naturally occurring infertile time periods. While NFP is not making each marital act sterile, it is in fact rendering the marital union effectively sterile – temporarily.

1. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is **direct **sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

One word highlighted in red that you forgot to reason with Alan.

Makes all the difference in the world. Direct sterilization (an act by humans to remove) versus respecting God’s design.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

Clearly the Church has not documented in the Bible anything that clearly makes this connection, and her “interpretation” of Bible verses to supposedly support it are far-fetched.:ehh:

One, read the book Birth Control and Christian Dicipleship. I have extra copies laying close to me. I will give a copy to you. It explains Onanism. It is odd that the “Catholic” interpretation was the only one that we can find documentation of for 1900 years by protestants or Catholics.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew
of Wichita

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

Based on this, I’d say you could make a case against direct sterilization, as HV does, because that changes the way God created us. OTOH, I can think of several ways where we intentionally change the function of our body as God designed it. For example, with vaccinations we are intentionally “infecting” the body with the goal of forcing the body to change its immune system and that isn’t evil.

Well, contraception thwarts the way God designed the body and a vaccination is designed to increase and fortify the way the body is designed.

AlanFromWichita:

Maybe this is a weak argument but right now I’m feeling weak after some very strange experiences at Mass today. I’ve never been to weekday Mass at the St. Paul Newman Center before; my wife talked me into going. It was an old priest I’d never met

I don’t contend that abstinence is intrinsically evil. Under certain conditions, one could perhaps make such a case but I won’t at this point.
If it is an intrinsic evil then it is always evil. If it is not intrinsically evil then it can be used for good or ill.

AlanFromWichita:

I could contend, however, that strategic periodic abstinence for the specific purpose of avoiding babies without prolonged abstinence is the moral equivalent to temporary sterilization, which HV does claim is intrinsically evil. This is the point that I must not be getting across, that while each individual act is free of intervention, the marital relationship itself has been temporarily rendered infertile.

Remember that it says that it is the marital act (not relationship) and through direct sterilization.

AlanFromWichita:

Sorry if I’m not making too good a case.

That is okay. It is hard to make a good case going against the Church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on a matter of Faith or Morals.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[AlanFromWichita]

CatholicMatthew:

I wonder who it was as I am a member at that parish and I didn’t know Fr. Matt was out of town. ( I should explain it is a non-territorial parish/student center and you can belong to it and a territorial parish at the same time.

I don’t know but the guy was really cool. He was very casual, friendly, and he didn’t waste a minute. They did something involving Hail Mary’s and some other prayers I didn’t know immediately after Mass. I don’t know what he thought of me blubbering to him at lunch time, trying to agree with my wife that I liked his sermon. I don’t have any idea if he knew what sort of power I felt in his presence. I was so in awe, not of him but of something I couldn’t touch but it was touching me.

He had very large hands. I remember that much. If I go again next week I’ll try to find out who he is.

Remember that it says that it is the marital act (not relationship) and through direct sterilization.

Right. That was my comparison.

That is okay. It is hard to make a good case going against the Church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on a matter of Faith or Morals.

Tonight my third grade daughter was helping my seventh grade daughter study for religion bowl competition. I can’t believe how much more those kids know than I do about Catholic teachings. When I went to Catholic grade school they really didn’t teach us diddly-squat except how to be afraid on certain irrational nuns.

Children are such an incredible blessing it’s just amazing. My wife and children have taught me more about love than any amount of study could have. At moments like this it’s hard to care about NFP or ABC. Sighhh.

All of you people are so great. I am humbled by all the attention you have given me on this subject. You have agreed, disagreed, cajoled, scolded, and more and I appreciate it all. I’m just sitting here crying like a baby. I have to go pick up one of my kids across town now, so I’ll check back in later.



Alan