Circular NFP reasoning

[jegow]

CatholicMatthew:

Actually, NFP works with a woman’s fertility the way it is and ABC seeks to change the way fertility works. Humane Vitae does not call us to be open to life (aperto) but calls us to use procreation per se destinatus–as it is destined.

pro = means something like ‘for’
creation = means like ‘creation or life!’

So like if one is open to procreation would they not also be at the same time ‘for life’ (or being open to life)?

"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." # 11 Humanae Vitae

---

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

What you say about NFP and ABC’s is correct, so no problem there. But I mean correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t that quote just contradict what you have said about Humanae Vitae not being open to life. Sounds like you ought to be open to it from where I’m looking. :whacky: This thread really is going in circles.

Maybe you found something else in the document that I have not seen. Could you post that please so I could see it.

jegow

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Quote from Janet E. Smith “Humane Vitae: A Generation Later” pg 270 describing the importance of translating from the official text (latin) and not the working texts (Italian and French).

“Even more significant is a difference in the crucial passage in sextion 11 usually translated “Each and every marriage act must remain open to procreation.” The Italian reads “Che qualsiasi atto matrimoniale deve rimanere aperto alla trasmissiona della vita.” The Latin substitutes the words per se *destinatus *(“in itself destined”) for the Italian aperto (“open”) though the Latin apertus (“open”) would easily have worked here. As the commentary in Chapter 3 argues, the phrase per se desinatus is philosophically more precise and more in keeping with the context.”

Correct as to what I said. I might not have been the most clear. The phrase “open to life” is not as easily grasped in depth of meaning. In context with the Latin it becomes clear that the couples can be striving to the same ends (avoiding a child) but one couple is respecting the ordered destination of the marital act and the other is not.

Make sense?

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[bear06]

AlanFromWichita:

Would you believe I’m shy and afraid to ask professional apologists?

You might be right, but I’ve been told on this forum by many that somehow I have to believe everything whether infallible or not; plus it’s difficult to ascertain what is infallible.

Give an example. It’s hard to argue this without one. Of course, not everything the Church says is infallible. If it was, nothing would ever change. However, that said, this cannot be applied to truths. Truths don’t change.

Second, I don’t take the stance that the Church is wrong or illogical, just that it is possible for her to be.

Well Alan, circular thinking would be illogical and it’s not possible for truth to be illogical. If the Church were not infallible in all that I have stated then it could not be the Church. Because it is the one TRUE Church, it can’t teach falsehoods.

On the other hand, it IS a very dangerous thing for her to claim to be perfect in her teachings. She may have all the authority, and she can excommunicate me, but that doesn’t mean it’s in her best interest or pleasing to God for her to do so. Just like the U.S. government has authority over me and can imprison me for any of a million complicated rules, but that doesn’t make it right.

There is a BIG difference in a divinely instituted Church and the U.S. Government. The Church does not make the truths -God does. The Church simply teaches and fosters these rules. Can you think of one teaching of the Church in the area of Faith and Morals or one area declared infallible that has ever been proven to be wrong?

When a person is in trouble or seeking help, it is best to ask questions rather than make assumptions before jumping to conclusions and throwing arbitrary semi-related Bible and Church teachings at the person.

Can you point to a specific here? Javelin asked for people’s opinions on ABC which couldn’t help but evolve into a discussion on why the Church teaches what it does and why since, of course, that’s why most of us have the opinion we have.

I looked back at the original posts and you did not ask one question in your original post. You said “but I do not think contraception is intrinsically evil.”

I also have counseling experience also and I can tell you that if someone is hurting or ill you don’t tell them that it’s OK to hurt yourself and that God will understand. I don’t think you can say that we were judging Javelin. Heck, some of the people who responded were in the same situation as his wife at some point and were trying to offer help and solutions as best they could while speaking the truth.

I look at myself as no better than others. Better at certain things, perhaps, but not better overall.

I believe that you said something to the effect of “the pope may be an expert at faith and morals but I am an expert at mathematics and logic. If she wants to debate me on the logic of this issue, then I am willing to take her on anytime, anywhere”

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I thought you were willingly posting to the thread I started. If you prefer I will refrain from responding to any of your posts. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you.

I think you’re missing the point here. I don’t need to do the arguing. The Church has done this already. There’s no possible need for me to give a personal opinion. If you look hard enough like maybe as close as you AAA forum you will find the answers. Personal musings don’t usually get us far.

 

[jegow]

CatholicMatthew:

Correct as to what I said. I might not have been the most clear. The phrase “open to life” is not as easily grasped in depth of meaning. In context with the Latin it becomes clear that the couples can be striving to the same ends (avoiding a child) but one couple is respecting the ordered destination of the marital act and the other is not.

Make sense?

Yes a lot more. Thank you for your clearification.

jegow

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

Can you point to a specific here? Javelin asked for people’s opinions on ABC which couldn’t help but evolve into a discussion on why the Church teaches what it does and why since, of course, that’s why most of us have the opinion we have.

For example, in the thread on “I can’t receive sacraments because of my husband” I see that I may have jumped the gun against the bishop, but soon there were several posters cheering the bishop for his stance, and “dinging” me for my speculations, for example, that the bishop has some choice in the matter. Finally after many questions were answered many more people started seeing that Therese wasn’t the juvenile scofflaw they were making her out to be.:tsktsk:

I looked back at the original posts and you did not ask one question in your original post. You said “but I do not think contraception is intrinsically evil.”

I couldn’t find the post you were talking about. You might be right. Perhaps I should take back my accusation about jumping to conclusions before asking questions, or at least judge myself by the same measure. Touche, I say! :tiphat:

I believe that you said something to the effect of “the pope may be an expert at faith and morals but I am an expert at mathematics and logic. If she wants to debate me on the logic of this issue, then I am willing to take her on anytime, anywhere”

Ah, but you take out of context. Right after that, I spoke of wishing for resolution. If she has these answers and just hasn’t made them clear in Humanae Vitae and other places, then I wish she would go ahead and explain them to me so I’ll be whipped. I’m a little bit asceered of actual apologists, though. I have held these opinions in so long for so many years it took me a few weeks to work up to this level of personal disclosure.

I don’t claim to be better than the pope or anyone else, except, as I said, in specific areas. My claim at math and logic expertise is not subjective. When I was in grade school I won the mathematics competition for the entire archdiocese of Chicago. OK, I came in second place but not because I made an actual math or reasoning error – it was because I didn’t know a particular symbol (absolute value sign) so I didn’t understand one of the questions. In high school, as a freshman I singlehandedly go perfect scores above upperclassmen in very difficult oral competitions in math and logic.

All that doesn’t make me invincible, especially in religious issues. On this very forum, I was soundly whipped into shape on a couple issues by others, and I loved every minute of it.:bowdown2:

Alan

 

[bear06]

AlanFromWichita:

For example, in the thread on “I can’t receive sacraments because of my husband” I see that I may have jumped the gun against the bishop, but soon there were several posters cheering the bishop for his stance, and “dinging” me for my speculations, for example, that the bishop has some choice in the matter.

If she has these answers and just hasn’t made them clear in Humanae Vitae and other places, then I wish she would go ahead and explain them to me so I’ll be whipped.

Well, I’m confindent most of us don’t read enough of the teachings. I know I don’t. The only reason I’m here is that I’m feeling so under the weather right now. I think if you delved a little further you’d probably find the answers.

I’m a little bit asceered of actual apologists, though. I have held these opinions in so long for so many years it took me a few weeks to work up to this level of personal disclosure

.

Thus the posts about not really wanting the answers.

I don’t claim to be better than the pope or anyone else, except, as I said, in specific areas.

You’d think that the Holy See is not comprised of mathematicians and scientist. The vast knowledge is staggering and you an bet the Holy Fathers draws from the best of the best.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Again, I (an avid user and promoter of NFP) cringe at times when I here promotion schemes. At times something you may take as a promotion scheme is just a statement of fact and something that gives glory to God in his infinite wisdom. However, I understand NFP subjectively (as a user and a teacher along with my wonderful wife) and objectively (through Church teaching and many wonderful commentaries on it. I would recommend Humane Vitae a Generation Later by Dr. Smith and Covenanted Happiness by Msgr. Cormac Burke for two great places to start.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

P.S. it is not the bad intention (or at least I assume it is not) of the people who promote these prima facie (on the face) or surface level contradictions but really a misunderstanding from bad translations and an unwillingness for the truth to be proclaimed both in front of and behind the pulpit. I thank my dear friend Fr. Matt Habiger, OSB for that last observation from the pulpit in his NFP ministry.

 

[char34]

Scott Waddell:

Thanks for that article link. I don’t see him attacking providentialism per se, but a certain providentialists who attack NFP use.

Scott

I don’t know, this statement from the article seems to contradict itself:

“A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test. Today, knowledge of the fertility cycle is part of God’s providence. Thus, couples who make responsible use of that knowledge to avoid pregnancy are trusting in God’s providence. They, no less than a couple “who prudently and generously decide to have a large family,”[12] are practicing responsible parenthood.”

On one hand he seems to be saying it is obligatory for struggling parents to avoid children in order to “not put God to the test”. But then if couples “prudently and generously decide to have a large family”, that is OK too. Sounds like providentialism, so since they made that decision, it seems they off the hook for avoiding if they happen to be struggling, or have whatever serious reason to postpone. I may be totally misinterpreting what is meant here, forgive me if I am!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

CatholicMatthew:

Again, I (an avid user and promoter of NFP) cringe at times when I here promotion schemes. At times something you may take as a promotion scheme is just a statement of fact and something that gives glory to God in his infinite wisdom. However, I understand NFP subjectively (as a user and a teacher along with my wonderful wife) and objectively (through Church teaching and many wonderful commentaries on it. I would recommend Humane Vitae a Generation Later by Dr. Smith and Covenanted Happiness by Msgr. Cormac Burke for two great places to start.

Dear Matthew,

Do I understand correctly, that you see my point about the circular reasoning and are here to say that it belongs to faulty promotion and not actual NFP teachings? That would explain a lot. I’m still not convinced that ABC is intrinsically evil and NFP, by comparison, is intrinsically not evil, but you may have addressed my “circular reasoning” objection.

Also javelin may have addressed this in post #69 to which he has asked me to respond but I haven’t yet. I’ll try to get that done soon, because from what you guys are saying I may have to drop my objection about circular reasoning and see what other objections I still may have.

P.S. it is not the bad intention (or at least I assume it is not) of the people who promote these prima facie (on the face) or surface level contradictions but really a misunderstanding from bad translations and an unwillingness for the truth to be proclaimed both in front of and behind the pulpit. I thank my dear friend Fr. Matt Habiger, OSB for that last observation from the pulpit in his NFP ministry.

This is one of the reasons I am glad to be on this forum. What might be true at some point is so misunderstood and distorted by the time it gets to the rank-and-file Catholics like me (such as articles in the Catholic Advance diocesan newspaper) that a critical reading of the materials shows it to be self-contradictory. Perhaps I am overly cautious, due to a lifetime of “mixed” experiences with the Church which have caused me psychological turmoil, and vaccinated me against believing some of her teachings.

Alan

 

[Reformed_Rob]

This has perhaps already been said, but…

You can argue circularly for God’s existence. Perhaps by the impossibility of the contrary, or a circular “presuppositional” argument. So circular reasoning is not always wrong. Basically it’s illogical, but if the circle you’re reasoning within is a “God ordained” circle, then you’re reasoning at least is starting off good, and if you end up at the same place, having proven what you set out with as your proof, then good, you’ve glorified God!! Was that a circular paragraph?

But enough of that. As a Reformed guy with just a little knowledge of Catholic teaching on procreation and NFP, I have to say that NFP is not intrinsically immoral because of the respect for sexual relations that are upheld by the teaching. NFP is at heart (I think) directly in opposition to the non-Christian and I’d say devilish view of sex - that is “have sex and not have children.” Eventually it becomes “have sex and not have love,” and then “have sex and not have emotions involved”. I guess next is “have sex and not be human” in some psychological way.
Personally, I’m thankful that God has preserved me to the degree that He has, and has given me a desire to be more faithful to my wife (when I get married) in ways that the world generally never even considers. Like, contraceptives are just taken for granted, like ice in the freezer. Like, when the college leader of a Christian Campus group I was involved in in college was about to get married, one of his disciples, a leader in the ministry, went to the store and got him a package of condoms! I’m sure he meant well, but the world’s teachings that we fall for blind us so easily and completely.

OK, I’m saying that the reasoning behind NFP is not immoral because it does not seek to overthrow God’s marriage covenant and the commitments of the sacrament of marriage. In addition to that, it serves to educate us further about the world’s foolishness and pagan view of sex, correcting us from that evil view that leads to viewing the opposite sex as mere objects for sexual enjoyment.

 

[bear06]

I try to read the AAA forum everyday and lookie what I found. It addresses Alan’s big question. Of course, I don’t know if he’ll consider the answer sufficient but I think it’s gone into more depth then anyone here has yet.
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

The only reason I’m here is that I’m feeling so under the weather right now.

You’d think that the Holy See is not comprised of mathematicians and scientist. The vast knowledge is staggering and you an bet the Holy Fathers draws from the best of the best.

Dear bear06,

Are you feeling poorly physically, or otherwise? Do you mean that you are here because you’re not where you would be if you were feeling well, or that you’re looking for something here that will cheer you up. If the latter, how can we help?

I am confident that there are many very intelligent people in the Holy See. I read in a Steven Hawking book that it was actually a scientist from the Vatican who came up with the “big bang” theory that, although it has some gaps, is the most widely held theory about the mechanics of the beginning moments of the universe among physicists today – even atheist physicists.

They are brilliant, but not independent to voice their unbridled opinions if they can be construed as conflicting with their boss, previous findings, or coworkers. When I worked as member of technical staff for Bell Labs, I worked with many brilliant people but saw how often the fruits of their brilliance got lost in a bureaucracy when it had to do with certain topics.

Thank you for the article link. I did read it, but right now I have homework to do so I won’t comment on it in detail. Overall, it presents things a little differently than I’ve heard before, so it’s worth commenting. At least it attempts to clear up the circular reasoning issue, but I’m not really on that rant anymore since Matthew and javelin finally got through to me. I still have rants left, but I’ll save them for later.

Thanks again,
Alan

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

Do I understand correctly, that you see my point about the circular reasoning and are here to say that it belongs to faulty promotion and not actual NFP teachings?

I would not say the promotion is incorrect but it is not an accurate representation of the Church Teaching.

AlanFromWichita:

That would explain a lot. I’m still not convinced that ABC is intrinsically evil and NFP, by comparison, is intrinsically not evil, but you may have addressed my “circular reasoning” objection.

Why not? The Church has spoken infallibly on many occasions. Every Pope in the twentieth century has spoken on this matter. There are many good reasoning. Scriptural and Natural Law that work well in this arena.

AlanFromWichita:

This is one of the reasons I am glad to be on this forum. What might be true at some point is so misunderstood and distorted by the time it gets to the rank-and-file Catholics like me (such as articles in the Catholic Advance diocesan newspaper) that a critical reading of the materials shows it to be self-contradictory. Perhaps I am overly cautious, due to a lifetime of “mixed” experiences with the Church which have caused me psychological turmoil, and vaccinated me against believing some of her teachings.

That is why I always prefer reading the source.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Alan…I’ve spent the last day or so reading this entire thread and must commend you for your courage and persistance in trying to understand the truth.

I relate to you and others who struggle with understanding some of the logic of this particular teaching. I’m not out to discredit the Church, but I want logical answers to sometimes complex questions. I’ve learned a lot and been corrected in my thinking by visiting these forums.

I’m always amused by the term “open to life”. Seems the only “life” people are concerned about is the “potential life” that would come to them via conception. I have three children spaced relatively close in age. I feel my cup is VERY full and do not wish for anymore children. I value the “life” that I give to these children. I also value the “life” that I give to my marriage. Anyone who has kids knows that they can suck the life right out of you and your marriage if you’re not careful. I’m totally open to life…just not another pregnancy. I guess my definition of “life” goes beyond the physical.

So, for me it all comes down to INTENT. From reading over this thread it seems that if one is not open to conception occurring EACH and EVERY time a husband and wife lay together than they are committing a sin. Well, I guess I’m a sinner then. I am not open to another pregnancy. My intent is to make sure that I do not get pregnant again. Whether I use NFP or ABC to achieve that end seems irrelevant to me. My intent stays the same.

 

[javelin]

bear06:

I try to read the AAA forum everyday and lookie what I found. It addresses Alan’s big question. Of course, I don’t know if he’ll consider the answer sufficient but I think it’s gone into more depth then anyone here has yet.
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp

Thank you, bear06, for pointing out the article. It was very well stated and worth every word.

Good enough that I’m linking to it from my website of good articles and writings.

Peace,
javelin

P.S. I tried posting to the AAA forum again yesterday (on a completely different topic) – we’ll see how/if they respond!

 

[DVIN_CKS]

bear06… thanks for the link/article. I read it and could see that it addressed some of my concerns on the subject.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

My comment on Christopher West’s article is in reference to this statement:

People will often retort, “C’mon! That’s splitting hairs! What’s the big difference between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? End result’s the same thing.” To which I respond: What’s the big difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? End result’s the same thing. One is an act of God. In the other, man takes the powers of life into his own hands and tries to make himself like God (cf. Gen. 3:5).

I’m not sure I agree with the comparison of NFP vs ABC to a miscarriage vs abortion. With a miscarriage or abortion life ALREADY EXISTS. Abstaining from sex or “rendering the union sterile yourself” is not involving a life. Potential for life, yes but actual life, no. The point West is trying to make is that one choice is natural and one is not. So? What about a child conceived by natural means and one conceived by artificial insemenation? The end is still the same…LIFE! Same with abortion and miscarriage, the end is the same…DEATH. NFP and ABC (not including certain methods which destroy a pre-existing fetus) are dealing with preventing conception. Which leads me back to the question of intent.

 

[bear06]

I believe this has more to do with the spilling seed issue that Alan was caught up on. He was pointing out that he didn’t see the diff between barrier and NFP when it came to spilling seed. I believe the miscarriage vs. NFP answer that West gives is a clearer explanation of why the Church doesn’t see it this way.

As I always suggest, and I know it’s redundant, the Church teaches what it teaches for our protection. The stats back it up. I’m not sure what your whole reasoning is for not wanting anymore children. I’ll agree that they can be tiring, however, I can tell you from experience that the tiring times don’t last forever. If they did, I think I’d definitely have found the grave reason to use NFP!!! I’d be a basket case (not that I’m not already!) by now.

Alan, thanks for your concern. What I meant by my quote was that if I didn’t have this dreadful, awful, morning sickness, I still probably wouldn’t be able to get to all of the Church docs I should because then I would be homeschooling 3 of my kids, doing laundry, cooking, cleaning, etc. I’ve been reading these forums for weeks just here and there because I have to bug out when my hubby puts our baby to bed. That’s when I stumbled onto Javelin’s post. Normally I wasn’t getting involved with any of these posts because I literally have to go throw up while I’m reading and typing so I try to avoid as much as I can but his post got me off of the sideline. I really don’t process reading all that well and I’d do it even less now which is the reason I’m giving for not reading all of the stuff from the Church I should!

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Intent plays a role, but it comes down to the order:

The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and upbringing of children. The upbringing of existing children can certainly be a grave factor in determing whether to bring more.

The secondary purpose is mutal help and morally acceptable satisfaction of sexual desire.

NFP vs. ABC is very relevant because ABC automatically destroys the primary purpose in favor of the secondary. That is, it is intrinsicly disordered. Acting on the knowledge gained from NFP can be potentially disordered, but as it normally respects the primary to secondary order, it is not automatically wrongful.

Scott

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Scott Waddell:

Acting on the knowledge gained from NFP can be potentially disordered, but as it normally respects the primary to secondary order, it is not automatically wrongful.

Isn’t what you’re really trying to say here is that if one uses the knowledge gained from NFP to control the number of pregnancies while AT THE SAME TIME being fully open to conception taking place at any union then the couple is not sinning in the eyes of the Church?

If, however, the couple uses the knowledge of NFP to control the number of pregnancies and are NOT open to conception taking place then they are in a state of sinfulness, right?

The whole circular argument IMO hinges on the couples’ intent. The key to this whole teaching is that married couples MUST ALWAYS be open to conception at every single act of intercourse. It is understandable why the Church would endorse the NFP method over ABC, however unless the couple remains open AT ALL TIMES to conception then what difference does it really make what method they use? The real “sin” has already been committed in their hearts. That sin being that they are not open to conception at any time.