Is "Amoris Laetitia" as dangerous to Church teaching as some claim?

[godisgood77]

So, those using NFP avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex. Those using contraceptives do not avoid sex. Seems completely different to me.

Different means same end … and same motive.

 

[Reuben_J]

JimG:

So, those using NFP avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex. Those using contraceptives do not avoid sex. Seems completely different to me.

Different means same end … and same motive.

godisgood77 is right on that score and where NFP is preferred to ABC (artificial birth control).

There is still a difference though, between NFP and ABC. The former is by abstinence which does not interfere with the biological function of the body for procreation, the sole prerogative which is God’s.

The latter, as opposed to the NFP, does interfere with our body’s procreation purpose, and the Church opposes to that, as we should not deny our body to function naturally (conception - when the sperm fertilizes the ovum) as how God created it to be.

Bearing in mind too, our body is the temple of God (the Holy Spirit). So it should not be meddled with and made unholy by artificially stopping it from carrying its function in this most sacred process of creating life.

The Church does not prohibit a couple from spacing their family, but if they should, of course even employing NFP they are open to life, then the NFP is the way to go.

 

[JimG]

NFP is simply refraining from sexual intercourse if one wishes to avoid pregnancy, OR timing intercourse for the most fertile times if one wishes to achieve pregnancy.

Simply refraining from sexual intercourse has nothing in common with using a condom or pill.

Judging by the declining fertility rates in the developed world, it would seem that the use of NFP to achieve pregnancy would be more socially beneficial at the present time.

 

[Rau]

Exactly… the purpose of NFP is to exercise some control over births which happens to be the same motive of contraceptives

The purpose of contraceptives and NFP May well be the same - to avoid a conception. There’s no evil in that “purpose”. There is no wrong in seeking to avoid a conception - there might be excellent and good reasons to pursue such a course. Wrongdoing arises when the means adopted are unacceptable. NFP and contraception represent different means - one is not evil and the other is evil.

 

[Rau]

Different means same end …

Indeed. The “end” of avoiding a pregnancy for a period of time is not a wrong end. There are various ways a couple might pursue this end:

• no sex for the duration;
• use contraception;
• time sexual relations to the times when pregnancy is less likely.

The Church finds the 2nd of these means to be an immoral means. The church takes no issue with couples adopting the 3rd means where they have good reason.

 

[rcwitness]

I actually think the “end” goal is different.

Contraception and sterilization intend to remove the ability to procreate with sexual intercourse. NFP does not.

NFP, follows fertility cycles to have intercourse during less fertile periods, or abstaining all together for a period. Or following fertile periods more if desiring to increse chances of conception.

Procreation is not removed or frustrated from NFP. That means conception is open, but not likely due to natural levels of fertility.

Creation caused by sex is still honored in an act which does not deliberately block it from happening.

 

[godisgood77]

Let me play devils advocate for moment …

Contraception and sterilization intend to remove the ability to procreate with sexual intercourse. NFP does not.

To be factual, both contraception and sterilization diminish the chance of conception, they do not remove it. There a many cases of fertilization happening while using contraception and after being sterilized… for instance NFP is 98-99% effective and a condom is 98-99% effective… both stats are for perfect execution… both methods falll in to the mid 80% in practice as people make mistakeS

So, to use your logic, these methods that means conception is open, but not likely…

I acknowledge fully that the difference is natural fertility levels vs using science … therein lies the moral question.

I think a lot of people struggle with the fact that the intention is the same - to avoid conception and engage in marital relations. I’ve heard many women argue that NFP is particularly difficult for them because it is the time where they are most naturally open to relations and for some that is the only time they can engage with their husband due to other biological reasons which are likely too graphic for this forum. So as most reasonable people would admit, there many complicated situations that must be considered

 

[po18guy]

Is “Amoris Laetitia” as dangerous to Church teaching as some claim?

In all such moral and theological matters, I defer to the reasoning employed by heavyweight moralists The Dead Milkmen. From their seminal song “Stuart”

You know that Jonny Wurster kid?
The kid that delivers papers in the neighborhood?
He’s a fine kid
Some of the neighbors say he smokes crack, but I don’t believe it…

Middle of the road opinions make no headlines. They generate no revenue. Perhaps reason even opposes revenue. Thus we have examples such as LifeSiteNews and The Vortex decrying the imminent collapse of all that is good.

Visa, Mastercard and PayPal accepted…

 

[steve-b]

Rau:

Eg. The diubia were publicly released and not by the laity.

Where they publicly released on the personal website of some Cardinal? Nope. Someone in the laity had to chose to publish it. Perhaps it started in the secular press. I don’t recall as I don’t really pay attention to the dubia fad.

And in any case, why do Catholics chose to meddle in affairs that are not their own, particularly Catholics that do not have the knowledge or competence to actually understand the dubia or Amoris Laetitia?

Also the “not-so-filial” petitions were not started by clergy, but by anonymous group or websites with a strong bias against the Church as it is today.

If a newspaper leaks an internal document of a corporation’s VP asking the CEO for clarification, the employees really have nothing to do with the matter. It is, as they say, above their pay grade. And they certainly wouldn’t go badmouthing the CEO and his policies, or the VP, if they care for the good name of their corporation.

Many Catholics instead seem to be very excited when something or someone is, as it were, thrown into the arena and the lions (Catholic and not) start tearing into them. There are literally dozens of online outlets dedicating to promote the one and only viewpoint that “Amoris Laetitia is dangerous” or heretical (or some similar absurdity) and extending the claims to name-calling the bishops that discussed certain topics at the synod and finally, to “hitting the shepherd” (forgetting that as a result, division and scandal occurs). And the issues addressed are issues that are best left to real theologians and to the order of bishops and their priests to discuss.

I have yet to find more than five websites that actually spend time discussing the major issues brought forth and addressed, some for the first time by AL, and explaining how it is in continuity with Catholic tradition and where are the new developments.

Just look at this forum. There’s a thread about whether an Apostolic Exhortation written by the Holy Father as a result of two international Synods is “dangerous to Churh teaching”, instead of discussing what is groundbreaking about it and which parts are relevant and practical for the laity.

The devil is running circles around many Catholics and they not even notice. In fact, their pride makes them feel like they are the smart ones. They are the ones who “know”. They have the gnosis…get it? But the truth is not found in sects or sectarian mindsets of aggressive divisionism. It is found in the living Magisterium of the Church, in her bosom, on the foundation of the faith of Peter, to whom we are bound here and now to honor, respect, and obey.

Fr Murray a canonist, + a panel, of ALL qualified individuals, discuss AL . Note the internal links for further context of the subject matter. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...anel-highlights-problems-with-amoris-laetitia

Avg Catholics staying informed, is NOT meddling in what is not our own.

 

[Rau]

I think a lot of people struggle with the fact that the intention is the same - to avoid conception and engage in marital relations.

You appear convinced that that Intention is evil. From where did you get that erroneous idea?

 

[Rau]

I’ve heard many women argue that NFP is particularly difficult for them because it is the time where they are most naturally open to relations and for some that is the only time they can engage with their husband due to other biological reasons which are likely too graphic for this forum.

Many women have told you they can’t have sex other than when fertile?

 

[Edward_H]

To suggest that God’s grace isn’t sufficient is very very dangerous. And that’s one of the problems with AL.

Jesus Himself told us that His grace is sufficient.

 

[Reuben_J]

To suggest that God’s grace isn’t sufficient is very very dangerous. And that’s one of the problems with AL.

Jesus Himself told us that His grace is sufficient.

Care to show us where in the AL it suggests that God’s grace is not sufficient?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In all such moral and theological matters, I defer to the reasoning employed by heavyweight moralists The Dead Milkmen.

This whole forum has reminded me of “Methodist Coloring Book” many a time…

 

[godisgood77]

Never said anything about the intention being evil. Just haven’t been able to reconcile the two situations where the intent is the same, but one is outlawed and the other is not

 

[Edward_H]

Scholars have laid it all out far clearer and in more detail than I can…(http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English.pdf)

but simply take para 273 of AL…(and try to get past the circumlocutions in the pope’s writing).

"In such cases, while the decision is voluntary, inasmuch as it does not run counter to the inclination of their desire, it is not free, since it is practically impossible for them not to choose that evil. "

And then reflect on this from the Council of Trent.

"If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema”

And then there’s this from Our Lord!

2 Cor 12:9 “But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”

 

[Rau]

Never said anything about the intention being evil. Just haven’t been able to reconcile the two situations where the intent is the same, but one is outlawed and the other is not

But you directly imply it. Why would something be “outlawed” on the basis of intention unless the Intention is evil?

The one that is outlawed (contraception) is outlawed not for evil intent, but for the evil means.

 

[pnewton]

"In such cases, while the decision is voluntary, inasmuch as it does not run counter to the inclination of their desire, it is not free, since it is practically impossible for them not to choose that evil. "

In writings like this, words have real meaning, not the casual usage we give them. While it cannot be said that the commandments of God are impossible to follow, neither can it be said, that in practice, God’s commands are followed. There is sin still in the world, and not all of it is of the mortal variety. Most of us have received communion after some sin since our last confession.

If not for the word “practically” (as in practice), I would agree with you. However with it, the actual reality of what is proposed is being addressed. You ended with:

2 Cor 12:9 “But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”

This too is kind of the point. Do we ask people to do that which is impossible apart from the grace of God, while not receiving the grace of God?

 

[Edward_H]

And that’s the problem with that (deliberately used) term “practically impossible”…not helpful or appropriate for an ecclesial document.

It gives people a huge, personally defined, ever stretchable umbrella to run under.

 

[godisgood77]

No I don’t directly imply it… i’m calling in to question the logic of outlawing one means vs another when the intention is the same.

I’m open to being convinced, but haven’t heard a convincing argument yet…