Is the Church wrong about NFP?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Which is very spicy, knowing how contrary it is to original stance.

I see no reason to believe this.

Several things to reply to. First, let’s repeat once again. What are we talking about? Sex. It’s beautiful and bonding. And these characteristics are very self-evident from the act itself. Why it took literally 20 centuries for a Pope to conclude this and write Theology of the body? Why Pope Gregory went so far away from something so obvious? What was his vision of sexuality, and from which source did his mind come up?

It’s not obvious at all. The drive is certainly powerful enough to obscure sex’s God-intended nature as self-gift.

What I wish to point is that claims as “sex is only for procreation” and “people who do it without intention of conceiving are sinners, even if open to life”… these statements do not belong to genuie theological development. You simply can’t say Church had to teach that for centuries in order to come to John Paul The Second.

I don’t disagree with this.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 #119
Will relations with spouse on infertile day avoid conception, if God wants it? No. Then, how are we to say NBR is efficient, if it does nothing?

What this poster fails to realise, ad nauseam, is that God does not nullify the laws of His creation concerning His creatures except to work miracles, or to punish by examples such as Onan and those in Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus he substitutes his prejudices, feelings, desires, wants, wishes, for reality.

Originally and singly, God punished mankind after the arrogant pride of Adam and Eve, and redeemed mankind by His suffering and death.

Thus God’s provision of infertile periods is for the benefit of mankind, through the diligent application of reason and faith in medical science and cooperation with Him for just reasons. We saw in post #84 that “Natural Birth Regulation is natural, avoids the devastating effects of the ‘pill’, encourages self control and respect for the dignity of human life, and is of the order of 99% effective among the uneducated. Mercedes Wilson claims an effectiveness rate of 99 percent among ‘the poorest of the poor’ in Guatemala.”

To fantasise that God nullifies His natural laws at His whim is to adopt the irrationality of Islam as “Orthodox Islamic scholars absolutely rejected any conception of the universe that involved consistent physical laws, because the absolute autonomy of Allah could not be restricted by natural laws. Apparent natural laws were nothing more than mere habits, so to speak, of Allah, and might be discontinued at any time.” (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Regnery, 2005, p 79).

 

[Chrono13]

What this poster fails to realise, ad nauseam, is that God does not nullify the laws of His creation concerning His creatures except to work miracles, or to punish by examples such as Onan and those in Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus he substitutes his prejudices, feelings, desires, wants, wishes, for reality.

By claiming the objective truth that God creates human beings, one does not nullify God’s laws. Actually, one comfirms them to complete extent.

God is master of creation and ruler of life. He is not bounded to nature He created. He supports it and reigns over it. He and only He chooses what is to be , and what not.

Conception is product of His will, not of natural consequence. If NFP/NBR is not interfering with nature, it is void of any effect to conception.

Please provide explanation why Tamar did not obey her duty to report Onan’s spilling of the seed to elders, and was not guilty of sin.

We saw in post #84 that “Natural Birth Regulation is natural, avoids the devastating effects of the ‘pill’, encourages self control and respect for the dignity of human life, and is of the order of 99% effective among the uneducated. Mercedes Wilson claims an effectiveness rate of 99 percent among ‘the poorest of the poor’ in Guatemala.”

Negative.

Since NBR is not interfering with God’s will, it has no efficiency at all (since there is, by logic of natural law you suggest, no child whose conception was evaded by it).

Guatemala recieved every child God intended, therefore, NBR efficiency is 0%.

To fantasise that God nullifies His natural laws at His whim is to adopt the irrationality of Islam as “Orthodox Islamic scholars absolutely rejected any conception of the universe that involved consistent physical laws, because the absolute autonomy of Allah could not be restricted by natural laws. Apparent natural laws were nothing more than mere habits, so to speak, of Allah, and might be discontinued at any time.” (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Regnery, 2005, p 79).

The quote deals with physical interpretation of nature, not ethical.

I wish you peace, and God’ blessings.

 

[Abu]

Chrono 13’s failure to:

1. recognise and understand that mankind is created by God with free-will has accompanied his failure to assent to
2. the reality of Christ as the Son of God who has given His Church infallibility through His Supreme Vicars to each on faith and morals.
3. recognise the natural law which even the pagans like Cicero recognised, has completed his tower of Babel – the edifice of confusion and deceit which masks the order created by God and to which mankind is free to conform or to reject.

Mankind, having discovered through faithful Catholics using their God–given reason, and their faith, the God–given infertile periods and making just use of them as counselled by Christ’s Church, with the 99% efficacy shown by observation, thus can cooperate through the choice of free-will, with God’s will.

That God welcomes every child born, including those born of the evil of rape, and those conceived and killed by contraceptives or abortion, shows that God-given free-will may be used rightly or wrongly, for which the individual will be rewarded or punished.

 

[Ana_v]

You then quote Luke 24:44 and John 19:28-30. For Matthew 5:17-19 says the fulfilment happens when “heaven and earth passes away” which obviously did not happen at Jesus’ death. Heaven and earth passing away is the point at which the law remains in tact.

Matt 5:17-18

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”

“Till heaven and earth pass away” and “until all is accomplished” are both presented as the conditionals for the law passing.

There are two ways to understand this:

P1: All will be accomplished when heaven and earth pass away
P2: “Heaven and earth pass away” refers to the destruction of the physical world
P3: The physical world has not been destroyed
p4: Therefore, all has not yet been accomplished

vs

P1: All will be accomplished when heaven and earth pass away.
P2: John 19:28-30 speaks of how all has been completed.
P3: Therefore, heaven and earth have passed away.

In the second view, the passing of heaven and earth are not understood to mean the end of the world, though yes a change in the state of things… like and passing away of the Old Covenant between heaven and earth (God and Israel) and arrival of the New.

 

[lnslucky]

If not using birth control was a catholic addition after Christ died, I do not follow it. Don’t give me the story of the ‘seed dropping’ because I interpret it differently.

 

[William_of_Ware]

You then quote Luke 24:44 and John 19:28-30. Admiitedly these verses like Matthew 5-17-19 talk about completion. Unfortunately the completion is of something else altogether. For Matthew 5:17-19 says the fulfilment happens when “heaven and earth passes away” which obviously did not happen at Jesus’ death. Heaven and earth passing away is the point at which the law remains in tact. Now you talk of obsolete laws but do not demonstrate that menstruation is one of them nor why it should be. In fact it seems to have been a matter of debate within the church over the centuries and not something settled at St Paul’s time. Even such greats as St Thomas Aquinas and Dun Scotus considered sex with a menstruating woman a mortal sin. womenpriests.org/body/ranke.asp.

It is on the internet so it must be true!

For an atheist, you’re pretty gullible, aren’t you?

 

[Nimeniton]

It is on the internet so it must be true!

For an atheist, you’re pretty gullible, aren’t you?

I would respectfully ask you to address the points made and not resort to name calling. If you feel the site I have quoted is not reliable with regard to the points I have made please demonstrate why. I am assuming that you are not questioning the Biblical quotes which I also found on the internet.