Is the Church wrong about NFP?

[Nimeniton]

Objectively, though, using NFP to avoid pregnancy doesn’t involve any acts whose object is immoral: no act of intercourse is contracepted. The sexual intercourse they have is already infertile on its own without any intervention on their part… and the fertile intercourse they might otherwise have had doesn’t happen, doesn’t exist, at all during that period.

Thus there’s no actual act to contracept.

Well, that still sounds like natural v artificial to me. In NFP the sterility is natural and in contraception the sterility uses an artificial method. Intention, act and result are identical in all other respects. If it is not natural v artificial then what exactly is immoral? It does not make any sense to me.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Well, that still sounds like natural v artificial to me. In NFP the sterility is natural and in contraception the sterility uses an artificial method.

Objectively, what the Church considers wrong is to separate a particular act of sexual intercourse from its inherent procreative potential.

Using NFP to avoid pregnancy never entails doing this, since the only acts of sexual intercourse that happen, that exist at all, have no procreative potential to thwart.

It may be a fine distinction, but it is a clear one.

Intention, act and result are identical in all other respects. If it is not natural v artificial then what exactly is immoral?

What is immoral is blocking a particular sexual act’s procreative potential.

Regarding NFP vs. contraceptives, the result is the same and the intention can be as well; you are right.

The act, however, is not. All the methods the Church condemns involve thwarting a sexual act’s procreative potential. Abstinence during fertile times doesn’t involve this, since there’s no procreative potential to thwart in the infertile period, and in the fertile period no sex happens at all, so there’s no act at all in that time from which to divorce its procreative potential.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This site is open to non Catholics who may and often do not accept the church’s authority.I am not a Catholic. I personally believe the church can err and has done so. But theat is a matter for another thread.

Yeah, sorry about that. Some posters forget to look at what another poster has listed for his or her “religion.”

“Why don’t you trust the Church?” is a good argument for those who claim to be Catholic, but obviously it’s certainly not logically inconsistent for you to question the dependability of the Church’s teachings if you wish.

 

[Nimeniton]

Objectively, what the Church considers wrong is to separate a particular act of sexual intercourse from its inherent procreative potential.

Using NFP to avoid pregnancy never entails doing this, since the only acts of sexual intercourse that happen, that exist at all, have no procreative potential to thwart.

It may be a fine distinction, but it is a clear one.

What is immoral is blocking a particular sexual act’s procreative potential.

Regarding NFP vs. contraceptives, the result is the same and the intention can be as well; you are right.

The act, however, is not. All the methods the Church condemns involve thwarting a sexual act’s procreative potential. Abstinence during fertile times doesn’t involve this, since there’s no procreative potential to thwart in the infertile period, and in the fertile period no sex happens at all, so there’s no act at all in that time from which to divorce its procreative potential.

I can see the fine distinction but have no idea why it is a moral one. the intention, the sexual act and the result is the same. Artificial or natural it is a deliberate act. Further it seems like sophistry considering the condemnation of it in the OT of menstruation the usual infertile period. ‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people". Leviticus 20:18

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I can see the fine distinction but have no idea why it is a moral one. the intention, the sexual act and the result is the same. Artificial or natural it is a deliberate act.

It may seem counterintuitive or hard to comprehend, but - as the NFP exception shows - the Catholic Church genuinely has no objection to the desire to space one’s children, even if it involves willing to have sex that won’t result in pregnancy. The issue is means, not ends.

That’s why the argument, “But the intention is the same!” is true but not necessarily relevant. Let me say again: it *can *be entirely morally acceptable; the issue is means, not ends.

As to the other issue you brought up - why objectively accepting the procreative potential of each and every sexual act is so important to the Catholic Church - that can indeed be hard for many nonbelievers to understand. It ultimately stems from the application of the Church’s extremely anti-dualistic worldview, in which body and soul are so integrated that what we do and express with the body is irrepressibly linked to what our soul does and expresses, to what the Church believes about sex. But it would be quite another topic that would involve a lot of discussion of recent theology, philosophy (particularly phenomenology), and even psychology.

Further it seems like sophistry considering the condemnation of it in the OT of menstruation the usual infertile period. ‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people". Leviticus 20:18

Christians - and I speak for all/most Christians here - do not follow the prescripts of the Law of Moses. We haven’t since A.D. 50.

 

[manualman]

This reminds me of how subtly magnificent God’s revelation to mankind is: complex and subtle enough for a genius to study in wonder his whole life and yet simple enough for an illiterate peasant to comprehend the basic principles. And amazingly, God speaks equally clearly to both.

Sometimes the rationalizing power of sophistry reaches impressive heights. Perhaps I lean towards the peasant side of things, but I like to remember that sins aren’t just arbitrary things on God’s little list, but are actually things that damage people’s ability to give and receive love. God clearly made marriage, sex and babies complex facets of a single subject: human sexual intimacy. It doesn’t take very long in an NFP relationship to realize that even when temporarily trying to avoid, sex remains fundamentally an experience of makin’ babies. Similarly, honest contraceptive users must admit that it doesn’t take very long on the pill before an attitude sets in that sex and babies are almost entirely unrelated topics. THIS is the manifestation of the damage contraception does and the way it undermines marriage (and cuts through all of Chrono’s rationalizing).

I know lots of NFP practicing families. Many to most of them have at least one “oh what the heck” baby. Contraceptive couples have no idea what I’m even talking about there. For them, it’s all “planned” or “unplanned.” For them sex is divorced the most fundamentally human motivations for having children and reduced to a mere rational and economic decision. Not surprisingly, they rarely ‘decide’ to have more than 2 of the expensive little critters. Think about it.

 

[Tridentine_Cat]

The Church’s teaching is summarized in canon 1013 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which states that “the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children.” The intention of having children, provided that this is possible, is consequently essential to the very substance of the matrimonial contract, which is for “acts which are in themselves capable of engendering children” (cf. canon 1081, 1917 Code of Canon Law).

The importance of children as the primary end of marriage was again stressed by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII:

To the question: “Whether the views of certain recent writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, or teach that the secondary ends are not necessarily subordinate to the primary end, but are equally principal and independent,” the reply was: In the negative (quoted in Bouscaren & Ellis, Canon Law, p.400).

Yet the 1983 Code of Canon Law embraces the personalist conception condemned less than 40 years earlier by not only placing the two ends of marriage on an equal and independent level, but even listing first the secondary end (i.e., mutual support, or the personal good of the spouses):

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring (canon 1055, §1, 1983 Code of Canon Law).

It is ultimately this new concept of marriage, as being for the couple themselves, and not so much for children, which has resulted in the refusal of Catholics since Vatican II to have large families. Artificial birth control, which is the destruction of Catholic families, is no longer condemned as a mortal sin, for marriage is now considered in a selfish way, as being for the couple itself, rather than an outpouring of love desiring to participate in God’s work of creation and sanctification of His children. The so-called practice of Natural Family Planning (NFP), propagated in the post-Conciliar Church as a “Catholic” method of contraception, derives also from the same contraceptive mentality. Since marriage is considered primarily for the couple itself, they consider themselves free to determine the number of children and their spacing. This can be a mortal sin if NFP is employed without sufficient reason, as approved by the Church (e.g., serious eugenic, social, or medical reasons, such as danger to the life of the mother through additional children). Whether it be through artificial or natural means that the first purpose of marriage is frustrated, such couples who are not willing to accept all the children God sends them do indeed fail to live up to their marriage vows.

However, this does not mean the marriage vows with the condition of limiting children by artificial contraception or natural family planning are necessarily invalid. The exclusion of children is certainly a grounds for a declaration of nullity, but only when there is an explicit, provable, and positive act of the will to avoid children, that is, only when the obligation of having children, as being the fulfillment of the first purpose of marriage, is explicitly excluded. For this is an intention contrary to the substance of marriage itself. The difficulty in such cases is to determine whether it is the obligation of having children which is refused, or whether it is simply the fulfillment of this obligation (cf. Bouscaren, Canon Law Digest, I, pp. 532,533).

Those couples who accept the obligation of having children are certainly validly married, even if they do not always fulfill this obligation, e.g., by limiting the number of their children. This is the case of those selfish couples, without faith in Divine Providence, who are determined to limit the size of their family for reasons of convenience or simply because they prefer it that way. They commit a grave sin, even if it is by NFP that they presume to do this. They are truly married, but they will never be able to communicate to their children generosity, the spirit of sacrifice, the love of the Cross, of souls and the Church.

Moreover, even if a couple deliberately excludes all children, the Church always presumes, until proven otherwise, that it is the fulfillment of the duty that is excluded, and not the obligation of having children itself, and that consequently the marriage is valid. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

 

[Abu]

Tridentine Cat #106
Artificial birth control, which is the destruction of Catholic families, is no longer condemned as a mortal sin,
(NFP), propagated in the post-Conciliar Church as a “Catholic” method of contraception, derives also from the same contraceptive mentality.

False on both counts.
No wonder no referenced doctrine could be given, and NBR as clearly explained is totally contrary to contraception, but may be misused like anything else in life.

Both the Encyclicals *Casti Connubii *of Pius XI, 1930, and Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, 1968, condemned contraception infallibly as gravely wrong, the latter was issued after the advent of the contraceptive “Pill”.
Casti Connubii infallibly defines contraception as a grave sin:
“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."

In 1968, in Humanae Vitae (14), Pope Paul VI declared: “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means”…. “it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it” and uses this to affirm that: “it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

Playing cat and mouse with doctrine, and assuming a “parallel magisterium” denies Christ and His Church. No faithful follower of Christ goes down that road to perdition.

 

[Nimeniton]

Christians - and I speak for all/most Christians here - do not follow the prescripts of the Law of Moses. We haven’t since A.D. 50.

I am well aware of the fact that they don’t keep ALL the laws given by God to Moses but they certainly keep a lot of them, the ten commandments the laws against homosexuality etc. Why is the law against having sex with a menstruating woman one of laws given by God to Moses on the exception list.

*Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. *

This would indicate that Christians have no right to disregard some of the OT laws given by God including the restrictions on sex during menstruation.

 

[Chrono13]

In *Casti Connubii *(II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Can’t browse the web for exact name, but co-writer of Casti Connubii comfirmed the passage above was not meant for infertile periods of regular circle. It was simply meant that sex in old (infertile) age, or in case of defect (which causes infertility) is not sinful.

Precisely because the purpose of marriage is to cooperate with God for providing children. The sneerers and jeerers at God, Christ and His Church, only try to push their prejudices
– ignore them.

With all respect to you, but in what way do they cooperate with God? By abstinence during fertile period? But God certainly won’t create a new human being if He doesn’t want to. If couple is open to life, logic of natural law claims they will have same number of children no matter the period of fertility (Because they do not interfere with God’s will nor nature as it was created).

God killed Onan for contraception – leaving us with the example.

Why Tamar did not report Onan’s spilling of the seed to the elders, as was her marital duty?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I am well aware of the fact that they don’t keep ALL the laws given by God to Moses but they certainly keep a lot of them, the ten commandments the laws against homosexuality etc. Why is the law against having sex with a menstruating woman one of laws given by God to Moses on the exception list.

Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This would indicate that Christians have no right to disregard some of the OT laws given by God including the restrictions on sex during menstruation.

If you interpret that passage from Matthew to mean that no follower of Jesus can ever violate any prescript of the Mosaic Law, sex is the least of your worries.

We would also not be allowed to wear anything that has both wool and linen (Deut. 22:11). Men would never be allowed even to trim their beards, let alone shave (Lev. 19:27).

But in the context of this thread, I am unwilling to veer off-topic and discuss this theological matter.

The fact is, the Old Testament law you cited against sex with a menstruating woman is not binding on Christians today. If you believe that’s inconsistent with what Jesus says in Matthew, okay, that’s an argument, but it’s self-evidently not an internal inconsistency in the Catholic Church’s teachings. That’s my only point at this time in this thread.

 

[circumferential]

Those who think the church is wrong about NFP should refrain from sex in infertile periods, just to be sure of a better sperm count and so be really open to God at other times. Those who think the church is right, well, I suppose they can live their entire life deliberately evading the possibility of parenthood. Or perhaps the issue can never be so cut and dry. perhaps the answer about the virtue or sin of NFP lies as in many other aspects of human actions, in the subtle attitudes and intents within our souls.

There is another aspect of sex which I would like to compare to the NFP question. People can be primarily concerned about their own enjoyment of the act, and perhaps not at all with their partner. Others may have a relationship mirroring that of Christ and His Father; One gives everything to the other and takes nothing from the other, all the while receiving everything from the other with humble thanksgiving/love in his/her heart. Like with the NFP question, in this way one can act in accordance with the Holy Spirit or in selfish sin.

The devil can be so subtle. He could so distract us from appreciating the beautiful in things such as sex or even a teaching of the church by playing down the more important, the more subtle spirit of a thing.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 #109
God certainly won’t create a new human being if He doesn’t want to. If couple is open to life, logic of natural law claims they will have same number of children no matter the period of fertility (Because they do not interfere with God’s will nor nature as it was created).

The flight from reason has plagued Chrono13 relentlessly. The absurdity of the claim is monstrous. To deny that God has given man free-will to cooperate with Him or not to cooperate with Him is to deny reality. The reduction in world-wide birth rates through immoral contraception shows clearly the free-will with which mankind is endowed and which is able to turn against the natural law.

He fails to acknowledge that God has created the laws of nature of which infertile periods are part, enabling a married couple to cooperate with Him when for worthy reasons they abstain, whereas contraception is a refusal to cooperate with Him.

He fails to acknowledge that Christ is God who teaches infallibly through His Church which He founded for that purpose, and which validates the sanctity of NBR for just reasons.

 

[Nimeniton]

If you interpret that passage from Matthew to mean that no follower of Jesus can ever violate any prescript of the Mosaic Law, sex is the least of your worries.

You keep referring to is as the Mosaic law as if the OT presents these laws as coming from Moses. They do not. The OT presents them as coming from God through Moses.

We would also not be allowed to wear anything that has both wool and linen (Deut. 22:11). Men would never be allowed even to trim their beards, let alone shave (Lev. 19:27).

Agreed. Not to mention the right to keep foreigners as slaves

But in the context of this thread, I am unwilling to veer off-topic and discuss this theological matter.

Neither am I. I am happy to keep it in context.

The fact is, the Old Testament law you cited against sex with a menstruating woman is not binding on Christians today. If you believe that’s inconsistent with what Jesus says in Matthew, okay, that’s an argument, but it’s self-evidently not an internal inconsistency in the Catholic Church’s teachings. That’s my only point at this time in this thread.

Yes, that is my argument. There is an internal inconsistency. Paul saw God’s law as as a hindrance to making converts amongst the gentiles. Matthew on the other hand claimed that none of the law could be changed. I would say that Matthew’s view is more consistent with scriptures. There is no suggestion that I am aware of in either the new or the old testaments that suggest that sex with a menstruating woman is acceptable.

 

[Ana_v]

Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This would indicate that Christians have no right to disregard some of the OT laws given by God including the restrictions on sex during menstruation.

“But to fulfill”. Could he fulfill obsolete laws? No. While in the process of completing his ministry on earth, of course he would not destroy the law.

Now, keep in mind John 19:28-30

“Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

Luke 24:44

He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

St. Paul confirms that Christ’s sacrifice did away with the Old Covenant:

Eph 2:14 -15

“For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity. , which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity”.

The notion that the Old Covenant, is binding on Christians, is a notion that was addressed centuries ago.

Faustus said: “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” If these are Christ’s words, unless they have some other meaning, they are as much against you as against me. Your Christianity as well as mine is based on the belief that Christ came to destroy the law and the prophets. Your actions prove this, even though in words you deny it. It is on this ground that you disregard the precepts of the law and the prophets. It is on this ground that we both acknowledge Jesus as the founder of the New Testament, in which is implied the acknowledgment that the Old Testament is destroyed. How, then, can we believe that Christ said these words without first confessing that hitherto we have been wholly in error, and without showing our repentance by entering on a course of obedience to the law and the prophets, and of careful observance of their requirements, whatever they may be? This done, we may honestly believe that Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. As it is, you accuse me of not believing what you do not believe yourself, and what therefore is false.

…]

Augustine replied: Since you continue repeating what has been so often exposed and refuted, we must be content to repeat the refutation. The things in the law and the prophets which Christians do not observe, are only the types of what they do observe. These types were figures of things to come, and are necessarily removed when the things themselves are fully revealed by Christ, that in this very removal the law and the prophets may be fulfilled. So it is written in the prophets that God would give a new covenant, “not as I gave to their fathers.” Such was the hardness of heart of the people under the Old Testament, that many precepts were given to them, not so much because they were good, as because they suited the people. Still, in all these things the future was foretold and prefigured, although the people did not understand the meaning of their own observances. After the manifest appearance of the things thus signified, we are not required to observe the types; but we read them to see their meaning. So, again, it is foretold in the prophets, “I will take away their stony heart, and will give them a heart of flesh,”—that is, a sensible heart, instead of an insensible one. To this the apostle alludes in the words: “Not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart.” The fleshy tables of the heart are the same as the heart of flesh. Since, then, the removal of these observances is foretold, the law and the prophets could not have been fulfilled but by this removal. Now, however, the prediction is accomplished, and the fulfillment of the law and the prophets is found in what at first sight seems the very opposite.

…]

To conclude, Catholic Christians are in no difficulty regarding the words of Christ, though in one sense they may be said not to observe the law and the prophets; for by the grace of Christ they keep the law by their love to God and man; and on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Besides, they see in Christ and the Church the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the Old Testament, whether in the form of actions, or of symbolic rites, or of figurative language. So we neither join in superstitious follies, nor declare this verse false; nor deny that we are followers of Christ; for on those principles which I have set forth to the best of my power, the law and the prophets which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill, are no other than those recognized by the Church. "

(Against Faustus, Book 18)

 

[Chrono13]

The flight from reason has plagued Chrono13 relentlessly. The absurdity of the claim is monstrous. To deny that God has given man free-will to cooperate with Him or not to cooperate with Him is to deny reality. The reduction in world-wide birth rates through immoral contraception shows clearly the free-will with which mankind is endowed and which is able to turn against the natural law.

He fails to acknowledge that God has created the laws of nature of which infertile periods are part, enabling a married couple to cooperate with Him when for worthy reasons they abstain, whereas contraception is a refusal to cooperate with Him.

He fails to acknowledge that Christ is God who teaches infallibly through His Church which He founded for that purpose, and which validates the sanctity of NBR for just reasons.

People reading this debate know very well what I have said. Or even better, what I said not.

Now, we both agree that God created fertility circle, as well as other nature. I presume we can also agree that fertility circle is not stand-alone system, producing offspring without God’s surveillance. In other words, God is the creator of life. Life is not product of intercourse during fertile period. It happens with a reason- God’s will.

We don’t believe God simply created woman’s fertility, and expects us to accept it’s “random” results.

In other words, we both agree that nature will not produce child God doesn’t want. Nor will it evade conception God intends to happen.

Now when we explained this, how are we to understand NBR? If couple is open to life, what is mechanic that makes this technique work? They won’t change God’s will. How can we say that NBR is “effective” when it does nothing, once nature is observed in this way?

One must also say, it seems reasonable NBR is indeed effective fertility control. But, in bigger picture, it’s mechanic is greatly unexplained. Church should give an exact answer.

And while they are at it, some explanation of History to loyal layman would be nice too.

 

[Chrono13]

Church teaching today - as well as the writings that have influenced it and/or show its influences, like JPII’s theology of the body - seem to disagree with the very principle that sex for any motive other than procreation is inherently selfish.

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

If that were true, then what Church fathers like Pope Gregory I wrote would be not only true but a complete picture.

We do not dispute his logic, but rather his premises. That is entirely fair development. Pope Gregory accurately described the moral norms for the possibilities he envisioned: sex for procreation vs. sex for selfish motives.

Today, the Church seems to recognize that there are other possibilities. I think St. Thomas knew there were other possibilities as well.

One cannot force what Pope Gregory said to apply a moral scenario he did not envision.

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?

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.

Second, if you change premises, you change conclusions. And when you change conclusions, then anything can be done.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 #115
we both agree that nature will not produce child God doesn’t want. Nor will it evade conception God intends to happen.

False.
There is no child that “God does not want.” God has created mankind and the natural law. What is done is done by His creatures rightly or wrongly – according to His natural laws which are discovered by reason and faith. Catholics have discovered and developed the knowledge of the fertile and infertile periods through medical knowledge and application. The correct use of this knowledge has been declared by His Church.

If couple is open to life, what is mechanic that makes this technique work? They won’t change God’s will. How can we say that NBR is “effective” when it does nothing, once nature is observed in this way?

God has willed us to live by reason and faith through His natural laws and the precepts of His Church. Thus, such theorising about theology and God is amateurish and destructive of reason and of faith in His laws and His Church. Such faulty theorising is symptomatic of delusions – of trying to replace not only the natural law but also Christ’s Church.

 

[Nimeniton]

“But to fulfill”. Could he fulfill obsolete laws? No. While in the process of completing his ministry on earth, of course he would not destroy the law.

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.

 

[Chrono13]

False.
There is no child that “God does not want.”

You tell me that I am wrong, then you repeat my conclusion.

God has created mankind and the natural law. What is done is done by His creatures rightly or wrongly – according to His natural laws which are discovered by reason and faith.

There is nothing unreasonable in claiming every child is God’s will. As a matter of fact, the opposite claim needs explanation.

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?

God has willed us to live by reason and faith through His natural laws and the precepts of His Church. Thus, such theorising about theology and God is amateurish and destructive of reason and of faith in His laws and His Church. Such faulty theorising is symptomatic of delusions – of trying to replace not only the natural law but also Christ’s Church.

What can I say? Professional or amateur, only one question remains. Is child creation of God’s will, or natural consequence? If it is of God, following fertility is void of any effect to nature. If it is of nature alone, NBR works but bypasses influence of God Allmighty.

Where can one see replacing Christ’s Church in this question? As a matter of fact, Traditional Cat actually embraced very obvious facts from Catholic history, which are overlooked, or even jumped over, by certain mainstream.