D
Debora123
Guest
Apology excepted.Clearly I’m the only one do that here…
Tell you what Debora, you win. I’m wrong, I falsely accused you. Going to another thread now so please proceed with the original topic.
Peace.
- Status
B
Blacksword
Guest
Yes, as well as the bit about “in anticipation of the act”. There are a number of actual actions a person is taking with NFP in anticipation of sexual activity that they are undertaking with the sole intent and purpose of rendering that act infertile. They are measuring body temperatures, examining their cervix, or checking mucous amounts. These are all actions all done with the same intent as putting on a condom.Doesn’t this line exclude NFP as well?
In the end, people employing full rationality and reason such as the OP here find that the various arguments for why NFP is ok and everything else intrinsically always and everywhere evil are, unfortunately, poor. They assume the consequent in comparing ABC to theft or murder (that being the object they wish to prove, that ABC is inherently wrong), or make various other reasoning errors.
Really the most that can be said is, in the end, that the unitive and procreative capacities of sex must never be separated, and this is so just because. I fail to see myself why this is necessarily so, this axiom is not self-evident. And I unfortunately have yet to see a compelling argument as to why it is so; it’s pretty much submit to this because Humanae Vitae says so, despite, in my opinion, good reasons why this teaching remains in a state that is not infallibly declared ex cathedra as dogma.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Such is not what the Church teaches.
NFP simply does nothing to render --cause–the marital act to be infertile.
But anyhow the thread has been concluded.
B
Blacksword
Guest
NFP also distorts the procreative nature of the act. It involves deliberate action and calculation in order to prevent a sperm reaching an egg.
F
fix
Guest
It does not have to be a dogma to be infallible or irreformable.
In many ways it is very simple. NFP does not alter the act in anyway. It does not intentionally suppress fertility during the marital act. All contraception alters the act and suppresses fertility.
As for the moral reasoning that is spelled out in many places including in HV.
F
fix
Guest
That is simply inaccurate.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
If I check the weather report prior to going to the beach did I “render” my beach day sunny?
Did the meterologist, in using advanced equipment to correctly determine a sunny day, “render” the day sunny?
Did the meterologist, in using advanced equipment to correctly determine a sunny day, “render” the day sunny?
H
Havard
Guest
Well, if anyone could do that, it’d definitely be Ginger Zee. :blushing:
B
Bookcat
Guest
J
jinc1019
Guest
I appreciate your candid thoughts…but again, this quote shows that, if true, couples could never have sex UNLESS pregnancy was possible to occur, Otherwise, the procreative nature of sex would be separated from sex. NFP deliberately removes the procreative nature of sex, and thus violates this argument.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I agree completely!
F
fix
Guest
Round and round…
The likelyhood of conception is not the issue. The act must be ordered toward procreation, in an objective sense, regardless of the subjective state of the people involved.
Your arguments remind of the “gay” arguments that claim if they can’t “marry” then infertile couples should not be married. It misses the entire point. That a couple is subjectively infertile does not mean their marital embrace is not objectively ordered toward procreation.
B
Bookcat
Guest
this is where your not understanding “what” the Church teaches regarding the nature of the Marital act.
Get the book mentioned before
D
Debora123
Guest
I think BlackSword’s post was pretty much in the agreement with your point of view on this, not refuting it.
B
Blacksword
Guest
Oh, it’s that easy huh? Thanks for the tip!
Except you seem to not realize that in today’s world, in advanced societies, finishing school and starting work means for plenty of folks being 28, 30, or even older. Then how long to meet that special someone, since you couldn’t do it before this very well? A year? Two? Maybe more…with this advice many, those most intelligent and ambitious in life anyway, won’t need to worry about ABC at all, they’ll be nearing pre-menopausal before even marrying! And I suppose be in Steve Carrell’s boat as in 40 Year Old Virgin. Maybe it’s past time we as a society honestly confronted the near impossible obstacles we now have erected to preventing what should be natural and normal? There’s a reason young people are terrified of pregnancy early in marriage and having “too many” kids: our social order, especially in the U.S., is completely unsupportive and often outright hostile to it. You can’t live decently without both spouses working full-time, child-care is exhorbitantly expensive, living expenses for basic food and clothing and housing continue to rise while working wages and median income has been flat for 30 years, or decreased when taking into account inflation…seriously, to those posters here of a certain age, being a young adult today is NOTHING like it was in 1970. I know I frankly would love to have eight, ten kids, but is the Pope going to chip in for child-care? Cause Uncle Sam sure isn’t, and we’d be such a blessed family if we did have a basketball team of children that we’d be living with my parents…the Monty Python skit comes to mind where the father says to his, like, 50 kids, “The Lord has blessed us so much that we can’t afford to fed you anymore!”But in a sad way your post has some sense: if everyone just remained virgin until marriage and didn’t marry until finished with school and in a career, many fewer would need to worry about ABC, already having neared natural infertility before even saying their vows!
T
TimothyH
Guest
Very good. Thanks.
I have been reading Romans through several times over the past few weeks and thought I had understood it fairly well, then something like this comes along and humbles.
-Tim-
T
TimothyH
Guest
You can live decently without two incomes.Oh, it’s that easy huh? Thanks for the tip!
But in a sad way your post has some sense: if everyone just remained virgin until marriage and didn’t marry until finished with school and in a career, many fewer would need to worry about ABC, already having neared natural infertility before even saying their vows!
It is the definition of “Decently” which has become distorted. A $60,000 SUV with heated seats and DVD system, granite countertops, consuming 4000 calories per day and carrying ten thousand in credit card debt is not living decently, it is living decadently.
It’s pride, instead of driving a Ford Escort and not worrying about having the latest minivan.
-Tim-
H
Havard
Guest
FYI, that post itself was a derail from the thread’s topic, people already already complained about it, and the conversation has moved on from that discussion.Oh, it’s that easy huh? Thanks for the tip!
But in a sad way your post has some sense: if everyone just remained virgin until marriage and didn’t marry until finished with school and in a career, many fewer would need to worry about ABC, already having neared natural infertility before even saying their vows!
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your very welcome. It is as must read for all
--especially Lent is a good time.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html (read past first paragraph)
D
Debora123
Guest
Perhaps this applies to some folks, but many younger families I know have to have both parents working just so they can pay the bills. Owning a cheap car is the least of their worries.
- Status