H
happymommy
Guest
So sad
- Status
S
Serap
Guest
The NFP couple is frustrating conception by avoiding during fertile time. They are saying NO to a baby.
H
happymommy
Guest
No, they are saying, lets not have sex today. If they decide to go ahead and have sex that day, they are open to a baby.
W
wanner47
Guest
How is working with God’s design saying “No” to a baby? By your logic, GOD is saying “no” to the baby.
S
Serap
Guest
Actually to add to another person’s post, people are then abusing NFP b/c many couples use NFP once they are done at 1 or 2 children when they could easily conceive more.
So what is the difference if most couples are abusing NFP anyway?
For the record people, I am using NFP…
So much judgement.
So what is the difference if most couples are abusing NFP anyway?
For the record people, I am using NFP…
So much judgement.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
They are spiritually comorbid as it were. Once the hurdle of denying one teaching of the Church falls, denying others isn’t a big jump.
Case in point are these troubled souls. Even a cursory scan of their profiles reveals that they’re not paragons of orthodox belief save for one heresy that unites them.
S
Serap
Guest
this logic makes absolutely no sense to me
S
Serap
Guest
then they should NOT avoid during fertile time to really allow God into the relationship.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Very true, and this well illustrates how exactly ABC hurts people.
H
happymommy
Guest
Who judged you? No one said that you weren’t using NFPActually to add to another person’s post, people are then abusing NFP b/c many couples use NFP once they are done at 1 or 2 children when they could easily conceive more.
So what is the difference if most couples are abusing NFP anyway?
For the record people, I am using NFP…
How do you know most couples are abusing NFP? They have told you this?
W
wanner47
Guest
Why? God designed our cycles to work as they do. He could have chosen to make us fertile 100% of the time. Using this logic, then, it’d be a sin for a woman to have sex at her infertile time at all, regardless if she is trying to achieve or avoid pregnancy.
It’s not a sin to avoid pregnancy for just reasons, Serap. The sin comes when you use an artificial means of doing so that works against God’s design and not with it.
C
crazzeto
Guest
You keep trying to hammer on this point, but the Church has never taught that faith is so blind as you make it. As has been discussed over and over and over again, fasting in any form, whether from food, sexuality, TV, whatever is never a bad thing. NFP relies upon fasting to work, there for you are most definietly doing Gods work, for God, when you use NFP.
When you use ABC, you are doing the world’s work, for your own personal gain. This reminds us of man’s initial fall in the garden. God asked Adam and Eve not to take the fruit of the vine, because it was not theirs to take. When they disobeyed God, they essentially offered up the sacrafice of food taken into the temple (their body’s), and offered it up to themselves, for their own gain. This is a profanity, that caused many to fall.
We are creatures of God, so what we do should be for his greater glory. Steralizing sexuality, so that I can enjoy it on my own terms, takes a gift of God and profines it, for my own benefit. Again, as has been discussed countless times, NFP doesn’t do that.
H
Havard
Guest
Please see my post, #387, which I directed to you.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I think at this point, it is fruitful to reference the specific portions of the CCC relating to this discussion. Think the most important passage is paragraph 2399:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2399.htm
Link to paragraph in context of the rest of the CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2399
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2399.htm
i.e. the regulation of births is a good, more over it’s a part of responcible parenthood. Not only is it a good, it is a necessary part of being a good parent. This is not about having as many babies as we can, as quickly as possible. The issue is how we approch the regulation of births, notice part 2:
i.e., the regulation of births is a legitimate intention, however despite the fact that this is the case, the ends do not justify the means (Rom 3:8+).
Link to paragraph in context of the rest of the CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2399
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The fecundity of marriage 2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of life"150 teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open ‘per se’ to the transmission of life."151 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."152
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.155
The gift of a child
2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.162
2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"163 and Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"164
The gift of a child
2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.162
2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"163 and Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"164
R
RobbyS
Guest
1
1holycatholic
Guest
RobbyS what are your words?
C
crazzeto
Guest
Yep, yet again this says that spacing births is not a sin… If it were, then it would, for instance, be impossible for us to declare the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was married and never did have relations, sinless.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The exception does not make the rule. Mary’s one and only child Jesus, doesn’t translate into a doctrine of one-child per family, or a doctrine of perpetual virginity for all women.
But spacing births for just reasons is not sinful.
C
crazzeto
Guest
On what do you base this “exception”, what of St. Peter, who was married and gave up relations? What of all the Married Bishops and Clergy of the early church, who did the same… Are you suggesting what they did was sinful? Or perhaps, are we willing to admit that there are in fact, exactly as your source suggests, very pious reasons to even give up sexuality and child baring completely.
And if we can finally admit this, based upon the very example of the Fathers of the Church, as well as the example of the Blessed Virgin, why can we then not admit that there are very good and pious reasons to use NFP to regulate births.
One situation is one I brought up personally, my wife had horrible preeclampsia in the first pregnancy, we need to give her body time to recover. There are other reasons, reasons even to set limits on the number of children you even bring into the world as the CCC suggests. How many children can you truely support materially and emotionally. It is not good to bring more children into the world, only to suffer being depraved basic human needs, for no reason other than a misguided belief that we are nothing but baby making machines.
Paragraphs 2366 & 2399 make this clear, very clear. In this context, you are not regulating births for selfish reasons… In this context, you are acheiving a genuine good.
So, I stand by everything I’ve said. And I thank you, for providing even more supporting material directly into the discussion.
- Status