A
ac_claire
Guest
I don’t know what you mean by “Faith Only” here…
- Status
C
Chrono13
Guest
Fathers didn’t have to analyze every way of stopping procreation, or meditate over it. If something was done to provide sex without chance of procreation, it was sinful by default and didn’t deserve further thought.
S
sacredcello
Guest
You can intend to be procreative during phase III, while intending not to beget. The intention to remain open to the procreative meaning of the marital embrace by keeping it natural, the way God made our bodies has a profound meaning if you understand that the human body is an expression of the human person. We are to love like God loves. We don’t strap on a condom or drug ourselves or mutilate our bodies and then think that sex is going to have the same meaning. It does not. God does not do any of those things. The unity of the three-persons of the Holy Trinity is a far greater mystery than I can explain, but can you imagine if there were mutilations involved between the Three Persons? Yet, that is what is being argued in this thread, that we should be able to do just that.
W
Warrior1979
Guest
Other Christian Churches simply accept Truth (or at least their version of it) at face value and leave it at that. I think an excellent example is Billy Graham. I saw him in an interview where he stated that his starting point was simply to accept what was stated in the Bible as fact. I doubt you’d see him getting in a detailed discussion about the biological aspects of NFP. From what I’ve read on this forum, it seems that various Catholic Churches (other than Roman) do this to an extent, in that they don’t go to into the gory detail that the Roman Catholic Church does.
S
sacredcello
Guest
These are mental somersaults that you are doing, friend. You still didn’t answer my question about natural miscarriage. Since there is a risk of miscarriage with any pregnancy, then perhaps no one should have sex then? We should just stop the human race from propagating right here and now, because there is a chance of miscarriage with each and every pregnancy. This is the same reasoning that you are applying to NFP.
As for the increased risk of miscarriage in women who have a history of miscarriages; this seems to be the most important finding of that study you cited. These events, while tragic, are important for a couple to know that there is a medical problem, so that they can receive treatment, so that the problem of repeat miscarriages does not need to continue for them. In NaPro Technology, there are several protocols, including improving the quality of the mucus by Mucinex, Vitamin B-6 and others.
S
sacredcello
Guest
We are not Evangelicals, we are Catholics. As such, we have Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium as a basis for our faith. You might not like the micro-explanation of an in-depth theological study of morality in the family, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. The unborn are being written and talked about in those studies. I should not want them to be at the whim of an Evangelical Christian who sees no problem with abortifacients. Such as it is, however, the unborn are unprotected in these faith communities. Nevertheless, converts, like myself, come home to the fullness of the Roman Catholic Church every single day, because it represents an unwavering commitment to Truth. The Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not just “me and Jesus” and whatever that happens to mean.
C
Chrono13
Guest
No, you can’t.
If you intend to be procreative, you intend to beget a child.This would never be accepted by Church Fathers. Being “open to life” is not same as “intending procreation”, as procreation is the only thing worth of sexual intercourse.
What to say? If we are to talk about mysteries and mysticisms, that is fine with me. But in case of Church History or intent of sexual act- you will have to confess that NFP and condoms are the same thing. Person who uses infertile periods in order to avoid fertility is rejecting his spouse’s nature, and how his body looks like during act is not so important.We are to love like God loves. We don’t strap on a condom or drug ourselves or mutilate our bodies and then think that sex is going to have the same meaning. It does not. God does not do any of those things.
The unity of the three-persons of the Holy Trinity is a far greater mystery than I can explain, but can you imagine if there were mutilations involved between the Three Persons? Yet, that is what is being argued in this thread, that we should be able to do just that.
S
sacredcello
Guest
NO, no and no. You are not rejecting your spouse by having natural relations with them. You CAN intend the procreative meaning, even if the likelihood of conception is small. You still might end up conceiving, because you have done nothing to (bar/mutilate/drug) the conception from happening. If a conception does happen, there is likely to be greater joy and acceptance than if contraceptives were used. In the latter, the baby is looked upon as an intruder who somehow sneaked past the intention on the part of the couple to avoid and protect against this baby.No, you can’t.
This would never be accepted by Church Fathers. Being “open to life” is not same as “intending procreation”, as procreation is the only thing worth of sexual intercourse.
What to say? If we are to talk about mysteries and mysticisms, that is fine with me. But in case of Church History or intent of sexual act- you will have to confess that NFP and condoms are the same thing. Person who uses infertile periods in order to avoid fertility is rejecting his spouse’s nature, and how his body looks like during act is not so important.
If we are talking about St. Augustine, it might be that he would disagree with the above statement of mine. But, if St. Augustine were alive today, (with the benefit of the writings of Blessed John Paul II and all the other Popes), he would think and write differently than he did during the time that he lived. In any case, St. Augustine was a Doctor, but his views are not infallible and they don’t speak for the Church on NFP, then or now.
W
Warrior1979
Guest
Nope. A fact is a fact. Somersaults aren’t need to state unequivocal facts.
I’m simply drawing logical conclusions from the facts. I don’t believe that there is any ethical issue when sex is simply random…what happens, happens…that’s nature.
I do believe there is a significant ethical issue when sex is restricted to a particular (infertile) period, and it turns out that particular period results in a greater miscarriage rate. People are screaming about how precious every life is, which includes a fertilized egg not yet implanted, yet brush it off nonchalantly when it comes to NFP, calling it natural. Hey, maybe charting, taking temperatures, having sex only during infertile times is completely natural…but call me a skeptic.
I personally believe that the Church was not aware of this when rules for NFP were made up. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me by citing the source.
I know that. But contained in that data are the evidence supporting my position. There is no way that doctor is going to put that data in the light I am, because it shines a bad light on NFP and the Church’s position.
S
sacredcello
Guest
It’s not the facts that are a problem. It is how you are interpreting them to mean that NFP is wrong. By the way, this study didn’t say anything about “early miscarriage” as in “before implantation”. It speaks of detectable miscarriages. That means that the pregnancy has to be far enough along to detect HCG levels. Otherwise, there is no way to know with certainty that a pregnancy has taken place. As I said earlier, this is helpful for the couple to know so that medical treatment can be given, so there does not need to be another repeat miscarriage. It is actually a case for more knowledge is better so that medical treatment can solve the problem. Not a situation of “oh, let’s avoid medical care and keep on having miscarriages.”
If we are speaking about miscarriages that take place before implantation, then there is no way to know how many of these take place during Peak day (fertile) or during phase III (infertile). There could very well be just as many miscarriages due to chromosonal abnormalities or other causes that take place during fertile times. The study does not disprove this.
W
Warrior1979
Guest
I actually couldn’t care less about whether they micro explain everything or not. But if they do, then they have to do it clearly, and in a logical and unbiased fashion. The way it is done has clearly created doubt. I simply cannot reconcile in any way, shape, or form, how greater chance of miscarriage is (implicitly) acceptable given the Church’s position on life.
The problem with being infallible and specific, rather than infallible and general (such as is the case with Faith Only), is that the understanding at the specific level can change dramatically. When the understanding of the specific changes, as I believe it has in this case, and the position is based on the specific can change…well, problem.
I don’t believe that the Church has formally addressed this issue, nor do I believe they will unless they absolutely have to, because it leads to nowhere good.
S
sacredcello
Guest
The Church doesn’t need to address this, because there is no issue that merits it. If there is a detectable miscarriage, this is valuable information for a couple who can then act upon it by receiving medical care. There are miscarriages that happen (and perhaps many more than are detectable) in the fertile phase, but you don’t seem to have a problem with this. Do you think the Church should convene a conference in order to address what to do about miscarriages that happen (perhaps undetectable) during the fertile phase after an act of natural intercourse? No? Then, why would the Church hold a conference (or write an Apostolic Exhortation), that would tell couples how to proceed with getting proper medical care so that they don’t have the problem of repeat miscarriages? It doesn’t make any sense.
L
LaSainte
Guest
Here is an article about it in Science Daily and it cites the Journal of Biomedical Ethics as a source. Apparently, an embryo conceived on the outer fringes of the infertile period is much less likely to survive than those conceived during the fertile period, so by intentionally having unprotected sex only on these days, a couple is by default causing an increased number of miscarriages, which might help to explain some of the “success” of NFP. The doctor in the article estimates that for every accidental pregnancy that occurs with practitioners of NFP, 3 or 4 babies are miscarried, many more than the estimates for those using chemical contraception and many, many more than with those using condoms alone.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526180749.htm
sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526180749.htm
C
Chrono13
Guest
The possibility of conception has no influence on intent. If you are using NFP to be sexually active without begetting a child, you do not intend procreative meaning.
Charting time in order to destroy the semen is simply an act of contraception done without direct action to sexual act itself.
Also, the only way how you might end up conceiving is if you fail to detect the status of woman’s fertility during act. Meaning, if technique fails- and morality of mean is not determined by it’s failing outcome.
With maximum respect, this is just conservative propaganda. The intention of NFP practitioners is to have sex without babies. If they beget a child, their acceptance has nothing to do with their fertility technique. If condom bursts, people might say it had to happen, and embrace the child as gift of God.
Augustine covered this when he talked about blessed families where sexuality is done only for procreation. That is the only case where each and every child is truly wanted.
I do not call St. Augustine infallible. I call him what he is- a stoic thinker when talking about human sexuality.
Now, the problem comes when you take Casti Connubii in question. How it portrays this saint? As stoic? Not really. It gives a very strange interpretation of his writings. Not only it never makes distance from Augustinian radicalism, but it completely bypasses it- as if bishop of Hippo never said sex is burden to the marriage or only moral when done for conceivement.
I don’t like the idea of going out with this, but I am seeking Catholic truth on these matters.
S
sacredcello
Guest
We’ll just have to respectfully disagree on this issue. If my intention is to express the inherent procreative meaning with my spouse in phase III (whether or not we are limiting ourselves to phase III), then that intention is there whether you like it or not. The meaning is there because God created our bodies to express this great mystery. I am not limiting myself to an Augustinian interpretation of sex. St. Augustine was a lustful man, and my husband and I do not have those issues of lust in our marriage.
S
sacredcello
Guest
No, my husband and I are using NFP to actively try to conceive. Many otherwise infertile couples have been able to achieve pregnancy, sometimes after years of trying, after only a few months of charting. There is no propaganda involved in observing one’s own fertile body signs placed there by God.
C
Chrono13
Guest
However, this is not something where two persons can respectfully disagree. It is very objective state of affairs.
“Procreative intent” means something “wanting procreation”. And if you are having relations during phase III specifically because you can’t beget a child, then sorry- you do not intend procreation.
You can have sex on this day by “accident”, ie. not charting at all. But if this is done on purpose, this is completely other story.
S
sacredcello
Guest
The data is grossly misrepresented in that article. Here are the conclusions in the abstract of the study:
Again, more information is better. If couples have one or more miscarriages, they can receive medical care to correct the problem. Even if they are trying to avoid a pregnancy, their medical treatments can improve their health (improve PMS symptoms, etc) as well as avoid the recurrence of another miscarriage.
S
sacredcello
Guest
Objective, yes. And, I am objectively basing my procreative intent on a more current understanding put forth by Blessed John Paul II…not St. Augustine. God created us to love as he loves. We do not contracept because there would be no procreative or unitive intent. It would be (unnaturally) sterile and non-unitive.
C
Chrono13
Guest
- Status