NFP and contraception

[Abu]

Warrior1979, #1071
You continually confuse inquiries into particular issue with dissent. While I question the reasoning behind the issue, I have never said that the Church is wrong, and I am obedient to the Church on the matter.

The only confused people are those who don’t accept what Christ’s Church teaches. Having seen that the Church acknowledged God’s creation in human nature in providing the infertile periods and taught the morality of their use, you still confuse dissent with enquiry as explained in post #829:

Warrior1979, #821
Do you really believe God provided women with an infertile period so that pregnancy can be avoided? Even the Church doesn’t believe that.

As the Church teaches precisely that the infertile period may be used for serious reasons, even solely if justified, it is essential to know what the Church actually teaches.

Post # 390:
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”

The reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
[cmri.org/03-nfp.htm]](http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.htm])

 

[Warrior1979]

For what exactly?

If you’ve given full assent, the coherent line of reasoning is not much of a use. One does not believe doctrine because there is coherent understanding present about it.

As I’ve noted in the past, telling people to accept something by faith alone is acceptable with regard to matters pertaining to religion and morals. Trying to justify it by a line of reasoning that is unclear at best, and contradicts the opinions of those in the authority in the Church’s past (as Chrono has noted in detail) is harmful to the cause, and creates doubt even in the minds of the faithful.

If none of the attempts at making sense to you by others have succeeded, it is a cross for you to carry the burden of not knowing how it must be at this time.

I have no doubt…there is a problem with the line of reasoning behind NFP. That is blatantly obvious. That doesn’t necessarily means it’s incorrect, but there is a serious problem.

 

[Warrior1979]

The only confused people are those who don’t accept what Christ’s Church teaches.

This statement is so wrong it’s preposterous. I hope you’re not serious. Confusion has to do with “understanding,” not acceptance. Substitute “understand” with “accept” in your sentence and you have something reasonable.

As the Church teaches precisely that the infertile period may be used for serious reasons, even solely if justified, it is essential to know what the Church actually teaches.

Well, at least taught since 1853.

 

[Abu]

It’s simple – if you don’t accept, you don’t consent to, which means dissent since a Catholic is bound to the profession of faith (Can 205). Confusion here is not in understanding a dogma or doctrine, it is about simply being confused as to who a Catholic is.

 

[ddarko]

As I’ve noted in the past, telling people to accept something by faith alone is acceptable with regard to matters pertaining to religion and morals. Trying to justify it by a line of reasoning that is unclear at best, and contradicts the opinions of those in the authority in the Church’s past (as Chrono has noted in detail) is harmful to the cause, and creates doubt even in the minds of the faithful.

Listen, the only line of reasoning you have is to accept the Church. Thereafter, you might find any thing outside the capabilities of your mind.

Also, you don’t assent to the Church only in the past. When it teaches today, you assent to it. In the past, there have been NO infallible declarations on NFP. I am sure there might be some writings you can interpret as being against NFP but that really doesn’t say anything. There have been fallible statements made in the past on other stuff too.

So no, after you pick the Church by reason, you accept what it teaches. You can’t verify supernatural realities after all.

I have no doubt…there is a problem with the line of reasoning behind NFP. That is blatantly obvious. That doesn’t necessarily means it’s incorrect, but there is a serious problem.

Honestly, I think this is just your thinking.

As far as I can see, unless you make historical comments a problem, the reasoning behind NFP is solid.

NFP means abstaining from sex. Now abstaining from sex is not intrinsically immoral. Thus, with VALID REASON, one can practice NFP.

ABC on the other hand is intrinsically immoral because it deals with having SEX and violating the act of complete giving. So intention and reasons do not factor it.

That’s really it. I honestly don’t know why you can’t get this but that’s how it is sometimes. We don’t always see everything clearly.

God Bless

 

[Nate13]

@Warrior1979

Go listen to this talk that is in two parts:

catholicipod.stblogs.com/2008/03/05/contraception-why-not-janet-smith-mp3s-audio/

and then come back and we will discuss. In my opinion, it is a waste of our time to argue over this if someone hasn’t listened to this discussion. If this doesn’t convince you in an of itself hopefully we can build upon it and get you there.

 

[Warrior1979]

NFP means abstaining from sex.

No it does not, and I’ve already quoted the appropriate references from Humane Vitae. It’s only half the discussion. It also includes having sex during infertile periods. Do you disagree with the Church on the matter? Either you do, or do not understand what you are talking about.

That’s really it. I honestly don’t know why you can’t get this but that’s how it is sometimes. We don’t always see everything clearly.

Maybe part of the reason that we don’t get it is that people that are trying to explain it don’t understand it either???

 

[Warrior1979]

It’s simple – if you don’t accept, you don’t consent to, which means dissent since a Catholic is bound to the profession of faith (Can 205). Confusion here is not in understanding a dogma or doctrine, it is about simply being confused as to who a Catholic is.

Nonsense.

Are you saying we should ignore St. Augustine and various popes mentioned throughout this thread? I think what they said is rather clear.

 

[Nate13]

“The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.”

This is your quote correct? This says that periodic continence and use of infertile periods, which you cannot deny were given by God since he created us, are morally acceptable means.

 

[ddarko]

No it does not, and I’ve already quoted the appropriate references from Humane Vitae. It’s only half the discussion. It also includes having sex during infertile periods. Do you disagree with the Church on the matter? Either you do, or do not understand what you are talking about.

Sure, they have sex during the infertile period. So?

Are you saying an infertile couple can’t have sex?

And I really don’t get you. You want to talk from Church teaching to accept church teaching. What the heck is the point?

If you can accept part of church teaching, accept it all.

So as far as I can see you have two options

1. Trusting in Church’s authority
   – So what this means is that if you give your assent to one teaching, you must give it to all. To ask why I don’t understand how this fits together with other teaching is irrelevant.
2. You try to see if NFP is Moral through Natural Law
   – Then you don’t go talking about st. Augustine or Popes. Then you stick to natural law.

Right now you are bouncing back and forth.

From natural Law, there is no problem for a married couple to have sex any time they want and also choose to not have sex with valid reason.

So right now, its looking like you are not reasoning properly.

Maybe part of the reason that we don’t get it is that people that are trying to explain it don’t understand it either???

No. In this issue, I am afraid the problem is with your inability to understand. Which is fine btw.

But you are here acting as if there is an objective inability to understand Church Teaching. That is false. That has never been said by any Pope or Saint either.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Nonsense.

Are you saying we should ignore St. Augustine and various popes mentioned throughout this thread? I think what they said is rather clear.

Honestly, if they are not infallible declarations, its not a big deal that they are wrong

Popes and Saints have had incorrect ideas on their personal theological works on other things too. So for all purposes, if you think they are objectively irreconcilable, ignore them.

God Bless

 

[Nate13]

Honestly, if they are not infallible declarations, its not a big deal that they are wrong

Popes and Saints have had incorrect ideas on their personal theological works on other things too. So for all purposes, if you think they are objectively irreconcilable, ignore them.

God Bless

Bless you for trying but it doesn’t appear he is interested in finding the answer, but only in trying to find inconsistencies in Church teaching. It seems he thinks that Humane Vitae was written up in some tower and handed down for us to try and interpret. The implications of Humane Vitae are no secret and in no way does it oppose NFP. If you really want answers go to the link I posted and listen. The woman giving the talk has been given the responsibility of informing priests in many diocese’s throughout America on this issue. If it is good enough for them to listen to, it should be good enough for you.

 

[Warrior1979]

“The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.”

This is your quote correct?

Sure, and others are using a different interpretation. Example:

NFP means abstaining from sex. Now abstaining from sex is not intrinsically immoral. Thus, with VALID REASON, one can practice NFP.

NFP means “abstaining from sex.” Really? Where did that interpretation come from…certainly not the Church.

This says that periodic continence and use of infertile periods, which you cannot deny were given by God since he created us, are morally acceptable means.

To rehash, the Church considers it moral under certain circumstances. Prior Church interpretations apparently don’t have the same interpretation.

 

[Warrior1979]

Bless you for trying but it doesn’t appear he is interested in finding the answer,

I have an innate difficulty in understanding incoherent and illogical lines of reasoning. God made me that way.

but only in trying to find inconsistencies in Church teaching.

I don’t have to find them. When it comes to NFP, they’re blatant.

 

[Warrior1979]

It’s simple – if you don’t accept, you don’t consent to, which means dissent since a Catholic is bound to the profession of faith (Can 205). Confusion here is not in understanding a dogma or doctrine, it is about simply being confused as to who a Catholic is.

Contradictory statements. A Catholic is simply someone that was baptized a Catholic. The conduct of a Catholic is a separate issue.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Sure, and others are using a different interpretation. Example:

NFP means “abstaining from sex.” Really? Where did that interpretation come from…certainly not the Church.

To rehash, the Church considers it moral under certain circumstances. Prior Church interpretations apparently don’t have the same interpretation.

For NFP to work one has to abstain for a certain period. Otherwise it does not work.

 

[Nate13]

I have an innate difficulty in understanding incoherent and illogical lines of reasoning. God made me that way.

I don’t have to find them. When it comes to NFP, they’re blatant.

Then stop listening to us and listen to someone who is paid to teach about it if you really want the answer. Get out of the boat of moral relativism.

catholicipod.stblogs.com/2008/03/05/contraception-why-not-janet-smith-mp3s-audio/

 

[Warrior1979]

For NFP to work one has to abstain for a certain period. Otherwise it does not work.

Once again, that’s only part of it. To not understand that sex during the infertile period is also a part of it, as well as having a reason for practicing NFP, is to misunderstand Church doctrine.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Once again, that’s only part of it. To not understand that sex during the infertile period is also a part of it, as well as having a reason for practicing NFP, is to misunderstand Church doctrine.

Sure one needs a just reason. You seem to have issue that the couple is intimate on infertile days? Am I undertanding you correctly?

 

[Warrior1979]

Then stop listening to us and listen to someone who is paid to teach about it if you really want the answer.

At least you concur that coherent arguments haven’t been made in this thread.

I’m at work now; I’ll listen later.

Get out of the boat of moral relativism.

Separate issue…don’t get me started. I brought up an issue regarding moral relativism in the Hiroshima thread…nobody touched it, and I doubt anyone will.