N
Nate13
Guest
haha great! Come back here with your thoughts after listening.
- Status
W
Warrior1979
Guest
Once again, continence really means nothing in and of itself since abstainance can be practiced by anyone, and is not particular to marriage. Furthermore, married couples can abstain forever. If neither has a sex drive, there is no requirement that they must has sex.
The focus is correctly placed on sex during infertile periods, since it is particular to marriage. And the Church recognizes this.
A
ahs
Guest
Ditto. I actually have to leave work early (wife has Dr. Appt) so I’ll listen to it when the kids have nap time. I wasn’t aware these were audio…I thought it was a book.
Thanks for the link Nate13!
N
Nate13
Guest
No problem, I’ve been prowling the net recently for any free audio I can find on this topic haha. I also hear Scott Hahn’s wife is incredibly good at talking about this topic and actually came to hold the same view as the Catholic Church when she was at a Protestant seminary. Here is another gold mine of audio files if anyone is interested in gaining some insight into the mass and the book of revelation.Ditto. I actually have to leave work early (wife has Dr. Appt) so I’ll listen to it when the kids have nap time. I wasn’t aware these were audio…I thought it was a book.
catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2007/08/scott-hahn-lambs-supper-ewtn.html
W
Warrior1979
Guest
I work with a bunch of right-wingers, but they’re all Protestants, including my boss, so it wouldn’t be a good idea to be pumping out NFP audios in the background.
C
copperblade
Guest
… and on certain days, which must be planned out ahead of time, with the intent of avoiding having children.
I only mention that because the issue here is the intent to avoid having children while still enjoying sex. No one is talking about abstaining from sex, or the act of having sex during an infertile period in and of itself–only the attempt to use sex for something other than procreation.
D
ddarko
Guest
Ok buddy, at least take the time to address EVERYTHING I SAID. Not bits and pieces.
Did you read what I said about prior church interpretations?
THEY ARE NOT INFALLIBLE. So do you GET THAT? NOT INFALLIBLE.
So I don’t know what the heck you have been doing for this long on this thread. You are arguing about how this saint and that pope said something that supports what you think should be the right way. But that is irrelevant.
Saints and Popes have had private opinions in which they have been wrong. GET IT? THEY WERE WRONG at times in their PERSONAL meditations and interpretations!!!
So you are creating a false dilemma here. YOUR PROBLEM is the suppossed inability of the church to reconcile NFP with it’s past teaching. But such an objection would only be valid if those initial things were infallible and repeatedly taught. You have proven no such thing and the church is not aware of such a thing. All you have is St. Augustine and some popes writing things at a particular time in history.
The church after analyzing the matter, has put everything to rest and declared NFP as not intrinsically immoral. Thus with proper intention and valid reason, it is a licit thing to practice.
So honestly, you accuse other people of being illogical but you don’t seem to have thought about how logical your own position is. You are arguing against INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS of the church using teachings which are private opinions and meditations of Saints and Popes. So much for logical comprehension …
God Bless
W
Warrior1979
Guest
HV isn’t infallible either. Few things actually reach the level of infallible.
God Bless
A
ahs
Guest
CCC is.HV isn’t infallible either. Few things actually reach the level of infallible.
God Bless
A
ahs
Guest
Encyclicals are authoritative teaching instruments from the Vicar of Christ. HV is therefore a an authoritative document that Catholics are obliged to submit to.
The Papal document that was referenced earlier from Pope Gregory I (Regula Pastoralis) was not an Encyclical, rather a book written by Gregory. So, there is not authority attached to it. Further, the exact paragraph that was referenced from that book that was assumed to have spoken against NFP did not address continence or sex outside of the fertile time at all. It condemned “immoderate intercourse”, but did not elaborate on what that means. Therefore, we depend on the Church to clarify that for us…which she did…in Humanae Vitae (and in Casti Conubii and in CCC and in the decisions in 1853, 1880, and in the latest Compendium issued by our current Pope).
Even this still might not help a person understand “why” or “how”, but it is crystal clear as to the “what”.
The Papal document that was referenced earlier from Pope Gregory I (Regula Pastoralis) was not an Encyclical, rather a book written by Gregory. So, there is not authority attached to it. Further, the exact paragraph that was referenced from that book that was assumed to have spoken against NFP did not address continence or sex outside of the fertile time at all. It condemned “immoderate intercourse”, but did not elaborate on what that means. Therefore, we depend on the Church to clarify that for us…which she did…in Humanae Vitae (and in Casti Conubii and in CCC and in the decisions in 1853, 1880, and in the latest Compendium issued by our current Pope).
Even this still might not help a person understand “why” or “how”, but it is crystal clear as to the “what”.
C
copperblade
Guest
Sorry to interject, but have you read the whole thread? Why is Regula Pastoralis not infallible?
N
Nate13
Guest
From your statement I’m going to assume this is your first time on an NFP thread, since you obviously are trying to talk about the intent of NFP and assume that is why we believe it is wrong. The intent is to avoid having children because of a serious reason. If the only reason someone is using NFP is because they want the pleasure but no kids they are committing a sin. Look at the post I had a couple before this one and go to the link I gave Warrior to listen to the talk Janet Smith gives. She will outline the differences between contraception and NFP for you. The talk is in two parts. Listen to both then come back here and we can have a discussion.
D
ddarko
Guest
Oook, sure, let us for the sake of argument say you are right. But the Church is NOW TEACHING that NFP is fine. So now for you to say its false based on some past quotes is still a worthless argument.HV isn’t infallible either. Few things actually reach the level of infallible.
God Bless
If there is no definitive teaching, you believe what the Church teaches now at this time through it’s teaching Magisterium. Not what St. Augustine or a Pope wrote about.
God Bless
C
copperblade
Guest
I’ve been on this thread for a long time (since before you’ve joined the forums apparently). Yes, that is what this discussion is all about: the intent of NFP is to not have children, and therefore to have sex without procreation. We’re talking about NFP as a way to avoid getting pregnant–even the biggest NFP proponents in this thread like to point out how its “failure rate” is so low… what do you think “failure rate” refers to?
The matter of “grave reason” has been discussed before. Are you saying that the previously the Church was making the assumption that people didn’t have serious enough reason to do so?
Here’s what I’ve been getting:
One side of this argument claims the Church was silent on the issue until the 1800’s, the other side points out traditions and teachings within the church that are not silent (and do not differentiate for serious reasons). The former side says, “aha! but that’s not official doctrine [today] so it doesn’t count.” And then the latter side says, “but it was a teaching of the church and was [the same thing as] official doctrine at the time”
W
Warrior1979
Guest
You’re having difficulty keeping the people and their arguments straight. I wasn’t the one going into detail about prior popes and saints. I’m also not arguing that NFP is contraception (though some characteristics are the same, such as the intent to avoid procreating). The current arguments for NFP are enough to cause pause.
Certainly people can take that point of view. But the reality of this situation is that if a teaching pops out of the blue 18 centuries after Christ died that appears to be contradictory to what the Church had been teaching to that point, and an argument to justify it is problematic, shouldn’t that cause pause for any thinking person?
D
ddarko
Guest
What exactly is your problem then? As far as I can see, it seems to be the following:-
- Some saints and Popes taught in the past that abstinence or something like NFP (because there obviously was no NFP before the 1800’s) might be false
- The CHURCH teaches now that it is ok so there is a problem.
Well what do you expect? Jesus to talk about NFP when people don’t even know there is a such a thing as a fertility cycle?
So when and where it gets defined more concretely and taught by the church is irrelevant.
For the thinking person who incorrectly assumes that the past quotes were infallible a PAUSE. But the past quotes were not even official teaching of the church.
God Bless
D
davidv
Guest
This is a false statemnet. It erroneously conflates fertility and procreative. Any intercourse the is done the way God intended it is procreative, whether the partners are fertile or not.
Until you get the definition of procreation correct, the rest of you argument is moot.We’re talking about NFP as a way to avoid getting pregnant–even the biggest NFP proponents in this thread like to point out how its “failure rate” is so low… what do you think “failure rate” refers to?
The matter of “grave reason” has been discussed before. Are you saying that the previously the Church was making the assumption that people didn’t have serious enough reason to do so?
Here’s what I’ve been getting:
One side of this argument claims the Church was silent on the issue until the 1800’s, the other side points out traditions and teachings within the church that are not silent (and do not differentiate for serious reasons). The former side says, “aha! but that’s not official doctrine [today] so it doesn’t count.” And then the latter side says, “but it was a teaching of the church and was [the same thing as] official doctrine at the time”
N
Nate13
Guest
@copperblade
Church was definitely not quiet about it starting from day one. The early Church fathers referred back to the sin of Onan and in the 1800’s they were still referring to the sin of Onan. These past Church authorities understood the implications of sex and natural law as Thomas Aquinas talked about. From natural law we know the true nature of sex. If you read Romans 1:27 you will see the bible refers to a “natural” relations between a man and woman compared to homosexual relationships. This infers the idea that there is a natural way to have sex. John Paul II’s teachings on sexual morality and Theology of the Body are based out of how we are created in the image of likeness of God. Notice in Genesis God says let Us create man in Our image and likeness. He is speaking as the trinity of three person’s. We are called to imitate the love of the Trinity when a man and a woman have sexual relations. God loves the Son and this love is so powerful it becomes the 3rd person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. We are called to love our spouses in this way. We are designed in this likeness as a man loves a woman, and this love with the help of God creates a new person, when he creates a new soul. This is why the sex act is so important and holy, because it is primarily through this act that we separate ourselves from the animals and show ourselves to be in the image and likeness of God.
Alright now see if you can imagine using a condom during this act and whether that would have the same meaning or whether it would be an insult to God? I’m sure God and the Son have a “barrier” between their love…
Also PLEASE just go listen to these two audio bits before you reply further
blog.ancient-future.net/2008/03/21/contraception-why-not-mp3s-by-dr-janet-smith/
Church was definitely not quiet about it starting from day one. The early Church fathers referred back to the sin of Onan and in the 1800’s they were still referring to the sin of Onan. These past Church authorities understood the implications of sex and natural law as Thomas Aquinas talked about. From natural law we know the true nature of sex. If you read Romans 1:27 you will see the bible refers to a “natural” relations between a man and woman compared to homosexual relationships. This infers the idea that there is a natural way to have sex. John Paul II’s teachings on sexual morality and Theology of the Body are based out of how we are created in the image of likeness of God. Notice in Genesis God says let Us create man in Our image and likeness. He is speaking as the trinity of three person’s. We are called to imitate the love of the Trinity when a man and a woman have sexual relations. God loves the Son and this love is so powerful it becomes the 3rd person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. We are called to love our spouses in this way. We are designed in this likeness as a man loves a woman, and this love with the help of God creates a new person, when he creates a new soul. This is why the sex act is so important and holy, because it is primarily through this act that we separate ourselves from the animals and show ourselves to be in the image and likeness of God.
Alright now see if you can imagine using a condom during this act and whether that would have the same meaning or whether it would be an insult to God? I’m sure God and the Son have a “barrier” between their love…
Also PLEASE just go listen to these two audio bits before you reply further
blog.ancient-future.net/2008/03/21/contraception-why-not-mp3s-by-dr-janet-smith/
A
ahs
Guest
Nope, all I have is (text-wise) is what Chrono13 quoted from it when he wanted to show where the Pope was inferring that sex was only for procreation. I did a Google search but only found an explanation of what the book was…nothing from within it though.
- Status