NFP Hipocracy

[rheins2000]

Vincent:

To have sex is to will procreation and union. Contracepted sex involves willing procreation and union, and, at the same time, not willing procreation and union. NFP differs because it doesn’t involve this contradiction.

Thus, I find it hard to understand why you’re equating NFP with contraception. That’s like equating dieting with bulemia, or saying nothing with telling a lie, or working at a bank with robbing a bank.

Morality involves the ends as well as the means…read the Churhes teaching on morality first…then please wait for my next post, which is coming shortly.

 

[rheins2000]

johnnyjoe:

And who is to say that the number of children I want is NOT the same as the number of children God wants me to have? There is a presumption underlying this position that I find so common any more. It is as if those of us who use NFP must pass a “generosity” test for some of our fellow Catholics. I understand the frustration many feel with couples who use contraception, but to lump those of us who use NFP into that same crowd is a serious error.

That is terrible reasoning, for I could just as well say, who’s to say that the number of children you want is what God wants you to have. That is why you must leave every act in marriage open to children except for serious reasons.

Its not the same at all. Artificial contraception is wrong within itself. NFP is not always wrong.

 

[rheins2000]

Vincent:

To have sex is to will procreation and union…

Not if you are using contraception, whether unnatural or natural. You “will” then changes from being open to children to not being open.

Vincent:

Contracepted sex involves willing procreation and union, and, at the same time, not willing procreation and union. NFP differs because it doesn’t involve this contradiction.

Wrong. For obvious reasons, you cannot do both at the same time.

Vincent:

Thus, I find it hard to understand why you’re equating NFP with contraception. That’s like equating dieting with bulemia, or saying nothing with telling a lie, or working at a bank with robbing a bank.

If you are using NFP as a means of contraception, then you are using contraception. That is very obvious. Because its a natural means, does not make the intent a just one.

 

[rheins2000]

Canon Francis J. Riley:

The primary object of all marriage is the procreation and education of children.

As the pleasure attached to eating cannot be the purpose for which one eats, so too it is the case of marriage. The pleasure attached to the use of the sexual facility is bestowed for a definate purpose by the Creator, and that purpose is primarily the begeting of children. p.343

A word also needs to be mentioned about Natural Family Planning and periodic continance. Each method of limiting the birth of children relies on the use of the reproductive faculty only during the woman’s infertile periods, thus avoiding pregnancy. The use of the term “Natural Family Planning” has come under sharp attack from traditional Catholic writers in recent years because it implies the right of the couple to “plan” their family; whereas the Catholic norm is to let God plan ones family and to accept children when “and if” God gives them — as a blessing from him on the marital union and on society. Except for the use of NFP for fertility reasons, i.e. to aid in a legitimate way in conceiving a child(as opposed to in vitro fertilization), the** planning **aspect NFP would appear to reflect acceptance of the neo-pagan practice of “family planning” ----- albeit using “natural” as opposed to artificial means. Proponents of NFP, it would seem, are confusing a legitimate means during an emergency situation or for a “serious reason” with an *illegitimate end in the case of no family emergency or “no serious reson” and presume then to conclude that NFP is morally acceptable as a way of life.*The end or purpose of NFP–that is, “planning” one’s family–*is not acceptable *in principle, being against Natural Law and the teachings of the Church. A couple does not have the right to “plan their family,” even though the means used are those of NFP and do not violate the Church’s proscriptions against artificial birth control.

As Cardinal Ottaviani, former head of the Holy Office(Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), declared before the assembled bishops at Vatical Council II, "I am not pleased with the statement in the [draft] text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church." This is the 2,000-year tradition of the Church, suported by Sacred Scripture(cf. Genesis 38:1-10, et al.) and reiterated by the Popes in the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium of the Church (e.g. Casti Connubii------“On Marriage,” Pius XI, 1930; Address to Midwives, Pius XII, 1951; Humanae Vitae—“On Human Life,” Paul VI, 1968, No. 10)
Also, it should be noted that the Catechism of the Catholic Church(2nd Ed., 1997) does not use the term “Natural Family Planning,” Rather, it uses the term “periodic continence”(ccc, No. 2370), that is, the practice of continence, or abstinence from sexual union, during the woman’s fertile time each month.

On the other hand, periodic continence, i.e., refraining from the use of the marital act during the woman’s fertile time each month, as a “safety net” for a serious reason(cf. *Humanae Vitae, *No. 10), is completely legitimate, but only under certain very specific conditions. And they are the following:

1)That there be a serious reason to practice periodic continence.
2)That it be with the mutual consent of the marriage partners.
3)That this continence not be the near occasion of mortal sin for either party.
4)That the periodic continence last only so long as the serious reason lasts.
5)It is recommended that the situation be reviewed by one’s confessor to insure that all requisite conditions are present.

 

[rheins2000]

Canon Francis J. Riley:

If you have a truly Catholic conscience and a love of children, you will find that alleged obstacles can be overcome. Far from losing happiness, you will gain great long-range satisfaction.

Married couples tempted to birth prevention should contemplate long and hard on the fact that the Almighty and All-Knowing God has created human nature as it is and that He who has built ito the nature of man and woman His own form of birth regulation. When a mother nurses her babies, they will usually be spaced about 18 to 24 months apart. A woman who marries during her twenties, if she and her spouse be healthy, will tend to have from four to twelve children.** This is God’s plan for the control of births!** This is the size of family he wants!

The Almighty, All-Knowing and All-Provident God created human beings without man’s advice and obviously in the way he intended. In his own plan, he provides for the new children born into this world. None of us knows for certain if he or she will live out the next half hour—or even the next few minutes—in this uncertain world of ours. Therefore, everything we plan or do requires of us at least an implicit act of confidence in God’s all provident care. What married couple, as they begin their lives together, can ever imagine the future for their family? It is really all in God’s hands. Couples with large families marvel at the uncanny providence that seems to care for their needs, often in strange ways. A college professor and a father of 14 once commented: “All I can say, is that God gives large families special help.” He was mystified, but awed at God’s providence in the case of his own family. And this experience of God’s unusual providence for families is confirmed again and again by married couples who live according to God’s law.

Obviously, parents of minor children have to shepard their means and use them carefully. They must avoid spending on non-essentials, for the most part, unless they have been blessed with means over and above their needs. They have to avoid, of course, squandering their money on excessive drink, on illegal drugs, on gambling, on expensive non-essentials, etc. And above all, they must avoid all immorality—mortal sins of every kind; otherwise, they cannot expect God to bless them and their family or to hear their prayers for marital help as He otherwise would. “Now we know that God doth not hear sinners; but if a man be a server of God, an doth his will, him he heareth.”(John 9:31). (Of course God hears and answers the prayers of sinners who repent—or want to—and are trying to overcome their sins, but not the prayers of mortal sinners who are unrepentant and determined to continue in their sin.) “And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.”(James 2:10, emphasis added).

For a couple to practice “birth control” or “family planning”(as opposed to periodic continence under the legitimate circumstances stated above) is really a form of blasphemy(and insult) against God. It is tantamount to telling the Infinite, All-Knowing God that he did not know what he was doing when he created us as we are, or that he cannot provide for children born to large families.

And that is how the Catechism relates the use of NFP for birth prevention and control.

Written in the Catechism, and related to us by this holy priest of the Catholic Missionary Society, forwarded by the Most Reverend Richard Downey, D.D., Ph.D., LL.D., Archbishop of Liverpool in a book dedicated to the Virgin Mother of God, Mary Most Holy, in obedience to the Holy Church

 

[rayne89]

I’m going to make statement that has nothing to do with doctrine, church teaching ect.

When my husband and I took the NFP course. It was more than temperature, fertilty signs ect. It was about married life, about how men and women are differant physically & pychologically. It truly inhanced the intimacy in our marriage.

My closest friends happen not to be Catholic and they joke about how they’d like to convince their husbands to use NFP because the get some “time off.” During the time when I am fertile I know when my huband snuggles up to me its not because he has something else in mind. His affection is “motive free”. So when my infertile time rolls around I am looking forward to our intimacy (greatly .) It’s more than just child spacing ladies.

Thought I’ d pull us out of heavy doctrine for a minute.

 

[johnnyjoe]

rheins…

Your “authority” says:

Originally Posted by Canon Francis J. Riley, "This is The Faith"
*The primary object of all marriage is the procreation and education of children. *

The Cathechism of the Catholic Church says:

***Article 7
*THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

It appears Mr. Riley has a problem with “ordered toward the good of the spouses”.

“Serious Reason” is a scope of allowance that often irritates people. I have many “Trad” friends who take a dim view of financial hardship, emotional hardship, or even medical hardship, as being something that would qualify as a “serious reason” to postpone pregnancy.

My point to you is very simple…you cannot decide from outside…period.

Only a couple and their spiritual advisor can decide what constitutes a “serious reason”. The Church rightly offers many guidelines and instructions as to what those serious reasons may be, and she also rightly takes into account the spiritual readiness, quality of conscience formation, and level of understanding a couple may have on this issue. The Church rightly leaves it to the judgement of a priest, advising a couple over their particular circumstances.

Your Mr. Riley does not have the blanket perscription, and this issue cannot be handled with legalistic pronouncements. You continue to refer to NFP as “contraception”, and it belies how narrow your understanding of this issue really is.

As for myself, I have taught NFP with my wife for over 4 years now, and regularly give talks on this subject, not that that matters much. My knowledge is easy enough to come by, and there are many more, on this site even, who can make the case for NFP better than I. But I will leave you with this, you cannot help people make the decision to turn away from contraception by offering hellfire and brimstone. Satan is wanting us to alienate the mis-guided contraception users away from accepting NFP as an alternative, and heaping judgement is his favorite tool. My wife and I contracepted for 13 years before we came across someone who could witness the positive effects of NFP use, and we are resolved to try and keep others from having to wait so long to hear the Good News of God’s Plan for Life, and how NFP can help you discover it…

 

[johnnyjoe]

rayne89:

I’m going to make statement that has nothing to do with doctrine, church teaching ect.

When my husband and I took the NFP course. It was more than temperature, fertilty signs ect. It was about married life, about how men and women are differant physically & pychologically. It truly inhanced the intimacy in our marriage.

My closest friends happen not to be Catholic and they joke about how they’d like to convince their husbands to use NFP because the get some “time off.” During the time when I am fertile I know when my huband snuggles up to me its not because he has something else in mind. His affection is “motive free”. So when my infertile time rolls around I am looking forward to our intimacy (greatly .) It’s more than just child spacing ladies.

Thought I’ d pull us out of heavy doctrine for a minute.

The couple who finally provided a positive and helpful witness to the benefits of NFP have an interesting story on this issue you raise. Some time, I think about two years after we met them, she had to have a hysterectomy for some very serious medical reasons. Her husband, mindful of the experience you relate, came to her in her surgery recovery room, and presented her with a nicely printed card. It was her “Phase II” card. She could present this card to him at any time she needed the “motive free” intimacy that was an important part of their married life. It is a call to courtship and honeymoon, the intimacy dynamic that is at the heart of God’s Plan for marital life. Many more men need to be mindful of this process, and I can hardly tell this story without being shamed by the great respect my friend had for the gift of his wife’s fertility and womanhood.

Indeed, this kind of intimacy is the real training we need to be ready for the intense a-sexual love we will share with our Lord Jesus Christ in Heaven…thanks for sharing rayne…

 

[Brenda_V]

TarAshly:

THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH MARRIED PEOPLE NOT MAKING LOVE (YOU MAKE IT SOUND SO CLINICAL) IT IS AN EXPRESSION OF PASSION AND LOVE FOR YOUR PARTNER IF A COUPLE IS NOT MAKING LOVE IN THEIR MARRIAGE THERE IS A DEEP SEEDED ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED!

So a couple where one spouse is ill who chooses not to make love has something wrong with their relationship? Or they choose because of serious reasons not to make love because the wife is in the fertile phase of her cycle and they have a serious reason for avoiding a pregnancy have a deep seated issue that needs to be resolved? Maybe there is a deep seated issue that needs to be resloved and that is their serious reason for avoiding a pregnancy

Or maybe this is the issue that fits with the worlds view that one should be able to make love whenever one wants to (as long as the couple is married)? Sorry, but this is in itself a “deep seated issue”.

It is not sinful to choose not to have intercourse (or make love or use the marital embrace - however you want to call it).

Your Sister in Christ,
Brenda

 

[rheins2000]

johnnyjoe:

It appears Mr. Riley has a problem with “ordered toward the good of the spouses”…

Nothing I quoted disputes any part of this Catechism paragraph.The catechism can just as easily be distorted by people in what the ‘think’ it says. I will take the instruction of the catechism from the Archbishop of Liverpool together with the holy priest who wrote the book well before I will take it from you.

Instead, it appears you have a problem with Fr. Riley condemning selfish contraceptive use of NFP.

What is the ‘nature’ of marriage and ‘what it is ordered towards’ are 2 different things. Maybe you should read more carefully before you accuse this priest of heresy. What is ‘ordered towards the good of the spouses’ to you apparently means not having children when you dont want to. That is your issue, not mine. You argue with me, but its not my words. If you think you know more than these 2 gentlemen about the state of Catholic moral doctrine, and application of the catechism in this day in age, then you have already convinced yourself.

johnnyjoe:

“Serious Reason” is a scope of allowance that often irritates people. I have many “Trad” friends who take a dim view of financial hardship, emotional hardship, or even medical hardship, as being something that would qualify as a “serious reason” to postpone pregnancy.

And that is why Fr. Riley said it should be reviewed by one’s confessor, making sure they are being completely honest with God. God will judge their hearts at the end of time. If they honestly believe that their hardships require periodic continence, then they should have nothing to worry about.

johnnyjoe:

My point to you is very simple…you cannot decide from outside…period.

Never said I could, or it was my right…don’t know where you pulled this from. And you writing this in bold doesn’t change the fact that I never said this.

johnnyjoe:

Only a couple and their spiritual advisor can decide what constitutes a “serious reason”.

That was exactly what I read in the section of his book in my posts, did you see something different?

You’re entire arguement does not refute anything that the book says. I dont know what you are opposing me on. Did you even read the book excerpt?

johnnyjoe:

Your Mr. Riley does not have the blanket perscription, and this issue cannot be handled with legalistic pronouncements. You continue to refer to NFP as “contraception”, and it belies how narrow your understanding of this issue really is.

What exactly is ‘legalistic’ when he gives provisions for each couple to decide whether or not to practice periodic continence? You are making no sense. And, maybe you should read the definition of ‘contraception’. Contraceptive mentality makes NFP(when used for contraceptive purposes) contraception. Do you really not understand this? It seems your understanding of NFP is the narrow one. NFP can be used for having a baby(then it is not contraception), or it can be used for not having a baby(then it is contraception, albeit natural as opposed to artificial)

johnnyjoe:

But I will leave you with this, you cannot help people make the decision to turn away from contraception by offering hellfire and brimstone.

If you personally are not worried about hellfire and brimstone(neither of which I ever offered to them, once again, where do you get this from?), then why make any good moral choices?

johnnyjoe:

Satan is wanting us to alienate the mis-guided contraception users away from accepting NFP as an alternative, and heaping judgement is his favorite tool.

No, Satan wants you to rely on yourself and not God. You are misguiding these people. Your statements are in direct contradiction to what Fr. Riley and Archbishop Downey say in their book. I would step slowly before throwing their words into the garbage based on what you think the catechism says.

 

[rheins2000]

johnnyjoe:

My wife and I contracepted for 13 years before we came across someone who could witness the positive effects of NFP use, and we are resolved to try and keep others from having to wait so long to hear the Good News of God’s Plan for Life, and how NFP can help you discover it…

And I commend you from getting away from what I think you mean ‘artificial contraception’. It’s not only the mindset that is wrong with artificial contraception, but it is also the physical aspects. God’s plan for life is to give him your ENTIRE lives, and trust everything to him.

Make sure that it is not your ‘opinion’ disputing with these 2 servants of God. Submit all things to the Church, and you will be just fine

 

[johnnyjoe]

rheins2000:

And I commend you from getting away from what I think you mean ‘artificial contraception’. It’s not only the mindset that is wrong with artificial contraception, but it is also the physical aspects. God’s plan for life is to give him your ENTIRE lives, and trust everything to him.

Make sure that it is not your ‘opinion’ disputing with these 2 servants of God. Submit all things to the Church, and you will be just fine

What a blessing it is that you should bother to offer your sage advice to me - a mere sinner…

I’m glad you have this all figured out, sister, and can rest assured you have “arrived” within the faith squarely, and can tell when someone is sinning.

Phew, for a minute there I thought I might have to exercise my conscience, all I have to do is follow your uncharitable reccomendations, and Boom-Baby! I too can own heaven!

There is something odd and self-serving about the way a Trad sees the world…such a narrow view of the providence of God, and the purpose of His Church…how very sad…

BTW, sister, unless the priest involved is giving me specific spiritual instruction, I can, and am required by Canon Law, dispute a priests teaching if it is in error. His view of NFP is narrow and incorrect. I am just as much a servant of God as any priest, and he cannot bind me to his narrow view of the Church, and the Church’s teachings about NFP. The real issue for you is about being “right”, and “knowing” the “right way” to follow the Church in this area. Thank God he is more merciful than you appear to be…there are many others who would take this writing and see it for what it is…judgemental balderdash…me, I take the long view…you still have time to develope your charity virtue. Thank you for the opportunity to offer some suffering today in union with the Sacred Heart of Jesus. May His Divine Mercy soften your judgements…He may yet have someone come to you who needs the witness of mercy.

 

[johnnyjoe]

rheins2000:

What exactly is ‘legalistic’ when he gives provisions for each couple to decide whether or not to practice periodic continence? You are making no sense. And, maybe you should read the definition of ‘contraception’. Contraceptive mentality makes NFP(when used for contraceptive purposes) contraception.

Again, this is information you can never know. What a “contraceptive use” of NFP may be is determined by the serious reasons a couple faces. You cannot know them, only they and their spiritual advisor know them. Those circumstances, and those alone, will dictate the sin or innocence of NFP use. The practice of NFP is only information gathering - and the decision NOT TO HAVE SEX is never a sexual sin. It may be a sin of selfishness, it may be a sin of uncharity, but it is never a “contraceptive act”, because it is a “non-act”. It is this kind of convoluted thinking that has kept people from understanding the Church’s real sensitivity to the problems of raising children in a hostile culture, and mastering our sexual desires to rightly order them toward God’s Plan for Life. Your judgment about what is “open to life” and what is not does not create a reality…it only shows your lack of charity.

 

[Marauder]

A few quotes to go with the current arguement.

Through this sense of responsibility for love and life, God the Creator invites the spouses not to be passive operators, but rather “cooperators or almost interpreters” of His plan (Gaudium et Spes

, no.50). In fact, they are called out of respect for the objective moral order established by God, to an obligatory discernment of the indications of God’s will concerning their family. Thus in relationship to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood will be able to be expressed “either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a large family, or by the decision, made for serious moral reasons and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for and indeterminate period, another birth” (Humanae Vitae, n. 10).
Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI)

10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of “responsible parenthood,” which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.

In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions, human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.(9)

For more go Here

 

[rayne89]

As you said you are free to believe what ever you like. But if you are a practicing Catholic you are permitted to use artificial birth control. That my friend is not open for debate.
I meant to put you are NOT permitted to use atificial birth control. Oops! Sorry.

 

[rheins2000]

johnnyjoe:

What a blessing it is that you should bother to offer your sage advice to me - a mere sinner…

this is ridiculous…what are you trying to do with this statement?

johnnyjoe:

I’m glad you have this all figured out, sister, and can rest assured you have “arrived” within the faith squarely, and can tell when someone is sinning.

I’m not a sister, friend, and second of all, your misled post has once again claimed that I am judging people. Why dont you quote the line where I said you are going to hell or something like that. The ONLY thing I ever did in this post was to state what is the traditional Church teaching on this matter, and you are so angry that it disagrees with you, that you dont even pose arguements, you simply say uncharitable and baseless things like this.

johnnyjoe:

Phew, for a minute there I thought I might have to exercise my conscience,

sounds pretty protestant to me…you should follow the Church teachings and make sure your conscience is in line with them.

johnnyjoe:

all I have to do is follow your uncharitable reccomendations, and Boom-Baby! I too can own heaven!

What part of my explanation of the Church’s teaching(not my own) was I uncharitable?

johnnyjoe:

There is something odd and self-serving about the way a Trad sees the world…such a narrow view of the providence of God, and the purpose of His Church…how very sad…

Then you tell me what is the purpose of his Church, to decide all things for yourself, or to let God decide them for you.

johnnyjoe:

BTW, sister, unless the priest involved is giving me specific spiritual instruction, I can, and am required by Canon Law, dispute a priests teaching if it is in error. His view of NFP is narrow and incorrect.

Then you better get a canon law degree, become an ordained priest, write a book under the auspices of The Legion of Mary, become superior of the Catholic Missionary Society, serve as chairman of the Catholic Truth Society, director of the Catholic Information Society, edit and manage numerous authoritative published Catholic Periodicals, become canon of the Archdiocese of Liverpool, write numerous books under the authority of Papal appointed Archbishops, and get the stamp of approval from an Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church…because the author of this book has done them all.

With all due respect, sir, you are in error.

Someone who can stand in front of that evidence, without a shred of authoritative support, needs to really find out who is more likely to be in error.

johnnyjoe:

I am just as much a servant of God as any priest

I dont know if thats the most humble thing to say.

johnnyjoe:

and he cannot bind me to his narrow view of the Church

No, you are bound by God to the teaching of his priests in communion with the Holy Father, and the numerous encyclicals he quoted in that text that you threw out like garbage.

You claim I am being judgemental…I assure you I am not, and never in any of my posts did I judge you. That is a lie.

 

[rheins2000]

Telling you what the Church teaches, even though it disagrees with you, is not judging you. You are ruining someone’s(me in this case) good(hopefully) reputation by making this claim. Dont tell everyone I am judging you, because it is simply not true. Until I tell you you are going to hell, dont make this claim. Me telling you that you are wrong in what you have said is not judging, it is my duty as a Catholic to preach, not what I think, but what the Church teaches. Know what judging is before you make such a grave claim. Never did I know, assume to know or judge anyone’s situation in here. I told you that there are circumstances known only to the couple, their confessor, and God, that would allow, according to the Catechism and the Church, for their use of NFP for not having children.

I am sorry, but you are wrong in this case, and I hope the people in this thread will take the word of the holy priest and Archbishop I have quoted, in union with the Catechismic verses, to decide what is the actual teaching of the Church, and not your unsupported views.

If you have any published evidence, encyclicals, or information from any authoritative sources, please post them. For I have shown you mine.

 

[rheins2000]

johnnyjoe:

Again, this is information you can never know. What a “contraceptive use” of NFP may be is determined by the serious reasons a couple faces. You cannot know them, only they and their spiritual advisor know them. Those circumstances, and those alone, will dictate the sin or innocence of NFP use.

You are not arguing against anything I have said before. Once again, I never claimed to know each couples individual circumstances, you claimed that I did. And you keep claiming that. Even so, this is not an arguement supporting your position

johnnyjoe:

The practice of NFP is only information gathering - and the decision NOT TO HAVE SEX is never a sexual sin. It may be a sin of selfishness, it may be a sin of uncharity, but it is never a “contraceptive act”, because it is a “non-act”.

Wrong…please read my post before you reply to it.

What sin classification you put it under makes no difference. A sin of selfishness or uncharity is still a sin.

And it is a contraceptive act if you consider the “planning aspect” of it. It is a contraceptive act of the will. If you are willingly avoiding sex simply to not get pregnant it is contraception(against-conception), just as the priest said in that book. (Once again, albeit natural, as opposed to artificial) It is certainly not for-conception, or neutral in regards to conception.

johnnyjoe:

It is this kind of convoluted thinking that has kept people from understanding the Church’s real sensitivity to the problems of raising children in a hostile culture, and mastering our sexual desires to rightly order them toward God’s Plan for Life. Your judgment about what is “open to life” and what is not does not create a reality…it only shows your lack of charity.

No, it is your baseless and un-authoritative posts that are misrepresenting the teaching. That is also a sin of scandal, if you were not aware.

Once again, you say “God’s Plan for Life”…you are not fully in accordance to God’s plan if you are doing the planning.

My Lack of Charity?!..you make a lot of personal claims against me, for having no sources or evidence to back you up.

 

[johnnyjoe]

rheins2000:

What sin classification you put it under makes no difference. A sin of selfishness or uncharity is still a sin.

But it is not “contraception”. Contraception is the deliberate use of a chemical, barrier, or surgery that allows the couple to “take” the pleasure of the marital embrace without being open to the natural consequence of the marital embrace, the possibility of having children. Using contraception is like being bulemic, you eat and then throw off the natural consequences of eating. NFP use is the same as having the discipline to push away from the table.

And it is a contraceptive act if you consider the “planning aspect” of it. It is a contraceptive act of the will. If you are willingly avoiding sex simply to not get pregnant it is contraception(against-conception), just as the priest said in that book. (Once again, albeit natural, as opposed to artificial) It is certainly not for-conception, or neutral in regards to conception.

You keep mis-using the word “contraception” by applying it to a non-act. Under your reasoning, the “contraceptive act of the will” is being done by my 16 year old daughter right now while she is washing the dishes…she is willingly avoiding sex. My parish priest is willingly avoiding sex, I guess he is contracepting too…My wife has a fever tonight, and will be too tired to engage in the marital embrace…I guess she is “planning” to contracept when she chooses NOT to have sex. This is a silly and convoluted circle of reasoning. You are trying to pin down a non-act, not having sex, as being equal to the act of having contracepted sex. It is a circular and pointless argument.

No, it is your baseless and un-authoritative posts that are misrepresenting the teaching. That is also a sin of scandal, if you were not aware.

Once again, you say “God’s Plan for Life”…you are not fully in accordance to God’s plan if you are doing the planning.

My Lack of Charity?!..you make a lot of personal claims against me, for having no sources or evidence to back you up.

There is the real agenda…no one can “plan” thier family, only God can. Any effort to use my reason to decide when to have children will be a “contraceptive act”?

How, praytell, am I to park my free will away and let God decide all these little decisions he places before me?

Am I to impose myself on my wife if I think she is not being “open to life”, or is giving me an unqualified “serious reason”? Would you “authority” claim a man has the right to the marital priviledge regardless of his wife’s wishes, if he thinks the wife’s reasoning invalid?

And this business of “authority” one-up-manship is a cheap argument trick. I don’t care how good the priests credtials are, “if he has not Love, he has nothing”. Ultimately, the decision to have another child is not JUST let-go-and-let-God. It must be a mature decision, with the full use of all the spiritual and intellectual powers a couple can bring to bear. You cannot drop-kick in a fiat of judgement because you seem to think you own the market on the “right” elements of reasoning for “serious reason”. NO ONE answers to you, or to the priests you champion. IT IS BETWEEN THE COUPLE AND THEIR SPIRITUAL ADVISOR. Christ sees and convicts the heart, and NFP is a way for couples to start listening to their hearts. Judgemental prounouncements never converted a person from using contraception, but I don’t think you really worry about that.

 

[johnnyjoe]

rheins,

Have you ever used NFP?

Have you ever championed NFP to a family member, co-worker, neighbor?

How are you ever going to get someone out of the contraception habit if you cannot offer them a way to follow God and follow their conscience?

This culture teaches people to FEAR children…it tells everyone that children take things from them. We have had a number of couples come to our classes to get of contraception, begin using the method, and with their sacrament open to the urgings of the Holy Spirit, became open to more children. It is a running joke amongst our friends…there are at least 6 children who are on this earth because we helped their parents kick the contraception habit, and the Holy Spirit could move their hearts.

When you talk about NFP like it is the same as contraception, you take away any reason for them to change…