NFP Hipocracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter La_Devota
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You keep arguing the same thing over and over. If you are going to hold to your views no matter what you hear or who you hear it from, then you wouldnt believe the Pope himself if he told you your error.

Just because their sin may be less, because they use natural means instead of artificial means, it doesnt mean there is no sin involved. That is like you convincing someone to give up fornication and use masturbation instead, because it is less of a sin. You cannot do that.

And, yes, we took the NFP classes, and used the method to get pregnant twice. We have one child and one on the way, and we have been married for 15 months.

And the 6 children you brought into the world from your efforts is a result of people not using NFP to keep from having children(unless they are terribly bad at it), so that use of NFP would be not only acceptable, but noble I would say.

And contraception is not as you defined it…there are natural means of contraception as well as unnatural.

And your daughter does not have a contraceptive mentality, because she is not engaging in relations with a husband, so that comparison is way off. She is practicing the virtue of chastity in her state of life, not contraception.

And if your wife has a fever, she is not contracepting…you dont understand that it is not NFP that is not acceptable, it is the intent of the couple. You really need to read my posts. You keep arguing the same points of which I have addressed now several times. It is the mindset of the “planning” aspect of NFP, as that book relates, and as *Humanae *Vitae relates in Marauder’s post, that is the problem with that use of NFP.

It is your reasoning that appears ‘silly’ to me. You might have well as applied that reasoning to fetuses that are ‘contracepting’ because they are not having sex.
 
40.png
johnnyjoe:
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”? .
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can and are trying to plan your family if you are using NFP to try to plan your family. You cannot possibly argue with that. That is logical common sense.
40.png
johnnyjoe:
How, praytell, am I to park my free will away and let God decide all these little decisions he places before me? .
Click to expand...
This is a very dangerous mentality.

Your free will is always there…you can use it for good or evil. I am afraid you are very confused as to how to let God decide your decisions for you. If you choose God in all manners, your free will will soon be united to his own.
God also puts decisions to you on whether or not to go out and rape people. You choose to rape or not, your free will gives you that power. The decision you make not to rape people is God speaking to your heart of his will for you not to rape people, related in the moral teachings of he Church. Never is your free will parked away, how you so carelessly said.
40.png
johnnyjoe:
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?.
Click to expand...
Does the man have the right to keep the mother from murdering her own children, if her reasoning is not valid to him?..I would say most definately. We must do all in our power to stop evil, no matter what form, or how serious. The man does not have the right to rape his wife, if that’s what you are trying to get me to say. But it is the man’s and woman’s right to relations in a marriage. The wife’s boby becomes his, and the husband’s body becomes hers.

NEITHER THE WIFE NOR THE HUSBAND HAS THE RIGHT TO DENY RELATIONS UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. WHEN YOU GIVE YOURSELF TO THE OTHER UNDER THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE, YOU GIVE YOUR ENTIRE SELF, AND HOLD NOTHING BACK. WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW HERS AND VICE VERSA.

**Your wife’s wishes do not matter, whether they are noble or not to her. If she is denying relations in marriage under normal circumstances, with no adequate reason, it is her sin. She gave herself and her body to you in marriage. You are not to force relations on her physically, but she has no right before God to decide this without your consent. Read (1 Cor. 7:3-6) **

This is why St. Monica, although after being married, did not want to have relations with her husband, but instead wanted to live a consecrated life to God. She did not have the right to make that decision, and she knew it, which is why she gave into her husbands relations throughout the entire length of her marriage. When she gave herself in marriage, she gave her entire self until death did them part.

READ HUMANAE VITAE IN ITS ENTIRETY.
40.png
johnnyjoe:
And this business of “authority” one-up-manship is a cheap argument trick. I don’t care how good the priests credtials are
Click to expand...
Then, not even the Pope could convince you of your error.(for he is a priest with the greatest credentials)

You put yourself in grave danger by refusing to believe those who God has put on this earth to instruct us(because you have no evidence that his teachings are not in accordance with the Church…you dispose of them without just cause or evidence) You must submit yourself to the Bishops of the Church, when they speak in communion with the Pope, as if it were Jesus Christ speaking to you
 
40.png
johnnyjoe:
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. .
Click to expand...
Here you go again. LISTEN FOR ONCE. YOU ARE IN GRAVE ERROR. NEVER DID I CLAIM JUDGEMENT OR EVERYONE ANSWERING TO ME. MY SOURCES TOLD YOU IT IS BETWEEN THE COUPLE AND THE SPIRITUAL ADVISOR…YOU STILL RANT ABOUT SOMETHING I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN AND AGREED WITH YOU ON. I SHOWED YOU THE ‘RIGHT’ ELEMENTS…NOT OUT OF MY MOUTH, BUT OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF MY AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES INCLUDING HUMANAE VITAE ITSELF. STOP YOUR STUBBORN JUDGEMENTS OF ME. IF YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN TO HUMANAE VITAE OR THE BOOKS, ENCYCLICALS, CARDINALS, ARCHBISHOPS, OR PRIESTS I HAVE QUOTED, YOU WILL ANSWER FOR THAT, NOT TO ME, BUT TO GOD.

ALL I HAVE TRIED TO DO IS TELL YOU THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH IN CHARITY. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO SOURCES, NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER IN DEFENDING YOUR POSITION. IF YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN TO ANY EVIDENCE I GIVE YOU, THEN YOU WILL GO ON LIVING IN ERROR. I HAVE DONE ALL THAT IS ASKED OF ME BY CHRIST, YOU DO WHAT YOU WILL.
 
I think the problem in this discussion is the definition of the term “contraception”. This is from Humanae Vitae, as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible"The effectiveness of NFP is due to abstinence. Abstinence is “not having sex”. Not having sex is a non-act. And, to belabor the point, a non-act is not an “action”. Therefore, at the very basic level, NFP cannot qualify as contraception, which is fundamentally defined above as being an “action”.

For this reason, even identifying the intent of abusing NFP as “contraceptive” doesn’t fit. Does this abuse reflect a “selfish” mentality? Absolutely.

I recommend Dr. Janet Smith’s paper, “Moral Use of Natural Family Planning,” where she includes the history of the topic from Pope Pius XII to Pope John Paul II.
 
Vincent said:
“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible”.The effectiveness of NFP is due to abstinence. Abstinence is “not having sex”. Not having sex is a non-act. And, to belabor the point, a non-act is not an “action”. Therefore, at the very basic level, NFP cannot qualify as contraception, which is fundamentally defined above as being an “action”.
Click to expand...

The action in not having sex during the fertile period, which is deliberately tracked, is avoidance. Avoidance is an action in anticipation of the conjugal act, which renders procreation impossible.

Not having sex during these times is a deliberate act for a deliberate purpose.

If you avoid a speeding bus, is that an action?
 
And just an example, so you stop limiting “contraception” to your definition regarding only artificial means, read Genesis 38:9-10
 
40.png
rheins2000:
The action in not having sex during the fertile period, which is deliberately tracked, is avoidance. Avoidance is an action in anticipation of the conjugal act, which renders procreation impossible.

Not having sex during these times is a deliberate act for a deliberate purpose.
Click to expand...
If you’re right then your evaluation of abstinence fits Pope Paul VI’s definition of contraception. But that would mean abstinence for any reason is immoral, contrary to what he writes just a few paragraphs later.
 
40.png
rheins2000:
And just an example, so you stop limiting “contraception” to your definition regarding only artificial means, read Genesis 38:9-10
Click to expand...
Actually, I’m not, as my reply makes clear.
 
40.png
Vincent:
If you’re right then your evaluation of abstinence fits Pope Paul VI’s definition of contraception. But that would mean abstinence for any reason is immoral, contrary to what he writes just a few paragraphs later.
Click to expand...
what part of “anticipation of the conjugal act” would apply to (an unmarried person I am assuming?) an individual practicing complete abstinence?

There is no anticipation of the conjugal act, and there is no marriage. Contraception, once again, has nothing to to with unmarried persons.

Chastity is a very noble vocation. Contraception would not have any bearing on an unmarried person living out the vow of chastity. We can only apply contraception to a discussion on marriage for obvious reasons.

This is not a logical comparison.
 
40.png
rheins2000:
what part of “anticipation of the conjugal act” would apply to (an unmarried person I am assuming?) an individual practicing complete abstinence?

There is no anticipation of the conjugal act, and there is no marriage. Contraception, once again, has nothing to to with unmarried persons.
Click to expand...
I’m actually referring to spouses, not to unmarried persons.
 
40.png
Vincent:
I’m actually referring to spouses, not to unmarried persons.
Click to expand...
Sorry…ok, let me try spouses.

With spousal abstinence, with the agreement of both parties assumed(say in a consecrated manner along the lines of Sts. Anne and Joachim for the years preceeding the Immaculate Conception), again, there would be no anticipation of the conjugal act whereby something was done at that time to render procreation impossible. Because they would not be engaging in realations, there would be no anticipation of relations, whereby they were doing something to frustrate the acts purpose.

Where with natural contraception(i.e. periodic continence) the conjugal act would be anticipated, being that the couple is actively engaging in realations at that point in their marriage, but the definitive act of avoiding relations only at certain time periods would be an action whose intent(if this be the intent) was to render procreation impossible.

Obviously, procreation is also impossible with complete abstinence, but the action is not to try to make procreation impossible, but to live a consecrated life to God. You must always look at the intent of the parties(and obviously only they know their own intentions).
 
First of all, why isn’t anyone mentioning that the pill is abortifacient? Which is clearly immoral.
Even if an egg is fertilized, menstuation is brought on artificially and and the already beginning child is not allowed to live.

Secondly, LaDevota, You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and soul. Don’t be afraid! Fear comes from the devil. To talk in terms of “risk” equals fear. Have faith! God will be with you whatever comes. At the same time you should be wise, but the beauty of NFP is if God steps in on your plans, you trust Him that the outcome is in His hands. There is joy and peace in having that trust. We are not promised tomorrow. What if all those tomorrows you’re planning for don’t come?

I am a mother of 10. I am 48. I think #11 would definitely be detrimental to my health. I still menstruate every 28 days and I use NFP now. My last baby is now 6. Yes I’m afraid to have #11, but the fact is I was afraid to have # 2! I just hold God’s hand and go…

Lastly, Alan, the pope as a person doesn’t have a special hotline to God, but as pope he does. Jesus promised to be with His church. Do you think that doesn’t imply anything special? That He just meant he’d be with us believers in spirit? I direct you to the 1st commandment as well, because it seems like your problem with NFP and the church is lack of faith. Not that you have none, you’d just rather depend on yourself and your own powers of reason.

Get out of the boat and reach for Jesus hand. YOU can walk on the water.
 
rheins…I’m trying to see your argument clearly. I have read the CCC #2370 and it starts out:

“Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality”.

Wouldn’t this be the “proof” that you ask for that gives spouses the “okay” to use NFP to decide when to practice “periodic continence”?

What am I missing here? :confused:
 
This was quoted in one of the posts “With typical use, the **failure rate ** for NFP can be as high as 25%; for the pill, it’s 6 to 8%.”

I’m going to to contend that at least with the so called “failures” of NFP, they are warmly welcomed because the couple know God planned the pregnancy and the couples consitently remain open; whereas the “failures” with ABC typically result in abortions (sought out intentionally or resulted from the chemical forms of ABC)because the couple know “they” didn’t plan it.

What I respect the most about NFP is the very simple, yet very humbling aspect of being 100% OPEN to new life. It’s not all about when you’ll have that glorious 6 figure job, or 10 bedroom house, 2 luxury SUV’s, etc. For those of us that don’t want 10 kids, however, it helps us to remember that once we have met our children number at 2 or 3, but if God so chooses to bless us again, then He’ll see to it and it’s ok.

Putting that faith and trust in God makes it easier to be open to new life instead of depending on a chemical, barrier or surgery so when you do have that “failure”, you’ll rejoice, not regret.

God will never give you something He thinks you can’t handle. 😃
 
DVIN CKS:
rheins…I’m trying to see your argument clearly. I have read the CCC #2370 and it starts out:

“Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality”.

Wouldn’t this be the “proof” that you ask for that gives spouses the “okay” to use NFP to decide when to practice “periodic continence”?

What am I missing here? :confused:
Click to expand...
You’re missing the rest of the paragraph and/or section. Like I said, the Catechism can be just as much misquoted as the Holy Scriptures. You are taking one line out of context and without the pretexes that come before that statement.

That is why the Church gives us priests and bishops to guide us in the reading of the catechism, so we dont do this.
 
There is a world of moral difference between contraception and NFP. Using birth control alters or frustrates the functioning of our bodies. These functions are designed by God. NFP works in union with our bodies. It does nothing to change the design of the body. In fact, it can be used to achieve or avoid a pregnancy. We are never required to use our conjugal rights, but when we do we should love as the Triune God loves: total, faithful, forever and fruitful. When we contracept we withhold something from our spouse and we have relations with the purpose of frustrating our fertility. The Catechism says that any action that attempts to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil (2368). The Catechism also says that we can not do evil even to achieve something that’s good (1759). If this is not the time for you and your spouse to have a child – and we should all be looking at our intentions when we decide not to have a child – you may try to avoid having one but you must not use evil means. NFP does not attempt to render procreation impossible so that is the only licit way to limit your family. One other thing, the use of NFP forces people to consider their intentions monthly; contraception lets couples put the issue on the backburner indefinitely. Marriage is a sacrament and therefore it can sanctify us. The virtues NFP instills can help us live a sacramental marriage; these virtues are not required of a contracepting couple.
 
rheins…In ref. to your explanation of the following: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act…”

I was following your argument and have held to that interpretation myself (in previous NFP discussions). It’s just that I can’t seem to square the above passage with the one that precedes it (the one I mentioned in my last post). I am not pro-NFP or pro-ABC at this point. I’m just trying to seek the truth as the church teaches it. The way I read #2370, is that the church is giving concession to couples using “methods” to regulate the number of births. What I hear you saying is that the church doesn’t teach this. Do I understand you correctly when you say that the church doesn’t favor any form of “manipulation” in the procreative aspect of congugal love? Understanding here that abstinence - IYO - is considered a manipulation of the outcome of the act.
 
“you wanna dance, you gotta pay the band.
you wanna play, you gotta pay the man.”
-Rocky

Life is God’s game. his rules.
we play by his rules, not ours.
 
a woman has the right to deny her husband as he has the right to deny her, who would want to have sex with someone who didnt want to anyway!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top