NFP Hipocracy

[johnnyjoe]

rheins2000:

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.

I will presume this post is directed at me, and I will respond briefly here, for I have to get on with my evening for now…

I am “arguing” nothing, I am refuting your assertion that NFP is contraception. This assertion is an old “Traditionalist” trick that I have battled many times, and it plays well to those who are on contraception, and are looking for ways of excusing NFP as an option.

Your convoluted reasoning that flies in the face of the plain language of Humanae Vitae is all Catholic Contraceptors need to ignore the Church’s urging to use “natural means” to decide how many kids they will have.

Your arguments give fuel to the disobedient for it calls into the question of the authority of Humanae Vitae, and it is diabolical in the division it creates in the faithful.

I do not need your condescension, and you cannot tell me, a certified NFP instructor, that I don’t know enough about this issue. You have not, at least from what I have briefly read, answered my question about the extent of your knowledge of NFP. I will add that in my frequent visits with my Bishop, he has never shared the obtuse and obscure view of NFP that you are propogating here. Indeed he is anxious to expand NFP instruction in our Diocese, and to deepen his priests understanding of the NFP alternatives available.

I also doubt that you would listen to the Pope yourself, for I doubt at this point whether you are worshiping in the Roman Catholic Church. Your views smell an awful lot like PiusX views, and your condescending tone is a dead giveaway. I will apologize to some extent, for I am not being terribly charitable here. It is not a strong virtue for me to begin with, and it is always a fine line that is easy to cross when you need to talk to “Trads”…they can be very stubborn people…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Vincent:

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”.

By the “act” vs. “non-act” argument, shouldn’t coitus interruptus and NFP be on equal footing? After all, in coitus interruptus the couple strategically engages in a non-act which is timed to avoid the moment of greatest fertility for the man. They are obviously being open to life except at that particular time, as any sex-ed teacher can tell you the act does not have to be “completed” by any means for fertilization to occur.

Plus, if we were to have an absolute rule against early termination, we would have to define precisely when it would be OK to terminate. For example, are we obliged to remain in place for X number of seconds after some measureable point in the act? Sorry, I know you didn’t specifically argue against coitus interruptus, but the more I think of a specific rule against it the more ridiculous the whole idea of outlawing it, but not NFP, becomes.

Further, any argument against “spilling” is totally relative unless you are ready to quantify exactly how much “spilling” is allowed, whether as an absolute quantity or percentage of estimated total. If anybody else has heard of not spilling any, they are using a technology that is foreign to me.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

tamccrackine:

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.

How can you say NFP is 100% open to life, but then also say that its use in avoiding new life has a 75%, or 99%, or whatever, chance of success? It would sound like NFP is 25%, or 1% open to life then, if my math is correct.

Alan

 

[rheins2000]

DVIN CKS:

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.

Yes, any “manipulation”, if I am understanding the term correctly, would not be morally good, unless, of course, as I agree with the teachigs I have quoted, there are serious reasons for doing so…and if that be the case, the only morally acceptable way of doing this would then be periodic continence(I dont like using NFP, because the planning part of NFP gives people the wrong idea[like you can use it to plan your number of children and when they are to be born.])

I hope very much that you have read the exerpt of the book I posted. He explains the problematic parts of NFP much better than me.

You must read other parts of the Catechism to get the full understanding of the teaching(and then the words of the Pope and Bishops that explain it further)

Examples:

CCC 2366: “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”

CCC 2369: “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientaion toward man’s exalted vocation to arenthood.”

CCC 2368: “For just reasons, spouses may wish to space their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.”

Also, keep in mind there are very many different forms of contraception. Now, remember, I am not saying that NFP is intrinsically evil, only artificial contraception is intrinsically evil…but NFP can be a sin if you are using it under normal circumstance, through an effort to avoid procreation, and not putting your entire trust in God.

 

[rheins2000]

TarAshly:

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!

Not under normal circumstances. That is a selfish act, unless, once again, there is a good enough reason to. This is not the teaching of the Church.

 

[grammylou]

NFP is a wonderful gift, for any man and woman who should be devoted to each other, to understand the workings of the female body, and perhaps a little less so, the male body and the potential this unique couple has to participate with God in the sublime responsibility of procreation. Practicing NFP means they both share equally the responsibility for their fertility. It should be mandatory teaching.

Isn’t it strange that people who will engage in the most intimate act there is between two people still find it difficult to talk about the way their own bodies work ? I think that is the basis for some of the argument against NFP - to practice it faithfully, there has to be open, clear, honest communication between the spouses regarding the workings of their bodies. Some folks cannot imagine talking to anyone, sometimes even including their doctor, about such things.

Your body is a gift from God, it wasn’t meant to be left a mystery. Understand how your body works. God is meant to stay a mystery - He’s the Creator. Your body is yours to discover. It’s your responsibility to understand your body as best you can. Your fertility, your sexuality, is as important to understand - I would suggest more important - than your cholesterol level, your risk for heart disease, your need for exercise, what foods work best for you, or the numerous other health issues we mostly all agree are our responsibility to understand as best we can.

 

[rheins2000]

johnnyjoe:

I am “arguing” nothing, I am refuting your assertion that NFP is contraception. This assertion is an old “Traditionalist” trick that I have battled many times, and it plays well to those who are on contraception, and are looking for ways of excusing NFP as an option. …

How does it play well to those who are on artificial contraception, when I condemned using that as an intrinsically evil act? You make no sense.

johnnyjoe:

Your convoluted reasoning that flies in the face of the plain language of Humanae Vitae is all Catholic Contraceptors need to ignore the Church’s urging to use “natural means” to decide how many kids they will have…

Your mind is extremely warped…by flying in the face of Humanae Vitae do you mean me and others specifically quoting the document to support our position.

The Church does not teach to use “natural means” to decide how many kids to have. The Church teaches to surrender this decision to God, not yourself.

It seems you have a big problem and are actually arguing against handing everything over to God…instead you are pushing others into a method to where they are trying to decide how many children they will have.

johnnyjoe:

Your arguments give fuel to the disobedient for it calls into the question of the authority of Humanae Vitae, and it is diabolical in the division it creates in the faithful…

You have not once shown that Humanae Vitae agrees with your position that couples should try to exert influence on the number of children they are to have. You, sir are diabolical in calling Bishops, holy priests, and servants of God, teaching in communion with the Pope, liars. You create the division. You are on the side of yourself…I am on the side of those teachings which I have posted. You are gravely in error, and have posted no evidence…I wonder why that is…PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE OR STOP WRITING YOUR OPINION WHICH IS IN OPPOSITION TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON MARRIAGE.

johnnyjoe:

I do not need your condescension, and you cannot tell me, a certified NFP instructor, that I don’t know enough about this issue. You have not, at least from what I have briefly read, answered my question about the extent of your knowledge of NFP. I will add that in my frequent visits with my Bishop, he has never shared the obtuse and obscure view of NFP that you are propogating here. Indeed he is anxious to expand NFP instruction in our Diocese, and to deepen his priests understanding of the NFP alternatives available…

Produce the Bishop’s evidence before you accuse him of spreading your doctrine. I dont care if you have a master’s degree in NFP. That is the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. I know plenty of athiests with degrees in Theology…that doesnt make them experts. The Church is the expert…not you in your prideful boastings because you happen to read books about mucous and thermal charting. I know plenty enough to tell you that you are wrong. But your opinion seems to be the only thing that matters to you.

 

[rheins2000]

johnnyjoe:

I also doubt that you would listen to the Pope yourself, for I doubt at this point whether you are worshiping in the Roman Catholic Church. Your views smell an awful lot like PiusX views, and your condescending tone is a dead giveaway. I will apologize to some extent, for I am not being terribly charitable here. It is not a strong virtue for me to begin with, and it is always a fine line that is easy to cross when you need to talk to “Trads”…they can be very stubborn people…

This is a claim of ignorance and stupidity…

FACT: I have quoted the words of the Pope, the Archbishops in communion with him, numerous encyclicals, and authoritative teachers instructing under the authority of diocesan Bishops.

FACT: You Have quoted noone or nothing, but yourself.

FACT: You have not yet once referred to anything concerning the “planning” aspects of NFP…you lump NFP, no matter what the intentions of the means or the ends, into one broad thing, and claim that I reject it completely. LEARN TO READ.

FACT: You have claimed a holy priest with the credentials I gave you, an Archbishop, and a canon lawyer of being diabolical, not having any love in their hearts, and heretics WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE.

And te people you refer to as “Trads”…that is such an ignorant statement I cannot even fathom it. The Chuch itself is traditionalist, or have you not heard of its 2000 year old infallible tradition. Every Pope from the beginning to the end has held to the traditionalist views of his predecessor in matters of faith and morals.

Good luck ever trying to find the truth with such a closed mind to priests, Archbishops, encyclical letters and teachings of the Pope

 

[rheins2000]

grammylou:

NFP is a wonderful gift, for any man and woman who should be devoted to each other, to understand the workings of the female body, and perhaps a little less so, the male body and the potential this unique couple has to participate with God in the sublime responsibility of procreation. Practicing NFP means they both share equally the responsibility for their fertility.

responsibility for their fertility? what does that mean? There’s nothing wrong with knowing NFP. I know it…and me and my wife have used it to get pregnant, not to avoid getting pregnant!

Please read the post I made quoting the book “This is the Faith” I dont know if you read that yet or not.

grammylou:

It should be mandatory teaching…

You do not decide what the teachings of the Church should be.

grammylou:

Isn’t it strange that people who will engage in the most intimate act there is between two people still find it difficult to talk about the way their own bodies work ? I think that is the basis for some of the argument against NFP - to practice it faithfully, there has to be open, clear, honest communication between the spouses regarding the workings of their bodies. Some folks cannot imagine talking to anyone, sometimes even including their doctor, about such things.

Per the Catehism, NFP is not something to be practiced…the Catechism only allows it under certain circumstances. Please read the Catechism(Im assuming you’re catholic…if not then let my post only be informative as to what is the teaching of our Church)

grammylou:

Your body is a gift from God, it wasn’t meant to be left a mystery. Understand how your body works. God is meant to stay a mystery - He’s the Creator. Your body is yours to discover. It’s your responsibility to understand your body as best you can. Your fertility, your sexuality, is as important to understand - I would suggest more important - than your cholesterol level, your risk for heart disease, your need for exercise, what foods work best for you, or the numerous other health issues we mostly all agree are our responsibility to understand as best we can.

Finally, a paragraph I completely agree with.

 

[Peace-bwu]

La Devota:

Please clarify this for me. If artifical contraception is wrong because it attempts to manipulate nature and create an obstacle that prevents the creation of life as God intends, isn’t NFP also a means of manipulating nature?
Honestly, if God wanted to create a new life between someone and his or her spouse, no amount of chemicals or degree of science could stop Him. Furthermore, taking one’s temperature and measuring one’s vaginal mucus is about as scientific as it gets. As a matter of fact, it’s an even more conscious and deliberate attempt to avoid pregnancy considering all of the extreme measures one must go through to make sure it works!
In either case, the motivation and intention to prevent conception is present. Therefore, instead of pointing the finger at artificial contraception as the EVIL element at work here, it seems that the evil might exist in the motivation and intention behind it. If I, as a married, faithful woman use artifical contraception with the same motivation and intention as someone using NFP - to Plan for my Family - What is the difference? Why is one method sinful and the other method just fine?

The spern is not being artificially inhibited. The couple is still leaving themselves open to life, and unlike many artificial means of birth control, NFP is not abortive. No matter what, if God wants a couple to have a baby they will. My third baby is an NFP baby. I’m so glad I wasn’t doing it right.

 

[rheins2000]

Peace-bwu:

My third baby is an NFP baby. I’m so glad I wasn’t doing it right.

My first and second babies were NFP babies. Im glad I wasnt using the method not to get pregnant, because then I might have avoided having them, or maybe only one of them would be here right now.

Your effectiveness, or misuse of NFP, does not mean that in your heart and mind you were completely open to children, all that says is that the outcome was not what you were intending.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

johnnyjo…you bring thoughtful arguments to this discussion as does rheins. I would prefer not to see the term “Trads” being used since it seems a bit uncharitable (even though you may not mean it to be).

I see your dilema…you have a bishop/priests who have endorsed what you teach about NFP, so naturally you do not question that what you are teaching is in error of the Church. I get that.

I have also had discussions with priests about guidance regarding birth control and I have gotten unanimous responses that tell me that it is a decision between me and God. I leave not really getting the answers I seek. I understand that since Humanae Vitae was released that the church has pretty much been split over the issue of birth control and the majority of Catholics have been left to themselves for guidance in this important teaching (and may explain why such a high percentage of Catholics use some form of birth control). My husband and I never once got any specific teaching from our priest while we went through pre cana on this issue. My parents were very “liberal” catholics and felt that birth control was a matter of using your free will to discern what was best for you. So, to sum things up here…I feel the Church has failed miserably in teaching me what I need to know about the intricacies of my sexuality and the role it plays in my marriage.

Knowing that there are priests and bishops out there that give conflicting opinions as to what the church teaches and how we should interpret documents like the CCC and HV is troublesome.

It conerns me deeply that if the evidence that rheins has provided has any validity to it that it would mean that A TON of Catholics have been very much mislead. It would mean that everything you think NFP is, all of a sudden is NOT.

This whole discussion boils down to whose bishop/priest is right and whose is wrong. Who is teaching in accordance to Rome and who isn’t? At this point, I don’t know what to believe…but will start doing some more reading in the hopes of finding the REAL truth to the matter. You and rheins can’t both be right.

 

[rheins2000]

DVIN CKS:

to sum things up here…I feel the Church has failed miserably in teaching me what I need to know about the intricacies of my sexuality and the role it plays in my marriage.

I can undestand your confusion with different priests telling you different things…I know that is the case for many people, but the Church has not failed miserably. What has failed miserably is the Catechesis of Catholics in the last 60 years. But, any Catholic who is truly searching for the teachings of the Church, can easilly find them in the Catechism.

On an issue such as this, it becomes very confusing, I understand, on what the pronounced teachig is. This is when you must read the Catechism, in light of Papal encyclicals, authoritative sources subject to obedience in the Church, and dogmatic declarations of the Church. I hope my postings have provided some of those sources.
DVIN CKS:

Knowing that there are priests and bishops out there that give conflicting opinions as to what the church teaches and how we should interpret documents like the CCC and HV is troublesome.

Very much agree. Although it is easy to tell in some cases, others require much more extensive searching to find the actual truth.
DVIN CKS:

This whole discussion boils down to whose bishop/priest is right and whose is wrong. Who is teaching in accordance to Rome and who isn’t?

Unfortunately, sometimes that is the case.

My advice is to once again look for authoritative sources in line with the Church…(i.e. for books, trust those that are published under some of the following: Ignatius Press, Tan Publishing, St. Joseph Communications, Catholic Answers, Ascension Press, and of course, anything from the Libreria Editrice Vaticana)

 

[rheins2000]

Peace-bwu:

The spern is not being artificially inhibited. The couple is still leaving themselves open to life, and unlike many artificial means of birth control, NFP is not abortive. No matter what, if God wants a couple to have a baby they will. My third baby is an NFP baby. I’m so glad I wasn’t doing it right.

Also, please read Genesis 38: 9-11, if you didnt see my eralier post. The sperm is not being artificially inhibited here either, but it is still a sin.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

rheins2000:

I hope my postings have provided some of those sources.

You have given me a place to start at least. Thank you. I’m still a bit stunned by what I read from what you quoted from “This is The Faith”. Has forced me to see this whole topic in a different light. Certainly explains a lot about our family history and why it wouldn’t have seemed so odd to come from a family of 14 kids. 200 years ago, I bet no one ever looked down their noses at large families and wondered “why do they do that to themselves”. People just figured it was God’s way. Nowadays, if a family of 14 walks down the street, people wonder “why don’t they practice birth control?”

Scares me to death to think of leaving the planning of my family soley up to God. Especially considering that we live in a society that would see that type of attitude as being “unresponsible”. Educating children is not only hard but very expensive (I’m thinking college tuition here). I never heard of “family planning” being referred to as a “neo-pagan practice”. That’s odd.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Peace-bwu:

The spern is not being artificially inhibited. The couple is still leaving themselves open to life, and unlike many artificial means of birth control, NFP is not abortive. No matter what, if God wants a couple to have a baby they will. My third baby is an NFP baby. I’m so glad I wasn’t doing it right.

But… but. . but…

But aren’t making exactly the case you are speaking against when you say “if God wants…?”

A lot of people have babies on broken condoms, unsuccessful withdrawal technique, improper diaphragm installation, etc. Why is it when NFP for avoiding babies “fails” it is God working and when an artificial means is used it is assumed to be “God-proof” in that you are doing something to “render conception impossible?” That is crazy talk, or misinformed talk at best.

By the way, for the benefit of those who have seen my earlier flip-flops on this issue, yes I have decided that the Church might as well be the “standard” for faith and morals. I don’t exactly believe that God in His divinity bestowed perfection on the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. I do believe that faith and morals often cannot be reduced to “facts” that can be experimentally proven or disproven, or “logic” that follows from such facts.

NFP is conditionally moral whereas ABC is intrinsically evil for one reason alone that I have seen, that cannot be refuted: the Church says so, and she is the standard. That still doesn’t mean it makes a lick of worldly sense. The rest is up to you. How much do you believe the Church? Do you believe that something that may seem illogical is infallibly true? If your own beliefs conflict with that of the Church which are you willing to trust more in terms of your walk with Christ, your peace on earth, and possibly your eternal fate?

Alan

 

[bear06]

But aren’t making exactly the case you are speaking against when you say “if God wants…?”

A lot of people have babies on broken condoms, unsuccessful withdrawal technique, improper diaphragm installation, etc. Why is it when NFP for avoiding babies “fails” it is God working and when an artificial means is used it is assumed to be “God-proof” in that you are doing something to “render conception impossible?” That is crazy talk, or misinformed talk at best.

This is really simple. Don’t make this sooooooooooooo hard!
Once again, yes, if God wants a baby to exist it will either way. HOWEVER, when we use a condom, etc. we are trying to thwart this. An NFP couple is not because they are always accepting that this could be the case and if God should choose to make what we think is an unfertile time, the right time, we are doing nothing to try and thwart this reality. An NFP couple is NEVER doing anything to render conception impossible. We are doing everything it takes to create a baby if God chooses. An ABC couple cannot say the same thing even though it might happen.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Here’s some info the the USCCB–they are Bishops, right?
usccb.org/prolife/bibliography.htm
usccb.org/prolife/sectionii.htm
usccb.org/prolife/preface.htm
The USCCB has Standards for implementing NFP into Dioceses.

From the Couple to Couple League web site (pro NFP statements from POPE):
ccli.org/morality/Church.shtml
John Paul II, 17 July 1994:

Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood on this point [about "responsible parenthood], as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so (italics in original).

Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God’s co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child.

Therefore when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be “violated” by artificial interference.

Gospel of Life; (John Paul II)

1. The work of educating in the service of life involves the training of married couples in responsible procreation. In its true meaning, responsible procreation requires couples to be obedient to the Lord’s call and to act as faithful interpreters of his plan. This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely. The moral law obliges them in every case to control the impulse of instinct and passion, and to respect the biological laws inscribed in their person. It is precisely this respect which makes legitimate, at the service of responsible procreation, the use of natural methods of regulating fertility. From the scientific point of view, these methods are becoming more and more accurate and make it possible in practice to make choices in harmony with moral values. An honest appraisal of their effectiveness should dispel certain prejudices which are still widely held, and should convince married couples, as well as health-care and social workers, of the importance of proper training in this area. The Church is grateful to those who, with personal sacrifice and often unacknowledged dedication, devote themselves to the study and spread of these methods, as well to the promotion of education in the moral values which they presuppose.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

This is really simple. Don’t make this sooooooooooooo hard!

Dear bear06,

I’m sorry for not letting stand what sounds simple. What looks simple to one makes no sense to another.

Just to synchronize my evolving positions on this issue, at this point I have conceded that the Church may define issues of faith and morals, because they are unprovable by definition so we can use her standard as a basis. Therefore if you wish to say that ABC is intrinsically evil and NFP is not because that is the teaching of the Church, then be my guest. I will not argue with that.

Don’t, however, try to get me to believe that it makes sense or is logically consistent unless you have some new way of explaining it I haven’t heard in the hundreds of posts before.

Once again, yes, if God wants a baby to exist it will either way. HOWEVER, when we use a condom, etc. we are trying to thwart this.

And again, if we are using NFP to avoid getting pregnant, we are also trying to thwart this. If we weren’t, then what pray tell is the point of using it?

An NFP couple is not because they are always accepting that this could be the case and if God should choose to make what we think is an unfertile time, the right time, we are doing nothing to try and thwart this reality.

An ABC couple is neither then unless they are totally misinformed, because if they have sex at all using any method short of castration or removal of the ovaries, then they are also accepting that this could be the case and if God should choose to make their method fail when they aren’t expecting it to, they are doing nothing to thwart that reality.

An NFP couple is NEVER doing anything to render conception impossible. We are doing everything it takes to create a baby if God chooses. An ABC couple cannot say the same thing even though it might happen.

If an ABC couple cannot say the same thing, then ABC couples ARE doing something to render conception impossible? This is clearly not the case, according to any number of pro-NFP articles I can find on the web – including this CA site. That boggles my mind, “they are making conception impossible, although conception might occur.” Honestly, I’m not trying to make fun of this. I know you’re speaking to different “mentalities” and I suspect NFP people are less likely to abort than the average ABC couple and all that. I’m also not trying to talk down NFP for anyone who wants to use it. I’m not even trying, any more, to say they are equally moral. I’m just saying that this particular argument is without merit as far as I can tell.

I’m also trying very hard to explain my answers, as once it gets into an “is not,” “is too” mode then we have to admit it is an article of faith and cannot be reconciled with logic.

Alan

 

[bear06]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear bear06,

And again, if we are using NFP to avoid getting pregnant, we are also trying to thwart this. If we weren’t, then what pray tell is the point of using it?

An ABC couple is neither then unless they are totally misinformed, because if they have sex at all using any method short of castration or removal of the ovaries, then they are also accepting that this could be the case and if God should choose to make their method fail when they aren’t expecting it to, they are doing nothing to thwart that reality.

Alan, I can see that this is too subtle for you. Let’s go over this again. Maybe I’ll eventually say it in the right way to get through. If NFP couple thinks they can’t get pregnant at a certain time but God puts the egg and everything else necessary in the right place for conception and the couple engages in sex, what are they doing to thwart conception? Nothing. They are not trying to alter God’s plan. They are totally aware that this could happen and accept that conception could occur at any point if God wishes.

If ABC couple thinks they can’t get pregnant because they are using ABC and God chooses to let that method fail and puts everything in place for conception, they are actively trying to render this act of God impotent.

You can’t render the marriage act impotent if you are not engaging in it! You can only render it impotent if you wrap yourself in latex, make some other barrier, chemically castrate, etc.

This is just, of course, one part of the argument. You also have to take into account the necessity of using NFP, Natural Law, and a few other things that go into the morality of NFP. I think you have to look at the whole rather than disecting individual parts. If you try to separate motive, method, design, etc. you get an even fuzzier view.