NFP marketing, is promoting it right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ByWhatAuthority
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByWhatAuthority said:
Nfp is contraception in that if you are practicing it to avoid you are anti conception. Anti= contra or against conception. Anyway, I was talking about the " mentality" behind choosing not to have a child. The “contraceptive mentality”. Not nfp equals contraception.
Click to expand...
NFP is not contraception.
What else do you want to discuss?

We can discuss the motivations of couples in their decision making.
Go…
 
starlady said:
People can misuse NFP - it is a tool and tools can be misused.
Click to expand...
I agree with this^ How can it be misused? Do explain your thoughts.

This is exactly what the problem is! NFP is something that can be misused. Yet that is not mentioned in the promo propaganda I’ve seen. Rather is all about how effective and how much healthier it is than abc and morally sound and approved by the Church.
BUT if it’s true that it can be “misused” than why is the church so quiet about that??? If NFP has a potential to be sinful, at the very least the Church should warn couples about the danger of falling into a contraceptive mentality.
 
I understand how the use of the word
“contraception” is offensive. So for the sake of harmony we’ll call it “a method used to prevent conception”.
 
This is a pretty ridiculous argument since “prevention” in NFP involves…not having sex. That is, abstaining entirely. And then you have sex during a time when the egg and the sperm are unlikely to get together. This is not contraception in the normal use of the term. It’s just periodic abstinence.

Why is it so important for the anti-NFP people to make the assertion that abstinence=contracepting?
 
starlady said:
What is a “just reason” for another couple is not for you or me to decide - you can only evaluate the reasons that you and your spouse have for using (or not using) NFP.
Click to expand...
Can anyone here name for me something that has a sinful nature , something other than nfp that the church classifies this way? In other words;? if something is a sin for one person, the exact same sin is not for the next person. If the will is the same, I don’t think those actions will be judged very differently by God. Just because some people are good at justifying their sinful actions, does not make it less of a sin, in fact that added arrogance and presumption might make things even worse. Some people might be very good at justifying the use of nfp for any reason. That’s where I think the church should step up and remind couples of the potential of sin in regards to nfp. This is not something to be swept under the rug but a very real problem that should be addressed as evidenced here by the many Catholics who think nfp is absolutely harmless on a moral level.
 
ThePCWife said:
Why is it so important for the anti-NFP people to make the assertion that abstinence=contracepting?
Click to expand...
Because of the mentality! If the couple is using nfp with a contraceptive mentality, it is no different! Just like what Our Lord said about adultery. He said all you have to do is look at a woman with lust to commit that sin. This is all about what goes on between the ears.
 
That makes no sense at all. None whatsoever. Abstinence isn’t contracepting by any sane standard of thought.
 
ThePCWife said:
This is a pretty ridiculous argument since “prevention” in NFP involves…not having sex. That is, abstaining entirely. And then you have sex during a time when the egg and the sperm are unlikely to get together. This is not contraception in the normal use of the term. It’s just periodic abstinence.

Why is it so important for the anti-NFP people to make the assertion that abstinence=contracepting?
Click to expand...
Their deranged agenda to make it look like – couples who use NFP – are indeed contracepting.
 
Last edited:
There is, frankly, a stronger argument that can be made that thoughtlessly pursuing pregnancy at any cost without regard for each other or the other children one has is a pride mentality, or a lust mentality.

We are certainly not commanded to have two babies a year just because it’s physically possible, but you appear to think that improvidence and vanity is morally sound.
 
ThePCWife said:
There is, frankly, a stronger argument that can be made that thoughtlessly pursuing pregnancy at any cost without regard for each other or the other children one has is a pride mentality, or a lust mentality.

We are certainly not commanded to have two babies a year just because it’s physically possible, but you appear to think that improvidence and vanity is morally sound.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
Last edited:
ByWhatAuthority said:
Some people might be very good at justifying the use of nfp for any reason. That’s where I think the church should step up and remind couples of the potential of sin in regards to nfp. This is not something to be swept under the rug but a very real problem that should be addressed as evidenced here by the many Catholics who think nfp is absolutely harmless on a moral level.
Click to expand...
In my experience with using NFP you spend a lot more time trying to justify that you really don’t need to be that careful, then you do trying to convince yourself that it’s ok to use it.
 
ThePCWife said:
We are certainly not commanded to have two babies a year just because it’s physically possible, but you appear to think that improvidence and vanity is morally sound.
Click to expand...
When did I ever suggest couples try and have as many babies as physically possible? I disagree though that if you did happen to have two babies in one year that that would classify you are vain! I think that couple would be very generous. That’s what the Church used to teach anyways. In fact back in the day, babies born two in one years time were called Irish Twins. Because of the Likelyhood of the couple being Catholic. 😃 Because of their acceptance of many children.

Edited to fix vane to vain. Lol
 
Last edited:
ByWhatAuthority said:
that the pre nfp church
Click to expand...
What on earth is that?

Since the book of Leviticus we have had instructions regarding a woman’s cycle.

Observing those cycles for planning/avoiding pregnancy was so well known in the 4th century that Augustine took issue with it.

Science has improved the methods of observing the changes in the female body, but, we did not simply begin having observable changes in mucous sometime around 1960.
 
That is not what NFP is. There is nothing used to prevent contraception.

NFP is taking information that every woman has, looking at that information using that information to determine “do we want to have intercourse today or not?”.

There is never a “thou shalt have intercourse with your spouse every day of the month” command. It is not sinful to decide not to have intercourse for a day, or as long as your spouse is in agreement, for a week or for a month or for a year or for a decade. Nothing at all as long as your spouse is on board with abstaining from intercourse.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
Can anyone here name for me something that has a sinful nature , something other than nfp that the church classifies this way? In other words;? if something is a sin for one person, the exact same sin is not for the next person.
Click to expand...
Well, if I knew that I was in the first trimester of pregnancy and chugged down half a bottle of wine, it would be in a different moral category than if my husband (who is not pregnant) chugged down half a bottle of wine.

Different circumstances affect the morality or immorality of actions.
 
Laura_N said:
In my experience with using NFP you spend a lot more time trying to justify that you really don’t need to be that careful, then you do trying to convince yourself that it’s ok to use it.
Click to expand...
A hundred times yes.

That’s exactly true.

Also, when you have solid reasons, you don’t fret about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top