B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
Thank you for acknowledging this. It’s hard to get pro NFPers to a admit this change in philosophy.
- Status
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
Throughout the course of this conversation, I never suggested the Church says you have to have as many babies as humanly possible. Lol! Being open to children and striving to conceive as many as possible, are two very different things.
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
Casti Connubbii taught that couples needed a grave reason to prevent pregnancy BECAUSE the ONLY moral means is abstinence. And back then, there was no method to determine when a woman was more or less fertile. As such, the Church stressed the only EFFECTIVE way of doing it while affirming the condemnation of contraceptives.
It’s very important to understand that the means in which pregnancy is prevented in NFP is STILL abstinence. If a couple engages in sexual immorality in place of intercourse (whether that is through a barrier, manual, oral or withdrawal), such couples would need to confess it. Only pure abstinence is permitted.
But the knowledge of the woman’s fertility cycle actually reduces the Church’s caution to practicing abstinence by discovering a lack of need for it on some days. As such, couples can avoid more occassions of sin.
They are still to discern their reasons for abstaining as the unitive and procreative purposes of sex are always in tension with each other. You don’t want to dismiss either end. It’s very much a tight rope walk, and chastity is a long and exacting process. We aren’t born pure. Indeed while it’s a materially grave sin, we should expect to fall off one side or the other as we grow in virtue. We should not fail to pretend it isn’t a tight rope walk to convince ourselves we have no need to confess such sins.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
There is no change in philosophy.
Serious, just, and grave have been used in various documents. The reasons themselves have never been defined, and are, frankly, a little subjective.
Being open to children is what the wedding vows say. What is openness? is it actively seeking out children at every turn? Is it naturally regulating births and accepting the children as they come?
The bottom line is that good Catholic people shouldn’t be judging others on the size of their families.
Serious, just, and grave have been used in various documents. The reasons themselves have never been defined, and are, frankly, a little subjective.
Being open to children is what the wedding vows say. What is openness? is it actively seeking out children at every turn? Is it naturally regulating births and accepting the children as they come?
The bottom line is that good Catholic people shouldn’t be judging others on the size of their families.
1
1ke
Guest
That is not what I said. At all.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Would you like to provide an encyclical cite for that?
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
No, that’s been my experience is all.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
So people here know – where you are “coming from” —This is your post from Suscipe Domine – where you go by the name Quo Warranto. From what you say here – a couple who abstains from conceiving due to the mothers health – is not trusting God.
Frankly – this is playing russian roulette with a mother’s life/health-- and I’d say tempting God.
Quo Warranto:
Last edited:
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
Yes, quo warranto actually means " by what authority " in Latin which happens to be my favorite book by Robert Hugh Benson So what’s the problem with my post from SD? I did know that woman with tuberculosis. She trusted in God and her and her baby are both alive today because of that trust.
Last edited:
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Because one mother lived --does not other mothers will. You are promoting a view – that leads to the death of mothers.
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
That’s ridiculous! I posted that on SD in defense of a mother being open to life even though her doctor told her to keep from getting pregnant. It was not meant as, everyone should do this, but only as an example of someone who trusted in God and something wonderful happened.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
You were responding to this --“I think if a woman had that many and each time put her life in danger I would call that foolish”. So yes – you are making statements that do in fact – plays russian roullet with the life of a mother and can lead to her death.
Last edited:
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
Come on! I gave one example from personal experience. I do not believe the woman I was speaking about was " foolish". To say otherwise is foolish in my mind. Her and her son are alive today because of trust. Trust in our Creator who saved her by creating her baby because of her faith in His Devine providence. Why would any Catholic have a problem with this? Except someone who has an agenda that promotes limiting family size for any reason.
But you’re coming on here talking about how you think NFP is overused and couples should trust in God.
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
I don’t know that it’s “over used”. It’s the philosophy that had me ask the original question.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Well – that explains – the life of a mother.
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
And as I said in the post from a long time ago on SD. If that mother had followed the doctors orders, she would not have been wrong by any means. BUT she instead trusted in God and was rewarded for her trust.
The whole philosophy of NFP is open to life. You can’t really judge why any one couple is using it. If they wanted to avoid kids at all costs they’d use contraception. The fact they are using NFP in the first place is a good thing. And many couples practice NFP to conceive. It’s promoted because it’s seen as being good for married couples to have that knowledge.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
And as I said – what you promote is playing russian roullet with the life of mother – and it looks to be more of tempting God.Walking_Home:
And as I said in the post from a long time ago on SD. If that mother had followed the doctors orders, she would not have been wrong by any means. BUT she instead trusted in God and was rewarded for her trust.
- Status