B
billpenn
Guest
Em_in_FL;2877551This refers to a quote from Canon Law… but it was *changed [/quote said:
- Status
S
Sure
Guest
You are completely incorrect. Cast Cannubii is the first document that specifically mentions NFP and confirms the morality of it’s use. It says: “Nor are those married couples to be considered as acting against the order of nature who make use of their right in the proper, natural way, even though through natural causes either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot thence result.”
A fact that was confirmed by Pius XII on multiple occasions.
Once again,
- Name one theologian who agrees with you.
- Explain how the Church still exists and the Pope still exists despite teaching incorrectly (as you insist) on a moral issue.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
And NFP allows conjugal relations with rightly ordered ends becase the ACT is not altered in any way. It is as God intended. Contraception places a chemical or physical barrier between the spouses–NFP does not. The marital embrace is UNALTERED. By some people’s reasoning, you couldn’t be abstinent at all, either, because of the knowledge that NO martial relations means no babies!!!
NFP is the collection of information–it is neither moral or immoral. You can use that knowlege along with prayer and discernment to determine if adding to your family is the prudent thing to do. With some of the reasoning on this board, you’d think that you can only have marital relations when the woman is fertile. The Church clearly teaches that that’s not the case. Now, should NFP be the default position of every married couple? No, it shouldn’t, however, we no longer live in a culture that allows every couple to have 10 children–we’re not on farms, we have to buy food, go to work, have medical insurance (or never get sick and see a dr!!), we are seperated from extended family, and society doesn’t help large families or see their value. We have 6 children and we struggle at times. Having a large family these days is HARD, not impossible, but HARD–both in terms of being countercultural and in terms of financial reasons.
The Church, in her Wisdom, allows the use of NFP for serious/grave/just reasons–to be determined by the couple, God and perhaps a spiritual advisor/confessor. This is also called periodic abstinence as opposed to total abstinence. We pray and discern for both types of abstinence, right? So why is total abstinence somehow better for a marriage, esp since St Paul tells us not to let abstinence go on for too long? Hmmm…
God bless,
Jennifer
M
MMLJ
Guest
Again, Time and Certain defects do not pertain to NFP!!!
It pertains to Menopause and infertility, since these are natural causes.
Natural Family Planning is not Natural causes!!!
How is Natural Family Planning ‘Natural’? The name in itself is a giveaway. It is planned.
Since you yourself have admitted that if GOD wants you to conceive you shall, then by your logic, why use NFP since if one is to conceive it is GOD’S will?
The intent of NFP is not to conceive which is a sin. Is this clear?
What is you NFP’s intent? Is it Catholic?
Casti Connubii In no way shape or form mentions NFP.
If it does where, certainly not in what you have stated above.
M
MMLJ
Guest
Hypocrisy.
The practice of Natural Family Planning and condoms both have the same end result.
The visible condom covers the body and Natural Family Planning uses the invisible condom to cover the mind, however the intentions are identical.
This is hypocrisy. Either both are condemned or both are accepted.
BTW, both still result in pregnancies
And** St Paul said:Galatians, 5:16 & 17**;
“I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.”
I Cor 10: 31
Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God."
S
Sure
Guest
Again, you are wrong. Moral theologians everywhere recognize that this is precisely what Pope Pius XI did refer to in Casti Cannubii.
And of course as noted, Pope Pius XII confirmed this view. So, you can have your opinion on Casti Cannubii, I would rather trust Pope Pius XII’s interpretation.
You still have not explained how the entire Church and all Pope’s since Pius IX have fallen into error on a moral issue.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
Just because something has the same result doesn’t mean they are the same. I could wish to loose weight through dieting and exercise or through eating and purging. The ends are the same–weight loss, but the second way will probably kill me or at the least hurt me physically. And NFP isn’t an invisible condom over the mind (huh??), give me a break…and using it isn’t hypocrisy as the ACT isn’t altered in any way with NFP. A condom alters the ACT.Hypocrisy.
The practice of Natural Family Planning and condoms both have the same end result.
The visible condom covers the body and Natural Family Planning uses the invisible condom to cover the mind, however the intentions are identical.
This is hypocrisy. Either both are condemned or both are accepted.
BTW, both still result in pregnancies
The fact is a women is fertile in cycles, God created the cycle AND created the symptoms accompanying the cycle. If it were a sin, I suppose God wouldn’t have allowed our fertility to be discerned in anyway–it would always remain a mystery…
Jennifer
S
Sure
Guest
Moral theology 101. The morality of an act is not solely determined by the intention. So even if two acts have the same disordered intention, they are not necessarily equivalent in their object.Hypocrisy.
The practice of Natural Family Planning and condoms both have the same end result.
The visible condom covers the body and Natural Family Planning uses the invisible condom to cover the mind, however the intentions are identical.
This is hypocrisy. Either both are condemned or both are accepted.
BTW, both still result in pregnancies
Answer the question about authority and infallibility.
B
bear06
Guest
No they don’t. Condoms separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace. NFP can’t ever do this.Hypocrisy.
The practice of Natural Family Planning and condoms both have the same end result.
The visible condom covers the body and Natural Family Planning uses the invisible condom to cover the mind, however the intentions are identical.
This is hypocrisy. Either both are condemned or both are accepted.
BTW, both still result in pregnancies
If you’re going to try and use the argument that you can’t have the procreative aspect if you know you’re not fertile then you’re going to have to say that nobody should ever engage in the marital embrace when they are infertile and that they should be engaging in the marital embrace each and every minute they are fertile.
B
billpenn
Guest
Here is an interesting tidbit…a statement of Cardinal Ottaviani (of “The Ottaviani Intervention” fame):
“Cardinal Ottaviani spoke on the following day. ‘I am not pleased,’ he said, ‘with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church.’ He was the eleventh son in a family of twelve children, he said. ‘My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents’ minds, because they trusted in providence.’” (Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine flows into the Tiber- A History of Vatican II. Tan Books, 1985, p. 269.)
Never heard of before.
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE CONJUGAL ACT IS PROCREATION; NFP SUBORDINATES THIS PRIMARY PURPOSE TO THE SECONDARY PURPOSES OF MUTUAL AID, MUTUAL AFFECTION AND THE QUIETING OF CONCUPISENCE.
Are people charting and graphing because they have an overabundance of creative energy to expend? NO, they are doing it to avoid children, and re-order the aims of the conjugal union. They seek to play God.
“Cardinal Ottaviani spoke on the following day. ‘I am not pleased,’ he said, ‘with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church.’ He was the eleventh son in a family of twelve children, he said. ‘My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents’ minds, because they trusted in providence.’” (Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine flows into the Tiber- A History of Vatican II. Tan Books, 1985, p. 269.)
Never heard of before.
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE CONJUGAL ACT IS PROCREATION; NFP SUBORDINATES THIS PRIMARY PURPOSE TO THE SECONDARY PURPOSES OF MUTUAL AID, MUTUAL AFFECTION AND THE QUIETING OF CONCUPISENCE.
Are people charting and graphing because they have an overabundance of creative energy to expend? NO, they are doing it to avoid children, and re-order the aims of the conjugal union. They seek to play God.
B
billpenn
Guest
He’s saying that you can have sex during infertile periods…he is NOT saying it is lawful to restrict it to such times alone in the avoidance of children
M
MMLJ
Guest
Exactly. Thank you:thumbsup:
B
billpenn
Guest
No…thank you.
And the fact that that is blatantly obvious is…well, blatantly obvious.
Personally, I think that everyone needs to return to basics here and simplify this whole matter. So long as one keeps in mind the primary and secondary ends of the conjugal act, I think they will be led to the conclusion that NFP re-orders them. That simple fact is the “malleus maleficorum” for NFP.
S
Sure
Guest
How come you didn’t call him a heretic, though. The website you got this from calls him one???
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/refuting_NFP.html
It’s pretty funny that your getting all your info from this website. They are a complete fringe group with no understanding of Catholicism or basic philosophy. You might want to get some more sources.
B
billpenn
Guest
We’re not now debating whether or not Cardinal Ottaviani, or Paul VI for that matter, were heretics.
Respectfully, if you wish to discuss that, please let’s start a new thread.
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
You’ve just changed the definition of how the primary and seconday ends of the conjugal act exist. According to the traditional Roman Catholic teaching, *every *conjugal act is ordered for procreation. Ergo, any deliberate attempt by the couple to causes/results in conception not to occur is a frustration of this procreative end that always exists in the act. NFP would only be approved if the conjugal act only contained a procreative end during the woman’s fertile time. However, this was never traditionally taught in Christianity and makes a mockery of any mention of an absolute primary and secondary end existing in every conjugal act.
This is ridiculous. A couple who chooses to live a normal married lived, respecting the primary procreative end built into every conjugal act, are doing nothing to frustrate the procreative end built into the conjugal act. The fact that some of their conjugal acts fall during infertile times is not more a frustration of the conjugal act than a man falling out of bed during intercourse is a frustration of it. Contraception is any deliberate intent and attempt to keep conception from occurring. NFP and barrier methods do this equally and stand or fall together. It goes without saying that a couple living a normal married life of not attempting to keep conception out of the act are not contracepting the act.
God bless,
Adam
B
billpenn
Guest
Fringe group? Throw your labels where you may…that does not change the basic truths regarding what we are discussing here.
S
Sure
Guest
You and Mr. Dimond can think that if you want, but Pope Pius XII, and all Popes subsequent disagree with you both. I’ll take their interpretation over yours.
B
billpenn
Guest
Please indicate with clarity where Pope Pius XII indicates that he agrees with having recourse ONLY to infertile periods to avoid children.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
I think you are missusing the words primary and secondary in this case. There can be a first and second and them still be equal–such as the Man is the head of the household (primary) and the woman isn’t (secondary) but they are EQUAL in dignity. The man isn’t more important than the woman, they are different but EQUAL so the primary purpose is procreation and raising children the secondary purpose is unitive–but they are EQUAL in importance–one not being more important than the other.
Jennifer
- Status