NFP?

[billpenn]

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

Primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary…all RELATIVE TERMS denoting ORDER.

We can play at words all day…if Pope Pius XII meant that procreation and pleasure were EQUAL, then why didn’t he say that? Why does he speak of “subordination”…which implies putting one under/over the other? you can’t put one under or over, or in front of behind, i.e., subordinate, without first having a clear order.

 

[Sure]

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

Intentions do not make objects equivalent. They do not stand or fall together.

Besides, from authority we know you are wrong and the Church is right, that was Christ’s guarantee to us.

 

[ForeverAdam]

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.

Even God spoke through Balaam’s ***. Interact with the arguments instead of condemning the messenger. Besides, it doesn’t take a degree in theology to know that if every conjugal act contains both of its primary and secondary ends that any act that deliberately attempts to keep conception from occurring, either by keeping it from showing up or removing it once there, are equal violations of the nature of the conjugal act.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Sure]

Primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary…all RELATIVE TERMS denoting ORDER.

Yes, ontological order as I explained earlier (go check the earlier post). Natural order is primary to the moral order in an ontological sense. The moral order of “unity” in this sense cannot be fulfilled without the “primary” end of procreation.

 

[MMLJ]

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.

The site possibly is questionable but the Book in question is not.

 

[billpenn]

Yes, ontological order as I explained earlier (go check the earlier post). Natural order is primary to the moral order in an ontological sense. The moral order of “unity” in this sense cannot be fulfilled without the “primary” end of procreation.

Do you mean to imply, as another poster did, that procreation and the good of spouses are of equal importance? Can you speak to the rest of my post - about how things cannot be “subordinated” unless they are intended to be in a clear order, i.e., a heirarchy of importance?

 

[Sure]

Even God spoke through Balaam’s ***. Interact with the arguments instead of condemning the messenger. Besides, it doesn’t take a degree in theology to know that if every conjugal act contains both of its primary and secondary ends that any act that deliberately attempts to keep conception from occurring, either by keeping it from showing up or removing it once there, are equal violations of the nature of the conjugal act.

God bless,

Adam

I made two arguments one from authority and one based on your (and other’s) misunderstanding of the relationship between intention and object and the misunderstanding of the meaning of primary and secondary.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Intentions do not make objects equivalent. They do not stand or fall together.

We’re not just talking about the same intention. We are also talking about the same action/behavior. Those who use barrier methods and NFP not only intend to keep conception from occurring in the conjugal act that is always geared primarily for procreation. Both of them proceed to take deliberate action/behavior to ensure that this intention will be realized.

Besides, from authority we know you are wrong and the Church is right, that was Christ’s guarantee to us.

You’re stance would only be right if God allows you to limit the procreativity of the conjugal act to certain times of the month. This would be a change of doctrine. Do you want to admit that this happened in the Roman Catholic Church?

God bless,

Adam

 

[Jennifer_J]

One more thing before I go feed my children:

The procreative aspect doesn’t denote the fertility of the act, it means NOT frustrating the procreativeness of the ACT–therefore someone who is infertile (and married) engaging in the marital act is having procreative (and unitive) marital relations even if there is zero chance of conception due to a defect. Therefore, the use of the infertile time of a woman’s cycle is still procreative (an unitive) because the ACT hasn’t been altered. The ACT is as created by God BOTH unitive and procreative–ie unaltered…

Off to make lunch!
Jennifer

 

[Em_in_FL]

One more thing before I go feed my children:

The procreative aspect doesn’t denote the fertility of the act, it means NOT frustrating the procreativeness of the ACT–therefore someone who is infertile (and married) engaging in the marital act is having procreative (and unitive) marital relations even if there is zero chance of conception due to a defect. Therefore, the use of the infertile time of a woman’s cycle is still procreative (an unitive) because the ACT hasn’t been altered. The ACT is as created by God BOTH unitive and procreative–ie unaltered…

Off to make lunch!
Jennifer

GOOD POINT… “Procreative” does NOT EQUAL “fertile”

 

[Sure]

We’re not just talking about the same intention. We are also talking about the same action/behavior. Those who use barrier methods and NFP not only intend to keep conception from occurring in the conjugal act that is always geared primarily for procreation. Both of them proceed to take deliberate action/behavior to ensure that this intention will be realized.

You’re stance would only be right if God allows you to limit the procreativity of the conjugal act to certain times of the month. This would be a change of doctrine. Do you want to admit that this happened in the Roman Catholic Church?

God bless,

Adam

If you cannot grasp the difference between a physical barrier between two people and two people with no barrier who may or may possess various levels of fertility, I can’t help you. There is no equivalency and to suggest that there is, is ludicrous.

And as I’ve noted about 20 times so far, it’s not a change in doctrine.

I notice that all of you love to address the debate on the principles of the relationship between primary/secondary but all three of you refuse to comment on the argument from authority. That means you must hold one of two positions: 1. The Church CAN err on matters of Faith and Morals or 2. The Church HAS erred on a moral matter and, thus, is no longer the Church. Frankly, both positions are pretty indefensible.

 

[Sure]

Do you mean to imply, as another poster did, that procreation and the good of spouses are of equal importance? Can you speak to the rest of my post - about how things cannot be “subordinated” unless they are intended to be in a clear order, i.e., a heirarchy of importance?

No, go back and read my post regarding natural and moral order. The secondary end is subordinate to the primary end, it cannot exist without it. That’s what “primary” means. It means “first.” It does not, however mean more important.

 

[MMLJ]

I made two arguments one from authority and one based on your (and other’s) misunderstanding of the relationship between intention and object and the misunderstanding of the meaning of primary and secondary.

The Council of Florence, 15th century teaches:

“There are seven sacraments of the new Law: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony…the last two for the government and increase of the entire Church…through orders the Church is truly governed and spiritually propagated; through matrimony corporally increased…Moreover, there is allotted a threefold good on the part of matrimony. First, the progeny is to be accepted and brought up for the worship of God.” (from Denzinger #695 & 702 Sources of Catholic Dogma)

Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii from Denzinger #2226, #2228, & #2229, “To take away the natural and primeval right of marriage, or in any way to circumscribe the chief purpose of marriage established in the beginning by the authority of God, Increase and multiply' [Gen. 1:28], is not within the power of any law of man....Thus the child holds the first place among the blessing of matrimony. Clearly the Creator of the human race Himself, who because of His kindness wished to use men as helpers in propagating life, taught this in Paradise, when He instituted marriage, saying to our first parents, and through them to all spouses: Increase and multiply and fill the earth’ [Gen. 1:28]. This thought St. Augustine very beautifully infers from the words of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy, when he says: **So the Apostle is witness that marriage is accomplished for the sake of generation.** I wish, he says, young widows to marry. And as if someone said to Him: Why? he immediately adds: To bear children, to be mothers of families'. Indeed, Christian parents should further understand that they are destined not only to propagate and to preserve the human race on earth, nay rather, not to raise any kind of worshipers of the true God, but to** produce offspring of the Church of Christ; to procreate fellow-citizens of the saints and members of God’s household’ [Eph. 2:19], that the people devoted to the worship of God and our Savior may increase daily**.”

I reiterate the teaching of GOD here:

**Genesis 1:28 **

And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth

 

[Sure]

The Council of Florence, 15th century teaches:

“There are seven sacraments of the new Law: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony…the last two for the government and increase of the entire Church…through orders the Church is truly governed and spiritually propagated; through matrimony corporally increased…Moreover, there is allotted a threefold good on the part of matrimony. First, the progeny is to be accepted and brought up for the worship of God.” (from Denzinger #695 & 702 Sources of Catholic Dogma)

Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii from Denzinger #2226, #2228, & #2229, “To take away the natural and primeval right of marriage, or in any way to circumscribe the chief purpose of marriage established in the beginning by the authority of God, Increase and multiply' [Gen. 1:28], is not within the power of any law of man....Thus the child holds the first place among the blessing of matrimony. Clearly the Creator of the human race Himself, who because of His kindness wished to use men as helpers in propagating life, taught this in Paradise, when He instituted marriage, saying to our first parents, and through them to all spouses: Increase and multiply and fill the earth’ [Gen. 1:28]. This thought St. Augustine very beautifully infers from the words of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy, when he says: **So the Apostle is witness that marriage is accomplished for the sake of generation.** I wish, he says, young widows to marry. And as if someone said to Him: Why? he immediately adds: To bear children, to be mothers of families'. Indeed, Christian parents should further understand that they are destined not only to propagate and to preserve the human race on earth, nay rather, not to raise any kind of worshipers of the true God, but to** produce offspring** of the Church of Christ; to procreate fellow-citizens of the saints and members of God’s household’ [Eph. 2:19], that the people devoted to the worship of God and our Savior may increase daily.”

I reiterate the teaching of GOD here:

**Genesis 1:28 **

And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth

I agree with all of that. None of it in any way contradicts the teaching of the Church.

Still waiting for your response on if the Church erred???

This is getting a little silly. There are three of you refusing to answer how this affects the existence of the Church and Christ’s promise to Her.

 

[Jennifer_J]

and NFP doesn’t stop any of the things you’ve cited nor do the things you’ve posted deal with NFP at all…

If it weren’t for the Church and NFP my dh and I would have maybe 2 children. We were led/called to a larger family BECAUSE of NFP and the Church’s teachings on marriage and family…we were called to generosity, we were called to be open to life, but we are also called to be responsible…

Jennifer

 

[MMLJ]

I agree with all of that. None of it in any way contradicts the teaching of the Church.

Still waiting for your response on if the Church erred???

This is getting a little silly. There are three of you refusing to answer how this affects the existence of the Church and Christ’s promise to Her.

Can you site precisely where in Casti Connubii it discusses birth control via NFP?

Since myself and others on this thread have shown you that it is not in the encyclical Casti Connubii

Is NFP a method of controlling birth?

 

[Sure]

Can you site precisely where in Casti Connubii is discusses birth control via NFP?

Since myself and others on this thread have shown you that it is not in the encyclical Casti Connubii

Okay, now you’re just being silly.

You read my posts on that.

Here is post #82:

Quote:
Originally Posted by billpenn
You are correct…changed IN 1983…Humanae Vitae was published in 1968…a full 15 YEARS before the change was made to Canon law…

What we are left with is a new teaching handed to us in HV in 1968 that is at variance with Casti Connubii and the Canon law upon which it is based.

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,

1. Name one theologian who agrees with you.
2. Explain how the Church still exists and the Pope still exists despite teaching incorrectly (as you insist) on a moral issue.

And here is post #86 in which I respond to your insistence on holding to a misinterpretation of Casti Cannubii:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMLJ
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!!!

.

Again, you are wrong. Moral theologians everywhere recognize that this is precisely what Pope Pius XI did refer to in Casti Cannubii.

Quote:
“The fact that the licit use of the sterile period was already at that time a commonplace among theologians, the fact that the phrase ‘through natural reasons… of time’ was used, rather than ‘reasons of age’ or some similar expression, and the fact that the immediate context of the encyclical itself was concern for the difficulties of married people tempted to onanism — all these considerations convinced the great majority of theologians that Pius XI was here referring to the permissible use of the sterile periods as a means of avoiding conception. Pius XII, we may mention here, explicitly confirmed this view in 1958 (Address to Hematologists, 12 Sept. 1958, A.A.S., 50 [1958] 736), thus dispelling what little doubt had existed on this point.”

-Moral Theology by Fr. John C. Ford, S.J., and Fr. Gerard Kelly, S.J., 1959

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.

Now I ask you:

DID THE CHURCH ERR???

We could probably have a better conversation if you would attempt to answer some of my questions (as the one above) since I am doing my best to respond to yours.

 

[MMLJ]

Okay, now you’re just being silly.

You read my posts on that.

Here is post #82:
“The fact that the licit use of the sterile period was already at that time a commonplace among theologians, the fact that the phrase ‘through natural reasons… of time’ was used, rather than ‘reasons of age’ or some similar expression, and the fact that the immediate context of the encyclical itself was concern for the difficulties of married people tempted to onanism — all these considerations convinced the great majority of theologians that Pius XI was here referring to the permissible use of the sterile periods as a means of avoiding conception.**=CONTRACEPTION **Pius
XII, we may mention here, explicitly confirmed this view in 1958 (Address to Hematologists, 12 Sept. 1958, A.A.S., 50 [1958] 736), thus dispelling what little doubt had existed on this point.”

-Moral Theology by Fr. John C. Ford, S.J., and Fr. Gerard Kelly, S.J., 1959

And here is post #86 in which I respond to your insistence on holding to a misinterpretation of Casti Cannubii:

Is the citation above of the Church and infallible?
Since you are aware there are no real sterile/infertile periods, unless of course you are medically infertile. And even then, Conception can occur at any time if GOD wills it.

avoiding conception = CONTRACEPTION!!! (wake up)

You are correct this is getting ridiculous.

Vatican I teaches, Denzinger 1836 , “For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.”

The successors of Peter shall not create new doctrine

 

[Petite]

I think it was a compromise…I think he made this allowance in a series of speeches.

FWIW: I think of NFP in this metaphor:NFP is akin to using a radar detector to speed on a highway. Sometimes your know you shouldn’t be going over the speed limit because the highway patrol is near by.

Many Catholics who DO use NFP do not give it a second thought as to whether they have sufficient reason to use it in light of the teachings of the Magisterium.

How often have you heard people refer to NPF --in jest–as ‘Catholic birth control’? When we say that the primary purpose of the marital act is procreation; the secondary is unitary, that implies a hierarchy that a lot of Catholic couples reverse for their own purposes.

How many times do we read of the effectiveness of NFP compared to other methods of birth control? If we are open to children, why are we so concerned about the effectiveness of NFP?

On the other hand…

With the advance of modern medicine, we are aware of medical conditions that affect a woman’s ability to carry a child to term-. difficulties that in another time would have resulted in maternal and/or fetal death. How does the Church deal with this knowledge and ability to screen mothers-to-be and the potential for a couple to conceive.

 

[otjm]

This in particular struck me:

If NFP is used in a selfish manner, it too can be sinful. If it is used only in grave circumstances, it is not sinful.

I beleive the teaching of the Church is “serious” and not "grave’; in moral theology there is a significant difference. If I am wrong, plese provde evidence.

It is by its nature selfish. The secondary benefits of sex serve nobody else except its participants…they take it upon themselves to reverse the order that God intended…procreation first, mutual love/benefit/quieting of concupisence comes second.

Your comment is not cvlear; are you saying that NFP by it’s nature is selfish? It would seem that you know little or nothing of the actual sacrifice NFP requires, and sacrifice by its nature is not selfish but rather self giving.