NFP?

[Sure]

Is the citation above of the Church and infallible?

The citation is based on a speech given by Pius XII and subsequently published. I cannot link to it because it is not available on the internet. It is referrenced in the moral theology text.

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.

This statement says that any marital act that is not obstructed in some way is, open to conception. Your statement proves that if a couple chooses to have sex or not, they are remaining open to God’s will.

avoiding conception = CONTRACEPTION!!! (wake up)

Agreed. But that doesn’t apply to a couple who has normal relations even when (as you previously noted) those relations might not be as fertile as other times!

You are correct this is getting ridiculous.

The ridiculous part is me responding to your points while you refuse to answer my question to you:

Did the Church err???

Please answer Yes or No.

And you finally respond with…

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

Does this mean you believe that the Popes since Pius XII have “created new doctrine”???

Please answer Yes or No.

Thank you.

On another note, it seems you have posted several threads in this forum on questions on which you are seeking answers. Yet, from your posts here, you don’t seem to be seeking answers rather you seem to be attempting to convert others to a fringe ideology much like that of the Dimond brothers.

 

[dixieagle]

*From Familiaris Consortio:

"35. With regard to the question of lawful birth regulation, the ecclesial community at the present time must take on the task of instilling conviction and offering practical help to those who wish to live out their parenthood in a truly responsible way.

In this matter, while the Church notes with satisfaction the results achieved by scientific research aimed at a more precise knowledge of the rhythms of women’s fertility, and while it encourages a more decisive and wide-ranging extension of that research, it cannot fail to call with renewed vigor on the responsibility of all-doctors, experts, marriage counselors, teachers and married couples-who can actually help married people to live their love with respect for the structure and finalities of the conjugal act which expresses that love. This implies a broader, more decisive and more systematic effort to make the natural methods of regulating fertility known, respected and applied.(97)

A very valuable witness can and should be given by those husbands and wives who through the joint exercise of periodic continence have reached a more mature personal responsibility with regard to love and life. As Paul VI wrote: “To them the Lord entrusts the task of making visible to people the holiness and sweetness of the law which unites the mutual love of husband and wife with their cooperation with the love of God, the author of human life.”(98) *

Pope John Paul II did a beautiful job of reiterating the validity and appropriateness of limiting the conjugal act to infertile periods. Whether there is “serious reason” is something that can only be left to the conscience of each couple.

I have no patience with those holier than thou sorts who try to inflict guilt on Catholic couples who are trying desperately to live a chaste life, respecting the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act, while being open to life in a responsible way. As a long-time (now fairly long ago) practitioner of NFP, I can attest as to how difficult and trying it can be.

It is absolutely approved and promoted by a wise and compassionate Church, which has, over the centuries, grown in its own understanding of the complexities of marital life. NFP couples - don’t listen to the twaddle from those who have nothing better to do than to, yet again, try to be more Catholic than the Pope, generally manifesting their ignorance of, or refusal to acknowledge, real Church teaching in the process.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Dixieagle’s post sparked a thought…

A lot of the scientific study of women’s fertility cycles wasn’t developed when these early encylicals were written. NFP wasn’t mentioned because the science wasn’t revealed yet!

We need to view these documents on a proper time line of scientific revelation.

Doctrines weren’t CREATED… they were simply REVEALED!

 

[Sure]

Dixieagle makes a really great point…

A lot of the scientific study of women’s fertility cycles wasn’t developed when these early encylicals were written. NFP wasn’t mentioned because the science wasn’t revealed yet!

We need to view these documents on a proper time line of scientific revelation.

Doctrines weren’t CREATED… they were simply REVEALED!

Well, I wouldn’t say revealed because there is no new revelation, but I understand what you mean.

Insterestingly, the rhythm method which is the basis for NFP has been around for hundreds of years. The earliest mention of men and women making use of infertile times is in a response from the Sacred Penitentiary in 1853.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

So… if I am understanding your whole argument here-

a couple should never ever engage in the act of marital love for the pure joy of reveling in the act that was given to them, by God, to express their love and unity?
The two become one flesh. Nothing there states that the two becoming one flesh should only be to produce children.

As for the monestary of the holy family, or whatever it is called , site… you really should choose your sources better. I know that if I tried to use such a site for my thesis, I would be laughed at by my professors. It is nothing but personal opinion backed by misused quotes that are taken out of context. What a very protestant approach. Take the bits and pieces that support your position, and ignore the reason for the quotes in the first place.

As I said in a previously- thinking that your interpretation is better than the Vatican’s is a mighty slippery slope. We all know where that thinking leads to… Protestantism or becoming sede.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

And… to follow your line of reasoning- if the marital embrace is primarily for procreation- why should a couple engage in face-to-face relations? That’s enjoyable and is primarily unitive.

If the primary purpose of the marital embrace is procreating, wouldn’t it then be more prudent to engage in a rear entry position, as the animals do? Their primary purpose for relations is procreation.

It just follows your line of reasoning…

 

[ForeverAdam]

I’ve found many more posts since the last time I visited this thread. So many words have been typed, but the key questions remain unanswered. Does every conjugal act possess an objective primary and secondary end? Are the primary end procreation and the secondary end union? Is contraception any deliberate attempt of the couple to prevent the intrinsic procreative end inherent in the conjugal act from realizing itself?

The traditional Roman Catholic belief is that, yes, every conjugal act does possess an objective primary and secondary end. And the primary end is procreation and the secondary end is union. Furthermore, contraception is any deliberate attempt of the couple to keep this procreative end, which always exists in the conjugal act, from being realized extrinsically. Under this traditional belief, both NFP and barrier methods are condemned because they both deliberately attempt to keep the act from manifesting its intrinsic procreativity. Post all you wish and create all the arguments you wish (in reality you’re not debating us, you’re only debating the traditional teachings of the Popes and Christianity, in general), but you’re still evading the real issues.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Jennifer_J]

I’ve found many more posts since the last time I visited this thread. So many words have been typed, but the key questions remain unanswered. Does every conjugal act possess an objective primary and secondary end? Are the primary end procreation and the secondary end union? Is contraception any deliberate attempt of the couple to prevent the intrinsic procreative end inherent in the conjugal act from realizing itself?

The traditional Roman Catholic belief is that, yes, every conjugal act does possess an objective primary and secondary end. And the primary end is procreation and the secondary end is union. Furthermore, contraception is any deliberate attempt of the couple to keep this procreative end, which always exists in the conjugal act, from being realized extrinsically. Under this traditional belief, both NFP and barrier methods are condemned because they both deliberately attempt to keep the act from manifesting its intrinsic procreativity. Post all you wish and create all the arguments you wish (in reality you’re not debating us, you’re only debating the traditional teachings of the Popes and Christianity, in general), but you’re still evading the real issues.

God bless,

Adam

Not really, because you refuse to accept the definition of primary and secondary and because you refuse to submit to Rome, which has spoken on this subject. You are, infact, the one in error.

Jennifer

 

[nobeerinheaven]

[C]ontraception is any deliberate attempt of the couple to keep this procreative end, which always exists in the conjugal act, from being realized extrinsically. Under this traditional belief, both NFP and barrier methods are condemned because they both deliberately attempt to keep the act from manifesting its intrinsic procreativity.

This assumption needs defense. Why think that NFP subverts the objective end of the conjugal act, or in your words, “deliberately attempt to keep the act from manifesting its intrinsic procreativity”? The burden of proof is on you to show how the Church has erred (or, more properly the Holy Spirit working through the Church), in endorsement of NFP for periods of time in which couples have a serious reason to postpone childbearing.

A prima facie reason to doubt this assumption comes from any basic understanding of what NFP is. Used properly, (1) NFP is open to life; the intentions of those couples using NFP is not to subvert the objective end, but to postpone the fruits of that end’s realization through a system God has created (in the woman’s cycle). Likewise, (2) using NFP does not involve manipulation of the system God designed, by which the objective end of a conjugal act can be realized extrinsically. Instead, the intentions involve an implicit submission to God’s will since the couple must only use those infertile times that God created for the conjugal act, instead of both the fertile and the infertile times. These two characteristics are the primary reason for the Church’s endorsement; God created a woman with infertile periods during her cycle, and NFP couples must then submit to that created order by abstaining during the fertile periods. The intention is not to outmaneuver God’s inclusion of fertile periods, however, as the couple is open to life and does not seek to manipulate God’s creation, through artificial contraception (which is the only thing the Church condemns, as relevant here).

Clearly God doesn’t see the objective procreative end of the conjugal act being subverted when couples have sex during an infertile time and aren’t aware of that fact. Were that a sin, one would have to test for fertile times and only have sex during those 3-4 days out of every cycle. That’s absurd; which means the conjugal act during an infertile time is morally permissible. Why, then, think that once a couple becomes aware that they are having sex during an infertile period, it becomes a sin? That only becomes plausible if one were to deny (1) above, and claim that the couple’s intention is to subvert procreativity. Used properly, it is not: it is open to life.

You might disagree; many do. They are called “Protestants.”

 

[ForeverAdam]

These statements by a respected, moderate Orthodox Christian shows that the Fathers’ love and emphasis on procreation is at home in modern Orthodoxy. Regarding contraception, we believe that the Fathers did condemn contraception with a strong passion. However, to them contraception entailed deliberate attempts of the couple to reject all children, to consider conception an accident, to be selfish, to lack faith in God’s providence, to even turn family planning into abortion and to turn the marital act into an exercise of lust (this would explain why the patristic condemnations often say that the use of birth control turns the wife into a harlot or even a murderer).

The Church has discerned that couples who love children, family and the principle of conception and desire to follow the Apostle’s conjunction of not defrauding themselves of intercourse lest Satan tempt them (1 Cor. 5:7) and yet also have the requirement to be responsible parents, are allowed to use birth control because their action has nothing to do with why contraception was originally condemned. In reality, it is a new situation that was never addressed nor condemned by the early Church. I hoped this reflection has helped you understand the Orthodox position a little better. And I hope I expressed the Orthodox Faith correctly. I’m a new Orthodox and I often feel a little shy about defending the Faith as I do, but I am just trying to clarify the teachings of our Faith in my own meager way.

God bless,

Adam

 

[dixieagle]

This assumption needs defense. Why think that NFP subverts the objective end of the conjugal act, or in your words, “deliberately attempt to keep the act from manifesting its intrinsic procreativity”? The burden of proof is on you to show how the Church has erred (or, more properly the Holy Spirit working through the Church), in endorsement of NFP for periods of time in which couples have a serious reason to postpone childbearing.

A prima facie reason to doubt this assumption comes from any basic understanding of what NFP is. Used properly, (1) NFP is open to life; the intentions of those couples using NFP is not to subvert the objective end, but to postpone the fruits of that end’s realization through a system God has created (in the woman’s cycle). Likewise, (2) using NFP does not involve manipulation of the system God designed, by which the objective end of a conjugal act can be realized extrinsically. Instead, the intentions involve an implicit submission to God’s will since the couple must only use those infertile times that God created for the conjugal act, instead of both the fertile and the infertile times. These two characteristics are the primary reason for the Church’s endorsement; God created a woman with infertile periods during her cycle, and NFP couples must then submit to that created order by abstaining during the fertile periods. The intention is not to outmaneuver God’s inclusion of fertile periods, however, as the couple is open to life and does not seek to manipulate God’s creation, through artificial contraception (which is the only thing the Church condemns, as relevant here).

Clearly God doesn’t see the objective procreative end of the conjugal act being subverted when couples have sex during an infertile time and aren’t aware of that fact. Were that a sin, one would have to test for fertile times and only have sex during those 3-4 days out of every cycle. That’s absurd; which means the conjugal act during an infertile time is morally permissible. Why, then, think that once a couple becomes aware that they are having sex during an infertile period, it becomes a sin? That only becomes plausible if one were to deny (1) above, and claim that the couple’s intention is to subvert procreativity. Used properly, it is not: it is open to life.

You might disagree; many do. They are called “Protestants.”

Wonderful post and explanation. I think we may as well hit our heads against a wall, though; we’re not getting through.

(Is it just I, or are there a lot of very young posters who think they know better than the Church and are the poster children for “orthodox Catholics”???)

 

[Sure]

I’ve found many more posts since the last time I visited this thread. So many words have been typed, but the key questions remain unanswered. Does every conjugal act possess an objective primary and secondary end? Are the primary end procreation and the secondary end union? Is contraception any deliberate attempt of the couple to prevent the intrinsic procreative end inherent in the conjugal act from realizing itself?

The traditional Roman Catholic belief is that, yes, every conjugal act does possess an objective primary and secondary end. And the primary end is procreation and the secondary end is union. Furthermore, contraception is any deliberate attempt of the couple to keep this procreative end, which always exists in the conjugal act, from being realized extrinsically. Under this traditional belief, both NFP and barrier methods are condemned because they both deliberately attempt to keep the act from manifesting its intrinsic procreativity. Post all you wish and create all the arguments you wish (in reality you’re not debating us, you’re only debating the traditional teachings of the Popes and Christianity, in general), but you’re still evading the real issues.

God bless,

Adam

Welcome back!

You said you read a lot of posts. You obviously skipped mine. Try posts 82 and 86 for a starting point. You can even try answering the question that you have evaded:

Did the Church err on a matter of morals???

You can also read in this thread that the idea of not having sex when one thinks one is less fertile has been approved in the Church since at least 1853 and probably much farther back than that!

 

[Sure]

Wonderful post and explanation. I think we may as well hit our heads against a wall, though; we’re not getting through.

(Is it just I, or are there a lot of very young posters who think they know better than the Church and are the poster children for “orthodox Catholics”???)

No, chances are he is one of a small group of posters here who are a splinter of a splinter of a splinter. The SSPX and sedevacantist groups like CMRI, the SSPV, even Fr. Cekada ALL confirm the validity of NFP as an authentically Catholic teaching. So, you have to be pretty far out there to hold this belief…especially because it would mean there is no Church, no Pope and no Bishops.

 

[luvbnmom]

Here is another side to the issue.

I am a life-long Catholic and learned one form of NFP prior to marriage knowing that we would be open to life throughout our marriage. I did not foresee that learning NFP would help me with my miscarriage and infertility issues. Had I not learned the method I would not have learned so much about my own fertility which is partly why we have a healthy 14 month old now, thanks be to God. God gave us the signs of fertility to aid us in our call to be fruitful.

We also needed to use NFP after my miscarriages to postpone pregnancy for a time in order for my body to heal. I’m so glad we knew NFP during that difficult time.

The Church, in Her wisdom, allows this form of science to be used when necessary, whether in postponing or achieving pregnancy. It is not intrinsically evil like ABC. Of course it can be misused, like many good things. But I strongly disagree that NFP = no pregnancy. It is much more than that.

 

[dixieagle]

Here is another side to the issue.

I am a life-long Catholic and learned one form of NFP prior to marriage knowing that we would be open to life throughout our marriage. I did not foresee that learning NFP would help me with my miscarriage and infertility issues. Had I not learned the method I would not have learned so much about my own fertility which is partly why we have a healthy 14 month old now, thanks be to God. God gave us the signs of fertility to aid us in our call to be fruitful.

We also needed to use NFP after my miscarriages to postpone pregnancy for a time in order for my body to heal. I’m so glad we knew NFP during that difficult time.

The Church, in Her wisdom, allows this form of science to be used when necessary, whether in postponing or achieving pregnancy. It is not intrinsically evil like ABC. Of course it can be misused, like many good things. But I strongly disagree that NFP = no pregnancy. It is much more than that.

Absolutely! I had 3 early miscarriages, as well (years ago) and NFP was very helpful in our ultimately achieving successful pregnancies.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Welcome back!

You said you read a lot of posts. You obviously skipped mine. Try posts 82 and 86 for a starting point. You can even try answering the question that you have evaded:

Did the Church err on a matter of morals???

You can also read in this thread that the idea of not having sex when one thinks one is less fertile has been approved in the Church since at least 1853 and probably much farther back than that!

My first post on this thread specified that I am an Orthodox Christian. I belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore, it means nothing to my faith that your Church has changed the traditional teaching that every conjugal act has its primary and secondary ends intact and that contraception is simply any attempt to keep this from being realized in the conjugal act.

However, I will state that the Orthodox Church has kept it honest regarding this topic. Since we still believe that every conjugal act possesses both its ends intact and in the same order, when we allow birth control we allow both NFP and barrier methods. This is the only honest thing we can do. However, there are still bishops, priests and laypeople that reject all birth control using virtually identical arguments that the traditional Roman Catholics who reject NFP and barrier methods use here. These posters could still find bishops who teach as they do in Orthodoxy. Maybe they should convert to Orthodoxy? It seems like a viable option. In any case, my stay here has been worn out. My initial post on this thread was to seek confirmation that my reflections on traditional Roman Catholic doctrine were correct. I received this and now I must take leave of you all.

God bless and thanks for the good discussion,

Adam

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Why is the marital embrace not allowed to be simultaneously procreative AND unitive- at the same time?
If we have a God who is One in Three Persons- does it not make sense that God would create sex to be two things at the same time?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Does every conjugal act possess an objective primary and secondary end? Are the primary end procreation and the secondary end union? Is contraception any deliberate attempt of the couple to prevent the intrinsic procreative end inherent in the conjugal act from realizing itself?

The traditional Roman Catholic belief is that, yes, every conjugal act does possess an objective primary and secondary end. And the primary end is procreation and the secondary end is union.

Here’s a question I have, and I don’t know the answer to it: If there is a serious reason, can the primary end be purposefully avoided for the attainment of the secondary end? Or, if a serious reason exists, in which the primary end must be avoided, must the secondary end also be neglected?

Do we have any other examples that we can draw from? Are there other examples where the primary end can be avoided for the attainment of secondary ends? There are usually exceptions to the rule (for serious reasons), so I wonder if there are also certain times when circumstances (serious circumstances) do allow for the primary end to be avoided for the purpose of attaining the secondary end?

Here’s one example that comes to mind: The primary purpose of marriage is procreation and education of children. Now, if a person is incapable of having children, he is still able to be married. In such a case, the intent of the marriage is not for the primary end (which is not possible for the person) but only for a secondary end, yet the Church allows such a marriage.

It would seem to me that in certain cases of necessity, NFP would be permitted. I agree that there is a big problem with it today, in that it is being used without a sufficiently serious reason, but that does not mean that if such a reason existed it would not be permitted.

I have always found that the teachings of the Church make perfect sense. If a pregnancy was likely to result in the death of the mother, it would not make sense that the Church would require them to refrain from relations for ever. It would seem that the Church would allow NFP in that case. Since it was a matter of life and death, the primary end would be avoided, but the act would be allowed for the attainment of the secondary end.

It is not as though a positive evil is taking place. They are not killing a conceived child, but only having relations at a time when conception is less likely, in order to avoid the death of the spouse.

I don’t know. It just makes sense that the Church would allow it in certain circumstances.

 

[Cat]

One of the purposes that God created marriage for is to present a visible “picture” to the world of the love union between Christ and His Church, a union so strong, so mysterious, that we, His Church, are actually referred to as “The Body of Christ.”

We are joined with Him in such a way that we become one with Him and all other believers–we become One Body.

Marriage, including the act of love, perfectly illustrates this to a sinful world.

A good marriage is a witness to the world of what Christ intends for mankind.

A marriage with no sex means no mystical union; the couple do not become “one flesh” (illustrative of "one body), and that “non-union” is NOT Christianity. It is totally contrary to Christianity, which is Christ in us, the hope of glory.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

One of the purposes that God created marriage for is to present a visible “picture” to the world of the love union between Christ and His Church, a union so strong, so mysterious, that we, His Church, are actually referred to as “The Body of Christ.”

We are joined with Him in such a way that we become one with Him and all other believers–we become One Body.

Marriage, including the act of love, perfectly illustrates this to a sinful world.

A good marriage is a witness to the world of what Christ intends for mankind.

A marriage with no sex means no mystical union; the couple do not become “one flesh” (illustrative of "one body), and that “non-union” is NOT Christianity. It is totally contrary to Christianity, which is Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Jesus’ parents, Mary and Joseph, never had relations.