NFP?

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And what’s your point and how is it relevant to this thread???

Jennifer

ps incase you don’t know, a Pope can have personal opinions about things, even those things that have nothing to do with faith and morals–such as the big bang theory.

Well then your in good company if you support the Big Bang Theory.

What do you think of the Big Crunch Theory? Does it coincide with todays understanding of Quantum Physics (given its recent advances)? (just an aside)

 

[Sure]

Since their is a misunderstanding with Casti Connubii, what was taught before it?

I just told you periodic abstinence was commonly taught as noted in the responses by the Sacred Penitentiary in:

1853

Q “Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?”

R “Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.”

And in 1880:

Q “Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?”

R “Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”

The proof is there. This is a long standing teaching of the Church.

This may be deceptive so, Show this thread how it pertains to NFP.

I do not think Pope Pius XI taught error in the encyclical Casti Connubii.

**Is Casti Connubii (yes it is REFERENCED but not for NFP, WHY?) in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?
**

Can’t tell from the footnotes because I don’t have access to the AAS page numbers.

So, did the Church err in Humanae Vitae?

 

[Windmill]

Your right. The Church does allow NFP for serious reasons, and it does sound as if you have a serious reason.

But today, people go around giving Seminars on the glories of NFP. They explain how wonderful it is and how much better their marriage is since they started practicing it, but what they fail to mention is that it is only permitted for serious reasons.

It would be like giving seminars on how wonderful it is to miss Mass on Sundays. What would we think if people started giving talks at Churches about how wonderful it is to miss mass on Sundays; how it has allowed the family to have more quality time together on Sunday mornings, and how close they have become as a result? Missing Mass and NFP are both allowed, but only for serious reasons.

The promoters of NFP tell how wonderful it is and how happy they are for practicing it, yet neglect to mention that it is a mortal sin if there is not a grave necessity.

I think there is something disordered about the promotion of NFP. Certainly it is permitted for serious reasons, just as missing Mass is, but should it really be promoted as a positive good, in such a way that makes people desire the good that supposedly results from it? It seems to me that there is something disordered about promoting something as a positive good that is an exception to the rule, and which is only allowed for a serious reason.

Of all the posts, this one is the most concise and to-the-point - as well as in line with all the Popes. I would add the caveat that different, respected thoelogians disagree on the moral gravity of using NFP without serious reasons since the act itself is not intrinsically evil (ie, having marital relations that are not rendered infertile by the couple’s intervention).

Very thought-provoking. Thank you for sharing.

 

[He_Man]

I agree with this statement 100%. And despite the fact that this is the “Traditional Catholicism” forum, there are some here who question the Church’s teachings as much as the most extreme liberal.

It just goes to show that a disobedient mindset does not belong exclusively to the clown mass/women priests crowd.

Excellent point, and one many of us (myself included) often forget. It is easy to look for the clowns; harder to spot the overly scrupulous.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

but what they fail to mention is that it is only permitted for serious reasons.

It would be like giving seminars on how wonderful it is to miss Mass on Sundays.

And a serious reason to miss mass according to the CCC?
The care of infants… (CCC 2181)

 

[Windmill]

And a serious reason to miss mass according to the CCC?
The care of infants… (CCC 2181)

This would seem to refer to an acute, emergency “care” of infants who are sick, etc…, otherwise, one would be missing Mass on a long-term basis. The “care” that is invoked by those employing NFP refers to long-term, daily provision of basic necessities (food, shelter, etc…).

That having been said, I do believe that “grave reasons” for spacing children via NFP are not meant to be interpreted as “having one foot in the grave”.

 

[Windmill]

Of all the posts, this one is the most concise and to-the-point - as well as in line with all the Popes. I would add the caveat that different, respected thoelogians disagree on the moral gravity of using NFP without serious reasons since the act itself is not intrinsically evil (ie, having marital relations that are not rendered infertile by the couple’s intervention).

Very thought-provoking. Thank you for sharing.

I should clarify: missing Mass is objectively wrong. Missing the opportunity to engage in marital relations is not intrinsically evil. You are not obliged to have marital relations, you *are *obliged to go to Mass on Sundays. This is one point that causes some disagreement among theologians about how sinful it is to use NFP without serious reasons.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Is Casti Connubii quoted in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

Casti Cannubii is used as a reference in Humane Vitae 6 times.

Is Casti Connubii (yes it is REFERENCED but not for NFP) in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

Can’t tell from the footnotes because I don’t have access to the AAS page numbers.

Here is the link to the Holy See and HUMANAE VITAE ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH

JULY 25, 1968:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Check footnotes: 1,4,12,14,15,16
Where is the NFP here?

(w.r.t. Humanae Vitae and whether it is in err, start a new thread. Stick to this thread and whether Humanae Vitae uses Castii Connubii for NFP- remember you mentioned Humanae Vitae on this thread)

 

[Sure]

Is Casti Connubii quoted in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

Is Casti Connubii (yes it is REFERENCED but not for NFP) in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

Here is the link to the Holy See:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Check footnotes: 1,4,12,14,15,16
Where is the NFP here?

(w.r.t. Humanae Vitae and whether it is in err, start a new thread. Stick to this thread and whether Humanae Vitae uses Castii Connubii for NFP- remember you mentioned Humanae Vitae on this thread)

If you’ll look at those footnotes, they correspond to AAS numbers of Casti Cannubii and not paragraph numbers. So, without a copy of the corresponding AAS I can’t tell you what lines are being cited, only that the document is being cited.

Since you are the one disagreeing with the Church perhaps you could provide the proof that those sections do not reference Casti Cannubii’s mention of time as it relates to periodic abstinence.

Your last comment must be a joke. Of course, it’s relevent. You are proposing that Humanae Vitae and the Catholic Catechism are in error, if that is so, then there is no Catholic Church.

I think we’re done now. You have proven nothing except that you have an interpretation of Casti Cannubii that disagrees with Pope Leo XIII and onward. I’ll take my chances on the interpretation of all of these Popes and not a guy on the internet who thinks he knows what Cast Cannubii REALLY means.

May God help you!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I should clarify: missing Mass is objectively wrong. Missing the opportunity to engage in marital relations is not intrinsically evil. You are not obliged to have marital relations, you are obliged to go to Mass on Sundays. This is one point that causes some disagreement among theologians about how sinful it is to use NFP without serious reasons.

I know, I just find it interesting that the care of children is cited in the catechism as a valid reason for missing mass – the expected qualification of “caring for the sick” would have been more general of an emergency.

ON the other hand, a non-consummated marriage is not inseperable, and there is a duty ( as noted in casti-connubi ) to do so which is NOT to be denied. The grounds of that duty, and the conditions where one may abstain are the two ideas that have to be dealt with in NFP. To abstain forever and be closed to children would appear to constitute a sin, even though temporary abstinence is not.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Is Casti Connubii quoted in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

Is Casti Connubii (yes it is REFERENCED but not for NFP) in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

Here is the link to the Holy See and HUMANAE VITAE ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH

JULY 25, 1968:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Check footnotes: 1,4,12,14,15,16
Where is the NFP here?

(w.r.t. Humanae Vitae and whether it is in err, start a new thread. Stick to this thread and whether Humanae Vitae uses Castii Connubii for NFP- remember you mentioned Humanae Vitae on this thread)

Your gig is up, you have been exposed. Your a radtrad who thinks the Church fell into error and that is why you keep dodging clear questions.
Lets have a look at some of those paragraphs where the footnotes appear:
Observing the Natural Law

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)
   NOW lets compare this to Casti Connubii. The MOST DIRECT reference would be none other than paragraph 59 (quoted multiple times already):
2. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
   The same concept is shown in each quote. More from HV where Casti Connubii is quoted:
   Unlawful Birth Control Methods
3. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
Perfectly in line with Casti Connubii.

You can go on with your secret agenda, but it doesnt work around here.

 

[bobzills]

Why is the marital embrace not allowed to be simultaneously procreative AND unitive- at the same time?

Correct, this is the current teaching of the Catholic Church that the two purposes of the marital embrace are coequally procreative and unitive. However, this was not the teaching before Vatican II. The previous teaching of the Catholic Church was that the procreative is primary and the unitive was secondary.

 

[bear06]

Here’s a question for those who think that NFP is contra to Church teaching. Do you ever think abstinence is permissible in marriage?

 

[bobzills]

Do you ever think abstinence is permissible in marriage?

Is this the question or is your question Do you think that abstinence is ever permissable in marriage?

 

[Genesis315]

Correct, this is the current teaching of the Catholic Church that the two purposes of the marital embrace are coequally procreative and unitive. However, this was not the teaching before Vatican II. The previous teaching of the Catholic Church was that the procreative is primary and the unitive was secondary.

Well, there was teaching before Vatican II that didn’t make it number one:

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?
A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:

1. 
   *]To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
   *]To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
   *]To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.
   Now, it was, however, called the primary end in many places (such as canon law). But what does that even mean though, that one is primary and the other secondary? I’m not sure I understand how these ends are ranked when they should all be present. Ranking, precedence, priority and things of that nature only have practical meaning when there is a conflict and one must choose one over the other–then you go with the one with greater precedence, a higher rank, or greater priority. But in this case, there can never morally exist such a conflict because none of the ends of marriage are morally dispensable.
   
   Especially given the fact that the Church has never forbidden barren people to marry and has on some occasions allowed married couples to make vows of celibacy by mutual consent (meaning procreation is the aspect closest to actually being morally dispensable), I am having trouble understanding what it means for that aspect to be primary.
   
   The only thing I can think of is that it was the first end that marriage had, and then when it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament in the New Law by Jesus Christ, the other aspects were included.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Correct, this is the current teaching of the Catholic Church that the two purposes of the marital embrace are coequally procreative and unitive. However, this was not the teaching before Vatican II. The previous teaching of the Catholic Church was that the procreative is primary and the unitive was secondary.

You did not finish answering my post.
Why is the marital embrace not allowed to be two things at the exact same time? Why must the purposes of the marital embrace be subjegated to fallible human interpretation? If God can be Three in One, can the marital embrace not be two events in one?
Why must it be either or, and not simultaneous?

 

[bobzills]

You did not finish answering my post.
Why is the marital embrace not allowed to be two things at the exact same time?

Because the Pope has declared that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
and
“…the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children…”

 

[bear06]

Is this the question or is your question Do you think that abstinence is ever permissable in marriage?

Pick the one you like the best and answer.

 

[childofmary1143]

I think the Catholics who know that NFP is Church approved in the right circumstances should realize that those who say that NFP is outright wrong are not going to change their mind no matter what we say.

Its sad to see such fundamentalism in our faith.

 

[Cat]

I think the Catholics who know that NFP is Church approved in the right circumstances should realize that those who say that NFP is outright wrong are not going to change their mind no matter what we say.

Its sad to see such fundamentalism in our faith.

I agree. It gives Protestants one more reason to deny the truth of the Catholic Church. When we point to John 17, and when we say, "One, Holy, Catholic Church,’ they say, “Sorry, the Catholic Church is just as divided as the Protestant churches.”

God have mercy on us all.