"Open to Life" and "Intent" - NFP vs ABC

[johntkd]

vluvski:

Well, I think you’re misunderstanding my point somewhat, and also misunderstanding what is meant by “giving 100%.”
100% is not the amount of time you spend engaged in the act, nor a percentage of the days you do or don’t have sex. It is about what amount of yourself is being given in any particular act.
I can’t imagine that anyone could say they spend more than 20% of the time giving of themselves on average. I imagine that would be pretty exhausting (just under 5 hours every single day )

Oh I totally understand that principle, and please relize I am not against NFP nor if people are using ABC thats thier buiseness, it just kills me is all when i see terms like “giving of 100%” “sacrifice”,AND “OPEN TO LIFE”
used when its not even actuallity,
NFP is what it is a method for Birth control, to think otherwise is smoke and mirrors,and BIRTH control is NOT being open to life at that particular time.
its approved for use by the church and thats great, But dont disguise it as something else.
as far as a “sacrifice” as they term it, not even close,its selfishness based on the possibility of conception,either by the male or female or even both,they want the act but deny themselves because they could end up pregnant,the reason for the denial is the selfishness part of it.You cannot have a sacrifice when there is an alterior motive,they are simply taking the lesser of the 2 evils at that particular time and doing it,
Ask these same couples if the male was proven sterile would they still not embrace during the fertile time for the female,(would have to assume they have all the kids they want anyways just for comparison) you think they would still not embrace? my guess is they would say are you nuts why should we! if they chose to then, that would be a sacrifice in the essence they are trying to use,

On the 100% issue, I stated some reasons in my first post and admit it was missing a lot of “vital other things” that are removed from a marriage during fertile times, not just the embrace but also
other intimate moments as well are usually also cut off such as a close hug,kiss,maybe wearing of certain night clothing etc for fear of “getting in the mood” at a dangerous time. this to me is a Barrier although different from a condom is still a barrier,

I have admittedly used ABC in my past, Would i use again, I would prefer not to.
and in speaking of this does a condom take away from the act? YES it does. so i wont argue that at all.
did i assume WE were totally protected from a pregnancy? NOT at all.so therefore was I open to life then as I knew I wasnt totally protected? as Open to life as with NFP in my opinion.But with NFP the chances of conception are much much loweractually.

The whole reason I post is just to try and get rid of the smoke and mirrors about NFP verses other forms,
NFP is the better alternative to ABC in more ways than one.
but its still Birth control…Which seems to be the key words that people will not admit to,they dance all around them 2 words when speaking about NFP.

And I will most likely be saying these same things this weekend when they are slamming NFP down my throat at a pre cana retreat, I am not against NFP i am just against the way they hide what it is, and wont have them sayings slammed at me.
now if they come out and say ok on Birth control the only accepted variation of Birth control to the church is NFP then i plan to sit and listen, anything else i will be defensive and let them know how it is. or will get up and leave.
They can give all the reasons they know about why NFP is better than ABC and i can probably add some to it,but if they wont admit to what it is i dont want to hear about it from them, if that makes any sense at all.

Hope i have clarified myself a bit on this.
By the way I will be getting married to the love of my life in October, she has 4 children and i have 2 from a previous marriage.
we would like to have another if possible, and when the time comes to decide on a BC method i am sure we will be choosing NFP. and tons and tons of coffee for them times that you just cant wait

 

[bear06]

as far as a “sacrifice” as they term it, not even close,its selfishness based on the possibility of conception,either by the male or female or even both,they want the act but deny themselves because they could end up pregnant,the reason for the denial is the selfishness part of it.You cannot have a sacrifice when there is an alterior motive,they are simply taking the lesser of the 2 evils at that particular time and doing it,

What are you talking about?! I’ve given an example of it being a sacrifice. I had a radioactive medical procedure done. It is almost sure to cause a serious health issue to a baby conceived in the first 3 months of this procedure and is quite iffy for another three months. I had just lost a baby so the last thing I wanted to do was to put off another baby. I didn’t want to use NFP but did so to protect any child that could be conceived through the marital embrace at that time. How, again, is this selfish? Maybe you forgot the serious reason. I’m not sure how you think the denial of pleasure is a selfish act? Sacrifice is the perfect word for it. I sacrificed for the health of a child that could have been conceived during that time. Some sacrifice so that their children don’t go hungry. Does everyone against NFP think it’s easy for married couples just to forgo sex? It’s certainly not in our house!

Ask these same couples if the male was proven sterile would they still not embrace during the fertile time for the female,(would have to assume they have all the kids they want anyways just for comparison) you think they would still not embrace? my guess is they would say are you nuts why should we! if they chose to then, that would be a sacrifice in the essence they are trying to use,

I’m not sure what you are getting at? This doesn’t make sense. Maybe you could rephrase. The Church has never said that infertile sex is wrong. It is not us that chose this but God.

this to me is a Barrier although different from a condom is still a barrier,

None of the above changes the marital embrace. You can’t alter what you are not doing.

Idid i assume WE were totally protected from a pregnancy? NOT at all.so therefore was I open to life then as I knew I wasnt totally protected? as Open to life as with NFP in my opinion…

You were making a physical act to alter the outcome of the marital embrace whether or not you accepted the potential consequences of the action. Again, you are not altering the act if you are not doing anything.

NFP is the better alternative to ABC in more ways than one. but its still Birth control…Which seems to be the key words that people will not admit to,they dance all around them 2 words when speaking about NFP.

I could almost get on board with you for this. It’s semantics. The big question is, who is in control. God or man? God sent us here with symptoms so obviously this is his design. He made us fertile and infertile - another thing in his design. He gave us the ability to have control over our will - something the animals didn’t get but I don’t remember him sending me here with a piece of latex. You could almost say that any sex act is birthcontrol because God, at least is in control. Now to say that NFP is contraception would be a completely different thing.

And I will most likely be saying these same things this weekend when they are slamming NFP down my throat at a pre cana retreat, I am not against NFP i am just against the way they hide what it is, and wont have them sayings slammed at me.
now if they come out and say ok on Birth control the only accepted variation of Birth control to the church is NFP then i plan to sit and listen, anything else i will be defensive and let them know how it is. or will get up and leave.

So, you’re going to pitch a fit and ruin the promotion of something Church approved because you don’t like the language used? Give me a break. Please, at least warn the leaders ahead of time. I’m sure they could get through the whole presentation without offending YOU.

We’ve had people make a stink about the way they don’t like the Church’s teaching on this and on that when we teach. They always come off looking like a jerk and when they actually hear what we are saying, they usually apologize (thankfully!). Also, for the record, we’ve never said anything about NFP not being birthcontrol during our classes. We explain why and when it is acceptable by the Church and how it’s impacted our marriage.

By the way I will be getting married to the love of my life in October, she has 4 children and i have 2 from a previous marriage.
we would like to have another if possible, and when the time comes to decide on a BC method i am sure we will be choosing NFP. and tons and tons of coffee for them times that you just cant wait

A hearty good luck with that!

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

You totally disregard what Palamite said, but then I guess that doesn’t surprise.

I disregard his argument because it is inaccurate.

Yes, for many no argument will convince. But we are talking about devout Catholics that love the Church, love our Lord Jesus Christ, and love to learn about her philosophy, history, and teachings (ahem…people like me). One of the great attractions of the Church for many is how splendidly coherent and scriptural it is; the logic of the true Church shines through and through–

EXCEPT IN THIS ONE “TEACHING” (HV)

I try not to make any of these issues personal. I cannot comment directly on your faith, and certainly not on your salvation. My posts are arguing in favor of the authority of the Church and refuting arguments that I think are false. In doing that I do not mean to personalize it at all.

It is maddening. For those who like to think things through this is a little bump of nonsensical ramblings; like a nasty knot in a beautiful tapestry. Like Palamite said, you are not going to get anywhere with the “It’s true because it is argument” with these folks, but keep saying it if it makes you feel better.

There are all types of arguments and proofs used. They all get rejected. Reason alone is not enough. It is reason and faith. Without intending to accuse you, or anyone else, of bad motives I would say there are several reasons why this teaching is rejected and IMO it has little to do with logic.

For what it’s worth, I’m not saying that because it doesn’t make sense it’s ok to be disobedient to Church teaching, because I’m not. I’m just saying that because it doesn’t make sense it will, one day, have to be fixed.

It is not broken. Certainly the Church can always give a deeper understanding to any teaching, BUT, it is clear to me that few worry about the hypostatic union, or the Trinity, or the assumption of Mary and complain the Church’s logic is flawed in those cases. Why?

We can reason that a woman is assumed into heaven, or the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord, yet we cannot accept the marital act has two aspects ordained by Christ that may never be severed? Why?

I am glad you accept the teaching, but often I read that it is rejected.

 

[Halo]

Palamite,

The Church I refer to is Holy Roman Catholic Church, instituted by Christ. When I refer to Church teaching that is my reference. I don’t know who else you would think I’d be referring to.

Yes there are a large number of Catholics who wrongly practice ABC,
but the answer is not to introduce some teaching that would be equally wrong. Love and Sacrifice can never be separated.
Sacrifice involves more than abstinence in this area of life. Having a baby involves alot of sacrifice, raising that child involves sacrifice but joined with love, this is all possible.

ABC twarths the marital act and removes love and sacrifice.

Just as there are a huge group who long for a female priesthood, the right answer is not to give them what they wrongly want.

I doubt that the Church will be changing her mind on ABC.

 

[setter]

fix:

There are all types of arguments and proofs used. They all get rejected. Reason alone is not enough. It is reason and faith. Without intending to accuse you, or anyone else, of bad motives I would say there are several reasons why this teaching is rejected and IMO it has little to do with logic.

It is not broken. Certainly the Church can always give a deeper understanding to any teaching, BUT, it is clear to me that few worry about the hypostatic union, or the Trinity, or the assumption of Mary and complain the Church’s logic is flawed in those cases. Why?

We can reason that a woman is assumed into heaven, or the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord, yet we cannot accept the marital act has two aspects ordained by Christ that may never be severed? Why?

I am glad you accept the teaching, but often I read that it is rejected.

These are very insightful and cutting through to the heart of the matter comments.

Those who find themselves at a logical, intellectual impasse to fully and willfully accept this particular consistent (and coherent) teaching of the Church, would do themselves well to pause and consider the faith and reason experience of accepting difficult Church teaching. Sometimes it does take a willful assent of blind obediance (as in trusting familial faith) and asking to receive the movement of grace to fully understand and accept a true teaching of the Church. Thank God that we are not left to our own limitations of human intellect and personal preference (partial, darkened understanding resultant from the effects of original sin). As often said, pride is the root of all sin, and that fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Excuse my interruption to acknowledge the essential need for the grace aspect of holy faith assent, now back to the intellectual debate …

 

[fix]

setter:

Thank God that we are not left to our own limitations of human intellect and personal preference (partial, darkened understanding resultant from the effects of original sin). As often said, pride is the root of all sin, and that fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Again, I do not want to question anyone’s faith or motives, but in a general way I am commenting on what I hear and read so often. Frequently, I hear that she is getting a tubal, or he is getting a vasectomy, or that contraception is up to your conscience. These are all from Catholics who attend mass.

Perhaps I am wrong, but is it not true that we start from the point of accepting the Church has the fullness of truth and the authority to speak as Christ in these matters? If we start from this point, then how is it we can claim we reject this teaching?

Also, if we claim the teaching is not expressed well enough to convince us, does that mean the Church has it wrong or that we have it wrong?

I am not blaming anyone on this thread. It is a general question.

 

[magdelaine]

fix:

Again, I do not want to question anyone’s faith or motives, but in a general way I am commenting on what I hear and read so often. Frequently, I hear that she is getting a tubal, or he is getting a vasectomy, or that contraception is up to your conscience. These are all from Catholics who attend mass.

Perhaps I am wrong, but is it not true that we start from the point of accepting the Church has the fullness of truth and the authority to speak as Christ in these matters? If we start from this point, then how is it we can claim we reject this teaching?

Also, if we claim the teaching is not expressed well enough to convince us, does that mean the Church has it wrong or that we have it wrong?

I am not blaming anyone on this thread. It is a general question.

I’m going to say this one last thing concerning “logic” and then be done with it. ** I wouldn’t have a problem with the teaching if NFP were not allowed.** But with NFP being licit, even in some circumstances, then it is licit to limit family size.

Therefore the argument that rejects ABC dictates that sex has to happen in only one certain way for it to be licit. Which on some level admits that the sex act itself between married people is itself sinful “unless” A, B, and C are fulfilled (forgive the pun). That is what I can’t accept–messing with the marriage bed in the particulars is just way too medieval for my tastes. Now, as far as attitude and intent are concerned: what the Church teaches is quite beautiful. But that is precisely where it should end: attitude and intent. Leave the particulars of that to married people.

Fix, reject this argument if you must but the fact remains that contraception IS a contentious issue. Either ABC must be accepted or NFP must be rejected. Either stance makes much more sense logically than the current teaching.

 

[bear06]

But with NFP being licit, even in some circumstances, then it is licit to limit family size.

No, this statement doesn’t go far enough. It is used to limit family size for serious reason within the confine of God’s design for our bodies. God designed us to have fertile and infertile to be used in the context of his will for us. ABC is not even needed and goes against the way our body works. We are designed to become pregnant when when we engage in the marital embrace during a fertile time. We are designed not to get pregnant when we engage in the marital embrace when we are infertile. We are designed not to get pregnant when there is not marital embrace. We are not to alter this design.

Therefore the argument that rejects ABC dictates that sex has to happen in only one certain way for it to be licit.

What do you mean in one certain way. If you say it is as God designed then I would agree with you.

Which on some level admits that the sex act itself between married people is itself sinful “unless” A, B, and C are fulfilled (forgive the pun).

Again, yes if it means not taking God out of the equation.

That is what I can’t accept–messing with the marriage bed in the particulars is just way too medieval for my tastes. Now, as far as attitude and intent are concerned: what the Church teaches is quite beautiful. But that is precisely where it should end: attitude and intent. Leave the particulars of that to married people.

Attitude, intent and method all go hand in hand. For example. Our children are starving, we want to feed them because of our love for them. There you have good attitude and intent, correct? Then I go rob a bank to buy their food or I kill someone else to get food. The method is still evil even though I have good intent.

Fix, reject this argument if you must but the fact remains that contraception IS a contentious issue. Either ABC must be accepted or NFP must be rejected. Either stance makes much more sense logically than the current teaching.

Again, using the above analogy, metaphor or whatever it is, robbing a bank or killing someone to feed my children is a sin but begging for food, working for it or giving my children my portion at sacrfice to my body is totally acceptable.

This is my favorie metaphor as of late but seems to be totally ignored in this thread:

We can choose to lose weight the healthy way by dieting or we can choose to lose weight the unhealthy way by anorexia or bullemia. Yes, the goal appears the same but it isn’t quite. The dieter is usually trying to get healthy by abstaining from certain foods or portion control. The bullemic is trying to lose weight period no matter the toll to their bodies. Of course, the dieter can also have vain motivations which is not a good reason to diet and is usually brought on by self-esteem issues.

Once again, attitude, intent and method all go hand in hand.

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

I’m going to say this one last thing concerning “logic” and then be done with it. ** I wouldn’t have a problem with the teaching if NFP were not allowed.** But with NFP being licit, even in some circumstances, then it is licit to limit family size.

Of course it is licit to limit family size. Who says it is not?

Therefore the argument that rejects ABC dictates that sex has to happen in only one certain way for it to be licit. Which on some level admits that the sex act itself between married people is itself sinful “unless” A, B, and C are fulfilled (forgive the pun). That is what I can’t accept–messing with the marriage bed in the particulars is just way too medieval for my tastes.

Why would we leave God out of any aspect of our life? The act of sex is not sinful. The act of contraception is sinful. Sex consists of two parts-if we separate those parts and suppress one part then it is not “sex” anymore but a faux union.

Now, as far as attitude and intent are concerned: what the Church teaches is quite beautiful. But that is precisely where it should end: attitude and intent. Leave the particulars of that to married people.

It is left up to us. We may accept the truth or reject it. The natural moral law is not some social nicety we look at from afar and fawn over. We live it. Do you look at gravity as simply an ideal?

Fix, reject this argument if you must but the fact remains that contraception IS a contentious issue. Either ABC must be accepted or NFP must be rejected. Either stance makes much more sense logically than the current teaching.

I am sorry but your position here is perplexing to me. Contraception and NFP are opposite. While both may be used to limit family size for serious reasons. One means is consistent with the will of God and one intentionally says no to God.

I posted this in another thread:

That there is a real difference between contraceptive intercourse and
periodic abstinence is demonstrable.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/COABPA.TXT

 

[LittleDeb]

magdelaine:

I’m going to say this one last thing concerning “logic” and then be done with it. ** I wouldn’t have a problem with the teaching if NFP were not allowed.** But with NFP being licit, even in some circumstances, then it is licit to limit family size.

This is where the argument seems to divide. Of course it is licit to limit family size. It has been licit to limit family size (for serious reason) since the beginning of the Sacrament of marriage. Mary and Joseph did it through full abstinence. (Sorry, I know it is a different type of marriage but I just brought it up to show licit-ness.)

This type of thinking that NFP is just another form of contraception is all too common. Believing NFP to be contraception does not make it so. A deeper understanding of NFP would help this type of thinking.

I believe that it is the secular definitions of “serious reason” and “intent” that has led many to misunderstand Church teaching.

 

[fix]

LittleDeb:

This is where the argument seems to divide. Of course it is licit to limit family size. It has been licit to limit family size (for serious reason) since the beginning of the Sacrament of marriage. Mary and Joseph did it through full abstinence. (Sorry, I know it is a different type of marriage but I just brought it up to show licit-ness.)

This type of thinking that NFP is just another form of contraception is all too common. Believing NFP to be contraception does not make it so. A deeper understanding of NFP would help this type of thinking.

I believe that it is the secular definitions of “serious reason” and “intent” that has led many to misunderstand Church teaching.

I think you are right and I think there is a basic misunderstanding as to what the Church means in talking about suppressing fertility. Folks seem to think about it simply in terms of conception or no conception, thus they see no difference between NFP and contraception.

Suppressing one’s fertility, as contraception does, is not the same as having relations when one is not ovulating. With NFP fertility is still present in both persons and given freely. It is not simply about avoiding conception.

 

[Halo]

Enjoyed that post.

 

[Halo]

oops …I mean the reference to the ewtn web site, but last post was good too …sorry… forgot about delay etc etc

 

[bear06]

fix:

I think you are right and I think there is a basic misunderstanding as to what the Church means in talking about suppressing fertility. Folks seem to think about it simply in terms of conception or no conception, thus they see no difference between NFP and contraception.

Suppressing one’s fertility, as contraception does, is not the same as having relations when one is not ovulating. With NFP fertility is still present in both persons and given freely. It is not simply about avoiding conception.

Actually, to go a little further, ABC surpresses God’s design and NFP uses God’s design. This is basically what I was trying to say the many times I asked “who’s in control?”

I think people get hung up on the term birthcontrol. HV pretty much says that NFP is birthcontrol.

controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles

It is, however, not contraception.

 

[LittleDeb]

bear06:

Actually, to go a little further, ABC surpresses God’s design and NFP uses God’s design. This is basically what I was trying to say the many times I asked “who’s in control?”

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. I have often said I am a poster child for NFP because of the issue of control.

You see, my husband and I are currently abstaining during fertility. We want more children RIGHT NOW! So why on earth would we be abstaining? Because God is in control not us. Having more children right now is not God’s will for us. God’s will is that we focus on the ill child we have. We want our son’s health to improve right now! We want him to be all better because we will it so.

Many of our reasons for wanting more children right now are purely selfish. I am nearing 35, we don’t want to be “old” with young children, we fear losing my marginal fertility again. All of these reasons show a lack of trust in God. Our serious reasons to avoid pregnancy show trust in God. Our son WILL get better in God’s time. These thousands of dollars in medical bills, (the ones over what insurance pays) WILL be paid off in God’s time.

My fertility has been very regular during this time so the contraceptors have told me that I am supposed to have more babies right now. Nope, I explain that my regular cycles make NFP easier to practice. Plus when God gives us the green light, we are ready and rarin’ to go!

 

[ReformedCatholic]

fix:

Birth control is not evil, contraception is evil. Understanding that difference is the key.

Contraception is evil? Why? Are we living in the Dark Ages here?

 

[bear06]

ReformedCatholic:

Contraception is evil? Why? Are we living in the Dark Ages here?

OK, can I just say that it’s really annoying that you haven’t read the arguments. You ask why and it’s only been said about a million times on these forums. You’re coming here just to argue not actually have a debate. While svoboda has got his fingers in his ears repeating the same thing over and over again, at least he is trying to make arguments.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

bear06:

OK, can I just say that it’s really annoying that you haven’t read the arguments. You ask why and it’s only been said about a million times on these forums. You’re coming here just to argue not actually have a debate. While svoboda has got his fingers in his ears repeating the same thing over and over again, at least he is trying to make arguments.

I was just giving someone an opportunity to give the real reason why the Roman Church tells you that contraception is “evil.”

I see what’s being written in these forums and it’s a lot of circular reasoning that misses the point entirely.

The Church’s stance on contraception, and sexuality in general, originated from Augustine, who, prior to his conversion, was a whore-monger and engaged in a life of debauchery. Certainly, after his conversion, Augustine renounced his previous lifestyle and was the very person to fashion the doctrines regarding “sexuality” for the church.

The phenomenon that occurred within Augustine during this time is something we call ‘reaction formation.’

At the time, there was no understanding of human conception and reproduction as we know it today. The prevailing theory at the time was that the “baby” existed in the sperm of the man that was deposited into the woman to grow.

Therefore, masturbation by men would have been viewed as “killing” a child, and akin to an abortion, which is indeed evil.

Contraception in any form would have been viewed in the same way as it would prevent the “deposit” of the child into the womb and thusly the child would “die.” Certainly, if this is how it all worked, contraception WOULD be evil, but as I have said, we are no longer in the Dark Ages and we know now that it doesn’t work that way. Therefore, no evil involved. Get it?

The Church, as it was established in a post on a different thread, would never change its position on contraception, despite the reason for its position has evaporated, because it would then be viewed as “fallable” on matters of moral theology.

As far as fingers in the ears, I don’t think it’s Svogoda with the fingers in the ears. He makes some compelling arguments that folks are not doing a very good job of refuting, in my opinion.

 

[LittleDeb]

ReformedCatholic:

I was just giving someone an opportunity to give the real reason why the Roman Church tells you that contraception is “evil.”

I see what’s being written in these forums and it’s a lot of circular reasoning that misses the point entirely.

The Church’s stance on contraception, and sexuality in general, originated from Augustine, who, prior to his conversion, was a whore-monger and engaged in a life of debauchery. Certainly, after his conversion, Augustine renounced his previous lifestyle and was the very person to fashion the doctrines regarding “sexuality” for the church.

The phenomenon that occurred within Augustine during this time is something we call ‘reaction formation.’

At the time, there was no understanding of human conception and reproduction as we know it today. The prevailing theory at the time was that the “baby” existed in the sperm of the man that was deposited into the woman to grow.

Therefore, masturbation by men would have been viewed as “killing” a child, and akin to an abortion, which is indeed evil.

Contraception in any form would have been viewed in the same way as it would prevent the “deposit” of the child into the womb and thusly the child would “die.” Certainly, if this is how it all worked, contraception WOULD be evil, but as I have said, we are no longer in the Dark Ages and we know now that it doesn’t work that way. Therefore, no evil involved. Get it?

The Church, as it was established in a post on a different thread, would never change its position on contraception, despite the reason for its position has evaporated, because it would then be viewed as “fallable” on matters of moral theology.

As far as fingers in the ears, I don’t think it’s Svogoda with the fingers in the ears. He makes some compelling arguments that folks are not doing a very good job of refuting, in my opinion.

Your skewed history lesson does nothing to further the discussion. It is frustrating when someone comes out name-calling “Roman Church.” Some folks here are not Roman Catholic but of different Rites, calling it the Roman Church is meant to be insulting. Please refrain.

Your argument, like many erroneous ones through the centuries, takes one discussion and twists it into something to fit a personal agenda. This argument you bring up starts with the child as an end result and works backwards in logic. Your argument has little to do with morals.

Contraception is evil because of what it does to the marriage act. Please give us a break with the loaded science lesson. Truth does not change just because we are in a different era scientifically. This thread is about morals, means, and intent of ABC vs. NFP. If you would like to show that contraception is a good or neutral means then go ahead. That argument would at least be a positive addition to the conversation, even if many of us (including The Church) would disagree.

 

[johntkd]

bear06:

What are you talking about?! I’ve given an example of it being a sacrifice. !

No you are not being selfish at all,relize in my post i cannot cover everything,even the church allows “the pill” to be used for medical reasons. my referal to the sacrifice part was directed simply at the fact that tons of people use NFP as a regular way of Birth control.
the only reason they use it is to not conceive because they either do not want children or are not ready to deal with the responsibility,this is the selfish act, what you did was without selfishness in any form,
and also I am going to say this once again, I am not against NFP
what I am against is the disguises many many people put on what it is, by the sayings they have invented to make it sound so peachy.

I’m not sure what you are getting at? This doesn’t make sense. Maybe you could rephrase. The Church has never said that infertile sex is wrong. It is not us that chose this but God. !

nor did i say it was wrong or even insinuate that is was.
my meaning was simple on this. ask the people using NFP as a BC method if its a sacrifice? now say ok to same people,your husband is sterile,are you still going to not have “relations” during your fertile time? they will look at yu like your nuts, so its not a sacrifice its selfishness and lack of “open to life” that was my whole point.if its a sacrifice they would abstain whether fertile or not at that time,

You were making a physical act to alter the outcome of the marital embrace whether or not you accepted the potential consequences of the action. Again, you are not altering the act if you are not doing anything.

its an alteration of lifestyle when you refuse to get close to your spouse because you are fearful you both may regret it afterwards.
this comes from talking with many whom practice NFP, they seem to avoid close contact with each other, just so they dont get the natural reactions that may happen,this also is not giving of 100% to each other so to speak…

I could almost get on board with you for this. It’s semantics. .

normally i wouldnt even argue your point as its basically how i believe also, however we had a homily a few months ago basically saying we should be thankful to god for our cars, houses,and anything else that “man” has made or built,because it was God whom gave us the brains to figure out how to do such things.
and provided the materials on this earth to also do such things.
so even though we were not born with a piece of latex, we also were not born carrying thermometers, which many many use to
find out fertile times, I relize many many woman KNOW when they are fertile,without having ever used man made objects to figure it out, thier body lets them know in various ways like a slight pain etc.
Relize I agree there is nothing wrong with NFP except the way people hide what it is.

So, you’re going to pitch a fit and ruin the promotion of something Church approved because you don’t like the language used? Give me a break. Please, at least warn the leaders ahead of time. I’m sure they could get through the whole presentation without offending YOU.

No i wont have a fit at all,I will clarify it as to what it is,or get up and leave,this is not a class that is elected,we are forced to go to it, I may have to go to be able to get married in the church but I do not have to listen to misleading statements.ESSPECIALLY when its being taught by another couple or two and not professionals
who have degrees in human reproduction,or marriage therapy.
I mean I am a Karate Instructor with 26 years of teaching the Martial arts, I sincerly hope my students with a few months of training are not out “making money” teaching Karate,as they do not have the Knowledge or experience to do so.Nor would I ever approve them to. to me this is exactly the same thing.

We’ve had people make a stink about the way they don’t like the Church’s teaching on this

I actually posed this question to our priest during the pre marriage classes and foccus test, what birth control is now accepted with the church, he told us in these terms the only Birth control recognized by the church and allowed is NFP, he didnt try to smoke and mirror it in any way shape or form,he called it what it is Birth control. so to me the churches teaching on this is its Birth Control,i cant make a stink about that now can I