E
Em_in_FL
Guest
Okay, so I’m beginning to wonder… in all charity…
What are you thoughts on the Theology of FREE WILL?
Do those who *purposefully *make decisions regarding their life, in any way, shape, or form, lack a trust in God?
- Status
What are you thoughts on the Theology of FREE WILL?
Do those who *purposefully *make decisions regarding their life, in any way, shape, or form, lack a trust in God?
T
The_Bucket
Guest
How about walking before we run? The vast, vast majority of Catholics use artificial contraception, a grave evil. Many are not obstinate in sin because they do not understand the teaching or even know about it, but many others are! How about we move them away from their mortal evils before we concern ourselves with those who might have a less than perfectly generous perspective.
As far as “trusting in God” goes, I’ve said it many times before. God gave us tools to figure out much of our lives for ourselves. We should trust that He has equipped us for the challenges ahead and we are called to ask for His direction and follow it as best we can. I trust that God will help me care for my family, but I also know he permits crises to happen. I’ve already experienced it first hand with my son who was born months premature and the process gravely endangered my wife’s health. Four months after he was born, our second was conceived. Not wise at all, her doctors said. We prayed and followed doctors’ orders and she was fine. Still, doctors have advised not getting pregnant for about 24 months after our daughter was born about 14 months ago.
What should we do now? Should we just have relations whenever and trust God will protect my wife’s health? Or should we be a bit more pro-active in protecting her health than that while still being open to an implausible conception in every act? What you’re suggesting is not only anti-intellectual, it’s contrary to the design God intended. Fertility is regulated naturally and we have the tools to better understand those natural regulations. Why should we not avail ourselves of that information and use it in ways we believe God is intending when it comes to both conception and temporary avoidance?
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Excuse me, I’m headed out to go skydiving without a parachute. It’s fine though, I trust God’s plan for me and I’ll either die or I won’t according to His will.
M
momor
Guest
Not sure what you are referring to with “sinful for multiple reasons beyond the contraceptive mentality”. Please keep it limited to the narrow topic we have been discussing as there is enough to address already without bringing in anything new.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
uch:Do you not see how those two paragraphs, specifically what I’ve bolded, totally contradict one another?
You assert firstly that NFP supporters are “denying a truth,” which prima facie, means that they (or we as the case may be) are incorrect.
Then you say “neither position is wrong” just five sentences later. How is that possible?
How is it possible for NFP users/supporters to be denying a truth and yet are still correct? You can’t have it both ways my friend, and given that the Magisterium has spoken on this quite clearly and done so in favor of NFP users, I don’t think it’s a bridge too far to say that you are the one who is conclusively incorrect on this matter.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Pretty sure she’s talking about the inherent evil of a) distorting the body’s natural function to render potentially procreative acts inert, b) very early abortion associated with combined oral contraceptives and IUDs or c) using artificial devices to render potentially procreative acts inert.
M
momor
Guest
I don’t think your last comment really gets at what we have been discussing. It’s not about wishing you could use ABC but obediently following the Church teaching. That’s OK and I think that’s what you are describing.
I am talking about someone who intentionally uses a Church approved method with an intention that is clearly opposite of the theological underpinning for the method. To me intentions are more culpable that actions in this case. Look at the criteria for determining mortal vs venial sin. Once you get beyond the act and knowing it is wrong, it’s all about intention.
P
peregrinator_it
Guest
Just for the sake of keeping facts straight (although here you will have to take my word or conduct your own google search for the most part… I don’t have time):
Neither BOM or the symptothermal method could rightly be called a technology. BOM was and is today mere self-observation (there’s not even any temp. taking and recently the kinds of observations recommended has been reduced.)
In terms of symptothermal: the method is unchanged since the 1970s, I believe.
When BOM was introduced, it was a doctor (or a nurse) and a booklet. It is largely the same today. STM is now available online, but is again, largely and instruction book and a guide.
I’m not sure where you get this idea of “technology”… only the Marqette method uses anything more complicated than a thermometer…
(BOM info if you doubt me. billings-centre.ab.ca/history.html It is interesting that you feel insulted on this thread, yet you imply that I am not telling the truth and that the participants using NFP on these threads have a contraceptive mentality (and thus are gravely sinning.))
To my mind (and the Church’s) the question of intent is entirely separate from the question licit practices versus illicit.
M
momor
Guest
The more a person is in control of their reproduction the less they are trusting in God to gift them with life if it is His will to do so. The same argument that is often made about ABC.
The people who trust in God are the ones who are most likely to recognize they are not in control at all. That is just a truism. Please don’t read any conclusion about my position on ABC/NFP into it.
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
I think we agree here… you’re right, it’s about intention.
However, it’s not the teaching that’s at fault. The teaching clearly has these “intention clauses” defined. The teaching is solid.
How an individual chooses to *apply *that teaching to their own lives is up to them.
I’ve read some concern on this thread about how the Church “advertises” or “markets” this teaching.
But we agreed that the teaching itself is solid, right? Those intention clauses are already defined in there.
What I’ve experienced in learning NFP has never been against this teaching - including all the “intention clauses”.
What I’ve experienced in actually USING NFP has never been against this teaching - in fact, I’d say it would be INFINITELY CHALLENGING to actually use NFP without having the proper intentions in place…
Yeah, theoretically - I agree - there is a chance of this “contraceptive mentality” being applied… but why in the world would someone with this mentality accept the CHALLENGES of using NFP when their mentality is already contraceptive in the first place…
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Yeah, but we are in control of our lives to a large extent. While God has the power to directly intervene in contravention to the natural order whenever He wishes, I daresay you don’t see a ton of that. That’s why they’re called miracles.
We have choices to make and if we know the consequences of those choices in advance, which we do sometimes, we have an even greater responsibility to ensure that choice is a good one. That includes procreation. We have the right and responsibility to ensure that gift is used properly. It can be misused both on the procreative side (ABC) and the unitive side (IVF).
peregrinator_it:
Walk before you run man.
We have choices to make and if we know the consequences of those choices in advance, which we do sometimes, we have an even greater responsibility to ensure that choice is a good one. That includes procreation. We have the right and responsibility to ensure that gift is used properly. It can be misused both on the procreative side (ABC) and the unitive side (IVF).
This sums up the whole thread really. The actions or inactions that take place when someone uses NFP/fertility awareness are inherently neutral. They are inherently illicit when artificial means to prevent conception are explicitly used for that purpose. Since NFP/fertility awareness is neutral, it would stand to reason that it’s misuse wouldn’t be gravely wrong provided both spouses are on board. (If they’re not, that’s a whole other, separate and already well worn track). So you’re freaked out over people that are potentially committing venial sin, meanwhile you have 90% of folks who call themselves Catholic that are committing acts that are gravely wrong.
Walk before you run man.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
People have always had control over reproduction, infact complete control…total abstaining. Control is not at issue. ABC is not evil because it controls birth, it is evil because it distorts the act, separating the procreative nature of sex from the unitive aspect. The Church is not against birth control (otherwise total abstinence would ALWAYS be a sin).
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
There is nothing wrong with applying FREE WILL, as long as our will is directed toward God (ie, if these “intentions” are pure and holy - NFP may be the WISE choice to make in certain situations).
This does not, in the least, imply a lack of TRUST in God…
T
The_Bucket
Guest
No kidding. If you’re already hell-bent on being closed to life with your actions, why not just go the extra mile and avail yourself of all the artificial methods out there?in fact, I’d say it would be INFINITELY CHALLENGING to actually use NFP without having the proper intentions in place…
Yeah, theoretically - I agree - there is a chance of this “contraceptive mentality” being applied… but why in the world would someone with this mentality accept the CHALLENGES of using NFP when their mentality is already contraceptive in the first place…
Maybe this just hits home for me a bit. We have serious financial and medical reasons to avoid for right now. And I’ll concede that I follow NFP begrudgingly, mostly because Phase II can be soooo long. I mean like a full month long. And that’s seriously annoying. I’d be kissing the ground for 7-12 days and would fully embrace NFP instead of my partial embrace, but I still DO IT.
It’s the same thing like the death penalty for me. I like the idea of rapists and murderers getting what’s coming to them on this temporal plane. But that’s uncharitable and against Church teaching, so I subject my own personal “feeling” to the teaching and move on. I don’t know if I’ll ever wholeheartedly embrace the merciful teaching the Church gives on that subject. But I’ll give a full throated defense of her position to anyone who challenges it and I will challenge myself daily to adhere to that teaching regardless of my “feelings.”
M
momor
Guest
When I say neither is wrong I mean that one can accept everything the Church teaches without questioning it or even understanding it. While it’s preferred that people do understand, it is obedience that is required.
Do you not see how those two paragraphs, specifically what I’ve bolded, totally contradict one another?
You assert firstly that NFP supporters are “denying a truth,” which prima facie, means that they (or we as the case may be) are incorrect.
The truth that I think some NFP users are denying is:
Then you say “neither position is wrong” just five sentences later. How is that possible?
- the inconsistency in some of the Church statements that are meant to teach why ABC is wrong and NFP is not. IMO these inconsistencies can push people away from the teaching rather than draw them in.
- that NFP as it is being taught/researched/etc. may be heading off the rails of the underlying theology it is supposed to be following and becoming more like ABC. Techniques are not the only things one needs to be concerned about.
How is it possible for NFP users/supporters to be denying a truth and yet are still correct? You can’t have it both ways my friend, and given that the Magisterium has spoken on this quite clearly and done so in favor of NFP users, I don’t think it’s a bridge too far to say that you are the one who is conclusively incorrect on this matter.
It is also not wrong to question or debate Church teachings as long as one is obedient. If that was not the case, there would be little purpose to CAF.
M
momor
Guest
You are evaluating other NFP users based on your own understanding and experience. I believe there are many who see it very differently than you do and perhaps get a very different slant on their education than you did. I had hoped to point our how easily some statements can be interpreted differently than their meaning. Especially when they get pulled out of context or condensed to save space or are taught incorrectly.I think we agree here… you’re right, it’s about intention.
However, it’s not the teaching that’s at fault. The teaching clearly has these “intention clauses” defined. The teaching is solid.
How an individual chooses to *apply *that teaching to their own lives is up to them.
I’ve read some concern on this thread about how the Church “advertises” or “markets” this teaching.
But we agreed that the teaching itself is solid, right? Those intention clauses are already defined in there.
What I’ve experienced in learning NFP has never been against this teaching - including all the “intention clauses”.
What I’ve experienced in actually USING NFP has never been against this teaching - in fact, I’d say it would be INFINITELY CHALLENGING to actually use NFP without having the proper intentions in place…
Yeah, theoretically - I agree - there is a chance of this “contraceptive mentality” being applied… but why in the world would someone with this mentality accept the CHALLENGES of using NFP when their mentality is already contraceptive in the first place…
Out of fear of disobedience to the Church? Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons? Looking for loopholes
I imagine there are lots of different ones.
M
momor
Guest
We have not been discussing total abstinence and people are obviously using NFP to control their reproduction so please let’s not be silly here.
ABC is evil because it separates the unitive and procreative. Now take that a step further - why is it evil to separate the unitive and procreative? Isn’t it because it interferes with the God designed process that leads to conception, i.e. it controls birth (actually conception)? I can think of no other reason why it would be evil.
A
Alexander_Smith
Guest
The impression I get from NFP users is that NFP is not only allowable under certain circumstances, it is also encouraged for general use without much thought to restrictions.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
The first part specifically states that the simple desire to space births is not enough reason to resort to NFP. In other words, unless you have well-grounded reasons to space births, you cannot use NFP. There must be an actual problem that would cause the couple to have to resort of NFP. This further reinforces my opinion that NFP is the exception, not the rule.
In other words:
It’s not, couple wants to space their children so they use NFP.
Its, couple wants to space their children due to X reasons, so they use NFP.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
The first part specifically states that the simple desire to space births is not enough reason to resort to NFP. In other words, unless you have well-grounded reasons to space births, you cannot use NFP. There must be an actual problem that would cause the couple to have to resort of NFP. This further reinforces my opinion that NFP is the exception, not the rule.
In other words:
It’s not, couple wants to space their children so they use NFP.
Its, couple wants to space their children due to X reasons, so they use NFP.
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
As an NFP user… I disagree with this statement entirely. This is where people can get insulted. So loose the impression.
Agreed.
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
Nope… it’s not evil because it controls births…
The Catechism says that one aspect of the responsibility of parenthood concerns the regulation of procreation… for just reasons.
The concept of “evil” comes into play when you choose to alter the marital act where it separates those unitive and procreative aspects (ie, using ABC).
- Status