P
Prodigirl
Guest
Take a risk? Isn’t it about being open to life? What is it that is being risked? How can a baby be an accident baby if you were not trying to prevent such a baby from being conceived?
Take a risk? Isn’t it about being open to life? What is it that is being risked? How can a baby be an accident baby if you were not trying to prevent such a baby from being conceived?
Couples who use NFP usually have at least 2-3 more children, in my experience, than couples who use artificial birth control.Uh huh. All these shenanigans = “open to life”?
It’s unfortunate that the 241 steps for avoiding conception with NFP had not been published way back then. Or, this phrase comes to mind: “yer doin’ it wrong.”The action of depositing seed in a woman’s vagina is not the type of thing that prevents pregnancy. Neither is the action of charting the type of thing that prevents pregnancy (just as me – my wife and I charted for years, and kept popping out kids). The action of putting on a condom IS the type of thing that prevents pregnancy.
Yes. The intention is the same. The means to acheive this are what Humanae Vitae discusses. If you haven’t read it, you should. If you have but don’t understand it, perhaps you too should meet with a priest to discuss.In other words, the agenda is just the same as if the woman were on the pill, except with a far greater risk of conceiving.
“Semantics” are only tedious to those who fail to understand the differences that actually exist. For example, again you have used the word “manipulation” improperly.The semantics game is tedious. Own up to what you’re engaging in: “frustration of conception”. All that manipulation of bodily information does not equal being “open to life.”
Yes. The intention is the same. The means to acheive this are what Humanae Vitae discusses. If you haven’t read it, you should. If you have but don’t understand it, perhaps you too should meet with a priest to discuss. I’m sorry, perhaps you didn’t understand that I have left the Catholic Church, and I am not interested in reading the Humanae Vitae or discussing this matter with a priest. I am far more interested in how the average Catholic interprets Church dogma.
“Semantics” are only tedious to those who fail to understand the differences that actually exist. For example, again you have used the word “manipulation” improperly.
**I disagree. Semantics are a painful annoyance to people who are interested in carrying on a conversation but are met with the mendacious employment of a cynical smoke screen.
“‘manipulation:’ control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or deceitfully; shrewd or devious management, especially for one’s own advantage.” Yep. That’s what I meant.**
No, I get that. You’ve left the Church and now have a axe to grind. You don’t seem at all interested in understanding how the average Catholic interprets teaching.I’m sorry, perhaps you didn’t understand that I have left the Catholic Church, and I am not interested in reading the Humanae Vitae or discussing this matter with a priest. I am far more interested in how the average Catholic interprets Church dogma.
You claim to be interested in “how the average Catholic interprets Church dogma”, and then accuse average Catholics like myself of cynical smoke screens when we try to explain our positions. I’m sorry to say but I see no genuine attempt at understanding or holding a conversation on your part .I disagree. Semantics are a painful annoyance to people who are interested in carrying on a conversation but are met with the mendacious employment of a cynical smoke screen.
How does one control or influence in the case of NFP? One merely observes their own body.“‘manipulation:’ control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or deceitfully; shrewd or devious management, especially for one’s own advantage.” Yep. That’s what I meant.
No, I get that. You’ve left the Church and now have a axe to grind. You don’t seem at all interested in understanding how the average Catholic interprets teaching. No axe. You don’t want to chat? OK.
You claim to be interested in “how the average Catholic interprets Church dogma”, and then accuse average Catholics like myself of cynical smoke screens when we try to explain our positions. I’m sorry to say but I see no genuine attempt at understanding or holding a conversation on your part . Your position is nebulous. No doubt about your attitude, however.
How does one control or influence in the case of NFP? One merely observes their own body.
Contraception effects control or influence. NFP does not. Again, these are not mere semantics. These are real differences. “manipulation” is a completely inapporpriate word to apply to NFP.
NFP IS CONTRACEPTION. "contraception: the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means." Nothing says “contraception” like the end-run around the fertility cycle by natural means. Just because it’s natural does not mean the motives are pure. Of those who employ NFP, how many use the methods for procreation as opposed to the number who use them to AVOID pregnancy, thus *being closed to life?
I think we’re done.*
If you wish to chat with people - in real life or on forums - do not accuse them of “mendacious employment of a cynical smoke screen”. If you have no axe to grind I apologise of accusing as such. However, your manners make polite discourse impossible.You don’t want to chat? OK.
This is not the post of someone genuinely interested in understdaning the average Catholic’s take on teaching (or even the teaching itself). You begin with the position that the Church is duplicitous. You asked for a fight, not a chat. But, it’s still a fight that deserves a new thread, and then you can choose whether you want to set that thread up as a chat or fight.If this is doctrine, why then does the Church endorse natural family planning? Shouldn’t this be a total abomination because it sidesteps openness to life, as a human manipulation of fertility? Shouldn’t Catholics simply be prepared to “receive what God gives them”??
I view this with great cynicism. It’s this kind of talking out of both sides of the mouth that drives me to feelings of deep disgust with the duplicity of the teachings of the Church.
I am ready. Bring on the apologists and the great big broom to sweep logic under the rug.
******If the impression that I get leads me to believe that a criticism is being dismissed or a point of doctrine is being defended because VATICAN/MAGISTERIUM/DOGMA, I will say that I am unsatisfied with the explanation.If you wish to chat with people - in real life or on forums - do not accuse them of “mendacious employment of a cynical smoke screen”. If you have no axe to grind I apologise of accusing as such. However, your manners make polite discourse impossible.
As for you wishing to understand the Catholic take on NFP - read Humanae Vitae. How can one intelligently argue against a particular position they don’t actually know? Read it, and then post a new thread to understand the average Catholic’s take on it. I’m sure you’ll find plenty of interested posters and lively debate. At present, this topic has hijacked this thread and should be set aside.
Couples are free to make decisions about the timing and spacing of children they conceive. NFP is used to maximise, or to minimise the probability of conception, in order that couples can give effect, by licit means, to the decisions that they make about number of children they conceive and their spacing. Couples are under no obligation to have sex at particular times of the month, or uniformly during the month. There is nothing wrong with having a view that for the next X months, we wish to avoid conception because .“Yes, and one does it be avoiding sex, while the other does it by deliberately frustrating sex.”
As far as I understand it, being “open to life” means having intercourse. with ejaculation within the vagina, and if the woman conceives, you just run with it. NFP requires so much calculation and temperature-taking and mucus evaluation and calendar watching, you cannot tell me this is simply “avoiding sex”. It is AVOIDING CONCEPTION. In other words, the agenda is just the same as if the woman were on the pill, except with a far greater risk of conceiving.
The semantics game is tedious. Own up to what you’re engaging in: “frustration of conception”. All that manipulation of bodily information does not equal being “open to life.”
During my engagement, my wife and I did not have sex. By this, natural, means we avoided conception (I supposeNFP IS CONTRACEPTION. “contraception: the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means.” Nothing says “contraception” like the end-run around the fertility cycle by natural means. Just because it’s natural does not mean the motives are pure. Of those who employ NFP, how many use the methods for procreation as opposed to the number who use them to AVOID pregnancy, thus being closed to life?
I won’t argue with you over what is or is not illicit. But on the facts, a diaphragm messes with the act, and avoiding the act does not.“The Church teaching that sex be “pro-creative” means no more than that the act is not to be distorted, or “messed with”. It is not an obligation to have sex at particular times, or not to avoid particular times, or to always roll the dice.”
**I understand this. I understood this … except:
As far as I’m concerned, having had 35 years of sexual activity during fertile reproductive years, using a diaphragm to keep sperm and egg from hooking up is no more “illicit” than “messing with” one’s fertility with a calendar and a basal thermometer and an analysis of cervical mucus.
We simply have a difference of opinion.**
“Way back then”? You mean, when my wife and I were having kids? I’m 35. Our most recent child is 1 and a half. Not exactly ancient history.It’s unfortunate that the 241 steps for avoiding conception with NFP had not been published way back then. Or, this phrase comes to mind: “yer doin’ it wrong.”
Same to you, bucko.If you guys spent half as much energy discussing the gospel as you do on the mechanics of sex then the world might be a better place.![]()
Please, tell me where you see that in CC because it does not appear to me its in the quotes provided by me.No it did not. It doesn’t say you must “intend” to get pregnant, it says that the couple must be open to God’s creative act. The difference is subtle, but it is definitely distinct.