Should we respectfully leave the Church

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Natural, like normal, is not a straightforward word. Think about the life you lead - just one day of it, and ask what was natural. The food you ate? The implements with which you ate it? The clothes you wore? How you got your news about the weather. Do you see a problem with any of that? Why do have a problem with taking a woman’s temperature or taking note of mucus? These are just ways of discovering one’s fertility.

I think the poster is ignorant of NFP. No method teaches to vaginally take a temperature. I think some people hear that you have to take your temperature in the morning to check fertility and they think that it is somehow vaginal. As if the vaginal temp has anything to do with it!? Teaching NFP that was a common misconception. Most women are quite relieved to discover they do not have to take a temp vaginally.

As far as Mucus goes, it is optional for most, and once one learns the signs and the cycles it is as easy as wiping when one goes to the bathroom.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Really? Lol. It is one method for checking cervical
mucous.
Actually it can be orally, vaginally or rectally.
Just never under the arm.

Uhhhh ok, never heard of that…

C2CL never told us to teach that.

I guess I am corrected.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Just asked my wife about it and she looked at me like my head was on backwards. She said of course you CAN take temp vaginally and we taught that it could be done as well. (must have been one day I was not paying attention!)

My bad.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Natural, like normal, is not a straightforward word. Think about the life you lead - just one day of it, and ask what was natural. The food you ate? The implements with which you ate it? The clothes you wore? How you got your news about the weather. Do you see a problem with any of that? Why do have a problem with taking a woman’s temperature or taking note of mucus? These are just ways of discovering one’s fertility.

A vagina, as an object, is not designed for a finger or a thermometer. That’s a straightforward Natural Law.

You take a thin tiny kitchen knife, you use it as a chisel, you break it.
It’s a sin. Using an object for something that it is not designed for is a sin.

 

[Rau]

A vagina, as an object, is not designed for a finger or a thermometer. That’s a straightforward Natural Law.

You take a thin tiny kitchen knife, you use it as a chisel, you break it.
It’s a sin. Using an object for something that it is not designed for is a sin.

Ergo, thermometer in mouth is a sin too.

 

[marywarfield]

Just asked my wife about it and she looked at me like my head was on backwards. She said of course you CAN take temp vaginally and we taught that it could be done as well. (must have been one day I was not paying attention!)

My bad.

Most women don’t. And it reads higher vaginally
and rectally than orally.
But there are times and medical conditions where
oral route is not do-able.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Ergo, thermometer in mouth is a sin too.

It’s not natural.
As I said in one of my previous post sometimes we do unnatural things in order to prevent or diagnose a disease. So is the fertility a disease?

I am not talking about mucus.
I am talking about the cervix position: naturalfamilyplanning.ie/cervix/
Some women are disgusted by this.

 

[LongingSoul]

This thread is like a fairground ride. What strange twist is around the next bend I wonder??

A vagina, as an object, is not designed for a finger or a thermometer. That’s a straightforward Natural Law.

You take a thin tiny kitchen knife, you use it as a chisel, you break it.
It’s a sin. Using an object for something that it is not designed for is a sin.

Those of us who were taught NFP 25-30 years ago, depended on the waking vaginal temp. reading for a most accurate reading. It’s not unnatural or immoral and no, it doesn’t cause an orgasm. (Some fellas do mistakenly think that tampons also are a turn on… but no)

Jaaanosik, if you are a male or a younger female, there is some learning to do about womens reproductive stuff. When I first began to see farm animals being born I was disgusted. Mum cows would lick the mucus from a calves nostrils to help them to breathe… but eewww. But that’s the lives of us female creatures. There are some undignified duties to attend to in the interest of our marriages and families. All conform to the nature and the life of the species. Contraception on the other hand, is an adamant ‘no’ to the natural course of living and loving.

 

[Rau]

It’s not natural.
As I said in one of my previous post sometimes we do unnatural things in order to prevent or diagnose a disease. So is the fertility a disease?

I am not talking about mucus.
I am talking about the cervix position: naturalfamilyplanning.ie/cervix/
Some women are disgusted by this.

We are not trying to fix or prevent our fertility, just gain information about it. It turns out that ones temp moves naturally with ones cycle - good to know, eh?

 

[marywarfield]

A vagina, as an object, is not designed for a finger or a thermometer. That’s a straightforward Natural Law.

You take a thin tiny kitchen knife, you use it as a chisel, you break it.
It’s a sin. Using an object for something that it is not designed for is a sin.

How is using breaking a knife using it incorrectly
a sin?

 

[LongingSoul]

A vagina, as an object, is not designed for a finger or a thermometer. That’s a straightforward Natural Law.

You take a thin tiny kitchen knife, you use it as a chisel, you break it.
It’s a sin. Using an object for something that it is not designed for is a sin.

The teaching tract on the subject here at Catholic Answers reads as follows…

Question: Catholic moral theologians talk about “natural law,” and scientists talk about “the laws of nature,” but the two groups don’t seem to be referring to the same thing. How does natural law differ from the laws of nature?

Answer: Pope John Paul II answered this question in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth). He said that the natural law of moral theology “receives this name not because it refers to the nature of irrational beings, but because the reason which promulgates it is proper to human nature” (Veritatis Splendor 42). The moral law is called “natural law” because it is based on our nature as rational beings. It is not based on the nature of irrational beings, such as animals, plants, or inanimate matter. When scientists refer to the “laws of nature,” they have in mind physical laws such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-does-natural-law-differ-from-the-laws-of-nature

 

[marywarfield]

The teaching tract on the subject here at Catholic Answers reads as follows…

Question: Catholic moral theologians talk about “natural law,” and scientists talk about “the laws of nature,” but the two groups don’t seem to be referring to the same thing. How does natural law differ from the laws of nature?

Answer: Pope John Paul II answered this question in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth). He said that the natural law of moral theology “receives this name not because it refers to the nature of irrational beings, but because the reason which promulgates it is proper to human nature” (Veritatis Splendor 42). The moral law is called “natural law” because it is based on our nature as rational beings. It is not based on the nature of irrational beings, such as animals, plants, or inanimate matter. When scientists refer to the “laws of nature,” they have in mind physical laws such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-does-natural-law-differ-from-the-laws-of-nature

Thank you! I thought I was losing my mind!
My husband complains every time I use a dinner knife
instead of a screwdriver to tighten pot handles. Sometimes
they break but I’ve never considered it a sin.

 

[Mark121359]

You take a thin tiny kitchen knife, you use it as a chisel, you break it.
It’s a sin. Using an object for something that it is not designed for is a sin.

The above is a sin…ABC is not a sin?..interesting!

When a young married couple goes to bed and it’s time for abstinence then they are forbidden to express their love for each other because ‘too much kissing or touching’ might lead to something that is not in line with the Church’s teaching.
That’s a torture.
People have enough crosses in their lives and it’s not enough for the Church so they decided to add another one. Uncharitable.

There are many families with 3 and more kids. If NFP does not work for them then the Church’s teaching puts them into a very tough situation.
That’s just uncharitable.

No. What’s uncharitable is the nerve of any self professed Catholic to say that the RCC is uncharitable. On this thread, I’ve witnessed Catholics who dare to speak out in defense of what the Church teaches being called arrogant, uncharitable, judgmental, harsh, just to name a few off of the top of my head. The fact is, they’re frustrated. They find themselves more and more the minority view! They see so many Catholics, even priests, routinely dismiss Church doctrine. And yet to some on here, these said priests surely know more than the laity, and so, they must be listened to…even if what they say is not Catholic!

I enjoy listening to Fr. Bill Casey and Fr. Wade Menezes of The Fathers of Mercy. They can be seen on EWTN. Both are rightfully concerned about the catechesis of today’s Catholic. They both have spoken about Catholic polls regarding Church Teachings. A routine google search will show you the abysmal results about what fellow Catholics believe about their Faith. Fr. Menezes described these poll numbers on the state of today’s Catholic as "appalling." Fr. Casey said in one of his homilies, that Catholics no longer believe in what the Church teaches with regards to abortion, contraception, divorce, and so-called SSM. Fr. Casey added, ***“it is the reason the Church finds itself in the predicament it’s in.” *** I couldn’t agree more with that statement! Just perusing these threads daily, and reading some of the responses are proof enough…now cue the arrogant, uncharitable, judgmental comments…

Peace, Mark

 

[LongingSoul]

Thank you! I thought I was losing my mind!
My husband complains every time I use a dinner knife
instead of a screwdriver to tighten pot handles. Sometimes
they break but I’ve never considered it a sin.

You know it’s entirely feasible that cave women took their pot fixer thing and said to their husbands “could you make one side of my pot fixer serated so as it can double as a kitchen knife, dear?”

 

[Avocadomom]

Now that’s convoluted.
There is no way that a finger or thermometer in vagina is natural.
I see why woman like NFP. They have orgasm every morning.
Take care,
Jano

If only that were all it took!

 

[shelby_sun]

The above is a sin…ABC is not a sin?..interesting!

No. What’s uncharitable is the nerve of any self professed Catholic to say that the RCC is uncharitable. On this thread, I’ve witnessed Catholics who dare to speak out in defense of what the Church teaches being called arrogant, uncharitable, judgmental, harsh, just to name a few off of the top of my head. The fact is, they’re frustrated. They find themselves more and more the minority view! They see so many Catholics, even priests, routinely dismiss Church doctrine. And yet to some on here, these said priests surely know more than the laity, and so, they must be listened to…even if what they say is not Catholic!

I enjoy listening to Fr. Bill Casey and Fr. Wade Menezes of The Fathers of Mercy. They can be seen on EWTN. Both are rightfully concerned about the catechesis of today’s Catholic. They both have spoken about Catholic polls regarding Church Teachings. A routine google search will show you the abysmal results about what fellow Catholics believe about their Faith. Fr. Menezes described these poll numbers on the state of today’s Catholic as "appalling." Fr. Casey said in one of his homilies, that Catholics no longer believe in what the Church teaches with regards to abortion, contraception, divorce, and so-called SSM. Fr. Casey added, ***“it is the reason the Church finds itself in the predicament it’s in.” *** I couldn’t agree more with that statement! Just perusing these threads daily, and reading some of the responses are proof enough…now cue the arrogant, uncharitable, judgmental comments…

Peace, Mark

How about naive. We are more and more in the minority view? Is that why Catholic Church are closing down in huge numbers. As I said before I am from a huge catholic community where going without sex to prevent pregnancy or using NFP is just not highly practiced. I know of one couple who uses NFP because he is training to be a priest.

We to feel like sex is a physical, emotions, and spiritual expression to our spouse which can bring you closer in a very special way. It isn’t just about physical pleasure. To me it is a very special way to bring us as close as we can be in every way and I never take it. NFP takes lessens that because their is so much concern over if you got everything right, your heart, mind, and spirit cannot full get into, if you want it at all from the worrying.

 

[shelby_sun]

How about naive. We are more and more in the minority view? Is that why Catholic Church are closing down in huge numbers. As I said before I am from a huge catholic community where going without sex to prevent pregnancy or using NFP is just not highly practiced. I know of one couple who uses NFP because he is training to be a priest.

Sorry mean deacon!

 

[Jaaanosik]

The teaching tract on the subject here at Catholic Answers reads as follows…

Question: Catholic moral theologians talk about “natural law,” and scientists talk about “the laws of nature,” but the two groups don’t seem to be referring to the same thing. How does natural law differ from the laws of nature?

Answer: Pope John Paul II answered this question in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth). He said that the natural law of moral theology “receives this name not because it refers to the nature of irrational beings, but because the reason which promulgates it is proper to human nature” (Veritatis Splendor 42). The moral law is called “natural law” because it is based on our nature as rational beings. It is not based on the nature of irrational beings, such as animals, plants, or inanimate matter. When scientists refer to the “laws of nature,” they have in mind physical laws such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-does-natural-law-differ-from-the-laws-of-nature

The Natural Law is based on the human nature - capability to reason.
How a hundred people can come to the same conclusion about something - what’s moral or what is not moral?
The explanation is quite simple. The Natural Law - the reasoning process is driven by the attributes/properties/aspects/goals of a studied object. The reasoning process has to be strictly logical so all the people can come to an agreement that’s how it is.
The basic foundation of the reasoning process is that if an object is being used for a goal that it was designed for then it’s good.
If an object is being used for goals that it was not designed for then it’s not good, it’s a sin.

I am not talking about “laws of nature”. Trust me, I know what I am talking about.

 

[bitterhope]

How is using birth control or even NFP to limit the number of children a family has going to prevent Catholic Churches from closing down in record numbers? It would seem to me that Catholics having fewer kids would result in closing Churches and if we had more kids on average we would need more churches.

 

[Avocadomom]

How is using birth control or even NFP to limit the number of children a family has going to prevent Catholic Churches from closing down in record numbers? It would seem to me that Catholics having fewer kids would result in closing Churches and if we had more kids on average we would need more churches.

I’m not sure it means churches closing… But there are lots of people like me who feel the lifestyle expectations are simply untenable. I have to say that ever since this issue became a problem in my life, it’s been harder and harder to want to go to Mass. I just feel unwelcome and uncomfortable there. I don’t feel guilty, I feel sad and disappointed and faithless. I have never in my life been closer to finding another way to worship the Lord.

People and institutions that are very “black and white” tend to be unpopular and unlikeable. As you know, the number of Catholics who fully practice their faith is fairly low, and yet, many sectors of the Protestant movement are exploding. We can chalk it up to lazy, selfish people wanting an “easier road”, but at some point we have to accept that a lot of people are using their reason to say “Even after listening to the convoluted explanations the Church provides, I do not truly think that God has these expectations.” Alternatively, they are staying in the Church and living the way they see fit. There is no doubt that a huge percentage of Catholics ARE using contraception, missing Mass without confessing it, skipping holy days of obligation, accepting communion with mortal sin on their souls, etc.