Theological basis for NFP?

[ddarko]

So, why is it OK to reject a spouse due to her fertility? The intention is to avoid children, of course. That is not the issue. Is it ever discussed how systematically rejecting one another and only accepting one another when fertility is not present ever mentioned? So far, it seems a bit arbitrary…?

Nope.

This is your first mistake and many others. There is NO REJECTION involved in NOT having sex.

Complete giving of each other in the sense of fertility and all only apply to when one is having sex. So to speak of rejection of fertility of a spouse outside of sex is rather meaningless.

Then we only speak of the intention as I explained in post #199.

God Bless

 

[PassingThru]

Nope.

This is your first mistake and many others. There is NO REJECTION involved in NOT having sex.

Complete giving of each other in the sense of fertility and all only apply to when one is having sex. So to speak of rejection of fertility of a spouse outside of sex is rather meaningless.

Then we only speak of the intention as I explained in post #199.

God Bless

Thanks for being a smug.

Your statement “There is NO REJECTION involved in NOT having sex.” doesnt seem to make much sense.

If you asked why a couple was choosing not to have sex, the answer would pretty much have to be “because she is fertile”. You can wordsmith around it, but that is pretty much the entire point of NFP.

I suppose you will draw some distinction that you are refusing the sex but accepting the fertility. Well, if that makes you feel better you can, but that is a bit of a side step.

Would it be better if I asked why it is OK to reject your partner due to fertility? And as a follow on, only accept them as long as their fertility is not present?

 

[Em_in_FL]

OK.

NFP is procreative. ABC is procreative. By definition.

You quoted:
*
Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.*

NFP partially deprives marital sex of its meaning and purpose, therefor, by your own words, it is in opposition to Gods will.

…

See, now, you can plainly see by MY definitions (any dictionary will do) that my first delcaration is correct, and you can do nothing to refute it.

And as you do not require anything other than your own logically unsupported definition to make further declarative statements, my second statement is also true.

Does this convince you? If not, why.

Nope. You asked to remove the “fluffy words”… so we’re removing the words. I completely disagree with your definition and so does the church. So we’ll eliminate the words if they’re giving you a hard time.

Let’s go back to my other posts above:

I’m not going to go crazy over the Church’s choice of words. The intent is that the word “Procreative” means that you shouldn’t use contraception.
Why? Because it insults the “good” design that the Creator intended.

And more from HV… please READ it…

Faithfulness to God’s Design

 

[PassingThru]

Nope.

This is your first mistake and many others. There is NO REJECTION involved in NOT having sex.

Complete giving of each other in the sense of fertility and all only apply to when one is having sex. So to speak of rejection of fertility of a spouse outside of sex is rather meaningless.

Then we only speak of the intention as I explained in post #199.

God Bless

Never mind. I did speak correctly the first time. I asked why it is OK to reject SEX based on fertility.

YOU (intentionally?) rephrased my question to make it look like I said reject fertility. That was not my question. Nice try.

 

[ddarko]

Thanks for being a smug.

Your statement “There is NO REJECTION involved in NOT having sex.” doesnt seem to make much sense.

If you asked why a couple was choosing not to have sex, the answer would pretty much have to be “because she is fertile”. You can wordsmith around it, but that is pretty much the entire point of NFP.

I suppose you will draw some distinction that you are refusing the sex but accepting the fertility. Well, if that makes you feel better you can, but that is a bit of a side step.

Would it be better if I asked why it is OK to reject your partner due to fertility? And as a follow on, only accept them as long as their fertility is not present?

Ok lets run this one more time.

The reason why ABC’s are IMMORAL is because of sexual teachings of the church. Alright?

So there are teachings on how sex should take place. NOT when or where. Alright?

Now there is no rejection of your partner due to fertility in NFP. You do acknowledge that your partner is fertile. BUT you also realize that there is a responsibility towards the person you will conceive. You also realize that to carry on having sex while using ABC’s is immoral because then you won’t be sharing each other completely in sex. Therefore you abstain with mutual agreement. So there is no rejection.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Never mind. I did speak correctly the first time. I asked why it is OK to reject SEX based on fertility.

YOU (intentionally?) rephrased my question to make it look like I said reject fertility. That was not my question. Nice try.

Ok Mr. Smart. I am not here to fool you in to believing ANYTHING.

I am simply pointing out your illogical claim. You want to apply HOW SEX should be to WHEN sex should take place. Thats … um… (I don’t want to use a word that is going to get me an in-fracture).

ABC, we have sex. It violates Moral teachings on SEX. SIN.

NFP, we have no sex. NOT A SIN.

There is NO teaching on when you should have SEX apart from it being inside of marriage. So anyone is FREE to not have sex whenever they please to do so. But here, intention comes in to play as I pointed out in post #199.

God Bless

 

[PassingThru]

Nope. You asked to remove the “fluffy words”… so we’re removing the words. I completely disagree with your definition and so does the church. So we’ll eliminate the words if they’re giving you a hard time.

Let’s go back to my other posts above:

Well, I wont go crazy of your choice of words.

Both NFP and ABC are procreative. I disagree with your definition. I have a different one.

Your quote from HV explains how NFP is a violation of Gods will.

See, if all I have to do is repeat something, and not say anything about it, we both win. Yay!

You are wrong I am right.

 

[ddarko]

Well, I wont go crazy of your choice of words.

Both NFP and ABC are procreative. I disagree with your definition. I have a different one.

Your quote from HV explains how NFP is a violation of Gods will.

See, if all I have to do is repeat something, and not say anything about it, we both win. Yay!

You are wrong I am right.

I am a bit confused if you realize what this thread is on.

It is not to show you how NFP is theologically sound according to Lutheran Doctrine. There’s a lot of issues in Lutheran thought that needs to be fixed before you understand Catholic doctrine. Thats another thread and I am sure its been analyzed and beaten to death on this forum.

The goal of this thread is to show why its theologically (Roman Catholic) consistent to hold NFP as good.

So I am afraid you are the one who has missed the point and started arguing from your own perspective.

God Bless

 

[PassingThru]

Ok lets run this one more time.

The reason why ABC’s are IMMORAL is because of sexual teachings of the church. Alright?

That is not a reason. That is a statement.

So there are teachings on how sex should take place. NOT when or where. Alright?

No, not alright, we are asking why.

Now there is no rejection of your partner due to fertility in NFP. You do acknowledge that your partner is fertile. BUT you also realize that there is a responsibility towards the person you will conceive. You also realize that to carry on having sex while using ABC’s is immoral because then you won’t be sharing each other completely in sex. Therefore you abstain with mutual agreement. So there is no rejection.

If you only have to defend your position by saying “because I said so” then I can say there is no rejection in ABC. To deny that the reason NFP exists in this case is to ensure all sex is during infertile times is a bit daft. This implys that you “reject” sex during fertile times.

All I am asking is why there is no explanation of why you can reject SEX during fertility. You have no answer, but dont act like the very function of NFP does not exist.

 

[ddarko]

No, not alright, we are asking why.

Alright so this settles it. You are questioning Catholic doctrine on Sex. Please find another thread for that.

This thread deals with the presupposition that one has accepted Catholic theology.

Have a good day.

God Bless

 

[cc1999]

Ok, first, before you attribute a position to the church, make sure you fully understand it. You unfortunately seem to be clueless.

Name calling and insinuations are unprofessional and unChristian. Such tactics are typically resorted to when the logic and facts of one’s argument fails.

Have a good day.

 

[ddarko]

All I am asking is why there is no explanation of why you can reject SEX during fertility. You have no answer, but dont act like the very function of NFP does not exist.

Because it is moronic to say when to have sex. No where in the Bible does it state when to have sex apart from inside of marriage. How stupid is the church going to look for saying WHEN to have sex.

So if a couple decides that they are too busy today for Sex or something, thats fine. What ever the reason they have (as long as it does not violate the intention as I described in post #199 (which you keep avoiding)), is FINE.

To say otherwise is STUPID on the Church’s part.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Name calling and insinuations are unprofessional and unChristian. Such tactics are typically resorted to when the logic and facts of one’s argument fails.

Have a good day.

Please, I am not calling names. If you read the full post, I explain in detail why you are ‘clueless’ on the church’s position. In fact, I show why some of your use of logic is rather erroneous.

Now you have a good day too

God Bless

 

[PassingThru]

I am a bit confused if you realize what this thread is on.

It is not to show you how NFP is theologically sound according to Lutheran Doctrine. There’s a lot of issues in Lutheran thought that needs to be fixed before you understand Catholic doctrine. Thats another thread and I am sure its been analyzed and beaten to death on this forum.

The goal of this thread is to show why its theologically (Roman Catholic) consistent to hold NFP as good.

So I am afraid you are the one who has missed the point and started arguing from your own perspective.

God Bless

Thank you for making my point.

I am trying to point out that just stating “my definition is right” and “my teaching is right” is not a sound method to support a position.

We agree on most every point surrounding this debate. We only disagree on a few basic principals. Somehow we can communicate on many issues using common language. To answer this final piece to establish a difference requires one to subscribe to Catholic teaching without the ability to logically explain the position without a circular reference to the very teaching we are questioning. This is an issue.

 

[Em_in_FL]

You are wrong I am right.

Wow, that’s grown up.

I’m glad you feel you are worthy to define your own morality…
Personally, I’m putting my trust in a higher power. I’m not schooled in logic or debate, but I trust that those who are better informed in this area aren’t going to lead me astray.

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

Consequences of Artificial Methods

1. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Concern of the Church

1. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a “sign of contradiction.” (22) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly pilgrimage “to share God’s life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men.” (23)

Besides… if the Church teaches that one thing is right and another thing is wrong… what’s the point of arguing? Are you trying to defend your personal choices? How did they work out for you?

 

[Persuader]

Please understand this. I am TIRED of repeating this over and over again.

ABC’s are IMMORAL because they do not accept the spouse for who he/she is at the time of having SEX. GET IT?

So for some form of action to be considered immoral using the same criterion as above,

1. The couples must be having sex
2. The sexual expression according to Catholic teachings are violated

Alright?

What do you mean at the time of having sex? You say that the form of an action is to be considered immoral if 1) it coincides with the couple having sex? Contraceptive actions can be taken years before the couple is having sex, so I’m not sure how your first clause applies.

Let’s compare nfp to Implanon, for instance. Implanon is effective for 3 years. So if the female is using Implanon, she could have taken an action 2 years ago to manipulate her body such that any subsequent sex act would have a decreased chance of procreation. In the case of nfp, she is taking several actions every day to manipulate the timing of her subsequent sex acts in order to decrease the chance of procreation. It is very far from obvious why the methodic difference matters, and it certainly cannot be resolved by saying that the contraceptive act has to be performed in conjunction with the sex act. However, it is possible that you mean something else by your first premise.

 

[ddarko]

Thank you for making my point.

I am trying to point out that just stating “my definition is right” and “my teaching is right” is not a sound method to support a position.

We agree on most every point surrounding this debate. We only disagree on a few basic principals. Somehow we can communicate on many issues using common language. To answer this final piece to establish a difference requires one to subscribe to Catholic teaching without the ability to logically explain the position without a circular reference to the very teaching we are questioning. This is an issue.

No it is not. Catholic teaching on the sexual act is based on Scripture, Tradition and Philosophy. You can ask this question about ‘SEX’ on a new thread and people will be happy to help you out. People far more qualified than me in Philosophy in-fact.

God Bless

 

[Em_in_FL]

Thank you for making my point.

I am trying to point out that just stating “my definition is right” and “my teaching is right” is not a sound method to support a position.

We agree on most every point surrounding this debate. We only disagree on a few basic principals. Somehow we can communicate on many issues using common language. To answer this final piece to establish a difference requires one to subscribe to Catholic teaching without the ability to logically explain the position without a circular reference to the very teaching we are questioning. This is an issue.

Oh this could go on WAY beyond NFP.
Wanna start with the Real Presence in the Eucharist?
Or praying to Mary?
The very essence of this conversation relates to the SACRAMENTAL nature of Matrimony… if we can’t agree on a few basics? You aren’t going to get it.

 

[PassingThru]

Wow, that’s grown up.

I’m glad you feel you are worthy to define your own morality…
Personally, I’m putting my trust in a higher power. I’m not schooled in logic or debate, but I trust that those who are better informed in this area aren’t going to lead me astray.

Besides… if the Church teaches that one thing is right and another thing is wrong… what’s the point of arguing? Are you trying to defend your personal choices? How did they work out for you?

See my post above.

I was being sarcastic as that is how you sound when you repeatedly quote something without any explanation. It doesnt help.

I am not defining my own morality, thanks. I am asking for a logical reasoning that does not rely on a circular reference upon itself. Hence my snarky remarks.

 

[ddarko]

What do you mean at the time of having sex? You say that the form of an action is to be considered immoral if 1) it coincides with the couple having sex? Contraceptive actions can be taken years before the couple is having sex, so I’m not sure how your first clause applies.

Let’s compare nfp to Implanon, for instance. Implanon is effective for 3 years. So if the female is using Implanon, she could have taken an action 2 years ago to manipulate her body such that any subsequent sex act would have a decreased chance of procreation. In the case of nfp, she is taking several actions every day to manipulate the timing of her subsequent sex acts in order to decrease the chance of procreation. It is very far from obvious why the methodic difference matters, and it certainly cannot be resolved by saying that the contraceptive act has to be performed in conjunction with the sex act. However, it is possible that you mean something else by your first premise.

Implanon applies while having sex. So if you took one 3 years ago, it is still in effect when you have sex today. That means it is effective while you have sex today.

So it is ONLY when you have sex that we are talking about ABC’s.

In the case of NFP, no sex is involved. The Church nor Scripture nor Tradition nor Philosophy tells a Couple WHEN to have sex. The couple has FREE WILL to have sex whenever they like as long as it is within marriage. So practicing NFP violates nothing (if the intention is moral).

God Bless