When is NFP licit?

[bookgirl32]

Secondly, the use of NFP actually often leads to bigger family sizes, because it is a method devoting to knowing more about our reproductive possibilities. I live an hour away from Pope Paul VI Institute and have a sister that CONCEIVED her two biological children using NFP. The majority of my non-Catholic friends used NFP to get pregnant. Think what a wonderful opening that is for the Church to non-Catholic families. My sister has two biological children and two adopted children, and the two biological children weren’t conceived until she started using it, and started going to an amazing doctor who created his NFP method to help infertile couples and women with hormonal imbalances. NFP is far from a “way not to get pregnant”!

 

[StAnastasia]

Man is the pinnacle of creation. Man is the only creature that God created for his own sake. One human person is far more valuable than the rest of the created universe combined.

You misunderstand. If humans are the pinnacle of creation, we have the right to exterminate the rest of creation by infinitely increasing our population. Who cares if there are no more tigers left as long as we have an ever-expanding population of Indians? Who cares if there are no more elephants or lions or rhinos left as long as we have an ever-expanding population of Africans? Who cares if there are no more bald eagles or cougars or polar bears left as long as we have an ever-expanding population of Americans? None of the other species matter.

StAnastasia

 

[Red_Beard]

You misunderstand.

What do I misunderstand?

If humans are the pinnacle of creation, we have the right to exterminate the rest of creation by infinitely increasing our population.

I hate using complicated words in such a setting, but the logical fallacy you are showing here is called a false dichotomy. There is no need presently to choose between more human life and more animal life. If such a choice needed to be made, then it is clear that human life is far more important if you believe anything that God teaches. We are worth far more than swallows.

Who cares if there are no more tigers left as long as we have an ever-expanding population of Indians?

Any given human person is more valuable than the entire created universe. They drastically more important than tigers. The nice thing is that God has given man an intellect so it is not necessary to eliminate tigers.

None of the other species matter.

All of God’s creatures deserve respect. Humans, being the highest and best of His creatures, deserve the most respect. A poor analogy is that a penny and a thousand dollar bill both have value, but they have very different value. You seem to think that the life of a tiger and the life of a man are on the same level. This is a very distorted view.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[StAnastasia]

You seem to think that the life of a tiger and the life of a man are on the same level. This is a very distorted view. Red Beard

You are not thinking clearly, and are putting words in my mouth – I never said that “the life of a tiger and the life of a man are on the same level.” I said that “If humans are the pinnacle of creation, we have the right to exterminate the rest of creation by infinitely increasing our population.”

It’s a matter of simple mathematics that you do not seem to understand. You cannot have an indefinitely expanding human population and still have room for other species. A trillion humans would crowd out most other animals. Do the simple math!

 

[Red_Beard]

I’d like to add for your consideration, the element of justice in regards to the child.

Each and every child deserves to conceived through an act of love between husband and wife; not merely an act of pleasure, or an act of duty.

He deserves to loved for his own sake, and not merely as a “message” to the world that his parents are “open to life.”

He deserves enough time and energy from his parents to be properly loved, educated, formed, and disciplined as directed by his individual needs; not produced whenever you are able, and “rolled out.”

I believe most data on the subject recommends two and half to three years between children as optimal. Please understand, a sibling is a wonderful gift for a child and adds immeasurably to a family, but he or she cannot replace parents.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[Red_Beard]

Do the simple math!

I hate to put words in your mouth so I’ll just ask you what, precisely, is your conclusion with this simple math.

Should we have fewer people so that we may have more tigers?

(If “yes” then mathematically you are saying that: more tigers > more people. If this is true, am I really putting words in your mouth?)

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[StAnastasia]

I hate to put words in your mouth so I’ll just ask you what, precisely, is your conclusion with this simple math. Should we have fewer people so that we may have more tigers? (If “yes” then mathematically you are saying that: more tigers > more people. If this is true, am I really putting words in your mouth?) God bless, Red Beard

I said nothing about “should.” I merely pointed out the mathematical implications of indefinite human population growth in a finite biosphere such as Earth. As one biological species increases in population it is balanced by a corresponding decrease in other species. As Homo sapiens increases in numbers, other species which it eats, and which live on the land it uses to grow food, will necessarily decrease in numbers. Some such species (e.g. polar bear, panda, tigers) will probably go extinct in the wild, with some specimens perhaps preserved in zoos for the amusement or the public and/or for scientific study by humans.

StAnastasia

 

[Red_Beard]

I said nothing about “should.” I merely pointed out the mathematical implications of indefinite human population growth in a finite biosphere such as Earth.
StAnastasia

Perhaps I am missing the point. You keep restating the mathematical certainty of the future you describe and yet are not willing to discuss the moral implications of such a future.

From my perspective, which may be faulty, you want to keep repeating it and hope it will stand alone as an answer against those of us who like large families and yet you will dodge every attempt that is made to discuss the ramifications of that future.

The conversation goes like this:

You: Animals are going to die!

Me: Perhaps it could be worth it.

You: You have to think straight, animals are going to die.

Me: Are you sure that that is a bad thing?

You: I didn’t say anything about morality, but animals are going to die!

So now it’s time to ask once and for all:

Ok, let’s assume that animals are going to die. What’s the point? Is the future you describe a bad future? Please, take it one step further and tell me once and for all, what’s the point of your assertion?

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[bookgirl32]

Perhaps I am missing the point. You keep restating the mathematical certainty of the future you describe and yet are not willing to discuss the moral implications of such a future.

From my perspective, which may be faulty, you want to keep repeating it and hope it will stand alone as an answer against those of us who like large families and yet you will dodge every attempt that is made to discuss the ramifications of that future.

The conversation goes like this:

You: Animals are going to die!

Me: Perhaps it could be worth it.

You: You have to think straight, animals are going to die.

Me: Are you sure that that is a bad thing?

You: I didn’t say anything about morality, but animals are going to die!

So now it’s time to ask once and for all:

Ok, let’s assume that animals are going to die. What’s the point? Is the future you describe a bad future? Please, take it one step further and tell me once and for all, what’s the point of your assertion?

God bless,

Red Beard

And I guess, too, what’s it have to do with this thread? Are you trying to justify abortion as a means of population control? Just asking, I’ve only been skimming the posts.

 

[StAnastasia]

Ok, let’s assume that animals are going to die. What’s the point? Is the future you describe a bad future? Please, take it one step further and tell me once and for all, what’s the point of your assertion?

Someone on this thread has been ragging on people who have small families. I’m merely pointing out the consequences of indefinite high rates of human reproduction. You can draw your won moral conclusion.

 

[StAnastasia]

And I guess, too, what’s it have to do with this thread? Are you trying to justify abortion as a means of population control? Just asking, I’ve only been skimming the posts.

What an imagination! No one mentioned abortion or population control.

 

[bookgirl32]

What an imagination! No one mentioned abortion or population control.

Well, that’s what I get for skimming the posts .

 

[mpi]

Well, that’s what I get for skimming the posts .

You have been doing quite a bit of “skimming”. You focus on my views of the families I know, throwing out defences for their behaviour that I know not to be true.

Lets focus on this - when is NFP licit, according to the Catholic Church? What does “serious” mean in the context it is in in the ccc?

 

[bookgirl32]

You have been doing quite a bit of “skimming”. You focus on my views of the families I know, throwing out defences for their behaviour that I know not to be true.

Lets focus on this - when is NFP licit, according to the Catholic Church? What does “serious” mean in the context it is in in the ccc?

Let’s see, the CCC doesn’t define what it means by serious. So. . . do you think you need to?

 

[bookgirl32]

You have been doing quite a bit of “skimming”. You focus on my views of the families I know, throwing out defences for their behaviour that I know not to be true.

Lets focus on this - when is NFP licit, according to the Catholic Church? What does “serious” mean in the context it is in in the ccc?

And I never defended them. I simply asked you if you were speculating. How do you know exactly what’s going on? I keep asking you that question, have they talked to you about it?

 

[Red_Beard]

Well, I think bookgirl32 has it right that this has nothing to do with the thread we are on. We should probably stop discussing this line on this thread.

For the record, animals may or may not die and such an outcome may or may not be a bad thing. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread…

Who wants to discuss what is serious and what isn’t?

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[Red_Beard]

Looks like I missed a few posts. Sorry about that.

As far as serious goes, I think that the word is generally open to the good-willed interpretation of the couple making the decision. This is an area where our human freedom and will allow us to participate in God’s creation in a unique way. The Church wants us to maintain openness to life and the correct attitude towards children and yet still wants to keep us as free as possible to make our own (morally licit) decisions on the matter.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[b_ulmen]

So, I do think you can miss out on the Sacrament of marriage by not having sex.

God bless,
Red Beard

I guess I missed this the first time.

So married couples in thier 90’s are mising out on the Sacrament of marriage becuase they don’t have sex? I don’t think thas accurate. total abstinance while married defeats the purpose, sure, but how is picking/chosing when to have married sex wrong?

 

[Red_Beard]

I guess I missed this the first time.

So married couples in thier 90’s are mising out on the Sacrament of marriage becuase they don’t have sex? I don’t think thas accurate. total abstinance while married defeats the purpose, sure, but how is picking/chosing when to have married sex wrong?

If you reread my post #59 (I think) that you are quoting me from, I think I explained myself clearly. If I was not clear, I will do my best to rephrase. Marriage is a Sacrament, not of doing dishes together, but of two becoming one; the way we participate and receive graces for this vocation is through sex.

I don’t think NFP or picking/choosing when to have married sex is wrong. Using our intellect and will, not merely our appetites or emotions, to partake in an outward sign of an inward grace is good.

God bless,
Red Beard