Where are all the large Catholic families?

[moon1234]

You are drawing conckusions that pit one viewpoint against another and then trying to justify some morally dubious position.

Casti connubii (Pope Pius XI) clearly states that deliberately avoiding the chief end of marraige, procreation, commits a grave sin. Pope Pius XI makes no mention of the use of artifical birth control, natural birth control, etc. He simply states that the act of purposefully avoiding children is a grave sin. This is a stark contrast to Humane Vitae where the opposite is proposed.

*“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: **any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” ***

In no place does the Pontiff say frustration means artifical methods. It means any act which frustrates, this can include “natural” methods such as NFP.

NFP itself is not morally evil. It can be used for good or bad. Many couples learn how to better their chances of conceiving by learning how their bodies work. This type of knowledge is neither morally evil nor wrong.

On the other hand, NFP used for the willful avoidance of the primary end of marraige and seeking only for the secondary end of marriage is morally evil. If a woman learned that eating certain herbs would cause her to abort or prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum, would it be morally allowed for her to consume this herb if that is the effect she desired? Queen Ann’s lace will have this effect. Is the eating of the plant now considered evil? No it is the intended use of the plant that determines whether the use is morally legitimate or not, not the morality of the plant itself.

Humane Vitae, and moral theologians who expound on it, have done a great dis-service to the Church in the way NFP is presented to couples. MOST NFP classes aimed at newlyweds are NOT geard towards using NFP to HAVE children. They are geared towards a contraceptive avoidance or “spacing” of children with no expounding on the WHEN NFP can be used and in what circumstances. Priests who are moral theologians are really the only ones who are qualified to answer these questions.

This is why you will nearly always find pushback from traditional minded Catholics from the use of NFP. MOST use of NFP by Catholics is to willfully avoid children, but still engage in sex for pleasure, bonding, etc.

Nothing I said above is to be geared towards requiring a couple to only have sex during fertile times, rather it should be read that sex, when truely loving, is to be offered and freely given when one spouse desires the other. It should not be based on a schedule or some other construct that has at it’s core a contraceptive (Avoiding Conception) mentality.

There is a big difference between a couple who mutually decide to avoid sex for a time for health, religious or other reasons. This is perfectly allowed and is not morally suspect. When the purpose for this avoidance is primarily to avoid conception it is done with a contra (against) ceptive (conception) mentality.

Providing all of the neo-modernist explanations and then beating that drum with the biggest club you can find is not going to stop traditional leaning Catholics from seeing it as nothing more than the spoiled child who wants to have his cake and eat it too.

 

[fpt]

You are drawing conckusions that pit one viewpoint against another and then trying to justify some morally dubious position.

Casti connubii (Pope Pius XI) clearly states that deliberately avoiding the chief end of marraige, procreation, commits a grave sin. Pope Pius XI makes no mention of the use of artifical birth control, natural birth control, etc. He simply states that the act of purposefully avoiding children is a grave sin. This is a stark contrast to Humane Vitae where the opposite is proposed.

*“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: **any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” ***

In no place does the Pontiff say frustration means artifical methods. It means any act which frustrates, this can include “natural” methods such as NFP.

NFP itself is not morally evil. It can be used for good or bad. Many couples learn how to better their chances of conceiving by learning how their bodies work. This type of knowledge is neither morally evil nor wrong.

On the other hand, NFP used for the willful avoidance of the primary end of marraige and seeking only for the secondary end of marriage is morally evil. If a woman learned that eating certain herbs would cause her to abort or prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum, would it be morally allowed for her to consume this herb if that is the effect she desired? Queen Ann’s lace will have this effect. Is the eating of the plant now considered evil? No it is the intended use of the plant that determines whether the use is morally legitimate or not, not the morality of the plant itself.

Humane Vitae, and moral theologians who expound on it, have done a great dis-service to the Church in the way NFP is presented to couples. MOST NFP classes aimed at newlyweds are NOT geard towards using NFP to HAVE children. They are geared towards a contraceptive avoidance or “spacing” of children with no expounding on the WHEN NFP can be used and in what circumstances. Priests who are moral theologians are really the only ones who are qualified to answer these questions.

This is why you will nearly always find pushback from traditional minded Catholics from the use of NFP. MOST use of NFP by Catholics is to willfully avoid children, but still engage in sex for pleasure, bonding, etc.

Nothing I said above is to be geared towards requiring a couple to only have sex during fertile times, rather it should be read that sex, when truely loving, is to be offered and freely given when one spouse desires the other. It should not be based on a schedule or some other construct that has at it’s core a contraceptive (Avoiding Conception) mentality.

There is a big difference between a couple who mutually decide to avoid sex for a time for health, religious or other reasons. This is perfectly allowed and is not morally suspect. When the purpose for this avoidance is primarily to avoid conception it is done with a contra (against) ceptive (conception) mentality.

Providing all of the neo-modernist explanations and then beating that drum with the biggest club you can find is not going to stop traditional leaning Catholics from seeing it as nothing more than the spoiled child who wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Some documents:

Catechism of the Council of Trent:
But why marriage was instituted is a subject which demands exposition The first reason of its institution is because nature instinctively tends to such a union ; and under the vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support. Another is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God.

Catechism of Saint Pius X:
What is the sacrament of Matrimony?
A. Matrimony is a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, which creates a holy and indissoluble union between a man and woman, and gives them grace to love one another holily and to bring up their children as Christians.

Code of Canon Law of 1983 :
Can. 1055 §1. " The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized ".

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1601. “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

You can note that these statements are on the same line. What are the ends of marriage? Is there a hierarchy of these ends? What are the ends of marital act? Is there a hierarchy of these ends?

 

[fpt]

Some documents:

Catechism of the Council of Trent:
But why marriage was instituted is a subject which demands exposition The first reason of its institution is because nature instinctively tends to such a union ; and under the vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support. Another is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God.

Catechism of Saint Pius X:
What is the sacrament of Matrimony?
A. Matrimony is a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, which creates a holy and indissoluble union between a man and woman, and gives them grace to love one another holily and to bring up their children as Christians.

Code of Canon Law of 1983 :
Can. 1055 §1. " The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized ".

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1601. “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

You can note that these statements are on the same line. What are the ends of marriage? Is there a hierarchy of these ends? What are the ends of marital act? Is there a hierarchy of these ends?

Sorry, but according to the catholic doctrine, the marital act has to be " unitive and procreative " in order to be licit and moral. Marital act has two ends (unity and potential procreativity).

The fact of affirming that there is a hierarchy of these ends is very false, if you respect the concept of organic development of catholic thought on the dogma or the moral. There is no hierarchy of these ends, they are equal. The fact of saying " there is a hierarchy, that is infallible " is too much affirmative. How are you sure, how could you say that like that?

By nature marital act during infertile times is okay. By nature, the fact of wanting union of bodies only for physical love is fine. Generally speaking in the catholic theology, when a couple practices the marital act, he is not in the moral obligation to want, to will, to desire and to make a baby.

 

[fpt]

You are drawing conckusions that pit one viewpoint against another and then trying to justify some morally dubious position.

Casti connubii (Pope Pius XI) clearly states that deliberately avoiding the chief end of marraige, procreation, commits a grave sin. Pope Pius XI makes no mention of the use of artifical birth control, natural birth control, etc. He simply states that the act of purposefully avoiding children is a grave sin. This is a stark contrast to Humane Vitae where the opposite is proposed.

*“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: **any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” ***

In no place does the Pontiff say frustration means artifical methods. It means any act which frustrates, this can include “natural” methods such as NFP.

NFP itself is not morally evil. It can be used for good or bad. Many couples learn how to better their chances of conceiving by learning how their bodies work. This type of knowledge is neither morally evil nor wrong.

On the other hand, NFP used for the willful avoidance of the primary end of marraige and seeking only for the secondary end of marriage is morally evil. If a woman learned that eating certain herbs would cause her to abort or prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum, would it be morally allowed for her to consume this herb if that is the effect she desired? Queen Ann’s lace will have this effect. Is the eating of the plant now considered evil? No it is the intended use of the plant that determines whether the use is morally legitimate or not, not the morality of the plant itself.

Humane Vitae, and moral theologians who expound on it, have done a great dis-service to the Church in the way NFP is presented to couples. MOST NFP classes aimed at newlyweds are NOT geard towards using NFP to HAVE children. They are geared towards a contraceptive avoidance or “spacing” of children with no expounding on the WHEN NFP can be used and in what circumstances. Priests who are moral theologians are really the only ones who are qualified to answer these questions.

This is why you will nearly always find pushback from traditional minded Catholics from the use of NFP. MOST use of NFP by Catholics is to willfully avoid children, but still engage in sex for pleasure, bonding, etc.

Nothing I said above is to be geared towards requiring a couple to only have sex during fertile times, rather it should be read that sex, when truely loving, is to be offered and freely given when one spouse desires the other. It should not be based on a schedule or some other construct that has at it’s core a contraceptive (Avoiding Conception) mentality.

There is a big difference between a couple who mutually decide to avoid sex for a time for health, religious or other reasons. This is perfectly allowed and is not morally suspect. When the purpose for this avoidance is primarily to avoid conception it is done with a contra (against) ceptive (conception) mentality.

Providing all of the neo-modernist explanations and then beating that drum with the biggest club you can find is not going to stop traditional leaning Catholics from seeing it as nothing more than the spoiled child who wants to have his cake and eat it too.

The concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage was saying, was teaching, was wrting officially, I am okay, but only between 1917 (the Code of canon law) to the Vatican II. This is a short period of the story of the church…

This doxa was incomplete or there were many non explicit elements because they were too much evident.

 

[fpt]

You are drawing conckusions that pit one viewpoint against another and then trying to justify some morally dubious position.

Casti connubii (Pope Pius XI) clearly states that deliberately avoiding the chief end of marraige, procreation, commits a grave sin. Pope Pius XI makes no mention of the use of artifical birth control, natural birth control, etc. He simply states that the act of purposefully avoiding children is a grave sin. This is a stark contrast to Humane Vitae where the opposite is proposed.

*“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: **any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” ***

In no place does the Pontiff say frustration means artifical methods. It means any act which frustrates, this can include “natural” methods such as NFP.

NFP itself is not morally evil. It can be used for good or bad. Many couples learn how to better their chances of conceiving by learning how their bodies work. This type of knowledge is neither morally evil nor wrong.

On the other hand, NFP used for the willful avoidance of the primary end of marraige and seeking only for the secondary end of marriage is morally evil. If a woman learned that eating certain herbs would cause her to abort or prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum, would it be morally allowed for her to consume this herb if that is the effect she desired? Queen Ann’s lace will have this effect. Is the eating of the plant now considered evil? No it is the intended use of the plant that determines whether the use is morally legitimate or not, not the morality of the plant itself.

Humane Vitae, and moral theologians who expound on it, have done a great dis-service to the Church in the way NFP is presented to couples. MOST NFP classes aimed at newlyweds are NOT geard towards using NFP to HAVE children. They are geared towards a contraceptive avoidance or “spacing” of children with no expounding on the WHEN NFP can be used and in what circumstances. Priests who are moral theologians are really the only ones who are qualified to answer these questions.

This is why you will nearly always find pushback from traditional minded Catholics from the use of NFP. MOST use of NFP by Catholics is to willfully avoid children, but still engage in sex for pleasure, bonding, etc.

Nothing I said above is to be geared towards requiring a couple to only have sex during fertile times, rather it should be read that sex, when truely loving, is to be offered and freely given when one spouse desires the other. It should not be based on a schedule or some other construct that has at it’s core a contraceptive (Avoiding Conception) mentality.

There is a big difference between a couple who mutually decide to avoid sex for a time for health, religious or other reasons. This is perfectly allowed and is not morally suspect. When the purpose for this avoidance is primarily to avoid conception it is done with a contra (against) ceptive (conception) mentality.

Providing all of the neo-modernist explanations and then beating that drum with the biggest club you can find is not going to stop traditional leaning Catholics from seeing it as nothing more than the spoiled child who wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Do you believe that the Pope can publish a canon law with wrong rules concerning the marriage? Do you believe that the Vatican II can write wrong doctrines concerning the conjugal moral?

It is impossible.

 

[Phyllo]

I must admit that I did not read all the posts but the question was, where are all the large Catholic families. I see large families at the Traditional Mass I sometimes attend. So they are out there.

 

[fpt]

I must admit that I did not read all the posts but the question was, where are all the large Catholic families. I see large families at the Traditional Mass I sometimes attend. So they are out there.

I am okay with you, but the fact of writing this question under-hears an intellectual approach. If there is this question, it is that behind there are values, doctrines, mentalities…etc? Why this question " Where are all the large Catholic families? "?.

This is my first post of this thread:

In order to try to find an answer, we need to respond these questions:

What are the ends of marriage? Is there a hierarchy of these ends? What are the ends of marital act? Is there a hierarchy of these ends? What are the moral intentionalities of marital act? In our couple, why do we do the marital act? What are its functions and its roles? What are our mentalities concerning the marital act and its corollaries?

What is the responsible procreation? What is the responsible paternity? What is the responsible maternity? What is N.F.P. and what is its moral regime? What is a grave and serious reason for using N.F.P.? Do we see a difference between to take care and to educate? Do we believe that large family is, per se, a moral obligation coming from the natural law wanted by God? Are we against, per se, the personalist approach concerning the marriage and the marial act? How do we analyse the philosophical approach of Humanae Vitae: too modern and not enough traditional in its motivation (too human…etc)?

Can spouse refuse the marital request of the marital act and under which conditions? What are the roles of the husband? What are the roles of the wife (house wife or not?).

Thus,
What is our degree of interpretation of these rules? Do you accept of practicing them, and how, and why and what for?

If you know the answers it is easy to find out where are the large families.

 

[moon1234]

Do you believe that the Pope can publish a canon law with wrong rules concerning the marriage? Do you believe that the Vatican II can write wrong doctrines concerning the conjugal moral?

It is impossible.

Yes I beleive the Pope can publish a canon law with incorrect theology. It has been done before. Canon law is a man made juridical construct based on man’s understanding of what God has revealed as Truth thru time along with what man understands about that truth. So can a law be wrong, the answer is yes. Can a previously correct law be changed in such a way as to obscure truth, of course. Does this happen? Sure, look at VII and all of the errors that came from it concerning improper interpration of previous ex cathedra statements.

Do you believe that the Vatican II can write wrong doctrines concerning the conjugal moral?

Of course. 100% belief and even the current pontif said the same while he was attending and directly after VII.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I hate the assumption that someone isn’t “Catholic enough” just because they do not have a large family. I know of a couple that had 2 children and then practiced NFP for a good 15 years before becoming pregnant with a 3rd child (by accident). They then went ahead and had a 4th so that there would be 2 siblings closer in age. They were at this point older parents. I guess my point is if God wills you to have a more, it won’t matter if you are using NFP. God will make sure you have more children.

There also comes the question of what is responsible. Many of you claim that parents can afford more children than they say they can. That is an unfair assumption. Let’s say a couple is living on a school teacher’s salary of 40k a year. 2 or 3 children might be more than doable to care for. However, 8-12 might really be pushing it. Also, what needs do the parents want to take care of for their children? Do they want to pay for each of their children to go to college? If you have 8, it’s not necessarily doable to have a college fund for each and in this day and age, it could be argues that college is a necessity.

We also must keep in mind that 100-200 years ago, it was far more likely for only 3-4 of your 8 children to actually reach adult life. There were so many more illnesses with no medications.

 

[moon1234]

The concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage was saying, was teaching, was wrting officially, I am okay, but only between 1917 (the Code of canon law) to the Vatican II. This is a short period of the story of the church…

This doxa was incomplete or there were many non explicit elements because they were too much evident.

You are confused if you subscribe to organic development. Casti Connubii clearly states:

*"For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights **there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence *which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
"

The secondary ends are always subordinate to the primary end even if the primary end is not possible (Old Age, Health condition, etc.) You can not divorce the primary end from the secondary end on purpose or, as Pope Pius XI states, you frustrate the primary end of marraige.

This concept was developed over centuries and is not something Pope Pius XI just dreamed up and issued of his own opinion.

Humane Vitae, when read through the lens of previous Church teaching, affirms this teaching. It is only when we assume the previous 1960 years of the Church is wrong that we arrive at the current justification for NFP by using a defective interpretation of Humane Vitae.

It is why many traditionalists have big problems with many documents that came out during and after VII. They do NOT, on their face, adhere and rarely reference previous teachings of the Church.

You also can not juxtapose a statement on what marraige is and somehow compare it with a document which deals directly with marraige and family and say “See they are not the same”. One is a basic definition and the other is a disertation on the entire topic.

 

[fpt]

Yes I beleive the Pope can publish a canon law with incorrect theology. It has been done before. Canon law is a man made juridical construct based on man’s understanding of what God has revealed as Truth thru time along with what man understands about that truth. So can a law be wrong, the answer is yes. Can a previously correct law be changed in such a way as to obscure truth, of course. Does this happen? Sure, look at VII and all of the errors that came from it concerning improper interpration of previous ex cathedra statements.

Do you believe that the Vatican II can write wrong doctrines concerning the conjugal moral?

Of course. 100% belief and even the current pontif said the same while he was attending and directly after VII.

According to the Vatican the I st, in moral there is infallibility of the catholic church in council with Pope or of Pope Only . Conjugal moral is a part of the moral, thus the pope can not give us wrong doctrine concerning the sexual ethic in the marriage.

Are you okay with conclusions and not okay with motivations of Humanae Vitae? Are you against Humanae Vitae?

 

[moon1234]

I hate the assumption that someone isn’t “Catholic enough” just because they do not have a large family. I know of a couple that had 2 children and then practiced NFP for a good 15 years before becoming pregnant with a 3rd child (by accident). They then went ahead and had a 4th so that there would be 2 siblings closer in age. They were at this point older parents. I guess my point is if God wills you to have a more, it won’t matter if you are using NFP. God will make sure you have more children.

There also comes the question of what is responsible. Many of you claim that parents can afford more children than they say they can. That is an unfair assumption. Let’s say a couple is living on a school teacher’s salary of 40k a year. 2 or 3 children might be more than doable to care for. However, 8-12 might really be pushing it. Also, what needs do the parents want to take care of for their children? Do they want to pay for each of their children to go to college? If you have 8, it’s not necessarily doable to have a college fund for each and in this day and age, it could be argues that college is a necessity.

We also must keep in mind that 100-200 years ago, it was far more likely for only 3-4 of your 8 children to actually reach adult life. There were so many more illnesses with no medications.

I guess my point is if God wills you to have a more, it won’t matter if you are using NFP. God will make sure you have more children.

That would be the sin of presumption. Assuming if God wants me to be X he will give it to me. The proper order is to say to God, “I place my trust in you”. Not “I place my trust in not having another child unless you really feel I need to have one, in which case you can force it on me while I am trying to avoid it and be happy.”

It is a very different mentality and many people just can NOT trust God. They feel they know better and only if God forces me to have another child, well then I will accept it. We should always be accepting of God’s will for us. It is usually never what we would will for ourselves.

Take St. Maximillian Kolbe for example. A similar analogy would be “I will accept death for this other man if God places the idea into the guards head and he chooses me.” vs. what St. Maximillian Kolbe did in offering himself to save another. True trust in God is number two. If God wanted St. Maximillian Kolbe to remain on earth he would have interceeded for him. It actually was a great gift to St. Maximillian for God to allow him to be with him in heaven at a sooner date.

Being open to life and accepting what happens are two very different approaches.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I guess my point is if God wills you to have a more, it won’t matter if you are using NFP. God will make sure you have more children.

That would be the sin of presumption. Assuming if God wants me to be X he will give it to me. The proper order is to say to God, “I place my trust in you”. Not “I place my trust in not having another child unless you really feel I need to have one, in which case you can force it on me while I am trying to avoid it and be happy.”

It is a very different mentality and many people just can NOT trust God. They feel they know better and only if God forces me to have another child, well then I will accept it. We should always be accepting of God’s will for us. It is usually never what we would will for ourselves.

Take St. Maximillian Kolbe for example. A similar analogy would be “I will accept death for this other man if God places the idea into the guards head and he chooses me.” vs. what St. Maximillian Kolbe did in offering himself to save another. True trust in God is number two. If God wanted St. Maximillian Kolbe to remain on earth he would have interceeded for him. It actually was a great gift to St. Maximillian for God to allow him to be with him in heaven at a sooner date.

Being open to life and accepting what happens are two very different approaches.

NFP is hardly taking extreme measures to block life from happening.

 

[moon1234]

According to the Vatican the I st, in moral there is infallibility of the catholic church in council with Pope or of Pope Only . Conjugal moral is a part of the moral, thus the pope can not give us wrong doctrine concerning the sexual ethic in the marriage.

Are you okay with conclusions and not okay with motivations of Humanae Vitae? Are you against Humanae Vitae?

If you believe what you wrote then you agree with me on the primary and secondary ends of marraige as stated by Pope St. Pius XI, correct? If you do not then you support a heremenuitic of rupture with past Catholic teaching, if though you agree then Humane Vitae, when concerning sexual mores for Catholics is just a long winded restatement of previous Catholic teaching.

What you want to do is divorce the previous teaching of the Church with the current to allow for a use of NFP that was never supported nor is currently supported by those documents.

Do you see now why even prelates in the Church, who do not study their history or have an agenda, issue teachings that are in rupture or seemingly in rupture with the past. It is not until someone points out the potential theological errors in their teaching that they come out and try to be in union with the previous teachings of the Church.

 

[fpt]

You are confused if you subscribe to organic development. Casti Connubii clearly states:

*"For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights **there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence ***which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
"

The secondary ends are always subordinate to the primary end even if the primary end is not possible (Old Age, Health condition, etc.) You can not divorce the primary end from the secondary end on purpose or, as Pope Pius XI states, you frustrate the primary end of marraige.

This concept was developed over centuries and is not something Pope Pius XI just dreamed up and issued of his own opinion.

Humane Vitae, when read through the lens of previous Church teaching, affirms this teaching. It is only when we assume the previous 1960 years of the Church is wrong that we arrive at the current justification for NFP by using a defective interpretation of Humane Vitae.

It is why many traditionalists have big problems with many documents that came out during and after VII. They do NOT, on their face, adhere and rarely reference previous teachings of the Church.

You also can not juxtapose a statement on what marraige is and somehow compare it with a document which deals directly with marraige and family and say “See they are not the same”. One is a basic definition and the other is a disertation on the entire topic.

Today, the catholic church says that both of them are necessary (cumulative conditions).

In Humanae Vitae, the marital act has to be unitive and procreative. Are you okay? There is the same level, no hierarchy.

The same thing in:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent:
But why marriage was instituted is a subject which demands exposition The first reason of its institution is because nature instinctively tends to such a union ; and under the vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support. Another is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God.
and
The Catechism of Saint Pius X:
What is the sacrament of Matrimony?
A. Matrimony is a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, which creates a holy and indissoluble union between a man and woman, and gives them grace to love one another holily and to bring up their children as Christians.

Generally speaking in the catholic theology, when a couple practices the marital act, he is not in the moral obligation to want, to will, to desire and to make a baby. Are you okay with this statement?

Do you think really that the teaching of catholic church on responsible procreation and NFP was and is, per se, only objectively contextual???

 

[moon1234]

NFP is hardly taking extreme measures to block life from happening.

NFP when practiced with a contraceptive mentality, i.e. I want sex, but no children and am trying hard for THAT end, is NOT being open to life.

Why not just take a natural contraceptive like Queen Ann’s Lace. It is just food. If God wants you to have a child, you will.

God allows people to make choices here on earth. He does not impose his will on people. That is why we have free will. We can choose to be open to what his will is or we can choose to not be as open. When we say to God, I don’t want another child and I am going to actively work to avoid any more more unless you force one on me, what does that say to God? That we love him?

Using our sexual powers for just pleasure is not what God made them for. He made sex pleasureable so that we would have an incentive to have more children and enjoy the making of said child. Had God intended sex to be just for pleasure he would have created a seperate organ in our body that would give us the same amount of pleasure without the possibility of having a child.

 

[fpt]

NFP is hardly taking extreme measures to block life from happening.

Could you explain more your thought, please?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

NFP when practiced with a contraceptive mentality, i.e. I want sex, but no children and am trying hard for THAT end, is NOT being open to life.

Why not just take a natural contraceptive like Queen Ann’s Lace. It is just food. If God wants you to have a child, you will.

God allows people to make choices here on earth. He does not impose his will on people. That is why we have free will. We can choose to be open to what his will is or we can choose to not be as open. When we say to God, I don’t want another child and I am going to actively work to avoid any more more unless you force one on me, what does that say to God? That we love him?

Using our sexual powers for just pleasure is not what God made them for. He made sex pleasureable so that we would have an incentive to have more children and enjoy the making of said child. Had God intended sex to be just for pleasure he would have created a seperate organ in our body that would give us the same amount of pleasure without the possibility of having a child.

Sex to renew the union with our spouse can be the purpose of NFP while not trying for a child. It is not logical to become pregnant every time one has sex with one’s spouse. NFP does not block bodily functions from happening (as a contraceptive does). NFP is basically saying “Your will be done.” in my opinion. Jesus did not want to die on the cross either but said to his father, if you will it, let it be done.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Could you explain more your thought, please?

It is not uncommon for a woman’s cycle to become just slightly off and to miscalculate when actual fertility is. Sure, you can get pregnant on the pill, but you are putting a chemical in your body to shut down a natural process. A condom puts up a barrier. Sterilization destroys the process entirely. NFP does no such thing; it puts a lot more trust in God because the couple isn’t using any external source to inhibit the reproductive process. They just aren’t engaging in marital relations during likely fertile times. However, why do you think sex ed teaches that you can even end up pregnant on your period? Because you can (though the likelihood is much lower than mid-cycle).

 

[fpt]

I guess my point is if God wills you to have a more, it won’t matter if you are using NFP. God will make sure you have more children.

That would be the sin of presumption. Assuming if God wants me to be X he will give it to me. The proper order is to say to God, “I place my trust in you”. Not “I place my trust in not having another child unless you really feel I need to have one, in which case you can force it on me while I am trying to avoid it and be happy.”

It is a very different mentality and many people just can NOT trust God. They feel they know better and only if God forces me to have another child, well then I will accept it. We should always be accepting of God’s will for us. It is usually never what we would will for ourselves.

Take St. Maximillian Kolbe for example. A similar analogy would be “I will accept death for this other man if God places the idea into the guards head and he chooses me.” vs. what St. Maximillian Kolbe did in offering himself to save another. True trust in God is number two. If God wanted St. Maximillian Kolbe to remain on earth he would have interceeded for him. It actually was a great gift to St. Maximillian for God to allow him to be with him in heaven at a sooner date.

Being open to life and accepting what happens are two very different approaches. Could you explain to me the diffrence.

What is the diffrence between " Being open to life and accepting what happens about the arrival of baby"?