B
budgie2
Guest
Condoms are one of the better forms of contraception but as an ex-condom user I wouldn’t go back. Sex is nicer without condoms.
- Status
L
LucyLight
Guest
This is an old thread so I know I may not get a response.
Anyways, I have a question regarding my own situation. I am a mother of 3 children. After having 3 difficult pregnancys that thankfully all resulted in the birth of my children it was discovered that I have an underlying health condition and that I am lucky that my children and I survived. I go to a prolife Catholic physician who is very pro-family and against birthcontrol. He has advised me to practice NFP in phase 3 only (more restrictive than most forms of NFP) because If I get pregnant again my baby and I might both die.
So that is what my husband and I practice. What I struggle with is, during the fertile time of my cycle I am naturally drawn toward my husband and I am in the mood for sex
. He also is more drawn to me (pheromones or something). I continue to practice NFP but it is difficult to think that I will never be able to have sex with my husband again during this time of the month when It is most natural to do so. My question is: what is the difference between using a condom and NFP. If we were to use a condom he is keeping his fertility from me but when we use NFP I am keeping my fertility from him. I am no theologian and I am not arguing with the Church. I just would have more peace with the issue If I understood it better.
And for the record if I were to become pregnant I would, of course, have the baby. I believe abortion and ABC is murder. And I do not have a “contraception mentality” …I wish that I could have more children. Any help with this is appreciated.
Anyways, I have a question regarding my own situation. I am a mother of 3 children. After having 3 difficult pregnancys that thankfully all resulted in the birth of my children it was discovered that I have an underlying health condition and that I am lucky that my children and I survived. I go to a prolife Catholic physician who is very pro-family and against birthcontrol. He has advised me to practice NFP in phase 3 only (more restrictive than most forms of NFP) because If I get pregnant again my baby and I might both die.
So that is what my husband and I practice. What I struggle with is, during the fertile time of my cycle I am naturally drawn toward my husband and I am in the mood for sex
. He also is more drawn to me (pheromones or something). I continue to practice NFP but it is difficult to think that I will never be able to have sex with my husband again during this time of the month when It is most natural to do so. My question is: what is the difference between using a condom and NFP. If we were to use a condom he is keeping his fertility from me but when we use NFP I am keeping my fertility from him. I am no theologian and I am not arguing with the Church. I just would have more peace with the issue If I understood it better.And for the record if I were to become pregnant I would, of course, have the baby. I believe abortion and ABC is murder. And I do not have a “contraception mentality” …I wish that I could have more children. Any help with this is appreciated.
M
MariaTS
Guest
Condoms aren’t wrong.
A
Abu
Guest
Since when did Christ give you His authority to trump His Magisterium?
Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930, which as we have seen (Post #139) teaches infallibly (# 56) that “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.”
LucyLight
The use of condoms is gravely wrong simply because the morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.
As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate.
As you know God has not condemned the use of the marital act through Christ and His Church during the infertility of old age.
My prayer is with you and your husband for health, and fidelity to Our Lord and Saviour.
L
LucyLight
Guest
Thank you for your responses!
Abu, the below quotes make sense to me:
“As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate.”
“As you know God has not condemned the use of the marital act through Christ and His Church during the infertility of old age”
What I need to stew over some more is this part:
“The use of condoms is gravely wrong simply because the morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.”
I actually find NFP to be quite efficient and pretty simple to use. My intentions are to be with my husband in a unitive way but when I practice NFP I am also intending to do so and not get pregnant. Am I not also frustrating the primary purpose of the act?
On another note NFP is soooo much easier if practiced for smaller periods of time with the intention of spacing children. I am fairly young and have many years of fertility ahead of me and feel sad that I can’t be with my husband during my fertile times when I feel so much closer to him (and in the mood). However, I know that our Lord requires sacrafice and just because something is difficult does not mean that I get to play by different rules. I am going to think more about what you said and hopefully answer some of my own questions. Thanks.
Abu, the below quotes make sense to me:
“As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate.”
“As you know God has not condemned the use of the marital act through Christ and His Church during the infertility of old age”
What I need to stew over some more is this part:
“The use of condoms is gravely wrong simply because the morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.”
I actually find NFP to be quite efficient and pretty simple to use. My intentions are to be with my husband in a unitive way but when I practice NFP I am also intending to do so and not get pregnant. Am I not also frustrating the primary purpose of the act?
On another note NFP is soooo much easier if practiced for smaller periods of time with the intention of spacing children. I am fairly young and have many years of fertility ahead of me and feel sad that I can’t be with my husband during my fertile times when I feel so much closer to him (and in the mood). However, I know that our Lord requires sacrafice and just because something is difficult does not mean that I get to play by different rules. I am going to think more about what you said and hopefully answer some of my own questions. Thanks.
A
Abu
Guest
I hope the following will help. In particular, you can ask questions at EWTN, as well as look at many answers, by going to:
ewtn.com/vexperts/conference.htm
Pope Paul in Humanae Vitae 11, in a little studied section of the encyclical, when commenting on abstinence among married couples wrote: “The discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence; husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one’s partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility.”
How true – self-control is enhanced, the warp and woof of developing fidelity to Christ and neighbour.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=583694&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=NFP&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=35&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ID+DESC&start_at=
Husband and Wife Unity - Continuation
Answer by Judie Brown on Oct-11-2009(EWTN):
Excerpt:
“Yes, the Church has said that sexual acts must be open to procreation. That means that men/women are not free to block that process. If procreation is impossible because of a natural process (menopause or during pregnancy) or a disease process, then Nature has made procreation impossible, not man. Therefore it follows that sexual relations in these circumstances are entirely moral. I hope this helps.”
Anthony N Dardano, MD, FACOG, FACS
Answer by NFP Outreach on April-21-2008 (EWTN):
“NFP is different because there is no alteration of the body and because the spouses are giving themselves totally as they are at that moment with nothing held back. They MAY know they are infertile, but that is by God’s design and not by their falsifying their love or altering one or both of their bodies.”
Answer by Judie Brown on Nov-19-2007:
“…for the couple with a noble desire [sufficient reason. Abu] to avoid pregnancy, there is nothing blameworthy in waiting patiently for the natural time of infertility, and even rejoicing that God has granted a time of infertility. But it would be quite another thing for the couple to take the powers of life into their own hands and render themselves sterile because they cannot bear the suffering of abstinence.”
T
Truthlover
Guest
Abu you write in post *244:
And the definitive infallible teaching is:
Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930:
“56. 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.”
NFP contradicts this statement; not performing an act clearly ensures “that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life.” As does part of your quote from Humanae Vitae 14:
“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”
By refraining from an act you prevent its performance “before” sexual intercourse.
Abu you still do not see the obvious. In your last paragraph you quote:
“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.”
Please reread this sentence; we “ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.” Not that we must “obey” but that we must “attend”; there is a huge difference, as big as the difference between “fallible” and “infallible”. You form your conscience by attending to, among other things, church doctrine. Otherwise there would be no need for a conscience and the bishops at the Council would have used “obey” and not “attend”.
I would be interested in hearing your opinion, Abu, on the purpose of a conscience.
And the definitive infallible teaching is:
Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930:
“56. 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.”
NFP contradicts this statement; not performing an act clearly ensures “that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life.” As does part of your quote from Humanae Vitae 14:
“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”
By refraining from an act you prevent its performance “before” sexual intercourse.
Abu you still do not see the obvious. In your last paragraph you quote:
“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.”
Please reread this sentence; we “ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.” Not that we must “obey” but that we must “attend”; there is a huge difference, as big as the difference between “fallible” and “infallible”. You form your conscience by attending to, among other things, church doctrine. Otherwise there would be no need for a conscience and the bishops at the Council would have used “obey” and not “attend”.
I would be interested in hearing your opinion, Abu, on the purpose of a conscience.
T
Truthlover
Guest
Abu,
Your post in *260 informs Lucylight that:
“God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children”
Whereas Humanae Vitae states:
“Union and Procreation
Under NFP the church advises Lucylight not to have sex when fertile – thus avoiding the procreative significance and, due to the “inseperable connection”, also destroying the unitive significance. The church tells Ll that it is permissible to purposely avoid both aspects when fertile, yet tells her it is wrong to avoid one aspect only, procreation , while sustaining the unitive significance by means of, say, use of a NAC. In fact, there is more of the procreative significance present when using a NAC than with NFP, demonstrated by the higher contraceptive success rate of NFP.
We are faced with the situation that there are two possibilities that could arise:
Chastity can be observed better by a couple using NAC as they can voluntarily agree when not to have sex. Under NFP not having sex is part of NFP and not chastity, unless the couple agree not to have sex on the non-fertile days.
I am afraid that this is, unfortunately, an example of:
“For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.” Mt 23:4
Your post in *260 informs Lucylight that:
“God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children”
Whereas Humanae Vitae states:
“Union and Procreation
- This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
Under NFP the church advises Lucylight not to have sex when fertile – thus avoiding the procreative significance and, due to the “inseperable connection”, also destroying the unitive significance. The church tells Ll that it is permissible to purposely avoid both aspects when fertile, yet tells her it is wrong to avoid one aspect only, procreation , while sustaining the unitive significance by means of, say, use of a NAC. In fact, there is more of the procreative significance present when using a NAC than with NFP, demonstrated by the higher contraceptive success rate of NFP.
We are faced with the situation that there are two possibilities that could arise:
- Ll uses NFP in a particular month – she minimises the procreative significance to avoid danger and hence the unitive significance falls as she cannot make love when she most feels like it. Hence, the procreative significance is minimal and the unitive significance is not maximised.
- Ll uses NAC – she minimises the procreative significance to avoid danger, but the unitive significance is higher as she and her husband make love when she most feels like it. Hence, while the procreative significance is minimal it is higher than under NFP and the unitive significance is maximised.
- Make love using NAC. They maximise the unitive significance and, while small, there is still a procreative significance.
- Stick to NFP and do not make love, against their natural God-given inclination. There is no unitive significance and no procreative significance.
Chastity can be observed better by a couple using NAC as they can voluntarily agree when not to have sex. Under NFP not having sex is part of NFP and not chastity, unless the couple agree not to have sex on the non-fertile days.
I am afraid that this is, unfortunately, an example of:
“For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.” Mt 23:4
A
Abu
Guest
- You ought to be afraid for your sole attention has been to support the dissenting theologians who play at magisterium, and the majority report of the Commission established by Pope John XXIII to determine the morality of the Pill and expanded by Pope Paul VI, of which a majority chose to dissent from *Casti Connubii *of Pope Pius XI, and a minority remained faithful.
- The hypocrisy condemned by Jesus in Mt 23:4 relates to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in burdening others but not themselves, while Jesus teaches through His Church “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Mt 11:30).
- You wouldn’t even know that marriage is a sacrament without Christ’s Church, yet you deny Christ by rubbishing His Magisterium and setting yourself up as an oracle.
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.
A
Abu
Guest
- Your infatuation with “opinion” on conscience reveals the source of your error.
As Msgr Cormac P Burke (Law and Dissent, 1985) points out, for the Catholic, there is never a conflict between the authority of the Church and conscience, because belief that Christ has given His Church authority to teach without error is part of his conscience, freely accepted. According to Canon 205, Catholics are those in full communion with the Church through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.
He cannot escape the conclusion that his contrary opinion must be mistaken, as he would be acknowledging the accepted fact of the fallibility of conscience – it does not make truth. He then has to see where he has been mistaken, to reflect more deeply on the arguments for the Church’s teaching. If he feels that he is not mistaken, then he must conclude that Christ’s Church is mistaken and naturally his faith in Christ and His Church has started to collapse.
He has no grounds then to believe in any truths – the sacraments (especially the Eucharist), or in Her worship or any other aspect of Her life. Such a Catholic needs the counsel of a faithful priest.
A
Abu
Guest
Christ’s Church doesn’t “advise” She proclaims the uninterrupted Christian tradition-- Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930:
“56. 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.”
Deliberately evaded is the fact that Christ’s Church has always, uninterruptedly, taught against contraception and Onan was killed by God for his act of contraception.
It takes a very naïve or misinformed individual to fantasize that Christ is wrong and he is right. Similarly to feel (can’t call it think) that the unitive significance is “destroyed” when NBR is used, for if procreation is impossible because of a natural process (menopause or during pregnancy or infertile period) or a disease process, then God has made procreation impossible, not man. The difference is between using our God-given nature wisely, against deliberately placing a barrier to avoid the consequences whenever we choose to act.
Pope Paul in Humanae Vitae 11 when commenting on abstinence among married couples wrote: “The discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence; husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one’s partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility.”
Self-control is enhanced, the warp and woof of developing fidelity to Christ and neighbour.
C
casey_zia
Guest
I’m not sure what “phase 3” is in your practice of NFP, but I assume it’s post-ovulation. It is more restrictive than using the pre-ovulatory times with the rules of your method of NFP, but it sounds like you have reasons to absolutely avoid pregnancy.He has advised me to practice NFP in phase 3 only (more restrictive than most forms of NFP) because If I get pregnant again my baby and I might both die. So that is what my husband and I practice. What I struggle with is, during the fertile time of my cycle I am naturally drawn toward my husband and I am in the mood for sex
Of course you struggle through the fertile times; our bodies say “yes!” and it’s our reason and will that have to override the impulses for the greater good. We encourage sexual self control outside of marriage, and you and your husband, for a very good reason, are practicing self control within marriage, in the fertile days of your cycle. This is do-able, and you are not alone in this long-term struggle.
In your practice of NFP, you are not keeping your fertility from your husband! In abstaining from intercourse in your fertile phase, you are both honoring your fertility, and responsibly and morally making choices to avoid pregnancy. You are using your God-given infertile phase to share your conjugal love, totally respecting and in tune with your fertility!
And on a practical note, the use of a condom (the lowest-efficacy rate for contraceptive practices) during your fertile days brings a relatively high risk of getting pregnant. If the pregnancy rate among condom users (and this would be throughout all phases of a woman’s cycle, both fertile and infertile) ranges from 10–18% per year, what’s the pregnancy rate when used in conjunction with a fertile phase? It’s a bad combination, and accounts for “NFP failure” rates (in avoiding pregnancy); it’s not really the NFP that fails the couple when they choose to use their most fertile time to engage in sex with contraceptives.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Hi truthy:
procreative significance: what do you mean by this term? It appears that you mean “chance of conception” or something like that. Am I close? Not trying to give you a hard time, but unless we all understand what the terms we are using mean, we’ll all get confused.
It seems to me that follow your logic in the recent series of posts one would have to conclude that the only acceptable time for intercourse is when the female is fertile, or else the amorphous “procreative significance” would be lost. So, sterile/postmenopausal/pregnant couples cannot engage in the act? It seems that is the conclusion of your logic.
TL: there is more procreative significance with NAC than with NFP
This is precisely wrong. It’s also why I think the use of the term “procreative significance” is not accurate. Having a chance of conceiving is not the same as maintaining the procreative nature of the act. One cannot on the one hand take a deliberate action by which one frustrates one’s or one’s partner’s fertility and at the same time say they are maintaining the procreative character of the act. Put another way, effectiveness does not determine whether an act of intercourse is ordered to life. Have you read or heard any Janet Smith on this topic?
procreative significance: what do you mean by this term? It appears that you mean “chance of conception” or something like that. Am I close? Not trying to give you a hard time, but unless we all understand what the terms we are using mean, we’ll all get confused.
It seems to me that follow your logic in the recent series of posts one would have to conclude that the only acceptable time for intercourse is when the female is fertile, or else the amorphous “procreative significance” would be lost. So, sterile/postmenopausal/pregnant couples cannot engage in the act? It seems that is the conclusion of your logic.
TL: there is more procreative significance with NAC than with NFP
This is precisely wrong. It’s also why I think the use of the term “procreative significance” is not accurate. Having a chance of conceiving is not the same as maintaining the procreative nature of the act. One cannot on the one hand take a deliberate action by which one frustrates one’s or one’s partner’s fertility and at the same time say they are maintaining the procreative character of the act. Put another way, effectiveness does not determine whether an act of intercourse is ordered to life. Have you read or heard any Janet Smith on this topic?
T
Truthlover
Guest
Hi choose,
If you read my post #264 you will see the term “procreative significance” is not mine but Pope Paul VI’s in HV 12.
Your point in the last paragraph:
“One cannot on the one hand take a deliberate action by which one frustrates one’s or one’s partner’s fertility and at the same time say they are maintaining the procreative character of the act.”
This is exactly what one does under NFP to avoid pregnancy; the “deliberate action” being the avoidance of sex during the fertile period which really frustrates one’s or one’s partner’s fertility.
If you read my post #264 you will see the term “procreative significance” is not mine but Pope Paul VI’s in HV 12.
Your point in the last paragraph:
“One cannot on the one hand take a deliberate action by which one frustrates one’s or one’s partner’s fertility and at the same time say they are maintaining the procreative character of the act.”
This is exactly what one does under NFP to avoid pregnancy; the “deliberate action” being the avoidance of sex during the fertile period which really frustrates one’s or one’s partner’s fertility.
T
Truthlover
Guest
Abu,
Regarding your three points:
“1) You ought to be afraid for your sole attention has been to support the dissenting theologians who play at magisterium, and the majority report of the Commission established by Pope John XXIII to determine the morality of the Pill and expanded by Pope Paul VI, of which a majority chose to dissent from Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, and a minority remained faithful.
2) The hypocrisy condemned by Jesus in Mt 23:4 relates to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in burdening others but not themselves, while Jesus teaches through His Church “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Mt 11:30).
3) You wouldn’t even know that marriage is a sacrament without Christ’s Church, yet you deny Christ by rubbishing His Magisterium and setting yourself up as an oracle.”
I would make the following comments:
Regarding your three points:
“1) You ought to be afraid for your sole attention has been to support the dissenting theologians who play at magisterium, and the majority report of the Commission established by Pope John XXIII to determine the morality of the Pill and expanded by Pope Paul VI, of which a majority chose to dissent from Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, and a minority remained faithful.
2) The hypocrisy condemned by Jesus in Mt 23:4 relates to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in burdening others but not themselves, while Jesus teaches through His Church “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Mt 11:30).
3) You wouldn’t even know that marriage is a sacrament without Christ’s Church, yet you deny Christ by rubbishing His Magisterium and setting yourself up as an oracle.”
I would make the following comments:
- The members of the Commission, who were not all theologians, were asked to listen to the Holy Spirit and to report on the truth of the situation. The Commission advocated limited contraception. The minority went outside their remit to issue a dissenting report.
- This is my point exactly “hypocrisy of the Pharisees in burdening others but not themselves”; just replace “Pharisees” with “hierarchy.” Hmm, your quote is correct. Jesus said:” For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Mt 11:30). This is what Jesus taught, not what He taught through the church.
- The Holy Spirit guides the church and when it veers off course He guides it back on course. Abu, try to be moderate; I have never and never will rubbish the Magisterium of my church, but I will not elevate it to the same level as Jesus.
C
casey_zia
Guest
Can someone explain what “NAC” is? Thanks.
T
Truthlover
Guest
Hi Casey,
NAC means Non Abortive Contraception
NAC means Non Abortive Contraception
C
choose_to_love
Guest
casey, I think NAC in this context is “non-abortive contraceptive”, but am open to correction by truthlover.
T
Truthlover
Guest
Hi choose,
That’s ok and there is also the term Non-abortifacient Contraception.
That’s ok and there is also the term Non-abortifacient Contraception.
T
Truthlover
Guest
Abu,
Once again you are not being moderate ( post #266).
Cardinal Suenens, in his book Coresponsibility in the Church, Burns & Oates, London, 1968, pg128, wrote that:
“It is perfectly normal that there be public opinion in the church, and normal too that it express itself. Pius XII, recognizing its right to existence, once said:
No one should be surprised at this fact, except those who do not know the church, or know it fully. For the church is a living body, and there would be something lacking to its life if public opinion were absent, and the blame for this absence would be shared by both pastors and the faithful.”
I have no problem, Abu, with you voicing your opinion. I would request, however, that you allow me to voice mine, without insults.
Once again you are not being moderate ( post #266).
Cardinal Suenens, in his book Coresponsibility in the Church, Burns & Oates, London, 1968, pg128, wrote that:
“It is perfectly normal that there be public opinion in the church, and normal too that it express itself. Pius XII, recognizing its right to existence, once said:
No one should be surprised at this fact, except those who do not know the church, or know it fully. For the church is a living body, and there would be something lacking to its life if public opinion were absent, and the blame for this absence would be shared by both pastors and the faithful.”
I have no problem, Abu, with you voicing your opinion. I would request, however, that you allow me to voice mine, without insults.
- Status