The purpose of NFP is two fold, first it inform a couple when they are fertile, so that they might concieve.Thanks
But I think you missed something, what is the purpose of NFP, and how does it differ from the couple using a condom in purpose or intent?
The intent may be exactly the same and good. The means differ profoudly.Thanks
But I think you missed something, what is the purpose of NFP, and how does it differ from the couple using a condom in purpose or intent?
**Vatican office clarifies: teaching on condoms and AIDS will not change
**Vatican City, Apr. 24, 2006 (CNA) - An official from the Pontifical Council for Health and Pastoral Care, presided by Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, made it clear today that the recent interview given by the Mexican prelate to the Italian daily La Reppublica, doesn’t hint at any change in the doctrine of the Church on the use of condoms to fight Aids…
Nevertheless, Msgr. Antonio Soto Guerrero, personal secretary of Cardinal Lozano Barragán, and member of the Pontifical Council for Health, told CNA that “the Doctrine of the Church remains firmly within the principles of Catholic moral. Facing AIDS, there is abstinence; we cannot forget that the issue has to do in large parts to a moral disorder facing the seventh commandment…
You are in my prayers.
The purpose of NFP is two fold, first it inform a couple when they are fertile, so that they might concieve.
Secondly, it will allow a couple who have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy at that time to do so.
As for the differences between that and condom use, it lies in the method, not the goal.
See my post above (#30)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1492787&postcount=30
Thank you, now we agree, so my issue is: When was intent relegated below method (action) in other Catholic teachings?The intent may be exactly the same and good. The means differ profoudly.
Roofer, you are right. NFP can be used with sinful intent… NFP is not a license to limit your family for frivolous reasons. It provides a licit means for people who MUST avoid pregnancy (like DaughterSorrow who posted above) to do so. In this case the “intent” is to protect her life.Thank you, now we agree, so my issue is: When was intent relegated below method (action) in other Catholic teachings?
I offer this from Veritatis splendorThank you, now we agree, so my issue is: When was intent relegated below method (action) in other Catholic teachings?
…Consequently, as the* Catechism of the Catholic Church *teaches, “there are certain specific kinds of behaviour that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil”.127…
The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether that object is *capable or not of being ordered *to God, to the One who “alone is good”, and thus brings about the perfection of the person. An act is therefore good if its object is in conformity with the good of the person with respect for the goods morally relevant for him…
The intent to space children, or not have any, may be a licit goal. If the means to achieve such a goal include intentionally rendering the marital act sterile then such a means is illicit.With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general”.133…
I offer this from Veritatis splendor
The intent to space children, or not have any, may be a licit goal. If the means to achieve such a goal include intentionally rendering the marital act sterile then such a means is illicit.
We are closer; now show why NFP is morally neutralMercygate is quite correct.
Catholic Moral Theology looks at both Method and Intent and both MUST be either a Moral Good or at least Morally Neutral for the actio to be justified.
Evil intent is always sinful (even for a good method). An evil method used with a good intent is likewise sinful.
The use of NFP (morally neutral) with a good intent ( spacing of pregnancy for serious reasons) is morally justified.
The use of NFP (morally neutral) with an evil intent ( selfish denial of children) would be an evil act.
NFP does not actively DO something to CONTRA-cept. You are not actively altering or obstructing a natural human act of intercourse. Not having intercourse is different from altering the sexual act by using a barrier, chemicals, or even “natural” means such as coitus interruptus.We are closer; now show why NFP is morally neutral
Properly used, NFP cooperates with God’s natural and revealed moral law. ABC, however used, frustrates, contra-indicates, and violates God’s natural and revealed moral law.We are closer; now show why NFP is morally neutral
For one thing when the couple engages in the marital act nothing is done to frustrate the procreative aspect. The act is complete and unaltered.We are closer; now show why NFP is morally neutral
NFP does not actively DO something to CONTRA-cept. You are not actively altering or obstructing a natural human act of intercourse. Not having intercourse is different from altering the sexual act by using a barrier, chemicals, or even “natural” means such as coitus interruptus.
Properly used, NFP cooperates with God’s natural and revealed moral law. ABC, however used, frustrates, contra-indicates, and violates God’s natural and revealed moral law.
Thanks ( I think)For one thing when the couple engages in the marital act nothing is done to frustrate the procreative aspect. The act is complete and unaltered.
Excellent post! However, you could take the trusting in God to its complete extreme and be a Christian Scientist - never taking your kids to the doctor when the need to be healed.OP,
I am a convert too and here is my understanding of contraception:
We, as Christians, say we put all of our faith and trust in God in every aspect of our lives right? At least, if we are indeed Christians we’re supposed too. So, why, if we can trust God to answer prayers and help us in every other way, can we not trust him in matters of reproduction? By using condoms or any other means of contraception are we not simply telling God “I don’t trust you enough to handle this part of my life.”? I used to be on birth control and got off of it after realizing this. Marriage is a blessing and covenant we enter into not only with the other person but with God. If we can trust God with everything then thats what we should do. Instead of listening to our society as they attempt, as always, to be God in every way they can by controlling as much as they can. If we condone the prevention of life by not trusting God to control reproduction then we might as well also condone preventing life in other ways our society has deemed fit(such as abortion). It may not all be exactly the same, but it all has the same purpose…and it is all completely against putting any trust in God and only trusting ourselves.
Just my thoughts and how I’ve began to see it.
Please reread post #31Excellent post! However, you could take the trusting in God to its complete extreme and be a Christian Scientist - never taking your kids to the doctor when the need to be healed.
It would be interesting to see how the line is drawn on a slipperly slope such as this.
Peace,
DS
This post indicates if you as a Catholic have a problem with NFP, that shouldn’t keep you from being the in the church. I don’t see how it relates to my slippery slope comment. Maybe it’s late in the day…Please reread post #31
I can easily see how it can be explained without any focus on ‘alternatives’.Thanks ( I think)
We seem to be circling again why? If NFP is morally neutral that should be easily explained without focus on alternatives.
As opposed to what, morally evil or a moral good?Why is NFP morally neutral?
I don’t understand your use of “Nothing” here. I see NFP as a method with two possible moral goals.If NFP is actually doing NOTHING would it be NFP?, how would so much work be put in to doing nothing?
Very good point! It can be a slippery slope. I guess where to draw the line is simply up to the inidividual to decide. I do know people who take it to the extreme. Its often hard to find that middle ground.Excellent post! However, you could take the trusting in God to its complete extreme and be a Christian Scientist - never taking your kids to the doctor when the need to be healed.
It would be interesting to see how the line is drawn on a slipperly slope such as this.
Peace,
DS
I think in #31 the poster is giving examples of those who try to take it to an extreme by saying those who do not support NFP should leave the Church. That is a bit extreme.This post indicates if you as a Catholic have a problem with NFP, that shouldn’t keep you from being the in the church. I don’t see how it relates to my slippery slope comment. Maybe it’s late in the day…
Peace!
DS