Why NFP rather than condoms, sponge, etc.?

[jack_hawkins]

I’m not going to try to debate with you regarding this topic…not going to even try. But I had to say something about this post. Understand that the Church is God’s mouthpiece (whether you agree with this or not). If I believe everything the Church teaches, which I do, this means that I believe everything that Christ teaches. That’s our belief. Dr. Hawkins, be careful not to let your intellect get in the way of your moral judgment. The world doesn’t need more intellectuals today. It needs more people who are willing to stand up for Christ.

My intellect is in no way getting in the way of my moral judgment. If I was persuaded that the Church made sense on certain issues, then I would be persuaded it was infallible. I am very willing to stand up for Christ, actually probably more than some cradle Catholics who don’t question what the Church teaches. It would be much easier to not question, believe me.

 

[wanner47]

My intellect is in no way getting in the way of my moral judgment. If I was persuaded that the Church made sense on certain issues, then I would be persuaded it was infallible. I am very willing to stand up for Christ, actually probably more than some cradle Catholics who don’t question what the Church teaches. It would be much easier to not question, believe me.

“Made sense” based on whose standards?

 

[Jennifer_J]

My intellect is in no way getting in the way of my moral judgment. If I was persuaded that the Church made sense on certain issues, then I would be persuaded it was infallible. I am very willing to stand up for Christ, actually probably more than some cradle Catholics who don’t question what the Church teaches. It would be much easier to not question, believe me.

I’m a convert. Used to be Baptist. Not everyone on this site is a “cradle” Catholic and there are a fair amount of “cradle” Catholics who know, understand and can explain the faith quite well. One needs not question Church teaching to understand it. One should, however, study it so they understand it…

Jennifer

 

[PLAL]

Dr. Janet Smith wrote this excellent article called “Contraception Why Not”. It’s a MUST READ for EVERYONE…

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

 

[BigE]

REALLY??? You trully believe that?

Abortion: predators against the young.

Territorial violence…happens everyday. Children in uganda are stolen to become trained killers.

There is no population overflow. We are making ourselves extinct.

I think you missed my point.

All I was trying to say was that just because something is natural in the animal world - doesn’t mean that it should translate to humanity. Your examples are exactly what I meant.

A previous poster forwarded the argument that in essence said contraception must not be good because no one in the animal world does it.

 

[BigE]

I would like to add to LittleDeb’s beautiful post, that coming together in the martial embrace knowing that life is truly possible makes that act even more special–a true reminder of our marriage vows. Our use of NFP has truly opened us to having children and welcoming them joyfully. There is no “worry of pregnancy”, for us at least. When you engage in the marital embrace, you must admit that the end result could be a baby–that’s how it works When we contracepted before converting, the marital embrace was not like that at all.

God bless,
Jennifer

That’s wonderful. And your blessed to feel that way.

But if a couple has a different perspective and uses contraception - do you really consider that an “evil” act just because they don’t feel the way you do?.

Or are they simply not getting as much out of their marital embrace as they could? (which I don’t think should be considered a sin).

 

[BigE]

Originally Posted by BigE
Your argument here is valid only if I was arguing for the use of contraceptive sex 100% of the time. Let’s pick an extreme example. What if the Church said contraceptives were ok only after a family has had eight children. Your continuation of the species argument goes away. Now how do you feel about contraception?

All children are a beautiful, unique gift from God-a ninth child does not lose their value simply because of the position they are born into the family.This is perhaps why the church does not say that contraceptives are OK after a certain number, as it would imply that only certain people deserve to be here.

Again, I agree 100%.

I was responding to one particuliar argument. To those who say contraception is bad because it kills population growth.

My response was an example to say if families have many kids (so that the population growth argument goes away) - and then use contraception, why is it still evil?

That was my only point.

 

[BigE]

Please do your homework as you are incorrect that the church “taught wrongly” on any of these subjects

.

Then why did the Pope publicly apologize for what the Church did to Galileo and the Jews?

And, you are not quite there regarding the Church’s infallibility if you don’t.

I’m not sure about that. I think you may be the one “not quite there”.

This is also inaccurate.

Your saying the teaching on contraception has been declared infallible? Infallible with a big “I”? Please show me where the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra on this issue?

 

[BigE]

There is a big difference between “error” or “mistake” as opposed to the doctrine of “infallibility”.
In your list you mentioned the Galileo affair, which is not a case of Church error or Papal infallibility. The facts of the case are:

In the Galileo affair, it should be noted that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained – which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.

Citing all facts of the matter and all the rest of broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. What you have are cases showing incompetence of a group of people of the cloth, not the whole church.

So then back to my original point.

1. The church HAS made errors in teachings not declared infallible.
2. Contraception has never been declared infallible (Ex Cathedra)
3. So there is the possibility that the church teaching on this could be in error.

 

[BigE]

I have been silently reading along and have appreciated your candor and polite exchange in what can be a hot topic.

If I may jump in and comment here. The part I quoted here deserves attention. You might be on to a deeper understanding if you think and pray on this further. Those of us who periodically abstain during fertility, (what the Church is actually addressing in Her documents not the knowledge of fertility) we don’t “worry” about pregnancy. Many non-NFP folks misunderstand that. We rejoice at pregnancy! It is God who helps us to know when He wants us to be together. Charting helps in understanding God’s will for us. Those who use the “wing it” method are fine without that understanding. God has different plans for each of us, but His plan doesn’t involve taking His will out of the act.

An unhealed post-partum woman is not best loved by sexual intercourse. A person with Alzheimer’s and doesn’t know his or her spouse is not best loved by sexual intercourse. I am not best loved if my husband were to cut work and lose his job to stay home and have sex.

Sex is not the only way to express love. Sometimes abstinence can be just as loving or more so. God doesn’t want the unmarried to have sex. Why not? Because that is not part of His design. Are the unmarried less loving? Are the married celibates less loving because one spouse is no longer able to have sex? Of course not.

Consummation is a renewal of our wedding vows. I agree that those vows need to be expressed often and with great enthusiasm!
For better/worse, richer/poorer, sickness/health, love, honor, cherish, all the days of our lives. Is sexual intercourse always the answer? Not having sex can sometimes be the deepest way to say, “I love and respect all of you and all of me.”

Little Deb. Truly a beautiful post. And I want to keep saying this - I don’t disagree that NFP may deepen a couples love. I’m not in a position to argue that.

I also agree that no sex may deepen a couples love.

But does that mean if a couple chooses a different path - that the “the act” of contraception is evil?

I just don’t see it.

 

[BigE]

Those of you having a hard time understanding what the Church teaches regarding contraception/sexuality/purpose of marital embrace: Have you actually read any of the Church documents on said subject??? If no, then stop arguing and start reading!!!
Here’s a short list:
Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#I,
Humane Vitae vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Casti Connubii
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality
newadvent.org/library/docs_cf9601.htm
Deus Caritas Est
wf-f.org/DeusCaritasEst.html
Evangelum Vitae
wf-f.org/EvangeliumVitae.html
Familiaris consortio
wf-f.org/FamCons.html
Theology of the Body
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
(have I forgotten any?)

If you’ve read these and still don’t understand, stop reading and start praying for understanding. I find it amazing that just because we “think” the Church is wrong, we throw out 2000+ years of Church teaching because we don’t understand and refuse to submit and will only argue. Read, study, contemplate, pray.

God bless,
Jennifer

You are right. No church teaching should just be willy nilly discarded.

I am reading. I am praying. I am trying to understand.

These discussions are part of that due diligence.

But I could still come to the conclusion I think the church is wrong on this issue.

 

[BigE]

By saying that the church must be right because of authority and tradition, you push people who find the opinions expressed illogical into believing that the church is unreliable on everything. The church hasn’t been expressing an opinion on modern contraception for 2000 years, that is clear. Oral contraception is a modern discoveyr.

Not only that. But if the church is “always right” in everything - it never allows for change. Sometimes change is needed. The church is a living, growing, maturing expression of God’s love.

She is after all a human institution, and therefore prone to sin and error as we all are. I truly believe she gets it right it the long run. But the path to truth is not always a straight line.

 

[jack_hawkins]

“Made sense” based on whose standards?

based on the standards of internal consistency?
whose standards would you take?

 

[jack_hawkins]

I’m a convert. Used to be Baptist. Not everyone on this site is a “cradle” Catholic and there are a fair amount of “cradle” Catholics who know, understand and can explain the faith quite well. One needs not question Church teaching to understand it. One should, however, study it so they understand it…

Jennifer

How much studying of this do you think I’ve done?
How much studying of the medical side have I done? Naturally in more depth than most people here even tho I don’t practise in that area

 

[jack_hawkins]

Not only that. But if the church is “always right” in everything - it never allows for change. Sometimes change is needed. The church is a living, growing, maturing expression of God’s love.

She is after all a human institution, and therefore prone to sin and error as we all are. I truly believe she gets it right it the long run. But the path to truth is not always a straight line.

Absolutely!
In Islam, they try and keep true to Mohammed’s “priniciples” (in the loosest sense of the word) in Wahhabism anyway by not allowing innovation.
For me the explanation that makes sense to me is that somewhere along the line eg during the intensely political era of the middle ages, the Catholic Church lost its anointing and infallibility. I can’t see anywhere in the Bible where it is said that the successors to the apostles are guaranteed to be infallible for perpetuity.

 

[Jennifer_J]

You are right. No church teaching should just be willy nilly discarded.

I am reading. I am praying. I am trying to understand.

These discussions are part of that due diligence.

But I could still come to the conclusion I think the church is wrong on this issue.

If you are Catholic, you are still to submit to Her authority. If you no longer believe in that authority, then I wonder if you are truly Catholic. It’s all a package deal. I’m not saying you shouldn’t question, that you shouldn’t seek the truth, etc, however, those who have trouble with church teachings are awfully quick to be their OWN authority, doing what THEY think is right, giving the Church no credit for Her 2000+ years of knowledge. Maybe, just maybe, She knows something you don’t…

Jennifer

 

[jack_hawkins]

…and telling people it’s a package deal is the way to make people leave the church surely?

 

[Jennifer_J]

.

Then why did the Pope publicly apologize for what the Church did to Galileo and the Jews?

I’m not sure about that. I think you may be the one “not quite there”.

Your saying the teaching on contraception has been declared infallible? Infallible with a big “I”? Please show me where the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra on this issue?

As far as I understand infalibility if the Pope and Bishop’s teach consistantly over the centuries the same teaching, it is infallible. There are many Infallible teachings (doctrines) that haven’t been formally defined because there hasn’t been a need. Here, read this it explains it better than I can:
catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp
<<An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with “Bible Christians.” For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the “bad popes” stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. >> (there’s more at the link)

Hope that helps.
Jennifer

 

[Jennifer_J]

…and telling people it’s a package deal is the way to make people leave the church surely?

No, but to make them understand that Church Authority is THAT important. Modern people have problems with authority, they think it’s made to oppress people. Infact the Church’s rules help us to live a more Holy life–helping us to choose right instead of wrong, to form our conscience correctly…I’m sorry you took offense to that. Remember, I’m only human–as are you…

Jennifer

 

[fix]

Your saying the teaching on contraception has been declared infallible? Infallible with a big “I”? Please show me where the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra on this issue?

It is infallible by the universal and ordinary magisterium.

1. Catholics are bound to believe everything contained in the Word of God, “whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed” (Professio Fidei I). All that has been set forth in this way is set forth as irreformable, and hence as infallible.
   Doctrines are set forth as infallible by the Magisterium (the Pope, and the College of Bishops in communion with the Pope) in three ways:

a) by the Supreme Pontiff speaking ex cathedra,
b) by the College of Bishops gathered in ecumenical council,
c) by the universal and ordinary Magisterium.

Catholics are bound to believe also doctrines definitively proposed by the Magisterium, not as divinely revealed, but as logically or historically connected with doctrines divinely revealed. Doctrines definitively proposed are also irreformable and set forth infallibly in the same three ways. The assent (theological faith) required of Catholics is the same for doctrines definitively proposed as for doctrines divinely revealed, except that in the latter case it is based on the authority of the Word of God, and in the former case it is based on the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Magisterium.
Examples: Priestly ordination restricted to men; illicitness of euthanasia, prostitution, fornication, and contraception; that canonized Saints are in heaven…

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=374982&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=ordinary+magisterium&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=6&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=