Exactly.
The continual use of NFP by so many Catholic couples has made what could be viewed as emergency measures to become the Catholic form of Birth Control.
I for one, find it offensive to walk in to so many Church vestibules and find NFP pamphlets glaring at you in the face, as though that was the whole purpose and end of marriage, birth control. As though that is what I want my children to think that Marriage is all about. "Saying NO to God's Blessings."
It prostitutes the marriage act. It's contrary to God's admonishment to us to be fruitful and multiply, and it is contrary to the Holy Popes who encouraged families to have many children.
One more Neo Catholic dogma.
That is exactly what it is. Where your mistake comes is from assuming the Church is opposed to Birth Control. The Church is not opposed to Birth Control. The Church is opposed to the frustration of the marital act by illicit means.
I for one, find it offensive to walk in to so many Church vestibules and find NFP pamphlets glaring at you in the face, as though that was the whole purpose and end of marriage, birth control. As though that is what I want my children to think that Marriage is all about.
Given the general trend of society today, if we could return to the status quo of the 1950's where the typical Catholic family was using NFP/Rhythm, that would be a tremendous step up from one where the typical Catholic family is using oral contraceptives and sterilization surgeries. I believe that is the purpose the literature, just as the suggestion of giving such advice in the confessional to Onanists was in the 1800's.
"Saying NO to God's Blessings."
God's blessing in marriage include the mutual companionship of the spouses and the holiness derived from the Sacrament. Or have you forgotten your Catechism?
This line of thought is akin to saying someone who does not go to Mass all day long and receive communion twice per day is "saying NO to God's blessings". After all you *could* do that, so why *aren't* you?
It prostitutes the marriage act. It's contrary to God's admonishment to us to be fruitful and multiply, and it is contrary to the Holy Popes who encouraged families to have many children.
"Be fruitful and multiply" was spoken with respect to "filling the earth and subduing it". In some places, we have certainly reached that point. For example, the eastern US, Holland, the Chinese coast, and the Ganges valley in India. The obligation is with respect to the end of supplying society the children it needs. With modern medicine eliminating childhood death, longer lifespans, a vastly increased population, fewer plagues and wars, the "obligation" to have as many children as possible is certainly debatable to say the least. Can you cite a moral theologian who actually takes your position?
One more Neo Catholic dogma.
Did "Neo-Catholicism" start in 1853?