Excuse me, but I think these beads are all sqwewed up.
Posted on 08/16/2005 1:48:10 PM PDT by NYer
"There is *always* a possibility of conception."
Yes, we are on the same page! As a matter of fact, pregnancy is much more likely in artificial birth control then it is with NFP. As I've said, those that teach NFP assert the effectiveness of preventing pregnancy using said method.
The difference is that in order to heal an illness, to use an artificial device is ethical. If your intent is to defeat the healthy operation of your body, you cannot use anything that is not inherent to that very operation.
Is it too abstract? Your body is made to procreate, and the female body is made to be periodically infertile, and is has a brain to count days, take temperature, etc. It is OK to follow the way God designed the body toward an otherwise moral goal.
"The difference is roughly, between coming to church to pray and coming to church, turning your back to the altar, plugging in earphones and listening to Smashing Pumpkins. The intent in both cases is to be in church..."
Thanks for your imput. But that is simply Hyperbole! Please read my posts more thoroughly.
I need to leave. Will check back later.
Fruitfully yours.
Well, prolife conservative, this is a good honest question. For me, it was like one of those optical illusion pictures where all you see is squiggly lines and then after you stare at it for about 5 minutes, you see the letters
"J-E-S-U-S" or whatever, and then you're thumping our brow and saying, "Why didn't I see it? It's always been there!" And from that point on, you can't NOT see it, it's so obvious.
I'm sending this link so you can take a look at an article I posted on this:
And I refer you also to Post #6 which has more links.
I gotta get off now because I got some stuff in the oven... but I'll get back on the thread later and try to post some things that might be helpful.
I think that's a very unfortunate direction to be taking, and the director of the Couple-to-Couple League has recently addressed this question. The teaching of NFP has been driven by the fact that the majority of Catholic married couples do use artificial birth control, do drastically limit the number of their children. The majority of engaged couples plan to do the same. The thinking is that if NFP instruction takes the position of "same result, morally-approved (and healthier) means," eventually couples will come to see the blessing of an abundant family.
This has been my personal experience. My husband and I started using NFP for practical reasons (insurance didn't cover birth control pills), and over time came to see (numerous) children as the ultimate reward of our marriage.
As the article mentioned, and earlier comments emphasized, a big problem is that many, many couples come to marriage with absolutely no Catholic or Biblical foundation. Their beliefs, practices, and expectations are strictly a function of the culture. This formation should start at Baptism, but it isn't ... starting with NFP as "birth control" is at least starting *somewhere*!
Good points. Though my interpretation of a 'strong reason' is probably different, since I would include the couple's intent. Parenting is our biggest responsibility, and IMHO not to be entered into lightly or unprepared, if possible, though obviously sometimes unexpected blessings do occur. Of course once the child is on the way previous intent gets thrown out the window, because then the only option is to provide the best care possible. But for those not yet pregnant, who would prefer to wait so as to reach a point where they can afford a child(s), I would consider waiting to likely be in the future child's best interest. Love can overcome a lot, but given a choice why bring a child into a very difficult situation, if they can wait a few years and avoid that?
Ultimately it comes down to how we each intepret scripture.
BTW, you have some really cute kids. Congratulations!
"The use of NFP to avoid pregancy is invalid if the intent is invalid, namely if the intent is, for example, to have two uninterrupted careers."
What if the intent is to space the children? Is that valid? What if there are only two bedrooms in the house and the couple is going on the fourth child? Is that valid? What if the husband is expecting a decrease in pay? Is that valid? What if the wife is having trouble raising so many children, she finds the task daunting? Is that valid? What if the couple is in the middle of a move to another city soon? Is that valid? I'm not trying to be cute, I'm really not. I just have a problem, to a very large degree, with Letter of the law Catholics, and the NFP issue brings it to the fore more than any other Catholic issue I can think of. It is the splitting of hairs and that's where our discussion has gone here. No one, as much as they have tried, has put my questions to bed in a very practical and reasonable content which would squash all my doubts. I have studied this NFP issue intensively and it's the practical application that just gives me fits. I know I'm supposed to buy into NFP as a good Catholic and to fortify my faith with it's practice. But on an intellectual basis I am not getting it. I understand "Do NOT KILL." , "Do Not steal" and the other 99.99% of our simple and strighforward Roman Catholic Faith." I understand it's moral applications, the intent, the consequences, etc. It all makes sense. However, this one issue still confounds me to no end. Maybe one day the proverbial light bulb will illuminate in my soul.
No!
Now do your homework. There's plenty of information posted to this thread by other freepers.
Thank you ... they are cute! I didn't realize until the 3rd or 4th one how absolutely insane I was about babies ... and I like them even when they're older. The intellectual companionship of my 14-year-old more than outweighs the teenage hormonal whoop-de-do! She is simply an exciting person - like my own youth, only much better.
The Church says that "strong reasons" are up to the discernment of the couple. It's not for me to judge another couple's motivation, or them to judge me. My husband and I did not think that his being unemployed, with six children, was sufficient reason to avoid another. We had a miscarriage, and then I was expecting again, before he found a new position. We simply trusted in God's provision, and found that it carried us. However, I would never say that another couple in the same situation was morally obligated to do the same! We might look at things differently, ourselves, if a similar situation arose in the future.
Only the people "on the ground" can evaluate their reasons for abstinence to avoid pregnancy ... but from a Biblical standpoint, they should evaluate with the heart of Christ, who said, "Whoever welcomes one such child in my Name, welcomes Me."
Something I have always wondered is whether men and women who practice NFP after having used artificial contraception experience a qualitatively different orgasm.
Someone suggested that to me once, but it is not dinner table talk.
Maybe we can get some info in this relatively anonymous forum.
Excuse me, but I think these beads are all sqwewed up.
later pingout.
Everyone is discussing very well, just adding a little 02.
With NFP, there is always the possibility that the wife's cycle may be a little different this month... an egg may get ripe a little later or earlier, sometimes symptoms are a tad ambiguous, some sperm may be extra vigorous, etc. There is always the POSSIBLITY of life.
I am surprised that you are still confused.
I'm confused. Are you starting from scratch, here?
Have you read "Familiaris Consortio" and "Humanae Vitae," and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"? How about Pope John Paul II's "Love and Responsibility" and "Theology of the Body." Scott and Kimberly Hahn's "Life Giving Love." Janet Smith's (tape), "Contraception ... Why Not?" John and Sheila Kippley's "Art of Natural Family Planning," which is not just a "how-to," but a "What's it all about?". Charles Provan's "The Bible and Birth Control." Sam and Bethany Torode's "An Open Embrace." Rick and Jan Hess's "A Full Quiver."
This is just a start of Catholic and Protestant resources on the subject ... just the ones I can remember the author and title of at the end of a long, 100+ day. If you've done the basic intellectual groundwork, what do you expect this thread to add? If not, well ... what?
Your intuition on this point is very accurate. While it's true that NFP and artificial contraception use different methods, it's really splitting hairs to distinguish between them in most cases, as you point out.
In contrast to the false distinction between "natural" versus "artificial" methods of birth control, the true distinction is between the Catholic approach to new life and the non-Catholic approach. The Catholic approach means "willingly to accept from God children in whatever number He chooses to send them." This requires real faith and true submission to God's divine providence. It means putting God in charge of my life, rather than myself. It means placing spiritual values above material values. It requires a complete revolution in my way of thinking, believing and living.
NFP, in contrast, only requires me to trade my pills for a basal thermometer and some graph paper.
You are quite correct on this point as well. Promoters of NFP never fail to trumpet the "effectiveness" of the method. The "possibility of conception" is said to be extremely remote, at least according to the literature of the Couple-to-Couple League and others of that sort. So that argument in favor of NFP is clearly specious.
Each married couple faces a fundamental choice to opt either for fruitfulness as God commanded them in the Garden of Eden, or to opt for "planned parenthood," whether it is accomplished via one means or another. Calling it "responsible parenthood" instead of "planned parenthood," and calling it "natural" family planning instead of "artificial" birth control does not alter the reality. I must choose whether I will accept children from God with joy, or whether I believe that I can do better than Him by "planning" it myself.
Your sincerity is more than clear. These are excellent questions. The reality is that once I have taken these decisions into my own hands, rather than leaving them in God's hands, then the questions never stop, and there really aren't any good answers to them. This is literally true, since the Catholic Church has never provided concrete answers to your questions, and has deliberately steered clear of answering the obvious question "What precisely qualifies as 'grave reasons'?"
The only really good answer to your questions is to place my entire confidence in God's divine providence, and for me to realize that I made my choice on the day that I said "I do" -- on that day I made the choice for fruitfulness and generosity and submission, and I no longer have to reconsider my decision on a month-by-month basis.
I just have a problem, to a very large degree, with Letter of the law Catholics, and the NFP issue brings it to the fore more than any other Catholic issue I can think of. It is the splitting of hairs and that's where our discussion has gone here.
Your insight is valid regarding the tendency towards being a "letter of the law Catholic." I know I've often felt that temptation. The solution is not to split hairs ever more finely, but to accept as many children as God wants to send you. If you come to Mass at a traditional Catholic chapel, you will meet many families who are doing just that. They have given up splitting hairs and following the letter of the law, and have given their lives over to God.
However, this one issue still confounds me to no end. Maybe one day the proverbial light bulb will illuminate in my soul.
Perhaps the light bulb will go on when you read Pope Pius XII's beautiful "Address to Large Families." Given in 1958, the final year of his pontificate, it contains not even a whiff of legalistic hair-splitting. Instead it describes in beatifully poetic language the joys of obeying God's law by "being fruitful and multiplying and filling the earth."
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5370&longdesc
I am unable to speak to the issue what orgasms are like when using artificial contraception, so I can't make a true comparison, but it is a fact that NFP requires the couple to have sex only during the times when the wife is not really in the mood. On the days when she is very fertile and receptive, those are the days when they must abstain. But on the days when she is dry and non-receptive, those are the days when they are encouraged to have sex. That definitely affects the quality of the sexual intercourse and the woman's response, especially her ability to reach a climax.
Clearly Prolifeconservative's questions are the fruit of research and thought. It's uncharitable to dismiss his/her concerns cavalierly.
Have you read "Familiaris Consortio" and "Humanae Vitae," and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"? How about Pope John Paul II's "Love and Responsibility" and "Theology of the Body." Scott and Kimberly Hahn's "Life Giving Love." Janet Smith's (tape), "Contraception ... Why Not?" John and Sheila Kippley's "Art of Natural Family Planning," which is not just a "how-to," but a "What's it all about?". Charles Provan's "The Bible and Birth Control." Sam and Bethany Torode's "An Open Embrace." Rick and Jan Hess's "A Full Quiver."
The vast majority of people who have read the above works end up more confused afterwards than when they started. Your above-listed titles do not resolve the inherent dilemmas pointed out by Prolifeconservative. Your own posts have discussed the fact that NFP is really little more than a Catholic alternative for those who are already using artificial birth control. It cannot resolve the fundamental moral issues at stake.
For that, one would be much better off reading the following authoritative works of the magisterium which present a truly Catholic perspective on the issue:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.