Posted on 07/31/2007 7:29:27 AM PDT by NYer
This article originally appeared in Interim, Canada's pro-life newpaper online, and is used by permission of the author.
Ping!
Hence the large number of self-described "Evangelical" or "Bible" Christians who accept the teaching of Margaret Sanger on fertility and reject God's.
What makes witchcraft and sorcery evil is that it involves humans usurping powers and rights which are only God's to grant.
Indeed Old Lies. The secular world has not wanted to look at the truth.
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). |
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
|
***********
Well said, although it is not unusual for them to be used in the performance of evil as well.
Article:”With few exceptions, I could trace every marital breakdown to the couple saying “no” to the fertility with which God had blessed them.”
What does the Roman Catholic church say about “family planning”? In other words, are ANY means used by married couples to reduce their number of children acceptable? I have heard many Catholics talk about natural family planning but this seems to be “saying ‘no’ to the fertility with which God has blessed them” (as the author states).
What is the official RCC view?
Not only Christians: most people cannot understand the past as it was seen and interpreted by their grandparents and great-grandparents. Ironically, that means they cannot how much they have in common with their immediate forebears or why they saw things so much differently. Being dead to the past means that one is blind to the to present.
Not only Christians: most people cannot understand the past as it was seen and interpreted by their grandparents and great-grandparents. Ironically, that means they cannot how much they have in common with their immediate forebears or why they saw things so much differently. Being dead to the past means that one is blind to the to present.
Not only Christians: most people cannot understand the past as it was seen and interpreted by their grandparents and great-grandparents. Ironically, that means they cannot how much they have in common with their immediate forebears or why they saw things so much differently. Being dead to the past means that one is blind to the to present.
Back in 1975, I learned from a priest that the Greek word “pharmakeia” used by St. Paul in Galatians, was referring to the “occult use of medicinal herbs”, among which were those that enduced abortion.
So over 30 years ago, I was taught that back in the days of Paul, the practice of abortion was considered a form of witchcraft or “occult medicine” and Paul warned his Galatian church about that.
PS—I meant to add that the priest also included “pharmakeia” as the use of occult practices to prevent conception.
To this day I wish I had a copy of that conference the priest gave to us.
So a RCC married couple could live their entire married lives using the natural method of birth control with great success and NEVER have a child. This would be completely within the teaching of the catechism and yet defy the very spirit of the law (IMHO). The couple would be continuing to have sex within the confines of marriage while avoiding the God-decreed command to be fruitful and multiply.
I don’t see any Biblical support for this RCC teaching. Where in the Bible has this been practiced by God’s people and encouraged by God?
Granted, there are cases where christian women can have their “wombs closed by God” but infertility is quite a different thing from purposefully avoiding children in marriage through natural means (or any means). When the church condones this behavior, and even encourages such, I must question their theological acuity.
Just a note before responding ... it's the Catholic Church (there are 22 Churches that make up the CC of which the Latin Church is the largest).
The Catholic Church's teaching on this subject is:
NFP is an umbrella term for certain methods used to achieve and avoid pregnancies. These methods are based on observation of the naturally occurring signs and symptoms of the fertile and infertile phases of a woman's menstrual cycle. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy abstain from intercourse and genital contact during the fertile phase of the woman's cycle. No drugs, devices, or surgical procedures are used to avoid pregnancy.NFP reflects the dignity of the human person within the context of marriage and family life, promotes openness to life, and recognizes the value of the child. By respecting the love-giving and life-giving natures of marriage, NFP can enrich the bond between husband and wife.
“What makes witchcraft and sorcery evil is that it involves humans usurping powers and rights which are only God’s to grant.”
Just for discussions sake, would this idea extend to antibiotics or gene therapy?
Neither involves the creation, destruction or prevention of human life, but both are ordered (presumably) to the healing and preservation of human life.
In a word, No. See CCC 1652. The husband and wife are called to be fruitful and multiply. One of the intrinsic and irremovable purposes of marriage is the "procreation and education of offspring" (CCC 1601). Those who seek to enter into a sexual relationship with no intention of having children are not entering into marriage. NFP is for regulation of childbirth, not for avoiding procreation altogether.
-A8
On the mark.
I’d clarify, however, that those who marry who are infertile without culpability are not persons with an intention to avoid having children.
sitetest
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.