Posted on 05/23/2008 6:26:42 PM PDT by Salvation
What a beautiful, Spirit-filled post. Thank you.
Yes, it is.
Enslaving Women One Pill at a Time (Birth Control Pills and Natural Family Planning)
New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More “Effective” Than Contraception
Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning
Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning
Clerical Contraception (Important Read! By Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer)
(Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning
Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 25, 2004
IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)
Thanks Doc: More (and Younger) Doctors Support Natural Family Planning
Couple say Natural Family Planning strengthens marriage
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
NFP should NOT be confused with the rhythm method.
Sean Hannity once seemed to confuse the two, so I contacted his producer, who said he would pass it on to Sean.
btw, I have heard that some secular women also use NFP, because it is natural and safe (no blood clots, etc.).
So contraception to prevent pregnancy thwarts God’s will, but trying to thwart pregnancy via the avoidance of sex when a woman might become pregnant is alright.
Isn’t God more powerful than a thin latex barrier? As those opposed to condoms or birth control pills assert when counseling against sex outside marriage - birth control isn’t 100% effective - so isn’t there enough wiggle room for God to get around barriers humans might throw in her way? - whether condoms, rhythm method or pill? The intent is the same - avoid pregnancy; it is only the method that differs - mere hair splitting.
Clerics argued against anesthia for women during childbirth when it was first utilized to that end as avoiding the full penalty of woman’s ‘curse’ - and avoiding “God’s will.” This article expresses the same mentality. If God’s purposes are worked out in spite of a condom at the outset or a life support system at the end - God’s will will be accomplished in traditional theology.
More power to them I suppose.
And nice to see you as ornery as ever, Salvation. Do you creak when you walk? ;-)
Good for you for getting the truth to Hannity!
** Do you creak when you walk? ;-)**
Not quite. But I sure noticed the change in that hip joint a little differently when it went from very hot to a rainy day here. LOL!
No barrier. No pills. No thwarting God’s will here.
Just abstinence until fertile times and the couple wishes to conceive.
Please read some of the other links for more explanation about Natural Family Planning.
I can't say enough about a computer program (of all things) called Ovusoft. I've recommended it to all my girlfriends who use NFP, and it's a Godsend.
It isn’t just a matter of God wanting more babies. Unlike condoms or the pill, abstinence doesn’t turn a sacrament between a husband and wife, meant to create life, into a self-serving recreational act.
A big bump for the two of you.
By your reasoning, a couple incapable of conceiving a child should not have sex? Post-menopausal women, those with infertility issues, etc. have sex for a number of reasons - conceiving a child is not one of them. I suppose you might call it recreational sex. Self-serving? Why? It involves mutuality, love, concern for the other - all certainly sacramental, if by sacramental you intend a means of experiencing grace.
Um, no.
Sterility is not usually willed, and otherwise healthy, moral people who are sterile would be overjoyed if they conceived despite their apparent sterility.
Mutuality, love and concern for others which has been closed off to sharing those gifts with a third party are not fully healthy.
Besides, by your own reasoning God can overcome those situations, too. Like the couples who give up trying to conceive, adopt, then shortly thereafter become pregnant. ;)
Your postulate that a third party must exist in a relationship of mutuality and care to be healthy is completely arbitrary and a non sequitor.
You view, then, as unhealthy, sex between a married couple who cannot conceive a child whatever the reason might be? Aristotle was liable to err you know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii wrote:
“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, ... in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, ... proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. “
Wouldn’t the folk who practice the rhythm method or attempt to determine in any way when the woman would not be fertile be an attempt to have sex without pregnancy as a potential result?
More power, as I say, to the couples who wish to only have intercourse with the view to welcome any resulting pregnancy and abstain otherwise. I find the castigation of responsible family planning to be odd and one result is abortion.
For the good folk practicing the rhythm method, it would surely seem they run afoul of the spirit, if not the letter, of Pius XI’s promulgation above. That’s just an outsider’s view.
Opposition to the occasion (regardless of how likely that occasion is) of a third party is a form of selfishness, which represents an imperfection in the love and self-giving of the act.
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.