Posted on 04/14/2011 8:18:23 AM PDT by Grunthor
Catholic women overwhelmingly use birth control, despite an official ban by the church, a new study finds......
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Trying "not" to say? But that's exactl\y what I "am" saying.
NFP is intentionally reducing the probability of conception. That's true, as such. Yes, if you have sex during an infertile time, you can avoid pregnancy. And if you have sex during a known fertile time, you can achieve pregnancy. Avoiding or achieving pregnancy by cooperating respectfully with normal sexual function: that's the idea. You get it: so do I.
"The only difference between NFP and contraception is that most who practice the former can’t admit that it really is the latter, albeit, a rather poor one."
That's emphatically not true. NFP cooperates with, and respects, normal sexual function. Contraception counteracts, and disrespects, normal sexual function. In terms of one's sttitude toward the design--- and the Designer --- they are as opposite as 'Yes' and 'No'.
Contraception as a method treats normal fertility as a disease: something to be technologically extirpated. NFP as a method treats normal fertility as something sacred: to be wisely enjoyed, or wisely refrained from if the timing isn't right.
This whole thing cannt be undertood if you don't connect sex and sacredness. But as you increasingly DO connect sex and sacredness, it becomes as clear as daylight. That was my experience, for sure. My husband and I couldn't grasp it until we did it: and then we found ourselves saying, "Wow. This changes everything."
And NFP is also not "poor" in any respect. It is an excellent way to either avoid or achieve pregnancy while wonderfully deepening the meaning and the sanctity of the natural sexual design. (There's that word again.)..I've never heard anybody say that about a contraceptive method.
Not many real Catholics left in the world, just fallen away Catholics, and Catholics in name only, who go to mass twice a month (see thread article).
The punishment reserved for our times is prelates that allow the sheep to do whatever they want. Like the parents who do not direct and discipline their children, and instead want to be their buddy, and be seen as “cool”. It was never so:
If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it. ( St. John Vianney)
Among adults there are few saved because of the sins of the flesh....With exception of those who die in childhood, most men will be damned. (St. Remigius of Rheims)
Work out your NFP'ing in fear and trembling!
Regards
There are a couple of things to keep in mind with the Church’s teachings on NFP.
First of all, she has never laid out occasions where NFP would or would not be sinful. The four cases laid out by the previous poster are his opinion on when NFP is permissable. Now, I don’t doubt that these were reached through careful research and prayerful discernment, but they are still opinion.
The Church is much more general, because, honestly, this is truly a case that will vary family to family. Whereas some familes, mothers, fathers and children, will do well with children spaced 10-12 months apart, others will do better with closer to 24 months. And there’s nothing wrong with either scenario, provided every family seeks to do God’s will for them. And that Will will vary from family to family.
It’s important to note, that the term “grave reasons” is used often when speaking of NFP. HOWEVER, the term “grave” when speaking of the reasons a family might seek to use NFP is only used in the Pauline translation of Humane Vitae. The official Vatican translation uses the term “just” reasons which does change the tenor of the discussion. And what is just for a family is going to vary family to family due to personalities and circumstances.
The primary duty of parents is to educate their children. And the way each family needs to educate their children will vary. They should pursue the methods and tools they need to in order to properly educate their children.
This, if nothing else, shows how NFP is intended to compliment a woman's body versus breaking it. We recently pulled the NFP charts out of the drawer after waiting three years for a baby to just kinda show up. Now I'm enjoying feet up my ribs.
Does Catholicism also forbid sexual acts that cannot cause pregnancy?
Another thing that’s hard for me to understand about NFP is this: It’s wrong to separate sex from procreation, but that seems to be exactly what you are doing when you practice NFP. I don’t see how practicing it makes you more open to life when it is actually more effective than most artificial contraception.
On another note, I see on the post after yours to me that you are going to have a baby. Congrats!
If you want an answer you may have to be more specific.
If you are talking about anal or oral sex, for example, those are not permitted.
If you are talking about, for example, a sterile married couple having sex, then that is permitted.
I’ll admit, some of this can be very complicated.
The Church teaches that sex is intended to have a twofold purpose, unitive and procreative. You can’t separate them. And they are both essential to the act.
In a truly Catholic marriage, the sex act will always be capable of giving life whether or not life actually comes from it. You are always to give yourself fully and completely to your spouse. The knowledge that life will most likely not come from the act doesn’t negate the fact that you are still giving yourself fully and completely to your spouse. That is what the Church requires, fullness and complete giving.
This never happens when contraception is used. And that’s the difference between the sex act that doesn’t result in life due to actually preventing conception and the sex act that doesn’t result in pregnancy because the opportunity for conception failed to occur.
Baby #4 should be here at the end of the summer. And if uterine behavior is any indication, he should be as wild and crazy as his sisters and brother.
Depends.
The Church requires that the sexual act be completed internally, penis in vagina.
Oral sex is permitted as foreplay, but not to the point of completion. So too with anal sex, foreplay yes, completion,no.
This is why masturbation is always wrong, there can be no natural end. (Natural in the sense that nature intended sex for reproduction)
Knowingly sexual acts that cannot result in pregnancy due to age or medical condition (wife already pregnant) are entirely acceptable because the act itself is still natural.
However, even if you and your spouse are unable to conceive, for whatever reason, it is still not morally permissable to engage in nonpotentially lifegiving sexual acts, such as oral sex to the point of completion. No matter what your reproductive status is, the sex act must alway complete internally. This is because the Church’s teachings aren’t about making as many babies as possible, although that’s how it is often misunderstood. You must always give yourself fully to your spouse, that is the only way the two become one.
Good luck with him :)
You are correct here. I should have been more clear.
See, this stuff can get pretty complicated.
But from reading other sources, it seems that NFP is fine no matter when and these conditions are rarely, if ever, mentioned.
I got out of teaching NFP when the NFP industry started teaching that NFP can be used for any reason whatsoever. The magisterial documents all mention grave or serious reasons. Pope Pius XII addressed this in his Address to the Italian Midwives, which specifically mentions the four types of scenarios I outlined:
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called ‘indications,’ may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”
“How can “natural” family planning, change the problem with the use of contraceptive family planning, mothers not having the children God has destined for them?”
If you attended some of the family planning classes now being taught in the Church, you would not have to ask such a question. Of course, Catholic medical professionals are involved as well. It’s not only about proper techniques, but the communication the couple have with one another AND with God, while using natural methods that are not contraceptive. This makes for a much stronger, happier marriage and follows God’s plan.
One more thing, you need to be much more balanced in your perspective. Note the following you posted:
“...mothers not having the children God has destined for them”
“If you only knew the women who will go to Hell...”
Why the focus on the wrongdoing of women?
We have a "traditional Catholic" poster whose only posts are attacking Catholics or pinging known anti-Catholics.
The rest of us Catholics just ignore the poster and his threads. There's no gain.
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if this person was merely an anti-Catholic or a schismatic who is burdened with great deal of self-righteous anger. You are correct and I will also ignore him from now on.
you can see here how the articles posted are essentially of one kind -- against the Church. Strangely enough they are almost as obsessive as these
ping for when you have time
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.