Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)

Posted on 07/04/2004 9:29:46 AM PDT by Polycarp IV

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last
To: Polycarp IV

One may commit heresy in a matter of morals--but the NFP is a relatively new debate within the Church. It is not so clearly established as the other issues you mention. We are talking about the deposit of faith, after all, which derives from what we've been bequeathed from the apostles. All of which would suggest a certain antiquity of opinion at least.

41 posted on 07/05/2004 2:11:11 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Wonderful comments. You ask what religion I am; you may be surprised to know that I am a practicing conservative Hindu, not a cradle one, but converted more than 35 years ago.

Where does that put you in the Caste system?

(Not baiting, just curious)

Best, OP

42 posted on 07/05/2004 2:13:23 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Arguss


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.

43 posted on 07/05/2004 5:18:53 AM PDT by Smocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
"Therefore, one may indeed commit heresy by maintaining that NFP is always sinful."

So what you are saying there is that NFP is not always sinful, but is mostly sinful.

Spoken like a true deceiver. At the same time that you are luring people into using NFP, you subtly slip in to the conversation that it is mostly sinful. Let's see, who else does that? Hmmm?

44 posted on 07/05/2004 6:34:38 AM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Interesting question. Deserves a more complete answer than your're going to get right now! But a short answer is that the caste system is a degradation of the system described in the Bhagavad Gita, which is society being ordered according to character and qualities, not birth. Originally, there were 4 orders of life (student, householder, retired, and renunciant) and 4 castes or divisions (servant or laborer, farmer and merchant, warrior or administrator, and teacher). Everyone went through the first four, and personal qualities and character placed one in the second.

Then there is the deeper understanding of the self as eternal soul, with the body and its social standing as a temporary vehicle only. Some "cradle Hindus" would accept me as a bona vide Hindu or Vaishnava, some who have more of a superficial or deviated understanding would see me as an outcaste due to my birth in a non-Hindu family. But most I have met were the former, not the latter.

45 posted on 07/05/2004 6:55:18 AM PDT by little jeremiah ( - a REAL conservative running for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
"Because NFP has been taught as morally licit in grave circumstances by quite a few recent Popes now."

I'm still waiting for the list of Popes, and what they said.

It seems 'grave circumstances' has become the crucial phrase in this discussion, which means you are now hiding behind it, as it covers only very limited circumstances.

I personally am willing to concede 'grave circumstances'. I always did.

But I put to you that the majority of Catholics using NFP do not qualify for 'grave circumstances'. It has become a way of life in order to stop having babies.

Now it's certainly not up to me to decide who qualifies, and it is cetainly not up to you to lure people into using it with a clear consience. Your actions could be a cause of sin in others. But apparently that is your goal.

So, please give us that list of 'quite a few' Popes you falsely claim supported "ex cathedra" that Catholics could limit the size of their family.

And if you could, maybe a list of grave circumstances that would be acceptable. Maybe if the husband or wife were on life support, in a coma, the other spouse should wait for a non fertile moment to demand their marital rights. I guess that would be grave enough.

List of 'quite a few' Popes and what they said please.

46 posted on 07/05/2004 7:19:37 AM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

>>>An interesting article with some relevant sources that useful for future reference. However, the article is undermined by the fact that Fr. Harrison is so clearly trying to prove one side of the argument. His polemical approach causes the reader to assume that he is not presenting the arguments fairly and objectively.

How is that different from your writing?

47 posted on 07/05/2004 9:14:04 AM PDT by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Wild jack-rabbits are a perfectly good Model provided in Nature. Go thou and do likewise."

LOL. How appropriate that we should take a lesson from our Puritan forebears as we celebrate Independence Day.

48 posted on 07/05/2004 9:33:25 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Thanks for sharing your insights into the Hindu religion and culture. Several years ago I had access to several issues of "Hinduism Today", a monthly publication, and was struck by the news of that the cultural battles Hindu's face are identical or similar to what conservative Christians and Muslims face.

49 posted on 07/05/2004 9:49:48 AM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: broadsword; Polycarp IV; All
Well, according to 2,000 years of Catholic faith, and specifically Humae Vitae, you are WRONG!

I beg your pardon! 2000 years of Catholic teaching says I am right. I'm not even sure where Humanae Vitae says I am wrong. Please show me. I know Paul VI spoke against contraception - but I am pretty sure (not positive) that he did not speak in favor of NFP. He conducted an extensive research into it, but did not endorse it

As far as a long list of Popes in favor of NFP - there is no such animal - Polycarp was lying, and broadsword is mistaken - badly.

I spent the morning surfing NFP sites, and not once did I find the phrase "use only inmatters of grave importance" or whatever the phrase is.

NFP is a lifestyle promoted to navigate around Catholic teaching, and falls far short to the discerning, but fills the needs of the gullible. I would be willing to bet that it is promoted by those wanting to tear down the Church brick by brick.

I know there is a problem with having too many babies, I'm a father of four myself. And I am not saying the are not legitimate problems. But strictly speaking, one is not trusting in the Lord if they seek to limit their offspring. Leave that to the pagans.

On the practical side, let your conscience be your guide, but don't be guided by those, even Priests, who counsel different than what the Church teaches. NFP is just another form of contraception, and the organization is no different than planned parenthood.

Jesus will watch over His Catholic babies.

50 posted on 07/05/2004 9:56:06 AM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Yes good points you understand the natural law which God has written in your heart. It is my prayer that you will consider the Word of the Lord God Jesus Christ when he said, “ I AM the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE, no one can come to the father except through ME.” and He established on St.Peter the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which he has established to lead people into His Kingdom.

Were you raised as a Christian and then converted to Hinduism?. I had friends who were Catholic Indians from Puna and Goah (sp?) one whose ancestor was of the Brahman cast. The Catholic religion is truly universal and cross cultural because of course God loves all people whom He has created and He wishes that they not perish but come to eternal life through His son Jesus the Christ of the World. For God so loved the World that he sent his ONLY begotten son..”

51 posted on 07/05/2004 11:05:09 AM PDT by pro Athanasius (Catholicism is not a "politically correct sound bite".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Arguss; Maximilian
Spoken like a true deceiver. At the same time that you are luring people into using NFP, you subtly slip in to the conversation that it is mostly sinful.

Maximilian, maybe your trad credentials are good enough that a word of explanation from you would help Arguss realize his folly in the above characterization of me?

52 posted on 07/05/2004 11:12:01 AM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic - -without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Arguss; Maximilian
Now it's certainly not up to me to decide who qualifies, and it is cetainly not up to you to lure people into using it with a clear consience. Your actions could be a cause of sin in others. But apparently that is your goal.

You obviously know NOTHING about my position on NFP.

53 posted on 07/05/2004 11:14:29 AM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic - -without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV


54 posted on 07/05/2004 11:17:39 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
And if you could, maybe a list of grave circumstances that would be acceptable.

Maybe this will help you realize just how very wrong you are in your attacks on me:

My wife and I used to teach NFP. We resigned from it because I thought the NFP industry was failing to teach that there must be grave reasons for having recourse to NFP, and instead too often the NFP cult made it seem like as long as one used NFP, they were a "good" Catholic.

When we taught I gave an in depth class just on the moral theology of NFP. We taught that there are 4 main reasons for having recourse to NFP.

1--Physical/ mental health---a pregnancy could kill you or so physically impair you as to prevent your fulfillment of your duties in your state in life---NOT because of a widening wasteline or drooping skin! Or psychological health, i.e., mom would literally have a nervous breakdown if she became pregnant---not because she "just couldn't stand being home with the little kids all day without the personal fulfillment of her professional job..."

2--Financial constraints---your child will starve if you have another. Wanting a bigger house or designer SUV just does not cut it!

3--work on the mission fields by one or both spouses that would proclude having children temporarily

4--active persecution or war---i.e., you or your child likely to die by coercive abortion, in concentration camp, in acts of war, etc.

Clearly we say these reasons must be SERIOUS, not trivial. Only the couple and their confessor can truly decide what truly constitutes grave reason.

We've had couples sit through my talk on this subject and literally say, "Gee, we thought we were being good Catholics just for deciding to use NFP. Now we realize we don't even have grounds for recourse to NFP," then tell us a month or two later they're pregnant.

NFP vs Contraception

Spacing children may be a desirable goal that does not violate God's laws in certain serious situations such as those outlined above. But the means of achieving the goal differ.

One is intrinsically evil (abortion, abortifacient contraception, barrier methods, sterilization) while one is morally neutral (Natural Family Planning.

In one, an act is performed (sex) but its natural outcome is artificially foiled.

In the other, no act is performed (simple abstinence during fertile times) so there IS no act, therefore the practice is morally neutral.

It is then the intention of using NFP that constitutes its relative moral licitness or illicitness.

If NFP is used in a selfish manner, it too can be sinful.

If it is used only in grave circumstances, it is not sinful.

The difference is real.

Dieting (decreasing caloric intake, the "act" of NOT eating) is a moral and responsible means of losing weight to maintain the body's health.

Bulimia (the ACT of eating, them vomiting) is rightly called an eating DISORDER.

An ACT is performed (eating in this case) and its natural outcome (nutrition) is foiled by expelling the food from the body.

Likewise contraception is a disorder. An ACT is performed (sex) and its natural outcome (procreation) is foiled by expelling the sperm or egg or both (abortifacient contraceptives) from the body.

Contraception is to NFP what Bulimia is to dieting.

But just as dieting can be misused (anorexia) so too can NFP be misused in a (gravely) sinful manner.

55 posted on 07/05/2004 11:21:00 AM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic - -without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV; Arguss
Maximilian, maybe your trad credentials are good enough that a word of explanation from you would help Arguss realize his folly in the above characterization of me?

I try to ignore all personal attacks on myself and generally just speed up the scroll button when I come across personal invective against anyone. It's such a waste of time. But as far as this issue goes, it is certainly true that you support the same position that Arguss does: NFP is only justified in "grave circumstances." You also agree that too often NFP has been promoted as a lifestyle choice. So both of you are in agreement with the teachings of the Catholic Church. One might wish to debate some of the fine points, but there is certainly no call for insults. Oh, and you have even ceased being an NFP counselor because of your moral qualms as to whether it was really being taught properly. One would hope that we could debate civilly even with people we think are wrong, but at the very least we should be able to be civil with people with whom we agree.

56 posted on 07/05/2004 11:25:21 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
but I am pretty sure (not positive) that he did not speak in favor of NFP.

You don't even read the relevant documents, yet you have the unmitigated gall to insult and criticize us?

Get back to us when you've actually learned the Church's teachings on these subjects. Until then, I'll pray for you.

57 posted on 07/05/2004 11:26:26 AM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic - -without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I have read, Francis Shaffer's "How then Shall we Live?" and thought it very good. His son Frankie became an Orthodox priest. Now I am giving you some quotes from the early Church fathers which clearly teach that any barrier methods, withdrawal or potions to prevent birth are wrong. The problem with your denomination is one of authority. Protestants must keep reinventing the wheel because they rely on the “protestant principle” which is “personal conscience” instead of the Catholic principle which is objective moral absolutes which do not change with the passing of time or evolve into new things as some modernist Catholic Churchman would have us believe. You might try the below site. Gerry Matatics was a former Presbyterian Minister who thought Catholics were going to hell and he converted. He has got some tapes on birth control and a ton of other issues. Someone may have already told you about him. Biblical Foundations International ... E-mail: About Gerry: Gerald Christian Matatics is known throughout the English ... Gerry is Founder and President of Biblical Foundations International, a ... - 28k - Jul 3, 2004 Letter of Barnabas "Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11 :29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness"' ( 10:8 [A.D. 74]). Clement of Alexandria "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" ( 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]). Clement of Alexandria "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid. 2:10:95:3). Hippolytus "[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion]" ( 9:12 [A.D. 225]). Lactantius "[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" ( 6:20 [A.D. 3o7]). Lactantius "God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid. 6:23:18). Council of Nicaea I "[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (canon l [A.D. 325]). Epiphanius "They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" ( 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]). John Chrysostom "[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" ( 28:5 [A.D. 391]). John Chrysostom "[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5 :12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and be impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (ibid. 62:3). John Chrysostom "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well.... Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men——even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" ( 24 [A.D. 391]). John Chrysostom "Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers . . . 'I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5:12] .... On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: 'For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition." If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated' [Titus 3:10]. Where then are those who dare to mutilate [sterilize] themselves, seeing that they drawn down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" ( 5:12 [A.D. 395]). Jerome "But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" ( 1: 19 [A.D. 393]). Jerome "You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]" ( 22:13 [A.D. 396]). Augustine "You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" ( 15:7 [A.D. 400]). Augustine "For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30). Augustine "For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery].... [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" ( 11-12 [A.D. 401]). Augustine "This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" ( 18:65 [A.D. 388]). Augustine "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" ( 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]). Caesarius "Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" ( 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
58 posted on 07/05/2004 11:27:31 AM PDT by pro Athanasius (Catholicism is not a "politically correct sound bite".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
Contraception is to NFP what Bulimia is to dieting.

I don't think your metaphor works for the following reason: What if our bodies were designed in such a way that we only digested our food on some occassions but there were other times when our digestive systems simply ignored any food we ate. In order to stay skinny, what if you deliberately ate only during the times when your body did not digest the food, but refused to eat whenever your body would digest the food? This would not really be equivalent to "dieting"; it would be a lot more equivalent to "bulimia." In both cases you are frustrating the natural purpose of the act.

I also disagree with the moral theology textbook that was posted earlier when it said that the moral issue revolved around abstinence with regard to issues of justice towards society. Clearly a couple can abstain entirely from marital relations if they wish to do so and are in agreement. If a grave reason existed which motivated a couple to avoid conception, they could abstain from marital relations for as long as they wished to avoid conception, and there would be no moral issue whatsoever.

It becomes morally tricky when the couple abstain only part of the time, while continuing to engage in marital relations at other times, but without any intention of fulfilling the primary purpose of those acts. The problem is not abstaining; the problem is having sex while at the same time deliberately frustrating the purpose for which the sex act was designed by God.

At the same time, one can clearly see that there is a significant difference between artificial contraception and NFP. In the former case the act itself as well as the intention are both inherently wrong. In the latter case, the acts themselves either of having marital relations or abstaining from marital relations are not inherently immoral, but the intention can make them immoral.

As a comparison, when one tells a deliberate lie, then that is a sin which could be a mortal sin depending on the gravity of the situation. The words themselves are false, and the intention is to deceive the listener. One can also tell words that are true, but which are equally intended to deceive the listener. One would still be guilty of a sin of deception.

Another comparison might be to the priest offering the consecration. If he uses bran muffins, then the matter is invalid and the entire consecration is invalid, no matter what his intention might be, although one would have to question the intentions of any priest who would commit such a sacrilege. Another priest might use perfectly valid bread as matter, but he has an intention directly contrary to the presumed intention of consecrating the host. His consecration would also be invalid.

59 posted on 07/05/2004 11:47:20 AM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
This is the LAST time I will do YOUR homework for you:

HUMANAE VITAE (On The Regulation Of Birth)
Pope Paul VI

Encyclical Letter Of His Holiness promulgated on 25 July 1968.

"... it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

"... In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

"... If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier [20].

60 posted on 07/05/2004 12:05:27 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic - -without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson