Posted on 07/04/2004 9:29:46 AM PDT by Polycarp IV
I agree. Justice towards society is one issue to take into consideration, but it certainly is not the only nor the primary consideration.
As far as the contraception and bulimia comparison goes, it might not be a perfect analogy, but it IS one that common people grasp. I think I first heard that analogy on a Scott Hahn tape.
Another analogy is the need to support a family.
Supporting my family is a moral good. If I need to support my family, and it takes $25,000 to do so, I can get a job and earn that income to achieve that good end.
On the other hand, I can hold up a bank, grab $25,000, and still acieve the moral good of supporting my family.
Obviously, the MEANS of achieving this moral good are not equal. Thus the argument that since NFP and contraception both achieve the same end, they are morally equivalent, is a logical fallacy. The means of achieving the ends are diametrically opposed.
In our analogy, if our child would be forcefully aborted by an evil regime, it would be a moral good to postpone pregnancy until such time as we can assure the safety of our baby. Both NFP and artificial birth control can achieve this end. But like working for a living versus robbery, or dieting versus bulimia, the means of achieving the end are NOT morally equivalent.
Oh, if only people would have that many! Western Civilization is well below 2 children per woman, and is certainly doomed unless this trend is reversed.
Catholics who behave like Catholics and think like Catholics believe in having big families and if God blesses them by giving them big families then they thank Him. And you are right we will be doomed unless we reverse this trend. We will be overrun by Muslims. In the end the "Huganots" will see the truth and join the Catholics or they will join the others who think population control, euthenasia and abortion is great. We are warming up to these things being mandatory- after a third World War and the one World government completely installs itself. God bless you.
The problem is that this is not about you, though you seem to think it is. It is evident even in the title of the thread (Trads Take Notice) you were looking for and expecting an argument. And the first one that came up you accuse of being sedevacantist. It is enirely lawful to not agree with a Pope.
Well, granted that Paul VI endorsed a form of abstinence. And I agree with him that something needed to be done. But he also endorsed Novus Ordo.
Now about that long list of Popes that endorsed NFP???????? Was Paul VI the first one? I'm still waiting
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.
Point
I've refreshed my self on Humanae Vitae today and even read the NFP spin on the document. It seems that they base their existence on the evils of contraception, and really play that up. Basic Catholic teaching. What is not dwelled on is the "grave matter" that is to be considered before practicing NFP, as outlined in Humanae Vitae. They go on for pages about one, and you have to search for the other.
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.
Match and game.
Notice your words "industry" and "cult". It's all gotten out of hand, Which is why it was probably never endorsed for the first 1,968 years of the Church. And if not then, why now? And why NFP rather than just an improved, modern, medical version of "Vatican Roulette?"
One thing I am confused about is how NFP became a Catholic entity. Since you use the word 'industry', does that mean they make money somewhere along the line? And if yes, how is it they are the official Catholic Family Planner? If no then never mind.
I am willing to cede that family planning is legal in the Church, I have always acknowledged that. I'm just not sure that it should be, or was ever meant to be. I guess I am entitled to an opinion without being a sedevacantist, especially if I err on the side of caution.
Oh, that long list of Popes please. Unless you are willing to cede that there is not a list, and that the practice is not a long time Church teaching, but 40 years.
Pax
Please read the article that started this thread. Your answer is there. Add to the list there, John XXIII (VII approved of NFP in its documents), Paul VI, and JPII.
I apologize for the sedevacantist remark and retract it, OK?
Growing numbers of evangelical Protestants are catching on to this, too.
BTW, the "Huguenot" reference is to my father's father's father's... father, a Huguenot who escaped to Scotland after narrowly missing death in the St Bartholomew's Day massacre (an event of which no good Catholic, including my 100% Irish-blood mother, can be proud). But if the tagline is going to cause religious arguments, for the sake of the conscience of fellow believers (Rom. 14) I will amend it. Because after all, the abortionists, sodomites, euthanasists, etc, want ALL of us dead.
IMHO, blessed Saint Augustine was wrong on this (as a Protestant, I also disagree with Augustine's Pro-Papal Ecclesiology -- although I am of course a great fan of his Predestinarian Soteriology). At the risk of psychoanalyzing a far better man than myself, with no professional psychological credentials, and across 1600 years of elapsed time -- it's worth remembering that Augustine may have had a few minor sexual hang-ups, resulting from his debauched youth (and his admirable renunciation of debauchery after his Conversion).
The first Couple, by devoting all their efforts to "Serving God", has acheived a 100% "return on their investment" for the benefit of Christ's Church. Well done, thou good and faithful servants; enter now into the Joy of thy Lord.
But the second Couple, by raising up Children for Our Lord, has acheived a 250% "return on their investment" for the benefit of Christ's Church (perhaps compounded, generation upon generation, as they serve as Christian Patriarchs to their grand-children in their golden years).
Which Servant has accomplished more, for the Kingdom, with the Talents which God has given them?
Augustine was taking the Short View of things (which is a bit ironic, given his endorsement of "Long-View" Amillennialism). I think it is probably better, particularly for the Amillenialist (unless I am mistaken, orthodox Lutherans are confessionally Amillennialist) to take the Long View of things.
Best, OP
The culture war is not just in the US, it is world wide. It is the forces of darkness - atheism which is rebellion against the supremacy of God, whatever name He is called by. The atheists (although they don't always call themselves such; many are posing as false religious people) hate the fact that God makes all the rules, so they want to break His laws in the vain attempt to usurp His position of Supreme Lordship.
And it is pretty interesting that the basic rules of moral human behavior are essentiall the same in every monotheist religion.
Did God give you a brain between your ears, or is it just an empty chamber whistling in the wind?
Doesn't the faith include the moral law given to us by Christ to set us free from our urges?
Isn't for example, the Papal definition of the sinfulness of abortion in "Evangelium Vitae" are dogma?
Bad language that feeds the anti-NFP crowd.
NFP *may* be used, provided you aren't shirking your responsibilities to society.
Your other wants at age 25, for example, have significantly more weight than your wants at age 39, if by that point you have been married for a long time and only had one child.
There is certainly no requirement to use it ever, which is directly implied by using the word "is".
Given this sort of language, I've come to conclude two things about this. The Popes seem to use the phrase "grave reasons" when referring to those who use NFP/Rhythm to entirely shirk their matrimonial responsibilities to society to produce children, as in this citation. On the other hand, the phrase "just reasons" seems to be used more to refer to those who already have children, but wish to delay the appearance of the next one, but at the same time fully intend to use their marriage to provide for society.
It would certainly seem to me that there is a significant difference between a couple who use it to avoid having any children or more than just one or two children versus those who use it to say, give a wife a year or two of a breather, or to let the man have a year or two to let his salary catch up to the family's expenses, who has had four kids in six years before they go on to another.
Would you not agree that there is a moral difference in such a set of cases even though the motive is identical?
This is why I like to come back to the fundemental question you and I have discussed before - the duty of married people to reproduce at a rate that sufficies to grow the population and provide for the Church. Those who are not attempting to fulfill this duty are not only cheating society but are probably questionably married. It is not so much that every sexual act of theirs is sinful but that their whole life is one large sin that just keeps getting bigger with each act - their determination to live their life in opposition to the needs of the Church and the Nation.
Its very much like long-term embezzlement. The sum at the end is what is important, not the little acts in between. A man who steals $10 per day from his company shorts them very little each time, but cumulatively is stealing over $100,000 in a normal working life. Stealing a trifle like $10 is hardly a mortal sin in most circumstances, but stealing $10 many times with the intention of stealing $100,000 is.
Each individual act of the stingy married couple using NFP is not that great a crime. The determination to vitiate the meaning and force of their marriage out of some confused beliefs about childbearing is.
This is a bad arguement. The major costs in life - housing, transportation, and food - are much, much cheaper in the Third World than in the US. One could live like royalty in most of the world at a wage level that would be poverty-starvation in the US. $50K per year is a barely adeqaute middle-class salary in the US for a man providing for a large family. $50K in India or the Philippines or Kenya or Peru would buy you an opulent home, servants, a chauffer, fine dining, etc.
US food is especially expensive because of many people's insistence on eating processed foods versus making their own (compare the cost of some oat cereal per pound versus raw oatmeal) or eating simpler food lower down the processing chain (i.e. salted peanuts in the shell vs. shelled honey-roasted peanuts). Of course no one has time to make their own anymore because so many wives are now working instead of staying home and providing for their families subsistence.
Hardly a surprise. I think God gave the Indians the Veda's to prepare them to accept Christ, just like he gave the Greeks philosophy to do the same.
That is exactly what it is. Where your mistake comes is from assuming the Church is opposed to Birth Control. The Church is not opposed to Birth Control. The Church is opposed to the frustration of the marital act by illicit means.
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.
Given the general trend of society today, if we could return to the status quo of the 1950's where the typical Catholic family was using NFP/Rhythm, that would be a tremendous step up from one where the typical Catholic family is using oral contraceptives and sterilization surgeries. I believe that is the purpose the literature, just as the suggestion of giving such advice in the confessional to Onanists was in the 1800's.
"Saying NO to God's Blessings."
God's blessing in marriage include the mutual companionship of the spouses and the holiness derived from the Sacrament. Or have you forgotten your Catechism?
This line of thought is akin to saying someone who does not go to Mass all day long and receive communion twice per day is "saying NO to God's blessings". After all you *could* do that, so why *aren't* you?
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.
"Be fruitful and multiply" was spoken with respect to "filling the earth and subduing it". In some places, we have certainly reached that point. For example, the eastern US, Holland, the Chinese coast, and the Ganges valley in India. The obligation is with respect to the end of supplying society the children it needs. With modern medicine eliminating childhood death, longer lifespans, a vastly increased population, fewer plagues and wars, the "obligation" to have as many children as possible is certainly debatable to say the least. Can you cite a moral theologian who actually takes your position?
One more Neo Catholic dogma.
Did "Neo-Catholicism" start in 1853?
I'm glad you are familiar with Francis Schaeffer's "How then Shall we Live?". You should read his other works; they are also very good.
Schaeffer is generally regarded, amongst orthodox Protestants anyway (theological Liberals be damned), as the best 20th-Century Protestant theologian in the English-speaking world. It is a Point of Honor amongst Orthodox Presbyterians that our small-but-rigorous Denomination was responsible for his training.
I am, of course, aware of the Early Fathers' essentially-unanimous opposition to Birth Control. PolycarpIV has already been most helpful to me in cataloguing the Early Christian Fathers' opposition to Birth Control, as well as blessed Saint John Calvin's (The Godfather of Orthodox Presbyterianism) own opposition to Birth Control.
In both cases, I do confess, my opinions of both the Early Fathers and John Calvin's opposition to all forms of Birth Control is somewhat colored by the fact that they refer to "killing the seed" and "potions of sterility" in defense of their opposition to all forms of Birth Control. As an Orthodox Presbyterian, I do reject all Chemical Contraception (which "kills the seed", preventing implantation of a Conceived Embryo) and Sterilization (which, according to Old Testament Scripture, is an Abomination).
However, the same Logic simply does not apply to modern non-abortifacient "Barrier Methods", such as Diaphragms and Spermicides, which seem to me to be Medical Methodologies of "Pregnancy Timing" (I'll freely grant that Pregnancy, which may perhaps be "timed" for Stewardship reasons, should not be Deliberately and Permanently Avoided lest one be guilty of the admittedly-sinful and Onanistic Contraceptive Mentality).
Which leaves me with the Questions:
I don't profess to know -- and I admit I am still learning.
Best, OP
I didn't forget my catechism. The purpose of the Sacrament of Matrimony is the procreation of children. We receive Graces from God to perform our duties in life and our duties towards those children through this Sacrament when we cooperate with His plan.
You are correct about confessional Lutherans being Amillennialist. I guess I was trying to make the point that some of the views on marriage and sex have changed through the ages, and held up Augustine (a personal favorite of mine) as an example of one who viewed marriage as a concession to the sinful nature of man and not as a holy vocation.
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.