Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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: 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: 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: 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 ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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