tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post20892960046762196..comments2024-03-21T00:15:48.886-07:00Comments on Philothea on Phire: "What If I'm Wrong About NFP?"Jayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-78268346428175182652013-08-10T06:35:46.982-07:002013-08-10T06:35:46.982-07:00Dr. McKeown - a very interesting point. Thank you....Dr. McKeown - a very interesting point. Thank you. I will certainly take this under consideration.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-82525349149895582672013-08-10T05:49:19.181-07:002013-08-10T05:49:19.181-07:00> a lack of cooperation with God’s will, becaus...> a lack of cooperation with God’s will, because He expressly told us to “be fruitful and multiply”<br /><br />The early Jewish interpretation of that was as a command to get married (aimed at men).<br /><br />The new covenant changes that. Jesus. Most of early Christianity's leaders and writers chose to be unmarried and have no biological children (but they were spiritual fathers to many). <br /><br />Tertullian affirms that the new covenant “abolished the ancient command to increase and multiply” (ANF 4.40).<br /><br />Augustine wrote: “This propagation of children which among the ancient saints was a duty for begetting a people for God, amongst whom the prophecy of Christ’s coming had precedence over everything, now has no longer the same necessity. For from among all nations the way is open for an abundant offspring to receive spiritual regeneration, from whatever quarter they derive their natural birth.” (nupt. et conc. 1.13)<br /><br />Using "be fruitful and multiply" to argue for maximising biological reproduction is not in tune with patristic tradition, which emphasises spiritual fruitfulness.John McKeown Ph.D.http://www.katav.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-51970126681378889282013-08-06T22:08:41.593-07:002013-08-06T22:08:41.593-07:00Also, if I'm not mistaken, St. Augustine held ...Also, if I'm not mistaken, St. Augustine held that it was better for a man to procreate with a woman who is not his wife than to have non-procreative sex with his wife. <br /><br />So you can see where an over-emphasis on the procreative aspect gets us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-84633922616348118672012-06-19T17:08:09.097-07:002012-06-19T17:08:09.097-07:00Rachel, potential means not-actualized, therefore ...Rachel, potential means not-actualized, therefore there is no violation of the principle of non-contradiction. When a couple is having sexual relations, there is the potential for a human life to be created since procreation is the primary end (purpose) of sexual relations. If my parents had been following the regimen of periodic continence throughout the month of June, 1959, or thereabouts, I would never have been created. As it is, thanks be to God, my beloved parents were practicing no form of birth regulation whatsoever. And I believe this was the case throughout their married life. It’s not that my mother had to conceive during every eligible cycle of fertility as you implied in your last statement. Rather, the point is that they performed no action(s) that were against conception. Therefore, they did nothing to prevent the conception of a potential child-to-be.<br /><br />Perhaps my terminology is redundant (?) Maybe it should be potential child, rather than potential child-to-be.<br /><br />Also, God’s knowledge is different from human knowledge. Foreknowledge is the only way that humans can know the future, apart from faith. But God sees everything now, as in real-time. This explains why divine knowledge does not take away human freedom. Therefore, a potential child does not have to exist actually for God to know him, since God’s knowledge is not caused, as is the case with human knowledge. In fact, God’s knowledge was directing all the circumstances and events that caused a potential child to become an actual child. Thus God could say to Jeremiah: “Before I formed in the womb I knew you.” (Jer. 1:5) Is not God saying here that He knew Jeremiah both as a potential child, and as an actual child?<br /><br />So, when I speak of a potential child’s existence being precluded, I am not talking about an actual child. I am referring to the gravity of the use of periodic continence (the lack of children will be a real impoverishment) and to the varying degrees of malice involved in effectively attempting to thwart God’s creative will.Fr. W. M. Gardnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-5021491072286276192012-06-18T19:30:33.865-07:002012-06-18T19:30:33.865-07:00Well,
That's what I've always thought. My...Well, <br />That's what I've always thought. My husband's grandparents had to do that. He was a daily communicant and they were one of the closest couples I have ever seen. They were married for 65 years.Sue Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-40991607432794228262012-06-18T11:59:05.168-07:002012-06-18T11:59:05.168-07:00Fr. Gardner,
I agree with you that modern theolog...Fr. Gardner,<br /><br />I agree with you that modern theological training is not always an asset! I've seen many for whom it can be a detriment, though I don't count myself among them. I don't typically go around arguing with priests! <br /><br />I really am having a hard time accepting, philosophically, your ideas about "potential children-to-be". The phrase really does not even compute for me. <br /><br />"But could we not say that both you and I were once a “potential child-to-be”? Well then, we can also say: “Thank the Lord that my existence was not precluded by any action against conception of any kind.”"<br />I do not believe that we can say this, no. We can say that once I did not exist (though God certainly had foreknowledge of my future existence), and then I did exist, as a person with body and soul, from the moment of my conception. To me, you are ascribing being ("you and I were once") to a non-being ("potential child-to-be"). This seems to violate the law of noncontradiction. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. <br /><br />Re: the Pius XII quote, I don't think he is quite using the idea of "potential children-to-be" in the way you are. He seems to be speaking of God's foreknowledge, though towards the end I'm not sure. I have a hard time making sense of the idea that we have the ability to prevent from existing the people God wills to exist. I agree that in general, human actions have and can prevent the existence of new life, and God wills in general for new life to exist. <br /><br />But God's foreknowledge of human persons is not just general, but would become specific, as in foreknowledge that particular persons will one day exist, what they will be like, their temperaments and vocations...Perhaps He has foreknowledge of children I have not yet borne; if so, it would be of specific children--that son to be born in 2015, daughter in 2017, etc. But there is not a queue in heaven of little souls waiting to be embodied. And the child I might conceive this month would be genetically unique and very different from the child I would conceive in 2015 or 2017. So I cannot agree that each cycle I fail to conceive (for whatever reason) that somehow God's will is thwarted.Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-79766168434148070712012-06-18T07:29:38.919-07:002012-06-18T07:29:38.919-07:00Allie, thanks for this comment! Your description o...Allie, thanks for this comment! Your description of a marriage prep class fits the image I had in my head! I agree that NFP-instead-of-the-pill is a step forward. Since it seems that currently more and more young people are seeing the dangers of chemical contraception, it's probably a good time so present an alternative. Still, we need to keep in mind that NFP as a substitute for illicit contraception is not the final answer (and it sounds like you are very much aware of that). I think you've inspired me for a future post...Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-44364988840972073682012-06-18T05:25:31.937-07:002012-06-18T05:25:31.937-07:00Rachel, sometimes I wonder if modern theological t...Rachel, sometimes I wonder if modern theological training is more of a liability than an asset… But could we not say that both you and I were once a “potential child-to-be”? Well then, we can also say: “Thank the Lord that my existence was not precluded by any action against conception of any kind.”<br /><br />You seem to answer your question within your own comment. There is an infinite chasm, or separation, between existence and non-existence such that creation is truly the realm of the miraculous. And procreation involves the most serious duty for spouses, but also the greatest opportunity for charity among believers.<br /><br />Pope Pius XII expressed a similar view in his Address to Newlyweds, which Dr. Boyd has quoted previously: “It will depend on you whether those innocent souls, whom the embrace of Infinite Love desires to call from nothing, shall come to the threshold of life, in order to make of them one day His chosen companions in the eternal happiness of Heaven. But alas! If they remain merely magnificent images in the mind of God when they could have been rays of sun that illuminate every man who comes into this world (John 1:9), they will remain forever nothing but lights extinguished by the cowardice and selfishness of man!”Fr. W. M. Gardnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-4348161216759967532012-06-18T04:55:09.782-07:002012-06-18T04:55:09.782-07:00I have read most of this conversation, and think I...I have read most of this conversation, and think I have something new to add. My husband and I are NFP teachers, and we do the "sex talk" at the marriage prep our cluster hosts every spring. We work hard to put forth the essence of the Church's teaching in the 45 given to us. We also think carfully about how we present ourselves verbally and physically in an attempt to make Catholic Large Family life attractive. ( we have 7 children so far). <br /><br />This is what it looks like in the trenches (at least in the Northeast). One or 2 couples out of 30 in these prep classes have an understanding of Church teaching. Most are openly living together and contracepting. Even those who go to Mass every weekend are often introduced to the reasons behing the teaching against contraception for the first time at our session!<br /><br />In our years of work we have seen couples move, by the Grace of God, from contracepting, to active Catholics who begin to struggle with "serious reasons". <br /><br />But in defence of NFP teachers, we need to meet people where they are before we hit them with the deeper issues behind Catholic teaching. "Hmmm, NFP might work for us.." is a more possible step than " I need to get off contraception and be open to life!" Though I have seen this happen too, happily!<br /><br />God works wonders with these couples once they make the baby-step to NFP. We do our best, in pray and trust the Our Lord can use our little efforts to win souls!Goodwyf Alliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00652025442360996923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-45772415535176168612012-06-17T19:54:51.874-07:002012-06-17T19:54:51.874-07:00"If I were that potential child-to-be, I woul..."If I were that potential child-to-be, I would want only the most serious of reasons to preclude my existence..."<br /><br />This is one of the most bizarre and nonsensical hypotheticals I have ever encountered. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but I just can't get around it.<br /><br />I am no priest, and I'm sure my theological education lacked the length and depth of your seminary formation, Fr. Gardner, but I do not see how this squares with Catholic teaching whatsoever. The Church teaches against the pre-existence of souls. The soul is created along with the body at the moment of conception; not earlier. Philosophically, it makes no sense to me to imagine the feelings of a non-existent being regarding their non-existence. <br /><br />I can understand, perhaps, if your point is to get at the awesome power and responsibility parents have to bring new souls into the world for God. Yes, this is truly an amazing and weighty gift. But I do not believe that the flip side here is that when a married couple fails to bring forth as many children as they possibly could that they are depriving God of new souls for Him.Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-7859859456916362452012-06-17T19:45:43.427-07:002012-06-17T19:45:43.427-07:00I can't really add much of anything to what Kr...I can't really add much of anything to what Kristin D has said here in response to your question, Fr. Gardner. <br /><br />It's not so much that I think we can "anticipate" God's will through discernment, but that we can discern it and leave room for Him to act (by not doing anything to deliberately frustrate it). It can work both ways, both with a couple discerning they are not called to have a child and then getting pregnant unexpectedly, and with a couple discerning that they are called to have a child but then facing infertility. We see through a glass darkly, yes?Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-55635218391743174232012-06-17T19:41:23.191-07:002012-06-17T19:41:23.191-07:00Again, the USCCB website and the CCLI website are ...Again, the USCCB website and the CCLI website are not the only (nor the primary) resources for instruction in NFP nor for continuing formation for discerning the proper use of NFP. Perhaps they are the easiest sources to find via Google, but they should not be used as the standard measure for the types of discussions that take place regarding the regulation of births by Catholic married couples. <br /><br />You asked why NFP using couples don't just "leave it up to God". This would involve, practically speaking, abandoning charting/using NFP--i.e., ignoring what is biologically taking place. I've heard the argument before--that somehow not being aware of the timing of ovulation and therefore not doing anything to time intercourse relative to it means the couple is using "God's timing". And I have not anywhere implied that we MUST use the knowledge God give us, or that any use of that knowledge necessarily indicates His will. <br /><br />I guess I just don't see the traditionally "providentialist" view of things (don't chart, just have a "normal married life" and let babies come as they may) as certain proof of "God's timing" so much as the couple taking a passive stance towards the possible results of their intimacy. I guess I just have a problem with considering this kind of passivity necessarily virtuous (or at least more virtuous than using NFP).Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-31236020663541911122012-06-17T19:33:19.624-07:002012-06-17T19:33:19.624-07:00Sue, if that is the case, then the couple should p...Sue, if that is the case, then the couple should probably abstain completely, wouldn't you think? That is, after all, the only absolutely sure way to avoid pregnancy.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-16254129272605236142012-06-17T18:56:18.662-07:002012-06-17T18:56:18.662-07:00Jay,
If a person has a very serious life threateni...Jay,<br />If a person has a very serious life threatening reason to avoid pregnancy they would have moral obligation under the fifth commandment to try their best not to conceive. This is not the same thing as relying on God's Divine Providence or accepting and carry through with a difficult pregnancy. There is such a thing as presumption.Sue Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-84923091587369276532012-06-17T14:31:30.052-07:002012-06-17T14:31:30.052-07:00Kristin, I'm doing more research as I can on t...Kristin, I'm doing more research as I can on that question about souls "waiting to be conceived". I don't have an answer right now. I know that some people think it's the wrong way to look at it, but I have not yet clarified my own thinking on it. Maybe Fr. Gardner will add some further thoughts on this.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-45550900149327440792012-06-17T14:00:42.309-07:002012-06-17T14:00:42.309-07:00I appreciate your prayers and I appreciate this di...I appreciate your prayers and I appreciate this discussion. I've certainly felt the weight all of the options and possibilities you've presented above and have been bringing those to prayer for some time. I don't know the answer but am in a state of continual discernment as anything can happen and things may change. I belive this is what I'm called to do "in this moment" but I'm always open to and welcome to that changing.<br /><br />With your response I'd like to revisit what Rachel brought up above as I feel it's a continual theme brought up in the responces above from you and others.<br /><br />"<br />(4) "Imagine the pain of knowing the souls you could have conceived if you’d cooperated with God’s will and timing." Your concept of God's will and the strange suggestion of some sort of pre-existence of souls (or alternate timeline in which more souls would exist?) baffles me."<br /><br />And then Fr. again reiterates this theme writing:<br /><br />"After all, we are talking about the existence, or non-existence of a human soul. If I were that potential child-to-be, I would want only the most serious of reasons to preclude my existence (and this is with the blessing of the Church). Actually, most potential children-to-be are prevented from existing without the blessing of the Church, through the use of artificial contraception."<br /><br />THIS truly seems to be a huge part of your and the other's thought process on generosity and qualifications for determining serious reason. If this is true then shouldn't we even be actively trying to conceive "just in case?" If God doesn't want us to have a baby then we just wouldn't right? I'm just not seeing this fit with anything I've been taught. Though I'm taught we have free will so can choose to turn our backs on God I'm also taught that God knows everything I have done or will ever do. Is that compatible with the belief that I should work under the assumption that God has 20 extra souls just waiting there for me to conceive? What does the Church say about this part of the thought process?<br /><br />And in regards to artificial contraception this is also key to illustrating it's complete separation from NFP. Artificial contraception blocks God from creating a child during marital union while NFP never does this. In addition many forms of Artificial Contraception have an abortifacient aspect that also attempts to and does prevent life from continuing should pregnancy occur through causing a very early abortion. Again NFP doesn't do this. <br /><br />Though I completely agree with generosity and proper discernment, I would like some discussion about the above thought that seems to keep recurring: The belief that there are souls waiting to be conceived for which NFP somehow prevents. Is this compatible with the our faith?Kristin Dhttp://livingthesacrament.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-83974198687826483522012-06-17T11:16:26.844-07:002012-06-17T11:16:26.844-07:00Kristin, thanks for sharing your story and your th...Kristin, thanks for sharing your story and your thoughts. I don't know the answer either, but it certainly sounds like you are working very hard at "discerning". In your case, it is possibly an issue of death (or at least hastening death, maybe), and that would constitute a "serious reason" to avoid pregnancy. One could also ask, at what point does a couple decide to abstain completely because of the risk of death to the mother if she becomes pregnant? (I'm not saying this is your situation, I'm saying, "what if?") <br /><br />On the other hand - and this is hypothetical and not meant as advice to you or anything like that - suppose you decide to postpone pregnancy, and then in 5 years, your illness COULD be treated effectively, or suppose there is a miracle of healing for you. In that case, you might be in a position of "I wish we had". We can't second-guess God - we just have to trust. That's not easy, and there are always questions, I guess. <br /><br />One could also ask whether your desire to conceive is a "sign" from God that you SHOULD, and just leave the details to him. That's tough when you consider that the "details" might actually involve further deterioration of your health, or even death. But what about the child? What plans might God have for that little soul, even at the "expense" of your health? I do not envy you!!! But God will give you the grace to work this out for yourselves, I'm sure.<br /><br />I hope this doesn't sound "preachy" or whatever. I'm thinking out loud, too, as I contemplate your situation. I'll be praying for you at the Divine Mercy chaplet each day - for your health, your discernment in all this, and that God's will be done.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-40171815103156995692012-06-17T10:53:00.271-07:002012-06-17T10:53:00.271-07:00"But (from Michael Malone) what if they were ..."But (from Michael Malone) what if they were using NFP and still conceived. Does this mean that they did not, in fact, have serious reasons… or does it mean that God was playing some kind of cruel trick on them? I find it to be strange that we can anticipate God’s will by our discernment of serious reasons..."<br /><br />I don't have the answers so that's not at all what I'm trying to say below...but I very much appreciate this discussion so I hope you all know my goodwill with the questions below. This is just what's going on in my process, I don't claim to be right.<br /><br />Couldn't the above quote be said about discernment of anything? We do our best to genuinely discern and do so prayerfully but always with the caveat of "Thy will be done" right? NFP does not frustrate God's will in the same way that contraception does because it very openly says "Thy will be done" by not using any sort of artificial interference. <br /><br />For example I have a kidney disease that baring a miracle will call for transplant in the next ten years. We have been SO very blessed to have had 4 biological children since we married 8 years ago and would love to have more. But we realize that there are very serious risks now that my kidneys are declining. This risk may not result in death or it may...there is no real way to know "for certain" and as I believe my job in this world is to love God and do everything I can to help my Husband and Children get to heaven should I not value doing whatever I can, within church teachings, to minimize my decline and care for the children God has blessed me with? My husband and I have talked about being open to life in other ways, like renewing our foster care license and continuing that work, being open to adoption etc. Is the only way we can truly and genuinely be open to life through our very own physical bodies? If we should unexpectedly conceive we trust that God would see us through but I don't see how using NFP though "certain death" is not known, is somehow sinful. We are open to life but we are also valuing and caring for the lives God has already given us. And how can "certain death" really be known? You hear all the time about people who beat the odds.<br /><br />I share the above not because I know the answers. I don't. I struggle with this discernment and probably always will. But here's the thing. I do believe that my desire for more children is a gift given to me by God because for me it confirms our discernment to postpone. If I was WANTING to postpone and looking for a loophole I'd certainly have it and knowing myself I'd ALWAYS question if what I was doing was for me or for Him. But that's not the case. I want to conceive. I want just say "ok Lord it's on you". But I truly don't believe that is what is being asked of us...at least not this cycle. And I think my desire to conceive is confirmation that we are not postponing for us and because of our selfish desires because if we wanted to be selfish we would show no restraint. At what point are we just walking onto a busy highway saying "ok Lord, if you want me to live don't let any cars hit me"?Kristin Dhttp://livingthesacrament.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-80477587010869406572012-06-16T21:08:38.095-07:002012-06-16T21:08:38.095-07:00Interesting notes, Fr. Gardner. I have been thinki...Interesting notes, Fr. Gardner. I have been thinking all day about Creary's proposal that danger of death might be the "serious reason" required for periodic continence. While Humanae Vitae implies that "lesser" reasons might suffice, that's not really consistent with past teaching, is it? In this day and age, that kind of sacrifice is really dismissed by most as almost fanatical. Look at the flak the Duggar family has taken for having 19 kids (or is it 20 now?). Even some NFP proponents denigrated the Duggars by creating a t-shirt slogan that says "I use NFP, and Michelle Duggar is not my idol."Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-85123421881914371472012-06-16T20:53:06.998-07:002012-06-16T20:53:06.998-07:00I personally appreciate Creary’s attempt to raise ...I personally appreciate Creary’s attempt to raise the bar with regard to the standard for serious reasons for the licit use of natural birth regulation. Hypothetically, couldn’t the Church adopt his criteria (only in danger of death is it licit to prevent the conception of children by the use of periodic continence)? After all, we are talking about the existence, or non-existence of a human soul. If I were that potential child-to-be, I would want only the most serious of reasons to preclude my existence (and this is with the blessing of the Church). Actually, most potential children-to-be are prevented from existing without the blessing of the Church, through the use of artificial contraception.<br />(As a side-note, Creary, you made a very interesting comment about the placement of the sin of artificial contraception under the purview of the 5th Commandment. I previously thought that this was because of the self-mutilating nature of sterilizing drugs, or treatments. But you seem to be implying that it is because of the murder-like prevention of a potential human being(?) This is, indeed, a serious matter.)<br /><br />Rachel, you commented that couples are certainly not “frustrating His will for the creation of new souls if they have discerned that He is not calling them to procreate at that time.” But (from Michael Malone) what if they were using NFP and still conceived. Does this mean that they did not, in fact, have serious reasons… or does it mean that God was playing some kind of cruel trick on them? I find it to be strange that we can anticipate God’s will by our discernment of serious reasons...<br /><br />Lastly, I suspect that St. Augustine is wiser than we moderns are willing to admit. His teaching on marriage is sometimes cavalierly dismissed as archaic and a product of his own troubling life experiences. But I suspect that he was carefully synthesizing the timeless teaching of the Church Fathers and the best of the Judeo-Christian tradition, while also benefitting from the experience of his own conversion from a promiscuous lifestyle. His teaching on marriage was adopted not only by St. Thomas, but also by Pope St. Gregory the Great and seemed to be the guiding principle of Catholic magisterial teaching on marriage for centuries… until the time of Vatican II. I suspect further that, sooner or later, St. Augustine will be vindicated for explicating the correct teaching on marriage and celibacy (especially after having been refined by St. Thomas).Fr. W. M. Gardnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-48525506211125760482012-06-16T08:26:42.443-07:002012-06-16T08:26:42.443-07:00Rachel, in terms of the discussion of serious reas...Rachel, in terms of the discussion of serious reason, of course I believe that some couples have these. I believe others don't, and that's been evident on some other blogs and news articles that talk about NFP as the perfect way to practice birth control. Period. I also fail to see "serious reasons" given much attention on the USCCB website and the CCL website. So my concern is that the teachers and promoters of NFP are not being completely honest about its licit use. And they are perhaps unwittingly helping to maintain a current cultural value that "responsible" and "prudent" parenthood means intentionally limiting the number of children in a family. I'm not saying each couple consciously adheres to the overpopulation myth; I'm saying that the myth has had an impact on our thinking about families. This kind of effect is not always one that we are conscious of, and it can influence even our prayerful discernment, since we are, after all, human.<br /><br />There's a lot to address in your comment...running out of time here. But your ending question "how does ignorance of biological reality equal 'God's timing'?"...I don't recall saying that it does. But I could turn the question around and ask "does knowledge and the use of that knowledge NECESSARILY indicate God's will?" Knowledge about IVF, cloning, etc. comes to mind. Not all scientific knowledge can be used morally or even licitly. Just sayin'. And no, I am not putting NFP in the same class as IVF and cloning.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-13542189374342782552012-06-16T08:16:18.828-07:002012-06-16T08:16:18.828-07:00Augustine is not the Magisterium, nor is Thomas. I...Augustine is not the Magisterium, nor is Thomas. If Creary or you would like to favor his view in your personal living, then by all means, go ahead. But other Catholics are under no obligation to do the same. <br /><br />Of course I favor a contextual reading of the documents. But I honestly do not believe that the framing of the issue in HV is novel. You apparently disagree<br /><br />The Church offers more guidance than "just follow your conscience." HV is full of guidance. In all of the NFP literature and instruction I've come across, the emphasis has been on openness to life and generosity of heart, not on simply asking how we're feeling about another baby at the time.Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-78288565152627394132012-06-16T08:16:08.778-07:002012-06-16T08:16:08.778-07:00Creary, actually I think that currently the criter...Creary, actually I think that currently the criteria of "risk of death" does go beyond what the Church intends for "serious reasons". It would be hard to read that into any of the papal statements of this century, for sure. So it's not something today's couples could be held to. There's a lot to be said for voluntarily adopting such a philosophy, though - that would be truly abandoning oneself to God's providence in a heroic way. <br /><br />I think a way to frame it in a more "acceptable" way would be to point out the value and desirability of large families, which is an age-old Church value, while acknowledging that not everyone is able to accomplish that, numbers-wise...for a variety of reasons. All the faithful who seek to fulfill their duty to the Church are doing their part. And there are other types of "parenthood", such as spiritual parenthood, too.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-53830463432951190332012-06-16T08:12:09.262-07:002012-06-16T08:12:09.262-07:00And because I felt many of the points in this comm...And because I felt many of the points in this comment were directed at my comments on your other post, I want to respond further.<br /><br />(1) I did not claim that you believe NFP use/birth control to be "intrinsically immoral". I was making a point of Church teaching on the matter, a point which I'd hoped we both could agree on for clarity in the discussion. <br /><br />(2) Again and again, NFP users have told you that the discussion of the need for serious reasons to avoid pregnancy using NFP does take place. Frankly, your perspective on this is one of an outsider, speculating on what you believe to take place. You did not ever use NFP, so you never received instruction in it, nor would you have ever been in the situation of personally discerning and discussing with others the discernment process. I don't believe you are involved in premarital instruction or marriage ministry. So I believe you are simply ignorant of the many conversations that do take place about this issue, simply because you have never been a part of them (nor had reason to be). Many of the closed NFP communities of which I am a part frequently have these discussions. My married friends and I have these discussions. My husband and I have these discussions. <br /><br />Your concern here seems to me to be a lack of trust in other married couples--lack of trust in their judgment, in their ability to discern God's will, in their understanding of the teaching, in their openness to life, in their generosity of heart. I deeply believe that NFP using Catholic couples have done nothing to deserve such distrust and skepticism of their motives, which is why your comments on the matter seem, at best, uncharitable.<br /><br />(3) If I'm wrong, then the Church is wrong. Simple as that. <br /><br />(4) "Imagine the pain of knowing the souls you could have conceived if you’d cooperated with God’s will and timing." Your concept of God's will and the strange suggestion of some sort of pre-existence of souls (or alternate timeline in which more souls would exist?) baffles me. Can you not admit that a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons is cooperating with God's will? They certainly aren't frustrating His will for the creation of new souls if they have discerned that He is not calling them to procreate at that time. <br /><br />And the whole notion of "God's timing" is a rose-colored glasses view of how conception takes place for a couple not paying attention to fertility signs. A couple using NFP could quite possibly conceive more children throughout their childbearing years than a couple using nothing at all, having random acts of intercourse following their urges for intimacy without regard for the timing of ovulation. In this scenario, how does ignorance of biological reality equal "God's timing"?Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-77591006878778701082012-06-16T07:58:30.575-07:002012-06-16T07:58:30.575-07:00Creary is taking a good hard look at Augustine, wh...Creary is taking a good hard look at Augustine, who has certainly had some influence on Church teaching; St. Thomas leaned on him, and of course the Summa Theologica is a firm underpinning of the Church's doctrines. The term "responsible" parenthood is pretty much new to Humanae Vitae, and frankly, I wish the current Church hierarchy would show a little "responsible parenthood" toward the faithful!<br /><br />Other papal documents prior to HV are a little more specific about "serious reasons". I'm not saying there should be a "list of acceptable reasons" - I'm saying that people should be offered a little more than "Oh, just follow your conscience." The current social milieu emphasizes personal control and personal fulfillment, rather than the needs of the Church which a married couple is duty-bound to observe. HV has to be viewed in the context of the teaching that has gone before, not just as an isolated, "current" authoritative statement. More on all this in another post in the next week or so, maybe. I know, you can hardly wait! ;-)Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.com