tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post433098261933149857..comments2024-03-21T00:15:48.886-07:00Comments on Philothea on Phire: Diabolical Family Planning, Part IJayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-14124159791694372082013-08-23T11:57:54.101-07:002013-08-23T11:57:54.101-07:00Are there any Church documents or moral theologian...Are there any Church documents or moral theologians, who argue as Terry does that I could consider? I am not aware of any. I have not read much of Augustine and Aristotle, but I can't see how the Church would contradict itself. If she did, then she wouldn't be what she says she is.<br /><br />My big point of contention is in the repeated characterization of NFP (if you're including it among natural methods of birth control)(and if I am understanding correctly) as "mutually masturbatory"--I suppose because you presume that the act is sought primarily for pleasure, while the end of the act as intended by God is disregarded. A good intention can't make an immoral act moral. <br /><br />However, if this assessment were the case then spouses who are sterile or past child-bearing years would not be able to engage in marriage relations, as no new life could be brought forth.<br /><br />Fr. Gardner answered that "miracles can happen." Well they can happen with NFP too. The door is always at least "ajar." With contraception it is slammed tight, although there are plenty of conceptions with that regardless. What matters is the act of the will, and whether an action is in accord with the natural law.<br /><br />People who use NFP must be open to the possibility of new life. <br /><br />Mrs. MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-34911535089527964722013-08-22T16:45:12.751-07:002013-08-22T16:45:12.751-07:00"I'm not so much interested in what Terry..."I'm not so much interested in what Terry says as what the Church says." Of course. But you were arguing against what he said without getting his point straight. Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-19237439433646950692013-08-22T16:21:14.926-07:002013-08-22T16:21:14.926-07:00 If only a small fraction of the teachings are non... If only a small fraction of the teachings are non-infallibly pronounced,<br /><br />Should say if a small fraction...*are* Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-29090518814680174582013-08-22T16:19:05.387-07:002013-08-22T16:19:05.387-07:00I suppose then that that is why (I'm told) St....I suppose then that that is why (I'm told) St. Augustine thought it was better for a man to procreate with a woman who was not his wife, rather than have non-procreative relations with his wife. <br /><br />I'm not so much interested in what Terry says as what the Church says. Something isn't true simply because the Church says it is; rather the Church says it because it IS true--grounded in reality and the natural law, and divine positive law.<br /><br />To be clear- we are not referring by NFP to morally reprehensible acts such as coitus interruptus, marital sodomy or fellatio (all non-chemical/non artificial, though they're anything but natural since they go against the natural outcome of the act.)<br /><br />The two things that God joined in the fertile part of the cycle--bonding and babies--He separated in the latter half of the cycle; it is part of His design. Fertility is not random, but ordered and must be ordered to the proper end: procreation.<br /><br />However, the act must also be in accord with right reason, as I keep saying. I don't think reason goes out the window when we leave the wedding chapel. Many people seem to think that when they vowed to be open to life, any action taken to undermine that would be de facto closed to life. If that were the case, then the Church would not have permitted or given its whole-hearted support (as JP II does) to systematic abstinence. Then we would be breaking a vow. And we couldn't even confess sorrow for something that we really don't regret and would do again, given the circumstances.<br /><br />Thus, "It is clear that if there is a just cause, it is perfectly lawful to give up the pursuit of primary ends of human functions and center attention solely on legitimate secondary ends. One can stop at these secondary ends for the goodness which is proper to them, for motives which are proportionate to the end being avoided." Griese<br /><br />I'm not making this up. For one thing, the quotes are from a pre-Vatican II rigorist moral theologian who held the minority view.<br /><br />Since that time the Church has only expounded and made even more clear this authoritative teaching. If only a small fraction of the teachings are non-infallibly pronounced, should we throw out 75% of what the Church proclaims if we have a different personal judgment? Why bother to be Catholic in that case? The Protestants have a quiver-full movement. They even agree with the Church fathers. But they lack the wisdom of the popes.<br /><br />That's the best I can do for an NFP "apology."<br /><br />If you want to talk about *control*, we've had to learn that it isn't easy to control one's passions and appetites in marriage. But I have been very grateful to feel (simultaneously with God) *in control* as opposed to God being in control and me being out of control.<br /><br />To be sure many people feel called to relinquish control of their fertility to God. They may discern that. I don't believe that's the only form heroism takes. I think having a sacramental marriage and following the precepts of the Church is a very valuable witness in and of itself these days, as we struggle to deal with the fallout from the previous generation's decisions. The man I married is one in a million; showed so much care and respect for both of our dignity and honor. <br /><br />Alot of our cohorts postpone marriage-- many because of student loans, others to live out a state of perpetual adolescence. Mike married me when he was almost 22 years old and we proceeded virtually immediately to have children in quick succession-- grad school notwithstanding, and he never pressured me to bring in money though goodness knows we could use some. I think that postponing marriage until one's financially secure poses quite a risk of incontinence. <br /><br />The name natural family planning always seemed like a joke to me, a misnomer when one is at all attracted to their spouse. And certainly all one's spouse has to do is request/demand their marriage rights, and it's forget about NFP since withholding that right would be a mortal sin. <br /><br />Mrs. MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-91568815233207328442013-08-20T12:36:42.654-07:002013-08-20T12:36:42.654-07:00Yes, yes, but you are still not "getting it&q...Yes, yes, but you are still not "getting it". Terry and I are saying that "mutual help" is not INHERENT in the sexual act. The sexual act can serve the end of "mutual help", but Terry's point is that the sexual act IN AND OF ITSELF has but one identifiable purpose. Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-37663687201317526242013-08-20T12:21:33.071-07:002013-08-20T12:21:33.071-07:00"Mrs. Mike, 'when you start with a faulty..."Mrs. Mike, 'when you start with a faulty first principle, you will come to the wrong conclusion." Your faulty principle is this: "Marriage relations are also intended for the mutual help of spouses.'" Boyd<br /><br />"For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved." Casti Connubii<br /><br />Mrs. Mike <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-12524195451460688722013-08-19T10:05:39.215-07:002013-08-19T10:05:39.215-07:00Fred, your problem is in looking to the earthly me...Fred, your problem is in looking to the earthly members of the Church for sinlessness. We are all sinners, including all of the popes (and remember, there have been very, very few infallible pronouncements made by the popes). All of the saints were first sinners. The people who are members of the Church are not perfect, but what the Church teaches is true. Look to the precepts of the Church and her infallible teachings rather than the most recent documents and the failure of our current shepherds to adequately lead the faithful. Let Jesus be your light.<br /><br />And if Jesus is to be your light, keep in mind that the only place He is truly to be "encountered" is in the Church He founded. Only in the Catholic Church can you find the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist; only the Catholic Church teachings reflect the truth of the evil of abortion, contraception, and homosexual behavior - three issues that are destroying the culture today. That's what you need to focus on. Whether or not a particular bishop or priest upholds the teachings of the Church doesn't make them any less true, and if you want Truth, you can only find it in the Catholic Church.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-6922919370046490682013-08-19T06:47:40.775-07:002013-08-19T06:47:40.775-07:00Mrs. Mike-
I think I am done with all this RC stuf...Mrs. Mike-<br />I think I am done with all this RC stuff for a while. I really don't have time to read and study a 46 page document that the RC Church has obviously ignored for decades. This is one of the big flaws of the RC Church that I have observed for a long time: does not walk the talk.<br /><br />All kinds of nice sounding documents from popes and councils and bishops. Centuries worth of documents. We can parse these papers to try to find meaning but the Church generally ignores them. They are typically written in broad fashion so that there are multiple interpretations, especially in correlating with previous documents. The result is chaos. This is why there is the Latin Mass only supporters against mainstream RCs and EWTN RCs and others. <br /><br />During the past few months, I have followed several RC conservative blogs as well as mainstream RC news sites. Also read more of the CCC. I have encountered nothing that compels me to return to RCism. No shining light; no salt of the earth. Instead, lots of hot air, ignorance, CHAOS, intransigence, stubbornness, subjectivity, and incredible elitism.<br /><br />I was brought up to live an authentic faith, ready to die for it. I left because the hypocrisy was not worth dying for and I didn't see Christ in this institution. I continue to seek God but I definitely don't see Him the RC Church. fREDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01808305520167870728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-55435992086543178062013-08-17T15:12:54.270-07:002013-08-17T15:12:54.270-07:00fREd,
It sounds like your parents were the heroic...fREd,<br /><br />It sounds like your parents were the heroic type this blog extols. And they passed on to you the greatest treasure they had: the Faith!<br /><br />It would be tragic to abandon it! <br /><br />I think the thing we need to remember as regards the fellow members of our Church, as Chesterton said "it's not that the Church has been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." <br /><br />Also St. Augustine said: <br />Bad times, hard times - this is what people keep saying; but let us live well, and times shall be good. We are the times: Such as we are, such are the times."<br /><br />I think that following Humanae Vitae is very very difficult, regardless of whether one generously has a large family, or for well-grounded reasons, limits it. Raising a family in this day and age is very challenging, and Pope John Paul was like a voice in the darkness of our age. Those who disregard his words miss out on much wisdom, and it is the wisdom and teaching authority of the Church herself.<br /><br />The thing to remember is that 'where sin abounds, grace abounds more.' The Church has ALWAYS been in crisis! That's why we are called the Church Militant. I think the Everlasting Man by Chesterton addresses this point. <br /><br />The Church has been fighting against evils since day one! Even in the time of St. Catherine of Siena bishops were addressing the problem of homosexual clergy. And I think a letter went out telling priests they shouldn't mix paint pots on the altar during Mass. I also heard that at times priests have smoked cigarettes during the Tridentine rite Mass!<br /><br />Please don't lose hope. Keep up the good fight!! It helps to keep our eyes fixed on the Lord, and His bride the Church. Listen to them, not the chatter. It has been very discouraging to me to see the Church's teachings not presented in their fullness. However, we are all searching for the truth! And it is all grace, that reveals it to us.<br /><br />Something you said in a different post reminded me of that saying "when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" Come Lord Jesus!<br /><br />Mrs. MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-15435070272742640442013-08-17T12:36:30.741-07:002013-08-17T12:36:30.741-07:00Mrs Mike- I am glad you are here. A little spice. ...Mrs Mike- I am glad you are here. A little spice. I'm not sure I agree with you but you raise issues that need to be addressed. <br /><br />I never heard of "Familiaris Consortio" before you brought it up (above). When I looked it up, I was very surprised because it came out (Nov 1981) while I was involved with the Newman Center at college. Perhaps it was too long/big (46 pages) to digest for unmarried college students. I also don't recall it being mentioned during my marriage preparation 10 years later.<br /><br />I found a good copy via the Internet (the Vatican version is unnecessarily unpleasantly formatted) and am wading through it. Although I am only a few pages into it at this point, it is clear from 30+ years later that the RC Church FAILED MASSIVELY regarding marriage and family. This reinforces my decision to leave the RC Church. How could the Holy Spirit be present in an institution that so significantly screwed up a task that they knew was fundamental to salvation,society, evangelism? Based on what Dr. Jay is reporting in her blog, things have not improved much.<br /><br />I can hear the call already: Come back, Come back. But my response is: to what? where?fREDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01808305520167870728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-46528163333396602112013-08-15T07:29:37.473-07:002013-08-15T07:29:37.473-07:00Dr. Boyd/ Terry: My understanding is that in a ...Dr. Boyd/ Terry: My understanding is that in a sacramental marriage, the marital act is at one and the same time procreative and unitive. It cannot be detached from either of these meanings/purposes. That is why IVF and contraception alike are morally wrong, because each separates the procreative from the unitive, even though the former has a good end. <br /><br />This is why couples are allowed to contract marriage even should they have a very grave reason that precludes them from realizing the procreative end, or if they are past child-bearing age. It is because the marriage act is ALSO unitive.<br /><br />In systematic abstinence neither of those meanings is diminished in any way, but the end of procreation/education is subordinated to a different end, for a JUST cause, (justa causa) in which case the practice is perfectly *reasonable* (in accord with right REASON.) Anyone can reproduce. Catholic parents are required to both procreate and EDUCATE their children, which is a very high calling. <br /><br />When fertility awareness is used to ACHIEVE pregnancy a couple is trying to realize the procreative aspect of their marriage relations.<br /><br />The popes have spelled this all out, explaining very clearly the parameters of birth regulation that are acceptable by the Church. It may be that in the 1930s the Church exhorted couples to generosity, then a few years later focused more on prudential judgment, which is not at all opposed to generosity in principle. Somewhere the Church said that choosing to have a large family should be "courageously" undertaken. (I don't have the reference.) Courageous is opposed to foolhardiness. It could potentially be foolhardy to have more children then we have the means to support. Are you saying that we may not exercise prudential judgment because that is code for *control*; that would be un-Christian somehow?<br /><br />I frankly can't understand why Familiaris Consortio has been dismissed out of hand. It is the wisdom of the Church!!<br /><br />St. Thomas Aquinas said this: "whenever the meaning of the Faith is in dispute, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should turn to none other than Peter, i.e. to the authority of his name. Neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the sacred doctors defended his own opinion in opposition to the authority of Peter. Hence Jerome says "'If anything herein has been asserted with insufficient skill or with too little caution, then we want to be corrected by you, who hold the chair of Peter.'" S-T 2-2, 10, 12<br /><br />When it comes to applying NFP use to concrete cases, we can't make sweeping generalizations. Each couple needs to look at their own circumstances and intention and be honest in their *obligatory* mutual discernment of God's will for their family. That is not something anyone can do for them! <br /><br />Mrs. MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-49181245659088315102013-08-12T04:24:32.229-07:002013-08-12T04:24:32.229-07:00Wonderful story here.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynami...Wonderful story here.<br /><br />http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ODD_TWELVE_SONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT<br /><br />CKevCatechist Kevnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-47381430888928152662013-08-12T04:20:05.640-07:002013-08-12T04:20:05.640-07:00Wow -- that video on family planning is both hilar...Wow -- that video on family planning is both hilarious and disturbing. 1968 is the year that the Population Bomb was published.Paenitethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08500069814810376849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-45817311132155310572013-08-11T08:32:13.971-07:002013-08-11T08:32:13.971-07:00It seems to me that the various perspectives on th...It seems to me that the various perspectives on the purpose of marital coitus are due to the diminished awareness of the sacrament of marriage. I believe that the RC Church shoulders a huge responsibility in neglecting to educate couples and society of the sacramental aspect of marriage; instead, the church has gravitated toward emphasizing the secular aspects of marriage. As a result of trying to be hip (modern?), the result has been an increase in the use of artificial BC, smaller families, increased divorce, acceptance (tolerance) of gay marriage and other sexual deviancies as well as flight from organized religion.<br /><br />CCC 1643: "Conjugal love involves a totality...It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul."<br /><br />This kind of unity is foreign to the modern concept of commodity (i.e., What can you do for me TODAY? Right now?). Modern marriage has become a means of being pleasured. It is judged as valued only as long as each individual partner derives the benefit of pleasure. Thus, when one partner no longer feels satisfied, they are allowed (and encourage) to dismiss their underproducing partner/employee and move on to someone else who will do a "better" job of making them happy. Thus we have "no-fault" divorce.<br /><br />One flesh. How many married couples envision their relationship as One Flesh? (CCC 2364).<br /><br />How can people understand Christ and the Church (Eph 5:21-32) when they don't even understand what marriage (-The Sacrament of Marriage-) is about? <br /><br />Finally, note CCC 2363: The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.<br /><br />I believe it is a mistake to say that the sexual act itself has no other purpose than procreation. The CCC (2360-2367) does not support that view. Emphasizing the SOLE purpose of sex as procreation exploits and oppresses the female and reinforces the (negative) stereotype of baby factories. Emphasizing ONLY procreation also distracts from the sacramental characteristics and benefits of marriage.<br /><br />God is the 3rd partner in marriage. That needs to be emphasized more.<br /><br />Christians are called to be a light to the world; to demonstrate that God abides with us and in us. Being aware of God's role in marriage can be a rich benefit is proclaiming the Good News.<br /><br />fREDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01808305520167870728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-77418067068802616532013-08-11T08:16:45.704-07:002013-08-11T08:16:45.704-07:00Correction: Oops.I think it is more appropriate to...Correction: Oops.I think it is more appropriate to see "mutual help" as a purpose of the marriage *vocation*, rather than the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage still has procreation of children as its primary end.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-64085311622125817152013-08-11T07:08:35.346-07:002013-08-11T07:08:35.346-07:00Mrs. Mike, "when you start with a faulty firs...Mrs. Mike, "when you start with a faulty first principle, you will come to the wrong conclusion." Your faulty principle is this: "Marriage relations are also intended for the mutual help of spouses." <br /><br />Re-read Terry's comment. He is saying that the marital ACT, the sex ACT, has only one purpose. Marriage as an institution does have the secondary purpose of the mutual help of spouses. But the sex act itself has only one true end. The sex act itself is not, in and of itself, for "mutual help" - that is not its purpose. People who are in love often feel sexual desire for each other; people who feel sexual desire for each other are not always "in love". See also Terry's examples of rape and prostitution. <br /><br />"Mutual help" is NOT a purpose that is inherent in the sex act.<br />Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-60831986235894463532013-08-11T06:33:12.160-07:002013-08-11T06:33:12.160-07:00"Conscious and intentionally sterile sex is a..."Conscious and intentionally sterile sex is an abuse of the sexual act, because the sexual act itself has no other purpose than procreation."<br /><br />Mr. Carroll, when you start with a faulty first principle, you will come to the wrong conclusion.<br /><br />Marriage relations are also intended for the mutual help of spouses.<br /><br />Therefore, if they are ordered to another end apart from procreation, for the good of the family or the spouses, out of love, and provided the integrity of the act itself is preserved, then they are in fact in accord with right reason.<br /><br />If this were not the case, then periodic continence could never be morally acceptable. However, from the time when she first considered the question, she has held that periodic continence can sometimes be morally acceptable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-12102175048833761892013-08-11T02:00:48.022-07:002013-08-11T02:00:48.022-07:00CLS,
"okay, in a certain sense NFP *controls...CLS,<br /><br />"okay, in a certain sense NFP *controls* births. But you would have to show why such control is necessarily wrong, and disordered."<br /><br />Almost always when someone says "in a certain sense" they will proceed to deny the plain and obvious meaning of the words. NFP is control of births. Spin it any way you like, call it whatever you like, but NFP as commonly taught, understood and practiced, is a means of controlling when births occur., a.k.a. birth control. If you act on a plan to have sexual relations with your spouse and do all that you can to ensure that procreation doesn't occur, no matter the reason, it is birth control. You seek to prevent the natural biological consequences of the sexual act at a given point in time. That is birth control. Even if it's only "in a certain sense" birth control, it's birth control. A thorn by any other name..<br /><br />Moving on to "why such control is necessarily wrong and disorderd." Conscious and intentionally sterile sex is an abuse of the sexual act, because the sexual act itself has no other purpose than procreation. You seem to think that having sex while seeking to avoid procreation is somehow compatible with its purpose. Would you say that using a screwdriver as a fork changes the purpose of the screwdriver, or does the screwdriver retain its inherent purpose throughout various alternative uses? You might laugh at the affirmation that the sexual ACT has only one purpose, but I challenge you to articulate any other purpose for the act that is always and everywhere true in its performance. Rape and prostitution both involve sexual intercourse, one as an act of violence and the other as an objectification of the partners, yet both participate in the potency of the sexual act for procreation. If you suggest some other purpose, it must be able, by the very performance of the sexual act itself, to effect its purpose. I can't think of any other "end" that satisfies this requirement except procreation. To choose to engage in sexual relations after planning in advance to avoid its natural fruitfulness is wrong and disordered. NFP is a dispensation from the requirements of married sexuality.<br /><br />Therefore, to engage in a sexual act which consciously and intentionally seeks to frustrate its purpose (whether naturally or artificially) is an abuse of the purpose of the sexual act. It is disordered because it seeks some end other than procreation, e.g. pleasure, or "union," or relaxation.<br /><br />For me, the resolution of all these contentious issues is to forget about "family planning" altogether and just be married, doing what married people have always done and caring for whatever children they receive. If the phrase "family planning" is to be retained, let's change its narcissistic contemporary meaning to "planning to have a family and to care for all the children that God sends." "Family planning" today ALWAYS means choosing to continue normal sexual relations while avoiding its natural consequences. "Spacing" is still saying "no" to the possibility of procreation. Couples who choose to space their children every two years and, as part of acting out that plan, choose NFP as a means of resuming sexual relations sooner rather than later, have chosen to bar the procreation of SOMEONE who might have been conceived during that time when mucus was being charted to avoid conception. Read the transcript or listen to the sermon that inspired Dr. Boyd's launch into the contentious waters of "family planning" and NFP (and TOB).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16785999685192600412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-59873675133949247982013-08-10T22:16:50.858-07:002013-08-10T22:16:50.858-07:00CLS,
"okay, in a certain sense NFP *controls...CLS,<br /><br />"okay, in a certain sense NFP *controls* births. But you would have to show why such control is necessarily wrong, and disordered."<br /><br />Almost always when someone says "in a certain sense" they will proceed to deny the plain and obvious meaning of the words. NFP is control of births. Spin it any way you like, call it whatever you like, but NFP as commonly taught, understood and practiced, is a means of controlling when births occur., a.k.a. birth control. If you act on a plan to have sexual relations with your spouse and do all that you can to ensure that procreation doesn't occur, no matter the reason, it is birth control. You seek to prevent the natural biological consequences of the sexual act at a given point in time. That is birth control. Even if it's only "in a certain sense" birth control, it's birth control. A thorn by any other name..<br /><br />Moving on to "why such control is necessarily wrong and disorderd." Conscious and intentionally sterile sex is an abuse of the sexual act, because the sexual act itself has no other purpose than procreation. You seem to think that having sex while seeking to avoid procreation is somehow compatible with its purpose. Would you say that using a screwdriver as a fork changes the purpose of the screwdriver, or does the screwdriver retain its inherent purpose throughout various alternative uses? You might laugh at the affirmation that the sexual ACT has only one purpose, but I challenge you to articulate any other purpose for the act that is always and everywhere true in its performance. Rape and prostitution both involve sexual intercourse, one as an act of violence and the other as an objectification of the partners, yet both participate in the potency of the sexual act for procreation. If you suggest some other purpose, it must be able, by the very performance of the sexual act itself, to effect its purpose. I can't think of any other "end" that satisfies this requirement except procreation. To choose to engage in sexual relations after planning in advance to avoid its natural fruitfulness is wrong and disordered. NFP is a dispensation from the requirements of married sexuality.<br /><br />Therefore, to engage in a sexual act which consciously and intentionally seeks to frustrate its purpose (whether naturally or artificially) is an abuse of the purpose of the sexual act. It is disordered because it seeks some end other than procreation, e.g. pleasure, or "union," or relaxation.<br /><br />For me, the resolution of all these contentious issues is to forget about "family planning" altogether and just be married, doing what married people have always done and caring for whatever children they receive. If the phrase "family planning" is to be retained, let's change its narcissistic contemporary meaning to "planning to have a family and to care for all the children that God sends." "Family planning" today ALWAYS means choosing to continue normal sexual relations while avoiding its natural consequences. "Spacing" is still saying "no" to the possibility of procreation. Couples who choose to space their children every two years and, as part of acting out that plan, choose NFP as a means of resuming sexual relations sooner rather than later, have chosen to bar the procreation of SOMEONE who might have been conceived during that time when mucus was being charted to avoid conception. Read the transcript or listen to the sermon that inspired Dr. Boyd's launch into the contentious waters of "family planning" and NFP (and TOB).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16785999685192600412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-62838928565414227572013-08-10T18:51:47.715-07:002013-08-10T18:51:47.715-07:00Mrs. Mike, it's better to just use the regular...Mrs. Mike, it's better to just use the regular comment box instead of these reply boxes, if you want your comment to be seen. I can't seem to change the color of these reply boxes, and so things tend to get sort of "lost" in them. Even if I could make them lighter, the comments still are less easily noticed.<br /><br /> If you just comment at the end, but say who or which comment your are responding to, that works better, I think.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-2339456181215633092013-08-10T18:31:37.325-07:002013-08-10T18:31:37.325-07:00okay, in a certain sense NFP *controls* births. B...okay, in a certain sense NFP *controls* births. But you would have to show why such control is necessarily wrong, and disordered.<br /><br />Presupposing a legitimate intention--for the purpose of SPACING births (as opposed to LIMITING kids to only one or two, which indeed requires a serious reason), all that is required is a "well-grounded" reason. That is to use the Vatican website's translation.<br /><br />This is not to try to find a cover for selfishness. When I say that virtue is in the mean, it is not possible to be too generous. Generosity IS the perfect mean. At a certain point it ceases to be generosity. It requires prudential judgment. What is generous for one family may be inadvisable for another. This is not relativist, except in the sense that it is relative to individual circumstances. H.V. said that responsible parenthood is exercised in either of TWO ways. <br /><br />Perhaps this is what Gaudium et Spes is getting at when it calls us to be not "passive operators" but "active interpreters" of God's plan. We are being called to an OBLIGATORY discernment. <br /><br />One providentialist (one of 16 kids; I went to school with the next to youngest) said she thought we were supposed to err on the side of caution. We aren't supposed to err! However it is true that if someone tends to be selfish they may have to aim to be extra generous. <br /><br />Some couples may have all kinds of serious/well-grounded reasons and still not choose to practice NFP. I'd never tell them they had to. It's none of my business. Maybe one of the spouses would have a hard time remaining continent.<br /><br />I'm sure I don't have to tell you though what a huge temptation artificial contraception is. Every doctor I go to pressures me in that regard. The midwife even asked the day after my child was born what we would do as far as that. But one thing a doctor said did make an impression on me. She told me I'm not running a marathon; I have to pace myself and can't sprint all the way. I took her words to heart.<br /><br />Mrs. mikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-56967535522268819132013-08-10T14:14:09.482-07:002013-08-10T14:14:09.482-07:00Robin - thank you! That is a wonderful testimony, ...Robin - thank you! That is a wonderful testimony, with many good points.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-81223590867887773772013-08-10T11:47:10.336-07:002013-08-10T11:47:10.336-07:00I apologize for that horribly formatted and unedit...I apologize for that horribly formatted and unedited post! Now I remember why I rarely comment anymore.....Robin E.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03970907580484799535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-25420586740130268212013-08-10T11:44:30.532-07:002013-08-10T11:44:30.532-07:00Jay,
Thank you for continuing to post on this topi...Jay,<br />Thank you for continuing to post on this topic. I do think there is some good in NFP, but the Catholic blogosphere has maybe gone too far in its defense of the practice itself and of the way it is typically taught and promoted in the US. It should be a red flag to everyone that any critique of NFP is generally met scrupulouswith passionate attacks, derision, and red <br />herring accusations that those who question some of the NFP/TOB rhetoric are either "providentialists" ( a term that is introduced as an unqualified evil, without much discussion of exactly what that might mean, or why we should eschew it), or judgmental of those with smaller sized families. A particularly sad example of the imbalance and irrationality of the discussion is the <br />continual insistence that it is impossible to have a <br />contraceptive mentality while practicing NFP. The <br />arguments are very clever, but certainly not <br />unassailable, and the refusal to even consider the other <br />view seems to me somewhat imprudent.<br /><br />Here is my experience. My husband and I have 8 <br />children, but we have spent the majority of our married <br />years avoiding conception. Why? I wanted another <br />baby pretty much as soon as my little ones reached the<br /> age of walking. However, my husband did not feel the <br />same way, and we both felt an obligation to avoid as the <br />default just because that is what sensible people do. I <br />fought tooth and nail for every loosening of the <br />assumed requirement to avoid, because I wanted more <br />children so desperately. Fortunately my husband began<br /> to change his view of the irresonsibility and the <br />hardship of having a large family. But it is a little late in<br /> the game, as we are now 42. If only we had seen the <br />decision to avoid as the object of discernment, instead <br />of the decision to conceive! I've read all the arguments <br />as to how NFP can be used selfishly, but not <br />contraceptively, and I remain unconvinced. Our <br />motivation in using NFP was never selfishnes; in fact, I <br />believed for many years that I was selfish in wanting <br />and having more children. But our entire view of NFP <br />was that it must be used to avoid the "mistake" of <br />conceiving another child. Thanks be to God for the <br />"accidents"which resulted from our lack of skills and <br />dedication in this area! I don't need to mention how <br />many well-meaning priests advised us to cool it over <br />the years. The contraceptive mentality is much bigger <br />than the simple issue of artificial birth control. This <br />culture views children as disruptive and almost <br />impossibly difficult to put up with as a lifelong <br />proposition, and NFP practicing Catholics often share <br />that basic view in many ways. This is not a judgment <br />on anyone - not myself, my husband,or anyone else. If <br />anything, I feel so blinded and duped by a hierarchy that<br /> has it only half right. The Church teaches that children <br />are our life and our joy. To avoid conception is always a<br /> serious privation, and should be understood as such, <br />even if it can sometimes be a sacrificial good. The <br />heavy emphasis on not making overly scrupulous people feel bad may be costing many, many others the chance to live a life free of unnecessary restrictions on their marriage and family size.<br /><br />Anyway, thank you for keeping the debate open. I have been afraid to say my piece up till now, because so many of the folks I love and respect seem to feel vehemently that criticism of NFP should be verboten. More and more, I think that is a huge mistake Robin E.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03970907580484799535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-22851672744268352972013-08-10T11:31:33.108-07:002013-08-10T11:31:33.108-07:00There is no doubt at all that NFP is birth control...There is no doubt at all that NFP is birth control. It is using knowledge of the woman's fertile times to determine whether or not to engage in the marital act, with the express intent to regulate, limit, or otherwise control whether or not conception occurs. It IS a method of controlling the number of births. It IS birth control. I understand the objection to calling it contraception. So be it. But NFP IS birth control. There's just no way around that.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.com