Natural Family Planning?
#31
(06-06-2009, 08:07 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 07:41 PM)savienu Wrote: I think IF NFP is used illicitly it could be in part because we are all SO engrained in a contraceptive culture, it is very hard to discern whether you have a contraceptive mindset or not.

I agree.  That's why couples should consult their priests on these questions.  We naturally have a biased outlook and we need an objective opinion.  And it goes both ways, some people who could use NFP licitly might be too scrupulous about it and their families suffer hardships needlessly.

Yeah. My problem would be finding a good priest to talk to about it, though.
Reply
#32
My understanding is you have one an hour and a little bit away.  He'll probably be glad to talk to you even if you're not registered or frequent or ever attend...it's his job.

Just explain who you are and what your situation is.  He'll understand...or I'll make him wish he had. ;D
Reply
#33
(06-07-2009, 04:59 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: My understanding is you have one an hour and a little bit away.  He'll probably be glad to talk to you even if you're not registered or frequent or ever attend...it's his job.

Just explain who you are and what your situation is.  He'll understand...or I'll make him wish he had. ;D

Are you meaning at the SSPX chapel? Because we do attend a TLM weekly, but those priests all seem so busy all the time, and they are all retired (well, one is retiring in a month), so I'd feel bad trying to ask them about it...
Reply
#34
Yeah, I was talking about the SSPX guy.

I'm sure they have a telephone ;D

I knew you guys hit the TLM, but thought there was some deeper reason you did not want to address it to your priest.


If that's all it is they have the time.
Reply
#35
Hey guys, sorry I haven't contributed much. I've been out of town for a while.

I asked the question because I was involved in a debate with a very neo-conservative gentleman who, when push came to shove, said "not using NFP lowers man to being like animals. You don't use God-given reason when you just have sex. Moreover, it's sinful to have kids when you're not ready for them (implicit: when you're not in a [financial] position to raise them)." This sacramentalization of NFP that startles me.

And I can wear a condom and still be "open to kids." This is the way I see the syllogism breaking down:

P1: Birth control is intrinsically evil because it deliberately frustrates the natural end of sex, which is procreation.
P2: NFP, while still remaining "open" to procreation, deliberately aims to frustrate the natural end of sex (procreation) by strategically  avoiding acts that would statistically result in procreation (in this case, sex during times of fertility).
[size=7pt]P2.2 You could say, "while it is not statistically likely that we will procreate during this time of "infertility," it remains a possibility and we will remain open to children. However, we will not have sex when it is statistically likely that we will procreate (i.e. times of fertility)." In the same way, "it is not statistically likely that we will procreate if I wear a condom, however it remains a possibility, and so we can do it as long as we remain 'open' to children."[/size]
C: NFP is birth control, and therfore intrinsically evil.

Does that make sense? It might be hard language, but that's the way I see it. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I'm just not at this point...   
Reply
#36
(06-07-2009, 05:28 PM)Quaesumus Wrote: Hey guys, sorry I haven't contributed much. I've been out of town for a while.

I asked the question because I was involved in a debate with a very neo-conservative gentleman who, when push came to shove, said "not using NFP lowers man to being like animals. You don't use God-given reason when you just have sex. Moreover, it's sinful to have kids when you're not ready for them (implicit: when you're not in a [financial] position to raise them)." This sacramentalization of NFP that startles me.

And I can wear a condom and still be "open to kids." This is the way I see the syllogism breaking down:

P1: Birth control is intrinsically evil because it deliberately frustrates the natural end of sex, which is procreation.
P2: NFP, while still remaining "open" to procreation, deliberately aims to frustrate the natural end of sex (procreation) by strategically  avoiding acts that would statistically result in procreation (in this case, sex during times of fertility).
[size=7pt]P2.2 You could say, "while it is not statistically likely that we will procreate during this time of "infertility," it remains a possibility and we will remain open to children. However, we will not have sex when it is statistically likely that we will procreate (i.e. times of fertility)." In the same way, "it is not statistically likely that we will procreate if I wear a condom, however it remains a possibility, and so we can do it as long as we remain 'open' to children."[/size]
C: NFP is birth control, and therfore intrinsically evil.

Does that make sense? It might be hard language, but that's the way I see it. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I'm just not at this point...   

Neo-cons retort that it's "natural", and so it's ok.

::)

I've had a non-Catholic tell me NFP sounds dubious, at best, because it seems to frustrate child-making.
Reply
#37
As I understand it, NFP uses the fertility cycles found in nature for biological procreation. That is where the "natural" comes in. Implicitly, Nature intended a cycle of infertility for the restoration of health, besides other purposes. In man, a moral sense comes into play. It is strictly a personal judgement whether a sexual act is a pure act of love or lust which the Church wisely leave to a person to decide. In our fallen state, it is a compromised intention at best. However, in consideration of the human condition , the Church can recommend NFP to her believers in good faith in the context of two consenting adults in holy matrimony, outside of which even using the NFP is sinful. It is like Moses granting divorces to the Jews as a compromise to strict adherence to the "Ten Commandments". Just an opinion.
Reply
#38
(06-07-2009, 05:28 PM)Quaesumus Wrote: Hey guys, sorry I haven't contributed much. I've been out of town for a while.
Welcome back. Hope your trip was productive.

Quote:I asked the question because I was involved in a debate with a very neo-conservative gentleman who, when push came to shove, said "not using NFP lowers man to being like animals. You don't use God-given reason when you just have sex. Moreover, it's sinful to have kids when you're not ready for them (implicit: when you're not in a [financial] position to raise them)." This sacramentalization of NFP that startles me.

And I can wear a condom and still be "open to kids." This is the way I see the syllogism breaking down:

P1: Birth control is intrinsically evil because it deliberately frustrates the natural end of sex, which is procreation.
P2: NFP, while still remaining "open" to procreation, deliberately aims to frustrate the natural end of sex (procreation) by strategically  avoiding acts that would statistically result in procreation (in this case, sex during times of fertility).
[size=7pt]P2.2 You could say, "while it is not statistically likely that we will procreate during this time of "infertility," it remains a possibility and we will remain open to children. However, we will not have sex when it is statistically likely that we will procreate (i.e. times of fertility)." In the same way, "it is not statistically likely that we will procreate if I wear a condom, however it remains a possibility, and so we can do it as long as we remain 'open' to children."[/size]
C: NFP is birth control, and therfore intrinsically evil.

Does that make sense? It might be hard language, but that's the way I see it. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I'm just not at this point...   

Then is it a sin to have sex when conception is not most likely? Just because one pays attention to the biological cycles, doesn't change anything. Married people can engage in sexual intercourse whenever they want even when conception isn't possible (by no fault of their own).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)