NFP

[IcePrincessKRS]

I just got annoyed after reading 5 pages of people nitpick and complain about word choices when I explained (and he re-explained) what he meant way back on page 1! Not to mention calling people schismatic when he's said/supported nothing of the sort. Thats a personal attack, by the way.

"A post or comment that has nothing to do with the topic, but is specifically meant to upset or criticize another person or group of people. This includes, but is not limited to, calling people "heretics" (used in a derogatory manner), "democrooks", etc."

Edited September 8, 2005 by IcePrincessKRS

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:24 PM']Quite obviously you don't read very well.

That and your arguments are empty of Christian thought and charity, but this is not unusual for "More Catholic than the Pope" traditionalists.
[right][snapback]715938[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Brother Adam once agian you have chosen to react to what you precieve rather than what is. Agian I ask go back to the first post and read down, perhaps you will understand the pont then.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:32 PM']This IS true, whether people like the way it sounds or not. If not to regulate birth then why the hell practice or learn NFP in the first place? I practice NFP, I have used it in good conscience to avoid pregnancy when I knew that it was not prudent for us to have another child.

We regulate the births of our children using NFP to know when to conceive. Objectively it IS about regulating. Our motives come in [b]subjectively[/b] and make the practice either morally right or wrong.

The moral permissibility and approval of the use of NFP by the Church is NOT in question here.

Am I the ONLY one around here who understands what DJ is saying???
[right][snapback]715942[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sorry, you are reversing the meanings of subjective and objective. Objective is what all can see and measure and agree on, the exterior action. Subjective is the intention, the interior goings on of the person, that are impossible to see and measure.
So, what does an outside observer see? The taking of temperatures, the measurement of mucus, the charting, etc. That is, the objective part of NFP is the knowledge of the cycle. The subjective part is the intention, that is, to space childbirth or to have children. It is not objectively about regulating, that is in the intention.
To prove this, take two couples. One couple has decided to begin charting the woman's cycle even though they are not sure if they want to regulate her conceptions, but, just in case they want to do it. The other couple has the intention to not conceive, and the woman guesses when she is infertile based on her periods and nothing else.
Now, which is closer to NFP, objectively? An outside observer would not be able to tell the difference between the first couple and a couple actally practicing NFP. However, the same observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the second couple and a couple that doesn't practice NFP.
NFP is primarily in the act, not the intention. That is why NFP, without the right intention, can be immoral. If NFP were defined by the subjective intentions, it would always be moral or always be immoral, but that is not the case.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:38 PM']A better question is "why the hell" does this topic make peoples blood boil over

But maybe you are the only one who understands what DJ is saying. Because as far as I can tell your use of NFP is sinful in DJ's eyes if you use it to have sex during times that you know you are infertile to prevent yourself from having a child. The only way it would be permissible is specifically to always have children, and the only permissible way to avoid children is total abstience. Which we know is not Church teachign.
[right][snapback]715949[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Agian go back and read the first post and go down, specificly read the first 3 sentences of my first post.. Than please come back and have a discussion.

[argent_paladin]

I'm ready to have a discussion...

[Brother Adam]

Well...go on then.

[argent_paladin]

I agree with Br. Adam's interpretation of DJ's arguments.
DJ please answer this question:

Is it intrinsically immoral for a married couple to practice NFP for the purpose of delaying pregnancy for a grave reason?
If not, then why did you advocate "simply not having sex for a year or so" over NFP? Especially considering the uniative function that sex has, how it models the heavenly union and is a great good, as John Paul II has said.
If you think it is immoral, how do you reconcile that with Church teaching?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:39 PM']I think you are being disingenuous, Don.  You say that

But, then you said this:

You don't attribute the arguments in the first quote to yourself, but you don't present them objectively, but rather in a way that makes the reader suspect that you are sympathetic to them. If that is the case, then you are sympathetic to the argument that NFP for spacing births is not (note: not "may not be") "open to life". But then you say it is intentionality, not the act, which is correct. The rest is also consistent with the Magisterium.
However, your ambiguous grammar (especially the placement of "often" allows for various interpretations, some orthodox, some heretical.
Interpretation I: Many Traditionalist Catholics oppose it...
Interpretation II: Traditionalist Catholics oppose it on the grounds that it often defies...
Interpretation III: Traditionalist Catholics often oppose it (which I suppose would mean that they are inconsistent? Wouldn't they always oppose it if it meant defiance of God?)

I find the most obvious interpretation to be the worst. The first two are fine.

But then you also wrote the infamous sentence:

This, in contrast to the first quote, seems to be your own personal opinion. You are implicitly condemning NFP to space births as immoral because there are no grave reasons, since you believe that it is simple to not have sex for a "year or so". If you are correct, that it is simple, then you would be correct that NFP would be unnecessary and thus, you would avoid the manipulation.
And manipulation has  very negative connotations (note how strongly people reacted against it). By using that word specifically, you implicitly condemned NFP. Also, by opposing "narutally [sic] space" with NFP, you are saying that *Natural* Family Planning is not natural at all.
This is why I say that you are being deliberately misleading. You say that NFP is not a heresy, but then you STRONGLY imply that it is not necessary (should never be done) and that it is unnatural. The worst part is, you do this by insinuation and implication, rather than actual arguments so that others who pick up on them and try to argue against it cannot. Make your argument clearly, without attacking others (like their reading comprehension) and don't use emotional language. That's all I ask.
[right][snapback]715952[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


That was a particular response to a particular statement of Brother Adams I have never stated anywhere that I believe NFP to be morally objectionable, I have directly stated I believe it to be morally permissable agian I DIRECTLY STATED THAT I BELIEVE IT TO BE MORALLY PERMISSABLE.

And please do not tell me not to personally attack Brother Adam as he attacked me first and with a great deal more venom than I Frankly And I say this with absolute sincerity, if a man said to my face what he said to me on this thread it would have taken all my control not to kill him where he stood. That I commented on his inability to read was an act of Charity, I assume he simply has misunderstood, because if astually is accusing me of being a heretic then I will happly meet him somewhere for a judicial combat--- not a Duel duels are for Honor and are forbidden, Judicial combats are however not forbidden. I am not joking here. DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL ME WHAT IS CHARITABLE !

I am not the one who began usng emotional language nor am I the one who began using loaded words, further while you may find manipulation to have a negative connotation I do not, I am a teacher and we use "manipulatives" all the time, I attach no emotional baggage to the word and could care less if others on here prefer to react to what the precive as reality rather than what is reality. There was no implicit or explicit condemnation, I am sorry that peoples understanding of the English language is so limited by their own emotional state, but any connotation you or others precieve is not my problem, in the future perhaps on forums people hould assume the actual meaning of the word is waht is intended.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:05 PM'] I  Frankly And I say this with absolute sincerity, if a man said  to my face  what he said to me on this thread it would have taken all my control not to kill him where he stood.

DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL ME WHAT IS CHARITABLE !

in the future perhaps on forums people hould assume the actual meaning of the word is waht is intended.

[right][snapback]715981[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Okay then buddy.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:59 PM']I agree with Br. Adam's interpretation of DJ's arguments.
DJ please answer this question:

Is it intrinsically immoral for a married couple to practice NFP for the purpose of delaying pregnancy for a grave reason?
If not, then why did you advocate "simply not having sex for a year or so" over NFP? Especially considering the uniative function that sex has, how it models the heavenly union and is a great good, as John Paul II has said.
If you think it is immoral, how do you reconcile that with Church teaching?
[right][snapback]715975[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



I didn't advocate it, I responded to this statement.

[quote]I don't know, perhaps it is just one more way for them to be disobediant to the Bride of Christ. [/quote]

Abstaining from sex is natural, and is not disobediant at all, opposing NFP as contaception is not necessarly disobediant, it might simply be a lack of understanding or long experiance seeing NFP used with wrong intention. Now saying that it was sinful to use NFP even with Grave reasons, would be disobediant. but agian I have never said that.

[argent_paladin]

[quote]I DIRECTLY STATED THAT I BELIEVE IT TO BE MORALLY PERMISSABLE. [/quote]

If it is morally permissible, then why is it better to abstain completely for a year or two? If sex isn't bad, and NFP isn't bad, why deny the goods of marriage, which, in fact, has always been considered gravely immoral.

As Thomas Aquinas said:
[quote]As the slave is in the power of his master, so is one spouse in the power of the other (1 Cor. 7:4). But a slave is bound by an obligation of precept to pay his master the debt of his service according to Rm. 13:7, "Render . . . to all men their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due," etc. Therefore husband and wife are mutually bound to the payment of the marriage debt.

Further, marriage is directed to the avoiding of fornication (1 Cor. 7:2). But this could not be the effect of marriage, if the one were not bound to pay the debt to the other when the latter is troubled with concupiscence. Therefore the payment of the debt is an obligation of precept.
[/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:08 PM']Okay then buddy.
[right][snapback]715986[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Wow you haven't lost your old Baptist talent for taking things out of context have you.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:14 PM']If it is morally permissible, then why is it better to abstain completely for a year or two? If sex isn't bad, and NFP isn't bad, why deny the goods of marriage, which, in fact, has always been considered gravely immoral.

As Thomas Aquinas said:
[right][snapback]715997[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It most certianlly has not been concidered gravly immoral or are you saying that the holy family was " gravely immoral"? As much as I respect St. Thomas He is certianly not " always"

[Lil Red]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Sep 8 2005, 02:32 PM']Am I the ONLY one around here who understands what DJ is saying???
[right][snapback]715942[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i don't understand what anyone is saying

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:47 PM']Sorry, you are reversing the meanings of subjective and objective. Objective is what all can see and measure and agree on, the exterior action. Subjective is the intention, the interior goings on of the person, that are impossible to see and measure.
So, what does an outside observer see?  The taking of temperatures, the measurement of mucus, the charting, etc. That is, the objective part of NFP is the knowledge of the cycle. The subjective part is the intention, that is, to space childbirth or to have children. It is not objectively about regulating, that is in the intention. 
To prove this, take two couples. One couple has decided to begin charting the woman's cycle even though they are not sure if they want to regulate her conceptions, but, just in case they want to do it. The other couple has the intention to not conceive, and the woman guesses when she is infertile based on her periods and nothing else.
Now, which is closer to NFP, objectively? An outside observer would not be able to tell the difference between the first couple and a couple actally practicing NFP. However, the same observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the second couple and a couple that doesn't practice NFP.
NFP is primarily in the act, not the intention. That is why NFP, without the right intention, can be immoral. If NFP were defined by the subjective intentions, it would always be moral or always be immoral, but that is not the case.
[right][snapback]715961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote]Objectively it IS about regulating. Our motives come in subjectively and make the practice either morally right or wrong. [/quote]

I'm not sure I see how am I reversing subjective and objective? Motives = intentions = subjective. The outside observer sees the charting and regulating, they don't know the interior motive = objective. Perhaps you and I are using the term "objective" in slightly different ways. That seems to be happening alot on this thread.

It seems that I am using this definition :
adj. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.

While you are using this one?
adj. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

[argent_paladin]

DJ, that is a red herring. As you know, being a miracle in a series of miracles, the marriage of the Holy Family is unique and not recommeded when constructing a system of morality.

But, if you like Thomas so much, you would know the answer. Basically, a marriage is true if it is uniative and procreative, or really ordered toward the union of souls and the begetting of children. Of course, Mary and Joseph pass the first test. And they pass the second because of the VIRGIN BIRTH.
However, for the rest of humanity, sex is a prerequisite for pregnancy and birth. So, while it is not strictly necessary to intend to have sex (only to intend to have children) in all other cases, barring Mary, they amount to the same thing.
I repeat, [b]it is not a valid marriage if the couple doesn't intend to have childen. [/b]If the couple doesn't intend to have sex, they do not intend to have childen (unless the Holy Spirit has visited you and concieved the Son of God in your womb).
So, you have still not replied to my question. If marriage is ordered toward unity and procreativity, most excellently displayed in the marriage act, then why exclude it when you said that it is morally permissible? And especially since, in reality, we need to account for our sinful nature, as Paul said and allow for couples to transform their concupiscence.
Here is Thomas on Mary:
[quote]Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.

Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Matthew 1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse."

But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union." Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none."

[/quote]

[argent_paladin]

I was responding specifically to this sentence:
"Objectively it IS about regulating."

Objectively, it is about measuring and charting. Regulating is an intention and is therefore subjective. "I intend to regulate my pregnancies". This subjective intention, however, is not immoral because we don't know what the end of the intention is. But it is still not objective because we can't see or measure someone "regulating" only someone measuring and charting.

[God Conquers]

There's only one question I can answer on this thread:

Why does the subject of NFP make people's blood boil over?

Because it's about sex.

If Don John is correct in what he's saying, as are the others who support him, although maybe simply in that most people's intent in using NFP is misguided, then that probably means there are some people around who need to re-think NFP... ie rethink children and rethink sex with my wife.

If that wouldn't get me riled up, I'm not sure what would.

[IcePrincessKRS]

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
[b]
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.[/b]
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement.
3. To adjust a mechanism for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order.

I still think that one can say that regulating is objective. We disagree. Its all gravy.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:33 PM']There's only one question I can answer on this thread:

Why does the subject of NFP make people's blood boil over?

Because it's about sex.

If Don John is correct in what he's saying, as are the others who support him, although maybe simply in that most people's intent in using NFP is misguided, then that probably means there are some people around who need to re-think NFP... ie rethink children and rethink sex with my wife.

If that wouldn't get me riled up, I'm not sure what would.
[right][snapback]716016[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]