Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI (Read 11458 times)

Everlast22 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2024, 10:26:44 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 20, 2023, 08:29:46 AM

Yeah, this right here. If you do have some grave circuмstances in play, then abstinence is required. People seem to hold as some un-stated premise that everyone has some God-given right to marital relations. If your spouse becomes ill or incapacitated, perhaps in a coma, or just comes down with a serious illness, then you're required to abstain. Similarly, if the situation is grave enough to warrant NFP, then I should think one would need to completely abstain to prevent even the chance of conception. I've heard the claim often enough that the wife's life is at risk if she has another child (typically made by idiot doctors who also agitate for couples to get abortions). But if the wife's life is TRULY in danger, could you even morally take the risk that your NFP might "fail"? It's constantly a case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

At the end of the day, God knows our hearts and what we are doing... Having children cultivates virtue. From what I'm also seeing as somewhat of a pattern is that even in the trad circles the female being 35 + years of age apparently means the couple doesn't have to cultivate virtue any more because someone doesn't want children any more because it's "hard". I personally think NFP is from Satan, and as stated before, in the grave circuмstance a child cannot be "had", total abstinence will then be required, not NFP.

Do many couples literally not have relations after the mother is 35 if they "decide" to not have children? What a miserable marriage in my opinion, but that's just me. Something seems off about that.

Crayolcold · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2024, 10:48:36 AM »

Quote from: Everlast22 on March 04, 2024, 10:26:44 AM

Do many couples literally not have relations after the mother is 35 if they "decide" to not have children? What a miserable marriage in my opinion, but that's just me. Something seems off about that.

What’s odd, is that many couples DO have relations after 35, but cease to have children.

While not having relations with one’s wife just to avoid more children sounds miserable, what is more miserable is the idea that, after already have brought children into this life and experiencing all of the joys of parenthood, a couple would decide that they don’t want to relive those joys but instead would use NFP to prevent more children. In a way, to me, it sounds like that couple may have some regrets about having their LIVING children.

Ever since I began this thread, I’ve become more certain that NFP is from the demonic and that anyone who uses it to avoid pregnancy is without a doubt acting against their conscious and very likely committing a grave sin.

Crayolcold · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2024, 10:54:29 AM »

The intention behind avoidance NFP and onanism are the same. You are abusing each others bodies for pleasure and that’s the end of it. The issue with NFP does not primarily have to do with the “natural powers” argument which disingenuous Novus Ordites bring up, but instead with the “purpose” of the marital act being turned on its head.

Everlast22 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2024, 11:01:09 AM »

Quote from: Crayolcold on March 04, 2024, 10:54:29 AM

The intention behind avoidance NFP and onanism are the same. You are abusing each others bodies for pleasure and that’s the end of it. The issue with NFP does not primarily have to do with the “natural powers” argument which disingenuous Novus Ordites bring up, but instead with the “purpose” of the marital act being turned on its head.

I had a (former) N.O. friend at whos bachelor party had a trivia game in which the question was:

"How many children will x and y have"

One of the answers was: 3, with the excitement of being able to use NFP to space our children.

Not too long after that party, him and I stopped talking completely. This is a huge black and white issue for me, and those who go against God's will in this subject are not someone I will voluntarily associate with.

Yeti · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2024, 06:11:22 PM »

Pope Pius XII taught that natural family planning is permissible under certain conditions. This teaching was addressed to midwives initially, but was later placed in the AAS, by which it was addressed to the universal Church. All Catholics must assent to papal teaching on faith or morals when it is addressed to the universal Church.

But Pope Pius XII was not the first pope to teach this. It was addressed by the Holy Office as far back as the mid-19th century.

Fr. Cekada also refuted this absurd idea that NFP is a form of contraception.

And from the first article I quoted above:

Quote

For those who would belittle Pope Pius XII’s teaching on the morality of rhythm on the score that he addressed only mid-wives and nurses, let them realize that this address is contained in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the official Acts of the Apostolic See). Refer to: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1951) 845-46. On two other occasions, Pope Pius XII reiterated this same teaching and these also can be found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1953) 855-60 at 859 and Acta Apostolicae Sedis 50 (1958) 732-48, at 736.

[...]

Well before Vatican II, moral theologians consistently reiterated the teaching of the Sacred Penitentiary and Pope Pius XII on the morality of rhythm. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone can claim that the pope, the Sacred Penitentiary, and moral theologians have been in error on this issue for some 150 years and that laity have now figured it out.

Indeed.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI (Read 11458 times)

Everlast22

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Crayolcold

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Crayolcold

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Everlast22

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI

Yeti

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI