Author Topic: NFP - Natural Family Planning (Read 23783 times)

Caminus · « **on:** October 10, 2009, 02:23:02 PM »

It is most ridiculous and absurd to posit that natural family planning is a 'heresy.' Particular moral actions determined by the virtue of prudence do not constitute a truth of divine revelation. Even if we consider the gross exaggeration and perversion of NFP within the diocese, it still only constitutes a moral evil and this because of certain circuмstances. Considering the act in itself, it would be most absurd to think it is evil, unless one wished to profess Manichaeism.

Jehanne · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2009, 08:03:39 PM »

Yes, having sex with one's wife while she is pregnant is not sinful?! So, how could NFP be sinful??? Couples have been practicing NFP for centuries, if not longer.

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2009, 08:24:22 PM »

Right. It is these little tidbits of sheer idiocy vomited forth by some that reveal the stature of their intellects. The fact that they do not even blush at making these opinions publicly known is truly astonishing.

Caminus · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2009, 08:31:08 PM »

Oh, how I wish.

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2009, 08:52:16 PM »

Aside from the studpendously stupid assertion that NFP is 'heretical' there is an absolute moral difference between intentionally rendering the material act sterile through the use of extrinsic means and sustaining the intrinsic integrity of the marital act even though it is accidentally sterile due to an impediment of nature. The first consideration is one of intention, the second is that of the act itself. Contraception is intrinsically evil due to intention and to mutilating the act itself.

Caminus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2009, 09:41:29 PM »

Jehanne · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2009, 09:55:55 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Don, what exactly is it you are saying?

Do you actually believe it is lawful to engage in the procreative act during pregnancy?

Do you believe NFP is always sinful, never sinful or somewhere in between? Please explain you answer.

And what do you mean by your last sentence? Are you equating the marital act performed during infertile periods to NFP?

Or was this just sarcastic outburst? I reall don't know what you're saying...

Thanks,
David.

I would much rather have all of you pray for my neighbor who is dying of cancer and has, at most, only a day or two of life. I saw her tonight, and her left eye is swelling-up. She is beginning to look like a monster. I am disappointed that my other thread on this has received no responses.

I will get back to you on your questions.

Caminus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2009, 02:16:22 AM »

Raoul, put your statements on NFP in here so we can analyze them.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2009, 08:22:37 PM »

Fake church, Pius XII:

Quote

"Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned."

Real Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, Q. 64, Art. 1, Suppl.

Quote

"Leprosy voids a betrothal but not a marriage. Wherefore a wife is bound to pay the debt even to a leprous husband. But she is not bound to cohabit with him, because she is not so liable to infection from marital intercourse as from continual cohabitation. And though the child begotten of them be diseased, it is better to be thus than not at all."

These may seem unrelated. Let us zoom in and get a closer view.

Quote

Pius XII: "medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt..."

St. Thomas: "Wherefore a wife is bound to pay the debt even to a leprous husband."

More:

Quote

Pius XII: "From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned."

St. Thomas: "And though the child begotten of them be diseased, it is better to be thus than not at all..."

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.

CMMM · « **Reply #9 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:51:50 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Fake church, Pius XII:

Quote
"Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned."

Real Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, Q. 64, Art. 1, Suppl.

Quote
"Leprosy voids a betrothal but not a marriage. Wherefore a wife is bound to pay the debt even to a leprous husband. But she is not bound to cohabit with him, because she is not so liable to infection from marital intercourse as from continual cohabitation. And though the child begotten of them be diseased, it is better to be thus than not at all."

These may seem unrelated. Let us zoom in and get a closer view.

Quote
Pius XII: "medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt..."

St. Thomas: "Wherefore a wife is bound to pay the debt even to a leprous husband."

More:

Quote
Pius XII: "From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned."

St. Thomas: "And though the child begotten of them be diseased, it is better to be thus than not at all..."

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.

I don't see the contradiction. Pius is speaking that couples may abstain at certain times. This would clearly have to be a mutual choice. The act of abstaining would not be sinful, the act of not rendering unto husband or wife as requested would be sinful.

Thomas is speaking that the debt must payed if a partner wishes it. If the husband did not wish to expose his wife to leprosy, he may abstain if he so wished. If he did not, she would be bound.

Or so it would seem. Perhaps I have no ears.

CM · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2009, 10:35:27 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

From another thread, the ignorant statement was made that there was no "NFP" before Pius XII. I now quote Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson:

Quote
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" The Vatican reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation"6 By the expression "impedes generation", it is obvious the Vatican meant the use of onanism7 (or coitus interruptus, now popularly called 'withdrawal'), condoms, etc. For otherwise the reply would be self-contradictory and make no sense.

PROVE IT.

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** October 15, 2009, 01:33:19 AM »

Prove what?

CM · « **Reply #12 on:** October 15, 2009, 02:41:59 AM »

Quote

1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" The Vatican reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed..."

Who in the Vatican said this?
Where is the official correspondence?

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** October 15, 2009, 08:41:41 AM »

Quote

I don't see the contradiction. Pius is speaking that couples may abstain at certain times. This would clearly have to be a mutual choice. The act of abstaining would not be sinful, the act of not rendering unto husband or wife as requested would be sinful.

Thomas is speaking that the debt must payed if a partner wishes it. If the husband did not wish to expose his wife to leprosy, he may abstain if he so wished. If he did not, she would be bound.

Or so it would seem. Perhaps I have no ears.

I don't see any contradiction either.

Mike, I think you are reading these texts looking for proof for your position. You are convinced of it...but it wasn't these texts that convinced you.

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2009, 10:17:12 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote
1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" The Vatican reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed..."

Who in the Vatican said this?
Where is the official correspondence?

That's not infallible! :smile: