Author Topic: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei  (Read 2059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clemens Maria

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1392
  • Reputation: +888/-443
  • Gender: Male
Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2019, 11:30:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I find the argument that NFP and Rhythm method are very different compelling.  There's a big difference between lowering the odds of conception and very nearly eliminating the possibility of conception.  And with a few more advances in technology, NFP might be 99.99% effective in avoiding conception.  How is that natural?  How does that not intentionally exclude Divine Providence?

    Quote
    As long as the act takes place normally it remains objectively directed toward its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. (What is Marriage? A Catechism arranged According to the Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1932, p. 44, emphasis added)

    How is 99% effectively eliminating conception remain objectively directed toward the primary end of generation?  And when it is 100% effective will it still be considered objectively ordered toward its primary end?  Was Fr. Vermeersch talking about the Rhythm method or modern NFP?  Also, how does the clause, "not necessarily vitiated ... [by] the intention of avoiding conception", fit with the premise?  How can it be vitiated at all if the naturalness of the act determines its licitness?  Or how can the intention ever be defective if "there is no obligation...to intend the end"?

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3953
    • Reputation: +2083/-1122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #46 on: October 17, 2019, 12:03:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • NFP, Annulments, salvation in any religion by belief in a God that rewards, religious freedom...… all part of the Vatican II revolution, a punishment from God upon the lukewarm, THAT is what the punishment of Vatican II is, they will find priests, indeed popes, to confirm them in their self deceit.

    For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2Tim4)
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1392
    • Reputation: +888/-443
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #47 on: October 17, 2019, 12:20:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I can see a difference between "no obligation to intend the end" and "no obligation to not exclude the end".  Every time I eat I don't necessarily have nutrition on my mind.  My primary thought might be to enjoy the taste of the food.  But not explicitly intending nutrition is not the same thing as intentionally avoiding nutrition.  e.g. eating something that has no nutritional value whatsoever with the sole intention of enjoying the taste.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1392
    • Reputation: +888/-443
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #48 on: October 17, 2019, 01:05:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let's say someone invents a new food that has no nutritional value whatsoever.  It passes through the body without being absorbed in any way.  And it somehow excites the taste buds so that it tastes delicious and somehow suppresses hunger pangs without making you feel full.  So you can eat as much of it as you want without ever feeling sick or gaining weight.  If Fr. Vermeersch (or at least your understanding of him) is correct then there would be nothing sinful about eating this "food" and only this food until a few weeks later you drop dead of starvation.  Eating it was a natural act and there was no obligation to intend the end of nutrition when eating so no sin was ever committed.  What if instead of no nutrition whatsoever, this food was nutritious 1 out of every 100 times you ate it.  So eating 3 meals a day you ended up eating a nutritious meal every 5 weeks.  Would it be ok then?  On the other hand, the morality of eating it might be significantly changed if every other meal was nutritious.  That's why I think there is a significant difference between Rhythm and NFP.  In 1932 you were probably still going to have children even if you practiced the Rhythm method.  But in the 21st c with NFP, you might find that some marriages might not produce any children whatsoever despite no health limitations on the spouses.  And if your understanding of Fr. Vermeersch is correct, they haven't committed any sin at all.  I think you were saying that the spouses have to have sufficient reason to use NFP.  But why?  If they are under no obligation to intend the end, why do they need a grave reason to use NFP?

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1095
    • Reputation: +244/-89
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #49 on: October 17, 2019, 05:03:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let's say someone invents a new food that has no nutritional value whatsoever.  It passes through the body without being absorbed in any way.  And it somehow excites the taste buds so that it tastes delicious and somehow suppresses hunger pangs without making you feel full.  So you can eat as much of it as you want without ever feeling sick or gaining weight.  If Fr. Vermeersch (or at least your understanding of him) is correct then there would be nothing sinful about eating this "food" and only this food until a few weeks later you drop dead of starvation.  Eating it was a natural act and there was no obligation to intend the end of nutrition when eating so no sin was ever committed.  What if instead of no nutrition whatsoever, this food was nutritious 1 out of every 100 times you ate it.  So eating 3 meals a day you ended up eating a nutritious meal every 5 weeks.  Would it be ok then?  On the other hand, the morality of eating it might be significantly changed if every other meal was nutritious.  That's why I think there is a significant difference between Rhythm and NFP.  In 1932 you were probably still going to have children even if you practiced the Rhythm method.  But in the 21st c with NFP, you might find that some marriages might not produce any children whatsoever despite no health limitations on the spouses.  And if your understanding of Fr. Vermeersch is correct, they haven't committed any sin at all.  I think you were saying that the spouses have to have sufficient reason to use NFP.  But why?  If they are under no obligation to intend the end, why do they need a grave reason to use NFP?
    Going with this analogy though, is it ok to occasionally eat a chocolate bar, or something else of LIMITED nutritional value? I think the chocolate bar is lawful (in moderation) but the frankenfood is not.  How this analogizes here I’m not sure.
    I agree that any method that would put and out prevent conception is wrong even if somehow natural.  And I agree that just using NFP to not have children is wrong (like frankenfood) 


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21135
    • Reputation: +11675/-5991
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #50 on: October 18, 2019, 09:40:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I can see a difference between "no obligation to intend the end" and "no obligation to not exclude the end".  Every time I eat I don't necessarily have nutrition on my mind.  My primary thought might be to enjoy the taste of the food.  But not explicitly intending nutrition is not the same thing as intentionally avoiding nutrition.  e.g. eating something that has no nutritional value whatsoever with the sole intention of enjoying the taste.

    Even if one does not consciously intend the end, there's the notion of virtual intention.  So if a priest is going out every day to say Mass, he may not make any explicit intention to transubstantiated, but he's go a virtual intention to do so.  Similarly, even if something is not explicitly in your mind, as a Catholic you know the primary end in a virtual or habitual fashion.

    But, yes, that's why it's not sinful for infertile couple to have intercourse.  Even if the primary end is unattainable, there's no intention to preclude it or to subordinate it to the secondary ends.  That's why this is all about the intent.  When you are intending and attempting to preclude the primary end while enjoying the secondary ends, that is where there's sin.

    Offline SusanneT

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 288
    • Reputation: +132/-23
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #51 on: October 18, 2019, 12:59:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • NFP is not easy, people don't do it for fun, they do it for a purpose.  The purpose is to allow them to have sex, with the minimum possible chance of that resulting in conception.  Their "intent" is 100% clear - to avoid conception. Surely that is a very clear simple and obvious sin.

    Offline Joe Cupertino

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 15
    • Reputation: +17/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #52 on: October 18, 2019, 03:04:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Mith, you are correct, but only in the sense that the ACT is lawful and duly ordered.  Where you are incorrect, is that the INTENTION to avoid conception is NOT LAWFUL, as the sacrament of matrimony has as its purpose the God-ordered duty to "increase and multiply".
    .
    Periodic abstinence is only allowed for grave reasons, which in pre-V2 days required the permission of a priest.  Those who practice it without permission and without a grave reason, are wrong.

    This corresponds with Pope Pius XII's teaching in the 1951 “Allocution to Midwives” - that the command to procreate is an affirmative precept:


    Quote
    On the other hand, if the act be limited to the sterile periods insofar as the mere use and not the right is concerned, there is no question about the validity of the marriage. Nevertheless, the moral licitness of such conduct on the part of the couple would have to be approved or denied according as to whether or not the intention of observing those periods constantly was based on sufficient and secure moral grounds.  The mere fact that the couple do not offend the nature of the act and are prepared to accept and bring up the child which in spite of their precautions came into the world would not be sufficient in itself to guarantee the rectitude of intention and the unobjectionable morality of the motives themselves.

    The reason for this is that marriage obliges to a state of life which, while conferring certain rights also imposes the fulfillment of a positive work in regard to the married state itself.  In such a case, one can apply the general principle that a positive fulfillment may be omitted when serious reasons, independent from the good will of those obliged by it, show that this action is not opportune, or prove that a similar demand cannot reasonably be made of human nature.

    The marriage contract which confers upon husband and wife the right to satisfy the inclinations of nature, sets them up in a certain state of life, the married state.  But upon couples who perform the act peculiar to their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of helping the conservation of the human race.  The characteristic activity which gives their state its value is the bonum prolis.  The individual and society, the people and the state, the Church itself depend for their existence in the order established by God on fruitful marriage.  Therefore, to embrace the married state, continuously to make use of the faculty proper to it and lawful in it alone, and, on the other hand, to withdraw always and deliberately with no serious reason from its primary obligation, would be a sin against the very meaning of conjugal life.

    There are serious motives, such as those often mentioned in the so-called medical, eugenic, economic, and social "indications," that can exempt for a long time, perhaps even the whole duration of the marriage, from the positive and obligatory carrying out of the act. From this it follows that observing the non-fertile periods alone can be lawful only under a moral aspect.  Under the conditions mentioned it really is so.  But if, according to a rational and just judgment, there are no similar grave reasons of a personal nature or deriving from external circumstances, then the determination to avoid habitually the fecundity of the union while at the same time to continue fully satisfying their sensuality, can be derived only from a false appreciation of life and from reasons having nothing to do with proper ethical laws.


    Here are some explanations of affirmative and negative precepts from St. Thomas Aquinas and others:


    Quote
    [Affirmative precepts] do not bind for always, although they are always binding; but they bind as to place and time according to other due circumstances, in respect of which human acts have to be regulated in order to be acts of virtue.

    -- St. Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II, Q. 3, a. 2.

    Quote
    An affirmative precept commands us to do something, and a negative precept forbids us the doing of something. The first is called affirmative, because it is delivered in the affirmative: do this or that. The second is called negative, because it is commonly intimated by the negative: do not this or that. The difference between them is, that an affirmative precept obliges always, but not upon all occasions; but a negative precept obliges always, and upon all occasions.  For example, the affirmative precepts of Faith, Hope, Charity, &c. oblige us always, so as not to do any thing contrary to them, but yet we are not bound to practice these virtues upon all occasions, but only upon certain occasions when these precepts oblige us. But the negative precepts of not hating God, etc., oblige us always and upon all occasions, because there is no time nor circumstances in which the acts of hating God or our neighbor are not criminal.

    -- Burke, Thomas, Bishop, O.P. (1752). A Catechism: Moral and Controversial.  pp.189-190.

    Quote
    A positive law ceases to be of obligation in a particular case if it becomes hurtful, or if it cannot be observed without serious inconvenience.

    -- Slater, Thomas, S.J. (1925). A Manual of Moral Theology for English Speaking Countries (Vol I).  p. 69.



    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3726
    • Reputation: +4290/-368
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #53 on: October 21, 2019, 08:25:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Clemens those are excellent questions. My earlier (longer) post was only aimed at summarizing the end/intention aspect of the discussion, it's not a complete case.
    .
    As Joe Cupertino went on to point out, a grave reason is necessary for the affirmative precept to be suspended. Otherwise the precept is not suspended, and one is not justified avoiding it. 
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Online songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3698
    • Reputation: +1351/-160
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #54 on: October 21, 2019, 12:40:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • IMO serious reason still holds.  And intent/attitude is apart of that Catholic Sense reasoning.  

    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 557
    • Reputation: +253/-142
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #55 on: October 21, 2019, 01:53:24 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • NFP is not easy, people don't do it for fun, they do it for a purpose.  The purpose is to allow them to have sex, with the minimum possible chance of that resulting in conception.  Their "intent" is 100% clear - to avoid conception. Surely that is a very clear simple and obvious sin.

    And sometimes that purpose is to conceive. 


    Offline SusanneT

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 288
    • Reputation: +132/-23
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #56 on: October 21, 2019, 03:59:36 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • And sometimes that purpose is to conceive.
    Indeed and there is clearly no sin in that ! 

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1768
    • Reputation: +193/-362
    • Gender: Male
    • Mary Refuge of Holy Love, Teach Us Your Holy Love.
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #57 on: October 21, 2019, 04:29:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As a couple whose chances of conceiving are, naturally speaking, all the time, low or near to impossible, do not sin if they continue to have marital relations, provided the secondary ends are always subordinated to the primary, a fortiori a couple whose chances of conceiving are, naturally speaking, during a particular time, low, do not sin if they continue to have marital relations during that time, provided the secondary ends remain always subordinated to the primary. So, NFP certainly isn't intrinsically evil, as contraception is.

    In the Holy Bible, God Almighty strikes Onan dead for practicing contraception. Gen 38. Some forms of contraception were called Onanism historically just as some forms of the sin of sodom were named after that city that was destroyed in fire. Also, it is worth noting that every form of perverted sexual relations, so widely promoted today in every way, are all intrinsically contraceptive and closed to life.

    A confessor's advice should be sought to see in the concrete case if sufficiently grave reasons exist to have marital relations only during infertile or near to infertile times. As others mentioned, the Rhythm mentioned involves nothing more than periodic continence. Those who wish to argue that that is wrong must prove (1) either that complete abstinence is wrong, or (2) that couples are bound to have marital relations only on days of normal or maximum fertility. Some couples indeed do that, to maximize chances of conceiving, but clearly periodic continence cannot be per se wrong in itself, unless either continence itself is wrong, or one is bound to (2). So, it is not intrinsically wrong, but it is wrong, by the doctrine of double effect, to practice it without a sufficiently grave reason, which DE requires.

    "Take my advice and every day in Mass ask God to make you a great Saint"-St. Leonard. Go for Holy Mass every day to receive the Holy Body and Precious Blood of God. Do never skip Holy Mass for even one single day, if you want to become a Saint, as the Saints tell us, we should all aspire to become.

    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3622
    • Reputation: +953/-544
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #58 on: October 21, 2019, 05:10:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sometimes infertility can be caused by hypothyroidism.

    That was our case. Both my husband and I suffer from hypothyroidism. Major symptoms are tiredness and lack of energy, infertility, cold hands and cold feet, a consistent low basal body temperature, weight issues, etc.. Perhaps the worse of the symptoms is low immunity, so that a person with hypothyroidism suffers one cold or flu after another and wounds do not heal as rapidly as they should. After I had a miscarriage and noticed that I did not have regular periods, I asked my GP, an Italian pro-life doctor, if thyroid would help. He agreed.

    I conceived my first and only child after taking the thyroid for two months. It was a wonderful Christmas surprise. However, my gynecologist immediately took me off thyroid saying that it might harm the baby. Within one week, I was having cramps and feared for my child's life. After pleading with the doctor, my gynecologist gave me a prescription for thyroid, and the cramps stopped immediately upon taking the first dose. After the birth of my son, the doctor took me off thyroid saying that the thyroid would be in the breast milk and could harm the child. My GP was no longer practicing medicine, so I searched for a new doctor who would prescribe thyroid, but none could be found.

    Basically, no doctor would prescribe thyroid for me until after I was menopausal. I believe that this lack of thyroid was forced upon me to prevent me from having any more children. Had I realized this earlier, I would have consulted with only Catholic pro-life doctors.

    This is why it is extremely important only to consult with Catholic pro-life doctors.

    Another important fact: natural thyroid is much safer than artificial thyroids manufactured by Big Pharma:
    Synthroid and Levothyroxine. These artificial thyroid drugs have side effects such as moodiness, etc.
    As a result, they can contribute to divorce.

    I recently found a source of natural bovine (cow) thyroid that can be ordered through the mail without the necessity of having a prescription.

    ~~~

    If you must use NFP, my recommendation is to stay far away from the Couple-to-Couple League as they are heavily into the Theology of the Body and advocate some practices that can lead to temptation and/or illness.

    Lord have mercy.

    Online songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3698
    • Reputation: +1351/-160
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Article on NFP from introiboadaltaredei
    « Reply #59 on: October 21, 2019, 08:14:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Boy, you are right about Couple to Couple.  They are so tight on the reins to not get pregnant.  I teach Billings.  I taught couples how to get pregnant.  Only one woman, a jew, wanted to wait on children after having had 7.

    I have had so much joy helping women/couples achieve pregnancy.  And boy, did I find a lot of rotten doctors.  I found Couple to Couple in Phoenix, in the 90's to have a list of doctors to choose from.  Every doctor on that list was a contraception giving doctor, except one.  only one!  Come to find out, there was money involved.

    The anatomy /physiology is God Given Design.  NFP came about by those wanting to make money from the Federal gov't.  NFP is a secular way of teaching no God.

    Makes a big difference.  Dr. Billings said at the conference I attended, " This is God's not yours!" and walked away, mad!  That was in New Orleans about 1991.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16