Author Topic: The Anglican-"Catholic" Union. (Read 2206 times)

pax · « **Reply #1 on:** January 08, 2010, 07:02:04 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

NFP is contraception

That is all the proof I need to inform me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

NFP is refraining from engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse. Period.

Contraception is engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse while using artificial means to prevent conception.

So, let me ask you:

If I did not engage in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse with my wife last night, did I practice contraception?

pax · « **Reply #2 on:** January 11, 2010, 07:13:28 AM »

Quote from: pax

Quote from: Raoul76
NFP is contraception

That is all the proof I need to inform me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

NFP is refraining from engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse. Period.

Contraception is engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse while using artificial means to prevent conception.

So, let me ask you:

If I did not engage in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse with my wife last night, did I practice contraception?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2010, 09:56:16 AM »

Quote from: pax

Quote from: Raoul76
NFP is contraception

That is all the proof I need to inform me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

NFP is refraining from engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse. Period.

Contraception is engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse while using artificial means to prevent conception.

So, let me ask you:

If I did not engage in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse with my wife last night, did I practice contraception?

NFP (NBC I call it) entails refraining from the marital act -- which is not intrinsically evil (as you point out).

ABC is obviously intrinsically (and materially) evil.

NEVERTHELESS, NBC is extrinsically or formally evil (i.e. based on extrinsic factors such as motivation) since the INTENT is to control the number of children, i.e. since the INTENT is to partake of marital relations while excluding procreation. In so doing, you are by your intentions trying to divoce the marital act from its intended purpose or end.

So it amounts to the same thing, really, though in the case of Artificial Birth Control, it's intrinsically evil, in the case of Natural Birth Control, it's extrinsically evil.

Very few people who practice NFP actually apply the "grave reason" exception. I personally find the "grave reason" thing problematic. For if NFP is immoral, then grave reason represents ends-justifies-the-means moral theology.

If you have sufficiently grave reason, then it would be sinful to have marital relations at all, for since NFP isn't 100% foolproof, you would be risking the life of your spouse in so doing (the only sufficiently grave reason that could POSSIBLY justify NFP). Unfortunately the "grave reason" thing becomes a slippery slope, leading to people spreading out children because of the psychological hardship of having so many, and limiting the number of children because they could not afford to send them all to Ivy League schools.

If you have grave reasons not to conceive, then (complete) abstinence IMO is the only acceptable route to take. If your spouse disabled or gravely ill, etc., you have to practice abstinence. Justification for NFP seems to be predicated on some sense that people have a God-given right to sɛҳuąƖ gratification. Which principle was enshrined at V2 as the "unitive end" of marriage, which is euphemized from what my wife calls the "recreative end". Unitive is bull-speak for a right to have sɛҳuąƖ pleasure in marriage without have to subordinate that to the procreative end of marital relations.

So Raoul is quite correct in calling NFP contraception--the attempt to limit or stop conception while at the same time engaging in marital relations. I dislike the euphemism of calling it "Family Planning" when it's natural, but "Birth Control" when it's artificial. In both cases it's "Birth Control". So there's Artificial Birth Control (intrinsically--materially and formally-evil) and Natural Birth Control (extrinsically--formally--evil).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2010, 10:34:28 AM »

In addition to the doctrinal problems, I'd have a hard time with their use of a Cranmer liturgy.

CMMM · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2010, 11:40:37 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: pax
Quote from: Raoul76
NFP is contraception

That is all the proof I need to inform me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

NFP is refraining from engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse. Period.

Contraception is engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse while using artificial means to prevent conception.

So, let me ask you:

If I did not engage in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse with my wife last night, did I practice contraception?

NFP (NBC I call it) entails refraining from the marital act -- which is not intrinsically evil (as you point out).

ABC is obviously intrinsically (and materially) evil.

NEVERTHELESS, NBC is extrinsically or formally evil (i.e. based on extrinsic factors such as motivation) since the INTENT is to control the number of children, i.e. since the INTENT is to partake of marital relations while excluding procreation. In so doing, you are by your intentions trying to divoce the marital act from its intended purpose or end.

So it amounts to the same thing, really, though in the case of Artificial Birth Control, it's intrinsically evil, in the case of Natural Birth Control, it's extrinsically evil.

Very few people who practice NFP actually apply the "grave reason" exception. I personally find the "grave reason" thing problematic. For if NFP is immoral, then grave reason represents ends-justifies-the-means moral theology.

If you have sufficiently grave reason, then it would be sinful to have marital relations at all, for since NFP isn't 100% foolproof, you would be risking the life of your spouse in so doing (the only sufficiently grave reason that could POSSIBLY justify NFP). Unfortunately the "grave reason" thing becomes a slippery slope, leading to people spreading out children because of the psychological hardship of having so many, and limiting the number of children because they could not afford to send them all to Ivy League schools.

If you have grave reasons not to conceive, then (complete) abstinence IMO is the only acceptable route to take. If your spouse disabled or gravely ill, etc., you have to practice abstinence. Justification for NFP seems to be predicated on some sense that people have a God-given right to sɛҳuąƖ gratification. Which principle was enshrined at V2 as the "unitive end" of marriage, which is euphemized from what my wife calls the "recreative end". Unitive is bull-speak for a right to have sɛҳuąƖ pleasure in marriage without have to subordinate that to the procreative end of marital relations.

So Raoul is quite correct in calling NFP contraception--the attempt to limit or stop conception while at the same time engaging in marital relations. I dislike the euphemism of calling it "Family Planning" when it's natural, but "Birth Control" when it's artificial. In both cases it's "Birth Control". So there's Artificial Birth Control (intrinsically--materially and formally-evil) and Natural Birth Control (extrinsically--formally--evil).

Would China's One Child Policy fall under the 'Grave' censure?

pax · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2010, 07:53:06 PM »

So, not engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse is extrinsically formally evil?

Do you guys know how absurd you sound?

CM · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:02:01 PM »

Quote from: pax

So, not engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse is extrinsically formally evil?

He never said that "pax". You're inventing a strawman. Do you have any idea how dishonest you make yourself?

pax · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:05:03 PM »

Quote from: CM

Quote from: pax
So, not engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse is extrinsically formally evil?

He never said that "pax". You're inventing a strawman. Do you have any idea how dishonest you make yourself?

I merely reduced his gobbledy-gook down to the essentials.

A married couple is at liberty to agree to refrain from sɛҳuąƖ intercourse whenever they want to.

It is the height of absurdity to say they must engage in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse against their will.

And the unitive aspect of sɛҳuąƖ intercourse is so connected to the procreative aspect of sɛҳuąƖ intercourse that the two cannot be separated.

Clovis · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:05:51 PM »

Quote from: CM

Quote from: pax
So, not engaging in sɛҳuąƖ intercourse is extrinsically formally evil?

He never said that "pax". You're inventing a strawman. Do you have any idea how dishonest you make yourself?

When Ireland was Christian we believed that the sɛҳuąƖ act was purely for having childern...Little rose has mocked this attitude but it does find a lot of support in the Fathers and has never been condemned by the Church.

CM · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:11:16 PM »

Quote from: pax

And the unitive aspect of sɛҳuąƖ intercourse is so connected to the procreative aspect of sɛҳuąƖ intercourse that the two cannot be separated.

Never. Not in practice, not in the will. And certainly not in a practice that comes from such a will (mucus charts, special calendars, graphs, etc.). That is the part your strawman fails to acknowledge.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:14:12 PM »

NFP is using the conjugal act exclusively on days where via the inteference of doctors and mucus tests and other devices, it is determined that the woman has almost no chance to get pregnant.

Hypocrites call this abstinence because on certain days the spouses "abstain." But on the others they have sex while preventing birth.

As you say correctly pax, the procreative and unitive ends cannot be separated, which is precisely what NFP does.

Type in my name and NFP and you'll see much more about this. I can't say the same thing over and over. I'll probably write it all out in book form and then just reprint a chapter or two whenever the subject comes up. Or go to CM's website... :dancing:

CM · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:33:03 PM »

Quote from: Tobias 6:16-17

Then the angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. The horse and mule, when they mate do not produce offspring, because mules are sterile. So the analogy being made here is that those who "give themselves" to lust in such a way as to avoid conception are under the sway of the devil.

If anyone argues that NFP is not sterile, but that it is "open to life", guess what: So is the mating of horse and mule from time to time - there are records of offspring form such instances, albeit incredibly rare.

So between NFP and horse and mule coupling neither is expected to produce offspring, but yet both can do so.

littlerose · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:37:58 PM »

OMG!!! Right now, even as I type, I am committing the sin of contraception because I am not having intercourse!

:rolleyes:

Raoul76 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:43:18 PM »

What you describe Clovis is how it's supposed to be. Not all couples, or even a minority of them, rise to that level, of course.

I wrote about Ireland in one of my other posts to show how absurd it is that it is permissible to try to stop births for "economic" reasons -- this is pure rationalism. These people in Ireland were living off potatoes and it never stopped them from having huge families. Now these Catholic countries like Spain and Ireland have the lowest birth rates in the world.

That is why I am so vocal about NFP. To me this is nothing less than spiritual warfare. This goes right back to the enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The masterfully crafty serpent, through this sick and fake ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clergy, is waging war on the family, and on the army of Catholics who could and should destroy him. He is stopping them from being born, and when they are born, he has them in heresy. Then they grow up, get married, and the cycle continues -- another unholy, lust-driven marriage! He has every angle covered it seems and is engaging in a pure rout that it is terrifying to behold.

******

The real Church says that using the conjugal act while wishing not to have children is a venial fault or sin. By "wishing" I mean simply having sex without children being the goal. The Church knows that spouses will often fall prey to concupiscence, but as long as they do nothing to stop births, the sin is minor. But it's still a sin or fault.

Here we see that the Church doesn't condone even WISHING not to have children. It says it's not a big deal -- but never condones it. The Church, the spotless bride of Christ, cannot even condone overeating, as minor as it may be from time to time. So do you think the real Church, as opposed to the Church of Pius XII, would not only condone but endorse STOPPING births through devious calculations? It is impossible.

Author Topic: The Anglican-&quot;Catholic&quot; Union. (Read 2206 times)

Author Topic: The Anglican-"Catholic" Union. (Read 2206 times)