Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
To sum up, we can say that NFP/periodic continence is not against the natural law.

But, the purpose/intent of NFP/periodic continence is what determines its morality.  Without grave reason, its use is just as immoral as contraception (i.e. both are mortal sins).
.
Yup.  I'm not sure that it would always be a mortal sin to abuse it (not that that makes it advisable-- we must avoid all sin in any event, I'm just not personally sure if it would always be a mortal sin).  It easily could be and probably would usually be, just looking at face value.
2
To sum up, we can say that NFP/periodic continence is not against the natural law.

But, the purpose/intent of NFP/periodic continence is what determines its morality.  Without grave reason, its use is just as immoral as contraception (i.e. both are mortal sins).
3
Mith, if a couple practices NFP "naturally" are you arguing that Pius XI said that the ends are ordered, so there is no intrinsic sin?  Based on your comments in reply 32, it seems you are.  And I would agree.
.
You've got it in a nutshell.  What Pope Pius actually says-- if you compare the Latin to the traditional English translation found in pre-conciliar Denzinger and used by the theologians-- is that if the act is performed naturally, then the ends are duly ordered.  The two go hand in hand with the one following from the other, they're not two separate conditions like Ladislaus is contending (but in his defense, I think he's basing his reading off of a translation which could be read that way, he didn't make it up out of whole cloth).
.

Quote
However, if a couple is practicing NFP to avoid children, without grave reason, then EXTRINSICALLY, they are sinning.  Doesn't matter if their intrinsic relations are moral; their external motives are immoral.
.
If they lack a sufficient reason to use it, then they sin, just like if you lack a sufficient reason to miss mass, you sin (this is the common thread in all positive precepts: when you're commanded to do something, you sin in not doing it unless you have a sufficient reason not to).  
.
The whole reason I was talking about intrinsic/extrinsic was to help illustrate that whatever periodic continence is, it isn't forbidden by Pius XI's Casti Conubii, since Casti Conubii only concerns itself with what is intrinsic to the act (i.e., onanism and contraception proper).  This is a point which is less relevant at this stage of the conversation (at least between you and I, since we seem to agree on it) but which was relevant earlier when at least to me it sounded as though some people were arguing that periodic continence is condemned in Casti Conubii.  It isn't.  Which doesn't (by itself) prove that its lawful, but disarms the most common argument that it's unlawful, for sure.
.
4
Mith, if a couple practices NFP "naturally" are you arguing that Pius XI said that the ends are ordered, so there is no intrinsic sin?  Based on your comments in reply 32, it seems you are.  And I would agree.

However, if a couple is practicing NFP to avoid children, without grave reason, then EXTRINSICALLY, they are sinning.  Doesn't matter if their intrinsic relations are moral; their external motives are immoral.

Eating meat is not an immoral act.  If I eat meat on Good Friday, without a grave reason, I sin due to the motive of laziness or of ignoring the Church's laws.  Circumstances/motives can change a moral/neutral act into an immoral one.
5

Quote
Pius XI laid down two conditions, 1) that the inherent potential of the act itself cannot be deliberately frustrated (i.e. ruling out contraceptives of any kind) and 2) that the primary end can never be subordinated to the secondary ends (ruling out modern NFP at least).

.
I addressed this in my previous reply to you (reply no. 32) https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/questions-on-sex-and-specifically-the-role-of-procreation/msg630779/#msg630779
.
Those are my reasons for not regarding the distinction as valid or based in Pius XI's teaching.  What is your rebuttal to my reasons?
6
Positive versus negative precepts.  There are conditions under which the precept to procreate can be suspended, just as there are conditions under which the precept to go to mass can be suspended.
.
And I don't understand why you only quoted that one question of mine, since you didn't actually answer it (you're of course free to, even though it was addressed to Ladislaus).

Of course there's not an absolute precept to have children.  One could in fact abstain from marital relations by mutual consent for various just reasons ... e.g. for spiritual reasons, penance, etc.  Under those conditions, one would not be procreating.  But that's a separate issue.

What we're talking about is engaging in marital relations for the secondary ends of marriage (to be generous, because it's most often just for pleasure) while deliberately attempting to preclude the primary end.  That is the disorder condemned by Pius XI.

Pius XI laid down two conditions, 1) that the inherent potential of the act itself cannot be deliberately frustrated (i.e. ruling out contraceptives of any kind) and 2) that the primary end can never be subordinated to the secondary ends (ruling out modern NFP at least).

Pius XII in his Allocution cited #1 but omitted #2.  He was clearly not teaching anything authoritatively, and certainly not to the Universal Church ... as his language was filled with references to these "theories", and so it's obvious he's merely speculating.  Beside that, as has been pointed out, rhythm back then was a 50-50 proposition at best, so it simply made conception LESS likely, whereas modern NFP is touted to be as effective as artificial birth control.
7
Mith, I'm not arguing with you.  And yes, I did answer the question.  Periodic [continence] is not wrong because we're arguing it's contraception; it's wrong because the intent is to SYSTEMATICALLY and STRATEGICALLY have relations while avoiding children.  Unless one has permission from their priest for some grave reason, then it's wrong.  NFP, as it's practiced today by most couples, is 'catholic contraception'.
.
Alright, yes, I certainly agree that periodic continence is unlawful without a sufficient (i.e. grave) reason.  And that "NFP" is aptly and colloquially dubbed "Catholic contraception."  Sorry, thanks for the clarification.
8
Births out of wedlock are very high in France, Sweden, Spain, and the EU.

However, births outside of marriage are lower in Russia and in Japan.



I am not linking the MSM website Bloomberg as it contains anti-life propaganda:
Almost Half of U.S. Births Happen Outside Marriage, Signaling Cultural Shift, Rily Griffin, October 17, 2018
9
Mith, I'm not arguing with you.  And yes, I did answer the question.  Periodic contraception is not wrong because we're arguing it's contraception; it's wrong because the intent is to SYSTEMATICALLY and STRATEGICALLY have relations while avoiding children.  Unless one has permission from their priest for some grave reason, then it's wrong.  NFP, as it's practiced today by most couples, is 'catholic contraception'.
10
.
If she had made him get out of the car, she'd have to wait for him to first get his wheelchair out of the back seat, which he needs since the last time his mother beat him to a pulp with a bullwhip and a baseball bat.
What are you talking about?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10