On NFP...
This is the text of an unpublished Facebook Note From March 31, 2014. My words will be in regular font.
And no I am not adding to Catholic's burdens by raising people from NFP to Providentialism
Actually, if one looks at your rationale, this is precisely what you are doing. Just because you do not subjectively recognize it does not change the objective import of where your purported arguments inexorably go.
The Church never ever taught that NFP is meant to be used as a contraception.This is true. However, as NFP cannot be used as a contraceptive, your statement is pretty pointless. (This is not to say that NFP cannot be used with a contraceptive mentality mind you but even if that happens, it is not the same as engaging in contraception because the mechanics of the completed act via NFP are not impeded.)
It was only be used in exceptional cases.This is not the Church's teaching but instead is your own. At no point does the Church say NFP is only for
exceptional cases. The verbiage is actually
just causes and the latter are hardly exceptional or extraordinary.
And yes, NFP is still contraception. That is precisely what it is doing.How is abstaining from sex during fertile periods contracepting? Simple, it is not. If you are contracepting by abstaining from sex during fertile times,
then you have to accuse Mary and Joseph of contracepting because guess what: they abstained from sex during Mary's fertile times!{1} So Mary and Joseph engaged in contraception and thus sin by your absurd "logic" and as we know via the faith that Mary remained sinless, your argument not only does not hold water but you have engaged in blasphemy and arguably espoused heresy.{2} I suggest with all due respect that you take pause and rethink your position here and cease accusing Bill or anyone else of a
clouded irrational post considering the objective import of your own statements!
As for the second part of your position, how is having sex during infertile times contracepting?
Simple, it is not. God is the author of the fertility cycle and there is no commandment that couples are required to abstain during it. Furthermore, if following God's own laws, there is no wrong committed whereas contraception obstructs or frustrates God's laws. The end may be the same but the means are both objectively and morally different in the eyes of the Church.
What else is contraception but preventing life.This is ridiculous. By your foolish "logic" if you are married and abstaining from sex with your wife right now, you are "contracepting" because you are
preventing life. Better get yourself to confession on the double because by this "mortal sin" you are consigning yourself to hell if you are not having sex with your wife right now! :::rolls eyes:::
It is not artificial but it is still contraception.No it is not. You obviously do not understand what
contraception is and is not.
The aim of both techniques whether natural or artificial is to prevent life from forming (contra-caption, against life). Whether the reason is grave or not, that is it's immediate intent.Two points: (i) the reason to use NFP does not have to be grave according to Catholic teaching -just reasons is the criteria the Church sets down, and (ii) there is no impediment to conception with NFP during an infertile part of the cycle. By your "logic" an infertile couple is "contracepting" every time they have sex and thus sinning: again your "logic" betrays you as does your ignorance of Catholic teaching.
That is why it is only be used on grave situations -e.g. because of the health of the mother and only temporarily.Nice try but you are wrong again. The Church does not teach that NFP can only be used in "grave" situations: that is a mistranslation from the Latin text probably originally committed by an overly scrupulous scribe.{3} The actual meaning of the Latin is
just causes and again, these are not exceptional or extraordinary.
The principle to be followed is that the reasons should not be trivial or light for the usage of NFP but regulated by real reasons of a serious nature. And the determinants of this criteria are the couple themselves with the assistance of their confessors/spiritual directors not you, me, or anyone else. The
Sacred Penitentiary from the earliest of days when they begin addressing these issues{4} down to the present day has said the same thing:
"After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation." I suggest that you do as the Church advises on these matters including making the same distinctions they do. Otherwise, you are not thinking with the mind of the Church on these matters
Notes:{1} They also abstained in non-fertile periods too but my issue here is your flawed argument.
{2} Either way, if St. Jerome were in the room he would smack your face for such inferences!
{3} I will presume for the sake of charity that their error was not intentional.
{4} Their first intervention on these matters was in 1853.