How NFP kills embryos

[VoxClamantis]

Pope Pius XII clarified all the stuff of this thread long ago: 

http://fisheaters.com/addresstomidwives.html

[quoprimum]

The proof of the bad fruits of NFP are in every NO church I have  attended.  Just notice the 1or2 children families.  In the  parish that I used to attend there were no families with over 3 kids.  NONE.  In  my SSPX traditional church, most families have 5-12 kiddos.  Don't  tell me that those in the NO church aren't abusing NFP or even using  chemical contraception because it is obvious they are.   They  truly believe they have the churches blessing to contracept!  What a shame.  The church teaches that you must be chaste if  for grave and serious reasons you  should not conceive at that time. Being chaste means no marital embrace  till the crisis is over. Spacing children for your convenience, and  showing God you do not trust Him and his Divine Will for you and your  family is not what the church means by that.
 
  In Christ
  Monique
 
 

[JLeigh]

Unfortunately, for me, Pius XII address to midwives raises more questions than it answers. Additionally, the question remains as to whether or not this address is consistent with what Catholics down through the centuries have always been taught, or understood. At this point, for me, Pius XII's address is not the deciding factor on whether or not NFP is licit.

[VoxClamantis]

The proof of the bad fruits of NFP are in every NO church I have attended.  Just notice the 1or2 children families.  In the parish that I used to attend there were no families with over 3 kids.  NONE.  In my SSPX traditional church, most families have 5-12 kiddos.  Don't tell me that those in the NO church aren't abusing NFP or even using chemical contraception because it is obvious they are.  

 

Why would anyone say that those in the NO aren't abusing NPF or even using chemical contraception when they are? Catholics also have a higher rate of abortions than Prots. But that has nothing to do, in se, with the use of infertile periods as described by Pope Pius XII.

 

They truly believe they have the churches blessing to contracept!  What a shame.  The church teaches that you must be chaste if  for grave and serious reasons you should not conceive at that time. Being chaste means no marital embrace till the crisis is over.

 

The Church teaches that everyone must be chaste at all times, married or not. I think you are looking for the term "sexually continent" or "sexually abstinent" or some such.

 

Spacing children for your convenience, and showing God you do not trust Him and his Divine Will for you and your family is not what the church means by that.

 

One man's "convenience" is another man's "grave situation."

[quoprimum]

OOPs wrong word.  Sorry, I did mean continent or some such!  Thanks for pointing that out Vox.
 
 

One man's "convenience" is another man's "grave situation."

 
  But that is realitavism.  One cannot say that because if I have  another we wouldn't be able to go to Disney World,or afford a new car,  or our house is too small, so we'll put having another one off for a  year or two..
  That is not a grave reason, I think you would agree. But some think  that it is a grave reason.  I don't believe all those people with  1 or 2 kids have what would be considered "grave reasons".  I'm ok  your ok and your reason is grave for you, so go ahead and not be  open to the transmission of life, but have your fun, cuz ya know it's  darned inconvenient to have another kid right now. We can't afford it,  I'm already too busy with the one we already have.   We just aren't ready yet....... And is seems that the right time never  comes cuz the children stop coming at 1 or 2.  NFP has allowed the  destruction of the Catholic family. And the ones who practice it think  that they are well within the churches "guidelines" for grave reasons.  The whole "well I'm sure you have your reasons........"  is not in  line with what the Pope said. Or what has been said by Popes through  the ages.
 
  In Christ
  Monique
 
 

[VoxClamantis]

Unfortunately, for me, Pius XII address to midwives raises more questions than it answers. Additionally, the question remains as to whether or not this address is consistent with what Catholics down through the centuries have always been taught, or understood. At this point, for me, Pius XII's address is not the deciding factor on whether or not NFP is licit.

 

People weren't aware of the idea of "fertile times" and "infertile times" until relatively recently, so the whole thing is moot in that regard (i.e., one isn't going to find a medieval encyclical that okays or disses the rhythm method, for ex.). But it is a fact that it is not inherently sinful to refrain from sex while married (if that decision is mutual, of course) and it is not inherently sinful to engage in it.

 

Pope Pius XI also wrote about it in Casti Connubii (1930): 

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances .

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]

58. As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.[47]

59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

[VoxClamantis]

One man's "convenience" is another man's "grave situation."

But that is realitavism.  One cannot say that because if I have another we wouldn't be able to go to Disney World,or afford a new car, or our house is too small, so we'll put having another one off for a year or two..
That is not a grave reason, I think you would agree. But some think that it is a grave reason. 

 

What I am talking about isn't relativism but a recognition of the fact that people have different lives and different needs. Take the house example. "A new house" isn't a "grave reason," most would say automatically. But what if the person living in that house needed to move for health reasons -- say a pollen count that made the person practically bed-ridden half the year and unable to work? What if the house was "too small" and the person living in it with 10 kids was on the verge of snapping like that mother in Texas who drowned her children in the bath tub? Should she and her husband really not have concerns? What if the husband becomes an unemployed drug addict? What if a tornado comes and knocks their house down, destroying everything they own, and forcing them to take their 7 kids and move in with their grandparents? What if the woman suffers from depression so severe that she barely wants to live? What if her parents die in a fiery car crash and they have to come up with $20,000 to bury them? I mean, life happens, and we're not all living in extended families, on farms, where calling Aunt Ida and planting an extra row of corn will make everything better.

 

I don't believe all those people with 1 or 2 kids have what would be considered "grave reasons". 

 

I'd doubt that most of them would, but I can't judge them as it's not my place. It is a fact that NFP is abused -- but it's a fact, too, that Popes have okayed fertility awareness methods for grave reasons.

 

 I'm ok your ok and your reason is grave for you, so go ahead and not be open to the transmission of life, but have your fun, cuz ya know it's darned inconvenient to have another kid right now. We can't afford it, I'm already too busy with the one we already have.  We just aren't ready yet....... And is seems that the right time never comes cuz the children stop coming at 1 or 2.  NFP has allowed the destruction of the Catholic family. And the ones who practice it think that they are well within the churches "guidelines" for grave reasons.

 

I doubt that NFP has much if anything to do with the destruction of the Catholic family. Most Catholics go to the pharmacy and artificially contracept, just like the pagans and Prots.

 

The whole "well I'm sure you have your reasons........"  is not in line with what the Pope said. Or what has been said by Popes through the ages.

 

A person either has a grave reason or he doesn't. A high pollen count might not be "grave" to you, for ex., but it could be extremely grave for someone who literally can barely breathe because of it. That's not "relativism"; it's the way it is. And I'm sure no one here is advocating that couples be taught NFP as a way of life or a means of spacing children so you can get your hair did more often.

[Mernoc]

NFP makes the secondary ends primary which is why it is wrong.  If the couple where unaware that it was a infertile period then this would be ok but the fact is that by using NFP they are making a conscious decision to participate in the conjugal act for secondary causes not the primary cause which is the begetting of children.

I do not see how you can say that the primary purpose of the conjugal act is for the begetting of children but then at the same time condone couples deliberately trying to avoid this while still enjoying all the secondary benefits.  The result of this attitude psychologically leads to the secondary ends been given more importance, in effect the secondary ends become the primary end and the primary end is treat as something undesirable and to be avoided.

NFP is completely illogical for the reasons I have already stated:

Deliberately restricting the practice of the conjugal act to the non fertile times when there is only a 2% chance of pregnancy occurring is not much better than husband and wife taking part in mutual masturbation.  By doing this it is clear that their primary purpose is for their own pleasure not for the begetting of children.

We are told that when a man commits the sin of onan during the conjugal act there is also a minimal chance of conception still occurring, this then begs the question how is NFP any different than the sin of onan?

Bearing in mind all of this, to say NFP is ok makes no sense whatsoever.

As far as I can see NFP can never be made to fit with the traditional church teaching concerning the purpose of the marriage act, Pope Pius XI tried and in my opinion failed to do this for the simple reason that the two are completely incompatible.

This was one of the first signs that the church was beginning to try and compromise with the world.  What we got with NFP was a compromising synthesis between the churches previous stance which advocated no birth control whatsoever and the worlds pagan ideas of birth control which where been pushed forward by the Godless scientific community.

After seeing the fruits of church approved NFP I do not see how anyone can still support its use, it has been a unmitigated disaster and is at least partly to blame for the dramatic decrease in the number of practicing Catholic's in the western world today.

[promultis]

http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/RomanCatholic/NFP.html

[quoprimum]

Fantastic ProMultis!!  Thanks for the link!!!
 
  In Christ
  Monique