Now, it is understandable that a group of celibate males operating in an adolescent fashion would become somewhat fixated on genitals.
Care to explain?
What group?
Howso adolescent?
Why say they are so fixated?
How is this relevant?
| NFP the Better Way | Birth Control in the Catholic Church |
| Dino
Junior Member | December 18, 2002, 04:16 PM
|
| NFP the Better Way
I was reading on the website about how NFP people are not open to life & how NFP is the same as ABC. I find such a view to be distorted, if not absurd. Is there a difference between a child concieved in a test tube as opposed to natural intercourse in marriage? of course there is. The first violates the natural moral order & the integrity of how conception takes place much like cloning.The second respects & upholds the natural morder order & the integrity of how procreation is possible in the context of comitted married love. In artificial contraception you have acts & practices that defile the act much like the pagans of old..Paul the apostle acknowledged that a couple could legally abstain for a short time to be free from prayer & then resume relations.As Father Hardon SJ pointed out the church acting as faithful interpreters of the word of God felt that if this were to be done during the infertile times only to avoid procreation for just motives as a greater understanding of the unitive side of conjugal love was realized than it would be licit because the natural moral order would be preserved.Yes you are open to life in PRINCIPAL.How can anybody say with a straight face that a condom or mechanical barrier represents true conjugal love.These unworthy actions speak for themselves.Who can beat natural intercourse where the giving of TOTALITY is preserved.I know some people here hate that word but let^s face it by artificial means your taking a bite out of the totality of the act.Even orthodox judaism who strive to have big families on account of the holocaust disaster approve rythm/NFP.Why do I mentiom them,cause there usually hardballers when it comes down to the old mosaic law but yet they acknowledge this NFP/rythm is in compliance to the natural order of things. If you follow the editors logic on "openess to life" then even having sex randomly is not "open to life" because according to the logic he follows I could easily say that you are only "open to life" on the 2 or 3 days a month the egg is present in the uterus lining,Absurd!.Notice the common thread between periodic abstinence in infertile times,sex in the non child bearing years,sex during pregnancy,sex for a sterile couple all of which are blessed by the church ? Can you say respect for the natural moral order & the total self giving as described by John Paul II?I^m sure others have made these arguments but they probably have been brushed off because it doesn^t support tis wesite^s view.If you can be loyal to conscience so can I. Speaking of conscience,am I a dye in the wool conservative who has no sympathy for some of the experiences mentioned,of course not.I know life is not always perfect or smooth,but I felt to write to defend the church^s teaching so that you may fully understand where there coming from and to shun this thinking that NFP & ABC are morally the same. Dr billings developed NFP because though he & his wife at first used contraceptives they realized that it was such a personal intrusion,you could say in short that sex was meant to be natural.Yes I believe the natural cycle was nature^s way of birth regulation.Just because a celibate hierachy wasn^t fully aware of it until later does not mean people or cultures were not.The church wasn^t aware of a lot of things until latter on,sometimes its like that.How do you explain the woman not menstruating during breast feeding?Here nature gives a break.Just like during the infertile periods where a woman is open to sex with her mate because of the pair bonding aspects of unitive love,nature designs a way.It is up to man to understand the nature of things,it may not happen immediately but it does happen.If I post once,spare me the baloney about troll or not wanting to stick around for a debate I know your convictions,you know mine. |
|
| Editor
Member | December 18, 2002, 06:05 PM
|
| That was a thoughtful post, Dino. Thanks for stopping in. Your main point seems to be that total self-giving is missing in ABC while it's present in NFP. I've addressed this on the web site in the page on Pope John Paul II and the Language of Love. We've also had a few discussions of it on the forum; there's a good exchange about it in the archives. In summary, I don't see how a barrier method or the combination pill impairs total self-giving; it's not the experience my spouse and I have. I also fail to see (as you rightly predicted) how choosing to have sex only in the infertile time of the month is qualitatively different from ABC sex. You're welcomed to your opinion on all this, however. As for other cultures knowing the times of fertility and infertility, that's just not so, not with any accuracy, that is. Don't base your points on misinformation. [This message was edited by Editor on December 18, 2002 at 06:29 PM.] |
|
| James
Member | December 18, 2002, 10:18 PM
|
| Natural Infertility
Dino, While it is true that nature provides infertility with certain things such as breastfeeding, it must also be said that nature is not originally as God ever intended it to be. The extent to which we are to use this natural infertility (or anything considered as "natural" for our use) can never be fully understood in our present state. We live in as fallen creations thanks to Adam and Eve. Original sin permeates every aspect of nature. Healthy people inexplicably fall ill with various insidious cancers, the soil that we grow our crops with may be depleated of nutrients, in short not every body part of every person (including the reproductive systems thereof) works the way that God intended for it to prior to the Fall of Man. I will go as far as to say that our present state is not "naturally" the way God intended for it to be, perhaps it is in no way natural to God. Knowing this it certainly follows that not everyone couple will be able to use NFP accurately and reliably. For reasons unknown to many doctors some women who use ecological breastfeeding still ovulate and become pregnant. Some fertile women do not display temperature shifts or fertile type mucous, but are still able to become pregnant. The situation that humans find themselves in when it comes to child spacing certainly is much more complex and difficult than our NFP textbooks would make it out to be. Now, for some it is perfectly acceptable to have as large a family as possible and so these considerations are not regarded by these couples. This is not a satisfactory situation for all, however. Let us all keep that in mind when considering Natural Law and its appropriate interpretation. Regards- |
|
| James
Member | December 18, 2002, 10:27 PM
|
| Dino, Please explain in detail the meaning of the words "totality of the act"? What does this totality consist of and who defined its parameters? If a husband cannot ejaculate is this totality defiled? In short, must the sperm be ejaculated into the vagina for this totality to occur? And finally, why such a reductionist view of the marital bond? It is only meaningful if ejaculation occurs in the vagina, but prior to that ejaculation the penis can be put into any orifice or location and anything therefore done to it and hence the totality is not lost? Pardon me if this seems senseless and a bit immoral in itself. Regards- |
|
| Susan
Member | December 19, 2002, 06:12 AM
|
| "And finally, why such a reductionist view of the marital bond?" As I see it, one of the great problems with this standpoint is that it reduces sex to only physical acts. It takes something that can be beautiful, spontaneous and life-giving and, by dissecting it and over analyzing it, tries to turn it into something that, rather than being felt and enjoyed,is thought about far too much. Dissecting something lets us see its parts but it does not show us the totality of the act. The act consists in much more than any of its parts. The emotional, mental, and overall bonding is totally overlooked because the discussion gets so caught up in genitals and time charts. It reduces sex to a penis and vagina. Yet, sex is so much more. Now, it is understandable that a group of celibate males operating in an adolescent fashion would become somewhat fixated on genitals. However, this should be a passing phase and, as they mature, they should be able to see the multi dimensions of the sexual act. Sex not only unites physically. It has great energetic consequences. It can affect overall health and development. It can be used as vehicle for spiritual development. It can foster a sense of intimacy that goes far beyond sharing genital orgasms together. The reductionistic view of sex can tend to desacralize the act itself and lends itself to a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the consequences. Susan |
|
| Huh
| December 19, 2002, 11:54 AM
|
| What?
Now, it is understandable that a group of celibate males operating in an adolescent fashion would become somewhat fixated on genitals. Care to explain? What group? Howso adolescent? Why say they are so fixated? How is this relevant? |
|
| Susan
Member | December 19, 2002, 02:44 PM
|
quote: I'll elaborate, if you so desire....The group would be those people or persons who articulated the natural law theory that places such an emphasis on reproduction and those who refuse to rethink its interpretations. Adolescent in that the undue emphasis is placed on one aspect of a multidimensional, multifaceted act... Fixated because they refuse to change regardless of the the sensus fidelum..... Relevant because it focuses on an important aspect of the birth control issue. Susan |
|
| guest
| December 19, 2002, 03:33 PM
|
| Isn’t it presumptuous of us to think we are in a better position to judge than the magisterium? What ever happened to the perfect bride of Christ, the Church? All this conversation is fine, but I’ll side with 2,000 years of guidance from the Holy Spirit, rather than moonlight-theologians! | |
| Huh
| December 19, 2002, 03:44 PM
|
| where's the beef?
I thought this is what you meant: I'll elaborate, if you so desire....The group would be those people or persons who articulated the natural law theory that places such an emphasis on reproduction and those who refuse to rethink its interpretations. Adolescent in that the undue emphasis is placed on one aspect of a multidimensional, multifaceted act... Fixated because they refuse to change regardless of the the sensus fidelum..... Relevant because it focuses on an important aspect of the birth control issue.  Have you ever thought that maybe people have genuine philosophical and theological disagreements based on their reasoned interpretations of unitive versus procreative aspects? based on their theological methods as grounded in different schools of philosophy? based on their approaches to ethical formulations? based on their interpretations of how the sensus fidelium and the ordinary magisterium interact? If you continue to color everything the hierarchy teaches with your amateurish and facile freudian analyses, don't be surprised if you get written off as an angry and superficial and reactionary feminist (speaking of adolescent fixations and obsessions). |
|
| Susan
Member | December 20, 2002, 07:03 AM
|
quote: I think that some thinkers may take an approach to life like that. However, most people I know are not thinker types. That doesn't make the thinking types superior....just thinking types. quote: You know, it is nice to be liked by other people but it is a lot nicer to be liked by oneself. If my being authentic gets me written off by others on the board as an angry, superficial, and reactionary feminist, so be it. It's not true and I know that. THAT is what is important. Some people thought Jesus was evil....... When I balance my check book, I add in the image fee. If the image fee becomes too great, I change banks. Get it?  Susan |
|
| Huh
| December 20, 2002, 01:10 PM
|
| there is nothing new under the sun, oh my ;>(
So, backing up and gathering these novel insights, let's see, Susan believes that the Church's teaching on birth control, both in it's original articulation based on the natural law approach, which grew out of the Thomistic application of the Aristotelean metaphysic, as well as its contemporary essentialistic interpretation, really exists as a tool for the exercise of temporal ecclesial power (Adlerian) by genitally-fixated, adolescent, celibate males (Freudian), whose enneagrams and personality typologies are predominantly thinking types (Jungian). Truthfully, this isn't very novel after all. I've seen this type of ad hominem response worded in a thousand different ways, from the unrelenting subtle digs to the more explicit knee-jerk angry feminist retort, regarding the dysfunctional male-dominated hierarchy. As with any dysfunction, that it may exist in isolated cases is a grasp of the obvious. When it becomes the master paradigm for explaining away all points of disagreement in discussions between progressives and conservatives, it then likely reveals more about the dysfunctions of the Accuser. So, should us NFP'ers take it that Susan has articulated the ABC'ers' master paradigm, explaining away the hierarchy's teachings on birth control, masturbation, homosexuality, celibacy, the male priesthood, abortion, and all other points of doctrinal contention? That our papacy has been nothing but a succession of Holden Caulfields and our Curia, the maturational equivalent of a preppy Dead Poet's Society? I'll for sure be ignoring your posts since I already know what they are going to say, over and over and over, ad nauseum. |
|
| momof3
Member | December 20, 2002, 02:04 PM
|
| simple thought
Dino, You mentioned the following...... "How do you explain the woman not menstruating during breast feeding?Here nature gives a break." This is misinformation. Some women do have long periods of infertile time with breastfeeding. Some even wake their kids up in the middle of the night after age of one to continue this infertile period ...eh.....so that they can really be "open to life" I have had 3 children and totally breastfed all of them. Some infertile time would have been a side benefit. To my surprise my fertility returned 2 months post-partum despite no supplements or bottles or any other breasfeeding unfriendly practices. So nature does not always work the way we expect it to. How do you explain a woman being fertile almost immediately after birth while being extremely committed to breastfeeding? Well, heck nature does not give me a break!!!!! momof3 momof3 |
|
| NF
| December 20, 2002, 02:18 PM
|
quote: Ditto for me. What a tired, lame approach. Almost as shallow as it is trollish. Problem here seems to be that the Editor and her new henchman moderator are applying a double standard to whom they ban and whom they consider trolls. ABC trolls get a free ride. NFH |
|
| moderator
Administrator | December 20, 2002, 02:22 PM
|
| tone it down
the exchanges here need to be toned down. that goes for everyone. try refocusing on the topic and leave off all the ad hominems. |
|
| Anon
| December 20, 2002, 11:37 PM
|
| - post deleted - [This message was edited by moderator on December 21, 2002 at 12:37 PM.] |
|
| Patricia
| December 21, 2002, 06:40 AM
|
| I trust the moderator will delete this obscenity | |
| kevin
Member | December 21, 2002, 07:15 PM
|
| I agree with you Dino, for my take on Totality see my response to james message from saturday afternoon Den 21 02. | |