NFP

[Oik]

[quote]I don't think I would go so far as to say NFP is morally nuetral, I would say it is morally permissable, but is not as meritrious as trusting in Divine Providence[/quote]

There is a certain naiveity(sp) that can go into people's "trust in God." We aren't monastics, we are laity. Which is the higher calling? Celibacy, not marriage.

In this sense, I have to disagree that NFP isn't trusting in God's Divine Providence. The point of NFp is not to "empower" the couple to "gain control of thier fertility." The point is to foster love and understanding of the beatiful creature that has now, in marriage, become one flesh. As the post said, it is to sanctify sex. If something is sacntified to God, it is certainly not morally neutral nor is it less than meritous in regards to trusting in God's Divine Providence.

Is it celibacy? Of course not. Is it Chastity, absolutely!

[Jake Huether]

I'm a tad late in chiming in, but oh well...

On the one hand I see how someone might have been confused about "manipulating" ovulation of a woman, so to speak... since the topic includes the discussion of contraception - which does indeed, in some cases, physically alter a womans ovulation. But in the case of NFP, which Don John was clearly referring to, manipulation takes on a slightly different meaning. In other words, one needs to understand the use of the word manipulation in context to what it is referring to.

One can manipulate a light, so the analogy went, to achieve better lighting...

In this case manipulation changes the end result, but requires, in the process, the chaning of the means.

One may also manipulate what I say, to say something that I didn't really mean to say.

The words stay the same, similar to ovulation, which is unchanged in NFP, yet it is the words themselves that ARE infact manipulated.

In this case manipulation changes the end result while retaining the means.

So it is true that some individuals using NFP may manipulate ovulation to their end.

Hope that clarifies things.

I see both points of view.

Peace and Love in Christ.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:59 PM']The point is to foster love and understanding of the beatiful creature that has now, in marriage, become one flesh. As the post said, it is to sanctify sex. [right][snapback]715848[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please explain how it is in anyway fostering love for anything. Understanding of a thing does not foster love, wonder fosters love, the more one knows about a thing, the less mysterious that thing becomes, and with the death of mystery comes a callousness which does anything but foster love. No NFP is to regulate the bearing of children, there is nothing inhirently good about that, nothing loving, nothing at all.

[Oik]

In that sense Jake, I then disagree.

If manipulation is to change the end result and God controls the end result in NFP, then NFP has notthing to do with changing the end result. Also, treating fertility diseases would then also count as manipulating. This is of course a stance that coulkd be tweaked if one made the distinction of positive, licit manipulation (as in life saving operations) and negative manipulations (as in plastic surgeory).

Even still, I don't see that NFP manipulates anything here. The woman consents, the man consents, the process charts biological markers. The couple has the option to share the marital embrace whenever they want, during any part of the charting really. It is left up to the couple here.

What is being manipulated? Even of the end result were to avoid preganacy (and even for inccorect reasons) the process is not inherently contraceptive on an objective level. It might be subjectively used as a contraceptive mentality, but this then falls on the couple, not on the method itself.

[Carrie]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:09 PM']Understanding of a thing does not foster love, wonder fosters love, the more one knows about a thing, the less mysterious that thing becomes, and with the death of mystery comes a callousness which does anything but foster love.
[right][snapback]715855[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Is that really true?

I don't agree. Use your example and apply it to a married couple.

Over time, a married couple comes to understand each other more and more. They learn a great deal about each other. While they may not be wonderous or mysterious to each other anymore after some time, I would argue that their love grows and matures because of this understanding.

Just my .02 cents

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Sep 8 2005, 02:14 PM']Is that really true?

I don't agree.  Use your example and apply it to a married couple. 

Over time, a married couple comes to understand each other more and more.  They learn a great deal about each other.  While they may not be wonderous or mysterious to each other anymore after some time, I would argue that their love grows and matures because of this understanding.

Just my .02 cents
[right][snapback]715860[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


A married couple doesn' really understand each other not really, a person is not a thing that can be understood, that is what makes persons wonderful. If understandng fostered love then God would make himself understandable. Once something is Truely understoood then it is by definition no longer mysterious, no longer wonderful. The Rings of Saturn used to inspire wonder in me, now I know what they are, no longer can I look though a telescope and see them and think of them with that pure unadulterated wonder. If you look at your spouse and feel you truely understand that person, either you are tremendouosly arrogant or you married a vegtable.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 8 2005, 02:03 PM']I'm a tad late in chiming in, but oh well...

On the one hand I see how someone might have been confused about "manipulating" ovulation of a woman, so to speak... since the topic includes the discussion of contraception - which does indeed, in some cases, physically alter a womans ovulation.  But in the case of NFP, which Don John was clearly referring to, manipulation takes on a slightly different meaning.  In other words, one needs to understand the use of the word manipulation in context to what it is referring to.

One can manipulate a light, so the analogy went, to achieve better lighting...

In this case manipulation changes the end result, but requires, in the process, the chaning of the means.

One may also manipulate what I say, to say something that I didn't really mean to say.

The words stay the same, similar to ovulation, which is unchanged in NFP, yet it is the words themselves that ARE infact manipulated.

In this case manipulation changes the end result while retaining the means.

So it is true that some individuals using NFP may manipulate ovulation to their end.

Hope that clarifies things.

I see both points of view.

Peace and Love in Christ.
[right][snapback]715851[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


/sign

[Oik]

[quote]Please explain how it is in anyway fostering love for anything. Understanding of a thing does not foster love, wonder fosters love, the more one knows about a thing, the less mysterious that thing becomes, and with the death of mystery comes a callousness which does anything but foster love. No NFP is to regulate the bearing of children, there is nothing inhirently good about that, nothing loving, nothing at all.[/quote]

While it is true that one can become cold to a situation on a subective level (as a matter of opinon), one can never deny or re-write the objective value of a thing by forcing a subjective value that is related to it, on it.

NFP forsters love by fostering respect and dignity of the couple. The woman learns about the beauty and complexity of her body. In this way, the mystery of who she is as a woman is deepened, not lessened. For example, I am a Theology student. The more I learn about my Lord, the more I fall passionately in Love with Him. Now, Theology, the stidy of God, surely doesn't take a way from the Mystery of Christ, His Sacrifice, or even the Mystery of my Faith. Neither does a systematic appraoch to Theology. Can it lead to heresy? For some it has.

Yes, understanding a thing does foster love. It fosters understanding, empathy, respect, dignity. To want to know God is to want to know Love. When we seek God in our spouse, we seek God. When we respect the dignity that God has given to a human being, we repsect it's Creator, God.

I disagree that knowing about a woman or a woman knowing about a man lessens the mystery. In fact, is deepens the Mystery. I hope that I can spend all Eternity learning about God. I'll sure I'll spend all Eternity Worship Him, which I long for.

Learniong about your spouse is loving. It is romantic. I want to go on dates with my wife when I get married. I want to know what she thinks about the world. I want to her hear voice explaining the intricacies of her delicate creation.

Will she be less mysterious to me? No. She will evermore be my beloved.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:52 PM']NFP is not artifical birth control, it employs natural means of menstural observation and various natural means (if necessary) of birth regulation and even a natural means (if you are familiar with NaPro technology) of fertility disease treatment.
NFP is not contraception, though contraceptive methods are always (and rightfully so) umbrella'd (bad grammar, I know) under one term.
[right][snapback]715843[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oik, I’m very familiar with NFP and various NFP methods, and I know it’s not artificial birth control. My point in making this comment was that your statement, “In the end, it is God's will anyways,” is a poor argument in favor of NFP – or for any activity, really – because of the reasons I went on to lay out.

With regard to the moral neutrality question ... what I perhaps should have said is that I think the moral value of NFP lies in its proper practice, with an intent in line with church teaching. Without proper intent, I think NFP can be the moral equivalent of using contraceptives. I termed it “morally neutral” because I see its goodness or badness lying not so much in the practice itself as in the intent of the individual couple. I don’t think NFP itself can be inherently good, because given a poor intent it can be evil. But, unlike contraception it’s not inherently bad. So I said morally neutral. If my terminology is wrong, I apologize.

[Oik]

Don, I see you point of the mysteriousness of a Creature, believe me I do. The point I am making is that we have to becareful of the subjective boiling over into the objective.

The intent is not to equate knowing with all-knowing.

[Oik]

Sojourner. I see you points too. The terminology is not incorrect. The distinction I am making is between objective and subjective. If I use something incorrectly on a subjective level, that does not change the objective value of the thing.

Hence, NFP is itself is not morally neutral, it is morally good in an objective sense. Contraception, on the other hand is subjectively and objectively morally incorrect.

So, the assertation that NFP is morally neutral and that one can use it with a "contraceptive mentality" creates a conflict between the objective understandiong of NFP and the subjective understanding of NFP.

I am saying that NFP, in itself is objectively good for, by it's very desgin, it was created for good, or that the inherent actions it employs desings it as objectionally so.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]The current Pope explained the difference by saying that NFP uses a faculty given by nature whereas contraception impedes nature. The contracepting couple simultaneously engages in sex and an act to counter the results of sex, whereas the NFP couple engages in sex when they know it will not result in children.[/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 02:27 PM']Don, I see you point of the mysteriousness of a Creature, believe me I do. The point I am making is that we have to becareful of the subjective boiling over into the objective.

The intent is not to equate knowing with all-knowing.
[right][snapback]715875[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Objectively NFP is not about understanding a womens body, that is notthe purpose of NFP I understand all about womens bodies, I have taught the science end of sexuality for years, but I can have all of that understanding without using that at all. NFP is about regulating the birth of Children, objectively it is only about that, whatever knowledge is needed for it is incidental, if a women had a machine that kept tract of it for her it would still be morally permissable. Knowledge of the other person( for good or ill) is only a side effect, That is not the Goal of NFP or even essential to it.

[Don John of Austria]

Brother adam ---- you have a point?

[Oik]

Don, I disagree. We will have to agree to disagree here. :