Habemus Papam

Habemus Papam

http://www.vatican.va/

Originally posted by Nemesio
hmm?

First, thanks for providing the links.

Second, (rather obvious) - so what?

1. Clearly, the mere existence or increase in intensity of human passion does not always justify acting on it. Some examples:
a. There are times when one feels like killing one's boss.
b. One is often quite libidinous as a teenager.

Of course, here we are talking about a context where sex is both legitimate and expected. Nevertheless, while your contention that NFP is "unnatural" (in a sense) because it requires that the couple act against their passions is legitimate; it is not, in itself, sufficient cause to reject it as a course of human action.

2. The whole point of NFP is to remain open to the possibility of procreation, not prevent it altogether. That the woman is at her most libidinous at her most fertile phase (men, of course, are always libidinous and fertile!) reiterates this point - if the couple decide to copulate, they are ready to bring new life into this world. If they decide not to, they are still showing immense respect to each other and to the lives they are capable of creating.

Needless to say, couples can have other forms of intimate contact during this period.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
First, thanks for providing the links.

Second, (rather obvious) - so what?

Hold on a second: so what?!

So, while the male can act on his libido at any time he wants as long
as the woman's phase is ok, the woman has to deny her libido at the
peak of her cycle every single time?

And this is natural?

No, it is not. It is misogynistic. It is insensitive to the woman's
natural biological rhythms as it instructs her when she should
want to consummate her marriage.

Nevertheless, while your contention that NFP is "unnatural" (in a sense) because it requires that the couple act against their passions is legitimate; it is not, in itself, sufficient cause to reject it as a course of human action.

If the Church is going to claim that it's method is natural, and then
ask that a couple do something which is contrary to their natural
biology, then it is sufficient cause to reject the honesty of the claim.

As far as I know, the Church does not hold that libido is intrinsically
evil (or good). It is how one reacts to it that is. So, your examples
of anger towards one's boss or horniness as a teenager aren't really
relevant: it is inappropriate to act in such a fashion.

However, having sex in the marriage bed is not inappropriate. But the
Church would have a couple who is not ready to bring life into the
world deny the woman's urges to consummate the marriage (and
consequently ask her to consummate it when she is less inclined to
do so).

This is unnatural and to claim that it is natural to behave this way is
disingenuous.

The whole point of NFP is to remain open to the possibility of procreation, not prevent it altogether. That the woman is at her most libidinous at her most fertile phase (men, of course, are always libidinous and fertile!) reiterates this point - if the couple decide to copulate, they are ready to bring new life into this world. If they decide not to, they are still showing immense respect to each other and to the lives they are capable of creating.

If a couple uses NFP and has sex during the woman's infertile period,
then they are just as opened to sex as a couple who uses artificial
birth control. Look at the statistics. The number of 'accidents' that
occur during NFP is comparable to the number of 'accidents' involving
broken condoms or missed birth control pills (single digit %s).

The difference: the couple using NFP is dismissing the natural
libido of the woman while the couple using ABC is not.

And, couples using ABC or NFP may both be opened to the idea of
children at some point, but not at the time when they are engaging in
these practices. They may be waiting until the time is best to have
these children so that they might raise them in the best possible
environment. Or they may have precisely the number of children they
want at the moment. The couple using NFP and ABC statistically
are going to have the same number of unwanted children.

Lastly, an important question:

What about post-menopausal sexual relations (after the time that
it is possible to conceive) or between infertile couples? These people
are necessarily not going to procreate. Is their sexual act in any
way less licit? By your definition it should be, because if the act
needs to be opened to children and the act is necessarily not opened
to it (for biological reasons), then is their act somehow less valid in
the eyes of God? Should they avoid it?

Needless to say, couples can have other forms of intimate contact during this period.

Let me guess: this intimate contact cannot involve oral or digital sex,
right? That is, a woman's libido will necessarily go unmet. (Never
mind 'spilling seed' for now.)

Let me ask you this other question: let's say that the male soaks his
testicles in very warm water every day. He will necessarily become
temporarily infertile. Is this unacceptable, too? There are no barriers,
no medicines, no nothing. It seems that this effort is no different
than the NFP method in terms of equipment; and, if God wanted, He
could make it such that the treatment fails and that one 'mega sperm'
survives and conceives, right?

In all situations, the couple doesn't want to have a kid and do what
they can to avoid it, whether it is the heat treatment, a condom, or
waiting until the woman is infertile. Given that the last two treatments
are equally likely to result in a child, I fail to see how one should be
preferable to the other; given how the first and third treatments do not
involve any 'equipment,' I fail to see how one is preferable to the
other.

Given that NFP is patently unnatural, I fail to see how it can claim to
be the Natural method.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]First, thanks for providing the links.

Second, (rather obvious) - so what?

Hold on a second: so what?!

So, while the male can act on his libido at any time he wants as long
as the ...[text shortened]... ail to see how it can claim to
be the Natural method.

Nemesio[/b]

You're mixing up a number of independent questions about NFP, so it is worthwhile clarifying the key questions:

1. Is NFP natural?
2. Is NFP misogynistic?
3. Is NFP morally different from ABC?

There might be others (I'll have to re-read your post more carefully again), but these seem to be the important ones. Each of these should be considered separately. In this post, I'll try to answer (1) and come back to the others later.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural

nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4.
a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

Definition (4c) appears to be the closest form to the manner in which 'natural' has been used in NFP.

Your point is that it is 'unnatural' because it forces the couple to ignore / act in opposition to the natural(!) libido cycle of the woman. You could be arguing that it is 'unnatural' as in the opposite of sense (5) above - but I'm not sure.

Which is where the "so what" comes in. Your argument basically boils down to:

I. X is a passion/urge felt by a person P (possibly due to reasons of Nature).
II. P is restrained from acting on X.
C. This is an unnatural situation.

This is a scenario we all face many, many times each day. Every time we use our Superego to suppress the urges of the Id (I'm borrowing a few Freudian-isms here), your argument comes into play.

My point is - the mere fact that it is 'unnatural' (in the sense in which you use it) does not impute to the situation either a positive or negative value.

Further, the sense in which 'natural' is used in NFP seems to be different from the sense which you're implicitly refuting when you say it is 'unnatural'.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]First, thanks for providing the links.

Second, (rather obvious) - so what?

Hold on a second: so what?!

So, while the male can act on his libido at any time he wants as long
as the ...[text shortened]... ail to see how it can claim to
be the Natural method.

Nemesio[/b]

On the moral difference between NFP and ABC (Q.3 above), I'll let Bishop Loverde speak for me:

http://www.catholicexchange.com/church_today/message.asp?sec_id=1&message_id=5907

But what makes Natural Family Planning (NFP) different from artificial contraception? The difference is not simply one of method or technique.

NFP respects the language of the other’s body by viewing fertility as an essential element of what it means to be human. NFP shows on the part of the couple an openness to the gift of life and demonstrates that children are the norm, rather than the exception, in marriage.

Of course, a couple practicing NFP may determine, in prayer, that circumstances preclude them from trying to become pregnant at a particular time. Responsible parenthood requires that the spouses, in "the right and lawful ordering of the births of children" (HV, 21), take into account the good of their own family, their state of health, their means, the good of the society to which they belong, the Church, and all mankind.(7) At such times, NFP tells a couple when to avoid coming together in the marital embrace for the good of the marriage. During times such as this, they express their love in ways other than through the conjugal act.

Pope John Paul II recognizes that even NFP can be used in a selfish way with a "contraceptive mentality." Yet the practice of NFP, even for imperfect reasons, can lead one toward good. As Jesus has told us, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (Jn 8:32).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
On the moral difference between NFP and ABC (Q.3 above), I'll let Bishop Loverde speak for me:

http://www.catholicexchange.com/church_today/message.asp?sec_id=1&message_id=5907

But what makes Natural Family Planning (NFP) different from artificial contraception? The difference is not simply one of method or technique.

NFP respects the langu ...[text shortened]... . As Jesus has told us, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (Jn 8:32).

The RCC's position is completely without a basis in Scripture; where does Jesus say anything about contraception? And what you just cited doesn't make any sense; it seems to be saying that if you're married you should have an"openness to the gift of life" but then says you can use NFP a crappy method of contraception. The Church is just being ridiculous; admit an error was made and move on.

If children are supposed to be the norm in marriage, are couples where one or both are infertile allowed to marry in the Church? And if so why? And why does the Church think it's any of it's business?

There's an old joke which was used by Earl Butz, a cabinet official in the Nixon administration, regarding the Pope's views on contraception: "He no playa the game, he no makea the rules". Mr. Butz got in a little trouble for using this joke, but it makes sense to me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The RCC's position is completely without a basis in Scripture; where does Jesus say anything about contraception?

The RCC is not a sola scriptura body; it "does not derive [its] certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence" (CCC 82; Dei Verbum 9)

"Tradition" refers to the Gospel (i.e. Good News) that was handed on "by the apostles ... by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the promptiong of the Holy Spirit" (CCC 76, DV 7)

And what you just cited doesn't make any sense; it seems to be saying that if you're married you should have an"openness to the gift of life" but then says you can use NFP a crappy method of contraception. The Church is just being ridiculous; admit an error was made and move on.

What kind of error - factual, logical or moral? If the first, present the counter-fact. If the second, demonstrate the logical contradiction. If the third, explain your moral criteria for judging this particular case.

If children are supposed to be the norm in marriage, are couples where one or both are infertile allowed to marry in the Church? And if so why?

"But marriage is not merely for the procreation of children ... Even in cases where despite the intense desire of the spouses there are no children, marriage still retains its character of being a whole manner and communion of life and preserves its value..." (Gaudium et Spes 50).

And why does the Church think it's any of it's business?

Simply because the Church believes that marriage is an institution instituted by God Himself (which is why it is a sacrament) and, hence, holy.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] The RCC's position is completely without a basis in Scripture; where does Jesus say anything about contraception?

The RCC is not a sola scriptura body; it "does not derive [its] certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be ...[text shortened]... e is an institution instituted by God Himself (which is why it is a sacrament) and, hence, holy.[/b]

The Church's position is error in many ways. There is nothing in Scripture regarding contraception and I sincerely doubt there's any "tradition" concerning it either. My understanding is that the ban on artificial contraception is a 20th century doctrine. Correct me if I'm wrong and cite some "tradition" which supports such a ban.

If two people wish to get married knowing they are infertile or past the age of bearing children, they will have no "intense desire" to have children as they will know it is impossible. Are they allowed to be married in the Church, yes or no? You dodged my question, which is unlike you. If infertile or past the age of bearing children can be married in the Church (and I'm pretty sure they can), then to say that marriage is based on having children ("the norm"😉 is illogical and inconsistent. To say artificial contraception is wrong, but "natural" contraception is OK because in the latter there is SOME possibility it will fail doesn't make any sense either, as artificial contraception can fail too. The position is immoral because it makes a "grave sin" of two people electing not to have children by the most effective measures necessary when they are not ready or willing to bring a new life in the world. To force people to take the risk of having an unwanted child or not have sex, WHEN THEY'RE MARRIED is immoral.

Finally, this 20th century policy is stupid because it is rightfully rejected by most Catholics in the Western world. It is stupid because this rigid modern doctrine drives people from the faith and discourages young people from joining. It is stupid because to claim that the Church's position on this silly matter is "infallible" plants seeds of doubt on important positions of the faith. I cannot understand why the RCC continues to insist on this absurd, modern doctrine - unsupported by Scripture and/or tradition - when it is clear that it harms the Church and makes it harder to convert. Please enlighten me or does the RCC just not care?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Church's position is error in many ways. There is nothing in Scripture regarding contraception and I sincerely doubt there's any "tradition" concerning it either. My understanding is that the ban on artificial contraception is a 20th century doctrine. Correct me if I'm wrong and cite some "tradition" which supports such a ban.

I'll cite one teaching from Tradition here:

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

You can find more citations from Church Fathers and Scripture here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp

If two people wish to get married knowing they are infertile or past the age of bearing children, they will have no "intense desire" to have children as they will know it is impossible. Are they allowed to be married in the Church, yes or no?

I had to check the CIC on this, but no - there is no impediment to two sterile people getting married as long as neither person is antecedently (sp?) and perpetually impotent (CIC 1084). A couple intending not to have children (even if a means were available) would render the marriage invalid.

If infertile or past the age of bearing children can be married in the Church (and I'm pretty sure they can), then to say that marriage is based on having children ("the norm"😉 is illogical and inconsistent.

A norm is not a law. The one admits to exceptions, the other doesn't.

To say artificial contraception is wrong, but "natural" contraception is OK because in the latter there is SOME possibility it will fail doesn't make any sense either, as artificial contraception can fail too. The position is immoral because it makes a "grave sin" of two people electing not to have children by the most effective measures necessary when they are not ready or willing to bring a new life in the world. To force people to take the risk of having an unwanted child or not have sex, WHEN THEY'RE MARRIED is immoral.

You're claiming some positions/actions are "immoral", but not specifying what the tenets of the moral code you are using to judge them by are.

Finally, this 20th century policy is stupid because it is rightfully rejected by most Catholics in the Western world. It is stupid because this rigid modern doctrine drives people from the faith and discourages young people from joining. It is stupid because to claim that the Church's position on this silly matter is "infallible" plants seeds of doubt on important positions of the faith. I cannot understand why the RCC continues to insist on this absurd, modern doctrine - unsupported by Scripture and/or tradition - when it is clear that it harms the Church and makes it harder to convert. Please enlighten me or does the RCC just not care?

Frankly - no. The RCC is not here to change basic dogma according to the latest Gallup poll. Its most basic function is to teach absolute, timeless Truth about God, salvation and man. Of course, the manner and wording of the teaching may change depending on era and context, but the message/content will remain the same.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b/] The Church's position is error in many ways. There is nothing in Scripture regarding contraception and I sincerely doubt there's any "tradition" concerning it either. My unde ...[text shortened]... on era and context, but the message/content will remain the same.

You are being disingenous; the Church did not state that it was infallible doctrine that artificial contraception was a "grave sin" until the 20th century (1968 in fact). Whatever the scattered writings of some Church philosophers was, it was not Church doctrine until recently.

If I understand you correctly, according to your interpretion of Church doctrine, two 80 year olds could not get married in the Church? I assure you, that doctrine is NOT followed in the US nor do couples wishing to get married have to assure the Church they "intend" to have children. The whole concept is ridiculous and drops Man down to the level of just another breeding animal. Whatever happened to the Dignity of Man?

The RCC, whether you wish to admit it or not, did change basic dogma and made artificial contraception a "grave sin" AND made that doctrine an "infallible" pronouncement. They did it recently and were foolish to do so. The net result is that the Church lost members AND the majority of existing members routinely ignore this "infallible" doctrine. One man did it and the Church should admit he screwed up. The attitude of "screw what the faithful think, we're infallible" led to the Protestant Reformation and the Neanderthals now running the RCC seem intent on repeating their mistakes.

BTW, if the ban on artificial contraception was such long standing "basic" dogma, how come John Paul XXIII formed the Papal Commission on Birth Control in 1962 to study the issue? Of course, that Commission recommended that the Church abandon the teaching that banned artificial contraception. Instead, the Pope put forth an encyclical that declared the ban an "infallible" part of the faith, something that had never been done before. One man, one mistake.

Originally posted by no1marauder
BTW, if the ban on artificial contraception was such long standing "basic" dogma, how come John Paul XXIII formed the Papal Commission on Birth Control in 1962 to study the issue? Of course, that Commission recommended that the Church abandon the teaching that banned artificial contraception. Instead, the Pope put forth an encyclical that declar ...[text shortened]... infallible" part of the faith, something that had never been done before. One man, one mistake.

" If you don't play the game, you don't get to make the rules" John Tower on the Pope anti-birth control solution.

just paraphrasing and I hope I'm attributing that to the right Rebublican Senator

Originally posted by no1marauder
the Church did not state that it was infallible doctrine that artificial contraception was a "grave sin" until the 20th century (1968 in fact). Whatever the scattered writings of some Church philosophers was, it was not Church doctrine until recently.

The Church didn't need to define it infallibly until the 20th century because it was never seriously questioned before then; it was a well-established part of Church teaching.

If I understand you correctly, according to your interpretion of Church doctrine, two 80 year olds could not get married in the Church?

Only if one or both of them is impotent and/or they have every intention to avoid having children should the situation arise (however improbably). There are other canonical factors as well (mental competence, deception etc.) that I'll assume are addressed a priori.

I assure you, that doctrine is NOT followed in the US nor do couples wishing to get married have to assure the Church they "intend" to have children. The whole concept is ridiculous and drops Man down to the level of just another breeding animal. Whatever happened to the Dignity of Man?

You're over-simplifying. If anything, contraception reduces Man to the level of animals because it permits indiscriminate action based on physical urges without moral consideration.

The RCC, whether you wish to admit it or not, did change basic dogma and made artificial contraception a "grave sin" AND made that doctrine an "infallible" pronouncement.

Are you saying that the Church did not consider artificial contraception a "grave sin" prior to 1968? Do you have any supporting evidence?

Originally posted by no1marauder
BTW, if the ban on artificial contraception was such long standing "basic" dogma, how come John Paul XXIII formed the Papal Commission on Birth Control in 1962 to study the issue? Of course, that Commission recommended that the Church abandon the teaching that banned artificial contraception. Instead, the Pope put forth an encyclical that declared the ban an "infallible" part of the faith, something that had never been done before.

John XXIII*

The Papal Commission was formed to see if the traditional teaching of the Church could be changed in view of the circumstances of the 20th century, not create new dogma around the question.