Another thing I've had time to do since I gave up blogging is reading the opinion pages.
And here's one I read this morning. Whaever you do, DON'T spoil the column by scrolling to the bottom to see who the author is until you've finished reading (no, it's not "Just Tom" Gumbleton, but it could be).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I wonder if we started a group called, maybe, "Catholics Against Free Choice." Do you think we would get as much free publicity and grants from the Ford Foundation and Hewlett-Packard, etc, as this lady does?
I don't agree with her either or mentality but there is something not quite right about making some poor African woman contract AIDS because her husband is infected.
Anonymous. You are quite right there is something not quite right about giving a spouse a deadly disease. But perhaps the way to handle such a situation is to abstain from the act that transmits the disease. Relying on a piece of latex (with a high error rate) to shield such a spouse is neither charitable or kind. It only puts her in a position to be able to receive the disease on a regular basis with no valid refusal from doing so.
1. No need to scroll down. Her name is at the top of the oped.
2. For one who's given up blogging, Curmy, you sure are doing a lot of it! Lotsa good stuff; thanks!
Yes, I pointed out to him that her name is at the top last night. I wondered how long it would take for someone else to notice.
Mrs Curmudgeon
This was a pleasant suprise to see in the article, "Few couples have bought it. According to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, less than 3 percent of Catholic couples use natural family planning." I interpret this to mean that most Catholic couples are being generous in accepting many children, thus they're not using NFP. Based on the results of National Survey, was there even a pressing need for the Bishops' document? I guess there's a small minority of contracepting Catholics that haven't yet changed their ways after all the years of incessant homilies on Humanae Vitae!
I interpret this to mean that most Catholic couples are being generous in accepting many children, thus they're not using NFP.
Ah, the typical Traddie comment that lumps NFP in with contraception.
What a load of excrement.
Let's see.....
NFP: Chart fertility signs, discern with spiritual guidance, and if you believe you have a serious reason to postpone pregnancy, DON'T HAVE SEX!
Contraception: Take pill, use a barrier, have a surgery, HAVE SEX ANYWAY!
You Traddies sure draw funny distinctions.....
paul vi,
Wasn't attempting to lump NFP w/ contraception, or touch a nerve about NFP. Just another view of the statistic - half full, instead of half empty. Guess I should have put lots of smiley faces and LOLs in the comment.
I'll be the contrary one and lump NFP and artificial contraception together.
Using periodic continence (NFP) morally, as more that just the "Theology of the Bawdy" explains, requires a grave necessity (serious reason). Now that doesn't mean those reasons are extremely rare, but for most I would say they practically do not occur.
Which, of course, turns "not wanting pregnancy" into the same contraceptive mentality whether we throw chemicals or rubber into the picture or not. "I don't want a kid! But I want to use the means to have children for my own pleasure."
Then NFP is just "Catholic Contraception" where you're forced to keep a child that has been conceived.
Granted, I'm not saying there is never a moral use for the practice, but when you have a the Church promoting such a thing in the face of a culture that is so selfish, hedonistic and focused on using contraception, aren't we just asking for people to treat NFP like "Catholic Contraception". Aren't we asking people to say "The Catholic Church teaches you can't use any contraceptive device" (essentially Contraception is okay, as long as there's no physical object or chemical involved) when in reality the Church teaches that marriage and sex are for family, not self.
There's a reason the Church has not in its history tried to educate all of her faithful on the intricacies of theology ...
Ah, the typical Traddie comment that lumps NFP in with contraception.
What a load of excrement.
Tradbashing? On this blog? What is the world coming too?
For goodness sake Feisty, be patient! Remember that I've given up blogging, after all!
I accept the Paul VI's teaching in Humanae Vitae, that married couples may resort to periodic abstinence for serious reasons (or however it's phrased; I'm too lazy to find my copy right now). I don't buy the spin that the couple-to-couple league or whomever it is is promoting that has the effect of taking the decision entirely out of God's hands. NFP cannot be licitly used as Catholic Contraception, willy nilly. I have a great recorded sermon on this, if you can take a sizeable email and you want me to try to send it to you. Anyways, this point has caused some friction between us and our neo friends.
Also, requiring NFP classes for engaged couples is an occasion of sin, which serves to unnecessarily arouse passions that we have no right to arouse, as I've heard a solid priest point out.
Is that a satisfactory answer? I managed not to make any jokes about abstinence or any other allusions to the private life of the Curmudgeons, so I'm satisfied with it. You'll have to be, as well.
Maybe Frances Kissling holds stocks in the condom market. She certainly holds no stock in the Catholic faith.
So how many providential blessings have each of you respondants accepted? Sincerely, "6", so far.
I can respect that.Thanks for your honesty. I am used to those not so blessed throwing the barbs at those who struggle to live the good news. Like the confessional, it can be difficult to enter but never regretful afterwards. Sincerely, 6
Post a Comment