Another heartening discovery: to find that a man such as Dietrich von Hildebrand would not agree that criticism of a Pope or Bishop is necessarily uncharitable or beyond the competency of the layman, and the entryway for clericailism that such thinking produces.  DvH was prophetic. 

Dec. 10 at 3:02pm | See in context

I know there may be some couples who use NFP that way, but personally, I find it hard to imagine.

Generally speaking, to forego birth control and choose NFP, because it's the only licit means of spacing children, is to be a morally serious, pro-life  person. To willingly accept the sacrificies and discipline involved NFP is to be committed to right values.

Selfish, superficial, or irreligious people are unlikely to put up with it.

Again, I don't say it's impossible, just unlikely.

I think this is a big part of the explanation for why the percentage of couples who use NFP getting divorced is so miniscule. People who use NFP are (broadly speaking) people who are serious about the Church's teaching on marriage and sexuality—not just in its "negative" aspect (what's not allowed), but also in its positive aspect (life is good; children are a gift, etc.)  They also, on average, have a lot more kids than couples who practice birth control, which stands to reason, because NFP is essentially life affirming.

Dec. 5 at 12:54pm | See in context

It depends on how the purposes of NFP are understood.  If taken, as I believe the Church intends, as a means to avoid pregnancy for grave reasons, then no.  If NFP however is taken as a 'lifestyle' where the openess to children is put on par with other pursuits, then yes: it is the contraceptive mentality at work.

Dec. 5 at 9:32am | See in context

I thought of your point 5 from post #41 (The gates of Hell not prevailing) today when reading an interview with Bishop Fellay, wherein he discusses in the section, "The Church however has promises of eternal life," how the Church is suffering today, the "climate of confusion" that makes one's head spin.  It was heartening to read, because it is the best articulation I've seen yet of the kind of confusion I mentioned above, and because he encourages the faithful to keep the faith in these trying times.

Dec. 5 at 9:29am | See in context

Yes, every married couple promises to be open to children and to receive children generously. And every conjugal act must be open (i.e. not artificially closed).  If a pregnancy occurs, the child is to be received as a gift, cherished, cared for and educated.  

A couple cannot licitly refuse children. A couple cannot artificially prevent children, either through contraception or through sterilization.

Yes, as with all human acts, our agency is embedded within the higher and deeper agency of God.  When a new person comes into existence, God always is the prime Creator.  

Do you see a disagreement somewhere?

Dec. 5 at 5:20am | See in context

My understanding is that couples vow to be open to life.  I am not aware of any qualifications placed upon that call to openess by the Church.  It seems to me that, inherent in the spirituality of the wedding vow, is trustful surrender to Divine Providence.

By virtue of their own decision to have sexual intercourse, couples are, or ought to be, taking responsibility for what may occur (preganancy).  They are not letting go of a tiller; they are operning themselves up to God's potentially procreative action, with their cooperation.  It's part of the very nature of the act itself. 

"To accept children lovingly from God" puts our own agency in the procreativity within a certain context, the same context that is consistent with all true Christian spirituality: we are to seek His will, not our own.  As agents of our own procreativity, we are not to shut Him out. To vow to be open to life and then to do something deliberately to prevent conception, unless there is a grave reason otherwise, seems to me to do just that.  My understanding is that this has always been the teaching of the Church. 

Dec. 4 at 4:31pm | See in context

Think of a captain of a ship in a storm. Would he a better, more religious captain if he lets go of the tiller and "trusts God" to steer the ship?

I think think the answer is no, except in one circumstance, namely, one wherein he hears God tell him, "Let go." Otherwise, he should bring his all knowledge and experience to bear and steer as seems to him best.

Think of a farmer.  Does he "trust God" to decide what fields will yield which crops, or does he sow one thing here and another there, while he lets a third field lie fallow for a season?

Husbands and wives aren't just objects of God's creative intention.  We are, according to His will and design, agents of our own procreativity.

Dec. 4 at 3:51pm | See in context

It seems to me "Providentialism" - as an official, hardline stance on the matter - errs because it rules out any legitimate use of NFP, ever. 

That said, I think there are good reasons to be suspicious of NFP wholesale, as discussed here.

Most deeply, where does the role of trust in Divine Providence come into play?  That's one of the central spiritual struggles we all face, I think, no matter the circumstances.  Married couples will probably have no better chance to draw nearer to God in total abandonment to Him than in the 'planning' of their families. 

I also do not understand the thinking that, "if a baby comes in spite of your intention to postpone pregnancy, well, the general life-affirming attitude of NFP makes it easy to remind yourself that God will provide."  Not that God will not provide then, but, why not trust Him in the very first place, or at least challenge ourselves and others to do the same?  Grave reasons aside, why do something to try to postpone pregnancy? 

It would seem to require even more of couples to ask them to trust God all of a sudden, when pregnant, than before.

Dec. 4 at 3:34pm | See in context

Even Plato built into his allegory the concept of the Cross, I think. Those who have left the cave would like to stay out there in rapt contemplation of the good, but they have to return into the cave to tell the others about the existence of this other world. In return they are ridiculed, beaten and crucified. Hence the good is never only for oneself; it has to be communicated, even at the risk of one’s life. Worldliness denies the necessity of such heroism. And I think we are all tempted to construct a kind of Christianity which feels more comfortable than the one Christ instituted. The denial of some of the key demands of Christianity today is an expression of this attitude, I believe.  

Dec. 4 at 10:59am | See in context

These are interesting points, Sam! The Transfiguration is indeed a taste of Heaven (and gets us out of the cave briefly) and I, like you, can empathize with St. Peter that it would be nice to build some tents and remain there. I guess it shows how we’re all for the spiritual life, as long as it doesn’t involve the Cross. The temptation to run away from the Cross remains present even for the spiritually minded.

Worldliness is another way of doing it; one seeks Heaven or something like it, that ultimate satisfaction or happiness in the here and now, and fools oneself thinking that it can be found in this world. Happily these things fall to dust and ashes, and this acts as our wake-up calls.

Dec. 4 at 10:58am | See in context