TURNING POINT ----------->>>>>>>>>>> NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING
"Patrick Dooley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sbject : Discussion on Natural Family Planning
Date : Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:23:12 -0400
Dear Friends,
Although I am not a Priest, or a theologian, I would like to take the
challenge and attempt to explain why NFP is not contraception and show how
they are so different.
I am married with three children, one of which is waiting to be born in
June. I want to tell everybody that we use NFP because my wife has had two
Ceasarean Sections and needed quite a bit of time to heal from the
operations. This next birth will also be a Ceasarean section and we will
continue to use NFP after that birth.
NFP is radically diferent to contraception. The primary reason is because
it does not block the possibility of a conception. I would like to point
out that NFP can be used for the wrong reasons. I believe that couples
must have grave reasons when resorting to NFP. I would also like to point
out that if one does not want to have a child (ie. for health reasons), it
is much wiser to abstain from sexual relations. I believe that success
rates for NFP is 97 percent.
NFP does not damage the marriage covenant in the procreative act. It does
not limit the giving of each other, as contraceptions do.
It allows for the possibility of conception. When couples use NFP, they
must realize that there is always a chance of error and that a child could
be concieved. God works in strange and marvelous ways, and even when the
couple feels it is unwise to have a child, God can still intervene and
provide a child. This is a little difficult to understand and I will try
to give an example from our own life to clarify. After Maria had her
second C-section, the doctors discovered that her womb was very thin.
They advised her that she should give her womb a rest of at least 18 months
and preferrably a year. We started using NFP eight months after the birth
of Joseph. When Joseph was a year old, we concieved our third child. We
understood from this act, that God was telling us that everything would be
alright, and that the womb would be fine.
Communication is integral to the NFP method. A couple which uses some form
of contraception typically rarely reinvestigate the decision. A couple may
feel that they are too financially strapped to have children and will wait
until they have saved up money for a house. Three years later after the
house is bought, the couples might never have reconsidered their decision
to have a child.
When couples use NFP, the decision to have a child is examined every month
or every two months. The couple may have planned a romantic weekend away
from the kids, and then the wife discovers that she has entered into her
fertile phase. This leads to a reexamination of the question of why the
couple is practising NFP. Perhaps the reason was because the husband felt
that they did not have enough money. However, perhaps the husband recieved
a raise. Or maybe the wife felt too tired and had complained that the
husband was not helping enough around the house. However the husband had
tried to help more and the wife felt as if she had more energy. Maybe it
would be nice to have another child now. This kind of dialogue rarely
takes place with couples using contraception primarily because it does not
have to. NFP forces communication.
The NFP method prohibits the evil of treating the conjugal act as a purely
pleasurable act. It forces both partners to practise abstainence for
periods of time. The couple do not become reduced to simple sex objects
for each other. Thus the conjugal act never becomes a boring or a jaded
act. It retains its purity and its beauty.
The NFP method has no side physical side effects and does not hamper the
couples ability to have children in the future. Many contraceptions can
reduce the ability to have children later.
Finally, NFP is not an abortaficient. If a child is concieved, the child
will not be aborted. The pill, and the IUD are contraceptives AND
abortaficients. Thus when the couple concieves while using NFP, an
abortion is never unknowingly performed.
There is much more that can be said, and I will submit more information
when I have some more time.
Sincerely
Patrick Dooley.
Benoy Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject : FW: Discussion on Natural Family Planning
Date : Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:56:00 -0500
Dear Friends,
In reply to a query regarding the churches position on contraception,
Patrick sent me this mail which I am forwarding.I hope this will make
things clearer to us.I pray that the Lord will enlighten us in His Wisdom
and may his spirit lead us and His Church in truth.
Praise Jesus
Urs in Christ
Benoy
> Dear Benoy,
>
> The church explicitly teaches that contraception is evil. My previous
> email had stated that the CANADIAN Bishops had allowed disobedience to
> Pope Paul V!s encyclical "Humanae Vitae". I repeat that this was a
> statement issued by the CCCB, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
> They said that in this situation in the question of contraception, the
> members of the Catholic Church in Canada could follow their conscience and
> disobey this teaching. Someone had asked Pope Paul VI if his teaching
> was an "Ex Cathedra" statement. The Pope answered that no it was not.
> The CCCB used this as an excuse to allow the members of their dioceses to
> use contraception. The problem with this attitude is that no moral
> teaching is explicitly taught "Ex Cathedra". For example the teaching that
> killing innocent life is evil, is not taught "Ex Cathedra", however noone
> questions the truth of the teaching( that is except abortionists).
>
> Different bishops conferences throughout the world followed Canadas
> example. For example the Phillipines Conference of Catholic Bishops
> issued a similar statement shortly after. However thankfully, I believe
> in 1997, the Bishops in the Phillipines wrote an apology to their faithful
> and rescinded the statement. The bishops in Canada have yet to do this.
> Many many priests here in Canada are still reassuring their parishoners to
> that contraception is morally okay. However if one reads the new
> catechism, they will discover what the true teaching is. I believe
> that this is one of the major reasons why Pope John Paul II had the new
> catechism published. The teachings of the church are not being passed
> down to the lay people through many of the Bishops and the Priests, at
> least in this part of the world.
>
> Our Bishops and our priests need a lot of prayers here in Canada. I
> certainly hope that this situation does not exist in India, or other parts
> of the world.
>
> I sent this to you personally. if it has helped you and you don't mind
> posting it to the jylist with your question you may.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Patrick Dooley.
Edward Edezhath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : Re from Sindhu.
Date : Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:21:38 +0530
Hello friends,
This is Sindhu ,writing from Eddy chettan's computer..
I heard lately about the discussion on death Culture going on in the JYO
Net I congratulate Our Patrick for initiating the same..I feel so sorry
that So far i couldn't contribute any thing..and will try to contribute
some thing soon.
Let me introduce myself,I'm a medical Doctor from Cochin and practising at
Pala (now on leave due to IVDP ).I got my MBBS degree and Jesus from
Kottayam Medical College Ever since i met Jesus i've tried to be in the
Jesus youth stream.I took nearly 3 years of commitment along with part time
work in Little Lourdes' hospital, Kidangoor.
Since 2 years one of my major concern was Prolife. And I hope, you all know
that we've a Prolife ministry. The strength of our ministry is that many
are rediscovering the beauty and relevance of the teachings of our church
reg sexuality. Now that we've initiated a discussion on this topic, i'll
share some of my experiences and insights i got while working in this
ministry.
I myself am fully convinced about the effectiveness of NFP.And one of the
major observation i've made is that , it's the contraceptive mentality
that's leading to Abortion.I've solid evidences in support of this.. which
i'll share with you in the following mails. One thing i'm so sure is that
however learned we 're, with outGod's grace , we can't under stand these
mysreries . We read in the gospel that ' it's not the flesh and blood that
reveals these things to us , but our Father who is in heaven.."(c.f
Mat:16:17).
So let's pray :
Open my eyes , o Lord , that i may behold wondrous things out of thy
law... ..
Make me to under stand the way of thy precepts:so shall i talk of thy
wondrous works....yea,i shall observe it with my whole heart...
Remove from me the way of lying:and grant me thy law graciously.
Incline my heart to thy testimonies , and not to covetousness....
Turn away my eyes from beholding vanity :and quicken thou me in thy way. ..
So shall ikeep thy law for ever and ever. and iwill walk at liberty.
From Ps;119
I'm leaving for Madras today for some programmes and 'll be back by monday.
Hope to see you all then.
In communion with Jesus,
Sindhu.
"Manoj Jons David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : "jyolist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : Re: Discussion on Natural Family Planning
Date : Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:55:10 +0530
Hi!
Today I was going thru all the posting made since Patrick Dooley's
first posting on the subject 'Culture of Death'. I hope Dr. Sindhu will
clear all the doubts after she gets back to Cochin.
I am putting down some of my thoughts on this subject.
1. The human life starts at the moment of fertiliztion of the ovum by a sperm.
2. Delibrate killing of a human life is a sin. Any one care to disagree?!
3. Abortion is a delibrate-killing-of-human-life and so it is a sin.
4. Contraceptive methos can be broadly classified into two type
a. abortaficient contraceptive methods (one which kills human life)
(eg: IUD, birth control pills, morning after pills etc)
b. non-abortaficient contraceptive methods (eg: barrier methods like
male/female condom, diaphram, vervial caps, sponges, spermicides etc.)
5. So usage of any 4.a is definielty a sin because a
delibrate-killing-of-human-life occurs.
So I think the main point of disagreement is the usage of 4.b
6. Studies/surveys showed that NFP (in all its varieties - sympto thermal,
ovulation observance, calendar, post ovulation etc.) , if practiced in a
perfect manner for contraception, has better success rate that all
'non-abortaficient contraceptive methods'
Patrick Dooley wrote in his last posting:
NFP is radically diferent to contraception. The primary reason is because
it does not block the possibility of a conception. I would like to point
out that NFP can be used for the wrong reasons. I believe that couples
must have grave reasons when resorting to NFP. I would also like to point
out that if one does not want to have a child (ie. for health reasons), it
is much wiser to abstain from sexual relations. I believe that success
rates for NFP is 97 percent.
It allows for the possibility of conception. When couples use NFP, they
must realize that there is always a chance of error and that a child could
be concieved. God worksin strange and marvelous ways, and even when the
couple feels it is unwise to have a child, God can still intervene and
provide a child. This is a little difficult to understand and I will try
to give an example from our own life to clarify. After Maria had her
second C-section, the doctors discovered that her womb was very thin.
They advised her that she should give her womb a rest of at least 18 months
and preferrably a year. We started using NFP eight months after the birth
of Joseph. When Joseph was a year old, we concieved our third child. We
understood from this act, that God was telling us that everything would be
alright, and that the womb would be fine.
Due to point 6., Patrick Dooley's reason that 'there is a chance of error
when couples use NFP and God can still intervene and provde a child' works
better if you use other 'non-abortaficient contraceptive methods'. Am I right?
7. Couples can use NFP with different attitude/mentality.
a. They can use it in a perfect way to get the highest success rate of
contraception. (for spacing children)
b. They can use it in a not so perfect way letting God intervene and
provide a child when he wishes.
c. They can even use it to get the highest success rate of conception.
8. I don't agree that contraceptive mentality always leads to abortion but
I think almost every abortion is done due to contraceptive mentality.
9. I beleive that using NFP as per 7.a is contraceptive mentality If a
couple uses NFP in such a way, I think there is a chance of
'failure-of-contraception leading to abortion'.?
So what is the basic difference between NFP as per 7.a and 4.b?
10. I think the 'mentality' is the same in both cases
In 7.a, during the fertile period, you abstain from sex
but
In 4.b, during the fertile period, you do not abstain from sex but prevent
the formation of a human life.
11. That is, in 4.b, while you are having sex during your fertile period,
you are delibrately limiting sex to its unitive purpose only - by cutting
out its procreative purpose when there is procreative possibilities, which
I think, is a sin according to catholic teachings.
12. But even in case 7.a, while you are having sex during you infertile
period, you are delibrately limiting sex to its unitive purpose only - by
abstaining from sex when there is procreative possibilities I think this is
not a sin as per catholic teachings
-Manoj Jons
"Patrick Dooley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : "Jesus Youth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : Re: Discussion on Natural Family Planning
Date : Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:08:31 -0400
Dear Manoj,
I am sorry but that is one long email! Could you please reformulate your
question.
I think I hear what you are saying, but I am not quite sure.
1. Are you asking what is the difference between Non-abortificient
contraceptive, and having intercourse only during the infertile phase?
2. Are you also stating that the NFP method can be used with a
contraceptive mentatily?
If these are your two points, then the answer to the first one is simple.
Aside from the other diferences which I gave,
Non-abortificient contraceptive is unnatural, and NFP is natural. One is
God given, and the other is man made.
The answer to the second statement is yes. NFP can be used with a
contraceptive mentality. If the couple is unwilling to accept life in the
form of a new child, then they should refrain from sexual relations. A
couple must always be ready to accept the consequences of their acts. As I
mentioned before, NFP can be used incorrectly. We must be pro-life in all
of our actions. All life must be protected.
Sincerely Patrick.
"Manoj Jons David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : "jyolist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : Re: Re: Discussion on Natural Family Planning
Date : Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:45:16 +0530
Hi,
Patrik> I am sorry but that is one long email! Could you please
reformulate your question.
I think I hear what you are saying, but I am not quite sure.
I was not asking any questions! I was just stating my views on the issue.
Patrik> Aside from the other diferences which I gave,
Non-abortificient contraceptive is unnatural, and NFP is natural. One is
God given, and the other is man made.
I think non-abortificient contraceptive being unnatural does not make the
usage of it a sin - Its 'mentality' that makes it a sin and
non-abortificint contraceptive are always used with contraceptive mentality.
Patrick> 2. Are you also stating that the NFP method can be used with a
contraceptive mentality?
The answer to the second statement is yes. NFP can be used with a
contraceptive mentality. If the couple is unwilling to accept life in the
form of a new child, Patrick>then they should refrain from sexual
relations. A couple must always be ready to accept the consequences of
their acts. As I mentioned before, NFP can be Patrick>used incorrectly.
We must be pro-life in all of our actions. All life must be protected.
I agree. But I think that almost all pro-life activists and the catholic
church is promoting NFP with a contraceptive mentality. I think as per your
statement they are making a fundamental mistake there. I even once heard a
pro-life speaker telling that there is a higher chance of getting a
male-child if you learn to detect your ovulation cycle perfectly (True!).
It is definitely a discrimination-against-female-child.
Let me reframe you sentence. If you abstain from your sexual relation
during the fertile period and have sexual relation when you are not
fertile, you are doing it with contraceptive mentality. If you have to be
completely free of the contraceptive mentality, you should not abstain from
sex when you are in the fertile phase.
I am not sure whether catholic church is explicitly saying this. But if the
church is saying this, then how can it endorse the use of NFP??? and here
they are making the fundamental mistake. How many of you will be ready to
do this?
I made all the above statements assuming the following:
1. Usage of any man-made non-abortificient contraceptive methods OR
abstaining from sex during the fertile period and havind sex during the
infertile period can be considered 'contraceptive mentality'
2. 'Contraceptive mentality' is a sin according to catholic teaching. (Is
this correct?)
Patrick,
please go thru my points no. 11 and no.12 in my previous posting and tell
me whether it is Correct or Wrong. (Becuase in this posting I am
contradicting my earlier point no.12)
Further discussion:
Patrick> If the couple is unwilling to accept life in the form of a new
child, then they should refrain from sexual relations.
When a couple makes such a choice, they are not giving God any chance to
intervene and provide a child. Is this a wise decision? This is the
couples' will and not God's will. But if the couple practices
NFP-in-a-not-so-perfect-way then they are giving God a chance to intervene
and provide a child. (Please remember that practising NFP-in-a-perfect-way
has better contraceptive results than practicing any other man-made
non-abortificient methods)
All I am telling is that prolife movements and even the catholic church is
not providing a view/explanation with clarity and transperancy in the case
of man-made non-abortificient methods and it is causing lot of confusion
among the people.
- Manoj Jons
Sebastian Kakkasseri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject : NFP and Marital love
Date : Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:55:30 GMT
There is no doubt that Contraception is sinful. At any ground contraception
couldn't be justified. But an Abortion could be justified to save a mother's
life on delivery.
What is it that the Church forbids? Is it birth control?
No! It is birth control by unnatural means.
It is not a sin to postpone or avoid conception for a good reason, but how
one postpones or avoids can be sinful or it can be virtuous. Whether a
method is 95% or 99% or 100% effective has no bearing on its morality.
Through Sex the couple can share Love and offer Life. There is nothing wrong
in sharing love alone even by avoiding or postponing of offering life. I
mean sex without an intention of conception is not wrong, and should not be
degraded. (I believe this is catholic.)
What is NFP?
As the word itself says it's a Planning of the Family by the couple with the
help of natural ways. The aim of it is to postpone or avoid conception.
God fixed fertility period for a limited time for woman, this is an option
given to the couple to have the divine sharing of marital love through
marital sex even without having it's result of life, and doesn't mean it's
against life.
After an age the fertility of woman stops forever, that doesn't mean she
should not have sex afterwards with her husband. If she refuses so it's an
act against marriage law and thus against God. See here sex is to be shared
for the divine purpose of marital love, even though the intention of
conception is completely ignored.
With love
Sebastian
"Patrick Dooley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : "Jesus Youth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : Natural Family Planning
Date : Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:54:07 -0400
Dear Friends,
I have taken excerpts from the Universal Cathechism which pertain to NFP
and contraception.
2366. Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally
tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added
on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of
that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is
on the side of life"[150] teaches that "each and every marriage act must
remain open 'per se' to the transmission of life."[151] "This particular
doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on
the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own
initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the
procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."[152]
2370. "Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based
on self- observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity
with the objective criteria of morality.[HV 16.] These methods respect the
bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the
education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, 'every action which,
whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or
in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end
or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil:[HV
14.]
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of
husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively
contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the
other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but
also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is
called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both
anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm
of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable
concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.[FC 32.]"
2399. "The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of
responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of
the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for
example, direct sterilization or contraception). "
Sincerely
Patrick Dooley
"Manoj Jons David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : "Jesus Youth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : Re: Natural Family Planning
Date : Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:11:19 +0530
Hi,
I am trying to understand the excerpts from the Universal Catechism which
pertain to NFP and contraception. Why does all the documentation of the
church sounds like legal documents which can only be interpreted by
specially trained higher offices of the church???!!! (and in many
contradicting ways of course!) Haven't they ever read The New Testament?
The same problem of clarity/transparency! :)
- Manoj Jons
>From : "Suresh Kumar T.J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject : Re: Natural Family Planning
Date : Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:25:06 GMT
hi,
Discussions are in progress ...have some more thoughts to share....
We are discussing what church teaches about contraception, NFP, abortion
etc.
If we study bible we can see the theology is developing from the time of
Genesis onwards. In OT we can see many bloody wars, killing of many innocent
peoples, and set fire to there properties including theres cattles etc.
There is no justifications for all this sins they have done, only
justification is that GOD ordered them through prophets, kings, etc. even we
can see that they are giving the tithe to God of women and cattle they
robbed from that
countries .
And slowly we can see all this wars and killing are coming to an end at the
time of Jesus, theology is more developed there and church is formed there.
We assume that HOLY SPIRIT is leading church in a special way. But we can
see many unfortunate things in church history, where church and pop's became
slaves of politics and many immoral things. How this happened.
And my observation is that church is always slow to update its teaching and
lazy to change. when she faces some problems she first reject it, we can see
many examples, I dont remember much and explaining all that will be boring.
One eg: Church's attitude towards Judaism.
And our Problem contraception & NFP : I dont now whether all this things
were there before 1 or 2century, I think it might note be there since those
days couples think child id a gift of god and they were having 12- 15
children.
But soon peoples attitude changed about that, they started to reduce the
number of children. Church was struggling to find a solution to this
problems...
And still she is studying it.
What about if church declared after 2 decades non -abortive contraception is
accepted. I am not promoting it, but just raising questions. If the church
allowed it whether it will be okay? So what about the persons followed the
church's teaching earlier? Is church's teaching bound to all? If it is bound
then why church is not taking at most care to make this laws , since lot of
church teaching later modified or changed or cancelled.
If a law lost its acceptance by most people in the community, what does that
means. IS the laws are for man or man for law? When church makes laws
whether she discuss it with the lay peoples who really have to follow this
laws. Even though church can't contradict on Christ's teachings... she can
liberalize its rules.....by taking opinions from lay peoples. What U all say
about this???????????????
Hope some one will comment,
Luv, Suresh
Patrick Dooley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : "Jesus Youth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : Whos for the Church?
Date : Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:17:13 -0400
Dear friends,
The discussion which I suggested, discussions on the culture of death,
focused rightly enough on the evils of abortion. Now I find myself
defending the churches teaching on Contraception. What are we here?
When Jesus gave his sermon on the mount, he followed up with a short
dietary lesson. He said unless they eat His Body and dring His Blood they
would not have eternal life. This was a hard lesson. Many people turned
away from Him. He even turned to Peter and the apostles and asked them if
they too would go. And dear Peter said "To whom shall we go? You have the
words of eternal life!"
Is not our Catholic Church the visible Body of Christ. Is not Christ the
word of eternal life? Why are we waisting our time discussing a non-issue
when life itself is at stake. The church throughout the ages has condemned
contraception. Indeed the teachings can be found in ancient times. We
have proof in Genesis. Remember Onan when he refused to give his dead
brothers wife children by spilling his seed. Do you not remember that God
killed Onan? (Genesis 38:8). Is this not contraception explicitly?
Contraception has been condemned throughout the ages. I am deeply
grieved that there is such a lack of unity in the Jesus Youth. If we are
divided how can we stand? Obedience to the church used to be considered a
virtue. Now it is considered a mental disability. Even when we cannot
understand, we must choose to accept. We cannot understand everything our
Church teaches. Do we reject the teaching on the Trinity? Yet who here
can say they understand it?
I for one do not wish to discuss this teaching anymore. If this teaching
is too hard, Go and see who else can give you the words of eternal life.
I assure you that you will only find words of eternal death. I was not
always a Catholic. And I can assure you that while I was outside of the
Church, my experiences led me to a slow spiritual and physical death.
Sincerely in Christ
Patrick Dooley.
"Manoj Jons David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : "jyolist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : Re: Whos for the Church?
Date : Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:28:41 +0530
Hi,
The discussion actually went a bit off-track - but only a bit. It is
really difficult to fight the 'culture-of-death' if we don't have the
proper 'weapons' and also if we don't have proper defences. You should not
under-estimate the capabilities of your enemy.
>The discussion which I suggested, discussions on the culture of death,
focused rightly enough on the evils of abortion. Now I find myself
defending the churches >teaching on Contraception. What are we here?
I am very sure that I can convince any person that abortion is
evil/sin. But I still cannot convince me/others completely that use of
non-abortificinent is evil/sin. I am sure that many others feel the same. I
am attaching two clipping from the mails I received directly.
1>Manoj, you said it right.
1>The last sentence in this mail sums up the whole confusion.. I think
most of our guys have objection in this area.
1>Frankly, I have not seen anybody from catholic church or even from other
churches giving a logical/satisfactory explanation to this point.
2>What is the difference between NFP-in-a-not-so perfect-way and
2>in-a-perfect-way. If anyone is practicing NFP that is only in
contraceptive
2>mentality. Even the word NFP is not relevent to other cases. Planning is
2>equal to planning. If anyone is doing something in natural way or unnatural
2>way the result is same and the mentality is same.
2>I also heard same thing and he is a prominant pro-life activist. What you
2>write is correct (about getting a male-child)
>Why are we waisting our time discussing a non-issue when life itself is at
stake.
I think we need discussion and action on how to save lives (the case of
abortion) - in the most effective way. The discussion on contraception is
not a non-issue but a related issue. Don't forget we have to save lives
from many other Cultures of Death.
>The church throughout the ages has condemned contraception. Indeed the
teachings can be found in ancient times. We have proof in Genesis.
Remember Onan >when he refused to give his dead brothers wife children by
spilling his seed. Do you not remember that God killed Onan? (Genesis
38:8). Is this not contraception >explicitly? Contraception has been
condemned throughout the ages.
My comment is somewhat similar to what Suresh had said in his previous
posting regarding this. I would like to know if there is some proof in the
N.T.
>I am deeply grieved that there is such a lack of unity in the Jesus Youth.
If we are divided how can we stand?
>Obedience to the church used to be considered a virtue. Now it is
considered a mental disability. Even when we cannot understand, we must
choose to accept. We >cannot understand everything our Church teaches. Do
we reject the teaching on the Trinity? Yet who here can say they
understand it?
How are you so sure that there is such a lack of unity in the Jesus
Youth. Why are you feeling that we stand divided? I am sure that we are not
lacking UNITY IN JESUS in Jesus Youth. There may be differences in
thoughts, visions, ideas, understandings but we stand united in Christ.
Otherwise I would never have involved with this movement. I haven't seen a
'lack of unity' as per you suggestion in Jesus Youth since I became
involved with this movement since 1992 thru The RexBand. I thank Lord for
giving me this oppurtunity - the best oppurtunity I have ever received in
my life. I can surely say that my involment with The RexBand/JY made the
biggest impact on my life - more than anything else. When I came to the
The Rex Band nobody asked me if I have obedience to the Roman Catholic
Church, no one asked me If I accept all the teachings. They did the Lord's
work and won me over!
There is no such thing as an organization in which everyone is having
100% similar beleives/ideas/thoughts/visions etc. But what make a
successfully united organisation is a group of people who has the same
Fundamental(Primary) Beleif,Mission,Concept,Goal and Focus.
In your opinion, what percentage of the Roman Catholic Practisioners
have 100% beleif in Roman Catholic Faith. Why is that figure very low?
Becuase the church and people like you are saying:
>I for one do not wish to discuss this teaching anymore. If this teaching
is too hard, Go and see who else can give you the words of eternal life.
I assure you that you >will only find words of eternal death.
Patrik, you are loosing against your enemy here and your fights will be
in vain. You should not let someone go and seek who else can give the words
of eternal life, from whom you are sure that someone will only find words
of eternal death. You are making the biggest mistake here. You are giving
more importance to Obedience to the church than your goal.
Patrik Dooley> Here in North America we have been fighting abortion for
thirty years with little or no success.
Don't you understand that your fighting has little or no success only
because of church/people who has similar attitude. I (and many others)
personally was trying to understand and beleive (even without completely
understanding) that contraception in what ever means is evil. Instead of
helping us out, you asked us to seek words of eternal death because we was
critising the church.
In Christ,
Manoj Jons
FYI: I belong to a protestant church (CSI - a church in communion with
the Anglican Church) but I am not a 100% beleiver of the my church's
teachings or 100% beleiver of the Roman Catholic teachings or that of any
alternate churches. My wife is Roman Catholic. I respect her belief and she
respects mine - only because we beleive that Jesus Christ is Lord. I would
like to call myself a Christian.
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Visit my web page : www.crash.to/suresh
****************************************************************
This mail is generated from JOYnet, a Jesus Youth mailing list.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to this mailing list, visit
http://www.jesusyouth.org/joynet
For automatic help, send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In case of any issue related to the mailing list contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
****************************************************************
