tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30096810.post115673845386146110..comments2024-01-18T22:58:49.172-06:00Comments on Dust of the Time: NFP Courses and My ApologyDust I Amhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17214613587456861583noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30096810.post-1157084440834389742006-08-31T23:20:00.000-05:002006-08-31T23:20:00.000-05:00A focus on the difference between "serious" and "g...A focus on the difference between "serious" and "grave" reasons for the use of NFP is, I think, a red herring. It's true that we sometimes use serious to mean "pretty important" as opposed to "grave"; but seriousness is a matter of proportion. If my child jumps on the table and starts knocking the dishes off, that's a serious reason for me to give him a spanking; but it's not a serious reason for me to chop his head off. The proportion just isn't there. NFP is the suspension of the ordinary means of matrimony (i.e., that the couple unite in the marital embrace when they feel the attraction.) The seriousness of the reasons to use NFP must be proportioned to the suspension of the ordinary practice of the marriage vocation: a sacred vocation which you cannot enter unless you give yourself wholly to it by a vow. Any reason which is "serious" enough to warrant the suspension of the practice of your vocation will also be "grave."<BR/><BR/>Now, a grave reason doesn't have to be a life and death situation. If it's quite clear to you that you are not going to be able to care for your child because you're exhausted, that could well be a grave, serious reason for using NFP. But if we start trying to say that the reasons don't have to be grave, or only "serious" in the sense that we really care about them, then we seriously devalue marriage. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for reading! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30096810.post-1156954074182686322006-08-30T11:07:00.000-05:002006-08-30T11:07:00.000-05:00Mary, You've said it all very well.Mary, You've said it all very well.Dust I Amhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17214613587456861583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30096810.post-1156901751295591302006-08-29T20:35:00.000-05:002006-08-29T20:35:00.000-05:00"The Church neither approves nor disapproves of th..."The Church neither approves nor disapproves of the rhythm method as a system to be followed. The Church merely tolerates the use of the method. Toleration indicates reluctant permission. And the Church only tolerates this method when three definite factors are present. First there is sufficient serious reason enough to justify sidestepping the first purpose of marriage; second, both husband and wife are truly willing to follow the method-neither one can force the other to adapt this system; third, the use of this method must not cause mortal sins against chastity nor become a proximate occasion of such sins. The breakdown of any one of these three factors makes the use of rhythm sinful. So the correct attitude is this: The use of rhythm is sometimes no sin, sometimes venial sin, sometimes mortal sin. So please stop saying; 'Oh, it's okay, the Church approves it.' Rev Hugh Calkins. O.S.M.M. Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11628512667279950596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30096810.post-1156878593103939462006-08-29T14:09:00.000-05:002006-08-29T14:09:00.000-05:00Are you sure you qualify to be a blogger. You ma...Are you sure you qualify to be a blogger. You may be too humble. Seriously, it is very refreshing to see a blogger of your nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com