Abandoning NFP - damaging the Marriage?

[LongingSoul]

But you would agree that NFP is a “method”, it needs to be learnt from an instructor which suggests “use” and if I’ve read the forums properly, their are different types of NFP to learn?

No I don’t agree that NFP is a method. There are methods used to recognise fertility but natural family planning means many different things to many different people. The one thing that natural family planning rejects in common with everyone though is limiting or completely stopping natural fertility for contraception. That is anti health and intrinsically evil.

 

[Xantippe]

Truth_Faith13 said:

“But NFP isn’t the default…trusting in God and letting whatever happens, happen is. There are people who have stated on this thread that they don’t “use” NFP, ABC or anything. They simply leave everything upto God or abstain if they so desire.”

NFP is like that, just with shorter periods of abstinence.

I disagree that “trusting in God” (i.e. having sex without thinking about consequences) is the default. Whatever we choose to do (whether it is having sex, feeding our kids Snickers bars and Coke for dinner, bring the kids to school an hour late every morning, leave the baby in a room full of tiny LEGOs, spend the rent money on new boots, or run three miles every morning), there are foreseeable causes and effects. Before we do anything of consequence, we have to think 1) about the morality of it and 2) about whether or not it is prudent. We live in a world of cause and effect. Choosing to “trust in God” is something we can all legitimately do after we have made a prudent and moral choice. It’s not an all-purpose defense for carelessness or selfishness or neglect (and yes, it could be selfish to ask for sex). And in any case, even without NFP, having more sex increases the chance of pregnancy and having less sex decreases the chance–there’s no getting around the possession of that knowledge. We aren’t animals–we understand what we are doing.

(I mentioned this thread to my husband (who does some work in ethics), specifically the “trust in God” issue. He jokingly suggests that couples not have sex at all and “trust in God” to keep their marriages happy. That makes just as much sense as having sex no matter how terrible circumstances are and “trusting in God”.)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Truth_Faith13 said:

“But NFP isn’t the default…trusting in God and letting whatever happens, happen is. There are people who have stated on this thread that they don’t “use” NFP, ABC or anything. They simply leave everything upto God or abstain if they so desire.”

NFP is like that, just with shorter periods of abstinence.

I disagree that “trusting in God” (i.e. having sex without thinking about consequences) is the default. Whatever we choose to do (whether it is having sex, feeding our kids Snickers bars and Coke for dinner, bring the kids to school an hour late every morning, leave the baby in a room full of tiny LEGOs, spend the rent money on new boots, or run three miles every morning), there are foreseeable causes and effects. Before we do anything of consequence, we have to think 1) about the morality of it and 2) about whether or not it is prudent. We live in a world of cause and effect. Choosing to “trust in God” is something we can all legitimately do after we have made a prudent and moral choice. It’s not an all-purpose defense for carelessness or selfishness or neglect (and yes, it could be selfish to ask for sex). And in any case, even without NFP, having more sex increases the chance of pregnancy and having less sex decreases the chance–there’s no getting around the possession of that knowledge. We aren’t animals–we understand what we are doing.

(I mentioned this thread to my husband (who does some work in ethics), specifically the “trust in God” issue. He jokingly suggests that couples not have sex at all and “trust in God” to keep their marriages happy. That makes just as much sense as having sex no matter how terrible circumstances are and “trusting in God”.)

But NFP is not the default. In marriage vows we do not stipulate NFP. God, in His very first command to humanity did not mention NFP. And what we term “NFP” is relatively new. In fact historically and even in many countries today NFP is not even known about. Birth Control was never the default until recently. With the different methods and availability and sexual revolution and no fault divorce ABC became the norm even in Christian and even in Catholic circles. But there was a time not too long ago that ABC was prohibited by every Christian Church in existence. Most Catholics worldwide today have no available way to practice NFP. So a vast majority of God’s Children who married and procreated since the time of Adam and Eve have not used NFP or ABC at all. “default” is hardly a word used to describe this kind of situation. “privilege” would be more like it. If you are educated and have access to NFP tools, then you are the elite privileged of the majority of Catholics worldwide today and historically. So perhaps instead of going around thinking NFP needs to be defended at every turn and that it is some sort of thing that needs to be pushed in every marriage, perhaps we should take a moment and thank God that we have the ability to have this knowledge, use the internet to debate this issue and educate ourselves about it and live in a time where with the full support of the Church we have the technology to have a tool that helps marriages that for some serious reason, cannot procreate at this time. Not many married couples who remain faithful to the Church have had this option. For them there was only two choices, abstain, or make a baby.

 

[momoffamily]

The example the male gave me about a wife only being available during fertile times was not said to prove anything about NFP. He did not specify if a couple charted or not.
I think this is very plausible example with a couple who is not charting.

Charting or not, women do know on some level what is going on with the body, and men should as well.

I think the formal classes do serve to begin a conversation, and this is good. No sin in classes.

After menopause some couples become very scheduled and deliberate. No sin in that.

Let’s not “eat our own”. What other church even comes close to the wealth we have?

 

[LongingSoul]

The example the male gave me about a wife only being available during fertile times was not said to prove anything about NFP. He did not specify if a couple charted or not.
I think this is very plausible example with a couple who is not charting.

Charting or not, women do know on some level what is going on with the body, and men should as well.

I think the formal classes do serve to begin a conversation, and this is good. No sin in classes.

After menopause some couples become very scheduled and deliberate. No sin in that.

Let’s not “eat our own”. What other church even comes close to the wealth we have?

When I’d opened my reply box, the conversation was still on the previous page and then when I’d posted I noticed that my post came directly after yours on a new page. So I wasn’t in any way referring to your post, momoffamily. You posts are excellent. Silly impersonal internet format!! Peace.

 

[lovemysix]

The minute the Church started talking about “responsible parenting” in conjunction with determining family size, she implicitly acknowledged that there is such a thing as “irresponsible parenting” with respect to determining family size. I don’t think there is any getting around that one, and I do believe that is probably something of a sea change. In days of yore, nobody realistically believed most people were going to be abstinent over long periods of their lives (barring perhaps true life and death situations, and even then a lot of people just weren’t able to cut it, got pregnant anyways, and died), so babies came when they came, and if you ended up with 10 of them, it must have been God’s will for you. Now that we have fertility knowledge, that has changed forevermore. There is no going back, for better or for worse.

Fertility awareness brings with it more responsibility. We are encouraged by the Church to be responsible parents, and given the length of our lives and our overall health and nutritrion in comparison to previous centuries, this will likely mean most people (not all, certainly) will need to take some action at some point in their lives to avoid pregnancy.

Society as a whole feels vested in people being responsible about childbearing, and that has led to a lot of busy-bodiness. In the old days, there wasn’t much to gossip about, other than the fact perhaps poor Mrs. Jones should just tell her husband **no more sex **now that they have 12 children. Nowadays, we all know how to prevent that from happening. So if you have 12 kids (on both sides–NFP and ABC), you CHOSE that. No breaks for you, nosirreee. You asked for it, honey.

I’ve been on the receiving end of that, and it’s not fun, but it is the direct result of our modern day knowledge and technology that gives us a choice about whether or not to have children. This is one reason I continue to believe in Church teaching—otherwise, it’s just too easy to lose sight of what really matters in life. I may not have been able to live up to it, but I do think its there for a reason.

 

[JamesBond007]

I think a lot of believing catholics get charged whenever anybody pontificates about the church “getting it wrong” for 2,000 years and they have figured out the true path on any subject. Look around, notice some rather heated exchanges when fundamentalists come here and try to rescue us from the “Whore of Babylon?” Do you suspect us then of secretly wishing to be fundamentalists?

Do I secretly wish I my parish used Coke and pizza for communion materials when I get jazzed up refuting a “do it yourself Christian’s” argument that that is appropriate?

No, I don’t think it’s that simple. Sure there are lots of reasons that people argue. Some are good reasons, some aren’t and some have mixed motives. But I tend to think that most people, when they find Christ and choose to surrender their own desires and preferences to Him, find it a joyful experience and simply want others to share it. That’s true even when the surrendering itself is a difficult experience of suffering.

I understand your point but a lot of people go beyond “just sharing their joy.” I agree wholeheartedly with the teaching on NFP and ABC but I also see people that are incensed at the idea of birth control to the point their “joy” looks a lot more like a firestorm out of control (hence the fundamentalists always talking about “then end”). People using ABC do it too. I’ve seen lots that think BC is like some right of passage everyone should go through. I think as a society we obsess to much about sex. Like I said, the neurochemicals released during orgasm are power. You can’t reason with people that are high on dopamine, NFP or ABC user. Perhaps that’s what we should be talking about.

Numerous research studies have show that “being in love” is a lot like a drug addiction in terms of brain structure / activity. Of coarse that love is conditionally based on neurochemicals wheres as the love we talk about in a marriage is a choice. See the paradox there? My wife and I prefer NFP because it gives us time to cool off and focus on putting actual meaning to our saying “Yes” to each other. We are not depending on our neurochemicals to lead the way. I am highly suspicious when people say “our marriage won’t survive without sex so we ‘need’ ABC.” You can’t emphatically say “yes” to your spouse if you “need” your spouse. We all have to eat so eating food is never really a sacrifice. When you’re full and cannot eat anymore you are not sacrificing food / fasting. That is what I found.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Truth_Faith13 said:

“But NFP isn’t the default…trusting in God and letting whatever happens, happen is. There are people who have stated on this thread that they don’t “use” NFP, ABC or anything. They simply leave everything upto God or abstain if they so desire.”

NFP is like that, just with shorter periods of abstinence.

I disagree that “trusting in God” (i.e. having sex without thinking about consequences) is the default. Whatever we choose to do (whether it is having sex, feeding our kids Snickers bars and Coke for dinner, bring the kids to school an hour late every morning, leave the baby in a room full of tiny LEGOs, spend the rent money on new boots, or run three miles every morning), there are foreseeable causes and effects. Before we do anything of consequence, we have to think 1) about the morality of it and 2) about whether or not it is prudent. We live in a world of cause and effect. Choosing to “trust in God” is something we can all legitimately do after we have made a prudent and moral choice. It’s not an all-purpose defense for carelessness or selfishness or neglect (and yes, it could be selfish to ask for sex). And in any case, even without NFP, having more sex increases the chance of pregnancy and having less sex decreases the chance–there’s no getting around the possession of that knowledge. We aren’t animals–we understand what we are doing.

(I mentioned this thread to my husband (who does some work in ethics), specifically the “trust in God” issue. He jokingly suggests that couples not have sex at all and “trust in God” to keep their marriages happy. That makes just as much sense as having sex no matter how terrible circumstances are and “trusting in God”.)

As a mom I totally found the pink highlighted part so funny. It would depend on if baby was asleep, if baby had the pincer grasp down pat. If baby was in a bouncer seat and couldn’t get to the LEGOS.

 

[7armyrugrats]

But NFP is not the default. In marriage vows we do not stipulate NFP. God, in His very first command to humanity did not mention NFP. And what we term “NFP” is relatively new. In fact historically and even in many countries today NFP is not even known about. Birth Control was never the default until recently. With the different methods and availability and sexual revolution and no fault divorce ABC became the norm even in Christian and even in Catholic circles. But there was a time not too long ago that ABC was prohibited by every Christian Church in existence. Most Catholics worldwide today have no available way to practice NFP. So a vast majority of God’s Children who married and procreated since the time of Adam and Eve have not used NFP or ABC at all. “default” is hardly a word used to describe this kind of situation. “privilege” would be more like it. If you are educated and have access to NFP tools, then you are the elite privileged of the majority of Catholics worldwide today and historically. So perhaps instead of going around thinking NFP needs to be defended at every turn and that it is some sort of thing that needs to be pushed in every marriage, perhaps we should take a moment and thank God that we have the ability to have this knowledge, use the internet to debate this issue and educate ourselves about it and live in a time where with the full support of the Church we have the technology to have a tool that helps marriages that for some serious reason, cannot procreate at this time. Not many married couples who remain faithful to the Church have had this option. For them there was only two choices, abstain, or make a baby.

This is very true. And what many people fail to realize is many people will still not have 10 kids if they leave it to God alone. My husband’s hometown in Mexico is very tiny and rural. They have no running water and just got electricity about 10 years ago. No one has ever heard of NFP and no one uses ABC. The average family size is 3-5 kids. Children are viewed as a complete and total blessing. Mothers of large families are viewed as profoundly blessed. My in laws only had three pregnancies and raised two children. Several in the town have no children at all. Only 6 families if you count mine have more than 7 children. God often does know better than us.

No one has said that a person can’t use NFP if they have just/serious/grave reasons. It is not sinful if there is good cause. But the question in the OP was why those of us that abandoned NFP have done so and why we felt it was destructive to our marriage. If anyone tries to explain why, we are told it can’t be possible to use NFP sinfully and that we are mistaken because NFP is helpful in a marriage. This is what turns so many people against NFP–the elitist attitude that gets thrown around. It is exactly why the thought of NFP makes me physically ill now.

 

[lovemysix]

“I am highly suspicious when people say “our marriage won’t survive without sex so we ‘need’ ABC.” You can’t emphatically say “yes” to your spouse if you “need” your spouse.”

I can’t speak for others, but yes, I do need my spouse. And yes, our marriage could survive without sex. Due both to NFP and to illness, as well as the every day grind of six children and demanding jobs, there are plenty of times we have had to abstain. And yet here we are today, as happy as ever. Not practicing NFP does not equal not abstaining. Everybody abstains, some more than others. It always makes me laugh when NFPers talk about ABCers as if they are some sort of nymphos. These are not the ABCers I know. The ones I know are mostly long married, have at least a few children if not more, hold down jobs, and have all the other stresses life brings–financial stress, illness, care of sick and elderly relatives, loss, grief, the list goes on. The idea of some sort of wild, sexual free-for-all makes me laugh. Get real.

Our choice wasn’t about whether or not our marriage would survive–barring something absolutely extraordinary (like he goes psychotic and starts being a danger to all of us, and I need to legally divorce to protect the children’s financial wellbeing—that’s how off the wall the situation would need to be for us to split), we know we will always be together, God willing. But the way we were living was damaging our relationship, and raising our children in not only an intact, but a happy, peaceful home with close parents was a priority for us. Our choice was about the kind of marriage we wanted to share with our family, not the existence of the marriage.

You know, if all the Catholics in the world suddenly started embracing Church teaching on contraceptives, there would still be a whole lot of them who would end up like me, because we are all sinners, and lots of people won’t be able to live the NFP life, especially if they have unusual cycles compounded by very serious health problems. This is not a defense, but I do believe it’s a fact.

We live in a strange age in which we don’t want to admit that something we do is wrong. So if I do it, therefore it must be right. It’s goofy, but there it is. If we ever returned to an age where people admitted sin more readily, you’d still have a whole lot of people sinning. They would just (perhaps)be a little more honest about it.

 

[momoffamily]

Perhaps those who have charted and scheduled when life demands say it is good because they value the sacrifice and its transformation effect in their life.

Maybe you are looking for acknowledgement that abstinence is a cross and a strain on marriage at times.

Consider it is acknowledged.

It is at those times couples bring the matter to the Lord and ask, "Why are we abstinent? What are our fears? How has this changed since last month?

Maybe the circumstances have not changed. How can we “return to one another, lest so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self control” (1 Coth.7:5)

In other words, if our circmstances have changed, forego abstinence. If not, schedule more time together (understanding you still are open to the possibility of pregnancy even in seemingly unfertile times) so you will not be tempted to use ABC.

 

[7armyrugrats]

It isn’t always about the frequency of sex. Abstaining was never a burden to me. I actually had sex more often using NFP than I have since giving it up. How can we make it clear that the only people on this thread that seem to be obsessing about the frequency of sex or the amount of abstinence are the NFPers? How can we make it clear that we are not at it like rabbits–whether we use ABC or use nothing? How can we make you understand that the freedom we feel is from the lack of obsessing about sex/fertility/frequency?

 

[LongingSoul]

But NFP is not the default. In marriage vows we do not stipulate NFP. God, in His very first command to humanity did not mention NFP. And what we term “NFP” is relatively new. In fact historically and even in many countries today NFP is not even known about. Birth Control was never the default until recently. With the different methods and availability and sexual revolution and no fault divorce ABC became the norm even in Christian and even in Catholic circles. But there was a time not too long ago that ABC was prohibited by every Christian Church in existence. Most Catholics worldwide today have no available way to practice NFP. So a vast majority of God’s Children who married and procreated since the time of Adam and Eve have not used NFP or ABC at all. “default” is hardly a word used to describe this kind of situation. “privilege” would be more like it. If you are educated and have access to NFP tools, then you are the elite privileged of the majority of Catholics worldwide today and historically. So perhaps instead of going around thinking NFP needs to be defended at every turn and that it is some sort of thing that needs to be pushed in every marriage, perhaps we should take a moment and thank God that we have the ability to have this knowledge, use the internet to debate this issue and educate ourselves about it and live in a time where with the full support of the Church we have the technology to have a tool that helps marriages that for some serious reason, cannot procreate at this time. Not many married couples who remain faithful to the Church have had this option. For them there was only two choices, abstain, or make a baby.

When I say ‘default’ I mean in the way that healthy eating is a default attitude. In the days prior to fast food and processed artificial foods, the concept of ‘healthy eating’ wasn’t near as explicit as it is today where it is a response to the dietary dominance of artificial and addictive type foods that people are indulging in. These are not two equal positions.

The ‘contra’ in the word contraception indicates something that goes against the norm (the default). It goes against something natural, not that it is an alternative to the norm. The Latin roots of the word conception mean “to take into” “the womb” (or “the mind”). It is an action that *presents the possibility *of something which may or may not come to full fruition. That’s why we say that ‘concepts’ are an integral part of an end result. They aren’t actually the end result. The concept of a child exists even if a child isn’t the result with every act. ‘Contra’ ception deletes that concept. It makes an impotent act for the sole purpose of physical pleasure. Conception… the natural openness to life… is subverted.

 

[momoffamily]

Freedom is an arbitrary term. Those who do not turn to ABC would not feel freedom, please be okay with that as well.

Blessings and peace!

 

[sailor28]

The minute the Church started talking about “responsible parenting” in conjunction with determining family size, she implicitly acknowledged that there is such a thing as “irresponsible parenting” with respect to determining family size. I don’t think there is any getting around that one, and I do believe that is probably something of a sea change. In days of yore, nobody realistically believed most people were going to be abstinent over long periods of their lives (barring perhaps true life and death situations, and even then a lot of people just weren’t able to cut it, got pregnant anyways, and died), so babies came when they came, and if you ended up with 10 of them, it must have been God’s will for you. Now that we have fertility knowledge, that has changed forevermore. There is no going back, for better or for worse.

Fertility awareness brings with it more responsibility. We are encouraged by the Church to be responsible parents, and given the length of our lives and our overall health and nutritrion in comparison to previous centuries, this will likely mean most people (not all, certainly) will need to take some action at some point in their lives to avoid pregnancy.

Society as a whole feels vested in people being responsible about childbearing, and that has led to a lot of busy-bodiness. In the old days, there wasn’t much to gossip about, other than the fact perhaps poor Mrs. Jones should just tell her husband **no more sex **now that they have 12 children. Nowadays, we all know how to prevent that from happening. So if you have 12 kids (on both sides–NFP and ABC), you CHOSE that. No breaks for you, nosirreee. You asked for it, honey.

I’ve been on the receiving end of that, and it’s not fun, but it is the direct result of our modern day knowledge and technology that gives us a choice about whether or not to have children. This is one reason I continue to believe in Church teaching—otherwise, it’s just too easy to lose sight of what really matters in life. I may not have been able to live up to it, but I do think its there for a reason.

lovemysix,

I appreciate the clarity and honest that you write with. I have never heard anyone in Catholic forums dialogue about “irresponsible parenting or family planning” It is always promoted that everyone can always handle more kids. In reality I see that is not the case. It is vital that kids have parents that can be emotionally, physically and spiritually present to them. Kids are resilient and life is not perfect, so childhood does not need to be free of hardship. But being open to life begins at conception. In the big picture of life it is only a part of the puzzle. It is possible to focus so much on the conceiving that as the kids grow you are not able to be present for their needs throughout childhood. A healthy marriage that models the presence of God is also an important gift we should give our kids.

 

[sailor28]

In another thread, a poster remarked that he and his wife found NFP damaged their marriage. That OP also remarked that ABC (artificial birth control) was a matter on which he and his wife disagreed with Church teaching.

I would be interested to understand, particularly from those who have abandoned NFP, whether they felt similarly to that poster, that is, that using NFP:

• felt a bit like being celibate despite being married?
• caused and damage to their marriage?

Some will have abandoned NFP and replaced it with artificial birth control. **If **that’s your case (and assuming you’re Catholic), then do you believe the Church has got the teaching wrong, or is it simply not a teaching you can adopt?

See here for the first response to this question.

Rau,

It was a post of mine that led you to start this thread. I know it went off in several directions since the start. I know not too many replied who dissent from church teaching. There are so few who would engage in a dialogue about that in this type of forum.

I am not sure if your initial intention was to gain understanding or collect data. Or some other reason? Have the responses led you to believe that NFP can damage a marriage? (I am not trying to imply that would mean you agree with dissent) I am wondering if this discussion was helpful or unfolded like you intended it to. Do you think the NFP movement as it is now encourages or discourages dialogue? What approach would you recommend for those who promote NFP?

I know that is a ton of questions. I am curious to know a bit more of what was behind your post.

 

[7armyrugrats]

Freedom is an arbitrary term. Those who do not turn to ABC would not feel freedom, please be okay with that as well.

Blessings and peace!

I have never used ABC and I never will. I’m not sure what you are trying to say here

 

[Xantippe]

sailor28 said:

“It is always promoted that everyone can always handle more kids.”

Really? “Always” sounds like a wee bit of an exaggeration.

7armyrugrats,

You seem to very anti-NFP, and yet wouldn’t better NFP, more consistently practiced, have been very helpful to your sister who had 4 c-sections and a tubal ligation? Starting a very conservative form of NFP no later than after the second c-section would have been a very good idea.

I worry about the people who start let-the-babies-come!, because there have been a number of similar cases on the forum very similar to your sister’s position. There’s a run of tightly-spaced c-section babies and then (surprise!) they find that the mother’s uterus is all used up, and any further pregnancies could be fatal to mother and baby. It’s so easy to turn on a dime from tra-la-la-the-more-the-merrier to oh-my-goodness-I’m-going-to-die-tie-my-tubes or oh-my-goodness-my-kids-are-driving-me-nuts.

 

[sailor28]

sailor28 said:

“It is always promoted that everyone can always handle more kids.”

Really? “Always” sounds like a wee bit of an exaggeration.

You are right. How about, “It is *often *promoted that everyone can handle more kids” That seems more reasonable and true. Prudence and generosity need to be balanced. There is not much said about what happens when you are not prudent.

 

[7armyrugrats]

sailor28 said:

“It is always promoted that everyone can always handle more kids.”

Really? “Always” sounds like a wee bit of an exaggeration.

7armyrugrats,

You seem to very anti-NFP, and yet wouldn’t better NFP, more consistently practiced, have been very helpful to your sister who had 4 c-sections and a tubal ligation? Starting a very conservative form of NFP no later than after the second c-section would have been a very good idea.

I worry about the people who start let-the-babies-come!, because there have been a number of similar cases on the forum very similar to your sister’s position. There’s a run of tightly-spaced c-section babies and then (surprise!) they find that the mother’s uterus is all used up, and any further pregnancies could be fatal to mother and baby. It’s so easy to turn on a dime from tra-la-la-the-more-the-merrier to oh-my-goodness-I’m-going-to-die-tie-my-tubes or oh-my-goodness-my-kids-are-driving-me-nuts.

That sister is not Catholic and neither is her husband so they could have done whatever they wanted.