Abandoning NFP - damaging the Marriage?

[Xantippe]

7armyrugrats said:

“When discerning monthly if you still have just/serious/grave reasons, if no reasons exist, NFP should be abandoned. No one has said that couples that continue to use NFP ARE sinful, but I admit I have said they MAY VERY WELL BE sinful because they are using NFP no differently than ABC. The reason many people who abandon NFP for ABC is because they realize this in themselves and they are tired of being judged for it.”

“Most couples that do strictly follow the rules of NFP do not have the problems we had. People can go a decade or longer and never conceive because they are lucky enough to have easy to read signs. It isn’t always used for just reasons. When used as the default, how is NFP less moral than using ABC when that couple has tried everything else and the reasons to avoid are serious?”

I assume you mean “how is NFP more moral.”

I will turn this over to my husband the ethicist.

Xantippe’s husband says:

"There are two separate moral questions. The first is the question of the circumstances under which a couple may or even should avoid conception. The second is the question of the means by which they may avoid conception. The questions, while interrelated, should not be confused.

"The first question applies no matter what means one thinks are morally available: total abstinence, NFP or ABC. There are of course clear cases where it is one’s duty to avoid conception and there are clear cases where it is one’s duty not to, but there are also cases that call for judgment. In general, there are moral situations where Aquinas insists that ‘there is no general rule, … and the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man’ (Summa Theol. II-II, 31, 3, repl. 1) '–the question Aquinas has in mind is one where one weighs helping a relative in lesser need versus a stranger in greater need. And the question whether to avoid conception is a question of judging between very different moral considerations: duties to spouse, responsibilities for children already in existence and other relatives, duties to self, the intrinsic value of new life, and the importance of that new life for the life of the marriage. Apart from clear cases on either extreme, a judgment needs to involve details of particular circumstances. Nonetheless, I think one can give some rules of thumb. First, one is on safer ground if the reason one avoids conception is because of a clear duty that one has to one’s spouse, one’s children or other close relatives (and this may include the duty to stay alive for their sake). A second rule of thumb is that the reasons are grave enough that one would abstain completely if that were the only method available. These are just rules of thumb, and have exception.

"The second question is of means to avoid conception. And here the Church is clear. When the couple engages in marital relations, they need to honestly and without subterfuge give to each other what fertility that they have at that time. That gift of fertility is what unites them together as one body, after all. So the one permissible way to avoid conception is to abstain from marital relations when that fertility is likely to be there. But of course when the fertility is unlikely to be there, there is no point to abstinence.

"When one makes a decision, one needs to weigh the consequences in light of the available information, gathering more information as needed. One can think of a couple practicing NFP as simply doing this. They are deciding whether to have marital relations in light of all the information they have, including information on the likely consequences of the act. When fertile, the consequences include a serious chance of conception. When infertile, they don’t.

“The difference between NFP and ABC is clear. In NFP each gives to each what fertility they have, without holding back or subterfuge.”

 

[LongingSoul]

7armyrugrats said:

“When discerning monthly if you still have just/serious/grave reasons, if no reasons exist, NFP should be abandoned. No one has said that couples that continue to use NFP ARE sinful, but I admit I have said they MAY VERY WELL BE sinful because they are using NFP no differently than ABC. The reason many people who abandon NFP for ABC is because they realize this in themselves and they are tired of being judged for it.”

“Most couples that do strictly follow the rules of NFP do not have the problems we had. People can go a decade or longer and never conceive because they are lucky enough to have easy to read signs. It isn’t always used for just reasons. When used as the default, how is NFP less moral than using ABC when that couple has tried everything else and the reasons to avoid are serious?”

I assume you mean “how is NFP more moral.”

I will turn this over to my husband the ethicist.

Xantippe’s husband says:

"There are two separate moral questions. The first is the question of the circumstances under which a couple may or even should avoid conception. The second is the question of the means by which they may avoid conception. The questions, while interrelated, should not be confused.

"The first question applies no matter what means one thinks are morally available: total abstinence, NFP or ABC. There are of course clear cases where it is one’s duty to avoid conception and there are clear cases where it is one’s duty not to, but there are also cases that call for judgment. In general, there are moral situations where Aquinas insists that ‘there is no general rule, … and the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man’ (Summa Theol. II-II, 31, 3, repl. 1) '–the question Aquinas has in mind is one where one weighs helping a relative in lesser need versus a stranger in greater need. And the question whether to avoid conception is a question of judging between very different moral considerations: duties to spouse, responsibilities for children already in existence and other relatives, duties to self, the intrinsic value of new life, and the importance of that new life for the life of the marriage. Apart from clear cases on either extreme, a judgment needs to involve details of particular circumstances. Nonetheless, I think one can give some rules of thumb. First, one is on safer ground if the reason one avoids conception is because of a clear duty that one has to one’s spouse, one’s children or other close relatives (and this may include the duty to stay alive for their sake). A second rule of thumb is that the reasons are grave enough that one would abstain completely if that were the only method available. These are just rules of thumb, and have exception.

"The second question is of means to avoid conception. And here the Church is clear. When the couple engages in marital relations, they need to honestly and without subterfuge give to each other what fertility that they have at that time. That gift of fertility is what unites them together as one body, after all. So the one permissible way to avoid conception is to abstain from marital relations when that fertility is likely to be there. But of course when the fertility is unlikely to be there, there is no point to abstinence.

"When one makes a decision, one needs to weigh the consequences in light of the available information, gathering more information as needed. One can think of a couple practicing NFP as simply doing this. They are deciding whether to have marital relations in light of all the information they have, including information on the likely consequences of the act. When fertile, the consequences include a serious chance of conception. When infertile, they don’t.

“The difference between NFP and ABC is clear. In NFP each gives to each what fertility they have, without holding back or subterfuge.”

Thankyou for your contribution xantippe’s husband. It’s good to have the clarity of a professional on the subject.

One of the things regarding the first moral question that I wanted to tease out … that is the difference between the contraceptive mentality and the prolife mentality… is with regards to the term NFP. A lot seem to be stressing that NFP is a ‘method’ in and of itself and of course it leads to the criticism that NFP is just Catholic contraception.

There are methods that NFP employs like the Creighton method, the Billings method, Ovucare, ph testing and these methods can be used contraceptively. ie. detecting ovulation in order to have sex in non- vaginally penetrative manners. I can’t see though, how someone using the methods to determine their sexual behaviour in that way could claim to be ‘using NFP’. They are contracepting. They are not using NFP to contracept. They are using certain natural methods in order to have infertile sex. That’s the opposite of the term NFP.

I cannot for the life of me see how abstinence can technically constitute ‘contraception’. If you are not having sex, you are not having sex. In an example I’ve use before if you decide not to bake a cake and leave all the ingredients in the cupboard and do something else, you aren’t thwarting the baking process. If you decide not to paint a picture one day you haven’t thwarted the painting.

I just wanted to throw that in as some of the contributors are so determined to make NFP something that it is not and its messin’ with the clarity of the issue.

 

[7armyrugrats]

Rau, this is a good question:

“It would seem that if one could easily have perfect knowledge of fertility, one would not choose celibacy - so the problem of NFP (in your situation of illness at least) arose from its imperfections, not the principles. I remain a little unclear of why you “leave it up to God” now that you are well? Is it that you simply have a neutral stance on more children at present?”

I usually give the very generic answer of, “when we already have 8, who cares if we have more?” but the truth is a much more complicated answer. It came after years of prayer and research. Honestly I started out searching for a way to justify using ABC. It is a long and complicated story. Right now I dont have time to type it, but I will try to get on here tomorrow. I’m packing for a cross country move and my husband is at training this week but I think it is important that people realize that those of us who do leave it up to God are not always irresponsible, uneducated, lazy people society thinks we are.

 

[Xantippe]

Longing Soul said:

“There are methods that NFP employs like the Creighton method, the Billings method, Ovucare, ph testing and these methods can be used contraceptively. ie. detecting ovulation in order to have sex in non- vaginally penetrative manners. I can’t see though, how someone using the methods to determine their sexual behaviour in that way could claim to be ‘using NFP’. They are contracepting. They are not using NFP to contracept. They are using certain natural methods in order to have infertile sex. That’s the opposite of the term NFP.”

“I cannot for the life of me see how abstinence can technically constitute ‘contraception’. If you are not having sex, you are not having sex.”

Exactly.

I personally have the additional mental block that having assimilated the rules, I would roughly know what was going on even without charting. I couldn’t help but notice the signs. And for that matter, I think my husband can do the same (for instance, he’d notice that I was suddenly nice and warm). It’s even possible to smell ovulation.

theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/men-can-detect-when-women-are-ovulating/article4302462/

The guys in that study were doing it subconsciously, but I suspect that with a little practice, it should be possible to do it consciously. And once you know it, how do you un-know it?

I think there are some issues with NFP hype, but I don’t think there’s anybody participating in this thread who is guilty of over-hyping NFP.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Truth_Faith13 said:

"But NFP isn’t the default…trusting in God and letting whatever happens, happen is.

…
I disagree that “trusting in God” (i.e. having sex without thinking about consequences) is the default.

That’s just it, trusting in God (when it comes to receiving children) is not the same as “having sex without thinking about consequences”. If that were the case I would disagree with the idea as well. A couple knows that children can come from sex and is participating in the marital act and willingly welcoming God’s blessings if He decides to bless them.

… 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.

No one is disagreeing

(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”.)

I don’t agree with that comparison. From Catechism: “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
Marriage is ordered towards receiving blessings through the marital embrace. A couple may find themselves needing to avoid pregnancy needing to abstain periodically or indefinitely, and can definitely ask God to help them during those difficult times, but that is not the natural state of marriage. If a couple finds themselves needing to abstain, then yes, trust in God to help their marriage, but the default is indeed to have sex. Without the ability of having sex a couple cannot even marry!

The Catechism says we need to have just reasons to avoid, it doesn’t say we need to have good reasons to have children. That is part of marriage itself already. Marriage is ordered towards procreation and education of children. A couple can feel they have no reason to avoid, and can be open to God sending children when He wishes to send them… and then plan and prepare for the possibility of children and plan and prepare to raise these children in their faith. They are actively participating by making this decision and by receiving and raising these children. And yes, they are trusting in God, which is a very good thing. A couple may discern they need to avoid pregnancy at the time because of just/serious/grave/unselfish reasons and they too are seeking God’s will, but it does not mean they are putting more intelligence etc. into family planning, it just means they discerned that was what they needed to do at the time. And they too are trusting in God.

I don’t know if this couple used NFP or not, but I do believe that they were generous (not irresponsible nor mindless) in receiving the children God sent them, and because of their generosity the Church is richer (I have posted this article before and it is about the mother when she passed away):
catholicnewsagency.com/news/mother-of-six-priests-and-four-religious-sisters-mourned-in-india/

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s just it, trusting in God (when it comes to receiving children) is not the same as “having sex without thinking about consequences”. If that were the case I would disagree with the idea as well. A couple knows that children can come from sex and is participating in the marital act and willingly welcoming God’s blessings if He decides to bless them.

No one is disagreeing

I don’t agree with that comparison. From Catechism: “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
Marriage is ordered towards receiving blessings through the marital embrace. A couple may find themselves needing to avoid pregnancy needing to abstain periodically or indefinitely, and can definitely ask God to help them during those difficult times, but that is not the natural state of marriage. If a couple finds themselves needing to abstain, then yes, trust in God to help their marriage, but the default is indeed to have sex. Without the ability of having sex a couple cannot even marry!

The Catechism says we need to have just reasons to avoid, it doesn’t say we need to have good reasons to have children. That is part of marriage itself already. Marriage is ordered towards procreation and education of children. A couple can feel they have no reason to avoid, and can be open to God sending children when He wishes to send them… and then plan and prepare for the possibility of children and plan and prepare to raise these children in their faith. They are actively participating by making this decision and by receiving and raising these children. And yes, they are trusting in God, which is a very good thing. A couple may discern they need to avoid pregnancy at the time because of just/serious/grave/unselfish reasons and they too are seeking God’s will, but it does not mean they are putting more intelligence etc. into family planning, it just means they discerned that was what they needed to do at the time. And they too are trusting in God.

I don’t know if this couple used NFP or not, but I do believe that they were generous (not irresponsible nor mindless) in receiving the children God sent them, and because of their generosity the Church is richer (I have posted this article before and it is about the mother when she passed away):
catholicnewsagency.com/news/mother-of-six-priests-and-four-religious-sisters-mourned-in-india/

I think you and Xantippe are actually stressing the same aspect. My guess is that when Truth_Faith13 was suggesting that “trusting in God and letting what happens happen” is the default, he/she was mistakenly implying pure biological instinct should prevail in the perfect world (ie. “having sex without thinking about consequences”). (He/she is hostile to NFP) My guess is that he/she was envisioning the stereotypical welfare family with many children all supported by the state and draining the resources of the justice system or worse… neglected children. That kind of que sera sera.

Saying that NFP is the default is the same as saying that whether you are abstaining (for your just reasons) or going for it (as abundantly blessed to be doing so)… we are in accordance with the natural ecology of the body and within the realms of both Gods plan and our free will.

Mrs Anikuzhikattil’s life is just beautiful and inspiring though.

 

[CradleJourney]

" agree with the spirit of your post - however the part I placed in bold made me both laugh and sigh. In my own experience, I would say we do NOT have a choice about whether we have or do not have children (except by total abstinence)"

Cradle,

Really, I’m with you here. Anybody who thinks that anything short of complete abstinence or a total hysterectomy is a 100% guarantee of preventing pregnancy is a fool. If you are having sex, and you haven’t had a complete hysterectomy, there is the possibility you could get pregnant. Period. Full-stop.

However, I really don’t think we can deny the overall effectiveness of birth control—whether ABC or NFP–in limiting family size. Some methods may not be terribly effective for some couples, but falling birth rates all over the world clearly demonstrate that people are “controlling” their fertility fairly well, one way or another.

God is ultimately in control, but knowledge and technology have certainly given us the ability to limit family size—and pretty effectively, too, from the numbers.

Oh, I agree that it can be effective - very much so - for the population in general. But experiencing both infertility and extreme fertility on a personal level makes me shake my head at those who insist it’s totally up to a particular married couple, and therefore difficult for me to agree categorically with one side or another. No one can know except for them the particular burdens they are carrying and how much they can handle at any particular time. I get slammed often for having “more” children than I can handle from one side and (theologically) slammed for not being “open” enough to more from the other - should I bother to pay attention to the statements being tossed around (here and IRL).

Thus the only thing I can personally find to do is to place my trust in God, do what we feel is correct for us, and be willing to accept that it may change in the future.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I think you and Xantippe are actually stressing the same aspect. My guess is that when Truth_Faith13 was suggesting that “trusting in God and letting what happens happen” is the default, he/she was mistakenly implying pure biological instinct should prevail in the perfect world (ie. “having sex without thinking about consequences”). (He/she is hostile to NFP) My guess is that he/she was envisioning the stereotypical welfare family with many children all supported by the state and draining the resources of the justice system or worse… neglected children. That kind of que sera sera.

Saying that NFP is the default is the same as saying that whether you are abstaining (for your just reasons) or going for it (as abundantly blessed to be doing so)… we are in accordance with the natural ecology of the body and within the realms of both Gods plan and our free will.

Mrs Anikuzhikattil’s life is just beautiful and inspiring though.

Can you quote the bits I’ve said which make you think that please? Every point you have said is wrong. I’ve never even mentioned welfare or neglected children so that’s just making stuff up.

I must have said many times I have nothing against NFP…I don’t accept the teaching on ABC (but that doesn’t imply I’m hostile to NFP) and I don’t agree with how people have argued against ABC or for NFP, but that’s a problem with the people and arguments not NFP.
I also don’t agree that NFP is the default, but I’ve said nothing about biological instinct or not thinking about the consequences. I think you are confusing default and what is right & wrong. Just because something is not the default doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Abstaining (for just reasons) is not the default (which is why I don’t think NFP is the default) but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong…the church says it’s ok if you have just reasons.

I’m a she by the way

I must admit what you are talking about doesn’t seem to be in line with church teachings? You sound like you expect people to use NFP (charting, mucus, temp, cycle etc) all the time? It was my understanding that the church says ABC is wrong and that methods of tracking fertility may be used for spacing of children for just reasons?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Saying that NFP is the default is the same as saying that whether you are abstaining (for your just reasons) or going for it (as abundantly blessed to be doing so)… we are in accordance with the natural ecology of the body and within the realms of both Gods plan and our free will.

To me, the bolded is the default, God said go forth & multiply, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t thinking of the consequences, you do, constantly pray about it and decide if you have a just reason to abstain. If you do, then you abstain either completely or during fertile window using info NFP gives you…this is perfectly ok and in keeping with the natural order of things, but it is not the default.

We are made to be in a unitive & procreative marriage are we not? That is the default. Abstaining is something we choose to do to space children (or not have children where illness is concerned) using the natural cycle God gave us. It’s right but not the default.

 

[Rau]

I suggest the word “default” may not be well defined unless it is given a context…

The default behaviour toward sex for married couples with a neutral stance towards children is to have sex as and when desired. The default behaviour for a married couple seeking to avoid pregnancy at the present time is to abstain during fertile times ( or more if they can’t identify fertile times).

I’m not sure how the notion of default is all that useful.

I note in passing that a requirement to remain ignorant of one’s fertility, or to be uninfluenced by awareness of it, is an odd requirement (which harks back to my previous noted difficulty with the requirement for “just reasons”).

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I suggest the word “default” may not be well defined unless it is given a context…

The default behaviour toward sex for married couples with a neutral stance towards children is to have sex as and when desired. The default behaviour for a married couple seeking to avoid pregnancy at the present time is to abstain during fertile times ( or more if they can’t identify fertile times).

I’m not sure how the notion of default is all that useful.

I note in passing that a requirement to remain ignorant of one’s fertility, or to be uninfluenced by awareness of it, is an odd requirement (which harks back to my previous noted difficulty with the requirement for “just reasons”).

If I’ve read this thread right, am I right in thinking the church doesn’t actually state what it considers “just reasons”? Thereby leaving it open somewhat to interpretation depending in the person.

 

[Rau]

If I’ve read this thread right, am I right in thinking the church doesn’t actually state what it considers “just reasons”? Thereby leaving it open somewhat to interpretation depending in the person.

Correct.

 

[momoffamily]

The Church does not care if you track cycles or not.

It is not a sin to chart for the duration of your reproductive years (as some may do, although I doubt very few-let’s be realistic).

When it says it is licit to take advantage of infertile times only, it refers to a decision of spacing - not of tracking cycles. These methods were not even developed in the older documents which mention them (including the Bible).

I can see why some would feel too analytical by charting daily and abandon the practice.

On the same hand, some may be overly anxious and be unnecessarily abstinent. These may benefit from going together to a qualified instructor, re-evaluating, and finding some usable days. If none can be found, the couple may continue with complete abstinence until the situation changes.

Each couple makes decisions accordingly.

Being open to the Holy Spirit means you are willing to pray about it together without turning to ABC.

In the end, without ABC, you can truly say God planned your unique family.

 

[momoffamily]

And yes, God planned those babies born with the use of ABC. I think ABC users always wonder if there were more God wanted to gift them with.

 

[momoffamily]

The sacrament of reconciliation can restore the relationship with the Lord - of course!

 

[Xantippe]

Rau said:

“I suggest the word “default” may not be well defined unless it is given a context…”

Yes.

“The default behaviour toward sex for married couples with a neutral stance towards children is to have sex as and when desired. The default behaviour for a married couple seeking to avoid pregnancy at the present time is to abstain during fertile times ( or more if they can’t identify fertile times). I’m not sure how the notion of default is all that useful. I note in passing that a requirement to remain ignorant of one’s fertility, or to be uninfluenced by awareness of it, is an odd requirement (which harks back to my previous noted difficulty with the requirement for “just reasons”).”

Precisely.

One of my objections to the “default” language is that it’s not in fact the default that couples are 24/7/365 having sex. In actual practice for normal people (especially normal people who aren’t newlyweds), while very important, sexual activity occupies a tiny sliver of the week or month.

Also, the providentialist argument comes very close to being analogous to saying, “I am going to have chocolate cake whenever the spirit moves me, and I will trust in God not to make me fat.” It really isn’t fair to “blame” God when we are the ones deciding where and when and how much to shovel down the chocolate cake. (And yes, the analogy is fair, because some eating is absolutely necessary to the health of the body.)

 

[lovemysix]

“And yes, God planned those babies born with the use of ABC. I think ABC users always wonder if there were more God wanted to gift them with”

I think it is likely a lot of people, whether NFP or ABC users, sometimes wonder and imagine what it would have been like if they had had more children, particularly if they were ambivalent about the number of children they did have.

But “always” is a pretty sweeping statement. I can honestly say that I have never wondered that. When your body is falling apart to the point of very dangerous medications and hospitalizations, and especially when God has already been extremely generous with you to the point of 10 pregnancies in a decade, the thought is probably less likely to cross your mind.

In my mid-40s now, we do sometimes talk about what it would be like if we had a surprise baby. (We’d welcome the baby with excitement and love, of course, in case anybody was wondering) But I can truthfully say I have never wondered if there were more God wanted to gift us with. If there had been, they would be here.

I would suspect many ABCers feel this way (as do probably many NFPers as well), especially those who already have many children.

 

[maryjk]

“And yes, God planned those babies born with the use of ABC. I think ABC users always wonder if there were more God wanted to gift them with”

I think it is likely a lot of people, whether NFP or ABC users, sometimes wonder and imagine what it would have been like if they had had more children, particularly if they were ambivalent about the number of children they did have.

But “always” is a pretty sweeping statement. I can honestly say that I have never wondered that. When your body is falling apart to the point of very dangerous medications and hospitalizations, and especially when God has already been extremely generous with you to the point of 10 pregnancies in a decade, the thought is probably less likely to cross your mind.

In my mid-40s now, we do sometimes talk about what it would be like if we had a surprise baby. (We’d welcome the baby with excitement and love, of course, in case anybody was wondering) But I can truthfully say I have never wondered if there were more God wanted to gift us with. If there had been, they would be here.

I would suspect many ABCers feel this way (as do probably many NFPers as well), especially those who already have many children.

I’ve never wondered. I have used ABC or NFP, to avoid, most of my married life. The only time I didn’t was when I was pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

I have an only child.

And no, I don’t wonder if God wanted to give me more children. I guess I figure He knows about medical problems. In fact, He is one of the few people that I don’t have to explain what would happen if I got pregnant.

 

[momoffamily]

I agree I think always was too “sweeping”. I apologize for that word - to much of a hurry!

 

[7armyrugrats]

Ok, I got a little more time to type now, so I’ll explain why we are not going back to NFP.

Over the years there were lots of little things that kept nibbling at my soul. Everything from visits to my husband’s hometown and seeing how married life is there, listening to sermons at Mass, multiple moves to new areas where you can hear difference priests and bishops, prayer, personal experiences, etc. Soon after I had #6 I told my husband I was done–no more kids for me. I went to see one of the priests on post and asked him if, since we are completely done, what options do we have in terms of birth control. NFP was’nt working and we just were done. The priest giggled and asked me, “Do you put limits on all of God’s blessings, or just THIS one?” i explained a little more and he just continued to smile, so I did what any good Catholic would do…I found another priest that would agree with me. We bought a monitor to help out with NFP, my husband deployed again, and I decided that I would look into ABC. Surely there was a way we qualified because NFP was not working. I found documents from Popes, bishops, priest and all said the same thing. Contraception was intrinsically evil but NFP was allowed in serious circumstances. My husband got home from his year away and three months later we are expect #7. I continued to research and went to the website of our former diocese. This is the statement they have about NFP:

While NFP and contraception are both used to avoid conception, they have fundamental differences. When contraception obstructs a woman’s cycle or the act of intercourse, it intentionally uses a natural biological process in an unnatural way. This means that by impeding the woman’s natural cycle and the natural end of the sexual act, a couple acts against the way in which God created human beings. It is important to note that fertility is not an illness that must be treated. A couple using NFP to interpret the signs of a woman’s cycle works in harmony with natural biological processes and simply abstain from intercourse during fertile periods and engage in intercourse during infertile times in order to avoid pregnancy. *Although contraception is always sinful, methods of NFP can be used in sinful ways. When a couple uses NFP to avoid conception without a serious reason to avoid children, they do so with a contraceptive mentality. This is an improper use of the science of NFP. (This is STILL on the scdiocese website if you want to check it out)

I reread those last three sentences repeatedly. One more thing to nibble at me. About five months into my pregnancy we went to a wedding. When the priest asked the couple, “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” I started crying. It finally hit me like a ton of bricks. I had never lovingly accepted a child at all. I had always either tried to achieve or tried to avoid. Not once had I just accepted that maybe God knew best. I spent the next two weeks praying. I realized that everytime I tried to say another little one would break us, it didn’t. Everytime I thought things would be impossible, they weren’t. My husband never understood NFP anyway because of how he grew up, so it was a relief to him when I told him I never wanted to go back to it. We ended up naming #7 after that good priest that laughed at me in the confessional. When I got sick we thought about going back to NFP. The anxiety was horrible both because I was scared it would fail and because of how much my marriage had improved without it. My husband could tell what was wrong. He told me, “I don’t need sex, I need you.” we made it through that illness and two more deployments. We aren’t going back to NFP now because there is no serious reason to avoid. We had #8 last year and would love to have more, but if they don’t come that is perfectly fine as well. It isn’t feeling neutral, it is feeling blessed either way.

I don’t expect anyone to live like we do. I am just tired of people assuming that those of us that allow God to work through us are irresponsible. I get more flack from people that promote NFP in our parish than those who don’t. Just as the NFP couples feel a need to voice the evils of ABC, sometimes it’s important for them to reexamine their motives as well. There are bishops that believe that NFP can be used sinfully. Popes have stated it should be used for serious reasons. It is not a requirement to learn NFP. If no reasons exist it should be abandoned. If reasons do exist, it can be used as an alternative to total abstinence.

If you all don’t mind, say a prayer for my family. March 10 is moving day. My husband comes in from the field tonight to start his leave. I hate moving but this move is particularly difficult for personal reasons. Thank you