Angry about NFP

[etmom]

This is good, so thank you.

We are told - no matter the impact on a marriage, no matter how *grave that *gets, that to do anything other than be ready to have a baby, wheher you can afford one or medically even have one, no matter what - then don’t be intimate with your God-given spouse. So, yes, indeed, church teachings cause problems. So, yes, couples are literally forced to decide - because of where *they *are in the marriage and relationship, no matter what anyone else here thinks or believes - whether to not be sexually intimate in any way with their spouse or watch their marriage suffer. Do you really think that is what the church intends? I do because it is the rules it has laid out. But I don’t believe or think for a minute that is what God intends, not at all.

The church DOES NOT teach this at all. That you must be ready, willing and able to have a baby or you can’t be intimate at all, ever. We have life threatening reasons to avoid pregnancy. We use extremely conservative NFP, and we still enjoy intimacy. It is an important part of our marriage. We are not required to NEVER be intimate if we cannot have another child. It may not always be exactly when we desire it, we might have to postpone our desires for the good our our family or health. There are many good things in life that require sacrifice.

 

[searching04]

Why do you think that? I keep reading that some folks have a problem with Church teaching, but isn’t it God’s plan? It is basic biology after all, isn’t it? Birth control takes a perfectly functioning, perfectly healthy body and messes up the way it is supposed to function. Do you think that is part of God’s plan? If so, why did He make our bodies the way He did?

What is God’s plan? How the body functions? Guess it is the definition - plan vs function.

I don’t believe for a minute that God wants couples to suffer in their marriage. All because they may not be able to have a child or be ready for one or cannot afford one or medically be able to deliver one, etc, and at some point they may or may not have intercourse or non-intercourse sex out of love, for the sake of intimacy, and the man orgasms somehow other than intercourse. No one should be told they have to decide between their marriage suffering and burning in hell, but we are. We are not allowed as couples to make any decision concerning sex and babies. Don’t tell me “the church doesn’t tell you when you and cannot have sex”. Yes, it does, by the rules it has laid out.

Yes, having sex = having a baby is biology. Yep, that part is God’s plan. He made our bodies the way He did so couples can have babies, or not. He also gave us a a brain and heart to decide and understand whether we can or cannot, or are or are not, ready and able to take care of and provide for a baby, or babies.

I do not believe God would give us a spouse we are supposed to love, and then say, “Oh, by the way, I also made it so you cannot have kids, so no being sexually intimate with your spouse who I gave you.”

I do not believe that God wants couples to suffer through the radical extreme, having to decide on intimacy or be terrified of sinning.

I believe God gave us our hearts and heads to decide and pray and determine within our marriage as husband and wife, with our God-given spouse, whether it is intercourse to have a baby or NFP to maybe have or not have a baby, or maybe non-intercourse sex if need be to maintain intimacy over long-term abstinence.

Should Catholic couples strive for intercourse and having children as the ultimate goal, as agape love is the ultimate goal? Yes. Should couples be able to decide whether they should have intercourse or not, and use some other method or type of sex at times? Yes. Do I believe couples should abuse sex and avoid intercourse all the times? No. Do I believe that non-intercourse sex is abusing one’s spouse or is selfish? Not in the least.

 

[searching04]

The church DOES NOT teach this at all. That you must be ready, willing and able to have a baby or you can’t be intimate at all, ever. We have life threatening reasons to avoid pregnancy. We use extremely conservative NFP, and we still enjoy intimacy. It is an important part of our marriage. We are not required to NEVER be intimate if we cannot have another child. It may not always be exactly when we desire it, we might have to postpone our desires for the good our our family or health. There are many good things in life that require sacrifice.

That is where you are in your marraige and life. But yes, the church absolutely does teach that. It is either have sex and be ready, willing, and able to care for a baby, or don’t have sex. Conservative NFP does not change that in the least because you may still have a baby. Only ways to not have a baby are either no sexual intimacy or a form of ABC, both of which we are told are sins (if withholding sex).

Truly amazing you are where you are in your faith with the conditions you live with, it really is. However, not everyone is there or can be there.

“Many good things in life that require sacrifice”? Couples are required to sacrfice their relationship with their spouse? We use very conservative NFP as well, and combined with church teachings, it has hurt our intimacy and our marriage. Please spare me the “it must be something else” lines. We do not live the same lives. Please read the article I posted if you have not.

 

[etmom]

That is where you are in your marraige and life. But yes, the church absolutely does teach that. It is either have sex and be ready, willing, and able to care for a baby, or don’t have sex. Conservative NFP does not change that in the least because you may still have a baby. Only ways to not have a baby are either no sexual intimacy or a form of ABC, both of which we are told are sins (if withholding sex).

Truly amazing you are where you are in your faith with the conditions you live with, it really is. However, not everyone is there or can be there.

“Many good things in life that require sacrifice”? Couples are required to sacrfice their relationship with their spouse? We use very conservative NFP as well, and combined with church teachings, it has hurt our intimacy and our marriage. Please spare me the “it must be something else” lines. We do not live the same lives. Please read the article I posted if you have not.

You must be ready to accept a child if you use ABC too. It, like NFP, can fail. So how is that different??? Anyone who is sexually active must be prepared to accept that sex=babies. With very conservative NFP, with motivated, well trained users, that is unlikely to happen. But it could. So can The Pill fail to prevent ovulation, a condom break or other birth control fail.

I have not sacrificed my relationship with my spouse, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we started down this path, thinking it was impossible and hopeless, with more than a touch of despair. What we got was entirely opposite. Not without struggle and some failure.

Nobody here lives the same lives. We all journey a different path, have different crosses. Some of your statements are sweeping, as if they apply to all, that the church expects all to chose between an unwise or dangerous pregnancy and total marriage anihilation. Your experience is not mine either. I’m not in any way saying it is easy. It is not, and I know from first hand experience.

 

[searching04]

You must be ready to accept a child if you use ABC too. It, like NFP, can fail. So how is that different??? Anyone who is sexually active must be prepared to accept that sex=babies. With very conservative NFP, with motivated, well trained users, that is unlikely to happen. But it could. So can The Pill fail to prevent ovulation, a condom break or other birth control fail.

Well, no, because we engaged in non-intercourse sexual intimacy; we didn’t like condoms or the effects of the pill on my wife. This type of activity isn’t allowed either, but it is most definitely 100% effective.

I have not sacrificed my relationship with my spouse, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we started down this path, thinking it was impossible and hopeless, with more than a touch of despair. What we got was entirely opposite. Not without struggle and some failure.

Sincerely happy that has not happened to you all.

Nobody here lives the same lives. We all journey a different path, have different crosses. Some of your statements are sweeping, as if they apply to all, that the church expects all to chose between an unwise or dangerous pregnancy and total marriage anihilation. Your experience is not mine either. I’m not in any way saying it is easy. It is not, and I know from first hand experience.

The sweeping statements apply to many. While a pregnancy may not be unwise or dangerous, we do indeed have to choose between having a baby or no sexual intimacy, NFP or not. As for marriage annihilation, that depends on each couple. So true about experiences.

 

[Mayita30]

I AGREE WITH YOU. finally someone else who see show irrational the church’s view is on birth control.
im a catholic male, and i think a husband and wife should be able to do whatever they like in the bedroom (i.e, contraception and contraceptive sex)
trust me lol, NFP is no fun for men either, we have to wait until the women has her infertile cycles so that ruins a lot of romantic occasions.
there is just no strong argument against contraception.
HOWEVER, as much as i hate to say this, we have to obey church, regardless of how illogical or irratonal it is. we must pray for change in the church! regrdless of wether the pro-contraception catholics or the anti- contraception catholics are right, we cannot go wrong with prayer.
but i wholeheartedly believe that the church teaching will at least soften if not change altogether.

A husband who puts his needs over his wife is a selfish man. A woman is fertile for only 5 to 7 days in a month. Is it too much to wait and respect your wife’s body clock and have relations only during infertile days when pregnancy cannot occur. By using contraception you will not be respecting your wife’s body rather you are treating and using her body as an object to satisfy your own selfish pleasure.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

A husband who puts his needs over his wife is a selfish man. A woman is fertile for only 5 to 7 days in a month. Is it too much to wait and respect your wife’s body clock and have relations only during infertile days when pregnancy cannot occur. By using contraception you will not be respecting your wife’s body rather you are treating and using her body as an object to satisfy your own selfish pleasure.

That post seems to have been removed, or did I miss it somewhere?



Glad if it’s been removed.

 

[etmom]

A husband who puts his needs over his wife is a selfish man. A woman is fertile for only 5 to 7 days in a month. ./QUOTE

A woman may only be fertile for 5-7 days a month. But the typical abstaining period is 14-21 days or even more for long or annovulatory cycles. It can be months for some circumstances ( annovulatory cycles, premenopause, etc. ). A couple must abstain during any time that fertile signs are present. It would be easy to abstain for 5-7 days.

 

[armywife]

Hey, there, armywife -

Thanks for your service!

Think the difference here is that you are choosing to have 7 kids while your husband is still deploying. Right, wrong, by choice to have sex or not, the OP does not want - more so, cannot handle - more children at this time.

The problem, and it is very real, is that the church says if you withhold sex, you sin; if you don’t use NFP, you sin; supposedly, if you use NFP with a “contraceptive mindset”, you sin; if you use any type of ABC (condoms,pills, other sex), you sin. So the only options left are not to be physically, sexually intimate with your spouse or go ahead and have kids you cannot take care of. Which is the greater sin? What impact do you think either of those have on a marriage? And being told by most posters here to suck it up, or that it is not real, or that there is no way whatsoever it is the “fault” of church teachings on sex and NFP , or the myriad other things posted, does no good and does not help the OP.

Yes we made a choice, not to have seven children, but to be obedient. St. Faustina said obedience saved her life. She was being tormented by evil spirits and severe pain that had no visual effects (think fibromyalgia on steroids). Her mother superior didn’t believe her and one day, when Faustina was on the floor in pain, came into her cell and said, “knock it off and get up!” So she did. My husband and I have decided to be obedient. That doesn’t mean it’s not hard and we fully understand Church teaching, or we just arrived at this point because we’re such holy people. We went through many years of pain that maybe the OP or you are feeling. Heck, maybe that’s why my DH kept getting deployed, just to get away

We joke all the time that we wish we would be one of those couples who had a vasectomy before “we knew better”. Then we could just go to confession and everything’s good.

And as you’ve asked others, yes, we have both thought about what it would be like without all the kids. We have friends (who are catholic) who have no children by their own choice. I see pictures of her dinner parties with silver fondu pots and china with champagne and WISH I could have just ONE meal in my house like that, but then we come back to real life… once the kids are here, who are you going to give up or wish away. Obedience.

I still contend the OP made choices that are affecting her in a way she doesn’t like and now she’s mad. Fine, be mad, but not at God or Church teaching. She could have said, I want to finish college and given the baby up for adoption, not married the guy and lived her life another way. That would not be selfish, it would be honest.

I also still contend that if ABC wasn’t so common and there were more families with small kids close together many moms and dads wouldn’t feel so socially isolated.

 

[Mayita30]

Mayita30;9229973:

A husband who puts his needs over his wife is a selfish man. A woman is fertile for only 5 to 7 days in a month. .

A woman is fertile only 5 to 7 days. Who told you that the you have to abstain 14 to 21 days? I suggest you really look and read about NFP and study your body. I also recommend a ob/gyn who is pro-life. There is really no advantage in using contraceptives. It jus makes women as objects for lust and not love

 

[Mayita30]

Mayita30;9229973:

A husband who puts his needs over his wife is a selfish man. A woman is fertile for only 5 to 7 days in a month. .

If you have an irregular menstrual cycle or if your period does not appear at all, you should see a ob/gyn to have yourself checked and have a regular menstrual cycle.

If you don´t have your period, that means you are not ovulating.

 

[etmom]

etmom;9230105:

A woman is fertile only 5 to 7 days. Who told you that the you have to abstain 14 to 21 days? I suggest you really look and read about NFP and study your body. I also recommend a ob/gyn who is pro-life. There is really no advantage in using contraceptives. It jus makes women as objects for lust and not love

Who said I use contraceptives??? Certainly not me. I’m a very experienced user of NFP. I have regular cycles. Due to life threatening reasons, we have been advised to use post ovulatory days only. THat results in about 20, 21 days of abstainance per month. There is no way humanly possible to have it be 5-7 days.

Yes, a woman is only fertile for 5-7 days ON AVERAGE, but even if you are using phase I days, you must abstain from the first fertile sign. That can preceed ovulation by more than a week, or even longer if your body gears up to ovulate, doesn’t, and then gears up again. When you use NFP, it calls for abstaining for ANY signs of fertility, until a confirmed sympto thermal shift. For most women I know who use NFP, that is NOT 5-7 days. Heck, my last pregnancy I conceived 6 days prior to ovulation, and that wouldn’t even take into account the days AFTER the sympto thermal shift. Obviously my last “safe” day if I had intended to avoid would have been 7 days prior to ovulation. Then add P+3 and you are at a minimum of 10 days, but if the last temp wasn’t above the HTL, then an additional day would need to be added, which would then make it 11 days. Not 5-7.

 

[robwar]

If I read the OP right, she became pregnant at 19 and was not married. It seems if church teaching on no sex before married was followed, one would not be having a baby at 19 and dropping out of college to get married. The whole thing is very sad and yet people want to blame the church for some of the choices they have made. Although it is way too late now, there would have been nothing wrong in choosing adoption for the baby and then continuing in college to finish a degree. The blame is not on NFP. There are many methods and help and is 100% healthier for all involved, especially the woman. Marriages that do use NFP are stronger and happier. This marriage did not start out well, there was already premarital sex, a quick wedding between to young people, dropping out of college and another baby in the mix.
Premarital sex is another way people undercut and set themselves up for disaster later. But I feel more sorry the young babies here than anything.

 

[etmom]

etmom;9230105:

If you have an irregular menstrual cycle or if your period does not appear at all, you should see a ob/gyn to have yourself checked and have a regular menstrual cycle.

If you don´t have your period, that means you are not ovulating.

I don’t know where you are getting this - I do NOT have an irregular cycle. I have regular periods. I have charted for over 20 years. What, exactly, even if I was entering premenopause, where cycles become irratic and longer, occasionally even annovulatory, would a pro life OB/GYN do for a woman? Turn back the biological clock? That is a natural part of aging. I have friends who are in this transition and it’s a difficult time to use NFP with prolonged abstainance. You are suggesting a physician would be able to give them regular cycles? How about a woman who has PCOS? That can make cycles rather irregular, and is not always responsive to treatment. Postpartum? Nursing? Medications that have an effect on a woman’s cycle? I’m not suggesting, nor would I use anything else. I’m just saying, a blanket answer that it involves 5-7 days of abstainance is misleading.

 

[JNdoum]

That is where you are in your marraige and life. But yes, the church absolutely does teach that. It is either have sex and be ready, willing, and able to care for a baby, or don’t have sex. Conservative NFP does not change that in the least because you may still have a baby. Only ways to not have a baby are either no sexual intimacy or a form of ABC, both of which we are told are sins (if withholding sex).

Truly amazing you are where you are in your faith with the conditions you live with, it really is. However, not everyone is there or can be there.

“Many good things in life that require sacrifice”? Couples are required to sacrfice their relationship with their spouse? We use very conservative NFP as well, and combined with church teachings, it has hurt our intimacy and our marriage. Please spare me the “it must be something else” lines. We do not live the same lives. Please read the article I posted if you have not.

How exactly does it sacrifice a relationship to not have sex? I am utterly confused, because it seems such a crucial element of every couple’s life. I know what it is like to be around a woman (a girl really, but I’ll just say woman) and be in a completely fulfilling relationship with her, to be insanely happy around her, to be dedicated to her, with no sex at all, not even the thought of it. It’s called friendship. True, it could even be a childish crush. But the fact is, one can be close to someone in a very special way with no sexual acts at all. I suppose I see it as, if your entire relationship is somehow based on or around this one act, it can’t be very stable. It’d be sort of like liking a friend only for their money; it may work for awhile, but in the end it’ll fall apart.

Many couples are happy without any sex. Older couples or couples for whom it would be dangerous (due to a heart condition or something) or painful for one or more members of the marriage to have sex simply do without it. Some couples choose to live in a chaste marriage, after the model of the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph. I can’t understand how sex must be so fundamentally crucial.

I’m not saying to never have sex ever, because it truly is an act of intimacy which is open to you two, and you can partake in as you think is good for you. But it isn’t like bread and water, it’s cake and brandy - nice in it’s way, but not necessary for the life of your relationship.

I also was curious, where did you find the teachings which said that sex must be made for child-making only? Litterally all my views on sex came directly from the Church, because they just make sense to me. But I have never seen anything like that, and I studied (and still study) my faith extensively since I converted.

It is true, children are emphasized because they are the obvious and natural gifts of having sex. In fact, Pope Pius VI stated that despite the fact that contraception is wrong, he was not denying the importance of family planning and planned parenthood. In his encyclical Humanae Vitae he said that a contraceptive act is had in any act of coition which is intended precisely to act against the procreative good, to prevent it from being realized. “Every act that intends to impede procreation must be repudiated … whether it is done in anticipation of marital intercourse, or during it, or while it is having its natural consequences.” Basically, it’s bad to choose to have intercourse, which is known to be essentially related to the procreation of human life, and just becaue one doesn’t want to allow life to blossom, to perform a “contraceptive act.” It’s wrong because it’s against the great human good of procreation, to treat it as if having children were an evil action, not a good one.

However, contraception or contraceptive intercourse is not identical in meaning to birth control or family planning. There are other ways to avoid birth than by contraceptive intercourse, by good means (NFP) or bad means (abortion). The issue with contraceptive intercourse is that it is aimed directly at stopping the life of a potential human being. It is a rejection of the “life-giving meaning of intercourse”, and “the wrongness of such an act lies in the rejection of this value … Procreative good is of its nature always a good, but this doesn’t mean that in every case it’s wise or right to promote the procreative good … real good can be intermingled with serious evils and harms.” the authors of this quote (Rev. Ronald Lawler, O.F.M. Cap. Joseph Boyle, Jr. and William E. May in their book Catholic Sexual Ethics) explain that while a greater good may come of using questionable means, that does not in any way validate the means (contraception) or make them good. Besides this, advocacy of contraception often leads to advocacy of abortion.

Of course, there is your objection that the Church, by its teaching, shows marriage to be solely about having children. But the fact is that if life is a basic good, we should never act directly against the unitive good of marriage, in the sense that, like other finite goods, it imposes an absoloute obligation. In short, procreation is a basic human good, and while ulterior purposes can be had for procreation and having children, these reasons do not exhaust their reasons for having children.

As for your statements on sex without intercourse, it seems to me to either be or be on the verge of masturbation. Could you please explain this so that it is clearly shown not to be so (without being overtly vulgar), or else explain why you believe it not to apply in your specific case? Thank you.

 

[JNdoum]

A husband who puts his needs over his wife is a selfish man. A woman is fertile for only 5 to 7 days in a month. Is it too much to wait and respect your wife’s body clock and have relations only during infertile days when pregnancy cannot occur. By using contraception you will not be respecting your wife’s body rather you are treating and using her body as an object to satisfy your own selfish pleasure.

Despite any issues with your comment (based on what etmom said) I do apprechiate your statement about contraception not being respecting a woman’s body. I believe that society often portrays emphasizing one’s physical beauty and having sex early often somehow empowers women, when it really turns them into little more than sex objects for what often turn out to be selfish men. In many ways, it produces selfish and unreliable men. I sometimes wish society could truly empower women, by allowing them to see the worth of themselves, not their bodies, and to see that a woman has other functions than simply a man’s pleasure and rearing babies. Sometimes, I think even grown women should just say “no.” On the other hand, militant feminism is almost always a negative, as it can lead to further self-depreciation of women as “oppressed creatures” (one is never more oppressed as when one portrays and thinks of oneself as oppressed), and quite often leads to misanthropy, which is no better than mysogeny.

 

[jonnlaureng]

Thank you to the women and mothers who responded so encouragingly to my post (and actually understood what I was saying and asking for). It is nice to not feel so alone anymore in my situation. I am going to look at all the resources and materials that were sent my way. Thank you all so much!

I would like to address ‘The Bucket.’ For as devout of a Catholic as you like to make yourself out to be, the condescending, disrespectful, and judgmental tone with which you wrote was the most un-Christlike thing that I have ever read. Did He not dine with tax collectors and prostitutes? Every word He ever spoke was out of love, something I most definitely did not receive from your posts.

I did not come on this forum to hear you swap the trials and tribulations of your life story and compare it to mine. Everyone has crosses to bear in life; some worse than others, but nothing that Christ knows we cannot handle. Telling me how much you sacrifice in your life is not contributing towards the advice I am seeking. I also do not appreciate your questioning of my beliefs. I do not ‘pick and choose’ the parts that I like to follow, as you implied. I did not say I am using contraceptives. I merely stated I am angry at the Church’s teachings. I follow them, but I have a hard time accepting them.

For the others I have read who were just as, if not more, hurtful, go pick apart someone else’s life! You people are the most un-Christlike I have ever found! Yes, I had premarital sex. That does not mean I am a slut who slept around during college. You do not know me, and you do not know the story or circumstances, so shut up. Christ is the shepherd that goes after the lost sheep. I was a lost sheep for a time, but He found me and brought me back. Do not imply that I don’t ‘have my big girl pants on’ or that I am trying to blame the Church for the choice I made. You people only read what you want to read. My post had nothing to do with that and everything to do with how do I get on the journey to accepting NFP as a part of my marriage.

I’d like for you 'Holier-Than-Thou’s to remember the woman at the wall who was about to be stoned. What was it that Christ said? “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Who is she believed to be? A saint. Saint Mary Magdalene. So please, pull the 2x4 out of your eye before you pull the splinter out of mine.

 

[jonnlaureng]

Sometimes I can’t stand these forums. Their have been some wonderful posts here but some of the posts hit below the belt. The OP is upset and is seeking help. She said she was angry and didn’t want to be. Getting anrgy back at her shows a lack of empathy. Berating the OP and pointing out things like you shouldn’t of had sex out of marriage is unhelpful and smug. If you can’t respond with charity to someone who is upset and asking for help than why are you responding? What is your intention?

Thank you, so much. I already have a hard time processing my feelings towards sex and NFP and reading these hateful posts has just added more fuel to the fire.

 

[c0ldb33r]

so what exactly were you expecting to get from your post?

 

[Mayita30]

Mayita30;9230372:

I don’t know where you are getting this - I do NOT have an irregular cycle. I have regular periods. I have charted for over 20 years. What, exactly, even if I was entering premenopause, where cycles become irratic and longer, occasionally even annovulatory, would a pro life OB/GYN do for a woman? Turn back the biological clock? That is a natural part of aging. I have friends who are in this transition and it’s a difficult time to use NFP with prolonged abstainance. You are suggesting a physician would be able to give them regular cycles? How about a woman who has PCOS? That can make cycles rather irregular, and is not always responsive to treatment. Postpartum? Nursing? Medications that have an effect on a woman’s cycle? I’m not suggesting, nor would I use anything else. I’m just saying, a blanket answer that it involves 5-7 days of abstainance is misleading.

I am sorry if I have misunderstood your post however , if a woman is in the menopause stage, I don´t think she is still able to conceive or could she? I am not an expert maybe you can share more information. I am just very vocal agaisnt contraception because this thing has not helped women at all. How could it? It will just make a man more selfish and think of his needs more than that of his wife. That´s just my point.