Another Birth Control Question

[white_sheep]

Please clarify.

The Church has specified the conditions under which abstinence may be used to try to avoid pregnancy. It says a grave reason is needed, and for many this decision should probably be discussed with your priest. Such reasons include financial and emotional reasons, child spacing. But what is never stated is that you can simply try to avoid ever having children at all for no good reason. I’m not saying that you don’t have your reasons, just that they need to be evaluated appropriately. Using NFP to try to avoid indefinitely is rarely ever seen as permissible unless there is a known medical concern. We’re too old is not a valid reason.

 

[Rence]

The Church has specified the conditions under which abstinence may be used to try to avoid pregnancy. It says a grave reason is needed, and for many this decision should probably be discussed with your priest. Such reasons include financial and emotional reasons, child spacing. But what is never stated is that you can simply try to avoid ever having children at all for no good reason. I’m not saying that you don’t have your reasons, just that they need to be evaluated appropriately. Using NFP to try to avoid indefinitely is rarely ever seen as permissible unless there is a known medical concern. We’re too old is not a valid reason.

Yes it is. Carrying and giving birth to a child, and a first child at that, is not always safe for a woman in her 50s. In fact, it’s pretty risky. After the OP’s wife consults her doctor, the OP and his wife would be wise to consult his priest about this, or a counselor from the diocese. The health of the mother is one of those grave reasons to avoid. A woman is not a horse. Heck, we treat our animals better. Only the OP and his wife would know if she was given a clean bill of health to have a child. And if not given a clean bill of health to do so, they sure do have reasons to use NFP.

 

[RichP]

Sure they can.

But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. - Matt. 19:26

For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 1:37

And there are dozens of similar references, but you get the idea.

You are jumping out of logic completely. I am not going there. We’ll end up discussing things like if God can create a rock he cannot possibly lift.

So then how much sin can I get away with and still go to Heaven? [Insert Tongue-in-Cheek emoticon here]

Well… Eternity is a LONG time. Whatever you are thinking, it had better be worth it…

Ideally, I’d God to be in my life when I need Him and to stay out of my life when I don’t.

What are you going to do after your brief stay here on earth? Either we are going to be with God forever or we won’t… Either we want to be with God forever or we don’t… There will be no opportunity to choose because we are supposed to be doing that now.

And you’re telling me that an unexpected newborn baby when a couple is inching towards their twilight years is really a good idea?

Definitely! I have had personal experience with this (although not as a parent). PM me if you would like any details.

That’s not what I’m talking about. I mean carefree sex BETWEEN THEMSELVES! In a earlier post, I said that Adultery is wrong.

I know you said that Adultery is wrong but there are other ways besides Adultery to avoid chastity…

As I understand it, NFP relies heavily on timing; timing your sexual relations to that period in the woman’s monthly cycle when conception is least likely to occur. But isn’t that really the same as ABC? Deliberately trying to thwart conception? I really don’t see the difference between NFP and ABC. Neither is 100% effective and the expected results (or lack of results) are the same.

There are a huge number of differences between NFP and ABC.

• From a philosophical point of view, couples who practice NFP are open to life and are saying “yes” to God’s plan for them. Couples who use ABC are closed to life and are saying “no” to God’s plan for them.
• From a physical point of view, not everyone can use all methods of ABC. Some methods are destructive to the person and some are VERY destructive to the person. Some have unknown long-term effects. NFP cannot be destructive by its very nature. There are no long term physical side effects using NFP.
• From an intimacy point of view, NFP by its nature dramatically increases couples’ intimacy. ABC is destructive to intimacy
• From a relationship point of view, BOTH spouses are continually full participants and share totally in the NFP process. ABC is generally used by only one spouse. The burden of ABC is not shared equally.
• Finally, NFP is freedom from the medical industry. ABC is slavery to the medical industry. The quality of ABC is highly dependent on its design, manufacture, and quality control testing. You can put your trust in the medical industry or with God…

Maybe my wife and I have never tried NFP, but I sometimes wonder if NFP proponents have every actually tried sex.

Umm… Wrong…

You can’t schedule sex like you schedule a doctor’s appointment. For one thing, NFP assumes that both parties will be in the mood for sex during that short window of opportunity

“short window” is factually wrong. Please educate yourself about NFP before mis-stating the facts.

and that won’t always be the case. The “moment” will not always be right. The notion of spontaneity is thrown right out the window. What is supposed to be the ultimate expression between an husband and a wife is reduced to being just another household chore that needs to be fit into their harried and hectic lives.

Let’s see now. Wash the dishes, do the laundry, take the dog out, have sex, empty the trash, get the oil changed in the car, schedule my next therapist appointment…

This is one of the most common arguments against NFP. You make it sound like that if one cannot indulge themselves when that “magic moment” of spontaneous care-free sex occurs, then they’ve missed the golden opportunity that won’t happen again for another 50 years… We both know that’s not true.

Just because one might be “in the mood” at the wrong time, that does NOT mean that the spouses have to turn away from each other. There are many ways for couples to satisfy “the mood” without “carefree” sex but you probably already know that…

Peace,

 

[Lost_Sheep]

You are jumping out of logic completely. I am not going there. We’ll end up discussing things like if God can create a rock he cannot possibly lift.
Well… Eternity is a LONG time. Whatever you are thinking, it had better be worth it…

If I may go off on a tangent for a moment, I’d say God CAN create a rock he cannot possibly lift. How? I have no idea; it would be beyond the capabilities of our human minds to understand.

But if you accept the premise that with God all things are possible, then yes he could create such a rock; we don’t know how but that’s what faith is all about, right.

Now, back to the thread…

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The Church has specified the conditions under which abstinence may be used to try to avoid pregnancy. It says a grave reason is needed, and for many this decision should probably be discussed with your priest. Such reasons include financial and emotional reasons, child spacing. But what is never stated is that you can simply try to avoid ever having children at all for no good reason. I’m not saying that you don’t have your reasons, just that they need to be evaluated appropriately. Using NFP to try to avoid indefinitely is rarely ever seen as permissible unless there is a known medical concern. We’re too old is not a valid reason.

I can say with a clear conscience that when we entered into our marriage, we fully intended to start a family and therefore our marriage was/is valid. But children just didn’t happen.

 

[white_sheep]

Yes it is. Carrying and giving birth to a child, and a first child at that, is not always safe for a woman in her 50s. In fact, it’s pretty risky. After the OP’s wife consults her doctor, the OP and his wife would be wise to consult his priest about this, or a counselor from the diocese. The health of the mother is one of those grave reasons to avoid. A woman is not a horse. Heck, we treat our animals better. Only the OP and his wife would know if she was given a clean bill of health to have a child. And if not given a clean bill of health to do so, they sure do have reasons to use NFP.

No, it is not a valid reason at all. What you are saying is that if someone has maybe 2 or 3 times the likelihood of experiencing complications during pregnancy, most notably gestational diabetes or fetal problems such as low birth weight, then they are allowed to use NFP to TTA indefinitely. This is nowhere to be found in Church teaching. How do we determine what is an acceptable level of risk? It seems we are using the frequency of complications for the average woman under age 35 in America. Congratulations, more than half of the world’s population may now use NFP to TTA indefinitely because they have a higher rate of complications during pregnancy than the selected group. Also, all those women from yesteryear when these teachings were made known were erroneously informed that this was not a valid justification.

This just seems like a stark misappropriation of the term “just cause”. Maybe there is one, I just haven’t seen any evidence of that. My only intention is to relay the information that being a certain age is nowhere mentioned in any Church document pertaining to NFP. When the Church refers to such things as economic, social, physical, psychological, and eugenic reasons, and the need for those to be a “just cause” it doesn’t mean slight problems or extrapolations from data charts which say that you may be in a higher risk category. It needs to be fairly certain and fairly serious. Of course it is all subjective, if we were talking about 6 months then that’s one thing, but indefinitely is quite another.

 

[white_sheep]

I can say with a clear conscience that when we entered into our marriage, we fully intended to start a family and therefore our marriage was/is valid. But children just didn’t happen.

It was not my intention to question the validity of your marriage. Sorry if you took it that way.

I also wasn’t talking about the past, when I say indefinitely I mean from now on.

The idea of God making a rock too large for him to lift is a logical fallacy. The question is wrong, that’s why the answer seems funny.

 

[Rence]

No, it is not a valid reason at all.

I’m not here to argue. The health of the woman is indeed a grave reason. And the OP should talk to his priest about this and get it clear.

What you are saying is that if someone has maybe 2 or 3 times the likelihood of experiencing complications during pregnancy, most notably gestational diabetes or fetal

Women in their 50s are at significantly higher risk for gestational hypertension and gestational diabetes. Add that to the problems they may already have such as hypertension, cardiac and pulmonary issues. That’s why the OP and his wife have to take the information they get from her doctor and discuss it with a priest.

How do we determine what is an acceptable level of risk?

By talking with the woman’s doctor.

It seems we are using the frequency of complications for the average woman under age 35 in America. Congratulations, more than half of the world’s population may now use NFP to TTA indefinitely

Hey, I’m only 41, have no kids yet, if ever, and have to take two different blood pressure medications, one of which is a category X. I know if I get married, I’ll be avoiding indefinitely, which isn’t the same thing as not being open to life. However, I am at high risk if pregnant and I can use NFP.

This just seems like a stark misappropriation of the term “just cause”. Maybe there is one, I just haven’t seen any evidence of that. My only intention is to relay the information that being a certain age is nowhere mentioned in any Church document pertaining to NFP. When the Church refers to such things as economic, social, ***physical, ***

Physical means the health of the mother, or father or both. The OP said he is concerned for her health, and there must be a reason.

Of course it is all subjective, .

Yes, that’s the problem, it is all subjective. I’m sure there are quite a few women out there in their 50s who are more than able to continue or to have children. But that is not common, it’s an exception. By 50 most women are dealing with underlying issues associated with normal aging, and that will be exacerbated by pregnancy. That’s why the OP and his wife have to consult with their doctor first. If the doctor says the woman is a risk, they do NOT have to try to get pregnant. The Church does not require that of a woman.

 

[white_sheep]

I’d be more understanding if there was a medical history, say if during the last pregnancy there was a complication that would be exacerbated by another pregnancy. That’s understandable. It seems to me that the justification used here is not based on PERSONAL medical history, but on DATA CHARTS pertaining to women over a certain age having an increase in complications during pregnancy ON AVERAGE, with no indication that any such thing would happen to that PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.

It’s just an enormous leap to imply that Church teaching allows for everyone over a certain age to use NFP, when if that were the case it would have been listed in a Church document. It is not Church teaching and you cannot claim that it is.

Look, I feel that I have a pretty loose interpretation of when it is morally acceptable to use NFP, but this is just inventing a new doctrine.

 

[Rence]

I’d be more understanding if there was a medical history,

I totally agree with you on that. But the OP hasn’t disclosed his wife’s medical history and that’s okay. He doesn’t have to do that on an online forum that’s why I was adamant about him and his wife consulting their doctor first and then going to their priest. And the reason is, a woman in her 50s without a significant medical history is a rare woman if his wife has a clean bill of health from her doctor to have kids, then she doesn’t need to use NFP. But it’s unlikely. And the Church doesn’t require a woman put herself at risk to be pregnant.

It seems to me that the justification used here is not based on PERSONAL medical history, but on DATA CHARTS pertaining to women over a certain age having an increase in complications during pregnancy ON AVERAGE, with no indication that any such thing would happen to that PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.

You’re right, that’s why he needs to consult with a doctor.

It’s just an enormous leap to imply that Church teaching allows for everyone over a certain age to use NFP, when if that were the case it would have been listed in a Church document. It is not Church teaching and you cannot claim that it is.

The Church says nothing about the age of the woman, just the health of the woman. But it doesn’t have to say anything about the age of the woman. There are women in their 20s that are extremely high risk and have grave reason to use NFP indefinitely and there are women in their 40s and 50s that do just fine. However, normally a woman in her 50s is not going to be without risks, some of them very dangerous, if pregnant. It’s not the age, it’s the health of the woman, that is the concern. But one can’t just write off a woman’s age as acceptable or not acceptable to use NFP. They need to consult with a doctor, even two, whatever. But a woman is in no way required to become pregnant if it puts her in significant risk.

 

[bejonama]

I’d be more understanding if there was a medical history, say if during the last pregnancy there was a complication that would be exacerbated by another pregnancy. That’s understandable. It seems to me that the justification used here is not based on PERSONAL medical history, but on DATA CHARTS pertaining to women over a certain age having an increase in complications during pregnancy ON AVERAGE, with no indication that any such thing would happen to that PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.

It’s just an enormous leap to imply that Church teaching allows for everyone over a certain age to use NFP, when if that were the case it would have been listed in a Church document. It is not Church teaching and you cannot claim that it is.

Look, I feel that I have a pretty loose interpretation of when it is morally acceptable to use NFP, but this is just inventing a new doctrine.

I can’t believe you are arguing this point so strongly. A woman in her 50’s would very likely have grave reasons to avoid pregnancy, what is grave for you may not be grave for someone else and vice versa, even just the increased risk of birth defects, could for some people, be classified as grave.

If i am still fertile in my 50’s I can assure you I will be avoiding indefinitely until I am no longer fertile. Of course I will still be open to life, but God will have to show His hand in order for me to concieve at that point in my life. Please note that I am blessed to have been able to prove my openess to life quite clearly, but by your logic I should not be able to try to avoid pregnancy in my 50’s unless Ihave some sort of serious reason other than my own normal 50’s health issues.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

If i am still fertile in my 50’s I can assure you I will be avoiding indefinitely until I am no longer fertile. Of course I will still be open to life, but God will have to show His hand in order for me to concieve at that point in my life. Please note that I am blessed to have been able to prove my openess to life quite clearly, but by your logic I should not be able to try to avoid pregnancy in my 50’s unless Ihave some sort of serious reason other than my own normal 50’s health issues.

Thank you! Someone actually seems to agree with my point of view.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I think I have finally figured it out. How to get to Heaven, that is.

1. Quit your job.
2. Leave you family.
3. Leave behind all your money.
4. Leave behind all your earthly possessions, except maybe a rosary and the clothes on your back.
5. Find a cave.
6. Spend the rest of your life in total darkness, away from all the temptations and vices of the world, praying the Rosary constantly, coming outside just long enough to forage for food (don’t forget your Rosary).
7. Sleep only if you have to.

 

[davidv]

I think I have finally figured it out. How to get to Heaven, that is.

1. Quit your job.
2. Leave you family.
3. Leave behind all your money.
4. Leave behind all your earthly possessions, except maybe a rosary and the clothes on your back.
5. Find a cave.
6. Spend the rest of your life in total darkness, away from all the temptations and vices of the world, praying the Rosary constantly, coming outside just long enough to forage for food (don’t forget your Rosary).
7. Sleep only if you have to.

I don’t know where you got these, but they aren’t Church teachings.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know where you got these, but they aren’t Church teachings.

Nor did many of the saints follow most of them - did St Thomas More really remove themselves from the world, or even fail to make a decent living? King St Edward the Confessor? King St Louis IX of France? St Joan of Arc (okay, she seems to have been poor, but was very much out in the world)? The parents of St Therese of Lisieux, who are both Blesseds?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Nothing is more important that God, right?

So eliminating everything else from your life and devoting 100% of yourself to Him seems to be the ticket.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I don’t know where you got these, but they aren’t Church teachings.

I didn’t say they were Church teachings. What I’m saying is if devotion to God is the most important thing to ensure salvation, then what better way to focus on devotion than to remove yourself from everything but Him?

 

[davidv]

Nothing is more important that God, right?

So eliminating everything else from your life and devoting 100% of yourself to Him seems to be the ticket.

Jesus command the we love our neighbors as ourselves, so eliminately everything else from our lives cannot be what He had in mind.

 

[LilyM]

Nothing is more important that God, right?

So eliminating everything else from your life and devoting 100% of yourself to Him seems to be the ticket.

Yes, but He is present in the least of His people and creatures, and we are to love them as He loves them (which is totally).

While this can be achieved even by isolated hermits, it certainly isn’t the only way to achieve it, as the many saints I’ve named has proven.

And it isn’t appropriate for everyone, St Paul says that some of us need to marry which naturally brings us into the world.

 

[catharina]

Nothing is more important that God, right?

So eliminating everything else from your life and devoting 100% of yourself to Him seems to be the ticket.

Yet it’s clear you have other, primary responsibilities.
You are a married man - with all that entails.
As such, you have particular obligations.
We can’t abandon our duties, our vocation, for anything else.
You’ve been in a Sacramnetal marriage for decades.
To put it simply, that is your “job” in God’s view.