Awesome article about how it's impossible to abuse NFP

  • Thread starter Thread starter sdeco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Providentialism misses a very serious point.

We are co-creators with God. God does not decide to give us children. He created the biology that is in play. When we have relations at the “right” time, we could create a new human being together with God. But he does not decide to give us children or not to give us children because we can’t handle another child. He let’s his biology work.

NFP rules work because God does not normally intervene in His biology.
 
Doesn’t Humanae Vitae state that a couple must have ‘just’ reasons for spacing births? That means there must be un-just reasons for doing so.
 
recentrevert said:
Doesn’t Humanae Vitae state that a couple must have ‘just’ reasons for spacing births? That means there must be un-just reasons for doing so.
Click to expand...
Logically, this makes perfect sense to me. At the same time, I don’t see how not having sex, if both partners are in agreement not to, of course, can be a sin. This is why I run into confusion.

HV lists four general categories of reasons to use NFP to space children. Most people would find those reasons quite in order with rational thinking. No argument there.

At the same time, what’s the opposite of that? “Well, we don’t have a just reason to postpone another child, and you’re fertile, so we’d better have sex?” No, that’s not Church teaching either.

shrug

NFP is a tool to be used only with the consent of both spouses and when using it won’t lead either spouse into sin (ie, non-procreative sexual acts). With that in mind, and if it’s used in those parameters, then how is it sinful not to have sex? It can’t be. The Church doesn’t teach that one must try to have children, only that one must not block their conception through artificial means or kill them after they’re conceived.

As you see, my mind goes around and around on this, and I’ll be looking forward to seeing what other folks have to say on the subject. It’s rather a moot point for DH and I; because of the caesarian I had with DD, we’ll need to use NFP to space pregnancies. Still, I’m curious as to what people with more experience and with different perspectives have to say.
 
It raises good points, but I don’t think it can be said that it’s “impossible” to abuse. Perhaps the just reasons are more than some people think, but they still are just reasons, which does imply there are unjust ones.
 
I haven’t read the article yet. I will soon, but I just had a couple thoughts I wanted to contribute to the thread.

The Church does teach that married couples have an obligation to try to produce children. I learned that here at CAF, when relevant excerpts of magisterial documents where shared, addressing that very issue. Now, God and the Church never ask the impossible, and infertility is a trial for those who experience it, so I don’t want this point to sound callous towards those who are unable to have children, or who have a medical condition that precludes childbearing.

It cannot be a sin to abstain from sexual relations, if it is a mutually agreeable decision, and it is not creating a situation where one or both spouses are experiencing serious temptation to sin by seeking sexual pleasure outside of the marital act. In fact, in some situations, the moral thing to do is abstain.

So it cannot be the abstinence that is the selfish aspect with respect to NFP. It must be some other aspect. Indeed, some of the same documents that I perused recently said that it is the fact of having recourse to the fertile times that can introduce the selfish aspect that we are cautioned against. The papal writings suggested that it is necessary to have just reason, because NFP allows a couple to satisfy their sexual desires while purposefully avoiding the fruit of sexual union. I must admit that I disagree somewhat with the pope 's opinion on this one. The wording he used spoke of recourse to fertile times as a way for the couple to fully satisfy those desires. But everyone I know what ACTUALLY uses NFP will tell you that it requires lots of self-control and delaying, even foregoing altogether, gratification. Many couples will even tell you that NFP, like pregnancy and childbirth, is often hardest upon the women, who are unable to enjoy relations ever during those very times of the month when their bodies are literally screaming for satisfaction.

So, while I respect the popes who have written on this topic, and I willingly abide by the Church’s teachings with respect to the marital act, and I see the beauty and logic of NFP, I cannot agree that NFP could be used selfishly. It requires the couple to give up such a tremendous good, for a large portion of every month, and during the postpartum return of fertility and during perimenopause for sometimes months at a time, that the reason to abstain most be pretty darn serious or the couple is more likely to abandon the method altogether. NFP is sort of self-limiting in that way. And if a couple does not decide to abandon the method, well, their reasons are probably even more serious.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling post. I hope I made some sense.
 
I hold that NFP can be abused. I also hold that I cannot definitively determine that any one *particular *couple is *actually *abusing NFP. I can also never judge the souls involved.

The only exception to judging the resolution to use NFP made by a particular couple (as distinct from judging their standing before God), is if they volunteer to me their circumstances and ask for my opinion, let’s say, for objectivity’s sake.

There is a difference between total abstinence from sex, and selective abstinence from sex during windows of fertility.

God doesn’t use abstinence to create a new person. Abstinence is never the cause of conception. Even in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it was not her abstinence that caused the conception of Jesus, but the action of the Holy Spirit.

However, God does use sex to create a new person.

Can it be contrary to the will of God for a particular person to be abstaining at a particular time? Clearly yes. The obvious example is when one spouse desires sex and the other spouse refuses (provided the request is reasonable and within moral bounds)
In so doing the person is violating not only conjugal rights, but also refusing the occasion in which conception can occur.

Therefore, if NFP is ever a sin in a particular situation, it’s not because the couple is having sex while the wife is infertile (Hint hint: Abraham and Sarah), but because the couple is *refusing *to come together when God wants them to.

My best general advice is (1) all things being equal, the default of a couple is to not discriminate when to have sex based on when they are *least * likely to conceive, because that clearly indicates that there is some reserve in regards to having children, which are always a blessing from God. There are no accidental babies. Every human being is intended by God, since God did not merely “permit” his coming into being, but caused it by creating the soul! **(2) **If a couple deems it prudent and justified to use NFP, bring the decision to prayer, and consult a good confessor or spiritual director.
 
More like difficult to abuse, IMO. The abstinence required in NFP pushes the user’s face in their allegedly serious reason for avoiding pregnancy every month. Non-serious reasons tend to break down under the weight of conjugal passion. Tend.

God designed us pretty well. Lots of internally self-regulating systems.
 
That’s an excellent article and I’ve often recommended it myself. But it doesn’t say it’s impossible to abuse NFP.
 
mommamaree said:
The Church does teach that married couples have an obligation to try to produce children. I learned that here at CAF, when relevant excerpts of magisterial documents where shared, addressing that very issue. Now, God and the Church never ask the impossible, and infertility is a trial for those who experience it, so I don’t want this point to sound callous towards those who are unable to have children, or who have a medical condition that precludes childbearing.

It cannot be a sin to abstain from sexual relations, if it is a mutually agreeable decision, and it is not creating a situation where one or both spouses are experiencing serious temptation to sin by seeking sexual pleasure outside of the marital act. In fact, in some situations, the moral thing to do is abstain.

So it cannot be the abstinence that is the selfish aspect with respect to NFP. It must be some other aspect. **Indeed, some of the same documents that I perused recently said that it is the fact of having recourse to the fertile times that can introduce the selfish aspect that we are cautioned against. **The papal writings suggested that it is necessary to have just reason, because NFP allows a couple to satisfy their sexual desires while purposefully avoiding the fruit of sexual union. I must admit that I disagree somewhat with the pope 's opinion on this one. The wording he used spoke of recourse to fertile times as a way for the couple to fully satisfy those desires. But everyone I know what ACTUALLY uses NFP will tell you that it requires lots of self-control and delaying, even foregoing altogether, gratification. Many couples will even tell you that NFP, like pregnancy and childbirth, is often hardest upon the women, who are unable to enjoy relations ever during those very times of the month when their bodies are literally screaming for satisfaction.

So, while I respect the popes who have written on this topic, and I willingly abide by the Church’s teachings with respect to the marital act, and I see the beauty and logic of NFP, I cannot agree that NFP could be used selfishly. It requires the couple to give up such a tremendous good, for a large portion of every month, and during the postpartum return of fertility and during perimenopause for sometimes months at a time, that the reason to abstain most be pretty darn serious or the couple is more likely to abandon the method altogether. NFP is sort of self-limiting in that way. And if a couple does not decide to abandon the method, well, their reasons are probably even more serious.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling post. I hope I made some sense.
Click to expand...
I’m intrigued; I’d never heard that a married couple has an obligation to try to have children, only that they shouldn’t prevent them by illicit means. When you have time, would you mind citing those documents? I’m rather curious now! 🙂

I’m a bit confused by your third paragraph quoted above; do you mean recourse to the infertile times, rather than the fertile times? Otherwise, surely that’s just having sex and not worrying about NFP or if one may or may not get pregnant, which I understand that some couples without just reasons to avoid do? (I rather wish we could be one of them, but at least for 10-12 months postpartum, that’s not feasible for me post-C-section.)
 
UbiCaritas said:
I’m intrigued; I’d never heard that a married couple has an obligation to try to have children, only that they shouldn’t prevent them by illicit means. When you have time, would you mind citing those documents? I’m rather curious now! 🙂

I’m a bit confused by your third paragraph quoted above; do you mean recourse to the infertile times, rather than the fertile times? Otherwise, surely that’s just having sex and not worrying about NFP or if one may or may not get pregnant, which I understand that some couples without just reasons to avoid do? (I rather wish we could be one of them, but at least for 10-12 months postpartum, that’s not feasible for me post-C-section.)
Click to expand...
Lol, yes I meant recourse to the infertile times. That was either an autocorrect error or a Swype error (I have Swype typing as well as tap-to-type on my tablet). Sorry about that. I haven’t been able to find those documents, or the previous thread where I was informed about the inherent expectation for married couples. I have been trying to remember which thread it was, or which document it was, and right now, I cannot. I am hoping someone else might be able to recall it. If I can recall either, I will link it up here.
 
mommamaree said:
Lol, yes I meant recourse to the infertile times. That was either an autocorrect error or a Swype error (I have Swype typing as well as tap-to-type on my tablet). Sorry about that. I haven’t been able to find those documents, or the previous thread where I was informed about the inherent expectation for married couples. I have been trying to remember which thread it was, or which document it was, and right now, I cannot. I am hoping someone else might be able to recall it. If I can recall either, I will link it up here.
Click to expand...
The Catechism?
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154
Click to expand...
 
12345678 said:
The Catechism?
Click to expand...
Well that was simpler than I thought! 🙂 Thanks.

I suspect this section of the Catechism is a brief explanation of perennial teachings of the Catholic Church on the duties of married Christians. I know that I have read excerpts from older writings that explained this more fully, but the Catechism is perfect for its succinctness.
 
This thread brings up an interesting notion, the notion of a sin that does not occur as the consequence of *one *particular decision.

Consider:
  1. It is not wrong for a spouse to refuse sex for completely arbitrary reasons, at any given time.
  2. It is wrong for a spouse to refuse sex indefinitely, or intentionally avoid any childbearing.
This means that no particular refusal is wrong, but the pattern of refusals is wrong. As such, I think the Church quite properly speaks about our attitudes being sinful or pure, in this context, not about our particular actions being wrong.

It IS possible to abuse NFP, but no particular decision to not have sex could possibly be an abuse of NFP. We abuse NFP by our attitudes, not our decisions.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
This thread brings up an interesting notion, the notion of a sin that does not occur as the consequence of *one *particular decision.

Consider:
  1. It is not wrong for a spouse to refuse sex for completely arbitrary reasons, at any given time.
  2. It is wrong for a spouse to refuse sex indefinitely, or intentionally avoid any childbearing.
This means that no particular refusal is wrong, but the pattern of refusals is wrong. As such, I think the Church quite properly speaks about our attitudes being sinful or pure, in this context, not about our particular actions being wrong.

It IS possible to abuse NFP, but no particular decision to not have sex could possibly be an abuse of NFP. We abuse NFP by our attitudes, not our decisions.
Click to expand...
Actually, isn’t number 1 incorrect? I have read that refusal of a reasonable request for the marital embrace, unless one has just reasons (medical restrictions, illness, exhaustion, lack of sufficient privacy/time, etc) is grave matter. Arbitrary reasons would then be potentially sinful, correct? Maybe I am wrong in my understanding…
 
mommamaree said:
Actually, isn’t number 1 incorrect? I have read that refusal of a reasonable request for the marital embrace, unless one has just reasons (medical restrictions, illness, exhaustion, lack of sufficient privacy/time, etc) is grave matter. Arbitrary reasons would then be potentially sinful, correct? Maybe I am wrong in my understanding…
Click to expand...
Can you tell me where you read that? I have a hard time imagining a modern theologian saying that “I don’t feel like it right now” isn’t an adequate reason to pass on making love.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Can you tell me where you read that? I have a hard time imagining a modern theologian saying that “I don’t feel like it right now” isn’t an adequate reason to pass on making love.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I have serious mommy brain right now, and cannot recall it immediately. It was here on this forum that I saw the link or excerpt where I read that. I will see if I can find it…
 
I loved this part of the article. Especially the part that even a priest is capable of determining what’s right for a couple.
In the very notion that anyone standing outside the intimate, sacramental bond of a marital union is in a position to determine whether or not NFP is justified in their case. Only the spouses have that capacity, that privilege and that responsibility. *Not even a priest is capable of determining what’s right for them. *He may advise; he may help them overcome perplexity; he may undeceive them of an error in their thinking. But in the end, the judgment about how they should exercise the rights and duties of their vocation is exclusively their own.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top