Awesome article about how it's impossible to abuse NFP

[mommamaree]

I agree that it is unjust to deny your spouse lovemaking. How could I disagree with that? But that’s not the question I’m addressing. I’m asking whether on a given occasion one may demur without giving a particular justification – though always with the intention of soon after making love.

Now the fact that I don’t GIVE a justification doesn’t mean there ISN’T a justification. In essence, I feel like, in this thread, a person is being asked to be fully self aware so as to know exactly why having sex would be a bad idea at a given time. But people just aren’t that self-aware. So the safest thing is to say that a spouse need not give a reason.

But of course, if avoiding lovemaking is a pattern, there must be a grave reason.

(As for scale of time here, I think it would certainly be unjustifiable for a spouse to refuse for two weeks at a time, and probably even for one week. But a day would be fine, even without giving an explicit reason.)

And if you and your wife are in agreement that is acceptable, then it is acceptable for your marriage. Not all couples work that way, nor should it be expected for them to. Some people are indeed self-aware enough to know why a particular night might not be good for them. And if a spouse needs an answer to why not on that night, they deserve an answer, even if it is to say “I am too tired or stressed out to be able to function”.

The catechism and all the other writings and teachings proclaim the same reality: that there is a marital debt, and that a spouse refusing a reasonable request without a just reason to refuse is grave matter. But the timeline for fulfilling the request, the type of communication that is preferred between the couple, and the level of explanation necessary are all very personal and unique to the couple. No two marriages will look exactly the same in this area of married life, or any other.

I also have in mind situations where a spouse is in particular need, and the other spouse is not. In such situations, if there is no reason they must abstain, it would be loving for the less interested spouse to be receptive and consider the needs of the spouse who feels particular need. There are many situations where this might occur, where the delay of even a day could be cruel. But hopefully, the couple will be able to communicate the difference between interest and particular need, so that one spouse is not oblivious about the difficulty of their beloved.

 

[nodito]

I’m asking whether on a given occasion one may demur without giving a particular justification – though always with the intention of soon after making love.

I’d argue that one any specific occasion, it is sinful to deny one’s spouse without good reason.

This is not the same as saying that you must always verbally offer your specific reason for denying sex, and I think in general, the denied spouse should in charity assume there is a valid reason and not press the reluctant spouse. I think it still may be sinful for the spouse who demurs.

 

[nodito]

I wonder, when the media treats Catholics with such misleading headlines and obvious bias why the Catholic author chooses to engage in the very practices we all wince at when secular medias cover issues.

Awesome article or drive by journalism. I know which one I think it is.

Either way, it is pretty divisive.

Hoosier Daddy, did you read the article? I ask because I didn’t find it divisive at all. I thought she made a compelling, completely orthodox case against providentialism, and appropriately titled it “Abusing NFP” to reach her intended audience, those prone to a providentialist mindset (and hence, likely to judge the practice of using NFP). I’m curious to know what practices you feel she engages in that should make us wince.

The author, Kathleen van Schaijik, is a professor at Fransciscan University and edits the Concourse newspaper publication for Fransciscan University and Ave Maria University. I’ve found her writing to be solidly Catholic.

 

[nodito]

No, I don’t think so. It’s perfectly reasonable to eat Cheerios instead of Fruit Loops, even if you don’t have a reason for choosing Cheerios. And it’s perfectly reasonable to demur from having sex for no particular reason, so long as you don’t make a habit of it.

I disagree. Denying your spouse sex even one time can be sinful, whereas choosing a breakfast cereal is almost always trivial and inconsequential.

To use a rather crude analogy: Suppose I let you borrow my car. The next week I come up to you and say, “Prodigal, I’d like to use my car tonight. May I have it back now?” Now there may be a good reason why you are unable to give me the car tonight (you forgot the keys somewhere, it’s in the shop, whatever). And if there is a good reason, you could legitimately say, “I can’t give you the car tonight.” I’ll be disappointed, but you did nothing wrong. Suppose instead you have the keys with you and the car is parked just outside but you don’t feel like giving up the car yet. So you say, “No, you can’t have the car back yet.” It’s my car and I have a right to it, so by choosing to “demur” for no reason, you are doing me an injustice, even if you plan to give me the car tomorrow morning.

(Though I agree with you that normally spouses shouldn’t need to give a reason when they do decline sex.)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Hoosier Daddy, did you read the article? I ask because I didn’t find it divisive at all. I thought she made a compelling, completely orthodox case against providentialism, and appropriately titled it “Abusing NFP” to reach her intended audience, those prone to a providentialist mindset (and hence, likely to judge the practice of using NFP). I’m curious to know what practices you feel she engages in that should make us wince.

The author, Kathleen van Schaijik, is a professor at Fransciscan University and edits the Concourse newspaper publication for Fransciscan University and Ave Maria University. I’ve found her writing to be solidly Catholic.

The OP and the author make it sound like it is a defense of NFP or that it is a statement that NFP cannot be abused. Which it can. There are many threads on here that debate that, but this article is old. From a publication that is not even around anymore. If I am not mistaken, this article has even been debated on CAF before with kind of the same premise that NFP cannot be abused. The author does not even address that issue but rather addresses the problems with “providentialists”

The article is divisive because it claims a side is “catholic” and the other is not. It is divisive because the topic is divisive.

The article engages in sensational headlines to attract a reader to an entirely different point. A method used by secular media that causes problems for Catholics. By picking a side in this “mommy war” the author has done nothing but criticize a group of people she has not defined.

Need I go on?

 

[LongingSoul]

1. Unreasonable refusal of marital intercourse is a grave matter. As has been explained, each spouse’s right to intercourse has limits, and usually when either is reluctant to have intercourse, the other should not insist. Still, sometimes a spouse has no justifying reason for being unwilling to cooperate. Such unwillingness can be motivated by anger and hatred, an unreasonable desire to avoid offspring, the manipulative use of marital intercourse to compel compliance in other matters, excessive preoccupation with other activities, and so on. Sometimes, too, one spouse without good reason travels alone or stays away from home for some time, thus depriving the other of the opportunity for marital intimacy. In all such cases, when the spouse deprived of marital intimacy makes it clear, by saying so or in any other way, that he or she desires it, the other should cooperate lovingly, and refusal is a grave matter.

Techically that couldn’t be considered an ‘abuse of NFP’. That’s an abuse to the marital debt by one spouse towards the other.

 

[nodito]

Techically that couldn’t be considered an ‘abuse of NFP’. That’s an abuse to the marital debt by one spouse towards the other.

I agree. The discussion has evolved into a conversation on the marital debt.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I agree. The discussion has evolved into a conversation on the marital debt.

I don’t think that you can separate the two discussions as using NFP successfully requires extended periods of abstinence. If one spouse is refusing the marriage debt unreasonably and the motivation is NFP then that would certainly be an abuse of both NFP and the marital debt. I don’t see any reason why you would say that wouldn’t be an abuse of NFP but only of the marital debt.

 

[nodito]

The OP and the author make it sound like it is a defense of NFP or that it is a statement that NFP cannot be abused. Which it can. There are many threads on here that debate that, but this article is old. From a publication that is not even around anymore. If I am not mistaken, this article has even been debated on CAF before with kind of the same premise that NFP cannot be abused. The author does not even address that issue but rather addresses the problems with “providentialists”

The article is divisive because it claims a side is “catholic” and the other is not. It is divisive because the topic is divisive.

The article engages in sensational headlines to attract a reader to an entirely different point. A method used by secular media that causes problems for Catholics. By picking a side in this “mommy war” the author has done nothing but criticize a group of people she has not defined.

Need I go on?

Yeah, the article is from 2002. I think it’s still relevent. I would consider it a defense of NFP (i.e., defending against one of its primary criticisms, that using it is regrettable and less holy than not using it). It was the OP only who said it was impossible to abuse NFP, and I agree that that is not in the article (nor is it true).

I also don’t see it as being any more divisive than any other article written to explain some less-well understood or accepted church teaching. I’m being sincere here: would you consider an article on why contraception is wrong to be divisive, because it alienates those who believe it is not wrong? Or an article on what the church says about the death penalty?

Maybe it’s just a matter of opinion, but I don’t see an article titled “Abusing NFP” as being sensationalist in the least. Now, if she had titled it, “Why Providentialist Catholics are Going to Hell…” or “Pope Says: Take Control of Your Fertility” then I might agree with you.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t think that you can separate the two discussions as using NFP successfully requires extended periods of abstinence. If one spouse is refusing the marriage debt unreasonably and the motivation is NFP then that would certainly be an abuse of both NFP and the marital debt. I don’t see any reason why you would say that wouldn’t be an abuse of NFP but only of the marital debt.

The motivation here is not ‘NFP’. The motivation is to avoid pregnancy. Avoiding pregnancy is a perfectly legitimate choice for a couple deciding on the makeup of their family. If the couple isn’t in sync on their plans for having a child… the problem is a relationship issue. It’s not morally wrong to avoid pregnancy by abstaining.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yeah, the article is from 2002. I think it’s still relevent. I would consider it a defense of NFP (i.e., defending against one of its primary criticisms, that using it is regrettable and less holy than not using it). It was the OP only who said it was impossible to abuse NFP, and I agree that that is not in the article (nor is it true).

I also don’t see it as being any more divisive than any other article written to explain some less-well understood or accepted church teaching. I’m being sincere here: would you consider an article on why contraception is wrong to be divisive, because it alienates those who believe it is not wrong? Or an article on what the church says about the death penalty?

Maybe it’s just a matter of opinion, but I don’t see an article titled “Abusing NFP” as being sensationalist in the least. Now, if she had titled it, “Why Providentialist Catholics are Going to Hell…” or “Pope Says: Take Control of Your Fertility” then I might agree with you.

Yeah, the article is from 2002. I think it’s still relevent. I would consider it a defense of NFP (i.e., defending against one of its primary criticisms, that using it is regrettable and less holy than not using it). It was the OP only who said it was impossible to abuse NFP, and I agree that that is not in the article (nor is it true).

I agree with all of this. Speaking of which, where is the OP to answer the question of the title of the thread?

I also don’t see it as being any more divisive than any other article written to explain some less-well understood or accepted church teaching. I’m being sincere here: would you consider an article on why contraception is wrong to be divisive, because it alienates those who believe it is not wrong? Or an article on what the church says about the death penalty?

Now here is where I disagree with you. Contraception (ABC) is wrong. Period. That should be a a short article. Contraception is wrong, here is where the Church teaches it, here is why it is wrong, and here is how long it has been wrong.
But here, we have someone who titles an article about NFP and spends the whole article not talking about NFP at all, but rather why a providentialist is wrong. Now here is the kicker. And you are probably not going to like this, but one can be Catholic “a faithful Catholic” and hold either view. Or no view. I reject the premise of providentialism in my marriage, I also reject NFP and I also reject ABC. So of course the article was divisive, and of course it was not the same as an article about ABC VS NFP. Part of the problem that the writer of the article has is that “NFP” can be defined in many different ways. But if the writer means NFP as one of the three main methods then I am afraid that this is very new theology.

I will say this. Not using NFP is the default. What the writer is struggling with is defense of a default position.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hoosier Daddy, did you read the article? I ask because I didn’t find it divisive at all. I thought she made a compelling, completely orthodox case against providentialism, and appropriately titled it “Abusing NFP” to reach her intended audience, those prone to a providentialist mindset (and hence, likely to judge the practice of using NFP). I’m curious to know what practices you feel she engages in that should make us wince.

The author, Kathleen van Schaijik, is a professor at Fransciscan University and edits the Concourse newspaper publication for Fransciscan University and Ave Maria University. I’ve found her writing to be solidly Catholic.

I think it is important to note that there are two different types of providentialists (sp?)

Ones that discern that in their own family there is no need to postpone any more births, and decide that they will not engage in NFP.

Then the other type is the ones that believe NFP is usually wrong barring the most grave reasons, and Catholics should all be providentialists because its significantly holier, and the only way one can be sure that they are not sinning.

While the first one is acceptable, the second idea isn’t acceptable.

Greg Popcak touched on this very article this week:

patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2014/07/ad-contra-providentialists-natural-family-planning-awareness-week/

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think it is important to note that there are two different types of providentialists (sp?)

Ones that discern that in their own family there is no need to postpone any more births, and decide that they will not engage in NFP.

Then the other type is the ones that believe NFP is usually wrong barring the most grave reasons, and Catholics should all be providentialists because its significantly holier, and the only way one can be sure that they are not sinning.

While the first one is acceptable, the second idea isn’t acceptable.

Greg Popcak touched on this very article this week:

patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2014/07/ad-contra-providentialists-natural-family-planning-awareness-week/

Aside from the book plugging that article was certainly better than the other one. However I read one by doctor “Greg” that was forwared to me by an old NFP instructor friend and I had a problem with it. I will find it and post it so we can discuss.

 

[LongingSoul]

But here, we have someone who titles an article about NFP and spends the whole article not talking about NFP at all, but rather why a providentialist is wrong.

Actually the article was entitled ‘Abusing NFP’ which specifically referred to the audience comments at the Janet Smith talk that were along these lines “Many who were present clearly regard NFP as morally dangerous. One woman scoffed out loud at the absurdity of newly weds imagining they could have serious enough reasons for postponing children. Another person proposed that since most women are fertile for 20 - 25 years, 8 - 10 would appear to be the “default number” of children per family—at least for couples married in their early 20s with no fertility problems. In other words, the fact that so few Catholic families have that many children is a good indication that NFP is being widely abused.”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Aside from the book plugging that article was certainly better than the other one. However I read one by doctor “Greg” that was forwared to me by an old NFP instructor friend and I had a problem with it. I will find it and post it so we can discuss.

Why the quotes around Greg? That’s his name, and he has a PhD, so calling him doctor is appropriate.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t think that you can separate the two discussions as using NFP successfully requires extended periods of abstinence. If one spouse is refusing the marriage debt unreasonably and the motivation is NFP then that would certainly be an abuse of both NFP and the marital debt. I don’t see any reason why you would say that wouldn’t be an abuse of NFP but only of the marital debt.

I agree that the two discussions are fairly closely related.

My suspicion is that while we normally think of “selfishness” as referring to not wanting more children, it’s also worth thinking about it in relation to the marital debt. A spouse could be selfish in unreasonably refusing, and a spouse could likewise be selfish in unreasonably demanding. There are lots of ways to be selfish in this area.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Actually the article was entitled ‘Abusing NFP’ which specifically referred to the audience comments at the Janet Smith talk that were along these lines “Many who were present clearly regard NFP as morally dangerous. One woman scoffed out loud at the absurdity of newly weds imagining they could have serious enough reasons for postponing children. Another person proposed that since most women are fertile for 20 - 25 years, 8 - 10 would appear to be the “default number” of children per family—at least for couples married in their early 20s with no fertility problems. In other words, the fact that so few Catholic families have that many children is a good indication that NFP is being widely abused.”

Well, first off it is a 12 year old article that had a 12 year old audience that the author described in a biased way.

In other words, the fact that so few Catholic families have that many children is a good indication that NFP is being widely abused

I think this is the problem and the bias in BOTH articles. While NFP is only used by 2 percent of the Church (Dr. Greg’s number) No one really thinks that the reason so few Catholic families are small is because of NFP. It is obviously ABC. That some think NFP can be used with an ABC mentality is not that big of a deal. But since NFP is a product being sold then any criticism of it is defended with zeal. Not because providentialsts are so loud and powerful that NFP needs to let it’s choice be heard, but rather because NFP is a product, not a theology.

Here is the problem. The Provs see NFP being touted as the thing Catholics SHOULD do. They have a problem because while ABC is the real problem, the “Answer” to the problem manifests itself in the promotion of NFP, which is not something a Catholic must practice in their marriage. So while a prov might want the fruit of bigger families in the Church, they see that NFP can be (and usually is on the local level) sold as a way to have either a small family, a delayed family, or the exact family you want. Which the provs have a problem with.

Here is the issue. It is pretty easy to defend, explain and promote NFP to someone using ABC. Comparing the two is based on crystal clear theology. But defending NFP to a prov is harder because you are in reality defending something that is not a default, and is a vague/new theological principle.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why the quotes around Greg? That’s his name, and he has a PhD, so calling him doctor is appropriate.

I believe he calls himself Dr. Greg at the top of the article. The quotes were not demeaning. Just that I will also use Greg because it is easier for me than his last name which would be the proper address of an author of an article with a doctorate. I just did not want to be dis respectful.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Here is Dr. Greg’s other article. Now I read this and was completely on board with it except for one thing. OK two, one being the shameless plugs of products in all of these articles that bring into question the objectivity.

patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2014/07/there-is-no-such-thing-as-natural-family-planning/#disqus_thread

 

[LongingSoul]

Here is the issue. It is pretty easy to defend, explain and promote NFP to someone using ABC. Comparing the two is based on crystal clear theology. But defending NFP to a prov is harder because you are in reality defending something that is not a default, and is a vague/new theological principle.

But in reality providentialism regarding family size is a fairly recent thing also and could be called a new theology. People traditionally did have big families in the past but that was in the context of lack of knowledge about fertility cycles. The idea of providence meant something different in that environment than it does now. For example, people coped with mulitple deaths of children due to disease in those days also and the idea of providence was Gods comfort and support for this situation. Some of the crazier providentialists now though reject the use of modern medicine… because they feel it is the Christian thing to leave our fate to providence! That’s not what providence meant or means! This is what the new ‘providentials’ are extrapolating from past experience in order to assume that leaving everything to providence is ‘the default’.

Planning your family based on your individual marriages vision for it by periodically abstaining from sexual intercourse based on fertility knowledge … or just ‘going for it’, is legitimate. Accepting children lovingly from God is the ideal. A theory that states that choosing not to plan your family is the ‘default’, reduces us to mere animals. Not co-creators with God.