Be Fruitful and Multiply (Round 2)

[thewanderer]

How about an 80-year-old couple, where the wife had her uterus and ovaries removed, and the husband had chemo and radiation therapy rendering him sterile. The same exact rules apply to the them.

I offered you a basic concept after stating that I wasn’t going to. If you want to address the issue further, start another thread.

Well, there is no problem with such a couple having relations ValPal.

I’m really not sure why you are acting so defensively, (If you are not really being defensive, I am sorry for misunderstanding, but that is how your posts come across). I am honestly not trying to attack you. I just want to help explain to you how the Church’s teachings are not illogical. Many of the statements you have presented here as true are not at all what the Church teaches officially, which is why I thought bringing up the actual text of the official statements of the Church would help clarify the situation. I am just trying to help.

 

[ValPal]

I’m really not sure why you are acting so defensively, (If you are not really being defensive, I am sorry for misunderstanding, but that is how your posts come across). I am honestly not trying to attack you.

I’m not defensive, just frustrated. Basic definitions are simply ignored in these discussions, and people just go on and treat it as if there is no problem. If theses fundamental definitions and concepts are ignored, quite frankly, there is nothing to discuss, because the whole argument is built on sand.

I just want to help explain to you how the Church’s teachings are not illogical.

I am completely aware of that, and have repeatedly stated I know what the Church’s position is. The problem is in the explanation.

Many of the statements you have presented here as true are not at all what the Church’ teaches officially, which is why I thought bringing up the actual text of the official statements of the Church would help clarify the situation. I am just trying to help.

It’s not that it isn’t what the Church teaches, but rather what I am reading based on the explanation. One has to ignore, or significantly alter, commonly accepted definitions and concepts to make these explanations conform with what the Church actually means. That is bothersome to people like me, especially since generally the Church tends to read and interpret things in a very specific and technical way.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not defensive, just frustrated. Basic definitions are simply ignored in these discussions, and people just go on and treat it as if there is no problem. If theses fundamental definitions and concepts are ignored, quite frankly, there is nothing to discuss, because the whole argument is built on sand.

I am completely aware of that, and have repeatedly stated I know what the Church’s position is. The problem is in the explanation.

It’s not that it isn’t what the Church teaches, but rather what I am reading based on the explanation. One has to ignore, or significantly alter, commonly accepted definitions and concepts to make these explanations conform with what the Church actually means. That is bothersome to people like me, especially since generally the Church tends to read and interpret things in a very specific and technical way.

Well if all you’re saying is that you are frustrated that so many Catholics don’t actually understand what the Church teaches and so end up misleading others as to what the Church actually teaches then I agree with you entirely, it is very frustrating. Talking about sexuality as though it must always be procreative is very misleading language that many Catholics use because they either misunderstand the actual teachings or use the word ‘procreative’ in a very specific way which doesn’t exist in normal use.Perhaps you should be more careful to clarify that you are not disagreeing with what the Church actually teaches but rather with many people’s interpretation and representation of the actual teachings?

 

[Moore11]

Well if all you’re saying is that you are frustrated that so many Catholics don’t actually understand what the Church teaches and so end up misleading others as to what the Church actually teaches then I agree with you entirely, it is very frustrating.

100 percent true! But not in the way you cite.
You speak as if it is the majority of Catholics that misunderstand and shouts from the rooftops that sex must be procreative at all times. Yet the real misunderstanding is by the vast majority of not just Catholics but almost the entire sex crazed and obsessed society wants to ignore the procreative all together. Separating it out by chemical, mutilation, barrier, alternate “sex” or just plain old calendar methods.

All of this fed by the drive to engage in an act God designed to bring forth new life. Yet for some reason that seems to be the last result those who engage in this act want! And people seem to want to go to amazing means just to get their way.

The thing that cracks me up is the OP’s so often repeated idea that yup! 2 kids is all I want! I will use NFP forever after that!" then watch the forums for the NFP complaint threads. “why is it so hard” “I dont trust it” my cycle and medical conditions make it impossible"… " My husband doesn’t treat me well"" And from my own wife’s pretty little mouth. “Why do I always have to be the sex police”

The whole problem is that we tout NFP as some sort of optimal solution when really it is a complex, hard, frustrating, and trying system. Perhaps because we are using it wrong…

Oh that I wish the problem was what you pointed out with so “many” Catholics.

"whaaaa whaaaa I want sex but dont want kids. Its my right! " It is the cry of too many in this world. Even and especially Catholics. I don’t mind a newborn crying at 2 am its the “adult” crying in the extends commercial at 2 am that hurts my ears.

In short, yes, it is very frustrating that so many Catholics are ignorant or just plain disobey Church teaching in this area.
If only it was spoken about openly in homilies instead of 5 year old internet chain mail stories that we get so often.

I think bothof us would be pleased with the results.

 

[ahs]

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. You quoted me as saying:

Originally Posted by ahs
Sex is “ordered toward procrestion” when my wife and I complete the act in the manner which could lead to pregnancy…even if pregnacy does not happen.

And then you say:

“Does not” is not the same as “can not.”

“Does not” means the possibility exists. “Can not” means an impossibility. “Can not” does not apply to your quoted statement above.

I agree with you if I am understadning you correctly. Did I try to apply “can not” to that statement of mine? What I am saying is that if my wife an I order our act toward procreation (complete it in the natural manner) then the possibility exists for conception, however unlikely. My male part puts forth my “procreative stuff” into her female part and, although she may be infertile, everything has been put forth by us as a couple so that there is a possibility to conceive should her body, or God, work to make her fertile. In this way, the act is ordered toward procreation, even if conception does not occur…that is to say, even if it is not “procreative”, per se, it is still ordered, per se, toward procreation.

However, if we contracept…if we use a condom, pill, withdrawal…we attempt to remove that procreative nature so that conception “can not” occur. In that way, our act is no longer “ordered toward procreation” because we have attmpted to act upon the conjugal act so as to remove the procreative aspect.

Sterile people, by definition, can not procreate,

Right…but they can order their sex act toward procreation by not thwarting the procreative natue of the act…meaning if they complete the ac tin teh natural manner. The act can be ordered toward (performed in the manner which is natural) procreation…even if it is not procreative.

“Procreative” describes a result.
“Ordered, per se, toward procreation” describes the manner in which the act is completed.

Sterile people, by definition, can not … order sex toward procreation,

Yes they can…by completing the act in the natural manner. I provided you the proper CCC reference that discusses this. Can you please provide the teaching that supports your assertion here?

I know what the Church means and intends to say, but the explanation, IMHO, does not put forth the idea properly, and leaves all non-Catholics and many Catholics simply befuddled.

Then perhpas you’d like to put forth the idea properly with an explanation and by providing the pertinent Church teaching you are relying on to come up with that explanation?

…One has to ignore, or significantly alter, commonly accepted definitions and concepts to make these explanations conform with what the Church actually means.

Must one? Can you provide the Church’s commonly accepted definitions of “procreative” and “ordered, per se, toward procreation”? I’ll admit that I don’t have the Church’s glossary handy…but I think I’m doing a fair job at explaining the meanings based on the Church’s teachings. Perhaps it is just that some people are obstinate in holding to colloquial definitions instead of trying to understand things using the Church’s understandings? Perhaps it would be beneficial if you could provide the Church’s teaching that is leading you to believe that “procreative” and “ordered toward procreation” mean the same thing?

 

[ValPal]

Perhaps you should be more careful to clarify that you are not disagreeing with what the Church actually teaches but rather with many people’s interpretation and representation of the actual teachings?

People should be more careful about reading others posts, and not internalize them and/or jump to conclusions.

 

[thewanderer]

100 percent true! But not in the way you cite.
You speak as if it is the majority of Catholics that misunderstand and shouts from the rooftops that sex must be procreative at all times. Yet the real misunderstanding is by the vast majority of not just Catholics but almost the entire sex crazed and obsessed society wants to ignore the procreative all together. Separating it out by chemical, mutilation, barrier, alternate “sex” or just plain old calendar methods.

All of this fed by the drive to engage in an act God designed to bring forth new life. Yet for some reason that seems to be the last result those who engage in this act want! And people seem to want to go to amazing means just to get their way.

The thing that cracks me up is the OP’s so often repeated idea that yup! 2 kids is all I want! I will use NFP forever after that!" then watch the forums for the NFP complaint threads. “why is it so hard” “I dont trust it” my cycle and medical conditions make it impossible"… " My husband doesn’t treat me well"" And from my own wife’s pretty little mouth. “Why do I always have to be the sex police”

The whole problem is that we tout NFP as some sort of optimal solution when really it is a complex, hard, frustrating, and trying system. Perhaps because we are using it wrong…

Oh that I wish the problem was what you pointed out with so “many” Catholics.

"whaaaa whaaaa I want sex but dont want kids. Its my right! " It is the cry of too many in this world. Even and especially Catholics. I don’t mind a newborn crying at 2 am its the “adult” crying in the extends commercial at 2 am that hurts my ears.

In short, yes, it is very frustrating that so many Catholics are ignorant or just plain disobey Church teaching in this area.
If only it was spoken about openly in homilies instead of 5 year old internet chain mail stories that we get so often.

I think bothof us would be pleased with the results.

Moore, do you have any idea how many Catholics, and non-Catholics too for that matter, reject the Church’s teachings on contraception as being non-sensical because they do not understand it? A lot. And often it is because they hear Catholics tell them that sex has to be procreative or else it is immoral. I’m sorry, but if I didn’t understand what Catholics really mean to imply when they use the word procreative then I would reject such a statement as ridiculous and clearly false as well. Those of us Catholics who do actually understand the Church’s teachings need to be more careful in how we speak about it, if we end up misrepresenting it to others and causing them to reject it completely and so accept the secular view of sexuality instead are not we to blame at least partially for that?

As to the rest of your post, I don’t know if you realize how insensitive and uncharitable you come across as being to those who are truly suffering. It doesn’t matter what is causing someone to suffer, we need to treat those who are suffering with compassion, not contempt.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Mark, I cannot tell you if you and your wife have a serious reason or not.

I didn’t ask you to tell me that --I was asking if it was possible for us to have a reason that was not serious in your opinion. It was a general question. Not one asking for a “judgment” on a specific reason. You seem to answer my question here:

It is certainly possible to have a reason that is not serious, and to avoid conception out of selfish motives

It wasn’t clear to me that you believed this and that was one of the things I was trying to discern.

…but I don’t have the ability to discern that for you.

You were not asked to.

And while I can provide my personal opinion whether I think a reason is serious or selfish…I cannot call you selfish for relying on a reason that I personally find selfish

I think this is just semantics–in reality–telling me that you think a reason is selfish–is, well, implying that I am selfish and I wouldn’t have a problem with that if I had come here seeking an opinion and I would hope others seeking an opinion wouldn’t either. I would of course want the reasons for your opinion so that I could personally consider them and check my motives and thoughts. Of course I am speaking in general terms here.
If you need a list, of sorts, of serious of just reason,

I don’t think anyone has asked for this. I was asking for your thoughts about what makes a reason serious. In some of your posts I got them impression that my merely thinking it was serious–would make it serious. I was further inquiring that if this was indeed the case–does this, in your opinion, apply to any other areas of morality or just here?

Sure, I agree with you on that. But there is a line that has been crossed in this thread where some have gone past this and assumed selfishness. Comments suggesting that the couple does not trust God in the bedroom (your first comment in this thread before the OP gave a reason…we were to assume, at the OP’s suggestion, that the couple had no serious reason) or ones that accuse fertile couples of being selfish for “pontificating” whether or not to have a 3rd child (after the OP had revealed reasons)…these kinds of comments are a step outside providing our opinions on whether we find a reason to be serious or not…these comments represent a judgment about a person that we have no business making.

I would ask that you go back and revisit my first post (#6) (and read it recalling as you said “that we are taught, in so far as possible, to interpret each others actions, words, or deed in a favorable way first”) and notice that what I posted were not comments voicing an opinion or judgement about the OP as a person but were instead questions for the OPer to think about in regards to the information he had provided up to that point. I asked three questions. Basically I asked: 1. was it about their wants or Gods wants, 2. Do they trust God in the bedroom and if not (this may have been a better way to phrase the question), 3. is there anywhere else they don’t trust God. I don’t find these questions judgmental or rendering any kind of opinion about the OPer. Indeed they are questions I try to routinely ask myself, and if I am honest with myself, far too often I find that it is indeed more about what I want rather than about what God might want. I think we are often to quick to read “judgment” of a person into a post–which is assuming the worst and making a judgment about the poster. I find that I must guard against this all the time–as tone and intent are hard to gleen from a post such as this.

For you they may be serious, for me they might not. We can discuss our opinions on the seriousness of the reasons

And this is what we should be doing to shed light and food for thought on the reasons but for some reason many seem to be reluctant to do that. Are you really saying that we can’t discuss what might or might not make these reasons serious–in our opinion-- without rendering some kind of judgment on the OPer?

Please go back an look at this post–you have basically asserted that: 1. I rendered a judgment on the OPer and that 2. I am guilty of making uncharitable statements to the OPer. It seems to me that you have rendered judgment on me by assuming a tone and intent that was not intended and that I don’t think is in my initial post. Of course I may well be mistaken regarding what you intended and I thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Moore11]

As to the rest of your post, I don’t know if you realize how insensitive and uncharitable you come across as being to those who are truly suffering. It doesn’t matter what is causing someone to suffer, we need to treat those who are suffering with compassion, not contempt.

I just dont see it that way at all.
let me introduce you to my diocese.
If you asked all the Catholics at Christmas Mass what the church’s teaching is on Birth control you would get about 90 percent that have no idea. In fact most of them use birth control without a second thought. It is not that they think every sex act has to lead to children but rather because they just don’t want to be bothered…
When my wife and I became Catholic, and then got married in the Church we received no instruction regarding ABC. We did however get plenty of instruction and marriage prep classes on how to save for retirement. Now as we learned and became educated about our faith we looked into NFP. Going off of birth control was one of the most stressful times in my marriage. But we knew (from outside Catholic sources) that NFP was the way to go. It was the answer to all our problems. It was the Church approved way to live like we wanted to. So we enrolled in the only class we could find. Granted it was held at a local parish but that is where the Church’s support stopped. There was only one NFP teaching couple in our area and they were LDS. They taught the class and there were 8 other couples. Only two of the couples were Catholic. My wife and I and one other hispanic couple. The rest were LDS. NFP was presented to us as a marriage enhancer. (Why 98 percent of NFP couples stay married. it is soooo easy and it really enhances romance.) Our first was an NFP oops by us. Not a calculating oops but a lust oops. We were not open to life. We redoubled our efforts. We became certified by the C2C league as teachers and invested in a “ladycomp” which is actually a great device if you can get past a computer telling you when you can have sex… Our second was a “yellow” light lady comp baby. The third was planned as we became more and more open to life. Our 4th was conceived as I basically had a sit down with my wife and we discussed how there was no way to justify waiting any more. To be clear, I am usually the one who wants kids before my wife does. And frankly our reasons were absolutely selfish and sinful. During the times when I want children but my wife does not we fight, we bicker, we use sex as a weapon, she begs me to go to the store to buy condoms, I beg her to be open to the possibility of life. She begs me to leave her alone until we can go on vacation it italy and then we can “talk” about it… Since then, there has been an uptick in NFP instructors in our area. But my wife and I cannot teach in good conscious because it becomes a method that is abused by couples as “Catholic” birth control. Which we know first hand because we used it that way too. As NFP teachers or even people that have taken several classes you know that you learn more about people than ever. You learn their sex lives, you learn their faith lives and you learn their secular lives. Over 100 couples get married in our parish every year. about 6 couples take NFP Classes. I guess by some peoples definition of “charity” we can only assume that there is a huge huge chemical spill in our city rendering so many couples infertile. Because in the rare instances you see a young couple that was married at our Church actually attend mass they are childless. Then there is the status couples. 2 kids 2 high powered jobs, drop their kids off at youth group but dont attend mass with them.
During our journey we frequented confession. Several priests have told me to buy condoms and my wife to get on the pill. My good friend also was told that he should get condoms and that oral stimulation could be the answer to fertile time problems.

I tell you this knowing that it opens me up to a barrage of ways to excuse and attack my position. I did not share all of this with you to provide you fodder to use against me. Though it is a risk one takes when arguing a logical point using personal experience but it is more to show you that in many places and to many people the Church is being beaten. Being beaten by the world. A fact made only more obvious this week.

As for being insensitive. That is just ridiculous. No one is talking of those who have grave reasons, have dire situations or who would love more than anything to have another child but cant because of thier physical or emotional or financial situation. EVERYONE Agree’s that NFP can and should be used my some to not conceive. But if you really want to talk about what is insensitive it is the attitude of many and in my opinion the OP is included in this that “oh gee I wish we didn’t have the burden of fertility” “we only want 2 kids ever” How does that sound to those who cannot have children, who want children and who wish they could have the circumstances to have children. That my friend is insensitive. I know this because (and this may be hard to believe) there are some who use NFP and take the classes to try to conceive. And more tears fall in those classes right about the time some young insensitive couple tell how they are just taking the class to keep their in laws happy…
My wife and I are blessed to actually be able to conceive on any given month we choose. And knowing the pain of those who cannot I can only tell you that if we withhold God’s will for us for selfish reasons we are only compounding the sin.

 

[Moore11]

I’ll try to state a case here related to the OP.
Op states

What if a couple only want 2 kids even though they could have more and have no serious reason to limit it to 2, would that be an offence/sin? If so, how serious?

Here the OP is asking a direct opinion. So we can stop with all the accusations of being uncharitable and judgmental.
The OP is also acknowledging that they do not have serious reason to limit it to 2. I guess they could be mistaken about what classifies as “serious” but lets take them at their word.

They use natural family planning for the rest of the lives after having 2 kids.

Here we see that the intend is not to “space” but rather to make a permanent decision of not intending children for the rest of their lives.

It’s not about trust, they just don’t want the extra headache and physical running around which is quite demanding. This may sound selfish but it gets tiring one day after the next after the next after the next.

Here we see that the poster may indeed have serious reasons (physical and emotional exhaustion) to avoid. But mostly in my experience we see someone who is focused on how they feel at the moment and not “big picture” and not aware that situations can and do change.

P.S. If you don’t mind me asking but how on earth can you afford 5 kids with schools fees, clothing etc.? Does your wife work?

Here we see a glimpse of the OP’s worldview and frustrations. It was pointed out that many people can and do have 5 or more kids with less. Broadening the OP’s view of the world.

Those that have judged me to be selfish have motivated me to examine my motives. I guess my two main reasons for wanting to limit it to 2 kids is fear and being tired.

This is my favorite one. Not because it was obviously directed to me but because it shows the OP has an ability to be humble and not only that but to honestly look at this issue. It show’s a willingness to learn and to consider different views. That the OP thanks those who may be telling it without a sugar coating shows that they are more patient than I am and we could all probably learn from this example. Most people on the internet solicit a question and when someone gives an answer they dont like they freak out. Not this guy.

I enjoy your reading your posts and any feedback is welcome even if it may seem “negative”.

Wow. how refreshing, mature, and honest.

If I was the OP’s NFP instructor/counselor, I would tell them that this month is not the month to conceive. That they are overwhelmed at times and probably exhausted.
But I would also tell them that one of the great things about NFP is that it is a monthly conversation about the future you are forced to have with your spouse. This is one of it’s advantages over ABC. It forces the question to be answered every month. But I would also tell them that using NFP with the intent to NEVER conceive because they feel tired right now is not an intended use of NFP and could be grave matter and that they should find a good and orthodox priest who is knowledgeable about this and seek spiritual guidance from them

 

[whm]

It’s not that it isn’t what the Church teaches, but rather what I am reading based on the explanation.

I agree with what you are saying. I for a time was very disturbed that what was being taught by people about Church teachings (in contrast to official Church teachings), appeared to be a break or change in what I thought was unchangeable Church teachings. What I finally settled on was that Church teachings have not contradicted prior Church teachings, rather those promoting Church teachings are focusing on some aspects and not others.

For example, theology of the body (note, not doctrine of the body, but theology) is very popular right now. I am not knocking the theology of the body or claiming that it cannot provide very helpful insights, however certain aspects of it have so much exposure these days that it can make it seem that sex is so important that approaches a sacrament in and of itself (as apposed to being a important, but not essential part of the sacrament of marriage*). Likewise, the zeal to promote NFP as an alternative to ABC (I view as an alternative to abstinence) can lead to similar over exposure of certain aspects of Church teaching. Whereas the concept of the marriage debt is very much de-emphasized (perhaps because it greatly complicates the use of NFP, or is not “politically correct”), when traditionally it constituted a significant role in making Catholic sexual morality all fit together. In short, it can make it seem that NFP is the main stream choice even an obligation, whereas, unregulated(for lack of a better work, perhaps spontaneous) relations or total abstinence might be the better choice or even equally valid of a choice.

• It is my understand (although I am no expert) that the ability to perform the marital act (not the ability to become pregnant) is required for a Catholic marriage to take place. Consummation is generally expected, however, although not generally granted these days, Josephite marriages are theoretically possible as well. There is no absolute requirement that relations take place after the consummation, assuming the right to each other is not requested by either spouse and there is no selfish intent etc.

 

[ahs]

I didn’t ask you to tell me that --I was asking if it was possible for us to have a reason that was not serious in your opinion. It was a general question.

I see. You had stated “my wife and I” and so it was at all clear that you wanted a general answer. At any rate, I think my answer can apply on general terms as well, and you seem to recognize that.

I think this is just semantics–in reality–telling me that you think a reason is selfish–is, well, implying that I am selfish…

I disagree. I think these are two very different things.

I was asking for your thoughts about what makes a reason serious. In some of your posts I got them impression that my merely thinking it was serious–would make it serious. I was further inquiring that if this was indeed the case–does this, in your opinion, apply to any other areas of morality or just here?

I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to ask me here. Can you define what you mean by “serious”, and perhaps give an example of another area of “morality” that might be similar…that might help me?

I would ask that you go back and revisit my first post (#6) (and read it recalling as you said “that we are taught, in so far as possible, to interpret each others actions, words, or deed in a favorable way first”) and notice that what I posted were not comments voicing an opinion or judgement about the OP as a person but were instead questions for the OPer to think about …Please go back an look at this post–you have basically asserted that: 1. I rendered a judgment on the OPer and that 2. I am guilty of making uncharitable statements to the OPer. It seems to me that you have rendered judgment on me by assuming a tone and intent that was not intended and that I don’t think is in my initial post.

I will be honest with you and tell you I don’t believe that you were free from being judgmental in your comments. However, you are correct that I rashly judged your comments and presumed the worst of you. I am sorry for that and I will not accuse you of such, and in the future I will be careful to make sure I understand before jumping to conclusions. Please forgive me.

 

[thewanderer]

I just dont see it that way at all.
let me introduce you to my diocese.
…
I tell you this knowing that it opens me up to a barrage of ways to excuse and attack my position. I did not share all of this with you to provide you fodder to use against me. Though it is a risk one takes when arguing a logical point using personal experience but it is more to show you that in many places and to many people the Church is being beaten. Being beaten by the world. A fact made only more obvious this week.

As for being insensitive. That is just ridiculous. No one is talking of those who have grave reasons, have dire situations or who would love more than anything to have another child but cant because of thier physical or emotional or financial situation. EVERYONE Agree’s that NFP can and should be used my some to not conceive. But if you really want to talk about what is insensitive it is the attitude of many and in my opinion the OP is included in this that “oh gee I wish we didn’t have the burden of fertility” “we only want 2 kids ever” How does that sound to those who cannot have children, who want children and who wish they could have the circumstances to have children. That my friend is insensitive. I know this because (and this may be hard to believe) there are some who use NFP and take the classes to try to conceive. And more tears fall in those classes right about the time some young insensitive couple tell how they are just taking the class to keep their in laws happy…
My wife and I are blessed to actually be able to conceive on any given month we choose. And knowing the pain of those who cannot I can only tell you that if we withhold God’s will for us for selfish reasons we are only compounding the sin.

(I edited your post because it made mine too long)

Moore, I am not trying to deny your experience of the fact that there are many Catholics who use ABC. I really have no idea where you are getting this idea. I also have no reason, or intention, to use your personal experiences against you. I am not trying to turn this into a battle of whether more Catholics know Church teaching about NFP or not. Instead I am bringing up the fact that of those who actually do know something about the teaching, most misrepresent it to others because they either understand it incorrectly or they fail to realize that the language they use is confusing and misleading to others. Just in the time that I have on CAF I have seen a TON of people who believe that the Church’s teaching on ABC and NFP is illogical and so throw it out because they have not had the teaching explained properly to them. For example, some hear people saying that sex has to be unitive and procreative or else it is immoral, and they think that that means that you have to try to have a baby everytime you have sex. Some don’t understand how there is a distinction between ABC and NFP and so thinks the church doesn’t have a real universal moral reason, but instead is just afraid of casual sex and so banned ABC’s to prevent them from encouraging casual sex, in other words, they end up think ABC is totally fine so long as you aren’t going out having casual sex with all sorts of people. I could go on. My point is just that those of us who actually understand the Church’s teaching on this need to find clearer ways of explaining it to others and drop the confusing language we currently have so that we don’t end up misleading those who hear us speak about the Church’s position.

As for being insensitive, of course those who knowingly and purposefully speak about not wanting kids for trivial reasons in front of an infertile couple TTC is being insensitive. But I don’t see how that has anything to do with what I was saying. My point was that if someone is suffering, as in your example the couple whose marriage is under stress because they are using NFP, then it is insensitive to speak of such people as though they are just being whiny little babies. It doesn’t matter what the cause of someone’s suffering is, if they are suffering we should not treat them disparagingly but instead show them compassion and understanding and try to help them see the best way to either remove the suffering they are enduring or else to accept and bear it patiently. We should not make light of others suffering as you did in your earlier post, regardless of the cuase of the suffering, to do so is insensitive.

 

[Moore11]

(I edited your post because it made mine too long)

As for being insensitive, of course those who knowingly and purposefully speak about not wanting kids for trivial reasons in front of an infertile couple TTC is being insensitive. But I don’t see how that has anything to do with what I was saying. My point was that if someone is suffering, as in your example the couple whose marriage is under stress because they are using NFP, then it is insensitive to speak of such people as though they are just being whiny little babies. It doesn’t matter what the cause of someone’s suffering is, if they are suffering we should not treat them disparagingly but instead show them compassion and understanding and try to help them see the best way to either remove the suffering they are enduring or else to accept and bear it patiently. We should not make light of others suffering as you did in your earlier post, regardless of the cuase of the suffering, to do so is insensitive.

You misunderstood my comparison to whiny little babies. It was not directed to those who you are apparently talking about. It IS directed to an entire mentality in this society that sex is for pleasure and not about responsibility or procreation. I have no idea where you got the other idea from. perhaps it was my writing or perhaps it is your misunderstanding. either way I am stating that I am being misunderstood.

Please show where I was insensitive or move on.

 

[Moore11]

(I edited your post because it made mine too long)

For example, some hear people saying that sex has to be unitive and procreative or else it is immoral, and they think that that means that you have to try to have a baby everytime you have sex. Some don’t understand how there is a distinction between ABC and NFP and so thinks the church doesn’t have a real universal moral reason, but instead is just afraid of casual sex and so banned ABC’s to prevent them from encouraging casual sex, in other words, they end up think ABC is totally fine so long as you aren’t going out having casual sex with all sorts of people. I could go on. My point is just that those of us who actually understand the Church’s teaching on this need to find clearer ways of explaining it to others and drop the confusing language we currently have so that we don’t end up misleading those who hear us speak about the Church’s position.

.

Please tell me what you think “we” should say if we should not say sex should be unitive and procreative…

Are you indicating that people are not smart enough to hear the truth?

What language do YOU think the Church should use?
A young married couple asks you why the Church wont let them use birth control.
Go ahead. What language would you use and why is it better than “unitive and procreative”

 

[severus68]

I’ll try to state a case here related to the OP.
Op states

Here the OP is asking a direct opinion. So we can stop with all the accusations of being uncharitable and judgmental.
The OP is also acknowledging that they do not have serious reason to limit it to 2. I guess they could be mistaken about what classifies as “serious” but lets take them at their word.

Here we see that the intend is not to “space” but rather to make a permanent decision of not intending children for the rest of their lives.

Here we see that the poster may indeed have serious reasons (physical and emotional exhaustion) to avoid. But mostly in my experience we see someone who is focused on how they feel at the moment and not “big picture” and not aware that situations can and do change.

Here we see a glimpse of the OP’s worldview and frustrations. It was pointed out that many people can and do have 5 or more kids with less. Broadening the OP’s view of the world.

This is my favorite one. Not because it was obviously directed to me but because it shows the OP has an ability to be humble and not only that but to honestly look at this issue. It show’s a willingness to learn and to consider different views. That the OP thanks those who may be telling it without a sugar coating shows that they are more patient than I am and we could all probably learn from this example. Most people on the internet solicit a question and when someone gives an answer they dont like they freak out. Not this guy.

Wow. how refreshing, mature, and honest.

If I was the OP’s NFP instructor/counselor, I would tell them that this month is not the month to conceive. That they are overwhelmed at times and probably exhausted.
But I would also tell them that one of the great things about NFP is that it is a monthly conversation about the future you are forced to have with your spouse. This is one of it’s advantages over ABC. It forces the question to be answered every month. But I would also tell them that using NFP with the intent to NEVER conceive because they feel tired right now is not an intended use of NFP and could be grave matter and that they should find a good and orthodox priest who is knowledgeable about this and seek spiritual guidance from them

The Church doesn’t appoint anyone to be the NFP police.

Please see the following:

APOSTOLIC PILGRIMAGE TO BANGLADESH, SINGAPORE, FIJI ISLANDS,
NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA AND SEYCHELLES

HOMILY OF JOHN PAUL II

Perth (Australia), 30 November 1986

Among the principles which the Church vigorously upholds in every circumstance there are the following, which I call to your attention:

• the inalienable right, of spouses to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born, taking into full consideration their duties towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society, in a just hierarchy of values and in accordance with the objective moral order . . .";
• all pressures brought to bear in limiting “the freedom of couples in deciding about children constitute a grave offence against human dignity and justice”;

I would prefer to follow what Blessed JPII said and back off from pressuring people about the use of NPF. It is wholly their decision.

 

[thewanderer]

You misunderstood my comparison to whiny little babies. It was not directed to those who you are apparently talking about. It IS directed to an entire mentality in this society that sex is for pleasure and not about responsibility or procreation.

Which mentality you earlier attributed as to those who were having a difficult time with NFP.

I have no idea where you got the other idea from. perhaps it was my writing or perhaps it is your misunderstanding. either way I am stating that I am being misunderstood.

Please show where I was insensitive or move on.

Please tell me what you think “we” should say if we should not say sex should be unitive and procreative…

Are you indicating that people are not smart enough to hear the truth?

What language do YOU think the Church should use?
A young married couple asks you why the Church wont let them use birth control.
Go ahead. What language would you use and why is it better than “unitive and procreative”

Well, how about saying ‘unitive and ordered towards procreation’. That would sure be a good start as it is much more accurate according to the way people commonly use the word procreative.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I see. You had stated “my wife and I” and so it was at all clear that you wanted a general answer.

I guess I can see that, but as the question was generic providing no specific facts…I will acknowledge that I seem to read things differently than many posters. I read posts that seem to me to be making statements and points about our culture or society as a whole and yet many seem to read those same posts as direct attacks. Maybe it is a case of we see what we are looking for–I do not know.

I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to ask me here. Can you define what you mean by “serious”, and perhaps give an example of another area of “morality” that might be similar…that might help me?

Well I am trying to understand what you mean by serious and just. I am seeking to more fully understand your position. In an earlier post (and I apologize that I don’t have the # handy) you wrote: “The OP established such when he said exactly what the reason was. At that very moment it was established that as long as the OP and his wife discerned this was a reason to avoid, it became a just reason so long as they discern it to be so.”

I am not sure I understand what you are saying but, to me, you seem to be saying:

“a reason to avoid” = “a just reason if the couple finds it a good enough reason to abstain from sex”.

If this is what you are saying I am not sure I agree with that. I think there is a little more to it than that. The impression I was getting is that you thought “if the couple thinks it is a serious reason then it is.” I am just trying to see if I am misunderstanding you. And to be honest I am not sure I made this question any clearer–so I apologize.

To my way of thinking a couple with an improperly formed conscience (through bad catechesis, misinformation from priests, etc) could reach an incorrect conclusion about the justness or seriousness of their reason. In this case their reason would not be serious and just and their action would be sinful. However, because of their bad catechesis they may not be culpable or may have mitigated culpability for the sin. Of course I could be all wet.

Because it is possible and I think likely – that we all have improperly formed consciences in some aspect of the faith–it is extremely important that we always seek to continue to grow in our faith and properly form our conscience–it is a life long pursuit.

I will be honest with you and tell you I don’t believe that you were free from being judgmental in your comments. However, you are correct that I rashly judged your comments and presumed the worst of you. I am sorry for that and I will not accuse you of such, and in the future I will be careful to make sure I understand before jumping to conclusions. Please forgive me.

No problem. I think we all do it even if we don’t mean to. In the future I will try to be more clear and to phrase things differently and hopefully better–though if this post is any indication–that may simply be impossible for me. In the meantime you are free to believe what you will about the questions I posed and I will spend time thinking about them.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Moore11]

Well, how about saying ‘unitive and ordered towards procreation’. That would sure be a good start as it is much more accurate according to the way people commonly use the word procreative.

Yeah, I could probably buy into that verbage but I still think we are nitpicking. Adding the word “ordered” is not going to really solve any problems here.

 

[Moore11]

The Church doesn’t appoint anyone to be the NFP police.

Please see the following:

APOSTOLIC PILGRIMAGE TO BANGLADESH, SINGAPORE, FIJI ISLANDS,
NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA AND SEYCHELLES

HOMILY OF JOHN PAUL II

Perth (Australia), 30 November 1986

Among the principles which the Church vigorously upholds in every circumstance there are the following, which I call to your attention:

• the inalienable right, of spouses to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born, taking into full consideration their duties towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society, in a just hierarchy of values and in accordance with the objective moral order . . .";
• all pressures brought to bear in limiting “the freedom of couples in deciding about children constitute a grave offence against human dignity and justice”;

I would prefer to follow what Blessed JPII said and back off from pressuring people about the use of NPF. It is wholly their decision.

Who is the NFP police? where did I say that?