Contraception, nfp and free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My second question is: Do you view families that appear to have “too many children” a sign that NFP doesn’t work in preventing pregnancies?
 
NFP can’t be used to “prevent pregnancies” as was pointed out previously (I think they said it is NFP not NFC). Disregarding this though, while I have seen the “statistics”, I have talked to many people who either suffer from irregular cycles, or have tried using NFP and have gotten to the point of having 6-8 children (these are real families, they go to my church) and are at the point they cannot have anymore, but they know they will get pregnant again, so they have no choice but to be abstinent until (menopause i guess?).

I’ve talked to these people first hand. One woman I know has 6 chidren, and one child has a condition that is going to be expensive for their family to treat. They are already scraping bottem, so the idea of having another kid would be almost bankruptcy inducing for them. So they do not have a choice, given NFP’s track record with them, they cannot risk having another kid, and just have no choice but to be abstinent.

Too long by my definition is years, like the families I talked to and the one I outlined above, they have no choice but to be abstinent until they have reached a point of infertility due to age.
 
And the difficulty with the above is that the bible clearly says that married couples are supposed to have sex to prevent infidelity. So, just citing that alone seems to indicate to me that “too long” is really any reasonable period of time at all.
 
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer: and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency (1 Cor. 7:3-5).

“By consent for a time.” Is it really by consent if the couple has no choice by to be abstinent? Can “for a time” be greater than a year?
 
Okay, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t referring to abstaining too long in the cycle itself. I wanted to explain that the abstinence per cycle isn’t long if NFP is understood and done correctly.

You mentioned that NFP cannot be used to prevent pregnancy. The purpose of NFP is to not purposefully shut out God’s creative power. The mindset of the couple should prayerfully consider whether God might be calling them to have a child. Sometimes, after prayerful consideration the couple decides they are not to conceive. The Church leaves that discernment to the married couple.

Yes, there are women who have irregular cycles. Why must they abstain indefinitely? Are they aware of the Creighton Method? The Creighton Method has been used by many women who have irregular cycles, and they use it and have only a few children. I personally am friends with a couple from Church that has 6 kids and irregular cycles as well. In their case, after looking at their chart, they were not following it correctly, but were on the verge of quitting. Just to be clear, we know several large families (we’re one of them), and the reason isn’t because of any failure on the part of NFP. You’ll be surprised on how many people assume that to be the case.

I read an article yesterday that stated that while it’s true that NFP isn’t as easy as popping a pill once a day, it prevents more pregnancies than the pill does if done correctly. The alternative is for women to take a pill that pumps their body full of chemicals and acts as an abortifacient. How would that lead a woman to understand her body’s cycles? With a condom, how would that empower her to get to the root of the problem of her cycles? With NFP, you have the option to have a teacher go over your charts to help you figure out the problem, including the problem of abstaining too long.

Have you heard of the magazine, Family Foundations? It’s published by the Couple to Couple League. Their latest magazine is geared completely toward husbands, and I think it could answer a lot of what you are struggling with. I’m not sure if that particular issue is posted online right now since it’s the current issue, but I think it might bring you to a deeper understanding if you want to periodically check back. There’s other good ones listed as well. Here’s a link, if you want to browse around, ccli.org/
I hope you find the answers you’re looking for.

God Bless:)
 
Mark1234 said:
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer: and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency (1 Cor. 7:3-5).

“By consent for a time.” Is it really by consent if the couple has no choice by to be abstinent? Can “for a time” be greater than a year?
Click to expand...
I think the answer is contained in the first bolded passage above. The second part is also is a part that should not be disregarded.

St. Paul also says (paraphrased) that it is best to be like him (celibate), but not all can do that and those who can’t should get married so they don’t fall into temptation.

The original post said something that is close to the truth, but only reflects part of the truth. The OP said something to the effect, that we should only have sex if we want to have kids. I would rephrase it to say “when we have sex, we should acknowledge that kids are a real possibility” We should keep sight of the fact that sex is designed and ordered toward procreation. The responses of the each others bodies are ordered toward uniting a sperm with an egg. It is pleasurable to a) encourage procreation, and b) enhance/renew/maintain the bond between the spouses (which also is order to procreation and the unity necessary to support and raise the children). There is no separating the two aspects. Often people get fixated on only the unitive and it makes it difficult to understand their choices.

Now the existence of NFP can make the morality more difficult to understand. NFP is knowledge and by itself is morally neutral. I think if you keep some of these fundamental concepts in mind, 1. sex is always to be ordered to procreation (noting that it is an attempt by the two bodies to unite a sperm and an egg, 2. sex has unitive benefits to the spouses and therefore the family (which cannot be separated from the procreative) and 3. avoiding sexual temptation is also a biblical reason and duty for spouses to have relations…that you can keep a clear understanding and make grounded decisions.

The elements should be balanced, if it is dangerous to conceive a child… does it make sense to do something that is an attempt to unit sperm with egg? Is it worth risking temptation to mortal sin to not have relations?(a very real danger, can be just as serious as physical danger) Are our reasons for avoiding serious enough to not partake in the unitive benefits?

Please note that #3 avoiding temptation is very valid reason to get married and have relations, however it is also expected that a couple grows spiritually throughout their marriage and that they gain greater control of their temptations. This growth may not, no will not happen if we cheat, via contraception, or other sexual immorality.
 
Hello Mark,
I love analogies. Perhaps I can ease your mind about the restaurant analogy. Most restaurants I’ve been to have a children’s menu with a kid-friendly food and typically at least one “American food” choice like hamburgers, mac & cheese, chicken strips, etc. However, going out to eat can be difficult and even life-threatening for those with serious allergies because of risk of cross-contamination with allergens. Therefore some families may have serious reasons for not going out to eat.

So it is with NFP. Some couples may have very serious reasons for abstaining because of some life-threatening condition. For others, the reasons for avoiding may be serious and potentially uncomfortable, but not life threatening. Then there are others who may have wonderful options available that they haven’t fully considered but they stay away from restaurants because they think they can’t make it work.

Then there’s the whole thing about dealing with fussy eaters or because they simply refuse to co-operate with the needs and wants of others in the family. Honestly, I hope you aren’t accurately portraying your girlfriend’s viewpoint. Your girlfriend’s position is not theologically accurate. We should co-operate with God in our actions to create our families. He rarely goes around impregnating virgins, although That Big Event was known to happen when a humble girl named Mary co-operated with His plan. Even if a couple doesn’t use NFP, they need to do something in order to have a baby. You both sound like you might be a bit “fussy” on the subject. Neither of you want to use NFP, but you want to go to opposite extremes.

NFP is approved by the Church, but a couple does not have to use it. Like people with allergies, the couple can even “go out to restaurants” 😉 when the woman is fertile if they’d like. They should pray and discern what it is they feel God is calling them to do. The de-fault position of marriage is to be open to children, therefore they should have some type of reason for avoiding pregnancy, but that does not mean that they are somehow “less trusting in God” if they feel He is calling them to avoid. Sometimes God calls people to fast; people who fast from food don’t typically go out to restaurants when they are fasting, and a similar analogy could be used for the couple using NFP.But God does not always call us to fast. A couple needs to work together to make NFP work–and they need to be open to God’s will to set it aside if He wants them to.

And…I’ll just add to bring the analogy together with real family life and family planning, if you think parents have to take their two children out to eat to restaurants that the kids like every night, you probably won’t be able to either afford or tolerate more children.
 
Thanks for your thoughtful answers. I am still struggling though. It sounds like everyone is confirming that regular periods of long abstinence can and likely will be a part of any catholic relationship in which the couple is fertile. The quote from St. Paul really seems to bring it into context. It seems like you are suggesting, that the default stance for even married couples in the faith should be more “celibate” like. I think from the quote he is saying that it is good to be celibate (like a priest) but if you can’t than you should be married. But that does not suggest that on average you should remain be celibate in your marriage if you are married. Does that make sense?

This seems to suggest that catholic relationships are fundamentally by their very nature more “sexless” than other types of relationships. I just cannot envision being in a lifestyle where my default position is one of not being able to enjoy the unitive aspect of a marriage with my wife.

To put it into context, the amount of testosterone that is present in a (young) man’s blood stream is such that he would would to have sex every day if he could. Therefore, it is that man’s sacrifice and obligation to God and to his wife to fight his urges, because he wants to view the sex act as a gift to his wife, a sign of his love, and not just a satisfaction of his hormonal drives. On a daily basis this can go on for quite some time. But if a family is to a point where they cannot have any more children, then this period of abstinence can stretch, what seems to a man, to be indefinitely. Since masturbation is a sin, and is shameful and embarrassing in a marriage, this sexual tension can go on unabated for a really long time.

There is numerous evidence that this type of sexual repression is really unhealthy for the human body. When speaking about natural law too, it seems extremely unnatural for a man to go on like this. This does not bring peace, but rather tension and discord to a man’s life, unresolved tensions. Without an out (castration? which is also sinful) I can see this leading to extremely neurotic behavior. I honestly, have no clue how priests are able to do it.

Also, though it is something that I have heard my atheist friends say, I cannot shake this statement: The only unobserved sexual orientation in nature is celibacy. I think there is some truth to this, when speaking about natural law, how is the state of a tortured man with a body coursing full or hormones telling him to sexually express himself towards his wife, but then choosing not to, a natural state? I know there is a misconception that ‘natural law’ is equivalent to ‘that which is observed in nature,’ and that we have a special dignity and calling above animals by God, but I still can’t shake that statement.

Again citing Corinthians:

“Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

This seems to suggest that if someone is struggling with self control then they should have sex regardless of other factors (financial limitations, risk), otherwise Satan will tempt them. It seems like you are all saying that you should go on and remain in a state in which Satan is continually tempting you!
 
Also to answer my own question, the way that some priests do it is that those who choose to go into the priest hood either 1) have a very low sexual drive 2) have chose to make their sacrificial position towards God one of offering up their sexual temptation 3) are secretly satisfying their urges.

3 is just clearly a misjudgement of the priest, and priests are people, they are allowed to sin and have faults. 1 just takes the entire issue off of the table (a special blessing actually). 2 is a calling specific for the priest, but married couples should NOT be obligated to that same calling. They are married, they are not in a religious life.
 
In fact what I said above really seems to bring the issue to the table. Is it possible that celibate priests have a tendency to impose their personal bias on sexuality upon the laity? Could this be the reason for the particular interpretation of St. Paul’s statement that was seen above?

There is one more unresolved fear or thought that I have had for a while, that I would like someone to please help me with while I am still thinking about it. I thought I had resolved it for myself, but every once and a while it crops up again. This sounds very uncatholic, so I apologize for my heretical statements, but I would rather just get it out there honestly, then let it sit in the corner of my mind bothering me. The reasoning goes like this:

The Catholic church is guided by the Holy Spirit, but is not immune to fault. This is true because there have been bad popes, that have made mistakes. They are only human, and can be flawed (with the exception of ex cathedra statements). Just because the holy spirit has chosen to speak to the catholic church specifically, does not mean necessarily that the church is listening. This is just our human nature. One way in which this manifested itself was during the crusades. The Pope promised absolution for all sins in exchange. In 1245, Pope Innocent IV granted inquisitors total absolution of whatever “violence” and “torture” they deemed necessary to route out and silence heretics. This was similarly promised by previous popes of the previous crusades. This is clearly a misguidance of the church in a very key way, because people look to the church for guidance towards reaching heaven. Is a crusader was heinous in his cruelty during the crusade, he would have been likely to go to hell in spite of the fact that he was led to believe he was saved according to the Pope’s promise. This is the fault of those “bad popes” who misguided people, and we already established that this is possible and does not mean that the church is not guided by the Holy Spirit, but sometimes we aren’t listening to that spirit.

If this is possible though, is it possible that the church can be “wrong” about this particular issue? Although the price is far less (too many children, unhappy financial situations, unhappy life), could it be possible that the church actually has a self preserving motive in being against contraception in the sense that, there will be guaranteed to be a larger population of catholics if catholics are against contraception? Is there an ulterior motive in this dogma of the church? How do I come to terms with this thought and vanquish it from my mind.
 
So you have gone through a year of RCIA, converted and now, you are just finding out that you’re going to have to stop masturbating and having sex with your girlfriend before you marry her?

Hmmmmm…
 
No obviously thats not the case. I accepted all these things at one point. I am just struggling now with the practical reality of them.
 
Also your comment seemed a little condescending to my intelligence. Please help me out here, I’m desperate, on the verge of going crazy, I need help. As proof that I’m not the only one, here is a thread, where alot of other people went forward with marriage and are now struggling with these issues:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=587900

I am just taking the time to make sure I whole heartedly accept these truths before I find myself in a similar situation.
 
Mark1234 said:
No obviously thats not the case. I accepted all these things at one point. I am just struggling now with the practical reality of them.
Click to expand...
This is where the rubber meets the road, my friend. Are you going to look God straight in the face and tell him, “Nah, I just don’t think I’m up to it, God, you know? It’s just not practical to follow your law.”

For your information, ALL major religions were against birth control before the Pill. Gradually most of them acquiesced to sin. Our faith hasn’t. It’s always been sin, and always will be. God Himself says so.
 
I’m not necessarily saying that the pill is either right or healthy for woman. I am a little more open to the condom, but I can see the arguments why it is a barrier for intimacy. But I just cannot make sense of the alternative. I am not trying to be liberally minded about these things and argue for contraception for its sake or for some agenda. I am saying, look, whether or not contraception is right or wrong, the state of sexuality as taught in the church is REALLY difficult to put into practice especially if you are not of a certain financial means, or if you are not the type of person that wants 10+ kids. It is a strain on marriage for couples to be constantly denied of the physical touch which many people are most responsive too. I am not saying that there are not other healthy ways of expressing love, but marriages become really difficult when people are SO limited in the way that they can expressive themselves to each other physically.

Let me ask you a question, you have 2 kids right? Did you and your husband use NFP? Are you two for the most part completely abstinent? How did you end up with only 2 kids. Do you two have issues with fertility? If so, then I think its really hard for you to speak from any type of experience here. My girlfriends sister already has 7 kids, they have a strain in their marriage because of it, one kid has expensive medical needs, they can’t have more children. My girlfriend has very irregular cycles, like her sister, and NFP is not likely to be effective for her at all. Plus she believes that God will supernaturally cause pregnancy or lack of pregnancy regardless of her sexual behavior with who she gets married. That stack up to a very very difficult married situation for me in the future. Again read the posts of the other thread that I referenced and you will get a better idea of what I mean when I say people who are struggling with this issue.

I’m not talking about disagreeing at face value with what the church or God teaches. I’m talking about dealing with the consequences and putting into practice those teachings, and somehow being happy in spite of your demeanor towards having a very large number of children. Once again, I think the church dogmatically ordains through these teachings that to be married you must have a very large number of children and an incredible financial means, or no regard to financial responsibility with respect to your children.
 
Mark1234 said:
… It seems like you are suggesting, that the default stance for even married couples in the faith should be more “celibate” like. …
Click to expand...
If anything I wrote made you think that, then I didn’t express myself well. The default stance for married couple should be* to welcome pregnancy and a child (or additional children.)* If there’s reason they think it best to postpone pregnancy and they mutually agree to use it, then NFP is a morally acceptable alternative.
 
Mark1234 said:
I’m not necessarily saying that the pill is either right or healthy for woman. I am a little more open to the condom, but I can see the arguments why it is a barrier for intimacy. But I just cannot make sense of the alternative. I am not trying to be liberally minded about these things and argue for contraception for its sake or for some agenda. I am saying, look, whether or not contraception is right or wrong, the state of sexuality as taught in the church is REALLY difficult to put into practice especially if you are not of a certain financial means, or if you are not the type of person that wants 10+ kids. It is a strain on marriage for couples to be constantly denied of the physical touch which many people are most responsive too. I am not saying that there are not other healthy ways of expressing love, but marriages become really difficult when people are SO limited in the way that they can expressive themselves to each other physically.

Let me ask you a question, you have 2 kids right? Did you and your husband use NFP? Are you two for the most part completely abstinent? How did you end up with only 2 kids. Do you two have issues with fertility? If so, then I think its really hard for you to speak from any type of experience here. My girlfriends sister already has 7 kids, they have a strain in their marriage because of it, one kid has expensive medical needs, they can’t have more children. My girlfriend has very irregular cycles, like her sister, and NFP is not likely to be effective for her at all. Plus she believes that God will supernaturally cause pregnancy or lack of pregnancy regardless of her sexual behavior with who she gets married. That stack up to a very very difficult married situation for me in the future. Again read the posts of the other thread that I referenced and you will get a better idea of what I mean when I say people who are struggling with this issue.

I’m not talking about disagreeing at face value with what the church or God teaches. I’m talking about dealing with the consequences and putting into practice those teachings, and somehow being happy in spite of your demeanor towards having a very large number of children. Once again, I think the church dogmatically ordains through these teachings that to be married you must have a very large number of children and an incredible financial means, or no regard to financial responsibility with respect to your children.
Click to expand...
I will be happy to explain my circumstances to you, but I’d rather do it through PM. But regardless of what my life looks like (and I am not holding my life up as any kind of example, since I was away from the Church for over 20 years) the fact remains that you are kicking against the traces of GOD’S LAWS, not the Church’s. Right now is when you decide whether you are going to surrender to God’s authority, or not. Of course the world is going to tell you that it’s impossible to live according to God’s law. And the world is going to predict doom and pain if you don’t follow the world’s way, but live the way God tells us to. All I can say is that when I get my life to line up with God’s laws, even if it’s not perfectly lined up, I experience not only happiness but JOY. And life works a whole lot better, and in ways that I could never imagine it working. The blessings start to flow, and I can’t describe exactly how that works, but it does. Part of the faith journey is … well … FAITH! It’s trust. It’s knowing that God is standing next to you and He won’t let you fall.

I will add you to my prayers. A lot of people fight God, and so you are in good company. Keep your heart open, my friend. Do you at least understand and accept that these mental gymnastics are your own failing to understand and not a failing of the one, true, Catholic and apostolic Church?
 
Mark1234 said:
Once again, I think the church dogmatically ordains through these teachings that to be married you must have a very large number of children and an incredible financial means, or no regard to financial responsibility with respect to your children.
Click to expand...
I know plenty of families that have 4+ kids and are not rich… and are careful/responsible with their finances (and children). Society may suggest that this is impossible nowadays, but it is certainly not!

About NFP… if we didn’t have this knowledge, that female bodies go through cycles of fertility and infertility, couples would have to abstain completely during times in which they could not have more children. The sexual act cannot be thwarted. Sexual pleasure, something good, was given to us as part of the “marital embrace” which is an act in which couples can come the closest to each other. If we start trying to get the pleasure without the act it was created for (and the act it was created for includes total surrender of one to another, without any barriers or any means to diminish the unitive and procreative aspects), then we are misusing the gift of that pleasure. And like others mentioned, procreative doesn’t have to mean that you need to get pregnant every time you have sex, it just means that you are not doing anything to inhibit that aspect of intercourse. Older couples, couples that suffer from infertility, etc etc all participate in procreative sex when they do not do anything to thwart that aspect, even if they know that the chances of getting pregnant are slim to none.

BTW, it is very reasonable that someone who is just learning about this finds it hard to understand. Although these teachings have never changed, they are so counter-cultural in our society that I think that the only way to understand them is to study what our Church teaches on the subject. It can clear up many things to read from Church documents explaining this subject. The Teachings really are beautiful and our sexuality is a beautiful gift that is hard to appreciate well without understanding the Truth behind everything.
 
“I know plenty of families that have 4+ kids and are not rich… and are careful/responsible with their finances (and children). Society may suggest that this is impossible nowadays, but it is certainly not!”

I would like to second this!👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top