Dangerous pregnancies, ABC, NFP

[gardenswithkids]

This is what I meant, you can post “because it isn’t unitive or procreative” constantly, I don’t see that logic or understand that argument.

Although this has made me think of another point…my marriage is great, I feel very close to my husband and if we are one! We feel united. Why would I then start using something (NFP) which others have claimed to damage their marriage?

I see now that you are not yet Catholic but are on the “path to Catholicism.” Welcome! I don’t know how far along you are on your journey. You are asking about some tough positions that the Church takes that many would prefer to ignore. I grew up Catholic but fell away from the Church and ignored her teachings on this for a while. I didn’t think at the time that contraception harmed my marriage either–until we tried to give it up! (Addicts often don’t realize they have a big problem until they try stopping.) My husband and I eventually decided that our reasons for using NFP weren’t serious enough for us to continue trying NFP. Had I faced a life threatening illness, we would likely have kept up with NFP, but that wasn’t the case. We decided not to use any method of birth control. Freedom!

I know many struggle with this Church teaching, but I have come to love this teaching. Really, truly! I’m not just saying that. I love it because it opened my heart to having more children. And lest I risk sounding self righteous, I give all the glory to God for opening our hearts.

To be better understood, the teachings about NFP need to understood as part of the whole. The Church doesn’t require Catholics to use NFP. The Church teaches very clearly that children are blessings. It’s all over the Bible–children and fertility are blessings. Married couples need a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy if they wish to use NFP licitly. If another pregnancy truly poses a risk the woman’s life, some couples may prefer to chose total abstinence. The partial abstinence (which is what makes NFP effective in avoiding pregnancy) is an alternative to total abstinence if the couple has a very good reason for avoiding pregnancy.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I see now that you are not yet Catholic but are on the “path to Catholicism.” Welcome! I don’t know how far along you are on your journey. You are asking about some tough positions that the Church takes that many would prefer to ignore. I grew up Catholic but fell away from the Church and ignored her teachings on this for a while. I didn’t think at the time that contraception harmed my marriage either–until we tried to give it up! (Addicts often don’t realize they have a big problem until they try stopping.) My husband and I eventually decided that our reasons for using NFP weren’t serious enough for us to continue trying NFP. Had I faced a life threatening illness, we would likely have kept up with NFP, but that wasn’t the case. We decided not to use any method of birth control. Freedom!

I know many struggle with this Church teaching, but I have come to love this teaching. Really, truly! I’m not just saying that. I love it because it opened my heart to having more children. And lest I risk sounding self righteous, I give all the glory to God for opening our hearts.

To be better understood, the teachings about NFP need to understood as part of the whole. The Church doesn’t require Catholics to use NFP. The Church teaches very clearly that children are blessings. It’s all over the Bible–children and fertility are blessings. Married couples need a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy if they wish to use NFP licitly. If another pregnancy truly poses a risk the woman’s life, some couples may prefer to chose total abstinence. The partial abstinence (which is what makes NFP effective in avoiding pregnancy) is an alternative to total abstinence if the couple has a very good reason for avoiding pregnancy.

Thank you for that post! I find it much easier to understand and see the reason/logic when people explain from their experience/perspective as opposed to reciting learnt phrases. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not there yet, but its helpful to read peoples stories!

I am still very knew to learning about Catholicism. Before November last year, I was anti-catholic so I have come a long long way from where I was.

 

[ahs]

This is what I meant, you can post “because it isn’t unitive or procreative” constantly, I don’t see that logic or understand that argument.

But that’s NOT what I posted. I get the impression you aren’t actually reading anything I post, which is fine with me…but it’s dishonest to summarize what I am saying with something I have not said. If you want to only engage people who say "“because it isn’t unitive or procreative”, that’s your business. If you want to engage me, then I would ask that you not misrepresent me, and instead actually read what I write, as I actually wrote it.

Although this has made me think of another point…my marriage is great, I feel very close to my husband and if we are one! We feel united. Why would I then start using something (NFP) which others have claimed to damage their marriage?

You aren’t required to. All you are required to do is avoid thwarting God’s natural design for the Marital act, when you engage in it. Whether you choose NFP or not has got nothing to do with thwarting that design.

 

[jlc2k2]

I see now that you are not yet Catholic but are on the “path to Catholicism.” Welcome! I don’t know how far along you are on your journey. You are asking about some tough positions that the Church takes that many would prefer to ignore. I grew up Catholic but fell away from the Church and ignored her teachings on this for a while. I didn’t think at the time that contraception harmed my marriage either–until we tried to give it up! (Addicts often don’t realize they have a big problem until they try stopping.) My husband and I eventually decided that our reasons for using NFP weren’t serious enough for us to continue trying NFP. Had I faced a life threatening illness, we would likely have kept up with NFP, but that wasn’t the case. We decided not to use any method of birth control. Freedom!

I know many struggle with this Church teaching, but I have come to love this teaching. Really, truly! I’m not just saying that. I love it because it opened my heart to having more children. And lest I risk sounding self righteous, I give all the glory to God for opening our hearts.

To be better understood, the teachings about NFP need to understood as part of the whole. The Church doesn’t require Catholics to use NFP. The Church teaches very clearly that children are blessings. It’s all over the Bible–children and fertility are blessings. Married couples need a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy if they wish to use NFP licitly. If another pregnancy truly poses a risk the woman’s life, some couples may prefer to chose total abstinence. The partial abstinence (which is what makes NFP effective in avoiding pregnancy) is an alternative to total abstinence if the couple has a very good reason for avoiding pregnancy.

I think this put much more eloquently what I was trying to say in my post though we still use NFP. Every single month my husband and I ask ourselves if our reasons for delaying pregnancy are still good enough. I can tell you that for me personally that is not a question I would be asking on a regular basis if I was using ABC. And the measure we personally use for whether our reasons are good enough is - is it worth not having sex tonight? This question allows us to cooperate with God in creating our family, whether it fully follows our time table or not. And as I stated before, if my life were in danger, the answer would always be that it is worth not having sex in order to avoid pregnancy. But that is a sacrifice that we would have to make.

So in our experience, NFP allows us to avoid pregnancy when we feel it’s needed but we have a built in discernment period each month when my fertile time comes around where we have to rethink how we feel about avoiding.

 

[jlc2k2]

As a side note, have you ever checked out Conversion Diary? Here’s a post about why the author about the Catholic teaching on openness to life with lots of great references listed at the bottom: conversiondiary.com/catholic-teaching-on-openness-to-life

 

[Truth_Faith13]

But that’s NOT what I posted. I get the impression you aren’t actually reading anything I post, which is fine with me…but it’s dishonest to summarize what I am saying with something I have not said. If you want to only engage people who say "“because it isn’t unitive or procreative”, that’s your business. If you want to engage me, then I would ask that you not misrepresent me, and instead actually read what I write, as I actually wrote it.

You aren’t required to. All you are required to do is avoid thwarting God’s natural design for the Marital act, when you engage in it. Whether you choose NFP or not has got nothing to do with thwarting that design.

I’m sorry but I find your posts quite angry…you are either spelling out how many times you’ve said something or say things like "well that’s already been referred to in posts x y and z and now there is this one. M feeling like the child of a frustrated parent after hearing “are we there yet” a thus and times. I have read your posts. I’m getting fed up of being attacked. I am not catholic and I am desperately trying to understand your guys perspective but at the moment I don’t. I’m here to engage with everyone in a kind and calm way. I’m not going to agree with everything you say, and I’m not going to blindly follow the churches teachings. Everything I accept and do, happens after research, reading and making deductions that are logical and make sense to me!

When I say what’s wrong with ABC most have said “not unitive or procreative”. You mentioned the procreative did you not? Are you saying you don’t think ABC is not unitive? I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood you.

However if you are going to get angry with me, perhaps it’s best we not engage, but thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut so far.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Thank you for that post! I find it much easier to understand and see the reason/logic when people explain from their experience/perspective as opposed to reciting learnt phrases. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not there yet, but its helpful to read peoples stories!

I am still very knew to learning about Catholicism. Before November last year, I was anti-catholic so I have come a long long way from where I was.

You sure have come a long way! I am glad you found what I shared helpful. I did not come to embrace and love this part of the Church teachings right away. One book that helped me along my own journey was “Life Giving Love” by Kimberly Hahn.
Prayers for you as you continue on your journey.

 

[Bookcat]

B

Here -these are the experts that Catholic Answers sends people to…

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1124

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=315

After reading the articles …

There is also a number at the bottom there --give them a call and ask to talk with an ethicist. They can help one understand these various things. Tis their profession.

 

[Brendan]

This is what I meant, you can post “because it isn’t unitive or procreative” constantly, I don’t see that logic or understand that argument.

Although this has made me think of another point…my marriage is great, I feel very close to my husband and if we are one! We feel united. Why would I then start using something (NFP) which others have claimed to damage their marriage?

How would you feel if your husband told you that he does not like your looks, so much that he would require you to cover your face with a bag for him to be willing to make love to you?

Would you call that ‘unitive’?

Unitive is accepting the person entirely for who they are, and to accept them completely and fully, exactly as God make them to be.

So covering up what we perceive to be a flaw in the other person, either their looks or their fertility as God created it, is NOT a unitive act. It involves not acceptance, but a rejection of parts of the other person that we find to be objectionable, that would interfere with our sexual experience. In addition, since we are seeking to alter them to be something OTHER than what God desires them to be, we are rejecting God.

Rejection is never unitive.

So to be unitive, then would require that your husband accept you, and you accept him, fully, completely and exactly as how God created you two to be. No rejection of any aspect of the other. Nothing but full and complete acceptance.

 

[on_the_hill]

God does not directly “will” for people to get sick and die.

I agree.

If a young mother survives the birth of the most complicated of pregnancies and avoids all future pregnancies, she’s still not likely to be alive on this earth in a hundred years,

Of course.
But hasn’t she a responsibility to her family to avoid risking her health/life? I believe she has. Further, I do not accept that NPF is the only appropriate means of doing that.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Question…

Reading the YOUCAT it mentions that not having children because the state dictates the amount you can have is selfish and therefore not a reason to not have children?

In china they have a one child policy and huge fines if they have more! What if people can’t afford them?

 

[Rence]

When I say what’s wrong with ABC most have said “not unitive or procreative”. You mentioned the procreative did you not? Are you saying you don’t think ABC is not unitive? I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood you.
.

Yes, that is correct, the usage of ABC interferes with the unitive property, something that is present when licitly married people come together consensually without any outside (chemical, physical) interference. That’s the way I was taught it…so that sex between people who are not licitly married do not have the unitive property present. These same rules (must be unitive, must be procreative) also forbid sex between unmarried couples (no unitive property), cheating couples (no unitive property), gay couples (no unitive or procreative property), contracepting couples (no unitive, no procreative), and why remarriage is forbidden (no unitive property - it belongs to the original couple unless the marriage is found invalid). The same two rules govern everyone according to Church rules.

 

[Rence]

Question…

Reading the YOUCAT it mentions that not having children because the state dictates the amount you can have is selfish and therefore not a reason to not have children?

In china they have a one child policy and huge fines if they have more! What if people can’t afford them?

Not being able to afford a (or another) child is part of the “responsible parenthood” that was discussed in Humane Vitae.

Where does YOUCAT say it is selfish to not have children if one can’t afford them or if someone will be penalized by the government for not having one?

 

[Bookcat]

Question…

Reading the YOUCAT it mentions that not having children because the state dictates the amount you can have is selfish and therefore not a reason to not have children?

In china they have a one child policy and huge fines if they have more! What if people can’t afford them?

I not have that book.

But I would say it would NOT say that it is “selfish” there. That is not what it means. It is noting that NFP is to be used for selfish reasons.

As to the problem where the State forbids more children – I would think that such is referring to the fact that SUCH FORBIDDING is unjust.

 

[Rence]

How would you feel if your husband told you that he does not like your looks, so much that he would require you to cover your face with a bag for him to be willing to make love to you?

Would you call that ‘unitive’?

Unitive is accepting the person entirely for who they are, and to accept them completely and fully, exactly as God make them to be.

I wasn’t taught that about the unitive property at all. I was taught that “unitive” had to do with the actual Sacrament of Marriage itself – the spiritual aspect of it involving a Sacrament – and that only those who are licitly married have the unitive property present between them.

So to be unitive, then would require that your husband accept you, and you accept him, fully, completely and exactly as how God created you two to be. No rejection of any aspect of the other. Nothing but full and complete acceptance.

Where did you find this teaching?

 

[Rence]

How would you feel if your husband told you that he does not like your looks, so much that he would require you to cover your face with a bag for him to be willing to make love to you?

Would you call that ‘unitive’?

Unitive is accepting the person entirely for who they are, and to accept them completely and fully, exactly as God make them to be.

So covering up what we perceive to be a flaw in the other person, either their looks or their fertility as God created it, is NOT a unitive act. It involves not acceptance, but a rejection of parts of the other person that we find to be objectionable, that would interfere with our sexual experience. In addition, since we are seeking to alter them to be something OTHER than what God desires them to be, we are rejecting God.

Rejection is never unitive.

So to be unitive, then would require that your husband accept you, and you accept him, fully, completely and exactly as how God created you two to be. No rejection of any aspect of the other. Nothing but full and complete acceptance.

If what you’re writing above is correct, then if a spouse asks his/her partner to put on a specific piece of clothing, or wear a certain kind of perfume, then according to your standard, the unitive property is not present - and that’s not true.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:
… certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children. (2372)

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Catechism:
… certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children. (2372)

But when the state imposes fines and they can’t afford it, what are they supposed to do?

I’ll quote the YOUCAT when u have a mo!

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by Brendan
How would you feel if your husband told you that he does not like your looks, so much that he would require you to cover your face with a bag for him to be willing to make love to you?

Catechism 1643 “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.”

 

[ahs]

I’m sorry but I find your posts quite angry…you are either spelling out how many times you’ve said something or say things like "well that’s already been referred to in posts x y and z and now there is this one. M feeling like the child of a frustrated parent after hearing “are we there yet” a thus and times. I have read your posts.

So, what you are saying is that it’s my problem that you are misrepresenting my position/logic/etc…, and I have no right to be annoyed by that.

I’m getting fed up of being attacked.

I never attacked anyone, but I encourage you to find the “attack” words and find out who did say them, and confront that person.

I am not catholic and I am desperately trying to understand your guys perspective but at the moment I don’t.

Are you really trying to understand it? Or are you trying to single out the faulty position that SOME Catholics use as their arguments, so that you can show how NFP and ABC are alike? Every one of your posts so far shows me that it is the later.

I’m here to engage with everyone in a kind and calm way. I’m not going to agree with everything you say, and I’m not going to blindly follow the churches teachings.Everything I accept and do, happens after research, reading and making deductions that are logical and make sense to me!

You are in good company then. I too am here to engage in a calm and intelligible way, and I also do not expect non-Catholics to blindly follow Catholic teachings. That’s why I rely a great deal on logic. It’s also why I ask questions…because answering questions tends to help us find answers.

When I say what’s wrong with ABC most have said “not unitive or procreative”.

But you put those words into my mouth. Please don’t misrepresent me.

You mentioned the procreative did you not?

Yes, I did say the word “procreative”. Would you care to provide the entire sentence I used that word in, for the sake of context and correct representation of what I said?

Are you saying you don’t think ABC is not unitive?

Are you asking me more questions while you still refuse to answer mine? Can you quote me where I use the “unitive”, the whole sentence please, for context?

I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood you.

There’s nothing wrong with you misunderstanding me. What you did wrong was *misrepresent *me. Why don’t you apologize for that instead?

However if you are going to get angry with me, perhaps it’s best we not engage, but thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut so far.

I’m not angry. If I were angry, I would not be here to dialog with you.