Delicate question about sexual morality within marriage

[Thomas_Jude]

Great – if NFP and ABC are the same – then just use NFP! People use this argument to rationalize using ABC. If they really were “the same”, no one would have a problem giving up ABC and using NFP.

The couple using NFP does nothing to get in God’s way. God can do with that act what he wants. (Couples are not obligated to make love at any given time.) This is what openness to life means - it doesn’t really have anything to do with the “odds” of getting pregnant or not. Otherwise you could argue that condoms are more open to life than NFP since they are less “effective”. They obviously are not since they say “I want pleasure, but God stay out of it.”

 

[pira114]

Thomas Jude:

Pira writes:

“Intentionally having sex only when it is impossible to get pregnant, is the same thing as intentionally obstructing the creative will of God.”

By the same logic:

There is no difference between dieting and bulimia. Both serve the purpose of losing weight. The bulimic intends to lose weight just like the dieter. What’s the difference?

You’re right. Both parties desire to lose weight. That’s not the issue. I am contending that the NFP users are in fact trying to not have a baby, just like ABC users. In this, it is birth control. That’s all. The question is simple. Why is one form of birth control allowed and not the other? If you are using ANY method, are you not ending in a way that is not open to life? I know that every act does not have to produce a child. But if you are using NFP correctly, it is not open to life, as there is no egg. Someone said earlier that condoms are less effective. Fine. So how is a method that is more effective than condoms open to life? How is this method any different than ABC?

To truely honor Gods wishes regarding sex between married couples, shouldn’t you be intimate without regard for what time of the month it is? Shouldn’t you let God, and God alone, decide when you are going to get pregnant?

 

[OhioBob]

pira114:

…I am contending that the NFP users are in fact trying to not have a baby, just like ABC users. In this, it is birth control.

No, it isn’t birth control, it is self control. Deciding not to have sexual relations is not the same thing as having sex and contracepting. Deciding whether or not to have sex is an act of the will formed through a knowledge of the procreative and unitive roles of sex in marriage, personal responsibility and willingness to accept the potential ramifications. Contracepting turns sex into an unconscious act of self.

pira114:

…Why is one form of birth control allowed and not the other?

All forms of birth control are not allowed. NFP is not birth control. By your logic, any decision to abstain (headache, stress, etc. etc.) would be a form of birth control.

pira114:

…How is this method any different than ABC?

:banghead:

pira114:

Shouldn’t you let God, and God alone, decide when you are going to get pregnant?

With NFP that is exactly what you are doing. God decides when you get pregnant because you do not obstruct the process. And by prayerfully discerning God’s will for your own family and using the knowledge of NFP, God is also involved in the decision whether or not to abstain from sex.

 

[CuriousInIL]

OhioBob:

No, it isn’t birth control, it is self control. Deciding not to have sexual relations is not the same thing as having sex and contracepting. Deciding whether or not to have sex is an act of the will formed through a knowledge of the procreative and unitive roles of sex in marriage, personal responsibility and willingness to accept the potential ramifications. Contracepting turns sex into an unconscious act of self.

All forms of birth control are not allowed. NFP is not birth control. By your logic, any decision to abstain (headache, stress, etc. etc.) would be a form of birth control.

:banghead:

With NFP that is exactly what you are doing. God decides when you get pregnant because you do not obstruct the process. And by prayerfully discerning God’s will for your own family and using the knowledge of NFP, God is also involved in the decision whether or not to abstain from sex.

I disagree completely. Of course NFP is birth control. And no all forms of birth control are not prohibited. Contraception is prohibited.

And, by the way, birth control is not always conception preventation. Trying to conceive is also control, is allowed, and NFP works well in this way.

Getting tripped up in the semantics helps no one IMO.

 

[OhioBob]

CuriousInIL:

I disagree completely. Of course NFP is birth control. And no all forms of birth control are not prohibited. Contraception is prohibited.

And, by the way, birth control is not always conception preventation. Trying to conceive is also control, is allowed, and NFP works well in this way.

Getting tripped up in the semantics helps no one IMO.

I think that popular culture has usurped the term “birth control” in much the same way it has other terms (“gay” etc.) whose colloquial meaning no longer matches their dictionary meaning. To many in the contraceptive community “birth control” equals contraception. In trying to make my point I was using the term “birth control” in it’s popular meaning.

Excuse me.

IMO, if the NFP community insists upon promoting NFP as Catholic “birth control”, the issue seems doomed to perpetual stalemate.

 

[12345678]

pira114:

You’re right. Both parties desire to lose weight. That’s not the issue. I am contending that the NFP users are in fact trying to not have a baby, just like ABC users. In this, it is birth control. That’s all. The question is simple. Why is one form of birth control allowed and not the other? If you are using ANY method, are you not ending in a way that is not open to life? I know that every act does not have to produce a child. But if you are using NFP correctly, it is not open to life, as there is no egg. Someone said earlier that condoms are less effective. Fine. So how is a method that is more effective than condoms open to life? How is this method any different than ABC?

To truely honor Gods wishes regarding sex between married couples, shouldn’t you be intimate without regard for what time of the month it is? Shouldn’t you let God, and God alone, decide when you are going to get pregnant?

How about this:
Couple A uses contraceptives to avoid children because the wife has a rare condition that would be deadly if she became pregnant and they found thru careful prayer that that was a serious reason avoid children at the time.
Couple B uses NFP to avoid children because the wife has the same rare condition that would be deadly if she became pregnant and they found thru careful prayer that that was a serious reason to avoid children at the time.
Couple C uses NFP to avoid children because they have 2 and thats all they want. Theyknow they don’t have any serious reasons, but they like to be able to control the amount of kids they have and they like having extra time and money.

Now keeping in mind that the Church allows for couples to postpone births indefinitely if a serious reason is present, we could say that couples A and B have a serious reason to postpone births. The difference is that couple A is mutilating their sexual acts to avoid children, while couple B is using their knowledge of the wonderful woman’s cycle designed by God to have an unmutilated marital embrace during the times of the month that God designed to be unfertile. The means are different, even if the ends are the same. Now C is using the same means as couple B, but the ends are different; they are misusing NFP. It is not correct to use NFP for selfish reasons, but what makes their case incorrect is different than what makes couple A’s case incorrect. One has the wrong means, the other the wrong reason (wrong ends).
Now, the Church in its generosity has allowed people to use NFP if serious reasons are present (eg couples A and B). There is a difference between mutilating an act (both during fertile and unfertile times) and abstaining and then participating in the act without mutilating it. If participating in the marital embrace (without mutilating it) during the infertile phase was indeed closed to life, then no couple could participate in the marital embrace at this time (they could only participate in it during the wife’s fertile phase). Would that make sense?

 

[Agricola]

Concerning what the limits of affection between husband and wife during pregnancy:
I think the first concern should be the safety of the child. Then, apart from that, as long as the end result (i.e. climax) is in the context of the conjugal act you’re in the clear.

Concerning whether one should reserve climax for inside the context of the conjugal act:
Consider the story of Onan, who having married his brother’s widow, offended God and was punished.

“Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went into his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.” Genesis 38:8-10.

Concerning the use and abuse of NFP:
NFP in itself is not wrong, in fact, it may be of great benefit to a couple in conceiving a child if they are having difficulty in that area. However, it can easily be corrupted and used in a way that is against the Church’s teachings and God’s plan for married persons.

In Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), he has this to say about NFP: “In its true meaning, responsible procreation requires couples to be obedient to the Lord’s call and to act as faithful interpreters of His plan. This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely. The moral law obliges them in every case to control the impulse of instinct and passion, and to respect the biological laws inscribed in their person. It is precisely this respect which makes legitimate, at the service of responsible procreation, the use of natural methods of regulating fertility.” (Evangelium Vitae, § 97)

And to clarify, the main prerequisites for the use of NFP are a) a serious reason (example will be given below) and b) a “sincere gift of self” (Evangelium Vitae, § 96).

Again to clarify, an example of serious reason is given in Pope John Paul II’s letter to teachers of NFP: “At the global level this choice supports the process of freedom and emancipation of women and peoples from unjust family planning programmes, which bring in their sad wake the various forms of contraception, abortion and sterilization.” (§ 2) What is being spoken of is the freedom that NFP gives a couple who are in a situation where, for example, the civil authorities limit the number of children you are allowed to have, and persecute those (by killing the newborn child or forcing an abortion, etc.) who break these unjust laws against life.

A couple should not use NFP for trivial reasons. Not wanting to have a child is not a good enough reason, since it is exactly this mentality that the Church warns against a “contraceptive mentality” (Evangelium Vitae, § 13).

There is a lot more to sex than just pleasure and companionship… it is the fulfillment of our covenant with God. As my girlfriend says in her talks on chastity: For sex to be right in God’s eyes it must reflect the love of God for us. God’s love is a) faithful, b) fruitful - creative, c) full - completely self-giving, and d) free - not compulsory… therefore the love given between a man and a woman in the conjugal act must be faithful, fruitful, full, and free. If sex lacks any of these four qualities, it is deficient. This simplified explanation of the morality of sexual relations is meant for teenagers, but I would think that it could be quite useful in determining the morality of sexual relations within marriage also.

Hopefully this helps.
God bless,

Agricola

 

[pira114]

Ohio Bob, you can hit your head against a wall all you want ( in fact, I think you already have), but it doesn’t change facts. The Church does not teach that all forms of birth control are wrong. NFP is accepted as a form of birth control. It’s not abstinance. It’s nothing more than being selective as to WHEN you have sex, for the sole purpose of preventing pregnancy. That’s birth control.

12345678, (interesting name ) I’m not talking about why anyone would not want to have a child. I only talking about how they do that. Furthermore, I’ve never condemned one method or the other. I’m only pointing out the problem with saying that NFP is O.K. and any other means of birth control is not.

Agricola, You hit it right on the head. You said that as long as the end result is in the context of the conjugal act, you’re in the clear. The phrase “in the clear” is typical for Catholics. That may be why we get attacked so often. Many see Catholics as people who make great use of loop holes in our own doctrine. My whole arguement, and I believe, the point to this thread by the origional poster, is that NFP is a loop hole, i.e. “in the clear.”

As Agricola posted, the Church itself describes NFP as birth control and warns against it’s use in most circumstances. I re-quote:

A couple should not use NFP for trivial reasons. Not wanting to have a child is not a good enough reason, since it is exactly this mentality that the Church warns against a “contraceptive mentality” (Evangelium Vitae, § 13).

This statement forces one to conclude that NFP used for trivial reasons IS CONTRACEPTION.

I sincerely hope that my directness does not offend anyone. That is not, and never would be, my intention. I’m just trying to point out the fallacy of many Catholics beliefs concerning NFP.

Now for a personal opinion. I don’t remember if I mentioned this before, I might have. My personal belief as to why we accept NFP at all is that long ago the Church recognized a real need for birth control. Instead of reversing it’s previous doctrines, it took (to use a political term) the soft stance. NFP is the soft way out. Now, whether the Church decided we needed birth control for good reasons or not, is not up for debate since (and please correct me if I’m wrong) the Pope speaks with infallibility on this issue. That’s just my 2 cents.

 

[leaner]

pira114:

Ohio Bob, you can hit your head against a wall all you want ( in fact, I think you already have), but it doesn’t change facts. The Church does not teach that all forms of birth control are wrong. NFP is accepted as a form of birth control. It’s not abstinance. It’s nothing more than being selective as to WHEN you have sex, for the sole purpose of preventing pregnancy. That’s birth control.

12345678, (interesting name ) I’m not talking about why anyone would not want to have a child. I only talking about how they do that. Furthermore, I’ve never condemned one method or the other. I’m only pointing out the problem with saying that NFP is O.K. and any other means of birth control is not.

Agricola, You hit it right on the head. You said that as long as the end result is in the context of the conjugal act, you’re in the clear. The phrase “in the clear” is typical for Catholics. That may be why we get attacked so often. Many see Catholics as people who make great use of loop holes in our own doctrine. My whole arguement, and I believe, the point to this thread by the origional poster, is that NFP is a loop hole, i.e. “in the clear.”

As Agricola posted, the Church itself describes NFP as birth control and warns against it’s use in most circumstances. I re-quote:

A couple should not use NFP for trivial reasons. Not wanting to have a child is not a good enough reason, since it is exactly this mentality that the Church warns against a “contraceptive mentality” (Evangelium Vitae, § 13).

This statement forces one to conclude that NFP used for trivial reasons IS CONTRACEPTION.

I sincerely hope that my directness does not offend anyone. That is not, and never would be, my intention. I’m just trying to point out the fallacy of many Catholics beliefs concerning NFP.

Now for a personal opinion. I don’t remember if I mentioned this before, I might have. My personal belief as to why we accept NFP at all is that long ago the Church recognized a real need for birth control. Instead of reversing it’s previous doctrines, it took (to use a political term) the soft stance. NFP is the soft way out. Now, whether the Church decided we needed birth control for good reasons or not, is not up for debate since (and please correct me if I’m wrong) the Pope speaks with infallibility on this issue. That’s just my 2 cents.

I think you guys are talking around eachother – yes, child spacing/birth control via NFP is fine, for good reason. No, the church has no beef with “abstinance” – what it does have issue with is sex without the possiblity of life as a result. Anytime you introduce ARTIFICIAL birth control, you throw God out of the equation. Using natural family planning keeps God, as well as both members of the union in on the decision making – you consult eachother and hopefully the Lord as to wether or not tonight is a “good night” for nookie…kwim? You put on a condom, take a pill, etc., and there’s no thoughtful prayerful interaction - -that’s the beef I believe…with artificial birth control, you are saying “i want the physical gratification without the responsibility, and don’t really care about the gift of fertility that God has given me”-- with NFP, you and your partner have to decide, each month, if you want to do it tonight, knowing it’s a primo night for conception – you decide “no, let’s use NFP as birth control for XYZ reasons that we believe are good reasons for avoiding a pregnancy”— nothing has been interrupted (a condom) nothing has been risked (the pill and it’s abortifacient capablities), sex has been postponed until a non-fertile time…It’s kind of my feeling that God did this for a reason, gave us “fertile” and “non-fertile” times – so we could be responsible parents and raise children in His way – some people can do that with 16 kids, and some people can, for a variety of reasons, not. So long as the individuals are ok with why (meaning they’re honest in their reasons for avoiding or achieving) and can stand up at their Judgement and say “I did this, and I belive it was ok because” – it’s fine.

The biggest obstacle is the nomenclature – the church calls it “child spacing” – you’re right, it’s birth control - -you’re controlling the birth or “non-birth” of a child by avoiding or engaging during fertile times. The difference is HOW it’s done. Naturally, in the flow of God’s design vs. with the desires of modern man…ay, there’s the rub…and there is a huge difference between artificial and natural birth control – both achieve the same result, but it’s like earning a paycheck vs robbing a bank in the eyes of the church (for many reasons).

 

[Agricola]

Pira114,

I’ve “offended” people with what I said above. It is very easy to fall into the trap of looking for the “loop hole” you spoke of. However, when I said I used the term “in the clear”, it was not in reference to a loop hole, but to the lack of culpability that would result from having pure intentions when approaching the question of whether or not to use NFP.

I’d be interested to see where the evidence that “long ago the Church recognized a real need for birth control”. I haven’t ever read anything that would lead me to believe that the Church has indeed, in any form, acknowledged a need for “birth control”. Could you give a reference so that I could seek it out?

leaner,

Using NFP as a method of birth spacing is an improper use, wouldn’t you say? There are other methods that are morally acceptable, such as breast feeding.

I believe that is in not merely a question of how one prevents a birth from occuring, but also why. It could be argued that the why question is where the problem lies, as that is where it is impossible to make a definitive statement of the seriousness of contributing factors, since those factors are different in each circumstance. If people use NFP, it is a requirement that it not be used as a “contraceptive”, but as a means of ensuring the protection of the family.

Abortion is treated much the same way. If the mother’s life is in danger the child may be removed, not in order to kill the child, but in order to save the life of the mother. In NFP, if the family is in grave danger (mother’s life is an example, where she may die if she conceived due to some complication), the couple may abstain from sexual relations during fertile time, not in order to prevent new life, but to prevent the destruction of the family. Serious consideration must be made… just as in the case of women who, knowing that they may die as a result, continue in their high risk pregnancies for the sake of their unborn child, the Church recognizes that it takes heroic trust in God for those who choose to have children, even when it is difficult to do so.

Anyway, its just a thought, but perhaps there needs to be a distinction made in terminology within the bounds of NFP. Perhaps we need to say “contraceptive NFP” is wrong, and “NFP by necessity” is not. Like that simplification?

God bless,

Agricola

 

[leaner]

Agricola:

Pira114,

I’ve “offended” people with what I said above. It is very easy to fall into the trap of looking for the “loop hole” you spoke of. However, when I said I used the term “in the clear”, it was not in reference to a loop hole, but to the lack of culpability that would result from having pure intentions when approaching the question of whether or not to use NFP.

I’d be interested to see where the evidence that “long ago the Church recognized a real need for birth control”. I haven’t ever read anything that would lead me to believe that the Church has indeed, in any form, acknowledged a need for “birth control”. Could you give a reference so that I could seek it out?

leaner,

Using NFP as a method of birth spacing is an improper use, wouldn’t you say? There are other methods that are morally acceptable, such as breast feeding. **-- eh, that works sometimes, and sometimes it doesn’t…NFP is a great way to see if it is working or not. Plenty of people ovulate while breastfeeding…I nursed exclusively (no NOTHING else) and still got my period back within 5mos… on demand, thru the night, cosleeping, the whole deal…(believe me, I am still shaking my head!!) – I don’t know why it didn’t work, but it didn’t. **

I believe that is in not merely a question of how one prevents a birth from occuring, but also why. It could be argued that the why question is where the problem lies, as that is where it is impossible to make a definitive statement of the seriousness of contributing factors, since those factors are different in each circumstance. If people use NFP, it is a requirement that it not be used as a “contraceptive”, but as a means of ensuring the protection of the family.

It could be argues that in some cases, esuring protection of the family means not getting pregnant at this time…everyone’s situation is different and when we try to say “that’s a good reason” or “that’s not a good reason” we are ignoring the old shard of wood in the eye…

Abortion is treated much the same way. If the mother’s life is in danger the child may be removed, not in order to kill the child, but in order to save the life of the mother. In NFP, if the family is in grave danger (mother’s life is an example, where she may die if she conceived due to some complication), the couple may abstain from sexual relations during fertile time, not in order to prevent new life, but to prevent the destruction of the family. Serious consideration must be made… just as in the case of women who, knowing that they may die as a result, continue in their high risk pregnancies for the sake of their unborn child, the Church recognizes that it takes heroic trust in God for those who choose to have children, even when it is difficult to do so.

Anyway, its just a thought, but perhaps there needs to be a distinction made in terminology within the bounds of NFP. Perhaps we need to say “contraceptive NFP” is wrong, and “NFP by necessity” is not. Like that simplification? – not really, b/c I think they can be one in the same – it’s terminology

God bless,

Agricola

Please read this article and tell me what you think of it…

christopherwest.com/article4.asp

 

[Augustine]

pira114:

That’s just my 2 cents.

2¢??? That’s worth more than $2!

Thank y’all for the clarifications, it’s much clearer in mind now.

 

[Agricola]

leaner:

It could be argues that in some cases, esuring protection of the family means not getting pregnant at this time…

Dear Leaner,

This is true, and this is very necessary for the understanding of “responsible parenthood”. However, my concern is that the focus on the availability of a time of infertility as a period of time to have relations with one’s spouse when “serious reasons” are present will overshadow the availability of a time of fertility as a period of time to have relation with one’s spouse when “serious reasons” are *not *present.

I know some very devout people who are confused on this point. They are under the impression that because there is a period of infertility, the period of fertility should be given to abstinence unless a child is desired. Whereas the Church says the opposite. Because there is a period of fertility, the period of fertility should be given to abstinence only if the couple has serious reasons to abstain (I hope I’m being clear enough for you to understand my meaning… I’m feeling the limitations of written language at this point.).

“Pope Paul VI stated clearly that those are considered ‘to exercise responsible parenthood who prudently and generously decide to have a large family, or who, for serious reasons and with due respect to the moral law, choose to have no more children for the time being or even for an indeterminate period.’[Humanae Vitae, n. 10] Notice that large families should result from prudent reflection, not ‘chance.’ Notice that a couple must have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy and must respect the moral law.”

I think that it is in this paragraph that Christopher west sums up the problem nicely. If we are able to have children, we should… it is good to. If, after careful consideration of our circumstances and the elimination of selfish motivations, we find that it would be prudent to abstain from spousal relations, we should abstain.

-- not really, b/c I think they can be one in the same – it’s terminology

“Correct thinking (ortho-doxy) on the issue of responsible parenthood, like all issues, is a matter of maintaining important distinctions and carefully balancing various truths. Failure to do so leads to errors on both extremes.” (Christopher West)

This is why I made the distinction between NFP as a way to prevent children with no serious reason, “contraceptive NFP”, and NFP as a way of protecting one’s family (from starvation for example… or death in the example from the papal letter to NFP teachers I gave reference for in a previous post), “necessary NFP”. The distinction is not merely wordplay. It is a very real distinction… one that determines the morality of NFP’s use.

I did enjoy Christopher West’s article by the way. I think I will look into his writings more, as this is an issue I wish to understand as completely as I am able before I marry.

God bless,

Agricola

 

[ConcernCatholic]

My husband and I have recently purchased a book on this topic. I have only skimmed it but it addresses this topic thoroughly. It is “Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality” by John F. Kippley (Ignatius Press 2005). Another book that really helped me understand some of these distinctions is “Life-giving Love: Embracing God’s Beautiful Design for Marriage” by Kimberly Hahn (2001). This was a great book because it helped me fully understand the sacrament of marriage and the use of NFP. Since I am a recent convert, I am always looking for books to help me better understand the teachings of the church. I find some of the official documents difficult to read and understand.

Peace

 

[leaner]

I think this discussion would be so much shorter if people would just allow others to prayerfully make the decision to have/postpone/stop having kids on their own without deciding for them if it’s “reason enough” or if it’s “grave enough” – only the couple can know if they’re truly not able to do it, or if they truly are. I see people (particularly on here) spending an awful lot of time explaining to others why they’re not having more kids – personally, I don’t think it’s the business of anyone (including me) but that couple and their considerations with the Lord. People also spend a lot of time telling others just how “grave” it has to be – as if there are some secret qualifiers that must be met…some checklist to make it “ok” to not have more kids or postpone the next one for a little while. I’m not saying we have to just smile and nod at the people who want a BMW not another kid, but geeze, let’s let people reflect and pray for themselves a bit before we sit up on high and tell them how to decide for themselves (catch the oxymoron there?!)

 

[pira114]

Agricola-

I don’t have any support for my statement that I “thought” the Church recognized a need for birth control. It was just my opinion, and open to attack as such. I’m sure I would be hard pressed to find support, but have honestly not looked. It’s really more of a theory than an opinion. And a loose one at that. That’s why I wanted to make it clear that it was just a thought.

Leaner-

Yes, sometimes we do get on a high horse around here. There’s a fine line between trying to convey your understanding on a subject and sounding like you’re judging. I think that’s why we all use our disclaimers so much, i.e… “no offense”, “I hope I didn’t offend anyone”, “just a thought.” etc, etc. We probably all mean these things, but we use them so much they might lose their meaning to the reader. On the other hand, good discussions like this could lead one to re-evaluate their stance on something. At least get them thinking. It could also lead one to be stronger in their beliefs. I’m not trying to change anyone. If this discussion lead me to totally change my views on something, I’m always open to that. I’ve never even said what my personal beliefs on this topic are. I just see a potential point of dissention on this topic.

When it comes down to it, I’ll follow what the Pope says on these matters. We all should. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have different feelings on the matter and discuss them.

As for the topic at hand. I think we’ve come to the point. We all know that planning your family for various reasons is not frowned upon by the Church. The only thing I can find against it, is what was posted earlier. The Church has said that avoiding pregnancy, even using NFP, for frivolous reasons is wrong. Now what constitutes a good reason or not, is going to take this thread to 100 pages!

In the end, I would have to side with Learner. People need to educate themselves as to what’s considered right and wrong. But to determine if your reason is sufficiant, it would be up to you and your relationship with God.