Husband and I not having sex because we don't want children.

[Rau]

We were married in the mid 80’s. NFP was only mentioned in our marriage preparation course along with the other methods of ABC. The pros and cons of each method were provided. There was no statement that NFP was the only acceptable way to avoid pregnancy in the eyes of the Church. I recall that we were also told that the RCC teaching on ABC was not infallible! If we were interested in NFP, there were a few couples (a handful) that would be available to teach it on a volunteer basis only.

We were encouraged to periodically review which ever method we selected (if any) to ensure that it was still the correct choice for us.

Who gave your course! It’s a worry!

 

[Rau]

Here are more quotes: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM

Some quotes from St. Augustine:

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30).

“In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children.” ( 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

Ephiphanius:
"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children.* Not in order to produce offspring***, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" ( 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

Lactantius:
"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ‘generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us* for no other purpose than the generation of offspring***" (ibid. 6:23:18).

It appears the Church’s Fathers believed that every single act contributes to “the generation of offspring”. It would be illogical to think otherwise. They always connected sex to conception.
They did not have a clue about the proper biology but they always talked about “no other purpose than the generation of offspring” .

I’ll repeat, the Church continues to go with it. The procreation understanding is very shaky in this light.

I don’t have any knowledge of this early timeframe, but Saints need not be correct in all they say. The Church does not today, nor I think did St Paul, say that one should only go to the marital bed when seeking to produce another child.

[Note that the Augustine quote seems internally inconsistent. “Released from the control of reason” yet for a specific, therefore reasoned, purpose!]

There is no reason to think they believed in all instances of sex contributing to procreation. They may equally think some do and some don’t. They may think there’s a bodily basis for that, or Godly intervention.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I don’t have any knowledge of this early timeframe, but Saints need not be correct in all they say. The Church does not today, nor I think did St Paul, say that one should only go to the marital bed when seeking to produce another child.

[Note that the Augustine quote seems internally inconsistent. “Released from the control of reason” yet for a specific, therefore reasoned, purpose!]

There is no reason to think they believed in all instances of sex contributing to procreation. They may equally think some do and some don’t. They may think there’s a bodily basis for that, or Godly intervention.

Is there a contradiction between the Church’s Fathers and the current Church’s teaching?

 

[Rau]

Is there a contradiction between the Church’s Fathers and the current Church’s teaching?

Maybe, but I don’t feel I know enough about the former (who they are, context of their statements, etc). There is no expectation on my part that all statements of saints are reliable.

If there is any difference, it does not appear to be about the wrongs of contraception.

 

[Vico]

Did you read the Church’s Fathers? Sex is only “for the procreation of children”. No exceptions.
Does Pope Pius XII go against the Church’s Fathers?

Yes I did read church fathers statements, in fact I posted some myself. You did not answer my question if you read Pope Pius XII.

There is not a conflict which you would understand if you understood what Pope Pius XII wrote.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes I did read church fathers statements, in fact I posted some myself. You did not answer my question if you read Pope Pius XII.

There is not a conflict which you would understand if you understood what Pope Pius XII wrote.

I read what Pope Pius XII said/wrote.

Let me quote St. Augustine: “… * in copulation only to propagate progeny.*”

The Pope Pius XII: “From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful….”

If a couple uses the observance of the natural sterile periods then they are not in copulation to propagate progeny. They are in a sterile period and it’s obvious their are trying to avoid the conception.
This appears to be a clear contradiction.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Maybe, but I don’t feel I know enough about the former (who they are, context of their statements, etc). There is no expectation on my part that all statements of saints are reliable.

If there is any difference, it does not appear to be about the wrongs of contraception.

Contraception is avoiding conception one way.
NFP is avoiding conception another way.

The point that I am trying to make is not about a specific way how the conception is avoided but that the Church’s Fathers dismissed any type of avoidance and the current Church’s teaching allows one specific way how to avoid the conception.

It appears the Church’s teaching has changed on this moral issue.

 

[Vico]

I read what Pope Pius XII said/wrote.

Let me quote St. Augustine: “… * in copulation only to propagate progeny.*”

The Pope Pius XII: “From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful….”

If a couple uses the observance of the natural sterile periods then they are not in copulation to propagate progeny. They are in a sterile period and it’s obvious their are trying to avoid the conception.
This appears to be a clear contradiction.

They accept that pregnancy may occur and they will accept the child that results, therefore it is procreative, since pregnancy may rarely occur during periods thought to be sterile. There is no tradition of restricting marital relations to times thought to be most fertile. In fact some are through to be sterile at menopause, yet with St. Anne there was still the birth of St. John the Forerunner.

The intention with NFP is to minimize the chance, but it is not always justified, as Pope Pius XII explained. The Church also had to deal with the cases of those validly married persons that were tortured and castrated after marriage. It does not invalidate their marriage.

 

[Rau]

Contraception is avoiding conception one way.
NFP is avoiding conception another way.

The point that I am trying to make is not about a specific way how the conception is avoided but that the Church’s Fathers dismissed any type of avoidance and the current Church’s teaching allows one specific way how to avoid the conception.

It appears the Church’s teaching has changed on this moral issue.

You are making up a definition of contraception. “Avoiding conception” is not contraception. Delaying a marriage may serve the end of avoiding conception. Impeding the course of the sexual act is contraception. Eg. Onanism. Now that was a case of copulation not for producing progeny and it was contraceptive!

Saint Augustine is a saint. Why do you equate him with the Church? What is Augustine’s teaching authority?

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

We don’t want the risk of having a baby. I am also fearful of childbirth. I have low pain threshold and pass out during a health examination.

I feel within marriage there should be a right to as much natural planning as possible. At least natural planning and/ or completely avoiding intimacy altogether are not sinful and are completely natural. I don’t feel there’s anything wrong with not being intimate, even within marriage. A woman should not be forced to have relations if she does not want to, married or not. And I fully understand and can relate to the last part of this post. I also have a very low pain threshold, and while I’ve never given birth, I can imagine how awful of a time I would have. Also, I hated those “girlie” exams too. I’ve stopped having them, and refuse to ever again. It’s unnecessary unless you’re in danger of a disease, which I know I am not. Those exams are medical rape, as far as I’m concerned. I absolutely refuse them, because of the pain, and just the fact that I don’t see them as necessary.

 

[Jaaanosik]

They accept that pregnancy may occur and they will accept the child that results, therefore it is procreative, since pregnancy may rarely occur during periods thought to be sterile. There is no tradition of restricting marital relations to times thought to be most fertile. In fact some are through to be sterile at menopause, yet with St. Anne there was still the birth of St. John the Forerunner.

The intention with NFP is to minimize the chance, but it is not always justified, as Pope Pius XII explained. The Church also had to deal with the cases of those validly married persons that were tortured and castrated after marriage. It does not invalidate their marriage.

If we say there is no tradition on fertile periods then we have to also say there is no tradition on infertile periods as well. It was already mentioned in this thread that the knowledge about fertile/infertile periods is not even 200 years old.

Therefore the fact remains; the Church’s Fathers emphasized sex is only “for the procreation of children”; without any knowledge about periods.
It appears very illogical to insist that sex during infertile period is for the procreation of children now when we know about periods.
And because we don’t want to be illogical (as being wrong/saying a false statement/saying a lie) then we can not say that sex during infertile period is for procreation as understood by the Fathers.
Sex is only for procreation of children. What is so hard to understand about this statement?

“They accept that pregnancy may occur and they will accept the child that results, …” this might apply to couples using condoms as well as NFP couples.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You are making up a definition of contraception. “Avoiding conception” is not contraception. Delaying a marriage may serve the end of avoiding conception. Impeding the course of the sexual act is contraception. Eg. Onanism. Now that was a case of copulation not for producing progeny and it was contraceptive!

Avoiding conception describes activities that their goal is to avoid the conception.
Most NFP couples chart with the goal to have knowledge that helps to avoid the conception. It’s one way.
Impeding the course is another way.
The end result is the same. The conception is avoided.

Saint Augustine is a saint. Why do you equate him with the Church? What is Augustine’s teaching authority?

What was the sexual teaching of the Church from their early times till 20th century?
What is the foundation of the teaching. The teaching that is supposed to be consistent and it’s not supposed to change?
It appears you are trying to defend something and you don’t know where it came from and actually how it came, in what form.

 

[Rau]

Avoiding conception describes activities that their goal is to avoid the conception.
Most NFP couples chart with the goal to have knowledge that helps to avoid the conception. It’s one way.
Impeding the course is another way.
The end result is the same. The conception is avoided.

The end result is not immoral. It is not immoral to avoid conception, as a moment’s thought makes clear. Therefore, the question of morality attaches to the means! Eg. Onanism.

What was the sexual teaching of the Church from their early times till 20th century?
What is the foundation of the teaching. The teaching that is supposed to be consistent and it’s not supposed to change?
It appears you are trying to defend something and you don’t know where it came from and actually how it came, in what form.

I’m not defending. I’ve asked you now several times, and in various ways, whether Saint Augustine’s writings and that of other saints are the same thing as Church teaching.

 

[Rau]

“They accept that pregnancy may occur and they will accept the child that results, …” this might apply to couples using condoms as well as NFP couples.

Would you say the same of Onanism instead of condom? Surely you see that, in so far as means are concerned, condoms and Onanism are similar, whereas not having sex is a distinct means?

On another point, at what point in history did it become known that women become barren with age?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If we say there is no tradition on fertile periods then we have to also say there is no tradition on infertile periods as well. It was already mentioned in this thread that the knowledge about fertile/infertile periods is not even 200 years old.

.

No. That is not true and you need to stop claiming that. Just because some parts of the reproductive system were discovered 200 years ago in no way means that women and men had no idea about infertile and fertile times.

Do you really think for the whole of human history, fertile times and women’s cycles were not known? That sex was a crapshoot?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Contraception is avoiding conception one way.
NFP is avoiding conception another way.

The point that I am trying to make is not about a specific way how the conception is avoided but that the Church’s Fathers dismissed any type of avoidance and the current Church’s teaching allows one specific way how to avoid the conception.

It appears the Church’s teaching has changed on this moral issue.

You keep claiming “the fathers” and then cherry pick your quotes. To have an understanding of “the Fathers” and the Church in human history requires more than that.

You keep trying to make a point without overtly making the point. Can you just say what it is that you are trying to claim? Are you anti NFP? Or anti ABC? Or Pro ABC? We can have a better, more honest discussion if all the cards are on the table, rather than trying to weaken Church Dogma by claiming ignorance of some of the wisest minds on earth.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I feel within marriage there should be a right to as much natural planning as possible. At least natural planning and/ or completely avoiding intimacy altogether are not sinful and are completely natural. I don’t feel there’s anything wrong with not being intimate, even within marriage. A woman should not be forced to have relations if she does not want to, married or not. And I fully understand and can relate to the last part of this post. I also have a very low pain threshold, and while I’ve never given birth, I can imagine how awful of a time I would have. Also, I hated those “girlie” exams too. I’ve stopped having them, and refuse to ever again. It’s unnecessary unless you’re in danger of a disease, which I know I am not. Those exams are medical rape, as far as I’m concerned. I absolutely refuse them, because of the pain, and just the fact that I don’t see them as necessary.

Your view is extreme.

Medical rape? Is there anything more than an inflamitory nature to that verbage?

You do not believe a person has a right to marital relations?

 

[Vico]

If we say there is no tradition on fertile periods then we have to also say there is no tradition on infertile periods as well. It was already mentioned in this thread that the knowledge about fertile/infertile periods is not even 200 years old.

Therefore the fact remains; the Church’s Fathers emphasized sex is only “for the procreation of children”; without any knowledge about periods.
It appears very illogical to insist that sex during infertile period is for the procreation of children now when we know about periods.
And because we don’t want to be illogical (as being wrong/saying a false statement/saying a lie) then we can not say that sex during infertile period is for procreation as understood by the Fathers.
Sex is only for procreation of children. What is so hard to understand about this statement?

“They accept that pregnancy may occur and they will accept the child that results, …” this might apply to couples using condoms as well as NFP couples.

It is a fact that pregnancy just occurs naturally only when there are proper conjugal acts. Therefore conjugal act whenever is occurs may result in conception. The intention may be to reduce the chance to almost nothing, but it remains a fact that it is a proper act for reproduction. However it is not known now, nor was it ever known, that conception will certainly not occur, except through abstinence.

Couples using condoms are not having marital relations in a proper way, so that is unnatural vice. This is different matter.

There was knowledge of periods lengths, and there was belief on what was the most fertile period in ancient times. It is not know if there was certain knowledge of fertile period. One wrong view was that it was just before and after menses. The most accurate was the Jewish rule, 12 days after mikva. Some women have shorter periods and so were unable to conceive if they followed the rule strictly.

 

[Rau]

I feel within marriage there should be a right to as much natural planning as possible. At least natural planning and/ or completely avoiding intimacy altogether are not sinful and are completely natural. I don’t feel there’s anything wrong with not being intimate, even within marriage. A woman should not be forced to have relations if she does not want to, married or not. And I fully understand and can relate to the last part of this post. I also have a very low pain threshold, and while I’ve never given birth, I can imagine how awful of a time I would have. Also, I hated those “girlie” exams too. I’ve stopped having them, and refuse to ever again. It’s unnecessary unless you’re in danger of a disease, which I know I am not. Those exams are medical rape, as far as I’m concerned. I absolutely refuse them, because of the pain, and just the fact that I don’t see them as necessary.

In general, it would be quite unnatural to avoid intimacy indefinitely in marriage. To enter a marriage with that intent would be to misunderstand the nature of marriage.

 

[edlinked]

I find this a very interesting subject.

From what I think the point of not having intercourse is not the problem, because pleasure is not being used for sex. In my point of view, the way you get in marriage and don’t want children would be by not having intercourse. So the sex drive is not fulfilling its end, but pleasure is not doing anything. Therefore the person is not being placed as an object of use. The sex drive end is procreation, therefore if the sex drive is in control I think it is a very good thing. Commendable even, because on these days people seem to think that you need sexual pleasure for love, but we see that love is doing Gods ways, and caring like He cares, not about feeling pleasure from intercourse.

“In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.” Galatians 5, 22-23
Self control is something that we don’t need to tame, but knowing that, also, it should always be open to Gods ways of course, talking here that a marriage happened. But nevertheless in my opinion, the self control attitude is commendable. And in my opinion is something good and all should look as something positive.

We see something similar in the Sacred Family like others have said. So I believe it is something good if we can relate to that situation in that kind of way.

Marriage as a sacrament is for the holiness and salvation of the spouses.
“
Now, The Church, as already mentioned, teaches consistently that the primary end of marriage is procreatio, whereas the secondary end is what in Latin terminology has been defined as mutuum adiutorium. Besides these, there is a tertiary end listed --remedium concupiscentiae.

Objectively speaking, marriage is above all to serve existence, then the relationship between a man and a woman, and finally the correct direction of concupiscence. The ends of marriage ordered in this way oppose any subjectivistic interpretation of the sexual drive, and accordingly they demand from a man as person objectivity in thinking about sexual themes and above all in conduct. This objectivity is the foundation of conjugal morality.
“ From Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla

Now in my knowledge the Church can’t state how many children a marriage can have as that is a very personal decision that only the spouses can decide. But then the spouses can refer to some guidance or continual guidance from a spiritual advisor that has more experience and knowledge about the subject in their situation.

For they can only have one child, at some time, and stop there again and continue their chastity living, for example.

What I would have said before knowing they are not fearing having children now, was that fear was not a good reason to not to have children. But of course, that fear needs to be analyzed properly, and that can only be done by a good spiritual advisor and themselves. So at the end of the day only them with the proper help can decide. Because in love there should be no fear (that’s the north to some sense), worse if it is directed on putting a child on this world for his salvation.

“16 We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. 17 In this is love brought to perfection among us, that we have confidence on the day of judgment because as he is, so are we in this world.18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love. 19 We love because he first loved us.” 1 John 4, 16-19

The point being, that bringing a child puts him on this world as one more soul for God. As love (God) gives life (not from pleasure but because He loves). Therefore, children are the future of man (keeps its existence). But like I said, if there was fears for this, a good advisor was recommended as only they could work with the spouses correctly and not here that we can be very erroneous and hurtful. It’s great that now there is no fear for children.

So in my opinion, sexual pleasure is not love therefore only in love there is a union of the spouses. Intercourse and its pleasure can complement it, only if love really exists, if not it can be the opposite. Therefore the union of the spouses doesn’t need intercourse, what it needs is love. From this perspective is from where I think it is commendable. Chastity is a virtue, and if some got it, it is a grace, that should not be belittled or tried to be taken away, or discouraged.

I recommend the book Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla.