I can't reconcile NFP with being open to life

[Hvaljen_Isus]

I’ve tried extensively to believe and sought justification for the church’s teaching on being able to use NFP and the ability to reconcile that teaching with her teaching that “all sexual acts must be open to the possibility of life.”

These are my difficulties with NFP:

1. When a couple exploits periods of infertility to avoid pregnancy they do that with expressed intent of not getting pregnant. So how can someone say to their partner “I give myself whole self to you without reservation” and yet they full well know that they cannot give themselves totally to the other because they are intentionally engaging in a sexual act with the knowledge that they will have a 99% chance of not getting pregnant. This quote explains it aptly "My favorite comment recently was made by another author comparing NFP to a farmer who plants his corn in the dead of winter so as to avoid a plentiful harvest.”
2. I’ve also read some porkies written by people like Christopher West saying well if your only intention is to get pregnant when engaging in the sexual act then you can begin to see your partner as a means to the end of having a child. This is bumpkin - in the open sexual act (without concern of avoiding pregnancy) I’m saying to my wife “I’m giving myself totally to you in love and if God chooses to bring a child as a consequence I accept that gift with gratitude and thanksgiving.” In being totally open to life - the intent isn’t that I seek a child per se but rather that I’m giving myself totally without reservation to my partner with the full knowledge and intent that I’m being open to life not having sex only at certain times to intentionally avoid getting pregnant. The same absurd logic could be used with NFP - when I make the decision to utilise fertile periods that equates to using my wife as a means to an ends to get pregnant. West’s argument is very weak.
3. Some advocates of NFP will say “well what if I can’t support a child at this time in regards to financial and emotional stresses.” The answer is simple - abstain from all sexual activity until such a time when you can engage in the sexual act without the purposeful and deliberate intent of knowingly avoiding pregnancy and with the knowledge that you’re engaging in the sexual act with a total openness to the possibility that God may bless you with a child.
4. If NFP can exploit infertility to intentionally avoid pregnancy then I can’t see why artificial contraception is opposed. Yes, I admit that NFP is somewhat more ethical then an unrestrained indulgence in the use of artificial contraception, however, I don’t see that great a difference and people who argue otherwise are dishonest IMO. I think a university friend of mine was on the money when in her tutorial class they were debating the church’s stand on (a)contraception - my friend retorted by saying their was a Catholic method of contraception called NFP! I don’t think she was wrong, you can use as many weasel words and politically correct terms as you like but I think if you call a spade a spade then NFP is contraception.

P.S - this is just where I am at the moment in trying to reconcile church teaching on these things. I hope to dear God that he provide me an epiphany so I may come to see the light regarding NFP but at the moment I can’t see the light and until I do if ever I do - this is where my opinion lies regarding these issues. My conscience can’t reconcile these seemingly contradictory teachings, however, for those of you who have reconciled these issues I wish you the best of luck and I pray that God prosper your marriage. I have no hard feelings towards anyone if you in fact use NFP - these are my struggles which I have to contend with.:knight2::banghead:

Zbogom

 

[Magicsilence]

OK, the Church teaches that in a very grave situation, you can attempt to abstain at certain times from the marital embrace to avoid conception, right?

So, the couple doing this are deliberately avoiding conception, no getting around it. All the Church teaches is that this avoidance of conception cannot include the marital embrace apart from the way in which God created it.

The couple are avoiding conception, but they are still ‘open to life’ in the marital embrace, meaning it is completed as God intended.

I think many people have trouble with this because they assume that avoiding conception is always a sin.

Clearly, it is not always a sin, since it is never sinful to mutually agree to abstain in order to avoid conception, right?

And it is definitely sometimes a sin, like when a man has a vasectomy.

But avoiding conception through periodic abstinence is not a sin. The intent of the abstinence is most definitely avoiding conception, but the marital embraces which are completed are normal, as God intended. They are as open to life as God made them.

You are having an issue here because you assume avoidance of conception is always a sin. Sometimes the Church allows it, and has given guidelines for what is acceptable. That is all

 

[LilyM]

Firstly - what Church teaching are you trying to reconcile? Christopher West isn’t Church teaching. Your friends, who possibly use NFP for wrong reasons or have a wrong understanding, aren’t the Magisterium either. And where in Magisterial teaching does it suggest, as you have hinted, that even NFP, even used for very grave reasons, is wrong?

Secondly - how do you come by the twisted logic that being totally abstinent because one doesn’t want children is in any way being MORE open to life, than being occasionally abstinent for the same reason? Isn’t it the contrary, since in the case of total abstinence you’re not even allowing God the slightest opportunity to create a child, whereas even with the best methods of NFP there is always some chance?

You have to get out of the black-and-white mentality that makes you think that planning and spacing in between your children is unacceptable for any reason whatsoever. The Church does not teach any such thing. Our Popes have very clearly taught otherwise - that it IS OK for grave reason, as long as natural and not artificial methods are used. And ultimately God has given them the power to bind and loose, not you. If you read the literature - Castii Connubii and Humanae Vitae, for example, there is clearly nothing wrong with planning family size and when to have children, if done for grave reason.

You just need to trust them to know, through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, that in the case of NFP it is about the means that we use to plan our families, and the reasons we do so, *sometimes *being wrong. And to know that it’s not that the end - the planning - is wrong in and of itself.

Yes, of course some people don’t accept the teaching as given and exploit NFP for selfish reasons, just as some people don’t accept church teaching and go ahead with ABC or sterilisation or abortion. Both will answer for their sins and failings.

 

[Sillara]

For me I look at it like this.

If I want to have sex, then I have proper sex, fully giving myself to my husband. If we have a child, we have a child. If not, not. If I have just cause (such as, say, health reasons) to avoid pregnancy, then I may use NFP because NFP involves simply not having sex.

It is never a sin not to have sex (unless I am unreasonably denying my husband). Therefore, NFP is licit.

On the other hand, if your conscience will not allow you to use NFP, then don’t. Children are wonderful! I have five myself.

 

[nodito]

Dear Zbogom,

I think yours is a struggle that a lot of devout Catholics deal with. I hear your complaint a lot from both sides, that NFP is just Catholic contraception. But here is what Pope Paul VI said

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different.

So let’s approach this from the faith perspective, granting that on matters of faith and morals the Church knows more than we do and that we should strive to better understand her reasoning. For my part, I’ll take a stab at some of your objections.

When a couple exploits periods of infertility to avoid pregnancy they do that with expressed intent of not getting pregnant. So how can someone say to their partner “I give myself whole self to you without reservation” and yet they full well know that they cannot give themselves totally to the other because they are intentionally engaging in a sexual act with the knowledge that they will have a 99% chance of not getting pregnant.

When a menopausal couple has relations they too know that it is highly unlikely that they will get pregnant. This is because God has designed women’s bodies such that there is a limited window of fertility, which naturally ends when a woman enters menopause. Still, the menopausal woman can have intercourse with her husband because when she does she gives herself to him completely as she is, an infertile woman. In the same way, when a couple in their 20s practices NFP they don’t withhold anything from each other. When they have intercourse during the infertile phase they still give themselves to each other completely, it’s just that the woman is giving herself as an infertile woman at that time. I am not any less of a woman when I am infertile, and am still capable of giving my whole self during intercourse even knowing when I can’t get pregnant.

I’ve also read some porkies written by people like Christopher West saying well if your only intention is to get pregnant when engaging in the sexual act then you can begin to see your partner as a means to the end of having a child. This is bumpkin - in the open sexual act (without concern of avoiding pregnancy) I’m saying to my wife “I’m giving myself totally to you in love and if God chooses to bring a child as a consequence I accept that gift with gratitude and thanksgiving.”

I think you are misunderstanding what Christopher West is saying. Without having read what you are referring to, it sounds like he is lamenting the fact that some people make procreation the only goal of having sex. That is, they don’t wish to express love to their spouse or share intimacy, they just want a baby! Taken to the extreme, this could mean that a couple chooses to have sex only during the very short fertile window (5 or 6 days a month). These people might not be saying, “I’m giving myself to you in total love” because they are using each other as a means to an end.

To be sure, NFP can be taken to the extreme as well. If a couple practicing NFP started to use each other solely for sexual pleasure with no intent of expressing love or intimacy, Christopher West would probably criticize that too.

Some advocates of NFP will say “well what if I can’t support a child at this time in regards to financial and emotional stresses.” The answer is simple - abstain from all sexual activity until such a time when you can engage in the sexual act without the purposeful and deliberate intent of knowingly avoiding pregnancy.

I’d like to look at this logically.

1. Is it sinful for spouses to have sex when they know they can’t get pregnant?

Of course it’s not, because the Church teaches that post-menopausal women are allowed to have sex with their spouses. What about a woman like me, who is very aware of her God-given fertility signs? Even if my husband and I don’t practice periodic abstinence, I still know where I am in my cycle. 75% of the time we have sex, I know it’s impossible for me to get pregnant. Is this wrong? Of course not, because it’s the way God designed me to be, and I am just as capable of giving myself when I’m infertile as when I’m fertile.

1. Is it sinful for spouses not to have sex when they know they can get pregnant?

Of course not, because there’s nothing wrong with two spouses mutually deciding not to have sex at any given time. Take now, for example. If you’re sitting here reading this, you’ve chosen to not have sex at this point. What if your wife were ovulating? Would it be sinful to sit here and read, even knowing that she is fertile? No. Married couples are never obliged to have sex with each other.

1. Is it sinful for a couple to need or desire to avoid pregnancy?

You have already granted that it’s not, because you maintain that married couples can abstain completely until they do wish to have children. Therefore, you agree that there can be times when couples can legitimately decide to change their sexual behavior in order to avoid children.

In sum, since it’s acceptable for couples to intend to avoid pregnancy and to alter their lifestyles to accomodate this goal, and since it’s acceptable for couples to have sex when they know they can’t get pregnant, and since married couples are never obliged by the Church to have sex with each other at any given time, it logically follows that natural family planning is morally licit, when done with serious and just motives.

If NFP can exploit infertility to intentionally avoid pregnancy then I can’t see why artificial contraception is opposed.

The marital act is contraceptive when a couple engages in sexual intercourse and then does something else to the act to prevent conception. The couple practicing NFP does not inhibit or interfere with the marital act at all, they just avoid it at certain times. In contrast, the contracepting couple engages in sex and then does something else (like taking a pill, wearing a condom, or withdrawing) to render the act sterile. It is this deliberate rendering of the act to be sterile that is sinful, not having sex when it a woman is naturally unable to beget children.

This is just where I am at the moment in trying to reconcile church teaching on these things.

Good for you for trying to grapple with this. I’m sure others will post excellent resources. I myself recommend Humanae Vitae. God bless!

 

[1ke]

I’ve tried extensively to believe and sought justification for the church’s teaching on being able to use NFP and the ability to reconcile that teaching with her teaching that “all sexual acts must be open to the possibility of life.”

That’s **not **the Church’s teaching. It’s as simple as that.

The Church’s teaching is that *each act *of sexual intercourse must be, per se, *ordered **to *unity and procreation.

Let’s start there.

 

[baylee]

That’s **not **the Church’s teaching. It’s as simple as that.

The Church’s teaching is that *each act *of sexual intercourse must be, per se, *ordered **to *unity and procreation.

Let’s start there.

Ding ding ding…

 

[CatholicSamurai]

I think you need to stay away from trying to understand NFP and the concept of being open to life for a moment.

Instead try to meditate on these concepts:

Act of God vs Act of man
The willingness to give one’s self as gift.
Selfish gain/self gratification
Love vs Using

This is all I can offer. I hope you find the key to understanding your dilemma. I believe that you won’t find the answer to your question until you understand the foundational teachings of the church. Go beyond what the church says and try to look into why do they teach it in the first place.

 

[GhostMan]

I also understand some of the things you are saying. I agree, if I am reading you correct, that too many people appear to believe that NFP is somehow different from other forms of birth control. It is, in the sense that some forms of ABC cause abortions, but the attitude is the same: I don’t want children right now and I’ll do whatever I can (within my conscience) not to have them.

NFP, when done correctly, is no more open to life than condoms. NFP proponents proudly tout statistics showing it’s more effective than condoms quite regularly here. It is a shame, in my opinion, that people cannot be truly open to life and trust God for their children. Of course, that’s part of the reason I ended up with ten kids.

NFP has value for people who are convinced that ABC is harmful to women, causes abortions and distracts from the closeness of the marital act (“one sec, Honey, while I find those #$%#$% condoms” - really ruins the moment I suspect).

NFP is birth control when practiced the way most (not all, most) people do it. It just has a more acceptable label on it.

I really doubt all people who use NFP to keep from having children have the grave reasons that the Catholic church teaches as excuses to be unopen to life.

 

[LJN21]

I also understand some of the things you are saying. I agree, if I am reading you correct, that too many people appear to believe that NFP is somehow different from other forms of birth control. It is, in the sense that some forms of ABC cause abortions, but the attitude is the same: I don’t want children right now and I’ll do whatever I can (within my conscience) not to have them.

No there attitude is not always the same. Some people use NFP to space out there children or because there is a serious reason (like a heart condition) that getting pregnant would be harmful. Blanket judgements on WHY people use NFP is not helpful.

NFP, when done correctly, is no more open to life than condoms. NFP proponents proudly tout statistics showing it’s more effective than condoms quite regularly here. It is a shame, in my opinion, that people cannot be truly open to life and trust God for their children. Of course, that’s part of the reason I ended up with ten kids.

This is irrelevant because it is NOT about being “open to life” it is about being ORDERED toward life. Trusting in God does not mean you should walk in front of a buss because “he will protect you”. If you have a serious reason to NOT get pregnant and you continue to have sex when your fertile then you should not count on God to “protect you” form the natural ends of the act.

NFP has value for people who are convinced that ABC is harmful to women, causes abortions and distracts from the closeness of the marital act (“one sec, Honey, while I find those #$%#$% condoms” - really ruins the moment I suspect).

Incorrect. NFP has value for people that have serious reasons to NOT get pregnant.

NFP is birth control when practiced the way most (not all, most) people do it. It just has a more acceptable label on it.

Controlling Births is not wrong. Contraception is wrong. Yes there is a difference.

I really doubt all people who use NFP to keep from having children have the grave reasons that the Catholic church teaches as excuses to be unopen to life.

Wrong again. Number one it is uncharitable to judge others reasons, number two there is nothing in Church teaching that says each and every act MUST be open to life, if that were the case post menopausal and infertile women could not have sex. The teaching is it must be ORDERED to life, IE there are no barriers caused by man to prevent conception. Inaction (abstinence) is not a barrier.

 

[GhostMan]

We will agree to disagree then. I cannot begin to even fathom answers to so many red herrings.

 

[littlepreo]

I thought this comment of yours was interesting when I first read it:

"My favorite comment recently was made by another author comparing NFP to a farmer who plants his corn in the dead of winter so as to avoid a plentiful harvest.”

However, I would suggest a revision. Contraception would be more like: “the farmer took the corn seeds and placed them in a plastic bag before planting them.”

What’s the difference? In one case, we alter nature and in the other case we do not. Fr. Hogan explains:

God did not intend that every act of sexual intercourse should result in a new human person. There are only a few days in a woman’s cycle when a pregnancy is possible. Further, God gave us a mind and a will so that we could make decisions regarding the creation of a new human person. The choice to postpone a pregnancy by abstaining from sexual relations during the fertile phase is very different from the choice to alter the husband’s or the wife’s body (either chemically or physically) in order to obtain the same goal.

Some people think that a decision by a couple to time their acts of love in order to space children using NFP is the same as the decision by a couple to avoid pregnancy through contraception. This is a confusion of purposes and means. The purpose may be the same, but the means are different. The NFP couple, while engaging in non-procreative intercourse by making use of the infertile times, give themselves to each other totally and completely as they are at that moment. The contraception couple withholds their fertility from each other in an anti-procreative act and do not give themselves totally. Remember, love is defined as a total self-gift…Further, the contracepting couple alters either both their bodies or one of them and in doing so they violate the integrity of their own bodies.

A responsible couple who decides to postpone a pregnancy for a time by having relations only during the infertile phases still remains open to the possibility of new life and will accept the child as a precious new gift from God if a pregnancy should occur. The Church’s constant teaching is that the procreative purpose may never be excluded in the physical or intentional orders.

-Mike

 

[kage_ar]

For the 4,987,623th time, the Church does not teach that there needs to be “very serious” or “grave reasons” to practice NFP. Note the CCC reference (bold mine):

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2368

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

 

[mark_a]

To the op:

• There is nothing wrong with reserving sex for the most fertile times.
• If you can’t accept the Church’s teachings about nfp, where in the world will you go? Wisconsin Synod Lutherans take a dim view of the Catholic Church’s liberal stance regarding nfp and there are some more also-rans, but they can in no way, shape, or form be thought of as the universal church.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

I think some of the posters here are forgetting who the Author of Life is.

Let’s flip the argument to death. Sometimes the best way to view a question is by looking at its mirror opposite.

God created us and at some point we are going to die. Until that time we are supposed to use ordinary natural means to keep life healthy and sustain it. Eventually, the natural order of things will take over and we will get sick and die.

So there are two ways for that to happen. We can actively use chemicals and utensils like rope or knives to hasten that death because it’s convenient to us if gramps dies and leaves us his house and boat and insurance payout. That would be sinful. We call it murder. We are playing God.

Or we can respect the fact that God allows illness and old age and we can treat the illness insofar as we are able and at the end when we can no longer prolong life without artificial means, respecting that death is inevitable, we let God’s will happen. We are not playing God.

The OP, following his logic, would see no difference in the two positions or courses of action. Since in the end the patient dies, there is no difference in the morality at work here?

It’s obvious that when you remove God from the picture, and take His place, the action becomes sinful.

So let’s look at NFP versus ABC.

ABC is CONTRA-ception. It’s deliberate actions taken to counter the possibility of conception. We deliberately thwart, tinker with, or set up physical barriers to God’s plan for creation through pills, latex, loops, IUDs or surgery to contravene God’s design for the human body and its natural purposes. In other places I’ve compared it to dieting. If your desire is to lose weight, you can work with your body’s metabolism, regulate the amount you eat, the times you eat, and what you eat. You can exercise more. You lose weight. Or you can gorge yourself limitlessly and then induce vomiting or take pills to mess with your metabolism and lose weight. One of these methods works with respect for your body, the other does not. One is sinful, one is not. One requires the virtues like continence, abstinence and self control and temperance. One does not.

God always forgives, people sometimes. Nature, never.

God created our bodies in a very complex way to reproduce. Like with other animals, there are periods of fertility and infertility. He did not make us like rabbits able to have litters every several weeks. He gave us, as the Bible says, “a time to embrace, a time to refrain from embracing.” Unlike the animals, he also gave us reason and free will. Ever watched a dog in heat and the pack of hounds outside the door barking for her? There is no reason or free will at work there. He made us better than those animals. For good reason we are able to refrain from sexual intercourse during our fertile periods if need be.

Neither God NOR the Catholic Church ever said you must have 25 children. Respecting the personal, physical, financial and other circumstances of a family, the parents have a responsibility to each other and to their children to be open to life. It is grossly irresponsible for a man to insist on intercourse during a wife’s fertile time if they have no home and they are on the brink of starvation or his wife is seriously ill, or he has 10 children he already doesn’t care for. On the other hand, the family that postpones having a 2nd or 3rd child for an extended period of time because they want a better car is also disordered.

God gave a way we could understand His plan for our bodies. A man is always fertile. A woman, not so. And when she has a baby, if she nurses, she can go for extended periods of time unable to conceive another child. That’s part of God’s plan also.

NFP works with respect for that plan. No active measures are taken to stand between the love giving and life giving act of intercourse. Even if the woman is “infertile” there exists the chance that if God deemed it so, conception could occur. Like Elizabeth conceived a baby in her old age. Like the Virgin conceived. God can act outside the laws of biology. Our will isn’t in opposition to His. And those who use artificial contraception are deluding themselves. I’ve met many children conceived with the use of ABC. First of all, those couples are using ABC even during times they are unaware they are completely infertile. They think the method works, because 24 days out of 29 the woman is infertile anyway. But they have told God and each other that they want their spouse but not their spouse’s fertility. They only want part of the deal. Their expression of love is conditional on the person not being able to conceive, but they take the action without the possibility of transmitting life. There is no sacrifice or self control. No holding back and postponing one’s desire for the good of the other. And usually it’s the woman who bears the physical repercussions of the method… which is often “bad medicine” to begin with. Say what you will… it’s a generation of guinea pigs out there and some day they may find out it was not all benign. What man who truly loved his wife would allow her to jeopardize her health that way just for his physical satisfaction? It’s a good way to bring selfishness right into the bedroom.

If God had intended us to create life every time we had intercourse, that would have been wired into our biology. We are better than animals. We can use reason. We can respect His design. ABC does not respect that design.

Start from the Author of Creation and look at our response to it and then try to rephrase your condemnation of NFP in that regard. You can’t do it. Knowing your biology and acting in accord with it is no more sinful than a diabetic knowing their blood sugar and making decisions on what to eat and when in order to maintain their health. It is not for us to judge why a couple would choose to postpone childbearing. That’s between them and God.

But everywhere where man decides when to conceive is his to tinker with as he sees fit, soon he decides to tinker with life at the other end. Because he can. Without respect to the Creator’s plan. Contraception is the first step along the path to euthanasia.

Common sense says motive and method cannot be divided when determining the morality of an action any more than life giving and love giving can be divided in the marital act. Wedding vows say “What God has joined, let no man tear apart.” HE wasn’t just talking about the couple here.

 

[rolltidefan]

I’ve tried extensively to believe and sought justification for the church’s teaching on being able to use NFP and the ability to reconcile that teaching with her teaching that “all sexual acts must be open to the possibility of life.”

These are my difficulties with NFP:

1. When a couple exploits periods of infertility to avoid pregnancy they do that with expressed intent of not getting pregnant. So how can someone say to their partner “I give myself whole self to you without reservation” and yet they full well know that they cannot give themselves totally to the other because they are intentionally engaging in a sexual act with the knowledge that they will have a 99% chance of not getting pregnant. This quote explains it aptly "My favorite comment recently was made by another author comparing NFP to a farmer who plants his corn in the dead of winter so as to avoid a plentiful harvest.”
2. I’ve also read some porkies written by people like Christopher West saying well if your only intention is to get pregnant when engaging in the sexual act then you can begin to see your partner as a means to the end of having a child. This is bumpkin - in the open sexual act (without concern of avoiding pregnancy) I’m saying to my wife “I’m giving myself totally to you in love and if God chooses to bring a child as a consequence I accept that gift with gratitude and thanksgiving.” In being totally open to life - the intent isn’t that I seek a child per se but rather that I’m giving myself totally without reservation to my partner with the full knowledge and intent that I’m being open to life not having sex only at certain times to intentionally avoid getting pregnant. The same absurd logic could be used with NFP - when I make the decision to utilise fertile periods that equates to using my wife as a means to an ends to get pregnant. West’s argument is very weak.
3. Some advocates of NFP will say “well what if I can’t support a child at this time in regards to financial and emotional stresses.” The answer is simple - abstain from all sexual activity until such a time when you can engage in the sexual act without the purposeful and deliberate intent of knowingly avoiding pregnancy and with the knowledge that you’re engaging in the sexual act with a total openness to the possibility that God may bless you with a child.
4. If NFP can exploit infertility to intentionally avoid pregnancy then I can’t see why artificial contraception is opposed. Yes, I admit that NFP is somewhat more ethical then an unrestrained indulgence in the use of artificial contraception, however, I don’t see that great a difference and people who argue otherwise are dishonest IMO. I think a university friend of mine was on the money when in her tutorial class they were debating the church’s stand on (a)contraception - my friend retorted by saying their was a Catholic method of contraception called NFP! I don’t think she was wrong, you can use as many weasel words and politically correct terms as you like but I think if you call a spade a spade then NFP is contraception.

P.S - this is just where I am at the moment in trying to reconcile church teaching on these things. I hope to dear God that he provide me an epiphany so I may come to see the light regarding NFP but at the moment I can’t see the light and until I do if ever I do - this is where my opinion lies regarding these issues. My conscience can’t reconcile these seemingly contradictory teachings, however, for those of you who have reconciled these issues I wish you the best of luck and I pray that God prosper your marriage. I have no hard feelings towards anyone if you in fact use NFP - these are my struggles which I have to contend with.:knight2::banghead:

Zbogom

MAN I would like to stand up and give you a standing ovation!!! This is the best I have ever seen it summed up. I agree 100% with you and you are right on target. See this is where I have never understood (as a protestant) on here, where the Catholics thought using NFP was putting 100% trust in God and giving yourself 100% to your spouse…because you are not! You are still deciding not have relations with your wife, when you think she is fertile, so that is not trusting God to him having all the control. Secondly, they say that using birth control is making an object out of your wife…so you hit it…why would that not be true when are choosing to have sex, when you know you are not fertile! So exactly what I thought this whole time…NFP is no different than any type of ABC. Either way you are taking control from God and what he might want. Of course they are going to say, oh well the church says in case of grave sin…well grave sin to me would probably someone going to DIE if they got pregnant. You can jusitify all day long to yourself that oh I am using this because I don’t have enough money or etc. Or I don’t want kids too close together and the reasons go on and on and on. Why do you all think most people that believe in ABC use it, for the same reason!!! These are not grave reasons. These are convenient reasons. I was so glad to read this and finally someone that sees it like that without justifying they are above anybody else here that uses ABC. LOVE IT!