E
EvelynEVF
Guest
I had two very much planned children, four years apart. The first one had health issues that we correctly expected to repeat in the second, so the spacing was intentional.
- Status
C
C27433
Guest
@choose to love: Yes, that was precisely what Tim was implying when he said that he knew couples on welfare that were able to support more than one child. The very fact that they are on welfare means that they are not using their own means to support themselves and their family. That’s exactly what welfare is.
To the more important point:
HV makes clear in paragraph 16, “It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.” The other “case” HV is talking about is the use of artificial contraception. Therefore, HV itself states that the “intent” of artificial contraceptive use is also the very same intent of the rhythm method.
Let us be clear, HV is supporting the moral prerogative of the married couple to abstain from sex during the fertile period. It is NOT supporting the position to only engage in sex during the infertile period.
At first glance, this sounds like 6 of one, half a dozen of the other, but they are not the same. HV does not support sex during the infertile period as a method of preventing birth. It supports abstinence during the fertile period as the means to prevent birth. In this way, the couple cannot be said to act contrary to nature, as they are not acting at all, and therefore commit no act of sin.
The final statement of this same paragraph states, “And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.” Given this further statement, let’s break it down.
Paragraph 16 lists for us two intentions and two acts/non-act.
Intentions
- To avoid children
- To express their mutual love and fidelity.
- To abstain from sex
- To have sex
Intention 2 applies to the act of sex during the infertile period to perpetuate their marital love and fidelity (Act 2).
Therefore, as I stated earlier, and forgive me for being unclear, you cannot morally apply intention 1, “to avoid children” to the act of sex (Act 2) during the infertile period. In no uncertain terms, if you approach sex during the infertile period with the intention to avoid children, YOU ARE SINNING. In every book, class, lecture that I have ever attended on the topic of NFP, this was said to be perfectly okay. It is not.
NFP is not the teaching of Humanae Vitae, it is an abberation of principles taught in the document with regard to the fertile/infertile period of a woman’s body. The reason I say those who use NFP have the same contraceptive mentality as the rest of society is because NFP is taught in such a way that it mismatches the acts and intentions outlined above. NFP teaches that it is okay to have sex during the infertile period in order to avoid procreation.
The final statement in my earlier post was regrettably inadequate. Please forgive me. I do not claim that is impossible to morally avoid procreation, what I mean to say is that it is impossible to morally avoid procreation by having sex during a woman’s infertile period. (mismatching of act and intention).
This is how I square my position with HV. It is both supported and supportable. The cafeteria is closed.
F
FightingFat
Guest
Great post! Really helped me, thanks!
E
EvelynEVF
Guest
In defense of people teaching and practicing NFP-- in almost everything I have read, it has been made clear that it is quite possible to use NFP with a contraceptive mindsent, and that this would indeed be sinful.
I never had it as part of preCana, since I was Protestant back then, but I suppose it would be easy to slide into the “This is where we would talk about ABC if we could, so here is NFP instead.”
I never had it as part of preCana, since I was Protestant back then, but I suppose it would be easy to slide into the “This is where we would talk about ABC if we could, so here is NFP instead.”
C
choose_to_love
Guest
@c27433:
OK, I am confused. Are you stating that the only moral way to postpone pregnancy is through total abstinence, and that periodic abstinence is not a licit way to postpone pregnancy? Or are you making a narrower argument about the intention of the couple in having recourse to the infertile phase?
In either case, how do you square your position with HV : ". . the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
I guess I am not following you. Is your argument about acceptance of children that may result from intercourse when the couple thought they were infertile?
Hypothetical: The couple has serious reasons to postpone pregnancy. They abstain during the fertile time. They wish to engage in the act during the subsequent infertile time.
Are you saying that if they do not wish a pregnancy to result from that act of intercourse, which their discernment has led them to understand as being well-grounded, that they are sinning?
Otherwise, I think you are misunderstanding Church teaching. The procreative and the unitive aspect of intercourse cannot be intentionally separated, and periodic abstinence/recourse to infertile phase keeps the two ends ttogether. Having intercourse during the infertile phase is not just for unity; it maintains its procreative character even if the couple is subjectilvely infertile at the time the act occurs.
OK, I am confused. Are you stating that the only moral way to postpone pregnancy is through total abstinence, and that periodic abstinence is not a licit way to postpone pregnancy? Or are you making a narrower argument about the intention of the couple in having recourse to the infertile phase?
In either case, how do you square your position with HV : ". . the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
I guess I am not following you. Is your argument about acceptance of children that may result from intercourse when the couple thought they were infertile?
Hypothetical: The couple has serious reasons to postpone pregnancy. They abstain during the fertile time. They wish to engage in the act during the subsequent infertile time.
Are you saying that if they do not wish a pregnancy to result from that act of intercourse, which their discernment has led them to understand as being well-grounded, that they are sinning?
Otherwise, I think you are misunderstanding Church teaching. The procreative and the unitive aspect of intercourse cannot be intentionally separated, and periodic abstinence/recourse to infertile phase keeps the two ends ttogether. Having intercourse during the infertile phase is not just for unity; it maintains its procreative character even if the couple is subjectilvely infertile at the time the act occurs.
W
WorkerPriest
Guest
No THAT was a rational argument. My thanks to you, for your time and attention in providing it.
Naturally, as a Lutheran, I don’t have the a priori attachment to HV as binding doctrine, but I do have great sympathy for it. I sense that my underlying difference in approach has to do with my understanding of marital sexual relations not being instrinsically sinful without the intention to concieve… which I suppose is an article for debate on a seperate thread.
My sympathy for NFP is based on my appreciation for the particular pastoral situations which make choosing to retain married sexual congress without procreation the best of a bad series of options… which in a sinful and broken world, emerge more often than I would like to admit. My confusion with the Roman endorsement of NFP, is precisely what you noted so well below.
Blessings be to you.
Naturally, as a Lutheran, I don’t have the a priori attachment to HV as binding doctrine, but I do have great sympathy for it. I sense that my underlying difference in approach has to do with my understanding of marital sexual relations not being instrinsically sinful without the intention to concieve… which I suppose is an article for debate on a seperate thread.
My sympathy for NFP is based on my appreciation for the particular pastoral situations which make choosing to retain married sexual congress without procreation the best of a bad series of options… which in a sinful and broken world, emerge more often than I would like to admit. My confusion with the Roman endorsement of NFP, is precisely what you noted so well below.
Blessings be to you.
W
WorkerPriest
Guest
This is precisely what strikes me as incongruent in Roman teaching. As you have presented it, one has great difficulty concluding that NFP is anything other than Roman approved birth control… which is why, I think, many have noted that NFP is often taught and practiced this way.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
@workerpriest: regulation of birth may be part of responsible parenthood, as stated explicitly in HV. Your post seems to say that your understanding of Catholic thought on this matter is essentially providentialism. Spacing of births, if serious reasons exist, is lict in Catholic thought. It is the means of accomplishing that which is at issue. I posted the basic outline of responsible parenthood upthread a few posts.
The couple does need serious reasons to utilize NFP. A couple could use NFP without serious reason, and that is wrong, and I would submit would be the contraceptive mindset C27433 is seemingly speaking about.
Or are you hung up on the terminology? When the RCC is described as opposed to birth control, that is a very shorthand way of saying that the unitive aspects and procreative aspects of the marital act cannot be intentionally separated by the couple. The other shorthand way of describing that, “open to life”, is IMO subject to even more misinterpretation because what is really being described is being ordered to life, i.e., performed in the way God made it.
The couple does need serious reasons to utilize NFP. A couple could use NFP without serious reason, and that is wrong, and I would submit would be the contraceptive mindset C27433 is seemingly speaking about.
Or are you hung up on the terminology? When the RCC is described as opposed to birth control, that is a very shorthand way of saying that the unitive aspects and procreative aspects of the marital act cannot be intentionally separated by the couple. The other shorthand way of describing that, “open to life”, is IMO subject to even more misinterpretation because what is really being described is being ordered to life, i.e., performed in the way God made it.
W
WorkerPriest
Guest
That’s a fair rejoinder. One really can’t expect a Lutheran to be too expert on Roman Catholic nuance, can they? 
This has helped me understand better your collective positions. My thanks to you for this.
Blessings to you.
This has helped me understand better your collective positions. My thanks to you for this.
Blessings to you.
C
C27433
Guest
No, I am not saying that the only moral way to prevent pregnancy is total abstinence. What I am proposing is that periodic abstinence is a moral way to avoid pregnancy in grave circumstances, but given that the acts and intentions are in harmony.
You are correct in stating that we should not divorce the unitive and procreative meaning of sex, and I believe this was implicit in my earlier explanation. However let me restate it so as to help you understand better where I am coming from.
You quoted HV once again, where it states, “. . the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”
Here, HV is addressing only the act, not the intention when it states that the married couple may “take advantage of the natural cycles… and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile.” It specifies nothing of the intention. I think perhaps you are reading the intention into this statement and I would say that the phrase “take advantage of the natural cycles” probably leads one into this interpretation. However, I suggest this is a misreading of the text.
The example you provided would be immoral because the couple “[does] not wish a pregnancy to result from that act of intercourse.” No matter how grave the circumstances we cannot approach sex during the infertile period with the intention not to conceive, otherwise we are intending to divorce the procreative dimension from the unitive, even if in reality the possibility of pregnancy remains.
In the hypothetical, you stated the intention was to avoid pregnancy by having intercourse during the infertile period. I believe this is immoral, but let me provide you an example of what would be moral.
Hypothetical: A couple with grave reasons to avoid procreation chooses to have sex during the infertile period, and although knowing that the chances of conception are reduced, still intend to accept a child, and do not secretly “wish” that it does not occur. They approach the act only with the intention of God that “thy will be done.”
During the fertile period, the couple knowing the increased risk of conception, chooses to abstain from sex in order not to conceive. As this is a non-act, it cannot be an immoral act.
This scenario would be MORAL.
The difference between the two hypotheticals is that in the first, the couple approaches sex with THEIR INTENTIONS. In the second, the couple approaches sex with GOD’S INTENTIONS.
NFP is not inherently immoral, its just that it is rarely if ever understood and taught correctly. It can be salvaged if those who taught it were properly educated. But the sad state it is in leaves so many good Catholic couples thinking that it is okay divorce the unitive and procreative meaning of sex in their intentions, as long as their method is not artificial.
I hope this helps.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
@C27433: OK, thank you for clarifying.
I disagree with your interpretation. Once the couple has a serious reason to postpone, I do not think they have to “secretly wish” their intercourse during the infertile period will not result in pregnancy- - that is the whole point of waiting until the infertile time - - I think they can be quite open about that. I agree that the couple must still be accepting of children and be open to God’s will, recognize that they may in fact become pregnant, and accept any child lovingly, as God’s plan may be different from their good-faith (no pun intended, but hey, it fits) discernment
I further disagree that the couple in your hypo is intending to separate the unitive and the procreative. The couple brings all the fertility that they possess at the time of the act, and have not intentionally taken any act to render the intercourse sterile.
I suppose what I am thinking is that the couple can both not want a child to result from intercourse (assuming valid reasons, of course) and still be open to receiving a new life if one results.
I think it is semantic hairsplitting, IMO, to take the position that the couple can 1) prayerfully discern that they have a serious reason to postpone pregnancy, 2) make the necessary physical observations and record those, 3) abstain during the fertile time, and then 4) have intercourse during the subsequent infertile time, and maintain thay they are not approaching “sex during the infertile period with the intention not to conceive”, as you put it, when the whole schema is designed to avoid pregnancy.
Do you have any commentary or document that supports your interpretation? I do not recall ever seeing this position maintained before.
And I still think you have no way of knowing whether NFP couples think the way you are imputing to them, or the way you think they should. IMO, most couples who make the effort to practice NFP implicitly acknowledge that a child can result, and of course they would lovingly accept that child. See, now the unsupported opinions have balanced out!
I disagree with your interpretation. Once the couple has a serious reason to postpone, I do not think they have to “secretly wish” their intercourse during the infertile period will not result in pregnancy- - that is the whole point of waiting until the infertile time - - I think they can be quite open about that. I agree that the couple must still be accepting of children and be open to God’s will, recognize that they may in fact become pregnant, and accept any child lovingly, as God’s plan may be different from their good-faith (no pun intended, but hey, it fits) discernment
I further disagree that the couple in your hypo is intending to separate the unitive and the procreative. The couple brings all the fertility that they possess at the time of the act, and have not intentionally taken any act to render the intercourse sterile.
I suppose what I am thinking is that the couple can both not want a child to result from intercourse (assuming valid reasons, of course) and still be open to receiving a new life if one results.
I think it is semantic hairsplitting, IMO, to take the position that the couple can 1) prayerfully discern that they have a serious reason to postpone pregnancy, 2) make the necessary physical observations and record those, 3) abstain during the fertile time, and then 4) have intercourse during the subsequent infertile time, and maintain thay they are not approaching “sex during the infertile period with the intention not to conceive”, as you put it, when the whole schema is designed to avoid pregnancy.
Do you have any commentary or document that supports your interpretation? I do not recall ever seeing this position maintained before.
And I still think you have no way of knowing whether NFP couples think the way you are imputing to them, or the way you think they should. IMO, most couples who make the effort to practice NFP implicitly acknowledge that a child can result, and of course they would lovingly accept that child. See, now the unsupported opinions have balanced out!
M
micahmike
Guest
My wife and I practiced nfp as conservatively as we could (basically having sex once a month when we thought she was least likely to be fertile) and still we had 4 unwanted pregnancies in 6 years (and one that we did want). We love our big young family, but we are exhausted and it certainly isnt what we wanted, and it has pushed us apart from eachother. We hate nfp, it is only preferable to total abstinence by the slightest margin. Others have had better luck though. This is the part where the folks who believe nfp is a religion will say “well, you must not have been doing it right.”. Save it - you’d be very wrong.
L
Link0126
Guest
Oh wow. This is very worrying. Thank you for your feedback.
M
micahmike
Guest
It isn’t meant to worry you, it’s just a caution - NFP-to-avoid might or might not be the fairy-tale that some suggest it is. Some people report that it brings them closer becaue the husband is taking an active role, and because of the sacrifice involved, etc. I dind’t notice any of that, but I was an involved husband to begin with. Basicially, for us NFP has been synonomous with “have way less sex, still have as many kids as is mathematically possible”. That doesn’t mean I don’t reccomend it - I do reccomend it and I do you it. It’s the only option I have, as deneying my God and putting my sould in a state of mortal sin is not an option I’m willing to consider, and total 100% abstinence is not liekly to be good for our marriage either.
M
micahmike
Guest
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
Not meaning to intrude in your personal situation, but for the sake of the OP -
This is not normal, nor is it encouraged for a couple like this to endure under these conditions.
If a couple is having issues with their particular use of NFP, they should be encouraged to have regular meetings with their NFP instructors, then consider switching methods (there are several out there), and also to consider seeing specialist doctors (such as reproductive endocrinologists) if there are medical problems making the wife’s cycle difficult to interpret.
Sure, there are issues that may arise - for example, one very common problem is PCOS (Polycystic ovary syndrome)… those who deal with this often struggle with one particular method (sympto-thermal), but they often do very well under a different method (Creighton or Marquette)…
And of course, there are exceptions, but these are truly rare. Those who WANT to find a way to make NFP work usually do.
For some reference… I’ve been married 10 years and we have 3 very-well-planned children. We would love to have more eventually and are constantly praying for our serious/grave issues to be resolved. We are NOT lacking in the opportunities to be together, despite using NFP… but at the same time we also encourage each other to stay healthy in all ways - this helps keep cycles regular - thus making the entire use of NFP easier.
Blessings and prayers for you.
W
white_sheep
Guest
I believe he said not to bother telling him they just weren’t doing it right.
We’ve also used NFP a few times and I didn’t like it either. We’ve been ‘accidentally’ pregnant twice in three years when we were hoping to wait longer. Also, for us, NFP after the first baby was practically impossible, even 6, 8, and 10 months later. All the signs were ambiguous. It led to prolonged abstinence and shooting for what we considered was the best one or two days of the month, which ended up being the best days to conceive, apparently.
We have a new baby boy on the way and are very happy about that. No regrets, but there do seem to be unrealistic expectations relayed by NFP proponents.
We’ve also used NFP a few times and I didn’t like it either. We’ve been ‘accidentally’ pregnant twice in three years when we were hoping to wait longer. Also, for us, NFP after the first baby was practically impossible, even 6, 8, and 10 months later. All the signs were ambiguous. It led to prolonged abstinence and shooting for what we considered was the best one or two days of the month, which ended up being the best days to conceive, apparently.
We have a new baby boy on the way and are very happy about that.
No regrets, but there do seem to be unrealistic expectations relayed by NFP proponents.
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
Well a much-deserved congratulations is always in order!..I believe he said not to bother telling him they just weren’t doing it right.
We’ve also used NFP a few times and I didn’t like it either. We’ve been ‘accidentally’ pregnant twice in three years when we were hoping to wait longer. Also, for us, NFP after the first baby was practically impossible, even 6, 8, and 10 months later. All the signs were ambiguous. It led to prolonged abstinence and shooting for what we considered was the best one or two days of the month, which ended up being the best days to conceive, apparently.
We have a new baby boy on the way and are very happy about that.
But if the signs were so ambiguous, did you happen to follow through with any of the suggestions noted above?:
W
white_sheep
Guest
No. We didn’t explore advanced methods of perfecting our NFP technique. The charge of “you’re not doing it right” could probably be applied to us. We definitely tried though. Could have put more time into learning it.
Again this falls into the realm of unrealistic expectations. No one says that in order to effectively use NFP you have to do a, b, c, and d, and it will take you at least xxx hours to get down. It’s always just “hey, use NFP, it’s 99% effective, no worries!”.
Again this falls into the realm of unrealistic expectations. No one says that in order to effectively use NFP you have to do a, b, c, and d, and it will take you at least xxx hours to get down. It’s always just “hey, use NFP, it’s 99% effective, no worries!”.
M
maryjk
Guest
No they don’t. Or maybe I should say, no I don’t. Yes, we use NFP and we have one child. He is 15.
Grave reasons? How about just reasons, as it states in CCC?
- Status