Is it just me...

[jmjZelie]

There’s also the question–can a couple be said to be sinning if they don’t engage in marital relations when neither of them wishes to engage in marital relations?

Because that’s the situation with the abstaining NFP couple–they don’t want to have sex, so they don’t have sex.

It’s hard to see where the sin is in that situation.

(It’s trickier if one member of the couple does want to, but I think it’s essentially a non-issue when both members of the couple are in agreement.)

Actually, that is not even a question in my mind. I try not to think too hard about the sex life of those people who like to talk about planning their families. It is pretty easy for me to keep that separate in my mind. Obviously, I know that sex must occur for conception, but that is not the same thing as what people mean to say when they talk about family size and children.

 

[SWolf]

That’s the point! One must look in their own heart, knowing the precepts of the Church. Motives for our actions are important in determining if we sinned, as well as the matter.

CCC # 1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

One example for when chastity is sinful would be a married couple who is fighting and refuse sexual relations to each other. Another would be to avoid children when hey are more than capable of doing so, and taking all of their extra time for worldly pursuits.

Overall though, chastity is to be commended as rebuking the flesh and setting one’s sight closer to God.

 

[Walking_Home]

SWolf:

It’s because many liberal/progressive ideas are anathema to the Catholic Faith.

Yup, progs never infer ungodliness in others. Posts like this prove it. Pot, meet kettle.

How kind of you to prove proof of LongingSoul’s point right there.

---

Ditto.

 

[jmjZelie]

-One example for when chastity is sinful would be a married couple who is fighting and refuse sexual relations to each other.
-Another would be to avoid children when hey are more than capable of doing so, and taking all of their extra time for worldly pursuits.

Overall though, chastity is to be commended as rebuking the flesh and setting one’s sight closer to God.

Um, I don’t don’t either of your examples is actually chastity. That is merely continence.

Chastity is a virtue and can never be wrong. Married Catholic couples are supposed to have chaste marital relations, or to say it in Popcak lingo, holy sex.

We are all called to chastity. Some will need to live that out in celibacy (unmarried), or in continence (abstaining from sexual relations).

Edited to add for clarity: the couple, in their relationship with each other and in their relationships with God, are the ones who get to decide when to actually engage in the marital act. No one else.

 

[SWolf]

Um, I don’t don’t either of your examples is actually chastity. That is merely continence.

Chastity is a virtue and can never be wrong. Married Catholic couples are supposed to have chaste marital relations, or to say it in Popcak lingo, holy sex.

We are all called to chastity. Some will need to live that out in celibacy (unmarried), or in continence (abstaining from sexual relations).

Edited to add for clarity: the couple, in their relationship with each other and in their relationships with God, are the ones who get to decide when to actually engage in the marital act. No one else.

Yup. You are correct.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

There’s also the question–can a couple be said to be sinning if they don’t engage in marital relations when neither of them wishes to engage in marital relations?

Because that’s the situation with the abstaining NFP couple–they don’t want to have sex, so they don’t have sex.

It’s hard to see where the sin is in that situation.

(It’s trickier if one member of the couple does want to, but I think it’s essentially a non-issue when both members of the couple are in agreement.)

There is a big difference between not having sex simply because you don’t wish to at the moment, regardless of fertility, and making sure you time your sex to only the infertile periods in order to avoid having children, even if the couple is in agreement. It isn’t simply about agreeing one doesn’t want to have kids, it is about evaluating one’s motives.

The Catechism says:

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154

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.155

And so I think the Catechism is clear, we have to evaluate our motives.

I think I common problem on here is people dismiss what the Catechism says in that area and tell people posting/asking questions that it is really pretty much impossible to use NFP for the wrong motives (which in itself implies that it is unnecessary to evaluate their motives). Why say that, when the Church doesn’t teach it? How does that help a couple truly find God’s will for them?

Another thing that happens is that people get told that their motives (when they aren’t clear cut) are good, when it could be true, but it could also be wrong. It is virtually impossible to know the couple’s situation, each couple should form their conscience correctly and do their best to discern in their situation, which is different from mine, and from everyone else’s on here. True charity is helping them know they need to discern, taking prudence and generosity into account. Helping educate their conscience with true teachings of the Church (I like actual quotes from Church documents, and links so they can see the context). Suggesting they go to a priest to help them discern. Charity isn’t telling them their reasons are good, when no one here can really say that.

When is chastity a sin?

Huh?? MomaMary never said anything that would suggest this. If anything, she is supporting married chastity.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

There is a big difference between not having sex simply because you don’t wish to at the moment, regardless of fertility, and making sure you time your sex to only the infertile periods in order to avoid having children, even if the couple is in agreement. It isn’t simply about agreeing one doesn’t want to have kids, it is about evaluating one’s motives.

The Catechism says:

And so I think the Catechism is clear, we have to evaluate our motives.

I think I common problem on here is people dismiss what the Catechism says in that area and tell people posting/asking questions that it is really pretty much impossible to use NFP for the wrong motives (which in itself implies that it is unnecessary to evaluate their motives). Why say that, when the Church doesn’t teach it? How does that help a couple truly find God’s will for them?

Another thing that happens is that people get told that their motives (when they aren’t clear cut) are good, when it could be true, but it could also be wrong. It is virtually impossible to know the couple’s situation, each couple should form their conscience correctly and do their best to discern in their situation, which is different from mine, and from everyone else’s on here. True charity is helping them know they need to discern, taking prudence and generosity into account. Helping educate their conscience with true teachings of the Church (I like actual quotes from Church documents, and links so they can see the context). Suggesting they go to a priest to help them discern. Charity isn’t telling them their reasons are good, when no one here can really say that.

Huh?? MomaMary never said anything that would suggest this. If anything, she is supporting married chastity.

But what specifically would the sinful aspect be? Being intimate while infertile, or abstaining while fertile, or the general idea of being selfish?

I think many Catholics sadly don’t practice NFP but use contraceptives. I was one of those Catholics. That was the sin. I actually think our motives to avoid were not frivolous, for the first part of our marriage, my husband was self employed, and we needed my salary. Instead of being obedient to the church, we used contraceptives.

I think everyone needs to examine their own conscience regarding motives.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s because many liberal/progressive ideas are anathema to the Catholic Faith.

Yup, progs never infer ungodliness in others. Posts like this prove it. Pot, meet kettle.

What I’d say to this is that it would be wrong to visualize a continuum between progressive and conservative Catholicism, with things getting worse and worse in the progressive direction and better and better in the conservative direction. That view suggests that it is literally impossible to take “conservative” ideas too far, but that isn’t true. For instance, believing that chastity and modesty are so important that girls shouldn’t go to school and women shouldn’t have male doctors (even in a matter of life and death) is taking “conservative” ideas too far. It is possible to take virtually any good idea too far.

I would suggest thinking more like G.K. Chesterton with regard to what heresy is–it means taking a truth too far, while ignoring other equally important truths. (For example, in the school and medicine case, both modesty and chastity are important, but they are not more important than educating girls and preserving life and health.)

In the case of family size, there are often other competing goods, and (from the Chestertonian perspective) it would be heretical to push family size as being the one and only good, which trumps all other human goods.

 

[Xantippe]

Actually, that is not even a question in my mind. I try not to think too hard about the sex life of those people who like to talk about planning their families. It is pretty easy for me to keep that separate in my mind. Obviously, I know that sex must occur for conception, but that is not the same thing as what people mean to say when they talk about family size and children.

But that is what we are concretely talking about–it being somehow sinful for a couple to skip intercourse in favor of something else–getting to bed early, returning some emails, a good book, some extra laundry, etc.

It’s the not-having-sex that is supposed to be sinful, and I just do not see how that can be a sin (assuming no major issues that would make marital relations advisable).

 

[Xantippe]

I think I common problem on here is people dismiss what the Catechism says in that area and tell people posting/asking questions that it is really pretty much impossible to use NFP for the wrong motives (which in itself implies that it is unnecessary to evaluate their motives). Why say that, when the Church doesn’t teach it? How does that help a couple truly find God’s will for them?

I was reading a quote from John Paul II (maybe even on this very thread) the last day or so where JPII said that the practice of NFP itself is transformative. Wish I had the quote! I know our poster Manualman (I think it was him) has said interesting things about the self-regulating nature of NFP.

On a somewhat different subject, I’m afraid that your suggestion to endlessly examine motives is going to be an invitation down the scrupulosity rabbit hole for a lot of CAFers.

Motivations are a very murky area. Am I giving to charity because I am charitable, or because I want other people to think well of me and to think well of myself? Should I stop giving to charity until I am sure that I am giving for the right reason?

I think I would encourage people to figure out what the right thing to do is and do it, rather than expending a lot of energy on either endlessly examining possible bad motives or on self-congratulation–those both being two possible opposite abuses of self-reflection.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think I common problem on here is people dismiss what the Catechism says in that area and tell people posting/asking questions that it is really pretty much impossible to use NFP for the wrong motives (which in itself implies that it is unnecessary to evaluate their motives). Why say that, when the Church doesn’t teach it? How does that help a couple truly find God’s will for them?

Another thing that happens is that people get told that their motives (when they aren’t clear cut) are good, when it could be true, but it could also be wrong. It is virtually impossible to know the couple’s situation, each couple should form their conscience correctly and do their best to discern in their situation, which is different from mine, and from everyone else’s on here. True charity is helping them know they need to discern, taking prudence and generosity into account. Helping educate their conscience with true teachings of the Church (I like actual quotes from Church documents, and links so they can see the context). Suggesting they go to a priest to help them discern. Charity isn’t telling them their reasons are good, when no one here can really say that.

This isn’t how it goes. The only reason that defense of periodic abstinence arises is to counter the fundamentalist error that nfp is a contraceptive if it isn’t done by perfectly selfless couples. It is in fact never a contraceptive. The other reason that defense of periodic abstinence arises is to push back against the attitude that it is objectively possible for another person to judge the sinful motives of a couples doing nfp. ie. they are more wealthy than an African women living in a mud hut. They want to afford university for their children in the future. They have a new car. etc.

The fact is that the wealthiest, healthiest person you know, could have completely legitimate reasons to space their children or limit their family.

Selfishness is a universal temptation and Christopher West astutely recounted a scenario where selfishness can be twisted into a virtue…

"On this point, there is another more subtle and little discussed form of selfishness that conflicts with responsible parenthood. I once counseled a couple that had several children very close together. The parents rightly recognized each child as a divine blessing and did all they could to love and care for them. The mother, emotionally drained since the third child, had desired a larger space between babies. It came to light that the reason they did not space their children was that the husband selfishly wouldn’t (or couldn’t) abstain.

Here, when looked at more closely, what on the surface might pass as a generous response to Church teaching actually demonstrates a failure to live Church teaching. The point is that, in order for parenthood to be responsible, the decision to avoid sexual union during the fertile time or the decision to engage in sexual union during the fertile time must not be motivated by selfishness."

Responsible parenting is most properly discerned not in a vacuum but in the context of the life of the family within the wider community. Being driven to reproduce by the sense of entitlement to use the community around without a sense of the need for civil reciprocation, could be seen as the height of selfishness. Hence, we see examples like the Duggar types, rejecting the ‘ungodliness’ of the world outside their castle, but exploiting the generosity of those heathens all the same. (The great doughnut grab)

When people start to embrace the Catholic way across the board ie. don’t judge others or boast about your own holy stature on ‘street corners’, that is when evangelisation occurs in the spirit of the gospels.

 

[alphawoman]

Bravo Longingsoul!

 

[MarkInOregon]

I’m not sure this is always true. There are certain areas that tend to be highly personal and sensitive, to the point that even if one is doing the right thing, criticism (or comments that can be construed as such) can result in anger, anxiety, and defensiveness.

I’m told that for some men, especially those highly invested in their jobs, that their careers can be such an area. For example, another guy making a disparaging comment about the area that a man works in, or the effort he’s putting into it, can result in anger and irritation, even if a guy is working hard and generally doing a good job in a morally good or neutral field.

From my perspective–If I felt like that regarding my job–I would guess I would be asking myself if I should be that invested in my job–i.e. should I be deriving any of my self-worth from my job? This doesn’t mean that I don’t derive some sense of identity from my job (probably more than I should)–but I kind of think that’s not where my sense of identity should come from and so It’s something I work to mitigate. I kind of think we should see our jobs as a way to provide for our families, and as something we should do to the best of our ability in order to give glory to God–not for any sense of personal accomplishment–not that I am very successful at that, but I find if I at least keep that thought in the back of my mind–it helps me keep what others say in perspective.

On the other hand, childbearing/feeding tend to be areas that can affect women in that regard. When DD was an infant, I wasn’t able to breastfeed for various reasons, despite the efforts and assistance of numerous medical personnel and lactation consultants. I knew I gave it a good try–as it happens, I tried harder than anyone I’ve ever met–but it didn’t work, so I fed DD formula, on which she thrived. I also had a C-section because she couldn’t be delivered the usual way; babies who insist on trying to come out sideways simply don’t fit that way.

On an intellectual level, I could look at the fact that I had a C-section and formula fed, and know they were certainly the correct choices for us in those circumstances. Without the former, we’d have both died a really horrible death, and without the latter, unless I could find another woman to nurse DD, she’d have starved. No one with half a brain, knowing the circumstances in question, would doubt that those were the right choices. Nonetheless, it took me a very long time to not feel the overwhelming urge to break down in angry, defensive tears every time someone asked me if I was breastfeeding, or why I had a C-section, or something similar. Why? Because those options, in our society’s understanding of motherhood, touch on the fundamental question of whether I was a good mother, and in many circles, especially Catholic moms’ circles, to not breastfeed or deliver naturally is seen as a moral flaw on the part of the mom, as a decision that makes them less of a mother. This is, of course, wrong, but it’s a deeply emotional subject because it has to do with one’s moral and spiritual worth.

I don’t know that I should speak for my wife regarding this–we bottle fed all five of our children–we did what was best for us and our children at the time and we just didn’t worry about what other people thought regarding it. Given that the Church doesn’t teach that failing to breast feed or deliver naturally are moral flaws – when people make such claims or imply them–we just didn’t take it seriously–in a way we just shake our heads and feel sorry for those people. Our children are healthy and doing well–health wise they’re better off than many of their breast fed peers who suffer from every sort allergy and food intolerance. Given this you can see that I do suffer from pride. I will say if my wife struggled in an area, with guilt, it would have been with regards to working–but that was due the uncertainty of whether or not it was the right thing to be doing–and this in a society that tends to affirm working at the right thing to do.

I wasn’t intending to make a blanket statement–just presenting an alternative way to view someones statements, pointing out something I think we should be doing in regards to our motivations–and addressing what I find about myself and my reactions to others comments–generally.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

This isn’t how it goes. The only reason that defense of periodic abstinence arises is to counter the fundamentalist error that nfp is a contraceptive if it isn’t done by perfectly selfless couples. It is in fact never a contraceptive.

LongingSoul, what do you mean by “this isn’t how it goes”? NFP is not contraception, that is also very clearly stated in the Catechism. That wasn’t what I was bringing up.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I was reading a quote from John Paul II (maybe even on this very thread) the last day or so where JPII said that the practice of NFP itself is transformative. Wish I had the quote! I know our poster Manualman (I think it was him) has said interesting things about the self-regulating nature of NFP.

On a somewhat different subject, I’m afraid that your suggestion to endlessly examine motives is going to be an invitation down the scrupulosity rabbit hole for a lot of CAFers.

Motivations are a very murky area. Am I giving to charity because I am charitable, or because I want other people to think well of me and to think well of myself? Should I stop giving to charity until I am sure that I am giving for the right reason?

I think I would encourage people to figure out what the right thing to do is and do it, rather than expending a lot of energy on either endlessly examining possible bad motives or on self-congratulation–those both being two possible opposite abuses of self-reflection.

Yes, NFP can be beautiful and have positive effects on marriage, but it is still straightforward what the Church teaches, we need to evaluate our motives. I don’t really get your analogy, the Church says our duty is to transmit life and educate our children, we need prudence and generosity, and if we want to use periodic continence, it is also our duty to make sure we are doing it for the right reason (unselfish/just/serious)… So the right thing to do what the Church is saying we should do, which includes evaluating our motives, just as it was spelled out for us.

 

[Xantippe]

Selfishness is a universal temptation and Christopher West astutely recounted a scenario where selfishness can be twisted into a virtue…

"On this point, there is another more subtle and little discussed form of selfishness that conflicts with responsible parenthood. I once counseled a couple that had several children very close together. The parents rightly recognized each child as a divine blessing and did all they could to love and care for them. The mother, emotionally drained since the third child, had desired a larger space between babies. It came to light that the reason they did not space their children was that the husband selfishly wouldn’t (or couldn’t) abstain.

Here, when looked at more closely, what on the surface might pass as a generous response to Church teaching actually demonstrates a failure to live Church teaching. The point is that, in order for parenthood to be responsible, the decision to avoid sexual union during the fertile time or the decision to engage in sexual union during the fertile time must not be motivated by selfishness."

Right. A refusal to abstain in the face of serious reasons could equally well be caused by selfishness.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, NFP can be beautiful and have positive effects on marriage, but it is still straightforward what the Church teaches, we need to evaluate our motives. I don’t really get your analogy, the Church says our duty is to transmit life and educate our children, we need prudence and generosity, and if we want to use periodic continence, it is also our duty to make sure we are doing it for the right reason (unselfish/just/serious)… So the right thing to do what the Church is saying we should do, which includes evaluating our motives, just as it was spelled out for us.

I guess I’d be more comfortable with phrasing it as “examining reasons” rather than “examining motives.”

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Right. A refusal to abstain in the face of serious reasons could equally well be caused by selfishness.

Yes, but once again, it doesn’t negate the need to evaluate those reasons to discern they are serious. Let’s say a woman is postpartum and needs some time to heal and her husband does not respect that and insists on intercourse despite her letting him know it could hurt her. Well shame on him, that is disrespectful and selfish, but it still has nothing to do with the fact that couples need to discern their motives. Giving examples of people pushing sex onto their spouses out of selfishness doesn’t change that fact.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I guess I’d be more comfortable with phrasing it as “examining reasons” rather than “examining motives.”

I agree with you on that one, I was just using “motives” based on this sentence from the Catechism.

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.

 

[LongingSoul]

LongingSoul, what do you mean by “this isn’t how it goes”? NFP is not contraception, that is also very clearly stated in the Catechism. That wasn’t what I was bringing up.

You seemed to be implying that we post to *promote *a position and “tell people posting/asking questions that it is really pretty much impossible to use NFP for the wrong motives”.

The reality is that we post to counter a position that promotes nfp as only licit in extreme life and death circumstances. That quiverfull theory is the ‘default’ and that family planning is only a response to visible impediments like physical ill health and poverty.

The other reality is that selfishness in acting is a temptation for anyone no matter their lifestyle choices. Even someone as holy as to walk through the streets wearing a hair rope and flagellating themselves… could be acting on selfish reasons. Those selfish reasons could also account for someone choosing to have a lot of children.

Everybody knows that one of the loveliest witnesses to the Catholic attitude is a large and loving family, walking among us emanating the glory of God, contributing to the whole of society by their faith and generosity. But even a small loving family is a better witness than the large one who feel superior and sinless and positioned to judge others by their own code.