Is this an abuse of marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter genevieve2K
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

genevieve2K

Guest
Say that a married couple has a valid reason to avoid pregnancy for awhile. They’re not able to use NFP because the woman doesn’t have regular cycles. Is it immoral for the woman to get up right away after the couple has relations, and remain standing for awhile or go sit on the toilet, so her husband’s seed falls out of her and diminishes the chances of pregnancy? Is this essentially a contraceptive act? (Apologies if this is too graphic, didn’t know how else to phrase it)
 
This is not a reliable method of preventing pregnancy. Aside from an abuse of marriage, it is an abuse of common sense.
 
It doesn’t work. I can say that from personal experience - not because we’ve tried it as contraception, but because it’s good hygiene and can help prevent UTIs. We’re now expecting kid #3.

NFP can be used with irregular cycles.
 
Ok, so regardless of whether or not it works, if the woman’s *intention *in doing so is to prevent or lower the chances of pregnancy, is that a contraceptive act that needs to be confessed?
 
Well, semen would still be inside of her. I always, um, clean myself up after coitus and “stuff” will still be there when I wipe even a day or so after. All it takes is one sperm to penetrate an egg, so this clean up/stand up method would definitely not work.
There are several methods of NFP and lots of women have weird cycles and still use it.
 
genevieve2K said:
Ok, so regardless of whether or not it works, if the woman’s *intention *in doing so is to prevent or lower the chances of pregnancy, is that a contraceptive act that needs to be confessed?
Click to expand...
I am not a priest or a theologian by no means, but I believe that if you had a “contraception mentality” then you may want to mention this to your priest.
 
pensmama87 said:
NFP can be used with irregular cycles.
Click to expand...
In this case the woman’s cycle is absent because she’s nursing a baby. The risk is conceiving on the first ovulation before she has a menstrual period, which becomes more and more likely the longer she nurses.
 
genevieve2K said:
Ok, so regardless of whether or not it works, if the woman’s *intention *in doing so is to prevent or lower the chances of pregnancy, is that a contraceptive act that needs to be confessed?
Click to expand...
No, it need not be confessed. It is not an artificial means of birth control.

I’ll leave it at that.
 
FrDavid96 said:
No, it need not be confessed. It is not an artificial means of birth control.

I’ll leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your reply, Father. Even though it’s not artificial birth control, is it still sinful as an abuse of marriage with a “contraceptive mentality” intention to avoid pregnancy? I’ve been feeling more and more like I need to go to Confession today…
 
genevieve2K said:
Thank you very much for your reply, Father. Even though it’s not artificial birth control, is it still sinful as an abuse of marriage with a “contraceptive mentality” intention to avoid pregnancy? I’ve been feeling more and more like I need to go to Confession today…
Click to expand...
Honey, only you know what’s in your heart as far as going to Confession and all, but let me give you a little biology lesson- what is likely to leak out after sex was what didn’t get the farthest in the first place. All you are doing by getting up and going to the toilet (and hopefully urinating) is cleaning out any bacteria that might have gotten in your urethra during the friction of intercourse or foreplay and decreasing your chance of a bladder infection. I would highly recommend you find a good anatomical book on sex because this idea of trying to not get pregnant by standing up (or even douching after sex) reminds me of the myths going around on avoiding pregnancy when I was a teenager many, many decades ago and the girls that tried to use those methods as birth control were the ones with the hurry up weddings or were sent off the a distant relatives home for around 9 months.
 
There’s some method I read about once that I think was called the two-day method that would probably work for nursing mothers.

The gist was something like you monitor for mucus and you don’t have sex on any days when you have mucus, or on any days when you had mucus the day before.

Look it up. 🙂
 
QuasiCatholic said:
There’s some method I read about once that I think was called the two-day method that would probably work for nursing mothers.

The gist was something like you monitor for mucus and you don’t have sex on any days when you have mucus, or on any days when you had mucus the day before.

Look it up. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, this is one option for nursing mothers. Another is waiting for a change in mucus - I tend to always have it, but it changes to fertile-looking shortly before my cycles resume.

Another is charting temperature rather than relying on a mucus-only method.

I appreciate FrDavid96’s response.

“Contraceptive mentality” is a phrase I really wish would go away. Contraception is an act - it’s something you do to the sex act or to yourself/your spouse to prevent sex from naturally occurring. In your example, you’re not doing anything to the sex act. You’re just doing something commonly done anyway for hygienic or comfort reasons that minimally impacts chances of conception, if it impacts it at all. That’s different than a method like withdrawal (which is also not reliable), but actually prevents the sex act from being completed.

Simply not wanting a baby is not a sin. Couples should be open to any children that God sees fit to bless them with, and that’s a requirement of valid marriage, but not actively desiring a child is not, by itself, sinful.
 
FrDavid96 said:
No, it need not be confessed. It is not an artificial means of birth control.

I’ll leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Is whether method artificial or natural the determining factor? I can’t remember the priest (a regular on Catholic Answers Live) has pointed out that even NFP can be sinful if there is an unwillingness to being open to life. It makes me think whether the method is natural or artificial is not the entire issue. Couples using NFP who truly are not open to a child now are might be playing a dangerous game. Any couple absolutely opposed to pregnancy now have only one option that is not just and right …and that is abstinence from the marital act, isn’t it?

This is not an opinion, just an honest inquiry.
 
pensmama87 said:
Yes, this is one option for nursing mothers. Another is waiting for a change in mucus - I tend to always have it, but it changes to fertile-looking shortly before my cycles resume.

Another is charting temperature rather than relying on a mucus-only method.

I appreciate FrDavid96’s response.

“Contraceptive mentality” is a phrase I really wish would go away. Contraception is an act - it’s something you do to the sex act or to yourself/your spouse to prevent sex from naturally occurring. In your example, you’re not doing anything to the sex act. You’re just doing something commonly done anyway for hygienic or comfort reasons that minimally impacts chances of conception, if it impacts it at all. That’s different than a method like withdrawal (which is also not reliable), but actually prevents the sex act from being completed.

Simply not wanting a baby is not a sin. Couples should be open to any children that God sees fit to bless them with, and that’s a requirement of valid marriage, but not actively desiring a child is not, by itself, sinful.
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a difference between normal clean up, because you have always done that and cleaning up with the intention that you are going to stop conception from happening? It’s the intent. Just like it is permissible for women to use the pill for medical reasons, because the intent is to help with a problem and not to use it as contraception.
 
Neofight said:
Is whether method artificial or natural the determining factor? I can’t remember the priest (a regular on Catholic Answers Live) has pointed out that even NFP can be sinful if there is an unwillingness to being open to life. It makes me think whether the method is natural or artificial is not the entire issue. Couples using NFP who truly are not open to a child now are might be playing a dangerous game. Any couple absolutely opposed to pregnancy now have only one option that is not just and right …and that is abstinence from the marital act, isn’t it?

This is not an opinion, just an honest inquiry.
Click to expand...
But if using the information gathered by NFP to avoid conception, the couple will abstain - temporarily. Or longer, if the situation requires (and not all couples abstain for the same length of time anyway).

If a person is using NFP selfishly, the sin isn’t NFP, the sin is selfishness. NFP is neutral.

If a person doesn’t want to have a child, there may or may not be selfish reasons for that. If the person is concerned, they certainly could consult a priest if they wanted, but not wanting a child is not the same thing as “I would refuse to accept one if God gave one to me” or “I will do something to alter my body” or “I will require my spouse to do something that alters his or her body” or “I will alter the sex act.”

Abstaining when one does not desire a child is actually precisely what a couple should do. Some may be able to abstain temporarily using the information from NFP, and others may determine they need to abstain for longer periods of time.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
Isn’t there a difference between normal clean up, because you have always done that and cleaning up with the intention that you are going to stop conception from happening? It’s the intent. Just like it is permissible for women to use the pill for medical reasons, because the intent is to help with a problem and not to use it as contraception.
Click to expand...
But it’s not a contraceptive act. It could be something else, but it’s not a contraceptive act.
 
Relax. Don’t worry! God knows you and understands. If unsure, seek a priests advice.
 
genevieve2K said:
Say that a married couple has a valid reason to avoid pregnancy for awhile. They’re not able to use NFP because the woman doesn’t have regular cycles. Is it immoral for the woman to get up right away after the couple has relations, and remain standing for awhile or go sit on the toilet, so her husband’s seed falls out of her and diminishes the chances of pregnancy? Is this essentially a contraceptive act? (Apologies if this is too graphic, didn’t know how else to phrase it)
Click to expand...
I think that I have to disagree with Fr. David–this is an attempt at contraception, even if it’s a lousy one. Likewise, if the couple believed that eating carrots was contraceptive, that would also be an attempt at contraception, no matter how ineffective it was.

This couple should look into breastfeeding NFP (there are lots of threads on the subject). It’s a tricky area and this couple should do some real research on the subject, rather than attempting “high school” style contraception.
 
Xantippe said:
I think that I have to disagree with Fr. David–this is an attempt at contraception, even if it’s a lousy one. Likewise, if the couple believed that eating carrots was contraceptive, that would also be an attempt at contraception, no matter how ineffective it was.

This couple should look into breastfeeding NFP (there are lots of threads on the subject). It’s a tricky area and this couple should do some real research on the subject, rather than attempting “high school” style contraception.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top