Marriage and being "open to life"

[whatevergirl]

You CANNOT tell her not tonight, she has a right to it, to deny her her marriage rights is a mortal sin without sufficient reason and just been generally tired is not a sufficient reason…

*But, likewise, if my husband is truly 'tired as that poster suggested for the sake of example, I should not force myself on him, or make him feel bad. Just because my husband or I are in the mood, doesn’t mean I or he drop everything and go rushing into the bedroom. We might never get anything done. But, with patience and understanding, there are SOME nights that one or the other doesn’t feel well, or asks for a different night, if possible. I think that passage in the Bible is not to be taken to mean that we can demand sex from our spouses if they are truly tired or something. It does mean that we are one flesh, and we should do our best to satisfy the other, sexually or otherwise. *

 

[BrokenFortress]

• I think that passage in the Bible is not to be taken to mean that we can demand sex from our spouses if they are truly tired or something. It does mean that we are one flesh, and we should do our best to satisfy the other, sexually or otherwise. *

I agree, because if you are demanding something of your spouse but they are genuinely tired or have another sincere reason for wanting to abstain, you would not be treating them with charity and kindness if you were to force them. You are one body and should treat your spouse as you would treat yourself.
Of course I’m not saying that it is okay to continue to say “Not tonight” but I do think that there needs to be some compassion and understanding. Forcing someone is not marital love.

 

[sarahraegraham]

Let me take a step back and see if anyone can answer this question, which is really the crux of where my current opinion lies: How does one marry the idea of using NFP with trust in God and His lordship of our lives?

A “serious” reason to delay/avoid parenting can always be found. If a person was abused as a child and is afraid of being a parent, that is “serious”. If a couple’s income is variable consistently, that is a “serious” reason. Etc.

Because what has been said to be Church teaching is that each couple can define what is serious for them, which is relativism, which is diametrically opposed to Christianity, that’s my problem with it and where I find it to be an example of playing God. How can we allow everyone to define what is serious to themselves if we don’t have guidelines set down? How do we validate the use of NFP to contracept, ie avoid contraception, which is what it is being used for 99% of the time?

 

[PaulinVA]

Sarah, there is no list. Without the list, we are left to apply the “rules” to our own lives.

What is serious for me might not be serious to you. I understand what you are saying about relativism. It’s the same with culpability - the idea that you might be less responsible for a sin than the next person for some reason.

I guess I have to ask why some people are so concerned about the whether the 4% of the faithful who are following the Church’s teaching about fertility and using the only licit method instead of the 96% who are contracepting with ABC.

Every martial act of a couple using NFP is ordered toward procreation.

 

[sarahraegraham]

I’m not asking for a list. But I’m saying that I feel there needs to be some firm guidelines. Just saying “serious” reasons, to me, does not seem right, do you know what I mean. Take for example, the ten commandments. We couldn’t just say, don’t sin, we have to know what the sins are, so they are spelled out. And then further, if you make an examination of conscience, you have listed there (most of the time) numerous examples of what that sin could entail. The same is not true for NFP. It’s abused because it’s defined so broadly.

If the licit purpose of NFP is to space children, that means that it IS contracepting (avoiding conception). Not artificial, but contracepting nonetheless. So, if we are to say the NFP is the only valid option for a Catholic couple and only to be used in serious circumstances, and that each individual couple decides what’s serious to them, I don’t see how it can’t be abused most of the time. How can the Church give such license?

I don’t see the relation with culpability at all. While it is reasonable clear that for one to unaware of an action’s results makes you less culpable, the same is not true in this instance.

I’m not completely convinced on the topic, which is why I’m here. But I can only go off of what I know now. Further reading of Humane Vitae is not what I need, I’ve read it. I understand the concepts, but I don’t understand how when they are applied how they can be made to mold with basic Catholic precepts in NFP’s present state as the “Catholic” family-constructor.

 

[sarahraegraham]

Curious on this point… Are there any NFP-specific official church teachings other than Humane Vitae? I ask because it has just been brought to my attention that encyclicals (such as Humanae Vitae are *not *infallible doctrinal/moral teaching).

 

[Norseman82]

1 Corinthians 7:3

3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The section on Marriage in the Catechism says this:

1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.”

It is referring to Familiaris Consortio, which says this:

Consequently, sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is by no means something purely biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and a woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. The total physical self-giving would be a lie if it were not the sign and fruit of a total personal self-giving, in which the whole person, including the temporal dimension, is present: if the person were to withhold something or reserve the possibility of deciding otherwise in the future, by this very fact he or she would not be giving totally.

Also, Casti Connubii says this:

1. The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person; nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded.
2. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: “Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,” express not only a law of justice but of charity

I understand, but my problem is with Leonius telling people that it is a mortal sin and he (assuming Leonius is a male) appointing himself as the judge of what is and isn’t a serious reason.

 

[PaulinVA]

Sarah, the reason I brought up culpability is because it is a similar case. We may both commit the same act, and each of us has a different culpability for that act. It’s the same with NFP.

Each of us could use NFP for a month to avoid conception because we can’t watch one more child safely (at this time), and for one of us it’s the truth, and for the other it’s not really true. Same reason, one is wrong and the other isn’t.

It’s not relativist, but it is applying what we know to our own lives.

 

[sarahraegraham]

Sarah, the reason I brought up culpability is because it is a similar case. We may both commit the same act, and each of us has a different culpability for that act. It’s the same with NFP.

Each of us could use NFP for a month to avoid conception because we can’t watch one more child safely (at this time), and for one of us it’s the truth, and for the other it’s not really true. Same reason, one is wrong and the other isn’t.

It’s not relativist, but it is applying what we know to our own lives.

I agree with what you’ve stated here. In the end we’re all culpable in different capacities for the same/similar acts depending upon our individual circumstances. But I think the Catechism and the Bible are pretty clear on most subjects. Sadly (from what I am aware) NFP is not something that has an official stamp on it. Encyclical papal opinions, yes. Official doctrine? No.

I don’t want to oppose the Church, I hope no one thinks that. I love the RCC! But I just don’t understand this topic, and since it’s close to me personally, I am striving to find the answers.

 

[mrpathetic]

Are we supposed to use NFP because circumstances may not be “perfect” to conceive…? We have debt, or we’re planning on a big move, or one of us is in a shaky employment situation and we don’t know what the future will hold, etc., etc…?

Let’s go to the catechism, and see what it says. Here are the two most relevant portions of the catechism:

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.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.

Essentially, you need to decide what are the “just reasons” to space your births. In general, this implies that you cannot bear another child for serious reasons - physical, mental, emotional, financial, or otherwise. Then you can practice NFP to space your next birth, to a point in time where you can morally bring a child in this world.

You mention “big debts” or “shaky employment situations”. These could be legitimate reasons to space births. The question is this: how serious an impediment to raising a child are you facing? A health problem would be another reason, but again, it would have to be a serious one. A brain tumor would be a legitimate reason; toenail fungus is not. Extreme financial difficulty may be another - but it shouldn’t just be a high credit card debt. If you home is about to be foreclosed, and you have no place to take home your baby - that would qualify as a moral reason.

**Again, you are to use logic and prudence, to decide if you can morally practice NFP. This is the same logic and prudence you will need, to properly raise the child. **

And I will reiterate the obvious: NFP is still open to life. If you practice NFP, and still conceive, you must bear the child, and raise it, with love and caring. If the NFP regimen fails, for whatever reason, it is not an excuse to head down to the abortion clinic.

 

[sarahraegraham]

And I will reiterate the obvious: NFP is still open to life. If you practice NFP, and still conceive, you must bear the child, and raise it, with love and caring. If the NFP regimen fails, for whatever reason, it is not an excuse to head down to the abortion clinic.

Agreed on that, definitely. Your post brought to mind the verse in the Bible (can’t recall the specifics) that God will not give us more than we can bear. Would God not not give us a child if He thought we could not handle it? It seems that the two contradict each other. My thoughts go to, “If I/we really are unable to handle a child, God will not give us one. But if we are and we just *think *that we can’t (because we are flawed humans given to selfishness and illogically thinking at times) then He won’t, because we are His children and He cares for us all.” This is where I become confused at fusing the two concepts.

 

[mrpathetic]

Agreed on that, definitely. Your post brought to mind the verse in the Bible (can’t recall the specifics) that God will not give us more than we can bear. Would God not not give us a child if He thought we could not handle it? It seems that the two contradict each other. My thoughts go to, “If I/we really are unable to handle a child, God will not give us one. But if we are and we just *think *that we can’t (because we are flawed humans given to selfishness and illogically thinking at times) then He won’t, because we are His children and He cares for us all.” This is where I become confused at fusing the two concepts.

I can only speak from personal experience. I and my wife tried practicing NFP. We really failed badly. We conceived a child within the first two months of our marriage.

I thought we were totally unprepared. But, we managed to raise our first child, our daughter, and our second, despite numerous obstacles.

God not only realized that we were ready to have child - He willed it to happen. And it did. And I am eternally grateful to the Lord. Our daughter graduated from high school last month. Our daughter has been a blessing - one that we didn’t plan, but that that we are thankful for.

The Lord is perfect, and he will make up for our errors in judgment. If it is His will for a couple to have a child, then they will have it - so long as they are open to it. That is the evil of artificial contraception - it prevents new life from happening. It defies the will of the Lord, for a new soul to come into this world, and prevent it from becoming one of His disciples.

=============================================================

Those who are open to new life will receive it, when the Lord desires, and when the Lord deems the couple to be ready (even if they think they are not). Those who defy God, and are not open to Life, commit a grave sin, and prevent God’s most holy creation - a new human being - from coming to be. Does that answer your question, Sarah?

 

[SMHW]

Let me take a step back and see if anyone can answer this question, which is really the crux of where my current opinion lies: How does one marry the idea of using NFP with trust in God and His lordship of our lives?

See, now I think that the biggest area of confusion with NFP may be the Catholic perspective on trusting God and letting God have “lordship” over our lives.

It’s a much bigger issue than deciding what to do (or not do) with respect to procreation. Catholics also differ over how God is involved with our finances, our choice of career/vocation, and our choice of a spouse.

Some Catholics see trusting in God as a matter turning over every minute detail of daily life to Him. Other Catholics see trusting in God as an indirect matter: God gave people a brain and leaves it up to them to use it so long as they stay within the bounds of Church law and the ten commandments. Most Catholics would take a middle of the road position. But all those understandings can fall within orthodox Catholicism.

In general, the Church does not expect us to blindly trust God in everything; she expects us to see God’s will with our intellect and choose to do God’s work by exercising our free will. We can certainly pray for those occasional moments of guidance and enlightenment but we should mostly expect that prayer will help us to conform to the guidelines that the Church has already given us. We know we are under God’s lordship if our actions fall within the bounds of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. One does not want to cross over the line which divides those who trust in God from those who put God to the test.

Part of being married is to be open to life. But being open to life is more than procreation. It also means feeding, clothing, housing, and educating our children and other dependents. And many married people have gifts which probably ought to be used to be “open to life” for the greater community.

 

[flyingfish]

Agreed on that, definitely. Your post brought to mind the verse in the Bible (can’t recall the specifics) that God will not give us more than we can bear. Would God not not give us a child if He thought we could not handle it? It seems that the two contradict each other. My thoughts go to, “If I/we really are unable to handle a child, God will not give us one. But if we are and we just *think *that we can’t (because we are flawed humans given to selfishness and illogically thinking at times) then He won’t, because we are His children and He cares for us all.” This is where I become confused at fusing the two concepts.

God doesn’t work that way. Do you think that people living in Africa in utter poverty, have AIDS, and have children die within a few years of their birth from malnutrition and disease are ready to have a child?

God made us so that if sperm meets egg, there is a pregnancy, ready or not. He also gave us intelligence, with which we have figured out how our bodies work and how to postpone pregnancy if we are not ready.

If you apply your reasoning generally you can arrive at things that Catholics do not believe in. Like take disease, you might say that if bacteria happens to infect you it was God’s will. There are believers who say that for this reason you should not use medicine. Would you agree with them?

 

[nodito]

sarahegraham:

How can we allow everyone to define what is serious to themselves if we don’t have guidelines set down?

The same way the Church allows adults to decide how much money to donate to charity or how much time to devote to prayer. We’re encouraged to be generous with our time, talents, and yes, fertility. But the Church leaves it up to parents to decide how to allocate their resources. One person might decide to donate 5% of his income to his local Church. Perhaps he’d like to give more, but he’s supporting three little children at home and has prayerfully decided that 5% is all that he can afford right now. Another man is single and gives up all that he has to live in voluntary poverty. Both men are well within their rights as Catholics and I’d say both men are being generous. The Church doesn’t need to set guidelines for how much money to donate to charity or how much time to devote to prayer or how many children for parents to have, because part of being a Christian adult is learning to discern that for yourself. We’re called to be generous and ultimately God will judge how successful we were.
sarahegraham:

So, if we are to say that NFP is the only valid option for a Catholic couple and only to be used in serious circumstances, and that each individual couple decides what’s serious to them, I don’t see how it can’t be abused most of the time. How can the Church give such license?

It has been proposed (and I agree), that NFP is perhaps more difficult to abuse than many people think. By it’s very definition, NFP requires self-sacrifice, the antithesis to selfishness. It can be challenging to practice abstinence, and the difficulty inherent in the methods tends to “weed out” the couples using it for poor reasons. Let’s say, for example, that a couple has what we would consider a dubious reason for wanting to practice NFP. When the wife enters her fertile period and the couple is facing the prospect of a week or two of abstinence, they start asking themselves “Why is it we’re abstaining again? Do we really need to? Is that really a good enough reason to avoid making love tonight?” And by talking about these things, they might conclude that their reasons really weren’t good enough, and so they decide to chance it. But if they decide to abstain anyway, even after considering how difficult it will be, then I think this suggests in part that perhaps their reasons weren’t so shallow. It’s hard to be selfless for a selfish motive.
sarahegraham:

How do we validate the use of NFP to contracept, ie avoid conception, which is what it is being used for 99% of the time?.. If the licit purpose of NFP is to space children, that means that it IS contracepting (avoiding conception). Not artificial, but contracepting nonetheless.

I think it’s important to reiterate that the Church makes a sharp distinction between NFP and contraception. Contraception does not just mean “trying to prevent pregnancy.” It’s a way of preventing pregnancy: a deliberate attempt to separate the procreative and unitive aspect of an act of intercourse through use of devices, chemicals, or methods. So NFP cannot be used to contracept, because it does not delibertaly frustrate the sexual act.
sarahegraham:

My thoughts go to, “If I/we really are unable to handle a child, God will not give us one. But if we are and we just think that we can’t (because we are flawed humans given to selfishness and illogically thinking at times) then He won’t, because we are His children and He cares for us all.”

Flying fish hit the nail on the head when he referred to the many ways in which Catholics can plan their lives and hedge against disease, disaster, or suffering. He mentions medicine, an example I’d like to extend. If by saying that God doesn’t ever give us more than we can handle, we mean that we must never take any precautions against that which we feel would be too difficult for us to handle, then why does the Church permit us to vaccinate our children against polio or rubella? It’s not a perfect analogy, of course, because one could hardly compare a new child to a disease-inducing virus, but the logic remains the same. The Church teaches that God will provide for us, but one of the ways he does this is by putting at our disposal a number of licit ways in which couples can practice responsible parenthood. These include vaccinations, by which parents are able to protect their young children against disease, as well as NFP, by which parents are able to demonstrate love and generosity through self-sacrifice in order to handle any number of financial, emotional, spiritual, or physical difficulties.
sarahegraham:

I don’t want to oppose the Church, I hope no one thinks that. I love the RCC! But I just don’t understand this topic, and since it’s close to me personally, I am striving to find the answers.

I think this is a wonderful attitude, and we would all do well to approach our obstacles to faith as you do.

God bless.

 

[ac_claire]

You started this thread stating that people here on CAF were using NFP with a contraceptive mentality and then gave examples that you deem to be unilaterally NOT just reasons.

Whether their reasons are just are not depend on their situation, which you cannot possibly know enough about to make the deicision.

I’m not making the decision; I made a *general observation *about a trend that I’ve noticed on CAF the past few weeks. The examples I gave were…examples. Judgemental? Well, I’m sure it is as judgemental as a list of general, possible examples can be.

Any particular set of circumstances may indicate a just reason for one couple and for another couple may not. That is why there is no list. There isn’t a universal set of circumstances that light up as “JUST” and another set that light up as “UNJUST.” That’s why the Church teaches as she does.

I don’t see myself in your comments at all nor am I “defensive.” I am merely stating Church teaching and pointing out that you are going beyond what the Church teaches. For me, this discussion is strictly academic.

The Church does* not *teach that any couple can use NFP for whatever reason they consider just according to their own private interpretation of the concept of justice. Pope Pius XII didn’t make a list like some of yall are asking for but he did set out some pretty clear guidelines. Leonius linked to his writings about this eariler in this thread.

 

[ac_claire]

I find it interesting that while many posters have replied and responded about not judging individual couples and gotten very defensive about it, no one has yet to respond to any of the concerns I have brought up about it. Almost everything that has been said inserts the “couple” as God and leaves it up to God “only” if they “feel” it’s prudent. And as a previous poster mentioned, we’re not talking about exceptions here, we’re talking about the rule.

*IF *NFP is only to be used (per Church teaching) for grave reasons (and by the term grave, the Church is putting up some very clear boundaries) then NFP should *ALWAYS * be the exception, not the rule. And yet, an enormous amount of people are using it when it’s just them convincing themselves that it’s okay. “Hey, look at us! We’re good Catholics, and we can still limit our family like the culture and yet pat ourselves on the back and say we’re doing a much better thing!”

Being open to life does not mean that you will/should have a million children. It means that you let God decide and trust him to provide. To do anything else is playing God. Honestly, how many times a week do you and your spouse make love? A woman can get pregnant only within a 24-hour period every month. So in order to be constantly pregnant and having a million kids, you would have to be having sex at least every 48 hours for your entire child-bearing years. Seriously, who does that? Do you? What’s the average, like once a week? I find that most people who get defensive about defining openness to life are just justifying themselves.

When it comes down to it, all a couple who is using NFP in this way is doing is saying “Here’s when I can get pregnant, so we won’t do it then, but if we do get pregnant anyway, well, we were still open to life.” Baloney! Being open to life means being open, and you are purposefully closing yourself when life will occur. If you were open, you wouldn’t be paying attention. Yes, biology is a factor, but God only uses the biology, He is not controlled by it! If He says yes, it’s yes. If He says no, it’s no.

Sorry if I offend, that’s not my intent. But before you get angry and respond, take a good hard look at what my first post said and this one, and then take a good hard look at your own logic and intentions.

Sorry I missed this post the first time around. Just wanted to say, awesome post, you laid it all out perfectly! :hug1:

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think that by virtue of practicing NFP a couple is open to life.

NFP if difficult, not in the sense of following the charts and determining fertility, but difficult because it requires discipline. A great deal of discipline. It also requires sacrifice.

Abstaining from the marital act to avoid conceiving is a sacrifice. Sacrifice builds virtue. I can’t see anyone making that sacrifice month after month, year after year for frivolous reason. A selfish person would tire of the sacrifice pretty quickly.

Not every couple is called for many children. To see a couple with only 2 or 3 children, and say that they are using NFP for frivolous reasons isn’t charitable.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Being open to life does not mean that you will/should have a million children. It means that you let God decide and trust him to provide. To do anything else is playing God. Honestly, how many times a week do you and your spouse make love? A woman can get pregnant only within a 24-hour period every month. So in order to be constantly pregnant and having a million kids, you would have to be having sex at least every 48 hours for your entire child-bearing years. Seriously, who does that? Do you? What’s the average, like once a week? I find that most people who get defensive about defining openness to life are just justifying themselves.

The life of the egg is about 24 hours, sperm can live 3-5 days depending on the environment. The total abstinence for a couple doing NFP is about a week. So basically, according to “averages” an NFP couple is only missing out on intimacy once per month…(intimacy once a week). So 3 times a month is less open to life than 4? :ehh:

So would the NFP couple who manages to be intimate 6 times per month be more open to life than the non-NFP couple who is intimate 4 times a month?

Also, it isn’t true that a couple has to be intimate every 48 hours to be constantly pregnant. A couple can do it once every six months and be constantly pregnant. A woman whose fertility comes back soon after birth can become pregnant the first time they are intimate.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m noticing a trend here on CAF and in the Church in general. It seems like a lot of Catholic couples (young couples especially) bring a sort of contraceptive mentality into their marriage, with NFP as their “birth control” method of choice. Is that the way we’re supposed to use it?

Are we supposed to use NFP because circumstances may not be “perfect” to conceive…? We have debt, or we’re planning on a big move, or one of us is in a shaky employment situation and we don’t know what the future will hold, etc., etc…?

The Church, in her wisdom, teaches that pro-creation (ie: being open to life) is the primary purpose of marriage. There is no getting around this. So then why are couples who “aren’t ready” to have children getting married in the first place…?

Something is not right with this picture. :nope:

1. This thread started out with a very *generalized *judgment… not concrete data or facts.
2. No, that is not the way NFP *should *be used… but again, since the first paragraph was such a generalized judgment it’s hard to say if/when/how often it is actually used incorrectly.
3. No, we should not use NFP to wait for “perfection”. Yes, we should be prudent in our use - and that prudence can only come through prayer and inviting Christ into your marriage.
4. By accepting your spouse in marriage, you are pronouncing your readiness to be parents. However, if prudence through prayer has brought you to the sacrifice of using NFP for a certain amount of time, it is not within our ability to judge that.

HTH!