I really enjoyed this post. I think that the phrasing “open to life” can be taken into so many directions, but you really hit a ‘sticking point’ with the fact that Church will not take away the right of the couple to avoid having children.
Hi Em… Of course once we are inside marriage, sex becomes morally neutral in a sense. There’s nothing wrong with abstinence in and of itself. The question is not the act itself, but the motives and purpose for using birth control (NFP).
Sorry, that doesn’t really answer my question. It only states that abstinence for times is moral. Sadly, it doesn’t go any further in the reasons to abstain department. That’s what I’m looking for.
No, of course not. But if they say I will physically be open to life, but in their hearts they are not willing to be open, then it’s a contradiction. Remember Jesus’ words to clean the inside of the cup, not just the outside? If the heart is not right, the actions don’t matter. That’s my point.
You’re rightly, evidently I’m not seeing what you mean. Sins can be committed by omission as well as commission. (Just drawing an example to make a point! Please don’t be offended.) And willfully choosing to not do something is still an act, although passive.
So a Catholic woman who waits until marriage for intimacy is contracepting from puberty on?
What do you mean not in encyclical form? Do you not like encyclicals? Encyclicals are pretty important teachings.
No, of course I don’t mean that, just making a point. Facetious, are you? Yes you can sin by not doing something. But not in this case. Just because you can point that out does not mean it applies here. It is not a sin to abstain or else Jesus, priests, Paul, Mary, singles and some invalids would be in the wrong.
Yes you can sin by not doing something. But not in this case. Just because you can point that out does not mean it applies here. It is not a sin to abstain or else Jesus, priests, Paul, Mary, singles and some invalids would be in the wrong.
Show me where it is a sin to not have sex, show me anything anywhere outside of the porn industry that says we should ALWAYS have sex?
Really you really want to go down the road of It is a sin to abstain… Your husband will be one Lucky albeit tired man.
Sorry, I should have qualified my comment. I said it in reference to my earlier comments about the intent of the heart. That’s why I compared it to sins of omission.Ahh… now there’s the real question…
It’s sacrificial. It requires prayer, communication, humility, tender understanding, and love. I think it would be hard to use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality” because it’s too easy to “mess up”. 
I don’t know. Really, we cannot judge… in ANYTHING.This.Ahh… now there’s the real question…
WHAT justifies using NFP… right?
I understand and completely agree that NFP CAN be used with a “contraceptive mentality”… yes, I’m sure it has been used incorrectly. However, in *practical *use it’s much more humbling than that. It’s not easy… at all.
The truth is, you’re not going to find a definitive “list” of when you’re “allowed” to use NFP. Sorry… it doesn’t exist.
One couple may claim “financial strain”, but what does that mean?
Another couple may claim “mental illness”, but what does that mean?
And another couple may claim “physical illness”, but again, what does that mean?
There are varying degrees of each of these reasons… are they “serious” or “grave” ENOUGH?
In the same light - you may see people making any “questionable” choices in life and feel the need to judge those actions based on your view and opinion… but is that RIGHT? Of course not.
There is no list. NFP may be used incorrectly, yes… but, from the practical USE of it, I tend to be a little more lenient in that judgment.
Well, our current practice is going with the flow. That’s what I would say I feel about the topic at the present time, in principle, not just for myself. I would never say that a couple has to do it all the time. I don’t think anyone would hold that position.
Of course not… and as each couple sees fit (as long as their motives aren’t to “contracept”). I don’t think those questions are relevant to the discussion.
I’m (kinda, sorta) asking for rules (guidelines) specifically because there aren’t any, and I think there should be. Not for the purpose of legalism, but so that we know what we’re doing!
As for the last question, I would say that we can’t ever avoid God giving us a child, so why bother?Basically, the Church leaves the discernment of when to use NFP to avoid pregnancy up to married couples, who are called to sincerity in their discernment, generosity with the gifts they have been given, and openness to the will of God. There ARE no lists of what constitute “just reasons” for spacing the births of children, but responsible men and women with well-formed consciences are called to discern themselves, in prayerful conversation with God, whether or not they have just reasons for avoiding pregnancy at that time.
This is incorrect. Nfp does not keep sperm out of the uterus, because there is no sperm to do anything with. Abstaining cannot “prevent” anything.
If this is so…then why can’t my wife and I choose to do this from the outset of our marriage. If there is nothing “contra” in inaction, nor are we “preventing” any by doing nothing, then why may we choose to engage in the marital embrace only during infertile times from the outset of our marriage.
Yes, a couple is allowed to avoid the fertile times for serious reasons.
purposeful avoiding is still by definition, IN-action. just because there is thought, discipline, and observations made to come to a decision to not do something, does not make it an action or “contra” anything.
Yes, serious physical issues.
I see I see. Based on your reasoning, I would see why you would come to that conclusion, but I’m afraid that you’re laboring under some false assumptions. Not trying to insult you or anything… But namely, the idea that absolutely nothing that we do can ever change what God wants to do in our lives in incorrect. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have free will. God made the universe to follow certain rules. Those rules apply to physics, chemistry, AND biology. Occasionally God decides to circumvent His own rules, and thus we have miracles. As you’ve noticed, sometimes He does that in the realm of biology, by healing people, or by blessing them with a child even when the couple thought it was impossible. But that doesn’t mean that the rules don’t apply the vast majority of the time.Well, our current practice is going with the flow. That’s what I would say I feel about the topic at the present time, in principle, not just for myself. I would never say that a couple has to do it all the time. I don’t think anyone would hold that position.
Of course not… and as each couple sees fit (as long as their motives aren’t to “contracept”). I don’t think those questions are relevant to the discussion.
I’m (kinda, sorta) asking for rules (guidelines) specifically because there aren’t any, and I think there should be. Not for the purpose of legalism, but so that we know what we’re doing!
Yes, it does make sense. I’m a person who likes to read the entire instruction booklet before I start putting something together. So, you can see where my desire comes from.I see I see. Based on your reasoning, I would see why you would come to that conclusion, but I’m afraid that you’re laboring under some false assumptions. Not trying to insult you or anything… But namely, the idea that absolutely nothing that we do can ever change what God wants to do in our lives in incorrect. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have free will. God made the universe to follow certain rules. Those rules apply to physics, chemistry, AND biology. Occasionally God decides to circumvent His own rules, and thus we have miracles. As you’ve noticed, sometimes He does that in the realm of biology, by healing people, or by blessing them with a child even when the couple thought it was impossible. But that doesn’t mean that the rules don’t apply the vast majority of the time.
Your reasoning seems to follow these lines: event X happens with a high certainty under some circumstances, and with low certainty in others. Because there is a chance of X happening at all times, it is impossible to totally avoid, so no steps should be taken to reduce the chance of it occurring. Insert my crossing-the-street example from earlier: Getting hit by a car has a high chance of occurring when one does not look for traffic before crossing, and has a low chance of occurring when one does look. Because there is a chance of getting hit by a car at all times, it is completely impossible to totally avoid, so no steps should be taken to reduce the chance of it occurring. Or even something more mundane: There is a high chance of becoming obese when one eats lots of fatty foods, and a low chance if one does not. Because there is always a chance of becoming obese, it is impossible to totally avoid, so no steps should be taken to reduce the chance of it occurring.
Do you see how that’s a bit of a large leap in logic? Yes, those are negative things that I described, but for the sake of the argument, imagine that having a child right now for this hypothetical couple would also be a very negative thing, and falls under the realm of ‘serious/grave/just’ reasons.
As for the rules, I know what you mean, but it would be impossible for the Church to lay the rules down. We have some examples, like financial stain or physical illness. But there is NO WAY that a rulebook could be made to cover every possibility a couple could face while on this Earth. What would it say, really? “You may only avoid having children by using NFP for the following reasons: (A)You have a 90% chance of falling into bankruptcy because of the additional costs a child would bring, (b) The wife would have an 75% chance of dying due to the pregnancy or childbirth, (c) there is a 85% chance that existing children would suffer due to a lack of attention…” I dunno, how could it be written?
This is why we have our brains and our prayers, to assess situations, identify problems, and then talk to God about what He would like us to do.
Does that make any more sense to you?
If I had the rules, this discussion wouldn’t be necessary. (And I’ve gathered I’m not the only one who wrestles with the subject.)You’re right… I agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, there is some reasoning behind the lack of “background information” that is shared as the reasoning for using NFP - because often it becomes a judgmental tirade of “that’s not GRAVE enough” or “I was able to have children in that situation, why can’t you?”… I think there are definitely some raw nerves from old threads that have surfaced here on these message boards - so if that’s any explanation, I hope you understand. I’ve “been burned” before for sharing my personal struggles, and it’s just simply not worth it.
I 100% believe in and trust our wonderful faith and have no arguments against ANY of the teachings - and I don’t need to defend my motives to those who want to take exception to the teachings when I know I’m in keeping with the teachings.Keeping these two sections in mind is the essence of the NFP teaching.
A forum on the interwebz isn’t really the best place to have a discussion about whether you should have another child or not. Many of the people who are posting probably do have serious reasons but just don’t find it appropriate to discuss every little detail about there marriages here so you can feel confident they aren’t being selfish.
But the thing is if I wanted your opinion about my marriage I would give it to you. If I want advice about my personal motives I will ask a close friend or a somebody I really trust not some stranger on the internet. It is just impossible to get good advice from someone trying to glean your intentions from a couple of paragraphs you write on the web. The don’t judge is just telling you that there is no way you you can make a good judgment from the information you have and it really isn’t your place either
P XII’s address to midwives would be a good place to start to learn more. papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm If you notice the indication is that serious motives for NFP are very common, not rare like you are suggesting