Moral dilemma; please help!

[Princess_Abby]

Dear Javelin,

My heart is really going out to you. Will you consider ordering Christopher West’s *Good News About Sex & Marriage *book? You could buy it used off amazon.com and it wouldn’t cost very much at all. This book has a PLETHORA of information in a VERY readable question and answer format. It has an index, too, so you can look up specific key words and go directly to the page in which you’d like to read more. I feel like we are all giving you bits and pieces of the whole picture, and Christopher West does an amazing job at putting it all out there.

I’m so glad Bear06 brought up grave reasons. Wow. I guess I thought anyone who practiced NFP would have been told that during class. I get the sense from your post that you’re feeling very frustrated and concerned about what constitutes grave reason and what doesn’t. Grave reasons can be physical, emotional or financial. My husband and I have been married one year exactly, and we are continuing to avoid for some serious physical health reasons.

As for your comments about not being able to transport or care for your children because they keep coming , that would fall under a grave reason of finances. Obviously, though, we must use our best judgement with all of these grave reasons. If we feel like we have to have the newest and most expensive car in which to transport our family, but could in fact afford something less in value but still totally acceptable, we should carefully weigh whether it is the difference between adding another child to the family or buying a nicer car Pope JPII has said that the greatest gift a family can give their children is another sibling–but not at the demise of the family.

Grave reasons are between ourselves, spouse and God. I have a Catholic friend, unmarried, who has told me she thinks it’s “sinful” that I’m not yet pregnant and that we do not have children after one year of marriage. These comments have to simply roll off my back, because it is none of my friend’s business why I must avoid getting pregnant. I don’t need to detail to her my health issues and why it isn’t safe for me to conceive yet. Again, I don’t have the ability to judge your situation with your wife, but it seems to me that the two of you have VERY grave reason to abstain.

Just a few other thoughts. As a woman, having the desire to love my spouse more during ovulation is a biological fact for most, yes. But we must be careful to never objectify our spouses as a means to an end–when my husband and I come together, it is not meant to be a situation in which he or I selfishly “get rid” of whatever desire (tension) is there and capitalize on the pleasure aspect. Rather, Christopher West talks about “affirming the other’s goodness” with each kiss and touch that you give your spouse. We are meant to give to the other while surrendering ourselves. The desire we feel should be channeled as an opportunity to show love to our spouse and affirm their inherent goodness to us. Though we must be sensitive to each other’s needs, there are times in marriage where one of us may feel desire and the other is geuninely tired, sick, stressed out or preoccupied. Sensitively asking our spouse if we may postpone lovemaking (on these such occasions, assuming of course that it is none too frequent) is fine. Just because desire is there does not mean we HAVE to act on it! What if a child of the marital union is in need of attention? Obviously we wouldn’t put our desire ahead of our duties as a parent, but instead postpone a few hours until the timing is better.

Remember that God is a merciful Father. His son instituted the Church that we now follow. The magisterium is here to help us live this life and obtain salvation. The doctrine provides us direction with which to do so.

Abby

 

[javelin]

bear06:

I can’t tell you what proper spacing for you or anyone else might be. For some, it may be to never have another but the fact still remains for all of us that we must remain open to the possiblity of life!

So, the decision on whether or not I have a reason to use NFP is completely up to me, then, even if I decide it is best for my family to stop at 2 children when I’m still relatively young. Right?

OK, I think this really sounds much harsher than it is. It sounds like “grave reason” is really very loosely defined. Basically, the Church is saying that if you think it may not be best to have a child right now for a wholesome reason, then abstain when fertile.

That “wholesome” reason may be physical, mental, financial (as long as it is in the interests of the child, not acquiring wealth), or whatever unselfish reason (how about desiring to continue one’s career for a time?). Practicing NFP so as not to be pregnant because you really want to buy a summer home instead, or because you heard that the sex life goes in the toilet after the first child, etc. would not be good reasons. Fine, I can believe that because no one in their right mind would be using NFP for those purposes anyways – they would just use contraceptives/sterilization.

So, basically, I’m going to say “well, duh!” to that, and move on.

But I’m still using NFP to avoid pregnancy, it just needs to be for a good reason.

So, besides abortifacients, why is that different from using ABCs to avoid pregnancy, if it is for an equally good reason? Oh, and one more thing: If being “open to life” is the point of difference, I don’t see how NFP correctly practiced at a 99% rate of effectivness is more open to life than a condom that is only, say, 90% effective. It looks like the condom is more open to life than NFP.

Peace,
javelin

P.S. I’ll get to your questions in a bit – I’m falling into the sin of neglecting my job so I can post here!

 

[Rascal]

The Catholic Church teaches for married couples to use NFP to space or delay pregnancy for serious or grave reasons. This is something that is dicussed clearly in CCL NFP classes. This does not mean having as many children as possible until your bankrupt. This means that between you, your spouse and God, you decide what is a serious grave reason.

Is it to save money for a new car or boat? Is it to have more time with other family? Is it for stress at work, health, sports? The church gives no suggestion or guidance for what reasons are serious or grave. Again this is completely up to you and your spouse with prayer consideration.

Now, I personally think having only one child becuase one wants to buy a fancy boat (I just picked that out of the air) may not be a serious reason (for me boating recreation is limited in CO). However, maybe this boat provides for the family through fishing or whatever, then that can be a serious reason.

Now why only NFP? It is the only method that is in accordance to what God has given us (certain windows of fertility). We should not play god with contraceptives, or other rmeans of modifying our procreative abilities.

Unreated Sidenote: About vasectomies, try this resource for a start: ccli.org/contraception/vasectomy.shtml

 

[Rascal]

javelin:

So, besides abortifacients, why is that different from using ABCs to avoid pregnancy, if it is for an equally good reason? Oh, and one more thing: If being “open to life” is the point of difference, I don’t see how NFP correctly practiced at a 99% rate of effectivness is more open to life than a condom that is only, say, 90% effective. It looks like the condom is more open to life than NFP.

Then why use the condom at all? That’s, by your standard, even more open to life. The real issue here is that you are not open to your wedding vows tht is giving yourself Fully, Fruitfully, Faithfully, and Freely to your spouse. A condom is the best visual example of putting “armor” between you and your spouse. That is not “fully” or even “freely” and I don’t think anyone would disagree “fruitfully” (otherwise why did you use it?). With NFP, you are usually following all of your vows. Of course it can be abused as well.

I think we get caught up in the any means justifies the end and that is just not true. You have to examine how to reach that end (spacing and delaying pregnancy).

 

[bear06]

Dear Javelin,

The decision is always up to you. That’s what free will is. It doesn’t mean that it’s right though! So you could stop at 2 kids just because you want to retire at 50 but that would be wrong. If you stopped at 2 kids because you’re wife is ill, which is the situation here, at this time it would probably be right. However, as life changes, things would need to be re-evaluated. You could find the perfect combination of drugs like all4life and your situation may be different.

I wouldn’t say that grave reasons is loosely defined. I think that it just encompasses to many things to list. I think the Church has given general categories with the caution that it should be grave. I think a well formed conscience knows if the situation is grave enough but it never fails to get solid Church advice. I know you can even call Catholic Answers and talk to a priest.

I think that you pointed something out that’s important. The decision should not be selfish. I would imagine futhering one’s career would fall under the selfish category as long as one was making ends meet.

As far as nobody using NFP for selfish reasons, you said it best-nobody in their right minds. I do know some that do though. They feel it better for their bodies or don’t know that it has to be for grave reasons.

Natural Law as God designed it is your answer to the last question. He designed us to have sex and to abstain from sex. He didn’t design to have to wrap ourselves in latex, insert latex, foam, etc. The answer is built into the design. Love works in conjunction with the physical design. It does not deny our fertility.

Here’s a pretty good article priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html

I’ve got to say that most of the 99.9% of the time NFP fails is when lust conquers love. Of course, there are some that may be using an inferior method or don’t know their method as well as they think they do.

I would also encourage reading the West book and the Pope’s Theology of the Body.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear Abby,

Princess_Abby:

Grave reasons can be physical, emotional or financial.

Financial? Honestly, I never would have guessed. At a part time income of $85 a week, plus some generous donations of course, I would not wish not to have had any of our six children.

I don’t need to detail to her my health issues and why it isn’t safe for me to conceive yet. Again, I don’t have the ability to judge your situation with your wife, but it seems to me that the two of you have VERY grave reason to abstain.

It seems we definitely agree on that.

Just because desire is there does not mean we HAVE to act on it! What if a child of the marital union is in need of attention? Obviously we wouldn’t put our desire ahead of our duties as a parent, but instead postpone a few hours until the timing is better.

I also agree here. Hopefully a few hours will not make the difference between whether Satan “tempts them through lack of self-control.” (I would think that if a few hours made that much difference, then they waited too long in the first place.) I don’t think your point contradicts my interpretation of 1 Cor 7, though, because there are a lot of things I “desire” but I don’t feel actually “tempted” to the point it becomes covetousness.

Regarding your other post,

Princess_Abby:

I don’t believe that #2, Corinthians, is intpreted by the Church the same way you and Alan (not sure if I missed anyone) are interpreting it. Can you show me a document that interprets it your way?

I know you were asking javelin, but I don’t “interpret” it that way. I simply “read” it that way, as it is very explicit. I have heard one contrary “interpretation” but it was pretty contrived. Let’s look at the key part of it again:
1 Cor 7:5:

Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

Here’s what I understand about what it really means: “Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.”

Why would anybody bother to write that up? Is there any other way to read it?

Alan

 

[javelin]

AlanFromWichita:

Why would anybody bother to write that up? Is there any other way to read it?

There is no other way to read it, but that isn’t the point. Your opinion on what Paul is saying to us with those words differs from others.

One side says:
In context, Paul is saying that abstaining is good, but don’t overdo it. When he says “Do not deprive one another…” , it is not a command, as the next verse clearly states “This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am”. Paul is celibate. But he realizes that not everyone can be celibate, so he concedes that husbands and wives should be together if for no other reason than to abate their lust. He says “if you can keep away from each other to pray, go for it! But don’t do it so long that you are tempted into sins of infidelity.” This interpretation is also in line with the first sentence of the chapter "Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,“2 but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.” The immorality is the only reason he gives for his concession that spouses should not deprive each other. The implication is that abstinence is fine as long as it does not lead to sexual immorality.

Another side:
You seem to believe that Paul is commanding spouses to give themselves to one another whenever one wants it, and the ONLY time they should resist the urge would be by mutual consent for prayer. Any other reason would be disobeying Paul’s clear command to have sex. While this reading of the words logically fits many of the statements, it doesn’t really match the tone and implication of Paul’s message. The most pointed verse that argues against your interpretation is when he clearly says this is a concession, not a command.

Your thoughts?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Lance_O]

(Please forgive me for straying from the original question posed in this thread. But I would agree that abstinence seems to be a very reasonable, temporary solution that will in no way endanger anyones soul.)

AlanFromWichita:

Dear pittsburghjeff, …There is one question still open, though, and I don’t think your explanation addresses it. If contraceptive sex does not fulfill a husband’s obligation, then how can NFP or abstinence not be a sin?

Alan, I’m curious if you read my response to this very question in another thread you began, “Circular reasoning on NFP.” If you did read it, you posted no response; it was (and remains) the last post on that thread. If you didn’t read it yet, I’m hoping that you will and that it might be helpful to answering this enduring question of yours.

Peace.

 

[bear06]

AlanFromWichita:

I know you were asking javelin, but I don’t “interpret” it that way. I simply “read” it that way, as it is very explicit. I have heard one contrary “interpretation” but it was pretty contrived. Let’s look at the key part of it again:
Here’s what I understand about what it really means: “Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.”

I think the problem here is that you are taking this one verse and applying it to all situations. Many commands were given. “Wives obey your husbands. Husbands love your wives ask Christ loved the Church, etc.” These, of course, are models for perfection. However, does this one verse contain the answer when one of the spoused doesn’t obey these rules? What if an illness occurs? This is why He left us the Church to take the guidelines and help us apply them the best we can to our lives. The Church is the “interpreters” of how His commands apply to us.

 

[Princess_Abby]

Alan,

First, I didn’t post the last two “quotes” you attributed to me in your post directed at me. I think Bear06 wrote those words.

Regardless, this seems to be a huge stumbling block for you. Other than asking forum members for their interpretations, have you done any outside reading from an orthodox source about the Church’s stance on artificial birth control? You mention many times that you’ve never seen anyone else use that particular verse, but…have you LOOKED for it elsewhere?

I’m not sure your issues with birth control can be boiled down to a single verse from St. Paul to the Corinthians. Have you read Christopher West’s book, *Good News About Sex & Marriage? *For someone who is so clearly conflicted (and/or fascinated) with the issue of contraception, I think it might be good to read for yourself what a Church-approved (impramatur included from Archbishop Chaput of Denver) document looks like concerning the issue. As I said in an earlier post, it is a VERY readable book. In fact, when I first read this work, I was so relieved at what I was reading (FINALLY, it all made sense!) that I literally carried the book everywhere with me. (I was in college at the time.) I wanted to show it to all of my Catholic friends whom I might run into in order to share with the good news–pun intended.

Just an idea. Please consider it! Again, used copies on www.amazon.com are always very reasonable.

Abby

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lance O:

Alan, I’m curious if you read my response to this very question in another thread you began, “Circular reasoning on NFP.” If you did read it, you posted no response; it was (and remains) the last post on that thread. If you didn’t read it yet, I’m hoping that you will and that it might be helpful to answering this enduring question of yours.

Peace.

Dear Lance O,

I hadn’t read it. Thank you for your detailed response, and for reminding me about the thread. Once it scrolled past the first screen I sort of forgot about it while I was so busy posting on the threads that didn’t scroll.

It did help, but unfortunately I’m still craving for more. Call me
doubting Thomas" but I’m still hopeful that Jesus will show me what I need so that I may see and believe.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

javelin:

There is no other way to read it, but that isn’t the point. Your opinion on what Paul is saying to us with those words differs from others.

One side says:

Another side:

Your thoughts?

Peace,
javelin

Dear javelin,

I only cut out the explanations themselves to save space, because I mean to address them. For those who may be browsing, scroll up to post #87 to find the arguments.

Actually I think both “sides” as you have presented them are each part of the story, although I tend to align myself more with the first interpretation “one side says.” In the second “another side” you have phrased it in such a way that it does set a tone I do not actually intend to support. That is, by “whenever one wants it” and “resist the urge” that conjures up attitudes I see in TV commercials to do whatever feels good, whenever the urge strikes. I have to admit it does kind of sound like he is saying that, especially since he says “perhaps” in that verse. It’s hard to know what to make of that, but such precise interpretations of shades of meaning are probably best left to the scholars. I’m only going for what’s obvious and clear.

Browsers: we are debating the meaning of 1 Cor 7:1-7, at: usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm

You sound very good at logical interpretation and at paraphrasing for clarity. I especially like the way you phrased “But he realizes that not everyone can be celibate, so he concedes that husbands and wives should be together if for no other reason than to abate their lust.” That’s one of my points exactly. Maybe it’s a concession, but it is a NT concession, unlike the Mosaic concession about divorce rules that Jesus brings to light. Here it seems to based more on the individual without reference to their having a “hard heart” like the divorce teaching, so I don’t believe Paul is saying that there is anything wrong with you or your attitude for not being celibate.

That brings up a good question, though, considering your particular case. Here’s where I think we can do some interpretation. Is Paul implying that you either are or are not the type of person who can be celibate without being overly tempted through lust, and if you are, then you are destined for this kind of life forever? OTOH, given the vagueness of “for a time” could one suggest that “by mutual consent” and “for prayer” could be construed to allow, even for married couples who once had to get together, let’s say, weekly or better, to go for two years without. After all, stress can ruin the sex drive anyway so a strong enough commitment to abstinence on the part of both parties might get them through that time without a temptation problem?

Maybe it sounds like I’m switching sides here, but it just occurred to me that when I first read 1 Cor 7 I did pick up on a bias that isn’t explicit and might not be intended – that is, once a victim of lust, always a victim of lust. Without that bias, you just might be able to consider extended abstinence without fear of disobedience to this teaching.

Alan

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Princess_Abby:

First, I didn’t post the last two “quotes” you attributed to me in your post directed at me. I think Bear06 wrote those words.

Dear Abby,

Oops. I’m sorry.

I get so caught up in the arguments themselves, I forget who said what.

Regardless, this seems to be a huge stumbling block for you. Other than asking forum members for their interpretations, have you done any outside reading from an orthodox source about the Church’s stance on artificial birth control? You mention many times that you’ve never seen anyone else use that particular verse, but…have you LOOKED for it elsewhere?

Actually I have, although I have not gone to any great lengths. I’ve talked to couples who have taken NFP class and have never heard of Paul’s teachings on sex and marriage, I’ve read Humanae Vitae and looked in the CCC to no avail, and read articles about sex, NFP, or related topics, usually about one or two a week, in our diocesan newspaper the Catholic Advance.

I have not researched it further because I am not personally struggling with this teaching… My motivation comes from several places. Probably the most compelling is that when I see an organization where a majority of its members do not agree with and/or abide by the rules, I have to wonder why. (I’m pretty interested in politics, both public and organizational.) In several key areas where Catholic opinion differs so greatly from Church teachings, such as contraception, I decided to look into it more and learn what the teachings are.

Once I looked into it more I found that the Church position seems arbitrary and consists of relativistic, convoluted arguments and rationalizations. I have a great deal of experience dealing with Bureacratic Speak (BS) and even with all the help I’ve gotten so far the Church position still bears a great resemblance to typical BS where hordes of lawyers and PR people are hired to go out and sell the status quo to employees, constituents, customers, or whatever, and make it sound like there really is some basis to it. Whether it is their problematic nature or just plain selfishness that causes people to disregard the Church’s teaching, I cannot either dismiss what the Church says nor support it when I see this kind of thing. Right now if someone asks for my opinion (and they often do on various issues) I have to tell them in this case what the Church teaches, and separately what I really think.

I might check out the book you mentioned. I am a slow reader, and I already have a stack of theological books to take back to the library, unread, because of my time spent on this forum!

Alan

 

[javelin]

Alan, I’m glad that you align more closely with the first “side” because I relly believe it to be far more accurate than the second.

Just have to throw this in there:

AlanFromWichita:

but such precise interpretations of shades of meaning are probably best left to the scholars.

…which is exactly what we do when we trust in the Church’s guidance!

Onto the meat of it:

AlanFromWichita:

That brings up a good question, though, considering your particular case. Here’s where I think we can do some interpretation. Is Paul implying that you either are or are not the type of person who can be celibate without being overly tempted through lust, and if you are, then you are destined for this kind of life forever? OTOH, given the vagueness of “for a time” could one suggest that “by mutual consent” and “for prayer” could be construed to allow, even for married couples who once had to get together, let’s say, weekly or better, to go for two years without.

I don’t think Paul believes that people’s “degree of temptedness” will never change over the course of their lives. He is simply saying that people should do what they need to do to avoid sexual sin, which for many will mean getting married and sharing pure intimacy with their spouse. It seems common sense to me that how greatly people are sexually tempted can vary tremendously, and it seems Paul is just advising that couples be careful of their own limits and needs. Also consider this: if a couple finds they cannot abstain for even the 10 days necessary to avoid pregnancy during NFP without temptation, maybe that is God’s way of calling them to parenthood.

AlanFromWichita:

…you just might be able to consider extended abstinence without fear of disobedience to this teaching.

Yes you might, and that’s what I’m essentially trying to say, but there is an important clarification: there is no command that can be disobeyed! Paul is not explicitly saying what to do, but only giving guidance. It is true that disregard for his advice may be dangerous (even deadly), but disregard for it is not in and of itself sinful, for he gives us no command that we are compelled to obey.

Can you agree with this? If so, then you should be able to agree that practicing NFP does not logically contradict Paul’s teaching in these verses. Further, I think you very correctly pointed out that some couples could abstain for longer periods of time without undue temptation, and that also would not conflict with what Paul says here.

Now, as for my situation, it is difficult to see how this all fits in. While Jean is OK with abstinence in the short term, it is the long term that she and I are concerned about. At only 29 years old, we have many fertile years ahead of us. Do I really think that abstinence is the long-term solution? No. Does Jean trust that NFP works well enough to avoid having any more children? Not at all. Yet we are both afraid of how it will be for her and the baby if she should accidentally become pregnant. Her proposed solution now: sterilization and then adoption later on if we feel our family should grow. Aside from what the Church says, I’m having a hard time finding fault with that solution.

Please continue to pray for us. I’m meeting with a monsegnior today who is, from everything I know, very orthodox and very well respected. Pray that God’s wisdom is made known through our conversation.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

I added the numbers so I could answer each below:

bear06:

1. Javelin, have you started researching drugs that are OK to take when you are pregnant, like all4life told you about?
2. Have you consulted other doctors?
3. Have you called Creighton?
4. Have you asked your wife for a temporary use of abstinence to find and give a med a chance to work before doing something you consider immoral or permanent?
5. When NFP failed, was it because you couldn’t abstain or because you read the NFP signs wrong?

1. A little. All4life mentioned she used Zoloft, which is really an anti-depressant, not a mood stabilizer. The only thing I’ve found that lists which bipolar medications are safe lists lithium as a class B drug, while Depakote is class D. Studies that I’ve seen have shown a 5% greater chance of a child with spina bifida when on Depakote. Other studies suggest that the reason for this is that Depakote inhibits the mother’s absorbtion of folic acid (it is commonly known that deficiencies of this vitamin cause spina bifida), and so supplementing with much larger than normal amounts of the vitamin can largely offset the risk to the child. Studies have listed both lithium and Depakote as particularily unsafe for breastfeeding, while also saying that the postpartum time is the most dangerous time for a relapse of mental illness.
2. No, we have not consulted other doctors.
3. I have not called Creighton, nor have I really explored the website that was offered. I plan to, though.
4. Yes, and she said that was OK short-term, but wants a long term plan so she doesn’t feel like this is hanging over her head, causing more stress.
5. Not entirely sure. As I said earlier, we were using the day 7 rule combined with mucous signs. Our second was a “day 7, no mucous” baby, while the other is still a mystery (miracle, as we like to say) for reasons I won’t get into here.

Peace,
javelin

 

[jegow]

javelin:

Yet we are both afraid of how it will be for her and the baby if she should accidentally become pregnant. Her proposed solution now: sterilization and then adoption later on if we feel our family should grow.

Javelin, you use two words which I find to have a couple problems.

1. accidentally - women don’t become accidentally pregnant. The married couple (even the NFP practicing) should be open to new life. If they are not they should not be doing the act that is designed to bring to bring forth new life. The two go together, procreative and unitive - Humanae Vitae.
2. If she is sterilized the two of you will still be running into a moral issue because you are trying to find a solution that will free you from the responsibility of your actions, in other words, being able to have the conjugal act without the risk of a child. And I use risk Javelin, because you say accidentally which makes it sound like the child would be an accident. That is a sorry attitude to have.
3. The most evident give away that you have not changed since your first post is this:

*YOUR FIRST POST - *

Please don’t respond with arguments trying to prove the Church’s position that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. I know it is wrong, which is why there is a dilemma in the first place.

YOUR LAST POST - Aside from what the Church says, I’m having a hard time finding fault with that solution.

It appears as if you are still trying to find that justifiable route of doing things ‘aside’ from what the Church teaches.

As long you look at things aside from the Church you will always have a hard time finding fault.

And don’t look at the Church as being legalistic and that all these things are just rules or laws. They are moral norms.

I don’t know what else to say. I will certainly say a prayer for you today and good luck on your meeting with monsegnior.

jegow

 

[felra]

javelin:

Now, as for my situation, it is difficult to see how this all fits in. While Jean is OK with abstinence in the short term, it is the long term that she and I are concerned about. At only 29 years old, we have many fertile years ahead of us. Do I really think that abstinence is the long-term solution? No. Does Jean trust that NFP works well enough to avoid having any more children? Not at all. Yet we are both afraid of how it will be for her and the baby if she should accidentally become pregnant. Her proposed solution now: sterilization and then adoption later on if we feel our family should grow. Aside from what the Church says, I’m having a hard time finding fault with that solution.

Please continue to pray for us. I’m meeting with a monsegnior today who is, from everything I know, very orthodox and very well respected. Pray that God’s wisdom is made known through our conversation.

Peace,
javelin

Javelin,

I will continue to pray for you and your wife in this trying situation as you seek to discern God’s will.

What has been and is helpful to myself (and my DW) is to reside in the word’s of Jesus and St. Paul when they reminded and admonished the disciples to become as little children in their trust in God’s care and concern for them; while also being mature and adult in their thinking. For me (and my DW) it really comes down to a matter of the heart and desire–what ultimately do I want and what am I willing to do, die to, give up, sacrifice for, in order to achieve this. And when all else fails in my search for a rational, logical, gestalty, satisfactory conclusion that all fits together and makes intelligible sense; and I am left hanging, gasping for a consolidation and crystalization as to why I should pick the lonely path of obedience to the Way, the Truth, and the Life, at the cost to myself, I reside in God’s words “Lean not unto your own understanding, but trust in the Lord with all your heart”.

What I’ve had to learn more through default and a survival basis than through ready willingness, is that God always gives me the grace to do His holy will but only at the time and in the measure I need. This is where the rubber meets the road of discipleship faith tested in the crucible of God’s love.

Felra

 

[javelin]

jegow:

Javelin, you use two words which I find to have a couple problems.

1. accidentally - women don’t become accidentally pregnant. The married couple (even the NFP practicing) should be open to new life. If they are not they should not be doing the act that is designed to bring to bring forth new life. The two go together, procreative and unitive - Humanae Vitae.
2. If she is sterilized the two of you will still be running into a moral issue because you are trying to find a solution that will free you from the responsibility of your actions, in other words, being able to have the conjugal act without the risk of a child. And I use risk Javelin, because you say accidentally which makes it sound like the child would be an accident. That is a sorry attitude to have.

Yes, it would be accidental, and there is nothing sorry about it. I have nothing against more children. I do have a very big something against chemically harming children. When the mother is on medication that causes serious birth defects, and she may die if she goes off that medication, and if pregnancy should occur, the most damaging time is during the first weeks of pregnancy, and it is likely that she won’t even know she is pregnant during that time to go off the medication (and going off it is very dangerous to her and the unborn child), then her becoming pregnant would be an accident, because it was not intended, and it is not intended for very grave reasons. Can God bring good out of that accident and protect the child from harm? Absolutely. But harming our child with medication that is necessary for the mother would be extremely devastating to both of us, and, frankly, grossly irresponsible.

jegow:

1. The most evident give away that you have not changed since your first post is this:
   …
   It appears as if you are still trying to find that justifiable route of doing things ‘aside’ from what the Church teaches.
   Please don’t presume to tell me what I do or do not think. In recognizing that not even the Church teaches this issue as completely black and white, I am trying to learn how it all fits into my situation. Looking at the merits of every option available does not make me some evil heretic blaspheming against God for purely selfish, hedonistic reasons. If I was really that selfish about it and didn’t genuinely care about God’s will in my life, I would be snipped already and not participating in this forum.

jegow:

As long you look at things aside from the Church you will always have a hard time finding fault.

Why does that need to be true? If something really flows from “natural law”, should I not be able to see evidence for that law outside of the Church’s word? I am exploring options – that is all. And if there is a mountian of evidence on one side, and only the Church’s word on the other, I need to look for evidence supporting what the Church says or refuting the mountain of evidence, because…

jegow:

And don’t look at the Church as being legalistic and that all these things are just rules or laws. They are moral norms.

without any logical support for a Church position, it sure looks a lot more like an arbitrary rule than God’s divine moral law.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

jegow:

I don’t know what else to say. I will certainly say a prayer for you today and good luck on your meeting with monsegnior.

felra:

I will continue to pray for you and your wife in this trying situation as you seek to discern God’s will.

Thank you both for your prayers.

The bottom line is that I want to do exactly as the Church says and continue using a form of NFP indefinitely. However, my wife doesn’t want to, and it is her health and our children’s (including potential future children) that are really at risk here.

So I need to either 1) convince her that she can trust God and continue NFP, 2) stall as long as I can hoping that her heart will soften, or 3) give in to her desired course of action out of love for her. I am banking right now that #2 will lead to #1, but in the meantime she is using #1 on me and trying to convince me on #3, while also hoping that #2 will lead to #3.

In order to continue stalling, I need to have good arguments to counter her course of action. So I am playing “devil’s advocate” here to get at what those good reasons might be. For her, simply saying “that is what the Church says” is not enough. Period. She does not trust the Church right now. Period. That will not change in the short term, except with a miracle of God, which I am praying for.

Peace,
javelin

 

[AlanFromWichita]

javelin:

Just have to throw this in there:
…which is exactly what we do when we trust in the Church’s guidance!

I thought you’d like that.

Yes you might, and that’s what I’m essentially trying to say, but there is an important clarification: there is no command that can be disobeyed! Paul is not explicitly saying what to do, but only giving guidance. It is true that disregard for his advice may be dangerous (even deadly), but disregard for it is not in and of itself sinful, for he gives us no command that we are compelled to obey.

Oh, so that’s what you meant by the “concession, not as a command” thing. That’s interesting. Before I looked at that as if he were not commanding anyone to get married, etc. but given that he was conceding that not everyone can be celibate, then this is how the non-Celibates ought to behave. I’d looked at that “ought” as a command. I guess I had applied verse 6 to verses 1 and 2, but you are applying it to verses 1-5, if I’m hearing you right. Agree? I don’t know just yet. If I did, that might change a lot of things I’ve held dear for several months. For being the first person to find a chink in my armor on this passage and get it across to me, I’ll give you this much: :bowdown2:

Can you agree with this? If so, then you should be able to agree that practicing NFP does not logically contradict Paul’s teaching in these verses. Further, I think you very correctly pointed out that some couples could abstain for longer periods of time without undue temptation, and that also would not conflict with what Paul says here.

I don’t see how the point I didn’t quite concede makes a difference, since you are talking about "contradicting his teachings and not “disobey his commands.”

OK, OK. I’ll quit having so much fun.

I agree that NFP does not automatically contradict Paul’s teachings in these verses, nor does abstinence, unless it is not with mutual consent and/or it outlasts one spouse’s ability to withstand temptation. Of course, temptation might also be a quantitative thing, so this is really all rather messy. Good thing it’s guidance, not a command, right? Oops, I didn’t type that, did I?

Her proposed solution now: sterilization and then adoption later on if we feel our family should grow. Aside from what the Church says, I’m having a hard time finding fault with that solution.

That’s a tough one. If you decide later it was a bad idea, it could very well be irreversible. I know someone with experience on this, but if I wrote about it the person might be identifiable and there are parishioners who know who “AlanFromWichita” is. If you want to hear about it, please send me a PM.

Good luck on your meeting with the monsignor.

Alan