Natural Family Planning dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aaahm28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorns said:
Passionate kissing is sexual in nature and is part of the sex act. Kissing with clothes on and not moving past that is preventing intercourse while still participating in some of the aspects of sex.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a sin, especially between non-married couples and depending on the extent, between married couples.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
I actually think it was a legit question. It’s a line of reasoning for a lot of Catholic’s who use birth control. I for years had this line of reasoning and had trouble with Church teaching on birth control.
Click to expand...
The trouble is, it’s been answered several times on this thread alone and the poster continues on as if he’s never been provided an answer at all. Only after this post did he even acknowledge that there’s been an answer to his question.

I agree with your later post: these actions are sinful if they are intended to incite lust and/or if there is no intention to continue.

But the line of thinking that says clothing is the same as a condom is silly. :rolleyes:
 
pensmama87 said:
But the line of thinking that says clothing is the same as a condom is silly. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I’d agree. It’s the lustful thoughts that go along with passionate kissing, not the clothes that make it sinful. Clothes are not a form of birth control.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
I’d agree. It’s the lustful thoughts that go along with passionate kissing, not the clothes that make it sinful. Clothes are not a form of birth control.
Click to expand...
So kissing one’s own wife passionately and getting aroused is considered lust and sinful?

Whaa? :eek:
 
Thorns said:
So kissing one’s own wife passionately and getting aroused is considered lust and sinful?

Whaa? :eek:
Click to expand...
To make out with no intention of completing the act is sinful, yes. We’re not talking a kiss and accidental arousal. We’re talking using heavy making to avoid getting pregnant.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
To make out with no intention of completing the act is sinful, yes. We’re not talking a kiss and accidental arousal. We’re talking using heavy making to avoid getting pregnant.
Click to expand...
👍

Also, the world tends to conflate lust with sexual desire, but they are actually different. It is normal (and good!) for husbands and wives to desire each other. Lust is when one turns the other into an object for sexual gratification. This is never permissible, even when married. People should be treated as people, not things, or means to an end.
 
Thorns said:
I understand that, but can you explain why a condom is a serious sin within a marriage? And why its still sin if the couple has a serious reason for it?

Is it because a condom is an artificial barrier? Are artificial barriers inherently evil and sinful? Look, even the Church shuts and locks its doors at night. That is an artificial barrier. Its also called being prudent to do so. Clothes are artificial barriers that prevent a man and wife from “becoming one flesh.” But clothes are not sinful either. But what if the man and woman engage in kissing and keep their clothes on? Then, the sex act and the completion of it are thwarted by this artificial barrier, yet the Church doesn’t have a problem with clothes.
Click to expand...
You really need to talk to a priest about this. I personally think your playing games with this. God bless, Memaw
 
This topic is always contentious, the fact is that many catholics do contracept even though it is against church teaching. It needs to be discussed, I dont believe that our lord would send someone to hell because they use contraception
 
Thorns said:
In the OP scenario, it wasnt talking about abstaining for a few days a month. It stated that the only seemingly “viable solution” would be for a 22 year old couple to abstain until menopause.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. In the OP’s society, it’s reasonable for a 13-year-old to be married, so some of the six hypothetical children should be moving out pretty soon.
 
Burdock said:
This topic is always contentious, the fact is that many catholics do contracept even though it is against church teaching. It needs to be discussed, I dont believe that our lord would send someone to hell because they use contraception
Click to expand...
I think in general understanding of the teaching is weak enough that it arguably downgrades the sin from mortal to venial.
 
ela2 said:
What does this hypothetical mother feed her babies? Formula or breast milk? If formula…then she can also afford a fertility monitor. If breastfeeding, then she wouldn’t have had 6 babies in 9 years, maybe but very very rare. 🍿
Click to expand...
Someone has pointed this out already but there are plenty of women out there who CANNOT rely on LAM or EBF.

I’m one of them.

Despite all efforts at EBFing both my children…I’ve had cycles return at 5 weeks both times. My fertility returns completely within 2 months.

Therefore it’s entirely possible for a woman like me to have a child every single year from the age of 18 (or whenever I start having babies) until menopause. Or until my uterus falls out…whichever comes first I suppose.

Personally, I don’t want that many children. I’ll accept them if God blesses me with them…but I practice NFP to space.

I breastfeed my babies but I shake my head when I see posts like this.

I rely entirely upon NFP to space my babies and I’m thankful that the Church, in all of it’s wisdom, can recognize this.
 
I converted when I was 48, my husband does not share my faith, at 45 I had to have a coil fitted for medical reasons, but if I didnt have that my husband would use something, im now 51, being open to life is not an option for us.
 
Hormone levels and cycle length vary from one woman to another and from cycle to cycle in the same woman. The number of fertile days displayed each cycle will be personal to you and some women will have more, or less than 4. In a study of 87 women, this is what we observed:

Number of High Fertility days before Peak Fertility Number of Women
0-4 57 (66%)
5-9 22 (25%)
10+ 1 (1%)
No Peak Fertility detected after High Fertility 7 (8%)
TOTAL 87 (100%)
And this range is in women with no medical issues.
 
Lorelei12 said:
I did not really understand this either until I got married, but being single and chaste and being married and chaste are two very different things. Once you are married, sharing your body and your home, your bed, finances, maybe children, basically everything, with your spouse, there is much more temptation. I can tell you that it IS more difficult, being married, when you need to abstain. And that is a good thing, because it means that you’re forced to re-examine all the time the reasons why.
Click to expand...
My point was that singles are told that a good marriage isn’t primarily about sex and that people on NFP threads act like sex is the only thing keeping their marriage from falling apart. Either marriage hinges on sex or it doesn’t. They are not “two different things,” or does what marriage is change the moment you get married?
If threads about NFP annoy you, you can always refrain from reading them.
Click to expand...
I know you didn’t mean it that way, but that came across as very condescending because usually when people say “if you don’t like it, don’t read it” it really means “what I do is just perfect and I don’t want to hear your criticism.” It doesn’t help that you then scolded my for criticizing married people.
It is a concern particular to the married state of life. It annoys ME slightly when people say things like “well at least you get to have sex” or “at least you were able to get pregnant” or “at least you have a job” or “at least you get to be a SAHM”.
Click to expand...
If those kind of comments annoy you, then maybe you shouldn’t read those threads. See how unhelpful and dismissive that was?
 
Gia_B said:
My point was that singles are told that a good marriage isn’t primarily about sex and that people on NFP threads act like sex is the only thing keeping their marriage from falling apart. Either marriage hinges on sex or it doesn’t. They are not “two different things,” or does what marriage is change the moment you get married?
Click to expand...
I don’t see anyone acting like sex is the only thing keeping their marriage from falling apart. I see married people who value the intimacy they have with their spouses, and want to ensure they can express themselves to each other in that way often. Of course marriage does not “hinge on” sex, but it is certainly a very important part. When something prevents couples from intimacy, there is a problem going on, whether that is caused by the couple themselves or outside circumstances. People get sick, people come across hard times financially, develop health issues, relationship problems, whatever. There is nothing wrong with people voicing their struggles with NFP; it can be very difficult, and personally having experienced both, I can say that I have found NFP to be more difficult than staying chaste outside of marriage. It certainly doesn’t destroy marriages in good relationships, but it is entirely unhelpful to come onto a thread, downplay others’ struggles, and say “Why are these people complaining? At least they are having sex some of the time.”

I maintain that having to abstain outside of marriage is most certainly not the same as having to abstain with your spouse, who you have a sacramental bond with. Yes, things change the moment you are married, and then even more once you share your home and body with your spouse. The Church places great importance on the intimacy of a husband and wife, and not just because of procreation. She recognizes its importance in the bond of spouses and in the context of self-giving. Having to refrain from this source of joy is in no way the same as remaining chaste outside of marriage.
 
Allegra said:
Not necessarily. In the OP’s society, it’s reasonable for a 13-year-old to be married, so some of the six hypothetical children should be moving out pretty soon.
Click to expand...
Funny!

I was also thinking that maybe the hypothetical woman married at 21 and had sextuplets by 22.

Back on planet CAF, it takes the average NFP-using CAF-er well into their 30s to get to 6. There are outliers, of course, but they tend to have gotten an early start.
 
Aaahm28 said:
Hi Folks

Please imagine the following dilemma.

Imagine you are a married devout catholic couple and are both aged 22 and already have 6 children.
Click to expand...
:ehh:

I’m having a hard time getting past this part.
 
Xantippe said:
Funny!

I have a hard time imagining this one, because I was married only a month or two before turning 23. I’d have had a heck of a time gestating 6 kids in two months–I am not a cat!

pet-informed-veterinary-advice-online.com/cat-gestation-period.html
Click to expand...
I actually do know a Catholic couple who got married when the husband was 17 and the wife was 21 (or maybe it was 18 and 22), and then they proceeded to have six children in about six years of marriage. (The husband had three or four kids before he reached legal drinking age!)

So while the initial scenario seems very unlikely to me, it isn’t extremely different than this actual couple that I know.
 
I didn’t read all the replies but I have to say that there are some of us that NFP does not work for. Some of us have multiple children close in age despite ecological breastfeeding. Some of us are married young and have kids right away. I married at 18 and have had 8 children in 14 years, the first five in just over 4 years. We would be having two more in a few months but I lost my twins last week. Please pray for them.

That being said, birth control would not ever be an option in my family. If I can get pregnant as easily as I do, why would I trust a pill or a condom to prevent another baby? That would be crazy. Abstinence is the only way for a couple that is this fertile to make sure they don’t have more babies. That is what my husband and I are facing for a time. Being separated due to military duty makes it easier, but depending on how things are when he returns it may last for quite some time. That is just how it goes for our marriage.

I agree that the scenario is quite far fetched. Like I said, I married young, had kids right away, and still didn’t have 6 by the time I was 22. I was 25 when our 6th was born. If I hadn’t lost the babies I would have 10 at 33, nearly 34. God had other plans for us and our children. I hope to someday understand His ways but for now I just accept them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top