Natural Family Planning dilemma

[Memaw]

Mommamaree. Those of us who struggle with this are real people too, I actually heard a priest say that the church should have more compassion in such matters.Nobody has aknowledged what I said about the fact that my husband does not share my faith,so I can’t turn round after27 yrs of marriage and say noe im catholic we cant have sex anymore unless we are open to life.

The Church does have compassion on such matters. It’s called the Sacrament of Confession. if were truly sorry for our sins. That’s why these things should be talked about before Marriage. God help those who misguide others about Church teaching,. That does no one any good. God Bless, Memaw

 

[thewanderer]

Mommamaree. Those of us who struggle with this are real people too, I actually heard a priest say that the church should have more compassion in such matters.Nobody has aknowledged what I said about the fact that my husband does not share my faith,so I can’t turn round after27 yrs of marriage and say noe im catholic we cant have sex anymore unless we are open to life.

If your husband insists on using contraception despite you explaining why it is so important to you that you use NFP instead of contraception, then so long as you do not aid him (such as by buying his abc or reminding him to use it) or approve him in any way of his use of contraception you will not be morally culpable for his sinful act. And so may continue to have relations with him, even though he uses contraception, without sinning. Since this is. Complicated situation it is one you should discuss with a good priest to get the best direction possible.

 

[Memaw]

Yes, the mirena was recommended by a gynaecologist, bleeding extremely heavily, also anaemic, I was 45 c then it will be removed when im 55, ive had no problems with it. Im b in the uk, not aware of any lawsuits against it. If I didnt have that, he would have to use something, being open b to life is not an option .

Being open to sin should never be an option either! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Burdock]

Memaw, I didnt convert until 3 yrs ago, didnt know when I got married c I would one day become catholic

 

[PaulGH]

If your husband insists on using contraception despite you explaining why it is so important to you that you use NFP instead of contraception, then so long as you do not aid him (such as by buying his abc or reminding him to use it) or approve him in any way of his use of contraception you will not be morally culpable for his sinful act. And so may continue to have relations with him, even though he uses contraception, without sinning. Since this is. Complicated situation it is one you should discuss with a good priest to get the best direction possible.

Exactly. This is discussed in more detail here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=903020

 

[mommamaree]

Mommamaree. Those of us who struggle with this are real people too, I actually heard a priest say that the church should have more compassion in such matters.Nobody has aknowledged what I said about the fact that my husband does not share my faith,so I can’t turn round after27 yrs of marriage and say noe im catholic we cant have sex anymore unless we are open to life.

The Church does have compassion for such souls. They teach the truth and they offer the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

However, your situation is different. You have a medical reason, very heavy bleeding, and your doctor(s) believe that hormonal therapy will help you. I hope that it is helping you. The Church has said that hormonal therapy is an acceptable use of such medical treatments and devices, even if it means that sterilization must be accepted as an unfortunate side effect. No one here is saying that you must remove your Mirena IUD, since you are using it for therapeutic purposes.

Furthermore, converts to the faith are expected to embrace and practice all the teachings of the Church. My husband and I were married nearly 15 years when I began to explore the faith. I immediately, like within a week of starting to read the catechism and commentaries on the teachings of the Church, approached him about learning about my fertility and I told him I was unwilling to contracept any longer. I also told him I was not willing to poison my body to destroy my fertility, nor was I willing to tolerate barrier devices. He understood and agreed, and even starting exploring the faith for himself. We were confirmed on the same day, the Easter vigil just a few months after we started going to Mass together. Now, please realize I had no medical reasons to use hormones for therapeutic purposes, so my situation was necessarily different from yours from the outset. But I just wanted to make the point that even if spouses began the marriage with a contraceptive intent, if/when one of the spouses converts or reverts, the new believer does not get a pass to break the natural or moral law on contraception. However, no person would be breaking the natural or moral law by using hormones as therapy, even if sterilization was a side effect.

Other posters have already addressed these points with you upthread, so it is unfair that you say that no one has addressed any of your concerns. Also, I was not directly addressing you with my earlier plea, unless you were one of the posters who was purposefully promoting things that are against Church teaching, or one of the posters who was saying that abstinence (periodic or total) within marriage is wrong. If you did neither of those things, then my earlier post was not addressing you at all. And I hope that I have answered all your concerns. If not, please read Humanae Vitae (available online for free on the Vatican website) and speak to your priest. It would take only about a half and hour and it addresses all of your concerns very eloquently and succinctly.

 

[PolarGuy]

Saying “the Church has compassion because it offers
Reconciliation” is a complete cop-out. If this board is any indication, that position could be characterized as “we will call you a sinner if you use contraception, but the Church is compassionate because you have the option to go to reconciliation.” Plus, reconciliation requires the penitent to admit they are sinning. Many many people simply do not see any sin in using contraception.

 

[Memaw]

The Church does have compassion for such souls. They teach the truth and they offer the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

However, your situation is different. You have a medical reason, very heavy bleeding, and your doctor(s) believe that hormonal therapy will help you. I hope that it is helping you. The Church has said that hormonal therapy is an acceptable use of such medical treatments and devices, even if it means that sterilization must be accepted as an unfortunate side effect. No one here is saying that you must remove your Mirena IUD, since you are using it for therapeutic purposes.

Furthermore, converts to the faith are expected to embrace and practice all the teachings of the Church. My husband and I were married nearly 15 years when I began to explore the faith. I immediately, like within a week of starting to read the catechism and commentaries on the teachings of the Church, approached him about learning about my fertility and I told him I was unwilling to contracept any longer. I also told him I was not willing to poison my body to destroy my fertility, nor was I willing to tolerate barrier devices. He understood and agreed, and even starting exploring the faith for himself. We were confirmed on the same day, the Easter vigil just a few months after we started going to Mass together. Now, please realize I had no medical reasons to use hormones for therapeutic purposes, so my situation was necessarily different from yours from the outset. But I just wanted to make the point that even if spouses began the marriage with a contraceptive intent, if/when one of the spouses converts or reverts, the new believer does not get a pass to break the natural or moral law on contraception. However, no person would be breaking the natural or moral law by using hormones as therapy, even if sterilization was a side effect.

Other posters have already addressed these points with you upthread, so it is unfair that you say that no one has addressed any of your concerns. Also, I was not directly addressing you with my earlier plea, unless you were one of the posters who was purposefully promoting things that are against Church teaching, or one of the posters who was saying that abstinence (periodic or total) within marriage is wrong. If you did neither of those things, then my earlier post was not addressing you at all. And I hope that I have answered all your concerns. If not, please read Humanae Vitae (available online for free on the Vatican website) and speak to your priest. It would take only about a half and hour and it addresses all of your concerns very eloquently and succinctly.

The Church may allow some medications but I don’t believe it ever allows birth control devices. God Bless, memaw

 

[LongingSoul]

Saying “the Church has compassion because it offers
Reconciliation” is a complete cop-out. If this board is any indication, that position could be characterized as “we will call you a sinner if you use contraception, but the Church is compassionate because you have the option to go to reconciliation.” Plus, reconciliation requires the penitent to admit they are sinning. Many many people simply do not see any sin in using contraception.

One of the greatest gifts God gave man, was free will. We are free to conform to the teachings of the Holy Spirit inspired Church on earth… or we are free to turn our backs on it.

In times of sin, I feel an acute distance from God. That distance permeates my body and soul. What bamboozles me no end is hearing the perspective “I don’t think this thing I’m doing is a sin so the Catholic Church must be wrong and me right. If the Catholic Church doesn’t change her rules for me… why she is heartless and without compassion”.

and .

If there were an issue that I felt a true theological disagreement with, I would either work to conform my body and soul to the Holy Spirit guided Church… or look for a Church that supported my beliefs.

When you really think about the wonderful gift of the Sacrament of penance, it is mindblowingly awesome. What a wonderful God!

 

[mommamaree]

One of the greatest gifts God gave man, was free will. We are free to conform to the teachings of the Holy Spirit inspired Church on earth… or we are free to turn our backs on it.

In times of sin, I feel an acute distance from God. That distance permeates my body and soul. What bamboozles me no end is hearing the perspective “I don’t think this thing I’m doing is a sin so the Catholic Church must be wrong and me right. If the Catholic Church doesn’t change her rules for me… why she is heartless and without compassion”.

and .

If there were an issue that I felt a true theological disagreement with, I would either work to conform my body and soul to the Holy Spirit guided Church… or look for a Church that supported my beliefs.

When you really think about the wonderful gift of the Sacrament of penance, it is mindblowingly awesome. What a wonderful God!

Yes, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is not a cop-out, but a place of encounter with the tender mercy of our Lord Jesus. It is never heartless or lacking compassion to proclaim the truth or to recommend a Sacrament. We need to cling to the sacraments. If and when we are challenged by internal resistance to a teaching of the Church, that is a signal for us to become more educated about it and seek explanations. If we disagree with a teaching, we are wrong, not the Church, because Christ founded the Church and gave us the Sacraments and the Holy Spirit to save our souls and heal us from the wounds of sin. The compassion that the Church and its head, Christ, has for wounded sinners is beautiful and humbling. There is not one single person on the planet that is not invited to discover the Truth and to be set free from bondage to sin and to live a new life in Christ. God is so tender and patient with us, and when we seek to learn and understand, He sends His Holy Spirit to instruct us within our hearts and lead us to the Truth.

Edited to add: One more thought…at times when I have struggled to understand something, when I place myself in obedience FIRST, and then prayed for understanding and did the research and pondering to gain that understanding, I have found that my confusion is cleared up quite suddenly. But if I attempted to cling to my sin, and reject a teaching, my understanding and acceptance was a long time coming. I hope that helps others who are struggling to understand.

 

[Thorns]

Can’t we look at the word ‘contraceptive’ and what it actually means; that is, ‘against-conception’ essentially.

How is having natural, unobstructed intercourse in any way ‘against conception’? ’

When you’re only having sex during infertile periods with the intent not to conceive.

 

[Thorns]

.

So in trying to understand the moral difference between contraception and NFP, it does no good to compare the intention of a couple who uses contraception with the intention of a couple who uses NFP, because either couple might have morally good intentions or morally bad intentions. **The comparison needs to be made as to the methods, not the intentions **.

I believe the Church teaches the couple must have a grave reason for using NFP. This shows the reasons behind the action is very important.

 

[mommamaree]

I believe the Church teaches the couple must have a grave reason for using NFP. This shows the reasons behind the action is very important.

True.

The intent to avoid pregnancy can be morally good, morally wrong, or morally neutral. It depends upon the reasons behind the intent.

This is different from the means. Using NFP as the means to avoid pregnancy is morally licit. Using contraception as the means to avoid pregnancy is morally wrong. Using abstinence as the means to avoid pregnancy is morally licit.

The intent and the means are both important aspects of an action to consider when determining if an action is right or wrong. The Church teaches that this is true, no matter the subject at hand.

 

[bitterhope]

True.

The intent to avoid pregnancy can be morally good, morally wrong, or morally neutral. It depends upon the reasons behind the intent.

This is different from the means. Using NFP as the means to avoid pregnancy is morally licit. Using contraception as the means to avoid pregnancy is morally wrong. Using abstinence as the means to avoid pregnancy is morally licit.

The intent and the means are both important aspects of an action to consider when determining if an action is right or wrong. The Church teaches that this is true, no matter the subject at hand.

Very true. Thanks for wording things better than I am able to.

 

[bubba1358]

I believe the Church teaches the couple must have a grave reason for using NFP. This shows the reasons behind the action is very important.

Actually, false. The wording is “just reasons.”

“For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children.”

See CCC #2368.

“Just” is very different from “grave” and even “serious.”

I’d really advise reading the entire Fecundity of Marriage section, including #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. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.”

And from Pius XII Allocution to Midwives:

“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called ‘indications,’ may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

Emphases mine.

So let’s not get overly scrupulous here. Sex, sexual desire, and sex that does not create a human life are all good in themselves - after all, God created each and every one of them. Our universal call to chastity demands that we use these responsibly.

 

[LongingSoul]

When you’re only having sex during infertile periods with the intent not to conceive.

Avoiding sex is not contraception. That’s like saying not taking the milk out of the fridge is contra-milkshake. Contra-milkshake would be getting the milk out… getting the cup out and then tipping the milk down the sink.

Contra assumes that something is actually happening that requires an attack on that process.

 

[Jobis]

When you’re only having sex during infertile periods with the intent not to conceive.

Sexual intercourse results in conception. How can having sex be contraceptive? The woman does not induce her own periods of infertility; she merely is subject to the cycle. Abstaining for some periods is just practical wisdom when one is not actively seeking a pregnancy.

Contraceptives are not bad just because they reduce fertility, but because they also change the act of sex into something entirely against its natural function. They make it sterile and masturbatory.

 

[PaulGH]

I believe the Church teaches the couple must have a grave reason for using NFP. This shows the reasons behind the action is very important.

And of course I agree!*

But both NFP and contraception could be used with a morally good intention, or with a morally bad intention. Therefore, if we ONLY look at intentions, we will not see any difference between NFP and contraception, because you could easily construct a scenario where one couple’s intention for using NFP is the same as another couple’s intention for using contraception. But intentions are not the only thing that we must examine in deciding whether an act is morally right or wrong – that was my point.

Do you at least agree that it is possible for an act to have a good intention (end), but still be morally wrong because a bad method (means) was used to achieve the intention? (Perhaps you don’t believe that this is true for contraception, but do you at least recognize that it could be true in *some *moral situations?)

• (EDIT: But I don’t agree with the use of the word “grave” here, as another poster helpfully pointed out.)

 

[LongingSoul]

And of course I agree!*

But both NFP and contraception could be used with a morally good intention, or with a morally bad intention. Therefore, if we ONLY look at intentions, we will not see any difference between NFP and contraception, because you could easily construct a scenario where one couple’s intention for using NFP is the same as another couple’s intention for using contraception. But intentions are not the only thing that we must examine in deciding whether an act is morally right or wrong – that was my point.

Do you at least agree that it is possible for an act to have a good intention (end), but still be morally wrong because a bad method (means) was used to achieve the intention? (Perhaps you don’t believe that this is true for contraception, but do you at least recognize that it could be true in *some *moral situations?)

• (EDIT: But I don’t agree with the use of the word “grave” here, as another poster helpfully pointed out.)

A fairly simple concept really. For example, what is the difference between adoption and abortion. Both mothers intend to avoid raising the child but adoption esteems the value of a human life while abortion diminishes the value of human life.

Likewise with fertility. Abstaining esteems the meaning and purpose of it while contraception diminishes its value. Giving up sex in deferrence to the bodies natural right… or destroying something natural in order to have sex.

 

[bitterhope]

As to the words grave, serious or just–all are used in various documents. I don’t think that it makes much sense to argue about the wording when all are used interchangeably within the Church and in the various documents issued by the popes and bishops.

Also, people are so hung up on the term contraception or birth control when referring to NFP. I think that it has a lot to do with the way secular society groups all forms of family planning together. It does create confusion but I don’t think most people do it TO cause confusion. I know it was not my intention.