Newly Engaged! NFP Recommendations?

[Usige]

Castello, too many people seem to forget the Spiritual Works of Mercy include things like:

• To instruct the ignorant;
• To counsel the doubtful;
• To admonish sinners;

If you try to correct someone who has a defect of understanding all the sudden you are judgmental. As an instructor should I not instruct on the teachings of the Church. This used to be considered an act of charity, but now

 

[Dan_Daly]

Castello, too many people seem to forget the Spiritual Works of Mercy include things like:

• To instruct the ignorant;
• To counsel the doubtful;
• To admonish sinners;

If you try to correct someone who has a defect of understanding all the sudden you are judgmental. As an instructor should I not instruct on the teachings of the Church. This used to be considered an act of charity, but now

Well said.

We can not judge someone’s heart. However, we CAN judge their actions. If a man walks into a bank and shoots the teller in the head, I can’t judge whether or not he was culpable for his actions, however I can judge that the action was objectively grave and against God’s law.

It’s important to note that specifically as it regards married couples using NFP to attempt avoiding children, the Church teachings the suitablity of doing so is based upon OBJECTIVE criteria. The whole “keep your mouth shut, it’s between the couple and God” mentality, is found nowhere in what the Church teaches and is in fact a clear case of moral relativism.

Pax and God bless.

 

[choose_to_love]

@dan daly: to what all-caps objective criteria are you referring? I am not sure what you mean. I can think of the factors set forth in HV - - to what is God calling a couple, the responsibilities to the other spouse, the responsibilities to the existing family, and the responsibility to society, but it seems to me those are precisely not objective, but rather must be applied by the couple to their particular, subjective situation, through prayer of course.

@usiage: Have you ever known a couple to be denied marriage because of perceived defects in how we as Catholics understand marriage? I am asking because a priest at our parish who was in charge of marriage prep opined at one point that a couple that has no impediments and wants to be married cannot be denied the sacrament. We do diocesan Pre-Cana and are NFP instructors too.

@rita: FWIW, I know Rence to be a good-faith, sincere poster. While my bride gets into the kinds of conversations you describe all the time, it is true that it is usually with other moms or at least married folks. Rence is not married and probably doesn’t run into those kinds of situations. I never get into those types of conversations with random guy friends, and I do not ever recall even coming close to having a conversation like that when I was single.

@marinella: Are you really saying a woman can only feel physically excited pre-ovulatory? I do not think this is true. I do not think your post is “keeping it real”, but rather is presenting the most negative spin possible. For instance, the wife could also feel valued and affirmed as a whole person, fertility and all, and feel especially close to her hubby.

 

[Castello]

Well said.

We can not judge someone’s heart. However, we CAN judge their actions. If a man walks into a bank and shoots the teller in the head, I can’t judge whether or not he was culpable for his actions, however I can judge that the action was objectively grave and against God’s law.

It’s important to note that specifically as it regards married couples using NFP to attempt avoiding children, the Church teachings the suitablity of doing so is based upon OBJECTIVE criteria. The whole “keep your mouth shut, it’s between the couple and God” mentality, is found nowhere in what the Church teaches and is in fact a clear case of moral relativism.

Pax and God bless.

amen.

 

[Rita77]

@dan daly:
@usiage: Have you ever known a couple to be denied marriage because of perceived defects in how we as Catholics understand marriage? I am asking because a priest at our parish who was in charge of marriage prep opined at one point that a couple that has no impediments and wants to be married cannot be denied the sacrament. We do diocesan Pre-Cana and are NFP instructors too. yes several couples not denied but postponed until its resolved most of the time the couple choices to get married somewhere else (outside the church) instead of waiting for themselves to repent and change, or they just lie and get married in the church. For example the priest in my dioceses would postpone or deny a marriage to a couple living together.

.

 

[Usige]

@usige: Have you ever known a couple to be denied marriage because of perceived defects in how we as Catholics understand marriage? I am asking because a priest at our parish who was in charge of marriage prep opined at one point that a couple that has no impediments and wants to be married cannot be denied the sacrament. We do diocesan Pre-Cana and are NFP instructors too.

There is only one time that I know of, but that couple clearly stated that divorce, abortion and birth control was okay and a number of things indicated that one of them was intending something other than marriage (they ended up breaking up about 2 months later).

It is permissible under canon 1071§1.4 for a priest to deny celebrating the marriage of persons that “notoriously reject the catholic faith” even if there are no impediment. In those cases marriage could only be celebrated with the local bishops approval.

 

[choose_to_love]

@usige: Thanks for that explanation. How has “notoriously” been interpreted in canon law?

 

[emmar]

@marinella: Are you really saying a woman can only feel physically excited pre-ovulatory? I do not think this is true. I do not think your post is “keeping it real”, but rather is presenting the most negative spin possible. For instance, the wife could also feel valued and affirmed as a whole person, fertility and all, and feel especially close to her hubby.

Umm…so men of course don’t have to worry about the changing desire as the month goes on. However, NFP definitely affects women, I know like many others that if we went back to using NFP and had to use it to avoid I would never ever get to engage in intimate contact when I would be most interested, not until I’m 60 and can be sure I won’t get pregnanat. Just saying…very different from a woman’s perspective. Have discussed this with countless other Catholic women as well who have the same experience.

 

[aloe]

Are you really saying a woman can only feel physically excited pre-ovulatory?

However, if we went back to using NFP and had to use it to avoid I would never ever get to engage in intimate contact when I would be most interested.

I have been using NFP for years and there is a definite impossible to ignore spike of being highly interested twice in my cycle (during pre O time and the day before AF). That along with the other signs and my predictable cycle make it pretty obvious where I am in the cycle.

 

[choose_to_love]

@emma & aloe: Note, I acknowledge it is easier, so to speak, and the woman may be more interested at certain times during the cycle, all other things being equal, but I would suggest that it is possible for the woman to become just as interested at other points in the cycle, although it may take a little more effort on hubby’s part (and hers, perhaps), again all things being equal.

 

[aloe]

I would suggest that it is possible for the woman to become interested at other points in the cycle, although it may take a little more effort on hubby’s part (and hers, perhaps), again all things being equal.

Agreed.

 

[Usige]

@usige: Thanks for that explanation. How has “notoriously” been interpreted in canon law?

Unfortunately I no longer have my commentary on canon law, but in general notoriously implies something to be well known. If you are recognized in your parish and make no effort to hide your dissent from Catholic doctrine then that would likely qualify.

The real question is if it has to be well known to the parish as a whole or is it simply enough for a member of the clergy to know it? I vote for the latter, but I have as yet to have a bishop ask my opinion

 

[choose_to_love]

@usige: Yes, that is what I was wondering. 1) Private dissent, but would tell if asked, 2) would state in general conversation opposition to Church teaching, but not in any sort of open venue, i.e., not published or disseminated (har har!) beyond the participants in the conversation, or 3) does it require a really public repudiation, via a letter to the editor, speaking out at parish meeting, etc.

 

[Norseman82]

Well said.

We can not judge someone’s heart. However, we CAN judge their actions. If a man walks into a bank and shoots the teller in the head, I can’t judge whether or not he was culpable for his actions, however I can judge that the action was objectively grave and against God’s law.

It’s important to note that specifically as it regards married couples using NFP to attempt avoiding children, the Church teachings the suitablity of doing so is based upon OBJECTIVE criteria. The whole “keep your mouth shut, it’s between the couple and God” mentality, is found nowhere in what the Church teaches and is in fact a clear case of moral relativism.

Pax and God bless.

However, the whole premise of whether it is sinful to use NFP is based on “mentality” or “motivation”, which is subjective, so in this case are we not judging someone’s heart?

And where is a concrete list of this objective criteria? One of the big questions people are skeptical is that they ask where the list of valid reasons the Church gives is and nobody can seem to get the list.

 

[admonsta]

I was speaking to my priest the other day about a related topic, and I mentioned that I understood that we would not be allowed to use NFP to totally avoid children from this point forward, our situation being we have six children and hubby is worried about having twenty.

This priest, who was formerly FSSP and has assimilated into the diocese as an EF priest (didn’t break with FSSP, just discerned that it would be appropriate to join the diocese and got permission), has always been a very straight down the line kind of priest. He’s not afraid of telling people when they are in error, and he used to be a lawyer before he joined the priesthood.

Anyway, he said there is no problem at all with us avoiding any more children by using NFP, as long as we are open to any that may be conceived. This surprised me a lot, from what I’ve read on these fora it’s not as simple as that, and the whole Grave reason thing had me concerned, but maybe it’s not that complicated at all. I trust this priest’s judgement, because he doesn’t speak flippantly and he never says things just to make someone happy. He is very concerned that people know the truth. This is a massive load off my mind.

 

[ahs]

However, the whole premise of whether it is sinful to use NFP is based on “mentality” or “motivation”, which is subjective, so in this case are we not judging someone’s heart?

And where is a concrete list of this objective criteria? One of the big questions people are skeptical is that they ask where the list of valid reasons the Church gives is and nobody can seem to get the list.

There is no “list”. The Church leaves the valid reasons to the couple. A couple must decide if they have a serious/grave/valid reason to avoid conception by abstaining during the fertile window. And the beauty of NFP is that it seems to be self-limiting. As the seriousness of the reason decreases, so does a couple’s ability or desire to abstain during that fertile time.

Certainly, however, not every couple will have the same experiences as I described.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I was speaking to my priest the other day about a related topic, and I mentioned that I understood that we would not be allowed to use NFP to totally avoid children from this point forward, our situation being we have six children and hubby is worried about having twenty.

This priest, who was formerly FSSP and has assimilated into the diocese as an EF priest (didn’t break with FSSP, just discerned that it would be appropriate to join the diocese and got permission), has always been a very straight down the line kind of priest. He’s not afraid of telling people when they are in error, and he used to be a lawyer before he joined the priesthood.

Anyway, he said there is no problem at all with us avoiding any more children by using NFP, as long as we are open to any that may be conceived. This surprised me a lot, from what I’ve read on these fora it’s not as simple as that, and the whole Grave reason thing had me concerned, but maybe it’s not that complicated at all. I trust this priest’s judgement, because he doesn’t speak flippantly and he never says things just to make someone happy. He is very concerned that people know the truth. This is a massive load off my mind.

Even Humanae Vitae states that those who have serious reasons can use NFP for a certain or indefinite time, it doesn’t have to be that you have x amount of kids. A couple with one child that has discerned a need to avoid, even if it is for an indefinite time that turns out to be the rest of their fertile years, can do so as long as (with due respect to moral precepts) they discern that the serious reason is still there for the rest of their fertile years.

From Humanae Vitae:
“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

The reality of Catholic married life is that if you use NFP, you will be abstaining during the time of your cycle when you likely will have interest. If you don’t abstain, you might conceive. If you conceive your pregnancy and nursing hormones will make it so that you don’t have much interest. Or you will be too tired from an ecological breastfeeding baby waking up 3 times a night to nurse while homeschooling the rest of your children to have much interest. **So for the rest of your child bearing years you will rarely be able to enjoy the marital act and it will be at best a dutiful act of charity towards your husband. **Then you will enter menopause where your interest will plummet even more and yet you will continue to be dutiful out of love. Sure you want to get married? Just keeping it real…

Eeek… I have been pregnant and/or nursing about 99.47% of my marriage (lol, actual figure, I just calculated it, the only time I haven’t been either was the first 2 weeks of our marriage) and I absolutely disagree with this…
Just thought I would throw it out there, as a different point of view…

 

[admonsta]

Eeek… I have been pregnant and/or nursing about 99.47% of my marriage (lol, actual figure, I just calculated it, the only time I haven’t been either was the first 2 weeks of our marriage) and I absolutely disagree with this…
Just thought I would throw it out there, as a different point of view…

I’m with you. Ten years married, sixth child on the way, oldest is turning 9 soon. Haven’t figured out my percentage (and I have had some time between), but I still have a lot of experience.

I also disagree - the interest is not gone, and I’ve learned that it’s more about how much you’re willing to put into the relationship than how you are feeling at a point in time. There have been times when I have had less than no interest, but these have been few. Tiredness is a big factor but it’s something that can be dealt with, especially if hubby is plugged in and willing to help out.

Can’t say much about menopause yet, but I am guessing it’s somewhat a matter of attitude as well.

Kind of sad that society has the idea that sex should be fun and mind blowing every single time or you’re missing out. I reckon sometimes it can be nice without being Hollywood standard, and that’s still good. There are many other things that are wonderful in married life - the closeness you feel to one person, working towards a common goal, the children you enjoy together, the support you have in difficulty, sitting next to them to watch footy, even though you hate footy. AND, being dutiful can lead to wonderful blessings.

Okay, I’m done.

 

[Dan_Daly]

However, the whole premise of whether it is sinful to use NFP is based on “mentality” or “motivation”, which is subjective, so in this case are we not judging someone’s heart?

And where is a concrete list of this objective criteria? One of the big questions people are skeptical is that they ask where the list of valid reasons the Church gives is and nobody can seem to get the list.

Yes, that is a a big problem. The Church teaches that the decision to try avoiding children with NFP must be based on objective criteria, but then does a very poor job stating what the objective criteria are. You’d like to see a list? So would I!

We do know that the criteria must meet the requirement of grave reasons. That is a high standard.

Pax.