NFP as spiritual warfare?

  • Thread starter Thread starter duskyjewel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh. I am still missing how it’s spiritual warfare (when a person is purposely abstaining during fertile times)? Is that the same thing as theological warfare? Maybe we are never meant to implement periods of abstinence, rather just go with the flow? Even though I enjoy the marital embrace with my dh, and he with me–we wouldn’t get much done if we never took a break. ha So, should if we choose to not follow NFP–and just go with it–is that wrong? I don’t think that we have to abstain purposely…that is if a couple wants to space children, or prevent pregnancy for other reasons.

:confused: <<---- that’s me:o
 
I agree with gardenswithkids’ first post - the Church teaches that NFP should only be used for certain reasons, and that the couple should take a responsible attitude towards it. So with that in mind, you shouldn’t be using NFP much during your marriage anyway, which means that it won’t effect your sexual desire much. Perhaps it’ll also be an extra incentive for having kids! 🙂
 
There was one statement in particular that caught my attention.
Click to expand...
Quote:
Cyclical periods of realistic abstinence can be great for deepening communication and creating a honeymoon effect. But it’s a theological attack on women to always require that abstinence during the time of the wife’s peak sexual desire (ovulation) for the entire duration of her fertile life, except for the handful of times when she conceives.
Click to expand...
Now, as a self-confessed struggler with this whole topic, and I should really be more honest and call myself pretty much a complete failure on it, I have to say this statement really resonated with me. I completely relate to what they are saying here.

So, I thought it would be interesting to bring it here for discussion.
.
.
.
.
There, now that that’s done… What is your first, gut reaction when you read that? I have to be honest… I found a lot of personal truth there.
Click to expand...

My wife feels exactly the same way as that couple does. She hates it for that exact reason.

It’s not a pleasure to practice NFP in my house…
 
Many Christians believe that the “self” is totally depraved or fundamentally evil. Shades of this influenced our perspective in Open Embrace and our attraction to NFP. We now fully believe in the power of the Resurrection and we no longer live our lives constantly on the alert for “selfishness.” Yes, we are marred by sin, but God has given us new hearts with his image strongly growing in them – which means our deepest desires are true and good (see Waking the Dead by John Eldredge). One example: wanting to make love to your spouse often is a good thing, but NFP often lays an unfair burden of guilt on men for feeling this.
Click to expand...
I haven’t experienced this myself, but I would think that the feeling itself (of wanting to make love to one’s spouse) isn’t anything that should make anyone feel guilty. God made us, gave us the desire to love our spouse in this way. I think the “guilt” should not be assigned based on what a person feels, but on actions taken in an attempt to initiate the marital embrace when the couple has agreed to use NFP (and thus, abstain during fertile times if TTA). Does that make sense? :o
 
duskyjewel said:
Here is the complete statement from their website. I think they do now advocate contraception…
Click to expand...
So that would explain why they no longer feel “spiritually attacked” during her fertile time–the devil no longer finds them most threatening to him during that time. 😦 The devil has no need to fight them because they now do his work promoting contraception and other unchaste alternatives to pregnancy found in Toni Weschler’s book.
We still believe in the “language of the body”–which informs our rejection of some aspects of NFP. How is it that spouses are saying “yes” to the gift of each other when they end up abstaining for much of their married lives (from the aforementioned breastfeeding cycles, pregnancy exhaustion, or energy being diverted into raising kids)? We also see honest congruity with the language of the body by saying “no” to conception with our bodies (via barrier methods or sensual massage) when our minds and hearts are also saying “no” to conception.
Click to expand...
I agree with the first part, which is also partly why my husband and I no longer use NFP. I also see their point about the congruity with their bodies to saying “no” to conception when their hearts and minds were also saying “no” to conception–but they are instead saying “yes” to sex and “no” to the way God designed sex. That’s where NFP differs from contraception like the barrier method. We used to use condoms–and I know what the “language of the body” says when a condom is thrown away in the trash. Sorry if I sound harsh, but been there–done that. I’m sad for this couple–they have taken a step backward in their faith walk.
 
While I’m reserving judgement on all of this, I can tell you that the whole Theology of the Body / NFP / no ABC stuff has been and is the most difficult part of our conversion.

It’s not just the fact that no Protestant denomination preaches this anymore or that the Biblic only arguemnts sorely lacking. It’s the facts this person listed in his article about the ECF vs the Councils.

We are still working towards and praying about it though. God has blessed us with three wonderful sons and opened our eyes to the beauty of the Catholic Church.

I do my best to separate emotion for logic… I’ve always believed sexual relations between spouses to be a key part, not the only part, but a key part of a successful marraige and I have emotional feelings tied to this. However even logically I don’t find the arguements convincing (and I have read many) nor to they “feel” right spiritually as has almost everything else.

Oh well… none of us are perfect I guess…

Joe
 
I’m wondering if we were not designed to abstain in marriage–unless there is illness, etc… In my ancestors’ day–EVERY FAMILY seemed large. My dad came from a family of 8, and my mom a family of 14. My husband is one of 9, my grandparents were all from large Catholic families. So, as we evolve with our technology, and need to have our space–maybe as human beings we ‘created’ something that was never intended to be there. The Church came up with NFP as a solution to contraception – it’s not mandatory for couples to follow NFP so long as artificial contraception and barrier methods are not being used. I don’t believe my ancestors followed any form of “purposeful and structured forms” of abstinence in their marriages–times were different, but have we caused them to be different?:hmmm: Too bad they are no longer around–I ask them. (maybe I wouldn’t:eek: )😉

I dunno. This is a very thought provoking thread…and I can’t wait to share it with my hubby tonight.
 
whatevergirl said:
I’m wondering if we were not designed to abstain in marriage–unless there is illness, etc… In my ancestors’ day–EVERY FAMILY seemed large. My dad came from a family of 8, and my mom a family of 14. My husband is one of 9, my grandparents were all from large Catholic families. So, as we evolve with our technology, and need to have our space–maybe as human beings we ‘created’ something that was never intended to be there. The Church came up with NFP as a solution to contraception – it’s not mandatory for couples to follow NFP so long as artificial contraception and barrier methods are not being used. I don’t believe my ancestors followed any form of “purposeful and structured forms” of abstinence in their marriages–times were different, but have we caused them to be different?:hmmm: Too bad they are no longer around–I ask them. (maybe I wouldn’t:eek: )😉

I dunno. This is a very thought provoking thread…and I can’t wait to share it with my hubby tonight.
Click to expand...
I think you got it. “Back then” people weren’t so concerned with career, etc. – family was the most important thing, and maybe they didn’t have as many “reasons” to try to limit how many kids they had. :confused: Having children and a family was THE point of marriage and life, period. :rolleyes: Now, we have society bombarding us with what we “should” want out of life: money, possessions, high-powered careers, social status – just look at how SAHMs are often viewed. 😦 (note: I would LOVE to be a SAHM!!!)
 
Belle10 said:
I think you got it. “Back then” people weren’t so concerned with career, etc. – family was the most important thing, and maybe they didn’t have as many “reasons” to try to limit how many kids they had. :confused: Having children and a family was THE point of marriage and life, period. :rolleyes: Now, we have society bombarding us with what we “should” want out of life: money, possessions, high-powered careers, social status – just look at how SAHMs are often viewed. 😦 (note: I would LOVE to be a SAHM!!!)
Click to expand...
Yes…I was a SAHM during my kids’ younger years…but status, etc are not the only driving forces…it is hard to live in a decent neighborhood, etc…for many families on one income. Lay offs, etc…it is sometimes neccessary for women to work. I have worked for a while now, and it’s not about taking trips to Paris, etc…although, we’d like to go Italy. ha I understand your point though…I will say though back in the 1800’s…women’s pleasure was not exactly everyday discussion like it is today. I read an article that talked about how women back then did not understand ‘what was happening to them’ every few weeks…they called it ‘nervous hysteria,’ it’s interesting. I think that women back then might have felt it was merely a duty to have sex, and not exactly a joy. So, there are a lot of things that go into all of this…it’s not just that the mindsets were different on having children…women were also treated differently. (not always fairly and right) Definitely interesting topic!
 
whatevergirl said:
Yes…I was a SAHM during my kids’ younger years…but status, etc are not the only driving forces…it is hard to live in a decent neighborhood, etc…for many families on one income. Lay offs, etc…it is sometimes neccessary for women to work. I have worked for a while now, and it’s not about taking trips to Paris, etc…although, we’d like to go Italy. ha I understand your point though…I will say though back in the 1800’s…women’s pleasure was not exactly everyday discussion like it is today. I read an article that talked about how women back then did not understand ‘what was happening to them’ every few weeks…they called it ‘nervous hysteria,’ it’s interesting. I think that women back then might have felt it was merely a duty to have sex, and not exactly a joy. So, there are a lot of things that go into all of this…it’s not just that the mindsets were different on having children…women were also treated differently. (not always fairly and right) Definitely interesting topic!
Click to expand...
I wish more Catholic men and women would recognize this and realize that’s why many women have to work. Are there some who do because they want all the material things in life? Sure but the majoritiy of most women I know who work, do so because the cost of living is so high, debts, want to provide their child(ren) a safe place to live and so on. Thus they must use NFP because they literally cannot afford another a child.
 
I would like to correct something someone said earlier. NFP is an alternative to total abstinence NOT to contraception. The default position in marriage should be to accept children as they come, however, the Church, in her wisdom, understands that that is not always possible and that total abstinence can be too great a burden for most couples. NFP is a tool we can use within marriage for just/serious/grave reasons to space babies as the couple deems (through prayer) necessary. Sometimes that means forever, if the need is great enough. NFP shouldn’t be used month after month with no conversation and no prayer about having more children. Often these intense feelings of wanting to be intimate during our fertile time is a clear sign from God that maybe we don’t have a “good enough” reason to be avoiding.
 
Jennifer_J said:
I would like to correct something someone said earlier. NFP is an alternative to total abstinence NOT to contraception. The default position in marriage should be to accept children as they come, however, the Church, in her wisdom, understands that that is not always possible and that total abstinence can be too great a burden for most couples. NFP is a tool we can use within marriage for just/serious/grave reasons to space babies as the couple deems (through prayer) necessary. Sometimes that means forever, if the need is great enough. NFP shouldn’t be used month after month with no conversation and no prayer about having more children. Often these intense feelings of wanting to be intimate during our fertile time is a clear sign from God that maybe we don’t have a “good enough” reason to be avoiding.
Click to expand...
Jennifer–where have you been on these forums? I have never seen your posts until today…and you make have such great insight! (it was me who said that btw)😊 I didn’t mean that we should be contracepting, but doing it naturally…but more along the lines of what you said. Sorry I made it sound like that!😊 But–why would we assume we would abstain if we didn’t want to have children during a certain period of time? I think people would turn to alternatives of birth control (and they have when they became available)…(everything from withdrawing to the pill)…which led to why I stated it like that. Because to me, I look at NFP as a natural way to space births, as opposed to artificial bc. Nice chatting with you everyone–this has been a most interesting topic on NFP!
 
whatevergirl said:
Jennifer–where have you been on these forums? I have never seen your posts until today…and you make have such great insight! (it was me who said that btw)😊 I didn’t mean that we should be contracepting, but doing it naturally…but more along the lines of what you said. Sorry I made it sound like that!😊
Click to expand...
I read more than I post, lol, but thanks! I just wanted to clarify 😃
 
whatevergirl said:
But–why would we assume we would abstain if we didn’t want to have children during a certain period of time? I think people would turn to alternatives of birth control (and they have when they became available)…(everything from withdrawing to the pill)…which led to why I stated it like that. Because to me, I look at NFP as a natural way to space births, as opposed to artificial bc. Nice chatting with you everyone–this has been a most interesting topic on NFP!
Click to expand...
I think what she is saying is that as Catholics we use NFP as an alternative to total abstinence. The Church has always taught that it is morally licit for couples to postpone children through abstinence, maybe not with those words, but it was taught that if a couple’s circumstances are such that they feel they cannot support another child, that abstaining from relations is the only moral way to do that. Morality does not change and NFP is a form of abstinence.
 
FLCathMom said:
I think what she is saying is that as Catholics we use NFP as an alternative to total abstinence. The Church has always taught that it is morally licit for couples to postpone children through abstinence, maybe not with those words, but it was taught that if a couple’s circumstances are such that they feel they cannot support another child, that abstaining from relations is the only moral way to do that. Morality does not change and NFP is a form of abstinence.
Click to expand...
Thank you and Jennifer for making that part more clear…I was a little confused on that–I didn’t look at NFP as a form of abstinence, because it’s periodic abstinence…I understand it now.
 
My thoughts on NFP may not add anything useful to the discussion, but here goes.

I think the problem is that society is way more white collar and education-focused. (And I’m a teacher, so I’m in on it too.) Back in the day, people lived on farms. Children were a blessing, not only for their own sake, but because they contributed to the success of the family by helping on the farm. As long as the land was fertile, one more child could be accommodated by adjusting the type and amount of crops being planted. I imagine couples would TTA when the situation was really dire - drought, failed crops, or medical issues. And with so many people around, finding the energy to look after one more was not an issue. Another point is that after doing physical labour on the farm, I doubt couples had the energy to have sex regularly. Also, people didn’t live as long, and so that naturally limited family sizes as well. Therefore, NFP was not too far off what they would do normally - have sex occasionally, and abstain if they had a serious reason to avoid having another child.

These days, we all live in large, spacious houses that we have to pay people to build. We tend to live in places where many other people want to live, so the prices of land are high. Labour laws prevent children from financially contributing to the household, so having children increases expenses but not income.

Not only that, but our work has become less physical as labour has become more mechanized. That means that A: couples probably have more sex than they did in historical times, because they’re less tired, and B: people have more time to think and dwell on their desires versus the expense of children.

And then we had the “sexual revolution” with ABC and the idea sprang into people’s heads that they deserved sex whenever they wanted it (and with whoever would give it, but that’s another topic). And here we are with the problems we have these days:
  • People have the energy for regular sex.
  • People have the idea that regular sex is a reasonable expectation.
  • People have the idea that children are a burden rather than a blessing.
  • People see NFP and the Church’s stance on ABC as the barrier between themselves and their sexual gratification.
Is it any wonder that NFP has a hard time in today’s society? I know we have so many more conveniences than past generations, and longer lives too, but sometimes I wish I’d been born in simpler times.
 
Just_wondering said:
My thoughts on NFP may not add anything useful to the discussion, but here goes.

I think the problem is that society is way more white collar and education-focused. (And I’m a teacher, so I’m in on it too.) Back in the day, people lived on farms. Children were a blessing, not only for their own sake, but because they contributed to the success of the family by helping on the farm. As long as the land was fertile, one more child could be accommodated by adjusting the type and amount of crops being planted. I imagine couples would TTA when the situation was really dire - drought, failed crops, or medical issues. And with so many people around, finding the energy to look after one more was not an issue. Another point is that after doing physical labour on the farm, I doubt couples had the energy to have sex regularly. Also, people didn’t live as long, and so that naturally limited family sizes as well. Therefore, NFP was not too far off what they would do normally - have sex occasionally, and abstain if they had a serious reason to avoid having another child.

These days, we all live in large, spacious houses that we have to pay people to build. We tend to live in places where many other people want to live, so the prices of land are high. Labour laws prevent children from financially contributing to the household, so having children increases expenses but not income.

Not only that, but our work has become less physical as labour has become more mechanized. That means that A: couples probably have more sex than they did in historical times, because they’re less tired, and B: people have more time to think and dwell on their desires versus the expense of children.

And then we had the “sexual revolution” with ABC and the idea sprang into people’s heads that they deserved sex whenever they wanted it (and with whoever would give it, but that’s another topic). And here we are with the problems we have these days:
  • People have the energy for regular sex.
  • People have the idea that regular sex is a reasonable expectation.
  • People have the idea that children are a burden rather than a blessing.
  • People see NFP and the Church’s stance on ABC as the barrier between themselves and their sexual gratification.
Is it any wonder that NFP has a hard time in today’s society? I know we have so many more conveniences than past generations, and longer lives too, but sometimes I wish I’d been born in simpler times.
Click to expand...
WELL SAID! BRAVO! :clapping:

Sex is seen as a birthright these days… “Have it anytime you like with whomever you like, any way you like… does your partner not want to do it exactly when you want it, how you want it or as well as your last partner? Just go get another. That’ll teach 'em. No big deal!”

Looks like the authors of the book lost something… They’ve subscribed to the notion that “sex is fine as long as no one gets pregnant.” To hear them talk, ecological breast feeding doesn’t work, either… Sigh. Guess anyone can write a book… Or a post. Guilty as charged!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top