NFP fully open to life?

[kamz]

I found this posting on ewtn, they have many, many of them but I think this was explained very well:

Contraception and Natural Family Planning
Question from on 10-26-2005:
HEllo Father A holy Mennonite pastor that I know doesn’t understand the difference between NFP and contraception. Can you please explain the difference as to why birth control is a sin and Natural family planning is not. Thanks, DAve
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 10-26-2005:
David, There is an important difference. Contraception variously frustrates the marital act of coitus. In various ways the seed of life is prevented from entering the life channels of the spouse. This is done by condoms, by sperm-killing jellies and chemicals, by material devices of one kind or other, or by withdrawal. All these actions are meant to frustrate the seed of life from its proper goal or destination. It is deliberate on the part of the persons performing. NFP is the proper and complete act of marital coitus but done in those periods of a woman’s cycle which is infertile. It is all quite natural, no interference with the natural act of copulation . The spouses limit themselves only to this infertile time of the month. Of course, they must have a good reason for doing this, for to do this without any reason or for a poor reason is sinful. But there is a big diffeence. Fr. Bob Levis

 

[Fred_1]

SemperJase:

People who use ABC aren’t necessarily saying that either (let’s assume for this discussion that we are talking about people who consider themselves Christians). They believe that God has given us intelligence and free willl for the purpose of exercising those gifts.

Ok. So then, using the same analogy I was using before, I could translate to this:
“I love you, and I’m giving you almost everything, except that, I’m holding onto that (I notice you didn’t comment on that part, so I’ll leave it as is) . And God, while I am still open to life in general, for this one act, I don’t want to have a child.”
Since you didn’t argue my statement on NFP, I’ll restate it here:
“I love you completely and I am giving my everything, my whole body to you! And we are taking advantage of this time in her cycle, but God, come and join us, and, if You so choose, you can bless us with a new life!”
Sound fair? Personally, I think so.
I’m going to go off tangent for a bit, it’ll make sense.
What does it take to make a valid marriage? This is from Christopher West’s Good News about Sex and Marriage

The spouses must (1) not have any impediment to marriage; (2) follow the proper form of the sacrament; (3) have the proper capacity to exchange consent and do so freely and unconditionaly; and (4) consent to what the Church intends by marriage, that is: fidelity, indissolubility, and openness to children.

I think we can both say that neither of us have a basic problem with any of these guidelines. I’ll skip 1 through 3 because they are pretty basic. But what does “consent to what the Church intends by marriage, that is: fidelity, indissolubility, and openness to children” mean? Particularly openness to children. Does that simply mean that, in general, you are willing to have children throughout the course of the marriage? Or does it mean that EACH and EVERY sexual act is open to life?
Let’s make the arguement that we can be generaly open life, but not every single sexual act has to be open. Well, then looking two steps back in the list I gave above, could we also say that we could be generaly faithful throughout the course of marriage, but not that every single sexual act has to be faithful? That seems absurd!
How is it that one can be absurd, but not the other?

And also, how can every single sexual act be open to life without ending up with 16 children? Well, lets go back and look at the two statements I made right at the beggining.

We can see that contraception “And God, while I am still open to life in general, for this one act, I don’t want to have a child.” can be generally open to life throughout the marriage, but that not each and every single act is open to life.
With NFP*“And we are taking advantage of this time in her cycle, but God, come and join us, and, if You so choose, you can bless us with a new life!”*, on the other hand, we can see that each and every single act is open to life!

So it’s not that contraception is “closed to life” as whole, because a contracepting couple can still have children and be “generally” open to life. It’s rather that not each and every single act is open. After all, you wouldn’t want your wife to be “generally” faithful to you, but not in each and every single act of sex, wouldn’t you?

SemperJase:

ABC users would say that you are limiting God by claiming he can overcome infertility but not a sheath of latex.

God most certainly can create life in a contracepted sexual act! Heck, He can even create life in a glass dish during in-vitro fertilisation! God can use ANYTHING to create good. That does not mean that the act itself is inherently good. As I said, the major issue is whether and not each and every single act is open to life, and not whether a couple is open to life “in general.”

God bless you!!!

 

[SemperJase]

kamz:

Of course, they must have a good reason for doing this, for to do this without any reason or for a poor reason is sinful. But there is a big diffeence. Fr. Bob Levis

And this is where the church looses a lot of people on NFP. When NFP is also sinful, then the church has set up an impossible condition for couples to meet.
A couple can’t help but think, we don’t want a child right now but the church has defined that desire as sinful. Why not use ABC? We’re sinning anyway.

“I love you completely and I am giving my everything, my whole body to you! And we are taking advantage of this time in her cycle, but God, come and join us, and, if You so choose, you can bless us with a new life!”

Aren’t NFP couples also saying “We are having sex during this time of infertility because for this one act we don’t want a child?”
Fred?:

4)consent to what the Church intends by marriage, that is: fidelity, indissolubility, and openness to children.

You lost me Fred. Your analysis leads me to the conclusion that a couple who uses ABC even once has an invalid marriage.

 

[Fred_1]

Petite:

I think if you really believe this:

“We are taking advantage of this time in her cycle, but God, come and join us, and, if You so choose, you can bless us with a new life!”

why would the fertile time of the month even matter? If we believe that God calls each of us to life, then why would having marital relations during a fertile time necessarily result in a new life IF God didn’t deem that THAT was the time that another soul should be called to life? Just because a woman is at the fertile part of her cycle doesn’t mean she WILL become pregnant. And even if she DOES become pregnant, can we not assume that THAT is God’s will? After all, isn’t God the author of all life?

I’m not quite sure if I’m disagreeing with you… I don’t know if I quite understand… Any time a life is born, God most certainly came into the union and created that life, He IS the author of life! He gave a woman fertile and unfertile cycles so that a couple could enjoy the sexual union without having a child they couldn’t responsibly take on, but that doesn’t mean God cannot create a life during the infertile period, if He so wills it! As I’ve said, I’ve seen it myself. I’m not sure if I quite understood what you meant, so if I missed your point, please tell me.

Petite:

I think that holding back from one’s spouse is a lot more than a fertility issue (i.e.,using ABC or NFP). I have always thought that sex in marriage was a wonderful barometer of how the marriage is overall. As the rest of the marriage goes, so goes the sexual part. (This is my observation from the 27 years I was married.)

Look at it this way. Every time a couple has sex, they’re basically renewing their wedding vows. One’s body is telling the other (as I’ve mentioned in my earlier posts) “Yes! I love you and I want to give you my everything! (and also the part about God, but I’ve covered that in my previous post)” What do they mean by “my everything”? It means everything they promised each other during the celebration of matrimony, and more! Seems fair?
So, every time a couple has sex, they are saying a big “YES!” to each other.

Now lets take a look at a contracepting couple, as well as a NFP couple. The contracepting couple is having sex all the time, whenever they want to. The couple practicing NFP is having sex regularly, but there does comes a short period every month where they cannot.
So does this mean that the contracepting couple is simply able to say “YES!” more often than the poor saps using NFP? Let’s dig deeper!
The couple using contraception have sex every time that they want to. There are time when they don’t have sex, but that’s because they aren’t in the mood.
The couple using NFP has sex every time that they want to during the times of the month that they are able to, but when they can’t, they say to each other “Honey, I’d really love to right now, but we can’t.”

So the contracepting couple never says “no” (not counting when they aren’t in the mood, because they don’t want to anyways)
The NFP couple DOES say no to each other to each other every once in a while.

My question to the contracepting couple is this: “If you can never say no, can you ever really say yes?”

As always, I’d love a reply! God bless you!

 

[Fred_1]

SemperJase:

You lost me Fred. Your analysis leads me to the conclusion that a couple who uses ABC even once has an invalid marriage.

I’m not saying contracepting couples have an invalid marriage! But, it IS a grave matter!!! Do you understand what I mean how every single act must be open to life? Do you understand why, even though contracepting can be “generally open to life,” it’s the fact that not every single sexual act is open that REALLY matters?

I point fingers at no one, THIS is one of the reasons why the church teaches contraception is a MORTAL SIN!

God bless you!

 

[SemperJase]

Fred?:

Do you understand what I mean how every single act must be open to life? Do you understand why, even though contracepting can be “generally open to life,” it’s the fact that not every single sexual act is open that REALLY matters?

Sorry, I don’t. Every single time is what gets me. Especially since the story of Onan demonstrates that sex can be divinely directed but not mee the requirement of being unitive and procreative in every single act. Since they weren’t married but Onan was directed to have sex with Tamar to carry on his brother’s line their sex was not unitive.

 

[Fred_1]

SemperJase:

Sorry, I don’t. Every single time is what gets me. Especially since the story of Onan demonstrates that sex can be divinely directed but not mee the requirement of being unitive and procreative in every single act. Since they weren’t married but Onan was directed to have sex with Tamar to carry on his brother’s line their sex was not unitive.

This is the footnotes from the NAB relavent to Genesis 38-8-10:

[quote=USCCB.org][8]
Preserve your brother’s line: literally “raise up seed for your brother.” The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or “brother-in-law” marriage; see notes on Deut 25:5; Ruth 2:20. In the present story, it is primarily Onan’s violation of this law, rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God’s displeasure (Genesis 38:9-10).
[/quote]

Onan was commanded by God to continue his brother’s line. I beleive that it was Jewish custom for person to marry his deceased brothers widow. This also happened to Boaz and Ruth. Ruth 2-4, I beleive.
So, Onan was married. And God killed him because he didn’t want to have children and was using a basic form of contraception (although, as the footnotes states, most importantly God killed Onan because he didn’t want to have children that weren’t of “his own line,” and was directly disobeying God.)

Does any of this contradict with what I’ve been saying? I can’t see it…

Anyways, I’m off to bed! Goodnight all!

 

[Petite]

Any time a life is born, God most certainly came into the union and created that life, He IS the author of life!

If I may offer a correction, I thought as Catholics, we believe that any time a life is conceived, God came into the union.

My point is that IF we trust God, and if we truly believe that all life comes from God, then why are we ‘timing’ our marital relations so that we think we are in the infertile time period when we do not wish to conceive a child.

Yes, I understand that every time a couple has sex, they are saying YES to each other. (As one who was married for almost 27 years before I was widowed, I am well aware of that.)

The couple practicing NFP is having sex regularly, but there does comes a short period every month where they cannot.

This is a choice that the NFP couple is making. My point here: do they NOT trust God? Isn’t that what this is about–keeping God in the marital bed? I know NFP is watching the signs and timing relations, but it seems to me that the intention involved here --to avoid pregnancy–makes them just as culpable as couples using ABC. (Couples using ABC accept their ‘oops’ babies too. I am sure there are many Catholics on this site who were oops babies!)

So the contracepting couple never says “no” (not counting when they aren’t in the mood, because they don’t want to anyways)
The NFP couple DOES say no to each other to each other every once in a while.

Both ABC and NFP couples ARE contracepting. Why do you assume that ABC couples never say no? Is there something inherently holier in saying no because you are avoiding pregnancy than saying no because you are not in the mood or sick or too tired?

We are back to intent again, if that is the case.

I am a bit lost on this one:

“If you can never say no, can you ever really say yes?”

I think if you really trust God, and God is in your marriage --in all aspects, then even NFP is not an option.

This is rather radical, but, in my heart, I believe this:
If we are open to life, then we are open to life. We don’t time our martial love to coincide with the least likely time of conception–as far as we can tell. To me, that’s like speeding on the highway when we are fairly sure we won’t get pulled over. Instead of obeying the speed limit, we work around it to suit our own interests at the time. (And yes, sometimes this works, and sometimes, it doesn’t.)

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

SemperJase:

And this is where the church looses a lot of people on NFP. When NFP is also sinful, then the church has set up an impossible condition for couples to meet.
A couple can’t help but think, we don’t want a child right now but the church has defined that desire as sinful. Why not use ABC? We’re sinning anyway.

I haven’t read the rest of the thread, but I thought I would say something here. This is not an impossible condition for couples to meet. If you don’t have serious/just/unselfish reasons to avoid children, then don’t use anything to avoid them!
If NFP is misused for selfish reasons, the sin is in selfishness, which if the couple had selfish reasons to begin with, they will have that sin whether they use NFP or ABC. Now, with using ABC on top of not wanting kids for selfish reasons, they have a graver sin, that of mutilating the sacramental marital embrace. Here is a bad analogy, but lets say someone wants to buy a new expensive car for frivolous reasons, eg for pride (to show off in front of others), etc, even if they cannot afford it (not wanting children for the wrong reasons). An NFP person would work really hard, even though he has his priorities wrong, going through unnecessary hardships and working double jobs just to pay for that car, while an ABC person would just go and rob a bank. The difference is in the means with which they reach their objective. Just because the objective is wrong, does not mean its ok to go on with wrong means, which in this case are worse than the objective, and using the excuse of since I am doing wrong, let me do more wrong, is nothing more than a lame excuse to take the easy road. The Church doesn’t lose people because of this, the people themselves leave because they would rather not follow or try to understand what the Church is saying. (Ignorance plays a role too).

 

[1ke]

SemperJase,

You have not responded to my last post. Did you see it?

 

[Fred_1]

Petite:

This is rather radical, but, in my heart, I believe this:
If we are open to life, then we are open to life. We don’t time our martial love to coincide with the least likely time of conception–as far as we can tell. To me, that’s like speeding on the highway when we are fairly sure we won’t get pulled over. Instead of obeying the speed limit, we work around it to suit our own interests at the time. (And yes, sometimes this works, and sometimes, it doesn’t.)

Ah I understand now, you’re a radical right winger . Just kidding! I was a bit confused at first because I thought you were argueing FOR contraception… forgive me about that. So, what you’re saying is that if we say are open to life, we better act on our words and just do that very thing!

It makes sense if you put it that way, doesn’t it? Well, mostly. I agree with you on most points, but not quite all. I agree that a couple should always remain open to life (I’m a fan of big families!!). But, what happens if the couple is not able to responsibly take on a new child? Let’s look at this scenario:

Mom and Dad already have 4 kids under the age of 6. A 6 year old, a 4 year old, a 2 year old and a 1 year old. Mom and Dad want to remain open to life, but Dad lost his job at the plant, and had to take a minimum wage job packing bags at the grocery store. They don’t have even money to get by, so Mom has to pick up a part time job running the till at a convenience store. But with 4 youngun’s running around, she can never be gone for too long. She simply would not be able to work at all if she had another child, and with Dad’s paycheck being so small, they wouldn’t be able to afford their bare neccesities, nevermind pay for the car. Mom and Dad decide that they simply cannot have another child at this point in their lives. (More on responsible parenthood here, in Christopher West’s article, “God, Sex, & Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood”)

So Mom and Dad want to remain open to life, but they know they can’t reasonably have another child right now? What do they do? Do they simply continue having natural sex and hope that they don’t have another child? One may argue that, “I trust in God and He won’t give me another child!”

Luke 4:12 “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”

Would you jump off a cliff and assume God would save you? Will he break the laws of physics and gravity just because you hope He will? That would be unreasonable.
So why would you take the random chance in intercourse? Will God break the natural laws of biology and chemistry just because you hope He will?
I repeat, “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”

I agree that with you that parents should have a child every time they responsibly can, but there are time when it would be irresponsible to do so. The question is, will you put the Lord your God, to the test, or will you use a completely natural means of control that God Himself created? (and as Genesis says, everything that God created is good!)

God bless you!!

 

[kamz]

Fred?:

Ah I understand now, you’re a radical right winger . Just kidding! I was a bit confused at first because I thought you were argueing FOR contraception… forgive me about that. So, what you’re saying is that if we say are open to life, we better act on our words and just do that very thing!

It makes sense if you put it that way, doesn’t it? Well, mostly. I agree with you on most points, but not quite all. I agree that a couple should always remain open to life (I’m a fan of big families!!). But, what happens if the couple is not able to responsibly take on a new child? Let’s look at this scenario:

Mom and Dad already have 4 kids under the age of 6. A 6 year old, a 4 year old, a 2 year old and a 1 year old. Mom and Dad want to remain open to life, but Dad lost his job at the plant, and had to take a minimum wage job packing bags at the grocery store. They don’t have even money to get by, so Mom has to pick up a part time job running the till at a convenience store. But with 4 youngun’s running around, she can never be gone for too long. She simply would not be able to work at all if she had another child, and with Dad’s paycheck being so small, they wouldn’t be able to afford their bare neccesities, nevermind pay for the car. Mom and Dad decide that they simply cannot have another child at this point in their lives. (More on responsible parenthood here, in Christopher West’s article, “God, Sex, & Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood”)

So Mom and Dad want to remain open to life, but they know they can’t reasonably have another child right now? What do they do? Do they simply continue having natural sex and hope that they don’t have another child? One may argue that, “I trust in God and He won’t give me another child!”

Luke 4:12 “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”

Would you jump off a cliff and assume God would save you? Will he break the laws of physics and gravity just because you hope He will? That would be unreasonable.
So why would you take the random chance in intercourse? Will God break the natural laws of biology and chemistry just because you hope He will?
I repeat, “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”

I agree that with you that parents should have a child every time they responsibly can, but there are time when it would be irresponsible to do so. The question is, will you put the Lord your God, to the test, or will you use a completely natural means of control that God Himself created? (and as Genesis says, everything that God created is good!)

God bless you!!

AWESOME, AWESOME POST :clapping:

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Fred?:

My question to the contracepting couple is this: “If you can never say no, can you ever really say yes?”

Ok, NFP couples agree to not have intercourse at certain times, not because of lack of interest in intercourse, hence they “say no” sometimes, while ABC couples never “say no” (unless they lack interest), but couples who do not use NFP nor ABC can “say yes” even if they never “say no” in marriage.

Petite:

Both ABC and NFP couples ARE contracepting. Why do you assume that ABC couples never say no? Is there something inherently holier in saying no because you are avoiding pregnancy than saying no because you are not in the mood or sick or too tired?

We are back to intent again, if that is the case.

No, both ABC and NFP couples are not contracepting. The act in ABC has been modified to be contra- (against) -ceptive (conception) in NFP each in every marital act is done naturally, without any mutilation to go against conception. If NFP was contraceptive, then participating in intercourse after menopause and intercourse within a marriage in which one of the parties is infertile would also be contraceptive. Not only that, but intercourse during the infertile periods of any woman’s cycle would be contraceptive (so I guess we could only have intercourse during the fertile periods),yet we know this is not the case.
Fred?:

But, what happens if the couple is not able to responsibly take on a new child? Let’s look at this scenario:
…

Luke 4:12 “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”

Would you jump off a cliff and assume God would save you? Will he break the laws of physics and gravity just because you hope He will? That would be unreasonable.
So why would you take the random chance in intercourse? Will God break the natural laws of biology and chemistry just because you hope He will?
I repeat, “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”

I agree that with you that parents should have a child every time they responsibly can, but there are time when it would be irresponsible to do so. The question is, will you put the Lord your God, to the test, or will you use a completely natural means of control that God Himself created? (and as Genesis says, everything that God created is good!)

God bless you!!

There is a thin line between putting the Lord to the test and putting your life in His hands. Comparing jumping off a cliff (an action that will lead to certain death unless something unnatural happens) to not using NFP for avoiding children does not make that much sense to me (unless inevitable death were to come from pregnancy). There are places in the world where people with much less than the situation you have presented are having children, and this does not mean they are irresponsible etc. NFP is a wonderful tool given to us from God and can be used when the correct criteria (serious/just/unselfish reasons) is met (and it is mainly up to us in prayer to figure out when, with correct guidance etc) but that does not mean we have to use it every time there seems to be a just reason to do so.

I’m just trying to say that there may be times when NFP could be used but a couple may decide to not use it, and this does not mean they are irresponsible, in fact it could mean they are very generous. This is not the same as a couple recognizing they need to avoid having a child at the time but purposely decide not to use NFP and ask God to not allow the wife to become pregnant instead. These are two different cases.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Fred?:

Ah I understand now, you’re a radical right winger . Just kidding! I was a bit confused at first because I thought you were argueing FOR contraception… forgive me about that. So, what you’re saying is that if we say are open to life, we better act on our words and just do that very thing!

It makes sense if you put it that way, doesn’t it? Well, mostly. I agree with you on most points, but not quite all. I agree that a couple should always remain open to life (I’m a fan of big families!!). But, what happens if the couple is not able to responsibly take on a new child? Let’s look at this scenario:

Mom and Dad already have 4 kids under the age of 6. A 6 year old, a 4 year old, a 2 year old and a 1 year old. Mom and Dad want to remain open to life, but Dad lost his job at the plant, and had to take a minimum wage job packing bags at the grocery store. They don’t have even money to get by, so Mom has to pick up a part time job running the till at a convenience store. But with 4 youngun’s running around, she can never be gone for too long. She simply would not be able to work at all if she had another child, and with Dad’s paycheck being so small, they wouldn’t be able to afford their bare neccesities, nevermind pay for the car. Mom and Dad decide that they simply cannot have another child at this point in their lives. (More on responsible parenthood here, in Christopher West’s article, “God, Sex, & Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood”)

So Mom and Dad want to remain open to life, but they know they can’t reasonably have another child right now? What do they do? Do they simply continue having natural sex and hope that they don’t have another child? One may argue that, “I trust in God and He won’t give me another child!”

Luke 4:12 “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”

Would you jump off a cliff and assume God would save you? Will he break the laws of physics and gravity just because you hope He will? That would be unreasonable.
So why would you take the random chance in intercourse? Will God break the natural laws of biology and chemistry just because you hope He will?
I repeat, “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”

I agree that with you that parents should have a child every time they responsibly can, but there are time when it would be irresponsible to do so. The question is, will you put the Lord your God, to the test, or will you use a completely natural means of control that God Himself created? (and as Genesis says, everything that God created is good!)

God bless you!!

OK, but let’s play the devil’s advocate here. If God created this completely natural means of birth control for our use, why was it not discovered until the mid-to-late 20th century, at a time when, in the “developed countries”, the actual danger of a family starving to death was at an all-time low? Why would God wait to clue us in on both NFP and chemical birth control until after the War on Poverty was underway? Was it built into the science that the pill could hardly be discovered without NFP being discovered right alongside it?

As far as I know, the early Church didn’t teach abstinence for married couples, except for prayer. Barrier methods have never been allowed (and these were available back then). Was it just assumed that the real prospect of starving or dying from the latest plague would surely encourage prayer and put the veto on any thoughts of sex? Most knew that their lives depended on crops, not “jobs”–the hand of God was right in front of them, every day. You had no idea if you’d be facing starvation next year or not. Or was it more a situation where everyone went ahead and had 12 or 15 kids, because maybe 4 or 5 would survive, anyway? As for saving for retirement–those 4 or 5 were it! If I’m not mistaken, well-raised children were the 401(k)s and disability insurance plans of the past.

In other words, the tangle of possibility and temptation are entirely different now. We have more choices, more security, and far fewer selfish reasons to want a large family.

By this I am saying that having a large family is more selfless than ever, since there seem to be far easier and surer ways to provide for the years beyond working age.

 

[manualman]

First, I confess to not having read the other responses. I usually do, but am pressed for time.

NFP users remain open to life in a critical way. The sacrifice of the abstained days. You know, those days when the woman is feeling the friskiest? Fertile.

Trust me, you think hard for several days each month about whether your reason is serious or just on those days. No such ‘push’ for those who use contraceptives. They get no biological assistance in remembering to reflect on the spacing of kids.

I know at least one NFP couple who had a child after having a romantic moment, re-evaluating the ‘seriousness’ of their reason on the spot and… I suspect that a good number of the so-called ‘failures’ of NFP occur like this. In reality, those aren’t failure stories, they are SUCCESS stories!

In short, contraception tends to encourage… MORE contraception. NFP tends to encourage MONTHLY re-evaluation!

 

[kamz]

lifeisbeautiful:

Ok, NFP couples agree to not have intercourse at certain times, not because of lack of interest in intercourse, hence they “say no” sometimes, while ABC couples never “say no” (unless they lack interest), but couples who do not use NFP nor ABC can “say yes” even if they never “say no” in marriage.

No, both ABC and NFP couples are not contracepting. The act in ABC has been modified to be contra- (against) -ceptive (conception) in NFP each in every marital act is done naturally, without any mutilation to go against conception. If NFP was contraceptive, then participating in intercourse after menopause and intercourse within a marriage in which one of the parties is infertile would also be contraceptive. Not only that, but intercourse during the infertile periods of any woman’s cycle would be contraceptive (so I guess we could only have intercourse during the fertile periods),yet we know this is not the case.

There is a thin line between putting the Lord to the test and putting your life in His hands. Comparing jumping off a cliff (an action that will lead to certain death unless something unnatural happens) to not using NFP for avoiding children does not make that much sense to me (unless inevitable death were to come from pregnancy). There are places in the world where people with much less than the situation you have presented are having children, and this does not mean they are irresponsible etc. NFP is a wonderful tool given to us from God and can be used when the correct criteria (serious/just/unselfish reasons) is met (and it is mainly up to us in prayer to figure out when, with correct guidance etc) but that does not mean we have to use it every time there seems to be a just reason to do so.

I’m just trying to say that there may be times when NFP could be used but a couple may decide to not use it, and this does not mean they are irresponsible, in fact it could mean they are very generous. This is not the same as a couple recognizing they need to avoid having a child at the time but purposely decide not to use NFP and ask God to not allow the wife to become pregnant instead. These are two different cases.

But…I do see his point, if you have four children, maybe more and you and hubby are out of work or just barely putting food on the table, should you just say, well, God will provide and we will not use NFP??? So, you say, we will be open to life and have sex any day we want and if we get pregnant and we still can’t hardly make it to feed the kids we have, well, God provides us with Welfare and thats fine, we’ll just have kids and go on welfare and thats what God wants? Ok, I personally know a family in my parish who have 8 kids and they have this attitude, the husband works part time and they are not getting by and they are openly proud of being on welfare and accepting all donations and they openly brag how “right they are to be open to life” but, they don’t think there is anything wrong with welfare, free medical assistance, after they have a baby, the mom actually bragged to me how the hospital stay for her and baby was all free

Now, for the rest of us who are working our hind ends off to stay out of debt, provide for our families, pay our bills, pay our taxes, pay our car payments, medical bills etc. and be open to life and use NFP, that is a slap in the face.

The church gave us NFP for a reason, it is beautiful and the couple with God (and only the couple and God) should decide prayerfully each month if they should abstain during fertile times or not. I personally think that God wants us to be responsible and have 50 kids if you want but my goodness, you better be ready to work a job and pay for them, I’m sorry, I’m sick and tired of large familes getting a bad rap because people assume we are all on welfare. Have kid after kid, awesome, what a blessing but if both mom and dad have to work so you don’t go on welfare (that my friend is Responsible parenting) otherwise I’m teaching my kids that just do this and this and you can get a free ride from the govt.

 

[Fred_1]

BLB_Oregon:

OK, but let’s play the devil’s advocate here. If God created this completely natural means of birth control for our use, why was it not discovered until the mid-to-late 20th century, at a time when, in the “developed countries”, the actual danger of a family starving to death was at an all-time low? Why would God wait to clue us in on both NFP and chemical birth control until after the War on Poverty was underway? Was it built into the science that the pill could hardly be discovered without NFP being discovered right alongside it?

As far as I know, the early Church didn’t teach abstinence for married couples, except for prayer. Barrier methods have never been allowed (and these were available back then). Was it just assumed that the real prospect of starving or dying from the latest plague would surely encourage prayer and put the veto on any thoughts of sex? Most knew that their lives depended on crops, not “jobs”–the hand of God was right in front of them, every day. You had no idea if you’d be facing starvation next year or not. Or was it more a situation where everyone went ahead and had 12 or 15 kids, because maybe 4 or 5 would survive, anyway? As for saving for retirement–those 4 or 5 were it! If I’m not mistaken, well-raised children were the 401(k)s and disability insurance plans of the past.

Call me crazy, but in the past, it was much EASIER to have a large family. Whether you were a farmer or a tradesman, there were more hands around to do the work! My mother is from a family of 16 and my father from a family of 12. They were both from farming families. They would both agree that having all the kids around made the work much lighter on their parents, thus allowing them to be more productive and feed the family more easily than just one man working alone. This isn’t a blanket statement, but I think it is a fair general statement.
In more recent times, the working man has made a major shift towards jobs in the office. More kids at home does not help productivity or increase a persons paycheck at all. It just means more mouthes to feed. So I beleive that it is, in fact, more difficult to raise a large family now than it was in the past. And God provides to his people as they need it. This is why this knowledge of woman’s fertility only arose in the early 1900s.

BLB_Oregon:

We have more choices, more security, and far fewer selfish reasons to want a large family.

By this I am saying that having a large family is more selfless than ever, since there seem to be far easier and surer ways to provide for the years beyond working age.

I agree! Big families are great!!! I agree that it is a very selfless thing to do, having a large family. Especially since the whole word is frowning on you as you do it. However, there are times when it is a good thing to avoid having a child. This is when one would use NFP.

Also…

lifeisbeautiful:

I’m just trying to say that there may be times when NFP could be used but a couple may decide to not use it, and this does not mean they are irresponsible, in fact it could mean they are very generous. This is not the same as a couple recognizing they need to avoid having a child at the time but purposely decide not to use NFP and ask God to not allow the wife to become pregnant instead. These are two different cases.

Good point! I agree with you, mostly. What happens if the family KNOWS that having another child WILL drive them onto the street with no home? Is it responsible then? The only time that it is irresponsible to have a child is pretty serious circumstances, but they DO come around.

As a side note, how did this thread get hijacked from whether one should use contraception to whether one should use birth control at all? Sorry to all for helping in the hickacking

 

[SemperJase]

Sorry 1ke, wasn’t trying to ignore you. Missed this one.

1ke:

Look at the act. You agree that it is objectively complete-- the way God created and designed it. Therefore, it is objectively procreative because that is how God designed it: sperm deposited inside woman. Procreative in its objective state.

I think we disagree on terms. I disagree that “complete” is a synonym for “procreative”. An act that is trying to avoid procreation cannot be procreative by definition. But I can see a reasonable point below…

So, the Eucharist gives us real food for our bodies and real grace for our souls. If we were to alter the Eucharist, say by altering the form or the matter, then we would cut off the real and the spiritual dimensions of the sacrament. Same with sexual intercourse-- the Sacraments have form and matter, and you cannot alter the God-given design. The sacramental renewal of the marriage covenant must be unaltered, complete intercourse.

This makes more sense to me thank claiming intercourse can be procreative when it is trying to avoid procreation, but then again we are back to the point of being complete rather than procreative.

Not that I’m still buying into it, but that probably says more about me than it does you.

 

[LOLBooyah]

the thing i dont understood is if God can move mountains and part seas and raise the dead, could He not break a condom when He wills one to conceive? and knowing this, being open to this, and being opposed to abortion, wouldn’t that make you open to God’s will especially if NFP is even more effective? i’m not debating and i wouldnt use contraception b/c i trust the churches teachings. it’s just something i’ve been trying to rationalize.

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

Sorry 1ke, wasn’t trying to ignore you. Missed this one.

I think we disagree on terms. I disagree that “complete” is a synonym for “procreative”. An act that is trying to avoid procreation cannot be procreative by definition. But I can see a reasonable point below…

No, the act is objectively procreative because it is unaltered. If I had intercourse with my husband every single day during my cycle I would have unaltered sex on both fertile and infertile days. Each act is procreative because it’s unaltered. The church does not teach we must have sex on any specific day, with any specific frequency, or only on fertile days. The days that are infertile are naturally infertile. Therefore the act is naturally (ie, by its nature) procreative objectively but not subjectively.

SemperJase:

This makes more sense to me thank claiming intercourse can be procreative when it is trying to avoid procreation, but then again we are back to the point of being complete rather than procreative.

Not that I’m still buying into it, but that probably says more about me than it does you.

Ok, then if you don’t get the “procreative” part, it will suffice that you agree it must be complete. Therefore, from this you can only conclude that the act cannot be contraceptive.

You are almost there SemperJase. Keep studying!