NFP question

[Joan1969]

Actually apparently in bibical times or at least a long long time before modern times there was a plant so often used for contraception that it is extinct now. Of course other then that yeah withdrawal or abstienence would have been the only option. I think the first condoms came around the 17th or 18th century but I doubt they were reliable or widely available. And of course we have the pill now but I think that didn;t come at all until the 20th century.

Hi Calliso,

That’s the problem with history- it would be tough to know how effective that plant might have been if it is extinct. Even a very marginally effective or dangerous herb may still have been in high demand, like rhino horn as an aphrodisiac.

The pill became available in the '50s, well after the so-called “rhythym method”, and probably less than ten years prior to modern NFP methods. I would dare say that in terms of sheer effectiveness, the Church’s methods and the world’s methods have been mostly on par.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[1ke]

. Of course the value of children in many cases would have made the risk worth it in some cases, but I imagine many families would have carefully considered this risk and whether or not the benefits of another child out weighed this risk.

I think this is where you go wrong. I don’t believe they measured children in a cost-benefit analysis.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

And 100 years ago, the pill wasn’t even invented, and condoms were dodgey and expensive, so even if they were willing to go down the path of mortal sin, it wouldn’t have been an easily accessible path.

People have known how to have an orgasm without it resulting in a pregnancy for a long, long time. “Copulation in vase indebito” has always been an effective option and you do not need access to any contraception to use it. No, I believe that people had large families by choice.

 

[manualman]

Somebody else recently gave me a nice reality check that I’d like to pass on.

Earlier people and cultures surely knew far less theoretical science than we do, but they generally beat the snot out of us moderns as far as powers of observation.

I suspect that what we today call NFP was called “common sense” among people who lived or died by observing, understanding nature and making decisions accordingly (farming and raising livestock). At it’s most basic level, NFP involves observing the woman’s body for signs of fertility and making decisions from there. No thermometer or charts are fundamentally necessary. Being able to recognize mucus changes and count to three is about it. NOT high tech.

Again, supposition, but I betcha it was when the industrial revolution began and people moved off the land and began to depend on others for their food that fertility started to become mysterious. In other words, it was when we started to think we were smart that we got stupid.

 

[Calliso]

Hi Calliso,

That’s the problem with history- it would be tough to know how effective that plant might have been if it is extinct. Even a very marginally effective or dangerous herb may still have been in high demand, like rhino horn as an aphrodisiac.

The pill became available in the '50s, well after the so-called “rhythym method”, and probably less than ten years prior to modern NFP methods. I would dare say that in terms of sheer effectiveness, the Church’s methods and the world’s methods have been mostly on par.

God Bless,
Joan

True I would have to do more research to see if there is any info on the plants affectiveness. I can;t imagine it did not have side affects potentially negatives ones I probably would not take it if it was available now lol. Well unless of course it did turn out to be safe, but I have doubts it truly was.

 

[Calliso]

I think this is where you go wrong. I don’t believe they measured children in a cost-benefit analysis.

Maybe maybe not really I think it would have differed by family.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I think this is where you go wrong. I don’t believe they measured children in a cost-benefit analysis.

Well, we DO know that a large family was a sort of status symbol in ancient times. All you need to do is read the Old Testament to see countless passages about how having a huge amount of descendants was so great, how people who were barren were considered to be cursed by God and were humiliated and mocked, etc. So it is safe to say that there was at least a social motivation for having lots of children.

 

[ColNY]

Hi MaryAnn77:

I’m with you in hoping that someday, someday, someone will re-visit NFP and family planning methods–especially for those who have just reason to avoid a pregnancy and NFP just isn’t working in terms of “useable, non-fertile” days. This is especially true for many perimenopausal women. While we’re supposed to be less fertile, the signs are more confusing and inconsistent and it seems like the “instructions” for following the method become more complicated and rigid, resulting in less time. There needs to be more discussion on this.

I don’t feel complete abstinence for a married couple to try and avoid an unplanned pregnancy is a fair option, either. There is a unitive as well as procreative component to intercourse. We spend so much time focusing on the procreative component–being open to life–that the unitive component gets lost in the shuffle. And for couples for whom pregnancy is not an option. . .should that unitive component have to be banished as well?

For me, having another child would be very dangerous for a number of reasons. And NFP is becoming a horrible experience for us as a couple and a source of frustration. I hear you on this.

 

[ahs]

Hi MaryAnn77:

I’m with you in hoping that someday, someday, someone will re-visit NFP and family planning methods–especially for those who have just reason to avoid a pregnancy and NFP just isn’t working in terms of “useable, non-fertile” days. This is especially true for many perimenopausal women. While we’re supposed to be less fertile, the signs are more confusing and inconsistent and it seems like the “instructions” for following the method become more complicated and rigid, resulting in less time. There needs to be more discussion on this.

There are many methods of NFP, so if somethign is not working, you can try different methods. The Church will not change its views on what is or isn’t licit regarding the conjugal act. It cannot change its view because that view comes from the Father.

I don’t feel complete abstinence for a married couple to try and avoid an unplanned pregnancy is a fair option, either. There is a unitive as well as procreative component to intercourse. We spend so much time focusing on the procreative component–being open to life–that the unitive component gets lost in the shuffle.

Procreation is the primary end of marriage. That is why so much time is spent on it. I think you (and ALL here) can get a lot of clarification and beautiful explanation from Pope Pius XII in his Allocution to Midwives. He covers a great deal on this topic. of continence, family planning, the ends of marriage, what is licit and what is not…it a wonderful explanantion.

 

[ColNY]

[Procreation is the primary end of marriage. That is why so much time is spent on it. I think you (and ALL here) can get a lot of clarification and beautiful explanation from Pope Pius XII in his http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM”]Allocution to Midwives. He covers a great deal on this topic. of continence, family planning, the ends of marriage, what is licit and what is not…it a wonderful explanantion.

So, what you’re saying is that couples who have reason not to conceive, if NFP isn’t working for them, should just abstain? We have used NFP for 19 of our 22 years of marriage and it’s worked up until I hit my mid 40s. Now it’s maddenly frustrating. And I am one of those people for whom another pregnancy would be unwise. And I believe it’s one thing to accept the chances of having an unplanned pregnancy if you’re health and age do not put you at substanstial risk of complications. It’s irresponsible otherwise. God gave us brains, too, to discern what’s best. It might be His will for it to rain today, too, but he gave me a brain to discern that if I go outside without an umbrella, I’m going to get wet.

It’s easy to quote doctrine when it’s not your life, your marriage, your emotional well being that’s being impacted. I know, because when NFP worked, I was one of it’s biggest cheerleaders—and I remember others telling me–“just wait”. Boy they were right. I’m a wreck every month, afraid I read some sign wrong and that I’ve put not only myself, but another human life, in danger. And I’m stressed trying to follow the exact rigidness of “end of day” by my practioner’s standards and missing windows/opportunities. I am utterly miserable because of this. And I don’t believe that’s not living life as God intended.

 

[1ke]

So, what you’re saying is that couples who have reason not to conceive, if NFP isn’t working for them, should just abstain?

Yes.

NFP is an alternative to *complete *abstinence when it is appropriate. It is not a *right *that we have and it is not a guarantee. It is a *blessing *for those cases where it can be used effectively. But, yes, abstaining completely is the default mode when needing to avoid.

NFP is not an alternative to contraception.

It’s easy to quote doctrine when it’s not your life, your marriage, your emotional well being that’s being impacted. I know, because when NFP worked, I was one of it’s biggest cheerleaders—and I remember others telling me–“just wait”. Boy they were right. I’m a wreck every month, afraid I read some sign wrong and that I’ve put not only myself, but another human life, in danger. And I’m stressed trying to follow the exact rigidness of “end of day” by my practioner’s standards and missing windows/opportunities. I am utterly miserable because of this. And I don’t believe that’s not living life as God intended.

You might be called to abstinence for a time. It is not impossible, but yes it can be difficult.

 

[ahs]

So, what you’re saying is that couples who have reason not to conceive, if NFP isn’t working for them, should just abstain? …It’s easy to quote doctrine when it’s not your life, your marriage, your emotional well being that’s being impacted.

Myresponse will be nearly identical to 1ke’s.

Yes, abstinence is the default when conception must be avoided. And perpetual abstinence may be your cross to bear in your marriage. The “Allocution to Midwives” I posted will give you much better insight on this than I could, as would many other Papal writings…the allocution just happens to be the most recent that I’ve read so it’s fresh on my mind. It also talks about the “Heroism of Continence” and how it is not impossible for couple to excercise this in marriage…I highly recommend reading it.

Please don’t think I’m just quoting Church Teaching without knowing what it is like to suffer through abstinence in marriage. I’ve been there for a time, not nearly to the degree that you have, but I’ve been there nonetheless.

 

[searching04]

There are many methods of NFP, so if somethign is not working, you can try different methods. The Church will not change its views on what is or isn’t licit regarding the conjugal act. It cannot change its view because that view comes from the Father.

No, the church will not change its views, but I don’t believe - nor can many, many Catholics - that this comes from God, or at least it is not anywhere near what God intends for married couples. Quote what you want, say the Pope is infallible on it. Sex in marriage is not dogma, but it is treated as such. No where does anything whatsoever, except the CCC, say that sex is only for having kids. The damage done to marriages and relationships because of what the church dictates is unacceptable, but we are told to bear it as a cross? Really? God wants couples to suffer in their marriages? And because we are told that doing otherwise is a mortal sin, disordered, and intrinsically evil, many Catholic couples just follow along in sexless marriages.

For the church to say that God intends for married couples to just keep having kids or don’t have sex is simply not believeable. Don’t give me the BS line that couples can have sex all they want; we cannot if we cannot have more kids. As a poster mentioned earlier, there is the very important unitive aspect of sex. But as the church dictates, it has to be procreative. So it limits sexual activity and more devastatingly, it limits intimacy in a marriage. Sexual activity other than intercourse and to orgasm for both persons is indeed incredibly unitive, giving, selfless, loving, when a couple is doing so together, for each other, when intercourse and children are not options.

Can the church say otherwise, that the man reaching orgasm anywhere or by any means other than intercourse (which is all it really dictates and boils down to) is OK? No, because to do so would by default bless off on all contraception, and the church won’t do that.

Procreation is the primary end of marriage.

So the church does indeed say that sex is only for having children.

That is why so much time is spent on it. I think you (and ALL here) can get a lot of clarification and beautiful explanation from Pope Pius XII in his Allocution to Midwives. He covers a great deal on this topic. of continence, family planning, the ends of marriage, what is licit and what is not…it a wonderful explanantion.

 

[ColNY]

Searching04,

 

[Jennifer_J]

So the church does indeed say that sex is only for having children.

No, the Church says that marriage should be entered into with the knowledge that the marital act will result in children–that’s simple biology. The primary end of marriage is procreation, but that doesn’t mean that spousal unity isn’t important, too, just secondary to keeping the act whole and intact. The Church teaches that marriage is a mirror of the Trinity–total self giving and life giving.

 

[searching04]

No, the Church says that marriage should be entered into with the knowledge that the marital act will result in children–that’s simple biology. The primary end of marriage is procreation, but that doesn’t mean that spousal unity isn’t important, too, just secondary to keeping the act whole and intact. The Church teaches that marriage is a mirror of the Trinity–total self giving and life giving.

Agree that you enter into marriage willing to accept kids. But as far as this topic is concerned (sex in marriage and NFP) and in your words that the primary end to marriage is procreation, and even that spousal unity is secondary to it, then sex is for having kids, period. Don’t want more kids or cannot afford them or have a medical issue? Don’t have sex. There is no arguing with that because the church says the only option is abstinence.

I would also question that if unity is secondary to procreation, then there is no way to fulfill the dictate that sex be both procreative and unitive.

 

[Calliso]

Hi MaryAnn77:

I’m with you in hoping that someday, someday, someone will re-visit NFP and family planning methods–especially for those who have just reason to avoid a pregnancy and NFP just isn’t working in terms of “useable, non-fertile” days. This is especially true for many perimenopausal women. While we’re supposed to be less fertile, the signs are more confusing and inconsistent and it seems like the “instructions” for following the method become more complicated and rigid, resulting in less time. There needs to be more discussion on this.

I don’t feel complete abstinence for a married couple to try and avoid an unplanned pregnancy is a fair option, either. There is a unitive as well as procreative component to intercourse. We spend so much time focusing on the procreative component–being open to life–that the unitive component gets lost in the shuffle. And for couples for whom pregnancy is not an option. . .should that unitive component have to be banished as well?

For me, having another child would be very dangerous for a number of reasons. And NFP is becoming a horrible experience for us as a couple and a source of frustration. I hear you on this.

Yeah I agree there that often times it seems the uniative aspect of sex and the importance of that is kinda thrown to the side. I mean ultimately one has to wonder is God really against the idea of any sexual intimacy that doesn;t happen in the chuch allowed way? Does he really want marriages to be miserable? Especially when such misery in many cases actually drives marriages apart and away from him. I mean cause I can understand perhaps if this misery drew people closer to God then one could argue that it is suffering that has a point. But when it just drives people away well what is the point of that? I donlt hink our God is for meaningless suffering.

 

[ahs]

Agree that you enter into marriage willing to accept kids. But as far as this topic is concerned (sex in marriage and NFP) and in your words that the primary end to marriage is procreation, and even that spousal unity is secondary to it, then sex is for having kids, period. Don’t want more kids or cannot afford them or have a medical issue? Don’t have sex. There is no arguing with that because the church says the only option is abstinence.

I would also question that if unity is secondary to procreation, then there is no way to fulfill the dictate that sex be both procreative and unitive.

You may be confusing “ends” and “aspects”. The primary end of marriage is procreation. There are other secondary ends of marriage. The sexual union has 2 aspects, unification and procreation (fidelity and fecundity).

As to the difficulty in abstaining in marriage, St. Augustine, teaches: “God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able”.

You seem to be seeing the burden of abstinnece as some overwhelming inconvenience placed upon a person that they don’t deserve. One must first realize that all humans have earned is the fires of hell for our sins. Then one must accept that Christ suffered for us to save us from our sins and from damnation, and He often allows us to share in His suffering. Then, one can begin to see their suffering as a blessing, and an opportunity to sacrifice an earthy good for a greater good. One can be thankful for having the gift of marriage and having that opportunity to share their earthly life with another, to whom they are linked for all their earthly lives. They can also take joy inknowing that they can suffer together, for each other, in their marriage, as they work to help each other attain the perfection that Christ has called us to.

 

[ahs]

I donlt hink our God is for meaningless suffering.

Suffering is only meaningless if we make it meaningless. All suffering can be offered to God for a greater good. All we have to do is offer it.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Agree that you enter into marriage willing to accept kids. But as far as this topic is concerned (sex in marriage and NFP) and in your words that the primary end to marriage is procreation, and even that spousal unity is secondary to it, then sex is for having kids, period. Don’t want more kids or cannot afford them or have a medical issue? Don’t have sex. There is no arguing with that because the church says the only option is abstinence.

I would also question that if unity is secondary to procreation, then there is no way to fulfill the dictate that sex be both procreative and unitive.

Sex = babies. That’s biology and natural law. Marriage is the free use of our sexual facilities with our spoue with the knowledge that babies come from that union. Because of this natural law, it makes sense that each act of sex must be procreative–ie able to procreate, but not necessarily fertile. We are freed from the Jewish laws that stated couples could only have sex during the woman’s most fertile times. Couples can choose when to have sex or to not have sex. Society sees marriage as sexual fulfillment and then kids if we choose. This is opposite of the Church’s view of the sacramental nature of matrimony. Sex is BOTH procreative AND unitive. They are both important and you can’t remove one end without affecting the nature of the act. They are not in importance order so much as the natural law order…sex=babies and unity. BOTH/AND always together.

Couples always have a choice, either to engage in sex or not. If you have a truly serious/grave/just reason to not get pregnant, then you abstain totally or periodically.