NFP question

[searching04]

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.

No. No one chooses to make it meaningless, but most likely struggles, and often terribly, to see the point, especially when there seems to be no answers. All we have to do is offer? As someone said earlier, it is often easy to say that to someone when not in their shoes. Maybe you have been, maybe you are now, maybe you are where that has become acceptable and understandable and attainable. Not everyone is there or can get there, and after years of struggling, it only gets harder.

I have yet to hear or read anything whatsoever that makes sense or definitively declares from somewhere that God Himself or the Holy Spirit or Jesus said sex is only for having kids. But the church says so.

The church declares sex is to be untive and procreative. The church forbids any sex where the man does not orgasm via intercourse (the only thing dictated). The church calls anything else intrinsically evil and disordered. The only intercourse otherwise allowed without wishing to conceive is via NFP, which limits when couples can have sex. All the pieces put together simple point to the incontravertible fact that the church believes sex is for having kids, period.

Are we supposed to enjoy sex? Yes. Anything in foreplay not allowed? Not really, except for that male orgasm thing. Are couples allowed to be unitive in sex without the possibility of having kids and being told we’re condemned to hell? Nope. The church makes no distinction or allowance for and really does not even recognize there is unitive sexual intimacy without intercourse. I honestly believe that the church fears that if that was allowed, couples would focus on that and not have enough kids. Only thing that makes any sense. It is a preemptive strike and assumptive.

 

[ColNY]

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.

Those are exactly the questions I have been asking lately.

 

[searching04]

Sex = babies. That’s biology and natural law. Marriage is the free use of our sexual facilities with our spouse 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.

This is an assumption declared by the church. Yes, it is natural law, if you wish to call it that - have sex, have a baby. But because of that, each act of sex must be procreative? No, it does not. The not necessarily fertile thing is NFP-speak to justify NFP and couples who may wish to take the chance of not having a child.

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.

Society may, but not all Catholics do. Some Catholics decide that they cannot afford more children or there are reasons they should not conceive, or in fact that there are medical reasons they should not. And because of all of that, couples are supposed to never engage in intimate sexual relations? I cannot believe that THAT is what God intended or intends.

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.

But only because the church declares so, so we keep having kids. The unitive is critical to a relationship, but it does not have to mean procreative in the least. Sex = babies, and/or sex = unity and no babies. It depends on what is in a couples hearts and where they are in life. It should be not be the church deciding what is in their hearts.

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.

Abstain totally and damage a relationship, or take the chance of having kids. What some people here and the church definitely misses is that it is not a matter of physical, animal sex or lust - it is a lack of deep, sexual intimacy with a spouse that God gave us, when having a baby is just not the best thing. So if we are to believe that God did indeed give us our spouse, we are then supposed to believe the only time He expects and wants us to have the most intimate physical contact with them is when we want kids? I don’t buy that, but it is what the church teaches and mandates.

I believe deeply that we are to use sex responsibly, but we are to also use our heads that the same God gave us. We are to use our hearts as well. But where it concerns sex in a marriage, we are not allowed to do so - the church dictates what we are to do without regard to the consequences to the relationship, other than to say it is difficult, suck it up.

 

[davidv]

Abstain totally and damage a relationship, or take the chance of having kids.

This is officially known as the logically fallacy of the false dicotomy. It is an invalid argument. It is irrational. Abstinance does not have to damage the relationship. In fact if done for the love of God it will strengthen the relationshiop.

What some people here and the church definitely misses is that it is not a matter of physical, animal sex or lust - it is a lack of deep, sexual intimacy with a spouse that God gave us, when having a baby is just not the best thing.

The Church has missed nothing.

So if we are to believe that God did indeed give us our spouse, we are then supposed to believe the only time He expects and wants us to have the most intimate physical contact with them is when we want kids? I don’t buy that, but it is what the church teaches and mandates.

No one is forcing you to buy anything here. You are free to reject the truth contained in Church teaching.

I believe deeply that we are to use sex responsibly, but we are to also use our heads that the same God gave us. We are to use our hearts as well. But where it concerns sex in a marriage, we are not allowed to do so - the church dictates what we are to do without regard to the consequences to the relationship, other than to say it is difficult, suck it up.

You are free to do what ever you choose to do. The bishop will not be knocking at your door with a summoms to the vatican judiciary. The Church, as did Jesus, simply asks us to follow. It is an invitation, not a demand.

When we we use our heads and hearts the way God designed them, we are truely free and joyful and will be at peace. The teachings of the Church are in accord with the way we were designed.

 

[Jennifer_J]

We assume the Church is correct, because the Church has the authority of Jesus. If you don’t think the Church has any authority over faith and morals (which includes sexual morality), then we are talking past each other. Catholics believe that the Church has authority and we are bound to follow it. We must properly form our conscience and not just do what we ‘think’ is right.

But, you are right in that God didn’t intend sex to be so complicated. But, we are humans and we mess things up. From the beginning (read Genesis) God said that it wasn’t good for Man to be alone and thus created Woman and told them to be fertile/fruitful and multiply. This isn’t just for our first parents because they needed to reproduce to fill the world. Rather, God created out of love and asks us to create out of love as well. The problem comes in with our fallen natures and fallen bodies because almost from the beginning we see sexual issues and problems, right there in the bible. And we see them dealt with in the 10 Commandments.
Read the 3rd part of the Catechism (Commandment 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10)
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm

You keep saying The Church Says, The Church Says, and you can’t seem to see that the Church has very valuable things to say about these moral, sexual issues. Again, couples can choose to use periodic abstinence (NFP) with just/grave/serious reasons or they may abstain totally. These are choices we must make. A healthy marriage should be able to withstand difficulties and if it can’t, I would hope the couple would seek help (and not seek immoral means, which only cover up the issues). To just say, it’s all the Church’s fault, they are so stupid and can’t know anything and for people to not take ownership of the problem and find moral ways to deal with a difficult situation is just silly. Abstaining totally won’t ruin a marriage–unless that marriage has problems already. Then you are charged with fixing the problem, not recourse to immoral means.

 

[Nate13]

This is officially known as the logically fallacy of the false dicotomy. It is an invalid argument. It is irrational. Abstinance does not have to damage the relationship. In fact if done for the love of God it will strengthen the relationshiop.

The Church has missed nothing.

No one is forcing you to buy anything here. You are free to reject the truth contained in Church teaching.

You are free to do what ever you choose to do. The bishop will not be knocking at your door with a summoms to the vatican judiciary. The Church, as did Jesus, simply asks us to follow. It is an invitation, not a demand.

When we we use our heads and hearts the way God designed them, we are truely free and joyful and will be at peace. The teachings of the Church are in accord with the way we were designed.

People always look for the easy way out. Taking a pill or throwing on a condom is easier than working on the other problems that are preventing more kids from being possible. Saying that, I hope that the science behind NFP continues to improve to provide a relief from the suffering that some people have to endure.

 

[kristacecilia]

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.

Maybe it seems that way because we don’t have to explain that sex is unitive. No one seems to argue that. But everyone seems to think that sex can be divorced from it’s PROCREATIVE aspect. Most people on this thread and other threads seem to think it SHOULD be so.

We don’t need to spend time explaining the unitive aspect of sex. You guys obviously get that.

 

[searching04]

This is officially known as the logically fallacy of the false dicotomy. It is an invalid argument. It is irrational. Abstinance does not have to damage the relationship. In fact if done for the love of God it will strengthen the relationshiop.

This is officially known as an assumption. It is not irrational. It may or may not strengthen a relationship. That is known as your opinion. The facts are that many couples struggle.

The Church has missed nothing.

Agree to disagree.

No one is forcing you to buy anything here. You are free to reject the truth contained in Church teaching.

Just not sure that it is, just like the death penalty, illegals, and war.

You are free to do what ever you choose to do. The bishop will not be knocking at your door with a summoms to the vatican judiciary. The Church, as did Jesus, simply asks us to follow. It is an invitation, not a demand.

Well, we agree here.

When we we use our heads and hearts the way God designed them, we are truely free and joyful and will be at peace. The teachings of the Church are in accord with the way we were designed.

But in this situation, we are being told what is supposed to be in our heads and hearts; we are not allowed to use them.

 

[Nate13]

Maybe it seems that way because we don’t have to explain that sex is unitive. No one seems to argue that. But everyone seems to think that sex can be divorced from it’s PROCREATIVE aspect. Most people on this thread and other threads seem to think it SHOULD be so.

We don’t need to spend time explaining the unitive aspect of sex. You guys obviously get that.

You would think so but then some people wonder why the Church is against invitro fertilization. You can’t separate either of the aspects from each other. An act that is only procreative is just as wrong as an act that is only unitive.

 

[kristacecilia]

But in this situation, we are being told what is supposed to be in our heads and hearts; we are not allowed to use them.

No, we are being told that, thanks to original sin, we cannot always TRUST our heads and our hearts because they are inclined to concupiscence, laziness, and pleasure-seeking behavior. What we can trust is absolute truth, given to the Church by Christ. So we can ACTIVELY choose to obey the Church while working to understand the teaching and conform our will.

 

[ColNY]

Abstain totally and damage a relationship, or take the chance of having kids. What some people here and the church definitely misses is that it is not a matter of physical, animal sex or lust - it is a lack of deep, sexual intimacy with a spouse that God gave us, when having a baby is just not the best thing. So if we are to believe that God did indeed give us our spouse, we are then supposed to believe the only time He expects and wants us to have the most intimate physical contact with them is when we want kids? I don’t buy that, but it is what the church teaches and mandates.

****I believe deeply that we are to use sex responsibly, but we are to also use our heads that the same God gave us. We are to use our hearts as well. ****But where it concerns sex in a marriage, we are not allowed to do so - the church dictates what we are to do without regard to the consequences to the relationship, other than to say it is difficult, suck it up.

I think that’s the point that many miss. God gave us brains to discern. He gave us hearts to be open and generous, yes, but not everyone’s life circumstances are the same. And to be quite honest—I think that married couples have enough stresses to deal with that adding in prolonged or even permanent abstinence does nothing to strengthen their marriage. There comes a point when a good Catholic couple should be able to say “we’re past the point in which adding to our family is a responsible decision, but we still need that intimacy and connection in order to maintain our closeness as a couple,” without having brimstone and hell thrown in as the consequence if they find, as many middle aged couples do, that NFP methods are not working as they should. And YES, I think the church leaders can AND should revisit this issue as prior to HV, it was discussed in the Pontificial Commission on Birth Control, the majority report of which suggested that married couples should be able to decide for themselves. If they could have a frank discussion then, why not now?

I also want to add–I think one of the reasons this hasn’t been an issue before comes from the fact that 1) For those of us in our 40s, most of our parents were not familiar with NFP and that what they were taught was the rhythym method–which they either used (with varying results) or they chose ABC—or used both at some point; 2) it’s this generation of Catholic women, like myself, who really had the chance to learn about NFP and use the method enthusiastically during their prime child-bearing years, but now feel like it’s more difficult to be certain and it adds stress to a marriage for which a late-in-life baby isn’t a responsible move, and yet now they’re in a place where developing a more mature connection with their spouse–unitive love–is more important than ever. Even theologians I’ve spoken with have agreed–the church’s teachings on family planning fail to consider mid-life issues of women.

 

[kristacecilia]

You would think so but then some people wonder why the Church is against invitro fertilization. You can’t separate either of the aspects from each other. An act that is only procreative is just as wrong as an act that is only unitive.

Very true. I don’t see anyone here trying to separate the unitive aspect from sex, though. Just the procreative aspect.

 

[kristacecilia]

I think that’s the point that many miss. God gave us brains to discern. He gave us hearts to be open and generous, yes, but not everyone’s life circumstances are the same. And to be quite honest—I think that married couples have enough stresses to deal with that adding in prolonged or even permanent abstinence does nothing to strengthen their marriage. There comes a point when a good Catholic couple should be able to say “we’re past the point in which adding to our family is a responsible decision, but we still need that intimacy and connection in order to maintain our closeness as a couple,” without having brimstone and hell thrown in as the consequence if they find, as many middle aged couples do, that NFP methods are not working as they should. And YES, I think the church leaders can AND should revisit this issue as prior to HV, it was discussed in the Pontificial Commission on Birth Control, the majority report of which suggested that married couples should be able to decide for themselves. If they could have a frank discussion then, why not now?

I also want to add–I think one of the reasons this hasn’t been an issue before comes from the fact that 1) For those of us in our 40s, most of our parents were not familiar with NFP and that what they were taught was the rhythym method–which they either used (with varying results) or they chose ABC—or used both at some point; 2) it’s this generation of Catholic women, like myself, who really had the chance to learn about NFP and use the method enthusiastically during their prime child-bearing years, but now feel like it’s more difficult to be certain and it adds stress to a marriage for which a late-in-life baby isn’t a responsible move, and yet now they’re in a place where developing a more mature connection with their spouse–unitive love–is more important than ever. Even theologians I’ve spoken with have agreed–the church’s teachings on family planning fail to consider mid-life issues of women.

Maybe I am naive or maybe my marriage works differently from yours, but the strengths and weaknesses of my marriage have nothing to do with sex. They have to do with personal selfishness or selflessness. And those things aren’t fixed by sex.

Also, how much of the way our brains work is influenced by culture, time, and modern thinking? I would venture to say a lot. Which is why most people who claim to be ‘using their brains’ seem to think that sex is necessary and children shouldn’t be a part of it.

 

[searching04]

We assume the Church is correct, because the Church has the authority of Jesus. If you don’t think the Church has any authority over faith and morals (which includes sexual morality), then we are talking past each other.

I don’t disagree that the church has the authority of Jesus, and over faith and morals. Well, not morals in all cases - as I mentioned in another post, I disagree with the church on illegals, the death penalty, and war.

Jesus didn’t say sex is for having kids.

Catholics believe that the Church has authority and we are bound to follow it. We must properly form our conscience and not just do what we ‘think’ is right.

But we are not allowed to form our conscience on this. We are told what it is to be. And by the way, I am quite Catholic; I just happen to disagree with the church in some areas, and this is definitely one.

But, you are right in that God didn’t intend sex to be so complicated. But, we are humans and we mess things up. From the beginning (read Genesis) God said that it wasn’t good for Man to be alone and thus created Woman and told them to be fertile/fruitful and multiply. This isn’t just for our first parents because they needed to reproduce to fill the world. Rather, God created out of love and asks us to create out of love as well. The problem comes in with our fallen natures and fallen bodies because almost from the beginning we see sexual issues and problems, right there in the bible. And we see them dealt with in the 10 Commandments.
Read the 3rd part of the Catechism (Commandment 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10)
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm

You keep saying The Church Says, The Church Says, and you can’t seem to see that the Church has very valuable things to say about these moral, sexual issues. Again, couples can choose to use periodic abstinence (NFP) with just/grave/serious reasons or they may abstain totally.

Which again says either have kids or don’t be sexually intimate with your spouse.

These are choices we must make. A healthy marriage should be able to withstand difficulties and if it can’t,

We’ve dealt with plenty, and in some ways still do. This is one, but it was the last straw, so to speak. We were closer and dealt with things much better together when our overall intimacy was better. It no longer is and limited sexual intimacy is a huge piece of that. You can disagree that that is the case or even should be, but I am not the only one in these forums with the problem. This is a reality, no matter whether others see that or not, or blame it on some other issue in a marriage. THATis simply denying that for many couples, the long term lack of sexual intimacy while not being in the position to have more kids is highly detrimental to the marriage and relationship. Because it is not the case for you or others does not mean it does not exist.

I would hope the couple would seek help (and not seek immoral means, which only cover up the issues). To just say, it’s all the Church’s fault, they are so stupid and can’t know anything and for people to not take ownership of the problem and find moral ways to deal with a difficult situation is just silly. Abstaining totally won’t ruin a marriage–unless that marriage has problems already.

Opinion.

Then you are charged with fixing the problem, not recourse to immoral means.

 

[Nate13]

I think that’s the point that many miss. God gave us brains to discern. He gave us hearts to be open and generous, yes, but not everyone’s life circumstances are the same. And to be quite honest—I think that married couples have enough stresses to deal with that adding in prolonged or even permanent abstinence does nothing to strengthen their marriage. There comes a point when a good Catholic couple should be able to say “we’re past the point in which adding to our family is a responsible decision, but we still need that intimacy and connection in order to maintain our closeness as a couple,” without having brimstone and hell thrown in as the consequence if they find, as many middle aged couples do, that NFP methods are not working as they should. And YES, I think the church leaders can AND should revisit this issue as prior to HV, it was discussed in the Pontificial Commission on Birth Control, the majority report of which suggested that married couples should be able to decide for themselves. If they could have a frank discussion then, why not now?

I also want to add–I think one of the reasons this hasn’t been an issue before comes from the fact that 1) For those of us in our 40s, most of our parents were not familiar with NFP and that what they were taught was the rhythym method–which they either used (with varying results) or they chose ABC—or used both at some point; 2) it’s this generation of Catholic women, like myself, who really had the chance to learn about NFP and use the method enthusiastically during their prime child-bearing years, but now feel like it’s more difficult to be certain and it adds stress to a marriage for which a late-in-life baby isn’t a responsible move, and yet now they’re in a place where developing a more mature connection with their spouse–unitive love–is more important than ever. Even theologians I’ve spoken with have agreed–the church’s teachings on family planning fail to consider mid-life issues of women.

Probably the lowest reason that a person could come up with for having sex is to relieve stress. Is it a great side benefit? yes, but if your having sex because it relieves stress your probably ignoring the problems that are causing all the stress in the first place. I would think that ignoring God’s laws would cause the most stress a person could ever feel, but maybe that’s just me… I think people forget sometimes that stress is a good thing and is there for a reason. It is there to motivate us to get up and fix the problem that is causing us to have to feel stress. We either need to fix the problem or ask ourselves whether there really is a problem or if its just our mentality towards life or a particular problem that needs fixing.

 

[Nate13]

I have a hard time believing people when they tell me they are really Catholic but believe in contraception. If you can’t give yourself completely to your spouse who of all people on Earth you should be attracted to, how can a person be giving themselves completely to Christ? I would bet that there are zero people who practice contraception that have a contemplative prayer life.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Which again says either have kids or don’t be sexually intimate with your spouse

No, these are NOT the 2 choices. Couples have recourse to periodic abstinence, ie, NFP, which is quite effective for most women in spacing babies (esp if you use conservative rules, ie phase 3 only), AND is morally licit because each act is whole. There is a learning curve for NFP, though, it takes some work, research, learning and implementing.

 

[searching04]

Maybe I am naive or maybe my marriage works differently from yours, but the strengths and weaknesses of my marriage have nothing to do with sex. They have to do with personal selfishness or selflessness. And those things aren’t fixed by sex.

Not naive, your marriage and relationship is different. No one, not even me, is saying sex will fix anything, but it is a huge, critical piece of overall intimacy, and when it is lacking, problems can and do exist.

Also, how much of the way our brains work is influenced by culture, time, and modern thinking? I would venture to say a lot. Which is why most people who claim to be ‘using their brains’ seem to think that sex is necessary and children shouldn’t be a part of it.

Sorry, but this screams for an answer: so we are not to use our brains, but just dive in and have all the kids we can produce? (Which goes right back to the church says if you don’t want or are not in the position to have kids, then no sex). Are you saying that you do not see sex as necessary in a marriage? That sex isn’t necessary for a healthy marriage, but having kids is?

No one in any of these current threads has said anything about not wanting kids or they shouldn’t be a part of life and marriage - we have four. The issue at hand is the affects for some of us in the reality of our marriages that a lack of sexual intimacy with our spouses takes a huge toll, especially when it is long term. But that is automatically interpreted by others as not being real, or denying that it can be, even saying that it is not supposed to be, or not true love, or just lust. And the church has no answer nor even addresses it.

I have said that the problem with the church addressing sex other than intercourse, which is what this is all about in the end, is that it cannot condone anything else because it would have to condone all.

Lastly for now, I would point to a previous post where apparently some church leaders who met to discuss contraception previous to Humanae Vitae disagreed with the end result, and thought couples should be able to decide for themselves, presumedly based on their circumstances. This is the second time I’ve read that in different posts and threads. Guess those church leaders were over-ruled. So does that mean they were not being guided by the Holy Spirit and everyone else was? Seriously. So if there is even disagreement within the church, is there not supposed to be disagreement and issues with couples?

 

[searching04]

I have a hard time believing people when they tell me they are really Catholic but believe in contraception. If you can’t give yourself completely to your spouse who of all people on Earth you should be attracted to, how can a person be giving themselves completely to Christ? I would bet that there are zero people who practice contraception that have a contemplative prayer life.

Your utter arrogance is showing.

Let’s talk war, since I’m a soldier. The church has declared few wars as just. So that means because I believe with all that I am in defending my country that I am not Catholic because I go to war?

How in the heck can you be so arrogant to assume that people who use contraception cannot have such a prayer life? Or that God has a purpose in calling them to prayer?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Lastly for now, I would point to a previous post where apparently some church leaders who met to discuss contraception previous to Humanae Vitae disagreed with the end result, and thought couples should be able to decide for themselves, presumedly based on their circumstances. This is the second time I’ve read that in different posts and threads. Guess those church leaders were over-ruled. So does that mean they were not being guided by the Holy Spirit and everyone else was? Seriously. So if there is even disagreement within the church, is there not supposed to be disagreement and issues with couples?

Link?