NFP question

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaryAnne77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Disagree totally, and your saying this is just NFP-speak, for the lack of a better term.

The church says two things: 1) abstain or 2) if you have sex and want to lessen the chances of having a child, then follow NFP. Period. Two choices.

We know NFP works. We have four kids. Never said it didn’t. NFP is not the issue. The issue is *church teachings on sex *combined wiht NFP, especially when following NFP for many, many years.
 
catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-documents-reveal-inner-workings-of-papal-birth-control-commission

<<New documentation from a renowned moral theologian is shedding light on a controversial moment in Catholic history – the 1963-66 commission that considered the question of contraception prior to Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae.”

“The idea of what happened with the commission has been shaped by people who were pro-contraception.” said Germain Grisez, Professor Emeritus of philosophy and moral theology at Mount St. Mary’s College in Maryland. “It’s their account of what happened, that has been circulated over the years.”

Now, Grisez is seeking to set the record straight, by releasing documents that few in the Church have ever seen before. They can be viewed through his website, at http://twotlj.org/BCCommission.html.>>> read more at the link.
 
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?
Again, you can have sex even if you feel that you have a serious/just reason to avoid pregnancy. It’s called periodic continence or NFP. You just have to be preparing yourself to LOVINGLY accept any child you might have. Oh, and “I don’t want kids” is not a good reason to avoid pregnancy. That is a selfish desire that needs to be worked on through the aid of a good spiritual director, staying close to the sacraments, and lots of prayer.

No, sex is not NECESSARY for a healthy marriage. Lots of couples have had HEALTHY marriages without sex. BUT I would say that most couples would have sex as a part of a healthy marriage and that marriages without sex can be unhealthy. It depends on the motive for no sex. If a couple is abstaining because they have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, that is not unhealthy. It’s not the natural order of marriage, but it is not unhealthy. If a couple is abstaining because they have a disordered view of sex, that is unhealthy. Sex is a natural part of marriage and is naturally ordered to the procreation of children.

IF lack of sexual intimacy is causing a ‘huge toll’ on a marriage, I would venture to say there are deeper problems in that marriage than not having sex. Is abstinence difficult? Yes. Which is why it should only be entered into in the most dire of circumstances when no other moral alternative is available. The Church recognizes this, that is why it spoke on the morality of periodic abstinence, so we would know that there are other options.
 
Disagree totally, and your saying this is just NFP-speak, for the lack of a better term.

The church says two things: 1) abstain or 2) if you have sex and want to lessen the chances of having a child, then follow NFP. Period. Two choices.

We know NFP works. We have four kids. Never said it didn’t. NFP is not the issue. The issue is *church teachings on sex *combined wiht NFP, especially when following NFP for many, many years.
Well, I disagree with you, and I have 2000 years of Church teaching and history to back me up. The Church says, be fruitful and multiply…and if for a just/grave/serious reason you can’t, then abstain totally or periodically depending on your circumstances. YOU have the choice. No one is standing at your door making sure you are making moral choices.

I don’t speak NFP-speak, whatever that is. You do notice I have 6 children with one on the way? We sacrifice a great deal for our children and family, we are NOT rich. We struggle daily, but we are blessed beyond measure by our children. The problem lies when we listen to society about what is important in 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?
Anyone who is living in a state of mortal sin by using contraception with full knowledge and intention has cut themselves off from a life of God’s Grace.
 
Disagree totally, and your saying this is just NFP-speak, for the lack of a better term.

The church says two things: 1) abstain or 2) if you have sex and want to lessen the chances of having a child, then follow NFP. Period. Two choices.

We know NFP works. We have four kids. Never said it didn’t. NFP is not the issue. The issue is *church teachings on sex *combined wiht NFP, especially when following NFP for many, many years.
You could also work towards accepting children lovingly as God sends them. No one is REQUIRED to abstain or use NFP.

The Church’s teachings on sex are beautiful and ordered with our ultimate happiness in heaven in mind. It consistently teaches us about God’s design for men and women and for marriage.
 
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?
Also, no. The Church says we are to live our lives at the intersection of faith and reason.

That doesn’t mean living contrary to 2000+ years of teaching and research, though.
 
Also, no. The Church says we are to live our lives at the intersection of faith and reason.

That doesn’t mean living contrary to 2000+ years of teaching and research, though.
Exactly and while there are limits to how far our reason can take us because our reason is subject to our knowledge, our faith has not stops. For example the theory of relativity may be on the ropes now considering the possible find of a new particle that travels faster than light. Are you going to subject your decisions to knowledge that is based on whatever the newest fad theory is or are you going to base your decisions on the eternal Truth.
 
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.
I am not sure how attraction has anything to do with it. I mean those who use contraception probably feel like they ARE giving themselves totally to each other. Its not like they are actively saying you know I am going to have sex with you but going to withhold a part of myself just because I donlt find you attractive enough! Also I think it is mighty what is the word I am looking for presumptous to assume that everyone who uses contraception doesn;t have a contemplative prayer life. There are plenty of strong Christian who use contraception and are very devoted.
 
I am not sure how attraction has anything to do with it. I mean those who use contraception probably feel like they ARE giving themselves totally to each other. Its not like they are actively saying you know I am going to have sex with you but going to withhold a part of myself just because I donlt find you attractive enough! Also I think it is mighty what is the word I am looking for presumptous to assume that everyone who uses contraception doesn;t have a contemplative prayer life. There are plenty of strong Christian who use contraception and are very devoted.
Alright I will accept the possibility that someone who didn’t know it was wrong or was using it against their will could still have a contemplative prayer life. As was stated before though. If your in a state of mortal sin you cannot have a contemplative prayer life since you have effectively removed yourself from God’s grace of your own free will. Thus in all seriousness a way to test this would be to find someone who you could prove they had a contemplative prayer life that was using contraception knowing it was wrong and doing it freely.
 
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.

Nothing is “fixed” by sex. And marriage isn’t all about SEX either–but it’s an important component that for some people, it’s easy to say “suck it up and live without”, while for others, it’s like missing an appendage. And naivity would be thinking all marriages work alike–they don’t. Ever. They’re like snow flakes–no two are alike. I strongly advise people to NEVER compare their marriages to that of their neighbors, their friends, etc.–favorably or unfavorably. Nothing good ever comes from that.

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.

***I don’t think modern culture has anything to do with this issue when it comes out how our brains think about sex. I think this has been a question faithful people have asked for years (yes, believe it or not, faithful people throughout history have questioned what the church teaches and change has come from it–whether some people agree with it or not.) And yes, some couples should be looking inside their hearts and asking–“why aren’t we welcoming children as we should,” for others, adding to their family would be an irresponsible decision. Oooh. I know… I’m going to get FLAMED for that. But let me tell you something. . .for all the couples who are being selfish in NOT having children, there are couples that continue to get pregnant when common sense would say is time to stop. Having more children than you can provide for responsibly both physically and responsibly, is irresponsible. Willingly getting pregnant when you know, before you get pregnant, that you could have life threatening complications that put both you and your unborn child at risk–also irresponsible. Why do we not discuss those considerations? The second one is especially relevant to a number of women as we get older. Looking at your marker, you’re not at that point yet. But when you are…give us a call. ;)/***QUOTE]
 
kristacecilia;8414212:
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.

Nothing is “fixed” by sex. And marriage isn’t all about SEX either–but it’s an important component that for some people, it’s easy to say “suck it up and live without”, while for others, it’s like missing an appendage. And naivity would be thinking all marriages work alike–they don’t. Ever. They’re like snow flakes–no two are alike. I strongly advise people to NEVER compare their marriages to that of their neighbors, their friends, etc.–favorably or unfavorably. Nothing good ever comes from that.
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.

***I don’t think modern culture has anything to do with this issue when it comes out how our brains think about sex. I think this has been a question faithful people have asked for years (yes, believe it or not, faithful people throughout history have questioned what the church teaches and change has come from it–whether some people agree with it or not.) And yes, some couples should be looking inside their hearts and asking–“why aren’t we welcoming children as we should,” for others, adding to their family would be an irresponsible decision. Oooh. I know… I’m going to get FLAMED for that. But let me tell you something. . .for all the couples who are being selfish in NOT having children, there are couples that continue to get pregnant when common sense would say is time to stop. Having more children than you can provide for responsibly both physically and responsibly, is irresponsible. Willingly getting pregnant when you know, before you get pregnant, that you could have life threatening complications that put both you and your unborn child at risk–also irresponsible. Why do we not discuss those considerations? The second one is especially relevant to a number of women as we get older. Looking at your marker, you’re not at that point yet. But when you are…give us a call. ;)/***QUOTE]

For some people not stealing is harder for them than it is for others because of their temperament/personality. It seems to me you are for giving people a pass because their temperament/personality makes it harder for them to follow than some other person. I see a downward slope using this argument. Will we have to write different rule sets for the 4 different temperaments?
 
The second one is especially relevant to a number of women as we get older. Looking at your marker, you’re not at that point yet. But when you are…give us a call. ;)/
QUOTE]

This is terribly condescending. You don’t know how old she is. I will tell you, again, that we are due with our 7th child in dec and I’m just shy of 40. What difference does that make? Not one iota. No one on this thread, not one single person has advocated having as many children as physically possible. We are advocating responsible parenthood, just like the Church. Total or periodic abstinence if you have a grave/serious/just reason for limiting births…
 
ColNY;8414498:
For some people not stealing is harder for them than it is for others because of their temperament/personality. It seems to me you are for giving people a pass because their temperament/personality makes it harder for them to follow than some other person. I see a downward slope using this argument. Will we have to write different rule sets for the 4 different temperaments?
Comparing something like using contraceptives or having orgasms in your marriage in nonChurch approved ways to something like stealing which hurts others doesn;t seem like I very good example to me.
 
catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-documents-reveal-inner-workings-of-papal-birth-control-commission

<<New documentation from a renowned moral theologian is shedding light on a controversial moment in Catholic history – the 1963-66 commission that considered the question of contraception prior to Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae.”

“The idea of what happened with the commission has been shaped by people who were pro-contraception.” said Germain Grisez, Professor Emeritus of philosophy and moral theology at Mount St. Mary’s College in Maryland. “It’s their account of what happened, that has been circulated over the years.”

Now, Grisez is seeking to set the record straight, by releasing documents that few in the Church have ever seen before. They can be viewed through his website, at http://twotlj.org/BCCommission.html.>>> read more at the link.
Cool beans - thanks!
 
For anyone who is curious, choleric personalities have the highest sex drive and thus will most likely struggle with periods of abstinence more than the others 😉 Also note: I feel your pain if your one of them haha.
 
This is terribly condescending. You don’t know how old she is. I will tell you, again, that we are due with our 7th child in dec and I’m just shy of 40. What difference does that make? Not one iota. No one on this thread, not one single person has advocated having as many children as physically possible. We are advocating responsible parenthood, just like the Church. Total or periodic abstinence if you have a grave/serious/just reason for limiting births…
Not to mention that deliberately bringing back fertility can be harmful to a child’s health. There’s a reason that ecological breastfeeding delays fertility!

I used to just assume that my husband and I would have to use NFP to space our children so we weren’t having a baby every year, but I think we’re going to be able to avoid the stress of that by using ecological breastfeeding instead (which is very, very different than the way our culture currently sees breastfeeding.) Of course, we are both young and as I approach menopause we may decide to abstain - but honestly, we’ve done a heck of a lot of abstaining just having one little munchkin around. He wears us out! 😛 But neither of us feel “left out” because of it and I think that’s the important thing.
 
Again, you can have sex even if you feel that you have a serious/just reason to avoid pregnancy. It’s called periodic continence or NFP. You just have to be preparing yourself to LOVINGLY accept any child you might have. Oh, and “I don’t want kids” is not a good reason to avoid pregnancy. That is a selfish desire that needs to be worked on through the aid of a good spiritual director, staying close to the sacraments, and lots of prayer.

“I don’t want a child” is not a reason? Maybe life is just not going to allow for a child anymore. So once again, as far as the church is concerned, we either keep cranking out little Catholics or we don’t have sex. THAT is the problem with church teachings. A couple may want to have kids, but cannot afford them or have medical problems, and yes - maybe they do not wish to have one for a while. But according to you and the church, they should say the heck with it, the church says have kids, so here we go. Selfish desire? That is so wrong and presumptive by you and others that say this. It also takes away a lot of the intimacy for some of us. Others have mentioned the same thing that I feel - by using NFP, sex has in many ways just become physical and “oh, well, the calendar says its time, so lets go while we can.” It is not all peaches and cream and the end all be all that it is made out to be.

No, sex is not NECESSARY for a healthy marriage.

Maybe not for you, for others - YES.

Lots of couples have had HEALTHY marriages without sex.

Lots of couples don’t.

BUT I would say that most couples would have sex as a part of a healthy marriage and that marriages without sex can be unhealthy. It depends on the motive for no sex. If a couple is abstaining because they have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, that is not unhealthy. It’s not the natural order of marriage, but it is not unhealthy. If a couple is abstaining because they have a disordered view of sex, that is unhealthy. Sex is a natural part of marriage and is naturally ordered to the procreation of children.

Again, again again - sex is then only for kids. My motive for sex with my wife is deep, physical intimacy, but that is not always possible following church teachings and since more kids are not feasible. That does not make us selfish. What is more selfish - to keep having kids you cannot afford or be sexually intimate even without intercourse if need be? Who is deciding what is disordered? Obviously, the church which tells us to keep having kids whether we can afford it or not. Saying the natural order of marriage is to have kids says the same thing - sex is for having babies. You cannot say it is not.

IF lack of sexual intimacy is causing a ‘huge toll’ on a marriage, I would venture to say there are deeper problems in that marriage than not having sex. Is abstinence difficult? Yes. Which is why it should only be entered into in the most dire of circumstances when no other moral alternative is available. The Church recognizes this, that is why it spoke on the morality of periodic abstinence, so we would know that there are other options.
We just have to agree to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top