NFP question

[Hoosier_Daddy]

HoosierDaddy and Xantippe,

In essential things, unity.
In doubtful things, liberty.
In all things, charity.
-St. Augustine

OH man that is the quote I was looking for in another thread! I could not for the life of me remember it and my youngest is crying at my feet!

Yes, remember I am typing while teaching, wiping behinds, cleaning, and trying to figure out how in the world the to give all the answers needed right now to my kids. (just now one wants to know where to put the bubbles, and is carrying around a giant open gallon of milk in the living room, so my thought process is sometimes scattered and my points cannot come across well. It is also why there are a billion typos in my posts. I am just lucky I have pants on at this point. That is why I may write a great post well thought out and awesome, or I may appear like my computer was given to a drunk monkey.

What I am trying to say is I don’t understand how the “Catholic ethicist” could make the argument that HE has just reason to avoid. When SHE does not. NFP and sex is a mutual decision. If we concede that the wife does not have just reason to avoid then the “sin” falls on her.

How that was turned in to “rape” I’ll never know. And I am quite offended at the tactic if it was intentional. What world do we live in where by me making the argument that HE should not be bound by the unjust reasons of his wife meant forcible penetration and one of the worst crimes known to man.
I am offended. But I will get over it.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I don’t understand this. Lets say the wife does not have just reasons. Lets also say that the husband realizes this. So, if NFP abstinence is demanded by the partner who does not have just reasons then (Woman in this case) the man is not really “practicing” NFP at all. Should he not do her charts or anything else. And this goes against how NFP is sold to couples. We are told that it is a couple’s prayerful decision. But really it is the woman’s. The man, who wants a child is always overruled by a spouse who does not FOR WHATEVER REASON. And that idea is where I have a problem. “For whatever reason” The wife could say that she wants a Ferrari before they would have a child and that could not be a “just” reason, but because it is her reason it is the NFP law of the land. …

I hear you, but it’s not just about what the woman wants. I find that many people today would conclude that whenever a spouse does not want another child, that “trumps” the other spouse who does. It doesn’t matter if it’s the husband or wife, as long as one does not want to “try” for another child, that person “wins” the argument.

That is *exactly the opposite *of where I believe the position of having a child within marriage should be. The default position in a healthy marriage should be not doing anything to intentionally prevent pregnancy unless they both agree and have a serious/just/ reason. But when one spouse does insist on denying the other an opportunity for more children, (through natural means within the marriage act) it places the one who wants more in a difficult position. I believe that the loving response for those in that difficult position, such the original poster, would be to pray for his spouse and behave as loving as he possibly can and perhaps over time the situation will resolve.

 

[mommamaree]

I hear you, but it’s not just about what the woman wants. I find that many people today would conclude that whenever a spouse does not want another child, that “trumps” the other spouse who does. It doesn’t matter if it’s the husband or wife, as long as one does not want to “try” for another child, that person “wins” the argument.

That is *exactly the opposite *of where I believe the position of having a child within marriage should be. The default position in a healthy marriage should be not doing anything to intentionally prevent pregnancy unless they both agree and have a serious/just/ reason. But when one spouse does insist on denying the other an opportunity for more children, (through natural means within the marriage act) it places the one who wants more in a difficult position. I believe that the loving response for those in that difficult position, such the original poster, would be to pray for his spouse and behave as loving as he possibly can and perhaps over time the situation will resolve.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with much of it, but I would like to add one caveat. It is entirely possible that the spouse desiring to avoid pregnancy may, in fact, have just reasons, and that their spouse doesn’t agree that those reasons are big enough. In that situation, one cannot say that one spouse is right and the other is wrong. And furthermore, it is possible that the praying for the resistant spouse could end up causing a change of heart for the spouse who wanted more children, and that would put both of them back on the same page. In any situation where there is disagreement, though, you are correct about the moral way to proceed: be loving, pray, discuss, be patient.

 

[7armyrugrats]

I hear you, but it’s not just about what the woman wants. I find that many people today would conclude that whenever a spouse does not want another child, that “trumps” the other spouse who does. It doesn’t matter if it’s the husband or wife, as long as one does not want to “try” for another child, that person “wins” the argument.

That is *exactly the opposite *of where I believe the position of having a child within marriage should be. The default position in a healthy marriage should be not doing anything to intentionally prevent pregnancy unless they both agree and have a serious/just/ reason. But when one spouse does insist on denying the other an opportunity for more children, (through natural means within the marriage act) it places the one who wants more in a difficult position. I believe that the loving response for those in that difficult position, such the original poster, would be to pray for his spouse and behave as loving as he possibly can and perhaps over time the situation will resolve.

This is exactly right. If it were not, the Church would in all her wisdom would insist upon all married couple learning NFP so that they would be able to use that as the default in marriage. It’s not required, nor is it desirous. It is allowed to be used if sufficient reasons exist.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I hear you, but it’s not just about what the woman wants. I find that many people today would conclude that whenever a spouse does not want another child, that “trumps” the other spouse who does. It doesn’t matter if it’s the husband or wife, as long as one does not want to “try” for another child, that person “wins” the argument.

That is *exactly the opposite *of where I believe the position of having a child within marriage should be. The default position in a healthy marriage should be not doing anything to intentionally prevent pregnancy unless they both agree and have a serious/just/ reason. But when one spouse does insist on denying the other an opportunity for more children, (through natural means within the marriage act) it places the one who wants more in a difficult position. I believe that the loving response for those in that difficult position, such the original poster, would be to pray for his spouse and behave as loving as he possibly can and perhaps over time the situation will resolve.

Thanks for typing what I could not.

 

[Xantippe]

HoosierDaddy said:

“Seriously. We are going to go there? I’m talking about the moral and licit use on nfp, not marital rape. cmon man!”

Seriously, what are the alternatives?

Theoretically, a husband wants more sex and a baby and his wife doesn’t want either.

What are the licit alternatives other than 1) persuading her or 2) abstaining? There really is no licit third way here.

“I have no idea how you are reading that into what I said.”

As I said, how godly is it for a man to have sex with his wife when she doesn’t want to have sex and to purposely impregnate her when she doesn’t wish to be impregnated?

I’m not really seeing your solution to this interpersonal problem.

 

[Xantippe]

HoosierDaddy said:

“Then I understood you to make the argument that later in life chance of a miscarriage is higher and therefore the OP should not desire a pregnancy or even push for one.”

The original post said that his wife was denying him and refusing to have more children for no particular reason and the OP seems not to believe that there is any reason for them not to have more children.

My main point in this thread has been that yes, in fact a 37-year-old woman with two kids with a history of stillbirth could make quite a good case for conservative NFP. I wouldn’t say she shouldn’t try for more (in fact, that was exactly the age when I had my current 1-year-old), but I’m saying that there are in fact serious reasons present in this case. This is not a Ferrari.

“I detected this kind of attitude that it is impossible to use NFP for sinful reasons.”

I have detected a lot of rigorism wafting around this subject in this and in other threads.

“Then your argument seemed to go in the direction of if SHE does not want another child NO MATTER WHAT HER REASON then HE has “JUST” reason to avoid. When I tried to say that the moral dilemma is with HER you turned it into marital rape…”

Well, what do you expect him to do when his wife does not want to be pregnant or to have another baby?

“I am sooooooo confused as to your point. Perhaps I am not reading you correctly but perhaps you could succinctly put your views and beliefs on these subjects into one straightforward, no beating around the bush post.”

I personally don’t have a well-developed view. My husband does and he has a big fat book that if you PM me, I can direct you to. (It’s kind of expensive, but if you have university connections, interlibrary loan should be able to get it for you.)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

HoosierDaddy said:

“Seriously. We are going to go there? I’m talking about the moral and licit use on nfp, not marital rape. cmon man!”

Seriously, what are the alternatives?

Theoretically, a husband wants more sex and a baby and his wife doesn’t want either.

What are the licit alternatives other than 1) persuading her or 2) abstaining? There really is no licit third way here.

“I have no idea how you are reading that into what I said.”

As I said, how godly is it for a man to have sex with his wife when she doesn’t want to have sex and to purposely impregnate her when she doesn’t wish to be impregnated?

I’m not really seeing your solution to this interpersonal problem.

I’m not really seeing your solution to this interpersonal problem

No, you are not seeing it at all. Not only that but I explicitly said I was not talking about what you thought and yet you still post this.

As I said, how godly is it for a man to have sex with his wife when she doesn’t want to have sex and to purposely impregnate her when she doesn’t wish to be impregnated?

I never implied such a thing. I have absolutely NO idea what it is you think we are talking about and honestly I am done trying to explain. But for the love of pete! Please do not keep going around thinking and typing that rape is my position. It isn’t.

I have asked that you stop saying this, I am quite serious. I am not arguing for forced sex, or rape. IF you cannot move past that type of tactic, I will have to bow out and move on.
I will wait for an apology.
Good grief!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I personally don’t have a well-developed view. My husband does and he has a big fat book that if you PM me, I can direct you to. (It’s kind of expensive, but if you have university connections, interlibrary loan should be able to get it for you.)

If you personally do not have a well developed view then I have to wonder why you bothered posting at all. If your husband’s view is more developed than your own and you defer to him in your NFP decisions then by all means go to town. Actually that appears to be the case with the OP. Either you do have a view that you do not feel comfortable explaining or you are doing a poor job of explaining a third parties view.

Since I do have a well developed view and you do not, perhaps we should just let this pass. I am more than happy to continue but without the rape rhetoric and I feel that I have been quite forward with my balanced position. I feel that I, while not an NFP advocate anymore, am certainly a son of the Church and recognize the authority of it. I also feel that it is not a requirement for a Catholic to even have in a marriage.
I get the sense that your position is more liberal in terms of NFP and it’s use, and that is perfectly ok. However, I would appreciate a more straightforward way of saying things. I would hate to misunderstand you or have the OP get something from your posts you did not intend.

 

[godisgood77]

HoosierDaddy said:

“The man, who wants a child is always overruled by a spouse who does not FOR WHATEVER REASON. And that idea is where I have a problem.”

What is he going to do instead–sexually assault her?

If a woman doesn’t want to have marital relations at a particular time, her husband has the choice of either persuading her or abstaining. I don’t see that there are any other licit choices.

““For whatever reason” The wife could say that she wants a Ferrari before they would have a child and that could not be a “just” reason, but because it is her reason it is the NFP law of the land. Theologically that makes no sense.”

Why do you think it is a good idea to purposely impregnate a woman who does not wish to be impregnated and does not want to raise an additional child? How does that glorify God?

Not sure how we got to this point… but a third licit choice is the marital right… The wife or the husband has an explicit right to marital relations which neither has the right to deny.

I personally would never exercise such a right if there wasn’t mutual interest, but it remains a right that both members of the marriage has.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I will restate again for the OP.

You do not have just reasons to avoid. You believe your WIFE does not have just reasons to avoid.
So therefore your wife is in a grave area with regard to NFP. You are not. You have no reason to avoid but you can only have sex when she says it is ok. That is not “practicing” NFP, that is your wife, employing NFP for unjust reasons on your marriage. This is not, “your” potential sin, but hers. (notice I did not say rape her.) She is the one who will answer to God for her decision, you will not.

This is said in harsh terms because of the recent conversation on this thread and how it was misconstrued. Normally I would not refer to your wife as even sinning but rather “growing” in her faith. Alas, I am not afforded that diplomacy now.

Now, please tell me if I am close on your OP. You are frustrated, you are not seeking permission to “justly” useNFP but rather how to come to an agreement with your wife theologically and sexually.

 

[Xantippe]

Mommamaree said:

“I have long since learned to value each of your contributions to the forum discussions here, and I especially appreciate the perspectives/experiences we have in common.”

Awww–you’re such a sweetie!

HoosierDaddy said:

“What I am trying to say is I don’t understand how the “Catholic ethicist” could make the argument that HE has just reason to avoid. When SHE does not. NFP and sex is a mutual decision. If we concede that the wife does not have just reason to avoid then the “sin” falls on her.”

We’re talking about what HE should do in this situation, which is natural, as our OP is male and that is his situation. We would give different advice to the woman in this situation, just as we’d give different advice to each party in a situation where the wife was baby crazy and the husband was more cautious (which does happen).

“If you personally do not have a well developed view then I have to wonder why you bothered posting at all.”

“Well developed” is a pretty high bar. If I had a well-developed view, I’d be a theology or philosophy professor myself, I’d give talks around the country, I’d have written a book on the subject and teach a course on the philosophy of sex and love, as my husband does. As it is, I’m a reasonably educated layperson like yourself whose had the benefit of listening to my husband as he’s worked on the book, over the course of a decade.

If you PM me, I’ll send you the book title.

“If your husband’s view is more developed than your own and you defer to him in your NFP decisions then by all means go to town.”

I defer to him on the ethical theory and his chart-reading skills (I’m a liberal arts major–no habla math and science). In practice, it’s been largely my call, as with mommamaree. He’s the cooler headed, more cautious of the two of us. I’m much more likely to be swept away by the moment and particularly with our last baby, was much more passionately motivated to have a new baby. It would have been a bummer if he didn’t want to risk it, but I would have tried to understand. He’s actually the one whose made the call for not trying. I didn’t quite realize until he pointed it out to me how very bad the risks of chromosomal abnormalities already are at my age. I had kind of been thinking that 42 or 43 would be a good cut off, but we both feel uncomfortable with the risks at 38. That’s not to say that we may not have more children, but I don’t foresee planning more children.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Mommamaree said:

I defer to him on the ethical theory and his chart-reading skills (I’m a liberal arts major–no habla math and science). In practice, it’s been largely my call, as with mommamaree. He’s the cooler headed, more cautious of the two of us. I’m much more likely to be swept away by the moment and particularly with our last baby, was much more passionately motivated to have a new baby. It would have been a bummer if he didn’t want to risk it, but I would have tried to understand. He’s actually the one whose made the call for not trying. I didn’t quite realize until he pointed it out to me how very bad the risks of chromosomal abnormalities already are at my age. I had kind of been thinking that 42 or 43 would be a good cut off, but we both feel uncomfortable with the risks at 38. That’s not to say that we may not have more children, but I don’t foresee planning more children.

I didn’t quite realize until he pointed it out to me how very bad the risks of chromosomal abnormalities already are at my age.

We are science people. We are also theology people. I have a theology degree from Carroll College. And seminary education. My wife has a theology degree and a science degree. Both of us were NFP instructors certified by C2CL and the Church. We are currently active in young adult ministry and marriage prep.

We have a 50 percent chance of a child being born with a deletion in the 1Q21 Chromosome. I am a carrier of the rare deletion. We did not know this until after child number two had serious medical issues, (now mostly gone) and although the severity of the deletion ranges from me (non existant) to severely handicapped. We discern to be open to life and have more children? Why is one situation for one couple ok but not the other?

 

[maryjk]

We are science people. We are also theology people. I have a theology degree from Carroll College. And seminary education. My wife has a theology degree and a science degree. Both of us were NFP instructors certified by C2CL and the Church. We are currently active in young adult ministry and marriage prep.

We have a 50 percent chance of a child being born with a deletion in the 1Q21 Chromosome. I am a carrier of the rare deletion. We did not know this until after child number two had serious medical issues, (now mostly gone) and although the severity of the deletion ranges from me (non existant) to severely handicapped. We discern to be open to life and have more children? Why is one situation for one couple ok but not the other?

Because your life is not their life and their life is not yours.

 

[7armyrugrats]

We have a 50 percent chance of a child being born with a deletion in the 1Q21 Chromosome. I am a carrier of the rare deletion. We did not know this until after child number two had serious medical issues, (now mostly gone) and although the severity of the deletion ranges from me (non existant) to severely handicapped. We discern to be open to life and have more children? Why is one situation for one couple ok but not the other?

I think it it has way more to do with a person’s emotional and psychological ability to cope than it does the risks involved. People who have come to accept that God’s ways are not our ways, but that He does know what is best for our spiritual growth have a much easier time of just accepting life as it happens. The devil has done a wonderful job of convincing society that Planned Parenthood is absolutely necessary, and even the most pro life among us often fail to see that the logic they use originated within that movement. It is not their fault. We have raised the last several generations to believe that all babies must not only be “wanted” but they need to be planned. That is why there are so many perfectly timed two kid families even at Mass or at pro life rallies. It has gone a large Catholic family was the norm to it being unusual, but somehow I find it hard to believe that suddenly more couples have serious reasons to avoid having children or limit the number at 2, 3 or 4. Morals don’t change by century or location, except apparently any morality that deals with marriage and family.

 

[Rau]

We are science people. We are also theology people. I have a theology degree from Carroll College. And seminary education. My wife has a theology degree and a science degree. Both of us were NFP instructors certified by C2CL and the Church. We are currently active in young adult ministry and marriage prep.

We have a 50 percent chance of a child being born with a deletion in the 1Q21 Chromosome. I am a carrier of the rare deletion. We did not know this until after child number two had serious medical issues, (now mostly gone) and although the severity of the deletion ranges from me (non existant) to severely handicapped. We discern to be open to life and have more children? Why is one situation for one couple ok but not the other?

I assume your last question is rhetorical? For clearly what does not cause you great concern may cause another to to be sick with worry. That other is not required to rise to an objectively set bar, or to a bar that you choose, but to one which is right for her/him. Each individual is to use their conscience in setting the bar for them, and in this, only God is able to judge them.

Differences between individuals’ gifts matter a lot. Can you be sure your attitude to Having more children would be unchanged after 2 or 3 severely handicapped children? Can you be sure that your attitude to NFP would be the same if your fertility were such that sex during the fertile period was very likely to produce a pregnancy?

 

[mommamaree]

Why is one situation for one couple ok but not the other?

Are you serious in asking this question?

Medical answer: because every human body is different.
Theological answer: because God asks different things of each of us, and bestows upon us different actual graces. This includes the movements of the Holy Spirit, which help us discern the prudent course of action for our particular situation. The fruits of the Holy Spirit manifest within our lives at different times and in different amounts.
Common Sense answer: because every person is different and we cannot say what another person can our should be expected to handle. A woman who has had several miscarriages, for example, may be so grieved that she wants to prevent future conceptions. Another woman may keep trying, in the hopes that she will successfully carry one more baby to term. Everyone grieves in their own way, and everyone approaches challenges in their own way.

 

[Xantippe]

maryjk said:

“Because your life is not their life and their life is not yours.”

Exactly.

It is not our job to tie burdens on each other that we will not be helping them carry, when those burdens are not in fact their moral duty.

Rau said:

“I assume your last question is rhetorical? For clearly what does not cause you great concern may cause another to to be sick with worry.”

Right.

“Differences between individuals’ gifts matter a lot. Can you be sure your attitude to Having more children would be unchanged after 2 or 3 severely handicapped children? Can you be sure that your attitude to NFP would be the same if your fertility were such that sex during the fertile period was very likely to produce a pregnancy?”

Exactly.

I am most concerned by the couples that attempt the que sera, sera attitude that HoosierDaddy and 7armyrugrats embrace, but who will find themselves unequal to it. I think we do run into people like that around CAF, who try to live that carefree lifestyle and then hit the wall (for instance, one c-section too many, or more little kids than mom can handle without going nuts) and then it’s tubal ligation or vasectomy time. People start out young and idealistic with regard to openness to life and then get worked over with a 2X4 by… life. This happens over and over again.

I like the quote from Luke 14: “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’”

 

[mommamaree]

People who have come to accept that God’s ways are not our ways, but that He does know what is best for our spiritual growth have a much easier time of just accepting life as it happens. .

Yikes. The implications of this statement are not pleasant. If a person prudently decides to act in such a way as to avoid a possible outcome, because they discern the cost is too great for them personally, they are exercising virtue and self-mastery. How can we say that they are not accepting of God’s ways? We are to exercise responsible parenthood, and that includes deciding when NOT to conceive, if such a situation were to occur. We are encouraged to be generous in childbearing, but we are not obligated to continue procreating beyond what we see is our ability to handle. And those of us who have been successful in bearing more than the average number of children have no right to speculate on the spiritual state of others who use a morally licit form of birth regulation (a phrase actually used by the Church, lest anyone accuse me of a birth control mentality).

 

[underacloud]

What I am trying to say is I don’t understand how the “Catholic ethicist” could make the argument that HE has just reason to avoid. When SHE does not. NFP and sex is a mutual decision. **If we concede that the wife does not have just reason to avoid then the “sin” falls on her. **

You seem to have hit the nail on the head here.

If the wife does not have just reasons to avoid, but insists on using NFP to avoid, then the husband bears no culpability by respecting his wife’s wishes. The sin falls on her, as you say. And this is, I think, what the others who you disagree with are also saying. The husband’s just reason to avoid is his respect for his wife, even though she may be wrong (hypothetically, I’m not saying the OP’s wife is wrong here).