NFP?

[thechrismyster]

I also heard similar stories regarding broken condoms, that it was Gods will. I find it highly suspect, and in the back of my mind I wonder how many more blessed children you were suppose to have. Why do you consider you will greater than that of the will of God? Also you were just married yet you did not try to start having children from the begging…what was the point of you marriage if it was not children from the beginning. Also these are just thought in no way do I blame you for listening to the church and think you are well with in your bounds. Im just trying to understand NFP with the purpose of infertility given Tradition.

i think it comes down to stewardship of the gifts given to you. God gives children in time. if the marriage act is unitive, it doesn’t have to be procreative, so long as thats not by YOUR choice.
NFP makes it God’s choice everytime.

A broken condom is an active method of preventing conception.

NFP is not.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Yes I question the church teachings. It is not a sin to question and the church should be able to defend her reasoning. I am not for ABC either hormonal or barrier. Im just trying to understand how the church can accept NFP. If I just accepted anything without questioning, my faith would be a lie for reason would be seperated from it.

Very true and admirable!

Since you have never had a personal experience that would require the use of NFP, then it may be difficult to understand. Sometimes personal experience can open doors of empathy for others in situations you may never understand.

The church can accept NFP because it is totally within the realm of morality. Now, whether or not the reasons for using NFP are justified is a totally different question… again, one that’s private and unique to each married couple.

You may never see a need to use NFP. That’s wonderful! But it doesn’t mean that others with justified reasons should not be able to use it.

 

[Polaris]

i think it comes down to stewardship of the gifts given to you. God gives children in time. if the marriage act is unitive, it doesn’t have to be procreative, so long as thats not by YOUR choice.
NFP makes it God’s choice everytime.

A broken condom is an active method of preventing conception.

NFP is not.

CCC 2363 The spouses union achieves the twofold end of Marriage the good of spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be seperated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

…

You seem to say you can seperate the two, at you own choice. You cant it has to be both.

 

[Em_in_FL]

CCC 2363 The spouses union achieves the twofold end of Marriage the good of spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be seperated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

…

You seem to say you can seperate the two, at you own choice. You cant it has to be both.

I think you misread thechrismyster’s post… it said…

if the marriage act is unitive, it doesn’t have to be procreative, so long as thats not by YOUR choice.
NFP makes it God’s choice everytime.

(bolded emphasis mine)

 

[DobleGG]

This is a fantastic topic. This is a big struggle for me. God has already blessed us with three children (during which time we did not use NFP but rather artificial contraceptive children spacers. Now grant it we are using NFP after the fact and have not (by choice) had any children since. We are in our early forties (still able to have children) but feel that we are done.

As such according to this discussion we are committing sin. This I am at odds with.

 

[PaulinVA]

I’ve always had questions about this. In NFP and ABC the end is the same - no children. How can the means be so different that one is always wrong and one is mostly right?

I think there might be a heresy in here somewhere, but let me ask this: on one level, this is a straight biological exercise . The egg gets released, gets fertilized, successfully implants. Biologically, the rules that God put in place (egg release, fertilization, etc) are at work, and that unique instant in time occurred and a child was conceived.

Do we believe that God decides whether there will be a conception? Or, are the natural rules in place and those rules decide?

 

[Polaris]

Very true and admirable!

Since you have never had a personal experience that would require the use of NFP, then it may be difficult to understand. Sometimes personal experience can open doors of empathy for others in situations you may never understand.

The church can accept NFP because it is totally within the realm of morality. Now, whether or not the reasons for using NFP are justified is a totally different question… again, one that’s private and unique to each married couple.

You may never see a need to use NFP. That’s wonderful! But it doesn’t mean that others with justified reasons should not be able to use it.

I want to make it clear I never blame or judge the couple.

Also I understand better than you think, never let age fool you, God makes some lives harder than others and the innocence and hope of youth can be quickly robbed from those individuals leaving wisdom and only sliver of that hope tested in a sea of despair.

I love marriage more than any other sacrament. This might be heretical considered the joy of the Eucharist. But it never moved me or continues to move me as much as Matrimony. That is why this is important to me.

 

[Polaris]

I think you misread thechrismyster’s post… it said…

(bolded emphasis mine)

oppps sorry

 

[KCT]

So what is your definition of “contraceptive”?

DOING something to prevent the possibility of new life.

Abstaining is not DOING. Are we obliged to have sex every night? Do you think abstaining is a sin?

“Bless me Father for I have sinned. My spouse and I abstained from sex three times this week.” —KCT

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

CCC 2363 The spouses union achieves the twofold end of Marriage the good of spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be seperated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

…

You seem to say you can seperate the two, at you own choice. You cant it has to be both.

Please do not confuse marriage with sexual relations. Of course they are related, but they are not synonymous (as the world has shown us!)

These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be seperated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

This tells us that the intent to separate marriage from procreation is wrong. It does not tell us that we have to have sex on every assumed fertile day, or that we can’t have sex on assumed infertile days.

Da

 

[DobleGG]

abstaining with the intent to avoid having a child sounds like a sin from the previous postings. This I am at odds with.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I’ve always had questions about this. In NFP and ABC the end is the same - no children. How can the means be so different that one is always wrong and one is mostly right?

You may have missed the post already in this thread where couples using NFP did use that knowledge to more directly invite pregnancy, and in no what does it impact what the natural results of that act would be at that particular point in time. The same basic principles of charting cycles and timing intercourse is used by fertility doctors to make sure the couple isn’t simply experiencing a timing issue Therefore, the basic premise of your objection as false because the end result of applying the knowledge of NFP towards an intent is NOT uniformly “no children”, while “no children” is always a known end (and usually the primary intent) of ABC.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

This is a fantastic topic. This is a big struggle for me. God has already blessed us with three children (during which time we did not use NFP but rather artificial contraceptive children spacers. Now grant it we are using NFP after the fact and have not (by choice) had any children since. We are in our early forties (still able to have children) but feel that we are done.

As such according to this discussion we are committing sin. This I am at odds with.

I agree that this is a very big struggle. The answer lies in our reasons why we choose to have no more children. We know the infinite value of new life, how pleasing it is to God. We are his ultimate creation! Our reasons for conciously choosing and acting to not have more children need to be at least as pleasing to Him. Or so it would seem. We are here to please God, not the other way around.

Dan

 

[Polaris]

DOING something to prevent the possibility of new life.

Abstaining is not DOING. Are we obliged to have sex every night? Do you think abstaining is a sin?

“Bless me Father for I have sinned. My spouse and I abstained from sex three times this week.” —KCT

So you are not doing something that prevents the possiblity of a new life? So you are not timing your embraces? It just happens to coincide with an infertile time period?

 

[KCT]

abstaining with the intent to avoid having a child sounds like a sin from the previous postings. This I am at odds with.

If the Church, in her wisdom, has OK’d NFP, how can it be sinful? I don’t believe it can.

However, we can practice it w/ a selfish attitude. In that case, I believe it’s the attitude that could be sinful, not the choice to use NFP. There’s a difference. —KCT

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I’ve always had questions about this. In NFP and ABC the end is the same - no children. How can the means be so different that one is always wrong and one is mostly right?

My wife and I are posed this question frequently when we are a lead couple for marriage preparation.

Yes, the end is the same. The means are very different. Here is an analogy that may help understanding.

Grandma is getting old. In her poor heath (terminal), she is beginning to suffer. We don’t like the thought of Grandma suffering. We think that death will be a blessing for her. The desired end is the release of Grandma from all her suffering. This end will be constant for the following discussion, i.e., the end will not change.

We have a couple of options. A. In order to obtain the end that we have described, we can euthanize Grandma.

Or, B. we can accept that God will call her on his own time, and while we may try to minimize her suffering on earth through other licit means, the total end of her suffering will only occur at God’s choosing.

These are the means (A and B). They both have the same end. One is a terrible evil, the other is good. One takes away from God what belongs to Him. The other accepts His plan for life. The means are so different that one is always wrong, and the other means is always right.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

DOING something to prevent the possibility of new life.

Abstaining is not DOING. Are we obliged to have sex every night? Do you think abstaining is a sin?

“Bless me Father for I have sinned. My spouse and I abstained from sex three times this week.” —KCT

Or more accurately: "Bless me father for I have sinned, my wife and I abstained from sex for 10000 minutes last week. We were only able to manage 80 minutes over the last 7 days.

I firmly promise to amend our sinful abstinence.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

So you are not doing something that prevents the possiblity of a new life?

Preventing life by not doing something? Preventing life by omission?

I did not marry until I was 22. (I waited until I graduated from college and could support children before I married.)

However, I could have been creating new life at about 14. I chose to abstain. Abstinence is not inherently wrong. It is only our motivation that may make it so. At 14, I had licit motivation. At 15 I had licit motivation. I had absolutely licit motivation to abstain until I was married, to prevent the formation of new life though my inaction.

Now, the real question is, do we have licit reasons for abstaining once married? The question cannot be; is abstinence inherently wrong. It can’t be inhernently wrong! For what should be obvious reasons. Otherwise we are constantly sinning 99% of the time that we are not partaking in the marital embrace.

So you are not timing your embraces? It just happens to coincide with an infertile time period?

It is not the ‘method’ chosen that is the question, if the action of the method are not inherently immoral. It is the intent. Focus your discovery on intent. The action of NFP is licit.

Dan

 

[Polaris]

Please do not confuse marriage with sexual relations. Of course they are related, but they are not synonymous (as the world has shown us!)

This tells us that the intent to separate marriage from procreation is wrong. It does not tell us that we have to have sex on every assumed fertile day, or that we can’t have sex on assumed infertile days.

Da

Then how do I understand CCC 2369 if its not the same?

I just do not understand HV 16 if you can explain it please do.

The heart of the matter to me is what is the intent of NFP used to space births. I see it as using knowledge of the natural world not for both ends of marriage but only the service of one the other is excluded. Knowledge makes an individual responsable for his/her actions. True abstince embraces, both we can not afford another child then we do not have sex until we can afford another one. Therefore procreation is not rejected at the expense of the union.

 

[Polaris]

Also in action can be sin take your grandmother dying reference. She chooses to abstain from food.

Reason A She gets violently ill and causes extreme pain.

Reason B She wishes to die quicker.

Again one is a sin the other is not with intent at it core like you mention, and I believe in but have a hard time explaining. The intent of NFP for having children is ok but as a spacing method is a sin to me.