NFPers and Providentialists

[thewanderer]

You obviously don’t know what the word vocation means. Part of Marriage vocation is marital relations and part of the priest vocation is celibacy To willfully deny ones right of their vocation is unjust. do you see the difference ? :ehh:

Yes, there is a differance between the two vocations. However, the vocation of a married man is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church, to be willing to give up his life for his wife. If his wife is terrified of having another kid and honestly convinced that she can not handle it then it is the vocation of the husband to man up and deal with the fact that she would be extremely upset to get pregnant at that moment in time. In other words, if her fears are unfounded, try to help her see that, but also be understanding of her feelings and realize that even if you don’t see it there is the possibility of a real reason to avoid currently. Don’t try to guilt-trip her into giving you ‘your rights’. Marriage is not about the self, or what privileges ones spouse should be dishing up, it is about what gifts one can give to ones spouse, how one can better sacrifice for them. And yes, before you bring it up, of course this goes both ways. But I happen to remember a passage in the Bible about the removing the log out of ones own eye before dealing with the speck in someone elses.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am not stating wives should be smug, or satisfied if their spouse sins themselves to hell.

Hardly. The point I am making is that it is not a woman’s role to put out so that here husband feels less stress to commit sexual sins.

In dremcnally’s example the wife is forcing a man to sin by using NFP…
Hardly, what St. Paul is speaking about. And
Can. 1135 simply states that spouses have conjugal duties and rights, they must be balanced and this text assumes a rightly ordered relationship not one in which a woman must perform even when not prepared for new life just to satisfy her man.

I’m not saying that spouses are to be available for each other on demand, but “put out” is a rather crude term for the marital act, don’t you think?

Yes, there is a differance between the two vocations. However, the vocation of a married man is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church, to be willing to give up his life for his wife. If his wife is terrified of having another kid and honestly convinced that she can not handle it then it is the vocation of the husband to man up and deal with the fact that she would be extremely upset to get pregnant at that moment in time. In other words, if her fears are unfounded, try to help her see that, but also be understanding of her feelings and realize that even if you don’t see it there is the possibility of a real reason to avoid currently. Don’t try to guilt-trip her into giving you ‘your rights’. Marriage is not about the self, or what privileges ones spouse should be dishing up, it is about what gifts one can give to ones spouse, how one can better sacrifice for them. And yes, before you bring it up, of course this goes both ways. But I happen to remember a passage in the Bible about the removing the log out of ones own eye before dealing with the speck in someone elses.

Yes. There is no room for guilt-tripping or emotional manipulations in marriage. Couples have to consider their mutual concerns and responsibilities without giving over into self-centeredness of any kind. Both spouses need to be compassionate towards each other’s feelings, whether those are feelings of frustration or feelings of fear, and support each other in dealing with all of the trials that each is going through.

When there is a compelling reason to abstain, it is possible to hold firm in favor of abstinence without insulting one’s spouse because they find it hard. It may be not the sex that sends a person into temptation, after all, but the feeling that he or she has become “the enemy” or the “outsider” in one’s own marriage. It is entirely natural for a man to want to have sex with his wife and to be disappointed when he can’t. A lack of desire of a man for his wife can be a cause for concern, after all. Adults have self-control, but is even that desire soemthing that he just turns on and off? Abstinence has its rewards, sometimes it is a necessity, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t very difficult at times. When one is tempted, encouragement works better than recriminations that one ought not be tempted in the first place!

NFP can strengthen a marriage, but the devil can use nearly anything as an opportunity. It is very important that couples, as Steven Covey likes to put it work to “keep the main thing the main thing.” It is important that couples not let a responsibility to avoid conception become a wedge that comes between them.

 

[bonvivantHermit]

EasterJoy - I have read may of your posts and agreed with many so I am surprised you cannot concede me any points, but instead pick on my use of a phrase ( used to describe dreamcnally’s definition).

 

[GraceDK]

for information:

theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html

Statements that is coming from catholic lay persons about NFP:

“ NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”

“ Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”

“ Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”

“ Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”

“ The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”

" The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children."

Some traditionalists and sedevacantists say:

" The natural family regulation is a birth control sinful."
" The Natural Family Planning is diabolical [Evil]."

I could give you a list of things said by lay Catholics which were much more prudent, humble and wise than those statements which frankly just made me cringe… for some reason I don’t think you are a mother, and certainly not a person with small children about you every hour of your day.
In case you posted those comments because you agree with them, as I suspect, I suppose you can be likened to the pharisees who placed burdens and burdens on people, which they wouldn’t get near to themselves

 

[thewanderer]

I could give you a list of things said by lay Catholics which were much more prudent, humble and wise than those statements which frankly just made me cringe… for some reason I don’t think you are a mother, and certainly not a person with small children about you every hour of your day.
In case you posted those comments because you agree with them, as I suspect, I suppose you can be likened to the pharisees who placed burdens and burdens on people, which they wouldn’t get near to themselves

I’m pretty sure fpt does not agree with these! Just look at some of his other posts and threads.

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy - I have read may of your posts and agreed with many so I am surprised you cannot concede me any points, but instead pick on my use of a phrase ( used to describe dreamcnally’s definition).

I conceded your point that the marital obligation was not “on demand.” I also did not mean to single you out. I just do not like it when those who find abstinence difficult and frustrating are described as if their desire for their own spouses ought to be chalked up to lust.

It’s not as if it would be some ideal for spouses to be able extinguish all physical desire for each other. I think we can all agree that is not what the vocation of marriage requires. Neither is it realistic for a person to simply call up his or her desire only when those desires can be met, particularly not when the period of abstinence must be precisely at that time when many women find their desire to be at its peak.

When we or our spouse has desires that cannot be met at a particular time because of other compelling responsibilities, the least we can do is offer some mutual encouragement and empathy that this does truly require a sacrifice. That’s really all I’m saying. That, and that yes, it is only fair to re-examine how compelling the reason is for asking for the sacrifice. There gets to be a point where the sacrifice is counter-productive, because it is felt by one party or the other that the reasons behind the sacrifice are not truly so compelling as to be necessary. Again, at that point there needs to be communication and mutual decision-making, not mutual recriminations.

 

[dremcnally]

There gets to be a point where the sacrifice is counter-productive,** because it is felt by one party or the other that the **]reasons behind the sacrifice are not truly so compelling as to be necessary

. Again, at that point there needs to be communication and mutual decision-making, not mutual recriminations.

This is key to NFP. This aspect of NFP needs to be understood before couples agree to use NFP.

 

[etmom]

This is key to NFP. This aspect of NFP needs to be understood before couples agree to use NFP.

Nor can 1 spouse force their desire for a possible pregnancy on the other. The physical risks involved with pregnancy at almost 50 are not trivial either.

 

[EasterJoy]

Nor can 1 spouse force their desire for a possible pregnancy on the other. The physical risks involved with pregnancy at almost 50 are not trivial either.

If she actually becomes pregnant, yes, the chances are much higher…although it is important to remember that most research on pregnancies in women over 50 are done using women who achieved pregnancy via IVF. There just aren’t enough women getting pregnant over 50 to do the research, especially since it is estimated that 60% of babies conceived by women over 40 are aborted.

If you include the far lower chance that a woman over 50 will become pregnant at all, her chances of having a risky pregnancy are probably lower than at any time since she was in her early 30s, when her chances of complications were lower but her chances of actually getting pregnant were a* lot* higher.

The default in a Catholic marriage is to be open to life; that is what we promise when we marry. Having said that, you are right: it is wrong for one spouse to coerce the other into trying to become pregnant. The gift of life is meant to be a gift freely given by both parents.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is key to NFP. This aspect of NFP needs to be understood before couples agree to use NFP.

Yes. As in everything else, the main imperative is that both spouses make an effort to “be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Eph. 5:21)

 

[fpt]

I could give you a list of things said by lay Catholics which were much more prudent, humble and wise than those statements which frankly just made me cringe… for some reason I don’t think you are a mother, and certainly not a person with small children about you every hour of your day.
In case you posted those comments because you agree with them, as I suspect, I suppose you can be likened to the pharisees who placed burdens and burdens on people, which they wouldn’t get near to themselves

I am sorry if my thought is not quite clear, but for me after many studies of catholic teaching, I can say that:

The theoretical providentialism is wrong and is against the real and true teaching of the catholic church.

I am not okay with these statements , of course. These thoughts are very dangerous, puritanist, so puritan, so “strange”, like catholic lay person, I can not and do not have to be okay with.

 

[fpt]

I’m pretty sure fpt does not agree with these! Just look at some of his other posts and threads.

Thank you to follow my threads and my messages. I am trying to be coherent; that is difficult.

 

[dremcnally]

I could give you a list of things said by lay Catholics which were much more prudent, humble and wise than those statements which frankly just made me cringe… for some reason I don’t think you are a mother, and certainly not a person with small children about you every hour of your day.
In case you posted those comments because you agree with them, as I suspect, I suppose you can be likened to the pharisees who placed burdens and burdens on people, which they wouldn’t get near to themselves

It is possible that Humanae Vitae could be flawed (not saying it is)… you have to use reason. Artificial Contraception is always evil, no doubt… but NFP can be used for the wrong reasons… these statements should make you think.

 

[fpt]

It is possible that Humanae Vitae could be flawed (not saying it is)… you have to use reason. Artificial Contraception is always evil, no doubt… but NFP can be used for the wrong reasons… these statements should make you think.

The dangerous philosophies (ideologies, mentalities) and the wrong religious thoughts (heresies) are:

The sexo-conjugal pharisaism;
The sexo-conjugal moralism;
The sexo-conjugal scrupulism;
The sexo-conjugal rigorism;
The sexo-conjugal legalism;
The sexo-conjugal manicheism;
The sexo-conjugal catharism;
The sexo-conjugal encratism;
The sexo-conjugal fideism;
The sexo-conjugal malthusianism;
The sexo-conjugal theoretical providentialism;
The sexo-conjugal anglicanism;
The sexo-conjugal protestantism;
The sexo-conjugal lutheranism;
The sexo-conjugal evangelism;
The sexo-conjugal mornomism;
The sexo-conjugal puritanism, the sexo-conjugal neopuritanism;
The sexo-conjugal victorianism, the sexo-conjugal neovictorianism;
The sexo-conjugal jansenism, the sexo-conjugal neojansenism;
The sexo-conjugal prudism;
The sexo-conjugal culturalism;
The sexo-conjugal masculism;
The sexo-conjugal feminism;
The sexo-conjugal genderism;
The sexo-conjugal sexism;
The sexo-conjugal primary anti personalism;
The sexo-conjugal clanism, the sexo-conjugal sectarianism;
The sexo-conjugal matriarchalism;
The sexo-conjugal patriarchalism;
The sexo-conjugal absolute procreationism;
The sexo-conjugal quiverfullism;
The sexo-conjugal homosexualism;

Those are wrong doctrines and bad practices