Pregnancy, Sex, and Sin Question

[1ke]

I simply noted what I see as a disparity with what the Church teaches and how they teach it on 2 separate issues related to sexuality, and feel that Church policy is clear and detailed on my issue, and much less so on what I believe is a much more dangerous and important one.

Thank you for clarifying, I see your perspective on this a bit more clearly now-- where you perceive the inconsistency to be and where you are coming from.

Perhaps my diocese is particularly liberal in it’s teachings, but I can say with certainty that what they are teaching our kids is that “periodic continence” is just fine for anyone who wants to avoid having more kids than they are comfortable with. If that’s not every bit as much a violation of “open to life” as a condom is, then 2+2 must not equal 4. Hopefully, my diocese is unique in how screwed up it is, but that’s another debate, I suppose.

Yes, that could be its own thread.

Anyway, I appreciate how nice everyone but you has been in this thread.

I am sorry if I offended you. I did not intend to do so.

 

[anruari]

I feel for you. I have been in the situation you are entering. From the second half of my wife’s second pregnancy we had to abstain for around a year as it was physically painful for my wife to engage in the marital act. Since then it has been very rare for us to re-consummate our marriage.

This is a time when you can remind each-other that you are not withholding intimacy due to unjust reasons, but focus on forms of intimacy which remind each-other how much you love each-other without winding each-other up and causing frustration.

There are lots of opportunities to kiss and carress each-other away from the bedroom. massages to be given and lots of other ways to express your affection and care for each-other. These can be very important for your relationship. I know I’ve been there.

On the topic of the Just use of NFP and it’s relationship to other forms of family planning:
The church has left a broad range of options for the individual couple to consider. She has deliberately not placed clear restrictions.
She has stated that there is no requirement to have a Large family and clearly stated that no person has the authority to require or expect a specific size of family.

An openness to Life must include due care and consideration for the ability to care for, educate and raise your existing and future children. this is explicitly stated as a suitable reason for using NFP. However it should not be done selfishly just so one can afford extra luxuries. These issues may not appear “Grave” on the surface but their long term consequences certainly can be. Ones conscience and motives do need to be examined in these grey areas.

Medical needs are of course a very clear case of grave reasons.

Please don’t let yourself feel bitter about the inconsistencies you perceive in the churches teaching on this matter: Some of it is indeed the sin of others, especially those with the duty to teach and instruct the faithful. Some of it is, however a discrepancy between various peoples illegitimate interpretations on the guidance that exists. Some of these people are very vocal.

Some people for example are vocal about proposing a “Providential” approach to family planning:
“I’ll not take any special measures, and will trust in the lord to provide for me”.
Provided this is not done in a foolhardy manner this may be a pious act. but it is not required of all the faithful and it should not be imposed on others who are not called by God to that approach.

Some people want to use the permitted methods of NFP to ensure they have a fashionable one or 2 child, 2 income family, with a big house, 2 cars and all the luxuries and lavish lifestyle they can afford. Assuming no unmentioned complications this is clearly a contraceptive attitude which is not an expression of Gods Virtues, and is probably gravely sinfull (Far be it from me to judge an individual case - I don’t know their circumstances)

Between these two lies an enormous range of grey areas, where the morality and decisions are very personal.

God made Man and Woman to have a desire for and benefit from sexual intercourse for unitive purposes. He made us able to enjoy and identify times when this can be engaged in.
Chemical and barrier methods of contraception are a objectively different issue from the missuse of NFP or a poorly educated conscience on the proper use of such.
ABC is an objective moral evil
Missuse of NFP may or may not be sinful depending on the individual circumstances and intentions of the people involved. It does not objectively constitute Grave Matter in and of itself. (Having an attitude of rejecting or being closed to participation in Gods Creation is a different matter, which may be a very gravely sinful state of mind - but that’s a wholly different question.)

 

[brickshouse]

Ever wonder why there is so much “grey area” in the Humanae Vitae? Do some research on Paul Vi and the Imposter Pope. He’s a huge source of issues in the church and part of how we ended up with so many actively homosexual priests and a liberal agenda in the Church. He said just enough in Humanae Vitae to undermine the true church without technically breaking papal infallability. Of course, that too is a whole other topic, but if you’re asking me take that document as reference, one should consider the source. It’s the classic slippery slope. Allow people to “marginally” circumvent God’s will, and the evil one will take care of the rest, and that’s what we’ve seen happen to our church since then. Now America is filled with pro choice nuns who don’t wear a habit.

 

[brickshouse]

Also, if you are a strong proponent of NFP, ask yourself this, when a non-Catholic tells you how wrong or crazy it is that the Catholic church prohibits birth control, do you tell them that we don’t believe in birth control, or do you tell them that we have NFP, and it’s just as good, and then ask yourself if you are just “in the world” or if you are trying to be “of the world”?

 

[nodito]

Ever wonder why there is so much “grey area” in the Humanae Vitae?

I’ve never wondered this. I don’t see any gray area in that encyclical.

Do some research on Paul Vi and the Imposter Pope. He’s a huge source of issues in the church and part of how we ended up with so many actively homosexual priests and a liberal agenda in the Church. He said just enough in Humanae Vitae to undermine the true church without technically breaking papal infallability.

Pope Paul VI was the vicar of Christ. He was legitimate successor to St. Peter, and he was my Father. Please don’t insult him.

A lot of people did not like what Humanae Vitae said, and there was a lot of confusion following the Second Vatican Council, but that does not negate the fact that the teachings promulgated in Humanae Vitae were and are authentic Catholic Church teachings that are still held today.

Also, if you are a strong proponent of NFP, ask yourself this, when a non-Catholic tells you how wrong or crazy it is that the Catholic church prohibits birth control, do you tell them that we don’t believe in birth control, or do you tell them that we have NFP, and it’s just as good, and then ask yourself if you are just “in the world” or if you are trying to be “of the world”?

I prefer to think of myself as a proponent of orthodox Catholic thought. If a non-Catholic were to present the objection that you mentioned, I’d say that the Church does not object to birth control but to contraception, and I’d try to explain the Church’s thought and the differences between the two much as I am trying to do with you.

 

[brickshouse]

Papal infallibility only extends to the doctrine, not to the Pope personally or with regard to policy, and if you can’t make that distinction, you must have to try really hard to ignore the truth about the many horrific and unjust things many Popes have overseen, approved of, and actively participated in. This kind of irrational defensiveness is exactly why people wrongly think Catholicism is full of defenders of evil and crackpots. You really stand by every action every Pope has ever done as positive and correct, even as recently as Pope Benedict’s knowledge of coverups for rapist priests? You don’t need to be delusional in order to accept Catholicism as God’s true religion, and you don’t need to approve of sin in order to love someone or refrain from judging them. Even Pope Paul VI, for all the evil he was victimized by and arguably participated in did not break Papal infallibility with regard to doctrine. That’s a specific protection of the Holy Spirit. What he did do was publish a document that allowed people to interpret it in a way that the evil one knew would work to his ends because of our inherent human weaknesses, and it’s worked well. People in this very thread have said that the qualification for “grave” concerns was left intentionally wide and gray, yet you don’t seem to be arguing with them. Read the info out there on Paul VI, look at the pictures, cross reference and fact check it to the best of your ability, and draw your own conclusions.Of particular interest are the exorcisms that were transcribed that speak very explicitly about him and the direction of the church in general, and they seem to be valid in terms of the people present and their participation in and standing in the exorcisms. The greatest evil we need to fight in inside our church, not outside it, and that should do nothing but convince people that we are the one true Church. Otherwise, why would the evil one bother with us so much? And the tip of the arrow being used against us is sexuality and openness to life, and NFP as an exception is fine, but as something to promote, it’s part of our downhill slide, something to make us feel a little more normal and comfortable. I’m sure John the Baptist was wishing he could have fit in a little better with the crowd when they were cutting his head off, but he knew what was at stake, and was a man and Saint about it, and we have been led to forget what is at stake and what our level of commitment needs to be by a hopefully temporarily sad and liberal time of the Church.

I was making 15k per year in the Air Force when we got pregnant with our first kid with no real prospects for future income. The American interpretation of NFP would have me believe that the concern to provide for a family on that income is a grave enough reason to avoid consummating my marriage. What a joke. Go to another country and see what actually looks like a “grave” reason.

 

[Xantippe]

I think this may be an opportunity for a reality check on your non-use of NFP. The question being, in your normal life, are you not abstaining because you are “open to life” or are you not abstaining because you find abstinence difficult? Maybe your non-use of NFP isn’t something to be proud of, but a sign of lack of self-control and possibly selfishness?

It’s possible that none of this is fair to you, but I have seen a number of stories on this forum that make me ask these questions. I think it is possible to misunderstand ones own motives.

This is a very difficult time and I wish you all the best in getting through it with grace.

If it helps you at all, I don’t think the abstinence is going to be at all difficult for your wife during the immediate post-partum period. (And while I’m thinking of it, don’t forget that the OB will probably discourage you from a repeat pregnancy too soon after this c-section. You’re either going to have to abstain entirely or do NFP, if you love your wife and your children.)

 

[1ke]

do you tell them that we don’t believe in birth control

This is not accurate.

First “believe” isn’t an accurate term, as this is not an article of faith. It is an application of the moral law.

Secondly, the Church teaches that contraception is immoral. “Birth control” and contraception may be used interchangeably but they are actually not the same thing. Spacing children has never been prohibited by the Church. Providentialism has never been taught by the Church. Periodic or complete abstinence has never been condemned by the Church.

What the Church does teach is that each time the couple chooses to be intimate, it must be a completed act of unaltered intercourse. The Church makes no demands on frequency of intercourse. But the Church does make demands of the couple if they are discerning a serious reason to space in conformity with the moral law-- as spelled out in HV.

 

[Xantippe]

“And the tip of the arrow being used against us is sexuality and openness to life, and NFP as an exception is fine, but as something to promote, it’s part of our downhill slide, something to make us feel a little more normal and comfortable.”

I’ve read all the posts now, and I think there’s a huge contradiction in the position you’re taking. You’re arguing simultaneously:

1. Abstinence is hard for you right now. (No doubt about it.)
2. NFP (AKA abstinence) is letting people off too easy.

Choose one.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Also, if you are a strong proponent of NFP, ask yourself this, when a non-Catholic tells you how wrong or crazy it is that the Catholic church prohibits birth control, do you tell them that we don’t believe in birth control, or do you tell them that we have NFP, and it’s just as good, and then ask yourself if you are just “in the world” or if you are trying to be “of the world”?

I explain why we believe birth control is sinful, and tell them if couples have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, they can either use NFP, or abstain completely until the problem is resolved. If they then ask what’s the difference, I explain about the difference between not having intercourse, and having intercourse but deliberately rendering it sterile, and if they say it’s not effective or they “don’t trust it”, I explained that used properly it can be just as effective as contraception, and if they’re truly afraid of getting pregnant (like they have a life threatening condition), they should trust birth control, either, and should abstain.

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[MomtoEandM]

Some people want to use the permitted methods of NFP to ensure they have a fashionable one or 2 child, 2 income family, with a big house, 2 cars and all the luxuries and lavish lifestyle they can afford. Assuming no unmentioned complications this is clearly a contraceptive attitude which is not an expression of Gods Virtues, and is probably gravely sinfull (Far be it from me to judge an individual case - I don’t know their circumstances)

/QUOTE]

Please don’t assume that anyone with one or two (or even no) children does it to be “fashionable.” I live pretty much the exact life you have described, but I have used NFP to conceive, not to avoid. We have fertility issues and feel EXTREMELY blessed to have the two miracles we do. We waited (perhaps impatiently at times) for eight years for the first one to arrive, and six more years passed before we were fortunate to have the second.

I suspect that people at my church must see my family and assume we use ABC or use NFP to avoid to have our lifestyle, but that is not the case at all.

 

[JackieMom]

You guys. This is an anti-NFP troll. He’s just trying to get out goats by disparaging Church doctrine.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I tend to think this person is trolling, also. ^^^^

He is so into Catholicism that he’s researching the “false Popehood” or whatever of Pope JP, and he’s practiced NFP for years, but he’s not into Catholicism enough to know what NFP is? I just don’t buy it.