Question about having sex when married

[Fidelia]

I was responding to a question posed by another poster, and said nothing about whether NFP ought to be used or not.

I recognize that. I was not questioning the relevance of your answer. I was pointing out for the sake of general information that whether or not you can have sex at a specific time you want to is not quite in line with the “spirit,” if you will, of NFP usage.

NFP is not “Catholic birth control;” it is an alternative to complete abstinence when pregnancy is being prudently postponed. How strictly/carefully the pregnancy needs to be postponed is a better criterion for how long you will abstain in a given cycle.

Sorry for any confusion. I was just trying to generally inform.

 

[Andre1000]

My wife and I have never used NFP (and don’t use ABC either).

What there is an other option? What is the alliterative to NFP and ABC? May you tell me how you control the number of children?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

What there is an other option? What is the alliterative to NFP and ABC? May you tell me how you control the number of children?

There is abstinence, and there are people who have infertility.

 

[Fidelia]

What there is an other option? What is the alliterative to NFP and ABC? May you tell me how you control the number of children?

ABC (artificial birth control) is not an option (on the basis of it being immoral). NFP (natural family planning) is a moral alternative to complete abstinence. It can be used to effectively space children.

There is more than one method of NFP. The main point is that the possibility of reproduction is never intentionally severed from the marital act. If you think it prudent to postpone pregnancy, you abstain during the part of the wife’s cycle when she is likely to conceive. A woman is not fertile all of her cycle, only when she is around ovulation.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

What there is an other option? What is the alliterative to NFP and ABC? May you tell me how you control the number of children?

We don’t use either, and we aren’t abstinent.

We may use NFP in the future, but we are a young couple and have not conceived yet. It’s been awhile, so we’re thinking about going to the doctor to see what’s up.

In the mean time, no method of “prevention” is necessary.

 

[twoangels]

I’m 24 and currently have a boyfriend that I’m head over heels for and can definitely see a future with. I recently learned that birth control of ANY kind is a mortal sin because it interrupts God’s design. When I reflected on this law, I was seriously floored because I’ve always grown up thinking that once I marry, I can have as much guilt-free sex as I want with my husband because we’d have been married in the eyes of the Lord. BUT after having learned that birth control is a sin and sex is ONLY meant for procreation, I have to honestly say im floored. I’ve always wanted to only have 2 or 3 children, so what I’m gathering from this law is that I can only have sex with my husband a handful of times in our life together unless I’m ready to face the consequences of potentially becoming like the “18 kids and counting” family??? I’m very confused, please help!

Sex is not only for procreation. It has a procreative purpose though and rejecting that function is disordered. While responsible parenthood can lead us to space and limit our family sizes prudently, we have to caution ourselves from seeing children as either commodities or burdens. They are gifts. Sex is an opening ofthe hands. We must be submissive to either receiving or not receiving. We cannot demand and stubbornly insist through invetro fertilization and other unnatural methods, and we cannot outrightenly refuse by lining up defenses around our hands to make sure God doesn’t dare give us one of our blessings. What we can do is close our hands for periods of time when God is most likely to give us children. We know when to do this by becoming aware of our fertility cycles. That being the case though, we need to acknowledge that any times our hands our open, we must have an attitude of “God’s will be done.” Moreover, we must also understand the damage done to our marriage if we close our hands for selfish reasons.

The large Catholic families I know tend to have 6 to 8 children. I got married closing in on my 30’s, so my husband and I are guessing we’ll have around four. So while these are larger than the typical American family, its still not the Duggars.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m 24 and currently have a boyfriend that I’m head over heels for and can definitely see a future with. I recently learned that birth control of ANY kind is a mortal sin because it interrupts God’s design. When I reflected on this law, I was seriously floored because I’ve always grown up thinking that once I marry, I can have as much guilt-free sex as I want with my husband because we’d have been married in the eyes of the Lord. BUT after having learned that birth control is a sin and sex is ONLY meant for procreation, I have to honestly say im floored. I’ve always wanted to only have 2 or 3 children, so what I’m gathering from this law is that I can only have sex with my husband a handful of times in our life together unless I’m ready to face the consequences of potentially becoming like the “18 kids and counting” family??? I’m very confused, please help!

Under Catholic doctrine being married is* just* the 1st step in having good Godly sex.

You also can’t:

1. Use any kind of birth control.
2. Have any kind of sex that cannot result in a pregnancy (so no oral sex, anal sex, etc.).

And that’s just the start…
Married Catholics are also supposed to have sex without ever experiencing Lust before, during, or after sex. So its not just the sexual act, but also how you think about it that’s supposed to be pure.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Your statement that the Church is against all kinds of birth control is very wrong. The Church is against any type of birth control EXCEPT nfp.

And no, sex is not just for procreation and neither does the Church teach this.

Not anymore at least.
But I know older Catholics who were taught this.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Thank y’all for these great answers! I honestly had never heard NFP and I will definitely look more into it. I’m still slightly confused though after having read about birth control on the tracts page. It read: But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.*

This is where I got the idea that sex is only meant for procreation. Maybe I’m just interpreting this wrong…

Its complicated frankly.
The Church has never expected everyone to be celibate, but its often exalted celibacy in way that seems to demean sexual relations (even between husband and wife).

In the modern era, the Church claims that sex is good, and that is why sacrificing it for the sake of God (as priests and nuns are supposed to) is so impressive.
However, many Church Fathers and saints have spoken about sex as though it were inherently bad, and the Church has never really pushed the idea that sex is inherently good until modern times.

 

[sainthumbert]

AnnG06:

Read the “Address to Large Families” given by Pius XII in 1958 and you may rethink your desire to only have 2 or 3 children and not 18.

Here is a link: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5370

Be warned, you might cry when you read it. I did and I am a man.

We all need a plan to be in constant service to the Lord. Those who have large families (and those who want them but must suffer the constant sorrow of not being able) constantly serve the Lord. Raising children isn’t easy. My question would be, what are the plans of service for those who intend to only have a couple children? Are the plans for only a couple children so that they have time to serve the poor, the sick, the imprisoned or so that they can have a great career, see the world, and not be burdened with the raising of children?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AnnG06:

**Read the “Address to Large Families” given by Pius XII in 1958 and you may rethink your desire to only have 2 or 3 children and not 18. **

Here is a link: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5370

Be warned, you might cry when you read it. I did and I am a man.

We all need a plan to be in constant service to the Lord. Those who have large families (and those who want them but must suffer the constant sorrow of not being able) constantly serve the Lord. Raising children isn’t easy. My question would be, what are the plans of service for those who intend to only have a couple children? Are the plans for only a couple children so that they have time to serve the poor, the sick, the imprisoned or so that they can have a great career, see the world, and not be burdened with the raising of children?

I read it.

I have to admit it paints a rather idealized and unrealistic portrait of large families (and coming from a large family myself, I have some idea of what the reality is).

Moreover, I am always suspicious when people call for sacrifices that they will never be called upon to make themselves. As a celibate priest it is very easy for a Pope to say married couples should have large families, because he would never be asked to change his own behavior based on that.

But Pius XII had very pragmatic reasons for saying:
All of these precious benefits will be more solid and permanent, more intense and more fruitful if the large family takes the supernatural spirit of the Gospel, which spiritualizes everything and makes it eternal, as its own particular guiding rule and basis. Experience shows that in these cases, God often goes beyond the ordinary gifts of Providence, such as joy and peace, to bestow on it a special call — a vocation to the priesthood, to the religious life, to the highest sanctity.

With good reason, it has often been pointed out that large families have been in the forefront as the cradles of saints. We might cite, among others, the family of St. Louis, the King of France, made up of ten children, that of St. Catherine of Siena who came from a family of twenty-five, St. Robert Bellarmine from a family of twelve, and St. Pius X from a family of ten.

Every vocation is a secret of Providence; but these cases prove that a large number of children does not prevent parents from giving them an outstanding and perfect upbringing; and they show that the number does not work out to the disadvantage of their quality, with regard to either physical or spiritual values.

 

[sainthumbert]

Moreover, I am always suspicious when people call for sacrifices that they will never be called upon to make themselves. As a celibate priest it is very easy for a Pope to say married couples should have large families, because he would never be asked to change his own behavior based on that.

On the contrary AngryAtheist, it is very difficult to speak the truth when it is not popular. It is not easy for celibate priests to call people to a way of life that requires different sacrifices than they themselves encounter. Furthermore, Jesus was fully man (and fully God) but he never experienced marriage. Yet Jesus refused to allow divorce. You could say that it is easy for Jesus to say no divorce when he never had to endure the hardships that come along with being married (even to a real good spouse).

Back to the original poster, An06, she is doing good to explore and learn about these matters prior to her marriage. It would be awful for her to tell her future husband that she only wanted 2 or 3 children, and then after getting married, deciding that she wants to live out her vocation in a fuller manner. Her husband may not be interested in that.

 

[Corki]

I’m 24 and currently have a boyfriend that I’m head over heels for and can definitely see a future with. I recently learned that birth control of ANY kind is a mortal sin because it interrupts God’s design. When I reflected on this law, I was seriously floored because I’ve always grown up thinking that once I marry, I can have as much guilt-free sex as I want with my husband because we’d have been married in the eyes of the Lord. BUT after having learned that birth control is a sin and sex is ONLY meant for procreation, I have to honestly say im floored. I’ve always wanted to only have 2 or 3 children, so what I’m gathering from this law is that I can only have sex with my husband a handful of times in our life together unless I’m ready to face the consequences of potentially becoming like the “18 kids and counting” family??? I’m very confused, please help!

Try not to get caught up in the rhetoric but watch for precise terminology. In general, the Church teaches that one of the main purposes of families is to bring children into the world and to raise them to love God and others. ** In a perfect world**, no couple would have a reason to limit the number of children they welcome into their family. There would be no financial worries, no psychological stressors and no health complications. But we don’t live in a perfect world. So, it’s ok to space the birth of children and even to limt the ultimate size of your family. That’s birth control and the Church is ok with that as long as there is a good reason and it’s not done selfishly.

But, while birth control is ok, contraception and sterilization are not. That’s where the terminology can get tricky. People like to say they “take” birth control but really they “take” or “use” contraceptives in order to **achieve **birth control. You can acheive birth control without resorting to contraceptives. That’s where the whole discussion of NFP comes in.

 

[mamaslo]

I’m 24 and currently have a boyfriend that I’m head over heels for and can definitely see a future with. I recently learned that birth control of ANY kind is a mortal sin because it interrupts God’s design. When I reflected on this law, I was seriously floored because I’ve always grown up thinking that once I marry, I can have as much guilt-free sex as I want with my husband because we’d have been married in the eyes of the Lord. BUT after having learned that birth control is a sin and sex is ONLY meant for procreation, I have to honestly say im floored. I’ve always wanted to only have 2 or 3 children, so what I’m gathering from this law is that I can only have sex with my husband a handful of times in our life together unless I’m ready to face the consequences of potentially becoming like the “18 kids and counting” family??? I’m very confused, please help!

Another good book to read is “Love and Responsibility” by Karol Woytjola (Pope JP2)…it and the catechism explain the beauty of this act as a prayer. Keeping it prayerful allows God to come down as you two become one and reach up to Him. It’s not just recreation…on the other hand the Bible does say to pray without ceasing…not sure how that balances out physically but I do know prayer is supposed to be a conscious and continuous thing and this kind of embrace is an extension of prayer and it is symbolic as well.

 

[PaulinVA]

AnnG06:

Read the “Address to Large Families” given by Pius XII in 1958 and you may rethink your desire to only have 2 or 3 children and not 18.

Nope. I feel no regret in my four children.

We all need a plan to be in constant service to the Lord. Those who have large families (and those who want them but must suffer the constant sorrow of not being able) constantly serve the Lord. Raising children isn’t easy.

Giving people a free pass on other issues just because they pop out a bunch of kids reveals a bias to a personal point of view and not Church teaching.

My question would be, what are the plans of service for those who intend to only have a couple children? Are the plans for only a couple children so that they have time to serve the poor, the sick, the imprisoned or so that they can have a great career, see the world, and not be burdened with the raising of children?

We are on a journey towards holiness. The number of children one has is not an indicator of holiness.

Just a question - do you think that if the Catholics in the forties and fifties were given instruction on modern day NFP that they would have had as many children as they did?

 

[sainthumbert]

** In a perfect world**, no couple would have a reason to limit the number of children they welcome into their family. There would be no financial worries, no psychological stressors and no health complications. But we don’t live in a perfect world. So, it’s ok to space the birth of children and even to limt the ultimate size of your family.

We have to remember that AnnG06 is currently an unmarried woman who has “always wanted only 2 or 3” children. She is not a married woman who is encountering serious reasons for delaying children. I know Ann just started her quest for more information regarding this issue; she will find that going into a marriage stating that she only wants 2 or 3 children (or any specified limit of children) is not compatible with Church teaching.

 

[sainthumbert]

Nope. I feel no regret in my four children.

Giving people a free pass on other issues just because they pop out a bunch of kids reveals a bias to a personal point of view and not Church teaching.

We are on a journey towards holiness. The number of children one has is not an indicator of holiness.

Just a question - do you think that if the Catholics in the forties and fifties were given instruction on modern day NFP that they would have had as many children as they did?

Most people don’t have regret having children. I am glad to see you don’t either.

Woman A spends 1 hour changing her children’s diapers and tending to her sick child. Woman B spends 1/2 hour changing her child’s diaper and tending to her sick child. Woman B spends the next 1/2 hours watching television. Woman C spends 1/2 hour changing her child’s diaper and tending to her sick child. Woman C spends the next 1/2 hour praying for souls in purgatory. Woman A and C spent 1 hour in the service of God, right? Woman B spent 1/2 hour in the service of God, right?

I agree that the number of children you have is not an indicator of holiness. However, when some people fore go having additional children because they want to advance in their careers, take vacations, or just because they are lazy, it is to their spiritual detriment. When people choose to delay children for just reasons, there is nothing wrong with that.

I think less people in the 50’s would have had large families had they been instructed in NFP. The reason being the same as it is today. It is easier on the conscience to unjustly prevent pregnancy than it is to use something to facilitate that outcome. In other words, taking birth control pills or using physical barriers requires people to actually do something additional to prevent the pregnancy. You also have to have those items in your house. You have to go to the store to buy them. The feeling of guilt will be much greater.

 

[PaulinVA]

I agree that the number of children you have is not an indicator of holiness. However, when some people fore go having additional children because they want to advance in their careers, take vacations, or just because they are lazy, it is to their spiritual detriment.

Why? Are you saying that God or the Church requires us to have as many children as will almost take us over the edge but not quite?

I think less people in the 50’s would have had large families had they been instructed in NFP. The reason being the same as it is today. It is easier on the conscience to unjustly prevent pregnancy than it is to use something to facilitate that outcome. In other words, taking birth control pills or using physical barriers requires people to actually do something additional to prevent the pregnancy. …

You missed my point. There were many couples who longed for 2-4 children, but also wanted to continue to have relations, so they used the rhythm method, which was not very effective. You assume that the couples who had large families set out to have them. That is not necessarily the case.

 

[sainthumbert]

Why? Are you saying that God or the Church requires us to have as many children as will almost take us over the edge but not quite?

The answer is no because the Church does not require couples to engage in the marital act during each fertile period.

Paul: To summarize my beliefs:

1. The primary ends of marriage is the procreation and eduction of children.
2. Contraceptives can never licitly be used by Catholics.
3. NFP to delay pregnancy can only be used by Catholics when they have a just, serious, or grave reason for doing so.
4. It is up to the individual himself/herself to evaluate whether the reason is just, serious, or grave. God will judge whether the reason was just, serious, or grave.
5. The default for married Catholics who engage in the marital act is to not use NFP to delay pregnancy. God may or may not bless the couple with a child. If the couple has a reason that is just, serious, or grave, the couple may attempt to delay a pregnancy and still engage in the marital act by use of NFP.

These are Church teachings. I can cite them for you if necessary (most or all can be found in Humanae Vitae). Do you believe all of the above?

 

[PaulinVA]

The answer is no because the Church does not require couples to engage in the marital act during each fertile period.

Paul: To summarize my beliefs:

1. The primary ends of marriage is the procreation and eduction of children.
2. Contraceptives can never licitly be used by Catholics.
3. NFP to delay pregnancy can only be used by Catholics when they have a just, serious, or grave reason for doing so.
4. It is up to the individual himself/herself to evaluate whether the reason is just, serious, or grave. God will judge whether the reason was just, serious, or grave.
5. The default for married Catholics who engage in the marital act is to not use NFP to delay pregnancy. God may or may not bless the couple with a child. If the couple has a reason that is just, serious, or grave, the couple may attempt to delay a pregnancy and still engage in the marital act by use of NFP.

These are Church teachings. I can cite them for you if necessary (most or all can be found in Humanae Vitae). Do you believe all of the above?

I normally do not respond to posters who post similar “I believe this, it’s Church teaching, do you?” kind of questions. But, let me say this - I think that I adhere to all Church teachings.

Now, let me ask a question. Your post is not consistent. In the first sentence, you say "…Church does not require couples to engage in the marital act during each fertile period. " but, further down, at 5., you say “…default for married Catholics who engage in the marital act is to not use NFP” . Which is it? If the Church does not require relations during the fertile period, why is the default to not use NFP?

And, are you saying that it is Church teaching that God decides whether you with conceive or not, and that God operates outside of the biology He created?