Questions on Marriage/NFP etc

[anon1234567]

Oh.

Maybe Humanitae Vitae and Casti connubii both use the latin term ‘iustae causae’ but the way in which it is translated differs between the two.

 

[moon1234]

---

The Church leaves the decision/use of NFP – to the couple alone – without interference from anyone else. Therefore – no one should should be – “thinking up” situations – to try and paint a couples use of NFP as sinful.

Walking_home

I think you keep this topic very close to yourself and don’t discuss it with friends. That is fine. I have friends who feel the need to announce their intentions to groups of people. I even have been in lectures where people are praising NFP as the way to have sex without the worry of kids and that it is 99% successful. I have got up and walked out in the middle of said lectures as I find that attitude repugnant to the dignity of the family and marriage in general. It is not how I was raised and I did not see that attitude from anyone in previous generations of my family.

I also have to clarify that the second part of my previous post was from Pius XII address to midwives. It was in Italian and all the translations English I have seen use the terms grave reasons.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_home

I think you keep this topic very close to yourself and don’t discuss it with friends. That is fine. I have friends who feel the need to announce their intentions to groups of people. I even have been in lectures where people are praising NFP as the way to have sex without the worry of kids and that it is 99% successful. I have got up and walked out in the middle of said lectures as I find that attitude repugnant to the dignity of the family and marriage in general. It is not how I was raised and I did not see that attitude from anyone in previous generations of my family.

---

NFP – helps prevent the following error. Women treated as a commodity – “objects of production”. Whose “use” is to produced quantities of babies. And Frankly --“Traditionalism” itself is conducive – to just that type of mentality.

Although motherhood is a key element of women’s identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation.* In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms and are often accompanied by dangerous disrespect for women*****. The existence of the Christian vocation of virginity, radical with regard to both the Old Testament tradition and the demands made by many societies, is of the greatest importance in this regard.17 Virginity refutes any attempt to enclose women in mere biological destiny. Just as virginity receives from physical motherhood the insight that there is no Christian vocation except in the concrete gift of oneself to the other, so physical motherhood receives from virginity an insight into its fundamentally spiritual dimension: it is in not being content only to give physical life that the other truly comes into existence. This means that motherhood can find forms of full realization also where there is no physical procreation.18

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 2004, the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• Joseph Card. Ratzinger
  Prefect

• Angelo Amato, SDB
  Titular Archbishop of Sila
  Secretary

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

 

[moon1234]

---

NFP – helps prevent the following error. Women treated as a commodity – “objects of production”. Whose “use” is to produced quantities of babies. And Frankly --“Traditionalism” itself is conducive – to just that type of mentality.

You are seriously going to equate those who choose to welcome children into the world as having husbands who abuse their wives? WOW.

I think I will take what Pope Benedict the XVI said ““In today’s social context, a family made up of many children constitutes a witness of faith, courage and optimism,” he said.”
lifesitenews.com/news/pope-large-families-a-witness-to-faith-source-of-wealth-and-hope-to-nation/

or Pope Pius XII Address to Large Families:

“those most blessed by God and specially loved and prized by the Church as its most precious treasures,” who “accept joyfully and gratefully these priceless gifts of God - their children - in whatever number it may please Him to send them,” and who testify to “the physical and moral health of a Christian people; a living faith in God and trust in His Providence; and the fruitful and joyful holiness of Catholic marriage.”

Or Pope Pius XII’s Address Dear Newlyweds:

“It will depend on you whether those innocent souls, whom the embrace of Infinite Love desires to call from nothing, shall come to the threshold of life, in order to make of them one day His chosen companions in the eternal happiness of Heaven. But alas! If they remain merely magnificent images in the mind of God when they could have been rays of sun that illuminate every man who comes into this world (John 1:9), they will remain forever nothing but lights extinguished by the cowardice and selfishness of man!”

 

[Kelfa28]

You will also find that the “time off” for mom that she desires causes a great deal of mental anguish for a husband. If a decision is mutual and periodic then it is virtous, but many times it is not mutual and the husbands have told me they are “cut off.” To me that means the wife has made a unilateral decision and is not being open to life no fulfilling her marriage vow.

Sorry…but a women shouldn’t be required by the Church to continue to be pregnant just so her husband isn’t feeling anguished.

Pregnancy and nursing is hard work and there is zero reason for her to just keep getting pregnant to keep hubby happy in the bedroom.

That is seriously selfish on the husband’s part. He should absolutely respect his wife if she’s been continually pregnant and/or nursing for the entirety of their marriage and would like a break from it.

So a woman should just keep getting pregnant over and over and over again if she wishes not to?

My pregnancies aren’t life-threatening. But they are still difficult at times. I use NFP to space my babies and give my body time to heal before I even think about another one.

Hubby has never indicated that he feels “cut off” in the bedroom because I want a break. If he did…well, we’ll have to go back to the drawing board and have a serious sit down as to why I want a break. This is my body and not his.

I can’t imagine a husband insisting his wife continue to get pregnant just so he can meet his satisfaction level in bed. That has one word tied to it: selfish.

Sorry…this is a very, very fine line to walk. It’s an opinion and nothing else.

I stated in my post…it is for the couple to discern. Husbands included. This is between them and God.

It isn’t your place to make judgements on other’s family size…especially if they are actually using NFP and following Church doctrine.

 

[Walking_Home]

**

Walking_Home:

NFP – helps prevent the following error. Women treated as a commodity – “objects of production”. Whose “use” is to produced quantities of babies. And Frankly --“Traditionalism” itself is conducive – to just that type of mentality.

**

You are seriously going to equate those who choose to welcome children into the world as having husbands who abuse their wives? WOW.

I think I will take what Pope Benedict the XVI said ““In today’s social context, a family made up of many children constitutes a witness of faith, courage and optimism,” he said.”
lifesitenews.com/news/pope-large-families-a-witness-to-faith-source-of-wealth-and-hope-to-nation/

or Pope Pius XII Address to Large Families:

“those most blessed by God and specially loved and prized by the Church as its most precious treasures,” who “accept joyfully and gratefully these priceless gifts of God - their children - in whatever number it may please Him to send them,” and who testify to “the physical and moral health of a Christian people; a living faith in God and trust in His Providence; and the fruitful and joyful holiness of Catholic marriage.”

Or Pope Pius XII’s Address Dear Newlyweds:

“It will depend on you whether those innocent souls, whom the embrace of Infinite Love desires to call from nothing, shall come to the threshold of life, in order to make of them one day His chosen companions in the eternal happiness of Heaven. But alas! If they remain merely magnificent images in the mind of God when they could have been rays of sun that illuminate every man who comes into this world (John 1:9), they will remain forever nothing but lights extinguished by the cowardice and selfishness of man!”

---

You have displayed – another element of using a wife as a commodity – that goes hand in hand with the quote from the CDF. She is treated as object for a man to use – for his own selfish sexual satisfaction. So Yes – viewing/treating a wife as a commodity/object – is an abuse.

And I will say again – “Traditionalism” is conducive to that mentality.

moon1234:

You will also find that the “time off” for mom that she desires causes a great deal of mental anguish for a husband.

 

[moon1234]

So then by this logic practicing NFP is anti-life. It is the direct use of man’s will to attempt to impose on God man’s will.

I have not met anyone in the “traditional” movement who has ever forced or used his wife to make babies. I personally believe it is conceit or guilt or some other factor that those who have chosen to limit their family size use to try and denigrate those who are open to life. Why else would someone go out of their way to paint only members of a certain group with a stigma?

NFP is neither required no should those who choose NOT to use it be seen as irresponsible or somehow less intelligent. Choosing to be open to children and forgo luxuries should never be a reason to label and denigrate.

 

[moon1234]

Sorry…but a women shouldn’t be required by the Church to continue to be pregnant just so her husband isn’t feeling anguished.

Pregnancy and nursing is hard work and there is zero reason for her to just keep getting pregnant to keep hubby happy in the bedroom.

That is seriously selfish on the husband’s part. He should absolutely respect his wife if she’s been continually pregnant and/or nursing for the entirety of their marriage and would like a break from it.

So a woman should just keep getting pregnant over and over and over again if she wishes not to?

My pregnancies aren’t life-threatening. But they are still difficult at times. I use NFP to space my babies and give my body time to heal before I even think about another one.

Hubby has never indicated that he feels “cut off” in the bedroom because I want a break. If he did…well, we’ll have to go back to the drawing board and have a serious sit down as to why I want a break. This is my body and not his.

I can’t imagine a husband insisting his wife continue to get pregnant just so he can meet his satisfaction level in bed. That has one word tied to it: selfish.

Sorry…this is a very, very fine line to walk. It’s an opinion and nothing else.

I stated in my post…it is for the couple to discern. Husbands included. This is between them and God.

It isn’t your place to make judgements on other’s family size…especially if they are actually using NFP and following Church doctrine.

Actually when you are married you loose control over your own body, unless you choose to reject that part of Church teaching. When you marry you give your spouse control of your body. Marriage should never be entered into without SERIOUS discussion with a spouse to be regarding these issues.

This is not to say that a spouse can abuse the others body, but to somehow equate the raising and care of children as a disease only plays into the mentality of modern feminism that a woman’s body is hers to do with as she pleases. Does that sound like any other group that declares a woman’s body is hers and she can make her own decisions?

It is good that you have spoken with your husband and are both on the same page. You are in the minority. Many husbands will NOT admit to their wives that they feel rejected or lonely when their spouse rejects their request to be intimate. I tell you think AS a husband and how this rejection can affect a man’s psyche. When NFP becomes an ultimatum or a coerced choice instead of a mutual decision, then it is no longer following Church doctrine. If your husband comes to you during a fertile time and requests intimacy is it legitimate to reject him provided there is no medical or serious reason to do so? If you state it is not a safe period and he persists, do you still say no? NFP must be a mutual decision.

As I said MANY times already, my ability to criticize people using NFP only enters into the picture when said people decide to OPEN THEIR MOUTHS and talk about what they are doing. If you don’t want your use of NFP to be analyzed or criticized by others, then don’t talk about it with other lay people.

 

[thewanderer]

Actually when you are married you loose control over your own body, unless you choose to reject that part of Church teaching. When you marry you give your spouse control of your body. Marriage should never be entered into without SERIOUS discussion with a spouse to be regarding these issues.

This is not to say that a spouse can abuse the others body, but to somehow equate the raising and care of children as a disease only plays into the mentality of modern feminism that a woman’s body is hers to do with as she pleases. Does that sound like any other group that declares a woman’s body is hers and she can make her own decisions?

It is good that you have spoken with your husband and are both on the same page. You are in the minority. Many husbands will NOT admit to their wives that they feel rejected or lonely when their spouse rejects their request to be intimate. I tell you think AS a husband and how this rejection can affect a man’s psyche. ** When NFP becomes an ultimatum or a coerced choice instead of a mutual decision, then it is no longer following Church doctrine.** ** If your husband comes to you during a fertile time and requests intimacy is it legitimate to reject him provided there is no medical or serious reason to do so? If you state it is not a safe period and he persists, do you still say no? NFP must be a mutual decision. **

As I said MANY times already, my ability to criticize people using NFP only enters into the picture when said people decide to OPEN THEIR MOUTHS and talk about what they are doing. If you don’t want your use of NFP to be analyzed or criticized by others, then don’t talk about it with other lay people.

While it is true that you can’t practice NFP unilaterally, it is also wrong someone (whether husband or wife) to try to force or manipulate their spouse into having relations. It is not the job of the wife to disregard her needs and just “suck it up” for her husband, and vice versa. Obviously, to a certain extent, she has to give in and sacrifice, but if doing so will be harmful to her whether physically, emotionally, or psychologically then it is no longer a clear-cut matter. It is just as important for the husband to sacrifice for his wife’s pleasure and comfort as it is for the wife to sacrifice for her husbands. Because of this it is wrong to imply that it is always the wife who is to blame when she fails to fulfill her husbands desires. And it is often the case that the husband may not realize how much his wife needs a break, how important it is for her to avoid becoming pregnant, perhaps some of the husbands you hear complaining about being “cut-off” are being cut off because the wife actually needs a break and they are just failing to man up and sacrifice for their wives’ needs. This is not a one way street.

 

[Corki]

While it is true that you can’t practice NFP unilaterally, it is also wrong someone (whether husband or wife) to try to force or manipulate their spouse into having relations.

But it is also wrong for one spouse to unilaterally force or manipulate their spouse into periodic abstinence.

 

[thewanderer]

But it is also wrong for one spouse to unilaterally force or manipulate their spouse into periodic abstinence.

Which is exactly what I said in the first part that you quoted.