Raising the level of discussion on NFP

[Usige]

Also, let’s stop all the talk about the hypothetical couples who use NFP so they can have their BMW and five ipads and fancy vacations. They don’t exist.

Just have to comment on this. My wife and I have taught marriage prep and NFP for 5 years and probably close to 200 couples. When we point to John Paul II’ audience when he says the decision “must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child” we are often asked if x, y or z is a selfish reason. Those examples are often used on these forums as a way to get people to think about it.

Many people who actively teach and promote NFP do see a number of people who are looking to meet the letter of the law without consideration to why the teaching exists. Do most go on to use contraception? Possibly, but just saying anyone that uses NFP is doing so for just reasons is not helping people who want to know why a teaching is in place. Often examples are over the top specifically to get people to closely look at their reasons. If they are asking then its because they are confused or in doubt. If you don’t like the examples I give then I am more than willing to get my weekends back while you teach my classes.

 

[Rico_S]

When we point to John Paul II’ audience when he says the decision “must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child” we are often asked if x, y or z is a selfish reason.

And how do you respond to those specific questions?

 

[Regina_Love]

NFP is a gift from God. It is packed with amazing information about our natural healthy fertility. It brings a wonderful spice to marriage! It is far superior to any contraception out there! It can bring about a heart conversion for couples. Choosing to follow God’s will is always a step toward Heaven.

 

[tominrichmond]

OK, I get it, when it comes to NFP everyone is perfectly aware of the Church’s teaching and no one needs to be reminded of the duty of fulfilling the primary end of marriage, procreation, and no one could possibly have been poorly catechized about the entire teaching on NFP, and no one would possibly be compromising the requirement for “grave reasons” for less than truly grave reasons.

Got it.

Meanwhile, just a reminder from Blessed Pius XII:

“Consequently to embrace the state of matrimony, to use continually the faculty proper to it, and in it alone, and on the other hand to withdraw always and deliberately, without a grave motive, from its primary duty, would be to sin against the very meaning of conjugal life”

---

"If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those [infertile] periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.”

---

“On married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.”

---

“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called ‘indications,’ may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”

I’m happy that everyone agrees with this teaching and that no one acts against it.

 

[Regina_Love]

When is a reason serious enough to avoid a pregnancy?

The Church teaches subsidiarity. The husband & wife decide each month, with God’s leading, when to try to conceive, or avoid. They alone know all the ins & outs of their situation. They alone know if they feel God is calling them to have another child. One or both will receive a prompting from God to try for another child. They will discuss it, and make a joint decission. It felt rather simple to us! I love that it develped in us the Charism of learning to hear God’s voice!

People can discuss it all day long, but their negative opinions have no authority to make something God has deemed good, a sinful act. It just noise.

Follow God’s calling to use NFP and be blessed!

 

[JackieMom]

Just have to comment on this. My wife and I have taught marriage prep and NFP for 5 years and probably close to 200 couples. When we point to John Paul II’ audience when he says the decision “must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child” we are often asked if x, y or z is a selfish reason. Those examples are often used on these forums as a way to get people to think about it.

Many people who actively teach and promote NFP do see a number of people who are looking to meet the letter of the law without consideration to why the teaching exists. Do most go on to use contraception? Possibly, but just saying anyone that uses NFP is doing so for just reasons is not helping people who want to know why a teaching is in place. Often examples are over the top specifically to get people to closely look at their reasons. If they are asking then its because they are confused or in doubt. If you don’t like the examples I give then I am more than willing to get my weekends back while you teach my classes.

But quite a few people conflate “prudent and cautious” with the term “grave” (and what they mean by “grave” is that the only excuse for using NFP is a life or death situation with emphasis on the death.)

As an example - my husband and I do not wish to have more than five kids (we have four now.) Why? Because we want our kids to go to Catholic school, take music lessons, play sports and we think it’s important for us to help with college, weddings, etc. We’d like to also save money for retirement so that we are not a burden on our kids or the government in our later years, and won’t have to worry about meeting our own needs. We like to take a fun vacation with the kids every couple of years. We feel like it’s important to have a safe and reliable vehicle and to live in a safe neighborhood where our kids have space to play. We’d like to eat out once in a while, donate to charity, have decent clothing and be prepared for an expensive emergency as much as we can be. None of those reasons are “grave” - they are not life and death dilemmas. But, we know that the more children we have, the more thin our resources are spread. We feel that we have prudently thought of our reasons to avoid, and that they are reasonable and based in our desire to have a good quality of life for our children and to be responsible with our finances. Many people would say we are selfish and that we should bear more and more kids even if it meant no private school, no college assistance, no wedding help, three or four kids to a bedroom, no retirement savings, beater van and no family vacations. Luckily, the Church is on our side, and I’m happy to ignore the Sanctiposters.

 

[PaulinVA]

Here are my rules for NFP discussions:

1. Serious/grave reasons are relative to the couple and can’t be evaluated by people on the internet.
2. I use the Sympto-Thermal method, but will not bash the other methods.
3. I rejoice when anyone attempts to use NFP instead of ABC
4. I try to sympathize with people who are struggling with NFP, but at the same time try to point out that abstaining will not kill you.

1. I try not to respond to snarky, sarcastic, or passive aggressive posts with snarkiness, sarcasm, or passive aggression, but try to treat people with respect and presume that I must be misunderstanding their snarkiness.
2. I try to realize that my experience is not the baseline from which all others are judged.
3. I try to learn from others’ experiences.
4. I avoid lists at all costs.

 

[Regina_Love]

This thread reminds me a little of an article I read, and I took this comment from that article:

Thank you!

 

[The_Bucket]

But quite a few people conflate “prudent and cautious” with the term “grave” (and what they mean by “grave” is that the only excuse for using NFP is a life or death situation with emphasis on the death.)

As an example - my husband and I do not wish to have more than five kids (we have four now.) Why? Because we want our kids to go to Catholic school, take music lessons, play sports and we think it’s important for us to help with college, weddings, etc. We’d like to also save money for retirement so that we are not a burden on our kids or the government in our later years, and won’t have to worry about meeting our own needs. We like to take a fun vacation with the kids every couple of years. We feel like it’s important to have a safe and reliable vehicle and to live in a safe neighborhood where our kids have space to play. We’d like to eat out once in a while, donate to charity, have decent clothing and be prepared for an expensive emergency as much as we can be. None of those reasons are “grave” - they are not life and death dilemmas. But, we know that the more children we have, the more thin our resources are spread. We feel that we have prudently thought of our reasons to avoid, and that they are reasonable and based in our desire to have a good quality of life for our children and to be responsible with our finances. Many people would say we are selfish and that we should bear more and more kids even if it meant no private school, no college assistance, no wedding help, three or four kids to a bedroom, no retirement savings, beater van and no family vacations. Luckily, the Church is on our side, and I’m happy to ignore the Sanctiposters.

And the key here is that if a sixth happened to come along you’d assuredly more than welcome him or her into your lives. You have a preference but if God’s preference is for something else, I have little doubt you’d embrace His preference. There’s nothing wrong with a preference and taking action based on those preferences. You want to give back to the community in ways other than simply having more and more kids. So what? This is also living generously and following the example of Christ.

Your actions speak louder than words in terms of remaining “open to life.” Anyone willing to take the hard but still navigable road that is NFP clearly demonstrates through their actions that they’re “open to life” and open to God’s will. So what if their minds and hearts aren’t totally bent to the will of God? That’s like saying we should all wake up every Sunday and be super-excited to go to Mass. Sometimes we are. Sometimes we just do it because we’re supposed to do it. There is no penalty for that.

…What do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, ‘Son, go work in my vineyard.’ He answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but he didn’t go. Which of the two did the will of his father?"

 

[BlueEyedLady]

This is just my impression, and I could be wrong, but it always seems to me that the people who say that abstinence is no big deal, or that a couple needs to focus on things other than sex, or that sex isn’t that important in the long run, or that if your marriage suffers from abstinence you have a serious problem loving and respecting each other for who you really are, etc are the people who are most likely to view sex primarily in terms of physical enjoyment. They strike me as the ones who don’t understand the real value of sex and how much it means to share that with the person you love.

 

[JackieMom]

This is just my impression, and I could be wrong, but it always seems to me that the people who say that abstinence is no big deal, or that a couple needs to focus on things other than sex, or that sex isn’t that important in the long run, or that if your marriage suffers from abstinence you have a serious problem loving and respecting each other for who you really are, etc are the people who are most likely to view sex primarily in terms of physical enjoyment. They strike me as the ones who don’t understand the real value of sex and how much it means to share that with the person you love.

They are often the ones who minimize the importance of sex as absolutely critical to the health of the married male’s psyche. Because, you know, men are just sex-crazed horndogs! I wish these people would read Dr. Laura’s “Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.” You don’t have to like her personally, but my husband says she is a million percent spot-on as to the real importance of sex to a man (and no, it’s not about his dirty urges.) Another great book is “For Women Only: What You Need to Know About the Inner Lives of Men.” both are excellent at explaining why a sex-free marriage can almost never really be healthy or happy, especially for a healthy male who loves his wife.

 

[Rico_S]

This is just my impression, and I could be wrong, but it always seems to me that the people who say that abstinence is no big deal, or that a couple needs to focus on things other than sex, or that sex isn’t that important in the long run, or that if your marriage suffers from abstinence you have a serious problem loving and respecting each other for who you really are, etc are the people who are most likely to view sex primarily in terms of physical enjoyment. They strike me as the ones who don’t understand the real value of sex and how much it means to share that with the person you love.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

 

[BlueEyedLady]

They are often the ones who minimize the importance of sex as absolutely critical to the health of the married male’s psyche. Because, you know, men are just sex-crazed horndogs! I wish these people would read Dr. Laura’s “Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.” You don’t have to like her personally, but my husband says she is a million percent spot-on as to the real importance of sex to a man (and no, it’s not about his dirty urges.) Another great book is “For Women Only: What You Need to Know About the Inner Lives of Men.” both are excellent at explaining why a sex-free marriage can almost never really be healthy or happy, especially for a healthy male who loves his wife.

I know that you were trying to agree with me but what you wrote makes me very sad. If the marriage is happy and healthy and the woman hasn’t been brainwashed her entire life to think that sex is something that men want and women do for them, their sex life should mean just as much to her as it does to him. And if he is a good, patient, and unselfish man, she should enjoy it just as much as he does physically too.

 

[JackieMom]

I know that you were trying to agree with me but what you wrote makes me very sad. If the marriage is happy and healthy and the woman hasn’t been brainwashed her entire life to think that sex is something that men want and women do for them, their sex life should mean just as much to her as it does to him. And if he is a good, patient, and unselfish man, she should enjoy it just as much as he does physically too.

I didn’t say that. It’s different for men and women, though. While I would be very, very sad if we could no longer have sex - I could get by and be fairly ok showing my love in other ways. But it would destroy my husband on a very deep level because so much of his confidence and sense of self is tied up in it. I’m confident regardless. I have no need to feel like a “stud” in bed - he does. What I said was that some people view this as men being “dirty pigs.” There is a fundamental difference in the meaning of sex for men and women. Both should and can value and enjoy it, but men primarily get painted as the dogs when they don’t want to give up.

It doesn’t mean less for a woman, but it’s different.

 

[RoseMary131]

They are often the ones who minimize the importance of sex as absolutely critical to the health of the married male’s psyche. Because, you know, men are just sex-crazed horndogs! I wish these people would read Dr. Laura’s “Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.” You don’t have to like her personally, but my husband says she is a million percent spot-on as to the real importance of sex to a man (and no, it’s not about his dirty urges.) Another great book is “For Women Only: What You Need to Know About the Inner Lives of Men.” both are excellent at explaining why a sex-free marriage can almost never really be healthy or happy, especially for a healthy male who loves his wife.

I don’t know anything about those books. However, God created our sexuality and our sexual intimacy between husband and wife to be good and holy for both the husband and wife. This intimacy often brings about new life. This intimacy is also designed for the bonding of the couple. Sexual love is not simply designed for **“a healthy male who loves his wife”. **Sexual intimacy is a gift from God for both the husband and wife. It is a beautiful gift of ourself to our spouse.

NFP can help us understand the working of our bodies and make a decision on the possiblitiy of bringing a new child into our family.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I didn’t say that. It’s different for men and women, though. While I would be very, very sad if we could no longer have sex - I could get by and be fairly ok showing my love in other ways. But it would destroy my husband on a very deep level because so much of his confidence and sense of self is tied up in it. I’m confident regardless. I have no need to feel like a “stud” in bed - he does. What I said was that some people view this as men being “dirty pigs.” There is a fundamental difference in the meaning of sex for men and women. Both should and can value and enjoy it, but men primarily get painted as the dogs when they don’t want to give up.

It doesn’t mean less for a woman, but it’s different.

I guess I’m more in line with your husband. I need to feel wanted, desired, loved, held close, everything. Due to medical issues my sex life has taken a huge hit lately. He’s extremely upset, but I’m heartbroken, and it’s my confidence that has been hurt.

 

[The_Bucket]

I didn’t say that. It’s different for men and women, though. While I would be very, very sad if we could no longer have sex - I could get by and be fairly ok showing my love in other ways. But it would destroy my husband on a very deep level because so much of his confidence and sense of self is tied up in it. I’m confident regardless. I have no need to feel like a “stud” in bed - he does. What I said was that some people view this as men being “dirty pigs.” There is a fundamental difference in the meaning of sex for men and women. Both should and can value and enjoy it, but men primarily get painted as the dogs when they don’t want to give up.

It doesn’t mean less for a woman, but it’s different.

Yeah I think you and BEL are just talking a bit cross-purposes here. It’s not that women enjoy sex less than men, it’s just that women generally don’t have same kind of attachment to their sexual nature as men do. Again, I don’t mean it’s less, I mean that it’s different.

As a husband myself, my primary thought when it comes to sex is about giving pleasure to my wife. No really, it’s true! And that makes sense when you think about it from a pure anatomical standpoint. The man gives and the wife receives. This does not place one above the other of course and the receiver reciprocates and gives in return.

I’m glad Jackie is pointing out that men are definitely treated unfairly in popular culture when it comes to sex, and few people realize that this unfairness also gives women short shrift too. The popular notion of a horndog husband and a wife who rolls her eyes and goes along with it so he’ll shut up (or worse, use sex as a weapon to get what she wants) is ridiculous and very hurtful to both men and women. It tells women that men only want women’s bodies and that women basically should see sex as a tool to get other things because hey, it’s not like they really enjoy it. Women that DO enjoy it are typically typecast in immoral roles. When was the last time that you saw a relationship on TV or in the movies between husband and wife where sexuality was properly displayed? Probably never.

 

[The_Bucket]

I guess I’m more in line with your husband. I need to feel wanted, desired, loved, held close, everything. Due to medical issues my sex life has taken a huge hit lately. He’s extremely upset, but I’m heartbroken, and it’s my confidence that has been hurt.

There’s always exceptions to the rule because the rule is not hard and fast. (No play on words intended given the subject matter, but still…)

That said, just look at the industry surrounding erectile dysfunction. It’s all about men getting a portion of their youth and virility back. While women I’m sure see their identities closely tied to their fertility, it’s really tough to overemphasize how important it is for men.

It’s basically central to what makes us… well… men. If we are not virile we’re not strong, we’re failing in our objective to satisfy our wives, heck, on a mystical level, we’re failing to stay connected to immortality through the procreative act.

Remember in the days of the Hebrews there was little talk of the afterlife. Men saw their connection to immortality and God through the creation of progeny and their legacies. That’s why sex is so desperately important and even temporary abstinence can be exceedingly difficult for those who have not subjected themselves fully to the will of God (and by the I mean basically all of us fallible creatures). It’s a taste of the eternal life while here on Earth. That connection to the eternal is the chief reason why sex is so easily abused. We all want pleasure, yeah, but most of all we all want love and love that lasts eternally.

 

[JackieMom]

As a husband myself, my primary thought when it comes to sex is about giving pleasure to my wife. No really, it’s true! And that makes sense when you think about it from a pure anatomical standpoint. The man gives and the wife receives. This does not place one above the other of course and the receiver reciprocates and gives in return.
.

I believe you! My husband’s goal in the bedroom is to knock my socks off - and mine is to get my socks knocked off That’s the way he likes it!

 

[mommamaree]

Bucket,
BEL is closer to the truth about female sexuality than you are, I am afraid. I read a lot of stereotypes and misconceptions in your last couple of posts here. No offense intended. I generally appreciate your contributions to threads, as well as admire your honesty. But I don’t want to perpetuate stereotypes that cage men and women in gender-based role playing. In a healthy woman in love, her ability to be loved and to give love physically in her marriage is every bit as important and vital to the core of her being and her identity as a person as it is for a man. Female sexual needs and expression is not an optional nice thing for a married woman in love. It can be that a destructive marriage relationship might make her withdraw, or societal brainwashing makes her believe she should not want what she really does want, or health/medical reasons might lower her libido, but these are the anomalies. A woman who desperately wants to make love to her husband (how often varies from person to person and is not as gender-related as stereotypes suggest) regularly and in a satisfying and loving fashion, and who would struggle with the idea of abstinence, IS actually the norm, despite the perpetual and exhausting stereotypes we are bombarded with today. Try reading the OT with an eye for female sexuality and see if it opens your eyes to how misguided our current notions on female sexuality are. Especially pay attention to the spoken words and actions of the wives of the OT patriarchs. It is very enlightening. Reading St. Paul’s exhortation to husbands and wives to not deprive each other, when read in the light of the realities attested to in the OT, becomes much more interesting and understandable.