Sadness over NFP misuse/misunderstanding

[Julianna]

This is terribly uncharitable, you don’t know that some of those couples may be trying to have another baby but can’t because of fertility issues. My mother always wanted a very large family, and she did have six (though with only 5 pregnancies), but she also lost 3 and had a difficult time getting pregnant. She was unable to carry a pregnancy to term after the birth of my youngest twin siblings at the age of 38. Or maybe they were like you and had to get a hysterectomy because of a serious medical condition and can not longer have children, regardless of their desire to have more.

Again, missed it totally. Of the many couples out of 300 or so walking out Mass with 2-3 children…what are the odds that over 50% of them are infertile or have medical issues? Even 20% is a stretch. I would start checking the water system in the town as an explanation.

My mother in law had 9. That is a large family. Six children are a large family. For those who can financially, emotionally and physically do that…great…they are blessed. You are correct, there are many reasons couples only have 2-3…and nowdays…the biggest reasons are “lack of health insurance”…“lack of steady financial income”…“lack of affordable housing”… I can believe that over 50% would site those reasons vs. health reasons and yes, even contraceptive use…which whether NFP or chemical is what keeps them “spacing” or “avoiding/abstinance”.

 

[Julianna]

Yes, but what does “obligated to not purposefully avoid” mean. Does it mean that if a wife knows she is fertile because it is the middle of the month that she must ask for relations or schedule it in. If her husband doesn’t know she is fertile is she required to tell him, even though he is not particularly interested at the moment.
Purpose could have different meanings, it could mean that she says “No sex because I am fertile,” but it could also mean that she doesn’t seek it out when she is fertile.

Well grounded reasons is a direct quote but “obligated to not purposefully avoid” is not.

In all my years …29 of them…I have “never ever” “scheduled” sex. Geez louise…

 

[momor]

Yes, but what does “obligated to not purposefully avoid” mean. Does it mean that if a wife knows she is fertile because it is the middle of the month that she must ask for relations or schedule it in. If her husband doesn’t know she is fertile is she required to tell him, even though he is not particularly interested at the moment.
Purpose could have different meanings, it could mean that she says “No sex because I am fertile,” but it could also mean that she doesn’t seek it out when she is fertile.

Well grounded reasons is a direct quote but “obligated to not purposefully avoid” is not.

I hate to speak any further about what Alexander meant but I will tell you what it means to me.

Obligated to not purposefully avoid means to me that if a woman knows she is fertile, and the couple does not have serious reason to be suing NFP, then the couple should not make a plan either together or individually to intentionally abstain during that time in order to avoid conception. If it happens that they don’t have sex in the normal course of events, that is not purposefully avoiding. There is also no obligation to get pregnant either. If the couple would otherwise not be intending or interested in having sex, they don’t have to make themselves have intercourse just because they know she is fertile.

This is why a couple’s intent is so important and why I say the overall pattern of the sex relationship matters. I don’t think one can say they are “procreative” and “open to the transmission of life” just because each sex act is unprotected by ABC, when each act is intentionally timed to be infertile. That would be hiding the true intent of one’s actions behind a technicality. It would be like saying to a friend that you’d be willing to get together, but you really want to avoid her so you go to a lot of trouble checking her whereabouts so you can make sure you never run into her. So when your paths never cross is it that you just were never in the same place at the same time? No. It’s because you were intentionally avoiding her.

I know it can get difficult to have knowledge about one’s fertility and not purposefully use that knowledge in some way, even sub-conciously. I think it is one of the risks of using NFP and why the Church wants it to be an exception for serious circumstances, not a common part of married life, e.g., we want our children spaced at least 2.5 years apart. When used in that way NFP becomes contraceptive.

 

[Rach620]

When a couple ONLY has sex on infertile days they are not being “procreative”, they are being contraceptive, the literal meaning being contrary to conception. How can you deny that NFP is contrary to achieving conception?

They are not procreating, but their sex still preserves both the unitive and procreative meanings. You are confusing these two things.

When we are talking about Church teaching regarding unitive and procreative, we are talking about sex. The Church’s teaching on the procreative purpose of sex is that it cannot be separated from the unitive purpose of sex; you cannot have one without the other. But what does the Church mean by “procreative purpose”? “Procreative purpose” does not mean “likely resulting in procreation”. It means “ordered to procreation”–spouses must behave in such a way that it must be possible for procreation to occur. The result of intercourse must be that sperm could fertilize an egg if an egg is present. Human beings have control over whether the sperm is present where it “should” be; we have no control over whether an egg is present.

I’m convinced that you are just using the term “contraceptive” to be inflammatory and to make a rhetorical point. Your “literal meaning” is not even correct:

contraception - birth control by the use of devices (diaphragm or intrauterine device or condom) or drugs or surgery
contraceptive - an agent or device intended to prevent conception
contraceptive - capable of preventing conception or impregnation; “contraceptive devices and medications”

Contraception REQUIRES A SEXUAL ACT TO TAKE PLACE. The only logical comparison of ABC and NFP is a contracepted sex act vs. abstaining from sex. So when using NFP, there is no sexual act! When there is a sexual act, there is nothing done to that act that is capable of preventing conception or impregnation.

When you have sex ONLY on infertile days you ARE NOT offering all of your God given fertility to your husband. In fact, your fertility is being withheld. It may be by mutual decision but it is being denied/withheld nonetheless. You are attempting to make sure that your egg released during any given cycle never comes into contact with your husband’s sperm. How is that offering all of your fertility?

Please, let’s not make this personal. We’re not talking about me; we’re talking about married couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy.

When a married couple has sex on an infertile day, they are indeed offering all of their God-given fertility to one another. ** You have to look at the act of sex, and not at the non-act of no sex. Is natural fertility being offered or withheld in the act of sex? Even for the avoiding NFP user, natural fertility is being totally offered to the other. A woman’s God-given fertility involves periodic infertility**. She is offering to her husband ALL of the natural, God-given fertility she herself has at that time. When having sex, she is withholding NOTHING.

The only time you could say her fertility is being “withheld” is in abstinence…but that is a non-issue, because mutually agreed-upon abstinence is acceptable according to Catholic teaching and we are under no divine mandate to “offer our fertility” to one another in every minute of every day. Where is the command from God that spouses are to try to conceive every month? This is what your argument hinges on; as it does not exist, your argument falls apart.

No they are not. If they were, than there would be nothing wrong with using NFP to avoid pregnancy for the entire marriage.

If the husband and wife are aware of the so-called fertile and infertile times, than they are obligated to not purposefully avoid the fertile times without well-grounded reasons to do so.

Where does the Church place this obligation on the sexual activity of married couples? Please cite the pertinent teaching documents.

 

[momor]

They are not procreating, but their sex still preserves both the unitive and procreative meanings. You are confusing these two things.

When we are talking about Church teaching regarding unitive and procreative, we are talking about sex. The Church’s teaching on the procreative purpose of sex is that it cannot be separated from the unitive purpose of sex; you cannot have one without the other. But what does the Church mean by “procreative purpose”? “Procreative purpose” does not mean “likely resulting in procreation”. It means “ordered to procreation”–spouses must behave in such a way that it must be possible for procreation to occur. The result of intercourse must be that sperm could fertilize an egg if an egg is present. Human beings have control over whether the sperm is present where it “should” be; we have no control over whether an egg is present.

I have already explained why I reject this definition of ordered to procreation.

I’m convinced that you are just using the term “contraceptive” to be inflammatory and to make a rhetorical point. Your “literal meaning” is not even correct:

You are the one who is incorrect. But I have seen throughout the entire NFP thread how words are defined in non-literal ways. Your definitions are limited to those which fit your purpose. Yours is by no means the literal definition - look at the etymology of the word:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary online
Main Entry: con·tra·cep·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌkän-trə-ˈsep-shən
Function: noun
Etymology: contra- + conception
Date: 1886
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation

Please note that the meaning has nothing to do with the “how” of it.
So, no I am not using it to be inflammatory - I am using it to clarify.

Contraception REQUIRES A SEXUAL ACT TO TAKE PLACE.

Technically, if you use the literal meaning of the word, a woman who is on the Pill or patch or who is sterilized is contracepting all of the time.

Please, let’s not make this personal. We’re not talking about me; we’re talking about married couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy.

Sorry if my reply seemed personal. It was meant in the sense of applying to NFP generally. It’s hard to examine the nuance of every word without taking hours to post.

When a married couple has sex on an infertile day, they are indeed offering all of their God-given fertility to one another. ** You have to look at the act of sex, and not at the non-act of no sex. Is natural fertility being offered or withheld in the act of sex? Even for the avoiding NFP user, natural fertility is being totally offered to the other. A woman’s God-given fertility involves periodic infertility**. She is offering to her husband ALL of the natural, God-given fertility she herself has at that time. When having sex, she is withholding NOTHING.

I think you are defining fertility too broadly here to include the entire monthly cycle. It is not logical to say she is offering her fertility to her husband on her non-fertile days when you know we are talking about NFP in the context of avoiding conception. No one is ever going to get pregnant on her non-fertile days and if that’s all she is sharing then it’s not her fertility by any logical definition. IMO this is a twisted kind of thinking that has come out of the NFP movement to justify routine NFP. It promotes an illogical biological assumption ( sperm + no egg + no ABC will still = fertile) and uses an inappropriately broad definition of fertility to obscure what is obviously going on and make NFP appear to fit theology. Surely no Catholic should believe that our theology is based on non-literal definitions of words and terminology and not based on reasoned and logical truths. Please see my post just prior to yours for my explanation.

The only time you could say her fertility is being “withheld” is in abstinence…but that is a non-issue, because mutually agreed-upon abstinence is acceptable according to Catholic teaching and we are under no divine mandate to “offer our fertility” to one another in every minute of every day. Where is the command from God that spouses are to try to conceive every month? This is what your argument hinges on; as it does not exist, your argument falls apart.

Where does the Church place this obligation on the sexual activity of married couples? Please cite the pertinent teaching documents.

It doesn’t. Already addressed in my previous post.

 

[Jennifer_J]

How about this…we often use the word contracpetion/contraception, but in rereading HV, I see that the term is not used. I wonder how often in encyclicals and official teachings whether this term is used?:

<<Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)>>

<<Recourse to Infertile Periods
16 snip
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. >>

I think we all use ‘contraceptive/contraception’ when we mean Unlawful Birthcontrol Methods (because there are LAWFUL birthcontrol methods!). I think we all know that when we say contraceptives–we are talking about those methods, such as the pill, patch, IUD, condom, and so on and so forth, whose entire purpose is to STOP conception. They have no other use. To say that just not having sex is contraceptive, then I’m contracepting right now. While words certainly do have meanings and we should be as precise as possible, sometimes words take on associations (like birth control, for instance) that blur the meaning. We need to be sure we are reading the Church’s documents very carefully for the meaning that was intended (which I think is why ‘contraception’ is probably not used very often, but I could be wrong). You may not like the definition of “ordered to procreation” but the Church must use those words for a reason. Ordered to Procreation/procreative–ordered to the begetting of offspring, it doesn’t mean FERTILE (it’s not even a synonym).

 

[former_Catholic]

I know it can get difficult to have knowledge about one’s fertility and not purposefully use that knowledge in some way, even sub-conciously. I think it is one of the risks of using NFP and why the Church wants it to be an exception for serious circumstances, not a common part of married life, e.g., we want our children spaced at least 2.5 years apart. When used in that way NFP becomes contraceptive.

Just how many children have you birthed and raised such that somehow you do not regard
parents wanting to space their children at least 2.5 years apart as a *serious *circumstance?
Do the math:

Birth of child: 0 day

• plus time for physical recovery of mother’s body from childbirth (best case): 2 months
• plus period of time for nursing the child: 1 year minimum
• plus period of time for the physical recovery of the mother’s body from nursing such that she regains the optimal physical and nutritional conditions to provide her next child optimal health and provide the best guarantee of her own successful pregnancy and recovery: 1 year
• plus a few months with BOTH parents completely free of illness, infection, vaccination residuals or medication of ANY kind in which to attempt pregnancy safely
• plus pregnancy: 9 months

It all adds up closer to 3 years than 2.5 that one would endeavor to space one’s children. They are all very serious reasons for using NFP to avoid unless you regard infant and maternal health and child raising as insignificant considerations.

Many people (health care workers, child educators, military) are required in the present day to have certain vaccinations by their profession. Vaccination residuals in either parent are an extremely serious consideration when it comes to conceiving children as they cause MAJOR birth defects (i.e.: goldenhar’s). Likewise any sort of chemical or toxic exposure of either parent is an extremely serious consideration…
and there is a lot of that going on these days…
take a look at the Gulf.
Parents have the most grave responsibility of all to attempt to give their children the best chance at health that they possibly can.

 

[former_Catholic]

No one is ever going to get pregnant on her non-fertile days and if that’s all she is sharing then it’s not her fertility by any logical definition.

Your “logical” argument qualifies as the joke of the day.

Non-fertile days can ONLY be determined with CERTAINTY after the fact has been established that one did NOT manage to achieve pregnancy on those particular days.
Up until that point, establishing the fertility or non-fertility of ANY day is an exercise in PROBABILITY that may be influenced and altered by many factors.
NFP is about joint communication and decision making and risk taking and shared responsibility. It is not the Church’s “answer to ABC” and plenty of other religions practice it and always have. NFP is the Church’s answer to dysfunctional Catholic marriages, lack of partnership in Catholic marriages, lack of shared responsibility in Catholic marriages, lack of joint responsibility for child raising in Catholic marriages, child abuse and neglect in Catholic marriages, and the incidence of alcoholism, wife beating, and prostitution/pornography addiction in Catholic marriages.

 

[Rach620]

I have already explained why I reject this definition of ordered to procreation.
…
You are the one who is incorrect. But I have seen throughout the entire NFP thread how words are defined in non-literal ways. Your definitions are limited to those which fit your purpose. Yours is by no means the literal definition - look at the etymology of the word:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary online
Main Entry: con·tra·cep·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌkän-trə-ˈsep-shən
Function: noun
Etymology: contra- + conception
Date: 1886
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation

Please note that the meaning has nothing to do with the “how” of it.
So, no I am not using it to be inflammatory - I am using it to clarify.

I thought we were debating the teachings of the Catholic Church. If we are debating the teachings of the Catholic Church, then we ought to examine HOW the Catholic Church defines her terms in this debate, not how momor “literally” understands the terms.

The Catholic Church is the only institution on God’s green earth that talks about the “unitive” and “procreative” meanings of sexual intercourse. How these meanings are understood BY THE CHURCH has been explained–ad nauseum–on this thread. And yet somehow you think you understand them better than the Church does.

This is a nonsensical debate. You can’t debate the teachings of the Church if you’re not attempting to use the Church’s vocabulary in the same way that the Church uses it.

Technically, if you use the literal meaning of the word, a woman who is on the Pill or patch or who is sterilized is contracepting all of the time.

Again, this is according to you and your convoluted moral reasoning/use of vocabulary. The Church teaches that you cannot be contracepting if you are not sexually active! What you just said here would mean that a teenage girl who is on the Pill to “regulate” her cycles is contracepting–and you can find NO teaching document of the Church that would agree with that assertion (see para. 15 of Humanae Vitae). The sin of contraception/ABC requires that the conjugal act take place…end of discussion.

The Church’s definition of contraceptives, drawn from Humanae Vitae:

“…every **action **which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible…” – CCC 2370

I think you are defining fertility too broadly here to include the entire monthly cycle.

Yep, it’s called a monthly fertility cycle, and it was designed by God to be naturally more fertile at certain times than at others. See Humanae Vitae para. 11.

It is not logical to say she is offering her fertility to her husband on her non-fertile days when you know we are talking about NFP in the context of avoiding conception.

She is offering her God-given fertility–fertility that waxes and wanes for a variety of reasons throughout the month. She is not “rendering” herself fertile or infertile–it just happens.

 

[Rach620]

No one is ever going to get pregnant on her non-fertile days and if that’s all she is sharing then it’s not her fertility by any logical definition.

This is an unrealistic categorical statement.

According to the Church, even IF a husband and wife only are having sex during the infertile period, the wife is still sharing all of her natural fertility and the procreative purpose of sex is not being frustrated. I’ve explained “natural fertility” plenty of times in this thread. A woman who is totally infertile and has sex with her husband is STILL offering him all of her NATURAL fertility–all of the fertility she can at that time.

Humanae Vitae, once again:

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. **The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result **of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered lawsof nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

IMO this is a twisted kind of thinking that has come out of the NFP movement to justify routine NFP. It promotes an illogical biological assumption ( sperm + no egg + no ABC will still = fertile) and uses an inappropriately broad definition of fertility to obscure what is obviously going on and make NFP appear to fit theology.

No one is trying to justify “routine NFP”–what we are justifying is the objective morality of NFP. How NFP is used to avoid or achieve pregnancy within the shared life of husband and wife is something that requires their discernment and prayer, so that they can determine whether they are to avoid or achieve pregnancy at a particular time.

This is not an “inappropriately broad definition of fertility…to make NFP appear to fit theology.” We have SHOWN YOU the theology–read the CCC, read Humanae Vitae. I have defined the procreative meaning of sex and justified recourse to the infertile period in no way differently than Paul VI did in HV. You are the one stretching theology to make it seem like NFP doesn’t fit. Unfortunately you cannot read the Church’s teaching with your own definitions of the words at stake; when you do, it causes this sort of confusion.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, **the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend **the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. - Humanae Vitae para. 16

Surely no Catholic should believe that our theology is based on non-literal definitions of words and terminology and not based on reasoned and logical truths. Please see my post just prior to yours for my explanation.

“Non-literal definitions”…? The Church defines her terms and uses them in her theology. They don’t always fit with Merriam-Webster, copyright 2010 .

I know it can get difficult to have knowledge about one’s fertility and not purposefully use that knowledge in some way, even sub-conciously. I think it is one of the risks of using NFP and why the Church wants it to be an exception for serious circumstances, not a common part of married life, e.g., we want our children spaced at least 2.5 years apart.

Why is it better NOT to have knowledge about one’s fertility and to purposefully use it? NFP not only promotes women’s health, it promotes intentionality and discernment on the part of spouses, who should be discerning each and every month whether they are being called by God to avoid or achieve pregnancy. The attitude that it is better to “do nothing” and to refuse to seek out this information–because it is dangerous?–has no grounding in Catholic teaching that I can see.

By analogy–What you’re saying is essentially that it’s better that we learn nothing about diet and nutrition–such as which foods can contribute to obesity or diabetes–and just eat whatever we want, whenever we want. To restrict our appetites is against God’s natural design.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So Catholics who use birth control are scum not trying to be holy…nice. This is precisely what Paul talked about, boasting in works. What a turnoff…Pharisaic “I’m following the rules! You’re not! I’m holy, heaven-bound…” self justification. sheesh

I’ll say what I always say about these threads.

Go pick on the Catholics who use Artificial Birth Control and leave the couples who are at least trying to be holy alone.

 

[peregrinator_it]

My game, my rules.

Well. Have just read the 3+ pages added to this thread since yesterday (darn real life, it interferes with my internet time …)

I have to say that no real discussion nor “dialogue” (as has been called for) can take place when one party in the conversation treats the conversation like his (her?) personal game. There can be no real thought or exchange of ideas if one party treats the discussion as joke or a contest in which the aim is to score points and not to understand.

Further, I think this thread shows that no real conversation about Church teaching can take place if we cannot agree on what the teaching actually says (even if we disagree with or are bothered by it.)

And certainly, lack of knowledge of or refusal to accept facts makes conversation impossible. (As an in this anecdote from Mark Shea. "Some years back, a friend of mine was leaving evening prayer at our local Dominican parish when he found himself confronted by an angry lady scowling at the Dominicans. The lady started muttering at him about the monstrous crimes of the Dominicans and how everybody was a blind sheep because they knew nothing about the medieval Church and the crimes it has committed. My friend asked, “What crimes do you mean?” She replied, “Why don’t you ask your Dominican friends about the 46 million people they killed in the Inquisition in the 14th century?”

My friend had nothing to say in reply to this. **The woman took that as confirmation of her crushing rhetorical blow. ** My friend was thinking, “That was roughly the entire population of Europe at the time. The Dominicans slaughtered all of Europe and then killed themselves???”")

momor:

I know it can get difficult to have knowledge about one’s fertility and not purposefully use that knowledge in some way, even sub-conciously. I think it is one of the risks of using NFP and why the Church wants it to be an exception for serious circumstances, not a common part of married life, e.g., we want our children spaced at least 2.5 years apart. When used in that way NFP becomes contraceptive.

I think this (above) is the essence of your argument. And it is based in neither Church teaching nor reasoning-- it is based on personal experience, which you refuse to accept from others.

momor:

I know it can get difficult to have knowledge about one’s fertility and not purposefully use that knowledge in some way, even sub-conciously.

How do you “know?” Are you married? Do you have children? Have you used NFP? This is mere anecdote.

But, if we’re sailing the seas of anecdote now, I will tell you that what got me so passionate in this discussion was my own experience.

I am the eldest of seven living children (my mother had two miscarriages- one for sure; I was very young at the time and memory is hazy- and one stillbirth in addition. That’s nine or ten children total.) My parents made very obvious material sacrifices in their welcoming of children- they did not own a house until I was out of high school and lived on (I don’t know how they did this!) less than $40,000 in the San Francisco area and my mother had serious health problems. My parents used NFP. They did not feel that it “failed them.” I am sure they did not find that it caused them to have a contraceptive mentality! (In fact, I only discovered that they did use NFP as an adult. I remember asking my mom if she agreed with the “providentialists” since, I assumed, based on the size of our family that she hadn’t “used” anything.)

Now opening up the discussion to anecdote means opening up one’s personal experience to the judgement of people who have no basis to judge. This is why I think discussion composed of dueling anecdotes are of little to no value. Yet, it seems this sort of discussion was what the OP wanted. I think a discussion (general) of prudence and generosity among those who are married and do have children would be of value, both to the participants and to the OP (in helping to inform him for future life.) But that is not this discussion.

 

[momor]

Quote:
Originally Posted by momor
My game, my rules.

I have to say that no real discussion nor “dialogue” (as has been called for) can take place when one party in the conversation treats the conversation like his (her?) personal game. There can be no real thought or exchange of ideas if one party treats the discussion as joke or a contest in which the aim is to score points and not to understand.

You have edited down my statement and taken it completely out of context. I know exactly the level of discourse you are willing to engage in. No thanks.

 

[peregrinator_it]

You have edited down my statement and taken it completely out of context. I know exactly the level of discourse you are willing to engage in. No thanks.

Again, rude. You do not know me or my preferences. You may have gleaned something from my posts, but I am not sure if you have read them through.

I prefer a discussion where we work from existing Church documents, (understanding the terminology as used by Aquinas, JP II and others who have shaped it) actual science, and the words we have actually written ourselves, not anecdotes or assumptions.

 

[Jennifer_J]

You have edited down my statement and taken it completely out of context. I know exactly the level of discourse you are willing to engage in. No thanks.

Yeah, it was directed and me. I thought it was rude, too. I did choose to mostly ignore it.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Yeah, it was directed and me. I thought it was rude, too. I did choose to mostly ignore it.

I would ignore it, too, but I think the notion that one person’s opinions should define the conversation that has made this discussion less fruitful and more difficult than it might have been…

 

[Alexander_Smith]

You’re young honey child…just wait. You don’t live the life the poster just spoke about. Her other choice was death. Would like to pitch in and raise her 5 children?

Again…watch the 2-3 child walking out of Mass. It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out what is going on…whether it’s NFP or chemical.

The poster is a former Catholic…it’s in her post. They did what was best for their family…I understand that.

As for me, I wasn’t willing to “wait and see” if the fibroids grew back…and they do…become cancerous or wrap around my other organs and kill me. The hysterectomy decision was an easy one and my priest didn’t have a problem with it. I had two children under the age of 5 at the time. When you get a wife and “her life” is on the line if she becomes pregnant again…you may have different tune.

Let me be clear. I was not referring to you. You did not have the surgery to avoid pregnancy, but to keep your life safe from harm. At least that’s how I read it. Nothing wrong with that!

No need to make it a personal issue. Deliberate sterilization NOT for medical reasons of that person is objectively wrong. Whether the person is Muslim, or Catholic or Protestant. It’s wrong.

If we can’t even agree on this rather clear issue, we can hardly come to an agreement about NFP.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Yes, but what does “obligated to not purposefully avoid” mean. Does it mean that if a wife knows she is fertile because it is the middle of the month that she must ask for relations or schedule it in. If her husband doesn’t know she is fertile is she required to tell him, even though he is not particularly interested at the moment.
Purpose could have different meanings, it could mean that she says “No sex because I am fertile,” but it could also mean that she doesn’t seek it out when she is fertile.

Well grounded reasons is a direct quote but “obligated to not purposefully avoid” is not.

Stop skipping around the issue. Well-grounded reasons are required to purposefully avoid fertile “times”. So without those reasons, you are obligated to NOT purposefully avoid. In other words, without those reasons, you cannot purposefully avoid conception. Maybe I worded it badly, but I was not wrong.

Somebody mentioned St. Augustine. He writes in “De Moribus Manichaeorum”:
“In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife.”

 

[jilly4ski]

Stop skipping around the issue. Well-grounded reasons are required to purposefully avoid fertile “times”. So without those reasons, you are obligated to NOT purposefully avoid. In other words, without those reasons, you cannot purposefully avoid conception. Maybe I worded it badly, but I was not wrong.

Sigh, I and ever one else agrees that a couple needs “well-grounded”/serious/just/grave reasons to use NFP to avoid children. What we object to is the characterization that everyone who practices NFP is abusing or misunderstanding the teaching, or that NFP at any point of time is gravely disordered or immoral, when it is the couples intention not that ‘act’ which may be sinful. If a couple is avoiding for “selfish” reasons then their sin is that of selfishness (not the act of having marital relations during their infertile period or abstaining during the fertile period), which is completely different that the objectively immoral act of using of artificial birth control.

 

[vera_dicere]

I’m not married, so I don’t need a detailed understanding of NFP.

But from what I’ve read of it, it can seem quite complicated and a real tough go for some people.

So, I have to ask, if a couple were adverse to children, and saw NFP as a “catholic contraceptive”, seems like they’d be the kind of people who’d just say “to heck with it, break out the condoms”.

Everyone has their reasons for NFP, I dont’ think its right to openly judge all, or even the majority of its users as trying to avoid those “obnoxious byproducts of sex”. I do agree, however, that some reasons seem a little, well, unsubstantiated.