Sadness over NFP misuse/misunderstanding

[Alexander_Smith]

What now??? I was all ready to chalk up your attitude to earnest over-zealousness, but this goes beyond. By your logic, couples who know they are infertile (women who have had hysterectomies, post-menopausal women, men status post hormone treatments for prostate cancer…) should not have marital relations or, for that matter, even marry in the first place if they know they are infertile. This is SO NOT CHURCH TEACHING! Please, educate yourself on this matter before you misrepresent what our faith asks of us.

Um not in the least. The Church does not allow marriage in the case of a physical inability to have sexual relations. There’s no issue if one or both is infertile. God can work miracles in such cases, and those things do happen.

The issue is when the couple have sexual relations ONLY on infertile days to avoid children altogether.

No, it was straight and to the point.

Ah, strawman! I actually am, in other posts, addressing your points. In this post, I addressed your points.

It’s really hard to not sound condescending in this situation - but it’s not a contest so there are no winners or losers or getting even. I give you chutzpa points for wading in here and taking on the married adults. As I said, it’s good you’re interested in this. But some of the things you have posted would sound preachy coming from me.

I’m sorry I can’t keep track of who’s who in this discussion. I didn’t realize you had posted previously.

 

[Onegin]

I disagree that you have to be a certain magic combination of age and experience to debate others on this issue. One can read up on the teachings of the Church and argue in favour of them - there’s no magical forumla for that.

To me when you say “yes, but you have to REALLY understand the teachings of the Church” seems to me to be arguing that the teachings of the Church are different in practice then they are on paper. With all due respect, this seems a bit subjective. If one can’t pick up a Catechism and understand what the Church teaches then something is wrong somewhere.

Additionally, there are new Priests dispensing advice on this matter who aren’t much older than Alexander. Arguably you would take advice from a Priest who only knows about this issue on paper. Double standard?

 

[Irish_Girl_68]

It was in fact badly worded. If a couple continues to engage in the martial act, they must continue to be open to life, no matter their age. Using NFP, and engaging in the act ONLY on infertile days permanently seems to be really stretching being “open to life.”

Thanks for posting this.

Note that this is about the regulation of births, not the complete cessation of births, as in, a couple that decides they don’t want anymore children, period.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Alexander, I have no intention of getting into an NFP tutorial here, but I truly think you misunderstand how it’s used within the context of a Catholic marriage. And that’s the part I think that’s irritating to other posters.

No one, not a single NFP using individual I know takes a casual, pro-sex, anti-child approach to NFP. Quite frankly, many of these folks (and I know this through their telling me, their situation didn’t apply to me) share how difficult it is at times to abstain. They do this prayerfully and with full recognition that another child isn’t in their family’s best interests. This requires that they take up their crosses, which they do. These are good people who want to remain faithful to God, His Church and its teachings.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I disagree that you have to be a certain magic combination of age and experience to debate others on this issue. One can read up on the teachings of the Church and argue in favour of them - there’s no magical forumla for that.

To me when you say “yes, but you have to REALLY understand the teachings of the Church” seems to me to be arguing that the teachings of the Church are different in practice then they are on paper. With all due respect, this seems a bit subjective. If one can’t pick up a Catechism and understand what the Church teaches then something is wrong somewhere.

Additionally, there are new Priests dispensing advice on this matter who aren’t much older than Alexander. Arguably you would take advice from a Priest who only knows about this issue on paper. Double standard?

The studies required for ordination are as intense as those neccessary for a Doctorate. And normally a Priest will have about 10 more years of life experience than an 18 year old.

 

[PaulinVA]

I disagree that you have to be a certain magic combination of age and experience to debate others on this issue. One can read up on the teachings of the Church and argue in favour of them - there’s no magical forumla for that.

It’s not the teaching that’s hard to understand - it’s the application to real life.

To me when you say “yes, but you have to REALLY understand the teachings of the Church” seems to me to be arguing that the teachings of the Church are different in practice then they are on paper. With all due respect, this seems a bit subjective. If one can’t pick up a Catechism and understand what the Church teaches then something is wrong somewhere.

No, I am definitely not a relativist. That would be wrong. I am saying that there is more to the application of Church teaching than just saying “Right, there you go. Go do it.” You have to apply it in specific circumstances. Experience helps.

Additionally, there are new Priests dispensing advice on this matter who aren’t much older than Alexander. Arguably you would take advice from a Priest who only knows about this issue on paper. Double standard?

First, a new priest would be considerably older. Second, after their first couple of months of hearing confession, their ears are pretty much scorched and they know more about human nature and life than I’ll ever experience!

 

[Charbeau]

It’s not the teaching that’s hard to understand - it’s the application to real life.

Yes, yes, yes! The OP is not only not married and has no children I am presuming he has never had sex and so it is very hard to understand the dynamic of a sexual partnership in a marriage, the bond that is created and needed and sustained through sexual intimacy. No one using NFP to space children is doing so lightly - it is darned hard to not be intimate with your spouse and to abstain at times.

Somewhere up thread he mentioned just abstaining entirely… ah, the voice of inexperience at work. So easy to say, completely impractical for most happy, loving married couples! I would say that a large part of the wisdom in the Church’s refusal to marry couples who are unable to be sexually intimate is that the unitive aspects of sex are so important for married couples that being married without being able to express that love physically would really make marriage almost unbearable. I’m sure there are couples who abstain totally, my hat is off to them.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I disagree that you have to be a certain magic combination of age and experience to debate others on this issue. One can read up on the teachings of the Church and argue in favour of them - there’s no magical forumla for that.

To me when you say “yes, but you have to REALLY understand the teachings of the Church” seems to me to be arguing that the teachings of the Church are different in practice then they are on paper. With all due respect, this seems a bit subjective. If one can’t pick up a Catechism and understand what the Church teaches then something is wrong somewhere.

Well, the teachings on NFP quite frankly ARE subjective!

We all can agree that the Church allows for the prayerful use of NFP in grave/serious/extreme/challenging situations… correct?

WHAT are those situations? Are they objectively defined by the Church? No, they’re not. We’re supposed to prayerfully make this decision as a couple under the guidance of the faith. These decisions are not easily made without EXPERIENCE.
I, for instance, cannot judge anyone else’s family situation… even though I have a family myself. So it’s not so much that a single 18-year old can’t make this judgment call… neither can another married couple make this judgment call for another married couple. They lack the true EXPERIENCE that that one, unique couple is going through.
It IS very subjective.

So yes, *theoretically *NFP can be abused.
But, in practice, under the experiences that these unique couples are going through… I can assure you (having been there myself) that it’s not an easy thing. These decisions cannot be made lightly.

 

[NoAvailableName]

One side is talking teachings of the Catholic Church.

The other side is talking life experience.

Typically, Catholics are against individualistic interpretation of morality. The Church, having studied the issues for some time, is supposed to be the expert. The topic of sex seems to be a notable exception. Of course if we were talking homosexual sex most would suddenly dump the importance of life experience and go back to deferring to the Church (sorry for the potential derailing of thread).

 

[Momofmyangels]

I think it is a wonderful goal but do not feel like you’ve failed later on if you decide you need to utilize NFP to space your children a bit down the road. :thumbsup:QUOTE]

I think this has been touched upon by a few posters in various NFP threads. Here we have a couple who isn’t using NFP and doesn’t plan to. And we have people encouraging them that it is OK, down the road to go ahead and use it. Why is this sooooooo encouraged and NOT not using it at all? It is supposed to be used in grave, serious situations. Why are we not encouraging and praising those who chose to not use NFP? Sure we say it is noble and all that, BUT, it is always ended with, don’t be afraid to use NFP though. Even at pre-cana classes…My husband and I got caught up in it as well. We were told we’ll want to take an NFP class because we WILL want to avoid pregnancies at some point(s) in our marriage. It never even entered our minds that we would want to avoid pregnancies in our marriage (why would you want to get married if that were the case) until it was presented that way in pre-cana. So…we took the class and after two classes we quit. It was just contrary to what marriage meant to us. I’ve recently been advised to use NFP for a “grave reason” and after 4 months, we quit again because it bothered our consciences immensely.

I am sure you meant the poster well, but it really does seem that NFP is overly encouraged and choosing to use nothing at all is not even discussed as an option.

 

[Em_in_FL]

One side is talking teachings of the Catholic Church.

The other side is talking life experience.

Typically, Catholics are against individualistic interpretation of morality. The Church, having studied the issues for some time, is supposed to be the expert. The topic of sex seems to be a notable exception. Of course if we were talking homosexual sex most would suddenly dump the importance of life experience and go back to deferring to the Church (sorry for the potential derailing of thread).

BOTH sides are talking about the Catholic Church. NFP is discussed in the Catechism.

 

[Em_in_FL]

One side is talking teachings of the Catholic Church.

The other side is talking life experience.

Typically, Catholics are against individualistic interpretation of morality. The Church, having studied the issues for some time, is supposed to be the expert. The topic of sex seems to be a notable exception. Of course if we were talking homosexual sex most would suddenly dump the importance of life experience and go back to deferring to the Church (sorry for the potential derailing of thread).

BOTH sides are talking about the Catholic Church. NFP is discussed in the Catechism.

FYI…
This is the section of the Catechism discussing NFP:

2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “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” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

 

[NoAvailableName]

BOTH sides are talking about the Catholic Church. NFP is discussed in the Catechism.

How about this:

If it is fair for married couples, based on their life situation/experience, to read into the Catechism meanings that are not readily apparent to the unmarried, is it also fair for homosexuals, based on their life situation/experience, to read meanings into the Catechism that are not readily apparent to heterosexuals?

I grant that a deeper understanding/appreciation for the teaching can be had by those who are married, but I suspect along with the OP that attitudes on this forum towards NFP go beyond that and that many are engaging in interpretations of convenience rather than faithfulness.

 

[Em_in_FL]

How about this:

If it is fair for married couples, based on their life situation/experience, to read into the Catechism meanings that are not readily apparent to the unmarried, is it also fair for homosexuals, based on their life situation/experience, to read meanings into the Catechism that are not readily apparent to heterosexuals?

I grant that a deeper understanding/appreciation for the teaching can be had by those who are married, but I suspect along with the OP that attitudes on this forum towards NFP go beyond that and that many are engaging in interpretations of convenience rather than faithfulness.

Wait a second…
I did not imply that EVERY teaching in the faith is subjective - not even close!.. but that the reasons one would use NFP is not objectively defined (therefore subjective to the unique circumstances of the couple).

Please see the actual teachings regarding NFP on the post I made above so that you can more clearly understand the teachings of the faith.

 

[NoAvailableName]

Emily,

Clearly the Catholic Church is concerned about the abuse of NFP. From what you posted:

“For just reasons” … “make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness” … “morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria”

I don’t think the Catechism would include all of that unless it was reasonably concerned about the abuse of NFP.

NFP can be used correctly, but it can also be abused, even though many on here don’t seem to think such abuse exists or is important enough to worry about in relation to ABC. Just read the thread. That is what people have been saying. In fact, you are one of them. You wrote, “NFP - does none of the above. It uses periodic abstinence under prayerful consideration. The statistical chances of it being used with this ‘contraceptive mentality’ are minuscule.” The writers of the Catechism are obviously more concerned about abuses of NFP than you are.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Emily,

Clearly the Catholic Church is concerned about the abuse of NFP. From what you posted:

“For just reasons” … “make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness” … “morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria”

I don’t think the Catechism would include all of that unless it was reasonably concerned about the abuse of NFP.

NFP can be used correctly, but it can also be abused, even though many on here don’t seem to think such abuse exists or is important enough to worry about in relation to ABC. Just read the thread. That is what people have been saying. In fact, you are one of them. You wrote, “NFP - does none of the above. It uses periodic abstinence under prayerful consideration. The statistical chances of it being used with this ‘contraceptive mentality’ are minuscule.” The writers of the Catechism are obviously more concerned about abuses of NFP than you are.

Not in the least! When I even mention the term NFP I assume we’re all looking at it in the full light of what the Catechism is saying.

 

[NoAvailableName]

Wait a second…
I did not imply that EVERY teaching in the faith is subjective - not even close!.. but that the reasons one would use NFP is not objectively defined (therefore subjective to the unique circumstances of the couple).

I’m sorry, but the Catechism clearly states that the use of NFP “must be determined by objective criteria”. Also, the “morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention…”

Are you arguing that the objective criteria are subjectively determined?

As another aside, this is why the Catholic boast about being able to infallibly interpret the Bible doesn’t carry much weight. Who can then infallibly interpret the Catechism? It isn’t clear to me how to determine what the “objective criteria” are.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Yes, yes, yes! The OP is not only not married and has no children I am presuming he has never had sex and so it is very hard to understand the dynamic of a sexual partnership in a marriage, the bond that is created and needed and sustained through sexual intimacy. No one using NFP to space children is doing so lightly - it is darned hard to not be intimate with your spouse and to abstain at times.

Somewhere up thread he mentioned just abstaining entirely… ah, the voice of inexperience at work. So easy to say, completely impractical for most happy, loving married couples! I would say that a large part of the wisdom in the Church’s refusal to marry couples who are unable to be sexually intimate is that the unitive aspects of sex are so important for married couples that being married without being able to express that love physically would really make marriage almost unbearable. I’m sure there are couples who abstain totally, my hat is off to them.

A happy loving couple should know when is an appropriate time for them to abstain. There’s a reason why the hormones in our bodies that control sex drive drop as we get older.

It’s the modern perspective that everyone should continue to participate in sexual relations no matter how old they are. Sexual relations are primarily for the purpose of creating new life, not personal pleasure. Obviously the drive to create new life is NOT what drives married couples to engage in the marital act, but that doesn’t mean it should be intentionally thwarted.

Also you don’t need NFP to space children. The people who discovered NFP methods didn’t discover breastfeeding, so calling breastfeeding “NFP” is silly.

Emily,

Clearly the Catholic Church is concerned about the abuse of NFP. From what you posted:

“For just reasons” … “make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness” … “morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria”

I don’t think the Catechism would include all of that unless it was reasonably concerned about the abuse of NFP.

NFP can be used correctly, but it can also be abused, even though many on here don’t seem to think such abuse exists or is important enough to worry about in relation to ABC. Just read the thread. That is what people have been saying. In fact, you are one of them. You wrote, “NFP - does none of the above. It uses periodic abstinence under prayerful consideration. The statistical chances of it being used with this ‘contraceptive mentality’ are minuscule.” The writers of the Catechism are obviously more concerned about abuses of NFP than you are.

A+ post.

My sister who is part of a website for Catholic singles said that so many men she talks to have this firm belief that they will be actively using NFP from the moment they are married. NFP is the exception, not the rule! You use it when necessary not as a perpetual state with small variations.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Emily,

Clearly the Catholic Church is concerned about the abuse of NFP. From what you posted:

“For just reasons” … “make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness” … “morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria”

I don’t think the Catechism would include all of that unless it was reasonably concerned about the abuse of NFP.

NFP can be used correctly, but it can also be abused, even though many on here don’t seem to think such abuse exists or is important enough to worry about in relation to ABC. Just read the thread. That is what people have been saying. In fact, you are one of them. You wrote, “NFP - does none of the above. It uses periodic abstinence under prayerful consideration. The statistical chances of it being used with this ‘contraceptive mentality’ are minuscule.” The writers of the Catechism are obviously more concerned about abuses of NFP than you are.

A couple of things…those couples using NFP or total abstinence are few…even fewer would be those who “abuse” it. The reason is that NFP is difficult to keep up without a really good reason. As you’ll see in my signature, I have 6 children. We use NFP. We haven’t had any method failures, but we have taken liberty with the NFP rules and ended up with another blessing. It’s not that NFP can’t be abused, it’s just with actual use, that isn’t likely to happen. Couples must be motivated to use NFP, just like they must be motivated to completely abstain. NFP isn’t an alternative to ABC, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence. It’s supposed to be hard. We’re supposed to be serious about discerning serious reasons. Again, the sin of using NFP in an ‘abusive’ manner is different than the sin of using contraception. Couples should, of course, guard against selfish use of NFP and make sure reasons are really serious/grave/just.

Contraception is, by definition, closed to procreation. NFP, by definition, is open to procreation.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m sorry, but the Catechism clearly states that the use of NFP “must be determined by objective criteria”. Also, the “morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention…”

Are you arguing that the objective criteria are subjectively determined?

As another aside, this is why the Catholic boast about being able to infallibly interpret the Bible doesn’t carry much weight. Who can then infallibly interpret the Catechism? It isn’t clear to me how to determine what the “objective criteria” are.

No, I’m saying that there is no pre-defined, objective list of “reasons” that is defined by the church.
Yes, a “just” (others may define this as “grave” or “serious”) objective reason is necessary on a unique-case basis, but that reason is not necessarily objectively universal to every situation. Medical, financial, emotional… All of these reasons are objective, but can be subjectively applied to each unique situation. This application needs to be done without selfishness, in the full light of what the Catechism is saying.

The practical application of using NFP is challenging. I think many assume this is any easy cop-out to limiting family size and it’s simply not. Couples pray about these challenges daily… There is a lot of agonizing over the decision to use it. I think this is why users get defensive because it’s a source of suffering and pain… Rarely selfishness. Yes, selfishness can exist and that’s why it’s in the Catechism, but in practice that would be hard to maintain.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

A couple of things…those couples using NFP or total abstinence are few…even fewer would be those who “abuse” it. The reason is that NFP is difficult to keep up without a really good reason. As you’ll see in my signature, I have 6 children. We use NFP. We haven’t had any method failures, but we have taken liberty with the NFP rules and ended up with another blessing. It’s not that NFP can’t be abused, it’s just with actual use, that isn’t likely to happen. Couples must be motivated to use NFP, just like they must be motivated to completely abstain. NFP isn’t an alternative to ABC, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence. It’s supposed to be hard. We’re supposed to be serious about discerning serious reasons. Again, the sin of using NFP in an ‘abusive’ manner is different than the sin of using contraception. Couples should, of course, guard against selfish use of NFP and make sure reasons are really serious/grave/just.

Contraception is, by definition, closed to procreation. NFP, by definition, is open to procreation.

The more I read about NFP, and “Humanae Vitae”, the more I question that NFP is an alternative to abstinence. If followed properly, NFP methods are nearly 100% effective, while still allowing for intercourse.

In the Humanae Vitae document, there is this part:
" the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life."

A method that is nearly 100% effective hardly seems open to life does it? There is no sin in abstinence for serious reasons, as there is no sexual activity, but NFP has a major gray area, and that is, why is it OK to continue to engage in sexual intercourse while intentionally making it almost impossible for the woman to conceive?

Yes it’s perfectly fine for two people who are medically sterile to be married, but they are not choosing to be sterile, nor are they intentionally thwarting the purpose the marital act.