Sadness over NFP misuse/misunderstanding

[Jennifer_J]

We have not been discussing total abstinence and people are obviously using NFP to control their reproduction so please let’s not be silly here.

ABC is evil because it separates the unitive and procreative. Now take that a step further - why is it evil to separate the unitive and procreative? Isn’t it because it interferes with the God designed process that leads to conception, i.e. it controls birth (actually conception)? I can think of no other reason why it would be evil.

And it’s not wrong to control reproduction, otherwise, total abstinence would ALWAYS be sinful. That’s not silly, that’s a fact. It’s not the control involved in making reproductive choices, that’s sinful. I can abandon myself to God’s will and STILL make decisions for myself. That’s Free Will. Free Will doesn’t stop because we’re talking about sex.

It’s wrong to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex because to do so distorts the meaning of the act. NFP does nothing to the ACT. Each act is a whole and completed act of sex, ie conception could occur. The knowledge of fertility or infertility doesn’t change the act.

If a couple were totally abstaining for just reasons and didn’t realize they were actually infertile for some reason, they are not sinning for abstaining.
Likewise a couple who knows they are fertile and knew it and had intercourse are not sinning for having relations.

 

[peregrinator_it]

(I know, I know… I said I would walk away…)

We have not been discussing total abstinence and people are obviously using NFP to control their reproduction so please let’s not be silly here.

ABC is evil because it separates the unitive and procreative. Now take that a step further - why is it evil to separate the unitive and procreative? Isn’t it because it interferes with the God designed process that leads to conception, i.e. it controls birth (actually conception)? I can think of no other reason why it would be evil.

ABC is evil because it rejects God’s good design (just like homosexual activity does; it devalues our worth as men and women.)

The impression I get from NFP users is that NFP is not only allowable under certain circumstances, it is also encouraged for general use without much thought to restrictions.

Impressions are subjective things, but Em is right, the impression will be taken as insulting. The only conversation that will stem from that impression will be a defensive one.

I have to say, I understand wanting to know and wanting to discuss what sort of reasons married people (and priests!) consider grave enough to justify the use of NFP (outside of simple “recovery from birth” spacing) but I’m not sure that that conversation is proper to have in the context of an internet forum. Personally, I would not be comfortable sharing private information about my health or my finances or my relationship eek online. If it’s info I would give to my priest, I would not be broadcasting it on a public forum. That said, I frankly, wouldn’t be discussing any of that with an 18-year-old guy whom I didn’t know, either. Nor an 18-year-old guy that I did know, necessarily.

Does that mean, then, that said someone with whom I refuse to discuss these things with should assume my reasons are not grave enough? I tend to think not.

On the other hand, one could discuss the question of generosity (i.e. what constitutes generosity?) but even there, I think care should be taken not to assume that everyone has the same “amount to give”…

 

[momor]

Just for the sake of keeping facts straight (although here you will have to take my word or conduct your own google search for the most part… I don’t have time):

Neither BOM or the symptothermal method could rightly be called a technology. BOM was and is today mere self-observation (there’s not even any temp. taking and recently the kinds of observations recommended has been reduced.)

In terms of symptothermal: the method is unchanged since the 1970s, I believe.

When BOM was introduced, it was a doctor (or a nurse) and a booklet. It is largely the same today. STM is now available online, but is again, largely and instruction book and a guide.

I’m not sure where you get this idea of “technology”… only the Marqette method uses anything more complicated than a thermometer…

(BOM info if you doubt me. billings-centre.ab.ca/history.html It is interesting that you feel insulted on this thread, yet you imply that I am not telling the truth and that the participants using NFP on these threads have a contraceptive mentality (and thus are gravely sinning.))

To my mind (and the Church’s) the question of intent is entirely separate from the question licit practices versus illicit.

Technology is the application of knowledge. It is not just a new device or invention as I think you are interpreting it.

quote:
“To my mind (and the Church’s) the question of intent is entirely separate from the question licit practices versus illicit.”

I have addressed this in numerous ways over a number of pages. I’m not going to go into it again.

 

[peregrinator_it]

quote:
“To my mind (and the Church’s) the question of intent is entirely separate from the question licit practices versus illicit.”

I have addressed this in numerous ways over a number of pages. I’m not going to go into it again.

You know, that’s a bit of a rude response.

 

[momor]

As an NFP user… I disagree with this statement entirely. This is where people can get insulted. So loose the impression.

No one is picking on anyone individually in this discussion so there is no need to feel insulted. The people participating here are not the only ones who use NFP and cannot pretend that everyone else uses it just like they do.

 

[Em_in_FL]

The impression I get from NFP users is that NFP is not only allowable under certain circumstances, it is also encouraged for general use without much thought to restrictions.

As an NFP user… I disagree with this statement entirely. This is where people can get insulted. So loose the impression.

No one is picking on anyone individually in this discussion so there is no need to feel insulted. The people participating here are not the only ones who use NFP and cannot pretend that everyone else uses it just like they do.

He gave a BLANKET statement about NFP users.
If he were to have said “SOME” NFP users leave that impression then it wouldn’t have been insulting.

 

[whm]

Impressions are subjective things, but Em is right, the impression will be taken as insulting. The only conversation that will stem from that impression will be a defensive one.

I agree with this. It would have been better to acknowledge that the main posters here who use NFP, seem to be well informed and not using NFP without discernment. Then the statement could be made that one is still concerned that there may be some people that are ______(fill in the blank).

There are a lot of people here who have strong personal angles here who can be easily offended (maybe not the right word) if precise language isn’t used. It also helps to acknowledge where people agree (like Emily does) and then zero in on discussing the areas where their is perceived lack of common understanding (and they might even find out they agree).

Edit - I see Emily beat me to it regarding “some”

 

[jilly4ski]

The truth that I think some NFP users are denying is:

1. the inconsistency in some of the Church statements that are meant to teach why ABC is wrong and NFP is not. IMO these inconsistencies can push people away from the teaching rather than draw them in.
2. that NFP as it is being taught/researched/etc. may be heading off the rails of the underlying theology it is supposed to be following and becoming more like ABC. Techniques are not the only things one needs to be concerned about.

When I say neither is wrong I mean that one can accept everything the Church teaches without questioning it or even understanding it. While it’s preferred that people do understand, it is obedience that is required.

It is also not wrong to question or debate Church teachings as long as one is obedient. If that was not the case, there would be little purpose to CAF.

First there is no inconsistency in in the Church’s teaching. The Church used specific words with specific definitions which you are refusing to accept as the definitions, like “ordered to procreation” and insisting on examining the entire marital relationship instead of each discrete act, like the Church does and specifically says in all of its documents.

You keep making these accusations that NFP is being taught/researched(?) incorrectly. I have never seen any proof in the real world or given by you or the OP. You just said it with no evidence, whereas other posters have said that in their NFP classes they were given the information on how to avoid having a child, how to achieve pregnancy, were given pertinent information on woman’s fertility, and were given all the Church’s actual objections to using the method in a selfish manner.

Also being able to “perfect” the method cannot be a sin if the people using it have serious/just/grave reasons to avoid a pregnancy and child at that time.

Do you agree that there are serious/just/grave reasons to “plan” when you have a child? Indeed the Church calls this “responsible parenthood,” and says all married people are called to “responsible parenthood.” If you do not agree then you need to speak with a priest because this is clearly spelled out by the Church, so your argument is not with NFP users but with the Church.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think we agree here… you’re right, it’s about intention.

However, it’s not the teaching that’s at fault. The teaching clearly has these “intention clauses” defined. The teaching is solid.

How an individual chooses to *apply *that teaching to their own lives is up to them.

I’ve read some concern on this thread about how the Church “advertises” or “markets” this teaching.
But we agreed that the teaching itself is solid, right? Those intention clauses are already defined in there.

What I’ve experienced in learning NFP has never been against this teaching - including all the “intention clauses”.
What I’ve experienced in actually USING NFP has never been against this teaching - in fact, I’d say it would be INFINITELY CHALLENGING to actually use NFP without having the proper intentions in place…
Yeah, theoretically - I agree - there is a chance of this “contraceptive mentality” being applied… but why in the world would someone with this mentality accept the CHALLENGES of using NFP when their mentality is already contraceptive in the first place…

Perhaps short term… but too can’t see how somoene with a contraceptive mentality would go for this long term.

Just watch TV…you see the many commercials on ABC and how convenient they are, and how you don’t need to remember to take it. etc.

Funny, in real life among my Catholic friends, aquaintances and extended family, I normally walk in on conversations about what pill they recommend, or how they got their tubes tied at the birth of their last child…etc.

I don’t know for sure, but I’m the only one I know in real life that does this…and people judge me, “after 2 miscarriages and a preemie, don’t you think you should be careful.”…or “NFP doesn’t ,work that is so risky.”

I happen to really like my husband…if there weren’t just cause for NFP, we really wouldn’t be able to stand it. What marriage could stand avoiding for no good reason?

 

[momor]

And it’s not wrong to control reproduction, otherwise, total abstinence would ALWAYS be sinful.

Total abstinence IS sinful within marriage (without some very serious reason or old age) which is the only state we have been discussing.

It’s wrong to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex because to do so distorts the meaning of the act.

Why? Now using the time-tested technique of all toddlers (I’m trying to be funny not insulting) carry that thought to it’s final conclusion by asking “Why”? each time you answer yourself. Better yet, write each answer out in a post.

NFP does nothing to the ACT. Each act is a whole and completed act of sex, ie conception could occur. The knowledge of fertility or infertility doesn’t change the act.

But the acts themselves are taken out of the context of the overall fertility cycle making the “conception could occur” statement rather disingenuous. On the one hand there is this strict insistence on the sex act being exactly as God made it, meaning no barriers or interference with fertility. OK. But a strict insistence on God’s original design for sex falls away when it comes to timing. Now, an exception to the design is allowed. Seems very inconsistent to me.

Couples will naturally, by God’s design of of our biological urges, have sex at varying times and frequencies throughout the woman’s cycle, which is the way conception naturally occurs. The sexual relationship of a couple is more than just each individual act, just like their marriage is more than just a single day. I don’t see how the totality of the actions and intentions can be discounted this way.

Please understand where I am coming from here. I am not taking sides or advocating ANYTHING. I am picking apart the flaws that I see in this whole NFP philosophy.

If a couple were totally abstaining for just reasons and didn’t realize they were actually infertile for some reason, they are not sinning for abstaining.
Likewise a couple who knows they are fertile and knew it and had intercourse are not sinning for having relations.

These are obvious and I’m not certain how it fits into our dicussion.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

First there is no inconsistency in in the Church’s teaching. The Church used specific words with specific definitions which you are refusing to accept as the definitions, like “ordered to procreation” and insisting on examining the entire marital relationship instead of each discrete act, like the Church does and specifically says in all of its documents.

You keep making these accusations that NFP is being taught/researched(?) incorrectly. I have never seen any proof in the real world or given by you or the OP. You just said it with no evidence, whereas other posters have said that in their NFP classes they were given the information on how to avoid having a child, how to achieve pregnancy, were given pertinent information on woman’s fertility, and were given all the Church’s actual objections to using the method in a selfish manner.

Also being able to “perfect” the method cannot be a sin if the people using it have serious/just/grave reasons to avoid a pregnancy and child at that time.

Do you agree that there are serious/just/grave reasons to “plan” when you have a child? Indeed the Church calls this “responsible parenthood,” and says all married people are called to “responsible parenthood.” If you do not agree then you need to speak with a priest because this is clearly spelled out by the Church, so your argument is not with NFP users but with the Church.

As for the research part, Creighton does do research. (the Pope Paul instutte) but not on how to make NFP more precise, but on how to wholistically focus on reproductive issues in women. There are many ailments that can be diagnosed through NFP’s observations of symptoms, like hormonal imbalances, higher than likely chance of miscarriage…even impending menopause.

I actually find Creighton to be so valuable. I cannot imagine not observing my signals. I wish I knew about this, even before I was married, just to have a clue on what is going on in my body.

 

[whm]

You keep making these accusations that NFP is being taught/researched(?) incorrectly. I have never seen any proof in the real world or given by you or the OP. You just said it with no evidence, whereas other posters have said that in their NFP classes they were given the information on how to avoid having a child, how to achieve pregnancy, were given pertinent information on woman’s fertility, and were given all the Church’s actual objections to using the method in a selfish manner.

I think there is a little traction for arguing that there is incomplete teaching materials out there. From the USCCB main NFP “Infromation page” notice there is not mention on this page about any kind of discernment process.

usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/information.shtml

“Who can use NFP?
Any married couple can use NFP! A woman need not have “regular” cycles. NFP education helps couples to fully understand their combined fertility, thereby helping them to either achieve or avoid a pregnancy. The key to the successful use of NFP is cooperation and communication between husband and wife–a shared commitment.”

 

[momor]

First there is no inconsistency in in the Church’s teaching. The Church used specific words with specific definitions which you are refusing to accept as the definitions, like “ordered to procreation” and insisting on examining the entire marital relationship instead of each discrete act, like the Church does and specifically says in all of its documents.

You keep making these accusations that NFP is being taught/researched(?) incorrectly. I have never seen any proof in the real world or given by you or the OP. You just said it with no evidence, whereas other posters have said that in their NFP classes they were given the information on how to avoid having a child, how to achieve pregnancy, were given pertinent information on woman’s fertility, and were given all the Church’s actual objections to using the method in a selfish manner.

Also being able to “perfect” the method cannot be a sin if the people using it have serious/just/grave reasons to avoid a pregnancy and child at that time.

Do you agree that there are serious/just/grave reasons to “plan” when you have a child? Indeed the Church calls this “responsible parenthood,” and says all married people are called to “responsible parenthood.” If you do not agree then you need to speak with a priest because this is clearly spelled out by the Church, so your argument is not with NFP users but with the Church.

:banghead:

 

[momor]

Perhaps short term… but too can’t see how somoene with a contraceptive mentality would go for this long term.

Just watch TV…you see the many commercials on ABC and how convenient they are, and how you don’t need to remember to take it. etc.

Funny, in real life among my Catholic friends, aquaintances and extended family, I normally walk in on conversations about what pill they recommend, or how they got their tubes tied at the birth of their last child…etc.

I don’t know for sure, but I’m the only one I know in real life that does this…and people judge me, “after 2 miscarriages and a preemie, don’t you think you should be careful.”…or “NFP doesn’t ,work that is so risky.”

**I happen to really like my husband…if there weren’t just cause for NFP, we really wouldn’t be able to stand it. What marriage could stand avoiding for no good reason?/**QUOTE]

Does that seem like the way it should be to you? Did God want His children to be so sexually frustrated throughout history?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Total abstinence IS sinful within marriage (without some very serious reason or old age) which is the only state we have been discussing.

Right, so total abstinence ISN’T sinful for just/serious/grave reasons for the same reason that periodic abstinence isn’t sinful for just/serious/grave reasons.

Total abstinence doesn’t render the act infertile–there is no act.
Periodic abstinence doesn’t render the act infertile–there is no act.

When the act is completed, it is completed in a natural fashion.

Why? Now using the time-tested technique of all toddlers (I’m trying to be funny not insulting) carry that thought to it’s final conclusion by asking “Why”? each time you answer yourself. Better yet, write each answer out in a post.

Thankfully, the Church has answered all these why’s for me
Go to the Catechism:
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

 

[jilly4ski]

As for the research part, Creighton does do research. (the Pope Paul instutte) but not on how to make NFP more precise, but on how to wholistically focus on reproductive issues in women. There are many ailments that can be diagnosed through NFP’s observations of symptoms, like hormonal imbalances, higher than likely chance of miscarriage…even impending menopause.

I actually find Creighton to be so valuable. I cannot imagine not observing my signals. I wish I knew about this, even before I was married, just to have a clue on what is going on in my body.

Mary Gail, I understand that research is done, what I don’t understand is how that research can “head of the rails of the underlying theology” according to momor.

whm, and yet the very next tab is “church teachings” which lists and has links to the teachings. People in actual classes are given the full picture not just a one sided version. (STM is taught through couple to couple league which makes sure the church’s position on children and selfish reasons is clearly explained and acknowledged).

I guess we feel the same way momor.

 

[momor]

Right, so total abstinence ISN’T sinful for just/serious/grave reasons for the same reason that periodic abstinence isn’t sinful for just/serious/grave reasons.

Total abstinence doesn’t render the act infertile–there is no act.
Periodic abstinence doesn’t render the act infertile–there is no act.

When the act is completed, it is completed in a natural fashion.

Thankfully, the Church has answered all these why’s for me
Go to the Catechism:
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Nope, that’s not what I meant at all by the why statements. Use your own words and reason it out. Pretend I’m a 14 year old daughter asking you the questions. No jargon or euphemisms allowed.

Mom, the Church says a married couple can’t separate the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect of intercourse.
Why?

Let’s dialogue…

 

[whm]

whm, and yet the very next tab is “church teachings” which lists and has links to the teachings. People in actual classes are given the full picture not just a one sided version. (STM is taught through couple to couple league which makes sure the church’s position on children and selfish reasons is clearly explained and acknowledged).

I know that it is however the main page and you have to go kind of deep into the links to get a discussion. All I’m saying is if the main overview page from USCCB doesn’t include it, it can lead to the impression that teachings may be incomplete.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Mary Gail, I understand that research is done, what I don’t understand is how that research can “head of the rails of the underlying theology” according to momor.

whm, and yet the very next tab is “church teachings” which lists and has links to the teachings. People in actual classes are given the full picture not just a one sided version. (STM is taught through couple to couple league which makes sure the church’s position on children and selfish reasons is clearly explained and acknowledged).

I guess we feel the same way momor.

I just wanted to point out that the research is to help woman…not to make NFP more effective in trying to avoid.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Mary Gail 36;6848766:

Perhaps short term… but too can’t see how somoene with a contraceptive mentality would go for this long term.

Just watch TV…you see the many commercials on ABC and how convenient they are, and how you don’t need to remember to take it. etc.

Funny, in real life among my Catholic friends, aquaintances and extended family, I normally walk in on conversations about what pill they recommend, or how they got their tubes tied at the birth of their last child…etc.

I don’t know for sure, but I’m the only one I know in real life that does this…and people judge me, “after 2 miscarriages and a preemie, don’t you think you should be careful.”…or “NFP doesn’t ,work that is so risky.”

I happen to really like my husband…if there weren’t just cause for NFP, we really wouldn’t be able to stand it. What marriage could stand avoiding for no good reason?/

QUOTE]

Does that seem like the way it should be to you? Did God want His children to be so sexually frustrated throughout history?

Well, we aren’t frustrated.

God also wants me to eat…fasting during Lent could be burdensome, don’t we do it for Jesus?

No body calls fasting, “Catholic weight loss program.”