Trying vs. Not Avoiding

[JackieMom]

I’ve always wondered about this. Are Catholics obligated to try for a baby at every opportunity, or are they only obligated to not avoid? Let’s say there is no pressing reason to avoid a pregnancy. A woman basically knows her cycles and know if she has sex in the middle of it, she will probably conceive. Either she knowingly initiates or accepts initiation of sex during that time, or does not initiate or declines sex for some reason. Either way, she is either trying or trying to avoid…

I wonder this because in November, I knew I was in the middle of my cycle and I thought about how I really didn’t want to concieve that month because we had a bunch of social commitments around Christmas, and I didn’t want to be sick and miserable through the holiday. I always get awful morning sickness and I wanted not to be hung over a toilet on Christmas morning for my kids! I know that’s not a serious reason, but it did play into me not initiating sex. I can’t imagine that simply not havig sex on every fertile day constitutes NFP or a contraceptive mentality, but if you know your cycle at all - how do you not think twice if its not a great month to concieve? My brother is getting married in June, and I’d rather not be 8 weeks pregnant, sick, but trying to hide it at his wedding either.

If a couple has no serious reason to avoid a pregnancy, but simply does not have sex, is that wrong? Is it wrong for a woman who knows she’s fertile to choose not to initiate because she doesn’t really want to get pregnant, or must she take the gamble and accept what comes?

 

[MichaelHowling]

We’re obligated to not prevent life during the sexual act because that would lead to us using sex/our bodies in an improper way.

 

[Regina_Love]

Perhaps the question is do you feel called by God to conceive this month?

 

[Usige]

There is no requirement to initiate just because you are fertile. It really comes down to the motivation for avoiding. Let me give you an (admittedly exaggerated) example.

Say it’s mid-winter and you just bought a new spring wardrobe. That evening your husband and you are cuddling and things are getting heated. You are in your fertile phase and there is really no reason not to have a baby, but then realize if you get pregnant now that you might not be able to wear your new wardrobe all spring. If your spouse request marital intimacy, but you refuse for a selfish reason then that could be an occasion of sin.

Really there is nothing that says you have to try at every possible occasion, but on the other hand avoidance (especially for long durations) cannot be motivated by selfish desires. None of us can judge if the reason you list are selfish; that’s something you have to determine for yourself.

On a side note; ideally this is a conversation you would have each month with your spouse (e.g. “Honey, are we ready for a baby this month?”) Hopefully if the answer is “no” it’s after prayer and reflection. On occasions where you aren’t trying, but really don’t have reason to avoid the answer might be “maybe” and then perhaps you are a little more flexible on the rules (e.g. intimacy on early cycle slippery days or 1 or 2 days past peek). In other words trusting to providence. In my opinion our default answer should never be “no”.

 

[God_love_you]

In my honest opinion, one could always find an excuse as to why they don’t want to get pregnant “this month” or “that month”… I don’t want to be pregnant around the holidays, I don’t want to be pregnant through Lent, I don’t want to be pregnant when we’re on our summer vacation, I don’t want to be pregnant in the fall when my kids go back to school, so on and so forth.

Our faith teaches that there must be a serious reason to avoid being open to life. You cannot deduce it to simply saying: we must be open to life during the marital embrace. By that standard, you can use NFP to the point of contraception and claim that you are “open” to life in the extreme improbability of getting pregnant during the obvious infertile time.

I don’t know… there’s always so many posts and debates about the extent to which NFP is open to life or the extent to which one uses NFP and it is not considered contraception. If we are going to truly re-evangelize our country and boldly proclaim the Gospel of Life, then we must embrace a radical call to faith, a saintly and fearless acceptance of God’s will for our lives. I think the truest and boldest sign of this is being open to life in a culture of death. I think we must embrace our incredible gift of the Sacrament of Marriage to be fruitful and multiply. I know I sound forth-right, maybe judgmental (I sincerely apologize), or just too starry-eyed, but I’ve witnessed such joy in so many people’s lives when they embrace life even in the face of earthly challenges. When my wife and I come together in the marital embrace, I know that it’s not just the two of us who decide whether we should “try” to conceive, it’s the three of us.

Psalm 127:4-5; "Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them;
They will not be ashamed
When they speak with their enemies in the gate.

 

[St_Francis]

…If a couple has no serious reason to avoid a pregnancy, but simply does not have sex, is that wrong? Is it wrong for a woman who knows she’s fertile to choose not to initiate because she doesn’t really want to get pregnant, or must she take the gamble and accept what comes?

What you are saying is not wrong. It would be all right for you not to initiate for whatever reason.

However, whenever either spouse requests reasonably, the other is obliged to say yes–this is called the marital debt.

Suppose your husband says Let’s and you say no, I wouldn’t fit in my spring clothes, then he might laugh and say, don’t be silly, let’s anyway. That would be a reasonable suggestion and an unreasonable refusal (which she would need to confess, btw).

But if the doctor told her to abstain for a week for some health reason, and the husband said let’s, then this would be unreasonable on his part and you would be all right to say no.

 

[sdeco]

I think you are overthinking this. You are never obligated to actively “try” to conceive. You only have one obligation: to not use artificial contraception. As long as you’re using NFP, you’re fine. Otherwise, the Church would say couples HAVE to have sex when the woman is ovulating if they don’t have a “serious reason” to avoid, and the Church never says when a couple should or shouldn’t have sex.

By the way, I hate that stupid, stupid phrase “contraceptive mentality.” It is impossible to use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality.” If a couple had a contraceptive mentality, they would be using contraception. Talking about the “contraceptive mentality” only confuses people like the OP.

I actually think not wanting to have morning sickness for the holidays or a wedding is a perfectly valid reason to avoid pregnancy, especially since you would only be avoiding for a few months.

In discussions about NFP, I always hear about hypothetical couples who use NFP to avoid because the woman “wants to fit her spring clothes” or some other ridiculous reason. This is a straw man. I guarantee you that NO ONE who uses NFP does this. If they’re the kind of couple who would avoid pregnancy ONLY for that reason, and no other, they are the kind of couple who would just use contraception. No one goes through the trouble of charting and abstaining for a frivolous reason.

I propose banning the phrase “contraceptive mentality” from this forum and all Catholic blogs.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

As long as you’re using NFP, you’re fine.

This isn’t quite correct (if you are talking about using NFP to avoid)… We have to evaluate our motives, make sure we don’t have selfish motives. The Church does state this clearly. If it was impossible to have selfish motives, why would the Church state that it is our duty to make sure our desire to avoid is not motivated by selfishness?

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:

…

2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."161

No one has to initiate sex at any time, the Church does NOT teach that a couple has to seek when they are fertile and have sex every time they are fertile, but choosing to have sex only during infertile times, on purpose, to avoid pregnancy, is using NFP to avoid, and we do have to have serious/just/grave/unselfish reasons to do so. We have to prayerfully discern our reasons to avoid always regardless if we have to avoid for 1 month or 20 years. There is a difference between 1.Choosing to avoid/purposefully watching for fertile times to avoid them, and 2. Simply not having sex during fertile times because it didn’t happen.

 

[1ke]

If a couple has no serious reason to avoid a pregnancy, but simply does not have sex, is that wrong? Is it wrong for a woman who knows she’s fertile to choose not to initiate because she doesn’t really want to get pregnant, or must she take the gamble and accept what comes?

No.

 

[vames]

The Church does state this clearly. If it was impossible to have selfish motives, why would the Church state that it is our duty to make sure our desire to avoid is not motivated by selfishness?

Because the Catechism wasn’t written only for people who use NFP. Some couples don’t use any family planning at all, while others use contraception - which is why the Catechism introduces a separate paragraph on contraception, a paragraph that would be perfectly useless if the Catechism were written only for people who use NFP.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Because the Catechism wasn’t written only for people who use NFP. Some couples don’t use any family planning at all, while others use contraception - which is why the Catechism introduces a separate paragraph on contraception, a paragraph that would be perfectly useless if the Catechism were written only for people who use NFP.

I don’t understand what you are getting to, of course the Catechism is for everyone. So everyone has to have good reasons to avoid, and periodic continence is " in conformity with the objective criteria of morality" while contraception is not. The fact that we are not using contraception does not mean we can skip #2368 from the Catechism, nor #2371 for that matter…

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:
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.159

2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."161

 

[vames]

The OP said “As long as you’re using NFP, you’re fine” and you replied that it’s not necessarily true, as long as the Church feels the need to warn couples about selfish reasons. I am with the OP in this, so I wanted to say that one can’t use the existence of the Church’s warning as an argument to suspect people who use NFP of selfishness. While the warning is addressed to everyone, regardless of their method of family planning or lack thereof, NFP is obviously a sacrifice per se, so how can it be compatible with selfishness? I really doubt that there are people who choose NFP if they want to stay childless for their whole life of to limit their family to just 1-2 children.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

The OP said “As long as you’re using NFP, you’re fine” and you replied that it’s not necessarily true, as long as the Church feels the need to warn couples about selfish reasons. I am with the OP in this, so I wanted to say that one can’t use the existence of the Church’s warning as an argument to suspect people who use NFP of selfishness. While the warning is addressed to everyone, regardless of their method of family planning or lack thereof, NFP is obviously a sacrifice per se, so how can it be compatible with selfishness? I really doubt that there are people who choose NFP if they want to stay childless for their whole life of to limit their family to just 1-2 children.

Stating that the Church teaches that we need to evaluate our motives does not mean that anyone is being suspected of selfishness.

The Catechism says that we have to make certain our desire is not motivated by selfishness AND that we cannot use contraception. It isn’t saying, if you use contraception, make sure you have a good reason. It is saying if you decide to space your children, make sure you aren’t doing it for selfish motives. Moreover, you cannot use immoral ways of spacing children.

 

[HouseArrest]

I think you are overthinking this. You are never obligated to actively “try” to conceive. You only have one obligation: to not use artificial contraception. As long as you’re using NFP, you’re fine. Otherwise, the Church would say couples HAVE to have sex when the woman is ovulating if they don’t have a “serious reason” to avoid, and the Church never says when a couple should or shouldn’t have sex.

By the way, I hate that stupid, stupid phrase “contraceptive mentality.” It is impossible to use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality.” If a couple had a contraceptive mentality, they would be using contraception. Talking about the “contraceptive mentality” only confuses people like the OP.

I actually think not wanting to have morning sickness for the holidays or a wedding is a perfectly valid reason to avoid pregnancy, especially since you would only be avoiding for a few months.

In discussions about NFP, I always hear about hypothetical couples who use NFP to avoid because the woman “wants to fit her spring clothes” or some other ridiculous reason. This is a straw man. I guarantee you that NO ONE who uses NFP does this. If they’re the kind of couple who would avoid pregnancy ONLY for that reason, and no other, they are the kind of couple who would just use contraception. No one goes through the trouble of charting and abstaining for a frivolous reason.

I propose banning the phrase “contraceptive mentality” from this forum and all Catholic blogs.

I agree with this.

Let’s take the original scenario to the nth degree. Does this mean you should track your cycles and do nothing but “try” for the whole phase 1 and 2?

What about those people who never learn NFP and leave it all up to God? Should they spend every waking moment in bed just in case it is the fertile time to somehow prove they are open to life?

I don’t see anything wrong with planning around Christmas or relatives weddings either. These are busy, busy, hard working times for Mommies. Pulling off Christmas is no easy task. There’s nothing wrong with not wanting to be sick for it. Think of it this way - what if couple plans a baby early to avoid Christmas? That is certainly not wrong, so why would delaying a few months be any different?