Vent about NFP threads

[Rachel126]

I think that’s a little condescending, to be honest… Since the couple, by even considering NFP, has already shown that they take their faith seriously. It is such a tiny minority of Catholics that are adherent to this aspect of the catechism, I would give any couple discerning NFP the absolute benefit of the doubt that they have already spent time in prayer about it.

I think sometimes on CAF we get into an NFP bubble. We should be shouting with joy from the rooftops when any couple chooses NFP over contraception. The people who do are SO few and far between. I do not know anyone IRL who uses NFP and there are NO instructors currently teaching classes in my entire (heavily populated) county. We should not insult them by second-guessing their motivation.

 

[jilly4ski]

Note that abstinence is qualified with “periodic.” That’s because abstinence in and of itself cannot be sinful. To prove that point, demonstrate where it is stated that abstinence qualified by “complete” is sinful…it doesn’t exist.

The other part of periodic abstinence involves sexual relations, which many people fail to recognize or discuss. However, if you read such documents as Humanae Vitae, you’ll see that both sides are noted and discussed, not just the one side that is often presented on the forum.

Abstinence may or may not be an act of will. Some people simply have no sex drive, and many simply abstain forever; no act of will required. OTOH, having marital relations is ALWAYS an act of will (excepting forced acts and impaired judgment obviously). Hence the reason contraception and abstinence cannot be stated in the same breath. But purposely having sex during the infertile period to avoid having children can; just the means are different.

A couple is not to practice complete abstinence except under spiritual direct (a Josephite marriage), and that marriage is dissolvable by the Pope. So if we go under the expectation that all couples who are avoiding pregnancy have in the past or will in the future have marital relations at some point, it is all periodic continence. If a couple waits until menopause to have sexual relations for the purpose of avoiding children, is that not “periodic continence?” They are avoiding for a time, in order to avoid a pregnancy. There is no logical reason why we must restrict periodic continence to only avoiding for 2 weeks during a women’s cycle. If a couple abstains for 4 months for whatever reason. Is that not periodic continence?

I suppose A person might have no sex drive, it would be very unlikely that both people in a marriage have no sex drive. So I really don’t consider this example on topic.

No abstinence and contraception cannot be uttered in the same breath, likewise NFP or periodic continence cannot be uttered in the same breath as contraception and that is what you did. People don’t have sex on infertile days to avoid a pregnancy. Abstaining during the fertile time is just that abstaining, it doesn’t matter what they did a few days before.

It is like saying a couple is going along just fine not avoiding a pregnancy when suddenly they decide that they need to avoid and will practice “complete abstinence” (say maybe husband lost his job), which happens to be the exact moment they enter the fertile period. Then several weeks later he gets a new job and they decide they don’t need to avoid anymore, and low and behold they are infertile again. Their actions are no different than the couple who has some other serious reason to avoid, but plan to abstain during fertile periods and not abstain during infertile periods. How are these two couples different. To me they both used period abstinence. They both planned on continuing with the marital act at a later date. The only difference is the length of the planned abstinence. I do not consider that a material difference, so that different principles would be involved in deciding which one can do.

 

[Rachel126]

So exactly what are considered “selfish reasons?”

The rate my husband and I are going we could easily have 10 kids by the time I reach menopause…and that is early menopause.

We don’t have the finances, nor the room in our house to possible accommodate that large number.

Am I open to life. Of course I am. Are we careful when we use NFP…well, yeah. It’s the reason why I was able to postpone getting pregnant again until we were ready…and I started my period only a month post partum. Both of our children were planned.

Sorry…but if it’s selfish to want to wait another 3-4 years until we even think about going for a third child…then I might as well quit now and start using contraception again (not sure how that will work since he refuses to wear condoms and I refuse to to use anything synthetic that is detrimental to my health)…

I seriously have a hard time seeing exactly how NFP can be considered selfish…with the exception of the jet-setting couple who wants to see the world before settling down into a brand new home with the hot tub and movie theatre.

Agreed.
The Church does talk about “serious” reasons and gives some of those as medical, economic, and social, but it does not go into very specific detail about what exactly constitutes a “serious enough” reason. It’s funny, though, that there are plenty of armchair bishops out there willing to be much more specific than the Church is when it comes to judging other people’s reasons as “serious” enough.

 

[jilly4ski]

And what would be a “selfish reason” to limit one’s family size?

Would you say a couple abstaining completely to delay having further children (for an extended period) but by mutual agreement were “acting selfishly” or sinfully ?

I ask because my understanding is that the requirement to act unselfishly and only use NFP under the right circumstances (about which there is so much debate) arises because a couple using NFP are still enjoying sexual intimacy but are using NFP with the intention of avoiding procreation.

Do you guys really need me to answer this question? Are not we all supposed to form our consciences to that of the Church? Surely you all had lessons on selfishness as children?

SusanneT- Their abstaining in and of itself is not selfish, selfishness would have to relate to their reasons.

In general I would say, if you have a just, serious, grave reason to avoid children you cannot be acting selfishly.

I personally think, it is difficult to practice any sort of abstinence selfishly, at least in the long run. I think it would be possible for a few months. But that is only my opinion. (Though I suppose this does not take into account TheWarriorMonk’s people with no sex drive).

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

A couple is not to practice complete abstinence except under spiritual direct (a Josephite marriage),

This applies ONLY to a Josephite marriage because it is know beforehand that the couple intends never to have sex. It does not apply to any other case. But the fact that this marriage can occur in the first place is absolute proof that sex is not required in marriage.

and that marriage is dissolvable by the Pope.

Well, I wouldn’t have tacked this on. If the couple is thinking that there marriage is can be dissolved at the time of marriage, then they should not be getting married in the first place.

I suppose A person might have no sex drive, it would be very unlikely that both people in a marriage have no sex drive. So I really don’t consider this example on topic.

I think it would be unusual for a young or newly married couple. Beyond that, you might be surprised. I can cite many such examples in my own little world. For example, a VERY close married relative of mine stopped having relations in 1983, at age 36. And I can cite others. Many of these people were born in an age where divorce was greatly frowned upon, so even though they hated each others guts, they stayed together, though they stopped having relations.

No abstinence and contraception cannot be uttered in the same breath, likewise NFP or periodic continence cannot be uttered in the same breath as contraception and that is what you did.

It’s not period continence that can be uttered in the same breath, because you are focusing solely on abstinence, and abstinence is never sinful (barring the usual marital duty if the other spouse desires it). Having sex during the infertile period is what is relevant to the discussion, because having those relations during certain times specifically to avoid having children is an objective attempt to separate out the procreative aspect of sex.

ABUSE of NFP is an illicit use of natural birth control. Contraception is simply illicit birth control. Both are illicit forms of birth control; just the means are different.

 

[jilly4ski]

Agreed.
The Church does talk about “serious” reasons and gives some of those as medical, economic, and social, but it does not go into very specific detail about what exactly constitutes a “serious enough” reason. It’s funny, though, that there are plenty of armchair bishops out there willing to be much more specific than the Church is when it comes to judging other people’s reasons as “serious” enough.

And the Church also talks about avoiding selfish reasons.

 

[Rico_S]

Note that abstinence is qualified with “periodic.” That’s because abstinence in and of itself cannot be sinful. To prove that point, demonstrate where it is stated that abstinence qualified by “complete” is sinful…it doesn’t exist.

I do not want to derail the thread, but I am curious… shouldn’t complete abstinence necessarily require serious/just reasons, like practicing NFP…since it is quite clear that the (one of 2) primary reason for marriage is having/raising children. I mean, if a couple decides to marry and chooses to forgo sexual relations completely, does that not stand in direct opposition to the primary end of marriage?

 

[mommamaree]

I don’t understand why this is so complicated.

Sex is great. Married couples want to have lots of sex, right?
Sex makes babies. Babies are blessings.
We are told to practice responsible parenthood.
Couples who do not want to have another baby for the time being or for the whole of the rest of their married life may practice abstinence, either total or periodic, in order to prevent pregnancy. They are making a tremendous sacrifice. How? Because they are giving up having SEX, either for a short or a long time, depending on their circumstance.
The marital debt is not something that couples owe the Church. They owe it only to each other. If one spouse requests sex, and there is no reason why relations would be inappropriate, the spouse is supposed to, in charity, fulfill that debt. No one else outside the couple may impose an obligation to pay the marriage debt on either spouse. It doesn’t work that way. There are only three persons in the marriage, the husband, the wife, and God.
So, how in the world do we have this mythological couple that is so incredibly selfish that they are willing, as a couple, to abstain during fertile times or to abstain totally, in order to enable their jet-setting lifestyle? Oh, right, that couple doesn’t exist.
Because the reality is, any couple practicing NFP is a couple that is giving up having SEX, and sex is great, and real selfishness would lead them to contracept, not to give up sex, which is really great.

 

[Rachel126]

Do you guys really need me to answer this question? Are not we all supposed to form our consciences to that of the Church? Surely you all had lessons on selfishness as children?

In general I would say, if you have a just, serious, grave reason to avoid children you cannot be acting selfishly.
.

Okay. But you’re still not being too specific on what exactly a “just, serious, grave” reason is. how about if a couple felt that having another child would be a big financial burden, but they could probably manage to avoid starvation. Is that a good enough reason to practice NFP? Exactly how much sacrifice is required to avoid being “selfish?”

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

shouldn’t complete abstinence necessarily require serious/just reasons, like practicing NFP…

The Church does not require a married couple to have sex. That is up to the couple.

since it is quite clear that the (one of 2) primary reason for marriage is having/raising children. I mean, if a couple decides to marry and chooses to forgo sexual relations completely, does that not stand in direct opposition to the primary end of marriage?

Nope. Marriage and sex are ordered to certain ends, but that is different from requiring certain acts to take place. As an example of the former, a couple entering marriage must have the ability to consummate the marriage and must be open to children, but there is no requirement that the couple must consummate the marriage or must have children. As an example of the latter, if the couple decides to have sex, the unitive and procreative acts cannot be frustrated, yet there is no requirement to have sex.

 

[maryjk]

I don’t understand why this is so complicated.

Sex is great. Married couples want to have lots of sex, right?
Sex makes babies. Babies are blessings.
We are told to practice responsible parenthood.
Couples who do not want to have another baby for the time being or for the whole of the rest of their married life may practice abstinence, either total or periodic, in order to prevent pregnancy. They are making a tremendous sacrifice. How? Because they are giving up having SEX, either for a short or a long time, depending on their circumstance.
The marital debt is not something that couples owe the Church. They owe it only to each other. If one spouse requests sex, and there is no reason why relations would be inappropriate, the spouse is supposed to, in charity, fulfill that debt. No one else outside the couple may impose an obligation to pay the marriage debt on either spouse. It doesn’t work that way. There are only three persons in the marriage, the husband, the wife, and God.
So, how in the world do we have this mythological couple that is so incredibly selfish that they are willing, as a couple, to abstain during fertile times or to abstain totally, in order to enable their jet-setting lifestyle? Oh, right, that couple doesn’t exist.
Because the reality is, any couple practicing NFP is a couple that is giving up having SEX, and sex is great, and real selfishness would lead them to contracept, not to give up sex, which is really great.

I think about how long my husband and I have practiced NFP. I have to tell you, I can’t imagine anyone doing this for any real length of time just so they can have a jet set lifestyle.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t understand why this is so complicated.

Sex is great. Married couples want to have lots of sex, right?
Sex makes babies. Babies are blessings.
We are told to practice responsible parenthood.
Couples who do not want to have another baby for the time being or for the whole of the rest of their married life may practice abstinence, either total or periodic, in order to prevent pregnancy. They are making a tremendous sacrifice. How? Because they are giving up having SEX, either for a short or a long time, depending on their circumstance.
The marital debt is not something that couples owe the Church. They owe it only to each other. If one spouse requests sex, and there is no reason why relations would be inappropriate, the spouse is supposed to, in charity, fulfill that debt. No one else outside the couple may impose an obligation to pay the marriage debt on either spouse. It doesn’t work that way. There are only three persons in the marriage, the husband, the wife, and God.
So, how in the world do we have this mythological couple that is so incredibly selfish that they are willing, as a couple, to abstain during fertile times or to abstain totally, in order to enable their jet-setting lifestyle? Oh, right, that couple doesn’t exist.
Because the reality is, any couple practicing NFP is a couple that is giving up having SEX, and sex is great, and real selfishness would lead them to contracept, not to give up sex, which is really great.

I like and agree with your post.

I wanted to touch on the pink highlighted part.

Part of the reason to avoid selfishness is to avoid making a burdensome request on the partner.

Say a couple has a very selfish reason (they are worried that baby might inherit Grandpa George’s unibrow) The selfish reason translates to having to limit sex. The couple is avoiding showing each other physical love for a trivial reason.

It’s hard to not feel resentful when there are legitimate reasons to avoid. Imagine the resentment over a trivial reason.

 

[mommamaree]

Okay. But you’re still not being too specific on what exactly a “just, serious, grave” reason is. how about if a couple felt that having another child would be a big financial burden, but they could probably manage to avoid starvation. Is that a good enough reason to practice NFP? Exactly how much sacrifice is required to avoid being “selfish?”

I know of friends who stopped after 2 or 3 children because they wanted to be able to afford to send them to the parish school. I know of other friends who stopped after 3 because another pregnancy could kill the mother and the baby. I know that for myself, I could be done now, after 4 babies and 2 miscarriages, because I am needing the energy and resources to homeschool my children and be able to do things for the kids I already have. I know of some friends and family that stopped after 1 or 2 because they needed the wife to work in order to pay their bills. You are not required to commit yourself to sacrifices for the sake of procreating. Sacrificing happens naturally in family life. We do not have to experiment to see how far we can be stretched before we snap. Please do not worry.

 

[Rachel126]

I like and agree with your post.

Say a couple has a very selfish reason (they are worried that baby might inherit Grandpa George’s unibrow) The selfish reason translates to having to limit sex. The couple is avoiding showing each other physical love for a trivial reason.

It’s hard to not feel resentful when there are legitimate reasons to avoid. Imagine the resentment over a trivial reason.

Okay, isn’t this getting a bit silly? Does anyone actually think there are people out there who avoid having children because they are afraid their kid will inherit a unibrow?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Say a couple has a very selfish reason (they are worried that baby might inherit Grandpa George’s unibrow).

That may or may not be a serious reason, depending on the size of that unibrow. If it’s big enough, we may have found our first licit use of ABCs!

 

[maryjk]

I like and agree with your post.

I wanted to touch on the pink highlighted part.

Part of the reason to avoid selfishness is to avoid making a burdensome request on the partner.

Say a couple has a very selfish reason (they are worried that baby might inherit Grandpa George’s unibrow) The selfish reason translates to having to limit sex. The couple is avoiding showing each other physical love for a trivial reason.

It’s hard to not feel resentful when there are legitimate reasons to avoid. Imagine the resentment over a trivial reason.

I think is part of how NFP works.

I wonder how long a person or couple would be willing to abstain just so a child doesn’t inherit Grandpa George’s unibrow or some other silly reason?

Not saying there aren’t couples out there, but I bet we would be hard pressed to find one.

 

[Lorelei12]

I don’t understand why this is so complicated.

Because the reality is, any couple practicing NFP is a couple that is giving up having SEX, and sex is great, and real selfishness would lead them to contracept, not to give up sex, which is really great.

I agree. I don’t get why people make it so complicated, either. In practice, in a healthy marriage, it’s difficult and requires a lot of sacrifice and patience. Theoretically, I suppose a couple could be selfishly avoiding children, but (and I think another poster mentioned this), I don’t think it could last all that long- precisely because a couple is giving up something they really want for a pretty significant portion of every month. I don’t think anyone who loves their spouse would want to do this unless they had pretty good reasons for doing it, and questioning a couple’s reasons when it’s none of anyone else’s business is just ridiculous.

People seem to want some comprehensive list of “serious” reasons, and one doesn’t exist because it can’t exist. Couples have so many different circumstances that this is why the church asks that couples use their own consciences, prayer, and discernment process to figure out what they can handle. Sure, if a couple is having trouble determining what they should do, talk to a priest. But the Church is wise enough to know that there isn’t any feasible way to furnish a specific list, while still respecting the freedom of couples to decide when to have relations.

 

[Rachel126]

I do not want to derail the thread, but I am curious… shouldn’t complete abstinence necessarily require serious/just reasons, like practicing NFP…since it is quite clear that the (one of 2) primary reason for marriage is having/raising children. I mean, if a couple decides to marry and chooses to forgo sexual relations completely, does that not stand in direct opposition to the primary end of marriage?

you are probably referring to younger people and early in marriage, I am assuming. But there are plenty of loving couples out there who after a number of years are abstinent or close to it. Lots of factors can play into this, including simple aging, exhaustion from family and work responsibilities, a gradual loss of sex drive over time, differing work schedules, etc. It doesn’t happen to everyone of course. But the Church does not require all couples to have relations on a certain schedule or a certain number of times per year, and to do so would be absurd.

 

[Rico_S]

The Church does not require a married couple to have sex. That is up to the couple.

This just confuses me. On one hand the church says a primary end of marriage is children…but, on the other saying a sexual relationship is not required in marriage? Seems contradictory to me.

 

[Rachel126]

I agree. I don’t get why people make it so complicated, either. In practice, in a healthy marriage, it’s difficult and requires a lot of sacrifice and patience. Theoretically, I suppose a couple could be selfishly avoiding children, but (and I think another poster mentioned this), I don’t think it could last all that long- precisely because a couple is giving up something they really want for a pretty significant portion of every month. I don’t think anyone who loves their spouse would want to do this unless they had pretty good reasons for doing it, and questioning a couple’s reasons when it’s none of anyone else’s business is just ridiculous.

People seem to want some comprehensive list of “serious” reasons, and one doesn’t exist because it can’t exist. Couples have so many different circumstances that this is why the church asks that couples use their own consciences, prayer, and discernment process to figure out what they can handle. Sure, if a couple is having trouble determining what they should do, talk to a priest. But the Church is wise enough to know that there isn’t any feasible way to furnish a specific list, while still respecting the freedom of couples to decide when to have relations.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, there are people who imply, or even state outright, that NFP-using couples must have really very serious reasons to use NFP, and state or imply that such serious reasons are unusual and most people don’t really have them.