Vent about NFP threads

[Mary_Gail_36]

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?

I agree. Very holy couples in the past have been permitted a Josephite marriage where they give up relations in order to devote more time to prayer and sacrifice. If one partner changes his/her mind then the may no longer have a Josephite marriage.

Complete abstinence would have the possibility to be overly burdensome to at least 1 spouse. If they choose complete abstinence it should be for very serious reasons.

 

[maryjk]

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.

Heck, there is at least one RCIA class that tells couples that they have to have permission from their pastor to use NFP.

I guess their pastor has a medical degree so he will know if their medical reason is really really very serious or not. And he must also have an accounting degree. Oh, and he must also be a psychologist, in case their reason is that they are overwhelmed.

 

[Rico_S]

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.

No…I understand that. There are plenty of just/serious/medical reasons why married couples would forgo the sexual relationship…periodically or permanently. And the church has no problem with that. I am not confused about that.

I am confused that in general, that some seem to be saying that serious/just reasons are not required in order to permanently abstain from the sexual relationship. If a primary end is children, then abstaining completely from the sexual relationship seems contrary to that end. With serious/just reasons, it makes sense. But with no qualification, it does not.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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?

That’s why I used the example. I wanted an extreme example.

If there were people that selfish to limit relations for such a trivial reason, that selfishness would harm the relationship with the spouse and cause resentment.

We are called to be generous first with our own spouse, then with our children.

 

[Rico_S]

I agree. Very holy couples in the past have been permitted a Josephite marriage where they give up relations in order to devote more time to prayer and sacrifice. If one partner changes his/her mind then the may no longer have a Josephite marriage.
.

Yes. It would seem abstinence, whether complete or periodic, but be accompanied by serious or just reasons in light of the primary ends of marriage.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

And if they could abstain for that reason, how lovingly generous could that marriage be? “Not tonight honey, we don’t want to inherit the unibrow”.

 

[mommamaree]

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.

It is not contradictory because the Church has also told us that when a couple does have sexual relations, they must not frustrate either the procreative or unitive ends of relations.

In other words,
Marriage is for children and getting the spouses to heaven.
The proper context for sex is only in marriage.
Sex is for babies and bonding.
Be responsible parents.

To use a silly analogy, the Church gives us a gameboard (sacrament of matrimony) and an explanation of the rules of the game (Bible, magisterial documents) and then tells us to go play and have fun. We may choose to play the game on a day. We may choose to play it a whole LOT, because after all, it is fun. We may choose to put the game up on a shelf for a time, so that we can focus on other important activities. But we may not share our gameboard with anyone other than our spouse, and we may not play alone, and we may not try to win the game without following the rules of the game. And to complete our silly analogy, we even get to decide the name of our game. Is your gameboard CandyLand, Sorry!, Yahtzee, Risk, or Life?

 

[Rico_S]

It is not contradictory because the Church has also told us that when a couple does have sexual relations, they must not frustrate either the procreative or unitive ends of relations.

In other words,
Marriage is for children and getting the spouses to heaven.
The proper context for sex is only in marriage.
Sex is for babies and bonding.
Be responsible parents.

I get this. But it doesn’t address what I am saying. I guess I haven’t been good in trying to explain my point. Oh well. I won’t derail the thread further.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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.

More simply, its ordered toward the good of the spouses. That covers everything, from young couples to 90-year-old newlyweds who obviously aren’t having any children.

With regard to children, one can have children without sex. Ask any happy adoptive parent, such as myself.

 

[mommamaree]

I get this. But it doesn’t address what I am saying. I guess I haven’t been good in trying to explain my point. Oh well. I won’t derail the thread further.

Sorry. Guess I didn’t understand.

 

[Rico_S]

Sorry. Guess I didn’t understand.

You are fine. I appreciate your trying to help.

 

[thewanderer]

No.

Each marital act must be ordered a certain way. The Church has never taught that each non-marital act (i.e., abstinence) must be ordered a certain way.

Did you ever notice when people discuss and argue for NFP they only discuss the non-action? They do that specifically because abstinence is NEVER sinful (provided both parties agree). The Church has never taught anything contrary.

Actually, the opposite is true. For example, by extension, your line of thinking would mean anyone who decides not to have children and doesn’t get married is be selfish and sinning. The Church has never taught such things. There are only a very few instances where only thoughts with no action are actual sins, and this is not one of them.

Nope that does not follow from my line of thinking at all because having children is responsibility of a non-josephite marriage, not a responsibility of every person in existence. Its not selfish to fail to do somthing that isn’t your responsibility in the first place.

 

[thewanderer]

Exactly. The sin would be greed and attachment to material possessions, not the misuse of sexuality. Unless of course only one spouse was withholding and doing it for selfish reasons and the other spouse is desirous of relations.

This debate is silly for one simple reason: There’s no “Easter duty” to sexual relations the way there is for receiving the Eucharist. The Church lays down markers for what acts are and are not licit.

She does not proscribe how often or when a couple must have relations, which is basically what thewanderer is doing here. Having sex in the infertile period and you don’t have “good/just/whatever reasons to abstain in the fertile period? … better get some in during the fertile period to make sure you’re not committing grave sin!” That is patently ludicrous.

I think you misunderstand me. That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that if the reason you are abstaining is to avoid having kids when your reasons are selfish then that abstaining is just as selfish and wrong as using NFP to avoid having kids for selfish reasons, possibly even moreso as it is more likely to cause damage to your marriage or lead your spouse into temptation. I’m not saying that an obligation to have sex exists, but just that it is wrong to abstain for selfish reasons. If you don’t have sex just because you aren’t in the mood, thats totally fine.

 

[thewanderer]

Note that abstinence is qualified with “periodic.” That’s because abstinence in and of itself cannot be sinful.

You yourself already admitted that abstinance can be sinful if forced by one spouse on the other, so I’m sorry, but you can’t make a universal claim that abstinance can never 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.

 

[mommamaree]

Nope that does not follow from my line of thinking at all because having children is responsibility of a non-josephite marriage, not a responsibility of every person in existence. Its not selfish to fail to do somthing that isn’t your responsibility in the first place.

Umm, to the red highlighted portion…
I don’t think that is quite right.

We are supposed to be responsible parents. Be we do not have the responsibility to have children. As in, our responsibility is to any children we might be blessed with, but we are not responsible to the Church. The Church does not have some absolute requirement upon married couples to produce children.

 

[thewanderer]

Umm, to the red highlighted portion…
I don’t think that is quite right.

We are supposed to be responsible parents. Be we do not have the responsibility to have children. As in, our responsibility is to any children we might be blessed with, but we are not responsible to the Church. The Church does not have some absolute requirement upon married couples to produce children.

Obviously its not wrong for a couple not to have kids if they have a non-selfish reason not to. But if their reasons are selfish then that is wrong.

Look, here is what Humanae Vitae has to say about all this

[Section on Married Love]
Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.” (8)

Responsible Parenthood

1. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who,** for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.**

Mote that this is an absolute statement, not simply with referance to periodic abstinance, in other words making a decision not to have children for either a certain or indefinate time can only be considered responsible parenthood (which is what all married couples are to aim for) if they have just, non-selfish reasons and don’t use contraception.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter.** In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society**.

A part of that responsibility to human society is to ensure that there are future generations, that the human society continues to exist.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

So they can’t just decide we hate kids and don’t want any because we are being selfish therefore we will abstain and avoid them. They have to discern whether or not it is Gods will to have kids. They don’t have to go out of their way to try and have kids (unless they discern that God does want them to have kids), but they can’t go out of their way to avoid them for selfish reasons, no matter what method they use to avoid them. This is because the part above from HV is talking about universals principles about marriage, not principles that only apply if you decide to use periodic abstinance. HV makes absolutely no sense if you try to claim that you can abstain entirely for the purpose of avoiding kids because of selfish reasons but you need to make sure your intentions are pure if you are going to abstain only periodically. (and yes, I realize thats not the specific claim you were making, but that way of thinking follows from the claim you made).

 

[thewanderer]

Also, WarriorMonk, let me put it to you this way.

The Church teaches that there are three aspects of an action that determine its morality, the intention, circumstances, and means. The teaching being that if even one of these three is immoral then the action itself is immoral. Now, lets look at abstinance for the sake of selfishly avoiding children. Here we have a moral means, but an immoral (selfish) intention and circumstance combination. This necessarily means that the action would be immoral. It would not be immoral based on the means, but rather based on the intention. However, that still makes the action itself immoral.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Nope that does not follow from my line of thinking at all because having children is responsibility of a non-josephite marriage, not a responsibility of every person in existence. Its not selfish to fail to do somthing that isn’t your responsibility in the first place.

Marriage is marriage; just because a marriage is a “Josphite” marriage changes nothing. Those in a Josephite marriage have exactly the same duties and obligations as every other marriage.

“Having children is responsibility of a non-Josphite” marriage is an incorrect portrayal of the situation, and obviously must be, because some people can get married who objectively cannot have children. The couple must simply be open to have children, and that is true of a Josephite or non-Josephite marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

Also, WarriorMonk,

As to the idea that NFP invovles an action to avoid, if that were the case it would be an immoral means. This is what HV has to say about immoral means of avoiding children

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

The whole reason NFP is not immoral is because the avoidance of children does not involve an action, but rather an inaction, ie abstinance.

All that NFP is is a gaining of knowledge (which is not immoral) and the using of that knowledge to help the couple make a prudential decision about whether they need to abstain at any given moment in time. That is what NFP to avoid is. In otherwords, abstinance with better knowledge of when abstinance is actually necessary. Whether or not a person has sex during their infertile time, if they are charting to gain that extra knowledge about their cycle and using that knowledge to ensure they abstain while fertile they are using NFP. Having sex when infertile is not in any way shape or form necessary to NFP to avoid.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Also, WarriorMonk, let me put it to you this way.

The Church teaches that there are three aspects of an action that determine its morality, the intention, circumstances, and means. The teaching being that if even one of these three is immoral then the action itself is immoral. Now, lets look at abstinance for the sake of selfishly avoiding children. Here we have a moral means, but an immoral (selfish) intention and circumstance combination. This necessarily means that the action would be immoral. It would not be immoral based on the means, but rather based on the intention. However, that still makes the action itself immoral.

You may end the discussion very quickly by providing an authoritative document or statement stating abstinence can be immoral. This is certainly not noted in authoritative, often-cited references such as Humanae Vitae.

By your reasoning, if a person does not want to have children under any circumstances, and as a result does not marry and remains chaste, they are sinning. Not having sex is simply not sinful, excepting marital obligations if the other spouse demands it. No authoritative document that I’ve seen states otherwise…hence the reason you can only base you argument on personal opinion.