Vent about NFP threads

[TheWarriorMonk]

Having sexual relations during the infertile period is also always licit.

Actually, I see what you’re saying by saying that Abstinance is always licit, and that is not true in the way you mean it. You need just as serious reasons for complete abstinance when trying to avoid children as you do for NFP (periodic abstinance). The intention to avoid children for selfish reasons is just as selfish when you abstain completely as when you abstain only periodically and it is this selfish intention which is immoral, not abstaining while fertile or having relations while infertile.

Complete abstinence is not periodic abstinence. Also, please show me where it is stated that abstinence can be illicit. I’ve never seen that stated anywhere.

One cannot separate the unitive and procreative via abstinence because in abstinence there is no action. To put it plainly, there is simply no way to take procreation out of not having sex.

OTOH, when one actually has sex, the manner they have sex will decide whether it is unitive and procreate.

 

[thewanderer]

Complete abstinence is not periodic abstinence. Also, please show me where it is stated that abstinence can be illicit. I’ve never seen that stated anywhere.

One cannot separate the unitive and procreative via abstinence because in abstinence there is no action. To put it plainly, there is simply no way to take procreation out of not having sex.

OTOH, when one actually has sex, the manner they have sex will decide whether it is unitive and procreate.

If you are completely abstaining for the sake of avoiding kids because you hate kids and want an amazing vacation throughout europe would you still say that that is legit?

Your problem is that you are confusing the intents of different actions. When people have sex during the infertile period they are not doing so to avoid kids, they are doing so to express their love for each other and to unite themselves with each other. This is true whether they are abstaining during the fertile times or not. There is nothing wrong with this. What can make the abstaining during the fertile periods wrong (which applies whether or not you abstain during the infertile periods) is having a selfish reason for abstaining.

While the Church has not explicitly said this about complete abstinance and has only said it explicitly about partial abstinance, the logic behind their statement about partial abstinance necessarily means that it applies to complete abstinance as well. The Church’s moral teachings are ultimately logical so it can by extension be shown that the Church’s code of moral teaching implies that one can misuse complete abstinance just as one can misuse partial abstinance.

(And in fact the Church does have an explicit teaching on the ability to misuse abstinance, its called the marital right. It is absolutely possible to misuse abstinance.)

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

While the Church has not explicitly said this about complete abstinance

That’s because abstinence is never illicit if the couple agrees to it. I’ve yet to see a Church teaching that states otherwise.

and has only said it explicitly about partial abstinance,

because partial abstinence involves action.

the logic behind their statement about partial abstinance necessarily means that it applies to complete abstinance as well.

It most certainly does not. There is no such teaching.

(And in fact the Church does have an explicit teaching on the ability to misuse abstinance, its called the marital right. It is absolutely possible to misuse abstinance.)

Hence the reason why I ALWAYS qualify this discussion with agreement between the couple.

If a couple gets married, and two seconds after they marry decide they don’t want children and never have sex, no sin has been committed…none.

 

[thewanderer]

That’s because abstinence is never illicit if the couple agrees to it. I’ve yet to see a Church teaching that states otherwise.

That depends on what you mean by illicit, it can certainly be sinful if done for selfish reasons.

because partial abstinence involves action.

It most certainly does not. There is no such teaching.

Hence the reason why I ALWAYS qualify this discussion with agreement between the couple.

If a couple gets married, and two seconds after they marry decide they don’t want children and never have sex, no sin has been committed…none.

That is so false. If they decide not to have kids for selfish reasons they are still being selfish and so are sinning. I’m sorry, but thats the facts. Being selfish is sinful. If you are selfishly avoiding your responisibilities as a married couple to have kids you’re still being selfish. Now, entering a josephite marriage for spiritual reasons is different, but doing so because you selfishly just don’t want kids just because (enter all the stereotypes given as examples of people using NFP selfishly) is still wrong. Period. Otherwise the Church’s teachings would be completely illogical.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That is so false.

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.

Otherwise the Church’s teachings would be completely illogical.

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.

 

[jilly4ski]

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.

This is not a logical argument for your point. It is the same argument as saying not having sex is the same as contraception because you are preventing the egg and the sperm from meeting.

Once you are married you have certain responsibilities and duties that you don’t have when you are single. That includes the marital debt. The natural end of marriage is children. Thus if you purposefully avoid that end you must have a good reason. The Church also assumes that married couple is engaged in normal marital relations. That is the norm for a marriage. Abstinence is an abnormal state of a marriage.

I think this goes to the confusion that I spoke of before. Abstinence is not sinful it is a licit means. However an intention to avoid children for selfish reasons would be sinful, but not the abstinence per se. So you see, it is the intentions, that are the sin of selfishness (just like in periodical abstinence) not the abstinence the action.

 

[The_Bucket]

I think this goes to the confusion that I spoke of before. Abstinence is not sinful it is a licit means. However an intention to avoid children for selfish reasons would be sinful, but not the abstinence per se. So you see, it is the intentions, that are the sin of selfishness (just like in periodical abstinence) not the abstinence the action.

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.

 

[Rachel126]

That website republished the Protocols of Zion in full. It also referred to female gymnasts as “lacking in serious moral guidance” simply because of their attire. Oh and the fact that competitive sports are apparently affronts to femininity.

In short, that website is run by lunatics and should not be considered a legitimate reference to anything except perhaps the mind of a Jew-hating crazy person.

 

[jilly4ski]

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.

Actually, I don’t think that was what thewanderer was saying. He was saying that if you abstain during any time for you purpose of avoiding children and you have selfish reasons that could be sinful. You see, you need to be abstaining for the purpose of avoiding children (Not some other purpose) and you must not have selfish reasons for doing so. (It is no surprise that the Church requires a Josephite marriage to only be entered into under spiritual direction).

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This is not a logical argument for your point. It is the same argument as saying not having sex is the same as contraception because you are preventing the egg and the sperm from meeting.

Utterly incorrect. Contraception requires action; i.e, one has to have sex to perform a contraceptive act. Abstinence does not. Nobody can be guilty of the sin of contraception without ever performing a sexual act. You’re statement above is like stating going to the store is that same action as staying home.

Once you are married you have certain responsibilities and duties that you don’t have when you are single. That includes the marital debt. The natural end of marriage is children. Thus if you purposefully avoid that end you must have a good reason. The Church also assumes that married couple is engaged in normal marital relations. That is the norm for a marriage. Abstinence is an abnormal state of a marriage.

Those duties are between the couple. There is no requirement that a couple have sex after marriage…none. Furthermore, the Church does not refer to marriages where the couple decides not to have sex as abnormal. In fact, the Church’s position is exactly the opposite; it’s considered virtuous.

I think this goes to the confusion that I spoke of before. Abstinence is not sinful it is a licit means. However an intention to avoid children for selfish reasons would be sinful, but not the abstinence per se. So you see, it is the intentions, that are the sin of selfishness (just like in periodical abstinence) not the abstinence the action.

You are conflating intent with action. We are all tempted and have sinful thoughts. In most cases (which would include abstinence), thought without action is not sinful. There are some that are, such as certain types of sexual thoughts, specifically because Christ mentioned them.

 

[Rachel126]

Before I got married, we were required to attend an NFP class taught by a certified instructor and approved by the diocese. She was a great lady, a nurse, who felt passionately about NFP, and she had 6 kids, but she never stated or implied that it was required by the Church that everyone have a big family. At no time was the class ever told that we had to use it “in consultation with a priest” or that we needed a priest’s permission to use it, whether temporarily or long-term. We were also told that the Church promotes “responsible parenting,” meaning we should not have more children than we can properly raise, and NFP was the correct, Church-approved means of accomplishing this. The concept of limiting family size for “selfish reasons” was not something that ever even came up. How does one determine what a “selfish reason” is? Does that mean we are required to make literally every possible sacrifice so that we can have as many children as possible? “Well, I guess we can afford another baby if we sell our cars and take the bus everywhere…or stop saving for retirement…or sell our house and move to the really bad side of town…or live off bread and water.” This could very quickly get ridiculous, and I don’t believe you would find many priests who would promote this kind of thinking. And, well, frankly, I will take the instruction and spirit of my diocese-approved NFP class over a random lay person on the internet.

 

[jilly4ski]

Utterly incorrect. Contraception requires action; i.e, one has to have sex to perform a contraceptive act. Abstinence does not. Nobody can be guilty of the sin of contraception without ever performing a sexual act. You’re statement above is like stating going to the store is that same action as staying home.

Those duties are between the couple. There is no requirement that a couple have sex after marriage…none. Furthermore, the Church does not refer to marriages where the couple decides not to have sex as abnormal. In fact, the Church’s position is exactly the opposite; it’s considered virtuous.

You are conflating intent with action. We are all tempted and have sinful thoughts. In most cases (which would include abstinence), thought without action is not sinful. There are some that are, such as certain types of sexual thoughts, specifically because Christ mentioned them.

I know it is incorrect, I was saying that “incorrect” argument was the same that you were making. You are sort of right. There is no explicit duty, except for the marital duty to the other spouse. However, the Church does say that avoiding children through periodic abstinence is a sin if done for selfish reasons. This would be the same if someone abstained completely for selfish reasons. There is no difference, as no action is being taken at the time when conception could occur. That is the whole point of NFP. No action is taken and a pregnancy is avoided. It is the same in periodic abstinence as it is in full abstinence, it doesn’t matter that the couple has or will engage in the marital act.

And I am not conflating intent and action, abstaining from the marital act is an act of will.

 

[jilly4ski]

Before I got married, we were required to attend an NFP class taught by a certified instructor and approved by the diocese. She was a great lady, a nurse, who felt passionately about NFP, and she had 6 kids, but she never stated or implied that it was required by the Church that everyone have a big family. At no time was the class ever told that we had to use it “in consultation with a priest” or that we needed a priest’s permission to use it, whether temporarily or long-term. We were also told that the Church promotes “responsible parenting,” meaning we should not have more children than we can properly raise, and NFP was the correct, Church-approved means of accomplishing this. The concept of limiting family size for “selfish reasons” was not something that ever even came up. How does one determine what a “selfish reason” is? Does that mean we are required to make literally every possible sacrifice so that we can have as many children as possible? “Well, I guess we can afford another baby if we sell our cars and take the bus everywhere…or stop saving for retirement…or sell our house and move to the really bad side of town…or live off bread and water.” This could very quickly get ridiculous, and I don’t believe you would find many priests who would promote this kind of thinking. And, well, frankly, I will take the instruction and spirit of my diocese-approved NFP class over a random lay person on the internet.

Unfortunately for your NFP class, it comes right out of the Catechism.

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:

 

[Rachel126]

Unfortunately for your NFP class, it comes right out of the Catechism.

Okay, yes. I still don’t see how that can be interpreted as “you can only use NFP to take a quick breather between kids.”

 

[jilly4ski]

Okay, yes. I still don’t see how that can be interpreted as “you can only use NFP to take a quick breather between kids.”

Nobody said it did. We are saying that it is the duty of the couple to make sure their reasons are not selfish in nature.

 

[Rachel126]

Nobody said it did. We are saying that it is the duty of the couple to make sure their reasons are not selfish in nature.

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

 

[SusanneT]

I know it is incorrect, I was saying that “incorrect” argument was the same that you were making. You are sort of right. There is no explicit duty, except for the marital duty to the other spouse. However, the Church does say that avoiding children through periodic abstinence is a sin if done for selfish reasons. This would be the same if someone abstained completely for selfish reasons. There is no difference, as no action is being taken at the time when conception could occur. That is the whole point of NFP. No action is taken and a pregnancy is avoided. It is the same in periodic abstinence as it is in full abstinence, it doesn’t matter that the couple has or will engage in the marital act.

And I am not conflating intent and action, abstaining from the marital act is an act of will.

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.

 

[pnewton]

No, one can not use NFP for selfish reasons, but one can’t do anything for selfish reasons. I think the problem with offense occurs when people who are practicing NFP are told this. It implies that they may be doing it for selfish reasons, whether it is meant that way or not. After all, since selfishness is wrong and can be applied to almost anything we do, when it is singled out so, it may be taken the wrong way.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

However, the Church does say that avoiding children through periodic abstinence is a sin if done for selfish reasons. This would be the same if someone abstained completely for selfish reasons. There is no difference, as no action is being taken at the time when conception could occur. That is the whole point of NFP. No action is taken and a pregnancy is avoided. It is the same in periodic abstinence as it is in full abstinence, it doesn’t matter that the couple has or will engage in the marital act.

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.

And I am not conflating intent and action, abstaining from the marital act is an act of will.

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.

 

[Kelfa28]

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.