Vent about NFP threads

[mommamaree]

TheWanderer,
I have already read and understood those documents. I do not disagree with any of them.

What I disagree with is your assertion that a couple has an obligation to produce children. That is not true. There are Josephite marriages and couples who struggle with infertility, both of which are still valid marriages. Plus, Popes have said that NFP is a moral means of postponing or preventing pregnancy for just reasons. We are to be responsible parents if God sends us children, but we are under no obligation to produce children for the Church or for the human race.
If we marry, and if we make use of our sexual faculties within marriage, we are to never separate the procreative ends from sexual relations. All that means is, don’t contracept. There is NO mandate from the Church that says a couple MUST have sex.
The idea of an obligation to produce children can be harmful. Do we have a right to peer into the marriage of another and suggest that they are not fulfilling their duty to God and man if they don’t start cranking out the babies? No! What we do have an obligation to do is be very clear about what sex is FOR. That is catechesis, and perhaps admonishing a sinner, in the case of correcting a brother for misusing his sexual faculties. But we cannot tell a fellow Christian to go get to work in the bedroom making a baby. Sexual relations should be a gift of the spouses to each other, not a debt owed to Church or humankind.
That is why the Church does NOT place an absolute demand upon married couples to produce children. There is no such mandate.

 

[Ophelia23]

It is interesting to see that the original point of the OP has become the argument throughout this thread.

A man and a woman are to live together as husband and wife, bound by God through the most Holy Church, living as best as they are able with purity from sin. Selfishness, pride, greed, all of these things are sin. In terms of NFP, it is for the couple to determine what is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. If a couple is practicing NFP with purity of heart, and if said couple has a life that is open with prayer, regular examination of conscience and regular partaking in the sacraments, then through faith they will not be mislead. NFP is not meant to be a stand-alone act. To fully participate in NFP is to open the collective heart of the couple to the trinitarian aspect of a marriage. It is made up of man, woman and God. It is not just abstaining during infertile periods or charting mucus signs. It is a declaration of faith and reliance on God. NFP and a life of faith and prayer go hand-in-hand.

…And that was my rant. Thanks.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

Nope, I have already explained why that does not follow from my reasoning. Either show me why despite my explanation it actually does follow from my reasoning or stop asserting that it does.

As for citing authoritative documents, I cited Humanae Vitae which laid out as universal principles about marriage that marriage is ordered towards children and that couples are not allowed to make decisions about whether or not to have children simply based on their own desires, but rather must make them based on God’s will for them. That all married couples must strive to follow responsible parenthood, which means they must base their decision about whether or not to have kids not simply on their own preferences but by looking at many factors, including the good of the human race. These are all given as universal principles. Which means they apply to marriages no matter what.

 

[thewanderer]

TheWanderer,
I have already read and understood those documents. I do not disagree with any of them.

What I disagree with is your assertion that a couple has an obligation to produce children. That is not true. ** There are Josephite marriages and couples who struggle with infertility, both of which are still valid marriages.**

Plus, Popes have said that NFP is a moral means of postponing or preventing pregnancy for just reasons. We are to be responsible parents if God sends us children, but we are under no obligation to produce children for the Church or for the human race.
If we marry, and if we make use of our sexual faculties within marriage, we are to never separate the procreative ends from sexual relations. All that means is, don’t contracept. There is NO mandate from the Church that says a couple MUST have sex.
The idea of an obligation to produce children can be harmful. Do we have a right to peer into the marriage of another and suggest that they are not fulfilling their duty to God and man if they don’t start cranking out the babies? No! What we do have an obligation to do is be very clear about what sex is FOR. That is catechesis, and perhaps admonishing a sinner, in the case of correcting a brother for misusing his sexual faculties. But we cannot tell a fellow Christian to go get to work in the bedroom making a baby. Sexual relations should be a gift of the spouses to each other, not a debt owed to Church or humankind.
That is why the Church does NOT place an absolute demand upon married couples to produce children. There is no such mandate.

It sounds to me like you don’t actually disagree with what I am trying to say, but just that you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that Josephite marriages cannot exist or that couples who are infertile are sinning by not having kids. If a couple is not having kids for a good reason (they can’t, they are called to live their marriage through abstinance in a josephite marriage, they have financial or emotional difficulties etc) then they are in the clear. I am not claiming that that woman had best be pushing out a baby every year or else or anything of the sort. I’m just saying that it is wrong to avoid sex specifically for the purpose of avoiding having children for selfish reasons. By saying married people have a certain responsibility I do not mean to say that there is an absolute demand that they have kids. Does that clear things up a little?

 

[mommamaree]

It sounds to me like you don’t actually disagree with what I am trying to say, but just that you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that Josephite marriages cannot exist or that couples who are infertile are sinning by not having kids. If a couple is not having kids for a good reason (they can’t, they are called to live their marriage through abstinance in a josephite marriage, they have financial or emotional difficulties etc) then they are in the clear. I am not claiming that that woman had best be pushing out a baby every year or else or anything of the sort. I’m just saying that it is wrong to avoid sex specifically for the purpose of avoiding having children for selfish reasons. By saying married people have a certain responsibility I do not mean to say that there is an absolute demand that they have kids. Does that clear things up a little?

yes!
Okay, then we do not disagree. I do still believe, however, that we do not have the right to pry into other people’s marriages, and caution them about selfishness. In my opinion, that is the role of their pastor or confessor, or even deacon or close confidante, but only if the person seeks out advice or answers on just reasons.

 

[thewanderer]

WarriorMonk, I know we are getting off-topic, but I would love to know. Do you agree that Humanae Vitae states as a universal principle that married couples do not have the authority to decide when they will and won’t get pregnant simply based on their own desires and must instead base it on God’s Will?

(If you are looking for the appropriate quote it is in my previous post)

 

[Rachel126]

WarriorMonk, I know we are getting off-topic, but I would love to know. Do you agree that Humanae Vitae states as a universal principle that married couples do not have the authority to decide when they will and won’t get pregnant simply based on their own desires and must instead base it on God’s Will?

(If you are looking for the appropriate quote it is in my previous post)

If this is the case, why would the church have approved NFP?

 

[mommamaree]

WarriorMonk, I know we are getting off-topic, but I would love to know. Do you agree that Humanae Vitae states as a universal principle that married couples do not have the authority to decide when they will and won’t get pregnant simply based on their own desires and must instead base it on God’s Will?

(If you are looking for the appropriate quote it is in my previous post)

May I also respond?

Because my thought is that it is impossible for them to discern God’s will perfectly. God gave humankind the mandate to be fruitful and multiply. Yet He does not impose His will on any specific couple. He designed sex. Couples may choose whether or not to engage in it. But if they do, with the language of their bodies, they are inviting God in and a baby might be made out of their love. I do not believe God plans for me to have a specific number of children. After all, He doesn’t have a queue of souls just waiting for me and my husband to get busy. He calls parents into a sacred partnership with Him in creating new human beings. It is an invitation to a joint creative endeavor, not an unannounced, unwelcome, unpleasant houseguest. So how is a couple supposed to discern God’s will? That is simple and difficult at the same time. Because they can only look at their circumstances and their hearts. They can only discern by asking themselves if they are ready to welcome another baby in 9 months. If reasons of health or timing or finances or any of the other myriad just reasons do exist, then they must only conclude that regrettably, it is not in God’s will for them to have another baby right now. So they abstain. That is the ONLY way for a human being to discern. They must be obedient with respect to HOW they enjoy their sexual faculties, but they must discern WHEN based upon their own individual circumstances.

 

[jilly4ski]

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.

This has to be incorrect or the Catechism is wrong. Because if this was the case, the NFP can never be sinful, but we know, through the Catechism that it can be.

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

The bolded sections above show 2 criteria if not fulfilled regulation of births can be sinful. If you fail to make certain your desires are not motivated by selfishness, and/or if you don’t conform your behavior to the objective criteria of morality (ie contraception).

So if you are abstaining completely or periodically you must meet these to criteria. The second criteria is meet through any sort of abstinence, it is the first criteria that those abstaining have to watch out for. Which is how NFP is generally supposed to work. It is supposed to force you to discern every month whether you should abstain or not.

Some notes: If you enter a marriage and do not intend to have children, then your marriage is invalid. I am not sure how that works with a Josephite marriage (which is not a good example, because I bet know one knows anyone in a real one). If once you get married you never have sex (I mean your marriage remains unconsummated) then I believe it is dissolvable. (This is essentially getting around the requirements of only entering a Josephite marriage under spiritual direction). I still think that I couple who has had sex in the past and intend to have sex in future are practicing periodic continence not full abstinence, the length of time is not specified. Thus the requirements to discern your reasons remains. (It may be easy, one spouse is very sick, it might be hard, we want to have another child, but is now the right time).

 

[mommamaree]

WarriorMonk, I know we are getting off-topic, but I would love to know. Do you agree that Humanae Vitae states as a universal principle that married couples do not have the authority to decide when they will and won’t get pregnant simply based on their own desires and must instead base it on God’s Will?

(If you are looking for the appropriate quote it is in my previous post)

Also HV specifically states that it is the couple who decides (prudentially and generously) whether or not to have more children. Sounds to me like HV says that it is within the authority of the couple to make this decision.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Nope, I have already explained why that does not follow from my reasoning. Either show me why despite my explanation it actually does follow from my reasoning or stop asserting that it does.

I’ll do that, as soon as you cite an authoritative document/statement/anything by the Church that states abstinence can be illicit (excepting the situation where a spouse demands relations). Otherwise, stop asserting it can be.

 

[The_Bucket]

WarriorMonk, I know we are getting off-topic, but I would love to know. Do you agree that Humanae Vitae states as a universal principle that married couples do not have the authority to decide when they will and won’t get pregnant simply based on their own desires and must instead base it on God’s Will?

(If you are looking for the appropriate quote it is in my previous post)

God works both through His creation’s order and through direct intervention. There’s precious little we can do to stop Him when He chooses direct intervention. We are given free will to choose whether we want to frustrate the faculties He has given us.

Is it God’s direct and overt will that children are brought into abusive homes? That they are brought into families and circumstances where they will starve? That they be conceived during a violent act like rape? No. The creation of children in these circumstances are instead the natural fruit of the sexual act.

Men and women have the authority to decide if they want to engage in sexual relations. God has given us that authority and asks us only to use it wisely and generously. That’s it! If He wants a child in the world He can make an overt act. He can bypass any and all of our technologies. He can even produce children in the wombs of virgins! So it’s not like spouses who make decisions for themselves on when to engage in sexual relations are somehow “blocking” God. We can’t stop God from acting. We can only choose not to participate in His Love.

 

[thewanderer]

If this is the case, why would the church have approved NFP?

Because following God’s will does not mean being a providentialist. God gave us reason and prudence so that we can use them to help determine what God’s will is. Following God’s will doesn’t mean we leave it up to chance. In fact, it usually means actively using our reason and prudence to carefully discern what God wants. Does that help?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

WarriorMonk, I know we are getting off-topic, but I would love to know. Do you agree that Humanae Vitae states as a universal principle that married couples do not have the authority to decide when they will and won’t get pregnant simply based on their own desires and must instead base it on God’s Will?

As always, there is more to met the eye. Use your above comments and apply it to a Josephite marriage.

 

[The_Bucket]

Also HV specifically states that it is the couple who decides (prudentially and generously) whether or not to have more children. Sounds to me like HV says that it is within the authority of the couple to make this decision.

I think people read way too much into the language laid out in HV. All of our actions are supposed to be prudent and generous. That’s pretty much part and parcel of being a Christian. The language presented basically tells me that Catholics should have the same outlook on sexuality as they have on treating one’s neighbor as himself or forgiving those who hurt us.

 

[jilly4ski]

Also HV specifically states that it is the couple who decides (prudentially and generously) whether or not to have more children. Sounds to me like HV says that it is within the authority of the couple to make this decision.

Yes, and what is the opposite of generously?

 

[mommamaree]

I think people read way too much into the language laid out in HV. All of our actions are supposed to be prudent and generous. That’s pretty much part and parcel of being a Christian. The language presented basically tells me that Catholics should have the same outlook on sexuality as they have on treating one’s neighbor as himself or forgiving those who hurt us.

Yeah, I know that.
My point is that it IS within the authority of the couple to decide this matter. Because Wanderer suggested that HV stated that the couple does not have that authority. But a couple need look no further than what is happening in their life and in their hearts to decide whether or not a pregnancy is prudent at that time.

 

[jilly4ski]

I’ll do that, as soon as you cite an authoritative document/statement/anything by the Church that states abstinence can be illicit (excepting the situation where a spouse demands relations). Otherwise, stop asserting it can be.

I did see CCC 2368, now will you show us, how his reasoning came to that conclusion. You are making the same mistake that those who argue that abstaining is contraception, because you are preventing the sperm and the egg from meeting. As long as you don’t initiate marital relations you are not frustrating the act, thus have no duty to make sure the sperm and egg have the opportunity to meet. Just so, as long as you are not married you have no obligations to your spouse, or God (as a married person), or any children or future children. But if you are married you do have these responsibilities.

 

[mommamaree]

Yes, and what is the opposite of generously?

Well, really, a couple could be generous by making love during a fertile time and hoping for a baby. A couple could be generous by making the sacrifice of not making love when they want to because they need to give more of themselves to the family they already have. A couple could be generous by not paying attention to fertility cycles at all and just physically loving their spouse because their spouse needs love. There are thousands of ways of being generous, and it is within the authority of the couple to decide HOW to be generous at any given moment of their married life.

The opposite of that would be the selfish use or the selfish withholding of their sexual faculties, whichever applies in their current circumstances.

 

[thewanderer]

Also HV specifically states that it is the couple who decides (prudentially and generously) whether or not to have more children. Sounds to me like HV says that it is within the authority of the couple to make this decision.

Oh, of course it is up to the couple to make the decision, but they have to try to the best of their ability to figure out what God wants, rather than just following their own inclinations even if they realize those inclinations are against what God is calling them to.

May I also respond?

Because my thought is that it is impossible for them to discern God’s will perfectly. God gave humankind the mandate to be fruitful and multiply. Yet He does not impose His will on any specific couple. He designed sex. Couples may choose whether or not to engage in it. But if they do, with the language of their bodies, they are inviting God in and a baby might be made out of their love. I do not believe God plans for me to have a specific number of children. After all, He doesn’t have a queue of souls just waiting for me and my husband to get busy. He calls parents into a sacred partnership with Him in creating new human beings. It is an invitation to a joint creative endeavor, not an unannounced, unwelcome, unpleasant houseguest. So how is a couple supposed to discern God’s will? That is simple and difficult at the same time. Because they can only look at their circumstances and their hearts. They can only discern by asking themselves if they are ready to welcome another baby in 9 months. If reasons of health or timing or finances or any of the other myriad just reasons do exist, then they must only conclude that regrettably, it is not in God’s will for them to have another baby right now. So they abstain. That is the ONLY way for a human being to discern. They must be obedient with respect to HOW they enjoy their sexual faculties, but they must discern WHEN based upon their own individual circumstances.

Of course. I agree entirely with this. I am not in any way shape or form trying to undermine the individual couples right and responsibility to discern for themselves what God’s will is for them in their particular situation.

God works both through His creation’s order and through direct intervention. There’s precious little we can do to stop Him when He chooses direct intervention. We are given free will to choose whether we want to frustrate the faculties He has given us.

Is it God’s direct and overt will that children are brought into abusive homes? That they are brought into families and circumstances where they will starve? That they be conceived during a violent act like rape? No. The creation of children in these circumstances are instead the natural fruit of the sexual act.

Men and women have the authority to decide if they want to engage in sexual relations. God has given us that authority and asks us only to use it wisely and generously. That’s it! If He wants a child in the world He can make an overt act. He can bypass any and all of our technologies. He can even produce children in the wombs of virgins! So it’s not like spouses who make decisions for themselves on when to engage in sexual relations are somehow “blocking” God. We can’t stop God from acting. We can only choose not to participate in His Love.

I’m not entirely sure what you are trying to say here… of course God can intervene extra-ordinarily, but that doesn’t mean he has no preferences for our behaviour even when he doesn’t intervene. Can you clarify what you are trying to say?

I’ll do that, as soon as you cite an authoritative document/statement/anything by the Church that states abstinence can be illicit (excepting the situation where a spouse demands relations). Otherwise, stop asserting it can be.

I’m working on showing how the HV quotes (and other Church teachings) necessarily lead to that conclusion.

As always, there is more to met the eye. Use your above comments and apply it to a Josephite marriage.

To a Josephite marriage? A Josephite marriage is one where both people involved have discerned that God’s will for their marriage is that they live it out in a celibate manner for spiritual reasons. So for a couple that enters a Josephite marriage because they have discerned it is God’s will of course they are not circumventing God’s will with respect to procreation, they have carefully discerned what God’s will is and tried to follow it out.

Again, please answer yes or no, do you recognize and admit that HV gives a universal principal for married people that they cannot just do as they please with respect to procreation but must always try to follow God’s will in this matter?