Vent about NFP threads

[Rachel126]

Ok, since you could be offline or otherwise busy I will just explain the rest of my thought to you so that then you can either accept it or show me where my reasoning is faulty when you do come back online/have the time to respond.

Basically, I take it as obvious that HV gives a universal principle that we must try to do God’s will rather than our own with respect to procreation (just as we must in every other are of our life). What necessarily follows from this universal principle is that there is similarly a universal principal that it is wrong for a couple to avoid doing God’s will with respect to procreation when they are aware of what his will is.

This brings us to a scenario where we have a couple who have discerned that God would like them to have another child, but for selfish reasons do not want to. They decide to avoid sex altogether to make sure they don’t have a child. Have they or have they not sinned in doing this? It is clear they broke the above principal of following God’s will with respect to procreation and so that would mean they have sinned. Would you agree with this conclusion WarriorMonk? If so than you must admit that it can be sinful to abstain from relations for the sake of avoiding children if your reasons are selfish/contrary to God’s will.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I am not sure how anyone can be sure it is or is not God’s will for them to have or not have another child. Prayer and consulting one’s conscience are wonderful. But, well, I cannot say that God ever has or has not very clearly stated to me that He wanted me to have another child.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here we go…let’s all print one out and fill in our names.

http://dansideas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/beat-a-dead-horse.jpg?w=635&h=480

You guys are still here?

 

[thewanderer]

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I am not sure how anyone can be sure it is or is not God’s will for them to have or not have another child. Prayer and consulting one’s conscience are wonderful. But, well, I cannot say that God ever has or has not very clearly stated to me that He wanted me to have another child.

That is all I am talking about as being required to be sure. People become sure of their vocations this way, as well as many other things in their life when trying to determine God’s will.

 

[thewanderer]

You guys are still here?

Honestly I get the whole thing about preventing people from beating a dead horse, but so long as the people involved in the discussion are polite and collected and wnating to continue the discussion I really don’t see any reason to end it.

 

[mommamaree]

Ok, since you could be offline or otherwise busy I will just explain the rest of my thought to you so that then you can either accept it or show me where my reasoning is faulty when you do come back online/have the time to respond.

Basically, I take it as obvious that HV gives a universal principle that we must try to do God’s will rather than our own with respect to procreation (just as we must in every other are of our life). What necessarily follows from this universal principle is that there is similarly a universal principal that it is wrong for a couple to avoid doing God’s will with respect to procreation when they are aware of what his will is.

This brings us to a scenario where we have a couple who have discerned that God would like them to have another child, but for selfish reasons do not want to. They decide to avoid sex altogether to make sure they don’t have a child. Have they or have they not sinned in doing this? It is clear they broke the above principal of following God’s will with respect to procreation and so that would mean they have sinned. Would you agree with this conclusion WarriorMonk? If so than you must admit that it can be sinful to abstain from relations for the sake of avoiding children if your reasons are selfish/contrary to God’s will.

How in the world would they know that, though? Did God ring them up and say “Verily verily I say unto thee, My will is for you to have another child now, so go and engage in the marital act so that I may accomplish My will in your life”…?
LOL.
Okay, so all laughing aside…how would any couple discern that it is God’s will for them to have another baby. The only logic that I can see here is as follows:
We have the resources (financial, emotional, health, etc.) for another baby right now.
We have the desire to engage in marital relations now.
We are fertile right now.
Maybe God will send us another baby?
Let’s make love!
Bing Bang Boom! Decision made.
Then all that remains is for God to create a new soul if sperm meets egg. But that still doesn’t guarantee a baby will be born. Trust me, I know. Because twice I have gone through this process with my husband, only to lose the baby to miscarriage.

How else can the couple know God’s will? I cannot see a situation where a couple would KNOW that God wills for them to have another child and yet they choose not to have sex in order to thwart God’s plan. That is beyond comprehension to me. Because how would they KNOW that they are in opposition to God’s will?

 

[Joe_5859]

Honestly I get the whole thing about preventing people from beating a dead horse, but so long as the people involved in the discussion are polite and collected and wnating to continue the discussion I really don’t see any reason to end it.

I agree. I forgot to add my winking emoticon to signify that I was making a joke.

 

[mommamaree]

Honestly I get the whole thing about preventing people from beating a dead horse, but so long as the people involved in the discussion are polite and collected and wnating to continue the discussion I really don’t see any reason to end it.

Yeah, for realsies.

I was actually still interested in this discussion with you. I don’t feel like I should be sorry that I am boring others with the discussion.

 

[thewanderer]

How in the world would they know that, though? Did God ring them up and say “Verily verily I say unto thee, My will is for you to have another child now, so go and engage in the marital act so that I may accomplish My will in your life”…?
LOL.
Okay, so all laughing aside…how would any couple discern that it is God’s will for them to have another baby. The only logic that I can see here is as follows:
We have the resources (financial, emotional, health, etc.) for another baby right now.
We have the desire to engage in marital relations now.
We are fertile right now.
Maybe God will send us another baby?
Let’s make love!
Bing Bang Boom! Decision made.
Then all that remains is for God to create a new soul if sperm meets egg. But that still doesn’t guarantee a baby will be born. Trust me, I know. Because twice I have gone through this process with my husband, only to lose the baby to miscarriage.

How else can the couple know God’s will? I cannot see a situation where a couple would KNOW that God wills for them to have another child and yet they choose not to have sex in order to thwart God’s plan. That is beyond comprehension to me. Because how would they KNOW that they are in opposition to God’s will?

mommamaree, that kind of discernment is exactly what I mean. I’ve already said that in answer to one of your posts earlier. I am not talking about “God came down and spoke to me” kind of knowledge, I am talking about precisely the same kind of discernment you mean. Can you please try to accept that that is all that I mean? I know you don’t like the language that I have been using, and I’m sorry about that, but I was just trying to respond to WarriorMonk’s claim that a couples reason for complete abstinence can be as selfish as they please and it still wouldn’t be wrong to abstain. I am not trying to say couples should doubt whether they have a reason to abstain once they have discerned that they do.

 

[thewanderer]

I agree. I forgot to add my winking emoticon to signify that I was making a joke.

 

[jilly4ski]

You are using the one-sided version of NFP. Abstinence is not sinful. The other part of NFP involves engaging in marital relations. That’s where the sin can occur. NFP without marital relations is simply abstience, not NFP. If abstinence could be sinful, obviously a Josephite marriage would not be permitted.

Spacing births means they are having relations, otherwise birth is an impossibility and there is nothing to space.

If you haven’t noticed by now, there is great consistency in my arguments:

1. 
   *]Abstinence is not sinful
   *]If one is having sexual relations with their spouse, the procreative and unitive aspects cannot be separated.
   *]Serious reason is required if the spouses are having sex while attempting not to become pregnant.
   
   All of the above are entirely consistent with Church’s position.

1. 
   So are you saying that a couple sins by having marital relations while they are planning to regulate births. I would dearly love it if you would show me the documents and the logic that led you to that conclusion.
   
   I would posit the other way. Having marital relations the way they are intended can never be a sin. (With a few exceptions, if an individual lusts or views the other as an object etc., and yet they still must have relations if the other spouse). And I would reject your notion that abstinence can never be a sin, it can be, if you are unjustly denying the other spouse and if you are abstaining for bad reasons. Our fallen nature lets us sin in many ways, even while doing things that are naturally good. Abstaining is not the natural state of married couples.
   
   And the logic does not follow that I already have to have children to space births. If I get married and say I want to wait 2 years before having kids am I not “spacing births”. And I could do so by complete abstinence until that time no?
   
   And one does not enter a Josephite marriage to regulate births. This section is about regulating births, thus it can be sinful to abstain for selfish reason, while trying to regulate births. I think you should drop the Josephite marriage, since you must enter a Josephite marriage under spiritual direction (which you don’t need for period or complete abstinence) and a Josephite marriage can be dissolved, unlike a regular marriage. Thus it appears to me that a Josephite marriage is not very analogous to a regular marriage. You cannot enter a Josephite marriage after you are married.
   
   The goal to regulate births can be marred by our sinfulness, mainly if our reasons for regulating births is selfish.
   
   Oh and in regard to #3. You cannot have sex while attempting not to get pregnant. (besides using contraceptives), such is a contradiction in term and that is illogical. You can have sex and know that it is unlikely that you won’t get pregnant, or likely that is will. You can have sex and not know.
   
   So you agree with me, that if at anytime a couple plans to or did have marital relations and now they want to avoid a pregnancy, and thus abstaining they are engaging in periodic continence, and thus the paragraph that I quoted applies?

 

[mommamaree]

mommamaree, that kind of discernment is exactly what I mean. I’ve already said that in answer to one of your posts earlier. I am not talking about “God came down and spoke to me” kind of knowledge, I am talking about precisely the same kind of discernment you mean. Can you please try to accept that that is all that I mean? I know you don’t like the language that I have been using, and I’m sorry about that, but I was just trying to respond to WarriorMonk’s claim that a couples reason for complete abstinence can be as selfish as they please and it still wouldn’t be wrong to abstain. I am not trying to say couples should doubt whether they have a reason to abstain once they have discerned that they do.

No problem. Obviously, I am a very exacting person when it comes to communication. I can drive my husband nuts some times, because I want to be very clear and I want to absolutely understand what he says and all of its implications. I don’t do it to cause offense, it is just that any hint of ambiguity leads me to ask more questions, until I am confident that I understand the person’s meaning perfectly. It is not an inadequacy in anyone else, just a personal quirk of mine that comes out in debates.
I am now to a point where I am confident that I completely understand you, and I think we are in complete agreement. However, based on what WarriorMonk has stated, I think you and he are also in agreement. It is just that you both are approaching the topic from different angles. I could be way off base here. It is just that I agree with him, and I agree with you, and I agree with the Church’s teachings, and I do not see any discrepancies.

 

[jilly4ski]

There is no other moral way to regulate procreation except by either abstaining from or participating in the marital act, correct? So now from this starting point, please tell me your point again. Sorry I am dense.

First part yes, there is no other moral way to regulate births than some form of abstinence. But abstinence in and of itself does not prevent the action from being immoral. You also must have good intentions/reasons. That is all we are saying. Abstinence can be immoral, if you are using it to regulate births with an unjust (read selfish) reason.

 

[jilly4ski]

First part yes, there is no other moral way to regulate births than some form of abstinence. But abstinence in and of itself does not prevent the action from being immoral. You also must have good intentions/reasons. That is all we are saying. Abstinence can be immoral, if you are using it to regulate births with an unjust (read selfish) reason.

Which I believe is very difficult to have while practicing some form of abstinence. But it could happen for a few months or for a couple that has no sex drive.

 

[thewanderer]

No problem. Obviously, I am a very exacting person when it comes to communication. I can drive my husband nuts some times, because I want to be very clear and I want to absolutely understand what he says and all of its implications. I don’t do it to cause offense, it is just that any hint of ambiguity leads me to ask more questions, until I am confident that I understand the person’s meaning perfectly. It is not an inadequacy in anyone else, just a personal quirk of mine that comes out in debates.
I am now to a point where I am confident that I completely understand you, and I think we are in complete agreement. However, based on what WarriorMonk has stated, I think you and he are also in agreement. It is just that you both are approaching the topic from different angles. I could be way off base here. It is just that I agree with him, and I agree with you, and I agree with the Church’s teachings, and I do not see any discrepancies.

Oh no, don’t worry about it at all. I know I have some discussion habits which sometimes frustrate a lot of people (in particular wanting to continue a discussion because I find such discussions interesting even when the other person is tired of it and just wants to end it )

I will try to go back and find the original statement that led me to disagree with WarriorMonk and try to explain where exactly I see us as disagreeing.

 

[thewanderer]

So are you saying that a couple sins by having marital relations while they are planning to regulate births. I would dearly love it if you would show me the documents and the logic that led you to that conclusion.

I would posit the other way. Having marital relations the way they are intended can never be a sin. (With a few exceptions, if an individual lusts or views the other as an object etc., and yet they still must have relations if the other spouse). And I would reject your notion that abstinence can never be a sin, it can be, if you are unjustly denying the other spouse and if you are abstaining for bad reasons. Our fallen nature lets us sin in many ways, even while doing things that are naturally good. Abstaining is not the natural state of married couples.

And the logic does not follow that I already have to have children to space births. If I get married and say I want to wait 2 years before having kids am I not “spacing births”. And I could do so by complete abstinence until that time no?

And one does not enter a Josephite marriage to regulate births. This section is about regulating births, thus it can be sinful to abstain for selfish reason, while trying to regulate births. I think you should drop the Josephite marriage, since you must enter a Josephite marriage under spiritual direction (which you don’t need for period or complete abstinence) and a Josephite marriage can be dissolved, unlike a regular marriage. Thus it appears to me that a Josephite marriage is not very analogous to a regular marriage. You cannot enter a Josephite marriage after you are married.

The goal to regulate births can be marred by our sinfulness, mainly if our reasons for regulating births is selfish.

Oh and in regard to #3. You cannot have sex while attempting not to get pregnant. (besides using contraceptives), such is a contradiction in term and that is illogical. You can have sex and know that it is unlikely that you won’t get pregnant, or likely that is will. You can have sex and not know.

So you agree with me, that if at anytime a couple plans to or did have marital relations and now they want to avoid a pregnancy, and thus abstaining they are engaging in periodic continence, and thus the paragraph that I quoted applies?

 

[Rachel126]

First part yes, there is no other moral way to regulate births than some form of abstinence. But abstinence in and of itself does not prevent the action from being immoral. You also must have good intentions/reasons. That is all we are saying. Abstinence can be immoral, if you are using it to regulate births with an unjust (read selfish) reason.

There is much talk about “unjust/selfish” reasons, and yet, for all the people who keep pointing to them, I haven’t found anybody (including the Church itself) to come up with examples of what might be “selfish” reasons. It’s difficult for people to say “well you can space/regulate/say no to more births, so long as you have a non-selfish reason” but then not have any ability to articulate what exactly a “selfish” reason would be.

 

[mommamaree]

I think everyone here is actually in agreement, but we all think we are disagreeing for some strange reason…

1. Mutually agreed-upon abstinence is not sinful.
2. Sexual relations is licit only in marriage.
3. Marriage is for children and getting spouses to heaven.
4. Sex is for bonding and babies.
5. Intending to prevent or postpone pregnancy for just reasons is licit.
6. The only moral means for accomplishing that is abstinence, periodic or total.
7. Periodic abstinence means having recourse to the infertile times.
8. Total abstinence means not having recourse to the infertile times, but rather continence until the situation changes and pregnancy is manageable again, or until menopause.
9. A couple may also decide to forgo the use of their sexual faculties entirely for spiritual purposes with the help of their spiritual advisor.
10. NFP is the science of female fertility, and can be used to postpone or achieve pregnancy, and is licit.
11. Natural law and moral principles, combined with a properly formed conscience and communication between the couple is sufficient to make a moral decision regarding whether or not to have sexual relations, which may or may not make a baby.

Did I miss anything? If we all agree on these points, then we do not disagree, right?

 

[jilly4ski]

There is much talk about “unjust/selfish” reasons, and yet, for all the people who keep pointing to them, I haven’t found anybody (including the Church itself) to come up with examples of what might be “selfish” reasons. It’s difficult for people to say “well you can space/regulate/say no to more births, so long as you have a non-selfish reason” but then not have any ability to articulate what exactly a “selfish” reason would be.

The Church does not say, she only says your reasons must be just/serious/grave, and that we have a duty to examine our reasons to make sure they are free from selfishness. The Church shouldn’t have to spell out what is selfish, since the iterations and circumstances are so wide and varied, she could never list them all. Surely we are smart/aware enough to examine our own motives and figure that out ourselves.

 

[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.

…

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.

Here mommamaree, this is what I disagree with him about. He is claiming that no matter what intention a couple has behind abstinence, no matter how selfish their intentions are, even if they have discerned God’s will as one thing and are deliberately acting contrary to it, they are not sinning if the action in question is abstaining from sex, so long as they remain virgins their entire life.

 

[mommamaree]

There is much talk about “unjust/selfish” reasons, and yet, for all the people who keep pointing to them, I haven’t found anybody (including the Church itself) to come up with examples of what might be “selfish” reasons. It’s difficult for people to say “well you can space/regulate/say no to more births, so long as you have a non-selfish reason” but then not have any ability to articulate what exactly a “selfish” reason would be.

Yes, this is my main sticking point, too. I just must be naive, because I cannot imagine giving up sex during the very time in my cycle when my libido goes through the roof, simply because of some “selfish” reason. It has got to be pretty darn important for me to be willing to say no to my husband, who looks all the more enticing when I am ovulating. So, at least for me, it is a large enough sacrifice that I cannot possibly be abstaining for selfish reasons.