Vent about NFP threads

[thewanderer]

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.

Essentially he is either claiming that the only thing which determines the morality of an action is the means used (and it doesn’t matter what your intention is) which is contrary to the Church’s understanding of morality or he is claiming that it is inherently impossible for a people to refrain from sex for selfish reasons, which is clearly false.

 

[mommamaree]

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.

Oh well, what couple would actually do that!? That is just plain weird. If they didn’t strongly desire to have sex with each other and have a family, why get married at all? They could remain dear friends and go jet set around the world together as often as their little hearts desired. The couple that decides two seconds after saying their vows that they do not want to have sex but would rather have this “selfish” lifestyle is just a bit touched in the head!
Now, they may still have a valid marriage, however. But it would be one that could be dissolved since it was never consummated. But that is a separate matter entirely.

 

[jilly4ski]

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.

I agree this is true for most of us, though I do think it would be possible to be selfish for a few cycles, while successfully abstaining. Also WarriorMonk wants us to believe that many enter into marriage and then never want to complete the marital act or at least later in life decide they no long need it and enter into long periods of abstinence for any reasons including regulating births.

 

[thewanderer]

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?

I would modify the first point slightly, I would make it say abstinance is not inherently sinful when mutually agreed upon as it is technically possible that a couple could mutually decide to abstain even when they had discerned that it is God’s will for them to have another child.

 

[mommamaree]

I agree this is true for most of us, though I do think it would be possible to be selfish for a few cycles, while successfully abstaining. Also WarriorMonk wants us to believe that many enter into marriage and then never want to complete the marital act or at least later in life decide they no long need it and enter into long periods of abstinence for any reasons including regulating births.

Wasn’t he just using hyperbole, though? You know how people will exaggerate their point in order to condemn the opposite viewpoint? I assumed that was what he was doing, in an effort to make his real point, which is more subtle, more apparent. People use hyperbole in that way ALL THE TIME. <— see what I did there?

 

[thewanderer]

Oh well, what couple would actually do that!? That is just plain weird. If they didn’t strongly desire to have sex with each other and have a family, why get married at all? They could remain dear friends and go jet set around the world together as often as their little hearts desired. The couple that decides two seconds after saying their vows that they do not want to have sex but would rather have this “selfish” lifestyle is just a bit touched in the head!
Now, they may still have a valid marriage, however. But it would be one that could be dissolved since it was never consummated. But that is a separate matter entirely.

Oh, yeah, I’m not claiming that that is something that would occur commonly, just that since it is technically possible it is incorrect to claim that complete abstinence can never be sinful so long as the couple mutually agree to abstain.

(And yes, my desire to understand the universal principles correctly and phrase them clearly even if it makes practically no difference when applied to real life is one of my discussion habits which tends to irritate and frustrate people, so I hope nobody is too frustrated when they realize that that is what I have been trying to do this whole time)

 

[jilly4ski]

Oh well, what couple would actually do that!? That is just plain weird. If they didn’t strongly desire to have sex with each other and have a family, why get married at all? They could remain dear friends and go jet set around the world together as often as their little hearts desired. The couple that decides two seconds after saying their vows that they do not want to have sex but would rather have this “selfish” lifestyle is just a bit touched in the head!
Now, they may still have a valid marriage, however. But it would be one that could be dissolved since it was never consummated. But that is a separate matter entirely.

I wonder? Can we really believe that 2 seconds after getting married they decided they never want children, especially if they were so selfish? Would it not be more likely that they always had this intention. Thus their marriage would be invalid. Hmm, I wonder…

 

[thewanderer]

also, if warriormonk had not continued to insist as much as he did that the only possible reason that it could be immoral to abstain is if the couple did not mutually agree upon it I really wouldn’t have continued the debate. But its just that that is technically incorrect, and when someone insists on a universal principle that is technically incorrect I tend to like to clarify things and make sure that people don’t end up accepting the incorrect universal.

 

[mommamaree]

I would modify the first point slightly, I would make it say abstinance is not inherently sinful when mutually agreed upon as it is technically possible that a couple could mutually decide to abstain even when they had discerned that it is God’s will for them to have another child.

Well, abstinence is the means, which is a licit means. The intention to prevent pregnancy is not sinful either. What you are referring to are the motives. Yes, anyone can have a selfish motive, even when they do good. As example, I can have the selfish motive to self-aggrandize by participating in Habitat for Humanity projects. That does not make my action of doing charitable work wrong, however.
Although, this analogy falls short because charitable work is an action, whereas abstinence is non-action.

 

[mommamaree]

LOL, yeah I think this thread has actually jumped the shark now.

 

[thewanderer]

Well, abstinence is the means, which is a licit means. The intention to prevent pregnancy is not sinful either. What you are referring to are the motives. Yes, anyone can have a selfish motive, even when they do good. As example, I can have the selfish motive to self-aggrandize by participating in Habitat for Humanity projects. That does not make my action of doing charitable work wrong, however.
Although, this analogy falls short because charitable work is an action, whereas abstinence is non-action.

I guess what you are calling motive I call the union of circumstances and intent which is what causes the intent to be selfish, and as I understand it, the Church’s way of determining whether an action is immoral is by examining the means, intent and circumstances, and if any of them are immoral the action itself becomes immoral. So while the means of abstaining is not in itself immoral a particular act of abstaining can become immoral if it is done for a selfish reason (which is what you get when your intentions are not in line with your particular circumstances). So I would still say that that particular action was sinful, but it would not be sinful because of the means of abstinence, rather it would be sinful because of the intention and circumstances. (Given the circumstances the intention is immoral). Just like for NFP, it is not the means, but the intention and circumstances that changes the morality of the act. I guess what was really getting to me is the fact that WarriorMonk wants to claim that the abstinance in NFP (or I guess he claims it is the relations… but that doesn’t make sense to me at all as that is not an intrinsic part of NFP ) is wrong in a way that complete abstinence never can be, and that to me just doesn’t make any sense and seems to contradict the principles behind the Church’s teachings.

 

[Rachel126]

LOL, yeah I think this thread has actually jumped the shark now.

yeah me too. my head hurts.
Honestly, sometimes I think that if a person who knew very little about Catholicism stumbled onto some of the threads at CAF, they would run away screaming.

 

[thewanderer]

LOL, yeah I think this thread has actually jumped the shark now.

Yeah, the only person I was really disagreeing with has now left the conversation. and it looks like the rest of us now all understand each other and realize that we are all on the same page. not much more to say really.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I would modify the first point slightly, I would make it say abstinance is not inherently sinful when mutually agreed upon as it is technically possible that a couple could mutually decide to abstain even when they had discerned that it is God’s will for them to have another child.

You lost me.

Someplace in the universe God allows a couple to discern that clearly and without any doubts this cycle they have no good reasons to abstain and the couple says, “We have no reasons to abstain…but we are gonna abstain anyway. You stay on that side of the room, and I’ll stay here”

I don’t know, I’m not sure couples that like each other and are attracted to each other do that. Unless they are cold blooded.

Even when I used contraception, there were a handful of times that we forgot to go to the pharmacy and we didn’t refrain.

I believe that many contracepting couples have serious reasons to avoid having a child. We did. We weren’t practicing Catholics. We thought not using contraception was a suggestion not mandatory. But our reasons were still there.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I agree this is true for most of us, though I do think it would be possible to be selfish for a few cycles, while successfully abstaining. Also WarriorMonk wants us to believe that many enter into marriage and then never want to complete the marital act or at least later in life decide they no long need it and enter into long periods of abstinence for any reasons including regulating births.

I’m not sure what serious motive wouldn’t give a couple a few months leeway, though. Especially psychological or health reasons. After my first was born I had PPD and I never thought I would have more. When I felt better I didn’t think “great PPD gone, no more reasons to avoid.”

It took a while for me to feel ready to try again.

 

[thewanderer]

You lost me.

Someplace in the universe God allows a couple to discern that clearly and without any doubts this cycle they have no good reasons to abstain and the couple says, “We have no reasons to abstain…but we are gonna abstain anyway. You stay on that side of the room, and I’ll stay here”

I don’t know, I’m not sure couples that like each other and are attracted to each other do that. Unless they are cold blooded.

Even when I used contraception, there were a handful of times that we forgot to go to the pharmacy and we didn’t refrain.

I believe that many contracepting couples have serious reasons to avoid having a child. We did. We weren’t practicing Catholics. We thought not using contraception was a suggestion not mandatory. But our reasons were still there.

Again, as I said earlier I am not saying this is a common occurance, or even something that has necessarily ever happened, I really only brought it up because someone was insisting that it is impossible for a couple to ever sin in abstaining so long as they mutually agreed to abstain. They contrasted this to NFP and claimed that NFP could be sinful if not done for serious/just reasons, but that complete abstinance could never be sinful and didn’t require serious/just reasons even if using it as a method of avoiding children. Does that make more sense?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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 don’t need to show a document because I didn’t state this. However, the Church does take the position that if a couple wishes to engage in marital relations with intent to avoid children, serious reasons must be present. That is not my opinion; that is the opinion of the Church.

And I would reject your notion that abstinence can never be a sin, it can be, if you are unjustly denying the other spouse

I’ve stated that exception 1,000,000x already.

and if you are abstaining for bad reasons.

Here’s the problem with the above statement. There is no requirement to have sex or have children when a couple is married. You’re trying to argue that something that is not required in the first place is sinful if you don’t do it. That’s why you don’t have any authoritative Church support for your position, and that you have to go through logical contortions to attempt to support your claims.

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.

First, the marital dissolution is irrelevant to the discussion and irrelevant to one entering a Josephite marriage. Catholic marital prep does not include how to get out of a marriage. It also is not particular to Josephite marriage. ANY unconsummated marriage, natural or sacramental, is not intrinsically indissoluble. It could be a Josephite marriage, or it could be a natural marriage where the couple have not engaged in marital relations after it became sacramental.

Second, it is true that one cannot enter a Josephite marriage after the couple is married. It is equally true that the couple is not required to consummate the marriage (though they must have the ability to do so at the time of consent).

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.

From HV:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

I cannot reconcile your argument that you cannot attempt to not get pregnant with the Church’s position that you can have sex in a way to control births.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

First part yes, there is no other moral way to regulate births than some form of abstinence.

That is true.

But abstinence in and of itself does not prevent the action from being immoral.

Also true, because abstinence is not immoral.

You also must have good intentions/reasons.

Not for abstinence.

Abstinence can be immoral, if you are using it to regulate births with an unjust (read selfish) reason.

I disagree. See the quoted sections from HV below.

Recourse to Infertile Periods

Note the section does not refer to abstinence…it refers to recourse to infertile periods. Why? Well, we can be sure that it isn’t referring to abstaining during the infertile periods.

Next:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

Ahhhh, so it isn’t referring to abstinence for controlling birth…because abstinence it not immoral or illicit. It is referring to engaging in marital intercourse during the infertile period, and for well-grounded reasons. Take those well-rounded reasons away and you’ve got your moral problem.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Also WarriorMonk wants us to believe that many enter into marriage and then never want to complete the marital act or at least later in life decide they no long need it and enter into long periods of abstinence for any reasons including regulating births.

You should not put words in other’s mouths. I specifically explained this situation and you are twisting my words for your own purposes.

There is no obligation to engage in marital relations or have children in marriage. Things in marriage and sex must be ordered certain ways, or the couple must be open to having children, etc. This is a fact and it is pointless to argue it.

A couple can decide whether or not they wish to engage in relations or have children. End of story. Obviously almost every couple engages in relations early on. As the couple ages, this is not necessarily true, and I’m actually shocked by the number of married couples that don’t have sex as they age, probably because I’m looking at my own situation. There are many reasons for this that people don’t get simply because they haven’t yet experienced it. The change in hormones as one ages is a huge factor in this, as is the health of the couple.

 

[thewanderer]

WarriorMonk, if you are entering back into the conversation I really would appreciate it if you would comment on my earlier argument for my position.