What to do when wife won't do/doesn't believe in NFP?

[flyingfish]

“Why is periodic abstinence good for a marriage?”

Because it keeps sex from becoming routine or taken for granted. Sex, like food, drink or any other bodily pleasure, can quickly become boring or dull when overindulged in; and becomes more of an anticipated “treat” when one cannot have it all the time.

In fact I have seen SECULAR magazine articles, written by bona fide sex therapists, suggest a period of mutually agreed abstinence – during which a couple concentrates on rebuilding their relationship and waits with anticipation for a resumption of sexual intimacy – as an effective means of “spicing up” or reviving a sex life that has become boring or dull

By the way, observant Orthodox Jews also practice periodic abstinence in accordance with Old Testament law. Husbands and wives abstain during the wife’s menstrual period and for 7 days after her flow stops. At the end of this time, she bathes in a ritual pool known as a “mikvah”, after which, she and her husband may resume sexual relations. The Jewish rule of periodic abstinence, however, generally results in the husband and wife resuming relations right before or during the fertile phase of her cycle.

That makes sense.

 

[LittleDeb]

I am seriously not bringing this up to cause problem, I seriously would like to know. Having used both methods- nfp and contraception, I can honestly say that neither my husband and I felt differently with either one. I take that back - he was NOT really thrilled with having to use a condom or abstain. In all honesty, contraception was more spontaneous- it didn’t matter when we wanted to make love, we were free to do so. With NFP, if it was in the early moring hours, I still had to check - it was always checking and hoping I did it correctly. I so whole heartedly agree with whoever said that many don’t like NFP because they’re unsure of themselves when they check - there was no way to double check (granted with some of the electronic ways that are out now - although pricey, it does back up what you’ve gotten when you tested). Please, for God’s sake literally, tell me what this huge difference is that so many NFP couple talk about. What is this huge difference that people sense/feel or believe they feel when using NFP instead of the pill or other contraceptive. (I don’t want to be answered about the condom, because honestly, I think we all know that you can feel the literal barrier and I’m not a big fan of that way but if you don’t want to get pregnant and your doing NFP and you don’t want to abstain it’s one of the only alternatives.) Please know I’m not asking this facesiously at all. I really want to know what this wonderful thing that’s supposed to save many marriages is. And I want to make one more note- this past Sunday during the Homily, the priest mentioned that one of the reasons for trusting God and having kids was that if a couple has a child/children, they’re less likely to get a divorce. That really bugged me - I was always brought up that children wern’t supposed to be a reason for a marriage to continue if there were serious problems - they are not a form of tape or glue to keep stuff going. I’ll get off of my soap box.
God Bless
Rye

I appreciate your questions, Rye, and I will answer as best I can. If I am the poster child for NFP, you are the poster child for the people I am trying to reach. Please remember as I state all of this that I, personally, have been called to a small family. That has been a very difficult burden to bear.

Okay, so everything I say here is not meant as a personal attack on you. I might use the word “you” to express myself. But I mean the “you” in general, not you specifically. In other words, I am not attempting to read your personal heart, nor am I judging the state of your soul. I am not capable of the former, and I am forbidden, by God, from the latter.

What you are encountering is what some of us call a “contraceptive mentality.” It is not a perfect term, but it expresses most of the point. What we have been explaining is the difference of intent, means, and ends. These are fairly objective terms, but sometimes can still be confusing. I will try to give short examples of each so you understand. Since the OP and his wife are directly affected by these terms, I feel it is very helpful to the thread.

Intent is *why *you do something. Means is *how *you do something. And ends is the result. The common phrases “The ends doesn’t justify the means,” and “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” are both based on these terms. All of these things can have 3 options: good, neutral, or bad. You can have a good intent, a neutral intent, or a bad intent. Everything falls in one of those categories. People have differing opinions on those categories, but the Church says there are objective answers in most (if not all) cases.

A contraceptive mentality is having the intent to contracept, (bad) while using a means of NFP (neutral.) Your *intent *is the same whether you are using a neutral *means *like NFP or a bad *means *like contraception. That mentality often has a huge impact on marriage. On some level that is the entire argument leveled against NFP users. It is said we *want *(or intend) the same thing as contraception. This is true of some people. I don’t pretend it isn’t. But the *means *of NFP often heals those couples due to the abstinence. Being abstinent encourages the couple to really examine the ends (delaying or preventing birth.) If it doesn’t heal them, it often *exposes *deeply rooted problems that might be causing serious detriment.

Where NFP couples most often differ from contracepting couples is at intent. We don’t *want *our circumstances to be as they are. We would like to be healthy, financially stable, or any of the other serious reasons to need NFP. We examine those reasons frequently. Are they still serious? When a couple really turns toward each other and does something about those reasons, they grow closer. A couple with a contraceptive mentality turns outward and looks to external reasons to stay right where they are.

The NFP couple looks to solve their problems that *keep *them from having more children. The couple with the contraceptive mentality believes that having fewer children *IS *the solution. That has a profound effect on how a couple addresses ALL of the most important decisions in life. The NFP couple says, “We need to find a way to get a bigger house to make room for all of these blessings.” The couple with a contraceptive mentality says, “We need to stop making all these NFP mistakes, and we need a bigger house.”

Children are a blessing. Period. To state otherwise goes against *all *of human history.

 

[LittleDeb]

It just seems that this is more a feature of imperfections in a method than any will of God. If God is going to interfere with nature in a couple using NFP to create a baby, why couldn’t God similarly interfere with a condom or the pill to create a baby?

If the goal of NFP were to get as close as possible to letting babies come as they may, then what is the point of going through so much work, with doing so much research and trials to find precisely those times of the month when the woman is infertile and have sex only during those times?

The goal of NFP (unless someone is using it to conceive) is to have sex without bringing additional babies into the family.

You asked why a couple has embraced periodic abstinence as opposed to total abstinence. It isn’t about a charting error, or God interfering. It is about the couple making the conscious *decision *to engage in sex during the fertile time.

If getting pregnant is an *absolute *matter of life or death, (it seldom is) then a couple has no business engaging in any act that might cause pregnancy, contracepted or otherwise, because a pregnancy would lead to the *intentional *abortion of the child.

If pregnancy is likely a matter of life or death, then the couple has to discern whether or not to embrace total abstinence or just very conservative use of NFP to ensure to the best of their ability that they don’t conceive. (We have a woman on this forum who has a severe heart condition. They have used NFP for 10 years since having one child with both mother and child near death.)

The rest of us generally fall into the third category. That was the group I was describing. Those of us who have serious health issues in being pregnant, or have serious physical, emotional, or mental reasons to maintain a small family, or financial reasons that another child would literally put us on the street.

I was saying that by keeping the door open, those *circumstances *just might change. If we keep trusting in God, we might be able to engage in fertile relations on some random day. Total abstinence can become just a habit.

I don’t know exactly what I said that caused the confusion, but it isn’t about error of method. It is about the JOY of being *able *to engage in fertile relations if at all possible. That is the ideal. Those of us who can’t are very aware that our circumstances are less than ideal.

 

[LittleDeb]

The goal of NFP (unless someone is using it to conceive) is to have sex without bringing additional babies into the family.

Another repair in your thinking process. This is the *ends *of NFP not the intent.

I have just plunged a knife in (means) and made a hole in someone’s abdomen. (ends) Have I done something bad? (intent)

 

[flyingfish]

Another repair in your thinking process. This is the *ends *of NFP not the intent.

I have just plunged a knife in (means) and made a hole in someone’s abdomen. (ends) Have I done something bad? (intent)

What is the intent of someone who uses NFP then?

The way it seems to me is that intent is what you intend to achieve by doing something, why you are doing something.

 

[LittleDeb]

What is the intent of someone who uses NFP then?

The way it seems to me is that intent is what you intend to achieve by doing something, why you are doing something.

In formal terms the proper intent of an NFP couple is:

To foster the secondary unitive purpose of the marriage act while keeping the primary procreative purpose intact to space pregnancies or to limit family size, using prayerful discernment of serious reason.

Basically, to have sexual intimacy that doesn’t intentionally *break *the natural design.

Infertility is a natural part of the fertility cycle. The *design *is that we will have infertile sex a majority of the time. There is absolutely nothing wrong in having infertile sex. There is only serious consideration to having *exclusively *infertile sex.

 

[Bluegoat]

I am coming a bit late to this aspect of the conversation, but I do want to comment that in the past, wives were expected to be available for sex with their husbands, and I really think this was one reason many women wanted a contraceptive solution. I also think the Church rather fell down on this by not supporting wives more who had good reasons to not want a baby every year. But very often, women were told that it was their duty as Christian and Catholic wives to be available for sex and to have lots of children.

This was a very bad thing, because I suspect that in many cases if the women had felt their husbands were more sympathetic/engaged, they might have felt comfortable having larger families - it is the feeling of being alone that can cause a lot of fear.

And I also think this attitude by the Church did in fact drive many people away from the whole idea of a properly ordered sex life and from organized religion.

I canh think of my own grandmother, who married very young, and had 4 babies in three years. He husband was an alchoholic and often away with the navy. She was struggling seriously as a mom (and there was child abuse as a result of her inability to cope.) He would not have been interested in NFP, and had she refused sex, would simply have gone elsewhere.

The Catholic Church (which was her church but not his) was honestly not helpful to her. They were concerned that she not use birth control, and not so much with some other support for her family. In the end, she began attending an Anglican Church, and although she returned to Catholicism later, I think she always felt really let down in every way about this.

And it wasn’t an uncommon experience. It is still a problem in some other parts of the world, where husbands expect wives to be obedient, while they themselves are unfaithful and bring home terrible diseases. What is the support these women get for their position from the Church?

Now, I still think that ABC is not a good thing except in very limited circumstances. But I don’t think it is useful to say the CC, and other churches in other ways, did not seriously drop the ball on this issue. More appropriate support of women early on might have made a big difference.

Also more emphasis on absinence as an aspect of fasting, which the Western Church has wholly lost. Why is this I wonder? If abstinence is considered an important part of fasting, no one gets the idea that sex is something anyone married is entitled to any time; it develops good habits and ways of coping with periods of abstinence; and has all the benifits spiritually of other types of fasting and is additionally a direct aid to the marriage bond.

 

[surritter]

This past Sunday during the Homily, the priest mentioned that one of the reasons for trusting God and having kids was that if a couple has a child/children, they’re less likely to get a divorce. That really bugged me - I was always brought up that children weren’t supposed to be a reason for a marriage to continue if there were serious problems - they are not a form of tape or glue to keep stuff going.

Rye,
I think the priest didn’t mean that a couple in trouble should try to have a child to save the marriage! What he meant was that bringing a child into a marriage makes divorce less likely because the couple is forced to look beyond themselves and share their love and time with another. That can certainly improve a marriage, yes?

 

[kage_ar]

Rye,
I think the priest didn’t mean that a couple in trouble should try to have a child to save the marriage! What he meant was that bringing a child into a marriage makes divorce less likely because the couple is forced to look beyond themselves and share their love and time with another. That can certainly improve a marriage, yes?

What better reason on this planet is there than a child for doing ANYTHING, including honoring your marriage vows?

 

[flyingfish]

I am coming a bit late to this aspect of the conversation, but I do want to comment that in the past, wives were expected to be available for sex with their husbands,

From the perspective of Catholicism this is still true. A woman is not allowed to deny her husband unless there are serious reasons.

So a conservatively religious woman married to a bad man could get taken advantage of in a very bad way as he wouldn’t care about her and she’d feel like she would be committing a sin if she said no.

 

[flyingfish]

In formal terms the proper intent of an NFP couple is:

To foster the secondary unitive purpose of the marriage act while keeping the primary procreative purpose intact to space pregnancies or to limit family size, using prayerful discernment of serious reason.

Basically, to have sexual intimacy that doesn’t intentionally *break *the natural design.

Infertility is a natural part of the fertility cycle. The *design *is that we will have infertile sex a majority of the time. There is absolutely nothing wrong in having infertile sex. There is only serious consideration to having *exclusively *infertile sex.

I understand this reasoning, but I think it would be more honestly stated as wanting to enjoy sex while doing as much as possible to reduce the chance of having a baby to 0 while not breaking the natural order of things.

 

[LittleDeb]

I understand this reasoning, but I think it would be more honestly stated as wanting to enjoy sex while doing as much as possible to reduce the chance of having a baby to 0 while not breaking the natural order of things.

Okay. I don’t have a huge problem with this definition as long as the important part “for serious reason only” is always included.

I am called to a smaller family. I wish that weren’t the case. A small family doesn’t solve my health problems. If I were *healthy *I would be just as successful if I had 2 children or 10.

 

[Bluegoat]

From the perspective of Catholicism this is still true. A woman is not allowed to deny her husband unless there are serious reasons.

So a conservatively religious woman married to a bad man could get taken advantage of in a very bad way as he wouldn’t care about her and she’d feel like she would be committing a sin if she said no.

I think though that the emphasis is different. At least in the west, a Catholic priest would very much expect and instruct the husband (or wife as the case may be) that looking out for the best interests of the spouse, including emotional health, is very important, and a task they need to be together in. And a husband who insisted on relations that were clearly not in the best interests of his wife would be chastised, and it might even be considered justification for separation.

 

[ryecroft]

I think though that the emphasis is different. At least in the west, a Catholic priest would very much expect and instruct the husband (or wife as the case may be) that looking out for the best interests of the spouse, including emotional health, is very important, and a task they need to be together in. And a husband who insisted on relations that were clearly not in the best interests of his wife would be chastised, and it might even be considered justification for separation.

Wow- thank you - seriously - this is something a friend of mine is dealing with and I spoke of it earlier - if there is ANYTHING you can give me that the Church puts out so I can send it to her or get her a copy or whatever. I think her husband needs to be on the viewing end of this because he seems to think (now that he’s a convert to Catholicim and apparently is now an expert as well after being Catholic for only a couple of years) that his wife is supposed to get pregnant as much as God allows to happen even though she’s in a fragile state now, cook, clean, take care of the kids 24/7 keep the yard and find extra income while he plays video games after he gets home from work. She is also not supposed to be the one doling out the punishments when he’s home or she’s supposed to “submit” to his authority on almost EVERYTHING. I know she prayed for him to convert but this is not a blessing for her. If there’s a way to get him to lay off and realize his mistake or if that fails for her to get a break (I do go down whenever we can afford to and take the kids as much as I or we can - but seriously, since the first child had been born she had not had more than a 5 hour break away from them and now he’s got the idea that when they get older (the kids) only the boys should go to college because the “girls can get married and won’t need it for raising kids…” even though one of the girls is far brighter than her brother a few years older. I feel like they’re out of the 19th century! Sorry to drag on but as you can see, I’d really like to find her some help.
God Bless
Rye

 

[LittleDeb]

Bluegoat,
I see where you are coming from, I really do. Spouses were and *are *very capable of abuse with women being the most likely victim.

But I don’t think that Church teaching is wrong on this. I would agree that *pastorally *the ball was often dropped in the past, and sometimes still is. I answered this before, but it was probably lost in the wordiness of my posts, so I will try to make this short. (yeah, right )

Contraception is not the answer to a selfish spouse. His constant demand for sex is the problem. He won’t show any self-control.

It is in every one of the stories about the “grandmothers from the past.” The husband doesn’t help with the kids, he’s unfaithful, he spends money he doesn’t have, he’s an alcoholic…the list is endless. Contraception doesn’t help any of that. It doesn’t make him change his ways.

But children *do *make people change their ways. By their very nature, children make us better people. Yes, there are the many cases of child abuse, and some people would say, “That person shouldn’t have children!” No. That isn’t the answer!

The person who abuses their children needs help. Period. As we all know, abuse happens at all economic levels and all family sizes. Abuse is the problem. Deep-seated anger is the problem, economic hardship and family size are *factors *in the problem, but are not the problem itself.

Those families with cycles of abuse still exist. Whether they had 2 children or 10. You can’t “unbreed” abuse out. You have to solve the problem and break the cycle. It can be done!

Contraception just masks the problem. It doesn’t prevent abuse. It doesn’t keep men faithful. And most importantly it doesn’t do anything to foster self-control. Catholic teaching is right. It is only how it was *applied *that needed fixing.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

apricot yogurt likes this post. (little Deb)

 

[LittleDeb]

Rye,
The problems your friend is encountering are absolutely *not *part of Catholic teaching. The Church has always been proactive in higher education for women. We have at least 2 female doctors of the Church. The Jesuits are a teaching order. Many Catholic universities are Jesuit. (Although these days many of those same universities are now more secular than Catholic, but that is a whole 'nother thread.)

And in reference to this thread. The Church has* never ever *taught that a woman must be perpetually pregnant. She says that children are a blessing and limiting them should only be for serious reason and that there is only one way to prevent pregnancy, and that is abstinence. The Church leaves it to the individual couple to discern serious reason.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat,
I see where you are coming from, I really do. Spouses were and *are *very capable of abuse with women being the most likely victim.

But I don’t think that Church teaching is wrong on this. I would agree that *pastorally *the ball was often dropped in the past, and sometimes still is. I answered this before, but it was probably lost in the wordiness of my posts, so I will try to make this short. (yeah, right )

Contraception is not the answer to a selfish spouse. His constant demand for sex is the problem. He won’t show any self-control.

It is in every one of the stories about the “grandmothers from the past.” The husband doesn’t help with the kids, he’s unfaithful, he spends money he doesn’t have, he’s an alcoholic…the list is endless. Contraception doesn’t help any of that. It doesn’t make him change his ways.

But children *do *make people change their ways. By their very nature, children make us better people. Yes, there are the many cases of child abuse, and some people would say, “That person shouldn’t have children!” No. That isn’t the answer!

The person who abuses their children needs help. Period. As we all know, abuse happens at all economic levels and all family sizes. Abuse is the problem. Deep-seated anger is the problem, economic hardship and family size are *factors *in the problem, but are not the problem itself.

Those families with cycles of abuse still exist. Whether they had 2 children or 10. You can’t “unbreed” abuse out. You have to solve the problem and break the cycle. It can be done!

Contraception just masks the problem. It doesn’t prevent abuse. It doesn’t keep men faithful. And most importantly it doesn’t do anything to foster self-control. Catholic teaching is right. It is only how it was *applied *that needed fixing.

I think you missed the points I was trying to make - I agree that this is essentially a pastoral problem, not one of the theology of birth control.

However, several posts up-thread claimed that the attitude that wives were required to be sexually available to husbands was a result of ABC and did not predate it. That is simply false. I think ABC has had effects on our understanding of sexuality as a society - I also know that woman as sexual property is an idea that has been around a very long time, and has often been supported by the Church.

And pastoral problems are the responsibility of the Church, even when, strictly speaking, the contradict theology. To say that it is simply pastoral in relation to those who suffered with it is a bit like talking about those told their unbaptized dead infants would go to limbo and saying they were never told the real teachings of the CC. True enough, but it in no way negates the pain and damage caused.

In addition, in this case I think this pastoral problem actually left the Church open to the difficulties it is now facing with ABC - that is, many refuse to take its teachings on it seriously. Essentially, the teaching many people received about sex within marriage gave them no tools for a solution to the problem of how to manage family size. In such a climate, when ABC became widely available, many were desperate for some answer, or had already dismissed the Church’s attitude as unworkable or impossible.

The development of the more equal understanding of the dignity of men and women within marriage has become emphasized since the damage was done and ABC became available. I don’t think there is a direct causal link, but both I think bear some relation to the women’s movement, and it may also be something of a case of closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

 

[kage_ar]

Wow- thank you - seriously - this is something a friend of mine is dealing with and I spoke of it earlier - if there is ANYTHING you can give me that the Church puts out so I can send it to her or get her a copy or whatever. I think her husband needs to be on the viewing end of this because he seems to think (now that he’s a convert to Catholicim and apparently is now an expert as well after being Catholic for only a couple of years) that his wife is supposed to get pregnant as much as God allows to happen even though she’s in a fragile state now, cook, clean, take care of the kids 24/7 keep the yard and find extra income while he plays video games after he gets home from work. She is also not supposed to be the one doling out the punishments when he’s home or she’s supposed to “submit” to his authority on almost EVERYTHING. I know she prayed for him to convert but this is not a blessing for her. If there’s a way to get him to lay off and realize his mistake or if that fails for her to get a break (I do go down whenever we can afford to and take the kids as much as I or we can - but seriously, since the first child had been born she had not had more than a 5 hour break away from them and now he’s got the idea that when they get older (the kids) only the boys should go to college because the “girls can get married and won’t need it for raising kids…” even though one of the girls is far brighter than her brother a few years older. I feel like they’re out of the 19th century! Sorry to drag on but as you can see, I’d really like to find her some help.
God Bless
Rye

Begin with the Catechism. The section on marriage.

Next, is Mulieris Dignitatem by JPII.

Theology of the Body.

The Pope’s Deus Caritas Est .

These are a start, all available on Vatican.va

 

[Bluegoat]

Wow- thank you - seriously - this is something a friend of mine is dealing with and I spoke of it earlier - if there is ANYTHING you can give me that the Church puts out so I can send it to her or get her a copy or whatever. I think her husband needs to be on the viewing end of this because he seems to think (now that he’s a convert to Catholicim and apparently is now an expert as well after being Catholic for only a couple of years) that his wife is supposed to get pregnant as much as God allows to happen even though she’s in a fragile state now, cook, clean, take care of the kids 24/7 keep the yard and find extra income while he plays video games after he gets home from work. She is also not supposed to be the one doling out the punishments when he’s home or she’s supposed to “submit” to his authority on almost EVERYTHING. I know she prayed for him to convert but this is not a blessing for her. If there’s a way to get him to lay off and realize his mistake or if that fails for her to get a break (I do go down whenever we can afford to and take the kids as much as I or we can - but seriously, since the first child had been born she had not had more than a 5 hour break away from them and now he’s got the idea that when they get older (the kids) only the boys should go to college because the “girls can get married and won’t need it for raising kids…” even though one of the girls is far brighter than her brother a few years older. I feel like they’re out of the 19th century! Sorry to drag on but as you can see, I’d really like to find her some help.
God Bless
Rye

Was her husband that much of a jerk before he became Catholic? It sounds like the kind of thing that would take a lifetime to perfect.

It doesn’t even sound like he’s so much conservative/traditional, as lazy, since he insists she make extra cash and take care of the yard work.

Honestly, if I had daughters (or sons now that I think of it) I would tell him to shape up or ship out - I don’t think it is good to expose children to that influence.