When is NFP wrong?

[bitterhope]

When you say “selfishly” you more or less colour all acts that follow, so making disagreement unlikely,…

It should be noted that the “call of their vocation” is a general term. It surely, at least in most cases, encompasses the transmission of life, but it does not specify the extent to which that call should be met. That’s for each couple to discern.

Of course a person can only discern for themselves what is selfish. The church clearly states that as being the case. But all people need to discern this on a regular basis. It’s not a once and done thing ever. And no, NFP isn’t the only thing that can be selfish and must be discerned. But the question posed was “When is NFP wrong?” One of the whens is when it is done with selfish motivations. Those selfish motivations can be in any or all (or some) of several different parts of a person’s life or vocation.

 

[Xantippe]

When you say “selfishly” you more or less colour all acts that follow, so making disagreement unlikely,…

It should be noted that the “call of their vocation” is a general term. It surely, at least in most cases, encompasses the transmission of life, but it does not specify the extent to which that call should be met. That’s for each couple to discern.

Right. Once you decide that it’s “selfish,” it’s game over, but that’s really the thing to be demonstrated, not assumed.

The abstinence-preferring spouse might well be driven by the belief that the couple will unable to adequately fulfill their obligations to each other and to existing children. Speaking for my own family, if any future pregnancy were a repeat of the last two, it would be either emotionally devastating and take literally years to crawl out of as with my miscarriage or it would involve me checking out (as I generally do when pregnant) and being much less available to my older kids for years. I think my youngest was probably 2 before I really got back to being much of a mom to my big kids. Given that one of these “older” kids is only 3 now, repeating that would be really unkind to her. Oh, and we’d probably have to put the 3-year-old in full-time daycare. Plus I’m 41 and time is not my friend.

So,

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My son had a “mini one button”. The connector set had two ports. One for the feed, one for meds. So the nurse closed one and left one open. At least there was no suction, just gravity.

I’m glad your little one doesn’t need hers anymore.

Well this is an unexpected thread to find lots of feeding tube issues!

When my daughter was on the feeding tube she pulled it the button twice. Was wrapped around the tubing while she slept. I can’t count the number of times the port disconnected and pediasure went all over or the number of times we over filled her…etc.

ill never be able to smell “vanilla” liquid again.

Man, those days were hard!

 

[Xantippe]

Of course a person can only discern for themselves what is selfish. The church clearly states that as being the case. But all people need to discern this on a regular basis. It’s not a once and done thing ever. And no, NFP isn’t the only thing that can be selfish and must be discerned. But the question posed was “When is NFP wrong?” One of the whens is when it is done with selfish motivations. Those selfish motivations can be in any or all (or some) of several different parts of a person’s life or vocation.

I think that in very serious cases, there’s not a lot of point to frequent check-ins.

On the other hand, new information can come in unexpectedly, and at that point I think it’s a good idea to do a reappraisal. Here’s an example:

I have a very old friend (not Catholic) who lives in a country with poor medical infrastructure. She is also a Type 1 diabetic, so given those two facts, she is very lucky to be alive at all (there have been many hospitalizations and close calls). She is about 35 now. After many years of being poorly controlled (her blood sugar is very erratic), she recently got a fancy schmancy real-time insulin pump and it has been working brilliantly. She is now 30-some weeks pregnant and so far, so good. I’m still really scared for her and the baby, but I think they both have a reasonable chance of making it.

If the situation involved a practicing Catholic, I would be very negative about the idea of encouraging her to keep reexamining the situation over and over without a change in the medical situation, but if the medical situation has improved radically, why yes, I think that makes sense to re-weigh the facts. But if the facts haven’t changed, why?

 

[bitterhope]

I think that in very serious cases, there’s not a lot of point to frequent check-ins.

On the other hand, new information can come in unexpectedly, and at that point I think it’s a good idea to do a reappraisal. Here’s an example:

I have a very old friend (not Catholic) who lives in a country with poor medical infrastructure. She is also a Type 1 diabetic, so given those two facts, she is very lucky to be alive at all (there have been many hospitalizations and close calls). She is about 35 now. After many years of being poorly controlled (her blood sugar is very erratic), she recently got a fancy schmancy real-time insulin pump and it has been working brilliantly. She is now 30-some weeks pregnant and so far, so good. I’m still really scared for her and the baby, but I think they both have a reasonable chance of making it.

If the situation involved a practicing Catholic, I would be very negative about the idea of encouraging her to keep reexamining the situation over and over without a change in the medical situation, but if the medical situation has improved radically, why yes, I think that makes sense to re-weigh the facts. But if the facts haven’t changed, why?

Part of the reason is that facts and situations are only part of the equation. Spouses are living breathing human beings with desires and needs beyond the physical.

 

[Xantippe]

Part of the reason is that facts and situations are only part of the equation. Spouses are living breathing human beings with desires and needs beyond the physical.

So, the fact that a full-term pregnancy could easily kill the wife is not a valid reason for the wife to turn her husband down? His “desires and needs” trump her right to continue living?

Ooookay.

 

[bitterhope]

So, the fact that a full-term pregnancy could easily kill the wife is not a valid reason for the wife to turn her husband down? His “desires and needs” trump her right to continue living?

Ooookay.

That is not got YOU or ME to decide. She may be the one who does not want to avoid. That’s not your or my place to even think about. Like I said, it’s about time stop making husbands, especially good Catholic husbands, out to be sexual deviants that can’t control themselves. It’s not right.

 

[Xantippe]

That is not got YOU or ME to decide. She may be the one who does not want to avoid. That’s not your or my place to even think about. Like I said, it’s about time stop making husbands, especially good Catholic husbands, out to be sexual deviants that can’t control themselves. It’s not right.

So, yes or no–does she have the right to say no if pregnancy would endanger her life?

 

[pianistclare]

That is not got YOU or ME to decide. She may be the one who does not want to avoid. That’s not your or my place to even think about. Like I said, it’s about time stop making husbands, especially good Catholic husbands, out to be sexual deviants that can’t control themselves. It’s not right.

Why wouldn’t one refer the person in question to their pastor for counseling instead of advancing that she just suck it up?
Catholics in general don’t do that. The rely on a priest familiar with the situation.
And I doubt many would ask a woman to throw themselves on the sword. They would more likely ask the husband to be patient for the health and safety of the wife.

 

[Rau]

Part of the reason is that facts and situations are only part of the equation. Spouses are living breathing human beings with desires and needs beyond the physical.

I think it is reasonable to postulate that either party could put their sexual “desires and needs” on hold for a short while when that is objectively appropriate for serious reasons as Xantippe’s scenario contemplates. This ought not to deny either party unreasonably.

 

[bitterhope]

I think it is reasonable to postulate that either party could put their sexual “desires and needs” on hold for a short while when that is objectively appropriate for serious reasons as Xantippe’s scenario contemplates. This ought not to deny either party unreasonably.

It’s not all about sex for crying out loud. To me, that would fall under physical desires. As I stated, not all needs and desires are physical. People have emotional, spiritual, psychological, and many other types of needs. A woman or a man could desire to continue growing their family in many situations that at one time the thought were reasons not to.

 

[bitterhope]

Why wouldn’t one refer the person in question to their pastor for counseling instead of advancing that she just suck it up?
Catholics in general don’t do that. The rely on a priest familiar with the situation.
And I doubt many would ask a woman to throw themselves on the sword. They would more likely ask the husband to be patient for the health and safety of the wife.

They are free to talk to their priest about whatever they want to.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Well this is an unexpected thread to find lots of feeding tube issues!

When my daughter was on the feeding tube she pulled it the button twice. Was wrapped around the tubing while she slept. I can’t count the number of times the port disconnected and pediasure went all over or the number of times we over filled her…etc.

ill never be able to smell “vanilla” liquid again.

Man, those days were hard!

:hug1:

Before the g-tube, my son had a naso-gastric tube for a while. He would pull the whole thing out within a second or so. (he was recovering from a brain injury, so he was in somewhat an altered state) They put him in restraints, but he figured out how to shimmy down on the bed, so his arms could reach his nose, and pull it out.

I’m not sure if the hospital charged for each time the thing needed to be replaced.

The night they put the g-tube in (his was a mini-one-key button) the nurses had to make sure he didn’t pull that out. So they fashioned hand covers out of diapers and tape. They looked a bit like boxing gloves.

His tube had an internal balloon, that prevented it from getting pulled out, unless it deflated. I’m guessing they have different types.

 

[bitterhope]

So, yes or no–does she have the right to say no if pregnancy would endanger her life?

Why wouldn’t she? And her husband could deny her if he wanted to as well. That’s up to them, not you or me

 

[Rau]

It’s not all about sex for crying out loud. To me, that would fall under physical desires. As I stated, not all needs and desires are physical. People have emotional, spiritual, psychological, and many other types of needs. A woman or a man could desire to continue growing their family in many situations that at one time the thought were reasons not to.

I would imagine that “emotional, spiritual, psychological etc” needs don’t need to be thrown on the scrap heap because sex is unwise for a period. Sometimes, people may have to accept that another child is not wise or not possible. “Responsible parenthood” may require it.

 

[Rau]

Why wouldn’t she? And her husband could deny her if he wanted to as well. That’s up to them, not you or me

Well sure, all moral decisions are up to the “actors”. No one is dictating the actions of others, but rather addressing what could be reasonable in given circumstances.

 

[bitterhope]

I would imagine that “emotional, spiritual, psychological etc” needs don’t need to be thrown on the scrap heap because sex is unwise for a period. Sometimes, people may have to accept that another child is not wise or not possible. “Responsible parenthood” may require it.

As a couple they can discern that if they choose. That is not your place or anyone else’s place. Especially since we are not privy to the inner workings of their marriage.

 

[pianistclare]

As a couple they can discern that if they choose. That is not your place or anyone else’s place. Especially since we are not privy to the inner workings of their marriage.

So we can ignore all of your thoughts on the matter?
You seem to be pretty adamant about what other people ought to do.

 

[Rau]

As a couple they can discern that if they choose. That is not your place or anyone else’s place. Especially since we are not privy to the inner workings of their marriage.

This is a discussion about a hypothetical situation (and what they could reasonably discern). Your posts have received some “pushback” from others, and it seems your position now is that we should not have the discussion at all because decisions are for the hypothetical couple to make!

 

[bitterhope]

This is a discussion about a hypothetical situation (and what they could reasonably discern). Your posts have received some “pushback” from others, and it seems your position now is that we should not have the discussion at all because decisions are for the hypothetical couple to make!

The question asked for this thread was when is NFP wrong. My answer is when it is done with selfish motivations. No one gets to decide what is selfish except the couple themselves. Just as it is with most if not all sins, it is impossible for any of us to know the hearts and souls of anyone else and therefore the church has opted to make it completely their decision alone. The only guide given is that it can’t be for trivial or selfish reasons, and it must not be through pressure. Trying to come up with reasons a person should or shouldn’t is an awful lot like pressure