Why is sex "allowed" during a woman's infertile days?

[wanner47]

Um, “rendering procreation impossible” is NOT the same thing as “avoiding pregnancy.” The Church teaches that there are just reasons to avoid pregnancy (for example, severe illness or dire financial straits).

It CAN BE licit to avoid pregnancy, but it is NEVER licit to use ABC to that end. That is the distinction.

 

[tee_eff_em]

“Any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14)…it is sinful!

Or, to cite the official English translation:
[A]bsolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children…is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.
Sinful? The Servant of God Paul VI of Blessed Memory would not think so. Continuing to *Humanae Vitae *16:
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.

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.


tee

 

[tr1954]

If a couple treats NFP strictly as a form of contraception for selfish reasons, yes, you are right.
.

That is the point I’m trying to make from the first post I posted. It is the intent which renders the action a sinful one, when NFP is misused for selfish reasons. Couples who are UNHAPPY are using NFP for selfish reasons EXCLUSSIVEY. That’s the only reason they are unhappy. NFP wasn’t created to be misused in this manner. If someone does not want anymore children abstinence should be the answer, instead the misuse of NFP for selfish reasons.
I wish the Church would make a distinction in this question, and explain the sinful usage of NFP when only selfish reasons are the motives behind using it.

 

[Good_Daughter]

That is the point I’m trying to make from the first post I posted. It is the intent which renders the action a sinful one, when NFP is misused for selfish reasons. Couples who are UNHAPPY are using NFP for selfish reasons EXCLUSSIVEY. That’s the only reason they are unhappy. NFP wasn’t created to be misused in this manner. If someone does not want anymore children abstinence should be the answer, instead the misuse of NFP for selfish reasons.
I wish the Church would make a distinction in this question, and explain the sinful usage of NFP when only selfish reasons are the motives behind using it.

I think what the Church addresses are selfish reasons for not wanting any more children, rather than selfish reasons for using NFP. If a couple’s reasons for not wanting any more children are selfish, complete abstinence isn’t really going to help them. In other words, if I have selfish reasons for not wanting a baby and I use complete abstinence not to have one, it’s possible that I am using complete abstinence selfishly.

In my experience, couples with seemingly selfish reasons for not wanting any more children are far more likely to contracept than use NFP. People who seem selfish generally don’t want the periodic abstinence that comes with NFP. Again, this is just in my experience.

Out of curiosity, do you believe there are ever any valid reasons for a couple to use NFP to postpone pregnancy?

 

[newbetx]

That is the point I’m trying to make from the first post I posted. It is the intent which renders the action a sinful one, when NFP is misused for selfish reasons. .

I agree. This is an issue.

Couples who are UNHAPPY are using NFP for selfish reasons EXCLUSSIVEY. That’s the only reason they are unhappy. NFP wasn’t created to be misused in this manner. .

Right on, here, too. But I might point out that it’s likely not to be NFP, alone that is the problem. It’s bigger than that. They lack trust in God.

If someone does not want anymore children abstinence should be the answer, instead the misuse of NFP for selfish reasons. .

This, IMO, is incorrect. Because, it is not God’s intent that we practice abstinence in a marriage for selfish reasons, either. NFP still allows God’s will, Abstinence, does not. This (in)action, I believe, is contrary to God’s plan for married couples from what I gather in TOB discussions and from what I recall in the CCC.

I wish the Church would make a distinction in this question, and explain the sinful usage of NFP when only selfish reasons are the motives behind using it.

It probably should be made part of homilies more often. I only hear it on New Years. But I think I see the point made earlier about specifically calling those out that use NFP might seem like “lecturing the chior” rather than lecturing those that practice ABC or worse for a similar action.

The church isn’t “afraid” of telling people how many children to have which I’ve heard others imply. We know ALL children are gifts from God and they should be welcomed as such. But it is less obvious that everyone should have (or go adopt) as many of these blessings as physically possible. If it were that way, NFP would not be on the table.

There is " what is the right number of children" thread or something similar that was active a few months ago. I’ll try to find and post a pointer.

 

[tr1954]

This, IMO, is incorrect. Because, it is not God’s intent that we practice abstinence in a marriage for selfish reasons, either. NFP still allows God’s will, Abstinence, does not. This (in)action, I believe, is contrary to God’s plan for married couples from what I gather in TOB discussions and from what I recall in the CCC.

OK…nice to see someone who I can discuss this point with. In your opinion, a married couple should not use NFP as a birth control method in case they decide that they don’t want more children. We agree on this point. Using NFP for selfish reason as strictly a birth control method is sinful. That is what the Church teaches.

“Any action” which renders procreation impossible is against the teaching of the Church. I’m hooked on this point, cause I see your counter argument in which you make the point that God wants couples to stay sexually active, instead of practicing abstinence. Why is an (in)action selfish? I never knew that the Church is against abstinence for married couples. Are you sure? What if a couple decides to practice abstinence, and offer that as a sacrifice to God? Is that a selfish reason or an acceptable practice? Isn’t the intent of a couple who practices abstinence a noble one?

I’m asking all this cause the NFP is relatively new discovery. Yet abstinence is a practice of couples which goes back almost 2000 years…probably even more! I never read anywhere that abstinence was not an acceptable practice BEFORE NFP ever came to light.

 

[newbetx]

OK…nice to see someone who I can discuss this point with. In your opinion, a married couple should not use NFP as a birth control method in case they decide that they don’t want more children. We agree on this point. Using NFP for selfish reason as strictly a birth control method is sinful. That is what the Church teaches.

“Any action” which renders procreation impossible is against the teaching of the Church. I’m hooked on this point, cause I see your counter argument in which you make the point that God wants couples to stay sexually active, instead of practicing abstinence. Why is an (in)action selfish? I never knew that the Church is against abstinence for married couples. Are you sure? What if a couple decides to practice abstinence, and offer that as a sacrifice to God? Is that a selfish reason or an acceptable practice? Isn’t the intent of a couple who practices abstinence a noble one?

I’m asking all this cause the NFP is relatively new discovery. Yet abstinence is a practice of couples which goes back almost 2000 years…probably even more! I never read anywhere that abstinence was not an acceptable practice BEFORE NFP ever came to light.

Look again. I did not say the church was against abstinence. I said abstinence should not be used for selfish reasons, either. There is no difference in using NFP (periodic abstinence) or total abstinence to achieve the same selfish goal. (example: “One child is all we want so that we can maintain our lifestyle and give him/her everything they desire”)

For the non-selfish reasons (“just” or “grave”) to avoid or space children, periodic or total abstinence is acceptable when mutually agreed to by the couple. (Using periodic (NFP) or total abstinence to avoid more children completely is acceptable if doing so is not done for selfish reasons. This is the grey area most that object to NFP have difficulty with. I’ve come to understand that some want to see a line drawn. The Church does not see it this way.) So your restatement of what I tried to convey in the previous post is not correct. I believe a couple is allowed to use NFP at some point not just to space but to discontinue attempts at more children. Example. A married couple in their 40s with several children already. We are called by the Church to raise the family in a prudent manner. (I know I’ve quoted this from the CCC before. When I have more time, I’ll go find this.)

Sex is a gift from God. It is powerful. When used properly, it is of great significance to a married couple. Disordered or contraceptive sex is the misuse of the gift.

Abstinence is the gift of self. Mutual abstinence is a gift to each other. A willingness to forgo the act for the mutual benefit of the couple/family is considered good. This too can be misused/abused for similar reasons to NFP. What if the couple wishes to make a complete sacrifice of the gift? I am assuming there is no physical or medical reason behind this, just the denial of the pleasure of the act as an sacrifice to God. I can not answer that at this time. I am not qualified. However, from what I have read and understood, I would consider this a rejection of the gift. There may be a subtlety here that I am missing so I won’t say it is wrong.

While one can say NFP can be abused to selfishly avoid children, IMO, total abstinence to avoid them for the same selfish reasons is worse because it rejects the gift of sexuality that God gave us and frustrates the process by which children could be conceived. So sacraficing one gift to avoid another seems wrong to me.

I want to state that we are not given the gift without the responsibility that comes with it. We also are not entitled to sex without that responsibility. In other words, we’re not entitled to have sex any way, any time or with just any one without regard to the responsibilities and context it brings with it. We are also called to provide the opportunity for the gift in a reasonable and loving manner to our spouse.

I do not wish to judge the OP’s situation. I just am attempting to convey what I’ve learned from various discussions and analysis of the Theology of the Body. TOB is new (and wonderful in my opinion) but NFP is not. “The rhythm method” had been used (and approved by the Church) for years. Today’s NFP processes are just more reliable. NFP, I believe, erroneously is considered only “Catholic Birth Control.” I also, personally believe that NFP processes provide more for a couple than just knowing when the woman is fertile. Done properly, it provides an opportunity for the couple to “become one” with their bodies and minds outside of the marital embrace.

Peace to you!

 

[Good_Daughter]

“Any action” which renders procreation impossible is against the teaching of the Church.

Dictionary.com defines the verb render as, “to cause to be or become; make”. NFP doesn’t make procreation impossible, but rather shows us when nature has made procreation either possible or impossible. Contraceptive use, on the other hand, which changes the natural end (or outcome) of sex, is an action that helps us render procreation impossible. Do you see the difference?

NFP renders procreation evident.

I’m hooked on this point, cause I see your counter argument in which you make the point that God wants couples to stay sexually active, instead of practicing abstinence. Why is an (in)action selfish? I never knew that the Church is against abstinence for married couples. Are you sure? What if a couple decides to practice abstinence, and offer that as a sacrifice to God? Is that a selfish reason or an acceptable practice? Isn’t the intent of a couple who practices abstinence a noble one?

Lots of inaction can be selfish. Love sometimes requires action, sometimes inaction. Wisdom helps us discern which is best in any given situation. The Church is not against abstinence for married couples, the Church is against selfishness for married couples. Couples should normally be having babies. When they’ve got serious reason to not have a baby, it’s quite beautiful for them to abstain and offer that as a sacrifice to God. Abstinence is a choice though, not an intention. Intentions should be as selfless as possible.

I’m asking all this cause the NFP is relatively new discovery. Yet abstinence is a practice of couples which goes back almost 2000 years…probably even more! I never read anywhere that abstinence was not an acceptable practice BEFORE NFP ever came to light.

Not everything new is sinful. Lots of new stuff is good or neutral, like cars or computers. Like those things though, NFP can be misused.

I think the virtue in abstinence has little to do with it being old. After all, contraception is old.

I appreciate that you may not want to discuss these things with me. I just wanted to toss some ideas out for you to consider. God Bless.

 

[gam197]

originally** posted by newbetx**
While one can say NFP can be abused to selfishly avoid children, IMO, total abstinence to avoid them for the same selfish reasons is worse because it rejects the gift of sexuality that God gave us and frustrates the process by which children could be conceived. So sacraficing one gift to avoid another seems wrong to me.

I asked my Catholic parents how they spaced us children. There were ten and by the end there were gaps of 4 four years between. At the end they were being spaced by total abstinence as my father and mother agree to sleep apart for a period of time. This has been a teaching of the Church and something I grew up knowing. At this period in Church history that is what my parents did to space children. My older sister did use the older rhythm method quite well and yes it also has always been church teaching. Now they would have NFP.

I know of another couple who have a very large family who later chose total abstinence together and they are always at the Church working on projects.

When I grew up anal or oral stimulation would not have been allowed or it was not discussed at all.

The Magisterium needs to come out with a clear statement to answer all these questions so that followers have a proper understanding of this information.

 

[newbetx]

IThe Magisterium needs to come out with a clear statement to answer all these questions so that followers have a proper understanding of this information.

2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

I have a few questions.
Is this what you are looking for? Or have you read The Good News About Sex and Marriage? Are these inadequate for your purposes?

 

[gam197]

I have a few questions.
Is this what you are looking for? Or have you read The Good News About Sex and Marriage? Are these inadequate for your purposes?

I haven’t read Christopher West’s book yet. Being raised a Catholic, I know the teachings of the Church on self-giving as those teachings have always been there and they have been consistent.

I am not questioning the teaching about abstinence whether total or periodic as again those teachings have always been there.

I know what Christopher West teaches, what Couple to Couple League teaches and that their books have an impramateur.

I think the Magisterium needs to clarify its teaching on total abstinence but also needs to clarify its teaching or what is permitted during foreplay. I would just like to hear it directly from the Magisterium as an official teaching of the Church. Either they changed their teaching or we were never taught them correctly as I have questioned a number of Catholics that I grew up with and who went to Catholic schools.

 

[newbetx]

I haven’t read Christopher West’s book yet. Being raised a Catholic, I know the teachings of the Church on self-giving as those teachings have always been there and they have been consistent.

I am not questioning the teaching about abstinence whether total or periodic as again those teachings have always been there.

I know what Christopher West teaches, what Couple to Couple League teaches and that their books have an impramateur.

I think the Magisterium needs to clarify its teaching on total abstinence but also needs to clarify its teaching or what is permitted during foreplay. I would just like to hear it directly from the Magisterium as an official teaching of the Church. Either they changed their teaching or we were never taught them correctly as I have questioned a number of Catholics that I grew up with and who went to Catholic schools.

I think the church (small c for the humans doing the best they can) taught many things as a practical nature. Whether they were Church (big C) teachings at the time, I’m unclear. Just because it came from a priest did not make it a Big C thing. Advice that may have been sound many decades ago is not what is given today due to changes in understanding. As I see it, as God reveals things to us. One has to go with what one has.

As with evolution vs. Creationism, I think that the Church is waiting for the whole Truth to be discovered before being inspired to make a pronouncement.

I find the guidelines of West’s TOB books adequate for me. While somethings may not be specifically ruled out, if the understanding of the intent of our relationship is there, then we don’t have to worry about a specific rule because we never would go there. KWIM?

So maybe it’s us. Rules are easier than understanding. But is it our calling to understand and therefore the rule becomes needless? From what I’ve read, yes.

 

[tr1954]

Look again. I did not say the church was against abstinence. I said abstinence should not be used for selfish reasons, either. There is no difference in using NFP (periodic abstinence) or total abstinence to achieve the same selfish goal. (example: “One child is all we want so that we can maintain our lifestyle and give him/her everything they desire”)

For the non-selfish reasons (“just” or “grave”) to avoid or space children, periodic or total abstinence is acceptable when mutually agreed to by the couple. (Using periodic (NFP) or total abstinence to avoid more children completely is acceptable if doing so is not done for selfish reasons. This is the grey area most that object to NFP have difficulty with. I’ve come to understand that some want to see a line drawn. The Church does not see it this way.) So your restatement of what I tried to convey in the previous post is not correct. I believe a couple is allowed to use NFP at some point not just to space but to discontinue attempts at more children. Example. A married couple in their 40s with several children already. We are called by the Church to raise the family in a prudent manner. (I know I’ve quoted this from the CCC before. When I have more time, I’ll go find this.)

Sex is a gift from God. It is powerful. When used properly, it is of great significance to a married couple. Disordered or contraceptive sex is the misuse of the gift.

Abstinence is the gift of self. Mutual abstinence is a gift to each other. A willingness to forgo the act for the mutual benefit of the couple/family is considered good. This too can be misused/abused for similar reasons to NFP. What if the couple wishes to make a complete sacrifice of the gift? I am assuming there is no physical or medical reason behind this, just the denial of the pleasure of the act as an sacrifice to God. I can not answer that at this time. I am not qualified. However, from what I have read and understood, I would consider this a rejection of the gift. There may be a subtlety here that I am missing so I won’t say it is wrong.

While one can say NFP can be abused to selfishly avoid children, IMO, total abstinence to avoid them for the same selfish reasons is worse because it rejects the gift of sexuality that God gave us and frustrates the process by which children could be conceived. So sacraficing one gift to avoid another seems wrong to me.

I want to state that we are not given the gift without the responsibility that comes with it. We also are not entitled to sex without that responsibility. In other words, we’re not entitled to have sex any way, any time or with just any one without regard to the responsibilities and context it brings with it. We are also called to provide the opportunity for the gift in a reasonable and loving manner to our spouse.

I do not wish to judge the OP’s situation. I just am attempting to convey what I’ve learned from various discussions and analysis of the Theology of the Body. TOB is new (and wonderful in my opinion) but NFP is not. “The rhythm method” had been used (and approved by the Church) for years. Today’s NFP processes are just more reliable. NFP, I believe, erroneously is considered only “Catholic Birth Control.” I also, personally believe that NFP processes provide more for a couple than just knowing when the woman is fertile. Done properly, it provides an opportunity for the couple to “become one” with their bodies and minds outside of the marital embrace.

Peace to you!

I have to admit…I have failed to bring you to the same wavelength I’m on…I was trying my best to keep the discussion as unambiguous and as narrow as I could, but you keep broadening it so you can bring all kind of examples I tried to avoid. I had a very good reason to keep it narrow, knowing that if is unambiguous, then there is very little wiggle room to have an open ending debate.

I was trying to focus on one thing from the beginning…some couples are unhappy using NFP. They say that, not me. I was trying to find the reasons behind this unhappiness. I tried to keep the discussion focused on this group of people ALONE, and tried to avoid including “everybody else”! Lots of couples are very happy with NFP, so they shouldn’t be included at all.

I came to the conclusion that these couples are unhappy b/c they are misusing NFP. They using it for selfish reasons, primarily as a birth control method. That is the real cause for their unhappiness. And all this unhappiness develops over a longer period of time, when NFP is misused. I suggested that maybe abstinence is the answer, when the misuse of NFP causes them unhappiness. Again…I only mean THOSE COUPLES who are unhappy, and I have no problem with the rest of the couples who find NFP to their satisfaction. I found a lot of understanding on your part, untill you have expanded the discussion and made it ambiguous. I have n/p using NFP to space out childbirth…but that has nothing to do with our discussion. And everything else, all the other examples you bring up are irrelevant to our discussion. I don’t disagree with any of it, but they are totally irrelevant if we stay narrowly on those problems which only certain couples experience. I mean the whole part on abstinence which includes everybody is very true…but is irrelevant. What is the alternative? Using NFP, and if the unhappiness increases, go see a shrink? I think there is a better way…

blessings…

 

[tr1954]

Dictionary.com defines the verb render as, “to cause to be or become; make”. NFP doesn’t make procreation impossible, but rather shows us when nature has made procreation either possible or impossible. Contraceptive use, on the other hand, which changes the natural end (or outcome) of sex, is an action that helps us render procreation impossible. Do you see the difference?

NFP renders procreation evident.

Lots of inaction can be selfish. Love sometimes requires action, sometimes inaction. Wisdom helps us discern which is best in any given situation. The Church is not against abstinence for married couples, the Church is against selfishness for married couples. Couples should normally be having babies. When they’ve got serious reason to not have a baby, it’s quite beautiful for them to abstain and offer that as a sacrifice to God. Abstinence is a choice though, not an intention. Intentions should be as selfless as possible.

Not everything new is sinful. Lots of new stuff is good or neutral, like cars or computers. Like those things though, NFP can be misused.

I think the virtue in abstinence has little to do with it being old. After all, contraception is old.

I appreciate that you may not want to discuss these things with me. I just wanted to toss some ideas out for you to consider. God Bless.

I admit…I have struggled with the different terms and verbiage, and I apologise for that. I’m learning as I go…and I see the difference between the words “contraceptive” and “birth control” when discussing NFP.

 

[dixieagle]

I have to admit…I have failed to bring you to the same wavelength I’m on…I was trying my best to keep the discussion as unambiguous and as narrow as I could, but you keep broadening it so you can bring all kind of examples I tried to avoid. I had a very good reason to keep it narrow, knowing that if is unambiguous, then there is very little wiggle room to have an open ending debate.

I was trying to focus on one thing from the beginning…some couples are unhappy using NFP. They say that, not me. I was trying to find the reasons behind this unhappiness. I tried to keep the discussion focused on this group of people ALONE, and tried to avoid including “everybody else”! Lots of couples are very happy with NFP, so they shouldn’t be included at all.

I came to the conclusion that these couples are unhappy b/c they are misusing NFP. They using it for selfish reasons, primarily as a birth control method. That is the real cause for their unhappiness. And all this unhappiness develops over a longer period of time, when NFP is misused. I suggested that maybe abstinence is the answer, when the misuse of NFP causes them unhappiness. Again…I only mean THOSE COUPLES who are unhappy, and I have no problem with the rest of the couples who find NFP to their satisfaction. I found a lot of understanding on your part, untill you have expanded the discussion and made it ambiguous. I have n/p using NFP to space out childbirth…but that has nothing to do with our discussion. And everything else, all the other examples you bring up are irrelevant to our discussion. I don’t disagree with any of it, but they are totally irrelevant if we stay narrowly on those problems which only certain couples experience. I mean the whole part on abstinence which includes everybody is very true…but is irrelevant. What is the alternative? Using NFP, and if the unhappiness increases, go see a shrink? I think there is a better way…

blessings…

With regard to couples who use NFP and are “unhappy”; I have known plenty of couples who use NFP, some happy, some not. Many couples struggle with the periodic abstinence, “unhappy” that they must limit intercourse to a few days a month, in some cases, but still follow the church’s teaching. I would have to have included my dh and myself in this latter group, when I was still in my fertile years. Believe me, total abstinence, as you suggest, would have made for a WHOLE LOT MORE “unhappiness.”

Indeed, NFP can be misused, but I tend to think that most couples who are truly “selfish”, as you call them, haven’t even considered NFP to begin with. Please remember, that each couple must apply NFP in their own circumstances, for good reasons, according to their own well-formed consciences. It is insulting in the extreme for you to jump to the unfounded conclusion that we were, or other couples are, unhappy with NFP because they are misusing it.

 

[tr1954]

I appreciate that you may not want to discuss these things with me. I just wanted to toss some ideas out for you to consider. God Bless.

That has nothing to do with who I like to discuss certain topics with. I only tried to address a certain topic, which to my knowledge is not discussed in greater details. The poster newbetx was the one who began to understand my position at the beginning, and I was focused on him primarily. But I am not trying to dismiss anything you say, and I will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge.

One thing is for sure…I don’t discriminate against anybody! LOL!

So here’s one thing you say: “Lots of inaction can be selfish. Love sometimes requires action, sometimes inaction. Wisdom helps us discern which is best in any given situation. The Church is not against abstinence for married couples, the Church is against selfishness for married couples. Couples should normally be having babies. When they’ve got serious reason to not have a baby, it’s quite beautiful for them to abstain and offer that as a sacrifice to God. Abstinence is a choice though, not an intention. Intentions should be as selfless as possible.”

Now you have answered my post, and I thank you for that…but it is irrelevant to the topic I discussed. The topic was about married couples who are unhappy, and they blame NFP for their unhappiness. I agree with everything you say IN GENERAL, but other than understanding abstinence, they (the unhappy couples) have not much use for it. they don’t want to practice abstinence…they rather stay in an UNHAPPY arrangement by misusing NFP.

You see…this is the thing which interests me a great deal! Why are they choosing to be in an unhappy state by forcing themselves to use NFP…when in fact they don’t even like it??

Two questions arise with this unhappy situation…did the Church advised them BEFOREHAND that the misuse of NFP MIGHT LED them to a state of unhappiness?..or maybe NFP warn them of certain ill effects? At this point I have no idea, but I would like to know!

The other alternative to the use of NFP is abstinence. Why is it that couples are so dismissive about abstinence as soon as someone mentions it? Here’s one example…“choosing between 2 evils, the lesser evil is recommended.”

But neither using NFP, nor abstinence is evil! I know that, but I wonder if those unhappy couples know that too?

So…this is where I had to part ways with newbetx…generalities does not concern me at this point. So if you choose to answer me, please do it in the most UNAMBIGUOUS WAY. That way both of us know the exact meaning of every idea you choose to answer me. That way we don’t have to discern between multiple outcomes, or meanings.

Thanks in advance for taking time reading my post.

 

[dixieagle]

That has nothing to do with who I like to discuss certain topics with. I only tried to address a certain topic, which to my knowledge is not discussed in greater details. The poster newbetx was the one who began to understand my position at the beginning, and I was focused on him primarily. But I am not trying to dismiss anything you say, and I will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge.

One thing is for sure…I don’t discriminate against anybody! LOL!

So here’s one thing you say: “Lots of inaction can be selfish. Love sometimes requires action, sometimes inaction. Wisdom helps us discern which is best in any given situation. The Church is not against abstinence for married couples, the Church is against selfishness for married couples. Couples should normally be having babies. When they’ve got serious reason to not have a baby, it’s quite beautiful for them to abstain and offer that as a sacrifice to God. Abstinence is a choice though, not an intention. Intentions should be as selfless as possible.”

Now you have answered my post, and I thank you for that…but it is irrelevant to the topic I discussed. The topic was about married couples who are unhappy, and they blame NFP for their unhappiness. I agree with everything you say IN GENERAL, but other than understanding abstinence, they (the unhappy couples) have not much use for it. they don’t want to practice abstinence…they rather stay in an UNHAPPY arrangement by misusing NFP.

You see…this is the thing which interests me a great deal! Why are they choosing to be in an unhappy state by forcing themselves to use NFP…when in fact they don’t even like it??

Two questions arise with this unhappy situation…did the Church advised them BEFOREHAND that the misuse of NFP MIGHT LED them to a state of unhappiness?..or maybe NFP warn them of certain ill effects? At this point I have no idea, but I would like to know!

The other alternative to the use of NFP is abstinence. Why is it that couples are so dismissive about abstinence as soon as someone mentions it? Here’s one example…“choosing between 2 evils, the lesser evil is recommended.”

But neither using NFP, nor abstinence is evil! I know that, but I wonder if those unhappy couples know that too?

So…this is where I had to part ways with newbetx…generalities does not concern me at this point. So if you choose to answer me, please do it in the most UNAMBIGUOUS WAY. That way both of us know the exact meaning of every idea you choose to answer me. That way we don’t have to discern between multiple outcomes, or meanings.

Thanks in advance for taking time reading my post.

Your posts confuse me…you keep talking about NFP and abstinence as two totally different things, though NFP incorporates periodic abstinence. Are you really suggesting that parents wishing, for good reasons, to space children, postpone pregnancy, etc., simply not have intercourse at all? If so, why??? Why would you think that would make any normal, healthy couple happier?

 

[gam197]

originally posted by newbetx
I think the church (small c for the humans doing the best they can) taught many things as a practical nature. Whether they were Church (big C) teachings at the time, I’m unclear. Just because it came from a priest did not make it a Big C thing. Advice that may have been sound many decades ago is not what is given today due to changes in understanding. As I see it, as God reveals things to us. One has to go with what one has

I believe the Big C taught this. That is what is throwing me off and is a disconnect for me. The Big C didn’t talk about it and if they did even allude to it, I am sure it was in the context of a sin so this is a major change.

I simply would like to know where the change took place. Why historically was it perceived as a sin and how did that revelation come about.

 

[newbetx]

I have to admit…I have failed to bring you to the same wavelength I’m on…I was trying my best to keep the discussion as unambiguous and as narrow as I could, but you keep broadening it so you can bring all kind of examples I tried to avoid. I had a very good reason to keep it narrow, knowing that if is unambiguous, then there is very little wiggle room to have an open ending debate.

Maybe you did not fail as much as I was taking a different tact. Narrow of focus when it comes to marital relations, NFP, Church “rules”, etc often produces arguments that are difficult to defend as the OP and others have discovered. I too, had difficulty understanding “trees”. I now try to back up to bring sense from the bigger picture because that was the method that worked for me.

I was trying to focus on one thing from the beginning…some couples are unhappy using NFP. They say that, not me. I was trying to find the reasons behind this unhappiness. I tried to keep the discussion focused on this group of people ALONE, and tried to avoid including “everybody else”! Lots of couples are very happy with NFP, so they shouldn’t be included at all.

Well, I might have been trying to tie both your and the OP’s discussion together since the title of the thread is not about one’s happiness with NFP. But since we’re not exactly still on topic…

I came to the conclusion that these couples are unhappy b/c they are misusing NFP. They using it for selfish reasons, primarily as a birth control method. That is the real cause for their unhappiness. And all this unhappiness develops over a longer period of time, when NFP is misused. I suggested that maybe abstinence is the answer, when the misuse of NFP causes them unhappiness. Again…I only mean THOSE COUPLES who are unhappy, and I have no problem with the rest of the couples who find NFP to their satisfaction. I found a lot of understanding on your part, untill you have expanded the discussion and made it ambiguous. I have n/p using NFP to space out childbirth…but that has nothing to do with our discussion. And everything else, all the other examples you bring up are irrelevant to our discussion. I don’t disagree with any of it, but they are totally irrelevant if we stay narrowly on those problems which only certain couples experience. I mean the whole part on abstinence which includes everybody is very true…but is irrelevant. What is the alternative? Using NFP, and if the unhappiness increases, go see a shrink? I think there is a better way…

blessings…

So I’ll try to answer more specifically based on my experience.
When we used NFP, “it failed.” Basically we were given basic information and our results were mixed. Trying to be “good” and avoid at the same time caused us great anxiety since it would be a good two weeks before we knew for sure we weren’t pregnant. This is where using NFP as birth control with little confidence and even less faith in God caused us great stress. Complete abstinence in it’s place? Please! It was inconceivable to me. Why? If I had faith enough in God at the time, the NFP thing would not have been an issue so abstenence would not have been needed in our case.

So once you mix ABC in there to avoid the anxiety, you trade it off for years of building up guilt. Once guilt is associated with the act and the spouse, all heck breaks loose. So if you were unhappy with NFP and even unhappier with ABC a shrink might be neccessary. I failed to surrender my fate to God. That basically is what I feel is the issue with NFP and any unhappiness “it” might cause.

As I’ve told others persuing ABC because NFP is an issue for them… While sex is a gift, it is not a right without consequence. If their situation requires it, abstinence is better than ABC.

So in a way, we are in agreement and my experience would support your assumption.

Peace!