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

[Newzie52]

Bendalina,

It seems to me that perhaps some of your inability to understand the Church’s teaching about NFP and its proper use within marriage stems from your own difficult experiences. Believe me, many of us understand where you are coming from. Although many couples have happy, easy experiences with NFP, there are plenty of us who have struggled, as well. My dh, though a wonderful Catholic husband and father, was never happy with NFP. His attitude was “for Pete’s sake, we waited until we were married and we STILL can’t have sex when we want to!!!” Thank God for an early menopause, which came in my early 40s.

Arguments for NFP and against ABC are sometimes esoteric and hard to grasp. One explanation I like of why NFP is acceptable and ABC is not is this (often cited by John Kippley, founder of the Couple to Couple League): intercourse is intended to be a reenactment of the marriage covenant, in which we give ourselves FULLY to each other, each and every time, the good and the bad, the fertile and the infertile… When we use our God-given mental faculties to determine fertile and infertile periods so that we can responsibly plan our families, we are not holding anything back but are cooperating with each other and with God. When we use ABC, thereby making a uterus a hostile environment, or preventing ovulation or implantation, or using condoms that physically prevent sperm from taking its natural course, we are holding back, not giving ourselves completely, and intentionally altering the act. The means are, indeed, essential to determining the morality of an act.

I don’t know how much more plainly we can explain.

God bless.

 

[Namesake]

Also, maybe it would be helpful for you to explain NFP as “not placing an obstacle into the sacred act of sex” rather than saying “be open to life”. A slight difference in meaning, but maybe that could put it into better perspective - especially for infertile couples.

It’s obvious that NFP does circumvent being open to conception and the intent is obviously to avoid conception. All the arguments are quite hollow because the whole reason for NFP is to prevent conception, ie; contraception. It’s vain and hypocritical at best.

If you plan to have sex when you will not conceive and avoid sex when you can conceive you are eliminating the idea of being open to conception. And it’s being done entirely to enjoy sexual gratification without the obligation of possible conception.

The Church ought to get real and address this issue honestly.

 

[wanner47]

It’s obvious that NFP does circumvent being open to conception and the intent is obviously to avoid conception. All the arguments are quite hollow because the whole reason for NFP is to prevent conception, ie; contraception. It’s vain and hypocritical at best.

That is not true, and the proof is my son. We used NFP to determine the optimal time to *conceive *him.

NFP provides a couple with INFORMATION about a woman’s cycle. What a couple chooses to do with that information is up to them. They could have sex, which MAY result in a pregnancy. They could abstain with sex, and there’s nothing wrong with that – St. Paul even *advised *couples to abstain from sex by mutual consent in order to pray and fast. This is practically a description of NFP! Catholic couples who are abstaining are ENCOURAGED to pray and fast and SACRIFICE in order to bring themselves closer to God.

ABC requires no sacrifice. It caters to the contraceptive mentality; i.e., “I should be able to have sex whenever I want with whomever I want, with no consequences whatsoever.”

NFP is the exact opposite. It says, “Sexuality and fertility are gifts from God and must be used according to His plan.”

If you plan to have sex when you will not conceive and avoid sex when you can conceive you are eliminating the idea of being open to conception. And it’s being done entirely to enjoy sexual gratification without the obligation of possible conception.

Not at all. Why would God design the female cycle with infertile periods if His intent was for us to have every single sex act result in conception? And why would St. Paul advise couples to abstain from sex for prayer and fasting if, as you seem to be saying, God considered abstaining from sex to be sinful?

NFP simply works WITH the cycle that GOD DESIGNED for the female body. ABC works AGAINST it. That is the difference.

The Church ought to get real and address this issue honestly.

She has, thankfully. Unfortunately, many Christian denominations do their adherents a disservice by not pointing out the many pitfalls of ABC.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

To me it seems, and granted i’m more than likely wrong, that the church just needed a way to deal with the issue of contraception. Granted they said it was wrong to use ABC but they needed to provide an alternative for couples who’s health made it dangerous for more children, financial issues such as poverty, mental illness, etc. So I guess NFP although not perfect is a compromise? That is how I view it at least. Did the church compromise to social pressure though? That I do not know b/c I do not know how long NFP has been approved by the church.

I’m not a mother yet…but I have a hard enough time dealing with pets. They get on my nerves and I have a feeling that I would lose patience way too easily with a child. I lose patience with my kid relatives and have to get away from them. During my research with my master’s I dealt with children but only 20 min or so at a time. Everyone says it is always different when you have your own children but I know plenty of people where their personalities didn’t change and something was wrong and they never developed the maternal instinct. My future husband doesn’t really know what he thinks yet. so I just hope to God that, he grants me patience so as not to scar any future children…sigh it was a lot less complicated when I wasn’t Catholic lol just use the pill till you are ready…God knows what is best for me…I have to keep telling myself that

 

[wanner47]

To me it seems, and granted i’m more than likely wrong, that the church just needed a way to deal with the issue of contraception. Granted they said it was wrong to use ABC but they needed to provide an alternative for couples who’s health made it dangerous for more children, financial issues such as poverty, mental illness, etc. So I guess NFP although not perfect is a compromise? That is how I view it at least. Did the church compromise to social pressure though? That I do not know b/c I do not know how long NFP has been approved by the church.

Periodic abstinence has *never *been condemned by the Church, and that’s simply what NFP is – but thanks to learned scientists we can use thermometers and our own observations of our fertility signs to more accurately track our menstrual cycles (instead of relying solely on the calendar!).

All Christian denominations condemned birth control until 1930, when the Anglican weakened to social pressure and said that ABC was acceptable, but only for married couples and for serious reasons. Look how well that turned out.

I’m not a mother yet…but I have a hard enough time dealing with pets. They get on my nerves and I have a feeling that I would lose patience way too easily with a child. I lose patience with my kid relatives and have to get away from them. During my research with my master’s I dealt with children but only 20 min or so at a time. Everyone says it is always different when you have your own children but I know plenty of people where their personalities didn’t change and something was wrong and they never developed the maternal instinct. My future husband doesn’t really know what he thinks yet. so I just hope to God that, he grants me patience so as not to scar any future children…sigh it was a lot less complicated when I wasn’t Catholic lol just use the pill till you are ready…God knows what is best for me…I have to keep telling myself that

Believe me… it IS different with your own children. And you would be surprised at all the learning and growing you have left to do. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

 

[hasikelee]

Good Daughter…

Thank you for addressing my original Q’s so thoughtfully. I am interested in your definition of “procreative.” But how can one be “ordered toward life” when one knows oneself to be naturally infertile?

Do you believe infertile people should not be allowed to marry?

Do you believe after menopause you should not be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse?

Do you believe killing grandma now to get your inheritance is the same as waaaaiiiting until grandma dies? How come the church prohibits the artificial method and not the natural method?

 

[Good_Daughter]

I am interested in your definition of “procreative.” But how can one be “ordered toward life” when one knows oneself to be naturally infertile?

I usually get my definitions from dictionary.com. The term “procreative”, as use in documents like CCC and Humane Vitae, is best defined by American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary as “Of or directed to procreation”.

People aren’t necessarily “ordered toward life” but they can choose to keep sex “ordered toward life” by keeping the natural end of the marital act intact. Do you know what I mean by the bolded part? It’s the crux of the Church’s teaching so we can discuss it a little more if it helps with your understanding.

And if the “Church allows birth control,” why not the artificial kind? I understand the issue with a “contraceptive mentality” which can be found within ABC AND NFP. But if birth control is allowed within the parameters of child spacing, being older, etc is allowed… why not artificially?

Because artificial birth control can only work by changing the natural end of the marital act. NFP is incapable of changing the natural end of the marital act.

Again, I did as much for ten years, but with a horrific cycle and a husband unwilling to wait 2 months because of it, sex threatened our marriage. Should we have had 10 kids? Maybe. Should we have reached a higher spiritual plane? Perhaps. My argument isn’t with the beauty of the ideal, but rather with the condemnation of those for whom it is burdensome. I haven’t even mentioned women in Africa!

I understand your frustration. The things you say make sense and the questions you ask are excellent. Please keep asking them, I think you represent many other Catholics when you do.

If it’s not too intrusive, do you mind sharing the NFP method you used? It sounds like your method worked poorly for you.

I think it’s important for us, as a Church, to realize that many Catholics lack access to the really good, effective NFP in existence. Until we can provide one another with prayerful, practical NFP motivation, education and support, we’ll have to live with many Catholics resenting the Church and/or contracepting. We have only ourselves to condemn. God bless those who tirelessly promote good NFP.

 

[Good_Daughter]

You misread the opening question. It was an illustration of my question about the inconsistency of the CC teaching. I wanted to know how the CC teaches sex MUST be open to procreation at all times as well as being a unitive act, and that with only the unitive intention it’s not ok, except after menopause.

The CC does not teach that sex must be “open to procreation” at all times, why do you think that it does?

The CC teaches us to keep sex procreative or “ordered toward procreation” at all times. We do this by keeping the natural end of the marital act intact. Any married couple, fertile or not, is capable of doing this.

After menopause, a couple are perfectly able to have procreative sex because they have not made any changes to either their fertility or the marital act itself (it’s still the same old sex that, under the right conditions, makes a baby), nature has just changed the outcome.

 

[Good_Daughter]

In my RCIA class we had a session on family planning the Catholic way. i was told by the instructor that the reason why contraception was bad was b/c of what other people on here said, that it separated the two purposes of sex. He also said that a marriage separating these two things would suffer all these negative things b/c it wasn’t what God intended. I then asked him your same question. What about infertile people? And when I said unfertile, I meant young unfertile people not just menopause. They aren’t worried about procreation and so therefore only using the unitive factor…would their marriage then suffer? He was unable to answer my question.

Yeah…I don’t understand it either

Contraception is inanimate, it doesn’t do anything. What is bad, according to Church teaching, is when couples use contraception to remove the procreative aspect of sex.

Your RCIA instructor was right, the unitive and the procreative aspects of sex are designed to stay together. What surprises me is that he didn’t know this: Any infertile couple, regardless of the cause of their infertility (menopause, pregnancy, cyclical infertility) is capable of procreative sex. What they are not capable of is reproductive sex.

Procreative means ordered toward procreation. It involves having the kind of sex that’s capable of or ordered toward making a baby (given the right conditions) even when the couple themselves may be incapable of making a baby.

 

[Good_Daughter]

You put WAY too much trust in ABC’s ability to avoid pregnancy. Everyone knows it is far less effective than NFP. Who says God cannot thwart ABC!

ABC use is how couples try to change the natural end of the marital act. Rates of effectiveness are beside the point. God can and does thwart ABC. The Church however, teaches us not to thwart our own fertility.

God designed us with a certain fertility level at any given time (high for most men, constantly changing for most women). Our relative fertility is natural, healthy and useful. It’s good to cure diseases, but should we be treating our perfectly healthy fertility like a disease and “fixing” it?

I understand the argument and find it lovely. But birth control is birth control. Be open to children, be open to your husband’s desires. But why can a woman have no or little say? Perhaps you are all married to rather pious men… but most of the world is not. How do I tell such a woman: too bad your husband isn’t on board, guess you have to have another child, because you have no power and no say. Again, NFP is a beautiful ideal, but not attainable by many, if not most, married couples. Why denounce them as sinners? Yes, we must avoid a contraceptive mentality… but NFP is contraceptive. It’s the mentality that must be addressed, not the method of contraception.

Catholics are not always required to be open to children. I myself would not be open to my husband’s desires if they seemed selfishly motivated. I doubt the Church requires that of me as a wife.

Sorry to repeat, but I find NFP is often not well promoted, taught or supported within the Church. Contraceptive use is clearly sinful but before denouncing contraceptors as sinners, we must ask ourselves what we have done to share and promote Catholic teaching.

 

[urban-hermit]

urban-hermit:

Also, maybe it would be helpful for you to explain NFP as “not placing an obstacle into the sacred act of sex” rather than saying “be open to life”. A slight difference in meaning, but maybe that could put it into better perspective - especially for infertile couples.

It’s obvious that NFP does circumvent being open to conception and the intent is obviously to avoid conception. All the arguments are quite hollow because the whole reason for NFP is to prevent conception, ie; contraception. It’s vain and hypocritical at best.

If you plan to have sex when you will not conceive and avoid sex when you can conceive you are eliminating the idea of being open to conception. And it’s being done entirely to enjoy sexual gratification without the obligation of possible conception.

The Church ought to get real and address this issue honestly.

Well it makes sense to me. Sorry - I tried to help, but I guess I didn’t help you.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I’m sorry… how is infertile sex “open to procreation?” How is sex on infertile days more “open to procreation” than ABC sex? THAT’S THE RUB!

Infertile sex is not open to procreation, nor does it need to be, in order for a couple to follow Catholic teaching.

 

[Socio_Momma]

It’s obvious that NFP does circumvent being open to conception and the intent is obviously to avoid conception. All the arguments are quite hollow because the whole reason for NFP is to prevent conception, ie; contraception. It’s vain and hypocritical at best.

If you plan to have sex when you will not conceive and avoid sex when you can conceive you are eliminating the idea of being open to conception. And it’s being done entirely to enjoy sexual gratification without the obligation of possible conception.

The Church ought to get real and address this issue honestly.

I would disagree. The Church is real and does address the issue honestly. ABC does not keep it real or honest, it is merely an illusion of control & fabrication of sexual honesty.

NFP does not directly circumvent conception during the sex act & that is clearly a major difference. NFP can be used to help couples who have a just/serious reason to space children or perserve their current family size. Yet, couples can have sex whenever they want to but some may choose not to based on a just/serious reason at that time. Although perhaps it should be made more clear that NFP is really used as part of a continuum to couples learning it and that the information NFP provides us is then used within that continuum from actively trying to conceive, needing to avoid for just/serious reason, to going with the flow & just charting for health info & so on. With NFP you are given information that increases or decreases the odds of conception based on when you do have sex, but couples are still working with the natural order (God’s order) not against it. One should with NFP have a better understanding that in the end God is in control & our bodies should speak the language of love & truth in all areas including sex. I guess I don’t understand what is hollow about this?

“Working against” versus “working with” is really a pretty big distinction. Couples renew their marriage vows with their sexual intimacy (which is an extension of our overall intimacy), it should be totally open to God in that moment as well, embracing all He has given us & all we have to give each other. Even if there is a reduced possibility of conception when a couple has sex with NFP, nothing has been directly done to cause this. The procreative aspect still exists even if procreation does not occur due to being infertile. If the Church thought that procreation must always be highly possible, sex during any non-fertile time would be banned & it is not. Catholics are also called to responsible parenthood & that may mean in some cases needing to have more spacing between children or in others perserving the current family size in order to be repsonsible. While some couples may never have to do either of these.

However, overall contraception does not do any of this, by its very nature it strives to pull apart all that should be kept together & its orientation toward human sexuality & human life is not positive. Human sexuality is to be directly worked against during the sex act and human life is deemed a failure should a pregnancy result. The means to the ends matters, even if a NFP couple & ABC couple want to reduce the odds of conception (avoid/space/perserve) & they have a just/serious reason to do so the means they employ are different.

Yet, it would be nice that for couples who were struggling with this teaching that there is more general support in the Church to help them. I guess that’s something we all could help with, eh?

 

[Good_Daughter]

It’s obvious that NFP does circumvent being open to conception and the intent is obviously to avoid conception.

I agree.

All the arguments are quite hollow because the whole reason for NFP is to prevent conception, ie; contraception.

You don’t say which arguments you find hollow.

If I think I am fertile and I watch a movie with my husband instead of having sex, I haven’t prevented conception as much as I’ve avoided it. If I think I am fertile and I have sex with my husband using a condom, I have probably prevented conception. NFP as birth control is not contraceptive (against conception) because it enables us to time sex when there is no conception to be against.

When you think about it, we all spend most of our lives avoiding conception. We’re hardly contracepting, though.

It’s vain and hypocritical at best.

Not when you understand the difference between ABC and NFP from a Catholic perspective. Most importantly, ABC use changes the natural end of sex, while NFP use does not. Also important, ABC is used in an attempt to thwart natural, healthy fertility, while using NFP leaves that fertility alone.

If you plan to have sex when you will not conceive and avoid sex when you can conceive you are eliminating the idea of being open to conception. And it’s being done entirely to enjoy sexual gratification without the obligation of possible conception.

I think this is true. Catholicism does not teach that couples must always be open to conception.

The Church ought to get real and address this issue honestly.

I agree, although I’m sure we don’t intend this in the same way!

 

[newbetx]

THANK YOU Carolina girl!!! I teach RCIA and come up against the SAME question. I am at such a loss as to how to answer. I spew Church teaching, but everyone in the room sees the holes in the argument. I am here today trying to find an answer. These rather devout and well-meaning men and women are doing their best to answer me, but they seem really unable to grasp the heart of the question. I hope SOMEONE can!

Sorry if this is a repeat but I’ve done a quick search and did not find this alternative. There ARE answers!

These are tough questions. And something I’ve seen debated until the cows come home. If you take one tree at a time, you can miss the message completely. May I suggest you take a look at the forest, first. When in context of the bigger picture, the details are so much easier to understand. One can not reduce the core of the Theology of the Body to a few posts or paragraphs. Christopher West does an excellent job of bringing it to a non-scholar’s level. I suggest one of his books, specifically in this case “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” but TOB for Beginners is fine, too.

Also, if you are interested in the wider view of the forest but are limited in time, there is a CD set called “Naked Without Shame” for about $4 from the Gift Foundation. This concept is quite beautiful to those that can accept it. I ties up all the loose ends because the answers are intertwined. I highly encourage you and your husband to read or listen to TOB and discuss it. I can assure you that many on this site have come to understand the Church, it’s teachings and the real meaning of God’s Love through this series.

Peace be with you!

 

[Em_in_FL]

Here’s another thought…

The “Church” didn’t create the female reproductive cycle… God did. The fact that a women goes through fertile and infertile days within a single cycle is a biological (scientific) phenomenon that would have been discovered through science regardless of the Church’s acceptance of NFP.

The Church’s teachings have never changed… NFP was not created in the teachings just to counteract the trend of artificial contraception. The Church’s teachings have always been the same:

1. conjugal love is good within marriage
2. children are a natural outcome of conjugal love, accept children with love, they are a gift
3. conjugal love should be “ordered toward life”, meaning you should not take any action that prevents life WHILE engaging in marital relations.

Therefore… in the past… well before NFP was “discovered” or “accepted” by the church… married couples ALWAYS had the OPTION of abstaining. Yes, sex within marriage is GOOD. But abstaining isn’t wrong in certain circumstances (there are good/just reasons why one would choose to abstain).
Think back… how many of your grandparents slept in separate beds? (sure, that’s a form of NFP!)

Since the Church has never stated that conjugal love is only to be enjoyed during the fertile days of a woman’s cycle… it’s only natural to see the acceptance of the teachings of NFP.

NFP is just prayerful abstainance.
ABC is sex on my terms.

 

[Scottgun]

Bruised Reed. You’re kidding me, right? NFP is birth control.

I think I’m done. I am making a practical argument which no one wants to address. Perhaps that’s because you aren’t in the trenches with new converts trying to explain the teaching to them as I am. I AGREE WITH THE IDEAL. But you turn my argument/q’s into something you can defend, but you don’t actually answer my Q’s. And so I will continue to stare at a room full of converts and feed them an rather unconvincing party line.

I’ve reviewed the responses and I believe most have been fair and anwered the questions. As far as the trenches, most of us get asked this all the time, so we are constantly explaining these things to curious questioners and also to downright hostile brickbat hurlers. Our spear point has been sharpened with iron in manner of speaking. The Chuch’s teaching her is entirely logically consistent and has been demonstrated time and time again on these forums. The reason so many people have difficulty is becuase modern reasoning has been clouded by consequentialism. People look at the ends: ABC=no pregnancy, NFP=no pregnancy and wrongly conclude that they are morally equivalent. T’ain’t so. God bless.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I don’t think the OP’s questions have been answered until the OP says they’ve been answered.

 

[blessedtoo]

I don’t think the OP’s questions have been answered until the OP says they’ve been answered.

I think the OP is not returning to this thread. And her questions WERE answered, just not received.

On another thread, she stated:

I have just left 2 other threads with the most close-minded people spewing hatred for their cause… I was about ready to leave this site for good ( I’ve only newly signed on).

I am saddened that the OP chose to see our responses, suggestions, and comprehensive answers as “spewing hatred” and being “closed minded”. This seems to confirm my suspicion that there was a major impediment to understanding from the very beginning. If one does not ask the questions with the “open mind” that is demanded from the respondents, the answers will not get through.

The OP is in my prayers.

 

[GraceDK]

I am allowed, even required, to use my reasoning to seek understanding. I accept it on the authority of the Church, but I don’t understand it.

I agree that we either “get it” or we don’t at some point. I suppose we are there, for you believe my Q’s have been answered effectively and I do not. Sex without the intention of being open to procreation is the same for NFP & ABC. I find it disingenuous to say that a naturally infertile couple is “open to procreation.” They are having sex with no chance of conception. Just because this is natural it’s ok? An NFP couple is ok to use it so as not to conceive, but a couple who uses ABC is not… just because it’s natural. What of will and intention? And again, what of the majority of the world who have no access to basal thermometers and pen & paper?

I believe NFP is a very beautiful spiritual gift and ideal… but it’s not within reach of all. The “contraceptive mentality” can be found among those who use it, so it’s the intention behind our contraception–natural or artificial—which is important.

Dear Bendalina.
I just wanna say I haven’t read all your posts or all the answers… but I just think you have a sharp mind and a right to seek understanding…
I understand your questions and think your concerns are totally valid. I have also asked my self: indeed what about all the Africans who don’t even own a pencil and a paper, can’t read etc. … The issue is not black and white and what always puzzles me is also the question of “intention”. I have protestant friends that don’t find our teachings logical exactly because they think the intention/heart is the most important aspect in Christian life… When I see certain Catholic claims that our Evangelical brothers and sisters are using each other in the marital act… I get highly frustrated. They are not using each other… there is no intention of using… only intention of loving and doing things the best way as they see and feel it. These non-catholic Christians who use ABC with their husbands and wives may well have much peace, love and balance in their life and be happy and communicating well… as far as is my experience.
So as I said… I find your questions good… I hope to see your final posts here displaying a content Bendalina who has “seen the light” on the matter… (then maybe I will too if you do reach that pont. )