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

[Bendalina]

Also, I am not trying to be rude, but did you and your husband ever talk about this before you were married? Did you explain you that you really were not interested in giving of yourself this way and you only wanted to have conjugal relations if you, had to or to have children. Again, not meaning to be rude because giving of one another means taking care of the family, going to work, fixing meals, etc. Just curious?

My husband and I entered marriage with all of this in mind. I love the Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality for the MAJORITY part. And indeed we did NFP for a decade. But the NFP nearly ended the marriage as my husband couldn’t handle it. It made sex horrific for me and I nearly left him. But we have kids and adore them and have healed our sexual relationship. I don’t write any of this except to understand what seems incongruous in it. I have taught NFP to many couples and have shared with them the Church’s teaching. But I always have a hard time answering the more practical Q’s and feel hypocritical when I give them the party line. I want to understand and believe it. I don’t need a lesson in the beauty of the conjugal act and the meaning of marriage, I believe all that. There just seem to be some inconsistencies which really have not been well addressed here. I’ve heard all these arguments before, and they don’t help.

 

[kristie_m]

Em in FL: I am not concerned about judging anyone, I am trying to understand what I consider inconsistencies in the teaching. The couple with grown kids using NFP with the intention of no more kids are participating in the “contraceptive mentality” which we are told is wrong. Is what makes that OK the fact that they are older and have raised a family and are not required to have kids endlessly? OK, but they are still NOT OPEN to procreation, which is a requirement.

The church allows for couples to practice NFP as a means of preventing or spacing children when there is GRAVE reason. Could their age be considered such? Perhaps…that’s not really for me to decide. But it is something to think about.

I heard something in reference to NFP vs ABC that I thought was kind of interesting. The difference is like bumping off Grandma, rather than waiting for her to die from natural causes. Using ABC is telling God “Absolutely NOT” where NFP says, “we’re not really ready or desirous of having more kids, but are open to YOUR will.”

NFP involves obedience and sacrifice, drawing you closer to God and to each other.

I’m looking at my fourth C-section in a few months, and the prospect of future pregancies is a scary one for me. But I have to trust that if God wants us to have more kids, then I can count on His provision.

 

[blessedtoo]

Here is an other example of the separation of the aspects of a good.

Bulimics attempt to separate nutrition from pleasure. Their dramatic attempts to gain some enjoyment from eating WITHOUT absorbing calories and nutrition is considered by all to be a DISORDER. It is understood that to try and isolate one aspect from the other is in conflict with natural biological law.

In the past, this understanding of natural law was intuitively applied to the sexual act. Hence, prior to the advent of ABC, pre-marital sex was considered verboten because to engage in baby-making activity outside the bonds of marriage would likely result in making a baby! Science has not managed to “discover” a way to eat food without absorbing calories (although it continues to try) so we are left to depend on our own self control and our ability to abstain if we want to remain fit and healthy.

 

[blessedtoo]

My husband and I entered marriage with all of this in mind. I love the Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality for the MAJORITY part. And indeed we did NFP for a decade. But the NFP nearly ended the marriage as my husband couldn’t handle it. It made sex horrific for me and I nearly left him. But we have kids and adore them and have healed our sexual relationship. I don’t write any of this except to understand what seems incongruous in it. I have taught NFP to many couples and have shared with them the Church’s teaching. But I always have a hard time answering the more practical Q’s and feel hypocritical when I give them the party line. I want to understand and believe it. I don’t need a lesson in the beauty of the conjugal act and the meaning of marriage, I believe all that. There just seem to be some inconsistencies which really have not been well addressed here. I’ve heard all these arguments before, and they don’t help.

Perhaps you could ask us some very specific questions. What are the inconsistencies that have not been addressed?

You are teaching NFP yet you do not believe the teachings. You are trying to convey a truth to people while still harboring doubts yourself. You have had a negative experience with NFP and perhaps feel that it has failed in your case. How will you persuade others of the Church’s teaching if you are unable to accept it or understand it yourself?

I’ve read many, many threads on NFP on CAF. I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a point at which people either “get it” or they don’t. For me, it is the least complicated moral issue that the Church presents for Catholics. For me, it makes absolute perfect sense. All of the arguments and questions that you have presented have been answered effectively with both reason, science, and theology. So I’m not sure what it is you are looking for.

 

[Bendalina]

Perhaps you could ask us some very specific questions. What are the inconsistencies that have not been addressed?

You are teaching NFP yet you do not believe the teachings. You are trying to convey a truth to people while still harboring doubts yourself. You have had a negative experience with NFP and perhaps feel that it has failed in your case. How will you persuade others of the Church’s teaching if you are unable to accept it or understand it yourself?

I’ve read many, many threads on NFP on CAF. I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a point at which people either “get it” or they don’t. For me, it is the least complicated moral issue that the Church presents for Catholics. For me, it makes absolute perfect sense. All of the arguments and questions that you have presented have been answered effectively with both reason, science, and theology. So I’m not sure what it is you are looking for.

You ask me how I can persuade others if I don’t accept all of it myself… that is precisely why I have come here looking for a way to believe. I don’t want to be hypocritical and I want to accept the teaching. I am not a cafeteria Catholic, and so I accept this teaching. But 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.

 

[blessedtoo]

One could also argue, along with the Church, that ABC compromises the unitive aspect of marital love as well as the procreative aspect. Putting a barrier of any kind between spouses is a form of withholding from eachother. Anyone who has practiced ABC knows that the first time you give yourself to your spouse without the intentional interference of birth control, an entirely different experience is had.

 

[Em_in_FL]

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.

I understand what you are saying… and you are correct.
Yes, NFP can be used in a contraceptive mentality, and that is against the teachings of the faith… you’re right.

NFP isn’t always good… ABC is always wrong.
But… NFP can be used properly within the moral teachings of the faith… which is why it’s an option.

It’s like ANY other sin out there, right? It’s all about how we approach the topic in our hearts.
Is wealth intrinsically evil? No, but if it’s used poorly it can be. Money can also be used to serve others for good!
Is eating fine food intrinsically evil? No, but if it’s gluttonous it can be. Food is necessary to sustain a healthy life!

See? We can’t say that NFP is always wrong…

 

[blessedtoo]

You ask me how I can persuade others if I don’t accept all of it myself… that is precisely why I have come here looking for a way to believe. I don’t want to be hypocritical and I want to accept the teaching. I am not a cafeteria Catholic, and so I accept this teaching. But 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.

I appreciate your desire to understand. It is laudable. Please continue to ask questions.

But your questions appear to lean primarily in the direction of intent. Hence, what you are questioning is something that none of us can judge or answer. If there is something dubious or suspect in a couple’s use of NFP, it is not because the fault lies in the teaching. It is because the couple is misusing the teaching. Not unlike the example I gave with bulimia. There is nothing faulty in our scientific understanding of the relationship between eating, pleasure and nutrition. The fault lies in the understanding of the person himself, who wishes to separate one from the other.

As an other poster pointed out, infertility, at any age, is not an impediment to marriage or marital love. The Church will not allow an IMPOTENT couple to marry because in that case, there would absolutely be no chance of procreation. Infertility, no matter how advanced we are scientifically, is still within God’s purvue. To use the Bible as reference, we have many examples of God gracing seemingly infertile couples with children. This type of miracle is not relegated to Biblical times either. Even today, we can read of “miracles” that occur where procreation seemed a medical impossibility.

The Church values BOTH aspects of the marital act so profoundly that she will forbid one without the other, no matter the circumstance.

As to individual intent, other posters have provided Church teaching and documents on how Catholics are to proceed with an informed conscience when deciding on the use of NFP. Those who adopt a contraceptive mentality and abuse NFP will be called upon to answer to God for their actions.

 

[blessedtoo]

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.

EVERYONE prior to the advent of ABC practiced NFP. While there may have been isolated pockets of the elite and wealthy who could manage to procure makeshift barriers to conception, the majority of humans proceeded with married life intuitively knowing that engaging in baby making activity might create babies. Thus, abstaining for serious reasons would be the natural instinct.

What is different now? Is this contraceptive mentality too deeply ingrained and accepted in society that the mere idea of NFP seems impossible? If it was possible and probable for most folks a mere 100 years ago, what is different now? Science may offer alternatives, but that does not alter the teaching of our Church. We apply Biblical principles and Tradition regardless of era or context. It is the hearts and minds of people that change, not the teaching.

As to intent: ABC is the intention to thwart natural biological processes to avoid children. The intention is to interfere and control one’s fertility through artifical means.

NFP is the intention to temporarily avoid pregnancy by working WITH the biological processes and abstaining when pregancy would create serious complications in a marriage.

The Church does not teach that every act of marital love must result in a child. She does not teach that every act of marital love must have, as it specified intention, the desire for a child. The Church teaches that there are licit and valid reasons for spacing children and allows that each Catholic should decide for themselves with a well formed conscience as their guide.

Conversely, ABC teaches us that marital love, or sex in general, need not EVER result in procreation and that pregnancy is a condition to be avoided or a by-product of failed contraception. ABC teaches us that the two are not connected and that we are in control of natural law.

 

[Bendalina]

The Church does not teach that every act of marital love must result in a child. She does not teach that every act of marital love must have, as it specified intention, the desire for a child. The Church teaches that there are licit and valid reasons for spacing children and allows that each Catholic should decide for themselves with a well formed conscience as their guide.

Conversely, ABC teaches us that marital love, or sex in general, need not EVER result in procreation and that pregnancy is a condition to be avoided or a by-product of failed contraception. ABC teaches us that the two are not connected and that we are in control of natural law.

If the couple is allowed to have good reasons to space children and even avoid having more (say, when older), then why not ABC used for these reasons? ABC does NOT have to “teach us that marital love, or sex in general, need not EVER result in procreation and that pregnancy is a condition to be avoided or a by-product of failed contraception.” ABC can be used just as NFP can within a marriage. It doesn’t say “no” to God any more than NFP does, for we all know that NFP is more effective than ABC. I know, I know… it’s “natural.” Just not enough for me.

 

[Socio_Momma]

If the couple is allowed to have good reasons to space children and even avoid having more (say, when older), then why not ABC used for these reasons? ABC does NOT have to “teach us that marital love, or sex in general, need not EVER result in procreation and that pregnancy is a condition to be avoided or a by-product of failed contraception.” ABC can be used just as NFP can within a marriage. It doesn’t say “no” to God any more than NFP does, for we all know that NFP is more effective than ABC. I know, I know… it’s “natural.” Just not enough for me.

Contraception (ABC) works against the sharing aspects of our selves both physical & spiritual. Contra by definition means against, nothing about this says “yes” to God. It is in opposition to His natural order, the spiritual connection we have, and works directly to separate out the unitive and procreative aspects of our sexual unions in marriage. The procreative aspect does not mean we must be fertile every time we engage in sexual intimacy, but that we accept all that is present of the procreative aspect during every sexual act as a couple. There are aspects of procreation present during all acts based on the natural order.

Also, contraception does imply that pregnancies that result from its usage are failures. Failure rates=babies. It works to frustrate during the act of marital love the very action of marital love & it treats our fertility like a disease or waste. Our fertility & our bodies are gifts from God at all stages of life. NFP as the Church teaches us, babies are always gifts from God even if they are sometimes surprises.

NFP isn’t used because it is natural, it is used because of how we must work together as a couple with God & His natural order as intended versus against (contra).

 

[wanner47]

ABC does NOT have to “teach us that marital love, or sex in general, need not EVER result in procreation and that pregnancy is a condition to be avoided or a by-product of failed contraception.” ABC can be used just as NFP can within a marriage. It doesn’t say “no” to God any more than NFP does, for we all know that NFP is more effective than ABC. I know, I know… it’s “natural.” Just not enough for me.

ABC ***does ***say “No!” to God. It says, “I hate the way You created my body so I am going to use chemicals or barriers to circumvent my natural fertility.”

NFP says just the opposite. It says, “God, I love the way You created my body and I am going to work with Your plan when it comes to the gift of life.”

ABC says, “I am Lord and Master of my OWN body. YOU can’t tell me what to do! I call the shots, not YOU!”

NFP says, “God, not my will, but thine. I will work with the fertility cycle that You created to discern Your will for me.”

I recommend reading “Contraception: Why Not?” by Janet Smith for a beautiful (and detailed) explanation of this concept.

 

[Em_in_FL]

If the couple is allowed to have good reasons to space children and even avoid having more (say, when older), then why not ABC used for these reasons? ABC does NOT have to “teach us that marital love, or sex in general, need not EVER result in procreation and that pregnancy is a condition to be avoided or a by-product of failed contraception.” ABC can be used just as NFP can within a marriage. It doesn’t say “no” to God any more than NFP does, for we all know that NFP is more effective than ABC. I know, I know… it’s “natural.” Just not enough for me.

Yes… ABC does say NO to God… it says “I want sex on MY terms, not Yours”…
God’s terms are reasonable… we have these wonderful cycles where we’re only fertile for a short window each month.
NFP looks at sex as a total gift… I want EVERYTHING about you… even your current fertility.
ABC looks at sex merely for the pleasure… I want you NOW, regardless of your fertility… just not a potential pregnancy…

I’ve quoted this from the catechism before… but here’s the exact paragraph…

2370…
…
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.

 

[duskyjewel]

I don’t need a lesson in the beauty of the conjugal act and the meaning of marriage,

Anyone who actually believed this would not start out this thread looking for justification to tell her husband “no way jose” after menopause. I find that just so disrespectful to your husband. Sex is the main way men feel loved by their wives. It’s different from how we are, but that does not make it wrong.

You have gotten really good answers as to how couples who choose NFP for long periods to avoid pregnancy refuse to separate the two aspects of marital sexuality. They choose to forego both. They do not intentionally frustrate one while indulging in the other. They ARE open to life, because they know that tomorrow, the wife could have a strange hormonal event, causing her to conceive. And they do nothing to prevent that. That is how it’s different from ABC. They accept and cooperate with God’s design and will.

 

[Good_Daughter]

If the conjugal act is meant to be BOTH unitive and creative, how can NFP differ from artificial contraception in this respect:

NFP informs the couple when they can make love without “fear” of conception.

Artificial contraception does the same.

Both have the INTENTION of sex without procreation.

Why is one OK and not the other?

Catholicism teaches couples to keep the marital act procreative. Procreative means “ordered toward life”. Procreative does not necessarily mean reproductive, nor does it necessarily mean “open to life”. If you re-read Catholic teaching equipped with the proper definition of the term procreative (ordered toward life), you may cease to find contradictions.

The marital act is kept procreative when its natural end is left intact. NFP always leaves the natural end of the marital act intact. Contraception (even “natural” forms like withdrawl) always thwarts the natural end of the marital act. Good NFP allows couples to predict the natural outcome of sex (by determining a woman’s relative fertility) and decide whether that outcome is something they can live with. Contraception disregards the natural outcome of sex (by ignoring a woman’s relative fertility) and tries to give it a fake “sterile” end every time.

The intention of sex without procreation (meaning reproduction) is not necessarily a bad thing. The Church allows birth control.

Further, what of those who have no access to a basal thermometer, pen & paper? Or what of those who lived before we had NFP fully understood?

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. I guess we’re always called to help those in need, whether they need food, shelter, or reliable birth control. I know doctors who have worked as missionaries, teaching NFP.

Before NFP, Catholics could leave their family size up to God, abstain completely or disregard Church teaching. Though I struggle with it, I’m glad to be Catholic in the age of NFP.

And why is sex after menopause ok?

Because after menopause, couples are still capable of procreative sex if they haven’t thwarted their fertility in any way and the marital act is kept open to its natural end. The only thing couples are not capable of after menopause is reproductive sex (with exceptions).

I am not a big fan of sex, and so am willing to say: if you don’t want kids, no sex. But you can imagine my husband does not agree. But what about after menopause? Am I entitled as a wife to say No Way Jose? He doesn’t seem to think so. And yet, the arguments for his being allowed to “expect” sex (unitive alone is enough), is contrary to the artificial birth control argument.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a no kids/no sex approach to family planning if spouses are in agreement. Sex after menopause is not necessarily “unitive alone”. It stays procreative as long as a couple has not altered either their fertility or the marital act. Sex at this time can continue to be ordered toward life (despite the natural absence of fertility).

 

[Bendalina]

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?

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?

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!

 

[Bendalina]

Anyone who actually believed this would not start out this thread looking for justification to tell her husband “no way jose” after menopause. I find that just so disrespectful to your husband. Sex is the main way men feel loved by their wives. It’s different from how we are, but that does not make it wrong.

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.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

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.

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

 

[Bendalina]

You have gotten really good answers as to how couples who choose NFP for long periods to avoid pregnancy refuse to separate the two aspects of marital sexuality. They choose to forego both. They do not intentionally frustrate one while indulging in the other. They ARE open to life, because they know that tomorrow, the wife could have a strange hormonal event, causing her to conceive. And they do nothing to prevent that. That is how it’s different from ABC. They accept and cooperate with God’s design and will.

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!

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.

 

[Bendalina]

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!