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

[wanner47]

I am saddened that the OP considers the responses in this thread to be “spewing hatred.” I was trying to be as charitable as possible, and I apologize if I came across as mean or hateful.

 

[GraceDK]

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.

Interesting point, Good Daughter.
For clarification… can “procreative” in this aspect also be seen as “creating love, bonding and unity and joyful marriage” ? hope you understand my simple question…

 

[blessedtoo]

I am saddened that the OP considers the responses in this thread to be “spewing hatred.” I was trying to be as charitable as possible, and I apologize if I came across as mean or hateful.

Impossible. I’ve read and re-read this thread several times for my own clarifications about responses. EVERYONE has been gentle, kind, incredibly PATIENT, and compassionate.

I may be completely WRONG about this, but I sometimes wonder if people even READ the responses. I know it can get tedious when you post a question and desperately want an immediate answer. Not everyone has lots of time (like me - laid off!) to read through threads or do a bit of research. But I also think that if someone has already made up their mind, or has closed their mind to the possibility that there is a better way, then reading and reflecting on every response may seem unnecessary. I am not saying this is the case with the OP, but I fail to see how we can be accuse of “spewing hatred” in these comprehensive responses. People who post questions may also want to bear in mind that responding requires time, research, and patience. Most people pour over their replies carefully, making sure that they’ve not offended anyone or misstated truths. To dismiss thiese efforts so cavalierly is a frustration for many.

However, we know that many folks read these threads without participating. Hopefully someone else who is struggling with the teaching on NFP will benefit from all the wisdom on this thread!

 

[Em_in_FL]

Interesting point, Good Daughter.
For clarification… can “procreative” in this aspect also be seen as “creating love, bonding and unity and joyful marriage” ? hope you understand my simple question…

I think this is the definition of the 2nd aspect of marital sexuality… the UNITIVE aspect.

Both the UNITIVE and PROCREATIVE aspects must be present in marital sexuality.

 

[blessedtoo]

Interesting point, Good Daughter.
For clarification… can “procreative” in this aspect also be seen as “creating love, bonding and unity and joyful marriage” ? hope you understand my simple question…

No. You have defined all the best parts of the unitive aspect.

As this thread has already beautifully explained, “procreative” refers to the right ordering of marital sexuality - it is ordered toward procreation. It does not have to reproduce to be 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.

 

[Bendalina]

The threads I was referring to where people were hateful did NOT include this one. I am sorry you thought so. I do feel you’ve all been charitable here and have tried to answer my Q’s as best you can. Thank you for that. I am still not there yet, but a few things helped. I think there were contradictions in your own responses–I’d repeat what one person said and another would tell me that was wrong–so I am still a bit confused. I still think many of you were trying to convince me of things of which I’m already convinced. I also understand why you think you addressed my Q’s well-- my misunderstanding is still not fully grasped by my careful respondents. But thanks for trying.

 

[blessedtoo]

The threads I was referring to where people were hateful did NOT include this one. I am sorry you thought so. I do feel you’ve all been charitable here and have tried to answer my Q’s as best you can. Thank you for that. I am still not there yet, but a few things helped. I think there were contradictions in your own responses–I’d repeat what one person said and another would tell me that was wrong–so I am still a bit confused. I still think many of you were trying to convince me of things of which I’m already convinced. I also understand why you think you addressed my Q’s well-- my misunderstanding is still not fully grasped by my careful respondents. But thanks for trying.

Thank you for the clarification! I was surprised to read that in the prayer thread, as I thought we were all compassionate and thoughtful with our answers.

Continue to pray and search for your answers. I don’t struggle with this particular teaching BUT there are a few that I grapple with from time to time! We all have questions - how could we not with a faith tradition as rich as the Catholic Church!

 

[gam197]

originally posted**** by Bendalina****
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.

I am just happy to hear someone voice this opinion. Many men are just as sexually active in their forties and fifties as when younger.

In the bible, as loving wifes, we are called to submission I hear your concern about the difference between ABC and NFP. I wonder if ABC leads to lust. I know that condoms have been associated with pre-eclampsia in child birth and infections.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

Ok so since this topic was sort of brought up in this thread I don’t feel like I’m side tracking too bad. Correct me if I’m wrong though lol

How do you deal with a very sexually active male who wants sex a lot and expects it in the relationship/marriage when you don’t want to have children. I’ve heard some guys use the whole “you’re my wife and you are to submit to me” excuse and also “if you don’t have sex with me you don’t love me anymore” excuse…I mean really what is a woman to do? It’s their body that will be put through the pain and discomfort, not theirs, if a baby arises. It’s like a woman isn’t in control of her own body. Don’t want children? don’t have sex! That’s more difficult in practice than in words people. That’s what frustrates me with this policy…

 

[wanner47]

Ok so since this topic was sort of brought up in this thread I don’t feel like I’m side tracking too bad. Correct me if I’m wrong though lol

How do you deal with a very sexually active male who wants sex a lot and expects it in the relationship/marriage when you don’t want to have children. I’ve heard some guys use the whole “you’re my wife and you are to submit to me” excuse and also “if you don’t have sex with me you don’t love me anymore” excuse…I mean really what is a woman to do? It’s their body that will be put through the pain and discomfort, not theirs, if a baby arises. It’s like a woman isn’t in control of her own body. Don’t want children? don’t have sex! That’s more difficult in practice than in words people. That’s what frustrates me with this policy…

Well, that’s really an issue that needs to be dealt with BEFORE marriage. If you’re married to a Catholic man who is strong in his faith, he will not be of this mindset (or he will recognize it as sinful and struggle to overcome it).

If you’re married to a non-Catholic, then he just needs to understand that people don’t always get what they want when they want it, and there are good reasons for that. For example, I don’t give my daughter a piece of candy whenever she wants it, otherwise she’d eat nothing but candy 24/7. In the same vein, a man has to realize that he can’t always have sex whenever he wants.

And yes, it IS difficult. No one is denying that. But we *all *have our crosses to bear. Jesus guaranteed us a way to heaven, but He never promised us an easy journey.

That’s another problem with ABC. It gets men (and women) into the mentality that they MUST have sex whenever they feel the desire, and if they don’t they feel slighted or wronged in some way. Well, what about the times in life where sex isn’t possible? For example, the six-week postpartum period after childbirth, when most OBs do not recommend sex. Or what if one of the spouses develops a serious illness (e.g., cancer) or becomes quadriplegic, and sex becomes impossible? The healthy spouse would probably resort to adultery or masturbation – also mortal sins – to release the sexual desire that they have NO experience controlling or channeling.

Due to experience we’d had using period abstinence with NFP, my husband had no problem abstaining from sexual intercourse with me after the birth of our children, and it made the day we didn’t have to abstain any more that much sweeter.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

Thank you for your response! Very helpful!!

 

[blessedtoo]

Well, that’s really an issue that needs to be dealt with BEFORE marriage. If you’re married to a Catholic man who is strong in his faith, he will not be of this mindset (or he will recognize it as sinful and struggle to overcome it).

If you’re married to a non-Catholic, then he just needs to understand that people don’t always get what they want when they want it, and there are good reasons for that. For example, I don’t give my daughter a piece of candy whenever she wants it, otherwise she’d eat nothing but candy 24/7. In the same vein, a man has to realize that he can’t always have sex whenever he wants.

And yes, it IS difficult. No one is denying that. But we *all *have our crosses to bear. Jesus guaranteed us a way to heaven, but He never promised us an easy journey.

That’s another problem with ABC. It gets men (and women) into the mentality that they MUST have sex whenever they feel the desire, and if they don’t they feel slighted or wronged in some way. Well, what about the times in life where sex isn’t possible? For example, the six-week postpartum period after childbirth, when most OBs do not recommend sex. Or what if one of the spouses develops a serious illness (e.g., cancer) or becomes quadriplegic, and sex becomes impossible? The healthy spouse would probably resort to adultery or masturbation – also mortal sins – to release the sexual desire that they have NO experience controlling or channeling.

Due to experience we’d had using period abstinence with NFP, my husband had no problem abstaining from sexual intercourse with me after the birth of our children, and it made the day we didn’t have to abstain any more that much sweeter.

Completely agree. I would add that the contraceptive mentality, which developed in conjunction with the “sexual revolution” has given people a sense of entitlement when it comes to sex. I think a HUGE issue as well is the apparent difficulty people have with chastity before marriage. If one begins to act on sexual impulses outside the bonds of marriage, and believes that sex is something to be had with anyone, anytime and for any reason, then it becomes almost impossible to implement self control and discipline after marriage.

We should also take into account our sex saturated culture. In my parent’s era, high sexual expectations were not the norm. Keep in mind that even during my childhood, TV dramas like I Love Lucy and The Donna Reed Show portrayed married couples as sleeping in separate beds! While today, more “enlightened” folks will scoff at such reminiscences as prudishness, we as Catholics might recognize that as chastity!

 

[Em_in_FL]

Ok so since this topic was sort of brought up in this thread I don’t feel like I’m side tracking too bad. Correct me if I’m wrong though lol

How do you deal with a very sexually active male who wants sex a lot and expects it in the relationship/marriage when you don’t want to have children. I’ve heard some guys use the whole “you’re my wife and you are to submit to me” excuse and also “if you don’t have sex with me you don’t love me anymore” excuse…I mean really what is a woman to do? It’s their body that will be put through the pain and discomfort, not theirs, if a baby arises. It’s like a woman isn’t in control of her own body. Don’t want children? don’t have sex! That’s more difficult in practice than in words people. That’s what frustrates me with this policy…

On the other hand… consider a woman who has a high sex drive (equal or slightly higher than her husband)… and the couple also decides to avoid conception for a time (for whatever just reason it may be)… IMO, that can be even tougher!
Women who don’t want sex aren’t hurt by a lack of it! (Although, I can see how having a husband/wife with opposite levels of sex drive can be straining on a marriage.)
But a low sex drive should never be motivation to say that using NFP is wrong! There ARE couples that desire the marital union for the UNITIVE aspect much more often than others. Using NFP allows us to not forget the PROCREATIVE aspect. It can be challenging to abstain when necessary… but we don’t allow that high sex drive to take us outside the realms of morality and have sex on our terms using ABC. It’s a sacrifice to abstain when you have a high drive… but it’s easier when the marriage isn’t strained by an unbalanced sex drive between husband and wife.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Em_in_FL
On the other hand… consider a woman who has a high sex drive (equal or slightly higher than her husband)… and the couple also decides to avoid conception for a time (for whatever just reason it may be)… IMO, that can be even tougher!
Women who don’t want sex aren’t hurt by a lack of it!

Women with a higher sex drive(equal or slightly higher than her husband)who are having regular sexual expression are more hurt because they have to abstain to avoid conception. I am not sure.

I don’t think anyone is saying that NFP is wrong. The OP was asking why ABC is wrong.

 

[tr1954]

I genuinely want to accept the Catholic teaching about no artificial contraception. In fact, I teach it, and have practiced it. (My husband and I practiced it for a decade, including meaning we could not make love for the first 2 weeks of our marriage) Being that I am now infertile, though not yet at menopause, I struggle with what seems a contradiction in the teaching.

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?

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?

This is how I interpret the teaching of the Church in this matter. But first, let’s see what the Church says on the matter:

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is “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). catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

OK…here’s my take. I will use two examples to better illustrate my point.

1. “A hand holds a sword, and chops off the head of another man. Was the act just…or unjust?”

Well, it all depends, one might answer the question…if the head belongs to a criminal and a rapist…then the act is a just act. But if the head belongs to an innocent, then the act is an evil act. It all depends on the intent of the hand holding the sword.

1. When Jesus began His ministry, one of the very first things He said, was a reminder of the Sixth Commandment The law says that adultery is a sin…but if one looks lustfully on a woman, he is just as guilty as the one who commits adultery. Again, the intent is the difference which makes an act evil, or just.

Both these two examples illustrate the origin of sin. Yet when we look at the teaching of the Church regarding contraception, and see that the Church warns of ANY ACTION which “renders procreation impossible” and compare that to the INTENT of using the NFP exactly for and to “AVOID PROCREATION”, by which action one is willfully with much care AVOIDS the fertile period of a woman…is sinful. Again here also THE INTENT should be considered foremost, just as the two previous examples indicates.

I admit…I have never used the “contraceptive method” of the NFP, and I’m glad for that…just reading the sad stories of those who are stuck in it. They tell us of the great pain this method of contraception burdens them, and I can only say that this is the consequence of using something the wrong way.

Yet the Church permits this discrepancy

 

[Good_Daughter]

This is how I interpret the teaching of the Church in this matter. But first, let’s see what the Church says on the matter:

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is “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). catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

OK…here’s my take. I will use two examples to better illustrate my point.

1. “A hand holds a sword, and chops off the head of another man. Was the act just…or unjust?”

Well, it all depends, one might answer the question…if the head belongs to a criminal and a rapist…then the act is a just act. But if the head belongs to an innocent, then the act is an evil act. It all depends on the intent of the hand holding the sword.

1. When Jesus began His ministry, one of the very first things He said, was a reminder of the Sixth Commandment The law says that adultery is a sin…but if one looks lustfully on a woman, he is just as guilty as the one who commits adultery. Again, the intent is the difference which makes an act evil, or just.

Both these two examples illustrate the origin of sin. Yet when we look at the teaching of the Church regarding contraception, and see that the Church warns of ANY ACTION which “renders procreation impossible” and compare that to the INTENT of using the NFP exactly for and to “AVOID PROCREATION”, by which action one is willfully with much care AVOIDS the fertile period of a woman…is sinful. Again here also THE INTENT should be considered foremost, just as the two previous examples indicates.

I admit…I have never used the “contraceptive method” of the NFP, and I’m glad for that…just reading the sad stories of those who are stuck in it. They tell us of the great pain this method of contraception burdens them, and I can only say that this is the consequence of using something the wrong way.

Yet the Church permits this discrepancy

Please, forgive me if I’ve misunderstood your post. Do you believe that NFP is contraceptive because it may be used to “avoid procreation”?

 

[tr1954]

I think it is used almost exclusively to avoid procreation, or pregnancy. That’s what makes it sinful. If NFP would be used when a woman is in her fertile period, together with her infertile period that the whole process would be OK. But the vast majority of users are using it to avoid pregnancy AT ANY COST! And that has consequences. Many couples complain, and are unhappy with that arrangement. The consequences of sin are manifested in their behaviour. The absence of happiness is the end result…a huge contradiction of the original intent.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I think it is used almost exclusively to avoid procreation, or pregnancy. That’s what makes it sinful. If NFP would be used when a woman is in her fertile period, together with her infertile period that the whole process would be OK. But the vast majority of users are using it to avoid pregnancy AT ANY COST! And that has consequences. Many couples complain, and are unhappy with that arrangement. The consequences of sin are manifested in their behaviour. The absence of happiness is the end result…a huge contradiction of the original intent.

Why is it sinful to use NFP to avoid pregnancy?

 

[tr1954]

Why is it sinful to use NFP to avoid pregnancy?

“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!

Does NFP renders procreation impossible? You bet!! It is more efficient than any ABC, as we can see in other posts explained in great details.

Every time when the INTENT in the hearts of men is to use NFP EXCLUSSIVELY as a form of birth control, it should be condemned by the Church.

The other way to know that it is sinful, is observing the end result. Couples are unhappy, they complain a great deal about the separation NFP creates. That raises an interesting question…if NFP is of God, then we must assume that God wants to make couples unhappy, and that what God’s design is…UNHAPINESS! (if you believe that, come with me to the desert…I have some sand to sell)

But if UNHAPINESS is not what God wants, then using NFP EXCLUSSIVELY and strictly as a birth control is not of God, is, and should be sinful.

I keep coming back to the intent of the heart…there is where the difference between a just act, and a sinful act originates.

 

[kmarie08]

“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!

Does NFP renders procreation impossible? You bet!! It is more efficient than any ABC, as we can see in other posts explained in great details.

Every time when the INTENT in the hearts of men is to use NFP EXCLUSSIVELY as a form of birth control, it should be condemned by the Church.

The other way to know that it is sinful, is observing the end result. Couples are unhappy, they complain a great deal about the separation NFP creates. That raises an interesting question…if NFP is of God, then we must assume that God wants to make couples unhappy, and that what God’s design is…UNHAPINESS! (if you believe that, come with me to the desert…I have some sand to sell)

But if UNHAPINESS is not what God wants, then using NFP EXCLUSSIVELY and strictly as a birth control is not of God, is, and should be sinful.

I keep coming back to the intent of the heart…there is where the difference between a just act, and a sinful act originates.

If a couple treats NFP strictly as a form of contraception for selfish reasons, yes, you are right.
However, NFP does not render procreation impossible as you suggest. It is very efficient, and necessary for many couples. Both God and the Church knows and understands that every couple can’t have 20 kids, many for health or financial reasons, which is completely unselfish.
The essential difference between NFP and ABC is that in times of infertility in the woman’s cycle, God is the one creating the infertility, not the couple. This is the beauty of the design that God has for marriage-- to be included in the unitive and the procreative.