Grave Reasons For Nfp

[Aloysius]

Apparently it didn't help rev the way I worded it... though. My point is that people should not be content with the idea of a limited amount of sex and a limited amount of children. People shouldn't feel guilty for having sex during infertile periods; but should feel the pain of not being able to have sex during the fertile periods, and see that pain as part of the imperfect world and imperfect conditions. In the idealest of ideal circumstances, man and wife would never have to abstain from sex (except, as the Apostle says, during certain times by mutual consent for the sake of prayer). When circumstances force them to do so, it should be sad that that has become necessary. No one should feel guilty for not being able to have a large family; they should probably feel some degree of sadness that it is not possible feasibly (for whatever reason they have found under the guidance of their spiritual director)

Guilt should only come when people venture off into the exact same mentality as is held by most contraceptors in the world; when absolutely nothing is considered except convenience. Otherwise, when all factors are considered as a whole, it should not be a paradigm of guilt, but a realization that it is not ideal.

What, are you happy that you don't get to have sex with your wife on her fertile days? If not, if you see that as a sacrifice, then just extend it further and see not being able to have more children as an extension of that sacrifice, and you're right in the mentality that I'm describing.

If you are happy that you don't get to have sex with your wife on those days... well... I don't know... that just seems a little wierd to me.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1278756' date='May 21 2007, 07:52 PM']Im just gonna need some time to spin this. Right now this is a problem for me. A fluffy theologian once told me if my heart screams loud enough about something dont let my intellect stand in the way.[/quote]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1279447' date='May 22 2007, 07:26 PM']BTW, fluffiness is a virtue.[/quote]

I had hopes you would catch that.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1279468' date='May 22 2007, 08:20 PM']

1.) Apparently it didn't help rev the way I worded it... though.
2.) My point is that people should not be content with the idea of a limited amount of sex and a limited amount of children.
3.) People shouldn't feel guilty for having sex during infertile periods; but should feel the pain of not being able to have sex during the fertile periods, and see that pain as part of the imperfect world and imperfect conditions.[/quote]

1.) Give it time..I can be a whinner, but as Joey can agree I am more strict with my sexual theology than most. I can actually be a jerk with it sometimes.
2.) Why? and can you explain
3.) No..this seems wrong. EIther we are seperating the sex act from a procreative act by acknowleding that there can be no procreation during that period (thus congitive and procreative are seperated) then what is the point of the sex? I dont see a healthy sexual mentality to be one of pain or regret.

I was a protestant. I was a bloody good one. I could lecture the answer in that arena. I love my wife, she is beautiful. I crave the intimacy that every newlywed should have. But that craving for unity and for exploration and giving of mutual pleasure does not seem to find its way into this theology. I could justify things as much as I want, but it seems harsh to read that it is wrong, or we should feel shameful.

I would ask a priest, but most of them promote ABC, and would never even talk about NFP.

[Aloysius]

Not shameful.

the procreative aspect is maintained during infertile periods in reference to fertile periods and the state of marriage and parenthood.

the three goods of marriage, as listed by the Council of Florence in order of importance, are first procreation and raising of the children, second intimacy, and third stability and permanence. now, there's this little arrow running through those from the last to the first: stability and permanence are there to make intimacy good; intimacy is there to make procreation and parenting good. so one should be able to engage in the sex act as often as one desires with one's spouse (within reason, of course) without having to have periods of abstinence in which one is forced by circumstances not to engage in the conjugal act.

but intimacy is a good because it makes for better parents, when it comes down to it. that's where the "procreative aspect" remains in sex during infertile periods or after menapause and such, all the intimacy remains directed towards that ultimate procreative good. and so there's nothing inherently wrong about sex when there's no possibility of procreation; where there is an imperfection is when the circumstances cause it so that you must refrain from sex during the infertile periods because you cannot, due to circumstances, have children at that time.

I said what I said in number 2 because the conjugal act is the direct manifestation in the flesh of the marriage bond-- it should be possible as much as reasonably possible and there should never, ideally, be times in which a married couple could not engage in it because of circumstances-- that's an imperfection.

It's not that your sexual relationship consists of pain and regret, it's that the periods of abstinence are periods of sacrifice in which you recognize that circumstances have kept you from engaging in the marital act at that time, at a time when the fullest realization of all the goods of marriage could be manifested in the flesh... it is not ideal that you have to abstain from sex during this time (or any other time, save a time you set aside for prayer and sacrifice) the sadness is a sadness in not being able to engage in the conjugal act while fertile, not being able to have children at that time; it should be seen as something which is not ideal, which is forced upon you by circumstances but if you could control everything in the world you would get rid of all impediments to engaging in sex at that time, to having children at that time. if suddenly you were given full insight into your psyches such that you fully understood yourself and your spouse and were perfected in your emotional and psychological readiness to have children, and inherited fifty million dollars, you would no longer abstain from sex during periods of fertility but would rather have sex at any time and take the children as they came (maybe even directly planned to try to have some sometimes)

are there any circumstances I missed by my deus ex machina to put a couple into an ideal situation?

[Oik]

I am not going to preface this comment. I will say though, I am making my comment based in individual discussions and study from the Orthodox christian sources. It is not my stance personally.


Some of the posts that use language regarding NFP sounds very close (identitcal even) to language used by Orthodox Christians who support the use of Non-abortificient birth control. The language in this thread that expresses the idea that there are two extremes, barely any children (1-2) or the opposite (10-12) is of course not even the real issue here. However, this comes up time and time again with Orthodox and (now I see) among Catholics.

Just two weeks ago, I had a faithful CAtholic friend of mine tell me that her fiancee and herself would not have children the first couple of years they got married. Why? Because she wants to make sure she can provide for them.


The OP and topic of this thread would indicate that the discussion is open and closed.

Towards the end the article states:

[quote]having a numerous family as well as limiting family size can be responsible, depending on the circumstances...

The clear statement about when it is appropriate to use periodic abstinence is in paragraph sixteen, which also contains problems in the Pauline edition:

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier. (Italics added).[/quote]I think this is the best part though:

[quote]According to HV, the Church calls the faithful to examine their situations and be prudent, generous, serious, and, ultimately, just when putting responsible parenthood into practice. Because this particular set of good qualities and the way they can be manifested are so complex, it is unreasonable to reduce the question to moralistic formulas that focus only on how problematic a situation must be to excuse periodic abstinence. It is also out of place to form opinions about others based solely on how many or few children they have, since these virtues and the lack of them are oftentimes hidden from outsiders. The Church is a Mother who lovingly guides her children and exhorts them to fulfill their manifold responsibilities correctly and with the right priorities. These include embracing children as the supreme gift of marriage and having a generous disposition towards accepting more children than what is merely comfortable. At the same time, the Church does not require or sanction unwise behavior, especially because every child brings about additional, important obligations. When responsible parenthood is understood well and applied virtuously, with God’s help and to the best of one’s abilities, the criteria can and should be both heroically and judiciously integrated into concrete circumstances.[/quote]

Let's not split hairs on this one.

[Apotheoun]

[i]Humanae Vitae[/i] cannot be read in a vaccuum, but must be read in the light of Tradition and of previous Magisterial documents (e.g., [i]Casti Cannubii[/i], etc.), which always stressed the fact that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children.

[Budge]

[quote]ust two weeks ago, I had a faithful CAtholic friend of mine tell me that her fiancee and herself would not have children the first couple of years they got married. Why? Because she wants to make sure she can provide for them.[/quote]

Whats wrong with that?

Thats being responsible.

I know people who have had kids they couldnt take care of. It is horrible.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Oik' post='1280510' date='May 24 2007, 01:13 PM']Some of the posts that use language regarding NFP sounds very close (identitcal even) to language used by Orthodox Christians who support the use of Non-abortificient birth control.[/quote]

To my knowledge, the Orthodox Churches do not make a distinction between methods of artificial birth control. Whether to use artificial birth control at all or the method to be used is left up to the couple. If you have an official Orthodox statement which applies to all Orthodox members that rules out the Pill, a known abortifacient, please post it. The Orthodox Churches have caved in to the pressures of the culture after centuries of teaching that contraception was a sin and now permit it. Flip-flop.


[quote]Just two weeks ago, I had a faithful CAtholic friend of mine tell me that her fiancee and herself would not have children the first couple of years they got married. Why? Because she wants to make sure she can provide for them.[/quote]

To marry and not intend to have children invalidates the marriage. A "faithful Catholic" does not use artificial birth control or misuse NFP.

Likos

[Budge]

[quote]To marry and not intend to have children invalidates the marriage.[/quote]

What about infertile people who marry?

[Apotheoun]

As far as abortifacient contraceptives are concerned, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church teaches the following:

[quote]XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo in the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. [Taken from the official synodical document entitled, "The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," issued by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000][/quote]

[Aloysius]

there have been Orthodox bishops who have taken a stand against contraception; but it's not a united voice on the issue and the majority of them do not.

[quote]To marry and not intend to have children invalidates the marriage.[/quote][quote]What about infertile people who marry?[/quote]

Likos's statement was slightly flawed. It should read:

To marry and intend not to have children invalidates the marriage.

I'm sure he meant to switch those two words around anyway, that should answer your question.

[Budge]

So infertile people and widows past menopause shouldnt marry?

Edited May 27, 2007 by Budge

[Katholikos]

[b]Aloysius wrote:[/b]
[quote]there have been Orthodox bishops who have taken a stand against contraception; but it's not a united voice on the issue and the majority of them do not.[/quote]How confusing for the Orthodox laity! Is contraception a sin, or not? The Orthodox Churches all taught it was a sin in the past (before 1930 when the entire non-Catholic world caved in on the issue). The Orthodox need the Pope in order to preserve their orthodoxy.

[quote]
Likos's statement was slightly flawed. It should read:

To marry and intend not to have children invalidates the marriage.[/quote]
Thanks, Aloysius! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Likos

[cathoholic_anonymous]

No, Budge. That is not what the sentence says. Infertile people don't [i]intend[/i] to be infertile. They don't choose that condition for themselves in the same way that a couple using birth control chooses to hamper the procreative quality of sex. As their intention is to live the married life in all its fullness, they can and should get married - and who knows? Their infertility may be healed. In many cases it is treatable by medicine and it has been known to have been cured through prayer. Farglefeezlebut, a newish member of Phatmass who is one of my best friends in real life, is the eldest child of a woman who was told by the doctors that she would never be able to conceive. FFB's parents prayed for children - and they were given six of them. God is generous.

Regarding the element of sacrifice that NFP involves, I think the people here should read Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's book [i]Kosher Sex[/i]. I read it as part of a course on Judaism. Orthodox Jews, together with a sprinkling of Jewish people from other streams, observe a monthly period of abstinence as well, albeit for different reasons. In [i]Kosher Sex[/i], Rabbi Boteach describes the benefits that this can bring to a married couple. His argument is that while sex is a beautiful and God-given way of expressing your love for another person, it's not the [i]only[/i] way, and that a monthly period of abstinence allows the couple to explore their relationship and enjoy each other's company in the context of an especially close and intimate friendship - something that is equally valuable to the marriage. All this helps to keep the couple's marriage in balance, preventing physical passion from either becoming too dominant or losing its zest.

This wisdom can and should be applied to NFP. Too often it is treated as a restriction rather than as an appropriate way of nurturing a healthy sexuality. I agree that it shouldn't be used as a kind of 'organic' birth control. But if you view the time of abstinence in the way that Boteach advocates, it can become a prayerful expression of thanksgiving for what God has given you. Thanksgiving leads to trust. And as this trust develops, surely it should become clear to you if you're trying to restrain yourself from having children for the wrong reasons. You learn the right thing through praying, and NFP can be a prayer.

I cringe at the religious education that I was given in this area - it was pitifully inadequate. At one time I was the kind of cafeteria Catholic who sees nothing wrong with birth control. It was only when I was studying Judaism, aged eighteen, and began to read Jewish perspectives on sex and sexuality that I thought, "Hold on a minute. Perhaps this is the essence of it." That's when I understood the wisdom of Catholic teaching on this topic for the first time.

[Aloysius]

they can "not intend to have children" if they are infertile. a generous and good Christian couple, however, would probably choose to adopt because their total love of the other would produce the desire to extend that love in the context of a family.

but no one can "intend not to have children" when they marry.

the former says that they do not have the intent; the latter says that they have a specific intent NOT to. huge difference. critical reading is an important skill.

say by some miracle of God an infertile couple was given a child. the former sentence would say that they had just had no intent to do that because they thought it was impossible, but they would be overjoyed at the miracle God gave them. if they fit into the latter and had a specific intent to never have children, then they would probably be upset by such a miracle cause they wanted to not have children.

it's important not to create a selfish system of codependency within a relationship or a marriage wherein the man loves the woman and the woman loves the man and for this reason they shut off anyone else from "love"; true love in a Christian marriage will by nature flow over into the desire to share that love in the natural expression of it: children. even infertile couples have this love, which is why they have great sadness when they are unable to have children; the best thing for such couples to do is to adopt, their marital intimacy will then be referential to their parenthood insomuch as it strengthens their bond thus making them better parents.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1282089' date='May 27 2007, 10:51 AM']there have been Orthodox bishops who have taken a stand against contraception; but it's not a united voice on the issue and the majority of them do not.[/quote]
Aloysius,

Katholikos' comment was that Orthodox bishops (and by extension Churches) support the use of abortifacient contraceptives, which is false, and that is why I quoted the official declaration of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, I know of no Orthodox jurisdiction that supports the use of abortifacient contraceptives.

As far as non-abortifacient contraceptives are concerned, the Russian Orthodox Holy Synod condemns those methods as well, and encourages the use of periodic continence instead.

Finally, it is true that there are Orthodox bishops (and laity), mainly living in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, who remain quiet about the use of non-abortifacient contraceptives, and this of course is lamentable. Nevertheless, I would attribute this behavior to the liberal attitudes that prevail within Western society in connection with married life and sexual activity in general. Moreover, I would also point out that there are Catholic bishops who remain silent on this issue too, and -- of course -- as sad as it is to say, the vast majority of Catholic "faithful" in Western countries ignore the Church's teaching on artificial contraception (i.e., if they have ever even heard it preached from a Catholic pulpit), and use various forms of artificial birth control, including methods that are clearly abortifacient (e.g., the [i]pill[/i]).

[Aloysius]

The Orthodox Churches aren't really far gone on this issue, at least they're not more far-gone than us.

[Apotheoun]

The problems faced by the Orthodox Churches in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, are more or less identical to those faced by the Catholic Church in those same regions. Apathy and ignorance.

[Oik]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1282175' date='May 27 2007, 02:51 PM']...it is true that there are Orthodox bishops (and laity), mainly living in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, who remain quiet about the use of non-abortifacient contraceptives, and this of course is lamentable. Nevertheless, I would attribute this behavior to the liberal attitudes that prevail within Western society in connection with married life and sexual activity in general. Moreover, I would also point out that there are Catholic bishops who remain silent on this issue too, and -- of course -- as sad as it is to say, the vast majority of Catholic "faithful" in Western countries ignore the Church's teaching on artificial contraception (i.e., if they have ever even heard it preached from a Catholic pulpit), and use various forms of artificial birth control, including methods that are clearly abortifacient (e.g., the [i]pill[/i]).[/quote]

Spot on!
An very eloquent clarification of my insufficient post!

God grant you and you family many years!

[Katholikos]

The Orthodox Church
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia)
First Edition, first printing
1963
(pg. 302)

"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."


The Orthodox Church
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia)
First Edition, revised 1984
(pg. 302)

"The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father."


The Orthodox Church
New Edition
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia)
Penguin Books, 1997
(Pg. 296)

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences"

Likos

[Norseman82]

I think part of the problem is that the Church never [i]formally[/i] declared what those "grave" or "serious" reasons were, and since "nature abhors a vacuum", we have everyone stepping in to offer their own interpretations, and in the past this has resulted in heated arguments and frayed emotions leading to the "reasons for NFP" threads to be among the most heated on this board.