NFP for "Spacing"

Cosmic Charlie said:

Yeah, I know. You hate me, you hate my views on this subject, you hate that fact that I'm here.

Now that we have that out of the way. Here's, your shot: enlighten me, please.

How, exactly, do you use NFP correctly in a way that does not make procreation immpossible ?

Click to expand...

You are mentally open to the possibility if it does happen, if it happens it is God’s will in your heart and mind. Those who contracept are not open and are doing it this just so it won’t happen. If it happens to them, they will probably feel that NFP failed or that the world will soon come to a end because their pregnant.

Cosmic Charlie said:

This is really the heart of the matter: I don't get this statement. Really. How is a sexual act that you know is not going to result in conception because of monitoring of the menstral cycle of the female considered "open to life" ?
How is knowingly avoiding sex during fertile times not breaking the unity/procreative bond ? (And so we're clear: the bond IMO is broken during the non-fertile times not the fertile times so please, no foregoing sex is good posts)
In good faith, this make no sense to me.

Click to expand...

well lets try to contrast it - maybe that will help.

In judging the moral quality of any act, we must determe the object, intention, and circumstance.

In order the any act to be a morally good act, it must have been a good object, and good intention.

The object of sex has two aspects to it - that of unity and that of procreation.
If either of these aspects is not there, then the object is bad.

If someone rapes another, the sexual aspect of procreation may be present, but the aspect of unity is not, thus regardless of intention, the object is in itself bad.

If someone has sex but has used a contraceptive, the sexual aspect of unity may be there, however the sexual aspect of procreation is not, thus regardless of intention, the object is in itself bad.

If someone has sex, and has not taken any step to block the unity or the procreative aspect, then we can begin to look at the intention for moral quality.

If the intention now is that of removing the procreative aspect, or the unitive aspect, then we have a bad intention, thus the act is still a bad act.

Again, in order to be a good act, the object and intention must be good.


Did that help?

Charlie,

I think maybe what makes this hard for you to comprehend is that it isn’t just one sin you commit when you contracept but two sins if not more when you do so using ABC of any kind, I don’t care what kind.

If you use NFP and you do so because you want to remove God from the procreative aspect, you may not be sinning in the body by removing God using unnatural means but you are doing so by abusing nature itself. So you sin, but your sin lies in your intention, not in the physical act itself, as you would be sinning in both ways if you were to use ABC.

Caedmon said:

Marcia, I'm only a new Catholic, so I know that my opinion counts next to nothing in this forum, but I wanted to tell you that I agree with you. I feel as though NFP has taken too much liberty with the "serious reasons" clause of Humanae Vitae. But then again, I'm not a real Catholic, so what do I know...

Click to expand...

Well, I just converted a year ago, made the decision closer to 2 1/2 to 3 years ago. So I'm still a bit of a newbie Catholic. NFP seems to confuse the issue of why birth control is wrong for newbies and in speaking to nonCatholics. I don't think all birth control users are as closed to life as they are accused of, and that many NFP'ers are not as open to life as claimed. If being willing to have a child if you get pregnant is the standard, often used by those using NFP,then the vast majority of those who use contraceptives qualify as being open to life in that regard, especially among evangelical protestants.

If it is God's will someone have 10 kids (and at particular timing) and they only have 4, there would seem to be a disparity of wills nearly as great as the contracepting couple who have 2 when God's will was they have 10.
I also have thought about that my mom was the youngest of 5. One less child in my mom's family, regardless of how that was accomplished, and I simply wouldn't exist. One of the arguments used against abortion is what if our mother or grandmother had made that decision to abort ... but contraception or NFP could have prevented you from existing at all. Also it is argued that abortion might be killing the next Einstein or other great mind. (Of course that person could also be the next Hitler, we don't know, wouldn't he still have as much a right to life?) Seems NFP or contraception could do the same, preventing the birth of the person who will cure cancer or a great inventor.

Our decisions in this area determine who will and won't exist. A delay of a month means one person is created instead of another person, sterilization means many people won't exist (and I think of this as my husband had a vasectomy). It strikes me as huge, huge stuff.

Marcia

Marcia,

That was a thought provoking post. I think this is exactly the reason why we need to let God into that part of our life and discern with Him daily, really prayerfully why one would use NFP at that time.

Maybe it is the fact that I am in just one of those moods today....But you know what strikes me as huge huge stuff is to see just how many children are starving, without homes, abandoned, and in general Dying all over the world because people are just having children without thinking about can they even afford to raise one and take care of it and provide it with even the basic of needs and LOVE. And believe it or not this happens quite often in families with two people that are married, it is not just something that plagues unmarried women.
And I bet at the time some of them thought well I guess this is how it is supposed to be so here it goes....Do you all think that is what HE really intended for these children. Or do you think that He would have rather the parents used something like NFP to space out the children so that they could be provided for and Loved properly.....

As you can see there are two sides to every coin....the difference is that mine includes a little responsible behaviour and for all of those involved to think about the consequences of their actions. He helps and does for those who do for themselves.

In Christ
Debi

Or do you think that He would have rather the parents used something like NFP to space out the children so that they could be provided for and Loved properly.....

Click to expand...

I am assuming that you do not mean that children in large families are not loved properly......

ShannonMcMorland said:

I am assuming that you do not mean that children in large families are not loved properly......

Click to expand...

Shannon Of course Not.....
What the heck is this?
Is every dang comment I make in every thread I post in going to be torn apart as though I have some sisnister motive behind what I am saying or as if I am trying to be offensive with every with word I write sheesh please.....
What I am saying is this if my mother and father had more than me and my brother I do not know what would have happened and my mother used NFP to space us 2 yrs apart. The thing is my father also left my mother and even with her education she still had a hard time taking care of two children on her own....Now I am sorry but things need to be taken into account here. What would happen say one of the parents is suddenly not there anymore and the burden is left only on the one? Will God help? Oh Yes he will but we can also be smart enough to take into account certain things before hand.
I would have loved to have come from a large family, but I was only blessed with my brother. I on the other hand was able to have three beautiful girls and carry them to term before I was unable to have children anymore. In total I should have 5 children I lost a set of twins to a miscarriage in the first trimester, after I was involved in a car accident. I was told that I should not have anymore children after that and I still carried two more children to term.
Now just because I give an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean that I think that something is bad or that large families are bad or anything else. It simply means I am following the line of the thread and responding.

bad joke, sorry.

Debi-- deep breath, I didn't rail against you-- I brought to light a comment you wrote, because I was assuming that you meant something other than what was written. I was merely looking to gain clarity ...
I think we need to prudent in our family planning, just as we do with the wealth God has given to us. I do not, however think we can ever plan for what "might" happen- beyond a certain degree, and personally, I feel that to attempt to over-plan (now I said over-plan, not just plan)- demonstrates a lack of trust...

Debi,

I understand your point. When you look at the mess we have made of things, not God, it does have you tend to believe contraception is a good thing but the reality is, it is our free will choices to disobey God’s commandments that leads to kids starving and being neglected and that is what has created this imperfect world that we live in. Contraception will not fix it, but the world getting back to morality will.

Shelb5 said:

Debi,

I understand your point. When you look at the mess we have made of things, not God, it does have you tend to believe contraception is a good thing but the reality is, it is our free will choices to disobey God’s commandments that leads to kids starving and being neglected and that is what has created this imperfect world that we live in. Contraception will not fix it, but the world getting back to morality will.

Click to expand...

I am not I repeat not talking about contraception .......For heaven's sakes people read all of my posts.....I never once said that contraception was right what I said was being responsible and thinking was right. So if you are not ready to have children you should not be getting married, that is for one, for two if you financially cannot afford to have 10 children and they are going to suffer because you do then have 5 instead of 10. But that does not mean NOT to reproduce that is why we marry. Now I know that may sound basic and really brash but in reality that is what it comes down to.....
NEVER ONCE DID I SAY TO USE IT AS A CONTRACEPTIVE>>>>>>>>>>

You know what honestly is so disturbing to me is that if I could at this very moment have everything that has happened be lifted from me and if I could just ask God to give me my Uterus back and not have cancer....so that I could have another child I would and I would do anything to make that happen except give up my children now....That is how much I miss being a mother to a small child and watching it grow and even doing the things like getting up every 2 freakin hours and walking around like the dead so that I could feed the child and take care of it and love it. But I can't.

and you all are sitting here discussing this stupid subject as if it nothing and I would do anything to have another one....Never would I dare think of using contraceptives or the like and to tell you the truth since you all seem to be so dang interested to know I never did believe in it....JWs don't believe in it either....So I was raised that way.

Cosmic Charlie said:

People have been TELLING me this for 10 years. Now one can SHOW me how NFP is operationally different from any other non-abortive contraceptive method.

Click to expand...

Contraception prevents conception by attempting to alter the fertility of the sex you engage in but NFP prevents conception by the periodic absence of sex.

I never understood the difference for aaaages and that was what finally made it click in my mind.

You know debi, I am very grieved by your illness-- but you don't know what other people's lives are like and you cannot say that "we" are dicussing this as mere a intellectualization. I think you have just now been down right uncharitable... there are women here who are pregant, though it is with great risk-- thee are owmen here who have sick, sick children, there are women here who have had children die, and who have given up babies for adoption---- this is not a mere passing of words.


My heart goes out to you truly, we continue to pray for you and your family--

Perhaps you need to go fix some tea, and come back.... you have freaked out over a mere trifle, so perhaps a moment to regain focus on why you are upset so you can better voice what you need us to hear????

I think people have been misinterpreting what Debi said. For what it's worth, I see your point, Debi. It's not about using contraception or children in large families not being loved... it's that it is prudent to plan for children, rather than having one after the other after the other without thinking about how to take care of them.

marciadietrich said:

I don't think all birth control users are as closed to life as they are accused of, and that many NFP'ers are not as open to life as claimed.

Click to expand...

I agree! I think the point that is often missed is that the object of having sex while using contraception is wrong, regardless of intent - this is what I tried to outline here in post #82 and it looks like it was ignored completely

If the act has an object which is wrong, then it is a morally wrong act regardless of the intention in doing it.

No offense, fab, but I didn't miss her point... my posts have emphasized prudence time and time again.... But, I believe that if a family chooses to have child after child trusting that God will provide-- well God Bless 'em!! St. Catherine of Sienna was child#20, I believe.... Beethoven, I beleive ,was #12 or 13... Thank goodness there was no limiting by their families in the trust of the generosity of God to those who are faithful... We have to be careful with our words so that people in doubt about Church teaching do not see any insinuation that we can be selfish in our childbearing choices-- generosity MUST always reign...

Well, people seemed to be reponding to her points at tangents that didn't have a lot to do with what she meant. I think that was what caused the misunderstanding.

I don't want to argue Debi, none of this is against you personally.

I would guess that the vast majority of all people who have ever lived did so under conditions that modern day Americans would consider within a realm of poverty and substandard living. In the past it was common for many children to die young, and children to work to help the family survive, women to die in childbirth, life isn't always pretty.

My family wasn't rich growing up. The house I grew up in didn't have a toilet (it does now, my dad could afford a septic tank after he was done feeding me and my brother), one of my chores was taking the bucket we'd use as a toilet in the bathroom to dump it in the outhouse at night. My brother and I used to fight about that, believe me! Now I have two wonderful full bathrooms that I appreciate very much. My living room is about 3/4 of the size of the house my parents raised 3 kids in, and we don't have a huge house. A common ranch style 3 bedroom house. Even now, though I realize I am more blessed financially than my parents ... we were blessed then too. A little adversity can make you a better person, allow you to appreciate what you do have even more.

I wouldn't begrude a family in Africa for using NFP (I think that is a good example of where it would be prudent), or in America really either given they are being honestly prayful and looking for God's will given the circumstances in their life. I think people tend to be fearful (almost no one feels financially ready to have children, always think they can't afford another one), people tend to be -rightly- concerned with the kids they already have but sometimes to an extreme (but a college education is not a necessity and can be had by the student working and taking loans), people tend to be a bit selfish.

Most Americans are not poor - and that is who I am mainly thinking of as along with other western industrialized nations. Yeah we have a lot of debt and payments to make - but just maybe we should look more at what we really should or shouldn't buy (mea culpa, mea culpa - I am a major tech junkie) and if the couple might consider another child - given that is possible for the couple.

Part of me would like another child, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel where my 14 year old autistic son is concerned, I am still capable, probably (I'm going to be 41 soon) ... but my husband had a vasectomy and he made sure the doctor did it in a way where it couldn't be reversed or accidently grow back. Not just a snip and tie, but they removed a huge section of the tube ... not to mention I'm sure Dale would be against having more right now. None of this conversation was meant to make you feel bad. Sorry if it has. Just me thinking and questioning.

Marcia