Catholics and NFP - Page 2

[Shami]

I hope I don't get too long winded
Gen. says be fruitful and multiply, but it doesn't say how or it doesn't give a method. It doesn't give a number. How fruitful is fruitful? Is one child fruitful enough or is the magic number 6? The Lord tells us many things in the Bible, but the 'how to' is left out! Why??!!
I've been mulling over this thread all day and just finally something occurred to me. Jesus was quite unorthodox, and so was John the Baptist. John was supposedly from a long line of priests, but ended up wearing unclean clothes and eating unclean things out in the woods, rather than in the Temple. He was encouraging everyone to follow the Lord Jesus and be baptized. John in His unorthodox way, paved the way for Jesus to begin His ministry on earth.

Jesus Himself broke the Sabbath to feed His disciples. He healed a man on the Sabbath, too. Jesus called the Pharisees, a brood of vipers. He also made a whip out of some reed and overturned the money changers tables. Then He proceeded to drive everyone out of the Temple, including the animals.

Wait a minute...I thought Jesus was all about peace and love. Okay, I think I made my point.

One more background point before I really get to 'the point' is that in Gen. Adam and Eve became one flesh. Eve was out of Adam, just as the church came out of Christ at resurrection. Adam and Eve are a type of Christ and the Church. Christ is the Head of the body, just as our husband is our head.

The spiritual principle here is to follow the Head and be one with the Head. If a woman is married, then her need is to be completely one with her husband, who is one with the Lord and following the Lord. Yes, I know, it's impossible to be one with our husbands. However, if you have the Spirit living in your human spirit by which you can stay in constant communion with the Lord, then it's a piece of cake! LOL

So, all of the questions that Cagnew asked earlier about when it is appropriate or moral to use nfp all depends on if you are following the Lord your Head and/or your husband.

I am not talking about something so obvious as killing the unborn, but I mean all the gray areas that have been brought up in this thread.

For all of the gray areas, I pray to follow the Lord's leading. If I pray about something and I feel uneasy, anxious, or just 'off' in some way then I DO NOT do it. OTOH, if I pray about something and I feel perfect peace from the Lord and my husband and I are one then we do it. It's all about following the Lord because just following doctrines is not the same as following the Lord. I mean there are doctrines upon doctrines which can make your head spin.

And on the topic of what is right and wrong, this too has to be Spirit led. There isn't one right answer. Example: Say a friend comes and asks to borrow money to pay the rent because they will be evicted soon. The charitable person may think that they must do the charitable thing and give them money.

The Spirit led person may pray and feel that the Lord is giving them an uneasy feeling about giving their friend money. Without knowing why, the Spirit led person says no, I cannot give you money at this time.

Later, it turns out that this 'friend' wasn't being honest and wanted money to do something illegal. So, the if the charitable person had given their friend money, they would have been contributing to an illegal act.

Right and wrong issues are not always what they seem.
Got to go for now.

[Trigger]

Since this thread still resides in the Spirituality forum, and thus is technically non-debatable, I suppose I'll bow out so I don't get in trouble.

[cagnew]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to get back until just now, and I don't have time to reply in detail.

If this thread is inappropriate because of its location, is there a way I can move it? If not, I will go ahead and close it down since it is not my intention to cause trouble.

Again, thanks for the replies. Lots to think about as I work on my research and writing! I'm digging into the Summa Theologica to learn more about prudence and human reason. I'm sure that will lead to something else....

God bless!

[springmama]

Very interesting thread, especially for a convert. My annoying laptop deleted the post I had typed up and I am too tired to do it again.

[saimeiyu]

I honestly doubt it will get deleted, since the purpose of the thread is quite clear in the OP. At best, it may be moved.

I'm Byzantine Catholic, and as an eastern rite Catholic, we're often far more traditional than your average Latin rite Catholic. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

I'm going to have to agree with the PP that mentioned the requirement to act in concert with the Spirit and do everything in a spirit of prayer. Without that very vital component, every move you make could potentially be leading you into mortal sin.

Now, as for NFP:

NFP is not "birth control." To call NFP "birth control" is where the problem begins. Its purpose, clearly defined in Catholic doctrine, is not "avoidance" of pregnancy, but rather "postponement" of pregnancy.
Birth control is merely to "prevent" or "avoid" pregnancy. Its purpose is inherently immoral according to the Catholic teaching of marriage, sex, and procreation.

Now, according to the Catholic tradition, there are actually three purposes to marriage and sex-- There's an interesting discussion from a non-Catholic perspective which I thought was quite elegant here at mere orthodoxy, http://mereorthodoxy.com/?p=3127
However, it is not Catholic in origin and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Here's another perspective, rooted more firmly in Catholic doctrine: http://ratzingerfanclub.com/blosser_...nd_family.html
I'm not particularly fond of the way it's discussed, but right now I'm finding it difficult to find a more eloquent discussion. (My books are hidden behind a wall of other things at the moment.)

In the interests of brevity, the threefold purpose of marriage and sex is thus:
1) procreation, 2)unity or bonding, and 3) sacramental or spiritual in nature.
All three are necessary for obvious reasons.
The reason that NFP does not violate this three-fold purpose is that by its very nature, when properly practiced, NFP requires more unity of purpose, more spiritual discussion, and more attention to the duties of procreation than just having sex whenever you feel like it 'cause you're married and God will decide when you have kids.
Therefore, even when using NFP to postpone pregnancy, a couple is inherently building up their unity with each other and with Christ.

Naturally, if a couple is intent on not having children because of frivolous or materialistic reasons, this purpose is thwarted, but not because NFP itself is flawed as a tool, but because of the selfish intent of the couple.

Now-- does the existence itself of NFP lead to temptation? Yes. But so does the existence of sex itself. So the existence of temptation in relation to something does not in and of itself mean that the thing is inherently evil or wrong.

Does that make sense?
I'd really like to return to this when I find a more eloquent way of making my point, but I hope the bones of it is apparent here.

[ktgrok]

I think that women have always known their cycles to some extent, espcecially when there was less artificial light and cycles were more regular and based on the moon. I think that women have always had the ability to regulate/space children based on those observations. I think saying a woman shouldn't practice NFP makes no sense, once I know my body cycles I can't pretend I don't notice them. If I know I'm ovulating soon, and I know I don't want a baby right then, it only makes sense that I wouldn't feel interested in sex. that's not birth control like taking the pill. Its just common sense and going with my feelings. I hope that makes sense.

[ktgrok]

I WISH breastfeeding worked like that for me. In fact, the only reason I'm using NFP is because I don't want a pregnancy to damage my milk supply. My cycle returned at 6 months, despite nursing several times an hour most of the time. It turns out she doesn't nap but is a heavy sleeper at night, so she goes too long at night and I got my fertility back. If I got pregnant now she'd lose that milk that she NEEDS. so although I'm not charting I'm aware of my cycle and we abstain when we need too. If there wasn't NFP my husband would probably choose to abstain for the next several months at least, which would not be good for us.

Katie

Originally Posted by JMJ

I'd be interested in learning more about what you find out. I'm still forming my conscience on when NFP to postpone is warranted or not. My immediate thought on reading your posts is that throughout history, ecological breastfeeding gave proper spacing to babies. Some people will argue that ecological breastfeeding is the original NFP. In our time and culture, ecological breastfeeding is not as common, really not supported at all, and with our Western diet, it is not as effective in spacing babies properly as it is other places.

I personally don't anticipate needing anything other than ecological breastfeeding to space my babies in the forseeable future, but I'm ecoBFing my 18 month old with no cycles in sight and following a traditional foods diet.

Other people I know, for whatever reason, have had cycles come back at 3 months. There are many Catholic families who have a child every year, and I don't think that was God's design either. I do feel more comfortable with living and mothering naturally and experiencing the natural child spacing that goes along with it, but I don't think it's a sin not to, and using NFP to give prudent spacing to your children seems at least as good as total abstinence.

[ktgrok]

Why do you feel complete abstinence is ok to avoid children, but not periodic abstinance? Both have the purpose of avoiding children, so why would one be holy and one not? And if we are not to use our fertility signs, why did God make them so clear to us?

[moonshoes]

Originally Posted by saimeiyu

I honestly doubt it will get deleted, since the purpose of the thread is quite clear in the OP. At best, it may be moved.

I'm Byzantine Catholic, and as an eastern rite Catholic, we're often far more traditional than your average Latin rite Catholic. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

I'm going to have to agree with the PP that mentioned the requirement to act in concert with the Spirit and do everything in a spirit of prayer. Without that very vital component, every move you make could potentially be leading you into mortal sin.

Now, as for NFP:

NFP is not "birth control." To call NFP "birth control" is where the problem begins. Its purpose, clearly defined in Catholic doctrine, is not "avoidance" of pregnancy, but rather "postponement" of pregnancy.
Birth control is merely to "prevent" or "avoid" pregnancy. Its purpose is inherently immoral according to the Catholic teaching of marriage, sex, and procreation.

Now, according to the Catholic tradition, there are actually three purposes to marriage and sex-- There's an interesting discussion from a non-Catholic perspective which I thought was quite elegant here at mere orthodoxy, http://mereorthodoxy.com/?p=3127
However, it is not Catholic in origin and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Here's another perspective, rooted more firmly in Catholic doctrine: http://ratzingerfanclub.com/blosser_...nd_family.html
I'm not particularly fond of the way it's discussed, but right now I'm finding it difficult to find a more eloquent discussion. (My books are hidden behind a wall of other things at the moment.)

In the interests of brevity, the threefold purpose of marriage and sex is thus:
1) procreation, 2)unity or bonding, and 3) sacramental or spiritual in nature.
All three are necessary for obvious reasons.
The reason that NFP does not violate this three-fold purpose is that by its very nature, when properly practiced, NFP requires more unity of purpose, more spiritual discussion, and more attention to the duties of procreation than just having sex whenever you feel like it 'cause you're married and God will decide when you have kids.
Therefore, even when using NFP to postpone pregnancy, a couple is inherently building up their unity with each other and with Christ.

Naturally, if a couple is intent on not having children because of frivolous or materialistic reasons, this purpose is thwarted, but not because NFP itself is flawed as a tool, but because of the selfish intent of the couple.

Now-- does the existence itself of NFP lead to temptation? Yes. But so does the existence of sex itself. So the existence of temptation in relation to something does not in and of itself mean that the thing is inherently evil or wrong.

Does that make sense?
I'd really like to return to this when I find a more eloquent way of making my point, but I hope the bones of it is apparent here.

This is a lovely post. Thank you.

[Smokering]

NFP is not "birth control." To call NFP "birth control" is where the problem begins. Its purpose, clearly defined in Catholic doctrine, is not "avoidance" of pregnancy, but rather "postponement" of pregnancy.
Birth control is merely to "prevent" or "avoid" pregnancy. Its purpose is inherently immoral according to the Catholic teaching of marriage, sex, and procreation.

OK, I've been following this thread with interest but not participating, because I'm not Catholic (and have debated the contention that NFP isn't birth control in an RS thread fairly recently)... but I have to object to this. I have used birth control (condoms)... and it was to postpone pregnancy. I really don't see how you can say BC users are trying to prevent pregnancy permanently, as many (most?) people on conventional BC go on to have children. And if they're only trying to avoid pregnancy for a time, how is that not... postponing pregnancy?

Further, there are couples who use NFP to prevent pregnancy permanently (for Church-sanctioned reasons, such as cases in which a pregnancy would kill the mother). How is that not "avoidance"? (I don't really see why the term "avoidance" should apply only to permanent avoiding anyway - you can avoid things on a temporary basis.)

I'll have more to say if this thread ever migrates to RS, but please don't tell non-Catholic birth control users that they're doing something they're not (or not doing something they are, for that matter). The MDC fertility boards are chock-full of women using birth control, natural and artificial, Catholic or otherwise, in order to postpone pregnancy, but not forever.

ETA: Huh. This is in RS. Okay then.

[Juvysen]

forgive me, I'm not catholic... but...

I guess I wonder why, if we were never meant to notice our cycle (or use it for any reason), God wouldn't have just put us into estrus at a certain time of year or something like animals? Surely God could make such a thing have fewer easy-to read signs, or something?

Sorry if this is offensive or something... just trying to understand the viewpoint.

[Shami]

God created Adam and built Eve from Adam's rib. They were perfect until the serpent deceived Eve and they both partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
At the time of the fall, their perfect bodies became the fallen flesh that we experience today. Paul said it is better to marry than to burn with desire. So there is evidence that even in our fallen state, God knew that the majority of us would need to fulfill that burning desire. There are only a few people who have the gift to remain unmarried without burning with desire.

I agree that marriage is for procreation. However, the Bible says that once married we become joined to our spouse and we must treat our spouse's body as our own. God allowed our body to have pleasure, not just sexual, but from all of our 5 senses. Since God made sex potentially enjoyable, and He made our fertile moment a small window (24-36 hours per month) isn't it possible that He did this to allow us to enjoy our spouses' bodies? If sex wasn't enjoyable, we would never do it, hence no procreation.

Does the Catholic doctrine say that married people can ONLY have sex when they are trying to conceive? If that is the case then God shouldn't have given us knowledge of our cycles. This would mean that all sexual acts outside of that 24 hour window are sinful??

If God only wanted us to have sex during ovulation than He would have made us procreate like the animals. I don't know of any animals who have sex for pleasure. Anyone know of any species of animals who mate for pleasure or who mate outside of their fertile moment? Just curious...

[saimeiyu]

Originally Posted by Smokering

OK, I've been following this thread with interest but not participating, because I'm not Catholic (and have debated the contention that NFP isn't birth control in an RS thread fairly recently)... but I have to object to this. I have used birth control (condoms)... and it was to postpone pregnancy. I really don't see how you can say BC users are trying to prevent pregnancy permanently, as many (most?) people on conventional BC go on to have children. And if they're only trying to avoid pregnancy for a time, how is that not... postponing pregnancy?

Further, there are couples who use NFP to prevent pregnancy permanently (for Church-sanctioned reasons, such as cases in which a pregnancy would kill the mother). How is that not "avoidance"? (I don't really see why the term "avoidance" should apply only to permanent avoiding anyway - you can avoid things on a temporary basis.)

I'll have more to say if this thread ever migrates to RS, but please don't tell non-Catholic birth control users that they're doing something they're not (or not doing something they are, for that matter). The MDC fertility boards are chock-full of women using birth control, natural and artificial, Catholic or otherwise, in order to postpone pregnancy, but not forever.

ETA: Huh. This is in RS. Okay then.

Birth control/prophylaxis is not used to "postpone" pregnancy because it is INCAPABLE of "postponing" pregnancy.
It is used to PREVENT or AVOID pregnancy from EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL ACT of sex that takes place during the period of birth control usage.
An individual using birth control may have the intent of postponing pregnancy in general, but they are NOT postponing it from each and every act of sex with birth control. They are AVOIDING it with each act of sex that uses birth control. They are, depending on the method, either physically preventing the possibility of the full completion of the act of sex as with condoms or barrier methods, or they are preventing a fertilized zygote from successful implantation, as with hormonal birth control or an IUD. Neither of these is morally permissible from a Catholic standpoint, because it is encouraging the fulfillment of LUST, and not fulfilling the purpose of sex.

NFP is inherently different, because when using NFP, the periodic abstinence model as promoted by the Catholic church, you postpone or avoid sex in order to postpone or avoid pregnancy. Thus, you are not fulfilling LUST in absence of fulfilling the purpose of sex. Each and every individual act of sex is completed to the fullest extent permissible by God's natural law as applies to female fertility.

In the case of couples who use NFP to indefinitely postpone pregnancy due to health issues in the mother (I.e. in her current state of health it might kill her The reason Catholics use the term "indefinitely" as opposed to "permanently" is that health status, as well as medical technology, has the potential to change, and thus pregnancy may become possible at a later date. While this is not fantastically likely in certain cases, it is not impossible.
Leaving the door open to change in circumstances is the key in this situation.

Catholics who "permanently" avoid pregnancy, or who use NFP with the mindset that they will NEVER get pregnant again are actually in violation of the required mindset. They might not know it, and it might not technically be a sin due to that lack of knowledge, but it is wrong to have that mindset nonetheless.

[Juvysen]

Originally Posted by Shami

Anyone know of any species of animals who mate for pleasure or who mate outside of their fertile moment? Just curious...

Supposedly Dolphins do, but that's it, I think. I don't know if it's out of their fertile moment, but supposedly it's "just for fun" sometimes...

[saimeiyu]

Originally Posted by Shami

God created Adam and built Eve from Adam's rib. They were perfect until the serpent deceived Eve and they both partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
At the time of the fall, their perfect bodies became the fallen flesh that we experience today. Paul said it is better to marry than to burn with desire. So there is evidence that even in our fallen state, God knew that the majority of us would need to fulfill that burning desire. There are only a few people who have the gift to remain unmarried without burning with desire.

I agree that marriage is for procreation. However, the Bible says that once married we become joined to our spouse and we must treat our spouse's body as our own. God allowed our body to have pleasure, not just sexual, but from all of our 5 senses. Since God made sex potentially enjoyable, and He made our fertile moment a small window (24-36 hours per month) isn't it possible that He did this to allow us to enjoy our spouses' bodies? If sex wasn't enjoyable, we would never do it, hence no procreation.

Does the Catholic doctrine say that married people can ONLY have sex when they are trying to conceive? If that is the case then God shouldn't have given us knowledge of our cycles. This would mean that all sexual acts outside of that 24 hour window are sinful??

If God only wanted us to have sex during ovulation than He would have made us procreate like the animals. I don't know of any animals who have sex for pleasure. Anyone know of any species of animals who mate for pleasure or who mate outside of their fertile moment? Just curious...

Dolphins and apes/monkeys have sex outside of of fertile windows. It promotes societal and individual bonding. Which, by the way, brings me into my next point:

No, sex for the purpose of trying to conceive, alone, is also a sin. Didn't expect that one, huh?
The threefold purpose of sex needs to remain threefold. Therefore, the purposes of bonding/unity and spiritual/sacramental essence need to remain as part of the equation.
Even when procreation is impossible due to God's natural law of human fertility, sex must still fulfill the bonding/unity and spiritual/sacramental aspects, while remaining open to the (remote though we know it is) possibility of progeny. So even if we know it's most likely not going to result in a pregnancy, my husband and I are still free to enjoy God's gift, giving one another the full benefits of married life, we can still bond with one another (sex and orgasm releases oxytocin, the hormone responsible for the "afterglow" feeling, which promotes bonding) and we can give ourselves to each other and to God spiritually, reveling in the love that we share for each other, our family, and Christ.

[Smokering]

Birth control/prophylaxis is not used to "postpone" pregnancy because it is INCAPABLE of "postponing" pregnancy.

It postponed it quite nicely for me until we decided to TTC a month ago.

It is used to PREVENT or AVOID pregnancy from EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL ACT of sex that takes place during the period of birth control usage. An individual using birth control may have the intent of postponing pregnancy in general, but they are NOT postponing it from each and every act of sex with birth control.

That makes no sense. Of course they're postponing it from each and every act of sex. Postpone, prevent, avoid, they all mean the same thing: they are trying to make sure pregnancy does not occur from that particular sex act. Just as NFP tries to make sure pregnancy does not occur from each particular sex act.

They are AVOIDING it with each act of sex that uses birth control. They are, depending on the method, either physically preventing the possibility of the full completion of the act of sex as with condoms or barrier methods, or they are preventing a fertilized zygote from successful implantation, as with hormonal birth control or an IUD.

For starters, I quibble that a condom/diaphragm means the sex act isn't "completed". But more to the point, you haven't shown how the mechanics of the BC make the term "postpone" incorrect. If you consider pregnancy to begin at fertilization, of course, HBC often doesn't postpone so much as terminate pregnancy, but that doesn't seem to be the point you're making.

Neither of these is morally permissible from a Catholic standpoint, because it is encouraging the fulfillment of LUST, and not fulfilling the purpose of sex.

How does deliberately infertile sex, via NFP, not fail to fulfil the purpose of sex in the same way as BC? It allows the couple to have sex for pleasure while avoiding/postponing/preventing pregnancy. If that's "lust", NFP is culpable; if it isn't, BC is permissible (logically, I mean, not according to the official Church teachings).

NFP is inherently different, because when using NFP, the periodic abstinence model as promoted by the Catholic church, you postpone or avoid sex in order to postpone or avoid pregnancy. Thus, you are not fulfilling LUST in absence of fulfilling the purpose of sex. Each and every individual act of sex is completed to the fullest extent permissible by God's natural law as applies to female fertility.

For a start, you are fulfilling "lust" (which you seem to be defining as wanting to have sex without getting pregnant) every time you have sex in a non-fertile time, knowing it's non-fertile. Just because Catholics can't have sex for pleasure whenever they want doesn't mean they can't have it sometimes - most of the time, even, depending on the woman's cycle.

Secondly, it's not all about "each and every individual act of sex". One has to look at the pattern of the sexual relationship. I'll grant that a single act of sex during a non-fertile time, when the couple is unaware whether the woman is fertile or not, doesn't count as "birth control" by reasonable standards. But a pattern of deliberately and exclusively infertile sex is most assuredly birth control: it's used for the purpose of preventing/postponing/avoiding pregnancy. Those who do NFP without the Catholic component, ie. people who abstain during the fertile time because they don't like condoms, happily admit that it's birth control: and so do some Catholics. Because that's the WHOLE POINT. If they were happy to get pregnant whenever, they'd have sex whenever. People don't do NFP for fun, they do it to prevent pregnancy. Preventing pregnancy = birth control. (And you can use the synonyms "postpone" or "avoid" if you want - it means the same thing.)

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by Juvysen

Supposedly Dolphins do, but that's it, I think. I don't know if it's out of their fertile moment, but supposedly it's "just for fun" sometimes...

Judging from my experience at the dog park lots of dogs will do it just for fun. But my dog always seems to have a headache... And she is never fertile...yet still always seems to draw an admirer.

I don;t really have much to offer to the conversation as I am not catholic and our church "forbids" sex enough that if you are keeping the fasts you would be lucky to get pregnant anyway We fast fro sex anytime we fast from anything else and the night before receiving communion which you should be prepared to do every week. So that would be every Wed, Fri and Sat. Plus, all major and minor fasts etc. Over a full half of the year. plus eliminate the weeks you are menstruating. Really, doing it is quite an event if you are keeping the fasts It is also fine in our church, if you have decided to not have any more children to live as brother and sister in hoy chastity. I am assuming, since the Orthodox church and the Catholic church used to be one this was, at one time, long long ago, similar to the Catholic church. But the Catholic church, as mentioned in this earlier thread, is more keen on being willing to evolve.


Which brought me to a question....In the past, way past, when the Catholic church was way more serious about fasting and such, what were the fasting practices? Did they include fasting from sex? How would these effect a womans ability to get pregnant (or refrain from it)?

[Shami]

Originally Posted by saimeiyu

Dolphins and apes/monkeys have sex outside of of fertile windows. It promotes societal and individual bonding. Which, by the way, brings me into my next point:

No, sex for the purpose of trying to conceive, alone, is also a sin. Didn't expect that one, huh?
The threefold purpose of sex needs to remain threefold. Therefore, the purposes of bonding/unity and spiritual/sacramental essence need to remain as part of the equation.
Even when procreation is impossible due to God's natural law of human fertility, sex must still fulfill the bonding/unity and spiritual/sacramental aspects, while remaining open to the (remote though we know it is) possibility of progeny. So even if we know it's most likely not going to result in a pregnancy, my husband and I are still free to enjoy God's gift, giving one another the full benefits of married life, we can still bond with one another (sex and orgasm releases oxytocin, the hormone responsible for the "afterglow" feeling, which promotes bonding) and we can give ourselves to each other and to God spiritually, reveling in the love that we share for each other, our family, and Christ.

Nope, didn't expect that! I think the threefold purpose of sex is really beautiful. It's what I have felt all along, but I didn't know it was part of Catholic doctrine. Gonna go back and read your two links.
I can see how nfp would cause you to be more one with your husband. Also, the spiritual part of the three fold purpose would be strengthened. Husband and wife would have to pray about it and then come to a oneness about how to proceed with nfp.
OTOH I know couples who pray about using 'the pill' and come to a oneness in their decision. Are you saying that these couples, were performing lust instead of a loving marital intercourse simply because they used the pill rather than nfp? Just trying to get clear...very interesting to me.

I suppose I still see all these forms of birth control as medical technology that each individual couple can pray and come to oneness in how to proceed.
You've prob. figured out that I am not Catholic so you can take my comments with a 'grain of salt', but I do try to follow the Bible.
I realize that not all medical technology is appropriate in the Lord's eyes. This is where prayer and following the Lord comes in to play, along with fellowship with other believers, or your priest/elders in order to have confirmation that you are really following the Lord.

[Shami]

My comments in blue:

Originally Posted by lilyka

Judging from my experience at the dog park lots of dogs will do it just for fun. But my dog always seems to have a headache... And she is never fertile...yet still always seems to draw an admirer.
LOL! Forgot about that doggie behavior! I think cats must be more dignified than dogs cuz I've never seen cats act that way.

I don;t really have much to offer to the conversation as I am not catholic and our church "forbids" sex enough that if you are keeping the fasts you would be lucky to get pregnant anyway We fast fro sex anytime we fast from anything else and the night before receiving communion which you should be prepared to do every week. So that would be every Wed, Fri and Sat. Plus, all major and minor fasts etc. Over a full half of the year. plus eliminate the weeks you are menstruating.
How in the world do you do this? You, or anyone really, who can do this, must have a very strong will! I know I would fail miserably.
Really, doing it is quite an event if you are keeping the fasts It is also fine in our church, if you have decided to not have any more children to live as brother and sister in hoy chastity.

Your post gave me a nice chuckle,thanks for that. I always need to lighten up a bit!

[saimeiyu]

Originally Posted by Smokering

It postponed it quite nicely for me until we decided to TTC a month ago.


That makes no sense. Of course they're postponing it from each and every act of sex. Postpone, prevent, avoid, they all mean the same thing: they are trying to make sure pregnancy does not occur from that particular sex act. Just as NFP tries to make sure pregnancy does not occur from each particular sex act.


For starters, I quibble that a condom/diaphragm means the sex act isn't "completed". But more to the point, you haven't shown how the mechanics of the BC make the term "postpone" incorrect. If you consider pregnancy to begin at fertilization, of course, HBC often doesn't postpone so much as terminate pregnancy, but that doesn't seem to be the point you're making.


How does deliberately infertile sex, via NFP, not fail to fulfil the purpose of sex in the same way as BC? It allows the couple to have sex for pleasure while avoiding/postponing/preventing pregnancy. If that's "lust", NFP is culpable; if it isn't, BC is permissible (logically, I mean, not according to the official Church teachings).


For a start, you are fulfilling "lust" (which you seem to be defining as wanting to have sex without getting pregnant) every time you have sex in a non-fertile time, knowing it's non-fertile. Just because Catholics can't have sex for pleasure whenever they want doesn't mean they can't have it sometimes - most of the time, even, depending on the woman's cycle.

Secondly, it's not all about "each and every individual act of sex". One has to look at the pattern of the sexual relationship. I'll grant that a single act of sex during a non-fertile time, when the couple is unaware whether the woman is fertile or not, doesn't count as "birth control" by reasonable standards. But a pattern of deliberately and exclusively infertile sex is most assuredly birth control: it's used for the purpose of preventing/postponing/avoiding pregnancy. Those who do NFP without the Catholic component, ie. people who abstain during the fertile time because they don't like condoms, happily admit that it's birth control: and so do some Catholics. Because that's the WHOLE POINT. If they were happy to get pregnant whenever, they'd have sex whenever. People don't do NFP for fun, they do it to prevent pregnancy. Preventing pregnancy = birth control. (And you can use the synonyms "postpone" or "avoid" if you want - it means the same thing.)

OK. The thing is, the semantics make a difference. It's a HUGE difference in terms of intent, especially in terms of birth control vs. NFP. It may not make a difference TO YOU, but to a Catholic it's worlds of difference. Of course, Catholics also believe in free will, and as I recall, you don't.

Lust would be defined as having sex with a deliberate attempt to exclude one or more of the threefold purposes of sex. Sex for pleasure alone would be lust. Sex for the purpose of TTC alone would be lust. I'm not sure if it's possible to have sex for the purpose of spiritual bonding alone, but if the other two elements are deliberately excluded, that too would be lust.

You can disagree with me all you like about birth control's inability to postpone pregnancy. The fact remains that birth control is not postponing pregnancy, an individual intends to postpone pregnancy, and thus disallows the natural consequences of sex via the medical technology of birth control. And, yes, in fact, I was referring to the termination/de facto abortion effect of hormonal birth control. The reason that I (and the Catholic Church) consider barrier methods of prophylaxis prevention of the completed act of sex, is that barrier methods by their very nature prevent the semen/sperm from reaching its final destination. Thus, the completion of the sex act is not there.
Sex while on birth control is an inherent perversion of the threefold purpose of sex. While you may not consider each and every sex act important, we as Catholics do. You cannot look at the pattern without also noticing what the pattern is made up of. If 80 or 90% of the acts of sex that a couple's sex life is made up of is closed to the possibility of procreation, that couple's sex life is made up of only a presumed 2/3 of the threefold purpose of sex.

NFP is not an inherent perversion of the purpose of sex. It can be used in immoral ways, but so can a bed. That doesn't make a bed immoral. NFP cannot terminate a pregnancy; it cannot prevent the completion of the sex act. All one can do when using periodic abstinence is abstain from sex. Thus, a couple really is postponing pregnancy, because they are postponing sex. Abstinence isn't a sin. On the other hand, NFP alone can also be used to help a couple achieve pregnancy. No form of birth control is capable of helping a couple get pregnant. So many couples using NFP are using it for the direct opposite of birth control.

If a couple uses NFP to have sex only during infertile times because they have a serious reason to postpone a pregnancy, they are still not inherently perverting the threefold purpose of sex. First, they are working in conjunction with God's natural plan. They do not create infertile periods of time the way a couple using birth control does. Second, they're stuck with however much time God gives them. For some women, that might be only as many as 4 days. For others, it might be weeks. As long as that couple remains open to the remote possibility of procreation from each act of sex, using NFP to have sex only during the infertile period is not an expression of lust if the components of unity and sacrament are also there.
During the infertile period, it may very well be that some couples are only fulfilling their lust for each other. Those couples are committing a grave sin.

Using NFP to postpone pregnancy without a serious reason is a sin. It is perverting the knowledge that we have gained to deliberately exclude one of the three purposes of sex.

This is why the prayerfulness and mindfulness of God's plan for a couple is an integral part of a Catholic couple's use of NFP. It's very easy, and tempting, for couples to merely fulfill their lust for each other. The spiritual sacrament of unity must remain in place in order to avert that temptation.

It's a fine line to walk, as a Catholic. Of course, DH and I are not trying to walk that particular fine line right now because we're actively TTC, but we do need to be careful that sex doesn't become just a means to an end for us, and sometimes we need to decide not to have sex not because we want to avoid pregnancy, but because we need to ensure that we're not having sex JUST to TTC.