An interesting article from Catholic Answers in response to an article in the National Catholic Reporter and same sex relations. I haven’t read the NCR article because I’ve heard it all before but it’s been a while since the subject has come up on the webs.
1 Like
Excellent article.
I was also very pleased to see the author acknowledge that NFP can be used for selfish purposes.
I really doubt that people that put the commitment and sacrifice into NFP could be accused of selfishness unless they are supplementing it with contraceptive practices at the same time.
Another article…
I hesitate to engage you on this, as our exchanges on matters of Catholic faith, morality, or liturgy never end well, but it is entirely possible to use NFP selfishly.
The selfishness rests not in the sacrifice, nor the desire to adhere to the Church’s teaching on contraception, but to avoid having children, possibly even for a prolonged period of time, in pursuit of such child-free lifestyle aspects as being able to save a lot of money for retirement, being free to travel to desirable places at will, enjoying a carefree life, and so on. Being able to “throw holy water on it” by saying “but we’re using NFP!” is very convenient, and not everyone’s libidinal urges are so strong, that abstinence half of the month is all that difficult. If it is hard to comprehend how the latter could be possible, then it might be a good thing to acquaint oneself with a greater diversity of people. Everyone is different.
I have been guilty of everything I just described, and it has long since been laid to rest within the confessional.
1 Like
I am more inclined to agree with Janet Smith from that link.
“It is possible to use NFP selfishly, Smith noted, but she added that the cure for that selfishness can also be found within the use of NFP, since it facilitates conversations between the couple about their family and relationship. Furthermore, she said, most people want to have sex, meaning that abstaining from sex requires a self-mastery that is not characteristic of selfish people.”
The extremes are few and far between although the notion of having a lot of children as a symbol of Catholic prestige or any sort of prestige (which is manifest in some circles these days) is also a selfish motive in interpreting NFP.
Thank you for the civil tone of this exchange.
Let me step back for a moment and make sure I understand the arguments advanced both by Ms Smith and yourself.
First, it sounds like Ms Smith is saying “even if the use of NFP begins in selfishness, the very nature of NFP drives out that selfishness in due time”. Fair enough as far as it goes, but the only problem here, is that if NFP is used for Selfish Reason X — let’s say, to save a huge wad of money for retirement, rather than spending that money on raising a child — the selfishness gets driven out by the sacrifice inherent to NFP, but Selfish Reason X does not cease to be a selfish reason. At the end of the day, regardless of how self-sacrificing NFP is, in and of itself, the couple still possesses Selfish Reason X — or are we maintaining “because they’re making the sacrifice of using NFP, then whatever reason they have ceases to be selfish”? I’m not sure I agree with that reasoning.
As to the second point, you know, I am actually going to grant that a couple (including the wife whose body withstands the rigors of serial childbirth) seeking to have a lot of children might, in a given instance, be on “one big ego trip”, “if we have a lot of kids, we’ll be ‘living large and in charge’, and the rest of the world just needs to step aside and get out of the way, while we make our presence known by sheer numbers”. I don’t know of anyone who thinks this way, but it is theoretically possible, especially for the husband who doesn’t have to carry the child for nine months, with all that entails, and who doesn’t have to undergo the rigors of childbirth, six, seven, eight, nine times or more. Yet let’s turn this on its head as well, using the same reasoning of “sacrifice drives out selfishness”, and stand back, look at everything that raising a huge family entails — it’s hard, very hard, and I have to look no further than both of my grandmothers, neither Catholic, neither using contraception, neither using NFP (to the extent it existed), they worked like dogs, my father’s mother having been widowed at age 38 after having borne six children on top of that. I don’t think there was a lot of selfishness involved here, and even if they had possessed egotistical motives for having all those children (my other grandmother had nine), I can say with confidence that such motives would have been burnt up in all that hard work.
[quote=“HomeschoolDad, post:7, topic:640609, full:true”]
Let me step back for a moment and make sure I understand the arguments advanced both by Ms Smith and yourself.
First, it sounds like Ms Smith is saying “even if the use of NFP begins in selfishness, the very nature of NFP drives out that selfishness in due time”.
I’m surprised you don’t know that Janet Smith PhD is Dr Smith rather than Ms Smith even though the article introduces her as Dr Smith. She’s been well known in this field for 30 or more years. Written lots of literature on the subject, appeared regularly on the Catholic media circuit, as well as Fox, CNN and various series on EWTN. You should research her work.
Fair enough as far as it goes, but the only problem here, is that if NFP is used for Selfish Reason X — let’s say, to save a huge wad of money for retirement, rather than spending that money on raising a child — the selfishness gets driven out by the sacrifice inherent to NFP, but Selfish Reason X does not cease to be a selfish reason. At the end of the day, regardless of how self-sacrificing NFP is, in and of itself, the couple still possesses Selfish Reason X — or are we maintaining “because they’re making the sacrifice of using NFP, then whatever reason they have ceases to be selfish”? I’m not sure I agree with that reasoning.
Dr Smith is recognizing the principle of the law of gradualness. When people are trying to do God’s Will, they are open to His transforming grace. Law of gradualness.
In Catholic moral theology, the law of gradualness, the law of graduality or gradualism, is the notion that people improve their relationship with God and grow in the virtues gradually, and do not jump to perfection in a single step. In terms of pastoral care, it suggests that “it is often better to encourage the positive elements in someone’s life rather than to chastise their flaws”. It is “as old as Christianity itself”, being referred to in several New Testament passages.
It is distinct from “gradualness of the law”, an idea that would tend to diminish the demands of the law. It does not mean “that we compromise on the content of the law” but that we recognize our failings and strive to correspond to its demands over time.
In a Christian sense, conversion does not happen once and is over. It is “a fundamental change in one’s direction — a new path or way of life in which one must learn to walk.” In his apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio of 1981, Pope John Paul II declared: “What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion” that “is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually.” He added that man "day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth.”
As to the second point, you know, I am actually going to grant that a couple (including the wife whose body withstands the rigors of serial childbirth) seeking to have a lot of children might, in a given instance, be on “one big ego trip”, “if we have a lot of kids, we’ll be ‘living large and in charge’, and the rest of the world just needs to step aside and get out of the way, while we make our presence known by sheer numbers”. I don’t know of anyone who thinks this way, but it is theoretically possible, especially for the husband who doesn’t have to carry the child for nine months, with all that entails, and who doesn’t have to undergo the rigors of childbirth, six, seven, eight, nine times or more.
Likewise I’ve never met a couple that used NFP to avoid children permanently. When you do the course, all those implications are covered. No one honestly goes into NFP believing it’s license for childlessness.
Having a large family is ‘a gift from God’ as Pope Francis has said, but it’s a calling. A vocation. It’s not for everyone and people are free in this regard to discern their family size. We’ve all seen the evidence ideological reproduction in living memory. Romania for one. In the Philippines and Africa Catholic Agencies have put valuable resources into re educating Catholics on the issue because of the abuse and suffering it’s caused.
Yet let’s turn this on its head as well, using the same reasoning of “sacrifice drives out selfishness”, and stand back, look at everything that raising a huge family entails — it’s hard, very hard, and I have to look no further than both of my grandmothers, neither Catholic, neither using contraception, neither using NFP (to the extent it existed), they worked like dogs, my father’s mother having been widowed at age 38 after having borne six children on top of that. I don’t think there was a lot of selfishness involved here, and even if they had possessed egotistical motives for having all those children (my other grandmother had nine), I can say with confidence that such motives would have been burnt up in all that hard work.
That scenario is irrelevant to the discussion having nothing to do with NFP.
Once again, thank you for the civil tone of this exchange, though I am going to depart at this point, before the discussion morphs into a rabbit hole.
You say, if I’m understanding correctly, that NFP can never be used selfishly because NFP is intrinsically unselfish (which it is), I say, along with the others cited in the articles, that it can be, regardless of its intrinsic unselfishness.
(Or, to be fair, you may be acknowledging that NFP can be used selfishly at the outset for some Selfish Reason X, but as the sacrifice and generosity intrinsic to NFP unfold over time, any selfishness will disappear — the law of gradualness — which is all well and good, but Selfish Reason X remains Selfish Reason X. Or does the couple who is moving to selflessness gradually — again, the law of gradualness — get to a point and say “you know, Selfish Reason X isn’t a good reason to use NFP, maybe we’d better reconsider Selfish Reason X, and use NFP for some other unselfish reason, or try for a child and quit using NFP at this time”? And NFP can be used both to try to avoid conception, or to try to conceive. It serves both purposes. Even non-religiously-minded people, or at least non-religious where this matter is concerned, use fertility awareness to TTC.)
I do have to wonder, when Pope Francis made his good remarks about people being selfish by not having children, whether he was talking only about using artificial contraceptives. I don’t think he made that distinction, and he did not say “…but if you’re using NFP, my comments don’t apply to you, NFP is unselfish by its very nature, so you’re good, carry on”.
Duly noted, I didn’t catch that.
For a space of about a decade, my wife and I did. There may be others. It’s not the kind of thing people would publicize, that would surely get you the stink-eye at many a Catholic parish. We left people with the impression that we were infertile, without ever coming right out and saying it. Nobody ever questioned it. I wish someone had. (Yes, on this count, I plead guilty as charged to duplicitousness. We were just having too much fun with our big bank accounts, our nice little trips out West every year, our snug, cozy, uncluttered home, and conjugality half the month, better than no conjugality at all.)
No argument there, and some may discern a calling to have a large family, and even to disregard fertility signs altogether, and just have whatever children happen to be conceived. As long as they can support these children without asking for help (other than the tax deductions that go with each child and similar benefits, e.g., family size as a determinant of ACA insurance subsidy in the US, etc.), I’m good with that.
Tell that to my grandparents.
My point here, was that even if, hypothetically, a couple had such a strong sense of their own excellence and worthiness, a sense of entitlement, as to prompt them to have a large family for reasons of pride, vanity, and/or narcissism — “we’re such great people that there need to be as many more people just like us as possible” (or whatever their thought process would be) — all of that is going to get “burnt up” in the day-to-day rigors, and massive expense, of actually raising and caring for that family.
I really have to doubt whether such a family has ever existed, and whether the “selfish parents of a large family” is a straw man fallacy. Catholics who have large numbers of children, especially when NFP is always there to allow them not to have children (or at least to make it highly unlikely, NFP is always open to the possibility), do so because they discern a calling to have a large family. They do not do it for reasons of arrogance, vainglory, or seeking to have a “quiverfull” as a “force multiplier” for their own perceived self-importance and excellence, or to gain “cred” among the far-right-wing of Catholics both of the TLM and “conservative Novus Ordo” tendencies. In short, they are the very antithesis of “selfish”.
To me, focusing on the point that NFP could be used selfishly is just a red herring. A distraction from the discussion about how it differs from contraception. To make others think perhaps I didn’t have enough children so all the commitment and sacrifice was worthless to us in the end. You use yourself as an example but perhaps you haven’t properly dealt with you own sin and need to project it on to others? I don’t know. The obsession seems to regularly change the topic to disparage NFP and those who practice it.
Nobody wants to return to the time when people didn’t have a choice about family size. The ironic thing about orphanages back then was that most of the kids weren’t actually orphans. The majority were kids whose parents couldn’t afford or care for them. Even today to have a lot of children takes a lot of money and a lot of family or government support. You have a lot of money to save for retirement and travel the world, but the majority of people don’t.
This discussion is getting dangerously close to becoming yet another dumpster fire, so I am going to bow out with the observation, shared in the articles I cited (Paul VI in Humanae vitae does not give carte blanche to couples to use NFP for any reason whatsoever), that NFP can be used for selfish, or other less-than-worthy motives.
As NFP becomes easier to use — you can now get ovulation predictors in pharmacies, as people use NFP both to try to conceive and to seek to make conception unlikely — and as a new generation comes to rediscover the beauty of the Church’s unchanging teaching on married life and conjugality — there are bound to be more and more people who end up using NFP for not the best of reasons, just as people use immoral artificial contraceptives for reasons both altruistic and otherwise. (I know you know this, but people can use a bad means to a good end, even an altruistic one. Walter White in Breaking Bad, one of the few TV series I’ve paid any attention to in recent years — and what a series it was! — began cooking and selling meth not for reasons of greed, but to provide for his family, including his disabled teenage son.)
“Do we have a just reason to try to avoid conception right now, and if so, how long will that reason continue to be just?” is a question every couple using NFP should ask themselves. I do grant that even if a couple’s reasons for using NFP aren’t the best, at least they are not using contraception, and that’s a good thing. Again, the law of gradualness.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.