A Catholic Response to "The Scandal of NFP"

[PaulinVA]

I believe that we should refocus how NFP is presented. Instead of a full course there should be more teaching on children being the default and** trusting in providence** rather than our life plans over the next 40 years. Including a basic overview of NFP should be provided so those with serious reason are aware that it is available should be as far as it goes unless the couple seeks it out.

You do realize how biology works, don’t you? God created the biology of procreation. It works the same way every time. God does not intervene and produce a baby when the biology does not allow it. That would be negating free will. So, providence has nothing to do with conception. Conception is a miracle, but the miracle is in the biology, not in God’s intervention.

As for children being the default, we agree in the wedding ceremony to accept children as they may come. There is no where that we have to seek out as many as we can.

No, I don’t think someone should be the gatekeeper on what is serious reason, but I do think it should be presented as something that should be used as an exception rather than as the norm. In many ways it is presented as “well since you’re going to limit your family size anyway, then use this instead of the pill.”

So,* yes you do* think that there should be a gatekeeper. You think people use NFP for the wrong “serious” reasons.

For some reason Catholics think that having a big family is holy. Well, in the near past that was correct, to a certain extent, because Catholics were using the rhythm method that was not very effective. Artificial means were more effective, so if you had a lot of kids that must mean you were using rhythm or nothing.

These couples did not necessarily want those large families. They were being faithful, using the rhythm method, and* it was failing* because it is imperfect. Those couples, if they knew modern NFP, would not have had such large families.

So, NFP. Periodic abstinence. The Church can not obligate a couple to have relations on any given day. Do you really expect one to have to confess that they did not have relations with their spouse because it was the fertile time?

Someone always says this in these types of threads, so I’ll say it this time - why in the world are people so concerned about the 2% of Catholics trying to follow Church teaching on reproduction instead of the other 98%?

 

[fpt]

Of good faith or of bad faith, and consciously or unconsciously, whatever, the speeches, the critics, the comments, the interpretations, the intellectual approaches of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church about the marriage with all his corollaries, here in this particular topic - the N.F.P., the responsible procreation with the using of the marital act during the infertile times of wife for avoiding of having a new baby for just, grave and serious reasons - are often is full of wrong intellectual approaches. The topic is not understood, is misunderstood because of full of wrong intellectual approaches: the theoretical providentialism of the procreation, the quiverfullism of the procreation, the absolute procreationism of the marital act, the absolute physiologism of using of the marital act, the primary anti-personalism of the procreation, the primary anti-personalism of the marital act are very powerful, inside or outside the church, of good faith or of bad faith, and consciously or unconsciously.

The quiverfullism, the theoretical providentialism, the absolute procreationism and co are linked with some past heresies, as the fideism and the quietism. The links are existing.

Those ideologies or those heresies are not moderated, are very unfair, are not in link with the nature of marriage and of the conjugal sex life explained by the Roman Catholic Church. *" Not more and not less than the catholic doctrine " is the only rule: no taboo, no lie, no more, no less, in the details with all **the ***subtelties.

Sorry if I make once again my advocate of devil in saying that** the absolute physiologism of the procreation coming from wives or husband is not good.**

The wife / the mother or the husband / the father has **to be careful, has to be prudent, has to be moderated concerning the procreation: the just balance. The responsible procreation implies the management of wishes of a new baby and of the gap between two childbirths by the wife and by the husband …etc. The fact of wanting to try to have a new baby has to be decided by the couple. Only, the opening to life is required by the natural law and by the catholic church. The reasonability and the rationalization are two very important notions for deciding. A form of dictatorship of reproductive hormones is not very human.

The responsible procreation implies the rationalization, the reasonability and thus the existentialism in the fact of trying to want or not to want a new baby. Inside the catholicism, there are many theological debates concerning **the articulations between the ends of marriage (SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, the ordinary form versus the extraordinary form…etc). **The serious or grave reasons for using the information of the N.F.P. in order to avoid or postpone a new baby are not defined by the church. The catholic church does not give strict definitions. Only the couple has to decide.

The theoretical providentialism, the fideism and the quiestism and their intellectual friends (the almost catholic quiverfullism) of the procreation are not very catholic. This thoughts are very dangerous.* The fact of wanting a baby can be morally irresponsible, under special conditions.*

A catholic couple does not have to want to to be a theoretical providentialist couple in the procreation, in my humble opinion. It is morally wrong to be providentialist in the procreation, because of** the refusal of using of the human reason, sexual act as almost an animal, in the intentions. **The marital act has to be conscientised in the human fashion (the body and its corollaries and the soul and its corollaries);

A catholic couple is not obliged to have a large family, and the fact of having a large family is not a race, is not a moral obligation, is not a moral duty, is not a moral right. The fact of having a large family is not a catholic race. The marital act is morally good without the fact of wanting a baby, only the direct and voluntary contraception by artificial tools is deeply wrong, by nature and per se.

The sin of egoism of a couple concerning the lack of wanting a baby **is more difficult to identify than the direct and voluntary contraception. **In my humble opinion, at each time that the couple makes love, the couple should be capable to know if the wife is potentially fertile in order to be responsible in the sexual act that can permit the conception.

 

[Usige]

You do realize how biology works, don’t you? God created the biology of procreation. It works the same way every time. God does not intervene and produce a baby when the biology does not allow it. That would be negating free will. So, providence has nothing to do with conception. Conception is a miracle, but the miracle is in the biology, not in God’s intervention.

Sir, unless you can tell me the difference between G+/-, L, S and P mucus off the top of your head or how FSH, LH, progestrone and estrogens interact with regard to the ovulatory cycle I can guarantee I understand the biology of human reproduction much more than you can ever know. In this case providence is in reference to working with God’s divine plan and not putting ourselves in the place as the author of life. That is why avoidance is supposed to be preceded by prayerful consideration.

As for children being the default, we agree in the wedding ceremony to accept children as they may come. There is no where that we have to seek out as many as we can.

So,* yes you do* think that there should be a gatekeeper. You think people use NFP for the wrong “serious” reasons.

You need to read what I wrote, not what you are projecting, Sir. I said that there need to be better balance that talks about NFP not being concerned with avoiding children as a principle means. When 85 - 90% of the NFP material is about how to avoid pregnancy with little in helping form a couples conscience then the teaching is imbalanced. One of the “strategies” we were given to show how good NFP is was to find a couple with one kid (or fewer) that had been using NFP for several years. The intent was to show that NFP work just as well as the pill. Most of our material focuses on how you can have just as much sex and still avoid pregnancy.

So, NFP. Periodic abstinence. The Church can not obligate a couple to have relations on any given day. Do you really expect one to have to confess that they did not have relations with their spouse because it was the fertile time?

Where did I say that? I talked about better teaching; no where did I talk about sin. Please read the post before inserting your own interpretation about what I have written.

Someone always says this in these types of threads, so I’ll say it this time - why in the world are people so concerned about the 2% of Catholics trying to follow Church teaching on reproduction instead of the other 98%?

Hmm… I was proposing solutions to the question of the misconception. To be honest I would prefer the vast majority of people that take our class not be there as they roll their eyes, check their watches, and try to just punch the clock. I am not talking about those that try to follow Church teachings, I am talking about those that are forced to take it and or those that would use the pill the second the Church allowed it. If you are not actively teaching and looking for solutions to that (as I am) then please don’t act like I am the bad guy for actually trying to doing something about it.

 

[fpt]

Sorry if I make once again my advocate of devil in saying that** the absolute physiologism of the procreation coming from wives or husbands** is not good.

The wife / the mother or the husband / the father has **to be careful, has to be prudent, has to be moderated concerning the procreation: the just balance. The responsible procreation implies the management of wishes of a new baby and of the gap between two childbirths by the wife and by the husband …etc. The fact of wanting to try to have a new baby has to be decided by the couple. Only, the opening to life is required by the natural law and by the catholic church. The reasonability and the rationalization are two very important notions for deciding. A form of dictatorship of reproductive hormones is not very human.

The responsible procreation implies the rationalization, the reasonability and thus the existentialism in the fact of trying to want or not to want a new baby. Inside the catholicism, there are many theological debates concerning **the articulations between the ends of marriage (SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, the ordinary form versus the extraordinary form…etc). **The serious or grave reasons for using the information of the N.F.P. in order to avoid or postpone a new baby are not defined by the church. The catholic church does not give strict definitions. Only the couple has to decide.

The theoretical providentialism, the fideism and the quiestism and their intellectual friends (the almost catholic quiverfullism) of the procreation are not very catholic. This thoughts are very dangerous.* The fact of wanting a baby can be morally irresponsible, under special conditions.*

A catholic couple does not have to want to to be a theoretical providentialist couple in the procreation, in my humble opinion. It is morally wrong to be providentialist in the procreation, because of** the refusal of using of the human reason, sexual act as almost an animal, in the intentions. **The marital act has to be conscientised in the human fashion (the body and its corollaries and the soul and its corollaries);

A catholic couple is not obliged to have a large family, and the fact of having a large family is not a race, is not a moral obligation, is not a moral duty, is not a moral right. The fact of having a large family is not a catholic race. The marital act is morally good without the fact of wanting a baby, only the direct and voluntary contraception by artificial tools is deeply wrong, by nature and per se.

The sin of egoism of a couple concerning the lack of wanting a baby **is more difficult to identify than the direct and voluntary contraception. **In my humble opinion, at each time that the couple makes love, the couple should be capable to know if the wife is potentially fertile in order to be responsible in the sexual act that can permit the conception.

“The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children”.

Is it a catholic slogan???

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THIS TYPE OF SLOGAN** IS AWFUL, IS SCANDALOUS, IS MORALLY A LIE, AND THUS IT IS NOT CATHOLIC.**

In the marriage, the responsible procreation is a duty and an obligation. The means are the using of information of N.F.P. in practicing the marital act during the infertile times of wives (the mutual, reciprocal and bilateral agreement of non practice of conjugal sex for avoiding a new baby for good reasons), or the conjugal continence wanted bilaterally, for a time, for the prayer or the unilateral refusal of marital act for good reasons.
There are two natural moral orders permitting of not practicing the marital act: the bilateral order and the unilateral order. And each one has his own natural moral regime.

 

[PaulinVA]

In this case providence is in reference to working with God’s divine plan and not putting ourselves in the place as the author of life. That is why avoidance is supposed to be preceded by prayerful consideration.

What do you mean by this? What is God’s divine plan that you are referring to? The plan to accept children as they come?

You need to read what I wrote, not what you are projecting, Sir. I said that there need to be better balance that talks about NFP not being concerned with avoiding children as a principle means. When 85 - 90% of the NFP material is about how to avoid pregnancy with little in helping form a couples conscience then the teaching is imbalanced. One of the “strategies” we were given to show how good NFP is was to find a couple with one kid (or fewer) that had been using NFP for several years. The intent was to show that NFP work just as well as the pill. Most of our material focuses on how you can have just as much sex and still avoid pregnancy.

You said, " believe that we should refocus how NFP is presented. Instead of a full course there should be more teaching on children being the default and** trusting in providence** rather than our life plans over the next 40 years" I took that to mean that believe children should be the default, and I was responding to that. If I misinterpreted what you said, I am sorry.

Before a couple get into the discussion of serious/just reasons, they need to be using NFP. You are doing a great thing, getting couples to consider using NFP. Even if they are using NFP for the wrong reasons,* they are not contracepting.* Take that victory and build on it. Don’t expect a couple to be saints right off the bat. Don’t try to get people to buy into the whole package at once, if it’s too hard to swallow in one sitting.

Where did I say that? I talked about better teaching; no where did I talk about sin. Please read the post before inserting your own interpretation about what I have written.

I infer from your post that you believe if someone is using NFP without just reasons, it is sinful.

Hmm… I was proposing solutions to the question of the misconception. To be honest I would prefer the vast majority of people that take our class not be there as they roll their eyes, check their watches, and try to just punch the clock. I am not talking about those that try to follow Church teachings, I am talking about those that are forced to take it and or those that would use the pill the second the Church allowed it. If you are not actively teaching and looking for solutions to that (as I am) then please don’t act like I am the bad guy for actually trying to doing something about it.

I think that you are doing a great thing. However, every couple that tries NFP is not contracepting. That is good. Even if they are using it selfishly with a contraceptive mentality, that is good. It is better than contracepting, which is objectively grave. Not having relations because you do not want to get pregnant is not objectively grave.

 

[fpt]

The fact of having a large family is not a dogma or a moral obligation (a end of marriage that has to be attempted), per se;

The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;

The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;

The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;

The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;

The fact of wanting a baby can be irrresponsable in special cases, and that is not morally okay;

The fact of not wanting a baby can be selfish, and that is morally okay;

The contraceptive mentality is morally wrong (an intellectual sin of structure);

The absolute natalism and the absolute procreationism are so morally wrong;

The irresponsible paternity is morally wrong, the irresponsible maternity is morally wrong, the irresponsible procreation is morally wrong;

The fact of practicing the marital act during the different times of the cycle of the wife, is, per se, moral (infertile times, fertile times, pregnancy, menstruations, breastfeeding, just before menaupose, menaupose, after the menaupose);

The fact of practicing the marital act if husband is naturally sterile is morally okay, it is totally moral;

The fact of practicing the marital act if wife is naturally sterile is morally okay, it is totally moral;

The fact of practicing the marital act if the wife and the husband are naturally sterile is morally okay, it is totally moral;

The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally morally okay, it is moral.

The fact of practicing the marital act with the intention and the will of wanting a baby is morally okay, it is totally moral;

By nature, the using of the NFP is not contraception. The practice of NFP in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because of a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), an economical reason, an educative reason is morally okay and moral, if the two members of couple agree with and if its reasons are objective, real and true ,and is not unfair (fair). The NFP is not intrinsically evil, is not objectively wrong, is not of itself, from itself, for itself and by itself immoral.

For information:

How is it possible to use NFP “selfishly?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=822513&highlight=large+family

Hubby wants to wait till baby sleeps better before conceiving next child…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=819428&highlight=large+family

Discerning Having a Baby
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=814002&highlight=large+family

Fertile on the Wedding Night
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=740360

NFP and marriage
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=727106

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=606771
Where are all the large Catholic families?

 

[fpt]

The fact of having a large family is not a dogma or a moral obligation (a end of marriage that has to be attempted), per se;

The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;

The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;

The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;

The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;

The fact of wanting a baby can be irrresponsable in special cases, and that is not morally okay;

The fact of not wanting a baby can be selfish, and that is not morally okay;

The contraceptive mentality is morally wrong (an intellectual sin of structure,** a sin of selfishness**);

The absolute natalism and the absolute procreationism are so morally wrong;

The irresponsible paternity is morally wrong, the irresponsible maternity is morally wrong, the irresponsible procreation is morally wrong;

The fact of practicing the marital act during the different times of the cycle of the wife, is, per se, moral (infertile times, fertile times, pregnancy, menstruations, breastfeeding, just before menaupose, menaupose, after the menaupose);

The fact of practicing the marital act if husband is naturally sterile is morally okay, it is totally moral;

The fact of practicing the marital act if wife is naturally sterile is morally okay, it is totally moral;

The fact of practicing the marital act if the wife and the husband are naturally sterile is morally okay, it is totally moral;

The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally morally okay, it is moral.

The fact of practicing the marital act with the intention and the will of wanting a baby is morally okay, it is totally moral;

By nature, the using of the NFP is not contraception. The practice of NFP in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because of a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), an economical reason, an educative reason is morally okay and moral, if the two members of couple agree with and if its reasons are objective, real and true ,and is not unfair (fair). The NFP is not intrinsically evil, is not objectively wrong, is not of itself, from itself, for itself and by itself immoral.

For information:

How is it possible to use NFP “selfishly?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=822513&highlight=large+family

Hubby wants to wait till baby sleeps better before conceiving next child…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=819428&highlight=large+family

Discerning Having a Baby
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=814002&highlight=large+family

Fertile on the Wedding Night
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=740360

NFP and marriage
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=727106

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=606771
Where are all the large Catholic families?

 

[ahs]

I don’t think Voris mentioned a thing called the contraceptive mentality, so I’m not sure why you reference his program, then. I watched it (the Vortex). The example he briefly mentioned of concern to him was something like cars and houses, which seems aimed at the idea of you can have more concrete possessions if you have fewer children. He seemed more concerned by the idea of NFP being something that is the standard state for a Catholic couple, and not being rare or exceptional. On that point I somewhat agree. I don’t understand the idea that all Catholic couples who plan to marry need NFP instruction (they are required in my neck of the woods).

My guess is that we are taking different messages from what Voris said. I believe he is implying that people who use NFP as routine in the marriage are not accepting what God will give them when he says, [he is going after the] “…attitude, which sounds and feels very much like the culture at large that couples need to be taught how to have sex and avoid children AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE” [emphasis in original script] and "No one is saying there are not serious reasons for having to limit the number of children a couple will have…but the reasons must be SERIOUS, GRAVE” [sic]. “The default is to engage in the marital act and accept whatever, if any children God blesses the couple with.” Michael also points out the lack of instruction on the blessing of children (a point I agree with him on) but he tries to lump this onto NFP users somehow. Later, Michael says that despite the legitimate uses of NFP that it is “sold” as contraception, namely as “contraception-lite” [Michael’s words, not mine]. “*It has much more of a feeling of “hey, look, we Catholics can have sex and avoid pregnancy just like the contraceptive culture, but we don’t use ARTIFICIAL *[sic] methods, so we are square with God.”

It is for those reasons that I say, " Mr. Voris’ arguments falls into the same category of those who claim that NFP can be used with a “contraceptive mentality”."

 

[CorieDreams]

fpt:
I take offense with the reasoning that you shoudln’t start marriage unless you’re ready for kids right away. What of a wife who has never lived away from her parents and wants to have a few mmonths to get over the sense of loss, fear and homesickness? It doens’t seem to wrong to me, for a couple to want time to adjust to this MAJOR CHANGE in their life, considering they, hopefully, have never lived together, and in some cases, may never have lived away from home. What’s wrong with saying hey, let’s get over this first huge emotional hump?

 

[ahs]

Cool. It will be interesting to see what response you get.

I posted the initial response in its entirety…I think on page 2 of this thread…posts #23, 24, and 26 (it’s in all blue print). That reply came from Terry Carrol, the Exec Producer. His reply to me covered a whole lot of stuff without ever addressing my OP in any way shape or form.

I emailed him back with a point by point refutation of his response and asked him to actually address my original Catholic Response to “The Scandal of NFP”. Before I even sent that to him, he had sent me yet another email that equally dodged that actual subject so I won’t bother posting it here unless someone requests it.

Anyway, I was going to give him until Wednesday to address some logical fallacies that I pointed out, 9 in all that I easily spotted…maybe some more that I did not. I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt that they were not intentional.

He replied back to me late last night (just past midnight CST) saying that since I had not reviewed all the resources he wanted me to (which I actually did, at least in part) then he could not take the time to do my work for me and would no longer be responding to emails for me.

He also was critical of the fact that I was sharing these “private” emails, even though I had already let him know that I had posted publically my OP and I thought it was clear that I intended to share all responses. (Maybe I was not clear.) Ironically, he told me to post everything…actually encouraged me to do so. Also ironically, while he was chastising me for breaking this supposed secrecy, I get an email from a Priest in IL that I’ve never heard of with the entire conversation between Terry and me. [The word “hypocritical” comes to mind.] The Priest, also instead of addressing my argument for what it is [Voris’ position vs. current Catholic teaching], is wanting to discuss with me what the Church SHOULD be teaching (on a theological level). I’m not sure if I should respond or not? Any Priests/Brothers reading this, I am 100% open to guidance on that one.

Since I said that I would, and since Terry gave me the go-ahead to publish as-is, I will be posting my reply to Terry’s initial email, exactly as it is. You will notice that I omit the ridiculous article he included and I do not bother to provide the links he sent me, since both those portions of his email are already posted on this thread in their entirety.

I’ll not do it all at once because its 6 printed pages long. I’ll divide it into 6 parts and post them slowly…giving time for review an discussion between them.

 

[ahs]

I take offense with the reasoning that you shoudln’t start marriage unless you’re ready for kids right away. What of a wife who has never lived away from her parents and wants to have a few mmonths to get over the sense of loss, fear and homesickness? It doens’t seem to wrong to me, for a couple to want time to adjust to this MAJOR CHANGE in their life, considering they, hopefully, have never lived together, and in some cases, may never have lived away from home. What’s wrong with saying hey, let’s get over this first huge emotional hump?

Nothing at all.

 

[ahs]

**Part 1 of 6: Dave responds to CMTV Exec. Producer Terry Carroll. ** Terry’s words in black, Dave’s in blue to retain original format as it was sent to CMTV and other recipients that Terry Carroll sent it to [Dave is not aware of who these are…just that they were sent the material].

Dear David,

Thank you for sharing your thoughtful response.

You are welcome, and I appreciate you responding and taking the time to visit with me.

I can’t tell from your response to “The Scandal of NFP” whether you listened to the program on which it was based, the Mic’d Up episode of August 28, the previous Wednesday, where Michael Voris interviewed both Christopher Gawley, author of a recent essay on NFP, and Dr. Mike Manhart from the Couple to Couple League. I don’t know that it will change your understanding of what was said in the subsequent Vortex episode, but it would provide a more complete understanding of why Michael said what he said.

I am aware of Michael’s position (CMTV’s position), which I actually clarify in the first paragraph of my response, as well as later on in it. I start out by giving him the benefit of the doubt that his goal was to present the message that he has held since I began watching his program years ago. My argument is not against Mr. Voris’ position on NFP-marketing or the contraceptive mentality in our culture. I made it clear that I agree with him on these points at least twice in my response. The issue I address in my argument is the message actually conveyed by this particular Vortex episode.

To understand “The Scandal of NFP,” it would helpful to be familiar with the sources which formed and shaped it. Your reflection is well reasoned within the limits of what you understand Michael to have said and all the issues involved. But your perspective is incomplete.

With all due respect, my perspective is neither incomplete, nor does it have any effect on the message conveyed by this Vortex episode. You are arguing a logical fallacy in which Michael’s message is dependent upon what his viewers have already viewed. For this to be legitimate, you’d have to assume that EVRY Vortex viewer has seen and read ALL those other sources you presented and NONE of his viewers would view this episode independently of those other sources. That’s not logical. My argument is specific to this episode. This episode conveyed a message and I addressed that message, specific to this episode.

I’m not going to respond to each of your points because that would concede that the points you raise are all the important ones and the only ones that need to be considered.

When I respond to someone, I usually respond to any point I feel like I am able to or that jumps out at me, especially ones that potentially weaken my own position if not addressed. There are a few such points I made in my response that you chose not to address which directly contradict Voris’ message in that Vortex episode. I believe these are some of the most important ones (such as Voris’ complaint about the Bishops calling NFP a “good”, in light of what JPII and Paul VI had to say about periodic abstinence, and the Church teachings I provided that discuss who has the right to discern birth regulation in a Marriage, and Voris’ “definition” of serious reasons vs. a Pope’s), and I am asking you now to go back and address them, or admit that you are not able to address them without conceding that “The Scandal of NFP”'s message was a wrong one.

 

[Pug]

My wife is a diocesan approved NFP instructor and we have recently been going over the class materials with a growing concern about how information is presented. Why? We have approximately 40 - 50 minutes on Church teachings around how conjugal love fits into marriage, parts of Casti Conubii and Humana Vitae, etc. We then lead up to reasons to use NFP. It is there where the issues begin.

I hope they give the people several hours of this first type of instruction in some other class? It seems too short to be helpful, really.

We use various materials (including from the USCCB) that go to great length to show that NFP is just as effective as the pill and other forms of contraception. The question is effective at what? Avoiding children. And that is where I think the issue starts to arise. Most NFP material that we use or have access to presents things in ways to to avoid children. The rules attached to charting are 95% focused on avoiding children and then give a little blurb about “oh yeah do this if you are trying to achieve.”

I suspect the materials focus on method effectiveness because that is what the couples would state as their primary concern. Perhaps the Church has surveyed people to find this out. In the current way the world is, this seems possible. I know that was my big concern with using NFP when I was taught. And they did not convince me (back then). I understand trying to address what the couples themselves are concerned about, but the teacher needs to know what really needs to be learned and teach that as well.

No, I don’t think someone should be the gatekeeper on what is serious reason, but I do think it should be presented as something that should be used as an exception rather than as the norm. In many ways it is presented as “well since you’re going to limit your family size anyway, then use this instead of the pill.”

Perhaps it is a call by bishops/“they”/whomever that any reason sufficient to motivate a couple to NFP usage is acceptable/serious, since no one is going to bother with NFP otherwise. In other words, perhaps they have designated a pseudo gatekeeper, the method itself?

 

[ahs]

…Perhaps it is a call by bishops/“they”/whomever that any reason sufficient to motivate a couple to NFP usage is acceptable/serious, since no one is going to bother with NFP otherwise. In other words, perhaps they have designated a pseudo gatekeeper, the method itself?

Yes, that’s what I believe. The method is self-limiting, so to speak, in that no one is going to readily decide to abstain from sex during the fertile period unless they have a good reason to.

 

[fpt]

Questions:

In all honesty, if a couple is using the information of the N.F.P. for not practicing the marital act during the fertile times of wife, in a mutual, reciprocal and bilateral agreement,** without a good, serious or grave reason, what is the type of sin?**

What is the matter of this sin??? It is a sin of selfishness about the procreation, a lack of opening to the life, or a sin of lust??? A sin of thought, a sin of behavior, or both of them???
*
How to qualify and to identify this act or this intention??? A venial sin or a mortal sin???*

 

[Elizium23]

I take offense with the reasoning that you shoudln’t start marriage unless you’re ready for kids right away. What of a wife who has never lived away from her parents and wants to have a few mmonths to get over the sense of loss, fear and homesickness? It doens’t seem to wrong to me, for a couple to want time to adjust to this MAJOR CHANGE in their life, considering they, hopefully, have never lived together, and in some cases, may never have lived away from home. What’s wrong with saying hey, let’s get over this first huge emotional hump?

God does not call the qualified, he qualifies the called.

 

[underacloud]

NFP is, in our judgment, something permitted by the Church in response to **exceptional situations **that is, unfortunately, marketed and often practiced as a routine part of Catholic marriage and as a natural rather than artificial method of birth control. I know, NFP is routinely defended as “not birth control” but that’s a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? NFP isn’t really doing nothing but gathering information! It is information gathered to control something, either conception or its avoidance. True, there is no “contraceptive act” in NFP since abstinence is judged as “doing nothing.” But if it’s really “doing nothing,” then why is it so hard to do? When I fast from food, am I really “doing nothing?”

One last point I would like you to consider. We all know and accept that periodic continence is permitted by the Church in response to serious circumstances. But since we know that NO method of avoiding pregnancy is perfect and 100% effective, why is the diminished risk through NFP worth it at all? It seems to me that if one’s reasons for avoiding pregnancy are truly serious – economic hardship, psychological issues, risk of death etc. – why is ANY degree of risk worth it? Is it not a bit like playing Russian Roulette with one’s serious reasons? Why risk severe economic hardship, psychological damage, or life itself, for sex? We all know that total abstinence is 100% effective in preventing births. Is the routine practice of NFP within Catholic marriages, as if it were an integral part of daily married life and not merely a response to unexpected challenges, truly virtuous? Are we really better off having the choices that NFP makes possible to us? Are we really able to be as confident as our Catholic ancestors could be that they were trusting in Divine Providence?

Ahs,

I believe the issue here is best summarised by the two above boldings (my bolding) in their response to you. While the Church teaches that NFP is to be used when we have “serious” reasons to avoid a pregnancy at a given time, some people interpret this as NFP being acceptable only in “exceptional situations”.

Exceptional and serious are not synonyms. We must always be careful in allowing people to frame the debate using such terms. Stick to using the term serious and insist that they do also.

Their second paragraph above further demonstrates this common misunderstanding - that the reasons need to be so “grave” that you risk death or alike for it to count. Note that they even use the term “truly serious”, as though to pre-empt the suggestion that “serious” is not the high bar that they think it is. They would have people think that your “serious reaon” is only “truly serious” if it’s a matter of life and death!

 

[Rau]

… Our parochial vicar made similar comments in a homily about 5 or 6 weeks ago. He said many couples go into marriage saying they are open to life; with conditions. The example he used was a couple he talked to that said they would have kids "once we buy a house, payoff our cars, get our student loans paid off and build up our retirement and savings. …

My wife is a diocesan approved NFP instructor and we have recently been going over the class materials with a growing concern about how information is presented. Why? We have approximately 40 - 50 minutes on Church teachings around how conjugal love fits into marriage, … We then lead up to reasons to use NFP. It is there where the issues begin.

We use various materials (including from the USCCB) that go to great length to show that NFP is just as effective as the pill and other forms of contraception. The question is effective at what? Avoiding children. … Most NFP material that we use or have access to presents things in ways to to avoid children. … … While nothing is incorrect in the brochure, it never touches on the fact that NFP is supposed to be used for serious reason not as a morally licit way to achieve the same end results as those naughty neighbors that are using the pill.

So what’s my point? NFP is not the issue, but rather the way is it taught and “marketed”. … One has to ask why something that should be used for serious reasons (and therefore by a relatively small group) is required to be taught to the populace at large. …

I believe that we should refocus how NFP is presented. Instead of a full course there should be more teaching on children being the default and trusting in providence rather than our life plans over the next 40 years. Including a basic overview of NFP should be provided so those with serious reason are aware that it is available should be as far as it goes unless the couple seeks it out. No, I don’t think someone should be the gatekeeper on what is serious reason, but I do think it should be presented as something that should be used as an exception rather than as the norm. In many ways it is presented as “well since you’re going to limit your family size anyway, then use this instead of the pill.”

Let me use an analogy. Chemotherapy can be useful to fight off cancer, but is generally used as a last resort. Just because it is useful in some circumstances does not mean we should call it a good thing and therefore let everyone have it. In the same way, NFP can be a boon for couples that have serious reasons to avoid, but one should be sad when they have recourse to use it not hold it up as some great good. Think of it this way. Christ had to die for our salvation. Yes, we received good from that act, but at the same time it is a tragedy and something we should weep for our part in.

The Church’s teaching in this space is not definitive, and that is no oversight, or lack of development of the theology. It must be this way. I defy anyone to make concrete the meaning of expressions such as “Open to Life” or “Serious Reasons” - in a way that will be right for everyone.

I note that a woman may have roughly 400 fertile months. Even after eliminating many from the list of baby-making opportunities for reasons of singlehood, pregnancy, proximity to last birth, etc, it may be apparent that more than 50% of the remaining fertile months will not see a desire for conception by more than 50% of women.

I don’t understand the reasoning of those who advocate against consciously avoiding pregnancy by appealing to a view that it is “better” not to, or by saying that the “default” (what ever that means in this context) is to “go with the flow”. We are all different. For some, libido and potency are low, and “go with the flow” may be a very happy experience, and may deliver a family size which the couple feels is right for them. For others, the reverse is the case, with completely different consequences, and for them, avoidance needs to become the “default”. For some of us, we have a very natural disposition for large families. Some women will tell you they just love being pregnant. Others are far different. As married persons with the requisite physical capability to reproduce, we are required not to have the intent to avoid all children. We are not required to seek a particular number. We are allowed to limit family size, and for reasons which are not objectively stated, because they are individual.

Now I agree with you that NFP should also be taught as a means to optimise the chances of pregnancies when desired. I think this should be readily achieved, since achieving and avoiding are but different sides of the same coin.

To whom should NFP be taught? To every couple who suspect they would not wish to conceive as regularly as their physical desires, unabated, might produce. This is not a “relatively small group” as you suggest. I don’t think many couples would propose to go with the flow for a dozen plus babies (and the Church does not advocate any such approach for all), but some may, which is absolutely fine too. It should also be taught to every couple who anticipate that they may wish to influence the timing of their pregnancies. That could be quite a number too.

You mention that we should be taught to “trust in providence”. In this context, I read that as suggesting that we should be more oriented to letting “nature take its course”, rather than planning, and influencing outcomes. It seems to me while that may be an approach that some are very comfortable to take (in this context), it is not a better or especially virtuous approach. We are thinking, planning creatures - God gave us those faculties. Use them wisely by all means, but in the context at hand, I don’t see that it is necessarily “better” to put them aside.

 

[Rau]

I take offense with the reasoning that you shoudln’t start marriage unless you’re ready for kids right away. What of a wife who has never lived away from her parents and wants to have a few mmonths to get over the sense of loss, fear and homesickness? It doens’t seem to wrong to me, for a couple to want time to adjust to this MAJOR CHANGE in their life, considering they, hopefully, have never lived together, and in some cases, may never have lived away from home. What’s wrong with saying hey, let’s get over this first huge emotional hump?

I’d agree with you. Not sure where in this thread the statement to which you refer was made, but perhaps it was made by a person not married (and thus imagining how they would think/behave), or who was married at a time when they were immediately ready for children. Why must one person’s outlook, experience and reality necessarily apply to another? There is no absolute right or wrong at stake on this point.

 

[ahs]

Ahs,

I believe the issue here is best summarised by the two above boldings (my bolding) in their response to you. While the Church teaches that NFP is to be used when we have “serious” reasons to avoid a pregnancy at a given time, some people interpret this as NFP being acceptable only in “exceptional situations”.

Exceptional and serious are not synonyms. We must always be careful in allowing people to frame the debate using such terms. Stick to using the term serious and insist that they do also.

Their second paragraph above further demonstrates this common misunderstanding - that the reasons need to be so “grave” that you risk death or alike for it to count. Note that they even use the term “truly serious”, as though to pre-empt the suggestion that “serious” is not the high bar that they think it is. They would have people think that your “serious reaon” is only “truly serious” if it’s a matter of life and death!

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t really catch that or address at all the need to stick to the Church’s terms…not our own opinions of what those terms should be. That is really good advice you give.