A Catholic Response to "The Scandal of NFP"

[lizaanne]

Why is complete abstinence any more holy than periodic abstinence?

I never said anything about holiness. This is basic common sense. Why anyone would put their spouse or family at risk is beyond my comprehension, and so far I’ve not seen anyone defend such an action. Saying that the decision is “up to the couple”, only passes the buck, essentially saying, that if someone wants to play “russian roulette”, then that’s up to them, NFP is there for them to use if they want to take that risk.

I’m saying it’s unconscionable that anyone would wish to do that, and if a situation is not that serious, I question the decision to use NFP in the first place.

Yes — I said it – I question the decision. For some reason this is taboo, and I don’t get that either.

~Liza

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I never said anything about holiness. This is basic common sense. Why anyone would put their spouse or family at risk is beyond my comprehension, and so far I’ve not seen anyone defend such an action. Saying that the decision is “up to the couple”, only passes the buck, essentially saying, that if someone wants to play “russian roulette”, then that’s up to them, NFP is there for them to use if they want to take that risk.

I’m saying it’s unconscionable that anyone would wish to do that, and if a situation is not that serious, I question the decision to use NFP in the first place.

Yes — I said it – I question the decision. For some reason this is taboo, and I don’t get that either.

~Liza

So basically NFP use is only licit if there is the most extreme life threatening reason to use it.

If there is an extreme life threatening reason than the couple is “unconscionable” in using NFP and should abstain all together.

If there is no life threatening reason, then NFP, or periodic continence, is questionable.

 

[Ana_v]

How a couple uses NFP is between them and God and, quite frankly, I find it offensive that someone would think it’s any of their business at all.

There is an objective criterion that determines when it is permissible to use NFP.
That is what Michael Voris is speaking to, the objective criterion. He is not venturing to decide for any one particular couple, whether or not their circumstances justify their use of NFP.

Voris, anticipating that he would be striking some nerves, made very explicit nuances. He acknowledges that, as a matter of fact, there are cases in which couples have serious reasons for avoiding pregancy. Attentiveness to the context of the video shows that those cases are NOT what his video is about.

Therefore, we are to focus on what his video IS about.

1. A couple is not morally entitled to use NFP just because they want to space out children, or wish to have no more children. NFP does not exist for that purpose, morally speaking.

It exists to preserve the good of marital life, in a manner that respects the integrity of human sexuality, when circumstances outside the control of the spouses foreseeably disable them from being able to properly and responsibly provide for and raise a child.

1. In many Catholic venues, e.g. parishes, in which NFP is advertised, little if any mention is made of the moral qualification for the respectable use of NFP: serious, non-selfish, reasons must ground its use as a means of avoiding pregnancy.

Since SO much praise is given to the use of NFP, I am not at all troubled that someone comes along to criticize its use, extrinsically speaking (remember, he concedes that intrinsically, it is not morally evil). NFP, in its practical moral dimension (not theoretical moral dimension), is disproportionately far more uncritically praised, than critically examined. Voris comes along and counters the current. It causes a reaction – well yes, of course! Because it is not the norm to hear the criticism. It is harder for our ears to adjust to it.

 

[PaulinVA]

I never said anything about holiness. This is basic common sense. Why anyone would put their spouse or family at risk is beyond my comprehension, and so far I’ve not seen anyone defend such an action. Saying that the decision is “up to the couple”, only passes the buck, essentially saying, that if someone wants to play “russian roulette”, then that’s up to them, NFP is there for them to use if they want to take that risk.

I’m saying it’s unconscionable that anyone would wish to do that, and if a situation is not that serious, I question the decision to use NFP in the first place.

Yes — I said it – I question the decision. For some reason this is taboo, and I don’t get that either.

~Liza

LIza, on the surface your argument seems sound. Upon further inspection, though, it appears you have simply shaped the facts to support your views.

If a couple has a serious or just reason to use NFP, the Church says that they can, indeed, use NFP. It could be any number of valid reasons. It’s a little subjective, but that’s the way it is.

To address your strawman of the deadly illness or birth defects or mother’s health or whatever.that would indicate totally abstaining - a couple can use periodic abstinence and reduce the chance of pregnancy to near zero. Correctly apply the rules, add a day or two or three to the decision of when the infertile time starts, and, bingo, you have reduced the chance of pregnancy beyond the 99% advertised method effectiveness rate. A woman simply can’t get pregnant on Peak +8, to put it in SymptoThermalMethod terminology…

It’s entirely possible to go for years applying the rules in an ultra-conservative way to avoid pregnancy. It’s not putting anyone at risk. It’s a lot of abstaining, but it’s better than totally abstaining and just as safe.

 

[clem456]

Could I ask for links to the Church’s teaching here. What are the “objective criteria” that determine permissibility in the eyes of the Church?

There is an objective criterion that determines when it is permissible to use NFP.
That is what Michael Voris is speaking to, the objective criterion. He is not venturing to decide for any one particular couple, whether or not their circumstances justify their use of NFP.

Voris, anticipating that he would be striking some nerves, made very explicit nuances. He acknowledges that, as a matter of fact, there are cases in which couples have serious reasons for avoiding pregancy. Attentiveness to the context of the video shows that those cases are NOT what his video is about.

Therefore, we are to focus on what his video IS about.

1. A couple is not morally entitled to use NFP just because they want to space out children, or wish to have no more children. NFP does not exist for that purpose, morally speaking.

It exists to preserve the good of marital life, in a manner that respects the integrity of human sexuality, when circumstances outside the control of the spouses foreseeably disable them from being able to properly and responsibly provide for and raise a child.

1. In many Catholic venues, e.g. parishes, in which NFP is advertised, little if any mention is made of the moral qualification for the respectable use of NFP: serious, non-selfish, reasons must ground its use as a means of avoiding pregnancy.

Since SO much praise is given to the use of NFP, I am not at all troubled that someone comes along to criticize its use, extrinsically speaking (remember, he concedes that intrinsically, it is not morally evil). NFP, in its practical moral dimension (not theoretical moral dimension), is disproportionately far more uncritically praised, than critically examined. Voris comes along and counters the current. It causes a reaction – well yes, of course! Because it is not the norm to hear the criticism. It is harder for our ears to adjust to it.

 

[Ana_v]

Could I ask for links to the Church’s teaching here. What are the “objective criteria” that determine permissibility in the eyes of the Church?

Humanae Vitae, No. 10, 16

"With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time…

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles." (emphasis mine)

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2367-2338

"Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility…

A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children.** It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness** but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, **the morality **of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart." (emphasis mine)

 

[lizaanne]

So basically NFP use is only licit if there is the most extreme life threatening reason to use it.

If there is an extreme life threatening reason than the couple is “unconscionable” in using NFP and should abstain all together.

If there is no life threatening reason, then NFP, or periodic continence, is questionable.

Correct with regard to NFP.

…a couple can use periodic abstinence and reduce the chance of pregnancy to near zero. Correctly apply the rules, add a day or two or three to the decision of when the infertile time starts, and, bingo, you have reduced the chance of pregnancy beyond the 99% advertised method effectiveness rate.

So risking the health of the mother or the situation of the family is ok then, if the chances are that a life threatening pregnancy could kill her is only 1%. Oh, ok, I see.

A woman simply can’t get pregnant on Peak +8, to put it in SymptoThermalMethod terminology…

It’s entirely possible to go for years applying the rules in an ultra-conservative way to avoid pregnancy. It’s not putting anyone at risk. It’s a lot of abstaining, but it’s better than totally abstaining and just as safe.

Then explain to me how this is open to life?

Could I ask for links to the Church’s teaching here. What are the “objective criteria” that determine permissibility in the eyes of the Church?

It doesn’t exist. Only a bunch of vague references that leave it open to the interpretation of anyone who wishes to decide that THEIR excuse for controlling birth (see what I did there??) is acceptable to use NFP.

~Liza

 

[fpt]

There is an objective criterion that determines when it is permissible to use NFP.
That is what Michael Voris is speaking to, the objective criterion. He is not venturing to decide for any one particular couple, whether or not their circumstances justify their use of NFP.

Voris, anticipating that he would be striking some nerves, made very explicit nuances. He acknowledges that, as a matter of fact, there are cases in which couples have serious reasons for avoiding pregancy. Attentiveness to the context of the video shows that those cases are NOT what his video is about.

Therefore, we are to focus on what his video IS about.

1. A couple is not morally entitled to use NFP just because they want to space out children,** Could you explain to me??? I am not sure to understand??? What do you mean?
   **

or wish to have no more children. NFP does not exist for that purpose, morally speaking.

It exists to preserve the good of marital life, in a manner that respects the integrity of human sexuality, when circumstances outside the control of the spouses foreseeably disable them from being able to properly and responsibly provide for and raise a child.

1. In many Catholic venues, e.g. parishes, in which NFP is advertised, little if any mention is made of the moral qualification for the respectable use of NFP: serious, non-selfish, reasons must ground its use as a means of avoiding pregnancy.

Since SO much praise is given to the use of NFP, I am not at all troubled that someone comes along to criticize its use, extrinsically speaking (remember, he concedes that intrinsically, it is not morally evil). NFP, in its practical moral dimension (not theoretical moral dimension), is disproportionately far more uncritically praised, than critically examined. Voris comes along and counters the current. It causes a reaction – well yes, of course! Because it is not the norm to hear the criticism. It is harder for our ears to adjust to it.

 

[PaulinVA]

So risking the health of the mother or the situation of the family is ok then, if the chances are that a life threatening pregnancy could kill her is only 1%. Oh, ok, I see.

Please, put the snarkisaurus back in his cage and engage is polite conversation. I said that you can reduce the chance of pregnancy beyond the 99% method effectiveness to somewhere around 100% effective. Look at your comment below - you seem to have understand that there.

**

Then explain to me how this is open to life?

**What is “open to life”? What does it mean?
Does it mean that a couple has to actively seek out a pregnancy every cycle? No.
Does it mean that a couple has to seek out a pregnancy every other cycle? No.
How often, Liza, does a couple have to seek out pregnancy to be “open to life”?

I would suggest that if tomorrow you find out that you are pregnant, and you do whatever rearranging needs to be done and welcome the new little one into your family you are open to life.

 

[lizaanne]

Please, put the snarkisaurus back in his cage and engage is polite conversation. I said that you can reduce the chance of pregnancy beyond the 99% method effectiveness to somewhere around 100% effective. Look at your comment below - you seem to have understand that there.

****What is “open to life”? What does it mean?
Does it mean that a couple has to actively seek out a pregnancy every cycle? No.
Does it mean that a couple has to seek out a pregnancy every other cycle? No.
How often, Liza, does a couple have to seek out pregnancy to be “open to life”?

I would suggest that if tomorrow you find out that you are pregnant, and you do whatever rearranging needs to be done and welcome the new little one into your family you are open to life.

Who is talking about “seeking out” anything? One of the main tenets of NFP is that it is “open to life”, and that is one of the aspects that makes it acceptable to the Church as a use of avoiding pregnancy. If a woman has a way via WHATEVER method, to render herself unable to have children “…a couple can use periodic abstinence and reduce the chance of pregnancy to near zero. Correctly apply the rules, add a day or two or three to the decision of when the infertile time starts, and, bingo, you have reduced the chance of pregnancy beyond the 99% advertised method effectiveness rate.” - your words, not mine, then how is this in any way in keeping with that understanding of being “open to life”?

Look - this whole NFP thing is nothing more than a way to placate the faithful because their non-Protestant friends get to use the pill. If a situation is SO bad that you have to go through such hoops to avoid pregnancy, then abstinence is the only responsible and sensible action for a couple to take.

You are not going to change my mind, and I’m not going to change yours, so I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

~Liza

 

[PaulinVA]

Liza, yes, we disagree. I don’t think it’s an NFP disagreement, though. I think it’s a fundamental disagreement about married life and procreation.

I believe that most couples actually reach their “limit” of children they can handle - emotionally, physically, financially - before the woman enters menopause. Do you agree with that?

 

[lizaanne]

I believe that most couples actually reach their “limit” of children they can handle - emotionally, physically, financially - before the woman enters menopause. Do you agree with that?

I will agree with this.
Continue with your point, because I don’t think I’ll agree with the conclusion, but go on…

~Liza

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Who is talking about “seeking out” anything? One of the main tenets of NFP is that it is “open to life”, and that is one of the aspects that makes it acceptable to the Church as a use of avoiding pregnancy. If a woman has a way via WHATEVER method, to render herself unable to have children “…a couple can use periodic abstinence and reduce the chance of pregnancy to near zero. Correctly apply the rules, add a day or two or three to the decision of when the infertile time starts, and, bingo, you have reduced the chance of pregnancy beyond the 99% advertised method effectiveness rate.” - your words, not mine, then how is this in any way in keeping with that understanding of being “open to life”?

Look - this whole NFP thing is nothing more than a way to placate the faithful because their non-Protestant friends get to use the pill. If a situation is SO bad that you have to go through such hoops to avoid pregnancy, then abstinence is the only responsible and sensible action for a couple to take.

You are not going to change my mind, and I’m not going to change yours, so I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

~Liza

That is just your opinion.

NFP used to avoid a pregnancy is nothing at all like taking the pill.

The pill takes a healthy reproductive system and makes it infertile. The sex act is corrupted.

NFP (using to avoid) the sex act is not corrupted at all.

Each individual sex act is opened to the transmission of life. The act is not contracepted, the act is not corrupted.

 

[PaulinVA]

lizaanne:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

I believe that most couples actually reach their “limit” of children they can handle - emotionally, physically, financially - before the woman enters menopause. Do you agree with that?

I will agree with this.
Continue with your point, because I don’t think I’ll agree with the conclusion, but go on…

~Liza

I am heading home in the car. Perhaps you could start with what you think the couples should do.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[ahs]

There is an objective criterion that determines when it is permissible to use NFP.
That is what Michael Voris is speaking to, the objective criterion. He is not venturing to decide for any one particular couple, whether or not their circumstances justify their use of NFP.

Yep, the Church gave us the criteria of “serious” or “just” reasons that “not rarely arise” and that the couple, and ONLY the couple, can discern. (Quotes from the pertinent Church teachings provided in the first 4 posts).

What Michael did was try to present his opinions on how serious or grave these circumstances had to be instead of presenting Church teaching. Meanwhile, he also misrepresented NFP and presumed, implicitly, his own authority to teach couple whether their “serious reasons” were serious enough. He also has a beef with the Bishops calling NFP “a good” [his words] depsite Catholc doctrine that does nothign but support this position of the Bishops.

Therefore, we are to focus on what his video IS about.

1. A couple is not morally entitled to use NFP just because they want to space out children, or wish to have no more children. NFP does not exist for that purpose, morally speaking.

According to whom? Michael Voris, or the Church. (Authentic Catholic Source please which explicitly states this)

It exists to preserve the good of marital life, in a manner that respects the integrity of human sexuality, when circumstances outside the control of the spouses foreseeably disable them from being able to properly and responsibly provide for and raise a child.

You bet.

1. In many Catholic venues, e.g. parishes, in which NFP is advertised, little if any mention is made of the moral qualification for the respectable use of NFP: serious, non-selfish, reasons must ground its use as a means of avoiding pregnancy.

Yep, and who is it that discerns whether these situation exists and how serious they are? (Authentic Church Source please…feel free to use the references provided in my OP)

 

[Rau]

I never said anything about holiness. This is basic common sense. Why anyone would put their spouse or family at risk is beyond my comprehension, and so far I’ve not seen anyone defend such an action. Saying that the decision is “up to the couple”, only passes the buck, essentially saying, that if someone wants to play “russian roulette”, then that’s up to them, NFP is there for them to use if they want to take that risk.

I’m saying it’s unconscionable that anyone would wish to do that, and if a situation is not that serious, I question the decision to use NFP in the first place.

Yes — I said it – I question the decision. For some reason this is taboo, and I don’t get that either.

~Liza

Does the following then capture your reasoning in respect of NFP in marriage:
*
1). The only reason to deny yourselves sex, when you’d like to have it, is if you’ve got very serious reasons, and really, if the reasons are this serious, it would be better to completely refrain;

2). If you don’t have such serious reasons as above, then if you feel the desire, you must go ahead and have sex. In this way you are supremely open to life, and place yourself in God’s providence.

Point 1 goes to the nature of “serious”. Point 2 suggests we should decline to plan family size but instead allow family size to grow to the point (potentially) where “serious reasons” arise (if at all), and then adopting the “no sex” rule under point 1. *

Ana V may wish to comment also.

 

[underacloud]

Then explain to me how this is open to life?

This is a commonly misunderstood term. Do you know where it comes from in Church teaching?

It comes from Humanae Vitae:

every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.

In the context of the document, this simply means that a couple cannot use contraception. That is all it means.

You quoted from HV yourself showing that a couple may (for serious reasons) try to avoid having further children, now or indefinitely, and that recourse to the infertile phase of the cycle is the acceptable means to acheive this. Being “open to life” (this term itself is not used and may be misleading) does not mean that life needs to be likely or possible, but that the couple does not close the act to the transmission of life in anything they do (ie contraception).

Yes, NFP as Catholic “birth control” is allowable. Again from HV:

controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles

 

[lizaanne]

I am heading home in the car. Perhaps you could start with what you think the couples should do.

They must abstain. Until such time where their situation changes and they can once again be truly open to life without damage or injury.

~Liza

 

[PaulinVA]

I will agree with this.
Continue with your point, because I don’t think I’ll agree with the conclusion, but go on…

~Liza

So, if a couple reaches their ‘maximum’ number of children at 35 years old, what are they to do? Is abstinence allowed permanently until menopause? Of course. If permanent abstinence is allowed, how about periodic abstinence? What’s the difference? In both cases you are avoiding the fertile time. Are you saying that it has to be hard for the couple?

The Church does not obligate a married couple to have relations on any given day. It does not say that it is sinful to not have relations if you know the women is fertile. The Church does not say that every session of relations has to be to try to achieve pregnancy. It says that it has to be ordered towards procreation… So, where is the sin? Avoiding the fertile time for serious reasons? The Church says that’s okay.

 

[maryjk]

What is “open to life”? What does it mean?
Does it mean that a couple has to actively seek out a pregnancy every cycle? No.
Does it mean that a couple has to seek out a pregnancy every other cycle? No.
How often, Liza, does a couple have to seek out pregnancy to be “open to life”?

I would suggest that if tomorrow you find out that you are pregnant, and you do whatever rearranging needs to be done and welcome the new little one into your family you are open to life.

That is the problem when most people discuss “open to life.” They believe that “open to life” means people must actively seek pregnancy. Whereas it really means that a couple cannot artificially hinder the sexual act.

We must remember no couple is required to have sexual relations during the fertile time. And until the Church tells us we have to have sex during every fertile time, NFP will make sense for many couples.