A Catholic Response to "The Scandal of NFP"

[lizaanne]

So, if a couple reaches their ‘maximum’ number of children at 35 years old, what are they to do?

Since when do we get to make this decision? Isn’t THIS the contraceptive mentality that we are afraid to talk about?

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?

Who ever said being Catholic was easy? Who ever said that marriage, or being a parent was supposed to be easy?

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.

What constitutes a ‘serious reason’? It’s not defined ANYWHERE.

You know – this is a round and round and round argument, and it’s never going to get anywhere. Quite honestly, I have better things to do than to continue what I see is a fruitless discussion. Those who are using NFP are going to make every excuse, pull out every document, quotation, author, professional, cleric, etc to try to defend their decision. But at the end of the day, they are the ones who have to put their head on the pillow and know that what they are doing is right. And sadly, the Church really doesn’t help anyone at all in making that very serious decision, buy leaving such wide and undefined criteria for the use of this practice.

So – I’m outta here. I have a really good book I’m trying to get through, so I’m off to bed.

God bless,
~Liza

 

[PaulinVA]

Since when do we get to make this decision? Isn’t THIS the contraceptive mentality that we are afraid to talk about?

You agreed earlier that most couples reach their limit before menopause. That is not a contraceptive mentality issue. It’s a practicality issue. So, if today we feel that we can’t handle any more children due to financial and emotional issues (for example), the Church says that we can use periodic abstinence. Circumstances could change later. They might not.

Who ever said being Catholic was easy? Who ever said that marriage, or being a parent was supposed to be easy?

It doesn’t have to be artificially made harder, either.

What constitutes a ‘serious reason’? It’s not defined ANYWHERE.

Well, we know it happens “not rarely”

I sense your frustration, but you are taking a more strict interpretation than the Church requires. The Church allows periodic abstinence for serious reasons. Serious reasons include not possibly being able to handle any more children. That’s it.

 

[maryjk]

**You know – this is a round and round and round argument, and it’s never going to get anywhere. ** Quite honestly, I have better things to do than to continue what I see is a fruitless discussion. Those who are using NFP are going to make every excuse, pull out every document, quotation, author, professional, cleric, etc to try to defend their decision. But at the end of the day, they are the ones who have to put their head on the pillow and know that what they are doing is right. And sadly, the Church really doesn’t help anyone at all in making that very serious decision, buy leaving such wide and undefined criteria for the use of this practice.

So – I’m outta here. I have a really good book I’m trying to get through, so I’m off to bed.

God bless,
~Liza

That is because there are documents, authors, professionals and clerics that back up the use of NFP.

Whereas all you seem to have is your opinion.

 

[underacloud]

What constitutes a ‘serious reason’? It’s not defined ANYWHERE.

You know – this is a round and round and round argument, and it’s never going to get anywhere. Quite honestly, I have better things to do than to continue what I see is a fruitless discussion. Those who are using NFP are going to make every excuse, pull out every document, quotation, author, professional, cleric, etc to try to defend their decision. But at the end of the day, they are the ones who have to put their head on the pillow and know that what they are doing is right. And sadly, the Church really doesn’t help anyone at all in making that very serious decision, buy leaving such wide and undefined criteria for the use of this practice.

Like you say, each couple has to make their own decision about what is right. There is no need to accuse such couples of excuse making. If the Church, who we look to for guidance and obey when she speaks, doesn’t prescribe in detail the acceptable reasons for a coulpe to use NFP, why would you think it’s the right of anyone else to do so?

 

[maximus]

As a retired NFP instructor it is saddening that such attacks against NFP happen, to top it off there is often in-fighting between the adherents of the Creighton and Symptom-Thermal method. Then there are those who mock NFP because they prefer artificial contraception so they can freely engage in adultery. Some who prefer providentialism forget that their choice is voluntary and not normative to be a good Catholic.

God Bless,

 

[Rau]

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.

I think of “open to life” meaning:

1. Each sex act is free from artificial impediment to the transmission of life (ie. no “artificial birth control”); and
2. Pregnancies should be accepted (hopefully, happily).

Point 1 is the context in which the term was used (in HV I think). Point 2 is a common sense meaning of the words. Both points are explicit church teaching. I know of no other church-advocated explanation of the expression.

To my mind, the central cause for debate about NFP is this idea of “serious reasons” to abstain. If the right to abstain by mutual consent had not been qualified in this way, there would be nothing to debate.

 

[underacloud]

I think of “open to life” meaning:

1. Each sex act is free from artificial impediment to the transmission of life (ie. no “artificial birth control”);

Precisely. It is from HV, and as far as I know is the only place in Church documents where something at all like the term “open to life” is used:

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

1. Pregnancies should be accepted (hopefully, happily).

Point 1 is the context in which the term was used (in HV I think). Point 2 is a common sense meaning of the words. Both points are explicit church teaching. I know of no other church-advocated explanation of the expression.

Yes, this one is a no-brainer, but also spelled out in Church teaching. Accept new life if it comes along.

But importantly, since the specific term “open to life” is not itself a Church teaching, there’s no real need to defend NFP against the vague and poorly definied notion that it is not “open to life”. Just rely on the actual Church teachings, especially HV, and it’s clear that NFP can be used as legitimate Catholic birth control…when “serious reasons” exist to do so.

 

[ahs]

Since when do we get to make this decision? Isn’t THIS the contraceptive mentality that we are afraid to talk about?

No, a contraceptive mentality would be where that couple decides to remove the procreative nature from a Martial act that is taking place instead of abstaining from sex on fertile days and then enjoying God’s gift of the Marital embrace on non fertile days.

Who ever said being Catholic was easy? Who ever said that marriage, or being a parent was supposed to be easy?

No one. But you aren’t talking about being Catholic. You are talking about being something else…unless you plan to provide a Catholic teaching that says that couples with just/serious reasons to avoid conception should practice total abstinence until their situation gets better. To my knowledge though, the Church has never set a sex-schedule for couples and has also said it’s a “grave offence” for anyone to presume to try to make this decision for a couple.

What constitutes a ‘serious reason’? It’s not defined ANYWHERE.

Thanks for finally admitting this. Now, please provide the pertinent Catholic teaching that says WHO decides when a couple has a just reason. (Feel free to use the sources I provide in the OP.)

You know – this is a round and round and round argument, and it’s never going to get anywhere…

That is because there are documents, authors, professionals and clerics that back up the use of NFP.

Whereas all you seem to have is your opinion.

Bingo!

 

[Rau]

To Lizeaane:

I’ve been very interested in your posts for a number of reasons, particularly that you seem to have clear views, free of confusion. Any you are pretty experienced it seems on CAF. So I went through all your posts on this thread to understand where you’re coming from.

I think the following summarises the position you’ve put. The numbers represent the post # where you make the indicated point, and the bold captures your point. My comment follows:

1. In dire (eg. medical circumstances) couple should abstain fully as this minimises risk of harm to (typically) the wife. I agree.
2. If situation not dire - there is no reason to use NFP. So, conclusion is that there is never a justification for NFP, since situation is dire, or it is not. Why does church recognise it as acceptable practice at all??
3. NFP puts your family at risk (in given circumstances) because “it is open to life”.
4. Applying the rules of NFP for an extended period is not “open to life”. I think you interpret “open to life” to mean something that it does not - see earlier comments by me and others.
5. If a couple feels unable to have more children, they must abstain completely until that situation changes. NFP/periodic abstinence not acceptable.

There is some contradiction here - you both say NFP is open to life and not open to life.

But you also conclude that there is no circumstance when it can be applied.

You’ve not said it - but is it fair to say you believe the Church has the teaching wrong on this issue? FYI, my personal assessment would be that the Church’s formulation of its teaching is inadequate - it ought not to be this difficult to grasp!

If I sum up the points you’ve made, as they pertain to the NFP discussion, I’d conclude that what is proper for a married couple where no “dire” circumstances threaten is:

1. When you desire sex, do not allow knowledge of the woman’s cycle (fertile vs. non-fertile timing) to influence the decision to proceed.
2. In general, expect children will be conceived at various intervals and in whatever numbers arise naturally from the sexual relations enjoyed pursuant to point 1.
3. Continue as above for so long as you are able to have sex, or until such time as “dire” circumstances arise. At this point, adopt continuous abstinence until the dire situation is deemed to have passed (or till menopause?) - then continue from point 1.

Lizeanne - does this capture your view. If not please adjust appropriately.

 

[Ana_v]

[Ana v]:

The Church. See post #106, excerpts from *Humanae Vitae *and the Catechism.

Let us not be crafty by saying that the Church must “explicitly” state what I have paraphrased. We can arrive at the truth of what I have said by the use of human reason:

The existence of a desire to definitely or indefinitely not have children, is not a serious reason to avoid pregnancy through the coordinated enjoyment of sex that excludes windows of fertility. The desire to avoid pregnancy is just that, a desire. It does not in-itself permit a married couple to use NFP, because a desire is purely subjective. The reason(s) has/have to be objective and serious; only the latter is exclusively the prerogative of the couple to discern.

By objective, I mean:

External to one’s own will.

I do NOT mean:

Necessarily known to persons other than the couple.

By serious, I mean:

It would truly and unreasonably harm, in so far as a properly formed conscience and good judgment is able to foresee, the spiritual or temporal well-being of the spouses/family.

 

[Rau]

The existence of a desire to definitely or indefinitely not have children, is not a serious reason to avoid pregnancy through the coordinated enjoyment of sex that excludes windows of fertility. The desire to avoid pregnancy is just that, a desire. It does not in-itself permit a married couple to use NFP, because a desire is purely subjective. The reason has to be objective and serious; only the latter, is exclusively the prerogative of the couple to discern.

By objective, I mean:

External to one’s own will.

I do NOT mean:

Necessarily known to persons other than the couple.

By serious, I mean:

It would truly and unreasonably harm, in so far as a properly formed conscience and good judgment is able to foresee, the spiritual or temporal well-being of the spouses/family.

Could you please confirm then that the following is how a married couple should see their sex life (in so far as exercising it is concerned):

If no there is no threat that a pregnancy would truly and unreasonably harm, in so far as a properly formed conscience and good judgment is able to foresee, the spiritual or temporal well-being of the spouses/family., then

1. When you desire sex, do not allow knowledge of the woman’s cycle (fertile vs. non-fertile timing) to influence the decision to proceed.
2. In general, expect children will be conceived at various intervals and in whatever numbers arise naturally from the sexual relations enjoyed pursuant to point 1 (and your fertility).
3. Continue as above for so long as you are able to have sex, or until such time as a situation as above does arise. At this point, adopt continuous abstinence until the situation is deemed to have passed (or till menopause?) - then continue from point 1.

 

[underacloud]

By serious, I mean:

It would truly and unreasonably harm, in so far as a properly formed conscience and good judgment is able to foresee, the spiritual or temporal well-being of the spouses/family.

Why should we allow you to define the word “serious” here?

Instead, let’s take the word to mean what it is commonly understood to mean, as expressed by the Oxford Dictionary (or you may choose to site another dictionary if you like).

They define it as: demanding or characterized by careful consideration or application

Applied to NFP, it means that a couple should carefully consider their need to space or avoid children.

You are right that the theoretical couple who do not “desire” more children can’t just decide to use NFP without further thought, but they should carefully consider what may be at the heart of this desire. If their careful consideration leads them to conclude that they do have serious (carefully considered) reasons to avoid, then NFP is appropriate. If their consideration leads them to conclude that their desire is selfishly driven and/or arbitrary, then NFP may not be appropriate and this process of consideration may lead them to such a conclusion.

It doesn’t have to be life or death, just carefully considered.

 

[Ana_v]

I think of “open to life” meaning:

1. Each sex act is free from **artificial impediment **to the transmission of life (ie. no “artificial birth control”); and
2. Pregnancies should be accepted (hopefully, happily). (emphasis mine)

I would modify your choice adjective “artificial” to “imposed”, because artificiality is accidental to methods of contraception, not essential. Coitus interruptus, for example, is not artificial, but it is contraceptive.

Infertility is a divinely-designed and natural condition in which conception cannot occur, because the procreative process self-directedly runs a different course that does not result in conception.

Contraception is a human-intervention into the procreative process, for the purpose of thwarting and preventing conception.

 

[Ana_v]

Why should we allow you to define the word “serious” here?

Instead, let’s take the word to mean what it is commonly understood to mean, as expressed by the Oxford Dictionary (or you may choose to site another dictionary if you like).

They define it as: demanding or characterized by careful consideration or application

I think you are confusing application of thought, with circumstances. I do not deny or reject the definition that you cited. I do, however, believe that I used the term “serious” in a different sense than the sense it is used in the particular definition you provided. In my previous post, I was referring to circumstances, not the *degree of thoughtfulness *required for making the decision to avoid pregnancy (that does not mean that it is irrelevant to our discussion; simply, I am clarifying that it is not what I meant by “serious”).

 

[Ana_v]

Could you please confirm then that the following is how a married couple should see their sex life (in so far as exercising it is concerned):

If no there is no threat that a pregnancy would truly and unreasonably harm, in so far as a properly formed conscience and good judgment is able to foresee, the spiritual or temporal well-being of the spouses/family., then

1. When you desire sex, do not allow knowledge of the woman’s cycle (fertile vs. non-fertile timing) to influence the decision to proceed.
2. In general, expect children will be conceived at various intervals and in whatever numbers arise naturally from the sexual relations enjoyed pursuant to point 1 (and your fertility).
3. Continue as above for so long as you are able to have sex, or until such time as a situation as above does arise. At this point, adopt continuous abstinence until the situation is deemed to have passed (or till menopause?) - then continue from point 1.

Rau, I will be more than happy to respond to your points, but that will have to wait. I am actually pulling an all-nighter (I am a college student) because of the volume of homework I have to finish by class-time tomorrow. It is 2:12 AM Central Time, and I have distracted myself by making posts on this thread, and I have to discontinue that for now.

 

[Rau]

Those who are using NFP are going to make every excuse, pull out every document, quotation, author, professional, cleric, etc to try to defend their decision. But at the end of the day, they are the ones who have to put their head on the pillow and know that what they are doing is right. And sadly, the Church really doesn’t help anyone at all in making that very serious decision, buy leaving such wide and undefined criteria for the use of this practice.

So – I’m outta here. I have a really good book I’m trying to get through, so I’m off to bed.

God bless,
~Liza

Liza - can I ask you one (maybe two) more questions:

• I saw an earlier post you made (on another thread, in 2008 I think), where you noted that you “had used NFP in the past, and may need to again in the future”. Can you advise how you came to change your views about the morality of NFP?
• You also remarked in an earlier post (also 2008 I think) that you believe you’re unable to conceive based on your history. Do you think your personal situation has influenced your thinking in regards to the morality of NFP?

 

[underacloud]

I think you are confusing application of thought, with circumstances. I do not deny or reject the definition that you cited. I do, however, believe that I used the term “serious” in a different sense than the sense it is used in the particular definition you provided. In my previous post, I was referring to circumstances, not the *degree of thoughtfulness *required for making the decision to avoid pregnancy (that does not mean that it is irrelevant to our discussion; simply, I am clarifying that it is not what I meant by “serious”).

Not confused at all. The “circumstances” (physical, economic, psychological and social conditions) are of course what the couple applies their careful consideration or application of thought towards.

The “particular definition” I provided was just meant to be a commonly accepted one; the Oxford Dictionary being a reputable source. It’s the word the Church has used (in its English translations) so it’s helpful to be clear on what the word means.

If you used the term in a different “sense”, perhaps you could provide a clear definition of it; again, not your own, but a commonly accepted use of the word “serious”.

 

[Rau]

I would modify your choice adjective “artificial” to “imposed”, because artificiality is accidental to methods of contraception, not essential. Coitus interruptus, for example, is not artificial, but it is contraceptive.

Yep, agree with the above.

Infertility is a divinely-designed and natural condition in which conception cannot occur, because the procreative process self-directedly runs a different course that does not result in conception.

Contraception is a human-intervention into the procreative process, for the purpose of thwarting and preventing conception.

Fair enough - so long as we also agree that we must first have a marital act occur before we can say contraception was/was not used. [That is, abstinence is never contraception.]

 

[PaulinVA]

I dove into this conversation without actually actually watching the Vortex video. I just took a few minutes to watch it, and It left me speechless. Well, speechless and laughing.

What is it with unmarried Catholics that want to tell married couples that they are obligated to do more than the Church teaches in terms of marital relations and producing children? As I said in a previous post, I think Priests probably know more than most of us about married life/relations/etc through hearing confessions.

But others? Imposing a burden of interpretation that you yourself are not willing to take on is just plain wrong. It’s not an academic exercise for those of us living these issues.

The Scandal of NFP is that it is a licit means to regulate birth for serious reasons that occur “not rarely”, but some people want to make it hard, want to make married people suffer, either through total abstinence or having more children than prayerful consideration indicates you should have.

 

[ahs]

Ana say: “*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. *”

ahs asks: “Says who?”

The Church. See post #106, excerpts from *Humanae Vitae *and the Catechism.

Let us not be crafty by saying that the Church must “explicitly” state what I have paraphrased. We can arrive at the truth of what I have said by the use of human reason:

The existence of a desire to definitely or indefinitely not have children, is not a serious reason to avoid pregnancy through the coordinated enjoyment of sex that excludes windows of fertility. The desire to avoid pregnancy is just that, a desire. It does not in-itself permit a married couple to use NFP, because a desire is purely subjective. The reason(s) has/have to be objective and serious; only the latter is exclusively the prerogative of the couple to discern.

By objective, I mean:

External to one’s own will.

I do NOT mean:

Necessarily known to persons other than the couple.

By serious, I mean:

It would truly and unreasonably harm, in so far as a properly formed conscience and good judgment is able to foresee, the spiritual or temporal well-being of the spouses/family.

You don’t get to define “serious”.

And no, the Church doesn’t say what you said. NFP is information. What you are referring to is *avoiding children * and spacing births, I believe. NFP is neither of these…though the information gathered from NFP CAN be used to acheive these goals. What you are doing is misrepresenting what NFP is.

Nevertheless, the Church says “just reasons” [the proper translation for what had once been written as “serious”] for AVOIDING FURTHER CHILDREN. That has nothing to do with spacing births. For “spacing births” the Church says “well-grounded reasons”. “Well-grounded reasons” can mean anything from a “just/serious reason” to practical common sense. In fact the Catechism calls the spacing of children via periodic contninecne as aspect of responsible parenthood (CCC 2399).

So, no, the Church doesn’t say what you wrote. Michael Voris does, and you do, but the Church does not.