Abandoning NFP - damaging the Marriage?

[momoffamily]

I prayer for you - I know you are an inspiration to others by your quiet witness.
Peace

 

[Rico_S]

7armyrugrates:

I enjoyed your story and I thank you for sharing. It is nice that you have arrived at a place where you are confident in your path.

But there are some things I would take issue with that may shed some light on why you feel attacked…

I am just tired of people assuming that those of us that allow God to work through us are irresponsible.

So the implication is that those who have chosen to avoid using NFP are not allowing God to work through them? Perhaps you have worded this incorrectly or that is not your meaning, but I think this is what most would infer from this type of sentiment.

Just as the NFP couples feel a need to voice the evils of ABC, sometimes it’s important for them to reexamine their motives as well. There are bishops that believe that NFP can be used sinfully. Popes have stated it should be used for serious reasons. It is not a requirement to learn NFP. If no reasons exist it should be abandoned. If reasons do exist, it can be used as an alternative to total abstinence.

While it is completely understandable that it bothers you that others imply your course is irresponsible, it seems problematic to me to lament this fact then turn around and remind those NFP users that it is potentially sinful to use it incorrectly. I am not saying that NFP can’t be used for selfish reasons…because you are right, it can. But the church also calls us to responsible parenthood, recognizing that having children without regard to circumstances is problematic as well. Does that make sense?

 

[Vico]

If I’ve read this thread right, am I right in thinking the church doesn’t actually state what it considers “just reasons”? Thereby leaving it open somewhat to interpretation depending in the person.

Pope Pius XII has given us some guidance.From Pius XII Address to Midwives (29 October 1951):

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

[Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951)From An Address of Pope Pius XII to the Seventh International Hematological Congress in Rome. (Friday September 12, 1958):

We stated in the discourse delivered in 1951 that married couples who make use of their conjugal rights have a positive obligation; in virtue of the natural law governing their state, not to exclude procreation. The Creator, in effect, wished human beings to propagate themselves precisely by the natural exercise of the sexual function. But to this positive law We applied the principle which holds for all the others: that these positive laws are not obligatory to the extent that their fulfillment involves great disadvantages which are neither inseparable from the law itself nor inherent in its accomplishment, but which come from another source and which the law-maker did not intend to impose on men when he promulgated the law.

Aside from cases in which a party has laid down as a condition (Canon 1092 CIC 1917, 1102 CIC 1983) the absence of all hereditary disease, neither simple ignorance, nor fraudulent hiding of an hereditary defect, nor even positive error which would have halted the marriage if it had been known, is sufficient to render a marriage invalid.

There is question, in the various cases under discussion, of a general obligation to avoid all more or less serious danger or damage to the interested party, his spouse, and his descendants. This obligation is proportionate to the seriousness of the possible damage, to its greater or less probability, to the intensity and proximity of the harmful influence exercised, to the seriousness of the reasons that one has for performing the dangerous acts and for permitting their pernicious consequences.

These questions are for the most part questions of fact to which only the interested party, the doctor, and the specialists they consult can give an answer. From the moral point of view it can be said in general that a person has no right to disregard real risks of which one is aware.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/speeches/1958/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19580912_ematologia_sp.htmlNatural Family Planning was called exclusive use of the agensic (sterile) period.

"De uso exclusivo temporum agenneseos:
[On the exclusive use of the agenesic (sterile) period:]

“Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?”
[Query: Whether licit in itself is the practice by which for just and grave causes, wishing to avoid offspring in a honorable way, from the matrimonial use abstain, by mutual consent and with honorable motives, except on those days which, according to certain recent theories, that for natural reasons conception is not possible.]

“Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880.”
[Response: Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880.]

 

[LongingSoul]

*Although contraception is always sinful, methods of NFP can be used in sinful ways. When a couple uses NFP to avoid conception without a serious reason to avoid children, they do so with a contraceptive mentality. This is an improper use of the science of NFP. (This is STILL on the scdiocese website if you want to check it out)

I reread those last three sentences repeatedly.

This is where I think you may have some misinterpretation. Firstly it is saying that some methods of NFP can be used in sinful ways… Not that NFP itself can be sinful because NFP is an umbrella term that connotes an overall mentality. You can notice the misuse element in secular organisations that teach the methods in order to use non penetrative sexual activities during fertile times. This is using methods with a contraceptive mentality. But to abstain on those days to avoid pregnancy is not ‘a contraceptive mentality’. That is duly respecting the sex act.

I’m thinking that your error of interpretation might be making you look at people with less than 8 kids in a judgemental light asking yourself ‘do they really have just reasons for only having 3 children’… and also placing a heavy burden on yourself to continue either having children or complete abstinence for the rest of your productive life.

I have three children myself and one other in heaven as a stillborn and at least one little soul miscarried. I haven’t been pregnant for 20 years, using fertility awareness and periodic abstinence, but would have accepted another baby had God overridden my plans. That to me is NFP. If I used fertility awareness and contracepted during the fertile times to continue to have sex… that is the contraceptive mentality.

 

[7armyrugrats]

7armyrugrates:

I enjoyed your story and I thank you for sharing. It is nice that you have arrived at a place where you are confident in your path.

But there are some things I would take issue with that may shed some light on why you feel attacked…

So the implication is that those who have chosen to avoid using NFP are not allowing God to work through them? Perhaps you have worded this incorrectly or that is not your meaning, but I think this is what most would infer from this type of sentiment.

While it is completely understandable that it bothers you that others imply your course is irresponsible, it seems problematic to me to lament this fact then turn around and remind those NFP users that it is potentially sinful to use it incorrectly. I am not saying that NFP can’t be used for selfish reasons…because you are right, it can. But the church also calls us to responsible parenthood, recognizing that having children without regard to circumstances is problematic as well. Does that make sense?

I do have a hard time expressing myself, I admit that. It makes it hard to say what I actually mean without coming across as harsh and uncaring. It is one of the reasons I have never told anyone until this thread how badly these things bothers me and how damaging NFP was to my marriage.

The reason I feel it is important to remind the NFP crowd that they need to reexamine their reasons for using NFP isn’t because I think it is horrible that they do not have babies left and right throwing all caution to the wind. It isn’t because it is wrong to prudently plan a family based on true needs and health concerns. NFP in those circumstances is not wrong in any way. It is in the Church’s great wisdom considered that a couple may use NFP in serious circumstances for just reasons as an alternative to total abstinence.

However, many people keep repeating that NFP is NEVER SINFUL and it cannot be used with selfish desires. They say that it is never wrong to use NFP and that means that it should be used until the couple agrees that they want a new baby in their home. This is not the teaching of the Church.

These same people give the couples using ABC hell for using ABC even in dire situations. They say, quite correctly, that ABC is always sinful and can never be used. The NFP crowd constantly corrects them and makes blanket statements about the character of the individuals, and assumptions about the reasons it is used that are often incorrect. Many initially started out using NFP and it never worked for them. Some never understood the teaching so they never tried. Most are NOT sex addicts who just refused to conform to the rules required of the different methods. There are as many reasons couples chose ABC as there are people using it.

The NFP crowd is trying to show that NFP is a viable alternative to ABC, and it is the moral choice. But it is time that couples begin to examine their true intentions when it comes to using NFP and see if there is room for growth themselves. It does no one any good to repeatedly cast stones at the other side while denying the fact that we too may be misusing sex in our own marriages. And yes, that includes myself.

If no one ever points out that NFP is not always be moral, how will a couple consider praying about this? Are we not supposed to bring these things to the attention of fellow Catholics so they may correct their ways? Does that make it any clearer or is there something I missed?

 

[7armyrugrats]

I’m thinking that your error of interpretation might be making you look at people with less than 8 kids in a judgemental light asking yourself ‘do they really have just reasons for only having 3 children’… and also placing a heavy burden on yourself to continue either having children or complete abstinence for the rest of your productive life.

I have three children myself and one other in heaven as a stillborn and at least one little soul miscarried. I haven’t been pregnant for 20 years, using fertility awareness and periodic abstinence, but would have accepted another baby had God overridden my plans. That to me is NFP. If I used fertility awareness and contracepted during the fertile times to continue to have sex… that is the contraceptive mentality.

This is absolutely untrue! I do not care how many children a couple can have, does have ir why. My parents had less than 8 kids, my inlaws had less than 8 kids, the majority of people have less than 8 kids. I do not think family size has anything at all to do with responsible parenting. This is another thing people throw around quite often that has nothing at all to do with the debate at all. Couples may never use either ABC or NFP and only have one (or none). Likewise a couple who uses ABC may have 12 kids or NFP and have 6 kids. Family size has nothing to do with this

 

[Truth_Faith13]

This is absolutely untrue! I do not care how many children a couple can have, does have ir why. My parents had less than 8 kids, my inlaws had less than 8 kids, the majority of people have less than 8 kids. I do not think family size has anything at all to do with responsible parenting. This is another thing people throw around quite often that has nothing at all to do with the debate at all. Couples may never use either ABC or NFP and only have one (or none). Likewise a couple who uses ABC may have 12 kids or NFP and have 6 kids. Family size has nothing to do with this

I’m beginning to think longingsoul has a guilty conscience. You know how cheats get anxious and start pointing the finger at their partner? She is throwing so many false accusations and assumptions out there, I’m beginning to wonder if she either uses NFP for selfish reasons or is using ABC.

To sum up this thread…

1. NFP (as in fertility methods) doesn’t suit everyone
2. The church doesn’t expect you to use NFP the whole time
3. ABC is wrong
4. NFP may be used for just reasons to space children
5. spouses should pray and reevaluate each month to determine if they have just reasons to not have a child
6. some people need to speak less about their sex lives
7. some people need to concentrate more on their own families and less on others where they may not understand or know the full story
8. not sure if complete abstinence long term is approved or not? Short periods are ok?
9. the church doesn’t specify “just reasons”
10. the number of kids you have isn’t a competition
11. just because people have abandoned NFP doesn’t mean they have turned to ABC or were doing it wrong etc
12. just because I don’t currently accept teachings on ABC, doesn’t mean I’m hostile to NFP
13. NFP appears to have several definitions depending on person. Some refer to a blanket term, some refer to specific method.

Have I missed anything?

 

[7armyrugrats]

I’m beginning to think longingsoul has a guilty conscience. You know how cheats get anxious and start pointing the finger at their partner? She is throwing so many false accusations and assumptions out there, I’m beginning to wonder if she either uses NFP for selfish reasons or is using ABC.

To sum up this thread…

1. NFP (as in fertility methods) doesn’t suit everyone
2. The church doesn’t expect you to use NFP the whole time
3. ABC is wrong
4. NFP may be used for just reasons to space children
5. spouses should pray and reevaluate each month to determine if they have just reasons to not have a child
6. some people need to speak less about their sex lives
7. some people need to concentrate more on their own families and less on others where they may not understand or know the full story
8. not sure if complete abstinence long term is approved or not? Short periods are ok?
9. the church doesn’t specify “just reasons”
10. the number of kids you have isn’t a competition
11. just because people have abandoned NFP doesn’t mean they have turned to ABC or were doing it wrong etc
12. just because I don’t currently accept teachings on ABC, doesn’t mean I’m hostile to NFP
13. NFP appears to have several definitions depending on person. Some refer to a blanket term, some refer to specific method.

Have I missed anything?

Yes!!! Maybe this thread isn’t a complete waste! About long term abstinence, a couple should discuss that with their pastor. Most married couples are not called down that path. It is not to be done without first speaking with a trusted pastor and it should be reevaluated with that pastor throughout the time it is used, to make sure the situation has not changed. Periodic abstinence is different, but the couple should still evaluate that between themselves with prayer and honesty.

 

[Rau]

So the implication is that those who have chosen to avoid using NFP are not allowing God to work through them? Perhaps you have worded this incorrectly or that is not your meaning, but I think this is what most would infer from this type of sentiment.

It’s not what she implied, it is what you inferred. She refers to her own personal feelings on the matter. Each is to make their own judgement.

 

[7armyrugrats]

I do think I need to say one more thing about responsible parenthood. A parents with one child can be completely irresponsible. That child can be completely neglected and abused. That child could also be over indulged and ruined by it. But those parents could also be very good responsible parents. The amount if children does not determine how responsible the parents are. This is something that has to be stopped–the assumption that there is a number that determines how good a set if parents are. Size of family is not a determination on how well cared for the children are. The foster care system has lots of only children that were abused and neglected by bad parents. And St. Catherine of Sienna was the 25th of 25 kids born in her family. The fact she became a great saint, I think, points towards excellent RESPONSIBLE parenting from her parents. It has nothing to do with how many. Mother Teresa was one of three kids, Pope Benedict was one of two kids. Families of all sizes can be holy.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I do think I need to say one more thing about responsible parenthood. A parents with one child can be completely irresponsible. That child can be completely neglected and abused. That child could also be over indulged and ruined by it. But those parents could also be very good responsible parents. The amount if children does not determine how responsible the parents are. This is something that has to be stopped–the assumption that there is a number that determines how good a set if parents are. Size of family is not a determination on how well cared for the children are. The foster care system has lots of only children that were abused and neglected by bad parents. And St. Catherine of Sienna was the 25th of 25 kids born in her family. The fact she became a great saint, I think, points towards excellent RESPONSIBLE parenting from her parents. It has nothing to do with how many. Mother Teresa was one of three kids, Pope Benedict was one of two kids. Families of all sizes can be holy.

I have been amazed with your posts. Thank you and I feel the same way you do. We abandoned NFP as well. Many of our friends do not understand. They think we are crazy.

FYI BXVI was one of THREE children. He had a sister as well.
I Highly recommend his brother’s book. " My Bother the Pope" It describes so many things. I understand more the Nazi germany upbringing and the resignation so much more after reading it.

 

[Rico_S]

I do think I need to say one more thing about responsible parenthood. A parents with one child can be completely irresponsible. That child can be completely neglected and abused. That child could also be over indulged and ruined by it. But those parents could also be very good responsible parents. The amount if children does not determine how responsible the parents are. This is something that has to be stopped–the assumption that there is a number that determines how good a set if parents are. .

Of course, there is no number that determines this. And I do not see any assumption on these boards that there is a universal number. However, it cannot be ignored that taking into account the emotional, fiscal, and physical health of the family when deciding whether to have more children is an important part of responsible parenthood.

 

[lovemysix]

"To sum up this thread…

1. NFP (as in fertility methods) doesn’t suit everyone
2. The church doesn’t expect you to use NFP the whole time
3. ABC is wrong
4. NFP may be used for just reasons to space children
5. spouses should pray and reevaluate each month to determine if they have just reasons to not have a child
6. some people need to speak less about their sex lives
7. some people need to concentrate more on their own families and less on others where they may not understand or know the full story
8. not sure if complete abstinence long term is approved or not? Short periods are ok?
9. the church doesn’t specify “just reasons”
10. the number of kids you have isn’t a competition
11. just because people have abandoned NFP doesn’t mean they have turned to ABC or were doing it wrong etc
12. just because I don’t currently accept teachings on ABC, doesn’t mean I’m hostile to NFP
13. NFP appears to have several definitions depending on person. Some refer to a blanket term, some refer to specific method.

Have I missed anything?"

Great list! I’d also suggest including:

1. Just because a couple has used ABC doesn’t mean they don’t accept Church teaching on it. If we all followed Church teaching on everything, none of us would be sinners. Not following does not mean not agreeing.
2. Assumptions and generalizations by either side about the other side usually accomplish nothing and tend to alienate (i.e. An ABCer stating something along the lines of “all NFP users are brainwashed” or an NFPer stating “All ABCers are sex addicts using either other as objects.”) Not only is it dehumanizing, it immediately discredits a person with the other side, and any chance of anybody listening to each other goes right down the drain.

I believe my suggested #15 is what Pope Francis is trying to get at. You can’t evangelize if you don’t show genuine respect for a person as a human person and listen to their actual lived experiences versus telling them what you think they should be experiencing or worse, what you are sure they are experiencing but just aren’t smart enough to realize it yet(talk about a turnoff!).

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m beginning to think longingsoul has a guilty conscience. You know how cheats get anxious and start pointing the finger at their partner? She is throwing so many false accusations and assumptions out there, I’m beginning to wonder if she either uses NFP for selfish reasons or is using ABC.

To sum up this thread…

1. NFP (as in fertility methods) doesn’t suit everyone
2. The church doesn’t expect you to use NFP the whole time
3. ABC is wrong
4. NFP may be used for just reasons to space children
5. spouses should pray and reevaluate each month to determine if they have just reasons to not have a child
6. some people need to speak less about their sex lives
7. some people need to concentrate more on their own families and less on others where they may not understand or know the full story
8. not sure if complete abstinence long term is approved or not? Short periods are ok?
9. the church doesn’t specify “just reasons”
10. the number of kids you have isn’t a competition
11. just because people have abandoned NFP doesn’t mean they have turned to ABC or were doing it wrong etc
12. just because I don’t currently accept teachings on ABC, doesn’t mean I’m hostile to NFP
13. NFP appears to have several definitions depending on person. Some refer to a blanket term, some refer to specific method.

Have I missed anything?

Ha ha. I’ve never used contraception in my life. I’m sure that there are many here (Americans) who think that because I only have 3 kids and haven’t been pregnant for 20 fertile years, that I have a contraceptive mentality. I can assure you that in the Australian Catholic environment we don’t even play that conjugally competitive game. It’s bizarre to watch.

 

[maryjk]

I’m beginning to think longingsoul has a guilty conscience. You know how cheats get anxious and start pointing the finger at their partner? She is throwing so many false accusations and assumptions out there, I’m beginning to wonder if she either uses NFP for selfish reasons or is using ABC.

That should be none of your concern.

1. spouses should pray and reevaluate each month to determine if they have just reasons to not have a child

For long term issues, couples would not have to revisit this each month.

 

[Rau]

Pope Pius XII has given us some guidance.

From Pius XII Address to Midwives (29 October 1951):

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
​

The guidance here on reasons is of course quite wide, and whether any reason rises to the level of “serious” is up to individuals to judge. As a practical matter, I can’t see how it could be otherwise. What is “social ‘so-called’ indications”?​

 

[Rau]

This is where I think you may have some misinterpretation. Firstly it is saying that some methods of NFP can be used in sinful ways… Not that NFP itself can be sinful because NFP is an umbrella term that connotes an overall mentality. You can notice the misuse element in secular organisations that teach the methods in order to use non penetrative sexual activities during fertile times. This is using methods with a contraceptive mentality. But to abstain on those days to avoid pregnancy is not ‘a contraceptive mentality’. That is duly respecting the sex act.

I understand what you are saying. Yes, one could decide to engage in sexual activity other than intercourse during fertile times, however I would have thought that is more akin to ABC. I thought it was widely understood that NFP involves abstention, not alternatives to intercourse?

I agree that abstaining on fertile days is not properly described as a “contraceptive mentality” and should not be equated in any way to ABC.

If one can sin by abstaining, it is not akin to ABC.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

That should be none of your concern.
For long term issues, couples would not have to revisit this each month.

Of course it’s not, but I’m getting fed up of her false accusations and assumptions, so I thought I’d play her at her own game. I’m generally a very nice person, but if people start making stuff up, I’m not as nice…

 

[Truth_Faith13]

"To sum up this thread…

1. NFP (as in fertility methods) doesn’t suit everyone
2. The church doesn’t expect you to use NFP the whole time
3. ABC is wrong
4. NFP may be used for just reasons to space children
5. spouses should pray and reevaluate each month to determine if they have just reasons to not have a child
6. some people need to speak less about their sex lives
7. some people need to concentrate more on their own families and less on others where they may not understand or know the full story
8. not sure if complete abstinence long term is approved or not? Short periods are ok?
9. the church doesn’t specify “just reasons”
10. the number of kids you have isn’t a competition
11. just because people have abandoned NFP doesn’t mean they have turned to ABC or were doing it wrong etc
12. just because I don’t currently accept teachings on ABC, doesn’t mean I’m hostile to NFP
13. NFP appears to have several definitions depending on person. Some refer to a blanket term, some refer to specific method.

Have I missed anything?"

Great list! I’d also suggest including:

1. Just because a couple has used ABC doesn’t mean they don’t accept Church teaching on it. If we all followed Church teaching on everything, none of us would be sinners. Not following does not mean not agreeing.
2. Assumptions and generalizations by either side about the other side usually accomplish nothing and tend to alienate (i.e. An ABCer stating something along the lines of “all NFP users are brainwashed” or an NFPer stating “All ABCers are sex addicts using either other as objects.”) Not only is it dehumanizing, it immediately discredits a person with the other side, and any chance of anybody listening to each other goes right down the drain.

I believe my suggested #15 is what Pope Francis is trying to get at. You can’t evangelize if you don’t show genuine respect for a person as a human person and listen to their actual lived experiences versus telling them what you think they should be experiencing or worse, what you are sure they are experiencing but just aren’t smart enough to realize it yet(talk about a turnoff!).

I agree with your points

 

[LongingSoul]

The guidance here on reasons is of course quite wide, and whether any reason rises to the level of “serious” is up to individuals to judge. As a practical matter, I can’t see how it could be otherwise. What is “social ‘so-called’ indications”?

I would say that 'social so-called “Indications” refers to status quo of family size within the community that benefits that societies common good. An example that comes to my mind is my father-in-laws family. He and 2 of his brothers immigrated to Australia from Italy in the late 1950’s. The other 6 siblings stayed around their ancestral home in north west Italy for their whole lives. The 3 brothers in Australia have produced twice as many children in Australia than the other 6 have in total. It’s just the nature of the social environment. There was a sense in Australia of optimism and the need to populate in contrast to the sense in newly post war Italy of caution and carefulness in family size.

My son was in Vietnam last week and said that there were more people living in the Mekong Delta than there is in the whole of Australia. Vietnam has a 2 child policy. If people decide to have more it is not strictly enforced like in China, but there is that sense of social reasoning happening anyway.

It’s just about having a sense of the wider picture (even if it is a subconscious sense) to add into the mix of determining your family size. Being prolife is a whole lifestyle thing and practicing Catholicism on all levels of your life attunes you to the right path for you.