Awesome article about how it's impossible to abuse NFP

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I just feel that the Catechism is pretty straightforward here and there is no need to come up with new rules that can mislead people seeking the Truth.

A couple is cooperating with God when they have their children and educate them. Deciding to have them 3 years apart, or only in the winter or whatever isn’t what makes a couple cooperators with God.

We need to make sure our reasons are not selfish. Period. It is very clear here that we need to have just reasons, and make sure they are not selfish ones. I cannot imagine why this would be included in the Catechism if it was a known Truth that it was impossible to have reasons that were selfish or not just. I don’t understand the fixation with trying to say this is true. How does it help anyone? We need to have sensitive consciences (different from scrupulosity), aim for what is best, and we cannot aim for what is best if the Truth is muddy. Saying that just/unselfish reasons are needed is far from saying that just/unselfish reasons don’t exist. Of course they exist, and a couple can very well embrace NFP to avoid and grow towards holiness using NFP when they find themselves in a situation where they need to avoid. The morality of periodic continence is pretty straightforward. If you have reasons to avoid, you can avoid, if you don’t, then you shouldn’t. I can’t imagine anyone reading the Catechism and reaching the conclusion that even though you don’t feel you have just reasons to avoid, you should avoid pregnancy to plan out when you will have your kids in order to prove that you are using intelligence etc.

Self-explanatory, and once again, periodic continence is not necessary for the act to preserve in its fullness the sense of true mutual love etc.

Also, if a couple feels like they should avoid periodically to help them in other ways, they don’t have to coincide the abstaining with the fertile period if they don’t have just reasons to avoid. They could choose to abstain for other periods of time etc.

I always feel this helps in discerning if reasons are good or not:

A well balanced and logical and THEOlogical post.

 

[Xantippe]

1. I am not a reporter or journalist.
2. People in the past knew enough about cycles to abuse or use the information.
3. NFP (methods)in theology is unique and new.
4. I will say what I say in every thread. Morality is the same throughout all Christian history. Just because we have packaged avoiding conception in a website, book, class, or method does not mean that it is without rules. The marketing of NFP has been an utter failure. And instead of going after ABC Catholics NFP and providentialists go at it with each other. And to be honest, they both serve a need.

What is moral regarding children and sex is uniform across educational backgrounds economic status, and historical time periods.

I take issue with those who preach NFP as a mandate (Dr. Greg) and who are somehow offended that others choose not to use it. I also take issue with those who say it is immoral or illicit to use it in every circumstance and that it is no better than ABC.

My wife and I abandoned NFP. Are we somehow less holy? Do we somehow get pigeonholed as judging those who use it? We used to instruct in NFP and we stopped, then we stopped using it in our marriage. We have friends who divorced because of NFP who were instructors.
We abused NFP and it was a bad thing. Now we do not have that in our marriage. No offense to those who do. But when people like the OP author and Dr Greg start taking shots at those who do not see it as they do, they only give scandal to those outside the fight practicing ABC. Same with the provs.

NFP is not the default or the historical theological way we have fulfilled God’s very first command to us. (multiply) Nor is it part of one of the sacraments Jesus instituted (marriage)

NFP is not the default, having children is the default.

In traditional Jewish tradition, there’s abstinence easily 1/2 of the time. The Jewish Christians of the early Church would have been quite familiar with the idea of abstinence as being a normal part of married life. The idea of availability at all times would have been very foreign to the first Christians.

Likewise, an older Christian tradition requires substantial amounts of abstinence (see, for example Eastern Christian regulations for abstinence during fasts–and they have LOTS of fasts). It’s my understanding that there’s likewise a fair amount of abstinence required for Eastern Orthodox married priests.

In your example, was it really divorce because of NFP, or was it divorce because the couple had different beliefs about how many children they could cope with? Obviously, they were struggling. It’s really hard to imagine that adding more children to the mix would have magically improved their marriage.

On the subject of Dr. Popcak, it’s been a long time since I’ve read his books, and he’s not really my cup of tea, but to be very fair to him, he very likely encounters a lot of marital train wrecks in his practice, and so his views about NFP will be shaped by his professional experience of dealing with couples in crisis. Presumably, he sees a lot of couples who would be better off doing NFP rather than one spouse freezing up and refusing marital relations entirely, using artificial birth control, or getting sterilized (a not at all unlikely scenario). Even just on CAF, I notice that the pattern of marry-get pregnant immediately-have several kids in a row is very likely to produce a lot of discontentment and disillusionment, especially if the couple has never had a chance to practice NFP successfully (thanks to the well-known difficulties of the postpartum period). A little bit more success with NFP early on in marriage would likely lead to more confidence and peace.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

In traditional Jewish tradition, there’s abstinence easily 1/2 of the time. The Jewish Christians of the early Church would have been quite familiar with the idea of abstinence as being a normal part of married life. The idea of availability at all times would have been very foreign to the first Christians.

Likewise, an older Christian tradition requires substantial amounts of abstinence (see, for example Eastern Christian regulations for abstinence during fasts–and they have LOTS of fasts). It’s my understanding that there’s likewise a fair amount of abstinence required for Eastern Orthodox married priests.

In your example, was it really divorce because of NFP, or was it divorce because the couple had different beliefs about how many children they could cope with? Obviously, they were struggling. It’s really hard to imagine that adding more children to the mix would have magically improved their marriage.

On the subject of Dr. Popcak, it’s been a long time since I’ve read his books, and he’s not really my cup of tea, but to be very fair to him, he very likely encounters a lot of marital train wrecks in his practice, and so his views about NFP will be shaped by his professional experience of dealing with couples in crisis. Presumably, he sees a lot of couples who would be better off doing NFP rather than one spouse freezing up and refusing marital relations entirely, using artificial birth control, or getting sterilized (a not at all unlikely scenario). Even just on CAF, I notice that the pattern of marry-get pregnant immediately-have several kids in a row is very likely to produce a lot of discontentment and disillusionment, especially if the couple has never had a chance to practice NFP successfully (thanks to the well-known difficulties of the postpartum period). A little bit more success with NFP early on in marriage would likely lead to more confidence and peace.

In traditional Jewish tradition, there’s abstinence easily 1/2 of the time. The Jewish Christians of the early Church would have been quite familiar with the idea of abstinence as being a normal part of married life. The idea of availability at all times would have been very foreign to the first Christians.

Yes, but ironically, geared to conception. Unclean times were in general infertile times.

In your example, was it really divorce because of NFP, or was it divorce because the couple had different beliefs about how many children they could cope with? Obviously, they were struggling. It’s really hard to imagine that adding more children to the mix would have magically improved their marriage.

Yes, it was because of the NFP. We were instructors with them. I would think sexual reasons are probably a popular reason for divorce.

On the subject of Dr. Popcak, it’s been a long time since I’ve read his books, and he’s not really my cup of tea, but to be very fair to him, he very likely encounters a lot of marital train wrecks in his practice, and so his views about NFP will be shaped by his professional experience of dealing with couples in crisis. Presumably, he sees a lot of couples who would be better off doing NFP rather than one spouse freezing up and refusing marital relations entirely, using artificial birth control, or getting sterilized (a not at all unlikely scenario). Even just on CAF, I notice that the pattern of marry-get pregnant immediately-have several kids in a row is very likely to produce a lot of discontentment and disillusionment, especially if the couple has never had a chance to practice NFP successfully (thanks to the well-known difficulties of the postpartum period). A little bit more success with NFP early on in marriage would likely lead to more confidence and peace

I agree with this. For the most part. While some couples could benefit from learning it. It is in no way a moral imperative, nor even a tool for ALL marrieds. Especially outside of the first world.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, but ironically, geared to conception. Unclean times were in general infertile times.

Yes, it was because of the NFP. We were instructors with them. I would think sexual reasons are probably a popular reason for divorce.

I agree with this. For the most part. While some couples could benefit from learning it. It is in no way a moral imperative, nor even a tool for ALL marrieds. Especially outside of the first world.

I have heard that the niddah rules can be VERY problematic with short cycles–it’s conceivable (sorry!) that observing niddah would mean never hitting a fertile day.

jewishwomenshealth.org/article.php?article=77

I still wonder–was it NFP or was it some sort of libidinal mismatch? That happens all the time.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

… Even just on CAF, I notice that the pattern of marry-get pregnant immediately-have several kids in a row is very likely to produce a lot of discontentment and disillusionment, especially if the couple has never had a chance to practice NFP successfully (thanks to the well-known difficulties of the postpartum period). A little bit more success with NFP early on in marriage would likely lead to more confidence and peace.

Hmm, I don’t agree that the ‘getting married and pregnant immediately and having several kids in a row’ pattern is likely to produce discontentment and disillusionment and that using NFP early in marriage would lead to more confidence and peace.

 

[Xantippe]

Hmm, I don’t agree that the ‘getting married and pregnant immediately and having several kids in a row’ pattern is likely to produce discontentment and disillusionment and that using NFP early in marriage would lead to more confidence and peace.

You’ve never seen one of those posts on CAF? I feel like I’ve seen a bunch.

Out in real life, I always think of the Torodes–you remember the young Protestant couple that wrote “The Open Embrace” some years ago?

nytimes.com/2011/07/09/us/09beliefs.html?_r=0

Poor kids–she was pretty young when they got married (18 or 19) and he was in his mid-20s, they had a baby instantly after getting married, they wrote a book on the glories of NFP two years into their marriage, had four kids in six years, and then went splat–recanted with regard to contraception, divorced, she went bankrupt, etc. So sad.

““I got pregnant nursing twice,” she told me. “So my first two kids are 15 months apart, then there is a three-year break, then the younger two are a year and a half apart. That was intense. Beyond hormonally intense, it was relationally intense. It was nothing I would ever want anyone else to have to experience.”"

 

[bitterhope]

You’ve never seen one of those posts on CAF? I feel like I’ve seen a bunch.

Out in real life, I always think of the Torodes–you remember the young Protestant couple that wrote “The Open Embrace” some years ago?

nytimes.com/2011/07/09/us/09beliefs.html?_r=0

Poor kids–she was pretty young when they got married (18 or 19) and he was in his mid-20s, they had a baby instantly after getting married, they wrote a book on the glories of NFP two years into their marriage, had four kids in six years, and then went splat–recanted with regard to contraception, divorced, she went bankrupt, etc. So sad.

““I got pregnant nursing twice,” she told me. “So my first two kids are 15 months apart, then there is a three-year break, then the younger two are a year and a half apart. That was intense. Beyond hormonally intense, it was relationally intense. It was nothing I would ever want anyone else to have to experience.”"

Not everyone feels this way. It is not wrong in any way, shape or form to get married young, have children right away and several close together. What us wrong is not accepting the life the good Lord lays out for you. If NFP works for a couple and they can plan out how many children they choose and when those children are born then fine. But is that what truly makes a couple find joy and happiness in life? I am having a very hard time believing that. I too have read many posts in CAF where moms are depressed and usually these moms are not moms of many babies close together. Usually these are moms practicing NFP to plan out their families and only have 1-3 kids. Does that mean that NFP makes couples stressed out? I think the answer lies more with how a couple prayerfully discerns living the life that God plans for them. NFP can be abused. It can be used selfishly and for reasons that are unjust. Leaving family size up to God is not the same thing as working hard at conceiving every few months for 25+ years. It is very possible to just allow married life to naturally follow it’s own course and neither try to make or try to avoid children. It is very possible to be happy and have lots of close in age babies. I have never been depressed and my marriage has never suffered stress because of having children. I was severely stressed while trying to use NFP–which will never work for me–and letting go of the need/desire to control was a very freeing experience for me. It’s not always easy, but it’s not a depressing existence either.

I’ve come to a point where I think that as often as NFP seems to NOT avoid pregnancy for a good deal of people (you know all the posts on CAF from moms surprised and upset that their particular method failed them) that I really think maybe God allows it to work only for a limited amount of people. Maybe those are the couples that really do not need another baby after all. Maybe for the rest if us it is God saying, “Yes, you are ready for the next baby.” Maybe these same couples would have just about the same amount of spacing regardless of whether or not they decided to chart. Maybe God has His hands on this the whole time. It is 100% possible that maybe what stresses couples out is their attempts to control their lives down to the finest details instead if just rejoicing in God giving them a life to live.

So many couples are praying desperately for one single little one. I will never understand the pain they must feel. I imagine it must be difficult for many of these couples to continuously see posts that state how miserable babies make couples, how much stress and strain they place on a marriage, all while knowing that they would move heaven and earth to simply have one sweet baby to parent. I guess that is exactly how life works…we always want the opposite of what we are given. Babies come easily so we need to regulate them. Babies are not coming soon enough so we need to make them come. I seriously doubt that God intended life to be so darn complicated.

Does anyone here know when biologists discovered the human egg cell? Does anyone here know when the various methods of NFP were developed? Throughout most of history, women were thought to only be like a field for a man to plant his seed in. She was either fertile or barren. It was only recently (the end if the 1800’s) that scientists knew about the woman’s contribution to pregnancy. No one knew about the egg, only the seed of the father being planted into the womb. The laws if clean and unclean times was specifically related to menstruation. It was geared towards conception, not against it. Of course that was not known at the time, but that is the case none the less.

We have a choice to be happy in life regardless of what circumstances we find ourselves in. We can be rich and have everything we desire, two perfectly spaced kids (one boy, one girl) each with their own nanny, more cars than people in the family, whatever. Still quite often those individuals are miserable. We can also be living in Iraq or Afghanistan and persecuted for being Christians and see our children murdered on the streets. Still we can be joyful. Look at our Blessed Mother! The most beautiful picture of joyful bliss and she suffered beyond our comprehension. As a matter of fact, the most joyful person I ever met was a woman who miscarried 27 times–four stillborns–and finally had two live births. Both her children were killed in late childhood or early adulthood. And still she was not depressed, anxious, worried, or angry at The Lord. Life really is what we purposely decide to make of it.

 

[Rau]

…But the idea that not planning is morally superior to planning, indicates a rejection of our gift of being co-operators with God in choosing our family makeup … It’s about the erroneous default attitude of the theoretical providentialists.

Well said, and true in all matters concerning our existence, not just the family. Trusting in God is a strategy to be adopted in addition to, not in lieu of, applying our brain and giving the matter our best shot…

 

[Rau]

These quotes from the Catechism are not at odds with choosing to leave things “up to God” instead of planning out when you want to have each kid.

I am unclear why God is thought to direct affairs at those times when man leaves things to chance? If we have a capacity to be in partnership with God (as we know we do from the CCC quotes earlier) are we so sure that “leaving it to him” is fully playing our part?

Leaving it to God seems a perfectly fine strategy if one has discerned that there is no reason to consider otherwise. Eg. A married couple may determine that the particular timing of when they conceive the first couple of kids is not material. Sounds fine to me. However, I am far from sure that this approach is widely applicable to most aspects of one’s life.

 

[Rau]

…My wife and I abandoned NFP.

Since abandoning it, have you ever contemplated sex, and then decided not to proceed in light of the stage of the cycle? Do you anticipate this scenario may arise in the future?

 

[LongingSoul]

These quotes from the Catechism are not at odds with choosing to leave things “up to God” instead of planning out when you want to have each kid.

I am not understanding this part. The first part, yes, we cannot judge from the outside, but I don’t understand the rest… are you saying NFP does this vs choosing to live without using anything to avoid (in other words the latter is more harmful to the integrity of the sexual act etc etc)? Or are you comparing it to ABC? NFP is not necessary to genuinely work as co-operators with God, nor to be responsible with our gifts of fertility etc.

As the original articles author went to pains to point out… the problem is with theoretical providentialists rather than personal providentialists. She was rejecting the position of some that say ***not ***spacing children or planning family size is a morally superior choice in and of itself. She’s addressing people that poopah NFP as being a form of contraception.

 

[LongingSoul]

I just feel that the Catechism is pretty straightforward here and there is no need to come up with new rules that can mislead people seeking the Truth.

A couple is cooperating with God when they have their children and educate them. Deciding to have them 3 years apart, or only in the winter or whatever isn’t what makes a couple cooperators with God.

We need to make sure our reasons are not selfish. Period. It is very clear here that we need to have just reasons, and make sure they are not selfish ones. I cannot imagine why this would be included in the Catechism if it was a known Truth that it was impossible to have reasons that were selfish or not just. I don’t understand the fixation with trying to say this is true. How does it help anyone? We need to have sensitive consciences (different from scrupulosity), aim for what is best, and we cannot aim for what is best if the Truth is muddy. Saying that just/unselfish reasons are needed is far from saying that just/unselfish reasons don’t exist. Of course they exist, and a couple can very well embrace NFP to avoid and grow towards holiness using NFP when they find themselves in a situation where they need to avoid. The morality of periodic continence is pretty straightforward. If you have reasons to avoid, you can avoid, if you don’t, then you shouldn’t. I can’t imagine anyone reading the Catechism and reaching the conclusion that even though you don’t feel you have just reasons to avoid, you should avoid pregnancy to plan out when you will have your kids in order to prove that you are using intelligence etc.

Self-explanatory, and once again, periodic continence is not necessary for the act to preserve in its fullness the sense of true mutual love etc.

Also, if a couple feels like they should avoid periodically to help them in other ways, they don’t have to coincide the abstaining with the fertile period if they don’t have just reasons to avoid. They could choose to abstain for other periods of time etc.

I always feel this helps in discerning if reasons are good or not:

You seem to be talking at cross purposes. The thread is not about people saying that it is wrong to have a lot of children or to forgo spacing children… it’s addressing those that tend towards judging others who choose their family size more deliberately, as being selfish and un Catholic.

 

[LongingSoul]

1. I am not a reporter or journalist.
2. People in the past knew enough about cycles to abuse or use the information.
3. NFP (methods)in theology is unique and new.
4. I will say what I say in every thread. Morality is the same throughout all Christian history. Just because we have packaged avoiding conception in a website, book, class, or method does not mean that it is without rules. The marketing of NFP has been an utter failure. And instead of going after ABC Catholics NFP and providentialists go at it with each other. And to be honest, they both serve a need.

I take issue with those who preach NFP as a mandate (Dr. Greg) and who are somehow offended that others choose not to use it. I also take issue with those who say it is immoral or illicit to use it in every circumstance and that it is no better than ABC.

My wife and I abandoned NFP. Are we somehow less holy? Do we somehow get pigeonholed as judging those who use it? We used to instruct in NFP and we stopped, then we stopped using it in our marriage. We have friends who divorced because of NFP who were instructors.
We abused NFP and it was a bad thing. Now we do not have that in our marriage. No offense to those who do. But when people like the OP author and Dr Greg start taking shots at those who do not see it as they do, they only give scandal to those outside the fight practicing ABC. Same with the provs.

NFP is not the default or the historical theological way we have fulfilled God’s very first command to us. (multiply) Nor is it part of one of the sacraments Jesus instituted (marriage)

NFP is not the default, having children is the default.

It’s frustrating to discuss a thing with someone determined to rewrite the thread to suit their own purposes. The article was clearly addressing what is known as theoretical providentialists. That is those who see fit promote their choice as superior regardless of conditions that impact on the welfare of the family.

What is moral regarding children and sex is uniform across educational backgrounds economic status, and historical time periods.

Pope Paul VI in Gaudium et spes writes…

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfil their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. **Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. **But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice,(12) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family.

Having a large family is a special vocation that not all are called to especially in the times. Family size is a personal thing between the couple and God and is to be discerned responsibly and should not be questioned by anyone else who believes they can measure others selfishness in the eyes of God.

 

[LongingSoul]

I too have read many posts in CAF where moms are depressed and usually these moms are not moms of many babies close together. Usually these are moms practicing NFP to plan out their families and only have 1-3 kids.

Posts like this demonstrate the attitude many women have towards other women with say 3 kids who have chosen through fertility awareness to limit their family size, like myself. Nobody here has said that having big families is wrong or irresponsible. It’s the other way around! That’s what the whole thread is actually about!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It’s frustrating to discuss a thing with someone determined to rewrite the thread to suit their own purposes. The article was clearly addressing what is known as theoretical providentialists. That is those who see fit promote their choice as superior regardless of conditions that impact on the welfare of the family.

Pope Paul VI in Gaudium et spes writes…

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfil their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. **Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. **But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice,(12) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family.

Having a large family is a special vocation that not all are called to especially in the times. Family size is a personal thing between the couple and God and is to be discerned responsibly and should not be questioned by anyone else who believes they can measure others selfishness in the eyes of God.

I am not rewriting the thread. I just disagree with you and the OP about this Awesome article that has a misleading headline and goes on the offensive about something it should be defensive about. If you are frustrated you may bow out of the conversation. I think the OP likes to stir the NFP waters anyway looking at the history.

There won’t be much coming from the OP.

Having a large family is a special vocation that not all are called to especially in the times. Family size is a personal thing between the couple and God and is to be discerned responsibly and should not be questioned by anyone else who believes they can measure others selfishness in the eyes of God.

I don’t know what you mean by “in these times” As if God somehow has his foot on the brakes for marital vocations.

And here is where the problem lies. While not everyone is going to have a large family. Those that do are the small small minority. So for people to get all torn up about feeling judged, perhaps that is their own problem. I note that on this thread, not one person has been this threat, this providentialist problem that some seem to think is everywhere. But the thing is if I dared to write the sentence you just wrote, I would be kicked off the threads. If I said, “My vocation is more special than yours and God calls me to a different level of holiness and fulfillment of His commands than you.” People would freak out!
Imagine the hurt that an infertile couple who desperately wants kids would feel by the attitude some have to the idea of children, both the judging the providentialsts might have, the wastefulness the small families might have, and even the idea that God did not give them this “special” calling.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Since abandoning it, have you ever contemplated sex, and then decided not to proceed in light of the stage of the cycle? Do you anticipate this scenario may arise in the future?

You, I see what you are doing there, you…

I think we all can agree that we are talking about the employment of certain methods over a long period of time for NFP.

That my wife is not in the mood tonight, or my youngest daughter needs to sleep in our bed is not “NFP” that anyone is talking about here. Are you suggesting that ABCers use NFP and Providentialists USE NFP?

 

[Rau]

You, I see what you are doing there, you…

I think we all can agree that we are talking about the employment of certain methods over a long period of time for NFP.

That my wife is not in the mood tonight, or my youngest daughter needs to sleep in our bed is not “NFP” that anyone is talking about here. Are you suggesting that ABCers use NFP and Providentialists USE NFP?

I guess I’m just saying that if one feels like sex, but then realises it’s peak fertile time, and then decides to hold off for a day or two, that’s kind of “using NFP”. For “this month” anyway. Using the knowledge of ones fertility to filter opportunities for sex.

The “not in the mood” stuff is entirely different.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I guess I’m just saying that if one feels like sex, but then realises it’s peak fertile time, and then decides to hold off for a day or two, that’s kind of “using NFP”. For “this month” anyway. Using the knowledge of ones fertility to filter opportunities for sex.

The “not in the mood” stuff is entirely different.

“kind of using NFP” means having babies.

 

[Rau]

“kind of using NFP” means having babies.

The intent, not the outcome is what I meant. Of course, experience might lead to making more effective observations, ie. “real NFP”

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t know what you mean by “in these times” As if God somehow has his foot on the brakes for marital vocations.

I was referring to the quote from gaudium et spes which said…

“Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God.”

Discerning family size responsibly takes into account the conditions of the times. The Church said that.

And here is where the problem lies. While not everyone is going to have a large family. Those that do are the small small minority. So for people to get all torn up about feeling judged, perhaps that is their own problem. I note that on this thread, not one person has been this threat, this providentialist problem that some seem to think is everywhere.

Again for the millionth time… the article addressed theoretical providentialists not *personal *providentialists. There might not be that many large families around but the people being addressed often don’t have families and are not even married yet and may never marry. The author said that it is even evident in Uni students who’ve adopted the attitude. The up and coming generation of Catholic parents need to know that this attitude of poopahing NFP and choosing family makeup, is not in the spirit of Catholicism. We aren’t meant to judge others by their family size.

But the thing is if I dared to write the sentence you just wrote, I would be kicked off the threads. If I said, “My vocation is more special than yours and God calls me to a different level of holiness and fulfillment of His commands than you.” People would freak out!
Imagine the hurt that an infertile couple who desperately wants kids would feel by the attitude some have to the idea of children, both the judging the providentialsts might have, the wastefulness the small families might have, and even the idea that God did not give them this “special” calling.

Luckily as you are wont to do, you made up a quote from me that I never made. Anyone whose reading the thread will more likely indict you for being unethical in reporting and interpreting my words.