Can you only use NFP for "serious reasons?"

[Stella_Matutina]

I read a recent article about NFP that gave me a lot to think about. Thank goodness I’m not married yet so I don’t have to think too much about it right now but I would love to hear what everyone’s thoughts are on this issue. Here is the link, if you would like to read it in its entirety

ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/storck.htm

And here is an excerpt:
I do recommend reading the entire article though.

About a month after his earlier address, on November 26, 1951, Pius XII spoke to the Association of Large Families. After praising the generosity of husbands and wives “who, for the love of God and trusting in Him, courageously raise a numerous family” the Pontiff says the following,

The Church, on the other hand, can understand, with sympathy and comprehension, the real difficulties of matrimonial life in these our days. For this reason, in Our last address on conjugal morality, We affirmed the legitimacy and at the same time the limits—truly very wide—of that controlling of births which, unlike the so-called “birth control,” is compatible with God’s law. It can be hoped . . . that for such a lawful method a sufficiently certain [scientific] basis can be found, and recent research seems to confirm this hope. [8]

This second address by Pius XII, though not treating of the specifics of the moral use of NFP, certainly indicates—“limits—truly very wide”—that that Pontiff had a favorable attitude toward the use of natural family planning and did not desire to restrict it to the most narrow of circumstances. Such an attitude continued throughout his reign until the Church entered the turbulent period of the Council and its aftermath.

As everyone knows, after the Second Vatican Council it was widely expected that, despite the authoritative teachings of Pius XI and Pius XII, somehow the Church would and could change her teachings on contraception. [9] But Pope Paul VI, in an action that was little short of heroic, issued his encyclical Humanae Vitae on July 25, 1968. Although, as we will see, Humanae Vitae continues the same approach to natural family planning use as found in the teaching of Pius XII, we are met with an initial difficulty, based however on an error. In the pamphlet edition of Humanae Vitae published by the Daughters of St. Paul, which features the “NC News Service Translation,” the section that deals with the licit use of NFP, section 16 of the encyclical, reads (in part) as follows:

"If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions…”

This text would seem to teach that any licit use of natural family planning is confined to situations in which “serious motives” are present, so that the same conditions apply to use of NFP simply to space out births as to its use “for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life,” as Pius XII had earlier taught. But this is not the case. For in this instance it is simply a case of a faulty translation. The Latin of the beginning of the above quotation runs, “Si igitur iustae adsint causae generationes subsequentes intervallandi, quae a coniugum corporis vel animi condicionibus…” (my emphasis). The word erroneously translated as serious is the Latin world iustae. Paul VI thus speaks of just causes or just reasons, and there is no mention of serious at all. Fortunately more accurate translations followed, so that in the volume of post-Vatican II documents edited by Austin Flannery, iustae is translated as “reasonable.” [10] But for reasons unknown to me, “serious motives” has acquired a life of its own and one sees it repeated again and again. Paul VI did not specify exactly what he meant by “just reasons,” and we will look at that more closely below. But here we should simply note that any use of Humanae Vitae to try to show that serious reasons are required for the licit use of NFP is simply based on an error.

 

[crohnie4life]

hi stella, to answer your question, DH & I use NFP for serious reasons to avoid a pregnancy. I have a life threatening health problem that could harm me and an unborn child. We have grave reason to avoid so yes, you can use NFP in this case.

hope this helps. God bless.

 

[water]

I am not married yet, but what is NFP?
Where can I get info about it?

Thanks!

 

[cue]

The Catechism states (2368), “It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness…”

The Vatican’s English (official) translation of ‘iustae’ is “well-grounded.”

Humane Vitae

In practice, I would not see much of difference between a ‘serious’ reason and a ‘well-grounded’ reason. The use of natural means may not be indiscriminate. I understand a ‘well-grounded’ reason to mean something grounded outside the speculation of the parents. Thus, speculating about a future financial situation or burden would not constitute a ‘well-grounded’ reason. A desire to avoid pregnancy can become disordered and sinful even if it does not employ artifical means.

I am not married yet, but what is NFP?
Where can I get info about it?

Thanks!

NFP stands for Natural Family Planning and is a natural method of birth control. Here’s a link for more info:
ccli.org/

 

[water]

Thanks cue!

 

[gardenswithkids]

The Catechism states (2368), “It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness…”…In practice, I would not see much of difference between a ‘serious’ reason and a ‘well-grounded’ reason. The use of natural means may not be indiscriminate.

I agree. CCC 2368 also says “for just reasons” And Humanae Vitae also uses the word “serious” in its English translation. It seems that the author of the article in the op makes a big deal about the word “serious”, saying even in a footnote**

2

. "Humanae Vitae, no. 10, does indeed speak of “seriis causis” with reference to married couples spacing or limiting their children. However, serius in Latin means serious in the sense of “opp. to sportive, jocular” (Lewis & Short, p. 1679). It does not mean the same as gravis. As we will see, elsewhere Humanae Vitae uses iustae with reference to justifying reasons for limiting or spacing offspring."
I think the author of the article is a bit hung up on the words and tends to ignore the general premise that the Church is trying to convey. Use my own words to explain my understanding of the Church teaching, the general principle is: children are blessings and avoiding children in marriage shouldn’t be done lightly. That doesn’t mean that only life threatening illness counts as a “just”, “well grounded” or whatever term you want to use. The Church give lots of room for individual married couples, but pointed out already, the Church tells couples they have a duty examine their motives to make sure they are not avoiding children out of selfish motives.

---

This sentence of the article also caught my attention:

“Very often it is said that natural family planning is restricted to hard cases, that for its legitimate use a serious reason is required.”

Very often??? I hardly ever hear mention that there is any restriction on NFP use. I think it’s much more common for Catholics–and even clergy–to ignore Church teachings against contraception altogether. Some act like married couples need a serious reason to have more children! When teaching the Church teachings that prohibit the use of contraception, some might do well to remember that NFP is *not *the only alternative to using contraception.

 

[Stella_Matutina]

hi stella, to answer your question, DH & I use NFP for serious reasons to avoid a pregnancy. I have a life threatening health problem that could harm me and an unborn child. We have grave reason to avoid so yes, you can use NFP in this case.

hope this helps. God bless.

Yes but what about for not so grave reasons?

Are there any couples out there that use NFP simply because they don’t want to have another child (or children)?

Any couples who refuse to use it because they think it is a sin to?

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Yes but what about for not so grave reasons?

Are there any couples out there that use NFP simply because they don’t want to have another child (or children)?

Any couples who refuse to use it because they think it is a sin to?

There is no “simply” don’t want to have another child. It may appear simple to an outsider looking in, but there are definite reasons behind the decision (god or bad).

---

The teachings of the Church are clear on this issue .

---

NFP is a morally licit way to space or prevent births. But the decision to use NFP to avoid conception is a decision left entirely up to the couple to discern with God and their spiritual advisor. What may be a “just/serious/grave” reason for one couple may not be for another. What may be a “selfish” reason for one couple may not be for another.

---

That is why you will never find a list of reasons to use NFP. It is unique to every couple and is not a decision to be made lightly.

---

And to answer your last part, some couples would say they don’t use NFP because they feel they would be sinning. But that is for their case only, not a general statement aainst the use of NFP. If you find someone who says that anyone using NFP to avoid is sinning then they are not in line with Church teachings.

---

Hope that helps!

---

malia

 

[gardenswithkids]

I spent some more time thinking about this article and want to comment on a few other points.

It is the kind of action that causes children to cry out, “It’s not fair!” Such couples enjoy all the benefits and pleasures of marriage and deliberately reject the whole purpose for which such benefits and pleasures were instituted.

Actually, couples who use NFP for avoiding children do not enjoy *all *the benefits possible in their marriage—because the children they choose not to conceive might be some of the greatest pleasures and benefits of their marriage! Many people fail to see and understand the point that God gives us children as blessings, not as burdens. Some families pass up the blessing of additional blessing of children because they carry burdens, (i.e. burdens of poor health, finances, emotional stamina or whatever “reason” they have for avoiding pregnancy.)

While it is true that the lesson of generous sacrifice is one of the best that parents can give their children, not everyone is capable of heroic virtue. Everyone knows mothers who bear eight, ten or twelve children and who manage such large households with little difficulty. But not everyone has the requisite emotional and physical resources to do this, so that what for some might be done without difficulty, for others might require a heroic virtue that the Church has generally not insisted on.

Not everyone capable of heroic virtue? That’s the oddest defense of NFP use I’ve ever heard—and I think the author undermines the rest of his article by implying large families equate heroic virtue and small families don’t. I don’t think heroic virtue is intrisic to large families, nor do I think small families are by default incapable of heroic virtue.

Some couple demonstrate heroic virtue as they practice NFP to avoid children because pregnancy poses serious health risk, and they heroically stand up to doctors recommending tubal ligations and vascectomies. Yet still others don’t use NFP and their families remain small, maybe never even birthing a single child because they carry the burden of infertility. It’s presumptuous to suggest that if couples don’t use NFP, God will bless their marriage with 8-12 children. While large families may give parents opportunity to practice virtue, some fail to live heroic lives. And if God has graced a particular couple to manage a large household with ease, is it heroic virtue or are they simply cooperating with the grace of God?

In no way do I intend to disparage large families or those heroic spouses who do not wish to use periodic abstinence to space their children. My only purpose in writing is to show that the Church, always a loving Mother, speaking through her Sovereign Pontiffs, has indicated a generous attitude toward NFP use, an attitude, as Pius XII stated it, of “sympathy and comprehension” for the struggles of married couples. **These couples should not have burdens put upon them greater than God requires, **and to know what the requirements of God’s law are we simply turn to his Church, the Catholic Church, the ark of salvation for all of mankind.

The authors final point matches my final point: the Church does not place the burden of NFP on married couples either. Yes, that’s right—I think NFP is the burden, not children. I prefer taking chance that God will bless our marriage with addition children to the burden of precise fertility monitoring and avoiding relations, with the implication that pregnancy results from “failure”. I think many Catholics feel the secular cultural pressures to keep their families small, but the Church teachings remind us that children are blessings, not burdens.

 

[Stella_Matutina]

Gardenswithkids,

Thanks so much for your review of that article. I’m glad that you went to the link and read more.
Indeed, children are not burdens. As Psalm 127:4 says, “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth.”