Contraception vs. Natural Family Planning

[Crown_of_Stars]

Crown of Stars,

You said you were small and concerned that you couldn’t have a baby.

I guessed (perhaps incorrectly) that you meant that you have a particularly small pelvis and were concerned about the possibility of a large baby not being able to get out.

One of my grandmas is physically tiny and had first a successful delivery, then a large baby that practically killed her (LOTS of tearing), and then a c-section for her last child. She to this day thinks that c-sections are the best thing ever and wonders why more women don’t get them.

And also in my family, there’s a tiny auntie that has only delivered via c-section. Our family produces HUGE babies–my last one was over 4 kg, and my middle child was 4.5kg–lots of 4.5 kg babies in the family. That’s why I immediately jumped to the tiny woman/huge baby assumption–because it’s so common in my family.

Some women cannot deliver vaginally, in which case a limited and well spaced out number of c-sections is a reasonable child-bearing plan.

As to what I know and don’t know about your situation, I know whatever you choose to tell us.

I apologize for mistaking your earlier post. The way it was said, it just sounded as though it were making fun of me. Your response to me on this has helped me to realize that I’ve misjudged. Getting back to the topic, I did mean small as in small-framed, small pelvis, small female organs, inside and out, to tell the graphic truth. Sex is impossible for me (I know it is, and just because I said I’ve never been married doesn’t mean anything) pelvic exams were hell, and I was told I should probably never carry a child. And now, at forty-one, I’m past the age of delivering a normal, healthy child. Again, I apologize, and I won’t keep hard feelings. Also, I would like to stay on this forum, but maybe from now on stay out of topics which are too sensitive for me. Not your fault. Mine entirely. I should know better.

 

[twoangels]

So if that is the explicit directive (not to prevent procreation) then how is natural family planning okay?

It’s not wrong to prevent procreation. It’s that the only moral means to prevent procreation is abstinence. And since it is not immoral to have sex after menopause or when a woman is pregnant or when her fertility has not yet returned after having a baby, it is not immoral to have sex during her naturally occuring periods of infertility. Thus you only need to practice your methid of birth control when there is an actual chance of her becoming pregnant. And for Catholics that means that we must abstain. We cannot use the chart to time out when we use a condom, when we withdraw, or engage in other sexual acts that deliberately seperate the man’s climax from the conjugal embrace.

Oddly enough, modern Catholics have forgotten that argument in favor of arguments that explain the immorality of the pill and sterilization and this ends up confusing people.

 

[Rau]

It’s not wrong to prevent procreation. It’s that the only moral means to prevent procreation is abstinence…

I think the language in these 2 sentences is a bit odd. I would express it this way.

Premise 1: It’s OK to have sex at any time.
Premise 2: There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.

Consequently: If you have reason to avoid a pregnancy at the present time, then the course of action (in light of the above premises) is clear.

 

[Vico]

It’s not wrong to prevent procreation. It’s that the only moral means to prevent procreation is abstinence. And since it is not immoral to have sex after menopause or when a woman is pregnant or when her fertility has not yet returned after having a baby, it is not immoral to have sex during her naturally occuring periods of infertility. Thus you only need to practice your methid of birth control when there is an actual chance of her becoming pregnant. And for Catholics that means that we must abstain. We cannot use the chart to time out when we use a condom, when we withdraw, or engage in other sexual acts that deliberately seperate the man’s climax from the conjugal embrace.

Oddly enough, modern Catholics have forgotten that argument in favor of arguments that explain the immorality of the pill and sterilization and this ends up confusing people.

Pope Pius XII taught us that there must be a grave reason to use the naturally sterile periods *exclusively *(as is done in NFP), so prevention is not always without sin even with NFP.

 

[Rau]

Pope Pius XII taught us that there must be a grave reason to use the naturally sterile periods *exclusively *(as is done in NFP), so prevention is not always without sin even with NFP.

And let us not forget how the nature of said reasons has been further explained by Popes subsequently.

PS: what time period must be considered to assess “exclusively”. For a month, a year, a few years? The corollary to Principle 2 could be stated as:

Principle 3: Sex is not mandatory on any given day.

 

[Vico]

And let us not forget how the nature of said reasons has been further explained by Popes subsequently.

PS: what time period must be considered to assess “exclusively”. For a month, a year, a few years? The corollary to Principle 2 could be stated as:

Principle 3: Sex is not mandatory on any given day.

Principle 2 conflicts with the obligation to not choose times that are exclusively sterile without a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Allegra]

There is a question that I also have. The local college here costs $60,000 per year including the fees and required room and board. With 5 children that would amount to $300,000 per year. If the husband works at MacDonald’s or Wal mart with a before tax salary of $20 or $30 thousand dollars, and of course, from that they take out at least $5 or $10 thousand for various required fees like social security, Obamacare, and many other dues. How is a family with 5 children supposed to afford sending their children to college or even Catholic high schools. The local Catholic high school is $10 thousand per year, and there are a lot more fees piled onto that. And you cannot use contraception because that is a mortal sin. So, should this family just continue to have more children? It doesn’t seem reasonable.

If that’s how much your local college costs, I would go somewhere less local. Obviously, a person who works at McDonalds is not going to be able to send even ONE child to such an expensive school. So, if they feel that life is not worth living if one can’t get a free ride to an overpriced school via mom and dad, then they should not have any children at all. However, if they decide that they will raise their children to study and work hard, they could possibly earn scholarships and pay their own room and board to whatever school they choose. And there are some people who believe that one can living a fullfilling and meaningful life by while attending community college, joining the military, going to trade school, entering an apprenticeship, or simply getting a head start in the work force.

 

[LongingSoul]

Pope Pius XII taught us that there must be a grave reason to use the naturally sterile periods *exclusively *(as is done in NFP), so prevention is not always without sin even with NFP.

What do you understand ‘exclusively’ to mean? Having no children at all… or having decided that you have had enough and determine to practice periodic abstinence to that end for the rest of your fertile life?

Those have two very different implications for marriage.

 

[Rau]

Principle 2 conflicts with the obligation to not choose times that are exclusively sterile without a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

No, I don’t believe it does. Should my wife be particularly fertile next week, we have no increased obligation to have sex.

 

[Vico]

No, I don’t believe it does. Should my wife be particularly fertile next week, we have no increased obligation to have sex.

Time is a criteria used for natural family planning. There is an obligation to not *exclusively *use the non fertile times applied over this period. A couple agrees to use natural family planning over a period of time, such as a year, or until the economic situation improves (for the economic indication).

 

[Vico]

What do you understand ‘exclusively’ to mean? Having no children at all… or having decided that you have had enough and determine to practice periodic abstinence to that end for the rest of your fertile life?

Those have two very different implications for marriage.

I’m referring to natural family planning when I posted " to use the naturally sterile periods *exclusively *(as is done in NFP)". So there is a period of time over which the couple practices the method, during which the naturally sterile periods are chosen exclusively for conjugal relations.

Here is the source:

From Address to Midwives: 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

 

[Rau]

Time is a criteria used for natural family planning. There is an obligation to not *exclusively *use the non fertile times applied over this period. A couple agrees to use natural family planning over a period of time, such as a year, or until the economic situation improves (for the economic indication).

We were reflecting on the contents of Post #44. I find nothing here to contradict it!

 

[Xantippe]

What do you understand ‘exclusively’ to mean? Having no children at all… or having decided that you have had enough and determine to practice periodic abstinence to that end for the rest of your fertile life?

Those have two very different implications for marriage.

Or thirdly, no children until conditions resolve (that may in fact never resolve–for instance a serious medical condition).

 

[Xantippe]

Vico,

From your quote we have:

“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.”

Note the phrase “not rarely” and “even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

 

[Vico]

Vico,

From your quote we have:

“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.”

Note the phrase “not rarely” and “even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

Of course, and there may also be others implied through the use of “such as”.

 

[Vico]

Or thirdly, no children until conditions resolve (that may in fact never resolve–for instance a serious medical condition).

When there exists a serious reason to not become pregnant, it is also the same reason to abstain for the entire period, since risk may not be tolerable.

 

[Vico]

We were reflecting on the contents of Post #44. I find nothing here to contradict it!

From that post “Premise 2: There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

You do not agree with the following?: since natural family planning involves avoiding times when pregnancy is more likely, and it is not always justified to use it, it follows that there is an obligation to choose some times when pregnancy is more likely. (Otherwise it would be natural family planning.)

 

[maryjk]

Principle 2 conflicts with the obligation to not choose times that are exclusively sterile without a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

So, how often does a couple have to engage in intercourse during the fertile period, to prove that they are not avoiding?

Time is a criteria used for natural family planning. There is an obligation to not *exclusively *use the non fertile times applied over this period. A couple agrees to use natural family planning over a period of time, such as a year, or until the economic situation improves (for the economic indication).

Or in the situation that may never improve, the period of time may be forever.

 

[Xantippe]

From that post “Premise 2: There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

You do not agree with the following?: since natural family planning involves avoiding times when pregnancy is more likely, and it is not always justified to use it, it follows that there is an obligation to choose some times when pregnancy is more likely. (Otherwise it would be natural family planning.)

What if there’s something really good on TV that night or you have a headache?

 

[UbiCaritas]

From that post “Premise 2: There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

You do not agree with the following?: since natural family planning involves avoiding times when pregnancy is more likely, and it is not always justified to use it, it follows that there is an obligation to choose some times when pregnancy is more likely. (Otherwise it would be natural family planning.)

I’ve posted this in response to similar posts to the quoted before, but what the heck, it bears repeating…

“Honey, I know you’re kind of tired tonight, what with us having six kids under eight, one of them six months old, and all of us with the flu. I can’t say that this 102-degree-fever is particularly turning me on (all cracks about “hotness” aside), and I haven’t showered for five days or slept for two. Also, the baby hasn’t stopped nursing for more than twelve minutes–believe me, I’ve timed it!–for the last three days, between teething, a growth spurt, and did I mention the flu? But I did see some mucus that might be fertile earlier today, and we don’t have a reason to avoid, so we’d better have sex NOW!”

Somehow, I’m pretty sure that that wouldn’t exactly get my husband in the mood. Also, I can assure you that if he tried a variation of that line on me with those conditions in place…well, let’s just say that we wouldn’t have to worry about NFP anymore.

Catholics have no obligation to track their fertile periods. Many don’t; in fact, until ovulation was understood in the prior century, none did. If they do, whether for health-related reasons (even if you’re not avoiding, it’s nice to have this information in order to calculate due dates or see if there’s a physical problem) or in order to avoid for the myriad of reasons that are not only acceptable but good, then they have an obligation to use that information responsibly. That does not mean that one must have sex on any given day if neither person is interested in the first place.