Dealing with criticism in my parish community when discussing infertility treatment

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnCatholicBride
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
Of course, if someone is specifically using NFP to avoid having children altogether, that would be a sin. But if they are making a decision this month, “we aren’t ready to get pregnant this month; maybe next month” without specifically intending never to have children, that’s not a sin.

You’re right, though - when NFP is treated as a form of birth control, it becomes just as sinful as any chemical or prophylactic form of birth control. NFP is also not good for marriages in the long term - it is only supposed to be used in short-term situations.
Click to expand...
Where in Humanae Vitae did you find that? 🤷

Go back and read what the document actually says. It is no better to invent prohibitions than it is to make up exceptions to them.

As for the thread, the OP seems to have stopped posting. Maybe we are done here…no one’s life to discuss, we can just move along peacefully…
 
on_the_hill said:
… Folks have a tendency to encourage NFP because it is supposedly proven to reduce unintended pregnancies more effectively than condoms.

Ironic, in my mind.
Click to expand...
Only because they misunderstand the nub of the issue. We are not called to stumble into unintended pregnancies, and the regularity of doing so is not a figure of merit! We are not asked to close our eyes and become pregnant as often as “nature’s course” determines.
  • We are called to be generous in our attitude to having children, subject to responsible parenthood;
  • We are called to avoid artificial means to “defeat” the marital act’s ends (ie. sex acts remain procreative);
Analyses say that NFP is more effective than condoms if practiced with proper knowledge. That fact may allay some fears, but is not the reason to reject condoms or other ABC.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
 
jmcrae said:
NFP isn’t a positive good; rather, it’s a neutral “not evil.”

The reason NFP gets by is because it is not a sin to not have sex. Nor is it a sin to not try to have children all the time.

Of course, if someone is specifically using NFP to avoid having children altogether, that would be a sin. But if they are making a decision this month, “we aren’t ready to get pregnant this month; maybe next month” without specifically intending never to have children, that’s not a sin.

You’re right, though - when NFP is treated as a form of birth control, it becomes just as sinful as any chemical or prophylactic form of birth control. NFP is also not good for marriages in the long term - it is only supposed to be used in short-term situations.
Click to expand...
The Canon Law does state that a firm intention to have no children is an impediment to Marriage. But, if we are passed that point, there is no rule that says you must have any number of children.

We are called to be generous (not selfish) in our attitude to having children, consistent with responsible parenthood. Parents are to make the call on whether they have “just reasons” to avoid pregnancy.

I have no idea what you mean by “short-term situations”, or from where you picked up that idea. If a family in good faith **continues to believe **that, after (say) a 3rd child, it ought to have no more in the interests of responsible parenthood - they may well seek to avoid pregnancy for the next 15 years or more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top