How is it possible to use NFP "selfishly?"

[underacloud]

The intellectual “headache” this topic gives me is the implication that there is a kind of spectrum which defines the potential number of children a couple could have.

At one end is “selfish”, which for the sake of this discussion means (I guess) "You could have handled more (financially, and in other ways), but you choose not to because you decided to limit the call on your time/finances/etc. that children involve.

The other end of the spectrum (by implication), is “generous”, and involves you having as many children as you can handle.

It then follows (by virtue of the labels “selfish” and “generous” - that this is a good versus bad spectrum, and consequently more (dare I say “lots”) of children is deemed intrinsically good. From this follows an implication that all kinds of trade-offs should be considered so as to permit more children - eg. live in a lower cost area, take lower pressure jobs, etc. etc. I can understand the merits of foregoing something to help another (eg. Charity, etc.), but it’s just not so obvious to me that foregoing something in order to add the Xth child to a family is the best choice one could make. Would giving to Charity be better, or adopting, or…?

We read posts from some amazing parents who remark that they have 9 or 12 children and that they look forward to whatever may come in future; and often they remark they have always felt this way (maybe they came from a large family?) Now I truly marvel at folk who feel that way; they are remarkable in many ways. But it has never seemed a likely course for me, and I can’t reduce the reason down to a selfish vs. generous nature.

A problem related to this is the assumptions people may make regarding others. Many families are restricted to fewer children than others by way of fertility, rather than design. The assumption that larger families are better, more virtuous, is very unfair to anyone who has a smaller family because that’s what God has gifted them with, not because they have deliberately resisted having more.

No one should jump to any conclusions based on family size and unless someone wants to specifically discuss NFP and/or contraception with me, it’s simply none of my business.

As for the specific topic of this thread, as other have addressed, NFP can be used selfishly, but in practice it’s very difficult. Your motives are tested on an ongoing basis (assuming a healthy labido) so they have to be pretty good reasons to stand the test.

Now, I can never remember, have we decided whether saving for a boat is a good reason?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

The intellectual “headache” this topic gives me is the implication that there is a kind of spectrum which defines the potential number of children a couple could have.

These are some great points. It seems to me that it is the people who fall in the ‘generous’ camp that come up with these definitions.

I don’t believe in this ‘contraceptive mentality’ nonsense. I have stumbled upon this phrase a couple of years ago in the Catholic mommy blogosphere. I find it incredible that there are Catholic women out there who understand the sacrifice that NFP involves and still have the nerve to guilt trip other women who use NFP, but apparently don’t have enough kids. I have also found that women who promote the contraceptive mentality myth tend to fall into the ‘generous’ camp. (But not Simcha Fisher - a voice of reason among them.)

 

[SusanneT]

At the risk of putting my head in the lions mouth, isn’t the word selfish slightly miss used here.

Surely the issue is that couples should not use NFP to enjoy the pleasurable / unitative side of intimacy - but seek to avoid the procreative purpose - unless (by whatever standards they believe are acceptable) they believe they have good, serious, grave (by whatever definition they want to use) reason to try to avoid conception.

That’s not really “selfish” to my mind it is simply a mis use of NFP which means it falls outside what the Church considers acceptable.

Surely “selfish” would be if one party, husband or wife saught to use NFP against the wishes of the other.

Surely the justification for using NFP is a matter for the consciences of the individual conserned in circumstances only they know. Equally NFP however poorly justified (in the eyes of a critical onlooker) is still 100 times more morally acceptable than contraception. So even as someone who takes a very traditionalist conservative view on this I can see that if by taking a harsh judgement as to validity of someone else’s reasons for using it pushes them to condoms sterilisation or the pill then it is far from helpful.

NFP is a matter of a couples personal choice and couples who use it do so iwith the intention of following Gods will for marriage cant we just agree that !

 

[Rau]

Surely the issue is that couples should not use NFP to enjoy the pleasurable / unitative side of intimacy - but seek to avoid the procreative purpose - unless (by whatever standards they believe are acceptable) they believe they have good, serious, grave (by whatever definition they want to use) reason to try to avoid conception.

Ok, but we are not equally desirous of growing our family to the limit of our resources, or ability to cope, etc., and failure to do so sometimes attracts this charge of selfishness. It’s not clear to me why there is a built in bias to larger families.

 

[gardenswithkids]

A problem related to this is the assumptions people may make regarding others. Many families are restricted to fewer children than others by way of fertility, rather than design. The assumption that larger families are better, more virtuous, is very unfair to anyone who has a smaller family because that’s what God has gifted them with, not because they have deliberately resisted having more.

No one should jump to any conclusions based on family size and unless someone wants to specifically discuss NFP and/or contraception with me, it’s simply none of my business.

As for the specific topic of this thread, as other have addressed, NFP can be used selfishly, but in practice it’s very difficult. Your motives are tested on an ongoing basis (assuming a healthy labido) so they have to be pretty good reasons to stand the test.

Now, I can never remember, have we decided whether saving for a boat is a good reason?

:clapping:
Very nicely said.

But I don’t know the answer about boats. Maybe it’s a fishing boat that can be used to help provide an income and/or food for the family? What some people consider a “luxury” may be a “necessity” others in different circumstances.