In my heart, not truly open to life (NFP question)

[CarmelJerome]

We do not use any other barrier and, should I conceive unexpectedly, we obviously would welcome the next child into our lives. But, in my heart, I am absolutely not open to life. I do not want another child for the foreseeable future… If it were 100% my choice, which it absolutely isn’t, I’d be done for good-- that’s where I am right now.

Is it okay that my husband and I are intimate when I am unlikely to get pregnant even though I am fearful, distrusting, and dreading another pregnancy? It just doesn’t seem like it aligns with the spirit of NFP. Am I lying to God and my husband by saying yes with my body while my heart is screaming no and praying that this moment doesn’t end in a new life?

  There is no 'spirit of NFP'  - there's the practical working of what you acknowledge to be acceptable to the conjugal gift. There ' s nothing wrong in having fears and even in praying that you not face something you don't feel ready to face. Loving God and asking for the grace to live in His will is all that's needed; you can even help others to the understanding of what the Church teaches by admitting that you struggle with fears and the resistance of emotions. 
NFP is not a sort of ideology of the body; simply a medical means at the service of the sacrament you share with your husband.

 

[glendab]

Hello TheWanderer.

And the official English translation on the Vatican website uses serious not grave.

As for the rest, of course you’re going to find disagreement among people as to what is serious enough, just like you find disagreement among people as to what is serious enough to use NFP in the first place. The point is that your claim that there must be agreement of both spouses to use NFP for NFP to be moral is false. There are clearly circumstances where that is not necessary.

Serious or grave, whichever is used means that the line into mortal sin has been or will be crossed. It is possible to be mortally sinful in one’s heart but not in one’s actions. For out of the heart come all kinds of sins…That is where sin takes root and shows up later in actions.

I’d also like to comment that the judgments by others rendered for the OP are out of line. Bearing one’s soul in public can have a few drawbacks. The OP needs to take this up in the Confessional where she will meet with Jesus Christ and He will give her the guidance and peace she needs to lay this dilemma to rest. No one here can competently judge. Only facts can be stated, but for the actual attempts to discern the state of her soul by observing the state of her mind is not okay. In it’s worse form, this type of “pre-reconciliation,” can be sinful itself.

Glenda

 

[Scottgun]

Discern and pray of course, but in general be not afraid of NFP use:.

“Therefore, in our late allocution on conjugal morality, We affirmed the legitimacy, and at the same time, the limits — in truth very wide — of a regulation of offspring, which, unlike so-called ‘birth control,’ is compatible with the law of God.”

– Pius XII, Morality in Marriage (emphasis mine), from Papal Pronouncements on Marriage and the Family, Werth and Mihanovich, 1955

 

[Xantippe]

Hello TheWanderer.

Serious or grave, whichever is used means that the line into mortal sin has been or will be crossed. It is possible to be mortally sinful in one’s heart but not in one’s actions. For out of the heart come all kinds of sins…That is where sin takes root and shows up later in actions.

Glenda

If one believes that one cannot be an adequate mother to more than one child, that would seem like an excellent reason not to try for a second child. In fact, it almost seems that if one tried for a second child while believing that one was incapable of being a good mother of two children, that that would also be entering a moral grey area.

I think the OP is probably going to eventually be capable of doing a fine job of caring for two children, but as long as she believes that she cannot adequately care for two, she has serious reasons. And if her husband believes differently, perhaps he should plan to be the stay-at-home parent rather than the OP?

Believing that one cannot be a good parent to the new child and an existing child is pretty much a quintessential “serious reason.”

The OP may have an obligation to seek appropriate professional and household help and revisit the issue from time to time, but at the moment, her position is perfectly defensible.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

If one believes that one cannot be an adequate mother to more than one child, that would seem like an excellent reason not to try for a second child. In fact, it almost seems that if one tried for a second child while believing that one was incapable of being a good mother of two children, that that would also be entering a moral grey area.

I think the OP is probably going to eventually be capable of doing a fine job of caring for two children, but as long as she believes that she cannot adequately care for two, she has serious reasons. And if her husband believes differently, perhaps he should plan to be the stay-at-home parent rather than the OP?

Believing that one cannot be a good parent to the new child and an existing child is pretty much a quintessential “serious reason.”

The OP may have an obligation to seek appropriate professional and household help and revisit the issue from time to time, but at the moment, her position is perfectly defensible.

Xantippe… I have talked with many mom’s of one that have no idea how someone can parent more than one. When I had one child I remember saying that out loud, more than once, “I have no idea how people have more than one!” I remember talking with my husband and saying that even though we were open to more children, I just didn’t even know how we would be able to do it logistically. It helped me to know that even people that disagree with the Church’s view on children went on to have more than one. We decided to see what God had in store and were expecting #2 when our first was 6 mo old. And guess what? It worked out! Our second had a completely different temperament and things worked out beautifully. I had the same thought as well, about not being able to love and give attention to our first, but it was unfounded. She loved her brother and, as he grew, he showed he loved her back. There were times when I had to cook or clean (something I had to do with 0 or 5 kids) and I could not play with my oldest, but her little brother was there to play. There were times when dd would want to do the same little game over and over, and there was little brother ready to do it again, and laugh and giggle.

The Church does allow periodic continence (NFP) to be used to avoid when needed, and since the whole purpose of using it to avoid is to not get pregnant, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to get pregnant while using NFP for serious/grave/just reasons that have been carefully prayed about.

I don’t know the OP’s situation (and frankly, no one here does), but I would encourage her to continue to pray about it, and to reflect on the simple yet profound words of Saint JPII: http://thatcatholicjazz.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/be-not-afraid.jpg

 

[Scientia_Dei]

I took the Pill for years before I was actually having sex. Women’s physiology is kind of obnoxious. I know lots of women who are more than happy to take a pill that reduces cramps, shortens and lightens your period, clears up your complexion and helps prevent the emotional chaos of PMS.

I only gave it up to make my husband happy. And if the church ever changes its stance on it I would likely be back on it within a month or two.

The Church will never change its teachings, here are some reasons why :

Contraception is inherently wrong

Contraception is unnatural
Contraception is anti-life
Contraception is a form of abortion
Contraception separates sex from reproduction
Contraception brings bad consequences

These are consequentialist arguments against contraception.

Contraception carries health risks
The “contraceptive culture” is dangerous
Contraception prevents potential human beings being conceived
Contraception prevents people who might benefit humanity from being born
Contraception can be used as a eugenic tool
Contraception is often misused in mass population control programmes in a racist way
Mass population control programmes can be a form of cultural imperialism or a misuse of power
Contraception may lead to depopulation
This sounds odd to an age concerned about overpopulation but for substantial parts of the 1800s and 1900s this was a real fear.
Contraception leads to “immoral behaviour”

Contraception makes it easier for people to have sex outside marriage
Contraception leads to widespread sexual immorality
Contraception allows people (even married people) to have sex purely for enjoyment

• The fecundity of marriage

 

[Scottgun]

The Church will never change its teachings, here are some reasons why :

Contraception is inherently wrong

Contraception is unnatural
Contraception is anti-life
Contraception is a form of abortion
Contraception separates sex from reproduction
Contraception brings bad consequences

These are consequentialist arguments against contraception.

Contraception carries health risks
The “contraceptive culture” is dangerous
Contraception prevents potential human beings being conceived
Contraception prevents people who might benefit humanity from being born
Contraception can be used as a eugenic tool
Contraception is often misused in mass population control programmes in a racist way
Mass population control programmes can be a form of cultural imperialism or a misuse of power
Contraception may lead to depopulation
This sounds odd to an age concerned about overpopulation but for substantial parts of the 1800s and 1900s this was a real fear.
Contraception leads to “immoral behaviour”

Contraception makes it easier for people to have sex outside marriage
Contraception leads to widespread sexual immorality
Contraception allows people (even married people) to have sex purely for enjoyment

• The fecundity of marriage

Thanks! I had the misfortune of having a dissenting RCIA director who said that contraception was wrong because it was abortifacient. The implication was that if it wasn’t abortifacient (i.e. barrier methods or others) then it was acceptable. She’s not an RCIA director any more thank goodness.

 

[thewanderer]

It is generally true as given in Casti Canubi (Pius XI) yet there is an exception when the obligation ceases due to highly risksy pregnancy (medical risk).53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

Where does the Church teach that the marital debt is only excused due to the likelihood of a medically risky pregnancy? What if the mother (or father for that matter) is truly overwhelmed to a point where they cannot currently handle the added stress and work of another child? In such a case it would again be wrong for the other spouse to press for marital relations despite the serious reasons to avoid them. Yes, it is important for the health of the marriage for both spouses to agree on using NFP because if one spouse feels like the other is unfairly withholding sex then they will be resentful. However, if there is truly a serious or grave reason to use NFP then it is absolutely wrong for one spouse to press the other into having sex, especially if they are not the spouse who will have to suffer the consequences.

 

[thewanderer]

Hello TheWanderer.

Serious or grave, whichever is used means that the line into mortal sin has been or will be crossed. It is possible to be mortally sinful in one’s heart but not in one’s actions. For out of the heart come all kinds of sins…That is where sin takes root and shows up later in actions.

I’d also like to comment that the judgments by others rendered for the OP are out of line. Bearing one’s soul in public can have a few drawbacks. The OP needs to take this up in the Confessional where she will meet with Jesus Christ and He will give her the guidance and peace she needs to lay this dilemma to rest. No one here can competently judge. Only facts can be stated, but for the actual attempts to discern the state of her soul by observing the state of her mind is not okay. In it’s worse form, this type of “pre-reconciliation,” can be sinful itself.

Glenda

The problem in English of speaking about it as grave and with the kind of language you use here is that it implies that it is rare to have a serious enough reason to use NFP morally, when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Humanae Vitae states that serious reasons are not rare, which means they are common. So, yes, we need to be careful to actually have a sufficient reason to use NFP because if we don’t and know that we don’t and still use NFP we would commit a mortal sin. However, note that that also means that so long as one honestly believes their reasons are serious enough they will not commit a mortal sin by using NFP as it is impossible to commit a mortal sin without full knowledge. So, if someone claims they have serious reasons we cannot accuse them of commiting mortal sin, even if we disagree with their reasons.

 

[Xantippe]

The problem in English of speaking about it as grave and with the kind of language you use here is that it implies that it is rare to have a serious enough reason to use NFP morally, when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Humanae Vitae states that serious reasons are not rare, which means they are common. So, yes, we need to be careful to actually have a sufficient reason to use NFP because if we don’t and know that we don’t and still use NFP we would commit a mortal sin. However, note that that also means that so long as one honestly believes their reasons are serious enough they will not commit a mortal sin by using NFP as it is impossible to commit a mortal sin without full knowledge. So, if someone. Claims they have serious reasons we cannot accuse them of. Ommiting mortal sin, even if we disagree with their reasons.

Yes.

 

[Xantippe]

Xantippe… I have talked with many mom’s of one that have no idea how someone can parent more than one. When I had one child I remember saying that out loud, more than once, “I have no idea how people have more than one!”

**When my oldest was almost two, I was feeling GOOD. It was so easy to parent her, and my husband and I were starting to talk about having a second child.

Then I got pregnant with my second. I immediately felt terrible (I get sleepy and stupid when pregnant) and I struggled very much with parenting my one child. Then I had the second child and struggled even more with the demands of the toddler, the baby, and full-time pumping for the baby. It was very difficult and stressful to keep the baby safe from the toddler and to keep the toddler safe. I did better once our oldest was in AM preschool co-op, and I was doing great once our oldest was in all-day public pre-K and the baby was 1.
**
**What I did not know at the time was that my oldest is mildly autistic (we got a diagnosis for her when she was 6) and hence she was particularly difficult. (She has since done a lot of therapy and enrichment activities and she is a lovely young woman. Our third was born when our oldest was 10 and her younger brother was 7 and it’s been an amazing experience. The big kids are very loving and helpful. It was medically a very difficult pregnancy, but everybody was able to pitch in and take care of themselves and I just took care of me.)

Other women I have known have struggled a lot with the demands of a second child when they have toddlers or an older disabled child. One of my friends once discovered her older child piling pillows on her newborn, which could have gone very badly for the newborn. With a toddler or preschooler or cognitively disabled older child, one often needs to exercise constant vigilance to protect the baby.
**
I remember talking with my husband and saying that even though we were open to more children, I just didn’t even know how we would be able to do it logistically. It helped me to know that even people that disagree with the Church’s view on children went on to have more than one. We decided to see what God had in store and were expecting #2 when our first was 6 mo old. And guess what? It worked out! Our second had a completely different temperament and things worked out beautifully. I had the same thought as well, about not being able to love and give attention to our first, but it was unfounded. She loved her brother and, as he grew, he showed he loved her back. There were times when I had to cook or clean (something I had to do with 0 or 5 kids) and I could not play with my oldest, but her little brother was there to play. There were times when dd would want to do the same little game over and over, and there was little brother ready to do it again, and laugh and giggle.

The Church does allow periodic continence (NFP) to be used to avoid when needed, and since the whole purpose of using it to avoid is to not get pregnant, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to get pregnant while using NFP for serious/grave/just reasons that have been carefully prayed about.

I don’t know the OP’s situation (and frankly, no one here does), but I would encourage her to continue to pray about it, and to reflect on the simple yet profound words of Saint JPII: http://thatcatholicjazz.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/be-not-afraid.jpg

 

[underacloud]

I’d also like to comment that the judgments by others rendered for the OP are out of line. Bearing one’s soul in public can have a few drawbacks. The OP needs to take this up in the Confessional where she will meet with Jesus Christ and He will give her the guidance and peace she needs to lay this dilemma to rest. No one here can competently judge. Only facts can be stated, but for the actual attempts to discern the state of her soul by observing the state of her mind is not okay. In it’s worse form, this type of “pre-reconciliation,” can be sinful itself.

You recommend confession…

for what?

Confession is to…well…confess of sins we have committed. You are implying that the OP has sinned. Who is being the judge here?

Perhaps what you should have said is that she should seek guidance from a trusted priest. That sort of advice is hard to disagree with.

 

[Vico]

Where does the Church teach that the marital debt is only excused due to the likelihood of a medically risky pregnancy? What if the mother (or father for that matter) is truly overwhelmed to a point where they cannot currently handle the added stress and work of another child? In such a case it would again be wrong for the other spouse to press for marital relations despite the serious reasons to avoid them. Yes, it is important for the health of the marriage for both spouses to agree on using NFP because if one spouse feels like the other is unfairly withholding sex then they will be resentful. However, if there is truly a serious or grave reason to use NFP then it is absolutely wrong for one spouse to press the other into having sex, especially if they are not the spouse who will have to suffer the consequences.

• You wrote: “Where does the Church teach that the marital debt is only excused due to the likelihood of a medically risky pregnancy”

A. Only was not my word. There are four indications for use of (1) NFP as posted earlier listed by Pope Pius XII. Serious motives “may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt”. This was given by Pope Pius XII, from Address to Midwives shown below. However as given by Pope Pius XI in Casti Cannubii another way other than NFP is (2) “virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent)”. And also virtuous continence is justified by sometimes because “a woman is not obliged, by the matrimonial contract, to expose herself to dangers or injury which are not ordinarily part of maternity (Courier de Rome, June 1991, p.2).” – (Reference: No. 621 in Papal Teaching: Matrimony. Selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, trans. Michael J. Byrnes. Boston: St. Paul Books, 1963.)

From Pope Pius XII, 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

• You wrote: “In such a case it would again be wrong for the other spouse to press for marital relations despite the serious reasons to avoid them.”
  A. This appears to be a different issue than a reason for NFP. There is also the good of the spouses where charity is the rule.

 

[z_0101]

Well that’s true, all those things could be possible. And it looks like you were right in this case; there were some other issues.

I was just saying that there are some people who just don’t want a large family. No medical reasons, it just doesn’t appeal to them. I wouldn’t want someone who feels like that to think they must have something wrong with them

I agree, that there are people that for whatever reason have no desire to have a family. I agree, that there really isn’t anything wrong with that desire with the understanding that God has plans that we don’t always expect (I never expected twins, and my wife and I were certain she couldn’t conceive again… and there was the fourth - and he’s a charmer, when he isn’t busy being crabby )

What lead me to suspect something more going on here was the timing mentioned in the first post, the lack of communication of the situation with the husband, and a sense of despair to the post. I was a counselor for many years and these just seemed like red flags, and just went with the gut.

 

[thewanderer]

• You wrote: “Where does the Church teach that the marital debt is only excused due to the likelihood of a medically risky pregnancy”

A. Only was not my word. There are four indications for use of (1) NFP as posted earlier listed by Pope Pius XII. Serious motives “may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt”. This was given by Pope Pius XII, from Address to Midwives shown below. However as given by Pope Pius XI in Casti Cannubii another way other than NFP is (2) “virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent)”. And also virtuous continence is justified by sometimes because “a woman is not obliged, by the matrimonial contract, to expose herself to dangers or injury which are not ordinarily part of maternity (Courier de Rome, June 1991, p.2).” – (Reference: No. 621 in Papal Teaching: Matrimony. Selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, trans. Michael J. Byrnes. Boston: St. Paul Books, 1963.)

From Pope Pius XII, 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

You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not asking where the Church allowed NFP outside of the high risk of a life threatening pregnancy. I asked where the Church teaches that the marital debt is only excused in such a case. The reason I asked this is because this is what the question about whether the spouses must both agree to use NFP for it to be moral hinges on. If the marital debt is excused then it is moral, if the marital debt is not excused then it is not moral.

• You wrote: “In such a case it would again be wrong for the other spouse to press for marital relations despite the serious reasons to avoid them.”
  A. This appears to be a different issue than a reason for NFP. There is also the good of the spouses where charity is the rule.

Yes, it is a different issue, but it is the point I have been trying to get at. However, my claim is that this goes beyond just a matter of charity, when there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy my claim is that the marital debt does not apply. Which means that in such circumstances it is not immoral to refuse marital relations with your spouse if they ask. Which means that it is OK to use NFP even if your spouse disagrees. Which really has been the only point I’ve been trying to make. It is not a requirement of NFP that both spouses agree because if the reason for avoiding pregnancy is serious enough to warrant NFP it is serious enough that the marital debt would no longer apply.

 

[Perian]

Man, I hate the phrase “marital debt.” It’s a terrible descriptor for a FREE GIFT of self.

But, carry on! Apart from being told to go to confession, I like where this is going.

 

[Vico]

You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not asking where the Church allowed NFP outside of the high risk of a life threatening pregnancy. I asked where the Church teaches that the marital debt is only excused in such a case. The reason I asked this is because this is what the question about whether the spouses must both agree to use NFP for it to be moral hinges on. If the marital debt is excused then it is moral, if the marital debt is not excused then it is not moral.
Yes, it is a different issue, but it is the point I have been trying to get at. However, my claim is that this goes beyond just a matter of charity, when there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy my claim is that the marital debt does not apply. Which means that in such circumstances it is not immoral to refuse marital relations with your spouse if they ask. Which means that it is OK to use NFP even if your spouse disagrees. Which really has been the only point I’ve been trying to make. It is not a requirement of NFP that both spouses agree because if the reason for avoiding pregnancy is serious enough to warrant NFP it is serious enough that the marital debt would no longer apply.

It appears to go back to post #26

The consent of the will to do what is moral is what is required.

There are four indications for NFP given by Pope Pius XII, and must be grave to be justifiable: medical, eugenic, economic, and social. Also there must be mutual agreement of the spouses.

So you are asking about Church teaching on when the marital debt is not due. To use NFP each spouse agrees to not abstain perpetually although justified to do so. The list I have of justifications includes:1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism (or unnatural vice).
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications”, may exempt from the positive debt (of fecundity) for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. not allowing the proper amount of time or privacy. (humano modo)

 

[Xantippe]

It appears to go back to post #26
So you are asking about Church teaching on when the marital debt is not due. To use NFP each spouse agrees to not abstain perpetually although justified to do so. The list I have of justifications includes:1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism (or unnatural vice).
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications”, may exempt from the positive debt (of fecundity) for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. not allowing the proper amount of time or privacy. (humano modo)

Wow, #3 sounds pretty elastic.

 

[Vico]

Wow, #3 sounds pretty elastic.

Yes, discernment is required in every situation. Catechism:
1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

 

[glendab]

Hello Wanderer.

The problem in English of speaking about it as grave and with the kind of language you use here is that it implies that it is rare to have a serious enough reason to use NFP morally, when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Humanae Vitae states that serious reasons are not rare, which means they are common. So, yes, we need to be careful to actually have a sufficient reason to use NFP because if we don’t and know that we don’t and still use NFP we would commit a mortal sin. However, note that that also means that so long as one honestly believes their reasons are serious enough they will not commit a mortal sin by using NFP as it is impossible to commit a mortal sin without full knowledge. So, if someone claims they have serious reasons we cannot accuse them of commiting mortal sin, even if we disagree with their reasons.

I am a convert and was surprised after becoming a Catholic and talking with folks how little they actually knew about NFP and the lives they were expected to live as Catholic parents. I was under the impression they all knew the facts of life PRIOR to tying the knot! I got told the facts of life as a teen by my mom and really couldn’t say I didn’t know the fundamentals about where babies come from and how to get pregnant. If you didn’t want to get pregnant, then you didn’t have sex. The word I learned to use for this as a Catholic was abstinence. DUH! I’d been doing that for years but never gave it much thought. I’m a widow. NFP to me is what all married couples do naturally because talk about sex is part of being married and to me it is the exception to the rule when someone doesn’t understand that sex leads to pregnancy.

I also assumed all Catholics went thru a Pre-Cana class before they could get married and Father and/or Sister pretty much spelled the facts of life out for the couples and they were told that if they couldn’t accept this, then look elsewhere for a place to wed. But, I’m wrong. Oh well. Surprise.

As for the matter of full knowledge and consent, some say the natural law written on the human heart is pretty full knowledge and the rest my mom told me as a teen. This is also a measure of the human heart that God plumbs all the day long. He knows each and every heart and by that little red beating muscle will we all be judged.

Glenda