Is NFP licit - part 2

[mpi]

For posts in this thread please answer true or false to the following statements, w.r.t Catholicism:

1. NFP to avoid pregnancy is always licit
2. NFP to avoid pregnancy is always licit if the woman does it without the husband’s permission
3. Most Western world couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy do so in a sinful way.

 

[mpi]

F
F
T

 

[maryjk]

F
F
T

As if we didn’t know your thoughts already.

Maybe you need to approach the couples you feel are using NFP and shouldn’t be. You could tell them that you think God wants them to have more children. You could ask them their reasons, then tell them that their reasons are not valid. Maybe you could let them know when Confessions are being held.

By the way, if you approach me, you might want to duck.:blackeye:

 

[mpi]

As if we didn’t know your thoughts already.

Maybe you need to approach the couples you feel are using NFP and shouldn’t be. You could tell them that you think God wants them to have more children. You could ask them their reasons, then tell them that their reasons are not valid. Maybe you could let them know when Confessions are being held.

By the way, if you approach me, you might want to duck.:blackeye:

I want to see how people objectively view the Catholic church’s teaching on NFP. What are your answers, and why?

 

[PaulinVA]

mpi, you are the only person who believes that number three is true.

Why not just let the thread go in that direction?

Oh, yeah, you’ve already been told it’s being judgmental without the facts.

And, by the way, these questions are subjective unless you publish the objective criteria for us to use in our answers.

 

[maryjk]

I want to see how people objectively view the Catholic church’s teaching on NFP. What are your answers, and why?

You want to tell people that they are using NFP and shouldn’t be. You have shown that you really don’t care how others see it.

 

[mpi]

You want to tell people that they are using NFP and shouldn’t be. You have shown that you really don’t care how others see it.

I believe that my interpretation of Catholic teaching on this correct. I believe that many Catholics have their head in the sand on this. Many Catholics like to ignore “inconvenient” sins, like those related to abusing NFP, and pretend they are not sins. This is human nature.

 

[maryjk]

I believe that my interpretation of Catholic teaching on this correct.

Congrats.

I believe that many Catholics have their head in the sand on this.

Okay, you have stated this many times. Doesn’t mean that it is true. Only means that you believe it. It also doesn’t mean that I need to share with you why I use NFP. It doesn’t mean that anyone needs to share why they use NFP.

Many Catholics like to ignore “inconvenient” sins, like those related to abusing NFP, and pretend they are not sins. This is human nature.

No, you claim we are ignoring inconvenient sins. We are saying that to use NFP as birth control, as you claim everyone seems to be doing, is very difficult. It would be much easier, for me at least, to take the pill, or to have my tube tied. But that is a sin. Avoiding pregnancy using NFP, is not. And it is not up to you to decide if I am using it in the proper fashion.

Having more children to show everyone that it is better to have lots of children is not the solution. Because there isn’t a problem.

 

[manualman]

For posts in this thread please answer true or false to the following statements, w.r.t Catholicism:

1. NFP to avoid pregnancy is always licit
2. NFP to avoid pregnancy is always licit if the woman does it without the husband’s permission
3. Most Western world couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy do so in a sinful way.

1. F
2. F
3. Discerning a ‘just / serious’ reason to use NFP is a prudential judgement that depends on so many factors that there is no way for me to judge whether others are abusing it or not. I think the potential for abuse needs to be discussed in NFP classes for sure. We currently use it and since my wife’s ICP followed normal form and got worse from pregnancy #2 to #3 our prudential judgement is that we have a just reason to avoid. Is that good enough for you or am I on your condemned list?

 

[puzzleannie]

For posts in this thread please answer true or false to the following statements, w.r.t Catholicism:

1. NFP to avoid pregnancy is always licit
2. NFP to avoid pregnancy is always licit if the woman does it without the husband’s permission
3. Most Western world couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy do so in a sinful way.

if you want to post a poll check the instructions

trying to figure out how a woman would go about #2, she just says “not tonight honey I have a headache” or what

how on earth would anybody have the answer to #3 unless they also have the ability to read minds and hearts. Maybe Padre Pio could have answered but nobody else.

 

[mpi]

• The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."161

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.

 

[mpi]

Humanae Vitae

Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

 

[PaulinVA]

mpi, your posting of sections of Humanae Vitae does not prove your point at all.

In fact, the lack of a list of “just” reasons must mean that the couple must determine that for themselves.

Once again, tell us a little about yourself. How long have you been married, how many children do you have, does your wife agree with your views, etc.

 

[maryjk]

mpi,

So glad you posted this.
I have never read it for myself. But have counted on others to say that I must have grave or serious reasons. When in it really says, well grounded or acceptable reasons.
I didn’t read anything about the husband missing both his legs or having no way to make a living. I searched for a list of reasons, but there wasn’t one.

And like, PaulinVA, I ask you

How many children do you have? And with that, how long have you been married? Because you should be having a child every 11 months.

 

[fix]

1. NFP to avoid pregnancy is always licit

I think, as stated, yes the means of NFP are always licit. The intention could be illicit though.

1. NFP to avoid pregnancy is always licit if the woman does it without the husband’s permission

Again, the means are not evil. The intention may or may not be a problem.

1. Most Western world couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy do so in a sinful way.

I think we are obliged to assume the best. Do you have any evidence most use NFP with sinful intentions or for unjust motives?

 

[mpi]

mpi,

So glad you posted this.
I have never read it for myself. But have counted on others to say that I must have grave or serious reasons. When in it really says, well grounded or acceptable reasons.
I didn’t read anything about the husband missing both his legs or having no way to make a living. I searched for a list of reasons, but there wasn’t one.

And like, PaulinVA, I ask you

How many children do you have? And with that, how long have you been married? Because you should be having a child every 11 months.

OK - then define “well-grounded” for me. Or perhaps evaluate each of these “reasons” for abstaining and tell me if they are “well- grounded”:

1. Not sure about the economy. (but family owns home outright and makes over 150k. And how many years can a family get away with saying this).
2. The world is short of natural resources and overpopulated.
3. Planning a trip to a resort in the summer and don’t want to be pregnant.
4. In early 30s, but have decided that 2 is the ideal family size if one wants best outcomes for their children.
5. Last pregnancy was difficult - don’t want to go through that again.

By the way, having a child every 11 months is very difficult to do if you are breastfeeding. I hope you understand female biology enough that I don’t need to ellaborate.
2.
1.

 

[mpi]

OK - then define “well-grounded” for me. Or perhaps evaluate each of these “reasons” for abstaining and tell me if they are “well- grounded”:

1. Not sure about the economy. (but family owns home outright and makes over 150k. And how many years can a family get away with saying this).
2. The world is short of natural resources and overpopulated.
3. Planning a trip to a resort in the summer and don’t want to be pregnant.
4. In early 30s, but have decided that 2 is the ideal family size if one wants best outcomes for their children.
5. Last pregnancy was difficult - don’t want to go through that again.

By the way, having a child every 11 months is very difficult to do if you are breastfeeding. I hope you understand female biology enough that I don’t need to ellaborate.
2.
1.

I think one of the problems is that too many Catholics buy into what the mainstream media and friends say is best and appropriate. Some people might actually believe their motives for abstaining are “well-grounded”. This sincere belief in something wrong may reduce the gravity of the sin. It also points out why Catholic families should respect the time God has given them and not pollute their minds with any kind of agreement with the “culture” they are exposed too.

 

[PaulinVA]

mpi, I’m not engaging you in conversation any more until you tell us about yourself.

It would be useful to know if you are, right now, living what you advocate.

 

[mpi]

mpi, I’m not engaging you in conversation any more until you tell us about yourself.

It would be useful to know if you are, right now, living what you advocate.

I am. I have been trying to live this way for many years. Both my spouse and I have been on board 100% for about 2 years. We were less than 100% prior to that.

Is that enough for you to answer questions?

 

[PaulinVA]

I am. I have been trying to live this way for many years. Both my spouse and I have been on board 100% for about 2 years. We were less than 100% prior to that.

Is that enough for you to answer questions?

Uhm, okay.

The problem with making a list of serious reasons is that what is serious for you may not be serious for me. It sounds relativist, but I don’t think it is.

I think we would agree if the woman is taking medication that causes birth defects that using NRP is licit.

What’s most interesting is the question of can you say that your family is “built out” and, for whatever serious/just reasons you have, you are done having kids, even though you have fertility left?