Is there ever a time where it would be wrong to...?

[mommamaree]

1 - if a husband and wife mutually agree that periodic continence is too burdensome for them, and that while they are not seeking pregnancy, they choose not to practice NFP either, is that morally wrong?

2 - do prudential considerations (age of mother, finite resources of time and money, age of baby, number of little children, etc.) affect the morality of their choice to not practice NFP to postpone pregnancy?

3 - is it ever unchaste to enjoy the marital act with one’s spouse, provided the couple has the appropriate time and privacy?

4 - would it displease God if the couple would rather happily welcome another baby, even if it would be difficult, with an attitude of “the more the merrier”, instead of learning to be continent for the sake of prudential concerns?

Thanks in advance for helping me answer these questions!

 

[bilop]

No

Yes, in some cases, e.g. if you literally couldn’t afford to feed the extra mouth.

No

No

God Bless

 

[EasterJoy]

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. –Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (boldface mine: EasterJoy)

Note that he says that if a serious reason exists that a couple may take advantage of natural cycles. In other parts of the encyclical, he points out that self-mastery and self-control are part of the full expression of authentic marital love.

He does not say that some couples are so poor that they ought to feel compelled to avoid children. The Church does not go that far, because it would be saying, “You! You are too poor to welcome children, you do not have what it takes, so don’t you even think it.” No, the Church does not go that far! Poor couples may be open to children, too. They ought to develop self-mastery, but not because they don’t have the bank account. All of us ought to have self-mastery, because otherwise our actions are not our own. We are only free if we are free to choose not to act as well as to act. The Church doesn’t say you have to use NFP; the Church says you ought to have the self-mastery to use it, or to abstain for whatever reasons virtue guides you to follow.

Can sex between married persons be unchaste? Well, it can be impure, it can be self-centered, sure. It can make each other into an object, and that is wrong even when it is by mutual consent. That does not mean that if you are not dispassionate about marital relations that there is something impure about you. It means that your passion ought to be focused on your spouse and not on yourself. There is a difference.

 

[moon1234]

1 - if a husband and wife mutually agree that periodic continence is too burdensome for them, and that while they are not seeking pregnancy, they choose not to practice NFP either, is that morally wrong?

2 - do prudential considerations (age of mother, finite resources of time and money, age of baby, number of little children, etc.) affect the morality of their choice to not practice NFP to postpone pregnancy?

3 - is it ever unchaste to enjoy the marital act with one’s spouse, provided the couple has the appropriate time and privacy?

4 - would it displease God if the couple would rather happily welcome another baby, even if it would be difficult, with an attitude of “the more the merrier”, instead of learning to be continent for the sake of prudential concerns?

Thanks in advance for helping me answer these questions!

Maybe this will help brighten your day. You seem a little unsure of having more children.

Read the spirit of Pope Pius XII’s wonderful Address to Large Families where he describes the large family as “those most blessed by God and specially loved and prized by the Church as its most precious treasures,” who “accept joyfully and gratefully these priceless gifts of God - their children - in whatever number it may please Him to send them,” and who testify to “the physical and moral health of a Christian people; a living faith in God and trust in His Providence; and the fruitful and joyful holiness of Catholic marriage.”

 

[1ke]

1 - if a husband and wife mutually agree that periodic continence is too burdensome for them, and that while they are not seeking pregnancy, they choose not to practice NFP either, is that morally wrong?

No

2 - do prudential considerations (age of mother, finite resources of time and money, age of baby, number of little children, etc.) affect the morality of their choice to not practice NFP to postpone pregnancy?

No

3 - is it ever unchaste to enjoy the marital act with one’s spouse, provided the couple has the appropriate time and privacy?

No

4 - would it displease God if the couple would rather happily welcome another baby, even if it would be difficult, with an attitude of “the more the merrier”, instead of learning to be continent for the sake of prudential concerns?

No

 

[whm]

No

No

No

No

+1

 

[mommamaree]

Maybe this will help brighten your day. You seem a little unsure of having more children.

Read the spirit of Pope Pius XII’s wonderful Address to Large Families where he describes the large family as “those most blessed by God and specially loved and prized by the Church as its most precious treasures,” who “accept joyfully and gratefully these priceless gifts of God - their children - in whatever number it may please Him to send them,” and who testify to “the physical and moral health of a Christian people; a living faith in God and trust in His Providence; and the fruitful and joyful holiness of Catholic marriage.”

Wonderful! This really helps me.

 

[thewanderer]

1 - if a husband and wife mutually agree that periodic continence is too burdensome for them, and that while they are not seeking pregnancy, they choose not to practice NFP either, is that morally wrong?

No, not at all, unless perhaps they know that they have a very serious reason to avoid pregnancy (the life of the wife would be seriously endangered for instance) because it seems like to me like a selfish act to knowingly put your spouses life in serious danger.

2 - do prudential considerations (age of mother, finite resources of time and money, age of baby, number of little children, etc.) affect the morality of their choice to not practice NFP to postpone pregnancy?

Well, only if the reasons to avoid are more serious than the health of the couples relationship. If they are having trouble abstaining because they need that intimacy for the good of their relationship that can counterbalance the vast majority of reasons. But again, as my answer to the first question, if the wifes life was seriously in danger it is wrong of the husband to risk it like that because he has not gained as full control over his passions yet.

3 - is it ever unchaste to enjoy the marital act with one’s spouse, provided the couple has the appropriate time and privacy?

I’m really surprised that everyone answered no to this one. If one spouse is objectifying the other, than yes, it can be unchaste, but in a good healthy marriage that is unlikely to occur. The extreme example of objectification would, of course, be if one spouse forced the other into relations against their will, either through force or strong emotional manipulation, essentially, rape. This can happen within marriage and if such a thing were the case then it would clearly be an unchaste act.

4 - would it displease God if the couple would rather happily welcome another baby, even if it would be difficult, with an attitude of “the more the merrier”, instead of learning to be continent for the sake of prudential concerns?

Thanks in advance for helping me answer these questions!

No. Not at all, and either course would really be acceptable, unless, again, you truly had very serious reasons to avoid. It is something each couple should carefully pray about, and then follow their conscience on. Both are good courses of action.

 

[sailor28]

Prudential concerns are very important to look at. No matter what we love our kids. However, kids need time and attention. They have real, tangible needs. Kids are resilient but if there is an inability on the part of the parents to be able to be present to them and to guide them it can cause harm. This is a real concern. If a couple knows they do not have the time, attention or energy to care for another child and they conceive because they don’t want to use NFP I think there is not wise. Yes, we always welcome children but if we do not have the resources to care for their emotional, physical and spiritual needs it can be detrimental to them. Yes, some parents manage to keep it together despite very limited resources. It sounds like you have a serious reason to avoid a pregnancy but using NFP is too much of a burden. I understand how hard that can be.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m really surprised that everyone answered no to this one. If one spouse is objectifying the other, than yes, it can be unchaste, but in a good healthy marriage that is unlikely to occur. The extreme example of objectification would, of course, be if one spouse forced the other into relations against their will, either through force or strong emotional manipulation, essentially, rape. This can happen within marriage and if such a thing were the case then it would clearly be an unchaste act.

You’re getting at the crux of the problem with the question. The question was not “can the marital act ever be unchaste” but “is it ever unchaste to enjoy the marital act”? Yes, the marital act can be unchaste, but pleasure is not in and of itself unchaste. It would be wrong to demonize the physical pleasures of marriage, so the question has to be answered with some care, lest a couple become paranoid about enjoying intimacy.

 

[EasterJoy]

Prudential concerns are very important to look at. No matter what we love our kids. However, kids need time and attention. They have real, tangible needs. Kids are resilient but if there is an inability on the part of the parents to be able to be present to them and to guide them it can cause harm. This is a real concern. If a couple knows they do not have the time, attention or energy to care for another child and they conceive because they don’t want to use NFP I think there is not wise. Yes, we always welcome children but if we do not have the resources to care for their emotional, physical and spiritual needs it can be detrimental to them. Yes, some parents manage to keep it together despite very limited resources. It sounds like you have a serious reason to avoid a pregnancy but using NFP is too much of a burden. I understand how hard that can be.

The other side of the issue was pointed out by Bl. Pope John Paul II, who did not find himself in a position to chide married couples who were having too many children:
"…*In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman—who at Baptism became members of Christ and hence have the duty of manifesting Christ’s attitudes in their lives—are assured of the help they need to develop their love in a faithful and indissoluble union, and to respond with generosity to the gift of parenthood. As the Second Vatican Council declared: Through this sacrament, Christ himself becomes present in the life of the married couple and accompanies them, so that they may love each other and their children, just as Christ loved his Church by giving himself up for her (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 48 ; cf. Eph 5 :25).

In order that Christian marriage may favor the total good and development of the married couple, it must be inspired by the Gospel, and thus be open to new life—new life to be given and accepted generously. The couple is also called to create a family atmosphere in which children can be happy, and lead full and worthy human and Christian lives.

To maintain a joyful family requires much from both the parents and the children. Each member of the family has to become, in a special way, the servant of the others and share their burdens (cf. Gal 6:2; Phil 2 :2). Each one must show concern, not only for his or her own life, but also for the lives of the other members of the family: their needs, their hopes, their ideals. Decisions about the number of children and the sacrifices to be made for them must not be taken only with a view to adding to comfort and preserving a peaceful existence. Reflecting upon this matter before God, with the graces drawn from the Sacrament, and guided by the teaching of the Church, parents will remind themselves that it is certainly less serious to deny their children certain comforts or material advantages than to deprive them of the presence of brothers and sisters, who could help them to grow in humanity and to realize the beauty of life at all its ages and in all its variety.

If parents fully realized the demands and the opportunities that this great sacrament brings, they could not fail to join in Mary’s hymn to the author of life—to God—who has made them his chosen fellow-workers*…"

— Pope John Paul II, homily, Oct. 7, 1979

[Of course when he referred to Mary’s hymn, he meant the Magnificat:

*My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;
behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.

The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is from age to age
to those who fear him.

He has shown might with his arm,
dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.
He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones
but lifted up the lowly.

The hungry he has filled with good things;
the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped Israel his servant,
remembering his mercy,
according to his promise to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.]

Couples have to use their consciences to decide if they can welcome more children, yes, but generosity is a good thing, where it is possible.

 

[mommamaree]

Thanks everyone for helping me mull over these questions. In rooting out faulty thinking I was raised with and the wrong-headedness of the world, I find myself struggling to crystallize my thoughts in a truly Catholic way.
Obviously, I was asking because my husband and I are discerning together on questions regarding our intimate life. I feel like now, especially after reading the Pope 's address to large families, that I finally get it.
Catholic teachings seem to suggest that the default is to let babies come, whenever God sends them, unless serious questions of prudence and health are present. See, this is the OPPOSITE of how I was raised. I once pronounced to my dad, when I was a young woman, that birth control sounded horrible and that I would happily receive how ever many babies God wanted to give me. He was horrified! He responded that my husband likely wouldn’t allow it. Oh boy did I receive an education in lies and selfishness that day. The most ironic part of the story is that we were standing in the church in front of the altar and giant cross when he said that to me, and I had asked after church what birth control was because the preacher had mentioned it in his sermon. Our denomination was opposed to birth control.
I was educated from that point several times over the years that if I wanted any man to marry me, I must not ask for children, that men won’t want them anymore, and that it would be expected that I use hormones or sterilization to prevent them, other than the one or two my husband might condescend to allow.
So now, when my husband agrees that there is no reason why we must prevent babies, as long as I feel comfortable about it because he feels able to provide, I have the truth crashing up against all these lies I was spoon fed. I really need to continue to root out the garbage and you guys here at CAF almost always help me get to the Truth. God bless you all!

 

[mommamaree]

You’re getting at the crux of the problem with the question. The question was not “can the marital act ever be unchaste” but “is it ever unchaste to enjoy the marital act”? Yes, the marital act can be unchaste, but pleasure is not in and of itself unchaste. It would be wrong to demonize the physical pleasures of marriage, so the question has to be answered with some care, lest a couple become paranoid about enjoying intimacy.

I think he was answering a question I did not ask with that part of his response.

I was asking about a couple enjoying a marital act. I meant a couple who is joyfully renewing their vows with love and happiness in their heart.

So my question was if other concerns could actually* change* the morality of the act. It appears, from what I read and what y’all share here that the answer to that is no.

 

[mommamaree]

Prudential concerns are very important to look at. It sounds like you have a serious reason to avoid a pregnancy but using NFP is too much of a burden. I understand how hard that can be.

See that is the thing, though. I know OTHER people might look at my prudential concerns and say they are serious. And I haven’t actually shared here what my concerns actually are, I just gave examples of things that people often cite. So, it cannot possibly sound like I have serious reasons, when I am not offering my reasons to be analyzed. My questions arise because whenever my husband and I discuss this topic, both of us kind of shrug our shoulders and say “eh…”. Both of us would like more kids, I guess. And even though others would make a different decision, we feel like we want something different.

 

[UbiCaritas]

See that is the thing, though. I know OTHER people might look at my prudential concerns and say they are serious. And I haven’t actually shared here what my concerns actually are, I just gave examples of things that people often cite. So, it cannot possibly sound like I have serious reasons, when I am not offering my reasons to be analyzed. My questions arise because whenever my husband and I discuss this topic, both of us kind of shrug our shoulders and say “eh…”. Both of us would like more kids, I guess. And even though others would make a different decision, we feel like we want something different.

And that’s the great thing about the Church’s teaching–it’s not “You MUST use NFP,” it’s “NFP is a tool that married people can use if it’s right for them.”

My husband and I tend to take your view of the situation, at least for the foreseeable future. Obviously, things change, and we may realize at some point that we need to use NFP to avoid another baby for a while. I’m quite comfortable with it at this point, so I think of it like a rather useful tool in a toolbox: it’s great to have there, but I’m not going to be using it all the time. I’ll probably keep charting once baby comes, but it’ll be more because I like to know when I can expect my period and if we did get pregnant, I’d want my due date to be based on ovulation rather than last menstrual period (for me, the latter method would, based on the last year of cycles I had, make my due date off by a week or more), but I suspect we won’t so much be trying or avoiding as just taking things as they come, obviously with the knowledge that this will probably result in a baby eventually.

 

[EasterJoy]

See that is the thing, though. I know OTHER people might look at my prudential concerns and say they are serious. And I haven’t actually shared here what my concerns actually are, I just gave examples of things that people often cite. So, it cannot possibly sound like I have serious reasons, when I am not offering my reasons to be analyzed. My questions arise because whenever my husband and I discuss this topic, both of us kind of shrug our shoulders and say “eh…”. Both of us would like more kids, I guess. And even though others would make a different decision, we feel like we want something different.

The likelihood that you two are facing a poverty that even sacrifice and generosity can’t bridge if you should have another child are remote. You don’t have ground to say to anyone else, “Hey, we did it, why can’t you?”, but it is hardly possible that anyone really has room to even ask why you’re ready to “shortchange” your children by adding one more.

IOW, you have to have a serious reason to avoid having children. The reasons you’d have o have to feel obligated to avoiding pregnancy is…well, I don’t know if the Church has ever implied that a married couple is ever *morally bound *to avoid pregnancy. We’re morally bound to develop the capacity to do it, we’re bound to develop that kind of self-mastery, but I don’t think we’re ever bound to conclude that we are obligated to exert that self-mastery so as to avoid children we want to welcome into our family.

 

[mommamaree]

The likelihood that you two are facing a poverty that even sacrifice and generosity can’t bridge if you should have another child are remote. You don’t have ground to say to anyone else, “Hey, we did it, why can’t you?”, but it is hardly possible that anyone really has room to even ask why you’re ready to “shortchange” your children by adding one more.

IOW, you have to have a serious reason to avoid having children. The reasons you’d have o have to feel obligated to avoiding pregnancy is…well, I don’t know if the Church has ever implied that a married couple is ever *morally bound *to avoid pregnancy. We’re morally bound to develop the capacity to do it, we’re bound to develop that kind of self-mastery, but I don’t think we’re ever bound to conclude that we are obligated to exert that self-mastery so as to avoid children we want to welcome into our family.

Everything you say sounds good and true AND runs contrary to everything that society has to say on this subject.
Thanks for being a sane voice in an insane world. God bless you. I really appreciate being able to learn how to “think Catholic” from you.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… See, this is the OPPOSITE of how I was raised. I once pronounced to my* dad*, when I was a young woman, that birth control sounded horrible and that I would happily receive how ever many babies God wanted to give me. He was horrified!* He responded that my husband likely wouldn’t allow it.* Oh boy did I receive an education in lies and selfishness that day. …

Oh, the lies from those who push contraception by trying to tell us about “reproductive freedom” and “women’s choices”. Bleh! (Is there a gagging smiley?) It’s a twisted irony that those who say they are for women’s rights usually ignore.

These type of examples are the biggest argument we can use with our feminist pro-choice, pro-contraception friends and relatives. We now have women like this beautiful original poster wondering if it’s even okay to have sex with their husbands without using some type of birth control method. because it might result in them having a baby that they are willing to have–but their dads and husbands may not “allow” it! Bleh!

 

[sailor28]

I heard something completely different in the opening questions of this thread.

Here was one of the questions:

• do prudential considerations (age of mother, finite resources of time and money, age of baby, number of little children, etc.) affect the morality of their choice to not practice NFP to postpone pregnancy?

Yes, they do. We can also include physical or mental illness in this question. We can take very grave situations like Andrea Yates or someone else with severe mental illness and we can say that they bear a moral responsibility to not conceive another child. At least temporarily. I pray this poster the best because when she gave further info it appeared she did not have serious reason to avoid a pregnancy. She did not indicate any grave circumstances that would prevent her and her husband from caring for their child, emotionally, physically and spiritually.

However, I have seen couples in very grave circumstances realize that NFP was too much of a burden and therefore continued to conceive children amidst very unhealthy and difficult circumstances. Children are always welcomed. But, parents bear the responsibility of bringing them into an environment where they can care for them. Their most basic needs for food, shelter, health care and emotional and spiritual needs. I know it is possible to be imprudent in this situation because I have seen it first hand. Life is messy and kids are resilient but long term stress from parents who are ill physically or mentally has a grave impact on kids.

At first I heard this poster say “We really have a grave reason to avoid but NFP is too burdensome” Then she seemed to clarify. I say welcome all the children you can with open arms!! But the morality of bringing more children into the world that you can handle is a valid topic of discussion. We can’t say there is never a moral question involved when it comes to that.

 

[mommamaree]

See, I tried to phrase things generally, and I obviously was overly so.

What I was trying to say is that we do have some considerations that could lead other people to legitimately say they must practice NFP to postpone pregnancy, even until menopause. But our response to those considerations is that it just doesn’t seem grave enough for us. That is what we have been confused about. Plus, I was raised to believe that a women better be on the pill and never get pregnant without permission. So I am trying to root out the lies, at the same time that my husband and I discern.
I don’t want to list my particular circumstances, because I don’t want to invite analysis on my own life. I am not asking posters to help me in making a private decision. Rather, I am asking for help on a philosophical and moral level. And that kind of help was graciously offered by some of the previous posters. I see now that despite the fact that we could legitimately use NFP to postpone, based on some just reasons, if we do not desire to use NFP, we are not required to, morally speaking. Generosity in welcoming children is encouraged by the Church.