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

[UbiCaritas]

Exactly. This is why the Church only offers the most general guidelines on the use of NFP, and leaves discernment of when to use it up to the couple. It’s impossible to make firm rules that say things like “If you have more than X kids and make less than Y per year, you MUST use NFP”–because while for some couples in some circumstances, having more than X kids while making less than Y per year might be perfectly doable, while for others it would be an impossibility. For some people in your situation, whatever it might be, having another child at certain times could make things unreasonably difficult for them, while you’re (and I use this in the plural sense, “you’re”= you and your husband) comfortable with the possibility and aware that not using NFP may well mean that there’s another baby in your future. There are so many factors in play for any couple’s use of NFP that only the couple can make that decision, though of course some may choose to consult a trusted priest, advisor, etc.

 

[underacloud]

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?

I’m surprised there are several answers of “no” to this question. It is clear from Humanae Vitae that there is a moral obligation towards responsible parenthood. We are to constantly seek the will of God in this regard, not to determine for ourselves what we ought to do, or are free to do.

When further children would place a great burden on the family, and especially if a pregancy would carry significant health risks for the wife, there may well be a moral obligation for a couple to practice periodic or total abstinence.

This section of HV may help in establishing this principle:

Responsible Parenthood

1. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.

This final paragraph would seem to tilt the emphasis onto being open to life and not selfishly limiting families, but there remains a clear obligation in the other direction also.

 

[sailor28]

“I’m surprised there are several answers of “no” to this question. It is clear from Humanae Vitae that there is a moral obligation towards responsible parenthood. We are to constantly seek the will of God in this regard, not to determine for ourselves what we ought to do, or are free to do.”

Thanks for posting. I thought the same thing. I was very surprised that everyone answered “no”. Yes, there is a time when it is wrong to keep conceiving children if you are unable to care for them. It is not a black and white, well defined moral issue and couples need to discern for themselves.

A couple could have serious reason to avoid a pregnancy but feel that NFP is too burdensome. In which case they sometimes decide that it is better to just keep having children. That the NFP burden is too great. I understand because celibacy for a couple already under enormous stress is a burden sometimes to great to bear.

 

[manualman]

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.

Our culture is often deluded into thinking that NOT using contraception is irresponsible (even within marriage!). Sometimes catholics properly recognize the failings of the culture, but don’t properly correct and just substitute NFP for contraception is if they were interchangeable puzzle pieces that do the same thing. These are people who end up HATING NFP and resenting the church about it.

NFP is not “catholic contraception”. Rather, it’s a second best approach to the innate connection between sexual intimacy, marriage and procreation for use in time where there is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. It’s not an alternative to contraception, it’s an alternative to total abstinence! What you are feeling uneasy about is actually the BEST approach! We were MADE to live the way you are thinking of. Using NFP to avoid pregnancy is supposed to be for hard circumstances, not a fundamental and expected way of life. But don’t agonize over whether your circumstances are “serious” or not. If they aren’t, you’ll know and eventually act accordingly!