J
jmjZelie
Guest
As the OP, I would like to know which part you are "ditto"ing, Walking_Home. After all, both of them have had a lot to say in response to many of my questions. Care to elaborate as to which comments you agree with?
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
If a name is needed for the particular decision then that seems most succinct. It also describes a phase rather than a philosophical ideology in the way ‘providentialism’ does. My suspicion about providentialism runs along the lines of ‘where are all the older people who espouse it as Gods will for humankind’? It’s very much promoted by people in the 20 up to 40 bracket but there inevitably comes a time before menopause where people don’t want to ‘leave it to providence’ anymore. Enter a moral dilemma because abstinence goes against the grain of a philosophy that protects sexual freedom… especially total abstinence which would be necessary to be in keeping with not planning ‘against Gods will’.
Earlier in the thread the comment was made about not wanting the ‘sacrifice’ of NFP and I think that’s a key aspect of difference here. To me that’s like saying that I don’t want the sacrifice of moderate eating. The attitude we have to a thing makes a huge impact on our ability to conform our lives to it as a general principle. The great thing about Catholicism is that it that it gives us the keys to a consistency and the self discipline to maintain consistency.
Church teaching behooves us to be ‘responsible’ in creating family and attentive to all the factors impacting on the decision and that implies being open to knowing when you are beyond your capacity at any given time. It must be a discernment process at some level to be ‘responsible’.
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
I don’t think it’s fair to compare NFP to moderate eating. The latter is essential to good health, while the former isn’t essential to sexual discipline (in the self-control sense, obviously). It can certainly be a useful tool, but given that it hasn’t existed for more than 60 years or so, it’s not reasonable to assume that every couple until the 1950s or thereabouts had a lack of sexual self-control.
NFP is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Some tools are good in some situations, while others aren’t. A woman who really needs to avoid having children but who hasn’t had any success in that regard with any (or any combinations) of the NFP methods doesn’t need NFP; she needs to abstain. On the other hand, a family who doesn’t have just reasons to avoid, or whose reasons are on the fence between just and “meh,” might not need NFP, and may find that extended breastfeeding or some such works well for them, or they might actually need it; only they can decide. Yet another family might find NFP to be an effective tool for postponing or avoiding children, or for sexual self-control, or even as a sort of penance (ie, abstaining from sex for a time by mutual consent as per St. Paul).
Likewise, making one decision usually involves sacrificing the potential for another decision. That’s not always a bad thing, but it is realistic. So a family might decide to go ahead and conceive another child, but in doing so, they know that this means postponing some trip or expense as far as possible. A family might decide to avoid another child for a time, and accept the sexual distance that NFP does bring to a lot of marriages. (A couple I know who practice NFP for a life-or-death reason often have to abstain for 3+ months at a time due to wonky cycles and work scheduling, which is really, really hard on a marriage.) Or a family might decide that that distancing isn’t good for their particular marriage, and knowing that they don’t have a reason that makes avoidance really necessary, say “whatever happens, happens, and that’s okay, but for us, sex is important enough in our marriage that having it more often is worth the sacrifices of another kid.” And that’s also okay.
In short, the idea that NFP is necessary in all marriages is really flawed. It’s a tool, it works well in certain areas, but it doesn’t in others…and that’s okay!
J
jmjZelie
Guest
LongingSoul, you said:
“Earlier in the thread the comment was made about not wanting the ‘sacrifice’ of NFP and I think that’s a key aspect of difference here. To me that’s like saying that I don’t want the sacrifice of moderate eating. The attitude we have to a thing makes a huge impact on our ability to conform our lives to it as a general principle. The great thing about Catholicism is that it that it gives us the keys to a consistency and the self discipline to maintain consistency.”
This is precisely the attitude that I have read online that has given me pause and causes me to doubt my instincts. You said “To me that’s like saying that I don’t want the sacrifice of moderate eating.” This equates (not practicing NFP) with intemperance. Care to address the implications of this?
Thank you for your thoughts.
“Earlier in the thread the comment was made about not wanting the ‘sacrifice’ of NFP and I think that’s a key aspect of difference here. To me that’s like saying that I don’t want the sacrifice of moderate eating. The attitude we have to a thing makes a huge impact on our ability to conform our lives to it as a general principle. The great thing about Catholicism is that it that it gives us the keys to a consistency and the self discipline to maintain consistency.”
This is precisely the attitude that I have read online that has given me pause and causes me to doubt my instincts. You said “To me that’s like saying that I don’t want the sacrifice of moderate eating.” This equates (not practicing NFP) with intemperance. Care to address the implications of this?
Thank you for your thoughts.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
You posted while I was also addressing my concern over the same phrasing that LongingSoul used. All I can say is Wow, what a post!
Thank you so much, UbiCaritas!
B
bitterhope
Guest
Most people I know don’t change their views just because they hit a certain age. They don’t suddenly run to ABC because they’ve had enough. My mom, for instance, had children well past age 40, and she rejoices with each new grand baby or great grand baby. She also doesn’t care if anyone else shares her views so she doesn’t voice anything either way. Usually that is what happens. A lady at my parish just had her eighth child at the age of 46, and she doesn’t care whether or not more come. Another lady had her seventh at the age of 44 and is hoping for at least one more. It has been my experience that most people that feel strongly about following their conscience don’t change their views based on how easy or hard that is. If ABC is off limits and NFP doesn’t work, they either abstain or they leave it to chance regardless of their age. There are ladies on this site past 40 who also still leave it up to God. It’s not a younger couple thing at all.
Responsible parenting isn’t setting a limit on the number of kids, it’s finding the way to care for and provide for the ones you’ve got. Responsible parenting is giving your kids the best shot of success you possibly can instead of expecting them to fulfill something missing in your life. Responsible parenting is loving your children when it’s difficult instead of making them earn your affection. Parents that perfectly plan their families can be very irresponsible parents because they don’t give their child or children what is needed in the way it is needed. It has nothing to do with family size, it has a lot to do with family dynamics.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Why we adopt a personal policy is important. It’s not uncommon for ardent providentialists to admit that their first motive to convert was inability or objection to abstinence. That has to be examined by each person for themselves for its moral quality as a reason. Lust is an ever present temptation in man.
As decisions, NTNP or total abstinence are not mutually exclusive of NFP. I myself am in a phase of total abstinence until menopause is done but I don’t consider that this isn’t part of natural family planning. It’s a sign of some dissociation when a decision to welcome a large family causes a contempt for fertility awareness and periodic abstinence. Worse still and I’m speaking in general regarding this phenomenon… when people desire to proselytize regarding providentialism. As Pope Francis said…
Paul teaches us this journey of evangelization, because Jesus did, because he is well aware that evangelization is not proselytizing: it is because he is sure of Jesus Christ and does not need to justify himself [or] to seek reasons to justify himself.
Proselytizing is more about self justification than spreading the truth.
That’s what I began with warning against in the first post of this new conversation. Don’t listen to the proselytizers… rely on Church teaching. That would be primarily Humanae Vitae, Gaudium et Spes and Theology of the body… to nurture your discernment. I’ll post them below.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Humanae Vitae
Responsible Parenthood
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.
Responsible Parenthood
- 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 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.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Theology of the Body Ch 117
The Council adds: “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church” (GS 51).
Ruled by conscience
And it continues: “Married people should realize that in their behaviour they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience—and conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of divine law. For the divine law throws light on the meaning of married love, protects it and leads it to truly human fulfilment” (GS 50).
From this it follows that the concept of responsible parenthood contains the disposition not merely to avoid a further birth but also to increase the family in accordance with the criteria of prudence. In this light in which the question of responsible parenthood must be examined and decided, there is always of paramount importance “the objective moral order instituted by God, the order of which a right conscience is the true interpreter” (HV 10).
- For today we have chosen the theme of responsible parenthood in the light of Gaudium et Spes and of Humanae Vitae. In treating of the subject, the Council document limits itself to recalling the basic premises. However, the papal document goes further, giving a more concrete content to these premises.
The Council adds: “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church” (GS 51).
Ruled by conscience
- Before the passage quoted, the Council teaches that married couples “shall fulfill their role with a sense of human and Christian responsibility, and the formation of correct judgments through docile respect for God.” (GS 50). This involves “common reflection and effort; it also involves a consideration of their own good and the good of their children, already born or yet to come, an ability to read the signs of the times and of their own situation on the material and spiritual level, and finally, an estimation of the good of the family, of society and of the Church.” (GS 50).
And it continues: “Married people should realize that in their behaviour they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience—and conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of divine law. For the divine law throws light on the meaning of married love, protects it and leads it to truly human fulfilment” (GS 50).
- The Council document, in limiting itself to recalling the necessary premises for responsible parenthood, has set them out in a completely unambiguous manner, clarifying the constitutive elements of such parenthood, that is, the mature judgment of the personal conscience in relationship to the divine law, authentically interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church.
- Basing itself on the same premises, Humanae Vitae goes further and offers concrete indications. This is seen, first of all, in the way of defining responsible parenthood (cf. HV 10). Paul VI seeks to clarify this concept by considering its various aspects and excluding beforehand its reduction to one of the “partial aspects, as is done by those who speak exclusively of birth control.” From the very beginning, Paul VI is guided in his reasoning by an integral concept of man (cf. HV 7) and of conjugal love (cf. HV 8, 9).
- One can speak of responsibility in the exercise of the function of parenthood under different aspects. Thus he writes: “In relation to the biological processes involved, responsible parenthood is to be understood as the knowledge and observance of their specific functions. Human intelligence discovers in the faculty of procreating life, the biological laws which involve human personality” (HV 10). If, on the other hand, we examine “the innate drives and emotions of man, responsible parenthood expresses the domination which reason and will must exert over them” (HV 10).
From this it follows that the concept of responsible parenthood contains the disposition not merely to avoid a further birth but also to increase the family in accordance with the criteria of prudence. In this light in which the question of responsible parenthood must be examined and decided, there is always of paramount importance “the objective moral order instituted by God, the order of which a right conscience is the true interpreter” (HV 10).
- The commitment to 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” (HV 10). One cannot therefore speak of acting arbitrarily. On the contrary the married couple “must act in conformity with God’s creative intention” (HV 10). Beginning with this principle the encyclical bases its reasoning on the “intimate structure of the conjugal act” and on “the inseparable connection of the two significances of the conjugal act” (cf. HV 12), as was already stated. The relative principle of conjugal morality is, therefore, fidelity to the divine plan manifested in the “intimate structure of the conjugal act” and in the “inseparable connection of the two significances of the conjugal act.”
J
jmjZelie
Guest
Excerpt from above, emphasis added
“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.” (HV)
So responsible parenthood includes, in the first place, those who continue to have more children.
“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.” (HV)
So responsible parenthood includes, in the first place, those who continue to have more children.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Yes.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
Thank you for providing those links to pertinent Church documents. If anything, they encourage me to be more open and trusting in God’s will for me, which appears to not be NFP. My husband has even talked about what stance we might take through my 40s if we opt not to use NFP, so it appears that whatever is happening in my heart, it is echoed in my husband’s.
I firmly believe that God leads us to His will, and that He uses prayer, natural law, other people and even circumstances to help us know what that is. I was surrounded by a child-hating culture up till my conversion six years ago. I was delighted when I discovered the Catholic faith. We immediately converted and began having more children. It can be really hard at times, but I will never forget what I said the first time I held my firstborn child. “Oh my she is beautiful. I always want one of these!” I know that sounds strange. I made everyone laugh who overheard me saying it. But the love in my heart overflowed that day, and I wonder, looking back, if God hadn’t prompted me that day and placed a desire in my heart according to His will.
While I disagree with some of what you have said, I still thank you for your honesty and your attention to my thread and for your time in writing to me. God bless you!
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Uh oh! Who ressurected this can of worms? 
Do we really enjoy the :slapfight: ???
Do we really enjoy the :slapfight: ???
J
jmjZelie
Guest
OP here. I resurrected it because, as I said, I wanted to see if anyone wanted to continue the discussion with and because I had a few more questions to examine. There has been no fighting or anger here. I have great respect for everyone who has contributed and have thanked them sincerely.Uh oh! Who ressurected this can of worms?
Do we really enjoy the :slapfight: ???
If you don’t like the thread, that is fine. But it is an open forum and obviously some other people seem to find it interesting or helpful to discuss these teachings of thre Church and their application.
Have a good day, Convert! God bless you.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
No I didn’t do a quick jump. I suggested that that motive is an area to be examined by each person for themselves. I can tell you that there is a well documented phenomenon in a lot of areas of life, that sees people abandon efforts at discipline and adopt a kind of fatalist philosophy of some sort. When you do the spiritual exercises, to discern you are taught to be attentive through the daily examen… to your state of peace and graciousness in the face of your decision. If there is dis-ease or consternation… that calls for more contemplation and examination.
Lol. Condescension much.
Unfortunately I have lost my list that I had compiled a year or two back to demonstrate the attitude to NFP that some have. Such ideas as people can be outwardly judged to be using NFP with a ‘contraceptive mentality’ as demonstrated by the women at the soccer pitch. Or unplanned reproducing is the ‘default’ for Catholic couples and NFP being a concession for the less holy. Or anyone who objects to criticism of NFP has a guilty conscience. Or education is not a valid reason to limit family size since people can homeschool if they weren’t so selfish. I had a stack.
That’s a good thing. The reality is that many don’t consider the future and then are faced with an overwhelming moral dilemma. The evidence of this is the almost complete silence of older couples who push for leaving reproduction to providence as the ideal Catholic principle.
I had the opposite experience and was surrounded by Catholic culture to the max. I have 36 first cousins and in the early days we all lived in a small country town and experienced the joy of the Catholic extended family life. Most of us have gone on to have 2,3 or 4 children each. A couple with 5 or 6, but there has never been this big issue with how many kids should we have. None of our parents or grandparents tut tutted us for not reproducing in the way they did. There was no pressure placed on us to keep examining our conscience all the time. People know that having a large family today is not the same as having a large family in the past. It just isn’t. My only issue here is this idea of providentialism and where that originates. If you go back to the first of my posts in this current conversation, you’ll see that my intention was simply a warning against that. I think you should have as many kids as you want and can manage. No one should tell you otherwise.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
LongingSoul,
You said:
*Lol. Condescension much *
My reply:
I am sorry if it came across that way. My genuine concern is that I not cause you resentment while you are going through a trial and that you not judge me harshly for espousing an ideology which I am not espousing. I tried to be clear and gently suggest that if you wanted to discontinue your involvement, I would understand.
It seems that no matter how we address each other, there are misunderstandings and hurt feelings. I don’t know why that is, but I don’t like it. I hope that going forward we can continue to try to charitably engage each other in discussions.
You said:
*Lol. Condescension much *
My reply:
I am sorry if it came across that way. My genuine concern is that I not cause you resentment while you are going through a trial and that you not judge me harshly for espousing an ideology which I am not espousing. I tried to be clear and gently suggest that if you wanted to discontinue your involvement, I would understand.
It seems that no matter how we address each other, there are misunderstandings and hurt feelings. I don’t know why that is, but I don’t like it. I hope that going forward we can continue to try to charitably engage each other in discussions.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’m sorry to have misinterpreted your comment. The reason I mentioned my current situation was merely to show it as a part of a life doing NFP and not as something new and separate. To be perfectly frank, I’m enjoying this time of abstinence very much. It feels like a kind of freedom. Abstinence was much harder around the 40 mark when I experienced that last ditch surge of hormones before the wind down starts. A midlife transition that can turn into a midlife crisis if not prepared.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
Thank you for your thoughts.I’m sorry to have misinterpreted your comment. The reason I mentioned my current situation was merely to show it as a part of a life doing NFP and not as something new and separate. To be perfectly frank, I’m enjoying this time of abstinence very much. It feels like a kind of freedom. Abstinence was much harder around the 40 mark when I experienced that last ditch surge of hormones before the wind down starts. A midlife transition that can turn into a midlife crisis if not prepared.
Can you elaborate about your struggles with abstinence around the 40 year mark, if that is not too personal? I am approaching 40…that might be relevant to my personal situation.
Thanks again. I have been able to think through a lot today due to your posting.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
See! My point exactly. Just tonight there has already been an argument. Please let’s for the sake of the common good quit making these NFP vs NoNFP threads. It really should be a banned topic. It just never ever turns out well. I’ve had 9 years experience, they never turn out well. 
J
jmjZelie
Guest
Convert,See! My point exactly. Just tonight there has already been an argument. Please let’s for the sake of the common good quit making these NFP vs NoNFP threads. It really should be a banned topic. It just never ever turns out well. I’ve had 9 years experience, they never turn out well.
Keep reading. LongingSoul and I have the ability to maturely address misunderstandings and learn from each other and help each other, even and especially when we find places of disagreement.
And again, this is NOT an NFP vs. No NFP thread. This is about personal discernment on family planning and a good many CAF members have helped me and pushed me to “think Catholic” on this issue.
There is no fight to break up and no hard feelings, on my end at least. I would love to know how and why you think that NFP should be a banned topic on a Catholic forum. I have learned so much about marriage and NFP (or lack thereof) from discussions at CAF, both now under jmjZelie, and under my previous user name when I first joined CAF years ago (I don’t have my login info or email for that old account anymore, so after a year absence here I just started a new account).
I know that Jesus said Blessed are the peacemakers, Convert, but really, you don’t need to tell us to stop talking in order to have peaceable discussion on an important topic.
God bless you. Take care. Hope you are feeling well.
- Status