you didn’t offend me, but I know of a handful of couples in our parish with 8-10 kids, and all their families are beautiful, healthy, at Mass together every Sunday and happy. I also know of rich couples with the “perfect” one boy, one girl, who are now getting divorced for various reasons, none of which are stress from too many children.Boy, I think I’m going to irritate alot of people with this post-It’s not my intention, so I apologize up front.
I think that being “open to life” is a bit dangerous sometimes. I grew up Catholic, and both my sister and I are adopted. My parents are unable to have biological children. I went to Catholic schools, church every Sunday, etc.
I know alot of big familes. Almost all of the them have serious problems. Babies born out of wedlock, divorces, lots of premarital sex, sibling drama, the like. Alot of the children of big familes have left the faith altogether. My dad is from a family of over 10+ and only 4 still go to church.
Of course, I’m not saying that all big families are like that, and I know it’s a generalization. However, it’s still a generalzation that that might be true.
Maybe it’s because the children don’t have enough time one on one with their parents. Maybe it’s because NH has something in the water…
I’m single, so I don’t have a dog in the fight. It’s just something I noticed.
I don’t mean anything mean! Sorry if I offended anyone!
The Church doesn’t teach that we must be “open to life.” That is quite vague, and actually used by those who hold a proportionalist view of marriage-- that if the marriage as a whole is “open to life” then individual acts of intercourse can be contracepted.The Church actually teaches that if you’re called to be married, then you’re called to be open to life and children.
Procreation is the primary end of marriage, in general. It is not the only end. While ensuring that each act of intercourse is objectively procreative, it is not *required * for *every *marriage to bring forth children.In fact, pro-creation is the primary purpose of marriage. Not the secondary or the tertiary purpose…
The Church teaches that one may use “recourse to the infertile period” (NFP) for a time or indefinitely.Not an optional decision that can be made if the couple decides it’s convenient or finanically prudent or that that children will enhance their quality of life, etc…Not something that couples can consider if they are “called to it”…It is the primary purpose. (The Church of course does recognize exceptions to that rule, but it’s error to argue that the rule is invalidated by the exceptions.)
And that, my friend, is one place where scrupulosity can be conceived (pardon the pun).If you do, then you’re just on a slippery slope where it’s a sin if you don’t have sex every day.
It doesn’t seem to me anyone has gotten defensive about anything. I think some find the OP’s *assumptions *about other people to be offensive.I find it interesting that while many posters have replied and responded about not judging individual couples and gotten very defensive about it, no one has yet to respond to any of the concerns I have brought up about it. Almost everything that has been said inserts the “couple” as God and leaves it up to God “only” if they “feel” it’s prudent. And as a previous poster mentioned, we’re not talking about exceptions here, we’re talking about the rule.
The Church does not teach one must have “grave” reasons. The Church teaches one must have just reasons that conform to objective moral criteria.*IF *NFP is only to be used (per Church teaching) for grave reasons (and by the term grave, the Church is putting up some very clear boundaries) then NFP should *ALWAYS * be the exception, not the rule.
Broad generalizations not based in fact are unhelpful. They indicate your mindset-- one of making wild assumptions about other people based on externals such as how many children they see. It is common on this board to hear from couples who have had cruel things said to them about their sinful behavior in not having children-- or not having “enough” children to please the NFP police-- and those people have no idea of the personal struggles the couple in question has endured… infertility, health issues, etc.And yet, an enormous amount of people are using it when it’s just them convincing themselves that it’s okay. “Hey, look at us! We’re good Catholics, and we can still limit our family like the culture and yet pat ourselves on the back and say we’re doing a much better thing!”
Except that the Church doesn’t teach that one must approach parenthood this way. In fact, the Church teaches the opposite-- that we may prayerfully choose to limit/avoid for a time or indefinitely.Being open to life does not mean that you will/should have a million children. It means that you let God decide and trust him to provide. To do anything else is playing God.
Your view of how human reproduction works is flawed as is your calculation of the necessary sexual encounters for becoming pregnant.Honestly, how many times a week do you and your spouse make love? A woman can get pregnant only within a 24-hour period every month. So in order to be constantly pregnant and having a million kids, you would have to be having sex at least every 48 hours for your entire child-bearing years. Seriously, who does that? Do you? What’s the average, like once a week?
So glad you can read minds and hearts of others to know that they are just trying to “justify” themselves. Must make you feel really superior to the rest of us who can’t do so and merely presume that people are prayeful, loving, and intelligent individuals who want to please GodI find that most people who get defensive about defining openness to life are just justifying themselves.
The Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be *per se *ordered to procreation and unity. A coupel using NFP in no way violates this requirement of the Church regarding conjugal relations.When it comes down to it, all a couple who is using NFP in this way is doing is saying “Here’s when I can get pregnant, so we won’t do it then, but if we do get pregnant anyway, well, we were still open to life.” Baloney! Being open to life means being open, and you are purposefully closing yourself when life will occur.
Seems you have the idea that the Calvinists do regarding Fate. Under your idea of how God runs the universe we have no free will-- he does it all and we’re just puppets.If you were open, you wouldn’t be paying attention. Yes, biology is a factor, but God only uses the biology, He is not controlled by it! If He says yes, it’s yes. If He says no, it’s no.
Your post puts forth a requirement of couples that the Church does not make. If you want to act in a providential manner, you may choose to do so.Sorry if I offend, that’s not my intent. But before you get angry and respond, take a good hard look at what my first post said and this one, and then take a good hard look at your own logic and intentions.
You CANNOT tell her not tonight, she has a right to it, to deny her her marriage rights is a mortal sin without sufficient reason and just been generally tired is not a sufficient reason…I have a question, and I’m young, so I don’t know any better.
So say ‘my wife’ wants to have sex, but I’m too tired from work. I tell her not tonight because I (selfishly) am too tired. I do this every night for a week because I’m just beat, not that beat, but I know I have work the next day and I need energy. I intend to have sex as soon as I have energy for it though.
While it is up to the couple the couple can make the wrong choice which is why the Church HAS given us guidance which we are NOT free to simply ignore on what would be considered a grave reason.Since the Church has not, and will not, publish a list of grave/serious/just reasons to avoid conception, it is up to the couple.
That’s not true, your supposed to use natural family planning to HELP you conceive, only in very rare situations is it permissible to use it to prevent pregnancy.Yes, that is EXACTLY how you’re supposed to use NFP. This is the attitude you have. You are deciding to abstain for a period of time, and the Church teaches that this is totally acceptable.
Let me clarify then: that is the attitude you have when using it to avoid pregnancy. And PLEASE read not only the entirety of what I posted, but all of Humanae Vitae, too. It says nothing about ‘extremely rare situations’, just ‘serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts’. Those reasons may or may not be rare depending on the state of the world the couple is living in.That’s not true, your supposed to use natural family planning to HELP you conceive, only in very rare situations is it permissible to use it to prevent pregnancy.
Absolutely true that the Church has given us guidance. However, since the Church has not published a list, neither should we. And, judging certain motives or actives actually is creating a list.While it is up to the couple the couple can make the wrong choice which is why the Church HAS given us guidance which we are NOT free to simply ignore on what would be considered a grave reason.
Well I’m sure couples in such dire straits are not spending time reading CAF. Let’s work on the basis that we are talking about the kind of people reading this forum, I think its fair to say no child starves to death in the USA or Canada am I right?Let me clarify then: that is the attitude you have when using it to avoid pregnancy. And PLEASE read not only the entirety of what I posted, but all of Humanae Vitae, too. It says nothing about ‘extremely rare situations’, just ‘serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts’. Those reasons may or may not be rare depending on the state of the world the couple is living in.
Not a fair judgement you’re making here, 1ke. I made a point to speak only in generalities for the very purpose of NOT singling any one person (or people) out based on my own understanding/assumptions about what constitues a just or unjust reason. Since I’m not singling any one person out, if you see yourself in my general comments and decide to get defensive about it…not much I can do about that you know?It doesn’t seem to me anyone has gotten defensive about anything. I think some find the OP’s *assumptions *about other people to be offensive…
The point is that other people (the OP), looking in from the outside, don’t know the whole story and should not ASSUME motives on the part of the couple and should not ASSUME that the couple is “misuing” NFP.
so every spouse who has ever said ‘not tonight’ to their loved one (without sufficient reason, i.e. probably dying in your opinion) has committed a mortal sin, eh? Well how about that.You CANNOT tell her not tonight, she has a right to it, to deny her her marriage rights is a mortal sin without sufficient reason and just been generally tired is not a sufficient reason…
Where is THAT in OFFICIAL Church teaching? Please provide link.You CANNOT tell her not tonight, she has a right to it, to deny her her marriage rights is a mortal sin without sufficient reason and just been generally tired is not a sufficient reason…
I think the point she’s making is that couples don’t need to be in “dire straits” (read: extreme distress or desperation) to validly use NFP.Well I’m sure couples in such dire straits are not spending time reading CAF. Let’s work on the basis that we are talking about the kind of people reading this forum, I think its fair to say no child starves to death in the USA or Canada am I right?
Pope Pius XII:The Church, on the other hand, can understand, with sympathy and comprehension, the real difficulties of matrimonial life in these our days. For this reason, in Our last address on conjugal morality, We affirmed the legitimacy and at the same time the limits—truly very wide—of that controlling of births which, unlike the so-called “birth control,” is compatible with God’s law.
Pope Paul VI: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.
Also, there’s a great article that addresses much of this called “Abusing NFP” that I highly recommend. It tries to explain the very real dangers of promoting Providentialism as Church teaching. You can read it here: theuniversityconcourse.com/VII,1,4-20-2002/vanSchaijik.htmIf 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.
You started this thread stating that people here on CAF were using NFP with a contraceptive mentality and then gave examples that you deem to be unilaterally NOT just reasons.Not a fair judgement you’re making here, 1ke. I made a point to speak only in generalities for the very purpose of NOT singling any one person (or people) out based on my own understanding/assumptions about what constitues a just or unjust reason.
I don’t see myself in your comments at all nor am I “defensive.” I am merely stating Church teaching and pointing out that you are going beyond what the Church teaches. For me, this discussion is strictly academic.Since I’m not singling any one person out, if you see yourself in my general comments and decide to get defensive about it…not much I can do about that you know?
News flash, the “contraceptive mentality” has been in the Church since around 1930 when all those other Christian groups started changing their teaching-- WAY before NFP. I would suggest it wasn’t just a “mentality” but contraceptive USAGE. Hence the need for Casti Connubii all the way back in the 30s, the letter to midwives in the 50s, and Humanae Vitae in the 60s.I only know that it’s happening; there is a contraceptive mentality infecting the Church
I disagree. Whatever “contraceptive intent” people have had throughout history, it’s always been there and NFP bears no blame nor created such an intent. Before NFP peopled used rhythm. Before rhythm couples simply abstained (and men often took mistresses… wrong to do, but a fact). Even the Roman Empire was not unacquainted with contraceptives and the early Church had to preach against it even then.and like it or not, NFP is partly to blame.
Yes, thank you. I’m going to check out that link myself, it sounds interesting.I think the point she’s making is that couples don’t need to be in “dire straits” (read: extreme distress or desperation) to validly use NFP.
Also, there’s a great article that addresses much of this called “Abusing NFP” that I highly recommend. It tries to explain the very real dangers of promoting Providentialism as Church teaching. You can read it here: theuniversityconcourse.com/VII,1,4-20-2002/vanSchaijik.htm
1 Corinthians 7:3Where is THAT in OFFICIAL Church teaching? Please provide link.