Morality of Family Planning

[eponymic]

I’ve been mulling over a thought recently, and I was hoping I could bounce it off a few people to get some feedback and discussion. I would also like to point out right away that this has nothing to do with NFP or other contraceptive issues, because that topic seems to have been done to death.

To start out with, I’d like to stipulate a fact that was brought up in the Family Life section recently: entering a marriage with the intention of never having children is immoral.

If we think about why this is, it is often cited that one cannot deny fertility within marriage, essentially cutting themselves off from life and from God’s plan for marriage. Furthermore, it is usually implied that taking control over your own fertility is a sin. Marital sex with the use of contraceptives, for instance, means that we say that we want to have sex but do not want to be fertile. We must be open to life within marriage, and choosing not to be fertile is not consistent with this.

Therefore, we get to my main point. If choosing not to have children is a sin, isn’t choosing to have children, or more specifically choosing when to have children equally a sin? While the choice in the affirmative is being open to life, we are being open to life on our terms, not God’s. If we plan to have exactly 5 children three years apart, and acheive this through NFP for example, are we not removing the fertile/procreative aspect of sex for those intermediate times and only having children when it suits us? I understand that the Church teaches that NFP can be used for “grave reasons”, but is this type of family planning really a just reason? Obviously, there are no set rules for determining this, but it seems to be to be a bit of rationalization: “It’s okay for us to have sex without the procreative aspect, because we’ve just had kids/going to wait a bit to have another/done having kids. We’re not saying ‘no’, we’re just saying ‘not now’. I know that You have a plan, but I have a plan too and we’re going to follow mine.”

Doesn’t this form a bit of a double standard? If it’s not okay to remove the procreative aspect of sex, why is it okay to remove it temporarily when it doesn’t fit in to our plans? Just to reiterate, I’m not talking about people who have severe emotional or financial hardships that are true “grave reasons” to abstain, but rather people who just plan every child.

 

[1ke]

Yes, it is possible to misuse the gifts given by God.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Doesn’t this form a bit of a double standard? If it’s not okay to remove the procreative aspect of sex, why is it okay to remove it temporarily when it doesn’t fit in to our plans? Just to reiterate, I’m not talking about people who have severe emotional or financial hardships that are true “grave reasons” to abstain, but rather people who just plan every child.

Here is the exact quote from the catechism… (empahsis mine)

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

There is a lot of misinterpretation of “grave” vs “just”… the catechism does say “just”…

Is having a “plan” unjustified if you are motivated by love?
For example… What if the senario was that, as a family, you thought for the emotional and mental well-being of the parents… it would be best to space out the children so that you could give them the individual attention you thought, as loving parents, that they deserved?
Is that unjustified?

I guess we really can’t make judgements on how people use NFP… it is truly between them and God alone. Even speculating may be unfair to those whose motives are not known to you.

 

[setter]

Therefore, we get to my main point. If choosing not to have children is a sin, isn’t choosing to have children, or more specifically choosing when to have children equally a sin? While the choice in the affirmative is being open to life, we are being open to life on our terms, not God’s. If we plan to have exactly 5 children three years apart, and acheive this through NFP for example, are we not removing the fertile/procreative aspect of sex for those intermediate times and only having children when it suits us? I understand that the Church teaches that NFP can be used for “grave reasons”, but is this type of family planning really a just reason? Obviously, there are no set rules for determining this, but it seems to be to be a bit of rationalization: “It’s okay for us to have sex without the procreative aspect, because we’ve just had kids/going to wait a bit to have another/done having kids. We’re not saying ‘no’, we’re just saying ‘not now’. I know that You have a plan, but I have a plan too and we’re going to follow mine.”

Can your explain how NFP “removes” the “fertile/procreative aspect of sex”?

Doesn’t this form a bit of a double standard? If it’s not okay to remove the procreative aspect of sex, why is it okay to remove it temporarily when it doesn’t fit in to our plans? Just to reiterate, I’m not talking about people who have severe emotional or financial hardships that are true “grave reasons” to abstain, but rather people who just plan every child.

As 1 ke pointed out, there can be abuses with the use of NFP:

**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. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

[eponymic]

Apologies for the Mega-Response, but this is easier…

Yes, it is possible to misuse the gifts given by God.

So you would agree that having 12 kids, all planned out perfectly, and fufilling some fantasy because that’s what you want your life to be is just as immoral as getting married and having a vasectomy?

There is a lot of misinterpretation of “grave” vs “just”… the catechism does say “just”…

You know, I wrote out “just” first, then changed it. I’m not really sure why.

Is having a “plan” unjustified if you are motivated by love?
For example… What if the senario was that, as a family, you thought for the emotional and mental well-being of the parents… it would be best to space out the children so that you could give them the individual attention you thought, as loving parents, that they deserved?
Is that unjustified?

I guess we really can’t make judgements on how people use NFP… it is truly between them and God alone. Even speculating may be unfair to those whose motives are not known to you.

I’m not speculating about any specific person, but more proposing a hypothetical because I don’t understand.

It may not be unjustified to “give [the children] the individual attention you thought, as loving parents, that they deserved”. However, how much of that can be rationalization where you make the decision first, then justify it “for the children’s benefit”? I guess that does walk the line where one cannot make a sweeping generalization, and everybody should be free to such decisions as appropriate in their lives.

Can your explain how NFP “removes” the “fertile/procreative aspect of sex”?

If a couple is using NFP, they may have sex during non-fertile times. If choosing to abstain during fertile times, then they are allowed to have sex, but doing so in a way that actively avoids a resulting pregnancy. For that month, for whatever their justification is, the couple decides “we want to have sex, but we do not want to procreate.” The justification to abstain may be “just”, but during that month, the couple makes an active decision to avoid pregnancy by abstaining only when it suits their needs. Obviously, the couple could abstain completely until the next time they wish to become pregnant, but the Church does not state that this is a requirement.

As 1 ke pointed out, there can be abuses with the use of NFP:

**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. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

So what I’m getting from that passage, and I could be wrong, is that it is possible for a couple to have a child for selfish/immoral purposes, just as it is possible for them to avoid children for selfish/immoral purposes. However, the Church clearly also promotes that a couple can have a child for just reasons, just as they may avoid for just reasons. However, in the end, it is up to the couple to decide (with the help of God, of course), correct? The common theme for “just reasons” seems to be that there is no list, and there can be no list of reasons. Therefore, even the Church does not, and can not, make moral judgements about individual choices to have, or avoid, children.

If that is the case, then if a couple decides that “Having six perfectly spaced children is right for us”, then it is a moral choice, and by extension, “Having one child”, or “Only adopting a child”, or “Only being a positive influence in other children’s lives” would be equally as morally valid. If one states that the couple must make the decision on their own (without the Church giving them a list of allowable actions), then any possible outcome may be morally justified.

 

[setter]

If a couple is using NFP, they may have sex during non-fertile times. If choosing to abstain during fertile times, then they are allowed to have sex, but doing so in a way that actively avoids a resulting pregnancy. For that month, for whatever their justification is, the couple decides “we want to have sex, but we do not want to procreate.” The justification to abstain may be “just”, but during that month, the couple makes an active decision to avoid pregnancy by abstaining only when it suits their needs. Obviously, the couple could abstain completely until the next time they wish to become pregnant, but the Church does not state that this is a requirement.

I am not sure of your point? It is up to the couple to prayerfully discern and determine if their reason for abstaining during fertile periods is in cooperation with God’s will for their family planning – then it becomes a cooperation with God’s will, not a self-serving behavior.

So what I’m getting from that passage, and I could be wrong, is that it is possible for a couple to have a child for selfish/immoral purposes, just as it is possible for them to avoid children for selfish/immoral purposes. However, the Church clearly also promotes that a couple can have a child for just reasons, just as they may avoid for just reasons. However, in the end, it is up to the couple to decide (with the help of God, of course), correct?

Correct.

The common theme for “just reasons” seems to be that there is no list, and there can be no list of reasons. Therefore, even the Church does not, and can not, make moral judgements about individual choices to have, or avoid, children.

If that is the case, then if a couple decides that “Having six perfectly spaced children is right for us”, then it is a moral choice, and by extension, “Having one child”, or “Only adopting a child”, or “Only being a positive influence in other children’s lives” would be equally as morally valid. If one states that the couple must make the decision on their own (without the Church giving them a list of allowable actions), then any possible outcome may be morally justified.

The Church does require that couples make a sincere attempt to maturely and prayerfully apply the rules of conscience and discernment in determining the spacing of children. Not every possible outcome can be morally justified, if the couple is fertile and there are no serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, then “…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:” (**2368 **CCC)

 

[setter]

Apologies for the Mega-Response, but this is easier…

It sounds like you are grappling with this issue.

So you would agree that having 12 kids, all planned out perfectly, and fufilling some fantasy because that’s what you want your life to be is just as immoral as getting married and having a vasectomy?

No. How can one compare a life giving act to an anti-life (i.e., as in anti-fertility) act? Having a vasectomy is intrinsically evil in itself and constitutes serious, if not mortal, sin.

It may not be unjustified to “give [the children] the individual attention you thought, as loving parents, that they deserved”. However, how much of that can be rationalization where you make the decision first, then justify it “for the children’s benefit”? I guess that does walk the line where one cannot make a sweeping generalization, and everybody should be free to such decisions as appropriate in their lives.

Freedom based on truth. Freedom to act based on trust and ideally a loving, personal relationship with Triune God of our Catholic faith, free from fear, insecurity and/or overt selfishness.

 

[Windmill]

I’ve used an analogy that Douglas Bushman, STD likes to give on NFP.

Compare a couple’s fertility to a fishing house

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Whenever a couples wishes to “renew their wedding vows”, that is considered “going into the ice fishing house.” They can go in the house anytime they want. The only rule with this ice fishing house is that the front door needs to be kept unlocked because the owner of the house (God) wants free access. If he is there when you decide to “go into the ice fishing house”, then He can choose whether or not to make a baby. That is His perogative, but He wants that privilege. If He is not there, you cannot conceive a child.

Now, NFP is analogous to keeping a calendar on the wall as to when the owner will be visiting. If you don’t want to have a baby, you don’t go there on those days. The owner, however, is free to visit as He requested. IOW, you are not impeding God’s rule over the woman’s fertility. The fertility cycle continues as it did before the couple was married. They did not sin by being chaste before marriage - and they are still not sinning by choosing to be chaste. Unless the chastity poses an occasion of temptation for a partner, there is no positive law to engage in marital relations on specific days - fertile or not.

Contraception is analogous to going inside anyway and locking the door behind you while the owner is left outside in the cold. It is a misuse of the gifts you are given and a refusal to acknowledge the ownership God has over you.

Now, when it comes to spacing children, this is not inherently evil in and of itself. A couple may have just reasons. However, the goal is to remove the impediments that keep them from conceiving another child. If a couple is merely using NFP for selfish reasons, then there is an abuse.

 

[eponymic]

I am not sure of your point? It is up to the couple to prayerfully discern and determine if their reason for abstaining during fertile periods is in cooperation with God’s will for their family planning – then it becomes a cooperation with God’s will, not a self-serving behavior.

I’ve used an analogy that Douglas Bushman, STD likes to give on NFP.

Compare a couple’s fertility to a fishing house

Whenever a couples wishes to “renew their wedding vows”, that is considered “going into the ice fishing house.” They can go in the house anytime they want. The only rule with this ice fishing house is that the front door needs to be kept unlocked because the owner of the house (God) wants free access. If he is there when you decide to “go into the ice fishing house”, then He can choose whether or not to make a baby. That is His perogative, but He wants that privilege. If He is not there, you cannot conceive a child.

Now, NFP is analogous to keeping a calendar on the wall as to when the owner will be visiting. If you don’t want to have a baby, you don’t go there on those days. The owner, however, is free to visit as He requested. IOW, you are not impeding God’s rule over the woman’s fertility. The fertility cycle continues as it did before the couple was married. They did not sin by being chaste before marriage - and they are still not sinning by choosing to be chaste. Unless the chastity poses an occasion of temptation for a partner, there is no positive law to engage in marital relations on specific days - fertile or not.

Contraception is analogous to going inside anyway and locking the door behind you while the owner is left outside in the cold. It is a misuse of the gifts you are given and a refusal to acknowledge the ownership God has over you.

Now, when it comes to spacing children, this is not inherently evil in and of itself. A couple may have just reasons. However, the goal is to remove the impediments that keep them from conceiving another child. If a couple is merely using NFP for selfish reasons, then there is an abuse.

Let’s say a couple prayerfully discerns that they should not conceive a child this month. They utilize NFP as to not completely abstain from sex. I’ve seen and been quoted many stats that say that NFP is 99.9% effective in preventing conception, if not absurdly higher, when used properly. Therefore, if a couple is using NFP to avoid a pregnancy, we can safely say that they will avoid pregnancy. However, the couple is still having sex. Therefore, the couple is having sex that does not contain a procreative aspect, since the proper use of NFP effectively eliminates that possibility.

I don’t really care about whether their intentions were good, or moral, or just, or whatever. The point is, the couple had sex, and did so in a way that was 99.9% sure to avoid pregnancy. If that isn’t removing the procreative aspect from sex, then I don’t know what is.

I really don’t want to argue the morality of NFP vs. other types of birth control. It’s been done to death. All I’m saying is that if you’re carefully charting to know when a woman is fertile, and then intentionally avoiding sex then because you want to avoid the pregnancy, then you’re trying to have sex without procreation.

 

[AP4Him]

One way to put it in God’s hands, totally, and not have to worry about whether you are following God’s will either way is to…

1. Be open to life. Do not use NFP or TTC. Just enjoy your spouse and welcome any blessing or lack thereof, however you want to look at it.
2. If God gives you a baby, breastfeed as God designs, ecologically, thus following the natural law, which will help space babies without nfp.
3. See 1. above.

Really. ECO BF eliminates any desire to use NFP for more conservative spacing, and it also prevents me from focusing on TTC because I am just not ovulating at all! I do it because it is God’s will. He wants me to bf, and he designed us to eco bf, at a minimum. The added bonus is that it has this affect on our fertility.

God gave us this gift for our babies, but also for our sanity and marriage. It gives us peace cause we don’t have to wrestle this issue(is it okay to ttc or use nfp to space), and it also spaces babies well enough to prevent feelings of being overwhelmed, financially or mentally, because of closer spacing.

 

[eponymic]

The Church does require that couples make a sincere attempt to maturely and prayerfully apply the rules of conscience and discernment in determining the spacing of children. Not every possible outcome can be morally justified, if the couple is fertile and there are no serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, then “…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:” (**2368 **CCC)

For a given couple, I will agree that not every outcome can be morally justified, not to mention impossible. However, I would argue that given enough couples, every possible outcome may be justifiable “in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.” Some couples are called to have 12 children in 12 years. Others are called to have two kids, 12 years apart. This is evidenced in the second part of the 2368 CCC quote you made before:

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.

Specifically, the morality of family planning “must be determined … from the nature of the person and his acts.” There is no moral edict regarding the size or timing of a family. Each couple must determine this on their own, which means that any resolution on family size may be a moral judgment. If you can state that “it is immoral for a couple to have less than X children, more than Y children, children too close together or too far apart”, then you are taking away the ability of each couple to determine “the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love” since the decision would come from outside the context of true love, namely outside prayerful discernment between the couple and God.

 

[LittleDeb]

I think one of the confusing parts the OP is facing is how one properly forms one’s conscience in this.

Windmill’s reference can be very helpful in understanding this. I admit, I was grappling with this before the Catechism came out. Analogies can work but they are imperfect. Use the analogy from Windmill and then check your results against the Catechism.

I think the phrase, “open to life” and “procreative aspect” might be confusing if they are not well defined in our own minds. When I was trying to understand it I worked on defining the difference between being procreative vs. reproductive. That helped me a lot.

For example: Elizabeth from Scripture was always extremely procreative by putting it all in God’s hands, yet she sure as heck thought she was not able to be reproductive.

Many people use the terms interchangeably. I try not to for this precise reason. Another example: I cannot reproduce right now, but it is not for the reasons some might think. I’m pregnant. Our acts are procreative because they are all, each and every one, ordered towards life. None of them are reproductive because God designed us that way. I can’t make a baby when I am already carrying one.

I hope this helps.

 

[setter]

Let’s say a couple prayerfully discerns that they should not conceive a child this month. They utilize NFP as to not completely abstain from sex. I’ve seen and been quoted many stats that say that NFP is 99.9% effective in preventing conception, if not absurdly higher, when used properly. Therefore, if a couple is using NFP to avoid a pregnancy, we can safely say that they will avoid pregnancy. However, the couple is still having sex. Therefore, the couple is having sex that does not contain a procreative aspect, since the proper use of NFP effectively eliminates that possibility.

Incorrect analysis. Unlike all forms of contraceptive intercourse, NFP does not in any way, shape or form remove or obstruct the fertility, i.e., the procreative potential, of the marital act.

1643 “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.” (CCC)

I don’t really care about whether their intentions were good, or moral, or just, or whatever. The point is, the couple had sex, and did so in a way that was 99.9% sure to avoid pregnancy. If that isn’t removing the procreative aspect from sex, then I don’t know what is.

By what mechanism is NFP “removing the procreative aspect from sex”?

I really don’t want to argue the morality of NFP vs. other types of birth control. It’s been done to death. All I’m saying is that if you’re carefully charting to know when a woman is fertile, and then intentionally avoiding sex then because you want to avoid the pregnancy, then you’re trying to have sex without procreation.

Correct, and more accurately stated as “trying to have sex without actualizing the procreative potential”, which ABC directly and intentionally tries to frustrate, and which the CCC refers to as “The regulation of births”:

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). (CCC)

 

[setter]

For a given couple, I will agree that not every outcome can be morally justified, not to mention impossible. However, I would argue that given enough couples, every possible outcome may be justifiable “in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.” Some couples are called to have 12 children in 12 years. Others are called to have two kids, 12 years apart. This is evidenced in the second part of the 2368 CCC quote you made before:

Is it every morally permissible for a Catholic married couple to attempt to perpetually postpone childbearing throughout their married life through the use of NFP?

Specifically, the morality of family planning “must be determined … from the nature of the person and his acts.” There is no moral edict regarding the size or timing of a family. Each couple must determine this on their own, which means that any resolution on family size may be a moral judgment.

Correct.

If you can state that “it is immoral for a couple to have less than X children, more than Y children, children too close together or too far apart”, then you are taking away the ability of each couple to determine “the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love” since the decision would come from outside the context of true love, namely outside prayerful discernment between the couple and God.

Correct, and assuming that the couple is earnestly seeking to “apply the 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.” (CCC excerpt 2368).

 

[fix]

Let’s say a couple prayerfully discerns that they should not conceive a child this month. They utilize NFP as to not completely abstain from sex. I’ve seen and been quoted many stats that say that NFP is 99.9% effective in preventing conception, if not absurdly higher, when used properly. Therefore, if a couple is using NFP to avoid a pregnancy, we can safely say that they will avoid pregnancy. However, the couple is still having sex. Therefore, the couple is having sex that does not contain a procreative aspect, since the proper use of NFP effectively eliminates that possibility.

There seems to be a misunderstanding. Not being able to conceive is not equal to being non procreative. The sexual act is both unitive and procreative when it is not altered in any way regardless of whether conception is likely or unlikely.

If both perosns in a marriage are sterile, and they do not alter the act, their acts are still unitive and procreative.

 

[Jennifer_J]

One way to put it in God’s hands, totally, and not have to worry about whether you are following God’s will either way is to…

1. Be open to life. Do not use NFP or TTC. Just enjoy your spouse and welcome any blessing or lack thereof, however you want to look at it.
2. If God gives you a baby, breastfeed as God designs, ecologically, thus following the natural law, which will help space babies without nfp.
3. See 1. above.

Really. ECO BF eliminates any desire to use NFP for more conservative spacing, and it also prevents me from focusing on TTC because I am just not ovulating at all! I do it because it is God’s will. He wants me to bf, and he designed us to eco bf, at a minimum. The added bonus is that it has this affect on our fertility.

God gave us this gift for our babies, but also for our sanity and marriage. It gives us peace cause we don’t have to wrestle this issue(is it okay to ttc or use nfp to space), and it also spaces babies well enough to prevent feelings of being overwhelmed, financially or mentally, because of closer spacing.

As I stated in another thread about ecological breastfeeding–extended spacing doesn’t happen for everyone. Some women use EC and conceive very early and some women can’t conceive at all while breastfeeding for any duration. This is where NFP can help in the spacing if needed. I’m glad it worked for you, just be considerate of how you promote EC breastfeeding, please.

Jennifer
mom to 1 ds and 4 dd’s, blessing #6 due in July

 

[Timothy_486]

Suppose a couple used NFP and simply did not feel the desire to have a child (at least for the time being)? I don’t understand why there are some with problems with that. After all it’s not selfish to NOT want something. In other words, suppose if someone asked me “well when are you going to become a doctor?” and I answered “we’ll I do not want to be a doctor” and then they said “well thats SELFISH of you!!” I think we would all agree that was absurd.

 

[maryjk]

Suppose a couple used NFP and simply did not feel the desire to have a child (at least for the time being)? I don’t understand why there are some with problems with that. After all it’s not selfish to NOT want something. In other words, suppose if someone asked me “well when are you going to become a doctor?” and I answered “we’ll I do not want to be a doctor” and then they said “well thats SELFISH of you!!” I think we would all agree that was absurd.

But to not want children can be selfish. To not want children so you can golf 6 days a week, take long, expensive vacations, drive brand new cars and live in a big house, is to be selfish.

 

[eponymic]

Incorrect analysis. Unlike all forms of contraceptive intercourse, NFP does not in any way, shape or form remove or obstruct the fertility, i.e., the procreative potential, of the marital act.

…]

By what mechanism is NFP “removing the procreative aspect from sex”?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m getting the impression that “procreative potential” exists whenever semen enters a vagina. Since a condom obstructs this, it’s removing the potential. However, horomonal pills do not physically obstruct this. They do prevent the release of an egg, which obstructs the meeting of egg and sperm. While NFP does not actively alter fertility, it does actively (and ‘active’ is key, as NFP is not a passive thing by any means) monitor fertility to prevent the egg and sperm from meeting, having a similar effect as the pill. So the message I’m getting is that it’s not immoral to actively try and prevent egg and sperm from meeting, unless you do it in a way that’s not allowed.

Correct, and more accurately stated as “trying to have sex without actualizing the procreative potential”, which ABC directly and intentionally tries to frustrate, and which the CCC refers to as “The regulation of births”:

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). (CCC)

According to the CCC, it is morally acceptable for a married couple to determine when and how they have children. Children can come upon their terms, not just God’s. (Meaning, the couple does not have to be blind to “God’s plan”) That does directly address my original question, however, it does then call into question the original premise:

Is it every morally permissible for a Catholic married couple to attempt to perpetually postpone childbearing throughout their married life through the use of NFP?

Correct, and assuming that the couple is earnestly seeking to “apply the 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.” (CCC excerpt 2368).

If it’s really up to the couple, then any option is viable. Most couples stop having children before the end of fertility, and this is seen as being morally acceptable. If a couple is morally allowed to say, “I know we’re still fertile, but we don’t want to use it anymore”, then that decision should not be dependent on previous actions. Moral rules do not, and cannot, have loopholes. Saying that “X is a moral action, only if you’ve previously done Y” is a moral loophole.

One can get around this loophole, if one states that marriage = children. While some people on this board may argue as such, the Church does not agree. Infertility is not an impediment to marriage. Marriages must only be “open to life”, and since NFP and family planning is morally allowed, “open to life” does not mean “must have children if you can have children”. Furthermore, if marriage must produce children, then children become a requirement. Children are a benefit and a blessing of marriage, but not a requirement of marriage.

As I said before though, just because every option must be viable, that does not mean every couple can morally make any choice. Some people do get married and realize, morally, that they just aren’t meant to be parents. However, some people would be great parents and would provide a wonderful environment for children, but don’t want to give up the extra income, vacations and yacht.

Ergo, it can be moral to have a permanently childless marriage, just not in every case.

 

[eponymic]

Suppose a couple used NFP and simply did not feel the desire to have a child (at least for the time being)? I don’t understand why there are some with problems with that. After all it’s not selfish to NOT want something. In other words, suppose if someone asked me “well when are you going to become a doctor?” and I answered “we’ll I do not want to be a doctor” and then they said “well thats SELFISH of you!!” I think we would all agree that was absurd.

You can have selfish reasons for anything. Matthew 6 has a few good examples.