Why then did they get married at this time if they are not open to children in absence of “serious” and “proportionately serious” reasons?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.
AAA Question: Is this sufficient reason for using NFP?
Pope Pius XII said we need “grave” reasons, as did Pope Paul VI. Pope John Paul II’s catechism said we need “just” reasons, while his Pontifical Council for the Family used both “serious” and “proportionately serious.” So I think I can confidently say that a motive for resorting to NFP must be grave, seeing as serious and grave are, in morality, basically the same thing. The problem is, beyond financial solvency and health (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual), we are given little guidance as to what constitutes serious reasons.
I have a particular issue in mind, and while I know you will probably hesitate to pronounce on specifics, I figured I would ask your opinion. My sister plans on being a doctor and is under the impression that she can stop having children whenever she feels like it because her job will always be a reason not to have children. But if her job is not necessary to support the family, can she opt to use NFP solely in order to be able to continue working? That seems like preventing more children in order to keep up with a really demanding hobby or buy another boat. Since I know her chosen profession is actually a very valuable one that might factor in to the decision, I think the most useful question for all cases would be, “In general, may one use NFP to space births solely for the purpose of being able to pursue a chosen profession?”
Andreas Hofer
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Answer: Fr. Vincent Serpa
Catholic Answers
Re: Sufficient reasons for using NFP
Dear Andreas,
Basically, what you are asking is: what constitutes selfish motivation? In itself, pursuing a chosen profession is certainly morally neutral. But the morality of our actions always take place within a context. In the case of one who has chosen to marry, any choices one makes after such a sacred and life-directing decision must be in harmony with the generosity of that first choice. Once a couple has pronounced their marriage vows at the altar, such self-donation remains the context in which they will live the rest of their lives together. Generosity is the key. Christian marriage is a sign of Christ’s love for His bride, the Church, for which He denied Himself all things to the point of dieing for Her.
Does putting one’s marriage vows on hold simply for the satisfaction of doing ANYTHING sound in harmony with such vows? It doesn’t matter how useful such a latter choice might be. One has already made a covenant that he or she owes to God Himself. One is no longer the free agent that he or she was before the marriage. That commitment actually means something that cannot be denied as the result of a later personal fancy—without offending the One before whom the vows were made!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=126120&highlight=natural+family+planningFr. Vincent Serpa. O.P.
Anything that intentionally supresses fertility, in the man or woman, is altering the act.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.
NFP does not alter the act in any way. Using such a technique is not contracepting as the act itself is not manipulated. Choosing to have or not have sex at any time does not alter the act. Engaging in the act and altering part of it is a very different issue.Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
A couple’s collective fertility is the “procreative potential”. It is independent of the delivery systems …that sounded rather mechanical.Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m getting the impression that “procreative potential” exists whenever semen enters a vagina.
For the faithful and sincerely discerning couple, God’s plans are the couple’s plans …also a variable of the couple’s spiritual maturity, as God does not blind side anyone and only an irresponsible couple does not engage thier intellect in discernment.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:
Discernment taken in context.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.
You are positing children, i.e., fecundity, in the negative. Sacramental love is very much open to and in service of fecunity, of which children are the “crowning glory”: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.
It would be an illict marriage that remains “permanently childless” by parental choice. There is no legitimate reason/replacement for never having children for a naturally fetile couple as you incorrectly assert.Ergo, it can be moral to have a permanently childless marriage, just not in every case.
I did address this in other post, but I’m not sure I did a good job, so I’m hoping I can summarize things better here.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.
But this is not about selfishness, this is simply about just simply not wanting a baby, just like how I don’t feel like putting a bunch of pink flamingos on my lawn (no offense to those with pink flamingos on their lawns)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.
Thats the silliest question I’ve heard. They want to marry because they love each other and still have sexual desires for each other! That’s like denying someone entrance to an amusement park simply because there is one ride there they would rather not ride.Why then did they get married at this time if they are not open to children in absence of “serious” and “proportionately serious” reasons?
Unfortunately that is not a silly question. If it is, then you will have to agree that the Church is silly.But this is not about selfishness, this is simply about just simply not wanting a baby, just like how I don’t feel like putting a bunch of pink flamingos on my lawn (no offense to those with pink flamingos on their lawns)
Thats the silliest question I’ve heard. They want to marry because they love each other and still have sexual desires for each other! That’s like denying someone entrance to an amusement park simply because there is one ride there they would rather not ride.
Much of what you say is true, however this is not always true. It can be a sin.However, it’s not a sin to exploit fertility and say that “We don’t want a child, so we will avoid our fertility” (or conversely in the positive).
I have a sister who would debate you on this and prove you wrong. Child number 6 is referred to as their ‘miracle baby’. I believe that is the definition of ‘procreative’. And they were actively ‘trying to control the procreation in the negative’ using NFP.I would argue that a sexual act cannot be procreative if you are actively trying to control the procreation in the negative, by whatever means.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but it appears you are confusing intent with reality. Even if a couple intends a particular act to not be precreative, it is not necessarily not. (sorry for the double negative, but it makes sense) And that is very important to this subject.Therefore using NFP to avoid pregnancy is to engage in sex that is intentionally non-procreative, since you acknowledge the fertility, and then avoid it at all costs. Natural infertility is not in disagreement with this, since it is not an active control
This is what the Church also teaches:Eponymic has an excellent point … Many of you guys are skirting around the real issue.
Catechism 1652 clearly tells us that procreation is one of the primary reasons for marriage and we are all ordered to the procreation and education of offspring. You can twist NFP any way you want, but you can’t get around the simple fact that you are timing a woman’s bodily cycles for the purpose of avoiding procreation. This is a willful act with purposeful intent to avoid the order of procreation which is directly contrary to what the Church tells us to do.
This is the main ppint of a couple’s legitimate use of NFP:Many people say "well, technically it’s still “open” to procreation. Well, I could use the same argument with birth control where 1% of people using it will still get pregnant, so technically birth control is also “open” to procreation. The fact is, if you time your wife’s cycles and have sex immediately after her last menstruation, you aren’t going to get her pregnant, period. I’d bet my home or car that the odds would be so great against this happening. This is the main point of NFP, to choose only to have sex during times that your wife is unfertile.
A morality of an act is dependent not just upon intention and motivation, but also the object chosen, of which ABC (object) is in itself an intrinsic evil:Now, someone please explain to me how you can do that, and satisfy 1652? This is why the arguments for NFP have always been weak in my opinion. The intention and motivation of a NFP couple are exactly the same when compared to a couple using modern artificial birth control methods. They are both purposefully trying to avoid pregnancy. Any Catholic couple is going to have a hard time justifying 1652 by doing this.
I never said marriage was primarily about love, I fully understand its main purpose is in child rearing, however that does not mean that marriage ONLY can serve that purpose (because if that were true, then a women who was not able to bear children would be forbidden to marry). And the catechism is quite explicit on that (hint hint)Unfortunately that is not a silly question. If it is, then you will have to agree that the Church is silly.
Your logic is full justification for homosexual activity and marriage, and polygamy. If loving each other and having sexual desires are all that is necessary to be given license to marry, then these problems and others are justified.
There must be something else required, then, in the Church’s eyes. What do you think it might be? Maybe it can be found in the catechism. (Hint, hint)
Dan
Setter much of these key points made are by church definition and can be changed should the church choose. NFP is open to life only when it fails, same is true for ABC. Intent is always important whether it is direct intent, unknown intent, or indirect intent. The allowed intent is to avoid negative consequences of the pregnancy verses the intent to prevent the transmission of life through God’s method. The parsing of words on this subject is embarrassing. The bottom line and the only thing that holds up is the church says NFP is allowed and the other methods are notThis is what the Church also teaches:
**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. (CCC)
This is the main ppint of a couple’s legitimate use of NFP:
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. (CCC)
A morality of an act is dependent not just upon intention and motivation, but also the object chosen, of which ABC (object) is in itself an intrinsic evil:
**1750 **The morality of human acts depends on:
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts. (CCC)
- the object chosen;
- the end in view or the intention;
- the circumstances of the action.
1755 A *morally good *act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The *object of the choice *can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. (CCC)
You exhibit a superficial and stunted understanding of Church teaching for married conjugal love. I suggest starting with “The Theology of the Body for Beginners” by Christopher West.Setter much of these key points made are by church definition and can be changed should the church choose. NFP is open to life only when it fails, same is true for ABC. Intent is always important whether it is direct intent, unknown intent, or indirect intent. The allowed intent is to avoid negative consequences of the pregnancy verses the intent to prevent the transmission of life through God’s method. The parsing of words on this subject is embarrassing. The bottom line and the only thing that holds up is the church says NFP is allowed and the other methods are not
I would rather be reading than floating on the river of denialYou exhibit a superficial and stunted understanding of Church teaching for married conjugal love. I suggest starting with “The Theology of the Body for Beginners” by Christopher West.
They want to marry **because they love each other and still have sexual desires for each other! **That’s like denying someone entrance to an amusement park simply because there is one ride there they would rather not ride.
The two posts seem to contradict each other. The first leaves out any requirement for parenthood in marriage, suggesting that love and sexual desires are all that is neccessary to enter into a marriage.I never said marriage was primarily about love, I fully understand its main purpose is in child rearing, however that does not mean that marriage ONLY can serve that purpose (because if that were true, then a women who was not able to bear children would be forbidden to marry). And the catechism is quite explicit on that (hint hint)
I may be misunderstanding, but this seems to suggest that the teachings of the Church on this topic are arbitrary. That is far from the truth. Much prayer, study and analysis by many, many people when into developing this teaching. The Church firmly believes that there is concrete foundation for these teachings. And the Church shares the reasonsing. Christopher West’s publications (most, if not all, which have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimater) are a vehicle for sharing the reasoning. Personally, having read most of his and Pope John Paul II’s reasoning, I would reject them casually.Setter much of these key points made are by church definition and can be changed should the church choose. NFP is open to life only when it fails, same is true for ABC. Intent is always important whether it is direct intent, unknown intent, or indirect intent. The allowed intent is to avoid negative consequences of the pregnancy verses the intent to prevent the transmission of life through God’s method. The parsing of words on this subject is embarrassing. The bottom line and the only thing that holds up is the church says NFP is allowed and the other methods are not
I do not see each other as contradicting, my fault perhaps for not being more clear about it. I basically was trying to state that even if the couple do not decide to have children, they must always be open to the possibility of having children and also must use the natural ways of sex (NFP) versus the artificial barriers (Pill, condom) which the church does not allow and I am in full agreement of that.The two posts seem to contradict each other. The first leaves out any requirement for parenthood in marriage, suggesting that love and sexual desires are all that is neccessary to enter into a marriage.
And not guilty as charged. I never suggested that marriage is ONLY for procreation. Procreation is just as necessary as the commitment to love fully. Leaving either one out is a major problem. My post indicates nothing else.
Dan
I appreciate your response.I do not see each other as contradicting, my fault perhaps for not being more clear about it. I basically was trying to state that even if the couple do not decide to have children, they must always be open to the possibility of having children and also must use the natural ways of sex (NFP) versus the artificial barriers (Pill, condom) which the church does not allow and I am in full agreement of that.
*2363
The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves ***and the transmission of life. **These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.2366
- Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that ***“it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”**152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153
Per 2363: One of the primary ends of marriage is procreation. It is clearly a sin to avoid procreation if it were to be possible and not irresponsible in timing. Therefore, NFP can clearly be used in a sinful way to avoid pregnancy simply because the couple doesn’t desire children when they technically could and should conceive if they were financially, psychologically and physically able. How are you going to justify NFP for the middle class couple who have been using it for 10 years and have one child? It’s obviously a form of birth control for them.2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159