Morality of Family Planning

[eponymic]

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”:

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,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “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.” (CCC)

1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.” (CCC)

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.

This is where I observe several contradictions in Church teaching:

1. Fertility is not an requirement for marriage; however, you are required to have children in order to have a valid marriage, unless you’re infertile. The rules governing marriage were set by God, not man, and cover everybody equally. People do not get a free pass on morality because of extenuating circumstances. God’s rules do not have footnotes and subclauses. If “Fecundity is … an end to marriage” means that marriage requires children, then marriage requires fertility.
2. Couples are allowed to discern when and how many children to have, unless this number is zero. Couples either have a choice in the matter, or they do not. If there is one universal “wrong answer”, then there can be others as well.
3. God does not grant children to some couples (see CCC 1654), however God does not allow for married couples the option of not having children. If the decision is solely up to God, then how can married couples discern when and how many children to have?

Every married couple that become parents do so of their own free will, not because of some divine mandate. I strongly reject the idea that “God decided that couple X should have a child now”, as it eliminates any concept of free will. First of all, God is the creator of all life, and it is not beyond His abilities to make a woman pregnant without a couple having sex first (just ask Mary) . Secondly, with a few notable exceptions (and all the exceptions are notable), every person in the history of human kind has resulted from a man and a woman having sex. God may make you fertile, but He does not make you pregnant.

There is no divine mandate that every single person must have children (ask a priest about his kids), and there is no mandate that every single marriage must produce children (ask the infertile couple if their marriage is valid). If you try to amend that statement with “unless…” or “except…” then you’re creating moral loopholes.

 

[BrownR]

My simplified point is that the sex act within marriage is to be “unitive and procreative” if conception of a child if feasible for the family to support in a responsible manner. Simply put, I fail to see how NFP is procreative when, on certain days, the couple can almost be guaranteed to not conceive. This is a willful intention on the part of the couple to avoid procreation and to engage in sex at a time that they clearly know will not produce offspring. Using NFP in this manner is simply not procreative. It’s birth control folks. No amount of circumlocution or circular reasoning will obfuscate this simple fact.

 

[john_ennis]

NFP critics have to see something crucial that differentiates the practice from artificial contraception:

It has to do with the desecration of the sex act, and our bodies.

The fact that a couple wants to avoid having a child is not necessarily sinful. The fact that they wish to have sex is understandable, and not sinful either. Having sex, even as they don’t wish to have a child, isn’t sinful either, if each specific occasion is allowed to be as procreative as God wants it to be.

Avoiding sex is not a desecration of the act, the way having sex while contracepting is.

Whether using NFP is selfish in many cases, is another story, about another sin. It is not an instance of making the God-given, self-giving act of sex a selfish act.

Peace.
John

 

[BrownR]

NFP critics have to see something crucial that differentiates the practice from artificial contraception:

It has to do with the desecration of the sex act, and our bodies.

The fact that a couple wants to avoid having a child is not necessarily sinful. The fact that they wish to have sex is understandable, and not sinful either. Having sex, even as they don’t wish to have a child, isn’t sinful either, if each specific occasion is allowed to be as procreative as God wants it to be.

Avoiding sex is not a desecration of the act, the way having sex while contracepting is.

Whether using NFP is selfish in many cases, is another story, about another sin. It is not an instance of making the God-given, self-giving act of sex a selfish act.

Peace.
John

John, you’ve got a very realistic attitude towards sex within marriage and it probably reflects the majority of Catholic marriages. That’s the primary justification that I hear from people in regards to the practice of NFP. I hear, “we don’t want children, but by using NFP we are open to the possibility of children if God so wills it.”. This sounds great in theory, but the simple fact, if NFP’s purported success statistics are to be believed, that a couple can reach an extremely high rate of pregnancy avoidance by using NFP. They are choosing to engage in sex on days where they have an extremely small chance of getting pregnant. Hence, their desire is to avoid pregnancy and conception which is clearly contrary to the commandments of the Church. It’s technically open to conception, but “not really”. It’s open to conception in the same way that a condom would be open to conception in a technical capacity because it’s not 100% effective. The irony is that NFP is purported to be successful in avoiding pregnancy somewhere in the mid to upper 90’s. Condoms would be roughly ~88% effective. Therefore, I would be “more open” to conception by using a condom versus NFP! If procreation is one of the primary purposes for the conjugal act, then I’m actually doing more to avoid procreation by using NFP which is much more effective than a few other forms of artificial birth control.

 

[john_ennis]

God, I know that you want me to be as responsible as I can, raising a family. You will help me discern whether I may be called to have a dozen, or half-dozen, or no kids at all.

I also know that you’ve made the great gift of marital intercourse a gift which gives love and sometimes creates life. You have given me the right to partake of that gift or not, just as I discern that when we are unmarried you wish us not to engage in it. You have not given me the right to remove from this act either the loving dimension or the life-giving dimension.

If I feel you are calling me not to have children, then, just as when I was single you expected me to abstain, I will be pleasing you to abstain without resentment. To the extent that I do not abstain, I will not take away any dimension of the loving act which you have put in it.

 

[john_ennis]

Hence, their desire is to avoid pregnancy and conception which is clearly contrary to the commandments of the Church.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

This is where I observe several contradictions in Church teaching:

That is understandable if you believe the Church says what you say it does. Let us examine…

1. Fertility is not an requirement for marriage; however, you are required to have children in order to have a valid marriage, unless you’re infertile. The rules governing marriage were set by God, not man, and cover everybody equally. People do not get a free pass on morality because of extenuating circumstances. God’s rules do not have footnotes and subclauses. If “Fecundity is … an end to marriage” means that marriage requires children, then marriage requires fertility.

Physical fertility is not a requirement for marriage, True. But what you say next is false. You are NOT required to succeed at having children to have a valid marriage. Nowhere is that an official teaching of the Church. What IS the teaching is that youintend (at the time you enter into the marriage covenent) to have children. There is a difference. It is also not true that if fecundity is an end to marriage that marriage requires children. That’s bogus logic. Intent matters. A lot. More than ability. An analogy; A priests intent (end) is to get all of his flock to heaven. If he does not succeed, does that mean he’s not a priest? Of course not. He is still required to intend to get his whole flock to heaven.

1. Couples are allowed to discern when and how many children to have, unless this number is zero. Couples either have a choice in the matter, or they do not. If there is one universal “wrong answer”, then there can be others as well.

Mostly correct. Couples are allowed to properly discern when and how many children to have, even if this number is zero, as long as the true intent when the marriage covenant was entered into was that they would have a family. A situation where a couple marry, and shortly afterwards finds that childbirth would probably bring a result of death to the mother, this couple could probably discern God’s will that they not concieve.

1. God does not grant children to some couples (see CCC 1654), however God does not allow for married couples the option of not having children. If the decision is solely up to God, then how can married couples discern when and how many children to have?

Again you are ignorning intent and/or confusing what a couple wants versus what they achieve. Intent is one of three fundamental aspects of morality. It can’t be ignored. What we actually achieve has very little to do with morality. Perhaps you confuse civil law with moral law. Civilly, you can’t be charged with murder if you tried with all your will but did not succeed. However, morally your just as culpable as if you had succeeded.

There is more that must be said, but this post is probably too long already.

Dan

 

[gardenswithkids]

…The fact that a couple wants to avoid having a child is not necessarily sinful. The fact that they wish to have sex is understandable, and not sinful either. Having sex, even as they don’t wish to have a child, isn’t sinful either, if each specific occasion is allowed to be as procreative as God wants it to be.

Marital conjugal love should* want* to be fruitful. Sometimes for a grave/serious/licit/just reason a couple may prayerfully decide that wish to avoid pregnancy, but I don’t like words about wanting children verses not wanting children.

Couples using of NFP to avoid of pregnancy should regret not having another child/children because of their serious reason. For instance, one may regret that another pregnancy poses a health risk to the mother, so they avoid pregnancy not because they want to avoid children but because they want to avoid harm to the mother. One may regret that they think are financially unable to afford Catholic education for additional children (CCC 1652 also mentions “education” of offspring.) One may *regret *that an existing child suffers some serious illness and that they currently need to focus their energy and resources towards that. In such cases, the couples may very much want to have more children!

The Church does not require such couples to abstain indefinately. But if anyone uses NFP thinking “thank goodness we’ve got a reason to not have more kids”, then even if they have a just reason for avoiding preganancy, they have the wrong mindset.

 

[gardenswithkids]

There is no divine mandate that every single person must have children (ask a priest about his kids), and there is no mandate that every single marriage must produce children (ask the infertile couple if their marriage is valid).

Genesis mentions the divine mandate “Be fruitful and multiply” several times.

If you asked a priest about his kids, I hope Father would tell you about his spiritual children. All men created to be fathers; all women are created to be mothers. Priests are spiritual fathers. Women religious are spiritual mothers, (for example: Mother Theresa.) Infertile couples who bear their cross bravely are “spiritual” parents, and frequently such couples bear much fruit for the Church without even knowing it.

 

[Timothy_486]

The Church does not require such couples to abstain indefinately. But if anyone uses NFP thinking “thank goodness we’ve got a reason to not have more kids”, then even if they have a just reason for avoiding preganancy, they have the wrong mindset.

Yet again one must ask: Why must they have children if both agree that children are not something they desire? In other words, why must the burden be put on them? I would much rather a couple have children because they freely choose to, you will then see in those cases much more family love and well better developed children, than say, a couple who have children because they feel they are forced to or out of necessity, and I always notice those families are usually the ones with most arguments, fighting, mental problems, etc.

And if many people today are reluctant for children, I can right now give you the main 99% reason why… High taxes, which in turn effect prices of most everything else in life where we live (I live in the big city just so you know). Right now if me and my girlfriend were to marry and move to our own place, not only would be both need to work full time just to pay rent, but we would probably not be able to have more than one car, we could not afford internet, could not travel at all, our eating habits would be cut by 25%, and we could forget about having any leisure time and hobbies, its terrible where I am as far as living costs, so if any people on this board live in Hickville USA or somewhere away from a metropolis, believe me when I say I envy the prices of homes and land, for example, to the point where what I would pay in 7 months of apartment rental here would probably buy me a 3 room home in Oklahoma.

And while I am no lover of socialism, at least many people these days, both in Europe and some even in the USA, are now deciding to move to France since for the past few years France has given huge benefits to families with large families, the native population has been growing so much in fact that its been nicknamed “Le baby boom”

 

[BrownR]

France has given huge benefits to families with large families, the native population has been growing so much in fact that its been nicknamed “Le baby boom”

What kinds of benefits?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Yet again one must ask: Why must they have children if both agree that children are not something they desire?

 

[Timothy_486]

Timothy 486;2123856:

Because not having children would be allowing selfish desire to interfere with God’s clear statement of HIS will for marriage.

How is NOT wanting something selfish?! And while I wont use argue this in this particular case, I must ask how come everyone uses the phrase “selfish” in negative context? Isn’t seeking salvation selfish? Isn’t eating so you can survive selfish? After all these are acts meant to save our own skins

Timothy 486;2123856:

First, to view children as a burden INSTEAD of a blessing is immoral. Yes, there are burdens associated with parenting, but to spurn a gift from God as precious as another human being is immoral. Secondly, our God is a God who gives us burdens for our benefit! Christianity is replete with the message that we must accept the crosses we are asked to carry. It is how we earn heaven!

I did not mean that children were always burdens, I simply meant that forcing something on someone when they did not ask for it is a burden (and in this case we are talking about something which can be optional)

Timothy 486;2123856:

Exactly. That is why couples who marry intending to not have children have not discerned God’s call for them correctly.

How do you know that? What if it is his will that they remain childless? How can you say what God’s will is for any couple, or person for that matter?

Timothy 486;2123856:

since you probably just finished your taxes, try doing them as a married couple with four kids just for grins. I think you’ll find you will pay A LOT less taxes.

I was talking about a just married couple living in city versus less urbanized region. And yes I agree even in places like Alaska the tax rates are still too high.

 

[fix]

Using NFP to actively monitor and chart fertility is exploiting fertility. Morally, you’re not allowed to say “We don’t want a child, so we don’t want to be fertile”, which is where condoms and the pill go wrong. 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). This is where I’m having problems. If we go back to the fishing house analogy, it’s not okay to lock the door to prevent God from coming in, but it is okay to run and hide when you see him start down the path?

God ordained a female cycle for a reason. Using that information is in conformity with God’s will. Avoiding times when conception is likely does not change the nature of the act.

Again from HV:

The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

eponymic:

NFP is birth control. It’s used to control births. (If you disagree with that, then you’re arguing semantics). 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. 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.

Please see above. Your position cannot be valid, for one thing, because we know that some actions are intrinsically evil. Contraception is intrinsically wrong. Using the natural cycle is not intrinsically wrong. Some may have bad intentions, but the action of the marital act is not bad.

It seems we need to understand that moral acts are separated into intention, means, and end. Just calling contraception and NFP equal does not make it so.

Also:

There is indeed an affirmative obligation on the part of married couples to
have children, as Paul and Vatican II teach. After all, as Vatican II so
strongly insisted, marriage and married love are by their very nature
ordered to the generation and education of children and parents are to
regard it as their highest mission to collaborate generously with God in
raising up new life (cf. “Gaudium et Spes,” nn. 48, 50). Yet an affirmative
duty differs in its obligatory character from a negative injunction. The
scholastics used to put this difference by saying that affirmative duties
oblige “semper sed non pro semper,” whereas negative injunctions oblige
“semper et pro emper.” By this they meant we are always obliged to do the
good, but that we cannot be doing good all the time, and that at times the
pursuit of a given good (such as the procreation of children) might need to
be foregone (although never attacked) if its pursuit should entail
deliberate or even indeliberate yet disproportionate destruction of other
goods…

…In similar fashion, married
couples have a positive obligation to have children (as “Gaudium et spes”
insists), yet there can be reasons why they can legitimately choose to
refrain from pursuing this good, and they are to be the best judges of
this…

…one ought never to choose to repudiate the goodness
of human procreativity–the procreative meaning of human sexuality–just as
one ought not ever to choose to repudiate the unitive goodness of
sexuality…

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/SEXSAN.TXT

 

[fix]

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

Are you claiming that the Church can reverse the natural law?

“Married people should realize that in their behavior they may not simply follow their own fancy but must always be governed by a conscience in conformity with the divine law and be docile to the Church’s Magisterium, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel” (“Gaudium et Spes”, n. 50b). Thus, in this area, the Pope has an authority derived from his own proper office. With the mandate received from Christ he must teach and (if necessary) authentically interpret the divine law, both natural and supernatural, which must be known and observed in order to attain salvation.

It is Jesus himself who wanted the Pope to have a Magisterium of authority, having entrusted him with the mission of teaching men the truths to be believed and the duties to be fulfilled. In promulgating “Humanae Vitae” Paul VI acted within and by force of this Magisterium. He proposed anew “a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.” Paul VI therefore says: “Let no Catholic be heard to assert that the interpretation of the natural moral law is outside the competence of the church’s Magisterium. It is in fact indisputable, as our Predecessors have many times declared (Pius XI, St. Pius X, Pius XII and John XXIII are cited), that Jesus Christ, when he communicated his divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations his commandments (cf. Mt. 28:18029), constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law, the reason being that the natural law declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation” (“Humanae Vitae”, n. 4).

Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Are you claiming that the Church can reverse the natural law?

Natural Law can not be changed, the interpretation of Natural Law can be changed. For a reference look at the Galileo affair in which a revolving earth was found to be against sacred scripture.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

God ordained a female cycle for a reason. Using that information is in conformity with God’s will. Avoiding times when conception is likely does not change the nature of the act.

Contraception is intrinsically wrong. Using the natural cycle is not intrinsically wrong. Some may have bad intentions, but the action of the marital act is not bad.

It seems we need to understand that moral acts are separated into intention, means, and end. Just calling contraception and NFP equal does not make it so.

Also:

Here are some examples of the earlier post these are interpretations neither God nor the scriptures inform man how to avoid pregnancy through the female cycle, or are clear in regard to contraception. The contraception references are vague at best and were written in a very different social circumstance. The Church has set several rules on the issue and could change such.

 

[gardenswithkids]

How is NOT wanting something selfish?! …I did not mean that children were always burdens, I simply meant that forcing something on someone when they did not ask for it is a burden (and in this case we are talking about something which can be optional.

The selfishness lies in wanting something–specifically sex without the responsibility of children. If they really wanted “nothing” then choose to be celibate and unmarried. Couples are not “forced” to get married and have intimate relations–that’s optional. But the responsibility of children usually go with sex and marriage–it’s a package deal.

 

[Timothy_486]

The selfishness lies in wanting something–specifically sex without the responsibility of children. If they really wanted “nothing” then choose to be celibate and unmarried. Couples are not “forced” to get married and have intimate relations–that’s optional. But the responsibility of children usually go with sex and marriage–it’s a package deal.

usually, yes, but it is not a requirement per se. I certainly won’t argue with the fact that a married couple should always consider the possibility children, even if it turns out in the end they never do have any, since it would not make sense to say “well I know for sure I will never have children” when in fact you CANT say that for sure since your thinking 10 years from then can be completely different.

 

[fix]

Natural Law can not be changed, the interpretation of Natural Law can be changed. For a reference look at the Galileo affair in which a revolving earth was found to be against sacred scripture.

That has nothing to do with natural moral law.