Morality of NFP to limit family size

[Xantippe]

That is one of the problems with studies and such. It can lead to false conclusions. And erroneous data. This is especially evident to a scientist.
My parish is over 60 percent Hispanic. Few of them are legal, most are married, most have more children than thier white counterparts, and most are more religious that the white educated people of my town.

**Great! Are you Hispanic and illegal?

If not, I’m not sure this plan is going to work for your children.

Long-term, poor whites seem to spiral into non-marital childbearing, poverty, drugs, and away from their faith.
**

What is bearing itself out is the failure of our system, and this system that we pay for is killing our children and future children. To sing it’s praises is foolish. And I know that you are biased, I know that you have a specific interest, but I encourage you to be a little more critical of the situation.

**I don’t like the situation, but I’m trying to describe it as I see it.
**

My point, Xantippe, is that one must be careful not to be too blinded by the cheerleaders so as not to see the game for what it is.

 

[LongingSoul]

Christopher West on Theology of the Body explains “Responsible Parenthood” as requiring a right sense of what is and isn’t ‘contraceptive ideology’ and the ways in which selfishness can manifest in sexual attitudes separate from contraception. There are extreme manifestations to in all ideas.

The Church’s guidance is purposefully broad. Following the Church’s lead, I don’t intend to spell things out much further than this. It’s the duty of each and every couple to apply these basic principles to their own particular situations. Moral dilemmas are much “easier” when others draw the line for us, but, as Vatican II says, “The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgement in sight of God.”15 John Paul II adds that this point is “of particular importance to determine …the moral character of ‘responsible parenthood.’”16

Therefore, the surprisingly widespread idea that a couple must obtain “permission” from a priest to avoid pregnancy is not only false, but betrays serious confusion about the nature of moral responsibility. If a couple is uncertain of their motivations, it’s certainly advisable to seek wise counsel. But the Church places responsibility for the decision squarely on the couple’s shoulders. If spouses choose to limit family size, the Catechism only teaches that 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.”17

On this point, there is another more subtle and little discussed form of selfishness that conflicts with responsible parenthood. I once counseled a couple that had several children very close together. The parents rightly recognized each child as a divine blessing and did all they could to love and care for them. However, the mother, emotionally drained since the third child, had been desiring a larger space between babies ever since. It came to light that the reason they didn’t space their children was because the husband selfishly wouldn’t (or couldn’t) abstain.

Here, what on the surface might pass as a generous response to Church teaching, when looked at more closely, actually demonstrates a failure to live Church teaching. The point is that in order for parenthood to be “responsible,” the decision to avoid sexual union during the fertile time or the decision to engage in sexual union during the fertile time must not be motivated by selfishness.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6296

 

[Corki]

This whole discussion of college vs. larger families is a red herring. No one is keeping the children of larger families from going to college. Sure it’s nice if the parents can pay a substantial portion but that’s not a determining factor. There are scholarships (one of my sons worked his tail off and earned a full tuition scholarship), community college for the first few years or (gasp) working one’s way through college or attending part time. There’s also the military (either ROTC or GI Bill) and companies that subsidize the cost of tuition for their employees. If the family raises their children to value education and to strive for college it **will **happen.

An only child in a poor family without parents who value education is less likely to attend, let alone graduate from, college than a child who is one of 5 or 6 whose parents stress the value of a good education.

 

[Xantippe]

This whole discussion of college vs. larger families is a red herring. No one is keeping the children of larger families from going to college. Sure it’s nice if the parents can pay a substantial portion but that’s not a determining factor. There are scholarships (one of my sons worked his tail off and earned a full tuition scholarship), community college for the first few years or (gasp) working one’s way through college or attending part time. There’s also the military (either ROTC or GI Bill) and companies that subsidize the cost of tuition for their employees. If the family raises their children to value education and to strive for college it **will **happen.

An only child in a poor family without parents who value education is less likely to attend, let alone graduate from, college than a child who is one of 5 or 6 whose parents stress the value of a good education.

I’d like to think that you’re right, but as I understand it, there’s a sort of upper middle class “death zone” for college, where you’re making too much money to get good financial aid, while at the same time not making enough to be able to cope with the parent portion of the financial aid package.

 

[Corki]

I’d like to think that you’re right, but as I understand it, there’s a sort of upper middle class “death zone” for college, where you’re making too much money to get good financial aid, while at the same time not making enough to be able to cope with the parent portion of the financial aid package.

Yep, and I am living right in that dead zone. (It’s not upper middle class; it’s just the middle of the middle class.) Son’s scholarship was entirely merit based. We don’t qualify for even a tiny bit of need-based financial aid. Next child isn’t getting as much merit aid but he’s only looking at state schools. We can afford that with the school’s payment plan and not have to take out loans. Of course, now that the kids are older, I am working PT and putting that money aside for Room and Board for the kids. They earn their own spending money and money for books. I never said it was easy, just that it’s very possible and not really applicable to a discussion about whether to have another child. No one knows what is going to be the financial situation for a child 18 years in the future.

 

[Xantippe]

Yep, and I am living right in that dead zone. (It’s not upper middle class; it’s just the middle of the middle class.) Son’s scholarship was entirely merit based. We don’t qualify for even a tiny bit of need-based financial aid. Next child isn’t getting as much merit aid but he’s only looking at state schools. We can afford that with the school’s payment plan and not have to take out loans. Of course, now that the kids are older, I am working PT and putting that money aside for Room and Board for the kids. They earn their own spending money and money for books. I never said it was easy, just that it’s very possible and not really applicable to a discussion about whether to have another child.
No one knows what is going to be the financial situation for a child 18 years in the future.

Well, in my personal case, it might be a question of A) having more babies and being out of the workforce for another 4-6-who-knows-how-many years or B) getting a real job for the first time since 9/11 to pay for the current baby’s private school tuition and to get a running start on saving for the older children’s state school tuition. (We can expect our oldest to start college in 6 years and our middle child to start in 9 years, and there’s one bad year where one will probably be a college senior and the other will be a college freshman.)

If we were to have another baby, we’d have to sell our house, move to the suburbs and put our kids in public school. Or, alternately, give up visiting grandmas and grandpas completely, give up on extracurriculars and summer camp, or some similar set of unpleasant retrenchments. There are lots of other good health reasons not to expand our family, but the financial side alone is increasingly weighing on me as college approaches.

I grew up in a family that had three kids and struggled financially a lot, and frankly, if somebody were to ask me, would you have preferred to have yet another sibling but no help with college? there’s absolutely no way I’d choose the extra sibling. I talk to my youngest sibling (a great guy, by the way) maybe once or twice a year–when there’s a big age gap and a large geographical distance, a super close relationship doesn’t necessarily happen.

I also look back and think, wow, wouldn’t it have been nice to have this or that nice thing that my kids have had (a good school, extracurriculars, camps, therapy, etc). I’m OK with how my life has gone based on what my parents were able to give me, but I don’t want to give my big kids less than what I’m giving them and I really don’t think I ought to. I think I’d probably sell blood plasma if I had to to cover my daughter’s music lessons. I just hate seeing talents not being developed.

 

[Xantippe]

It occurs to me that the following may be happening in these discussions.

People are combining the exuberant pronatalism of the Old Testament with the consider-the-lilies-of-the-field Evangelistic poverty of the New Testament and attempting to do both at once.

I don’t think those two things were really ever meant to be combined. The Old Testament is very pronatalist but is at the same time very “worldly” with regard to its view of material blessings, and in fact children are often seen as part and parcel of the good man’s material blessings–in the OT, a man who enjoys God’s favor will have both lots of material possessions and lots of children. Meanwhile, the New Testament is often explicitly anti-worldly, but at the same time, it does not explicitly encourage or require large families as an end in themselves. And in fact, although the authors of the NT undoubtedly had strong views about deviant sexual practices (which are mentioned euphemistically here and there) they seem pretty indifferent to family size.

I would suggest that we not try to create a hybrid of the OT and NT views, because the hybrid view is one that was held neither by the patriarchs of the OT nor by the early church.

 

[JustaSinner]

It occurs to me that the following may be happening in these discussions.

People are combining the exuberant pronatalism of the Old Testament with the consider-the-lilies-of-the-field Evangelistic poverty of the New Testament and attempting to do both at once…the authors of the NT…seem pretty indifferent to family size.

I can’t agree with this. While St. Paul and our Lord praised the great blessing of celibacy, they gave no indication of an intent to abrogate the Divine blessing of children to Covenant families (Psalm 127, 128). God’s blessing of children to believers is not simply the equivalent of perishable “material blessings” like a fine house. Children in the New Covenant are still “as arrows are in the hand of a mighty man” (Psalm 127:4), provided we diligently “bring them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

Of course, the degree of God’s favor is not tied to the number of children God grants (God may have reserved far greater blessings to those families who can have few or no children)–and this was true even prior to the New Covenant (as Job notes to his three “friends”–Job 21:11). However, according to the unchangeable truth of Scripture we are to always view children as a blessing from God–Psalm 127:3, even when from a fleshly perspective children seem more burden than blessing–as potentially alluded to in Psalm 127:1-2. (And God would not have commanded us to view children as a blessing in Psalm 127:3 (i.e. note the language “BEHOLD/LO” in the verse) if there was no fleshly inclination to view them as something less than a great blessing from God). Clearly, if we have this perspective on children, we will not be of a mindset to lightly refuse God’s blessing. God Bless.

 

[Xantippe]

I can’t agree with this. While St. Paul and our Lord praised the great blessing of celibacy, they gave no indication of an intent to abrogate the Divine blessing of children to Covenant families (Psalm 127, 128). God’s blessing of children to believers is not simply the equivalent of perishable “material blessings” like a fine house. Children in the New Covenant are still “as arrows are in the hand of a mighty man” (Psalm 127:4), provided we diligently “bring them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

**And yet, you never ever find that kind of language in the NT.
**

Of course, the degree of God’s favor is not tied to the number of children God grants (God may have reserved far greater blessings to those families who can have few or no children)–and this was true even prior to the New Covenant (as Job notes to his three “friends”–Job 21:11). However, according to the unchangeable truth of Scripture we are to always view children as a blessing from God–Psalm 127:3, even when from a fleshly perspective children seem more burden than blessing–as potentially alluded to in Psalm 127:1-2. (And God would not have commanded us to view children as a blessing in Psalm 127:3 (i.e. note the language “BEHOLD/LO” in the verse) if there was no fleshly inclination to view them as something less than a great blessing from God). Clearly, if we have this perspective on children, we will not be of a mindset to lightly refuse God’s blessing. God Bless.

I’m not sure that there is any such “fleshly inclination” in Psalm 127.

“Children are a heritage from the Lord,
offspring a reward from him.
Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are children born in one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their opponents in court.”

What I see in that series of verses is full-throated enthusiasm for the material blessings that the psalmist expected a large family of children to bring–they are a weapon and a means of prevailing over legal opponents.

In OT times, having a lot of children was largely a material blessing.

 

[fpt]

How serious does a reason need to be in order to permanently limit family size? I know the obvious reasons such as possible genetic defects, health risks to the mother etc.

What if a couple finds that 3-4 children (or possibly more) is a reasonable number of kids and decides to invest their emotional resources on them without stretching their resources on any more?

I ask this because I noticed on another thread a poster mentioned a ‘grave’ rather than a ‘just’ reason is necessary to licitly limit family size. Is that true?

For reading:

Abusing NFP
theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html

 

[fpt]

The couple is not held, morally speaking, of making babies as often as possible. The couple is not held, morally speaking, of making babies as regularly as possible. The couple is not held, morally speaking, of making the maximum of babies as possible. The couple is not held, morally speaking, of making babies until the physical limits, the physiological limits, and the mental / physical / psychological limits of wife are exhausted.

The wife is not, only, a mother: the wife is not a machine to babies, and the wife is not an uterus to babies. The wife is not a female reproductive. The wife is not a robot for babies.The wife is, before anything, a conjugal lover, a conjugal love, a conjugal mistress, a conjugal beloved and then a potential mother.

The presumption of sin of selfishness by the use of the N.F.P. is unacceptable.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The couple is not held, morally speaking, of making babies as often as possible. The couple is not held, morally speaking, of making babies as regularly as possible. The couple is not held, morally speaking, of making the maximum of babies as possible. The couple is not held, morally speaking, of making babies until the physical limits, the physiological limits, and the mental / physical / psychological limits of wife are exhausted.

The wife is not, only, a mother: the wife is not a machine to babies, and the wife is not an uterus to babies. The wife is not a female reproductive. The wife is not a robot for babies.The wife is, before anything, a conjugal lover, a conjugal love, a conjugal mistress, a conjugal beloved and then a potential mother.

The presumption of sin of selfishness by the use of the N.F.P. is unacceptable.

All that you say is correct. But no one is arguing the opposite. I am curious however if you think people should not have children, you are the champion of sexually acting without procreating on these boards, so I am wondering if you think we have a duty within a marriage to have children?

 

[pianistclare]

All that you say is correct. But no one is arguing the opposite. I am curious however if you think people should not have children, you are the champion of sexually acting without procreating on these boards, so I am wondering if you think we have a duty within a marriage to have children?

But how can that be sinful if the sexual act is unitive? Doesn’t that have merit on its own…because honestly, not every sexual act results in pregnancy. I don’t think anyone is advocating that folks should NOT have children if they are able. They should take care of those children they are blessed with. By definition doesn’t NFP Natural **Family Planning **mean just that? Why would the Church give us this option, if we’re simply supposed to crank the kids out? I think unnatural prevention is what the church prohibits. Abstaining from sex during your spouse’s fertile period is sacrificial, right? One expresses love in another way…and dies to self a bit.
So long are your motives are good, I don’t think anyone should be peering into another’s bedroom. Just like we ought not to peer into another’s soul.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[fpt]

All that you say is correct. But no one is arguing the opposite. I am curious however if you think people should not have children,** you are the champion of sexually acting without procreating on these boards???**, explain, please!!! so I am wondering if you think we have a duty within a marriage to have children?

According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, t*he conjugal act has to be unitive and procreative. *In the marriage and in the context of each conjugal act, *the couple has to be open to the life what means no direct and voluntary contraception, no coitus interruptus and no male voluntary ejaculation outside the vaginal canal of wife. *Thus, that means that couple must agree with the fact of receiving the children wanted and by God. The potential opening of the conjugal act to the life is existing when the couple makes love in the human fashion even during the infertile times of wife. The couple has the moral duty to be open to the life and to be pro-creators, in a responsible way. The irresponsible procreation is morally wrong.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

But how can that be sinful if the sexual act is unitive? Doesn’t that have merit on its own…because honestly, not every sexual act results in pregnancy. I don’t think anyone is advocating that folks should NOT have children if they are able. They should take care of those children they are blessed with. By definition doesn’t NFP Natural **Family Planning **mean just that? Why would the Church give us this option, if we’re simply supposed to crank the kids out? I think unnatural prevention is what the church prohibits. Abstaining from sex during your spouse’s fertile period is sacrificial, right? One expresses love in another way…and dies to self a bit.
So long are your motives are good, I don’t think anyone should be peering into another’s bedroom. Just like we ought not to peer into another’s soul.
Just my 2 cents.

One cannot enter marriage and indeed the sex act with a permanent intention to not have children.

I think that we should peer into the open windows of societies bedrooms. Because this “no one pay attention to the man behind the curtain” attitude of sex has gotten us SSM, ABC, Divorce, and the culture of death. It is the spiritual starvation we face today, And that spiritual starvation is sexual in nature. Sex is Holy, it is a Holy act. And God involved the act in a sacrament, and that act is supposed to produce life, it is supposed to Co create with God. “Sex is private” Could not be further from the truth It is one of the only Holy acts that involves multiple souls and God himself… We are supposed to look at the Eucharist as some sort of amazing miracle, of God Himself incarnate. And it is the source and summit of our faith. And it’s crescendo is the Consecration at Mass itself.
If only we had that type of thought about sex.
I’ll call it “liturgical sex” And we are called to that as a married couple. And that liturgy has rules and guidelines just like the mass itself.
When people in modern day America start talking about college tuition as a reason to not create life with God, well… We have drifted too far from the barque of Peter. And as someone who has seen life threatening NFP issues I can attest that rarely does the normal couple give a second thought to the sacredness of the act and indeed the call to create life with God.

Next time you are pondering Genesis and the creation. Really think, not just about the story of creation, but of what God is blessing us with the power to do. Create life, create a soul out of nothing with Him, Him who created us…

I often am shocked by Catholics who look at my four, soon to be five kids and think that there is something extraordinary or special about some superpower we have that they do not… There is no more to it than answering God’s call. It has been scary at times, and hard to let go of our own wishes, but it has been more rewarding than a private education…

 

[fpt]

All that you say is correct. But no one is arguing the opposite. I am curious however if you think people should not have children, you are the champion of sexually acting without procreating on these boards, so I am wondering if you think we have a duty within a marriage to have children?

In reality, if you read the speeches and documents of Pius XII, Humanae Vitae and Co, **the serious or grave reasons are not defined. **It is wanted by the Catholic Church. The liberty and the responsibility of the couple are the rules. Only, the couple has the competence of deciding: the confessor and the priest cannot decide to the place of couple. Formally speaking, the advice and councils of a catholic priest are not a moral obligation.

As catholic, we have no right to put more conditions than the magisterium. Only, the doctrine, not more and not less. If the conditions are so large and no strict, thus, it is wished by the Catholic Roman Church. The fact of wanting to impose more conditions than the official documents of the church is morally wrong, it is a falsification, it is a lie, it is totally not catholic.**

The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally morally okay, it is moral. By nature, the use of the N.F.P. is not the sin of contraception. The practice of N.F.P. in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because of a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a psychical reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), an economical reason, an educative reason, a religious reason, a spiritual reason of wife, of husband and or kids or a child is morally okay and moral, if the two members of couple agree with and if its reasons are objective, real and true, and is not unfair (fair). The N.F.P. is not intrinsically evil, is not objectively wrong, is not of itself, from itself, for itself and by itself immoral.

The responsible procreation (the responsible maternity and the responsible paternity) is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. The conscientization of the marital act for the procreation is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. The moralism against the conjugal sexual joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife is not catholic.

Encratism, manicheism, catharism, quietism, fideism, jansenism, puritanism, victorianism, theoretical providentialism, quiverfullism, absolute procreationism, angelism, primary anti-personalism, primary anti-phenomenologism, primary anti-conjugal erotism, the moralism *against the conjugal joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife, and angelism, conjugal asexualism, conjugal desexualism and the rigidism *in the definition of what is a grave or serious reason for the use of N.F.P. *have to be fought by each “true catholic”.

The race to the large family is not a requisite for the validity of marriage. The race to the large family is not a moral obligation, a moral duty and a moral right for the couple. Per se, the large family is not a sign of the holiness of a couple. Per se, an un-large family is not a sign of the un-holiness of a couple.

The Pope, the bishops, the priests, the nuns, the friars, the monks, the friends, the community, the lays persons, the State, the civil laws, the administrative laws, the penal laws **have no competence, and have no power coming from the natural law for deciding the number of children in the family. Only, the couple, wife and husband, has this natural competence and natural power. All other persons, even the catholic hierarchy, have to stay at distance. The ultimate decision is the hands of the couple. The priests can give, only, information and advice in link with the true doctrine, in the details with all subleties: nore more and not less. The ultimate decision is the hands of each member of couple. The priest does not take the decision, he does not have to take the decision.

The fact of having a large family is not a moral obligation, a moral duty, an end of marriage and a moral requisite of the validity of marriage. The irresponsible will of having a large family can exist and can be abnormal.

The wife can to have to control the abnormal sentiments for pregnancy, the mothering, for the breastfeeding and for the motherhood. The husband can to have to control the abnormal sentiments for the fatherhood. The responsible procreation means not to be a robot, a machine, an animal, and a passive agent, in the responsibility to be parents.*

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

In reality, if you read the speeches and documents of Pius XII, Humanae Vitae and Co, **the serious or grave reasons are not defined. **It is wanted by the Catholic Church. The liberty and the responsibility of the couple are the rules. Only, the couple has the competence of deciding: the confessor and the priest cannot decide to the place of couple. Formally speaking, the advice and councils of a catholic priest are not a moral obligation.

As catholic, we have no right to put more conditions than the magisterium. Only, the doctrine, not more and not less. If the conditions are so large and no strict, thus, it is wished by the Catholic Roman Church. The fact of wanting to impose more conditions than the official documents of the church is morally wrong, it is a falsification, it is a lie, it is totally not catholic.**

The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally morally okay, it is moral. By nature, the use of the N.F.P. is not the sin of contraception. The practice of N.F.P. in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because of a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a psychical reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), an economical reason, an educative reason, a religious reason, a spiritual reason of wife, of husband and or kids or a child is morally okay and moral, if the two members of couple agree with and if its reasons are objective, real and true, and is not unfair (fair). The N.F.P. is not intrinsically evil, is not objectively wrong, is not of itself, from itself, for itself and by itself immoral.

The responsible procreation (the responsible maternity and the responsible paternity) is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. The conscientization of the marital act for the procreation is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. The moralism against the conjugal sexual joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife is not catholic.

Encratism, manicheism, catharism, quietism, fideism, jansenism, puritanism, victorianism, theoretical providentialism, quiverfullism, absolute procreationism, angelism, primary anti-personalism, primary anti-phenomenologism, primary anti-conjugal erotism, the moralism *against the conjugal joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife, and angelism, conjugal asexualism, conjugal desexualism and the rigidism *in the definition of what is a grave or serious reason for the use of N.F.P. **have to be fought by each “true catholic”.

The race to the large family is not a requisite for the validity of marriage. The race to the large family is not a moral obligation, a moral duty and a moral right for the couple. Per se, the large family is not a sign of the holiness of a couple. Per se, an un-large family is not a sign of the un-holiness of a couple.

The Pope, the bishops, the priests, the nuns, the friars, the monks, the friends, the community, the lays persons, the State, the civil laws, the administrative laws, the penal laws **have no competence, and have no power coming from the natural law for deciding the number of children in the family. Only, the couple, wife and husband, has this natural competence and natural power. All other persons, even the catholic hierarchy, have to stay at distance. The ultimate decision is the hands of the couple. The priests can give, only, information and advice in link with the true doctrine, in the details with all subleties: nore more and not less. The ultimate decision is the hands of each member of couple. The priest does not take the decision, he does not have to take the decision.

The fact of having a large family is not a moral obligation, a moral duty, an end of marriage and a moral requisite of the validity of marriage. The irresponsible will of having a large family can exist and can be abnormal.

The wife can to have to control the abnormal sentiments for pregnancy, the mothering, for the breastfeeding and for the motherhood. The husband can to have to control the abnormal sentiments for the fatherhood. The responsible procreation means not to be a robot, a machine, an animal, and a passive agent, in the responsibility to be parents.

I’m sorry and honestly I do apologize. I know that English is not your first language and I know you have tried hard to express yourself in many threads, but I have a hard time following you a lot of the time. So I feel it is fruitless to engage in discussion with you. It is not personal, it just is beyond my ability.
But.

The race to the large family is not a requisite for the validity of marriage. The race to the large family is not a moral obligation, a moral duty and a moral right for the couple. Per se, the large family is not a sign of the holiness of a couple. Per se, an un-large family is not a sign of the un-holiness of a couple.

 

[pianistclare]

One cannot enter marriage and indeed the sex act with a permanent intention to not have children.

I think that we should peer into the open windows of societies bedrooms. Because this “no one pay attention to the man behind the curtain” attitude of sex has gotten us SSM, ABC, Divorce, and the culture of death. It is the spiritual starvation we face today, And that spiritual starvation is sexual in nature. Sex is Holy, it is a Holy act. And God involved the act in a sacrament, and that act is supposed to produce life, it is supposed to Co create with God. “Sex is private” Could not be further from the truth It is one of the only Holy acts that involves multiple souls and God himself… We are supposed to look at the Eucharist as some sort of amazing miracle, of God Himself incarnate. And it is the source and summit of our faith. And it’s crescendo is the Consecration at Mass itself.
If only we had that type of thought about sex.
I’ll call it “liturgical sex” And we are called to that as a married couple. And that liturgy has rules and guidelines just like the mass itself.
When people in modern day America start talking about college tuition as a reason to not create life with God, well… We have drifted too far from the barque of Peter. And as someone who has seen life threatening NFP issues I can attest that rarely does the normal couple give a second thought to the sacredness of the act and indeed the call to create life with God.

Next time you are pondering Genesis and the creation. Really think, not just about the story of creation, but of what God is blessing us with the power to do. Create life, create a soul out of nothing with Him, Him who created us…

I often am shocked by Catholics who look at my four, soon to be five kids and think that there is something extraordinary or special about some superpower we have that they do not… There is no more to it than answering God’s call. It has been scary at times, and hard to let go of our own wishes, but it has been more rewarding than a private education…

Who said ANYTHING about permanent intention to not have children.?
I’m out.
You completely took my words and changed their intent to suit your argument.

 

[Rau]

In reality, if you read the speeches and documents of Pius XII, Humanae Vitae and Co, **the serious or grave reasons are not defined. **It is wanted by the Catholic Church. The liberty and the responsibility of the couple are the rules. Only, the couple has the competence of deciding: the confessor and the priest cannot decide to the place of couple. Formally speaking, the advice and councils of a catholic priest are not a moral obligation.

As catholic, we have no right to put more conditions than the magisterium. Only, the doctrine, not more and not less. If the conditions are so large and no strict, thus, it is wished by the Catholic Roman Church. The fact of wanting to impose more conditions than the official documents of the church is morally wrong, it is a falsification, it is a lie, it is totally not catholic.**

The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally morally okay, it is moral. By nature, the use of the N.F.P. is not the sin of contraception. The practice of N.F.P. in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because of a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a psychical reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), an economical reason, an educative reason, a religious reason, a spiritual reason of wife, of husband and or kids or a child is morally okay and moral, if the two members of couple agree with and if its reasons are objective, real and true, and is not unfair (fair). The N.F.P. is not intrinsically evil, is not objectively wrong, is not of itself, from itself, for itself and by itself immoral.

The responsible procreation (the responsible maternity and the responsible paternity) is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. The conscientization of the marital act for the procreation is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. The moralism against the conjugal sexual joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife is not catholic.

Encratism, manicheism, catharism, quietism, fideism, jansenism, puritanism, victorianism, theoretical providentialism, quiverfullism, absolute procreationism, angelism, primary anti-personalism, primary anti-phenomenologism, primary anti-conjugal erotism, the moralism *against the conjugal joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife, and angelism, conjugal asexualism, conjugal desexualism and the rigidism *in the definition of what is a grave or serious reason for the use of N.F.P. **have to be fought by each “true catholic”.

The race to the large family is not a requisite for the validity of marriage. The race to the large family is not a moral obligation, a moral duty and a moral right for the couple. Per se, the large family is not a sign of the holiness of a couple. Per se, an un-large family is not a sign of the un-holiness of a couple.

The Pope, the bishops, the priests, the nuns, the friars, the monks, the friends, the community, the lays persons, the State, the civil laws, the administrative laws, the penal laws **have no competence, and have no power coming from the natural law for deciding the number of children in the family. Only, the couple, wife and husband, has this natural competence and natural power. All other persons, even the catholic hierarchy, have to stay at distance. The ultimate decision is the hands of the couple. The priests can give, only, information and advice in link with the true doctrine, in the details with all subleties: nore more and not less. The ultimate decision is the hands of each member of couple. The priest does not take the decision, he does not have to take the decision.

The fact of having a large family is not a moral obligation, a moral duty, an end of marriage and a moral requisite of the validity of marriage. The irresponsible will of having a large family can exist and can be abnormal.

The wife can to have to control the abnormal sentiments for pregnancy, the mothering, for the breastfeeding and for the motherhood. The husband can to have to control the abnormal sentiments for the fatherhood. The responsible procreation means not to be a robot, a machine, an animal, and a passive agent, in the responsibility to be parents.

Does a married couple have a duty to produce children (if possible)? Yes or no would be a sufficient answer.

 

[Rau]

I’m sorry and honestly I do apologize. I know that English is not your first language and I know you have tried hard to express yourself in many threads, but I have a hard time following you a lot of the time. So I feel it is fruitless to engage in discussion with you. It is not personal, it just is beyond my ability.

His English seems fine for understanding him. Perhaps you are more frustrated with his excessively long posts that go off at tangents, rather than simply addressing the point at hand?

FPT - please practice shorter posts directed at the issues in the post to which you are responding.