Morality of NFP to limit family size

[Bookcat]

Concise summary:

The Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

497. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

(serious does not mean only “life or death” but it does mean serious (not seeking say to collect cars or something)…the couple must judge before God - all sorts of serious reasons (one can see then general categories in Humanae Vitae) can arrive in life that may give rise to a judgment that one use NFP to avoid a new child. In judging such of course it is wise to take the words of St. John Paul II into account of the great gift even for the other children of another brother or sister)

 

[1ke]

Concise summary:

The Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

497. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

(serious does not mean only “life or death” but it does mean serious (not seeking say to collect cars or something)…the couple must judge before God - all sorts of serious reasons (one can see then general categories in Humanae Vitae) can arrive in life that may give rise to a judgment that one use NFP to avoid a new child. In judging such of course it is wise to take the words of St. John Paul II into account of the great gift even for the other children of another brother or sister)

Unfortunately, there is no Latin text available on the Vatican site. So, it’s hard to know what the translation is coming from.

 

[Bookcat]

Unfortunately, there is no Latin text available on the Vatican site. So, it’s hard to know what the translation is coming from.

The Vatican…

“serious reasons” is what one finds in the more recent documents in the English translations.

 

[1ke]

The Vatican…

“serious reasons” is what one finds in the more recent documents in the English translations.

No, I mean what the Latin says. Sometimes translations do not adequately convey the full meaning of a word.

 

[Bookcat]

No, I mean what the Latin says. Sometimes translations do not adequately convey the full meaning of a word.

The English translation from the Vatican is going to relate what the Latin says.

And as I noted such is used in the various recent documents.

Pretty sure those who have ATM’s in Latin are not going to keep getting it wrong over and over in document translations.

(While certainly translations can be an issue -and yes it is important at times to go to the Latin etc - this is not just a single instance. We have to take care not to slide into some translational quasi- conspiracy theory hermeneutic :yukonjoe: (which I know your not keen on doing of course) …they know what they mean to convey and have been repeatedly doing so with the English words “serious reasons” in the official translations…tis not just one document…I will post some more following).

 

[Bookcat]

a word.

Here are some examples:

From the Compendium - approved by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

vatican.va/archive/compen…um-ccc_en.html

From the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church

It lays out that serious reasons are needed …and they can fit into different kinds…

(another official doc)

1. The family contributes to the social good in an eminent fashion through responsible motherhood and fatherhood, the spouses’ special participation in God’s work of creation[519]. The weight of this responsibility must not be used as a justification for being selfishly closed but must guide the decisions of the spouses in a generous acceptance of life. “In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised both in the duly pondered and generous decision to have a large family, and in the decision, made for serious reasons and in respect of the moral law, to avoid for a time or even indeterminately a new birth”[520]. The motivations that should guide the couple in exercising responsible motherhood and fatherhood originate in the full recognition of their duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society in a proper hierarchy of values.

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…tt-soc_en.html

And from a Vatican Guide for confessors:

“The witness of couples who for years have lived in harmony with the plan of the Creator, and who, for proportionately serious reasons, licitly use the methods rightly called “natural,” confirms that it is possible for spouses to live the demands of chastity and of married life with common accord and full self-giving.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…emecum_en.html

From the Encyclical of St. Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae

This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely.

the larger quote:

The work of educating in the service of life involves the training of married couples in responsible procreation. In its true meaning, responsible procreation requires couples to be obedient to the Lord’s call and to act as faithful interpreters of his plan. This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely. The moral law obliges them in every case to control the impulse of instinct and passion, and to respect the biological laws inscribed in their person. It is precisely this respect which makes legitimate, at the service of responsible procreation, the use of natural methods of regulating fertility. From the scientific point of view, these methods are becoming more and more accurate and make it possible in practice to make choices in harmony with moral values. An honest appraisal of their effectiveness should dispel certain prejudices which are still widely held, and should convince married couples, as well as health-care and social workers, of the importance of proper training in this area. The Church is grateful to those who, with personal sacrifice and often unacknowledged dedication, devote themselves to the study and spread of these methods, as well to the promotion of education in the moral values which they presuppose. 97

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM

BUT AGAIN serious does not have to = life or death…

 

[Xantippe]

I guess I figured that kids can pay their own way through college. Most Catholic schools give free tuition to any child after #3 or #4, so that really isn’t a issue, especially since anyone serious about catholic schools can get help through the diocese or K of C.

**With regard to kids paying their own way through college entirely, doesn’t that just move the problem from mom and dad to the kids?

Either mom and dad are going to struggle to pay for college (perhaps with a little help from the kids), or the kids will struggle to pay for college, perhaps delay marriage, perhaps delay starting a family, limit the number of children they have, etc.

I would argue that one of the merits of parents helping with college is that it clears the way for earlier marriage and parenthood for their children.

Which would seem to be a “serious reason.” **

I see more and more people stopping at kid #2 or #3 because having more children would mean giving up the yearly vacation and luxuries. (Note: I’m not talking about necessities, like food. )These don’t seem to be serious reasons,

A few thoughts:

1. So, food is the only thing kids need?
2. Also, why so hard on families with three children? A family that has 3 children is already 50% bigger than the US average.
3. What kind of “yearly vacation” are we talking about? My family has 3 children, with two in private school, and that means that almost everything else in our life has to be pretty basic. In our family, we are lucky to be able to pay for one trip a year to see grandparents and maybe a night or two in the big city. And that hasn’t always happened. In the past year, we did two nights at Great Wolf Lodge. Almost 3 years ago, we did one night near the beach to celebrate a child’s birthday. 3.5 years ago, we did one night away elsewhere. That’s literally the only vacations we’ve done aside from visits to family the last several years.
4. A lot of families are spending money they don’t actually have. So I wouldn’t count on the nice vacation families actually being able to afford nice vacations.
5. Why isn’t a good education the most important thing to give children, aside from basic material necessities? Education is not a frill.

 

[Abu]

Humanae Vitae 10 states: “seriis causis” (serious reasons); HV 16 states: “iustae…causae” (just reasons) and “argumenta…honesta et gravia" (worthy and weighty justifications), as well as “probabiles rationes” (defensible reasons) and “iustas rationes” (just reasons).
tinyurl.com/7ja8eca

Natural Family Planning - Serious Motives
Answered by Fr. Richard Hogan, NFP Outreach
‘Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving “from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love.’
ewtn.com/expert/answers/nfp_serious_motives.htm

 

[Bookcat]

It is not that just reason and serious reasons are two levels of morally legitimate reasons to use NFP to avoid (it is important to avoid such a misunderstanding).

The Church does not say one must have a “just reason” or a “serious reason” -as if one could say “ok I do not have a serious reason but I have just reason so I will make use of NFP to avoid”. I would say that a serious reason is what is meant by a just reason. I think one will find that all the more recent documents clarify things by noting it is to be a “serious reason”.

As for example:

From the Compendium - approved by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

vatican.va/archive/compen…um-ccc_en.html

Such is a nice succinct summary

To add another:

From the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church

It lays out that serious reasons are needed …and they can fit into different kinds…

(another official doc)

1. The family contributes to the social good in an eminent fashion through responsible motherhood and fatherhood, the spouses’ special participation in God’s work of creation[519]. The weight of this responsibility must not be used as a justification for being selfishly closed but must guide the decisions of the spouses in a generous acceptance of life. “In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised both in the duly pondered and generous decision to have a large family, and in the decision, made for serious reasons and in respect of the moral law, to avoid for a time or even indeterminately a new birth”[520]. The motivations that should guide the couple in exercising responsible motherhood and fatherhood originate in the full recognition of their duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society in a proper hierarchy of values.

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…tt-soc_en.html

And from a Vatican Guide for confessors:

“The witness of couples who for years have lived in harmony with the plan of the Creator, and who, for proportionately serious reasons, licitly use the methods rightly called “natural,” confirms that it is possible for spouses to live the demands of chastity and of married life with common accord and full self-giving.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…emecum_en.html

BUT AGAIN serious does not have to = life or death…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

A few thoughts:

1. So, food is the only thing kids need?
2. Also, why so hard on families with three children? A family that has 3 children is already 50% bigger than the US average.
3. What kind of “yearly vacation” are we talking about? My family has 3 children, with two in private school, and that means that almost everything else in our life has to be pretty basic. In our family, we are lucky to be able to pay for one trip a year to see grandparents and maybe a night or two in the big city. And that hasn’t always happened. In the past year, we did two nights at Great Wolf Lodge. Almost 3 years ago, we did one night near the beach to celebrate a child’s birthday. 3.5 years ago, we did one night away elsewhere. That’s literally the only vacations we’ve done aside from visits to family the last several years.
4. A lot of families are spending money they don’t actually have. So I wouldn’t count on the nice vacation families actually being able to afford nice vacations.
5. Why isn’t a good education the most important thing to give children, aside from basic material necessities? Education is not a frill.

1. Of course not. But in the world there are much fewer needs than we think of as wealthy americans.
2. Ok, but it was in the OP about three is all we can handle or some such thing. I think that is all they are addressing
   3)I know of couples who have delayed or decided not to have more children so they could go to hawaii. My mother thought we should only have 2 kids because that is the most you can really take on ski trips…
   4)True
3. You know I feel much differently about the education. We (my wife and I) had to pay for some of our education, and we will have at least 5 kids, and there is no way that we could even pay for one. So you see, it is a condemnation of those of us who do not provide this for our children. Not only that but a “good education” is not the most important thing to give children, faith and a path to heaven is. The majority the VAST majority of saints did not pay for a college education. And the VAST majority of Catholics, Heck, the VAST majority of AMERICAN Catholics cannot fully fund education without debt. College is flat out a non issue when it comes to how many souls God, My wife and Myself create. Suggesting that it is some sort of thing that good people have to provide a child is not only elitist, but is ignoring the majority of history and of the world.

 

[Xantippe]

People probably say things about my family. I only have 3 children and my husband is a professional so we could easily afford more. I always wanted to have a large family before I married and still feel sentimental towards large families I know. (Except for those rarities that wear it as a badge of honour to look down their nose at smaller families… which I must add I don’t know any in real life.)

Very quickly into having children I became aware of the complete lack of motherly instincts I have and lack of confidence in myself. I always seemed to be the mother who was always up tending to my kids while the other mothers could relax in the confidence of having raised the ‘good’ kids. Of course all made sense when they arrived in primary school and 2 were promptly diagnosed on the autistic spectrum. It took me years to accept that diagnosis because back then 20 to 25 years ago, there were still many who thought it was just a cop out for bad mothering and I actually felt like a bad mother despite the constant efforts to do everything right.

I hate that others would judge me as a selfish breeder because to look from the outside, only having 3 and husband being a professional… we certainly wouldn’t meet some peoples standards. The thing is that noone knows what goes on behind closed doors. I functioned as best that I could to be normal but the truth is that I didn’t get a full nights uninterupted sleep for the first 14 years of children between the difficulties of having kids with autism.

I have no regrets having limited my family to just the 3 as I was able to focus my efforts on teaching my kids how to live. I feel relieved now that the two with the diagnosis are healthy contributing members of society with very little ‘disability’ left of note.

There is simply no way I would ever stand in judgement of others choices regarding their families. The Church has her guidelines for couples to follow in good conscience, not for others to judge them by.

I must add that we would have always accepted more children by Gods will since we do NFP which is inherently open to life.

Yes.

Some children take way more resources than other children, and not everybody is going to share with you their particular struggles.

I haven’t gotten to the end of the thread, but we have three children, one of whom has Asperger’s, and the private school that she has attended for the past 8 years is an important part of her success. Our middle child probably could have gone to the big public suburban elementary school and done just fine, but I can easily imagine the oldest going splat at a big public school, much as I did in elementary school. Although we initially expected to homeschool when we were idealistic young Catholic newlyweds, homeschool was never going to be an option for our oldest, especially back when she was 6 or 7 and she’d have two hour tantrums (a classic autistic feature). We needed all the help we could get, which meant school. She often asked to be homeschooled when she was littler, but as I always told her, “Homeschool is for little girls who always listen to their mothers.”

In my normal life, I don’t go around saying, “Hey, my kid is mildly autistic!!!” That is need-to-know information, and I’ve told maybe two or three people in real life aside from doctors, the psychologist, school, etc.

 

[edwest2]

We should trust God more.

Humanae Vitae

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I was born in the mid 1950s, and the average number of kids in my neighborhood was two and that was true for miles around. There was no birth control pill. My parents had a boy and a girl and we lived in a wood-frame house. There were old people who were past their child-bearing years, some couples had only one child, and some did not marry. That was reality.

Today, there is no need for a TV in every room, expensive cell phones and expensive clothes. I watched home prices gradually increase starting in the 1970s and not out of necessity in my view. My parents owned nothing fancy or expensive. Most everything they had was bought at local stores and dime stores. What we had was the knowledge we were living in God’s world and we were taught to be Catholics every day. That’s why a number of Catholics are homeschooling. They don’t want the corruption of the school system and they are willing to give up a lot so their kids can be practicing Catholics and get the care and attention their parents want them to have.

I have a friend from a family of two kids. His family was poor but his parents showed their children love and how to have fun without spending a lot of money. Good, clean fun. Children are a gift from God. They should learn and think and do things that are pleasing to God - and have fun growing up.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Xantippe]

3)I know of couples who have delayed or decided not to have more children so they could go to hawaii. My mother thought we should only have 2 kids because that is the most you can really take on ski trips…

**How often does the typical American family go to Hawaii or skiing?

I have never been to Hawaii, and while I was brought up loving skiing and would love to share it with my kids, my 12-year-old has been skiing twice (once when she was 3) and my 9-year-old has been skiing once.

Again, “vacation” in our family means, “go see grandmas on the West Coast.” That’s it (except for a night here or there). And we are well above the US median household income.

Again, I suspect (thanks to my personal finance hobby) that a lot of the vacationing is done by people who really cannot afford the vacations.
**

1. You know I feel much differently about the education. We (my wife and I) had to pay for some of our education, and we will have at least 5 kids, and there is no way that we could even pay for one.

Not even one???

So you see, it is a condemnation of those of us who do not provide this for our children. Not only that but a “good education” is not the most important thing to give children, faith and a path to heaven is.

**Hopefully, a “good education” will encompass that. **

The majority the VAST majority of saints did not pay for a college education.

They also didn’t have electricity or cars or internet.

And the VAST majority of Catholics, Heck, the VAST majority of AMERICAN Catholics cannot fully fund education without debt.

**Proverbs 22:7 says, “The borrower is slave to the lender.”

I don’t wish to be a slave and I do not wish for my children to be slaves, so we are going to do our best to get them through college without debt. We have no revolving debt, we are a college family and it’s theoretically possible for us to do it. I understand that not everybody can pull that off, but we have an extremely good chance of managing if a kid or two lived at home and went to college locally.

Giving my kids the opportunity to graduate from college debt-free is one of the best gifts I can imagine being able to give them. (What about a little brother or sister? you say. Well, I think being able to marry earlier and have their own kids earlier is a reasonable trade-off for not getting an extra sibling or two.)
**

College is flat out a non issue when it comes to how many souls God, My wife and Myself create. Suggesting that it is some sort of thing that good people have to provide a child is not only elitist, but is ignoring the majority of history and of the world.

Well, do it your way.

 

[LongingSoul]

The most important instinctive objection I have to the erroneous attitude that it is family size that indicates ‘contraceptive mentality’ is how it plays right into the lie that breeds the *true *contraceptive mentality. That is the attitude that "I’ve done my ‘Catholic’ duty now so I have a pass to permanently sterilize or contracept. It’s not a rare outcome for big families who find themselves overwhelmed when the kids hit the terrible teens.

We have to give more respect to the virtue of conjugal abstinence and its succour for marriage and family over its long lifetime.

 

[Xantippe]

Today, there is no need for a TV in every room, expensive cell phones and expensive clothes.

**TVs aren’t very expensive. We have the one we bought in 2001 still, but I believe we could replace it with one of those new-fangled flat screens for several hundred dollars.

Also, US families are spending less on clothing than every before. Have a look at the charts here:

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-america-spends-money-100-years-in-the-life-of-the-family-budget/255475/**

You’ll see that while in 1900, the US family spent 14% of income on clothing, in 1950 that was down to 12%, and by 2003, it was down to 4%.

I have a friend from a family of two kids. His family was poor but his parents showed their children love and how to have fun without spending a lot of money. Good, clean fun. Children are a gift from God. They should learn and think and do things that are pleasing to God - and have fun growing up.

Ed

If you and your friend could have a good Christian upbringing in families with two children, why can’t parents today do the same thing?

 

[LongingSoul]

If you and your friend could have a good Christian upbringing in families with two children, why can’t parents today do the same thing?

Exactly. No one has the right to judge families with 3 or less children as selfish and modern day contraceptors. Especially if they are faithfully practicing Catholics trying to follow Gods will for responsible parenthood. I don’t know what a trip to Hawaii costs but down here you can actually go to New Zealand or Bali or Cook Islands or whatever for cheaper than it costs to fly and stay overland. People with big families often rely on welfare for help (which people honestly don’t mind their tax dollars going to, except if they are using their family size to look down their noses at smaller families who are contributing in taxes… which I stress I don’t know any of in real life.)

No one has the right to look at another family and poo poo their morality. I really think that is scandalous.

 

[Regina7]

“”" don’t wish to be a slave and I do not wish for my children to be slaves, so we are going to do our best to get them through college without debt. We have no revolving debt, we are a college family and it’s theoretically possible for us to do it. I understand that not everybody can pull that off, but we have an extremely good chance of managing if a kid or two lived at home and went to college locally.

Giving my kids the opportunity to graduate from college debt-free is one of the best gifts I can imagine being able to give them. (What about a little brother or sister? you say. Well, I think being able to marry earlier and have their own kids earlier is a reasonable trade-off for not getting an extra sibling or two.)""""

My parents did not pay for my college, but they did pay for my younger sister’s (appearently they had the finances then). The difference between this? I worked for my education. I worked during the school year and worked twice as hard during breaks. And I earned near perfect grades because I knew exactly how much I paid for each credit. My sister? She earned decent grades, had LOTS of fun, never worked and today, ten years out of college, she is in debt because she never had to work for what she wanted.

I have been a professor for 16 years. I can tell, with high accuracy, which of my students pay their own way versus those whose parents pay. Nine times out of ten, the students paying their own way are better students and are more successful.

I see many parents sacrificing a great deal for their children to attend college debt-free, but perhaps it’s actually more beneficial for the kid’s maturity and responsibility to pay for it on their own.

 

[olive456]

No it is not a question of translation but of word use. Yes “just reasons” have been used too (but think - one must have a “just reason” to use deadly force too - and that of course needs to be rather serious -like protecting ones life in self defense when that is the way one needs to go).

But the term “serious reasons” is likely the best -and the one that gets used in the most recent Church documents.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39854

 

[olive456]

How do you find out that you are “called to have a certain specific number of children?” How does one decipher if it is what you want or what God wants? How do you know the difference? Is it just, “gee it is tough sometimes/mosttimes” If so, then we would have stopped at 0 kids…

I have always wondered what this calling for family size is, and how one deciphers it…

Some couples must know they are not called for large families. How? because not everyone has the extra patience and ability to handle many kids.

No, I don’t think that is a good way to look at family. For one thing, having a large family is an objective good. It’s not something only particular couples are called to. All Catholic couples are called to welcome children lovingly from God and a large family is the “default”. In other words, ideal circumstances should lead to large families. It is the problems of life (finances, health, special needs, etc) that lead to intnentionally smaller families.

The other thing is that idea of more children being “too pressing”. That’s a fluid situation. Having another child when you already have 3 pre-schoolers might be something you want to delay but having another child after the older ones are in elementary school would not create the same pressures. That’s why family planning is a month-by-month decision making process and not a once and final decision.

Having the older kids in elementary school doesn’t make parenting MUCH easier. It would still be pressing to have an additional child as the elder kids move to high school. At least that’s what I think with my little experience with kids.

 

[olive456]

This is your opinion, but it isn’t Church teaching.

I think everyone needs to be aware that Olive has a sensitive conscience, perhaps even leans a little towards scrupulosity. In trying to help her understand Church teaching, we must not unduly burden her with what the Church DOESN’T teach.

The Church teaches that economic, social, emotional, and physical reasons are part of the discernment process. So, yes, finances absolutely can be part of this discernment process.

Private Catholic Education = YES
Bachelors Degree or Trade School = YES
Acceptable peripherals: = YES

Financial concerns are very valid and logical issues when a couple is deciding on family size. Yes, in the first half of the 20th Century, a low income family provider could have a family with seven kids, Food on the table, their own house, a car, and send the kids to Catholic schools. This is 2015 and that scenario would be very rare in the Real world.

Exactly. Times have changed and social demands requires a family has those things you mentioned.