Natural Family Planning... "Just Reasons?"

[PaulinVA]

To judge other people’s just/grave/serious reasons is not …useful.

I know some people who are overwhelmed with one child. Life is hard for them just with that one child, a job, a house, a mortgage, car payments, car maintenance, and the normal things that make up life. I also know couples who have more than four kids and are absolutely great parents and seem to have great families. On the other hand, I know a couple who doesn’t use birth control of any kind, has scads of kids, and let the youngest drown in the swimming pool when no one was watching him.

Each of us is different. Each of us needs to seriously consider when we are going to become co-creators with God and produce a child. This is biology. We know how it works. If we have a serious reason (such as we shouldn’t have another child for the safety of our other children) then the Church tells us we are okay to use NFP.

Why is this so hard to grasp? Why do people want to add to what the Church says"?

 

[LJN21]

Saint Paul said men and women, should they need to be apart should be apart for a short time and shouls live chastely. To me this means no sex when there is a serious reason. Not trying to avoid children.

Emphasis mine. This is your personal opinion on the topic and you admit as much. There is no mention of children in this passage your are grasping at best to make it mean that. You could just as easly use this to SUPPORT NFP because it requires chasisty to practice and you can’t practice Chastity without avoiding having sex for a while.

St. Augustine allowed for sex in marriage and stressed it should always be in the light of begetting children. He was also a Bishop who’s chief responsibility is as a teacher in the church.

He would have serious problems with the current method of NFP.

Yeah I bet he would, but he would have serious problems with ALOT of the current teaching on human sexuality, like that its a GOOD thing and not part of our fallen nature. He all by himself is not infallible nor does he all by himself constitute a consistent unchanging teaching of the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[moon1234]

Emphasis mine. This is your personal opinion on the topic and you admit as much. There is no mention of children in this passage your are grasping at best to make it mean that. You could just as easly use this to SUPPORT NFP because it requires chasisty to practice and you can’t practice Chastity without avoiding having sex for a while.

Yeah I bet he would, but he would have serious problems with ALOT of the current teaching on human sexuality, like that its a GOOD thing and not part of our fallen nature. He all by himself is not infallible nor does he all by himself constitute a consistent unchanging teaching of the Magisterium of the Church.

to your second point. It was previously stated that the church always allowed NFP. This is not true as demonstrated.

As to St. Paul, you are right that is my understanding, but it is not only mine. This is what I was taught and what many in the church have believed for a long time.

The acceptability of NFP has only become tolerated by the church in the last century give or take 50 years.

 

[LJN21]

to your second point. It was previously stated that the church always allowed NFP. This is not true as demonstrated.

As to St. Paul, you are right that is my understanding, but it is not only mine. This is what I was taught and what many in the church have believed for a long time.

The acceptability of NFP has only become tolerated by the church in the last century give or take 50 years.

No it has not been demonstrated. You have your understanding of St. Paul which I’ve never once heard taught and is not part of the Teaching Masiterium as you admit. You also gave St. Augustine who is ONE source and also does not constitute the teaching Magisterium of the Church.

It has not tolerated it for 50 years but a documented fact its acceptable since 1853.

 

[LJN21]

I posted this before and others like it which you seemed to ignore.

Dubium:
Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?
Response: After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation
~ Question by Bishop of Amiens, France, 1853 AD, response by Sacred Penitentiary, quoted in J. Montánchez, Teología Moral [Buenos Aires, 1946], p. 654.

Not the use of the only and the date it was oringally puplished.

 

[maryjk]

T**ry as you might, most people using NFP are doing so to AVOID the birth of a child. They are NOT being open to life. ** Take a poll at the next NFP class and see how many people are there to learn how to AVOID having children. That will show you how well their conscience is formed.

There are legitimate, but very few, true reasons to delay having children. Honestly ASK some of the people what their reasons for delaying children are. If it is money, ask if they will be in the street if another child comes (They won’t. The government already provides free food and other subsidies if you don’t make enough money). Could they sell the TV, DVD player, Snow Mobile, etc. to have the money to pay for the child?

True, everyone should have as many children as they can. Isn’t that what you think? Even if they are living in their car? On the street? Are you part of the Quiverfull movement?

I think you missed what I said. **I said the test should be if the condition is serious enough for you to abstain from sex. If you have serious enough reason for you to abstain then you may have a case for NFP. **

May have a case? How about if you have a reason to abstain from sex, you have a reason to use NFP?

**I believe that when you exercise the conjugal act purposefully (ie. have sex) deliberatly during infertile times you frustrate the primary purpose, which is having children. **Because your act of purposefully having sex during infertile, while excluding the fertile times is a frustration of the primary purpose.

If you asking for a period of rest then you should not artifically create it. God will discern that for you if you trust him.

“Why did you not want to accept the children I had intended to send you? Did you not trust that I had a plan for you and would care for you?”

The same reason I didn’t step out in front of the car racing down the street. The same reason Jesus didn’t jump of the cliff. Testing God is not something I do.

Because your primary goal is to AVOID having children. If you nurse your children and you continue to have sex whenever both you decide, then you are not frustrating the possibility of getting pregnant. You took no deliberate action to lessen the possibility of you conceiving a child.

If you are such a woman and use examination of mucus, discharge, moisture, etc. and tell your husband, not today I am fertile, then you deliberatly frustrate the primary purpose of marraige.

Or you know you have a just reason to not conceive.

**Charting is fine as long as you are not using the knowledge from the charting to avoid having children. ** On the contrary if you are trying to conceive a child the knowledge you gain would be used to for the primary purpose of your marraige. This is a very good example of how NFP can be used.

So what is it. If I am using my chart to avoid conceiving, then that is a problem. I thought you said you believed it was okay if I had a just reason.

Put it this way. ** IF your reason is serious, then you should feel no hurt or disdain. **You should be comfortable in your choice and know you are doing what Our Lord and church asks.

If you conscience tells you otherwise, then you need to do some soul searching. This is what I had to do to solidify my beliefs. I am comfortable in knowing that I am not walking a fine line. I don’t worry if I am doing something that our Lord may disapprove of.

I am not trying to Judge you. I am trying to make you judge yourself. If you Judge the way you live and determine through prayer that what you are doing is right, then you should feel no hurt from my posts. I apologize if you do.

So we are back to it being ok?

Put it this way. If you don’t use NFP at all and just trust God, you will be 100% guranteed to be within acceptable practice with the Church.

It really boils down to a very simple evaluation:

**If you use NFP solely to avoid children and do not have a grave or serious reason, it is not acceptable. ** All of us KNOW what grave and serious mean. We want to find ways around those grave/serious reasons and justify our reasons.

You are searching for a list of serious reasons, but none exists. That is the problem. If you are left up to discern for yourself what is serious and what is not, how do you do that? What is serious? The whole question is arbitrary.

Look to tradition and see how people lived in the past. How did they deal with the same questions? How did previous saints teach? Look at yourself from Chirst’s point of view. Ask St. Agustine to intercede for you.

As for my PP comment. If you had such a strong reaction then think to yourself why you did? I get called all kinds of names when I put forth such questions. When I press people WHY they react that way I usually do not get an answer. I have the same reaction you did at times, but on different aspects of my life where I (deep down) know I need to clarify my knowledge so I know how to live my life. Maybe I know what I am doing is not quite right or it is, but I am not comfortable with they way I am carrying it out.

Nope, not looking for a list of reasons. I know that I have a just reason. If I had the condition I have now, in the past. I would most likely be dead.

And people get upset about the PP comment because the primary purpose of PP is to kill children. People that use NFP are not killing children.

You have spent a lot of time trying to push your theory that NFP is bad. You have gone back and forth about just reasons to avoid. To what end?

 

[Hvaljen_Isus]

I have to agree with Moon1234 for the most part regarding NFP. I’ve tried extensively to believe and sought justification for the church’s teaching on being able to use NFP and the ability to reconcile that teaching with her teaching that “all sexual acts must be open to the possibility of life.”

These are my difficulties with NFP:

1. When a couple exploits periods of infertility to avoid pregnancy they do that with expressed intent of not getting pregnant. So how can someone say to their partner “I give myself whole self to you without reservation” and yet they full well know that they cannot give themselves totally to the other because they are intentionally engaging in a sexual act with the knowledge that they will have a 99% chance of not getting pregnant. This quote explains it aptly "My favorite comment recently was made by another author comparing NFP to a farmer who plants his corn in the dead of winter so as to avoid a plentiful harvest.”
2. I’ve also read some porkies written by people like Christopher West saying well if your only intention is to get pregnant when engaging in the sexual act then you can begin to see your partner as a means to the end of having a child. This is bumpkin - in the open sexual act (without concern of avoiding pregnancy) I’m saying to my wife “I’m giving myself totally to you in love and if God chooses to bring a child as a consequence I accept that gift with gratitude and thanksgiving.” In being totally open to life - the intent isn’t that I seek a child per se but rather that I’m giving myself totally without reservation to my partner with the full knowledge and intent that I’m being open to life not having sex only at certain times to intentionally avoid getting pregnant. The same absurd logic could be used with NFP - when I make the decision to utilise fertile periods that equates to using my wife as a means to an ends to get pregnant. West’s argument is very weak.
3. Some advocates of NFP will say “well what if I can’t support a child at this time in regards to financial and emotional stresses.” The answer is simple - abstain from all sexual activity until such a time when you can engage in the sexual act without the purposeful and deliberate intent of knowingly avoiding pregnancy and with the knowledge that you’re engaging in the sexual act with a total openness to the possibility that God may bless you with a child.
4. If NFP can exploit infertility to intentionally avoid pregnancy then I can’t see why artificial contraception is opposed. Yes, I admit that NFP is somewhat more ethical then an unrestrained indulgence in the use of artificial contraception, however, I don’t see that great a difference and people who argue otherwise are dishonest IMO. I think a university friend of mine was on the money when in her tutorial class they were debating the church’s stand on (a)contraception - my friend retorted by saying their was a Catholic method of contraception called NFP! I don’t think she was wrong, you can use as many weasel words and politically correct terms as you like but I think if you call a spade a spade then NFP is contraception.

P.S - this is just where I am at the moment in trying to reconcile church teaching on these things. I hope to dear God that he provide me an epiphany so I may come to see the light regarding NFP but at the moment I can’t see the light and until I do if ever I do - this is where my opinion lies regarding these issues. My conscience can’t reconcile these seemingly contradictory teachings, however, for those of you who have reconciled these issues I wish you the best of luck and I pray that God prosper your marriage. I have no hard feelings towards anyone if you in fact use NFP - these are my struggles which I have to contend with.

Zbogom

 

[choose_to_love]

Zbogom,

1. "How can a partner say I’m giving my whole self to you . . " When the woman is infertile, she is giving all of herself that there is to give on that day. The couple has not taken any action to alter the act of intercourse. That act of intercourse would not result in conception regardless of the couple’s intent. I’m sure you can see that in the case of the naturally infertile older woman, or the breast feeding mother, right?
2. Only intention is to get pregnant/use of partner. You then go on to call it “bumpkin” and change the circumstances of West’s example by describing an open sexual act without concern of avoiding pregnancy. West is not talking about someone trying to avoid, he’s talking about the couple that’s trying to conceive. Have you ever experienced infertility issues and sought treatment? Seeking treatment generally involves identifying how the man and woman’s bodies interact - - how his sperm react to her body, etc. This requires examination within certain times of intercourse, may involve administration of various medicines within so many hours of intercourse, intercourse on certain days because of prior administration of medicine - - all of which can cause the unitive to separated from the procreative. You can fall out of the left side of the boat as easily as the right. I know this from personal experience, and it’s why we stopped treating our infertility issues. West is not wrong at all, in fact he is right on the money on this issue. I think you have misunderstood him.
3. So it is OK to purposefully and with deliberate intent to knowingly avoid pregnancy all the time, i.e., abstain completely, assuming a serious reason? It seems to me this is just a back door way of saying “you do not have a serious reason”. It’s a way to gauge the seriousness of the reason. That deals more with the application than with the theory. If it is legitimate to avoid pregnancy for a serious reason by total abstinence, then it is just as legitimate to have recourse to the infertile times of a woman’s cycle. The goal of regulation of birth is legitimate and part of an exercise of responsible parenthood, again, assuming it’s not based on personal preference but on prayerful reflection and an informed conscience on the Church’s understanding of marriage. Do you agree with that?
4. Can’t see why artificial means bad. It is not because they are artificial, it is because they are contraceptive. The ends do not justify the means. Your friend was absolutely wrong because NFP is not contraceptive. No action is taken to alter one’s fertility. Women are created, by God, in His image, with fertile and infertile phases of the cycle. NFP is essentially the gathering of information. How does NFP alter the act? The answer, of course, is that it does not.

I appreciate your candor, but be careful. I’m not being “dishonest” when I point out that the ends do not justify the means. I’m not being “dishonest” by noting that there is a substantive and qualitative difference between respecting how we are created in God’s image and actively working against how we are made.

 

[choose_to_love]

Baylee,
In your post #116 you seem to be saying that one can be open to life because the method that one chooses to contracept with is not 100% effective. Is my understanding correct?

If it is, I would suggest that efficacy has nothing to do with licitness. You may choose a licit or an illicit means to accomplish the good end of postponing pregnancy for a serious reason. The good end of postponing pregnancy (assuming serious reasons) may not be accomplished by immoral means. Contraception actively works against God’s design of us; NFP works in harmony with it.

 

[choose_to_love]

Moon,

“if you don’t use NFP and just trust God, you’ll be 100% guaranteed to be within acceptable practice . .”

“Let’s look at how people lived in the past . . .”

Don’t know if I agree totally. Responsible parenthood does require an inquiry into one’s responsibilities to God, the other spouse, the existing family, and society. If, in your statement, ‘just trust God’ includes periods of abstinence, whether total or partial, I suppose I do agree.

However, looking at how people lived in the past, and still do today, reveals, I think, a great disordered understanding of sexuality, often manifested in objectification and commodification of spouses and women in general, and men to a somewhat lesser degree. I think a failure to understand the husband’s vocation along with disordered desire, resulted in the view of the wife being sexually available on demand, without regard for her existing responsibilities and the responsibilities to the existing family. I think this disordered view of sexuality, combined with other factors, is what drives the demand for contraception.

Put another way, if we heard consistently and strongly from the pulpit and from the bishops about the true meaning of sexuality, the vocation of husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church (totally, faithfully, freely, and fruitfully), and responsible parenthood, abstinence whether total or partial would not be seen as an impossible condition but rather a component in the totality of married sexuality and part of the vocation of married life. Women would not feel powerless and objectified, and men would be challenged to live as God intended.

Ok, I’ll step down off the soap box now.

 

[baylee]

Baylee,
In your post #116 you seem to be saying that one can be open to life because the method that one chooses to contracept with is not 100% effective. Is my understanding correct?

If it is, I would suggest that efficacy has nothing to do with licitness. You may choose a licit or an illicit means to accomplish the good end of postponing pregnancy for a serious reason. The good end of postponing pregnancy (assuming serious reasons) may not be accomplished by immoral means. Contraception actively works against God’s design of us; NFP works in harmony with it.

You are correct in what I was asserting, but I was asserting what others (who use ABC) have brought to my attention…so I wasn’t trying to be argumentative here. I was trying to play Devil’s advocate.

In my mind, even though there is opportunity for God to intervene even with ABC, the intent of the couple is to not get pregnant…and I think I was trying to make parallels with this intent and with those who use NFP whose intent is also to not get pregnant. However, if you think about it, when couples abstain with NFP there is no chance for God to intervene, but with ABC there is always a chance. I just find that fact alone very interesting to ponder…

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m not sure whether you’re being serious about some survey out there or if you’re just giving me a hard time for making an assertion without specifics to back it up. Regardless, I am making my comments based upon the reasons I see given on this site compared to reasons given on a secular site. The reasons for most couples are very similar (economic, medical, etc.).

Yes, I was being serious…I think if we are to talk about Catholics on ABC, we need to talk about where we are getting our numbers from…Talking to a few friends or family who have told us they use ABC, doesn’t constitute as ‘many’ families, in my eyes. Unless we know for certain, that by and large Catholics are using ABC, and/or using NFP for non-just reasons…then we are just offering up hearsay.

 

[baylee]

Yes, I was being serious…I think if we are to talk about Catholics on ABC, we need to talk about where we are getting our numbers from…Talking to a few friends or family who have told us they use ABC, doesn’t constitute as ‘many’ families, in my eyes. Unless we know for certain, that by and large Catholics are using ABC, and/or using NFP for non-just reasons…then we are just offering up hearsay.

I never said that people were using either for unjust reasons…my point is that the reasons are the same.

And I’m sorry, but I don’t think there is data for every possible scenario that can be brought up in these forums. Very often posts are based on opinion and what we’ve seen in our own lives. If you want to pass up that information , fine…but don’t expect every post to have official facts to back them up.

 

[whatevergirl]

True, but I don’t think we should claim ‘many’ or ‘most’ Catholics. People in the forums here will say that they ‘know’ most Catholics are using ABC…how do they know that, is my question? By talking to 10 people in a year about ABC, and they admit to using ABC? That doesn’t constitute as many or most. I’m not saying you do this, your earlier post just caused me to think about that, that’s all.

 

[PaulinVA]

True, but I don’t think we should claim ‘many’ or ‘most’ Catholics. People in the forums here will say that they ‘know’ most Catholics are using ABC…how do they know that, is my question? By talking to 10 people in a year about ABC, and they admit to using ABC? That doesn’t constitute as many or most. I’m not saying you do this, your earlier post just caused me to think about that, that’s all.

Uhm, every major poll shows that, at most, 5% of Catholics use NFP. This includes ‘ethnic’ Catholics and those that attend every week.

Why are you surprised at this? A major poll released this week shows that Catholics are more liberal than the average liberal.

 

[baylee]

True, but I don’t think we should claim ‘many’ or ‘most’ Catholics. People in the forums here will say that they ‘know’ most Catholics are using ABC…how do they know that, is my question? By talking to 10 people in a year about ABC, and they admit to using ABC? That doesn’t constitute as many or most. I’m not saying you do this, your earlier post just caused me to think about that, that’s all.

Understood, but my claim to “many” is based on those that I have come across…and of those that I have come across, many is an appropriate description. I’ll be more careful how I word things.

 

[whatevergirl]

Uhm, every major poll shows that, at most, 5% of Catholics use NFP. This includes ‘ethnic’ Catholics and those that attend every week.

Why are you surprised at this? A major poll released this week shows that Catholics are more liberal than the average liberal.

I’m not in the poll…my dh and I follow it. Are you in the poll? Probably not. Where are the numbers coming from?

The latter statement I believe, as those numbers were pulled from voting records, a majority of Catholics overall, voting for Obama.

Is that where the numbers are coming from? I don’t believe only 5% of Catholics use NFP…I don’t. I wasn’t polled, and neither were many I know who use it. So, what, they polled 500 Catholics across the world? haha Not reliable. I am not naive to thinking that many use ABC for birth control methods, but again many, most…these are just adjectives and speculations…

 

[whatevergirl]

Understood, but my claim to “many” is based on those that I have come across…and of those that I have come across, many is an appropriate description. I’ll be more careful how I word things.

LOL–I’m sorry. I sound like the word police, forgive me, not my intent.

Probably the best statement would be this…‘Many people I KNOW who are Catholic…use ABC…’ or whatever the statement is. That would be accurate. I do know many also, I also know many who use NFP.

I don’t believe only 5% are using NFP. Polls are absurd. Why do we believe polls when they give stats about Catholics, but we don’t believe the polls for example, when Obama was running for President? haha Polls are polls, and often are inaccurate.

 

[baylee]

I’m not in the poll…my dh and I follow it. Are you in the poll? Probably not. Where are the numbers coming from?

The latter statement I believe, as those numbers were pulled from voting records, a majority of Catholics overall, voting for Obama.

Is that where the numbers are coming from? I don’t believe only 5% of Catholics use NFP…I don’t. I wasn’t polled, and neither were many I know who use it. So, what, they polled 500 Catholics across the world? haha Not reliable. I am not naive to thinking that many use ABC for birth control methods, but again many, most…these are just adjectives and speculations….

Whatevergirl…I’m beginning to think you misunderstood my other post. Just so you know, my assertion was not that many/most Catholics use ABC (although I do believe that is the truth here in the US), but that the reasons that most Catholics use ABC is the same as the reasons that other Catholics use NFP.

 

[whatevergirl]

If say 500 people were polled and were Catholic…and they say they use ABC…and from that number, 5% use ABC…then that would make sense. But, not 5% of Catholics in U.S. use ABC. That is not accurate at all.