I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
A contraceptive mentality is the desire not to have children, viewing them as a burden rather than a gift of God, a selfish approach to marriage, a lustful approach to the marital act, and many other things.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
white_sheep
Guest
What if a woman is a stay at home mom and is able to breastfeed her children exclusively for the first 2 years after they are born? If she does this to space her pregnancies is it immoral?Although this thread is not about what the SSPX says about NFP, the grave sin comes from the “contraception mentality”. As a married with children SSPX’er (and not by any means a genius), I take this to mean that even the use of NFP to space your children every other year, which on the surface appears exceedingly reasonable to most modern couples, still smacks of a contraception mentality where for financial reasons or non-serious health reasons, we want the children to come every 19 months but in between we want to be free to enjoy the human reward which God has provided to us in loving gratitude for our cooperation with Him in the awesome task of creation.
I won’t even get into what is a grave health reason or how a grave a sin it is to use NFP. Just trying to give you, in my own layman’s terms, what the SSPX text means, which I believe, is consistent with what the church has traditionally taught on the matter of contraception.
When in doubt, if you want to follow traditional teaching then find a solidly traditional priest you trust, and then trust in his counsel.
W
whm
Guest
A lot of what you said in your post makes sense to me. Thanks for the historical context. You brought up a very good point that I had struggled with previously, that is NFP is not very compatible with the concept of the having to render the marriage debit. I don’t know if it is coincidence or not, but the marriage debt has been virtually obscured in the CCC and other modern materials. I find this suprising, since St. Paul makes it so clear in 1 Coth 7. At first glance many people see it as license for men to get what they want when the want it. It is much more involved than that, it really is a two edge sword. One must understand that one side has the obligation to render the debt and the other has to obligation not to ask it unreasonably and without lustful intentions. If one spouse is having issues with relations the other should also not request it as to put him/her in the position of refusing it. It is very possible for both sides to commit a mortal sin at the same time, assuming their are educated about it.Since you asked for opinions from traditional Catholics, here’s my opinion on the issue:
These considerations make it difficult to justify NFP. The only legitimate course of action seems to be abstinence, but (of course) with the understanding that either spouse must render the debt if asked, and the husband even has an obligation to render the debt if he realizes by signs that the wife would like to engage in the marital act but is too embarrassed to ask outright. What’s more, if one is in danger of falling into sin because of such abstinence, he has an obligation to ask the debt to be paid. While this is sort of like NFP, there is no intention to avoid conception in the particular marital acts. There is no planning to avoid conception, no charts, no “smiley” and “frowney” days on the calendar, etc. You simply abstain except when the obligation for the marital debt arises. The intention in the act is still good. Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. The only substantial difference is the intention, but for an act to be good, it must be entirely good: in the act, the intention, and the circumstances.
I’m not looking for license to use NFP, more that I’m looking for confirmation that abstinence is not a bad choice for us. Making sure that we are not sinning or making a big mistake by abstaining. It requires some adjustment in thinking and behavior to commit to it when the one or both of the spouses are otherwise in love/attracted to each other etc. Society today screams that there is something wrong with you for going this route. Something terrible will come of it etc. Some sin had entered our relationship for awhile, but honestly that was during a period were we both did not understand/agree with/ or communicate about what was going on.
W
white_sheep
Guest
I don’t understand your first comments there. NFP is a mutual decision, intermittent continence cannot be forced on the other spouse.A lot of what you said in your post makes sense to me. Thanks for the historical context. You brought up a very good point that I had struggled with previously, that is NFP is not very compatible with the concept of the having to render the marriage debit. I don’t know if it is coincidence or not, but the marriage debt has been virtually obscured in the CCC and other modern materials. I find this suprising, since St. Paul makes it so clear in 1 Coth 7. At first glance many people see it as license for men to get what they want when the want it. It is much more involved than that, it really is a two edge sword. One must understand that one side has the obligation to render the debt and the other has to obligation not to ask it unreasonably and without lustful intentions. If one spouse is having issues with relations the other should also not request it as to put him/her in the position of refusing it. It is very possible for both sides to commit a mortal sin at the same time, assuming their are educated about it.
I’m not looking for license to use NFP, more that I’m looking for confirmation that abstinence is not a bad choice for us. Making sure that we are not sinning or making a big mistake by abstaining. It requires some adjustment in thinking and behavior to commit to it when the one or both of the spouses are otherwise in love/attracted to each other etc. Society today screams that there is something wrong with you for going this route. Something terrible will come of it etc. Some sin had entered our relationship for awhile, but honestly that was during a period were we both did not understand/agree with/ or communicate about what was going on.
H
h1478971
Guest
I agree there is a certain culture in the TLM movement that looks at NFP with suspicion. I do agree that welcoming with open arms all the kids that God send you is the right thing to do.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Absolutely not since there is no guarantee that nursing prevents conception.What if a woman is a stay at home mom and is able to breastfeed her children exclusively for the first 2 years after they are born? If she does this to space her pregnancies is it immoral?
W
whm
Guest
NFP doesn’t work very well if one spouse requests the debt during a fertile period. The standards that allow refusal of the marital debt are not the same as what is currently thought by many as reasonable justification for using NFP. The more transitional (older documents) and for that matter the opinion from the SSPX website have NFP standards more in line with the allowable reasons for refusing the marriage debt. I see kind of a disconnect there, it really seems to stem from relaxed wording or omissions in the more modern materials.I don’t understand your first comments there. NFP is a mutual decision, intermittent continence cannot be forced on the other spouse.
T
timrohr
Guest
So the question is why are we trying to avoid pregnancy in the first place. The “procreation and education of children” is the whole point of marriage…at least if you are a Catholic. The “good of the spouses” is part of the equation, but the Church is careful not to separate them.
And while the Church “allows” NFP for serious (grave) reasons, the word “allows” and the requirement of grave reasons, tells us that the spacing of births or avoidance of pregnancy is the exception and not the norm.
Yet, in almost all discussions, NFP is spoken about as if it’s the norm. I recently received an email from the Couple to Couple League in answer to a question “When is it okay to use NFP?” The answer was an unqualified “any time!”.
Even on the USCCB website, NFP is presented as the norm. There is no mention of the serious reason requirement on any of the web information. You have to dig for it in the related documents. Yet “serious reason” is the bar for whether periodic abstinence is sinful or not.
This is gravely dangerous and has led to a seemingly Church approved contraceptive mentality since the intent (avoid pregnancy) is the same. Abstinence (without just cause) is just as sinful as contraception. There needs to be a serious discussion about just cause, and not just “what can I get away with”.
Pius XII actually takes care of it for us. Since NFP was just coming to light during his reign, it seems that he addresses this more directly than the other popes. An excellent article detailing his instructions on the matter can be found at
catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/natural.htm
And while the Church “allows” NFP for serious (grave) reasons, the word “allows” and the requirement of grave reasons, tells us that the spacing of births or avoidance of pregnancy is the exception and not the norm.
Yet, in almost all discussions, NFP is spoken about as if it’s the norm. I recently received an email from the Couple to Couple League in answer to a question “When is it okay to use NFP?” The answer was an unqualified “any time!”.
Even on the USCCB website, NFP is presented as the norm. There is no mention of the serious reason requirement on any of the web information. You have to dig for it in the related documents. Yet “serious reason” is the bar for whether periodic abstinence is sinful or not.
This is gravely dangerous and has led to a seemingly Church approved contraceptive mentality since the intent (avoid pregnancy) is the same. Abstinence (without just cause) is just as sinful as contraception. There needs to be a serious discussion about just cause, and not just “what can I get away with”.
Pius XII actually takes care of it for us. Since NFP was just coming to light during his reign, it seems that he addresses this more directly than the other popes. An excellent article detailing his instructions on the matter can be found at
catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/natural.htm
W
white_sheep
Guest
There is no guarantee that NFP prevents conception either.Absolutely not since there is no guarantee that nursing prevents conception.
On average women remain infertile for 14 months by practicing ecological breastfeeding, some get less and some get 2-3 years. Do you condemn the practice of following the rules of ecological breastfeeding to naturally space children?
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
There are very, very few legitimate reasons to deny the marital debt. They all include grave physical reasons, e.g., the six-weeks after birth (and even this cannot always excuse, if there is no real cause for concern of the health of the woman), plague, infidelity (exceptions to this mentioned in the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/5062.htm#article1), etc. If you are very serious about this, I will see if I can find the time to translate St. Alphonsus’s entire treatment of this issue in his Theologia Moralis. Let me know if you’d like that or not. Since you already have a good grounding in the issue, it seems that a comprehensive approach would be best to clear up any particulars that you may find foggy.
For a start, I recommend the section on the marital debt from the supplement to the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm. I would add the caveat that articles 3 and 4 are not included in the official edition (the Leonine edition, which published the definitive editions of all the works of St. Thomas; as you probably know, the supplement was not actually written by St. Thomas himself but by one of his students after his death mid-way through the work). You don’t necessarily need to read all the objections, etc., but at least the “On the contrary” and “I answer that” for each article.
What’s more, the mediaeval position that it was not permitted to ask the debt during holy days was not usually followed after that time, especially because there is nothing in the law of the Church that forbids it, and it doesn’t appear to be a matter of divine law (the priests in the Old Law were actually directed to engage in the marital act on the Sabbath, for example). The mediaevals often also claimed that the marital debt was forbidden during Lent, though, again, this is not the position of theologians since the time of Trent (perhaps because Trent codified so many practices of the Church into law and teachings of the Church into definitive dogma that were simply commonly practiced or believed till that time).
Note well, however, that even though he says that it is not permissible to ask the debt during those times, he still holds that the other spouse absolutely must pay the debt when asked. There are a lot more cases where you must pay the debt than when you may or ought ask it. This is because even if the other spouse may be abusing his right, it is still his right. (This is why, for example–and I’m sorry to be so graphic on a public forum of all places–St. Alphonsus holds that one is bound to pay the debt even multiple times in one evening, even being woken up by the other spouse, to pay the debt up to as many as 3 times before the spouse can refuse the debt.)
In any case, this particular passage struck me as relevant regarding the nature of the marital debt. As you noted, it is not about the husband lording it over the wife. In the marital debt, as to the proportional equality, the spouses are equal. They have given themselves to each other in matrimony, and each has right over the other’s body, as St. Paul says and St. Thomas notes immediately before the following passge. (N.B. When he says that the husband is more noble regarding the marital act, he is answering an objection against the equality of proportion in the marital debt, for in any act whatever is the agent is more noble than the patient, and in the marital act, the husband is agent while the wife patient. So, while the two are equal regarding proportion, the husband is clearly more noble in the obedience he deserves from his wife and also in his role in procreation.)
I answer that, Equality is twofold, of quantity and of proportion. Equality of quantity is that which is observed between two quantities of the same measure, for instance a thing two cubits long and another two cubits in length. But equality of proportion is that which is observed between two proportions of the same kind as double to double. Accordingly, speaking of the first equality, husband and wife are not equal inmarriage ; neither as regards the marriage act, wherein the more noble part is due to the husband, nor as regards the household management, wherein the wife is ruled and the husband rules. But with reference to the second kind of equality, they are equal in both matters, because just as in both the marriage act and in the management of the household the husband is bound to the wife in all things pertaining to the husband, so is the wife bound to the husband in all things pertaining to the wife. It is in this sense that it is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 32) that they are equal in paying and demanding the debt. (Suppl., 64, v.)
For a start, I recommend the section on the marital debt from the supplement to the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm. I would add the caveat that articles 3 and 4 are not included in the official edition (the Leonine edition, which published the definitive editions of all the works of St. Thomas; as you probably know, the supplement was not actually written by St. Thomas himself but by one of his students after his death mid-way through the work). You don’t necessarily need to read all the objections, etc., but at least the “On the contrary” and “I answer that” for each article.
What’s more, the mediaeval position that it was not permitted to ask the debt during holy days was not usually followed after that time, especially because there is nothing in the law of the Church that forbids it, and it doesn’t appear to be a matter of divine law (the priests in the Old Law were actually directed to engage in the marital act on the Sabbath, for example). The mediaevals often also claimed that the marital debt was forbidden during Lent, though, again, this is not the position of theologians since the time of Trent (perhaps because Trent codified so many practices of the Church into law and teachings of the Church into definitive dogma that were simply commonly practiced or believed till that time).
Note well, however, that even though he says that it is not permissible to ask the debt during those times, he still holds that the other spouse absolutely must pay the debt when asked. There are a lot more cases where you must pay the debt than when you may or ought ask it. This is because even if the other spouse may be abusing his right, it is still his right. (This is why, for example–and I’m sorry to be so graphic on a public forum of all places–St. Alphonsus holds that one is bound to pay the debt even multiple times in one evening, even being woken up by the other spouse, to pay the debt up to as many as 3 times before the spouse can refuse the debt.)
In any case, this particular passage struck me as relevant regarding the nature of the marital debt. As you noted, it is not about the husband lording it over the wife. In the marital debt, as to the proportional equality, the spouses are equal. They have given themselves to each other in matrimony, and each has right over the other’s body, as St. Paul says and St. Thomas notes immediately before the following passge. (N.B. When he says that the husband is more noble regarding the marital act, he is answering an objection against the equality of proportion in the marital debt, for in any act whatever is the agent is more noble than the patient, and in the marital act, the husband is agent while the wife patient. So, while the two are equal regarding proportion, the husband is clearly more noble in the obedience he deserves from his wife and also in his role in procreation.)
I answer that, Equality is twofold, of quantity and of proportion. Equality of quantity is that which is observed between two quantities of the same measure, for instance a thing two cubits long and another two cubits in length. But equality of proportion is that which is observed between two proportions of the same kind as double to double. Accordingly, speaking of the first equality, husband and wife are not equal inmarriage ; neither as regards the marriage act, wherein the more noble part is due to the husband, nor as regards the household management, wherein the wife is ruled and the husband rules. But with reference to the second kind of equality, they are equal in both matters, because just as in both the marriage act and in the management of the household the husband is bound to the wife in all things pertaining to the husband, so is the wife bound to the husband in all things pertaining to the wife. It is in this sense that it is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 32) that they are equal in paying and demanding the debt. (Suppl., 64, v.)
W
whm
Guest
Thanks Tim that was a useful post. One question, in the highlighted section above are you referring to short periods of abstinence as used in NFP followed by relations during infertile periods or are you saying that long term abstinence (no relations for months or years) in marriage without serious reason is sinful?This is gravely dangerous and has led to a seemingly Church approved contraceptive mentality since the intent (avoid pregnancy) is the same. Abstinence (without just cause) is just as sinful as contraception. There needs to be a serious discussion about just cause, and not just “what can I get away with”.
Pius XII actually takes care of it for us. Since NFP was just coming to light during his reign, it seems that he addresses this more directly than the other popes. An excellent article detailing his instructions on the matter can be found at
catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/natural.htm
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
The difference between the two is in the intention of the act.There is no guarantee that NFP prevents conception either.
On average women remain infertile for 14 months by practicing ecological breastfeeding, some get less and some get 2-3 years. Do you condemn the practice of following the rules of ecological breastfeeding to naturally space children?
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
If both spouses agree to abstinence for periods of time (not engaging in the act at all), then there can be no sin. Many saints have taken vows with their spouses not to engage in the marital act at all. This is also addressed in the Summa. The sin of NFP is in the attempt to divorce the marital act from its end. While there is a general obligation to procreate, it is not absolute (e.g., clergy and religious), and it is not actually obligatory even on married couples. It is obligatory in general to mankind, and it is obligatory to those couples who choose to engage in the marital act.Thanks Tim that was a useful post. One question, in the highlighted section above are you referring to short periods of abstinence as used in NFP followed by relations during infertile periods or are you saying that long term abstinence (no relations for months or years) in marriage without serious reason is sinful?
W
white_sheep
Guest
It is ok to use NFP any time. You have to clarify if you mean that as using NFP to practice periodic continence to try to avoid pregnancy.So the question is why are we trying to avoid pregnancy in the first place. The “procreation and education of children” is the whole point of marriage…at least if you are a Catholic. The “good of the spouses” is part of the equation, but the Church is careful not to separate them.
And while the Church “allows” NFP for serious (grave) reasons, the word “allows” and the requirement of grave reasons, tells us that the spacing of births or avoidance of pregnancy is the exception and not the norm.
Yet, in almost all discussions, NFP is spoken about as if it’s the norm. I recently received an email from the Couple to Couple League in answer to a question “When is it okay to use NFP?” The answer was an unqualified “any time!”.
Even on the USCCB website, NFP is presented as the norm. There is no mention of the serious reason requirement on any of the web information. You have to dig for it in the related documents. Yet “serious reason” is the bar for whether periodic abstinence is sinful or not.
This is gravely dangerous and has led to a seemingly Church approved contraceptive mentality since the intent (avoid pregnancy) is the same. Abstinence (without just cause) is just as sinful as contraception. There needs to be a serious discussion about just cause, and not just “what can I get away with”.
Pius XII actually takes care of it for us. Since NFP was just coming to light during his reign, it seems that he addresses this more directly than the other popes. An excellent article detailing his instructions on the matter can be found at
catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/natural.htm
Are you married and having children every 12 months?
W
white_sheep
Guest
I don’t understand what this means. Can you clarify?The difference between the two is in the intention of the act.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
If your intent is to use (ecological?) brestfeeding to prevent pregnancy, then that would be sinful, even if Al Gore approves.There is no guarantee that NFP prevents conception either.
On average women remain infertile for 14 months by practicing ecological breastfeeding, some get less and some get 2-3 years. Do you condemn the practice of following the rules of ecological breastfeeding to naturally space children?
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
Breastfeeding, pregnancy, menopause, etc., naturally prevent or can prevent pregnancy, but the intention of the spouses isn’t to avoid conception. In NFP (used to prevent pregnancy), the spouses are actively attempting and have every intention to avoid conception.
W
white_sheep
Guest
One of the “methods” used in NFP happens to be breastfeeding. The onus is on you to prove that those who exclusively or ecologically breastfeed aren’t doing so to prevent ovulation. It isn’t easy to do and I think that almost everyone who does is doing it to prevent ovulation and space births.Breastfeeding, pregnancy, menopause, etc., naturally prevent or can prevent pregnancy, but the intention of the spouses isn’t to avoid conception. In NFP (used to prevent pregnancy), the spouses are actively attempting and have every intention to avoid conception.
While I’m certain some people use NFP with a contraceptive mentality and without due cause, I believe that most of those who do, do so in accordance with Church directives on the matter. By simply choosing to use NFP they have already demonstrated that they are willing to do as the Church teaches and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
Intention plays a role in any moral act. If one’s intention is bad, even if he is doing something good, the act is bad. I someone gives someone alms with the attempt to lead him into heresy, it doesn’t matter that giving alms is good. The act is bad.One of the “methods” used in NFP happens to be breastfeeding. The onus is on you to prove that those who exclusively or ecologically breastfeed aren’t doing so to prevent ovulation. It isn’t easy to do and I think that almost everyone who does is doing it to prevent ovulation and space births.
This is a naive way of looking at it. Many non-Catholics even use NFP simply because it is more “effective” at achieving their goal. What’s more, so many people think they are the arbiters of what is and is not a grave cause, frequently making something into a grave cause that absolutely is not. This should be expected when someone who hasn’t studied an issue in depth attempts to make judgments about a particular aspect of that issue that is quite complex. Lastly, many people are ignorant that there even need be a grave cause. While their culpability is diminished due to poor teaching by the hierarchy or their instructors in marriage preparation, they still incur some culpable ignorance, for everyone has an obligation to inform himself about such issues. Any preliminary research would indicate that you can’t just use NFP as contraception.While I’m certain some people use NFP with a contraceptive mentality and without due cause, I believe that most of those who do, do so in accordance with Church directives on the matter. By simply choosing to use NFP they have already demonstrated that they are willing to do as the Church teaches and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
All of what I wrote above is under the presupposition that NFP to avoid children is even permissible, something I have very real doubts about in the first place.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
As someone who is involved in breastfeeding support, I can absolutely say that many women practice ecological breastfeeding with a mind to preventing the return of fertility. And for that matter, it is included in many NFP texts as a method of preventing pregnancy.
However, what is also in the minds of many people who use this method, (and interestingly especially the minds of those using it without religious reasons) is that this is also the most natural way to feed their baby, and that it works to prevent pregnancy because that is best for mum and babies. That is, they see it as part of a package of living in a way that is healthy and natural - feed baby as it was meant to be fed and a desirable spacing of children tends to follow. It is our tendency to wean much earlier than is normal or healthy that could be considered disordered. It can be hard to separate the two ideas in this situation.
Post-partum Depression. A person who has had it once is much more likely to get it again, but that isn’t a sure thing by any means. There are things that can be done to prevent or help it, even aside from drugs. Other stressors can significantly increase the chances of PPD. Small, close-knit communities where moms have a lot of support seem to have far fewer incidences of PPD.
On another note, when deciding when it might be appropriate to use NFP, one question that could reasonably be asked is “if reliable NFP were not available, would I use abstinence to avoid conceiving?” If the answer is yes, that it may be a sign that the issue is indeed serious. This is not an objective or full-proof indicator, but it can perhaps be a way of examining our own motives.
Also I think it should also be mentioned that using permanent abstinence to avoid conception can also be wrong, and can involve the so-called “birth control mentality” as much as ABC or NFP can.
However, what is also in the minds of many people who use this method, (and interestingly especially the minds of those using it without religious reasons) is that this is also the most natural way to feed their baby, and that it works to prevent pregnancy because that is best for mum and babies. That is, they see it as part of a package of living in a way that is healthy and natural - feed baby as it was meant to be fed and a desirable spacing of children tends to follow. It is our tendency to wean much earlier than is normal or healthy that could be considered disordered. It can be hard to separate the two ideas in this situation.
Post-partum Depression. A person who has had it once is much more likely to get it again, but that isn’t a sure thing by any means. There are things that can be done to prevent or help it, even aside from drugs. Other stressors can significantly increase the chances of PPD. Small, close-knit communities where moms have a lot of support seem to have far fewer incidences of PPD.
On another note, when deciding when it might be appropriate to use NFP, one question that could reasonably be asked is “if reliable NFP were not available, would I use abstinence to avoid conceiving?” If the answer is yes, that it may be a sign that the issue is indeed serious. This is not an objective or full-proof indicator, but it can perhaps be a way of examining our own motives.
Also I think it should also be mentioned that using permanent abstinence to avoid conception can also be wrong, and can involve the so-called “birth control mentality” as much as ABC or NFP can.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.