NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[Just_Lurking]

On an added note - for those in this thread - what would be your gut reaction to meeting extremely poor Catholic family who has 10+ children and tells you that they refuse to consider using NFP?

What do you mean by “extremely poor”? Is the family so incapable of taking care (e.g. feeding, clothing, shelter) for the kids they already have that Child Protective Services has taken away 5 of them? Is the family not able to support itself at all and is living 100% off of government handouts?

If the family is able to adequately take care of the children they have without taking government handouts, then I don’t see any problem with them refusing to use NFP. Otherwise, I’d be hard pressed to call what they are already doing “responsible parenthood”, regardless of whether they plan to continue their irresponsibility into the future.

 

[Onegin]

What do you mean by “extremely poor”? Is the family so incapable of taking care (e.g. feeding, clothing, shelter) for the kids they already have that Child Protective Services has taken away 5 of them? Is the family not able to support itself at all and is living 100% off of government handouts?

If the family is able to adequately take care of the children they have without taking government handouts, then I don’t see any problem with them refusing to use NFP. Otherwise, I’d be hard pressed to call what they are already doing “responsible parenthood”, regardless of whether they plan to continue their irresponsibility into the future.

By “poor” I am suggesting that a family of this size is most likely living on a 1 parent income and has sacrificed material luxuries that most typical families enjoy like a TV, two cars, the internet, a computer and instead just live off of material necessities (food, clothing, a modest number of toys/games/etc and hand-me-downs for clothing, etc).

As for “taking government handouts” I suppose something like that might become necessary if, say the working parent loses a job and needs to collect unemployment but that’s true enough of a situation regardless of family size, so I’m not sure that it would (or should) be the litmus test for irresponsibility if a genuine financial emergency arises.

But, chances are, upon initially meeting a large family, you’re not going to know the intricacies of their family budget and finances, so I’m just asking for an initial reaction. Do we assume that all large (and from all appearances poor) families are living on handouts (and are, as such, irresponsible parents) or what is the first reaction?

 

[Onegin]

What would you say if you found a family who simply followed Church teaching and didn’t act as their own magisterium? Would you just smile and nod saying that’s wonderful but secretly think they should come up with some new rules more to your liking? Or would you praise them for their devotion to Christ and willingness to obey His Church?

Wait, are you rewording my question? Because that’s basically what I asked.

 

[white_sheep]

In all honesty I have no idea what you’re talking about. Can you provide a concrete example?

I’m not surprised. Let’s say you go to a message board and they are discussing a teaching of the Church. They hold to the teaching as defined by the Catholic Church. Do you encourage them in said endeavor or look down upon them for not holding to your own personal belief in the matter? We’ll say that in this hypothetical there is no official document from any Magisterial authority to support your position which is more austere than the one taught by the Church.

 

[Onegin]

I’m not surprised. Let’s say you go to a message board and they are discussing a teaching of the Church. They hold to the teaching as defined by the Catholic Church. Do you encourage them in said endeavor or look down upon them for not holding to your own personal belief in the matter? We’ll say that in this hypothetical there is no official document from any Magisterial authority to support your position which is more austere than the one taught by the Church.

Easy - I’d encourage the family to follow Catholic Teaching. I have no positions that are “more austere” than the Church.

 

[Julianna]

And I have a problem with that. What other voluntary act is sinful if not performed at a certain time?

In this instance, as in you can’t take the whole marriage as being open to life but every act has to be open to life, does a couple have to have marital relations every day during the period they know is fertile? Is every other day sufficient? How about once during the fertile period?

Once you say that the couple is obligated to have relations during the fertile period, you have to answer these questions. They seem silly, but that’s the logical end to the argument.

A serious reason to use NFP to avoid conception is not specified by the Church. There is no list. Yes, it can be abused, but, frankly, it is subjective. If a woman feels that one more child would drive her over the edge, who are we to second guess her? ** If a couple doesn’t think they can afford another child, well, is the Church going to provide a financial planner?**
As I say during these discussions about NFP abuse, come on, 3-5% of Catholics use NFP. Go pick on the other 95-97% that don’t.

Excellent question. Never heard it answered on CAF though. Interesting.

Can’t do that unless they tell you…and if they are smart…they don’t have to

 

[Bluegoat]

But would you agree that the way NFP is currently “marketed” (in absence of another term) in many parishes gives an incorrect view of the purpose of NFP? For example, I’ve attended an “informational” NFP session at a very conservative parish and, even there, the presenters seemed to imply that NFP is not just information but it is information that every Catholic should be using. Furthermore, in some parishes NFP classes are mandatory before one can get married in that parish. It’s as if the use of NFP is being extolled as a virtue in Catholic marriage.

I think you are essentially right, but I would suggest a few things.

First, it is probably a good idea for young couples to learn NFP - not necessarily with a view to useing it. It can be much easier to learn before a couple begins having children which can make for more unpredictable cycles. And it can be more difficult to learn if there is a stressful situation involved, which may be the case when it is suddenly required. Also, in my experience one of the big fears people have with using it is that they will make a mistake and misread the signs. Having more experience charting and interpreting would do a lot to alleviate that when it really mattered. It is also very beneficial for all women to understand their own cycles, for all kinds of reasons. Ideally, I would actually teach it to young women once they start menstruating - it can reveal problems, make it easier to predict one’s cycles (which can be hard for young women) and give them tools to use if there are problems - especially important because many doctors don’t really take that information seriously.

And from another direction entirely - given so few Catholics actually use NFP instead of ABC, I wonder if those teaching marriage prep aren’t just desperate to get people at least that much on board, and hope by using NFP they will come to understand the teaching better.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I think you are essentially right, but I would suggest a few things.

First, it is probably a good idea for young couples to learn NFP - not necessarily with a view to useing it. It can be much easier to learn before a couple begins having children which can make for more unpredictable cycles. And it can be more difficult to learn if there is a stressful situation involved, which may be the case when it is suddenly required.

The problem with that is that gives couples the false impression that using NFP is a normal and acceptable part of been married for all couples, especially when it is made a prerequisite before the couple can marry.

When in fact the truth is the use of NFP in the developed world should be an extremely rare occurrence, especially given so many couples marry so late in life now anyway.

 

[PaulinVA]

Be honest - I’m interested in the responses. I already know that society looks askance on such situations but what do fellow Catholics REALLY think about large families that live at or near the poverty level? Because, in the end, that’s the exact situation that most people who use traditional contraceptives are trying to avoid. But do Catholics who reject contraceptives embrace this possibility or do you think “that’s great, but that many children really isn’t for us?”

This is an interesting question, and is at the heart of the discussion. Do we have to have so many children that the wife dies, that the children only have two meals a day, that the older children are raising the younger children?

I don’t think so. But, I will counter with question of my own. Do you think that God has a certain number of children he “wants” you to have, and you are deficient if you don’t have that many? Remember, to make a baby the couple has to have relations at a certain time of the month to be co creators with God.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

This is an interesting question, and is at the heart of the discussion. Do we have to have so many children that the wife dies, that the children only have two meals a day, that the older children are raising the younger children?

I don’t think so. But, I will counter with question of my own. Do you think that God has a certain number of children he “wants” you to have, and you are deficient if you don’t have that many? Remember, to make a baby the couple has to have relations at a certain time of the month to be co creators with God.

We should accept as many children as God desires to give us without trying to refuse His gifts.

Your hypothetical reasons to avoid concerning death and poverty are not relevant in a real decision on this matter because it is not given to us to be able to predict what the future holds, only our arrogance makes us think we can and the fear of our own often wrong predictions leads us away from trusting and serving God.

We cannot know for example that the wife will die, one of my cousins was told after her third child if she had any more she would die and she should get sterilised, she has six children now, thanks be to God.

They are poor it is true but you ask the children if they would rather to have never been born and they will tell you they are quite happy to live thank you, and you ask God if those souls are any less valuable for been poor and He will tell you no they are if anything even more pleasing to Him, remember “Blessed are the poor”? It is as blessing to be poor and to struggle all your life, heaven is much easier to attain for us.

So instead of trying to tell the future we should simply trust God and accept His Divine Will for us whatever it may be.

 

[Onegin]

This is an interesting question, and is at the heart of the discussion. Do we have to have so many children that the wife dies, that the children only have two meals a day, that the older children are raising the younger children?

We have as many children as God desires us to have. It’s that simple, honestly.

I don’t think so. But, I will counter with question of my own. Do you think that God has a certain number of children he “wants” you to have, and you are deficient if you don’t have that many?

Yes, I do believe this. God has a special purpose for each person and each new soul He allows to created. I find it interesting that people can completely rely on God in so many areas of their life, but when it comes to having children, suddenly pure reliance on God alone isn’t enough, isn’t sufficient or is, in some way, “irresponsible.” Suddenly the proposition that if God doesn’t want us to have any more children then He won’t allow it sounds “irresponsible.”

St. Therese’s parents would have been irresponsible by today’s standards. Pope St. Pius X’s parents would have been irresponsible. All raised numerous children (as many as 20+) without so much as a thought that they should in any way interfere in this. And this is what I believe to be a Catholic model for families - rather than the idea that you need “planning” and “spacing” and whatever other term you want to use for having an excuse for the human will to replacing the Divine will.

 

[PaulinVA]

We should accept as many children as God desires to give us without trying to refuse His gifts.

But we do not live in the middle ages. We know babies do not miraculously form in womens wombs. (Well, it’s a miracle, but it’s also a biological process).

Look at all of the unwed mothers, teen mothers, rape victim mothers. Are you saying that God desired that to happen?

God follows His own rules. Simple as that.

So, does God have a number of children I, personally, am supposed to have?

 

[Onegin]

Look at all of the unwed mothers, teen mothers, rape victim mothers. Are you saying that God desired that to happen?

Do you believe that everything on this earth must only happen because God, in his infinite wisdom allowed it to happen?

If we truly believe that God wills each and every human being into existence, then this must also mean that He also wills those children who were brought into this world under less than perfect circumstances.

 

[Just_Lurking]

As for “taking government handouts” I suppose something like that might become necessary if, say the working parent loses a job and needs to collect unemployment but that’s true enough of a situation regardless of family size, so I’m not sure that it would (or should) be the litmus test for irresponsibility if a genuine financial emergency arises.

Unemployment isn’t a handout, it’s an insurance fund that workers through their employers pay into and have every right to collect from.

But, chances are, upon initially meeting a large family, you’re not going to know the intricacies of their family budget and finances, so I’m just asking for an initial reaction. Do we assume that all large (and from all appearances poor) families are living on handouts (and are, as such, irresponsible parents) or what is the first reaction?

I’d probably look around for TV cameras. All the large families I know about are on reality television shows.

But the Catholic Church calls for responsible parenthood (c.f. Humanae Vitae 10), and sometimes, for some families, under some circumstances, that does mean proactively taking measures such as NFP or abstinence to avoid an immediate future pregnancy.

 

[Rence]

This is an interesting question, and is at the heart of the discussion. Do we have to have so many children that the wife dies, that the children only have two meals a day, that the older children are raising the younger children?

I don’t think so. But, I will counter with question of my own. Do you think that God has a certain number of children he “wants” you to have, and you are deficient if you don’t have that many? Remember, to make a baby the couple has to have relations at a certain time of the month to be co creators with God.

No, you do not have to have so many children to the point of endangering the life or wellbeing of the mother, or that you have no alternative but to have the older children raising the younger children. It’s not their job to raise your children. It’s their job to help out and pitch in within the context of family and family cooperation, but it’s not your children’s job to raise the younger children you keep having but don’t have time, energy or resources to raise yourself. Humanae Vitae has a whole section on “Responsble Parenthood” as follows:

Responsible Parenthood

1. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

Having sex during fertile times is not “trusting God” or “leaving it to God” or “giving it to God”: having sex during fertile times will result in getting pregnancy unless there are other underlying problems. 1 + 1 = 2. If you keep having sex during fertile times, you will keep having kids.

If God wants you to have kids, you will have kids, especially by using NFP which is being open to life. One is not playing the role of God by using NFP and by trying to space out pregnancies, or even not having children indefinitely if they have good reason, and that good reason can only be determined by the couple with prayer. God said to be fruitful, increase and multiply. That’s not the same thing as saying that every woman born is compelled to constantly be pregnant, giving birth to a child a year, until menopause.

When in doubt, talk to your priest.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

But we do not live in the middle ages. We know babies do not miraculously form in womens wombs. (Well, it’s a miracle, but it’s also a biological process).

Look at all of the unwed mothers, teen mothers, rape victim mothers. Are you saying that God desired that to happen?

God follows His own rules. Simple as that.

So, does God have a number of children I, personally, am supposed to have?

And such knowledge has served only to make us proud, to make us think we know better than God does, to even think that we ourselves are gods.

I don’t presume to second guess God I just accept Him.

 

[Onegin]

Having sex during fertile times is not “trusting God” or “leaving it to God” or “giving it to God”: having sex during fertile times will result in getting pregnancy unless there are other underlying problems. 1 + 1 = 2. If you keep having sex during fertile times, you will keep having kids.

And having sex only during infertile times through NFP is “trusting God”? After all, the opposite is true as well - with NFP you’re purposely using the information you have to avoid as much as possible another child. And the fact of the matter is, if you DO have a child, that child is, for purposes of NFP, a “failure” of NFP to work and, to a lesser extent, can even be considered an unwanted or inconvenient child at that time. How sad!

Outside of really good reasons for doing so (which one should acknowledge as being a deviation from the normal activity of the marriage), I can’t see the use of NFP as having any interplay with “trusting God”. NFP - justified or not - is the use of information to intervene in the natural process for a time. It is not the same and cannot be comparable to the couple who simply has relations without consulting a calendar.

 

[wanner47]

And having sex only during infertile times through NFP is “trusting God”? After all, the opposite is true as well - with NFP you’re purposely using the information you have to avoid as much as possible another child. And the fact of the matter is, if you DO have a child, that child is, for purposes of NFP, a “failure” of NFP to work and, to a lesser extent, can even be considered an unwanted or inconvenient child at that time. How sad!

Speak for yourself. My 2nd child was conceived while we were using NFP to avoid pregnancy, as I had just quit my job (long story, but it dealt with harassment issues) and my husband was not working (he was a full-time college student). We felt the *situation *to be an inconvenient or stressful one, but not the child – never was the child unwanted or inconvenient. We lost him/her to miscarriage when I was twelve weeks along and we were devastated.

Outside of really good reasons for doing so (which one should acknowledge as being a deviation from the normal activity of the marriage), I can’t see the use of NFP as having any interplay with “trusting God”. NFP - justified or not - is the use of information to intervene in the natural process for a time. It is not the same and cannot be comparable to the couple who simply has relations without consulting a calendar.

How is it intervening in a natural process? GOD was the one who created our menstrual cycles. HE DESIGNED women to have fertile and infertile periods. We are using a system HE DESIGNED. If He’d wanted women to be fertile 24/7/365 like men, he’d have designed us that way, but He didn’t. We are using the scientific knowledge also given to us by Him to use His gift of our menstrual cycles to discern our vocations as responsible parents. We are doing so in conformity with the Church’s teachings on this matter.

Contraception frustrates a natural process. NFP doesn’t. Abstinence is not frustration. If it was, St. Paul wouldn’t tell couples it was acceptable to mutually abstain for a time – instead, he would have said abstinence in and of itself was sinful for married couples.

 

[PaulinVA]

And such knowledge has served only to make us proud, to make us think we know better than God does, to even think that we ourselves are gods.

This is not a useful comment.

I asked the question because some posters (you included) are saying that I, personally, (and everyone else) should have as many children as God wants to give me. So, he must have a number. Shouldn’t we be trying to discern that number?

I personally think that there is no proof that God has a number in “mind” for each couple. If that’s the case, then we can have more children than God intended, by allowing the biology to work after we’ve had the last child God “wanted” us to have. That can’t be true, can it?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I-N-T-E-N-T-I-O-N. Intention. 1. an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result. 2. the end or object intended; purpose. &c.