NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[Onegin]

Certainly Marriage is not instituted solely for procreation as all of the Sacraments were instituted by God to give grace.

Nevertheless, a statement that “Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation” can forget the fact that the procreation and education of children is still the primary end of Marriage and all other benefits and purposes are, ultimately, secondary. The danger in emphasising the secondary benefits to the detriment of the primary purpose is that people will begin to subjugate the primary purpose to these secondary purposes.

Again, it is hard to deny that this is a real danger in NFP because NFP - when used to avoid pregnancy - does, in fact, intentionally subject the primary purpose to the secondary purpose which is not the natural order. The idea is that hopefully there is a very good reason for doing so and that the reason is temporary.This is also why I keep harping on the fact that the way NFP is being portrayed and marketed to Catholics today is a serious problem.

 

[wanner47]

From Pope Pius XI’s Casti Conubii ca. 1930:

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through **virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) **but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

1. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

1. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

1. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

 

[PaulinVA]

Again, it is hard to deny that this is a real danger in NFP because NFP - when used to avoid pregnancy - does, in fact, intentionally subject the primary purpose to the secondary purpose which is not the natural order. The idea is that hopefully there is a very good reason for doing so and that the reason is temporary.This is also why I keep harping on the fact that the way NFP is** being portrayed and marketed to Catholics today is a serious problem**.

I’ll agree with that. Now, it’s almost marketed like "IT’S USED TO REGULATE BIRTHS for very serious reasons.

I learned NFP a long time ago, and don’t really remember how it was marketed to us. But, I think the general view is that everyone will need it at some time, especially after your family is “built out” and you ‘aren’t going to have anymore’. That is, indeed, a problem.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So why are the couple having sex on infertile days and not have sex on fertile days?

I think you have to package the abstinence during the fertile period with the sex during the infertile period to discuss the morality of the situation.

Of course you do. A human act’s object, intention, and circumstances must be moral (or at least morally neutral) for the act to be moral. And if the circumstances don’t justify avoiding pregnancy, then even a couple doing so through a morally acceptable means would be sinning.

But if you’re going to think clearly about this issue, then you have to be able to distinguish between an act’s object and intention.

The issue with contraception is not (necessarily) the intention. The means itself - blocking the possibility of conception in the sexual act - is immoral, and is thus never acceptable.

If a couple uses NFP to avoid pregnancy, the object of their act is temporary, mutually agreed-upon abstinence.

Thus you cannot treat them as objectively equivalent. They are not.

No, actually, that is not accurate. It is the avoidance of conception that is the sin. Successfully employing NFP to remain childless or regulate childbirth to our plan is the sin. That is what the church teaches on the subject.

That is 100% wrong, as the Catechism quote another poster provided above plainly shows. The sin is contracepting the sexual act - and yes, it would also be sinful to avoid conception perpetually or to do so for unjustifiable reasons.

But employing NFP to find out when a woman is fertile, and then temporarily choosing to have sex only when the woman is infertile, is not sinful if the circumstances are grave enough to justify an attempt to avoid pregnancy.

I think the crucial issue here (as guiseppe and whm addressed at various points) is not the abstinence, after all, couples have been practicing periodic abstinence throughout history at times when they have had to do so for a good reason.

Okay, then we mustn’t single out NFP, since the way couples use it to avoid pregnancy involves only an act whose object is in no way immoral.

The morality of using NFP to avoid pregnancy lies therefore in a particular case’s circumstances and the couple’s intention.

 

[Melchior_1]

Unless they use the marital act for the remedy of concupiscence (when there is an actual occasion of sin for one of the spouses), then this is not sinful. Otherwise, because there is no possibility for conception, it seems sinful. I addressed this in a previous post, quoting St. Alphonsus Liguori.

Sorry mate, but I’m not going nine seven months without renewing the Marriage covenant with my wife. I’m inclined to disagree with you entirely on this matter.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Are you saying that all couples should use NFP to be able to absolutely be sure they are not having relations during an infertile period? Pregnancy, breast feeding, menopause, half of every month - sinful to have relations?

No, there’s no obligation to do that. It is beyond the working of nature.

I thought this was discussed previously and abandoned. All relations have to be ordered towards procreation - they don’t actually have to result in conception.

Something that can’t result in procreation isn’t ordered to procreation.​

get where you’re coming from, but don’t understand what you’re saying above. Could you clarify a bit? What do you think this passage in the Catechism is teaching?

Not sure. The person who quoted it seems to interpret it to mean that NFP used to prevent pregnancy is licit. If that is the meaning, I disagree with it. It only holds as much weight as its claims can be validated, which is why I asked for an approach from the principles of morality (what I have attempted from the beginning of this discussion).

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.

Agreed. I never said the pleasure was wrong. I said if they engage in the marital act purely for pleasure, then they commit sin.​

Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation.

There are different kinds of ends of marriage in a previous post. No where did I or anyone say it was instituted solely for procreation. Procreation and the remedy of concupiscence are both proper intrinsic, external ends of marriage, though, of course, procreation is the primary end.​

Sorry mate, but I’m not going nine seven months without renewing the Marriage covenant with my wife. I’m inclined to disagree with you entirely on this matter.

I never said you should. I said for the case of remedy of concupiscence, you can engage in the marital act, which is not a renewal of the marriage covenant.

 

[ac_claire]

Certainly Marriage is not instituted solely for procreation as all of the Sacraments were instituted by God to give grace.

Nevertheless, a statement that “Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation” can forget the fact that the procreation and education of children is still the primary end of Marriage and all other benefits and purposes are, ultimately, secondary. The danger in emphasising the secondary benefits to the detriment of the primary purpose is that people will begin to subjugate the primary purpose to these secondary purposes.

Again, it is hard to deny that this is a real danger in NFP because NFP - when used to avoid pregnancy - does, in fact, intentionally subject the primary purpose to the secondary purpose which is not the natural order. The idea is that hopefully there is a very good reason for doing so and that the reason is temporary.This is also why I keep harping on the fact that the way NFP is being portrayed and marketed to Catholics today is a serious problem.

Yes, exactly.

I learned NFP a long time ago, and don’t really remember how it was marketed to us. But, I think the general view is that everyone will need it at some time, especially after your family is “built out” and you ‘aren’t going to have anymore’. That is, indeed, a problem.

When we were doing our marriage prep, NFP (specifically using NFP to avoid conception) was presented to us as a responsible, natural way to begin our marriage. It’s almost like using NFP is seen as the default mode for newlyweds…like, you use NFP to avoid until the time comes when you feel you’re ready to add children to the marriage. It’s just totally backwards.

 

[tradboy]

I would suggest anyone who has questions regarding NFP read Monsignor George. A. Kelly’s book “Birth Control & Catholics”.

Published in 1963 it offers balanced practical advice from a pastor.

One of the things that greatly troubles me about fora such as these is that semi-trained lay people (or even if fully trained - who do not have the cure of souls) seem to think that they can give advice that in the past any sensible Catholic would only accept from a priest.

I know that our trust of priests has been shattered but that is why I try and find books from before the post-concilliar period that were intended for the use of average Catholics.

What also troubles me is that so few posts on this topic mention thë other side of the coin i.e. Cases of irresponsible parents who have as many children as they biologically can.

Over twenty years I have personally observed the following in a parish where the majority of couples were happy to “have as many as we can”:

About 40% of the women have had hysterectomies before they turned 35. Quite a few before they turned 30. Among these I have heard those expressing relief that it is all over.

Have as many kids as you can then when your body gives out you don’t have to worry about fertile periods/infertile periods or you and your husband showing any restraint.

Families who have an attitude that it is up to the church (read fellow parishioners through their support of the parish school) to provide for their children’s education “as they have done their bit” and have a child every year or two.

A mother of five whose non-Catholic husband was an adulterer (he never attended Mass) and left her. Before he left she was supervising five children during mass. She regularly would kick a screaming child out the door. She just didn’t have a free hand to do it any other way. This women was not able to go to confession more than once every four or five months. After her husband left she and the children were left destitute. She had no skills and no chance of getting a job. For some years she survived on what she could get from her ex-husband, charity and doing shopping for other people. She lost her faith and all five children no longer go to church.

A family where the father is happy to go to confession while his children wail in the church. Mom is too busy outside taking care of the others outside.

It is not always possible to help these people. Sometimes you don’t know them or especially their children well enough to get them to calm down or take them under your wing. The children seem to think you are kidnapping them. When a two-year old want’s mommy or daddy - He really wants mommy or daddy. You may have your own children who need to be disciplined etc.

Older daughters who are substitute mothers taking over all of the exhausted mother’s responsibilities. I am all for both older boys and girls having to assume more and more parental like roles as they grow up. But that is very different from a case where a child is overburdened with childcare responsibilities.

I always marvel at parents like this who loudly denounce "teen"pregnancies, but actually have a "teen"mother in their own house.

I am not talking about a situation where a child heroically steps in to take care of a family where the mother is suddenly ill or a son who gives up his education to provide for a family where a father is ill or unable to work. These are people who go on having children with the idea that the older ones will take care of the younger or with no thought as to the number of children they personally can reasonably look after.

Parents who are simply exhausted. They just don’t care what their children do. One example a very active Trad family who over the years just got worn down by having six children, mostly a year or two apart, going through all the same things at about the same time. Now most of the children have left the faith. The others attended mass infrequently. The mother rarely frequents the sacraments.

 

[tradboy]

…

Families who have five or six children but no access to healthcare. If a child breaks an arm or has a severe cut they have to rely on natural remedies or access very sub-standard health-care facilties. Where the possibility of death is very real. Once again they knew this when they fell pregnant.

Distorted and fearful attitudes towards sex among women in particular.

About 60% of the husbands have been unemployed and eventually had to relent from their “my wife is here to have children and look after them attitude” and have their wives go out to work.

In one of these cases the family moved (fled) and left huge debts to a Catholic school.

In some of these cases the family had additional children even when they knew they were in serious financial difficulties.

In at least half of these cases almost all the children have left the faith.

In all the above cases these were not calamities that came on without any warning, but all could have been prudently foreseen. Even in the case of the poor women whose husband was an adulterer he had been doing this for years. She continued to live with him and have children throughout.

The general underlying attitude was “I do my bit for God” he is going to take care of me.

My poorly planned business, in a collapsing industry will never go bankrupt and then it did.

In almost all these cases the husband who had a high-handed “I am the head of the family - I will take care of it” attitude has now lost all authority and the families are effectively ruled by the mothers. The fathers have not only lost authority but self-confidence and in many cases respect. They seem incapable of correcting their erring children.

What is saddest about all these cases is that without any exception I consider all these people my spiritual superiors, people who have far more faith, confidence in God, generosity, good-will, patience and ability to endure suffering than I do.

They just seemed to have wrong ideas and lacked a bit of self-knowledge.

Monsignor Kelly mentions four types of people:

The irresponsible: Those who fail in their duty either by not having children or by having children without prudent regard to the consequences.

The timid: Those who have are excessively fearful of the future. They do not trust in the ability to carry normal burdens. These must be pray, be prayed for and helped by their pastors to grow in confidence.

The dutiful: Those who after prayerful consideration do their duty. They are like the “average” soldier who does not volunteer above what his normal duty is. This is praiseworthy.

The heroic: They have a full appreciation of the sacrifices involved and proceed to act heroically. This is a select group, truly heroes of the faith.

The reality is that what we can expect of most people is simply being dutiful. Too many who post on this subject assume that only the heroic is acceptable.

In my personal view the most important thing you can do is know where you stand and try and improve.

Too many of us seem to be worrying about complex theological issues way above our pay grade.

For full disclosure purposes: We have five children, are struggling to cope, use NFP, would love to be able to have another child, but are squashed into a very small house, homeschool, have very little savings, kids pushing on to college years and are getting a bit older.

Timid - trying to do my duty.

 

[PaulinVA]

Something that can’t result in procreation isn’t ordered to procreation.

Ordered to procreation means that there is nothing in the way of conception (barrier, hormones, etc). Yes, one or the other partners could be temporarily or permanently infertile, but the act is performed in such a way that pregnancy could occur if the infertility was removed.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Could you give me a papal document which supports what you are talking about. I would need a document which specifically states your point. I want to verify that what you are saying is official church stance and not a private interpretation of the documents.

I looked up NFP in the tract section of Catholic Answers and I found Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy which states:

So, again I respectfully require a papal document which directly states your opinion.

Both Pius XI and Paul VI make it clear that using the infertile periods is acceptable only to space children or accommodate a grave situation. If your intent is to thwart conception for the remainder of your marriage, that is what the church teaches against. You may use the infertility periods for a temporary respite. Once again, the best advice on this will be given by your priest and not on this forum.

 

[Julianna]

**Both Pius XI and Paul VI make it clear **that using the infertile periods is acceptable only to space children or accommodate a grave situation. If your intent is to **thwart conception for the remainder of your marriage, that is what the church teaches against. ** You may use the infertility periods for a temporary respite. Once again, the best advice on this will be given by your priest and not on this forum.

They are human, yes? Did Jesus say that?

…and if you are past child bearing age…or are infertile, period?

what is an example of a grave situation?

to think that people aren’t using NFP to thwart conception is misguided…because that is the only letter of the law loophole they have…unless of course the Church wants to “kick in” for the bills that accrue…supporting many children in this economy…

 

[PaulinVA]

Both Pius XI and Paul VI make it clear that using the infertile periods is acceptable only to space children or accommodate a grave situation. ** If your intent is to thwart conception for the remainder of your marriage, that is what the church teaches against.** You may use the infertility periods for a temporary respite. Once again, the best advice on this will be given by your priest and not on this forum.

I would like to see the document that states this in the way that you write.

We are left without a definition or list of just or grave or serious reasons. If we feel we have a just reason to postpone indefinitely, but are open to reevaluation if circumstances change, how is that wrong?

 

[Onegin]

When we were doing our marriage prep, NFP (specifically using NFP to avoid conception) was presented to us as a responsible, natural way to begin our marriage. It’s almost like using NFP is seen as the default mode for newlyweds…like, you use NFP to avoid until the time comes when you feel you’re ready to add children to the marriage. It’s just totally backwards.

Sad as it is, I don’t think this is uncommon. Most of the time, lay people are hired or volunteer to teach these classes and have a mistaken view of the Church’s teaching on the issue so they do teach NFP as if it were a virtuous “default mode” for normal, Catholic couples. Who can blame the couples who come away from their - sometimes manditory - Parish approved marriage prep class with these ideas? Certainly they must think that this is what the Catholic Church teaches since, after all, they learned them at Church.

I’ve not attended one of these classes in the context of marriage prep, but did attend one seminar on NFP being presented by a Catholic group at the UN. The focus was as you described, and the stated purpose (within the context of the seminar) was how to effectively teach and use NFP as a family planning replacement for contraceptive distribution in certain third-world countries.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I would like to see the document that states this in the way that you write.

We are left without a definition or list of just or grave or serious reasons. If we feel we have a just reason to postpone indefinitely, but are open to reevaluation if circumstances change, how is that wrong?

The two documents are Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae. Neither provide a list of grave or just reasons. You have to read the entire encyclicals and understand what the Popes are teaching. The primary reason, in both cases, is to teach that the Lord has included us in His plan for the creation of life, which is the end for which the sacrament of marriage was created. As a reward for cooperation in this sacred alliance, he gave us the physical pleasure of the marital act. To thwart the act of conception by physical or artificial means has always,of course, been deemed sinful by the church, and that is reinforced in both documents.

But these encyclicals go further and address relations during infertile times with the admonition that it is not intrinsically sinful to make use of those times. But the overarching teaching of both popes in these documents is that while one may licitly choose to space one’s children, beyond the spacing that nature itself provides, based on ones circumstances, the permission to attempt to permanently avoid children is not allowed. That would apply to a couple who, believing for instance that three children is the perfect family size, use NFP and infertile period relations to successfully avoid more children without a grave circumstance.

Again, there is not bullet list of acceptable circumstances. That is where you would want to speak with a priest.

 

[Rence]

The two documents are Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae. Neither provide a list of grave or just reasons. You have to read the entire encyclicals and understand what the Popes are teaching. The primary reason, in both cases, is to teach that the Lord has included us in His plan for the creation of life, which is the end for which the sacrament of marriage was created. As a reward for cooperation in this sacred alliance, he gave us the physical pleasure of the marital act. To thwart the act of conception by physical or artificial means has always,of course, been deemed sinful by the church, and that is reinforced in both documents.

I agree with you here, and I’d like to add something: the Church knows that times have changed and with it changed the means by which families have the ability to support and sustain themselves. These days both parents work in the majority of families, though a family is quite lucky when they can afford one parent to work while the other parent stays home to maintain the household. However, depending on where one lives, even with both parents working, making ends meet can be quite challenging. And by this I mean paying for electricity, water, gas (if that’s what maintains your stove and heat), clothing, medications, groceries. The Church knows this and knows that responsible parenting means more than just fulfilling the responsiblity to “increase and multiply”. It doesn’t end with the birth of a child but continues until the child is no longer a child and is independent. The Church did not create a list of “grave” reasons for using NFP to space out or delay pregnancies because those variables change from family to family and from region to region (which affects said family’s capacity to sustain itself).

It’s disheartening to hear people claim that the Church wants people to have a child a year for as many years as possible and that using NFP is sinful. The Church would like it if you would have as many kids as possible for as long as possible, but does not strictly require it and allows couples to make that decision considering their circumstances, and we have the encyclicals and CCC to prove it.

And I’ve seen this turn people away from the Church over this misinformation, which is so unfortunate. This is what makes people throw in the towel and say, “so what, the Church is too old fashioned, and I can’t take them seriously”. I’ve seen people go on contraception because the “teachings of the Church” were too unreasonable (which it’s NOT). With all due respect, and not offense intended, there is such a thing as being “holier than the Pope” and reading into (and above and beyond) the teachings provided as a guide to us. The Church does not teach to have children to the point of going mad with activity in one’s home. The Church does not teach to have so many children that one cannot provide the emotional, spiritual and financial support that each and every child deserves. What the Church does teach is to have as many children as one is capable of providing for, and using NFP to do so: this is a very big part of “responsible parenthood”.

Grave reasons will vary from family to family and the Church knows this. It is not up to outside individuals to intervene in the decision making process (and decisions) of another family. It’s up to each family, with prayer and a LOT of thought, with consultation of their priest.: One woman can be exhilarated by the bustle of 6+ children running amok at home and finds a way to maintain ordered chaos and provide all that each child needs. And that’s so awsome. In fact, she’s my hero. I can’t even express how wonderful that sounds to me. However when another woman feels compelled to seek out phychological intervention because the anxiety of having 2 children running amok in the house is causing her to fear discipling her children because she’s afraid of crossing the line leading to abuse, I would think that yes, this is a “grave” reason to postpone having more children. And yes, I’ve seen this in my life too. We all have our limits. Not everyone is the same.

The ability of the persons taking care of the children is one such “grave” reason to consider. So is the health of each parent. So is the ability of the parents to provide the one-on-one time with each child brought into the family. So is the ability of the parents to provide food, shelter and other necessities for each child. You won’t hear any argument from me about video games, because I won’t have one in my house. But what some people regard as “extras” is essential to other people. Parents want (and should want) to provide an enriching life for their children.

Continued…

 

[Rence]

But these encyclicals go further and address relations during infertile times with the admonition that it is not intrinsically sinful to make use of those times. But the overarching teaching of both popes in these documents is that while one may licitly choose to space one’s children, beyond the spacing that nature itself provides, based on ones circumstances, the permission to attempt to permanently avoid children is not allowed. That would apply to a couple who, believing for instance that three children is the perfect family size, use NFP and infertile period relations to successfully avoid more children without a grave circumstance.

Again, there is not bullet list of acceptable circumstances. That is where you would want to speak with a priest.

This is where I kinda disagree with you. I do believe you can permanently avoid children (while still being open to children of course) if that’s what your situation is pointing to. For example, a serious medical or psychological/emotional condition afflicting either parent will compell a couple to stop having children permanently, and I don’t believe that is sinful. I believe that is responsible. Now, the situation can always be reassessed to change that decision, but I believe they can make that decision when their situation calls for that decision.

Another example is if the family is stretched to capacity in providing for the children that it has, I believe it is not sinful for that family to put off having children (again, while still being open to children) indefinitely. The situation can always be reassessed, but that’s a decision I believe they can make. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to have more children when a family is at bare minimum and neglect the future children. It’s unfair for every member of the family and irresponsible. This is especially true if one of the children is sick and the majority of family resources is going to that child. Times are tough, it’s not easy to meet the bare minimium.

As for having two cars to a family. Sorry, but I live 15 miles away from town in each direction, and that’s not about to change. We need two cars…(actually we have three) They’re not fancy cars by any means, but they can get us around town. Of course, other bills have been eliminated by living here — but someone “judging” that a family has two cars does not see where that fits into the dynamics of the family. The same applies to any “extras” that one person decides another family can do without so that they can have more children. It’s up to that family. They know what’s going on in their family to make that decision.

People want to do what’s right. People using NFP are trying to do what’s right. If they weren’t trying to do what was right, they would just use artificial contraception and be done with it. NFP is a risk, it’s not a sure thing. When people bite the bullet and use NFP to manage their family they’re doing so because they’re trusting God will help them. And He does. Those who get married within the Catholic Church and who take the pre canna classes (which are required before marriage), who understand the guidelines of the Church, and who have decided to indefinitely not have anymore pregnancies, are doing so because they need to do so. Using NFP is a commitment and it’s not easy. If they’re abstaining, and not giving in to their natural urges, it’s because it’s that important to their family and for them to do so.

Selfish? Maybe. But sometimes one has to be selfish to ensure their own health, welfare and happiness. And if you can’t ensure your own health, welfare and happiness, how can you ensure the health, welfare and happiness of the life brought into the world that is completely dependend on his/her parents for these things? If you can’t take care of yourself, you can’t take care of others.

The Church doesn’t want to “break” families by coercing them into creating a situation they can’t manage — whatever makes the situation unmanageable for that family. The Church wants married couples to know the teachings of the Church with regards to marriage (and the responsibility and duty to have children) and use their conscience to make family decisions to be within those teachings. The family priest is ALWAYS available to help families make decisions, or guide them in the process. And if one can’t find a “good” priest, or rather a “good enough” priest, one can always contact the diocese for help. But scrupulosity will just push good people away from the Church, and that just breaks my heart like you can’t imagine.

 

[giuseppeTO]

This is where I kinda disagree with you. I do believe you can permanently avoid children (while still being open to children of course) if that’s what your situation is pointing to. For example, a serious medical or psychological/emotional condition afflicting either parent will compell a couple to stop having children permanently, and I don’t believe that is sinful. I believe that is responsible. Now, the situation can always be reassessed to change that decision, but I believe they can make that decision when their situation calls for that decision.

Another example is if the family is stretched to capacity in providing for the children that it has, I believe it is not sinful for that family to put off having children (again, while still being open to children) indefinitely. The situation can always be reassessed, but that’s a decision I believe they can make. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to have more children when a family is at bare minimum and neglect the future children. It’s unfair for every member of the family and irresponsible. This is especially true if one of the children is sick and the majority of family resources is going to that child. Times are tough, it’s not easy to meet the bare minimium.

As for having two cars to a family. Sorry, but I live 15 miles away from town in each direction, and that’s not about to change. We need two cars…(actually we have three) They’re not fancy cars by any means, but they can get us around town. Of course, other bills have been eliminated by living here — but someone “judging” that a family has two cars does not see where that fits into the dynamics of the family. The same applies to any “extras” that one person decides another family can do without so that they can have more children. It’s up to that family. They know what’s going on in their family to make that decision.

People want to do what’s right. People using NFP are trying to do what’s right. If they weren’t trying to do what was right, they would just use artificial contraception and be done with it. NFP is a risk, it’s not a sure thing. When people bite the bullet and use NFP to manage their family they’re doing so because they’re trusting God will help them. And He does. Those who get married within the Catholic Church and who take the pre canna classes (which are required before marriage), who understand the guidelines of the Church, and who have decided to indefinitely not have anymore pregnancies, are doing so because they need to do so. Using NFP is a commitment and it’s not easy. If they’re abstaining, and not giving in to their natural urges, it’s because it’s that important to their family and for them to do so.

Selfish? Maybe. But sometimes one has to be selfish to ensure their own health, welfare and happiness. And if you can’t ensure your own health, welfare and happiness, how can you ensure the health, welfare and happiness of the life brought into the world that is completely dependend on his/her parents for these things? If you can’t take care of yourself, you can’t take care of others.

The Church doesn’t want to “break” families by coercing them into creating a situation they can’t manage — whatever makes the situation unmanageable for that family. The Church wants married couples to know the teachings of the Church with regards to marriage (and the responsibility and duty to have children) and use their conscience to make family decisions to be within those teachings. The family priest is ALWAYS available to help families make decisions, or guide them in the process. And if one can’t find a “good” priest, or rather a “good enough” priest, one can always contact the diocese for help. But scrupulosity will just push good people away from the Church, and that just breaks my heart like you can’t imagine.

I think we might agree more than you realize. Obviously a serious medical or psychological issue is covered. The financial one may be a bit trickier. I don’t think two cars is extravagant but I think that to justify financial difficulty as the justification for a “grave” circumstance one must indeed be in grave financial circumstances and not just, for example, worried about the economy or how to afford college.

 

[giuseppeTO]

t’s disheartening to hear people claim that the Church wants people to have a child a year for as many years as possible and that using NFP is sinful. The Church would like it if you would have as many kids as possible for as long as possible, but does not strictly require it and allows couples to make that decision considering their circumstances, and we have the encyclicals and CCC to prove it.

And I’ve seen this turn people away from the Church over this misinformation, which is so unfortunate.

Certainly, the most disheartening situation is someone who is turned away from the one true church based on anecdotal and hearsay opinions. Unless one understands the crucial teachings of the church, in this case embodied clearly in two Papal encyclicals of modern vintage, and couples that with the counsel of a priest who also understands the church’s teaching, then one has not done the due diligence required of us as the true Church of Christ.

 

[Rence]

I think we might agree more than you realize. Obviously a serious medical or psychological issue is covered. The financial one may be a bit trickier. I don’t think two cars is extravagant but I think that to justify financial difficulty as the justification for a “grave” circumstance one must indeed be in grave financial circumstances and not just, for example, worried about the economy or how to afford college.

I agree that grave financial circumstances can be tricky, but that’s why individual families have to determine that for themselves.

For example: when I lived up north, were more than double what they are now. My elelctric bill was over $1000/month. Now it’s usually $300, and maybe $500 in the summer. Our gas bill was over $1000/month and more than $1500/month. We don’t have a gas bill at all now. The water bill is a little less here, but not by much. Gas for the cars is a little less costly here, but I cover more area now. The taxes on the house up north were $6000/year, and the year we left it went up to $9000. The taxes on our whole farm and house is only $900/year here. Obviously people can’t just pick up and move their family to accodate a few babies. That’s just unreasonable. But where a person lives can really affect their ability to have more children.

And I’m glad you mentioned college because some people don’t think it’s a “grave” enough consideration. But I, OTOH, do. I think it can be a huge factor with some families.

But again, it’s disheartening to hear people claim that a married couple has to stop having sex indefinitely because they have decided to indefinitely hold off on having more children if, for example, mom or dad is sick. That’s NOT a teaching of the Church and it pushes people away from the Church – because it is unreasonable, and it’s NOT a teaching of the Church. We are not obliged to stop the marital embrace indefinitely when we decide it’s best to delay or avoid pregnancy. That’s why we have NFP to help us get through these times.