NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[Rence]

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.

There really has to be better education, that’s for sure. I believe high school students are definitely old enough to get through some of the encyclicals, as well as the CCC.

I do wish there was more “prayer groups” or rather education groups, provided by the dioecese to continue the education of those who have already graduated as well. A lot of other denominations have weekly bible studies. It would be nice to have “catechism” or church teaching studies that would cover these everyday subjects.

It would be far less disheartening to people if they KNEW the teachings. That way they are comfortable in their assessment of their own situations and comfortable with their own decisions and don’t stumble when they are challenged by those a bit more traditional than the Church teachings and that the Church provides. I feel badly for those who follow the guidelines as best they can, but then flunder when challenged because it only frustrates them. I pray that folks find the resources they need so that they know the correct teachings and can implement them with confidence.

 

[PaulinVA]

The two documents are Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae. …
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.
.

Yes, I have read the two encyclicals. But, do they state anywhere exactly what you said? If so, that does it, doesn’t it? I am really searching for the answer to the question of what to do when a Catholic’s family is “complete”, in the sense that the couple can not handle any more children. That could be financial, logistical, medical, whatever.

In discussing this thread with my wife, she asked about the children themselves. There have been a few cases in the past few years around here of youngest children in large families dying from neglect/lack of supervision. I think there is a point (different for every person) where parents simply can’t keep more children safe. Having older children care for the younger children is robbing the older children of their childhood.

So, I think, even if you are having children every two or three years, there comes a point where you are done. You can’t handle any more. You can’t provide for any more. That is a just reason to use NFP for the rest of the fertile years. If the circumstances change (money, live in help, whatever) the decision could change.

 

[giuseppeTO]

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…

Spot on.

I am a little surprised to hear that folks are actually hearing that from priests. because if they’re not, they should politely ignore it from the laity in favor of proper spiritual counsel.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Yes, I have read the two encyclicals. But, do they state anywhere exactly what you said? If so, that does it, doesn’t it? I am really searching for the answer to the question of what to do when a Catholic’s family is “complete”, in the sense that the couple can not handle any more children. That could be financial, logistical, medical, whatever.

In discussing this thread with my wife, she asked about the children themselves. There have been a few cases in the past few years around here of youngest children in large families dying from neglect/lack of supervision. I think there is a point (different for every person) where parents simply can’t keep more children safe. Having older children care for the younger children is robbing the older children of their childhood.

So, I think, even if you are having children every two or three years, there comes a point where you are done. You can’t handle any more. You can’t provide for any more. That is a just reason to use NFP for the rest of the fertile years. If the circumstances change (money, live in help, whatever) the decision could change.

Paul, honestly, I am not ordained so take the advice I give out so freely and seek guidance from a good (preferably traditional) priest. The balance, which cannot be stated in absolutes that can be applied across to every family, is between a modern selfishness and the reality of a difficult situation. By modern selfishness, I mean the couple who enjoys a comfortable existence to the extent that having a larger family infringes on their ability to maintain their lifestyle. Avoiding more children so as not to upset that applecart is the modern trap to avoid. Also, and here is where I’ll disagree with you, the decision to not have more children because you won’t be able to afford to pay for their college, does not qualify as a grave situation.

 

[PaulinVA]

Also, and here is where I’ll disagree with you, the decision to not have more children because you won’t be able to afford to pay for their college, does not qualify as a grave situation.

I believe it was someone else who put college costs in the grave reasons category. I probably wouldn’t.

I agree that if we are trying to avoid pregnancy so that our consumerism isn’t hampered, that is wrong.

 

[Onegin]

I believe it was someone else who put college costs in the grave reasons category. I probably wouldn’t.

I agree that if we are trying to avoid pregnancy so that our consumerism isn’t hampered, that is wrong.

Yeah, I’m highly skeptical about college being a grave reason. For one, a college education is an optional consumer product that isn’t essential in any sense and, secondly, given the price of education these days, the average family of ordinary means wouldn’t be able to afford college for more than one or two children at best.

This is where I think modern sensibilities are interfering with good judgment. Yes, you won’t be “keeping up with the Joneses” who have 2 children, two cars, a nice house and can afford to send all the kids to college with money left over for investments and savings, but good grief - is that really a grave reason?

If it is, then it is a very small minority of Catholics who DON’T have a grave reason to practice NFP to avoid. And once again, NFP to avoid becomes the rule rather than the exception.

 

[PaulinVA]

Yeah, I’m highly skeptical about college being a grave reason. For one, a college education is an optional consumer product that isn’t essential in any sense and, secondly, given the price of education these days, the average family of ordinary means wouldn’t be able to afford college for more than one or two children at best.

Agreed. How you are going to send a child to college 18 years later shouldn’t affect your decision to have that child.

This is where I think modern sensibilities are interfering with good judgment. Yes, you won’t be “keeping up with the Joneses” who have 2 children, two cars, a nice house and can afford to send all the kids to college with money left over for investments and savings, but good grief - is that really a grave reason?

No. It isn’t.

If it is, then it is a very small minority of Catholics who DON’T have a grave reason to practice NFP to avoid. And once again, NFP to avoid becomes the rule rather than the exception.

I think that as they enter their forties, you find more and more couples maxed out and unable to support more children. That’s just practicality talking. And, I also think it needs to be mentioned that if you have your last child at 50, you might not be able to care for that child in his/her teens. I think these things need to be taken into account.

 

[rwoehmke]

And how many in this discussion have more than a secondary education? We could reduce the Church to an educated clergy and lesser educated laity. You see what that has done for the Church in Ireland where Father always knows best, even when it came to exploiting children. It takes in my estimation an educated laity to keep the clerical class honest.

 

[Onegin]

And, I also think it needs to be mentioned that if you have your last child at 50, you might not be able to care for that child in his/her teens. I think these things need to be taken into account.

Well, at 50, if nature hasn’t already negated the ability to have children at that point, you’re also going to be dealing with legitimate questions about the health of the mother and child if there is another pregnancy. For some women, it can be dangerous to have a child (both for mother and child) at this age, and I think that would factor into the ultimate considerations as well.

My sister had her second child at 40 and even then it was considered “high-risk” according to the doctor.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I believe it was someone else who put college costs in the grave reasons category. I probably wouldn’t.

I agree that if we are trying to avoid pregnancy so that our consumerism isn’t hampered, that is wrong.

I wonder though, if someone had selfish reasons to avoid…why would they choose a selfless method like NFP?

Mutually abstaining has sacrificial aspects. It isn’t the same as “withholding” sexual contact.

 

[Rence]

Yeah, I’m highly skeptical about college being a grave reason. For one, a college education is an optional consumer product that isn’t essential in any sense and, secondly, given the price of education these days, the average family of ordinary means wouldn’t be able to afford college for more than one or two children at best.

I have to respectfully disagree. I would probably agree with you that it would not be a priority for me. But I do believe college is very very important to some people. In fact, it may be very important to many. Perhaps that is why people are having only one or two children. These days it is very difficult to get a family-sustaining job without some kind of trade school or college. So I agree that many people would consider it imperitive to ensure their children have a college education or go to trade school. Therefore, I can understand why some would consider it a top priority. My ex-step father put all seven of his children through college, and most have two degrees. But that’s why the catechism and HV left it up to families to descern what is a “grave” reason.

This is where I think modern sensibilities are interfering with good judgment. Yes, you won’t be “keeping up with the Joneses” who have 2 children, two cars, a nice house and can afford to send all the kids to college with money left over for investments and savings, but good grief - is that really a grave reason?

I believe giving your family a solid roof over their head (doesn’t have to be a fancy one. I, for one, live in a small farmhouse), some kind of transporation, money for education, and yes, ensuring in one’s future is prudent if one does not want to end up on the street when they are retirend. These are important considerations to many people.

If it is, then it is a very small minority of Catholics who DON’T have a grave reason to practice NFP to avoid. And once again, NFP to avoid becomes the rule rather than the exception.

That’s why the Church allows families to descern with prayer and consultation with their priest.

 

[Rence]

I wonder though, if someone had selfish reasons to avoid…why would they choose a selfless method like NFP?

Mutually abstaining has sacrificial aspects. It isn’t the same as “withholding” sexual contact.

I agree with you Mary Gail. NFP is a sacrifice and a commitment. It’s not an easy way out, it’s difficult. I would think that someone who is using NFP has to be thinking about doing the right thing. Otherwise, I would think it would be easier, and less of a risk for “giving in to urges” to just use contraception.

 

[ac_claire]

I wonder though, if someone had selfish reasons to avoid…why would they choose a selfless method like NFP?

Mutually abstaining has sacrificial aspects. It isn’t the same as “withholding” sexual contact.

It does have sacrificial aspects, no doubt, but all the popes who’ve written about NFP have recognized that it also has the potential for abuse and mis-use.

Since there is no “list” or clear, objective criteria for what constitutes a grave reason to use NFP, couples have to decide that for themselves. They have to be very, very honest with themselves since the responsibility for discernment lies in their own hands.

The fact is, we’re all only human and it’s not that difficult to justify just about anything to ourselves if the stakes are high enough. That’s one reason, for instance, that we have priests to hear our confessions instead of just “going straight to God” with our sins. We need that objectivity to keep us honest.

 

[Rence]

And how many in this discussion have more than a secondary education? We could reduce the Church to an educated clergy and lesser educated laity. You see what that has done for the Church in Ireland where Father always knows best, even when it came to exploiting children. It takes in my estimation an educated laity to keep the clerical class honest.

Exactly. Education is very important. It’s more important to some than to others. Granted, I put myself though school with very little help and will be paying off my degree probably for the rest of my life (another consideration when thinking about adding children to the family - those loans the parents are still paying off). But some people would consider it a priority to provide for college education for their children. Also keep in mind, it doesn’t have to be college. Catholic schools are expensive to attend. I would think that individual families would probably consult with their priest on this.

 

[whm]

Do different standards for grave/serious/just reasons apply for the US/Western Europe than say 3rd world nations (which have a very significant number of Catholics, perhaps the majority)?

 

[Rence]

Do different standards for grave/serious/just reasons apply for the US/Western Europe than say 3rd world nations (which have a very significant number of Catholics, perhaps the majority)?

I would think that some third world countries whose citizens are suffering poverty and sickness, that the grave reasons apply even more.

Grave/serious/just reasons vary from family to family, and region to region. So yes, the nation would depend too. The reason is, the nation may affect a family’s ability even more to sustain itself and provide for its children. If one is having trouble putting food on the table for the three kids they have, whether they live in the US or Ethiopia, not being able to provide is a reasonable reason to use NFP to avoid bringing another child into the family that cannot be supported. If one is having trouble providing for their family because they are ill, whether they live in France or Israel, that is a grave reason. If a woman is in danger of high mortality, whether she lives in England or Chile or anywhere else, it is a grave reason.

 

[whm]

I wonder though, if someone had selfish reasons to avoid…why would they choose a selfless method like NFP?

Mutually abstaining has sacrificial aspects. It isn’t the same as “withholding” sexual contact.

I wouldn’t consider 10-14 days a great sacrifice. It is not equivalent to true abstinence nor the sacrifices that come with a new baby.

As far as withholding sexual contact, that is tricky issue too, the Pius XXII (i think) material posted earlier indicated that for either periodic or total abstinence, if one spouse requests relations the other must honor the marriage debt. Based on older material related to the marriage debt, I am not sure whether you have can remove the obligation by talking them out of it. This wasn’t a problem when the marriage debt could be refused for “grave reasons” and NFP could be used for “grave reasons”. Now one is serious/just reason (or for some any reason) vs “grave reason” for the marriage debt.

 

[whm]

If a woman is in danger of high mortality, whether she lives in England or Chile or anywhere else, it is a grave reason.

I still don’t get this one, If your spouse could die why would you risk a 1/50 chance of getting pregnant (each year assume you use NFP very well)? Here pure abstinence seems to be the best choice, unless one can not avoid mortal sin. Note I did not say that the Church requires total abstinence, it does not especially if their is danger of mortal sin (eg mortal sin is worse than death while in a state of grace)

 

[ac_claire]

They are human, yes? Did Jesus say that?

In a way, yes. Jesus said that the popes have the authority to speak *for Him *in matters of faith and morals.

…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…

Is NFP really a “loophole” in the letter of the law?

 

[Julianna]

In a way, yes. Jesus said that the popes have the authority to speak *for Him *in matters of faith and morals.

Is NFP really a “loophole” in the letter of the law?

sounds like it to me…I am not begrudging people who use it. My parents used the rhythm method and it worked for them.

I’m glad couples have “something” in order to space their children or to postpone having children due to “grave” situations.

The couple knows their emotional and financial state and should be up to them to decide how many children they can emotionally and financially raise.

I still didn’t get answer on the second question regarding couples past child bearing age or that are infertile. Not directed at you claire, but I recall someone on the boards stating that couples should continue as if they were fertile…and not turn it into a free for all.

I am still of the belief, that what is in your bedroom…stays in your bedroom. If the folks on here are stating that using NFP as a natural type of birth control is a sin…I would ask them how much would they like to contribute to households where kids are popping out every 9 months and no additonal income is coming into the house.

On another note…I have read the Bible backwards and forwards and I can’t find anywhere where Jesus addressed the Popes. Do you realize that the Pope/s/ are human beings and mortal? I respect them as head of the Church (somebody has to be in charge), but like any other human being…there are failings.