NFP and traditional movements

[fpt]

The natural family planning is presented by some catholic small groups (traditional movements or traditionalist groups ) as a practice to avoid, as belonging to a lack of trust in God, or is qualified as a contraceptive method;

or also

One part of the traditional or traditionalist movements claims and teaches an ultra-rigorous application of " the use of marriage " (marital act) during periods of so-called infertile wife (NFP): guilty vision, austere vision of fatherhood and motherhood responsible, without abandoning fully the joys and pleasures from the conjugal union of bodies, via “the addition of a non-posed elements” by the Roman Magisterium.

WHY??? WHY???

 

[JReducation]

What is said by movements is irrelevant. You’ll find movements all over the spectrum on this topic. What is important is what the Church has to say about it. There is only one Magisterium. It is not the Traditionalist or the Liberal movements.

NFP may never be used as a form of birth control. That is, it may not be used with the intention of not having more children.

NFP may be used for periods of time when there is justified reason for delaying a pregnancy or spacing pregnancies, such as health, economic concerns, the need to care for a loved one that requires your full attention, and other reasons where it is necessary to wait before another pregnancy.

NFP is not a form of birth control and may not be used as such. It is a finite aid, not a permanent situation.

For more information go to the www.usccb.org and check out the section on life issues and family life. Also check out the web page of any diocese and look under respect life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LaSainte]

What is said by movements is irrelevant. You’ll find movements all over the spectrum on this topic. What is important is what the Church has to say about it. There is only one Magisterium. It is not the Traditionalist or the Liberal movements.

NFP may never be used as a form of birth control. That is, it may not be used with the intention of not having more children.

NFP may be used for periods of time when there is justified reason for delaying a pregnancy or spacing pregnancies, such as health, economic concerns, the need to care for a loved one that requires your full attention, and other reasons where it is necessary to wait before another pregnancy.

NFP is not a form of birth control and may not be used as such. It is a finite aid, not a permanent situation.

For more information go to the www.usccb.org and check out the section on life issues and family life. Also check out the web page of any diocese and look under respect life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

What? Are you saying that a 45 year old woman with 7 kids can’t use NFP with the mindset that she is “done” having kids? Why?

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

What? Are you saying that a 45 year old woman with 7 kids can’t use NFP with the mindset that she is “done” having kids? Why?

A 45 year old woman should practice NFP because having children that old would be problematic for both the mother and child. Sounds like a good reason enough.

 

[fpt]

Per se, responsible procreation is one of principles of marriage. Natural family Planning, I mean the use of conjugal act, during the infertile periods of woman, the natural methods for knowing when wife is fertile, is not contraception. NFP and contraception are not the same. They are totally different. One is totally artificial , the other is totally natural.

If wife and husband are okay together and that there is a serious reason or grave resaon two terms are the same, I know there are many debates between the meanings of theses two words), they can morally postpone baby (not to want or not to desire a baby when they are sex for now) or avoid baby because the situation is not quite good for a new life even a long time or for ever.

Generally speaking when you are sex, you are not in the moral obligation to want, to will and to desire a baby.

Are you saying that it is necessary to want a baby in its own mind when you are making love in couple???

 

[joclucsylv]

Per se, responsible procreation is one of principles of marriage. Natural family Planning, I mean the use of conjugal act, during the infertile periods of woman, the natural methods for knowing when wife is fertile, is not contraception. NFP and contraception are not the same. They are totally different. One is totally artificial , the other is totally natural.

If wife and husband are okay together and that there is a serious reason or grave resaon two terms are the same, I know there are many debates between the meanings of theses two words), they can morally postpone baby (not to want or not to desire a baby when they are sex for now) or avoid baby because the situation is not quite good for a new life even a long time or for ever.

Generally speaking when you are sex, you are not in the moral obligation to want, to will and to desire a baby.

Are you saying that it is necessary to want a baby in its own mind when you are making love in couple???

The whole NFP thing does not make any sense to me at all. I don’t see it as being open to life. Quite honestly anyone who is deliberately charting and avoiding sex while fertile is slamming the door in God’s face. I know. I know. I am not the magisterium of the Church. I love my Chuch so much, but I fail to see how NFP and ABC are different.
One needs to look at the history of the church and wonder where the bologna of having a good reason not to have a child came to play. The bible says be feritle and multiply. Not…be fertile and multiply unless you have good reason not to have a child.
I conducted my own little study.
I texted 20 random people on my contact list on my phone. They thought I was crazy when I asked the following question but that’s ok. I asked,“If a married couple is charting and deliberatley not having sex during fertile times in order aviod pregnancy, are they open to life.” All 20 said NO…the couple isn’t open to life. To me it’s common sense. Where are the big families if Catholic couples are so open to life? The answer is that they are not open, even though they have themselves convinced that they are. Why would they believe otherwise? The magisterium is saying that they are open to life so they believe that they are.
The way that I see it is the church was forced to move with the world and give some leeway to married couples for they knew that the days of 20 kids was over and people were begging for some freedom in their lives.
I am just a common Catholic and I know so many on this board are smarter than I. I know my views and my opinions don’t mean much, but I like to share them anyway.

 

[opus101]

What? Are you saying that a 45 year old woman with 7 kids can’t use NFP with the mindset that she is “done” having kids? Why?

For the same reasons that apply to a 22 year old woman with no children.

 

[etmom]

For the 22 year old, financial problems or health issues still have time to clear up. Perhaps they would be in a better financial position 5 yrs from now, and could have a child at that point. A 45 year old with serious reasons to postpone a pregnancy, such as the 22 year old, would be 50 at that point. And yes, some 50 year olds can conceive. So she would be obligated to seek pregnancy at that point, rather than continue to use NFP? As long as you are cycling, the potential exists for pregnancy. The average age of menopause isn’t until 53 or 54.

 

[joclucsylv]

A 45 year old woman should practice NFP because having children that old would be problematic for both the mother and child. Sounds like a good reason enough.

Aren’t we to trust God with health of mom and child? My mom had a child at 42 with no problems at all! Can you imagine if my mom decided that she was 42 and that was good enough reason not to have a child?? The awesome, wonderful, amazing gift that God gave us wouldn’t be in my family today.

 

[opus101]

The whole NFP thing does not make any sense to me at all. I don’t see it as being open to life. Quite honestly anyone who is deliberately charting and avoiding sex while fertile is slamming the door in God’s face. I know. I know. I am not the magisterium of the Church. I love my Chuch so much, but I fail to see how NFP and ABC are different.

I think that you’re right that NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality. But there is a difference even then: the use of abstinence. With ABC, there is no period of abstinence, which allows true love to grow between spouses. The divorce statistics prove this: the general divorce rate is more than 50%, but the rate for those who use NFP is less than 5% (some studies show that it is less than 1%!). That is a huge difference. Evidently, periodic abstinence is good for a marriage.

 

[etmom]

Aren’t we to trust God with health of mom and child? My mom had a child at 42 with no problems at all!

I had a beautiful daughter at age 43, with no problems. Shortly before my 45th birthday, I gave birth to a beautiful son, and he died in the heartbreak of our lives when he was 16 days old, after a difficult and problematic pregnancy for the both of us. He suffered tremendously in the days that he lived. He was our 6th child.

I did trust God, and still do. But we are also called to be responsible and prudent with parenthood, and as generous as we can be.

Giving birth at age 42 is drastically different that 45, 48, or 49 or beyond.

 

[joclucsylv]

I think that you’re right that NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality. But there is a difference even then: the use of abstinence. With ABC, there is no period of abstinence, which allows true love to grow between spouses. The divorce statistics prove this: the general divorce rate is more than 50%, but the rate for those who use NFP is less than 5% (some studies show that it is less than 1%!). That is a huge difference. Evidently, periodic abstinence is good for a marriage.

Perhaps that study is skewed.
People who use NFP are probably of the most ultra conservative type and are more likely to stay in a marriage no matter what therefore the low divorce rate.
I don’t understand the “can be” contraceptive mentality with NFP. It is the contraceptive mentality.

 

[JReducation]

What we think about NFP is irrelevant. How we interpret scripture is also irrelevant. The only body with the authority to interpret scripture and to teach moral law with authority is the college of bishops in union with the pope.

We’re arguing here based on what we think. Neither God not the Church cares about our opinion on the matter. They care about truth.

NFP is not the same at ABC. ABC is intended to allow the couple the benefits of the marriage act without the natural outcome. NFP is the cessation of the marriage act until the fertile period passes. It involves a sacrifice and it does not abuse the marriage act. It involves the love and cooperation of both parties.

NFP cannot be used permanently or long-term unless there is a morally justifiable reason. “I’m finished having children,” is not a serious circumstance to justify not having children.

**
The Church teaches that a couple may generously decide to have a large family, or
may for serious reasons choose not to have more children for the time being or even for an
indefinite period (Humanae Vitae, no. 10).

In married life, serious circumstances—financial, physical, psychological, or those
involving responsibilities to other family members—may arise to make an increase in family size untimely. The Church understands this, while encouraging couples to take a generous view of children.**

Married Love and The Gift of Life

The chances of birth defects in an older mother is not morally justifiable reason. A child must be welcome into the world as he is, not as we want him to be. In addition, there is no guarantee that one’s child will have birth defects. The statistics simply say that the number of children with birth defect is higher among older mothers, not that older mothers will give birth to children with birth defects. Even if this were the case, that child has a right to be conceived and born.

We need to put aside our opinions and those of people around us. Read what the Church teaches and assent to it.

NFP: Questions and Answers from the Church

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[etmom]

**
The Church teaches that a couple may generously decide to have a large family, or
may for serious reasons choose not to have more children for the time being or even for an
indefinite period (Humanae Vitae, no. 10).

The chances of birth defects in an older mother is not morally justifiable reason. A child must be welcome into the world as he is, not as we want him to be. In addition, there is no guarantee that one’s child will have birth defects. The statistics simply say that the number of children with birth defect is higher among older mothers, not that older mothers will give birth to children with birth defects. Even if this were the case, that child has a right to be conceived and born.

**

When older parents, for serious reasons, need to postpone a pregnancy for an indefinite periods, it could be become permenent (as natural fertility ends). At a certain age, it could even be reasonably forseen, that by the time the serious reason would abate (significant health reasons would likely not improve with age), perhaps a certain period of time required for financial reasons, such as to pay of significant medical debt from a prior birth, that it would be likely that they many not be able to add to the size of their family due to fertility ending before the serious circumstances have changed. Is it not permissible, then, to use NFP for serious reasons if that could be reasonably foreseen? Because it would likely have the effect of being permenent.

Totally in agreement about the birth defects and older age, thanks for stating it, many, many Catholics don’t hold this view at all and it’s disheartening.

 

[joclucsylv]

What we think about NFP is irrelevant. How we interpret scripture is also irrelevant. The only body with the authority to interpret scripture and to teach moral law with authority is the college of bishops in union with the pope.

We’re arguing here based on what we think. Neither God not the Church cares about our opinion on the matter. They care about truth.

NFP is not the same at ABC. ABC is intended to allow the couple the benefits of the marriage act without the natural outcome. NFP is the cessation of the marriage act until the fertile period passes. It involves a sacrifice and it does not abuse the marriage act. It involves the love and cooperation of both parties.

NFP cannot be used permanently or long-term unless there is a morally justifiable reason. “I’m finished having children,” is not a serious circumstance to justify not having children.

**
The Church teaches that a couple may generously decide to have a large family, or
may for serious reasons choose not to have more children for the time being or even for an
indefinite period (Humanae Vitae, no. 10).

In married life, serious circumstances—financial, physical, psychological, or those
involving responsibilities to other family members—may arise to make an increase in family size untimely. The Church understands this, while encouraging couples to take a generous view of children.**

Married Love and The Gift of Life

The chances of birth defects in an older mother is not morally justifiable reason. A child must be welcome into the world as he is, not as we want him to be. In addition, there is no guarantee that one’s child will have birth defects. The statistics simply say that the number of children with birth defect is higher among older mothers, not that older mothers will give birth to children with birth defects. Even if this were the case, that child has a right to be conceived and born.

We need to put aside our opinions and those of people around us. Read what the Church teaches and assent to it.

NFP: Questions and Answers from the Church

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes. I agree. What matters is what the Church teaches. However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t think for themselves. (I don’t mean that to sound rude.) My mind still wanders to who, what, where, and when.

What would be a morally justiable reason not to have a child?? My mind thinks about my grandmother’s generation and how they were truly open to life. Families of 15 to 20 existed back then.

My next question…has the church for 2000 years taught and interpreted scripture in such a way that a couple can have good reason not to have a child?? Or is the “good reason” standing a relatively new teaching and understanding of scripture?

 

[etmom]

Families of 15 to 20 existed back then.

Very large families still do exist.

 

[LaSainte]

What we think about NFP is irrelevant. How we interpret scripture is also irrelevant. The only body with the authority to interpret scripture and to teach moral law with authority is the college of bishops in union with the pope.

We’re arguing here based on what we think. Neither God not the Church cares about our opinion on the matter. They care about truth.

NFP is not the same at ABC. ABC is intended to allow the couple the benefits of the marriage act without the natural outcome. NFP is the cessation of the marriage act until the fertile period passes. It involves a sacrifice and it does not abuse the marriage act. It involves the love and cooperation of both parties.

NFP cannot be used permanently or long-term unless there is a morally justifiable reason. “I’m finished having children,” is not a serious circumstance to justify not having children.

**
The Church teaches that a couple may generously decide to have a large family, or
may for serious reasons choose not to have more children for the time being or even for an
indefinite period (Humanae Vitae, no. 10).

In married life, serious circumstances—financial, physical, psychological, or those
involving responsibilities to other family members—may arise to make an increase in family size untimely. The Church understands this, while encouraging couples to take a generous view of children.**

Married Love and The Gift of Life

The chances of birth defects in an older mother is not morally justifiable reason. A child must be welcome into the world as he is, not as we want him to be. In addition, there is no guarantee that one’s child will have birth defects. The statistics simply say that the number of children with birth defect is higher among older mothers, not that older mothers will give birth to children with birth defects. Even if this were the case, that child has a right to be conceived and born.

We need to put aside our opinions and those of people around us. Read what the Church teaches and assent to it.

NFP: Questions and Answers from the Church

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Church thankfully does not dictate what a “serious reason” to avoid pregnancy is, and yet you say that the possibility of birth defects is not one. Personally, I think that a 1 in 4 chance of having a baby with down syndrome at 50 and then probably being dead in 30 years, leaving that child with nobody to care for him/her is a pretty serious reason to at least TRY not to get pregnant.

 

[LaSainte]

I had a beautiful daughter at age 43, with no problems. Shortly before my 45th birthday, I gave birth to a beautiful son, and he died in the heartbreak of our lives when he was 16 days old, after a difficult and problematic pregnancy for the both of us. He suffered tremendously in the days that he lived. He was our 6th child.

I did trust God, and still do. But we are also called to be responsible and prudent with parenthood, and as generous as we can be.

Giving birth at age 42 is drastically different that 45, 48, or 49 or beyond.

I am so sorry that you lost your little angel

 

[joclucsylv]

Very large families still do exist.

Yes they do though not like they used to. I can think of 2 large Catholic families in my area of the world and I live in a predominately Catholic area. In my grandmother’s day there was a large family in every single house for the most part. I guess this is why I struggle with the concept of NFP being open to life. I certainly don’t mean to insult anyone who uses NFP for they are right with the Chruch. It is just difficult to wrap my head around.

 

[etmom]

The Church thankfully does not dictate what a “serious reason” to avoid pregnancy is, and yet you say that the possibility of birth defects is not one. Personally, I think that a 1 in 4 chance of having a baby with down syndrome at 50 and then probably being dead in 30 years, leaving that child with nobody to care for him/her is a pretty serious reason to at least TRY not to get pregnant.

At 50, (or late 40’s) it seems like it would have to be a consideration, even if simply of financial resources of the couple to care for their child because the risk is indeed so high. But I see woman who are not even mid 30’s using increased risk for Down Syndrome as a justification of no more children, and the risk there is like a 99% chance of a child with normal chromosomes. That seems ridiculous.

HOwever, the prevailing wisdom is for these children, once conceived, not to be born at all, and that’s appalling. The reality is a hunt and destroy in the womb. It’s horrifying. 94% of those with prenatal diagnosis of down syndrome terminate. And 85% of children with down syndrome are born to mother’s under age 35, actually (although the risk is higher as a woman ages, just not many 45-50 yr olds are actively pursuing pregnancy.