NFP and traditional movements

[etmom]

I am so sorry that you lost your little angel

Thank you

 

[fpt]

Do you think that the teaching of catholic church on responsible procreation and NFP is, per se, only objectively contextual???

Where, in the bible (ancient Testament and new testament) or in the teaching of the catholic church, do you find that it was or is a moral obligation from natural contract and moral duty from the natural institution for couple to have many children, large family?

NFP is one of aspect of responsible procreation. That is not contraception. That one element of natural law concerning couple life.

Procreation yes, reproduction certainly not. Reponsible procreation is written in the human heart. It is one of principles of marriage. NFP is only the application of natural methods for spacing or avoiding the baby under conditions, it is an element of the natural law that was present at the beginning of the creation.

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

is it necessary to want a baby in its own mind when we are making love in couple???

Are you okay with this point of view that is called theoretical providentialism.

theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html

“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”

“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”

“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”

“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”

“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”

Are you okay with those statements that is coming from catholic lay persons

“The natural family regulation is a birth control sinful.”
“The Natural Family Planning is diabolical [Evil].”

“Getting married at age 40, what a shame to lose her virginity at this age.”

“The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children.”

 

[etmom]

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.

You must be a lot older than me if you are defining large family as 15-20 living children. In my grandmother’s day, families with 6-10 living children were probably more the “norm”. Most families, when they conceived abundently, also had their fair share of miscarriages, stillbirths, and infant and maternal deaths.

Ecological breastfeeding will often naturally space children about 2 years or more apart. Most couples who are open to life will have a handful of miscarriages, which means they spend months being pregnant (and therefore not fertile) without having a resulting living child. I know several families who have spent their entire marriages being completely open to life, never even using NFP, but only had 5-8 children, certainly not 15-20

 

[fpt]

Why are traditionalists against personalist approach concerning the catholic marriage and NFP? What are the reasons? What is the theological basis?

Topics of family life and the NFP:

• Responsible procreation (NFP, take care or educate, debate on the theological and philosophical basis of Humanae vitae);
• Finalities of marriage (primary purposes, secondary purposes before vatican II it seems - to verify in the details - or the same level like in Humanae Vitae);
• Conjugal act (the general meaning, the meaning of sexual pleasure, the meaning of conjugal orgasm - why, what for - ; material element, intellectual element,
• Wife’s role and husband’s role in the couple and in the family;

 

[joclucsylv]

You must be a lot older than me if you are defining large family as 15-20 living children. In my grandmother’s day, families with 6-10 living children were probably more the “norm”. Most families, when they conceived abundently, also had their fair share of miscarriages, stillbirths, and infant and maternal deaths.

Ecological breastfeeding will often naturally space children about 2 years or more apart. Most couples who are open to life will have a handful of miscarriages, which means they spend months being pregnant (and therefore not fertile) without having a resulting living child. I know several families who have spent their entire marriages being completely open to life, never even using NFP, but only had 5-8 children, certainly not 15-20

I am 39. I can think of sooooo many large families of which I am speaking. This area was full of farms and kids. Neither exist here anymore in large quanitites. My grandmother had 7 children but that is only because my grandfather was 20 years older than her and had a stroke while my grandmother was still very young.

Women are fertile for 25 plus years and back then got married very young. 15-20 children is acheiveable.

 

[JReducation]

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.

The key is serious reasons. There must be serious reasons for using NFP. The fact that one may use it late in life and the biological clock runs out, does not make it immoral, as long as it was not intended.

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.

The problem is that Americans have a very bad habit of thinking that what they think is important to the Church. They don’t seem to be paying attention to the Vatican, which has been sending subtle signals to Americans for years that we are not all that and a bag of chips. We are in love with the fact that we can think, but we fail to think with the Church.

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?

This goes back to the St. Augustine and maybe earlier. The scriptures speak of continence even in marriage, but by mutual agreement.

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.

To avoid a pregnancy because there is a possibility of having a child with a birth defect is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Read Evangelium Vitae. It explains that even the child with a birth defect has a right to be conceived and brought into this world. That child fits into God’s Providential plan for our salvation. We have no right to tamper with God’s plan for the sake of our convenience.

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.

It is the moral duty of the surviving relatives and the community to provide a circle of support for this person. Pope Paul VI wrote about this in Humanae Vitae.

Do you think that the teaching of catholic church on responsible procreation and NFP is, per se, only objectively contextual???

Where, in the bible (ancient Testament and new testament) or in the teaching of the catholic church, do you find that it was or is a moral obligation from natural contract and moral duty from the natural institution for couple to have many children, large family?

It has nothing to do with numbers. Mary had only one child. It’s about the openness to life.

Procreation yes, reproduction certainly not. Reponsible procreation is written in the human heart. It is one of principles of marriage. NFP is only the application of natural methods for spacing or avoiding the baby under conditions, it is an element of the natural law that was present at the beginning of the creation.

In moral theology, procreation and reproduction are inseparable. However, the rest of your point has moral validity. NFP is built into natural law. That’s why it’s permissible.

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

This is correct. You just cannot interfere with the possibility of conception.

Are you okay with this point of view that is called theoretical providentialism.

theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html

Stick with what the authorities in the Church say. There are parts of this that are consistent with Church teachings and parts that are not. You are always safer getting your information from official sites of the Catholic Church than from bloggers or commentators.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[etmom]

I am 39. I can think of sooooo many large families of which I am speaking. This area was full of farms and kids. Neither exist here anymore in large quanitites. My grandmother had 7 children but that is only because my grandfather was 20 years older than her and had a stroke while my grandmother was still very young.

Women are fertile for 25 plus years and back then got married very young. 15-20 children is acheiveable.

Some women’s fertility is higher than others. I know many women who have been subfertile by 35. My point was you were judging that people weren’t being open to life by the number of living children you observed. You can’t tell by that. I know a woman who has a single living child, and has had 11 miscarriages. She is the most open to life person I know. You wouldn’t guess that by simply looking at her single child born over a long marriage. if you used ecological breastfeeding, and were naturally infertile due to that for 9 months to 2 years after births, and only had single births, how could you possibly have 20 children? WIth 2 years spacing between births, not even between pregnancies, you’d need 40 yrs. Even with a few multiples thrown in there, hard to achieve. If you didn’t nurse babies, that would increase how soon after a birth a woman is fertile.

You absolutely can’t judge open to life by number of children.

 

[Cider]

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.

Oh really? You think you have the right to tell me or any other woman that they should use NFP?

 

[etmom]

Oh really? You think you have the right to tell me or any other woman that they should use NFP?

Good point, it is never immoral NOT to use NFP, even if you have grave reasons to do so.

 

[fpt]

The key is serious reasons. There must be serious reasons for using NFP. The fact that one may use it late in life and the biological clock runs out, does not make it immoral, as long as it was not intended.

The problem is that Americans have a very bad habit of thinking that what they think is important to the Church. They don’t seem to be paying attention to the Vatican, which has been sending subtle signals to Americans for years that we are not all that and a bag of chips. We are in love with the fact that we can think, but we fail to think with the Church.

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.

This goes back to the St. Augustine and maybe earlier. The scriptures speak of continence even in marriage, but by mutual agreement.

To avoid a pregnancy because there is a possibility of having a child with a birth defect is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Read Evangelium Vitae. It explains that even the child with a birth defect has a right to be conceived and brought into this world. That child fits into God’s Providential plan for our salvation. We have no right to tamper with God’s plan for the sake of our convenience.

It is the moral duty of the surviving relatives and the community to provide a circle of support for this person. Pope Paul VI wrote about this in Humanae Vitae.

It has nothing to do with numbers. Mary had only one child. It’s about the openness to life.

In moral theology, procreation and reproduction are inseparable. However, the rest of your point has moral validity. NFP is built into natural law. That’s why it’s permissible.

This is correct. You just cannot interfere with the possibility of conception.

Stick with what the authorities in the Church say. There are parts of this that are consistent with Church teachings and parts that are not. You are always safer getting your information from official sites of the Catholic Church than from bloggers or commentators.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Procreation yes, reproduction certainly not.

I mean that the word – procreation-- is for only human being: Soul (I) and Body (II); The word — Reproduction— is for animals that are not at the Image of God even if as you say, without saying directly (under heard) that there is a link between marital act and the potential fecundation (opening to the life).

(I). Human Soul:

woman’s will, woman’s intelligence, woman’s reason, woman’s psyche, woman’s liberty

Man’s will, man’s intelligence, man’s reason, man’s psyche, man’s liberty.

(II). Human Body: male or female, this is alterity and complementarity

Body of Woman: fertility

Body of Man: Fertility

Thus the responsible procreration means unity (A) between wife and husband:

material element: true sexual union with foreplay, pleasures, orgasms and to give pleasure to his spouse and to receive pleasure from his spouse, mutual and bilateral pleasure and mutual and bilateral orgasm for bonding of love)

Intellectual element: love between spouses, from love, for love and to love (the conjugal charity and the sexual charity)

The responsible procreration means potential Procreativity: respect of the material elements of natural law on marital act for opening to life.

 

[TrueLight]

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

Br. JR,

Can you help us find the section that says that NFP may not be used as birth control?

The only difference I see before NFP an ABC is that NFP is natural.

This is what I see posted on the USCCB site:

Natural Family Planning (NFP)

NFP is an umbrella term for certain methods used to achieve and avoid pregnancies. These methods are based on observation of the naturally occurring signs and symptoms of the fertile and infertile phases of a woman’s menstrual cycle. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy abstain from intercourse and genital contact during the fertile phase of the woman’s cycle. No drugs, devices, or surgical procedures are used to avoid pregnancy.

The difference between barrier methods of contraception and NFP, for example, from what I can see is that one uses a woman’s natural cycle.

Also, why couldn’t someone who is 45 use NFP until say 50-51 when they hit menopause?

And even for younger couples. Who determines what length of time they may “delay” pregnancy? Until the pre-med student finishes his 8 years of pre-med and med school education? Until the husband makes enough of a living to buy a house?

It seems to me this delaying is very subjective.

So is there a declaration by the Church as to how long one can delay for?

 

[TrueLight]

The catechism says this:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “**every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:**159

So then why is NFP an option?

 

[etmom]

The catechism says this:

So then why is NFP an option?

NFP doesn’t render procreation impossible. You are also taking no action to cause sterility or physically putting a barrier to prevent pregnancy. NFP does not change the marital act in any way or change a woman’s physiology or use a barrier to prevent pregnancy.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

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

I like your answer. That is how I usually hear it explained.

 

[djwright4341]

The best explanation I ever heard of this issue was an analogy to a wedding… At your wedding, there are essentially three groups of people–the ones you expect to show up (relatives, close friends), the ones you don’t expect to show (Auntie Margaret who lives across the country), and the ones you don’t want to come (ex-boy/girl friends). You send out invitations to the first two groups–with the expectation that the first group will show (but with understanding if they don’t) and are pleasantly surprised if the second group shows. Marital sex in accordance with the teaching of the church is like this. The couple either has an expectation of having children or, while using NFP, they are pleasantly surprised if one is conceived. ABC falls under the third group. And what happens if someone whom you didn’t want to shows at your wedding? Anger? Trying to place blame? With an unexpected pregnancy while using ABC the same thing happens–“what went wrong?”, “did you remember your pill?”, “we’re using birth control so you must be cheating on me!”

 

[LaSainte]

NFP doesn’t render procreation impossible. You are also taking no action to cause sterility or physically putting a barrier to prevent pregnancy. NFP does not change the marital act in any way or change a woman’s physiology or use a barrier to prevent pregnancy.

Yes but it says “PROPOSES to render procreation impossible”. NFP, being so carefully calculated with fertility monitors, ovulation kits, thermometers, mucous testing, feeling the cervix, etc. certainly proposes to render procreation impossible by completely avoiding intercourse when there is even the slightest KNOWN chance of a pregnancy occurring. Any pregnancy resulting is a complete failure of the method, leaving the couple to go back and pour over their charts to try and figure out “what went wrong”.

 

[TrueLight]

The best explanation I ever heard of this issue was an analogy to a wedding… At your wedding, there are essentially three groups of people–the ones you expect to show up (relatives, close friends), the ones you don’t expect to show (Auntie Margaret who lives across the country), and the ones you don’t want to come (ex-boy/girl friends). You send out invitations to the first two groups–with the expectation that the first group will show (but with understanding if they don’t) and are pleasantly surprised if the second group shows. Marital sex in accordance with the teaching of the church is like this. The couple either has an expectation of having children or, while using NFP, they are pleasantly surprised if one is conceived. ABC falls under the third group. And what happens if someone whom you didn’t want to shows at your wedding? Anger? Trying to place blame? With an unexpected pregnancy while using ABC the same thing happens–“what went wrong?”, “did you remember your pill?”, “we’re using birth control so you must be cheating on me!”

I would think anyone who is using NFP and is taking the time to take their temperature, chart etc, is not going to be too thrilled if they end up pregnant. They may be upset, or they may be resigned and see it as what was meant to be. Same with ABC. If you get pregnant while on birth control, you can be upset or resigned.

Yes but it says “PROPOSES to render procreation impossible”. NFP, being so carefully calculated with fertility monitors, ovulation kits, thermometers, mucous testing, feeling the cervix, etc. certainly proposes to render procreation impossible by completely avoiding intercourse when there is even the slightest KNOWN chance of a pregnancy occurring. Any pregnancy resulting is a complete failure of the method, leaving the couple to go back and pour over their charts to try and figure out “what went wrong”.

Exactly!

Don’t get me wrong. I believe ABC is wrong because the Church says it is.

My struggle is with the idea of using NFP for “spacing”. How long can one space? Is it a pastoral matter? And I maintain that NFP is a form of birth control. In fact a lot more work goes into trying not to get pregnant using NFP then it does with using ABC.

 

[LaSainte]

The best explanation I ever heard of this issue was an analogy to a wedding… At your wedding, there are essentially three groups of people–the ones you expect to show up (relatives, close friends), the ones you don’t expect to show (Auntie Margaret who lives across the country), and the ones you don’t want to come (ex-boy/girl friends). You send out invitations to the first two groups–with the expectation that the first group will show (but with understanding if they don’t) and are pleasantly surprised if the second group shows. Marital sex in accordance with the teaching of the church is like this. The couple either has an expectation of having children or, while using NFP, they are pleasantly surprised if one is conceived. ABC falls under the third group. And what happens if someone whom you didn’t want to shows at your wedding? Anger? Trying to place blame? With an unexpected pregnancy while using ABC the same thing happens–“what went wrong?”, “did you remember your pill?”, “we’re using birth control so you must be cheating on me!”

Who in the world is pleasantly surprised when They get pregnant while specifically trying NOT to get pregnant?

To take your analogy further, I would say that NFP is more like the people you really don’t want to show up but who you invite anyway for fear that they will be offended. When they RSVP that they are attending, you’re like “Dammit!”, and then you try to make the best of it.

 

[etmom]

Yes but it says “PROPOSES to render procreation impossible”. NFP, being so carefully calculated with fertility monitors, ovulation kits, thermometers, mucous testing, feeling the cervix, etc. certainly proposes to render procreation impossible by completely avoiding intercourse when there is even the slightest KNOWN chance of a pregnancy occurring. Any pregnancy resulting is a complete failure of the method, leaving the couple to go back and pour over their charts to try and figure out “what went wrong”.

Many women chart even when they are completely open to life, or trying to actively conceive. It’s a great tool for a woman’s health, whether young, middle age or approaching menopause. If you are regularly keeping charts, NFP really doesn’t seem like some horribly contrived method should a significantly serious reason arise to need to use NFP to avoid/postpone a pregnancy - you were recording all the observations anyways. I would advise my daughters to chart, regardless of their state in life, married or single for their own knowlege and the health information it can provide. I’ve known I’m pregnant from my chart without having to take a pregnancy test, seen a miscarriage coming without having any symptoms and sought treatment for a thyroid issue, just from my chart data. All of those when we weren’t postponing or avoiding at all.

NFP doesn’t use ovulation kits, although one method (Marquette) does use a monitor. STM uses basal temps and simple observations, Creighton uses the observations only.

I don’t know anyone who uses NFP who believes they are making procreation impossible. Many who have who have life or death reasons to not get pregnant would simply abstain entirely.

As for “spacing births”, sometimes there are medical reasons. For instance, after a birth via csection, if a woman gets pregnant within 6 months of the surgery, it greatly increases the risk of a uterine rupture, threating the life of mother and baby. Some, who would be completely happy with another baby immediately after the first, might still decide to try to space their subsequent birth to avoid this life threatening complication. In the long run, that might help her preserve her fertility, as a uterine rupture can lead to hysterectomy.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

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.

Beautiful.