NFP marketing, is promoting it right?

[PaulinVA]

There is a difference between “avoiding” pregnancy and outright refusing pregnancy. One can avoid pregnancy because of a serious illness, yet still be open to it and accept it if it happened. This is different than saying “I am no longer open to having children for xyz reasons.”

No one on this thread has ever said that they would not accept children as they came, just that they wouldn’t be trying to have more children. You can say, “We aren’t going to have more children” and still accept a baby that comes.

The way I am employing Luke 1:37 is to point out that God will help you through any obstacle in life. Someone in your position may benefit from practicing NFP, i.e., you might do well to avoid new pregnancies. But you must not refuse them if they happen. One does not run into any moral issues until they have consciously refused to be open to God granting new life.

No, Luke 1:37 is meant for a specific time and place. The angel was telling Mary that Elizabeth was pregnant in her advanced age because nothing was impossible with God. It has nothing to do with God helping a person through a tough pregnancy or anything else.

We have already discussed the issue of wifely submission. This is not the appropriate thread for that conversation. If you have read that thread, then you already know my (the Church’s) position.

I have found over the years on CAF that people who post that their position is the Church’s position usually aren’t espousing the Church’s position at all, and have very few people agreeing with them. Just an observation.

 

[Xantippe]

There is a difference between “avoiding” pregnancy and outright refusing pregnancy. One can avoid pregnancy because of a serious illness, yet still be open to it and accept it if it happened. This is different than saying “I am no longer open to having children for xyz reasons.”

The way I am employing Luke 1:37 is to point out that God will help you through any obstacle in life. Someone in your position may benefit from practicing NFP, i.e., you might do well to avoid new pregnancies. But you must not refuse them if they happen. One does not run into any moral issues until they have consciously refused to be open to God granting new life.

We have already discussed the issue of wifely submission. This is not the appropriate thread for that conversation. If you have read that thread, then you already know my (the Church’s) position.

–I don’t think people who aren’t using contraception or abortion are “outright refusing pregnancy,” if they say that they would lovingly accept and raise any surprise baby. But they might still feel “done” even if they would raise a surprise baby.
–You’re suggesting a sort of hyper-supernaturalism, where we’re supposed to expect miraculous intervention as the default, rather than the default being us needing to use common sense instead of doing dumb things and expecting God to fix it for us.
–I think what I said was that while I would accept a new baby if one unexpectedly appeared, I’m not jumping up and down asking for one.
–The sad truth is that if I did get pregnant now or in the future, the baby would be very likely to miscarry–that’s one of the saddest facts about pregnancy over 40. I was just looking this up, and a Newsweek article said that the risk of miscarriage after 6 weeks is 42% at 40 years of age, and based on my other reading, the risk increases steeply throughout the 40s, until you hit 90+% risk of miscarriage toward the end of the 40s. Having already been through a late miscarriage, that is definitely on my mind.
–I don’t see how you square your views on wifely submission with your views in this thread. If my husband does not want more children and wants me to work instead of being sick and pregnant, how would wifely submission be any different than what I am doing now? (Namely, doing what my husband wants me to do.)

 

[omgriley]

No one on this thread has ever said that they would not accept children as they came, just that they wouldn’t be trying to have more children. You can say, “We aren’t going to have more children” and still accept a baby that comes.

I’m sorry, Paul. You had previously stated that you would be justified to “absolutely” tell God that you are done having children. Hard to see how that squares with accepting them as they come.

No, Luke 1:37 is meant for a specific time and place. The angel was telling Mary that Elizabeth was pregnant in her advanced age because nothing was impossible with God. It has nothing to do with God helping a person through a tough pregnancy or anything else.

As often is the case in Biblical prophesy, it’s possible for a prophecy to have it’s fulfillment in a specific instance while having a larger meaning behind it as well. Any theologian worth his work will tell you that one of the larger meanings behind Luke 1:37 is that nothing is impossible for God. This applies to difficulties in raising children. I honestly cannot see how this is controversial.

I have found over the years on CAF that people who post that their position is the Church’s position usually aren’t espousing the Church’s position at all, and have very few people agreeing with them. Just an observation.

I have found that many people who disagree with Catholic teaching will often accuse the Church of not grasping some “real world concept” or being out touch. Just an observation.

I don’t think people who aren’t using contraception or abortion are “outright refusing pregnancy,” if they say that they would lovingly accept and raise any surprise baby. But they might still feel “done” even if they would raise a surprise baby.

I never said this was the case. I merely stated the difference between using NFP to avoid pregnancies and using it to refuse them (whether it proves successful or not).

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

sigh

You know, when I see men mercilessly lambaste women’s reasons for using NFP, it makes me wonder if their distaste for it is actually based on theology, or if they just can’t stomach the thought of periodic abstinence. When life or death rationale isn’t good enough, you really have to wonder…

 

[Xantippe]

Any theologian worth his work will tell you that one of the larger meanings behind Luke 1:37 is that nothing is impossible for God. This applies to difficulties in raising children. I

Yes, but if we haven’t specifically been given a promise from God that everything is going to be peachy keen, we really should not be expecting anything out of the ordinary world of cause and effect.

I suggest you pick up a book by parents of special needs children about their experiences (I’m currently reading one entitled “My Baby Rides the Short Bus”). It’s a very hard, lonely road to walk in the contemporary US (and elsewhere), and sometimes parents fail at it.

Mother of autistic girl drowned herself after child was refused care | Daily Mail Online

 

[Bruised_Reed]

When life or death rationale isn’t good enough, you really have to wonder…

Yes. This and the submission thread suggest that this isn’t really about Church teaching on holiness and obedience but toxic kind of faith. I’m really creeped out by this version of Catholic…manhood.

 

[ahs]

I have found that many people who disagree with Catholic teaching will often accuse the Church of not grasping some “real world concept” or being out touch. Just an observation.

No kidding, right? Church teaching like,

“Periodic continence, that is, the method of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.” (CCC 2370);

OR “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.” (CCC 2399);

OR “The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons [“iusta causae”]; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.” (Compendium to CCC, Question 497);

OR “Mastery over drives by one’s reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascesis so that the affective manifestations of conjugal love may be in accord with the right order, in particular with regard to observing periodic continence. Yet this discipline, which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife develop their personalities integrally, enriching each other with spiritual values…It favors attention to one’s partner, helps both parties to drive out egoism, the enemy of true love, and deepens their sense of responsibility.” (Paul VI, HV 21 as quoted by Saint JP II in Theology of the Body 59:6);

OR “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses [using the infertile periods to avoid conception] should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation." (TheologIia Moral by J Montanchez, quoting the Magisterial response to Bishop of Amiens, France at the Sacred Penitentiary in 1853);

OR “…all pressures brought to bear in limiting "the freedom of couples in deciding about children constitute a grave offence against human dignity and justice.” (Pope JPII, Homily In Perth (Australia) Apostolic Pilgrimage to Bangladesh, et. al., November 30, 1996.);

OR “ The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society…” (CSDC, 234);

OR “Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.” (Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives).

 

[Gilly_flower]

I think the age of the original poster is highly relevant - at only 25 he can have no real life experience of the difficulties of raising a large brood of children…

So I charitably suggest he puts a sock in in, with the option to come back in 20 years time to tell us how it’s been, when we will discuss it further…

And to keep repeating the mantra that God will provide is a glib dismissal of the real suffering of people who don’t find life as easy as the OP apparently does.

On September 19, 1978, John Paul I had a meeting with his Secretary of State “Cardinal” Villot. John Paul I stated:

“Eminence, we have been discussing birth control for about forty-five minutes. If the information I have been given, the various statistics, if that information is accurate, then during the period of time we have been talking, over one thousand children under the age of five have died of malnutrition. During the next forty-five minutes while you and I look forward with anticipation to our next meal, a further thousand children will die of malnutrition. By this time tomorrow thirty thousand children who at this moment are alive, will be dead – of malnutrition. God does not always provide.”

 

[AdamP88]

I think the age of the original poster is highly relevant - at only 25 he can have no real life experience of the difficulties of raising a large brood of children…

So I charitably suggest he puts a sock in in, with the option to come back in 20 years time to tell us how it’s been, when we will discuss it further…

I have to agree with this. The two main “opponents” of NFP on this thread can not be in a position to judge other couples for their reasons. Their position is a bit rich. How can someone possibly make a blanket statement that “finishing college is not a good enough reason to avoid for a time.”

It’s not like kids can survive on fresh air.

They also have consistently misrepresented the Church’s teaching in the matter (Just reason vs. Serious reason).

The Church promotes NFP because it leads to greater unity between couples, when using to avoid or conceive. The Church also does not list the reasons that justify avoiding. It’s left up to the couple to both inform their conscience and make a decision.

 

[F_Marturana]

Engaging in the act in itself does not mean the couple is open to children.

If the couple is not contracepting and not resorting to illicit sexual practices, then their actions are de facto open to life.

Being open to life doesn’t mean actively trying to conceive.

Being open refers to the act, not a thought.

 

[PaulinVA]

One thing people need to remember is that, if you get married at 25, you have 20 to 25 years of fertility ahead of you. NFP helps a couple manage that fertility.

Some people on this thread advocate popping those babies out as fast as you can, there is no reason not to, God will provide. Then, six years later a couple has four children and are totally overwhelmed. Plus, now, they have around 15 years of fertility to manage and they are maxed out on the numbers of kids they can handle - emotionally, physically, and financially.

Managing fertility and listening to God about family size is a very personal experience for the couple. No one should try to guilt people into having more children than they can handle.

We were trying to get my second oldest into a Catholic kindergarten but it wasn’t working out. We read in humana vitae that the best gift you can give a child is a sibling, so we said, “Why not?!” and decided that was a better use of our resources. I wouldn’t expect everyone to make that decision, but we did.

 

[ByWhatAuthority]

Some people on this thread advocate popping those babies out as fast as you can,

No one on this thread said that! Come on! That’s a low blow to those that are open to life and accept children lovingly from God. No one said we should strive to have as many babies as humanly possible, only that it should be up to God how many blessings He gives us.

 

[AdamP88]

No one on this thread said that!

You are correct. Nobody said it in so many words. But that is the underlying implication. That if a couple isn’t “open to all the blessings God might give them” they are rejecting the gift of life.

The problem is that you are denying that NFP is open to life (the Church says it is) and trying to basically characterise the promotion of NFP as promoting a contraceptive mentailty.

It’s not at all hard to look at your posts and get that you think a couple should be always actively trying to have babies.

 

[PaulinVA]

No one said we should strive to have as many babies as humanly possible, only that it should be up to God how many blessings He gives us.

What even does that mean? God does not give us babies. We create them with him. It is not up to God. It is up to us, working with the biology God created.

And yes, if you take some people on this thread’s arguments to their logical conclusion, they are, indeed, advocating having as many babies as possible because they have narrowed the reasons not to have babies to nothing.

 

[Xantippe]

I think the age of the original poster is highly relevant - at only 25 he can have no real life experience of the difficulties of raising a large brood of children…

I agree with much of this, but omgriley is not the OP.

 

[Xantippe]

Managing fertility and listening to God about family size is a very personal experience for the couple. No one should try to guilt people into having more children than they can handle.

Yes. Nobody can say, “I’m going to tell you how many kids you can do a good job parenting,” because nobody else can tell you that.

 

[Xantippe]

I’d like to talk about something ByWhatAuthority was saying about NFP. He/she has been suggesting that couples who do NFP are tied up in knots about it, obsessing about it all the time. I have no doubt that if NFP is not working, that might easily be the case, however, that’s not usually how it works at our house.

Under normal circumstances, we’re only really thinking about the details of the NFP during a 2-3 day period transitioning between Phase 2 and Phase 3. Once we’re clearly in Phase 3, we can stop thinking about it. Because we’re highly motivated and my cycles are shortening, we get only Day 1 of Phase 1. (Of course, it helps here to have 100% agreement in this area.) This will have to be further modified as I advance through perimenopause and things get weird.

The only time I would say that ByWhatAuthority’s description of constant fretting was close to accurate was either while we were learning the method or postpartum/breastfeeding. Having to think a lot about it while learning is probably unavoidable. Postpartum/breastfeeding definitely required a lot of thinking, but mostly a lot of abstaining. I don’t have a cite on this right now, but I believe that in the past, breastfeeding itself has been deemed a good reason for total abstinence–I believe there were much bigger cultural taboos than we have in the contemporary US. Postpartum/breastfeeding is one of the clearest examples of when NFP is a substitute for abstinence, because (especially the last time round), it looked a whole heck of a lot like just plain abstinence (like we took a 5 month break between 9 months postpartum and when my cycles finally reestablished after weaning).

I also have to mention that it’s harder than you might think to stop doing NFP. As another poster has mentioned elsewhere, once you know, you know. There have been times where our NFP got looser/less organized, and even then, I can tell without measuring whether I’m hot or cold, and I can see where I am in the cycle more or less without charting. I don’t recommend that variety of NFP, but what I’m saying is that I can’t help but have a pretty good idea if I’m fertile or infertile at any particular point. I can’t unknow that.

 

[J_Peterson]

You do realize that people can get pregnant when they appear to be infertile. Heck, a woman can get pregnant on her period. That leaves plenty of room for God to operate if he wants to surprise a couple.

 

[TheLittleLady]

they have understand and accept that marriage requires the couple to be open to children always,

Please point out the word “always”:

The Questions Before Consent

“The Questions before the Consent” are an important part of a Catholic wedding ceremony. True to its name, this moment entails the celebrant (priest or deacon) asking the bride and groom a series of questions immediately before they exchange their consent and are married. As the Order of Celebrating Matrimony explains, these questions involve the couple’s “freedom of choice, fidelity to each other, and the acceptance and upbringing of children” (no. 60). While they are asked the questions together, each person must answer the questions individually. It is a solemn moment, as bride and groom pledge before God and the community their intention to undertake through God’s grace the vocation of lifelong marriage, a permanent union open to the gift of new life.

Celebrant:

[Name] and [Name], have you come here to enter into Marriage

without coercion,

freely and wholeheartedly?

The bridegroom and bride each say: I have.

The celebrant continues:

Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage,

to love and honor each other

for as long as you both shall live?

The bridegroom and bride each say: I am.

The following question may be omitted, if circumstances suggest this, for example, if the couple are advanced in years.

Celebrant:

Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God

and to bring them up

according to the law of Christ and his Church?

The bridegroom and bride each say: I am.

Excerpts from the English translation of The Order of Celebrating Matrimony © 2013, International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation (ICEL). Used with permission. All rights reserved.

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/the-questions-before-consent/

KInda reminds me of Romans 3:28 with adding in words to fit personal opinions…

Anyway, now that we are clear on the wedding vows, a couple can lovingly accept children AND abstain from intercourse on fertile days. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Any married couple who has just reason to abstain will tell you there are some occasions when they throw the method to the wind and say “what the heck”. These couples would not run down to the corner pharmacy for the morning after the next morning, they would lovingly accept a child who was conceived.

 

[Xantippe]

I think a lot of people have the idea that in traditional cultures, it’s just a big sexual free for all within marriage, but in practice, traditional peoples tend to have a lot of taboos involving sexual abstinence within marriage.

Most obviously, religiously observant Jews have strict restrictions involving menstruation that require abstinence about half of the time.

Here are some other examples of taboos and traditional restrictions.

Postpartum sexual abstinence, breastfeeding, and childspacing, among Yoruba women in urban Nigeria - PubMed

“This paper examines the extent to which the traditional practice of sexual abstinence during lactation has broken down among Yoruba women residents in urban areas. The first major finding is that there is a gradual erosion of the tradition, and the dominant factors of modernization are education of the woman and the use of contraception.”

(That’s from 1990.)

If you google “breastfeeding taboo abstinence,” there is so much material talking about similar taboos in various traditional cultures around the globe. It may, in fact, be that the lack of such taboos in the contemporary US are mostly due to the prevalence of contraception.

I can easily imagine that the reason that the taboo against sex while breastfeeding is historically so common worldwide is that it was a significant help to survival for women and infants to live in societies that discouraged back to back pregnancy.