NFP marketing, is promoting it right?

[Xantippe]

The Church has never specifically applied it to family size as far as I know, but the Church has also not specifically spoken on how much a rich person should donate to charity, nor has it spoken on how much a poor person should donate to charity.

Although individual spiritual writers have probably given more specific advice to particular audiences.

It is interesting that you bring up charity (which is definitely a good example of how different states of life produce different duties). It is not a good look when people push generosity in family size as the end-all-be-all, but don’t have a fraction as much interest in talking about how much Catholics should give to charity. You can make just as good a case that Catholic levels of giving (low single digitis) are pretty sad and scandalous.

I feel like there can be a sort of tunnel vision, where having a larger and larger family trumps all other duties of the Christian life, and I would suggest that there needs to be balance between all these different duties, and yes, prudence is going to need to be deployed to figure out how to do that.

 

[babochka]

You are the one throwing out the idea that the church in the past suggested we use “prudence” to determine family size. It is on YOU to prove YOUR point that this happened.
I’ve already shown that there is a difference in terminology. So now it on you! Show me where the pre HV church said anything about limiting family size for anything other then a serious reason.

You really seem stuck on these two ideas. Nothing has changed. Prudence is called for in all of our decisions. The Church has not changed its terminology from serious / grave to just. The Latin remains the same. The translation to English from the Latin has been corrected, just as the translation of the Mass has been corrected. It is completely different than what you are saying. It would be helpful if you would address the translation issues specifically. Several people have mentioned it, but you persist in saying that the Church has changed its terminology. I’m not sure what your understanding is of that point and it is hard to address this issue when you have not clarified your stance regarding the translation.

 

[F_Marturana]

Humanae Vitae wasn’t new Church teaching. It reinforced timeless Church teaching. What had changed was the advent of the pill, and the question of whether the Church would permit the pill. Some incorrectly thought at the time that the unitive and procreative aspects of sex could be maintained by using the pill.

NFP is only a system that identifies the fertile and infertile times during the cycle, and then the couple determines whether to be intimate or not depending on that information.

There is nothing wrong with understanding the fertility cycle. There is also nothing wrong with timing marital sex.

 

[babochka]

Canon law is my tried and true fall back if ever I have questions on matters of faith. I also like to research traditional sources. Like the early church fathers writings and those of the saints. Augustine is awesome! I try to avoid obscurity that i find is often found in more modern writings.

Canon law is not an appropriate source for questions about the faith, as it is not meant to present Church teaching in its entirety and certainly would not delve into subjects such as when it is appropriate to use NFP. If you’re relying upon canon law for your understanding of the faith, it is no wonder that your understanding is lacking. Surely it would be better to fall back upon the Catechism, of which Pope Jphn Paul II declared, “Very many have expressed the desire that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed, that … I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.” Yet even the Catechism does not do what you so wish because this is a matter of conscience for the couple.

As far as Church Fathers, I’m not surprised you are attracted to St. Augustine, who had a singularly negative view of non-procreative sex, even to the point of teaching that such was venially sinful (for example. sex after childbearing years, during pregnancy, etc.). Who else do you read on the subject? For a more balanced view of human sexuality, try St. John Chrysostom.

 

[ahs]

ByWhatAuthority:

So now it on you! Show me where the pre HV church said anything about limiting family size for anything other then a serious reason.

[My apologies, babochka. This reply was intended for ByWhatAuthority, and I don’t know how to correct that.]

The Church has never taught that family size can be limited on the basis of frivolous or non-serious reasons, and I don’t see where anyone is stating such. [Perhaps I missed something in the posts above.]
Neither has the Church ever taught a doctrine against the use of periodic continence. As soon as the first rudimentary methods of estimating the infertile period arose in the mid-nineteenth century, the Church immediately and explicitly gave its blessing to this practice (1853 and 1880.)
If it’s an encyclical pre-dating HV you are looking for, which mentions periodic continence (what we refer to as “using NFP and avoiding the fertile days” today), Casti Connubii might be of interest. Responding to the Anglican’s Lambeth Conference, the Pope makes very strong condemnations of frustrating the Marital Act. During this writing, he states,

“53. …First consideration is due to the offspring, 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… Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children” (CC, 53).

1. … 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. (CC 59)

And finally, a reference that suggests that continence should be practiced by newly weds as a means to better adjust to necessary continence that may arise later in their marriage.

1. … In fine…let husband and wife resolve: to stand fast to the commandments of God in all things that matrimony demands; always to render to each other the assistance of mutual love; to preserve the honor of chastity; not to lay profane hands on the stable nature of the bond; to use the rights given them by marriage in a way that will be always Christian and sacred, more especially in the first years of wedlock, so that should there be need of continency afterwards, custom will have made it easier for each to preserve it. (CC 110)

But it is YOU, not anyone else here, who bares the buerden of proof. You referred to the Church’s current teachings on NFP/periodic continence as being something new or different from the past. When are you going to provide any Church doctrine to support your position?
The obvious answer is, “never, because none exists”.

 

[Xantippe]

Neither has the Church ever taught a doctrine against the use of periodic continence. As soon as the first rudimentary methods of estimating the infertile period arose in the mid-nineteenth century, the Church immediately and explicitly gave its blessing to this practice (1853 and 1880.)

Yes, it’s very telling that periodic abstinence has had an official stamp of approval for as long as the science has been around. I would suggest that the reason for that is that the Church as a whole has been more aware of the pastoral issues involved with family size and parenting than ByWhatAuthority gives it credit for.

(And if St. Augustine wouldn’t approve, St. Augustine is great, St. Augustine is smart, but St. Augustine was not a pope.)

 

[ByWhatAuthority]

I don’t remember quoting st. Augustine… I love him but I didn’t quote him here and I never said he was a pope, lol! anyway, I think we all agree that the church did NOT put its seal of approval on abstinence for married couples to limit family size UNLESS there was a grave or serious reason.
That is the issue at hand. If it’s a sin or could be a sin to limit family size using nfp for no good reason; then it would be very good for the church to explain this to couples so they don’t adopt a contraceptive mentality towards the use of it. It should not be marketed as a stand by to abc. Couples should be told nfp is something that can be used if there is a serious reason.
I am glad to see that most of you agree with me on this. It’s the over defense of nfp on this thread that has muddied this conversation.

 

[AdamP88]

; then it would be very good for the church to explain this to couples

It does.

It should not be marketed as a stand by to abc.

It’s not.
You have yet to point to one instance of this happening.

Couples should be told nfp is something that can be used if there is a serious reason.

You mean just reason. That is the direct translation from Latin.

It’s the over defense of nfp on this thread that has muddied this conversation.

It’s not over defense. It’s the rightful defense of Church teaching against someone who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care to understand what the actual teaching is.

 

[TheLittleLady]

contraceptive mentality

Do you even know what that phrase means? It has been soooo co-opted by agenda laden self proclaimed militant YouTubers/Bloggers that The Holy Father’s original meaning has been lost.

That phrase was used in a list of signs, symptoms, of problems. That list does not talk about conception, abstinence, accepting children, (nor does it mention rain, trains, trucks, prison, getting drunk or mamma). Yet, the more-catholic-than-the-pope crowd glommed on to that phrase and wield in every YouTube rant or blog post.

Have you ever read the document that introduced that phrase? It is an exhortation, you might read it (after you read HG and the other doctrinal documents that have been suggested):

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p..._jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

**On the other hand, however, signs are not lacking of a disturbing degradation of some fundamental values:

a mistaken theoretical and practical concept of the independence of the spouses in relation to each other;

serious misconceptions regarding the relationship of authority between parents and children;

the concrete difficulties that the family itself experiences in the transmission of values;

the growing number of divorces;

the scourge of abortion;

the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization;

the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality.**

 

[F_Marturana]

I gave this post a .

But I also want to say Bravo and a thank you!!

 

[TheLittleLady]

I’d not read this lovely document for a few years, this gave me a reason to re-read it. Later in the document St JPII really does describe this mentality:

Thus the Church condemns as a grave offense against human dignity and justice all those activities of governments or other public authorities which attempt to limit in any way the freedom of couples in deciding about children. Consequently, any violence applied by such authorities in favor of contraception or, still worse, of sterilization and procured abortion, must be altogether condemned and forcefully rejected. Likewise to be denounced as gravely unjust are cases where, in international relations, economic help given for the advancement of peoples is made conditional on programs of contraception, sterilization and procured abortion.[85]

Honestly, the gymnastics it takes to apply that phrase to couples who are using prudence would win someone an Olympic medal.

 

[AdamP88]

use the rights given them by marriage in a way that will be always Christian and sacred, more especially in the first years of wedlock, so that should there be need of continency afterwards, custom will have made it easier for each to preserve it. (CC 110)

This is very interesting. There are many out there who claim a couple should not get married if they are going to immediately practice continence.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t remember quoting st. Augustine… I

You weren’t mentioning Augustine–somebody else was. Sorry for any confusion.

. It’s the over defense of nfp on this thread that has muddied this conversation.

I don’t think there has been any over-the-top defense of NFP on this thread. In fact, it’s very hard to find NFP boosterism on CAF.

For 99% of pro-NFP CAFers, NFP just is what it is.

 

[Xantippe]

This is very interesting. There are many out there who claim a couple should not get married if they are going to immediately practice continence.

…no matter how long that might be for.

Obviously, fertile married people should always be mentally prepared to have a baby, but trying for one is a different kettle of fish.

 

[ahs]

I think we all agree that the church did NOT put its seal of approval on abstinence for married couples to limit family size UNLESS there was a grave or serious reason.

Actually, @ByWhatAuthority , when the issue first arose, the Church gave explicit approval without any consideration of the reasons, so long as the couple didn’t resort to onanism or contaception (a.k.a. “frustrat[ing] the Marital Act”]. Here are those quotes again:

In response to the dubium of the Bishop of Amiens, asking whether spouses be corrected or reprehended, who make use of the Marital Act “only on days when conception is impossible”, the Vatican replied, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation” (quoted in J. Montánchez, Teología Moral 654

The next time was in 1880: The question posed was “Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to occur?” The response was: “Spouses using the aforesaid method are not to be disturbed; and a confessor may, with due caution, suggest this proposal to spouses, if his other attempts to lead them away from the detestable crime of onanism have proved fruitless.” ( published in Nouvelle Revue Théologique 13 [1881]: 459–460 and in Analecta Iuris Pontificii 22 [1883], 249.)

So, couples using the method were not to be disturbed, and a confessor could recommend it if the couple was prone to resorting to onanism/contraception. No mention at all of what the reasons were to be, or how serious.

In the following century, in Casti Connubii, “iustae causae” would be discussed, and I provided several quotes form that encyclical above. Twenty years later, in his Allocution ot Midwives, Pope Pius XII would go into as full as the Church has ever gone into what those “iustae causae” might be, and his detailed explanation was, "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. "
That’s as specific as the Church has ever been.

 

[Xantippe]

ahs,

That was very nicely done.

 

[babochka]

I don’t remember quoting st. Augustine… I love him but I didn’t quote him here and I never said he was a pope, lol! anyway, I think we all agree that the church did NOT put its seal of approval on abstinence for married couples to limit family size UNLESS there was a grave or serious reason.
That is the issue at hand. If it’s a sin or could be a sin to limit family size using nfp for no good reason; then it would be very good for the church to explain this to couples so they don’t adopt a contraceptive mentality towards the use of it. It should not be marketed as a stand by to abc. Couples should be told nfp is something that can be used if there is a serious reason.
I am glad to see that most of you agree with me on this. It’s the over defense of nfp on this thread that has muddied this conversation.

No, we don’t all agree on this. You’re just not paying attention to what others are saying.

 

[PaulinVA]

I will say it again. This focusing on the 1% of Catholics who use NFP and try to be faithful to the Church is counterproductive. It like an animal eating it’s young.

Just let couples practice being faithful to the Church the best they can in this area and don’t judge.

 

[Anicette]

Ubi Caritas,

yes… I can be misuse… I know that… I fact most people (not religious one) who use an nfp method don’t abstain during fertile times… instead use condoms or something like that.

 

[ahs]

yes… I can be misuse… I know that… I fact most people (not religious one) who use an nfp method don’t abstain during fertile times… instead use condoms or something like that.

Well, then that wouldn’t be NFP, it would be contraception. They aren’t misusing NFP, they are simply contracepting.
And if a person is going to use contraception, why would they bother with the hassel of charting cycles and fertile times. That makes no sense. I have never met anyone, religious or non-religious, who uses NFP to chart cycles, and then uses contraception during the fertile times. Not saying is doesn’t happen, but it isn’t “most people” by any stretch of the imagination.