On the 'need' for reasons to use NFP

[Rau]

I agree with the Church position on the ‘wrongs’ of contraception. If children are not desired, then don’t have sex when they might reasonably result makes good sense to me, and has the benefit of theological soundness too.

What perplexes me however is why the Church provides this rider that good reasons (variously quoted as ‘grave’, ‘serious’ or ‘just’ reasons) are required to apply NFP.

I just struggle with this notion. It’s not that the reasons are not spelled out, or that confusion was created by the multiple benchmarks (grave/serious/just), but just the idea that it could be wrong to be aware of your fertility, and to decide not to have sex as a consequence. [That is, it would be better to be unaware and leave the result to chance.]

Now I do get the angle about selfishness, and can in part see how declining children could be reflective of selfishness (particularly if one is selfish in other ways too). But - would the Church have done better to have simply reminded the faithful of the risks of selfishness, and left it at that?

There seems to be a built-in bias towards “have children until you reach some limit”. I cannot see the merit in that. By all means - don’t be selfish – in **any **way - be generous, be it by rearing children, helping the poor, or whatever.

 

[Corki]

I believe that the actual teaching is that, for good (insert “just” “grave” “serious”…) reason a couple may decide to delay the birth of another child. NFP is just a means to the end - not having another baby right away.

Remember Catholic teaching is for the whole world, not just the west. In much of the world, children are still considered a blessing and more children = more blessing. Also, in much of the world, ecological breastfeeding is the norm. It is very unlikely for a new mom to get pregnant with less than a 2 or 3 year space between children when using breastfeeding this way.

So, for a healthy couple, after three years, why wouldn’t they want another child? There must be a reason, right? The teaching about a non-selfish reason is a counter to the belief, still popular in some circles that a woman must have as many kids as she can to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. If you look at it from the point of “why not” 16 or 18 children instead of “why more” than 2, it makes more sense. (at least to me)

 

[Xantippe]

I think talking about selfishness would actually be more pointed, if anything. Then good people could tie themselves in knots over whether or not they are being “selfish” rather than whether or not they have “grave reasons.”

I like what Corki said about natural spacing. While this is not universally true, a lot of women seem to have a natural 2-year-spacing between children. (I often notice, when analyzing the spacing of large families, that that 2-year-spacing seems to crop up a lot–8, 6, 4, 2, infant.)

My feelings about this are, Hello! We’re talking about not having sex! For a normal, happily married couple, not having sex requires a good reason. Selfish long-term NFP couples seems to me about as common and as likely as unicorns. What normal guy would think, “We’ll skip having sex half the month for the next 15 years so I can have a Mercedes”

 

[CarrieSpooner]

I agree with the Church position on the ‘wrongs’ of contraception. If children are not desired, then don’t have sex when they might reasonably result makes good sense to me, and has the benefit of theological soundness too.

What perplexes me however is why the Church provides this rider that good reasons (variously quoted as ‘grave’, ‘serious’ or ‘just’ reasons) are required to apply NFP.

I just struggle with this notion. It’s not that the reasons are not spelled out, or that confusion was created by the multiple benchmarks (grave/serious/just), but just the idea that it could be wrong to be aware of your fertility, and to decide not to have sex as a consequence. [That is, it would be better to be unaware and leave the result to chance.]

Now I do get the angle about selfishness, and can in part see how declining children could be reflective of selfishness (particularly if one is selfish in other ways too). But - would the Church have done better to have simply reminded the faithful of the risks of selfishness, and left it at that?

There seems to be a built-in bias towards “have children until you reach some limit”. I cannot see the merit in that. By all means - don’t be selfish – in **any **way - be generous, be it by rearing children, helping the poor, or whatever.

No, that would not be better. There are certain objective facts of human nature. One such fact is that children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute significantly to the parents welfare. Parents are blessed to have large families. The only way this blessing should not be sought out in abundance is if there are serious reasons not to – in other words when the risks outweigh the benefits.

 

[Rau]

The teaching about a non-selfish reason is a counter to the belief, still popular in some circles that a woman must have as many kids as she can to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. If you look at it from the point of “why not” 16 or 18 children instead of “why more” than 2, it makes more sense. (at least to me)

Certainly it never occurred to me that some peoples would operate on the basis of the need to maximise number of children, and so the teaching does serve to say to them “you can slow down or stop”. And it pays due regard to their perspective by not suggesting the decision about number of children is “arbitrary”.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

I believe the NFP class has saved me from a possible perpetual marital sin. This would be “faking it”. Yes, that momment when a woman just is not going to orgasm and her husband is desparatly trying to please … Many women fake it to (get sleep, clean, ect)

After NFP class we (my husband and I) had the conversation of ‘faking it’. I never understood the sticky slim stuff. I’ve always been grossed out by the sticky slim stuff; but knew men were driven wild by it. Anyways, having both of us on board watching the calendar and female bodily fluids, we can understand why there are times I (the female) have different levels of marital satisfaction and why when the sticky slim stuff is absent I don’t get the same marital satisfaction throughout the month. Because of this it’s much easier for me to say, “hey, it’s not going to happen for me” and since my husband also understands fertility, he doesn’t get hurt by not giving. This way I don’t have to go to confession to say “I faked it again” — which to my understanding is lying.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

The Church is spelling out for us that we do have to have good, non-selfish reasons to purposefully limit marital sexual intercourse to the non-fertile times. I do not follow how this would be to discourage some people from having larger families. If good reasons were not needed, the Church would not specify this and would simply say periodic continence is an acceptable form of avoiding pregnancy. For a family that is following the teachings and needs to avoid for unselfish reasons, the extra qualifier (unselfish reasons) would not change the morality. The only people affected by the qualifier would be those that would choose to avoid for lack of generosity (and although it is popular belief among some on here that it is pretty much impossible for this to happen, the Church does seems to believe it can happen, and warns against it.)

 

[Rau]

…The only people affected by the qualifier would be those that would choose to avoid for lack of generosity (and although it is popular belief among some on here that it is pretty much impossible for this to happen, the Church does seems to believe it can happen, and warns against it.)

I think the judgements involved are not as straightforward as this makes it sound. Trade-offs abound among the potential calls on our time and resources. Do we live in a better area; seek out better schools and provide a better/broader education? How much is reasonable to spend on a house, or give to the poor? At what age is it reasonable to decide it’s time to call it quits? What do we need for ourselves in retirement? As parents, we can love our children dearly, but some may not feel great desire for another child, while other parents seem “born” to rear a large family and forever long for more children! Is the former lacking generosity viz a viz the latter, or failing to see future possibilities, or just different?

Clearly there are many factors to weigh, and I think it would be wrong to see it, in every case, as just a question of selfish versus unselfish reasons.

Corki also makes an insightful observation above.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

The teaching about a non-selfish reason is a counter to the belief, still popular in some circles that a woman must have as many kids as she can to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. If you look at it from the point of “why not” 16 or 18 children instead of “why more” than 2, it makes more sense. (at least to me)

This is specifically what I disagree with. The Church does not add “requirements” to appease/calm the minds of people, or to encourage people to use periodic continence. If periodic continence was ok without needing any reason to do so, the Church would leave it at that. If a person has mentally related serious reasons to avoid, they could do it morally with or without the “qualifier” that the reasons have to be unselfish. (and, I don’t know about you guys, but I reached a point of physical and mental exhaustion with my first child/when I only had one child … but I do understand what you mean; someone could have serious/just reasons to avoid related to that area). Just by saying it is moral to use periodic continence to avoid, it would allow people that have serious/just reasons to avoid having children morally. The Church does not leave it at that, they add that we have to have unselfish reasons, which lets us know we need to have unselfish reasons if we discern the need (the Church does not say we automatically have to use periodic continence).
ETA: I do agree that discerning unselfish reasons is not that straightforward… which is why we need to discern carefully/not arbitrarily, but taking into consideration eternal life/supernatural dimension of life. I did want to add,though, that we cannot out-do God in generosity; it just won’t happen.

 

[Corki]

This is specifically what I disagree with. The Church does not add “requirements” to appease/calm the minds of people, or to encourage people to use periodic continence. If periodic continence was ok without needing any reason to do so, the Church would leave it at that. If a person has mentally related serious reasons to avoid, they could do it morally with or without the “qualifier” that the reasons have to be unselfish. (and, I don’t know about you guys, but I reached a point of physical and mental exhaustion with my first child/when I only had one child … but I do understand what you mean; someone could have serious/just reasons to avoid related to that area). Just by saying it is moral to use periodic continence to avoid, it would allow people that have serious/just reasons to avoid having children morally. The Church does not leave it at that, they add that we have to have unselfish reasons, which lets us know we need to have unselfish reasons if we discern the need (the Church does not say we automatically have to use periodic continence).
ETA: I do agree that discerning unselfish reasons is not that straightforward… which is why we need to discern carefully/not arbitrarily, but taking into consideration eternal life/supernatural dimension of life. I did want to add,though, that we cannot out-do God in generosity; it just won’t happen.

I see your point but I think the Church is wise to use the terms selfish and unselfish. Much of Church teaching is about good vs evil, virtue vs vice, good choices vs poor choices. When we marry, we are called to be generous with the gift of life. To purposely withhold that gift would be the opposite of ‘generous,’ that is, ‘selfish’. The mitigating factor would be a unselfish reason behind the decision.

The other thing is that there are selfish, unselfish and neutral reasons to avoid having another child right now. By emphasizing the unselfish, the Church is saying, subtly, that a neutral reason is probably not a good one either. An example of this would be a couple that decides before their first child is even born that they will have 3 children - no more. That is a neutral reason but not an un-selfish or generous one. Contrast that to a couple who, after the birth of their third child, decide that their resources are stretched and having another child would not be prudent. That’s an unselfish reason.