P
Pug
Guest
Do you suppose he is talking about a long period of time, or a short period of time? I mean, perhaps there is a difference between having recourse to NFP for 2 months and having recourse to NFP for 15 years.
- Status
P
Paradox2080
Guest
Wow, there is some fantastic advice here.
My wife and I were recently told about the Billings Method of NFP, have any of you had any experience with this or know what distinguishes this from other methods? Is one more moral than the other?
My wife and I were recently told about the Billings Method of NFP, have any of you had any experience with this or know what distinguishes this from other methods? Is one more moral than the other?
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
The Billings method uses examination of mucus as well as temperature to determine what point a woman is in her cycle. It is probably more accurate than some of the older methods. However it is purely a technical, not a moral issue. The principle of abstaining from intercourse during the fertile period is the same.
D
dixieagle
Guest
Simply a matter of preference. Whatever you choose, get good instruction from a competent, experienced couple. (Many moons ago, I was instructed by a sweet little nun - a nurse Sister of St. Agnes!!!) Awkward, to say the least!
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
I’m not positive, I would have to reread the whole allocution to get the context, but as I tried to show earlier, we know (despite some assertions to the contrary) that in our moral theology “grave” and “serious” mean the same thing, so Pius XII’s terminology harmonizes with and, as the prior, can sometimes condition the statements of later popes.
P
Pug
Guest
I did look up up your quote, and I found that perhaps it supports that position more than you know. Pope Pius XII goes on in the very next paragraph to use the word “serious”. So one can see the two words used closely together in the same context. Also, it even mentions “reasonable and equitable judgment”. Here is the very next paragraph:
I’m going off the English translation. Here is the full text.
O
otjm
Guest
Now that I have had a chance to chew on my foot awhile, I will withdraw my prior comment about a difference between “Serious” and “grave”.
In moral theology, in terms of sin, the two are considered synonymus.
In moral theology, in terms of NFP and related forms of spacing children out, the two are also relatively synonymus also. However, in terms of NFP, when the terms are used, they do not meand “deadly”. They are both meant to convey to the listener that the decision to use abstinence during the woman’s fertile period are to be approached as the “mind of the Church” indicates; that is, reasons for temporary abstinence are to be serious and the consideration to do so is to be approached from the teachings of the Church and after prayerful consideration.
That does not mean that it is to be always considered something that could only be used in rare occasions, hardly ever, minimally, infrequently and for only short times, or any host of other “rules and regulations” that some may propose.
The Church favors large families but does not require large families; rather, it requires that one be open to life and have serious reasons for spacing children, and for the number of children that one ulitmately decides to have.
The Church grants more freedom than some people would wish to have, but for the better part of the last two centuries, the Church has aslo condemned rigorism as an approach to moral issues. The issue of Jansenism comes to mind, especially.
Perhaps at the bottom of all of this is something that is not being discussed, and that is the fact that some people are extremely ill at ease with freedom. It is much easier to have a rule set up so that one does not have to make choices; it is much easier to forego options and sign up for a rigorous set of rules that answers all questions.
Ultimately, we are not judged by how well we followed exactly the rules, but how well we followed Christ. And neither Christ nor the Church gives exact and complete rules for every decision we face, including how many children to have, and how closely to space them. Pug’s quotation fills out some general areas in which the Church has said that, under prayerful and serious consideration a couple may choose to have fewer or no children: “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.”
Such decisions are not to be made in a vacuum, but ultimately they are the responsibility of the couple and it is not for others to suggest or imply that the couple’s motives are suspect or illicit without a whole lot more facts than most people have access to.
I don’t think there has been anyone on this thread who has suggested that such choices should be made in anything except a serious, prayerful approach seeking to do God’s will. There have been, however, some who seem to suggest that the couple cannot consider economic or social reasons in making such determinations, or could only consider the most drastic ones. That is simply not what the Church teaches; the terms “grave” and “serious” do means that one approaches this as one should in any weighty matter, but are not as limiting as some would have it.
In moral theology, in terms of sin, the two are considered synonymus.
In moral theology, in terms of NFP and related forms of spacing children out, the two are also relatively synonymus also. However, in terms of NFP, when the terms are used, they do not meand “deadly”. They are both meant to convey to the listener that the decision to use abstinence during the woman’s fertile period are to be approached as the “mind of the Church” indicates; that is, reasons for temporary abstinence are to be serious and the consideration to do so is to be approached from the teachings of the Church and after prayerful consideration.
That does not mean that it is to be always considered something that could only be used in rare occasions, hardly ever, minimally, infrequently and for only short times, or any host of other “rules and regulations” that some may propose.
The Church favors large families but does not require large families; rather, it requires that one be open to life and have serious reasons for spacing children, and for the number of children that one ulitmately decides to have.
The Church grants more freedom than some people would wish to have, but for the better part of the last two centuries, the Church has aslo condemned rigorism as an approach to moral issues. The issue of Jansenism comes to mind, especially.
Perhaps at the bottom of all of this is something that is not being discussed, and that is the fact that some people are extremely ill at ease with freedom. It is much easier to have a rule set up so that one does not have to make choices; it is much easier to forego options and sign up for a rigorous set of rules that answers all questions.
Ultimately, we are not judged by how well we followed exactly the rules, but how well we followed Christ. And neither Christ nor the Church gives exact and complete rules for every decision we face, including how many children to have, and how closely to space them. Pug’s quotation fills out some general areas in which the Church has said that, under prayerful and serious consideration a couple may choose to have fewer or no children: “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.”
Such decisions are not to be made in a vacuum, but ultimately they are the responsibility of the couple and it is not for others to suggest or imply that the couple’s motives are suspect or illicit without a whole lot more facts than most people have access to.
I don’t think there has been anyone on this thread who has suggested that such choices should be made in anything except a serious, prayerful approach seeking to do God’s will. There have been, however, some who seem to suggest that the couple cannot consider economic or social reasons in making such determinations, or could only consider the most drastic ones. That is simply not what the Church teaches; the terms “grave” and “serious” do means that one approaches this as one should in any weighty matter, but are not as limiting as some would have it.
D
dixieagle
Guest
Wonderful, thoughtful, complete and charitable explanation!
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
I think that last paragraph sums things up rather nicely. I’m glad that you recognize the “preferential option for large families,” if you will. And of course grave does not mean deadly in the context of NFP (although many theologians do believe that using NFP without grave reasons constitutes grave sin, which would be deadly
). I would like to balance your comment on the frequency of these serious reasons, though, by saying that just as we shouldn’t always be suspicious of someone because we think grave reasons can only be found once in a blue moon, we can’t slip into the other extreme of saying that grave reasons must be incredibly common and therefore must everyone should have them. I kind of doubt that Pius XII was under the impression that almost every single couple in the West would be using NFP. I could be wrong, but my doubt remains.I think canon law terminology might help a bit toward getting a sense of grave. There are basically three types of (good) reasons to do things in law. First there is a just reason. All that is is a legitimate reason within the law. It doesn’t have to be pressing, it doesn’t have to be strong enough to override other considerations, it just has to be a reason that makes sense to motivate the action. Then we have a grave reason. That means it is serious. The bar there is higher. It does have to be the sort of thing that is not only legitimate but somewhat compelling. Finally, the law sometimes demands a “most grave” reason. That shows, I think, that although not all legitimate reasons to act constitute serious/grave considerations, we can also see that an issue can be grave without rising to the level of severe life or death choice (the sort of “feel” involved in the idea of most grave). I’m no canonist, so I couldn’t give textbook examples to help distinguish these three, but perhaps we could think of a priest being assigned as pastor. He doesn’t like his assignment and demands a reason. A just reason might be “I think you have the skill set that would fit well with this parish.” A grave reason might be, “Look, we only have so many priests and I need you in this job to make sure everyone in the diocese has access to the sacraments.” A most grave reason might be “You are the only person I have who can possibly fill this position, and people will go without spiritual care if it is not filled.”
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
While we agree that we musn’t limit people to “most grave” reasons for using NFP, I think there is room for healthy debate about just what rises to the level of serious reasons. Not trying to pin down individual circumstances (For family X reason A would definitely be serious but reason B would not) but trying to guage at what level we feel consideration A becomes serious. For instance, a friend of mine related to me that his dad expressed his reason for limiting the family when he did as a concern for education - if he had had more children he wouldn’t have been able to send them to top schools. Now, being able to provide for the education of your children is certainly something for parents to consider, but is being able to personally foot the bill for what you consider the best education a serious reason, or not? I think that’s certainly a gray area, and while I wouldn’t judge the man for his honest assessment (I know him to be a very serious Catholic), I think there should also be room to disagree with him and try to convince him otherwise in fraternal charity. Listening to the opinions of other serious discerners is, I think, a good part of a “serious, prayerful approach.” By honestly and openly discussing these sorts of issues we could all benefit from the wisdom of others (perhaps challenging our preconceptions) while still being free to follow the judgment of our now probably even better-formed consciences. I think it’s a win-win.
I
issysmom
Guest
We have three kids, 20 months apart, 2 c-secs and I’m in my 20’s. We attend an SSPX parish and have talked to two of our priests that have said they have no problem with us waiting an extra year. But, if you talk to many of the people they will say we are horrible for not be open to what God wants. Many couples have a baby every year. Don’t get me wrong there are many in the same boat as us…lot’s of support. I love big families and hope to have one but I think you have to take the mothers health and well being into consideration. I think that if the “serious reasons” were defined by the Church there would be much less gray area.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
I think it probably would be helpful to get some more definition from the Church, but it’s also important to remember that we’re dealing with highly subjective factors which are going to be hard to quantify, so the Church is wise for not too strictly defining them. How, for instance, do you quantify emotional risk factors? “If you consult the vademecum for NFP you’ll find that tearing your hair out 4 days of the week constitutes a serious reason, but 3 days a week does not. Please advise your penitent accordingly.” It’s just not that easy to do.
I do think, though, that the Church could give us lots of help in the matter by providing us with an array of test cases with which we could inform our consciences. These would not be definitions of conditions, but would allow us to develop a greater awareness of the Church’s mind concerning the gravity of various factors. Then we could say “Yes, I see that we seem to have condition X in common with this serious case, but I don’t think we’re as bad off as the examples given us in A, B, or C. Honey, do you think X is bad enough for us to outweigh the fact that we seem to actually be doing fairly well in relation to A, B, and C?”
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
It seems likely that if you have another child it will have to be by Caesarean section. That’s a “serious reason” for using NFP. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that.
I
issysmom
Guest
You’d be surprised. I’ve heard that I just need to let God be in control and not manipulate his will through nfp. I’ve heard I should just keep having babies until my uterus gives up. Not very responsible if you ask me but we are inundated with this mentality.
O
otjm
Guest
It always amazes me tht people can decide with such utter clarity what God’s will is for someone else, and are so quick to condemn someone else for not obeying the “laws of men”. since the Church doesn’t require a couple to have a baby every year, where do they get off being holier than the Pope and making and inflicting upon others rules that the Church doesn’t make?
The Church has to follow Christ. Interestingly, if you read the Gospels, Christ didn’t make a whole lot of laws we have to follow. He said “Come, follow me” but didn’t say if we should walk on the left, or the right, or 10 steps behind, or 20… He said further, “Pick up your cross”; he didn’t say “Pick up my cross”.
Freedom is scary; if the Church would just make a rule, then we woud know what to do.
But instead, the Church gives us guidlines, and doesn’t define what we have to do specifically; we have freedom (which scares some and terrifies others) with the guidlines to keep us from straying off the path. It just doesn’t tell us what part of the path to walk on, or whether to skip, or run, or walk.
Your desire that the Church define what “serious” means is understandable. However, part of being an adult is being able to exercise the freedom God gave us in choosing to do good, choosing how and when and where we do good.
If all choices are made for us, there are no choices. God said “I put before you good and evil. Choose good.”
O
otjm
Guest
And I think the Church has enough experience doing so to know that as soon as those examples are released, there will be those who will insist that they are the only possible variences; others will argue how close one must come to the example and be “right”; others will try to test how far from the examples they can go and not be “wrong”; and still others will insist that the Church is infected with Modernism and the examples are simply another showing of how far off the Gospels the Church has strayed in relativism, as NFP is entirley the work of the devil and a denial of openness to life.
Being an adult means taking into account the guidlines the Church gives us in an area in which there is leeway, and exercising the gift God gave us - conscience. It is so much easier to just be told what to do.
I
issysmom
Guest
Incredibly well put. Thank you.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
But that’s the beauty of casuistry (properly understood, not “Jesuitically”) - it is a way of living in the gray, a way to responsibly use our freedom and prudence to negotiate moral issues. I actually said I don’t think the Church should be giving us any sort of black and white criteria (I think she knows that’s not very feasible), I just happen to think that she has given us basically NO guidelines, which is just as bad as overly specific ones. We live in an age of poorly formed consciences, to say the least, so I don’t think saying “Make sure you have a serious physical, emotional, etc.” reason quite cuts it when we have no guidance as to what serious means.
O
otjm
Guest
Let’s put it in the context of life.
Choosing who you will marry is serious. Choosing who you will have dinner with next weekend is not.
Choosing a career is serious. Choosing a time for your vacation is not.
Choosing a house to purchase is serious. Choosing a car may seem serious, but is not.
Choosing when to have a child is serious.
We are all adults, and I don’t disagree with the need to have a correctly formed conscience. What I do object to is one person determining for another what is a serious reason to delay having children.
As to gray areas, all the advice in the world will not prevent someone who is slipshod about their decisions from being otherwise; they have to make a committment to follow Christ and that is a personal decision - that is, they have to actually make a choice - and not a matter of just following rules. If they treat the serious with disdain, giving examples is not going to change that.
The other side of the coin is the person who is overly meticulous, or scrupulous; examples are sinmply going to drive them over the edge as they do not have the balance to make good decisions.
The bottom line is that each individual has to take responsibility for the decisions they make, and they have to be the judge of whether, in their circumstances, delaying having a child, or deciding on the number of children they will have is appropriate.
To go back to the example of delaying having a first child so the wife can finish law school: for one couple, that may be the best choice. For another, they may decide after prayerful consideration, that they can do both at the same time. Both choices are morally acceptible. Is one better than the other? That is for the individual couple to determine.
And that is not about relativism; it is about making decisions in which there is a choice and in which there is not an absolutely correct answer, because the Church allows leeway. Casuistry, the process of making choices, is not without some guidlines; the choice must be based on serious issues. What a lot of people do not want to get is that what is a serious issue for one person is not a serious one for another, and the Church is comfortable with that.
I think any priest or theologian who is true to the Magisterium could come up with examples of serious issues. But is the Church going to give official examples? Why does it need to? Let’s start with the base. people need to hear what the Church says about having children. They need to be in prayer. NFP requires some form of self-sacrificing attitude to work for any length of time. Those three positive things should be all that an adult couple should need to be able to make an informed conscious decision. And for those for whom this is not enough, I would suggest that perhaps the issue is that they fear freedom.
I disagree that the Church has not given us enough information; we are adults and should be able to grasp what the word “serious” means. I do think we have a lot of individuals physically in their young adulthood who do not know what “serious” means, but that isn’t because the Church hasn’t defined it; it is because they have been poorly raised and never been challeneged to be responsible. They make poor parents; they also make poor spouses; but that is another thread.
One more reason I favor universal service.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Of course, but I’m talking about the Church giving more guidance on what constitutes a serious reason.
Your posts continue to insinuate that anyone who wants more guidance on this issue is afraid of thinking for himself, which I hardly consider a fair assessment of the situation. I also think an examination of today’s Catholic population - and its horrendous faith formation - would seriously undermine your argument based on what adults should be able to grasp; the fact is, I think, that many are nowhere close to what they should be able to do.
- Status