What I learned about serious reasons and NFP

[RyanL]

svoboda:

But you have to realize that not every single woman can, and those women who can’t DON"T HAVE TO.

Is anyone really arguing this point?

 

[Kendy]

*Married couples * having children is the normal consequence of being generous and having “large families” is a symptom of unfettered generosity.

Having more than two or three children (“large families”) is the oft source of PC comments, even amongst Catholics.

It doesn’t seem to me obvious that the couple who has more than three children is more generous than the couple who gives their surplus income to charity and has fewer children. The stay at home mom is not more generous than the woman who works in ER saving lives.

This is an awefully narroe view of our Christian and it stretches be fruitful and multiply way beyond what scripture would tell us. There is no where in the gospels, where Jesus raises motherhood above all other endeavors.

Is it possible that God has given different talents and called us to do different things. I can think of several childless couples who had wonderful impact of my life. My 7th grade drama teacher was there for me in the most difficult times of my childhood, something she could not have done if she had been home five children. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I am only suggesting that perhaps, if you were born a burning passion to have a large family, then that’s what God is calling you to do. But if you were born with other passions (if they are in themselves noble), then perhaps, that’s something God also wants you to accomplish. God did not create cookie cutter women.

Kendy

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

Apparently God thinks that we should determine whether to get pregnant or not

Simple question: do the ends always justify the means?

 

[svoboda]

Kendy:

It doesn’t seem to me obvious that the couple who has more than three children is more generous than the couple who gives their surplus income to charity and has fewer children. The stay at home mom is not more generous than the woman who works in ER saving lives.

This is exactly my point. Plus, maybe the woman who works in the ER is especially good at what she does, so many people’s lives can be saved through her work.

It makes sense to me that God gave her those abilities precisely because he wanted her to use them. Her medical talent would not be used if she was a stay at home mom.

This is an awefully narroe view of our Christian and it stretches be fruitful and multiply way beyond what scripture would tell us. There is no where in the gospels, where Jesus raises motherhood above all other endeavors.

What is very narrow is saying that it must be motherhood OR professional contributions. Women can do both! This is the point. Motherhood is extremely important, we’ll go extinct if we don’t reproduce, families and children come first.

BUT, having smaller families allows both! And some women can have large families and do both.

 

[svoboda]

RyanL:

Simple question: do the ends always justify the means?

No, what’s your point?

 

[Kendy]

svoboda:

This is exactly my point. Plus, maybe the woman who works in the ER is especially good at what she does, so many people’s lives can be saved through her work.

It makes sense to me that God gave her those abilities precisely because he wanted her to use them. Her medical talent would not be used if she was a stay at home mom.

What is very narrow is saying that it must be motherhood OR professional contributions. Women can do both! This is the point. Motherhood is extremely important, we’ll go extinct if we don’t reproduce, families and children come first.

BUT, having smaller families allows both! And some women can have large families and do both.

I didn’t mean to imply that motherhood is not important, or that women should stop having children.

Kendy

 

[svoboda]

RyanL:

You didn’t respond to my question of whether or not she could have achieved more professional success by having zero children. How does it follow that because she had 2 children that she therefore was “right” to refuse any more? Should she not have had zero? Should she not have refused marriage in order to achieve more professional success? Why do you draw your line where you do? It appears very arbitrary and capricious…relativistic in fact.

If she had 0 children she probably could have dedicated more time to work and been more successful, yes. Of course it is more complicated than that, maybe having a family means greater emotional health, means greater productivity. Similar argument can be made for having a family: it seems to me that most people would be miserable if they had to be celibate because most people seek out love, companionship, marriage, family etc.

I never said that marriage is not about family or children, it is. Spouse and children are the priority. But having a spouse and 8 children vs. having a spouse and 2 children is a different question.

Many years of pregnancy are extremely trying on the woman’s body and mind, etc,. I mentioned this before.

People not following the rules is not a good argument that the rules are wrong. You are not the judge as to whether rules are “excessively” restrictive or not, nor am I. By your logic, are we now to change God’s teachings regarding “adultery of the eyes” because people now feel free to lust? After all, studies show that most people lust, Catholics included. Should we now deem divorce consistant with the will of God because it happens often, even in Catholic circles? Most American Catholics feel that homosexuality is not inherently sinful, despite the clear Scriptural teachings to the contrary - should we change that as well? What about transubstantiation? Most Catholics don’t understand it, and are far from believing it the way the Church teaches - should we do away with that?

But excessive rules that GOOD people (not adulterers etc.) perceive as unjust is a different thing. In fact, the orthodox priests I’ve spoken to disagree with your interpretation of “serious reasons”, Fr. Zimmerman is a professor of moral theology etc., he has thought about the morality of serious reasons more than you or I. No one is arguing for the morality of adultery here.

Who says they’re “orthodox”? Are you judging them against the Magisterial teachings of the Church? If not, there is hardly a standard for orthodoxy, and anyone may be claimed to be “orthodox”.

Fr. Zimmerman among other things promoted celibate clergy, all-male priests, he is ardently fighting artificial birth control and abortion.

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

No, what’s your point?

My point is that you appear to be arguing that in this case, they do.
Good ends:

1. Families being created and love-in-action being learned
2. Women positively contributing to society through scholarly pursuits
3. Propagation of the species
4. Professional / personal fulfillment
5. Faith being learned through practice (Christ-Church teaching husband-wife, with creation of Christians coming out of both)

Means:

1. Self-oriented family planning
2. Family-oriented family planning
3. Societal contribution through self-oriented family planning
4. Societal contribution through family-oriented family planning

I believe these are all of the means/ends involved, though I may be wrong - please feel free to ammend / append.

It would seem that you justify ends 2-4 with means 1 and 3, which effectively eliminate ends 1 and 5. However, it would seem that as far as the Church is concerned, ends 1 and 5 are the primary ends, being as how they lead us to salvation.

Would you agree? If not, why not?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

But excessive rules that GOOD people (not adulterers etc.) perceive as unjust is a different thing. In fact, the orthodox priests I’ve spoken to disagree with your interpretation of “serious reasons”, Fr. Zimmerman is a professor of moral theology etc., he has thought about the morality of serious reasons more than you or I. No one is arguing for the morality of adultery here.

1. I have never met a “good” person. Everyone I have met is a sinner. It has been said that there are only two types of people in the world: sinners who think that they are saints, and saints who know that they are sinners. If your “good” people aren’t infallible regarding faith and morals, I see no reason why I should afford their opinion any more credibility than my own.
2. Again, “orthodox” can only be measured against the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
3. Martin Luther thought about the moral issues more than I - it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a heretic.
4. You are arguing for the morality of a sinful act - I fail to see how that’s ontologically different than arguing for the morality of adultery.

Fr. Zimmerman among other things promoted celibate clergy, all-male priests, he is ardently fighting artificial birth control and abortion.

A little leaven leavens the loaf. Martin Luther believed in the Trinity and the perpetual virginity of Mary, but he was still a heretic. If Fr. Zimmerman is teaching disobedience to the Church regarding grave reasons, that is sufficient leaven - I’m not saying that he is, simply that if he is it is reason enough not to pay attention any more.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[setter]

It doesn’t seem to me obvious that the couple who has more than three children is more generous than the couple who gives their surplus income to charity and has fewer children.

Giving “surplus income” denotes giving from a want versus a need giving basis and is not a serious comparison to the giving required of parents for each child on a whether one wants to or not basis.

The stay at home mom is not more generous than the woman who works in ER saving lives.

You are comparing apples and oranges, i.e., the different vocational expressions available for a “mom” versus a “woman”.

This is an awefully narroe view of our Christian and it stretches be fruitful and multiply way beyond what scripture would tell us. There is no where in the gospels, where Jesus raises motherhood above all other endeavors.

I am simply commenting on those who have chosen the vocation of marriage and have enjoined the fruit of motherhood and fatherhood.

BTW – I would point out that the most exhaulted of all God’s creatures was a woman who glorified God in her womanhood by bearing and raising the Savior of the world.

Is it possible that God has given different talents and called us to do different things. I can think of several childless couples who had wonderful impact of my life. My 7th grade drama teacher was there for me in the most difficult times of my childhood, something she could not have done if she had been home five children. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I am only suggesting that perhaps, if you were born a burning passion to have a large family, then that’s what God is calling you to do. But if you were born with other passions (if they are in themselves noble), then perhaps, that’s something God also wants you to accomplish. God did not create cookie cutter women.

Again, my comments have only been directed to those who have chosen the vocation of marriage in which procreation of offspring is the “crowning glory” of fruitful married love.

“By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day. (CCC 1652

)

Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice. (CCC 1654

)

 

[Vanny]

From a Protestant prospective:

Dh and I are conservative evangelicals but are considering the Catholic Church- we are active in prolife and got around to reading Humanae Vitae, Donum Vitae, CCC,ect.
We have come to be against artificial contraception but we do not take the extreme postition that some (protestants) take i.e. who tend to be against even NFP.
Every couple in our church and all our Protestant friends either contracept or get sterilized after they have had the desired # of children, usually 2-4. Every single couple our ages late 40’ and late 50’s(dh) are sterilized if the woman didn’t have to have a hysterectomy-
EVERY single one that I know, except my friend who had a hysterectomy, either the wife or husband.
2 main reasons:

1. Felt they couldn’t afford more children/todays economics
   2.) Wife wanted to re-start, continue, or start career. No one stays home in my church after the yongest child enters school- I am the expection. DH and I – 2 precious boys on earth- 3 in heaven due to m/c. We married late in life( I was late 30’s)first time for me. After last m/c dh and I learned as we had slowly bagan to realize with much study the immorality of artificial b/c.
   I do have one friend with 5-husband got vasectomy-they decided that was enough- they homeschool.
   I do understand that the Catholic Church does not teach that you have to crank out every baby possible that you can use NFP for serious reasons which I figured would be something like health, finances, maybe mother suffers from severe PPD, sanity_(you’ve had 5 kids in four years- need to space now, ect)
   We practice NFP now b/c not that we don’t want another, but at our advance ages(I’m 49 but still apparently fertile) It may not be advisable to have a child.
   I guess I’m confused- how is using NFP to limit family size to 1 or 2 kids any different that being sterilized?? I mean I know the difference- with the first you are still being open to life, but with the second you are deliberatly closing it off completly.
   Please understand- I’m by no means saying women shouldn’t have careers or that there’s anything wrong with deliberatly having one child or that every one has to crank out 8-12 kids.
   In fact, I believe there are probably few who have it in them to have that many- although- people seemed to manage 100 years ago OK>
   It’s just that, as a Protestant- I just don’t see the difference in attitude- I mean , if you are limiting to one or two children so you could pursue your career or missionary or whatever- wouldn’t you be angry if you did come up pregnant despite using NFP?
   Perhaps this is why so many of my conservative, charismatic church friends are sterilized- The attitude in our society has changed.
   And I have discussions with people all the time- what’s the difference they ask?
   They say- "Well, people only had lots of kids in 1890 b/c they HAD NO CHOICE!!) “Now we do, they say.”
   The point is- I just don’t see a difference.

 

[Kendy]

Giving “surplus income” denotes giving from a want versus a need giving basis and is not a serious comparison to the giving required of parents for each child on a whether one wants to or not basis. .

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that giving because one wants to is inferior to needing to?

setter:

You are comparing apples and oranges, i.e., the different vocational expressions available for a “mom” versus a “woman”.

I am simply commenting on those who have chosen the vocation of marriage and have enjoined the fruit of motherhood and fatherhood.

BTW – I would point out that the most exhaulted of all God’s creatures was a woman who glorified God in her womanhood by bearing and raising the Savior of the world.

Again, my comments have only been directed to those who have chosen the vocation of marriage in which procreation of offspring is the “crowning glory” of fruitful married love.

But the question is how many offspring does one need to have, and those making the decision to marry mean that you forego all other pursuits if you’re a woman.

Kendy

 

[RyanL]

Kendy:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that giving because one wants to is inferior to needing to?

You’re wrong. What’s being stated is the following:
Luke 21

1And looking on, he saw the rich men cast their gifts into the treasury. 2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in two brass mites. 3 And he said: Verily I say to you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: 4 For all these have ***of their abundance *** cast into the offerings of God: but she of her want, hath cast in all the living that she had.

But the question is how many offspring does one need to have, and those (sic) making the decision to marry mean that you forego all other pursuits if you’re a woman.

I don’t think that’s the question at all. I think that’s a straw man of the question. I don’t think anyone has said that a woman must forego everything for the sake of cranking out as many babies as possible, so I think it’s unfair for you to try to characterize the argument as such.

I believe the Church teaches that a woman should have as many offspring as her spiritual vocational discernment calls her to have - here’s the catch: it must be proper discernment. Proper discernment is not self-oriented.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[bear06]

I think what he is saying is that it’s better to give from our treasure than our surplus. The widow’s mite is our example.

The Church doesn’t list ever single instance that NFP is allowable because it is not the same for everyone. With every marital embrace or abstention from it, we should be asking ourselves “What does God want from us in this instance?” After examining our lives (which we should be doing on a daily basis), praying about it and receiving spiritual direction, one may be called to abstain or not. That said, many use NFP for their desires, not God’s. God should always be the third person in our marriage. I don’t know about you, but I often forget this. NFP actually helps me remember this.

 

[Kendy]

RyanL:

You’re wrong. What’s being stated is the following:
Luke 21

1And looking on, he saw the rich men cast their gifts into the treasury. 2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in two brass mites. 3 And he said: Verily I say to you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: 4 For all these have of their abundance cast into the offerings of God: but she of her want, hath cast in all the living that she had.

I don’t think that’s the question at all. I think that’s a straw man of the question. I don’t think anyone has said that a woman must forego everything for the sake of cranking out as many babies as possible, so I think it’s unfair for you to try to characterize the argument as such.

I believe the Church teaches that a woman should have as many offspring as her spiritual vocational discernment calls her to have - here’s the catch: it must be proper discernment. Proper discernment is not self-oriented.

God Bless,
RyanL

Well, in that case I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. Whether a woman decide to be celibate, have a large family, have a small family and work outside the home, she must do this in prayer. She must seek God’s will for her life.

Kendy

Kendy

 

[svoboda]

RyanL:

My point is that you appear to be arguing that in this case, they do.
Good ends:

1. Families being created and love-in-action being learned
2. Women positively contributing to society through scholarly pursuits
3. Propagation of the species
4. Professional / personal fulfillment
5. Faith being learned through practice (Christ-Church teaching husband-wife, with creation of Christians coming out of both)

Means:

1. Self-oriented family planning
2. Family-oriented family planning
3. Societal contribution through self-oriented family planning
4. Societal contribution through family-oriented family planning

I believe these are all of the means/ends involved, though I may be wrong - please feel free to ammend / append.

It would seem that you justify ends 2-4 with means 1 and 3, which effectively eliminate ends 1 and 5. However, it would seem that as far as the Church is concerned, ends 1 and 5 are the primary ends, being as how they lead us to salvation.

Would you agree? If not, why not?

God Bless,
RyanL

I don’t agree because I think your distinctions of ends and means are devised for the precise purpose of backing up your particular argument.

A more accurate description would be:

Good Ends:

1. Having enough resources to provide for the children
2. Protecting spouses from mental and physical stressed they cannot handle
3. Allowing women to have time to use their God-given talents to contribute to society

Bad Ends:

1. Saving money for a ferrari instead of driving a honda
2. Avoiding weight gain and stretch mark from pregnancy
3. Wanting to have no kids for no particular reason

Means:

1. NFP, or more specifically sympto-thermal method, Billings Method, Creighton method etc.

The way you defined “means” almost seems like it includes ends “self oriented family planning” what is that? Might it be NFP used for something relating to the self i.e. an END

To me the means is the how, and the ends is the why. The how (or means) in these cases are abstinence-related NFP methods. The why’s (ends) might range from having time to contribute to society to saving money for a second boat to show to your friends.

The means of NFP is moral, nothing wrong with it. The ends on the other hand are the JUST REASONS that make NFP legitimate.

As far as learning to love and learning faith, those are important sure, but I don’t see how having fewer children would impact this. The most love-centered family I know has a full time working mom and 2 children.

 

[RyanL]

Kendy:

…she must do this in prayer. She must seek God’s will for her life.

Largely, I agree; however, prayer is not necessarily the best or only tool to be used. Scriptures, priests, spiritual directors, a well formed conscience, the mind of the Church, financial and time limitations, and not least of all the husband must also play a role in discerning what God’s will for her life truly is. If it’s left entirely up to a “woman in prayer”, there’s a decent risk for spiritual self-deception. I have a hunch that’s more often the case than not.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

The way you defined “means” almost seems like it includes ends “self oriented family planning” what is that? Might it be NFP used for something relating to the self i.e. an END

I notice you have omitted my ends 1 and 5 - was yours intended to be an appending, or an alternate? If it is an intentional omission, I think we have some ‘splanin’ to do.

Self-oriented family planning can most certainly be a means - it is a legitimate method (NFP) used with a bad intent (selfishness/egocentrism). Both the method and the intent have to be good for the act to be good, as well as the ultimate end (or combination thereof) being sought.

Another way to say means #1 would be “what is most convienent for me-based-method”, and means #3 would be “in what way can I through my means of employment contribute most to society-based-means”.

Does that help? Could you now please answer if you agree to the following:

RyanL:

It would seem that you justify ends 2-4 with means 1 and 3, which effectively eliminate ends 1 and 5. However, it would seem that as far as the Church is concerned, ends 1 and 5 are the primary ends, being as how they lead us to salvation.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[svoboda]

RyanL:

I notice you have omitted my ends 1 and 5 - was yours intended to be an appending, or an alternate? If it is an intentional omission, I think we have some ‘splanin’ to do.

I ommitted your ends 1 and 5 because my system was devised specifically for NFP. Since the morality of NFP is discussed I was listing some of the reasons why people would use NFP: to have resources for children, to protect health of spouses, to have time to serve God in other important ways etc.

Why on earth would you use NFP, a way of delaying pregnancy through abstinence, to learn how to love? You learn love by caring for others, by charity, by compassion, by giving of yourself. You don’t learn it through measuring your mucous and abstaining during fertile times. I suppose you learn the Catholic faith through practicing NFP, so I suppose you could say it is an end.

NFP is the means, and the ends are reasons why people use NFP: a way of measuring fertility, charting, and abstaining during fertile times.

Self-oriented family planning can most certainly be a means - it is a legitimate method (NFP) used with a bad intent (selfishness/egocentrism). Both the method and the intent have to be good for the act to be good, as well as the ultimate end (or combination thereof) being sought.

NFP is the means, the ends are the reasons why NFP is used. We are talking about the morality of NFP: a scientific method of identifying fertile times and abstience from sexual intercourse during those times.

Intentions are reasons why NFP is used, so they are ends, not means.

There is nothing immoral with abstinence and measurement, so the means (NFP or more specifically sympto-thermal method etc.) is ALWAYS MORAL IN THIS CASE.

The morality of the whole thing IN THIS CASE (because the means is moral), is determined by the ends, the intentions, or the reasons for using NFP.

IF the reasons are just, then restricing sex to the infertile times is moral, if they are frivolous such as saving money for a ferarri then it’s not.

 

[RyanL]

I see what you mean - good post!

svoboda:

Why on earth would you use NFP, a way of delaying pregnancy through abstinence, to learn how to love?

Actually, my wife and I conceived by using NFP - it’s not exclusively a way of delaying pregnancy. I think that exclusivist mentality might be a part of the problem.

You learn love by caring for others, by charity, by compassion, by giving of yourself. You don’t learn it through measuring your mucous and abstaining during fertile times.

Sure you can! You can learn to love by measuring mucous just as you can learn to love by doing the dishes or mowing the yard - it’s about service to another, which entails caring, charity, compassion, and a giving of yourself. It is precisely what St. Therese describes as “the little way”.

I suppose you learn the Catholic faith through practicing NFP, so I suppose you could say it is an end.

There are quite a number of things that practicing NFP has taught me about my faith - I would love for you to consider that as an end. In fact, I would love for you to consider it the primary end!

NFP is the means, the ends are the reasons why NFP is used.

In part, though we may be saying the same thing differently. II think the intent which is present during the means is a part of the means, in addition to the ultimate outcome. Example:
Ends: Death of another
Means: Knife with Malice aforethought
Alt. Means: Knife without Malice aforethought

The intention is a part of the means, and distinguishes murder from homicide or self-defense. The end is the same - the death of another - but the means is different because of the intent.

I think you are reducing this to the Knife by saying it’s about the science of NFP. It can be done, but only by changing the ends as follows:
Ends: Death of another with Malice aforethought
Alt. Ends: Death of another without Malice aforethought
Means: Knife

I believe here we’re simply saying the same thing differently.

IF the reasons are just, the use of NFP is moral, if they are frivolous such as saving money for a ferarri then it’s not.

Ok. If I’m correct above, we’re in agreement. Now the issue reduces to what is considered “frivolous”. I would assert that “frivolous” reasons are those which are self-serving and are not meant to help us grow spiritually, and which serve to deny the Scriptural teachings to be fruitful and multiply. Additionally, I would assert that “frivolous” reasons are those which do not help to teach us about love and self-sacrifice, and do not mirror the self-giving-and-life-creating-love which Christ has for the Church, which is His Bride.

Non-frivolous reasons would then be those which justify disobedience to God’s commands to be fruitful and multiply. There are justifications, but they must be grave.

Would you agree?

God Bless,
RyanL