What I learned about serious reasons and NFP

[svoboda]

And would like to share with you for your own benefit:

Fr. Zimmernan, he is considered somewhat an authority on NFP. He is a professor emeritus of moral theology, and has written books. He is involved in conservative Catholic stuff (such as cogforlife.org/bio.htm)

Here is something he wrote on a CONSERVATIVE Catholic website about NFP: lifeissues.net/writers/z…iantbeams5.html

Pope Pius XII, perhaps THE moral theologian of our century, said on the one hand that a couple would need “grave reasons” to avoid children habitually, even entirely, to spend the entire married life without having any children. “If, according to a rational and just judgment, there are no similar grave reasons … then the determination to avoid habitually the fecundity of the union … can be derived only from a false appreciation of life and from reasons having nothing to do with proper ethical laws” (Address to Midwives, 29 October 1951). Couples would need a truly grave reason to remain entirely childless by using NFP.

**Soon thereafter, as though to clarify his meaning, Pius XII taught that the limits of what is allowed and proper in the use of NFP “are very wide”: “We affirmed the legitimacy and at the same time, the limits - in truth very wide - of a regulation of offspring, which unlike so-called `birth control’ is compatible with the law of God” (Address to Families, 26 November 1951). The regulation of offspring, in his words, is compatible with the law of God when done within the “very wide” limits of what is reasonable. We reason for example that it is always permissible to use NFP to space births properly - say two years apart or more. That alone is a non-trivial reason, serious enough to motivate parents to adhere to periodic abstinence during one or several years. No additional “serious” reason is required. **

Furthermore, some couples LOVE children - the more the better - and are happy with many and cope well. Their happiness is usually contagious to the fortunate children. Other parents love their one or two or three, but have even keener interests in the area of service to the community, or art, or intense professional work. They may feel that a large family of children would be frustrating to them, and perhaps their frustration would have a feed back to the detriment of the children. As Pius XII said for them too: the limits of what is legitimate are very wide.

Pope John Paul II himself asked Fr. Zimmerman to write on NFP:lifeissues.net/writers/z…5editabook.html

**
When Pope John Paul II - may he now enjoy heaven - decided to make natural family planning a major topic for the October 1980 Synod of Bishops, my name came to his attention. That led to my great privilege of meeting him and working with him to produce a book for that Synod whose topic was the family.** He intended that the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops attending the 1980 Synod should learn about the natural methods of family planning - temperature shift, mucus changes and all that - and so become motivated to make nfp into an important part of their apostolic activities. Word should go forth from the Synod to the Catholic world around the globe.

In short, back when I was conservative I worried about the whole “serious reasons” business. I wrote to Fr. Zimmerman asking him about the issue, and he wrote to me saying essentially that some couples love as many kids as possible and are called to have large families, while others love their professions and love contributing to society that way, and for them it is acceptable to use NFP to have small families. (i.e. contributing to society via your profession IS a serious enough reason to use NFP. )

In addition, he thinks that the fact that a woman loves her profession and is good at it is evidence that this is what God made her for. God wants every human being to be happy. There is no one lifestyle for every single woman.

He doesn’t think it is the duty of a couple to have as many children as they can within limits of health and finances.

As a university student I also have access to a man who earned his Ph.D. under Ratzinger, and is an extremely educated Catholic priest. Back in my conservative Catholic days I spoke to him about this matter, and he also does not think that “grave” (i.e. illness/financial difficulty) type of reasons are needed for the use of NFP. And he told me that it would be perfectly moral for me to have 2 kids in order to be able to contribute to society by doing what I love.

He siad that the fact that I love and am good at my profession is evidence that this is what God made me for and is calling me to do. This is pretty much the same thing as Fr. Zimmerman said.

 

[svoboda]

So those of you who feel like you have to have 10 kids unless you have serious financial or medical reasons not to, know that you’re wrong. This is not Church teaching. This is an extreme, and as C.S. Lewis said the devil tempts you with two extremes so that in order to avoid one you will fall into the other.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thank for the articles. The links above didn’t work, however, I found them here…

Natural Methods of Regulating Fertility
How Pope John Paul II asked me to edit a book
%between%

 

[svoboda]

itsjustdave1988:

Thank for the articles. The links above didn’t work, however, I found them here…

Natural Methods of Regulating Fertility
How Pope John Paul II asked me to edit a book
%between%

Thanks for the correction

I don’t know what happened with the links, must have been the result of copy-pasting as I sent this info to 2 people in PM

 

[Kendy]

This is very helpful. Thank You.

Kendy

 

[svoboda]

Kendy:

This is very helpful. Thank You.

Kendy

 

[svoboda]

Here is a related post made by Vluvski:

svoboda is correct in saying that the Church offers great latitude to couples in their discernment of a _____ (fill in preferred word here) reason to postpone pregnancy. The truth is that different sources and translations use different wording ranging from the emphatic “grave” reason to “serious” reason to “just” reason to the most lenient “Non-frivolous” reason. Trust me, I looked long and hard, and there is no list of “approved” reasons, nor is there any documentation stating that the couple must gain approval. This is a matter of conscience that is best discussed with a pious priest who knows the couple’s individual situation.

forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1345963&postcount=72

 

[AndrewS]

Sometimes I wonder, other than health obviously, the ‘serious’ ‘grave’ reasons etc.

If a ‘poor’ family that has their eighth child be looked down on by the church or church members for not ‘properly’ spacing children or made to feel guilty, at a min?

Or how about the ‘rich’ family who has their eighth child, but who’s husband subsequently loses his job - was he/they being irresponsible? Life’s alot easier with 2 than 5, say.

I don’t know, when I read such a document or explanations as bolded out, it seems more scewed for people trying limit family size than to those who, for whatever reason, have a large family.

There’s no safety net with NFP- ‘accidents’ can and do happen. That’s why we ‘practice’ NFP-- some a better at it than others. Just my opinion…

Just curious—
‘back when I was conservative’
so what happened?

 

[svoboda]

AndrewS:

I don’t know, when I read such a document or explanations as bolded out, it seems more scewed for people trying limit family size than to those who, for whatever reason, have a large family.

It depends on what you’re called to do. Some people are called to have large families and it might seem alien to them that some people would want to limit the number of children they have. And it’s great, because people who have large families contribute greatly to society by raising children.

Other people are called to be more active in society, to be scientists, artists, writers, and leaders of today’s world. Should they all be single and celibate? I don’t think so. I think a lot of human talent would be lost if celibacy was required for people to dedicate themselves to intellectual/artistic pursuits. And those people have contributed tremendously to society. They’re the ones who created the technology we all benefit from, the medicine that save lives, the books and movies we’re entertained by, the charitable organizations that reach out to others etc.

People can’t do these things if they have 8 kids, the women definitely can’t.

Both types of people are needed.

Just curious—
‘back when I was conservative’

  so what happened?

Disillusionment

 

[maryceleste]

svoboda:

And would like to share with you for your own benefit:

Fr. Zimmernan, he is considered somewhat an authority on NFP. He is a professor emeritus of moral theology, and has written books. He is involved in conservative Catholic stuff (such as cogforlife.org/bio.htm)

Here is something he wrote on a CONSERVATIVE Catholic website about NFP: lifeissues.net/writers/z…iantbeams5.html

Thanks for the information. I’d like to add, though: just because something is written by a pro-life moral theologian, and posted on a “CONSERVATIVE Catholic website,” doesn’t guarantee that it’s true. I’d guess that there are other such authorities, posting on other such websites, who would disagree with some of Fr. Zimmerman’s opinions. These questions are far from settled. The only thing we can say for sure is that every couple needs to follow their own consciences, with the guidance of a trusted spiritual director as needed.

It’s also helpful to keep in mind that “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms. They have more to do with current trends than with timeless, objective truth. For instance, in the mid-60’s, a large number of leading moral theologians expected that the Vatican would approve the use of the birth control pill. Some of these men were considered to be “conservatives.” It was only when Humanae Vitae came out, and many of them refused to accept it, that they became identified as “liberals.” (Ralph McInerny’s What Went Wrong with Vatican II, and Anne Roche Muggeridge’s The Desolate City, cover these events in detail.)

Ironically, during the same time period, the future popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both considered to be “liberal.”

Back in my conservative Catholic days

Now I’m confused. If you don’t consider yourself to be “conservative” any more, why did you use the term to describe Fr. Zimmerman as if it were an indication of his reliability?

 

[svoboda]

maryceleste:

Thanks for the information. I’d like to add, though: just because something is written by a pro-life moral theologian, and posted on a “CONSERVATIVE Catholic website,” doesn’t guarantee that it’s true. I’d guess that there are other such authorities, posting on other such websites, who would disagree with some of Fr. Zimmerman’s opinions. These questions are far from settled. The only thing we can say for sure is that every couple needs to follow their own consciences, with the guidance of a trusted spiritual director as needed.

It’s also helpful to keep in mind that “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms. They have more to do with current trends than with timeless, objective truth. For instance, in the mid-60’s, a large number of leading moral theologians expected that the Vatican would approve the use of the birth control pill. Some of these men were considered to be “conservatives.” It was only when Humanae Vitae came out, and many of them refused to accept it, that they became identified as “liberals.” (Ralph McInerny’s What Went Wrong with Vatican II, and Anne Roche Muggeridge’s The Desolate City, cover these events in detail.)

Ironically, during the same time period, the future popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both considered to be “liberal.”

Now I’m confused. If you don’t consider yourself to be “conservative” any more, why did you use the term to describe Fr. Zimmerman as if it were an indication of his reliability?

Well, it doesn’t guarantee that it’s true, but it shows that it is a legitimate position held by someone who is a conservative (i.e. faithful to teaching) Catholic. And not just any conservative Catholic, but a professor of moral theology who’s taught in seminaries, written books, was even asked by Pope John Paul II to contribute to the whole NFP thing.

Why did I use that term to describe him? Because the reason I posted this information is to help Catholics. It was something that took me a lot of effort to find, and I thought I’d pass it on to the rest of you.

His credentials were posted for your benefit.

 

[maryceleste]

svoboda:

Well, it doesn’t guarantee that it’s true, but it shows that it is a legitimate position held by someone who is a conservative (i.e. faithful to teaching) Catholic. And not just any conservative Catholic, but a professor of moral theology who’s taught in seminaries, written books, was even asked by Pope John Paul II to contribute to the whole NFP thing.

Okay, fair enough. But you followed up the Fr. Zimmerman quote with this statement:

So those of you who feel like you have to have 10 kids unless you have serious financial or medical reasons not to, know that you’re wrong.

and that’s where you were wrong. You don’t know this for certain. Maybe God is calling “those of you who feel like you have to have 10 kids” to be open to all the children He sends, barring serious financial or medical reasons. Or maybe He’s not. In any case, you’re not in the position to tell them.

Why did I use that term to describe him? Because the reason I posted this information is to help Catholics. It was something that took me a lot of effort to find, and I thought I’d pass it on to the rest of you.

His credentials were posted for your benefit.

Okay, I’m confused again. If you don’t believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, then why are you trying to help us to follow them? I don’t see how you’d think that would be to our “benefit.” (Unless, perhaps, you believe that Catholicism is “true for us,” but not “true for you.”)

My head hurts… I’m off to bed. :whacky:

God bless.

 

[svoboda]

maryceleste:

and that’s where you were wrong. You don’t know this for certain. Maybe God is calling “those of you who feel like you have to have 10 kids” to be open to all the children He sends, barring serious financial or medical reasons. Or maybe He’s not. In any case, you’re not in the position to tell them.

Well, when I said “feel like you have to have” I meant feel compelled by the Church to have, i.e. have to have no matter what you feel called to because only “serious” (i.e. not enough food) reaons let you use NFP.

Okay, I’m confused again. If you don’t believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, then why are you trying to help us to follow them? I don’t see how you’d think that would be to our “benefit.” (Unless, perhaps, you believe that Catholicism is “true for us,” but not “true for you.”)

I posted in response to some who think that unless you are going to die due to pregnancy or can’t feed any more kids you don’t have a good enough reason to use NFP.

I noticed how some people on this board seemed to be using this type of language, but since during my time as a Catholic I found out that is a wrong way to think, I thought I would share it

 

[maryceleste]

svoboda:

Well, when I said “feel like you have to have” I meant feel compelled by the Church to have, i.e. have to have no matter what you feel called to because only “serious” (i.e. not enough food) reaons let you use NFP.

You mean, a couple might feel that Church teaching is compelling them to do X, but simultaneously feel that God is calling them to do Y? This couple would obviously be in need of spiritual direction. Faithful Catholics believe that we never have to disregard God’s law to follow the Church’s teaching, or vice versa.

This type of confusion is why the decision to use NFP is a matter for prayerful, thoughtful discernment… not just our “feelings,” which can be subject to all kinds of errors and inconsistencies.

I noticed how some people on this board seemed to be using this type of language, but since during my time as a Catholic I found out that is a wrong way to think, I thought I would share it

I notice that, on another thread, you also chose to “share” that you’ve “found out” that artificial birth control is morally acceptable. I’m not sure why you’re on this board, but somehow I doubt that your goal is to help Catholics be better Catholics.

Anyway, I wish you the best as you try to discern God’s will in your life.

 

[Alterum]

The most important things here are openness to life, generosity with regard to fertility, and prayer in order to discern God’s will for your family. The use of NFP is in large part a matter of personal discernment, but using it for selfish reasons is clearly not right.

 

[Ahimsa]

Alterum:

The most important things here are openness to life, generosity with regard to fertility, and prayer in order to discern God’s will for your family. The use of NFP is in large part a matter of personal discernment, but using it for selfish reasons is clearly not right.

Correct. I think the key word here is “selfish.” One can decide to limit one’s children, for non-selfish reasons (e.g., occupational dedication).

 

[maryceleste]

Ahimsa:

Correct. I think the key word here is “selfish.” One can decide to limit one’s children, for non-selfish reasons (e.g., occupational dedication).

Of course, “occupational dedication” could be an unselfish reason for one couple, but a selfish reason for another.

For instance, I might be “dedicated” to selling collectible salt and pepper shakers on eBay, but I don’t think that would serve humanity – and advance God’s kingdom – as much as if I used that time and energy to give life to a new immortal soul.

“Loving your job” is all well and good, but it’s not an end in itself.

 

[svoboda]

maryceleste:

You mean, a couple might feel that Church teaching is compelling them to do X, but simultaneously feel that God is calling them to do Y? This couple would obviously be in need of spiritual direction. Faithful Catholics believe that we never have to disregard God’s law to follow the Church’s teaching, or vice versa.

You are making too much of this. Some people think the Church says using NFP is okay only if you have no money to feed more children or if the woman’s health will be threatened by another pregnancy. This is wrong, the Church doesn’t teach this.

I notice that, on another thread, you also chose to “share” that you’ve “found out” that artificial birth control is morally acceptable. I’m not sure why you’re on this board, but somehow I doubt that your goal is to help Catholics be better Catholics.

Anyway, I wish you the best as you try to discern God’s will in your life.

You can choose to be paranoid if you want, there is nothing I can do about that.

 

[maryceleste]

svoboda:

Some people think the Church says using NFP is okay only if you have no money to feed more children or if the woman’s health will be threatened by another pregnancy. This is wrong, the Church doesn’t teach this.

There are a variety of reasons why a couple might licitly choose to use NFP. Nobody on this thread has denied that. The question is, how “serious” do these reasons have to be? Fr. Zimmerman seems to say, “not very serious at all.” For instance, if a couple isn’t thrilled about having children, and would prefer to work on some other project, then he says that that, in itself, could be reason enough for them to stop at one child and then use NFP.

Personally, I don’t see how this advice is at all consistent with the historical teaching of the Church. It also leads me to wonder how that child would feel when he found out.

“Dad, why don’t I have any brothers and sisters?”

“Well, son, we don’t really like children, but the Church said we had to have at least one, so here you are.”

More to the point, other well-qualified, orthodox Catholic theologians have published articles that dispute Fr. Zimmerman’s position. For instance, Msgr. John McCarthy of the Roman Theological Forum (whose site got an “excellent” rating for fidelity from CatholicCulture.org), had this to say:

Taking into account the whole spectrum of biblical and Church teaching in this area, I personally think that we need to bring back the word “grave” into the discourse about family planning. That is, we should be teaching that the temporal or worldly problems to be anticipated by another pregnancy and birth (mainly of health or poverty) need to be really grave in character before a married couple is entitled to conclude that they have a “just reason” for them to use NFP. (I said “bring back” above, because, as I shall show in this article, that key adjective, “grave”, has in fact been used by the Magisterium in this context, in certain decisions that have been generally forgotten, but by no means repudiated.)

The Church hasn’t made a declaration as to which (if either) of these interpretations is correct, so – once again – the matter is up to the conscience of each individual couple. If they should happen to lean toward agreeing with Msgr. McCarthy rather than Fr. Zimmerman, it’s not your place to bluntly inform them that they’re “wrong.” :nope:

(BTW, Msgr. McCarthy’s site also contains a strong critique of Fr. Zimmerman’s rather idiosyncratic views on evolution. It’s worth reading, if only to see another example of how “leading orthodox theologians” can have very divergent opinions on issues that haven’t been definitively settled.)

 

[svoboda]

maryceleste:

There are a variety of reasons why a couple might licitly choose to use NFP. Nobody on this thread has denied that. The question is, how “serious” do these reasons have to be? Fr. Zimmerman seems to say, “not very serious at all.” For instance, if a couple isn’t thrilled about having children, and would prefer to work on some other project, then he says that that, in itself, could be reason enough for them to stop at one child and then use NFP.

Personally, I don’t see how this advice is at all consistent with the historical teaching of the Church. It also leads me to wonder how that child would feel when he found out.

“Dad, why don’t I have any brothers and sisters?”

“Well, son, we don’t really like children, but the Church said we had to have at least one, so here you are.”

More to the point, other well-qualified, orthodox Catholic theologians have published articles that dispute Fr. Zimmerman’s position. For instance, Msgr. John McCarthy of the Roman Theological Forum (whose site got an “excellent” rating for fidelity from CatholicCulture.org), had this to say:

The Church hasn’t made a declaration as to which (if either) of these interpretations is correct, so – once again – the matter is up to the conscience of each individual couple. If they should happen to lean toward agreeing with Msgr. McCarthy rather than Fr. Zimmerman, it’s not your place to bluntly inform them that they’re “wrong.” :nope:

Well, it’s up to them, but when orthodox theologians disagree there can be no sin in choosing one over the other. The Catechism itself uses the word “just”, not “grave.”

Dedicating oneself to professional work (without professional people there’d be no science, no medicine, no books) is a just reason in my opinion and the opinion of the many priests I asked this questions.

Without professional people we wouldn’t have anything that makes this society run, we’d have a lot of children but no medicine to give them, no science to teach them, no books to read to them, no technology that would make our lives easier etc.

So you tell me what’s important, having a few more brothers and sisters or medicine, education, technology, literature, arts etc.?

The fact is that both are important. Some people will choose to dedicate themselves completely to raising children, others completely to bettering society through their professions, others will have small families and do both.

Happiness of individuals is also very important, and something you seem to be disregarding. Some people simply wouldn’t be happy with large families, and there can be nothing worse for the marriage or the kids than parents who had the kids only because they felt a duty to and who in fact wish they hadn’t.

(BTW, Msgr. McCarthy’s site also contains a strong critique of Fr. Zimmerman’s rather idiosyncratic views on evolution. It’s worth reading, if only to see another example of how “leading orthodox theologians” can have very divergent opinions on issues that haven’t been definitively settled.)

Who is this Msgr. McCarthy and why is he an authority? What is his expertise in areas of moral theology? Plus, no one ever said Fr. Zimmerman is an authority on evolution, but POPE JOHN PAUL II himself acknowledged his expertice on NFP and consulted him on the matter. Did he by any chance invite Msgr. McCarthy to contribute?

And as a brief comment on evolutin, Humani Generis suggests that we could not have many parents, but had to have monogenisis from Adam and Eve. Scientists will tell you that it is impossible for us to have descended from two people. We all know what happens when science and religion oppose each other: science always wins. Who takes protestant creationists seriously after all? Pope John Paul II wrote about evolution, and even seemed to approve the polygenism idea that is consistent with science (as far as I recall). And he talked about evolution as what we know, not as a “mere theory.” Pope John Paul II was a very wise man. The fact that Fr. Zimmerman is working to reconcile science with theology in my opinion only adds to his credibility.

If religion opposes science it makes itself very vulnerable to being proven wrong. Say for example back in the day the Church took the official position that the sun rotated around the earth? Science would have destroyed the Church by simply showing that the opposite is true.

If the Chuch say goes and makes an infallible statement that is against scientific understanding, it makes itself very vulnerable to being proven wrong, and there will go its infallibility and claim to being the one true Church.