When did children become an inconveniece?

[lifeisbeautiful]

This is sad and I am very sorry this was your experience growing up. I do, however think it is unfair to say that it is selfish to have a large family even if they are not rich. Money is not everything, not to say though that it does make things easier. I grew up with 5 siblings and while we certainly did not have “all the luxuries” of life, we were happy with what we did have and we (all six of us) graduated from college or a trade school without our parents paying for it because they could not afford it. We all paid our own way knowing our parents were there to help, while not financially but any other way they could. It did not harm us in any way, rather it taught us all valuable life lessons…we are all responsible, hard working adults. I have 6 children of my own now and while we have college funds for them all, it will in no way be enough, but, I know if they are dedicated and willing to work for what they want they will certainly succeed and my husband and I will be behind them all the way. It just makes me very sad when I hear that it is selfish to accept such a precious gift of a child from God.

About NFP and the benefits, while it is certainly true that there are many benefits and virtues to be developed/acquired while prayerfully practicing NFP to avoid, it is not required nor necessary for a couple to practice NFP to work towards holiness. When I was going through marriage prep I encountered some literature that made it sound like it was almost negative for a couple to choose to not use NFP and that they would miss out on important virtues etc. My concerns were calmed very well by speaking with several very holy orthodox priests and well informed Catholics on the matter (along with reading Church documents etc). Come to think of it, it would not make sense for a couple to need to avoid conception, regardless if they feel they have never had a reason to avoid, in order to grow in holiness.

 

[Rach620]

About NFP and the benefits, while it is certainly true that there are many benefits and virtues to be developed/acquired while prayerfully practicing NFP to avoid, it is not required nor necessary for a couple to practice NFP to work towards holiness. When I was going through marriage prep I encountered some literature that made it sound like it was almost negative for a couple to choose to not use NFP and that they would miss out on important virtues etc. My concerns were calmed very well by speaking with several very holy orthodox priests and well informed Catholics on the matter (along with reading Church documents etc). Come to think of it, it would not make sense for a couple to need to avoid conception, regardless if they feel they have never had a reason to avoid, in order to grow in holiness.

I wasn’t trying to say that it’s necessary for a married couple to use NFP in order to work towards holiness. All I was trying to say is that even though NFP is to be used for “serious” reasons to avoid pregnancy, there is a positive theological account to be made for it.

NFP is not merely permitted because it’s the only licit Catholic means of regulating births–it’s accepted because it is licit **and **it can help Catholic married couples grow in faith (and all of the other virtues) and love for God and one another. Even Humanae Vitae says this, from what I recall.

And to be fair, whatever JP2 and others say about spousal continence can probably be said of every Catholic married couple who abstains for some time and for some reason–be that sickness, the birth of a child, etc.–and who takes that opportunity for growth in self-sacrificing love and intimacy.

Providentialism is a path for some; NFP a path for others. Both open up husbands and wives to growth in holiness. While I’d go so far as to say that the Church has a special love for families who allow Divine Providence alone to shape their families, I’m not sure that the Church sets this forth as the moral ideal.

 

[Consecrated]

And to be fair, whatever JP2 and others say about spousal continence can probably be said of every Catholic married couple who abstains for some time and for some reason–be that sickness, the birth of a child, etc.–and who takes that opportunity for growth in self-sacrificing love and intimacy.

:yup:

Providentialism is a path for some; NFP a path for others. Both open up husbands and wives to growth in holiness. While I’d go so far as to say that the Church has a special love for families who allow Divine Providence alone to shape their families, I’m not sure that the Church sets this forth as the moral ideal.

Dependence on Divine Providence in any area of one’s life is always considered the moral ideal… we are all called to give ourselves to God with generosity. It is prudence that moderates and guides the virtue of Trust in God, well and the practice of all the other virtues as well.

Now I know this isn’t a Church document, but Fr. Paul Wickens in his book “Husband and Wife” does state that letting God plan your family is the ideal. It makes sense to me, and ties into all I’ve read of how the path to holiness lies in giving oneself completely to God.

“Providentialism” : what is this? The word is not found in any Catholic document that I’ve been able to find (not that my search has been exhaustive! ).

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I wasn’t trying to say that it’s necessary for a married couple to use NFP in order to work towards holiness. All I was trying to say is that even though NFP is to be used for “serious” reasons to avoid pregnancy, there is a positive theological account to be made for it.

NFP is not merely permitted because it’s the only licit Catholic means of regulating births–it’s accepted because it is licit **and **it can help Catholic married couples grow in faith (and all of the other virtues) and love for God and one another. Even Humanae Vitae says this, from what I recall.

And to be fair, whatever JP2 and others say about spousal continence can probably be said of every Catholic married couple who abstains for some time and for some reason–be that sickness, the birth of a child, etc.–and who takes that opportunity for growth in self-sacrificing love and intimacy.

Providentialism is a path for some; NFP a path for others. Both open up husbands and wives to growth in holiness. While I’d go so far as to say that the Church has a special love for families who allow Divine Providence alone to shape their families, I’m not sure that the Church sets this forth as the moral ideal.

Aren’t all practicing Catholics “Providentialists” that might prayerfully choose to use NFP to avoid when they feel a just/serious/grave situation has arisen?

BTW, I totally agree that NFP is a beautiful thing that can have many positive spiritual fruits, I just wanted to point out that the fruits themselves are not a reason on their own to practice NFP to avoid, something that some of the pamphlets/articles etc I was reading while getting ready for marriage seemed to imply.

 

[Rach620]

Dependence on Divine Providence in any area of one’s life is always considered the moral ideal… we are all called to give ourselves to God with generosity. It is prudence that moderates and guides the virtue of Trust in God, well and the practice of all the other virtues as well.

I think I agree with everything you have said here. Both the couple using NFP to space pregnancies and the couple using nothing at all (the “providentialists”) are depending on Divine Providence to guide their families, just in different ways. The NFP-using couple does not trust God any less than the couple that does not use NFP, at least not in the Church’s eyes.

Now I know this isn’t a Church document, but Fr. Paul Wickens in his book “Husband and Wife” does state that letting God plan your family is the ideal. It makes sense to me, and ties into all I’ve read of how the path to holiness lies in giving oneself completely to God.

I’ve never heard of this book or the priest who wrote it, but with all due respect to him, I don’t think that this is the moral law of the Church. It is one thing to say that one path might be God’s will for one couple; quite another to say that this one path is the ideal for all couples. While not using NFP at all can be the path that God leads some couples down, and while couples who prayerfully discern and are able to welcome many children into their family without the use of NFP at all are a great example of joy and gratitude for God’s gifts, this is not set forth in Church teaching as the ideal, at least not from what I have read.

It is well and good for individual couples to be led by God to this form of trust in His plan, but I think it’s fair to say that for others it could be an imprudent decision to not interpret the signs of their lives and their ability to welcome another child into their lives and to raise and educate him or her. Besides, the alternatives are not “letting God plan your family” and “not letting God plan your family”. The alternatives are different ways of letting God plan your family.

“Providentialism” : what is this? The word is not found in any Catholic document that I’ve been able to find (not that my search has been exhaustive! ).

No, the word is not found in any Catholic document…neither is “natural family planning” found in any encyclicals (or even in the CCC, I’m fairly certain…). “Providentialism” is a term also used to describe couples who choose not to use any method of birth regulation whatsoever and “let God decide” how many children they will have. I’ve heard the term used in Catholic NFP circles, which is why I used it here.

Aren’t all practicing Catholics “Providentialists” that might prayerfully choose to use NFP to avoid when they feel a just/serious/grave situation has arisen?

Yes, that was sort of my point when I addressed Consecrated’s first point in this post. An NFP using couple is always trusting in God’s will (that is, if they’re using NFP “well”–prayerfully and with a spirit of discernmeent).

BTW, I totally agree that NFP is a beautiful thing that can have many positive spiritual fruits, I just wanted to point out that the fruits themselves are not a reason on their own to practice NFP to avoid, something that some of the pamphlets/articles etc I was reading while getting ready for marriage seemed to imply.

Of course every couple needs to prayerfully discern whether they are called to use NFP to avoid or achieve pregnancy (or not to use it at all…). Whatever they choose to do, as long as they are following God’s will for their lives they will see it bear spiritual fruits. This is a far different attitude towards using NFP to avoid than some who say (not necessarily on this thread) that NFP should only be used to avoid pregnancy in dire circumstances and with regret and extreme caution.

 

[EasterJoy]

“Providentialism” : what is this? The word is not found in any Catholic document that I’ve been able to find (not that my search has been exhaustive! ).

Providentialism is the belief that if you put your boat in the hands of God, you are relieved of the responsibility to row away from the rocks.

If a couple truly has a serious reason to postpone having a child, then not even trying to discern that, or failing to learn and use NFP, when it was possible to do so, would be a failure of their responsibility to “row away from the rocks.” That is putting too much of the burden of our service to God on the workings of Providence.

 

[benny_f]

This is sad and I am very sorry this was your experience growing up. I do, however think it is unfair to say that it is selfish to have a large family even if they are not rich. Money is not everything, not to say though that it does make things easier. I grew up with 5 siblings and while we certainly did not have “all the luxuries” of life, we were happy with what we did have and we (all six of us) graduated from college or a trade school without our parents paying for it because they could not afford it. We all paid our own way knowing our parents were there to help, while not financially but any other way they could. It did not harm us in any way, rather it taught us all valuable life lessons…we are all responsible, hard working adults. I have 6 children of my own now and while we have college funds for them all, it will in no way be enough, but, I know if they are dedicated and willing to work for what they want they will certainly succeed and my husband and I will be behind them all the way. It just makes me very sad when I hear that it is selfish to accept such a precious gift of a child from God.

I’m sorry I used the term selfish, I’m sorry it offended you m’am, but it is the word my mother used to describe her decision to have six children. I don’t believe money is the be all and end all, but sometimes love just isn’t enough to keep a child alive and happy. Look at women in poorer countries. Love doesn’t sustain their children to childhood, but if they had some money, it might.

Every child is a precious gift undoubtedly, and I wouldn’t refute that. Believe me if I was married in the morning, it would take my entire mental resolve to not conceive several children because I love them, and want a big family with all my heart. I would love them to experience the love and support I had everyday from my older sisters and brother, but I would have to see sense. I couldn’t afford six children. How would I be able even to buy diapers, or books for them to read. I couldn’t. If anything I could only scrape together enough money to raise one child, and raise it well. I would not spoil it, having never been spoiled myself, and I would apologise to my child that money prevented me from giving them a brother or sister, but such is life.

I think you’re brilliant m’am, and I’m glad to see your children will go to college, and that you did too. Such cases make my happy, and fill my heart with love.

 

[Consecrated]

Providentialism is the belief that if you put your boat in the hands of God, you are relieved of the responsibility to row away from the rocks.

If a couple truly has a serious reason to postpone having a child, then not even trying to discern that, or failing to learn and use NFP, when it was possible to do so, would be a failure of their responsibility to “row away from the rocks.” That is putting too much of the burden of our service to God on the workings of Providence.

Well if this is “the” definition of Providentialism, then I don’t think it’s a term that applies to the mere practice of NOT practicing NFP. For instance, my DH and I discussed before we got married “what if”. What if we came up against a real need to avoid pregnancy? Our consensus was that we would attempt abstinence until the situation resolved itself. No charting involved. This remains our “back-up” plan, as it were. So, that would make us “failures” of using NFP, BUT this would not make us “providentialists” according to the definition provided above. Like I said before, all practice of virtue (total reliance on God, charity in marriage, etc.) should be lead and aided by the virtue of prudence.

I guess you can tell I don’t think the term “Providentialism” is appropriate for the “to NFP or not to NFP” discussion. It just doesn’t have a good, firm, reliable definition… people use it to mean too many different things.

 

[Consecrated]

I think I agree with everything you have said here. Both the couple using NFP to space pregnancies and the couple using nothing at all (the “providentialists”) are depending on Divine Providence to guide their families, just in different ways. The NFP-using couple does not trust God any less than the couple that does not use NFP, at least not in the Church’s eyes.

I’ve never heard of this book or the priest who wrote it, but with all due respect to him, I don’t think that this is the moral law of the Church. It is one thing to say that one path might be God’s will for one couple; quite another to say that this one path is the ideal for all couples. While not using NFP at all can be the path that God leads some couples down, and while couples who prayerfully discern and are able to welcome many children into their family without the use of NFP at all are a great example of joy and gratitude for God’s gifts, this is not set forth in Church teaching as the ideal, at least not from what I have read.

It is well and good for individual couples to be led by God to this form of trust in His plan, but I think it’s fair to say that for others it could be an imprudent decision to not interpret the signs of their lives and their ability to welcome another child into their lives and to raise and educate him or her. Besides, the alternatives are not “letting God plan your family” and “not letting God plan your family”. The alternatives are different ways of letting God plan your family.

No, the word is not found in any Catholic document…neither is “natural family planning” found in any encyclicals (or even in the CCC, I’m fairly certain…). “Providentialism” is a term also used to describe couples who choose not to use any method of birth regulation whatsoever and “let God decide” how many children they will have. I’ve heard the term used in Catholic NFP circles, which is why I used it here.

Yes, that was sort of my point when I addressed Consecrated’s first point in this post. An NFP using couple is always trusting in God’s will (that is, if they’re using NFP “well”–prayerfully and with a spirit of discernmeent).

Of course every couple needs to prayerfully discern whether they are called to use NFP to avoid or achieve pregnancy (or not to use it at all…). Whatever they choose to do, as long as they are following God’s will for their lives they will see it bear spiritual fruits. This is a far different attitude towards using NFP to avoid than some who say (not necessarily on this thread) that NFP should only be used to avoid pregnancy in dire circumstances and with regret and extreme caution.

As I mentioned above, I don’t think the word “Providentialism” is accurate enough for the discussion. the meaning you, Rach620, and EasterJoy ascribe to it are very different. One meaning would make it a virtue, the other meaning would make it a weakness. but maybe I am splitting hairs.

Anyhow, by saying that letting God plan your family is the general moral ideal, I’m

1. Assuming that a couple is striving for holiness by the practice of ALL virtues, wisdom and prudence included.
2. Applying the general ideal of holiness as total reliance on God (“He must increase and I must decrease”) to this additional area of our life.

For example, note that holy celibacy is the *general *moral ideal. BUT not all are called to this!! (LOL thankfully for the continuation of the human race!) If a person, through some prideful and mistaken idea of loftiness, were to pursue holy celibacy in defiance of God’s will for his/her life, he/she would NOT be practicing the virtues of prudence and wisdom… and thus would NOT be on the path to holiness. However, it is a very good thing for people to first consider whether God might be calling them to holy celibacy BEFORE they just assume they are called to the married state.

I hope I’m making a little bit of sense. prolly not. LOL I need to have this baby! My mind is not what it was.

I guess what LIB said about reading in marriage prep that NFP is the moral ideal rings true for me as well. We encountered this, and it’s just not the truth, nor is it the teaching of the Church. (not accusing you, Rach, or really anyone on this thread of saying this, but just noting that the idea is out there in Catholic circles)

 

[Momofmyangels]

I’m sorry I used the term selfish, I’m sorry it offended you m’am, but it is the word my mother used to describe her decision to have six children. I don’t believe money is the be all and end all, but sometimes love just isn’t enough to keep a child alive and happy. Look at women in poorer countries. Love doesn’t sustain their children to childhood, but if they had some money, it might.

Every child is a precious gift undoubtedly, and I wouldn’t refute that. Believe me if I was married in the morning, it would take my entire mental resolve to not conceive several children because I love them, and want a big family with all my heart. I would love them to experience the love and support I had everyday from my older sisters and brother, but I would have to see sense. I couldn’t afford six children. How would I be able even to buy diapers, or books for them to read. I couldn’t. If anything I could only scrape together enough money to raise one child, and raise it well. I would not spoil it, having never been spoiled myself, and I would apologise to my child that money prevented me from giving them a brother or sister, but such is life.

I think you’re brilliant m’am, and I’m glad to see your children will go to college, and that you did too. Such cases make my happy, and fill my heart with love.

You need not apologize and you did not offend me. I see your point and I feel you are a caring person with a big heart and that if you had children, you would want the absolute best for them. I feel the same way too, but I also firmly believe that when God sends you children, He doesn’t abandon you. He gives you the graces you need to raise them well. I also firmly believe that He doesn’t send you more than you can handle. Not to say that it is going to be an easy road. I am here to say that it isn’t. It is hard, extremely tiring at times and will make you gray way before your time, but it is also the most wonderful “job” I’ve ever had and I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

 

[Rach620]

I guess you can tell I don’t think the term “Providentialism” is appropriate for the “to NFP or not to NFP” discussion. It just doesn’t have a good, firm, reliable definition… people use it to mean too many different things.

I’m sorry, it’s the only term I know for describing couples who choose to use no birth control at all and to leave it in God’s hands. It’s common in Protestant circles… I did not mean to offend.

I think it is important to remember that using NFP or not using NFP are decisions that flow from an earlier, more important attitude. They are only signs that can sometimes point us to a married couple’s active discernment, spiritual life, and openness to God’s will in this area. We can’t judge anyone by the signs themselves, and couples can err either using NFP or not using NFP by not having an authentic spirit of discernment and openness to God’s will and stewardship of His gifts in their marriage. I know that this thread has reminded me of that!

As I mentioned above, I don’t think the word “Providentialism” is accurate enough for the discussion. the meaning you, Rach620, and EasterJoy ascribe to it are very different. One meaning would make it a virtue, the other meaning would make it a weakness. but maybe I am splitting hairs.

Providentialism just means that one does not use birth control and the reason why is that they say “leave it up to God”. This could be virtue or weakness, depending on the couple or the situation.

I do think that Easter Joy’s “definition” can apply to some Catholic couples (though not all) who leave the spacing of their pregnancies “entirely in God’s hands”. In a way, it’s the polar opposite of “abusing NFP” with a contraceptive mentality. Just as couples can morally or immorally use NFP, they can morally or immorally use no form of birth regulation whatsoever. What matters, as I said earlier, is the spirit of discernment.

They are different ways of abusing our human freedom (and the responsibility that comes with it)–one way presumes that freedom gives us all of the control over our lives; the other doesn’t take our freedom seriously enough.

Anyhow, by saying that letting God plan your family is the general moral ideal, I’m

1. Assuming that a couple is striving for holiness by the practice of ALL virtues, wisdom and prudence included.
2. Applying the general ideal of holiness as total reliance on God (“He must increase and I must decrease”) to this additional area of our life.

Then I think that we must say that a holy NFP-using couple is “letting God plan their family” just as much as the couple that does not choose to use NFP. In what way are they not letting God plan their family, if they are seeking to do His will in every area of their lives and discern each month whether to avoid or achieve pregnancy?

I guess what LIB said about reading in marriage prep that NFP is the moral ideal rings true for me as well. We encountered this, and it’s just not the truth, nor is it the teaching of the Church. (not accusing you, Rach, or really anyone on this thread of saying this, but just noting that the idea is out there in Catholic circles)

I guess I’ve just never seen NFP put forward as “the moral ideal”. I’d need to see these resources in person, because I highly doubt that they were even trying to discuss NFP vs. no birth control at all…Most of the resources out there are trying to show that NFP is the “moral alternative” to contraception. I’ve never personally come across anything that says it is absolutely the moral ideal for married couples.

The moral ideal for marriage is faithful, fruitful conjugal love…that’s it. It’s lived different ways by different couples, but that’s it.

 

[Serap]

I’m sorry, it’s the only term I know for describing couples who choose to use no birth control at all and to leave it in God’s hands. It’s common in Protestant circles… I did not mean to offend.

I think it is important to remember that using NFP or not using NFP are decisions that flow from an earlier, more important attitude. They are only signs that can sometimes point us to a married couple’s active discernment, spiritual life, and openness to God’s will in this area. We can’t judge anyone by the signs themselves, and couples can err either using NFP or not using NFP by not having an authentic spirit of discernment and openness to God’s will and stewardship of His gifts in their marriage. I know that this thread has reminded me of that!

Providentialism just means that one does not use birth control and the reason why is that they say “leave it up to God”. This could be virtue or weakness, depending on the couple or the situation.

I do think that Easter Joy’s “definition” can apply to some Catholic couples (though not all) who leave the spacing of their pregnancies “entirely in God’s hands”. In a way, it’s the polar opposite of “abusing NFP” with a contraceptive mentality. Just as couples can morally or immorally use NFP, they can morally or immorally use no form of birth regulation whatsoever. What matters, as I said earlier, is the spirit of discernment.

They are different ways of abusing our human freedom (and the responsibility that comes with it)–one way presumes that freedom gives us all of the control over our lives; the other doesn’t take our freedom seriously enough.

Then I think that we must say that a holy NFP-using couple is “letting God plan their family” just as much as the couple that does not choose to use NFP. In what way are they not letting God plan their family, if they are seeking to do His will in every area of their lives and discern each month whether to avoid or achieve pregnancy?

I guess I’ve just never seen NFP put forward as “the moral ideal”. I’d need to see these resources in person, because I highly doubt that they were even trying to discuss NFP vs. no birth control at all…Most of the resources out there are trying to show that NFP is the “moral alternative” to contraception. I’ve never personally come across anything that says it is absolutely the moral ideal for married couples.

The moral ideal for marriage is faithful, fruitful conjugal love…that’s it. It’s lived different ways by different couples, but that’s it.

you guys are getting waaaayyyy to deep for me!!! :hypno:

 

[Momofmyangels]

Just as couples can morally or immorally use NFP, they can morally or immorally use no form of birth regulation whatsoever.

Just curious…how can one immorally use no birth regulation whatsoever?

 

[Serap]

Just curious…how can one immorally use no birth regulation whatsoever?

A married couple who is physically, emotionally and/or sexually abusive (or addicts) and they continue to have kids without trying to get better first.

 

[Rach620]

"Mommyofmyangels:

Just curious…how can one immorally use no birth regulation whatsoever?

A married couple who is physically, emotionally and/or sexually abusive (or addicts) and they continue to have kids without trying to get better first.

This. Or see EasterJoy’s explanation above.

The moral criteria set forth in Humanae Vitae and elsewhere in Church teaching for parents is that they lovingly receive children as gifts from God. This involves responsible, loving parenthood and good stewardship of the family’s resources.

If a couple is not discerning of God’s will for them in these areas and is not equipped to lovingly receive children as gifts, yet still does not abstain from intercourse to avoid pregnancy, that seems to present a moral problem.

God doesn’t give us more than we can handle, but we also shouldn’t go putting ourselves in situations where we’ll likely get more than we are able to handle.

JP2’s book was called Love and Responsibility, and in some parts it hits at this issue. It is the more loving and responsible thing, it seems to me, for a “providentialist” husband who sees that his wife is worn thin and about to have a mental breakdown or that another pregnancy would threaten her life, to either abstain from sex altogether or to suggest that they use NFP to avoid pregnancy.

I’m not trying to make a moral law here, but just saying that without an authentic spirit of discernment grounded in love, any couple, whether they use NFP or no method at all, could fail in their duty as Christian spouses and parents.

 

[Rach620]

Also, I just found this relevant quote from a USCCB document on NFP, written by Mary Shivanandan.

John Paul II takes every opportunity to encourage the development of NFP as a way of spacing births.4 “When,” he says “by means of recourse to the periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as ‘ministers’ of God’s plan.” (FC, no. 32) He is at pains to counter those who would interpret too narrowly the Church’s teaching on the licitness of natural methods, adopting a form of providentialism, citing both Gaudium et spes no. 50 and Humanae vitae no. 10. "God the Creator invites the spouses not to be passive operators, but rather ‘cooperators or almost interpreters’ of His plan."5 The spouses are to exercise the virtue of prudence in a considered assessment of the well-being of the whole family. Reason and will are not to be abandoned in favor of a passive submission to physiological processes. Husband and wife are called to stewardship of all their gifts, especially fertility, which concerns the birth of a new human person made in the image of God and destined to union with Him for all eternity.

I added the bolding.

I thought this would be helpful since I alluded to JP2’s teaching in my earlier post.

In some ways, I see the use of NFP (as a health tool) as a much more effective way of accomplishing God’s will than not tracking cycles at all, because if a couple does discern that they are called to have another child, they can add to their family more quickly by observing the woman’s cycles and using the method to achieve pregnancy. NFP used to conceive is much more effective than un-timed intercourse at random throughout a woman’s cycle. This is sort of a side issue from the moral discussion we were having, though.

 

[EasterJoy]

Well if this is “the” definition of Providentialism, then I don’t think it’s a term that applies to the mere practice of NOT practicing NFP. For instance, my DH and I discussed before we got married “what if”. What if we came up against a real need to avoid pregnancy? Our consensus was that we would attempt abstinence until the situation resolved itself. No charting involved. This remains our “back-up” plan, as it were. So, that would make us “failures” of using NFP, BUT this would not make us “providentialists” according to the definition provided above. Like I said before, all practice of virtue (total reliance on God, charity in marriage, etc.) should be lead and aided by the virtue of prudence.

I guess you can tell I don’t think the term “Providentialism” is appropriate for the “to NFP or not to NFP” discussion. It just doesn’t have a good, firm, reliable definition… people use it to mean too many different things.

It is prudent for a couple to take the trouble to know and understand the wife’s own cycles. That knowledge is useful, easily accessible in our times without any unreasonable effort, and has a good history of enhancing the couples’ marital bonds. Furthermore, complete abstinence for the amount of time that most couples who need to avoid pregnancy will need to avoid it is not something that those who have been in the situation would recommend. It’s one of those things that experience teaches to be very much worth the effort involved.

Having said that, if you discern that you are in the position that trying to put off or avoid pregnancy seems unlikely, and if putting particular effort into getting pregnant isn’t likely to be an issue, and you are willing to abstain entirely for long enough to learn NFP if you do need it in order to face some long-term situation that you don’t foresee facing, I don’t see a compelling moral reason that you’d be a “Providentialist” for not learning NFP, let alone for not using it…whatever that means, for someone who is simply open to children. Yes, there are very good reasons to learn it, but this isn’t like getting to Mass on Sunday or troubling yourself to save money and find a family-wage job before actually having children. Learning NFP can have its trials, but it is not that hard!

NFP is a moral solution to a situation that is not that unusual, but there is no moral compulsion for a couple like you to decide not to use it. Being prudent is not the same as being a control freak. Marriage needs to be open to children, but a great many couples over the past centuries found that their normal patterns of marital intimacy did not produce more or less children than they could cope with. NFP exists for couples who want to be prepared should that not be the case in their marriage. That’s fine, even admirable. That doesn’t mean that couples who discern that they would be capable of learning the method, if they need it, are somehow shirking their duties as Catholic spouses. I can see encouraging them to reconsider, but I wouldn’t go so far as to criticize a couple who doesn’t use NFP because they don’t happen to need it.

 

[gretahope]

Could someone tell me what 'God doesn’t give you more than you can handle" truly means and where it came from?

I’ve been a Christian for a very long time, a Catholic now, with a ton of Bible Study hours logged in my life, and I still don’t see that in the Bible. The Bible says that He doesn’t give us more temptation than we can handle. (I have way more than I can handle in my life right now…but it’s not about MY strength anyway—but that’s another thread.)

I’ve wondered why people use this, especially to people suffering a lot in their lives, much more than the people giving the “advice” usually,
(There are people dying right and left under suffering for one reason or another all over the world. Catholic martyrs, Christians being beaten to death in China/North Korea/India…and children, dying of abuse at the hands of adults…how does the phrase in question make sense?)

But in the case of NFP/lg families, etc…is it right to say, "Yes, this financially poor family just kept having more and more kids b/c it’s the “ideal” and can’t provide for them, they’re angry now, stressed, and beating their kids…and are as poor as dirt…but as X ("my’ Bible, Church, my priest/pastor/friend/parents always) says: “God never gives you more than you can handle.”

:shrug

 

[Momofmyangels]

Could someone tell me what 'God doesn’t give you more than you can handle" truly means and where it came from?

I’ve been a Christian for a very long time, a Catholic now, with a ton of Bible Study hours logged in my life, and I still don’t see that in the Bible. The Bible says that He doesn’t give us more temptation than we can handle. (I have way more than I can handle in my life right now…but it’s not about MY strength anyway—but that’s another thread.)

I’ve wondered why people use this, especially to people suffering a lot in their lives, much more than the people giving the “advice” usually,
(There are people dying right and left under suffering for one reason or another all over the world. Catholic martyrs, Christians being beaten to death in China/North Korea/India…and children, dying of abuse at the hands of adults…how does the phrase in question make sense?)

But in the case of NFP/lg families, etc…is it right to say, "Yes, this financially poor family just kept having more and more kids b/c it’s the “ideal” and can’t provide for them, they’re angry now, stressed, and beating their kids…and are as poor as dirt…but as X ("my’ Bible, Church, my priest/pastor/friend/parents always) says: “God never gives you more than you can handle.”

:shrug

Even though I used this statement, I’ve often wondered myself where it originated from. Not saying that I don’t believe it, I do.

But the circumstances you brought up certainly do make one question it, but then that would be questioning God, wouldn’t it? Suffering came into the world with the apple being eaten by Adam and Eve. Sin brought it into the world. I will never understand why such horrendous things happen to people, but we cannot understand the wisdom of God. It is not for us to question.

As for the “they’re angry now, stressed and beating their kids”…That is not “handling it”, it is chosing to not “handle it”. A person has a choice to behave a certain way. It is one thing to be stressed, another to take that stress to an extreme and start hitting kids. I certainly realize some people have terrible sufferings, I’ve had times when I wondered how on earth I could ever endure some sufferings I’ve been faced with, and it is not easy. But, my faith in a loving God tells me all is for some reason only God knows, and I may never understand or fully know why.

 

[ac_claire]

Rach, thank you for the thoughtful post in your reply #175. I can totally see Deus Caritas Est having been written in the context of TOB. I’ll go ahead and say I’m not convinced from what I have read so far that this particular document deals with NFP (or periodic continence) at all. But I’m definitely willing to look into it a little more and see if I’m wrong. The way you’re explaining it is very interesting.

Then I think that we must say that a holy NFP-using couple is “letting God plan their family” just as much as the couple that does not choose to use NFP. In what way are they not letting God plan their family,** if they are seeking to do His will in every area of their lives and discern each month whether to avoid or achieve pregnancy**?

I would say that every couple who is, in fact, using NFP in the way you’re describing is trusting God. It’s the “if” in the bolded part above where the issue gets tripped up, I think. It’s one of those things, I’ve said it before I know but the couples have to be completely honest with themselves since the Church has essentially left it up to their own discernment. What I think some of us are talking about, (using an online example here) is the number and frequency of threads on this forum, for instance, where people will post about wanting to use NFP to avoid because they want to start their marriage off with several years of no children just so they can have fun and “get to know eachother” more. And things like nicer cars and better vacations are mentioned, etc. And then these same posters will justify themselves by saying that this is what they have “been called” to do, and who are we to say that their issues aren’t “grave and serious”?? etc. And indeed, we can’t. Not really. And even more than the online examples are the IRL encounters many of us have had with family, friends, church acquaintances, etc. who talk about their own experiences and feel free to comment on ours. I had no opinion about any of this before I got engaged and started seeing it/hearing about it for myself.

Dependence on Divine Providence in any area of one’s life is always considered the moral ideal… we are all called to give ourselves to God with generosity. It is prudence that moderates and guides the virtue of Trust in God, well and the practice of all the other virtues as well.

I guess I’ve just never seen NFP put forward as “the moral ideal”. I’d need to see these resources in person, because I highly doubt that they were even trying to discuss NFP vs. no birth control at all…Most of the resources out there are trying to show that NFP is the “moral alternative” to contraception. I’ve never personally come across anything that says it is absolutely the moral ideal for married couples.

I’m glad you haven’t run into it! But advocating NFP to avoid in itself (ie: favoring NFP when the choice is NFP vs. no birth control at all) is definitely out there. I’d argue it’s especially prevalent on the the “public/social” Catholic resources (such as CAF! ) For instance…(now this isn’t *exactly *the same thing but it shows the mentality, I think) there was a thread not too long ago about spacing children naturally with breastfeeding. And mothers who don’t *plan *to space their children 2 years or so in this way were roundly criticized by the other moms on the thread. Then there’s the attitude that it’s irresponsible to be having children at all if you’re very poor. That one has become widely accepted. These are just two examples, but there are others I could bring up.

As far as official Church/parish resources, I think it’s more that NFP is pushed rightly as an alternative to ABC. The assumption is that you **will **use one or the other to avoid. We got this attitude from our pre-marriage sponsor couple (who were great people, btw) and it was apparent in a lot of the materials we were given as well. (Workbooks and pamphlets and book recommendations.)

Persoanlly, I am concerned that some young couples who never intended to use *anything *to actively avoid might be convinced to consider avoiding simply because of the way NFP is frequently presented.

BTW, I totally agree that NFP is a beautiful thing that can have many positive spiritual fruits, I just wanted to point out that the fruits themselves are not a reason on their own to practice NFP to avoid, something that some of the pamphlets/articles etc I was reading while getting ready for marriage seemed to imply.

Agreed. This was my experience as well.