Where are all the large Catholic families?

[thewanderer]

I do realize that perfect NFP use is proven to be as effective as ABC (though I believe most couples don’t use it perfectly). I’ve heard Marquette is really user friendly. You do have a point that not every couple using ABC would abort a child if they became pregnant; the difference is they are taking extreme measures to avoid. I guess NFP just seems more open to life to me. There are no extreme measures being taken to shut down a natural process.

The thing with the low user rates for NFP is that that includes thosse couples who don’t actually follow NFP to abstain. As in, they correctly determined that it was a fertile day and yet, instead of following the method and abstaining, decided that they wanted to go and have sex anyway, even though they knew the wife was fertile. That is equivalent to a couple deciding that, while they understand that for using a condom to be effective they need to actually put the condom on, they just decided that today they wouldn’t bother with it because they were so caught up in the heat of the moment. Admittedly, Abstaining is a lot harder than stopping to put on a condom, but it seems a little unfair to count a conscious decision against following the method as a sign that the method itself is not as effective.

 

[fpt]

Personally, I would say consuming an herb to prevent fertility is the same thing as taking the pill in mentality. NFP not so much because you aren’t doing anything to your body.

That is a good point. The fact of comparing NFP with the herb like a pill seems to me irrelevant.

 

[moon1234]

While I agree with you that the contraceptive mentality is a very real problem, I think this is not really a good way to describe it. If you simply say that having sex for the unitive aspect alone amounts to a contraceptive mentality then the logical conclusion is that it is wrong to ever have relations when trying to avoid pregnancy, and so NFP to avoid would always be sinful. Phrasing it this way leads to much confusion as to what the Church actually teaches about NFP and contraceptions and can help lead people to believe the Church’s position is illogical and so ignore it. Perhaps you can find a better way to talk about the contraceptive mentality?

I think it is just that. It is grating to many Catholics to think that what they have been doing may not be correct. In some way their moral culpability is lesened by their not knowing/understanding the full truth. Letting people continue in ingnorance is also not solution.

It is 100% fine to desire to have sexual relations with your spouse at any time. You don’t even need to think about having a baby or want to have one. What becomes a problem is when couples actively work to reduce, as much as possible, the mere chance they might have a child. It becomes the primary measure of WHEN they can desire each other. It frustrates the primary end of marraige.

Do I think about having a child everytime I have sex with my wife? Nope. I think, I want my wife now and lets have some fun. Usually this is mutal. We have never said, stop, wait this is the “unsafe time”. Unsafe time? What do you mean? I mean I could get pregnant if we have sex anytime within 5-7 seven days of when I ovulate so we can only have sex on these days…

See what I mean? The primary end of marraige is frustrated and sex for simple becomes the primary end of sexual relations. Yes conception is still “Possible”, but what is the mentality used to arrive at this decision.

I am leaving out ALL of the legitimate issues some have with health, etc. If you should get pregnant because of health reasons, then WHY are you having sex at ALL. If it is POSSIBLE to get pregnant ANY time then WHY risk having sex at the “Low Risk” times? It would be simple because you want the pleasure/bonding without the risk of a child. Hence contraceptive mentality.

It is easy to understand, harder to accept and even harder to live without a contraceptive mentality. Our end is not this world, it is the next. Having a comfortable life on earth is not the goal, getting to heaven along with all of the souls God deisres to be with him is.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

The thing with the low user rates for NFP is that that includes thosse couples who don’t actually follow NFP to abstain. As in, they correctly determined that it was a fertile day and yet, instead of following the method and abstaining, decided that they wanted to go and have sex anyway, even though they knew the wife was fertile. That is equivalent to a couple deciding that, while they understand that for using a condom to be effective they need to actually put the condom on, they just decided that today they wouldn’t bother with it because they were so caught up in the heat of the moment. Admittedly, Abstaining is a lot harder than stopping to put on a condom, but it seems a little unfair to count a conscious decision against following the method as a sign that the method itself is not as effective.

It is my understanding that with a modern Marquette monitor, it is very plausible to be as “effective” as ABC. I do still view NFP as being more open to life though, even if trying to abstain during fertile times.

 

[fpt]

fpt,
I’m really curious, you seem to think that the fact that the marital act has a dual end means that there can’t be a hierarchy between those ends. Can you explain why you think so?

In Humanae Vitae, there is a mutual and reciprocal subordination of two ends (unity and procreativity).

 

[moon1234]

That is a good point. The fact of comparing NFP with the herb like a pill seems to me irrelevant.

How is eating a Food doing anything to your body? If you did not know that the herb reduced the chance of conceiving you would happily consume it and not know any better.

NFP is using science to reduce the possibility of having a child. The same as knowing an herb will reduce the possibility of having a child. How is one different than the other? Both are natural? Or are you saying that the active choice of taking the pill is what is wrong?

See my point? It is an active contraceptive mentality. You can STILL get pregnant when taking the herb (food), it will NOT give you cancer like ABC will.

This is the argument that MANY Catholics will use and just take ABC. They see no difference. Both people are actively trying to AVOID children. The failure rate is the same.

Traditional Catholics will reject the line of thinking that says children are a burden and we are to work as hard as possible to avoid having too many. Most of the Catholics in my circle see no difference in principal between those who use NFP to avoid, those who use food, herbs, etc. and those who use ABC. All are based on science and understanding of human anatomy. The only “benefit” NFP has is that makes the couples wait to be together in order to reduce the possibility of having a child.

 

[thewanderer]

because:

Some documents:

Catechism of the Council of Trent:
But why marriage was instituted is a subject which demands exposition The first reason of its institution is because nature instinctively tends to such a union ; and under the vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support. Another is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God.

Catechism of Saint Pius X:
What is the sacrament of Matrimony?
A. Matrimony is a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, which creates a holy and indissoluble union between a man and woman, and gives them grace to love one another holily and to bring up their children as Christians.

Code of Canon Law of 1983 :
Can. 1055 §1. " The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized ".

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1601. “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

The concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage was saying, was teaching, was writing officially, I am okay, but only between 1917 (the Code of canon law) to the Vatican II. This is a short period of the story of the church. Before 1917, no hierarchy of the ends of marriage.

I still don’t understand. None of those quotes even implies, let alone necessitates, that the dual ends of marital relations are equal. I would just like to point out that claiming there is a hierarchy does not belittle the one that is placed lower on the hierarchy. I think a lot of people dislike the idea of the primary end of sex being children because they think that means that the unitive aspect is not important, which it obviously is, very much so, but that doesn’t mean that in the natural order of things the ends don’t have some sort of hierarchy. I think it makes sense to think of a hierarchy in the ntural order of thingss with respect to these ends. The good of the species is more important than the good of an individual, so the end of sex which is ordered towards the good of the species as a whole has a higher place on the hierarchy than the end which is only ordered towards the good of a particular couple. Does that make sense?

 

[fpt]

The questions are:

What is the serious or grave reason and fair that can justify the NFP.? What can be the nature of this reason? Why and what for, how many time, which method?

 

[thewanderer]

In Humanae Vitae, there is a mutual and reciprocal subordination of two ends (unity and procreativity).

I’ve read Humanae Vitae and I certainly don’t remember any such quote. Would you mind pointing it out for me?

 

[moon1234]

In Humanae Vitae, there is a mutual and reciprocal subordination of two ends (unity and procreativity).

Show me where that is specificially stated. It is not. That is a modernist interpretation of it. If you read it in light of past Church teaching, the the primary end of marraige is subborned to secondary ends. It is just not restated in Humane Vitae, which is why so many documents from VII are ready incorrectly and who so many traditionalists have problems with them. This error in thinking is propagated by those in educational positions who want to see the traditional Catholic teaching be more in conformity with the modern secular world.

 

[thewanderer]

It is my understanding that with a modern Marquette monitor, it is very plausible to be as “effective” as ABC. I do still view NFP as being more open to life though, even if trying to abstain during fertile times.

Well, it is being more open to life! The reason being that you are never taking any action to specifically contradict your sexuality by taking action to render a specific act of sex which would other wise be fertile (or which you believe to be otherwise fertile) and render it infertile.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

The questions are:

What is the serious or grave reason and fair that can justify the NFP.? What can be the nature of this reason? Why and what for, how many time, which method?

I think the “psychological reasons” part of humane vitae leaves a little wiggle room for personal discernment. If a couple will become impatient with a large number of children, is it good to have more? If the mother is already feeling overwhelmed like she wants to cry with the 2 children she is caring for, is it wrong to avoid putting more responsibility on her and risk her having a nervous breakdown? If in this economy, mom has somehow become the primary breadwinner, is it actually logical for her to have a bunch of kids?

 

[thewanderer]

I think it is just that. It is grating to many Catholics to think that what they have been doing may not be correct. In some way their moral culpability is lesened by their not knowing/understanding the full truth. Letting people continue in ingnorance is also not solution.

It is 100% fine to desire to have sexual relations with your spouse at any time. You don’t even need to think about having a baby or want to have one. What becomes a problem is when couples actively work to reduce, as much as possible, the mere chance they might have a child. It becomes the primary measure of WHEN they can desire each other. It frustrates the primary end of marraige.

Do I think about having a child everytime I have sex with my wife? Nope. I think, I want my wife now and lets have some fun. Usually this is mutal. We have never said, stop, wait this is the “unsafe time”. Unsafe time? What do you mean? I mean I could get pregnant if we have sex anytime within 5-7 seven days of when I ovulate so we can only have sex on these days…

See what I mean? The primary end of marraige is frustrated and sex for simple becomes the primary end of sexual relations. Yes conception is still “Possible”, but what is the mentality used to arrive at this decision.

I am leaving out ALL of the legitimate issues some have with health, etc. If you should get pregnant because of health reasons, then WHY are you having sex at ALL. If it is POSSIBLE to get pregnant ANY time then WHY risk having sex at the “Low Risk” times? It would be simple because you want the pleasure/bonding without the risk of a child. Hence contraceptive mentality.

It is easy to understand, harder to accept and even harder to live without a contraceptive mentality. Our end is not this world, it is the next. Having a comfortable life on earth is not the goal, getting to heaven along with all of the souls God deisres to be with him is.

This sounds as though you believe NFP itself to be immoral. Again, I suggest you look at the thread I pointed you towards in case my explanation of the difference between NFP and Contraception can help you understand what I am trying to say here. Is it possible to practice NFP with a ‘contraceptive mindset’? Yes, of course it is, but the way you are speaking makes it sound as though you think NFP is always wrong. And it is this impression, (that NFP is always wrong because of principles x,y, and z) which leads people to think the Church is being illogical in allowing NFP when she will not allow contraception.

 

[fpt]

I still don’t understand. None of those quotes even implies, let alone necessitates, that the dual ends of marital relations are equal. I would just like to point out that claiming there is a hierarchy does not belittle the one that is placed lower on the hierarchy. I think a lot of people dislike the idea of the primary end of sex being children because they think that means that the unitive aspect is not important, which it obviously is, very much so, but that doesn’t mean that in the natural order of things the ends don’t have some sort of hierarchy. I think it makes sense to think of a hierarchy in the ntural order of thingss with respect to these ends.

The good of the species is more important than the good of an individual, so the end of sex which is ordered towards the good of the species as a whole has a higher place on the hierarchy than the end which is only ordered towards the good of a particular couple.

I am not okay. We are human creatures not like the other animals. This type of vocabularies is irrelevant, it is an insult to the human dignity.

Does that make sense?

 

[moon1234]

Well, it is being more open to life! The reason being that you are never taking any action to specifically contradict your sexuality by taking action to render a specific act of sex which would other wise be fertile (or which you believe to be otherwise fertile) and render it infertile.

Sure you are. You are using a scientific method to avoid the possibility of becoming pregnant at that time. It is like saying because I only used a thermometer or only looked at my mucus I did not alter my body. Do you eat? Do you think that alters your body? Do you take medication like Ibuprofin to alter your pain state?

You are using knowledge of your body to alter your chance of conceiving a child. What term would you use to describe the mental process used to actively work to avoid the conception of a child?

Contra=against/avoid
conception=get pregnant

The term applies to the mental thought process. It is why NFP used for contraception is sort of joke to many when they are told it really is not contraception, honest.

 

[thewanderer]

I am not okay. We are human creatures not like the other animals. This type of vocabularies is irrelevant, it is an insult to the human dignity.

Does that make sense?

No, to be honest I do not understand. Why in the world do you think that anything that I said reduces us to an animalistic level? I am **not **belittling or setting aside the importance of the unitive aspect of marital relations. It is unbelievably important, and it is very wrong to act as though the unitive aspect doesn’t matter so long as you end up having kids. But I do not see at all how what I am saying comes anywhere close to implying anything like that.

 

[fpt]

The questions are:

What is the serious or grave reason and fair that can justify the NFP.? What can be the nature of this reason? Why and what for, how many time, which method?

By nature, the direct and voluntary contraception is wrong, per se. The question is: what is the direct and voluntary contraception?
By nature NFP is neutral, per se.

 

[moon1234]

This sounds as though you believe NFP itself to be immoral. Again, I suggest you look at the thread I pointed you towards in case my explanation of the difference between NFP and Contraception can help you understand what I am trying to say here. Is it possible to practice NFP with a ‘contraceptive mindset’? Yes, of course it is, but the way you are speaking makes it sound as though you think NFP is always wrong. And it is this impression, (that NFP is always wrong because of principles x,y, and z) which leads people to think the Church is being illogical in allowing NFP when she will not allow contraception.

I don’t think you read my previous posts in this thread where I said otherwise. NFP used with a contraceptive mentality is wrong. NFP used to help conceive a child is quite good. I have two friends with irregular cycles who used it to have their first child.

I think the current “teaching” that you see in most diocese is a perversion. It expounds how you can use NFP to avoid children until it is the right time. To me, this will ALWAYS be wrong. It places sex for pleasure/bonding above the primary end of marraige which is to have children.

We want sex, but with the lowest possible risk of having a child. What kind of being open to God’s will is that?

 

[thewanderer]

Sure you are. You are using a scientific method to avoid the possibility of becoming pregnant at that time. It is like saying because I only used a thermometer or only looked at my mucus I did not alter my body. Do you eat? Do you think that alters your body? Do you take medication like Ibuprofin to alter your pain state?

You are using knowledge of your body to alter your chance of conceiving a child. What term would you use to describe the mental process used to actively work to avoid the conception of a child?

Contra=against/avoid
conception=get pregnant

The term applies to the mental thought process. It is why NFP used for contraception is sort of joke to many when they are told it really is not contraception, honest.

See, you are getting confused. Using thermometers etc to chart is for the sake of gaining knowledge about whether one is fertile or not. This knowledge is sought whether one is trying to achievve or abstain. This seeking of knowledge is not a part of NFP to avoid as such, if it were it would not be used by couples trying to conceive. The only part of NFP to avoid which is actually about avoiding pregnancy is the abstinance.

 

[thewanderer]

See, you are getting confused. Using thermometers etc to chart is for the sake of gaining knowledge about whether one is fertile or not. This knowledge is sought whether one is trying to achievve or abstain. This seeking of knowledge is not a part of NFP to avoid as such, if it were it would not be used by couples trying to conceive. The only part of NFP to avoid which is actually about avoiding pregnancy is the abstinance.

I should also add that charting is often done by a couple, or an individual, purely for the sake of gaining more knowledge about a womans fertility, which knowledge is very good to have even if you aren’t planing on trying to eitther acheive or avoid. The charting is simply an action to gain more knowledge about ones feritlity. Charting, in and of itself is absolutely 100% useless for avoiding conception. The only “action” towards preventing conception in NFP to avoid is abstinance.