Why do most people ignore the Church's teaching on contraception?

[LongingSoul]

If it is virtually impossible to use NFP selfishly, then why is the line of “just reasons” even mentioned?

Regarding the bolded part, I’m not sure why you keep talking about this, but based on the way you chastised me a few posts ago, it’s hard not to interpret it as you continuing to try to convince me not to judge other. I’ll say it one more time: I’m not judging anyone’s reasons for using NFP as better or worse than my own, nor am I considering myself holier than others. I’m just trying to learn and understand this particular topic a bit better.

It’s possibly to do anything selfishly. Avoid pregnancy for unjust reasons, have children irresponsibly, pray, fast, give alms. Selfishness is an indiscriminate sin.

Marriage and family are a delicate ecosystem. The Church has said that couples should not be disturbed or disquieted in deciding family makeup. The decision is to be left to them to make taking into consideration internal and external factors known to them alone. It’s impossible for us to say that any particular couple is using unjust reasons or reproducing irresponsibly. Only the couple can know that. It’s between them and God.

The reason that we guard this delicate ecosystem of the family is because it is the basis of healthy society. Healthy families make healthy society.

Fr Miller speaking on NFP…

As its life-giving nucleus, the family must participate in developing society. Every social institution, every ecclesial concern touching education, work, economics, culture and politics is connected with the family. The Church’s rich tradition of social doctrine, so forcefully defended in the Pope’s three major encyclicals, (1981), Sollicitudo Rei Socialis> (1987) and (1991), depends for its realization on the family first to embody this teaching. To build up God’s kingdom, we cannot bypass society’s most fundamental community.

…For John Paul, the family should neither exist in isolation nor merely serve as a safe refuge in a tumultuous world. Fearing our retirement into apolitical ghettos, the Pope warns us against a family egoism that would concentrate exclusively on its interior life of interpersonal communion. It must not close itself off from the wider community. According to the Holy Father:

Far from withdrawing into itself, the family is called to open itself to the social environment to become _ moved by the sense of justice, by concern for others, and by the duty of its responsibility toward the whole of society _ an instrument for humanizing and personalizing, a service to neighbors through various expressions of fraternal help, a defense and conscious guardian of its own rights and duties.9

ewtn.com/library/FAMILY/FR93402.TXT

 

[bitterhope]

Don’t you like being accused of malice when you were just offering friendly advice? Does that ring any bells?

There is a difference between misquoting someone and possibly a simple misinterpretation. I accepted earlier in this thread I may have misinterpreted what your PM meant and told you a different approach might not hurt in the future. However, the viciousness you keep tossing around at other posters, not just me, make it hard to believe I misinterpreted you. I apologize if I did. I have no ill feelings towards you at all. You are simply a stranger on an online forum that I will most likely never know. I really wish I could help you see that I would love for NFP to be promoted in such a way that doesn’t make people distrust this teaching. It is a beautiful teaching we as Catholics are blessed to receive. The way it is being pushed has turned people off. Artificial birth control is not the answer, but making people believe NFP isn’t working simply because of they don’t really want it to isn’t the way to advance the cause.

Once again, I apologize if I misinterpreted your PM. I see that you thought your PM was helpful. In the future I highly suggest you not tell a couple they are scrupulous if they distrust NFP. I really believe your mission to promote the holiness of NFP will benefit if you don’t let preconceived ideas about why they have no luck avoiding pregnancy or why they distrust it’s effectiveness be the basis of your communication with them.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s possibly to do anything selfishly. Avoid pregnancy for unjust reasons, have children irresponsibly, pray, fast, give alms. Selfishness is an indiscriminate sin.

Right.

 

[PaulinVA]

But doesn’t that conscience need to be properly formed? Otherwise the appeal to conscience is just a way to justify what we want when what we want is contrary to Church teaching–isn’t it?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Yes, that’s the point. Properly formed, your conscience would never cause you to say something the Church says is wrong is right. But, it might tell you that while the Church allows it, you shouldn’t do it.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Yes. There is, though, a lot of talk of “selfishness.”

And people seem to get pretty worked up over the idea of selfishness–it seems to the point of not even being able to consider whether or not one is being selfish–it seems to be one area where many are not able to even take a look at their motives and will go to great lengths to justify or defend their actions. The bulk of you may be able to look in the mirror and see a saint without a selfish bone in their body, but that’s not me–if I am honest with myself. I can’t look at the way I live and honestly think I am doing enough, or that my lifestyle is justified–given how a good portion of the rest of the world lives and that worries me. Why do I lack the strength to give up some of the things I think I probably should? Why do I place my enjoyment of something over the needs of someone else? of someone who is hungry? or in need of shelter? or of clothing? More troubling–why do I often not even give that a thought? Yes–there is a part of me that is selfish and my getting all upset or calling people uncharitable or justifying my serious reason or someone else’s isn’t going to change that. I’m not going to come here and tell you the motives behind all my actions are pure and holy and you shouldn’t question me on them–it’s too easy for me to deceive myself. I can do better, I should do better, I need to do better.

Perhaps we all have a different definition of selfish? Perhaps we think if we’re not excessively or exclusively concerned with ourselves or that if we don’t seek or concentrate on our own advantage, pleasure or well-being without regard for others–then we’re not selfish and perhaps this is technically correct–I don’t know.
But what does it really mean to be concerned with your own welfare in disregard of others? or to be excessively concerned?

Perhaps, no most certainly, this wanders too far away form the OP.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yes, that’s the point. Properly formed, your conscience would never cause you to say something the Church says is wrong is right. But, it might tell you that while the Church allows it, you shouldn’t do it.

That is the best way I have ever heard that put! Bravo!

 

[Abu]

The Holy See teaches that “serious motives,” and “proportionately serious reasons,” are needed in order to use NFP to avoid, or to decrease the likelihood of, conception.

Pope Pius XII taught that if there are serious motives to space out births, which are derived from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infertile periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending moral principles. (Pope Pius XII. AAS XLIII, (1951), p. 846).

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.” (Paul VI, 1968).
vatican.va/holy_father/pa…-vitae_en.html

“Trivial reasons will not do, but reasons less than life-threatening conditions will.”
[Moral Use of NFP, in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, p 461].

 

[Xantippe]

I looked back as best I could at the moment and haven’t been able to find a post saying chemo and pregnancy is no big deal. I did see where I told you that chemo and pregnancy is possible and has been done with no ill affect to the baby and some OBs are now advocating for going ahead with chemo during pregnancy, but not that it is an ideal situation or no big deal. I said that living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future is not the healthiest outlook a person should have. But in no way is that saying no reasons are serious enough to use NFP or that chemo is no big deal during pregnancy. I will go back later tonight when I have more time and keep looking but at the moment that is all I’m able to find.

You call it “living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future.”

I call it basic prudence.

Potato, pot-ah-to.

Likewise with chromosomal abnormalities. I can look at a chart and see that women my age have a 1 in 66 chance of having a baby with chromosomal abnormalities (and a greater and greater chance every year until menopause).

You may think that that’s “living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future” to avoid under those circumstances, but that just happens to be my and my husband’s comfort zone. If I were to wad up the charts, I would start feeling unbearable anxiety–as it is, I can feel calm, peaceful and accepting of whatever comes, as I’m doing the best I reasonably can.

embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Genetic_risk_maternal_age

 

[LongingSoul]

In the future I highly suggest you not tell a couple they are scrupulous if they distrust NFP. I really believe your mission to promote the holiness of NFP will benefit if you don’t let preconceived ideas about why they have no luck avoiding pregnancy or why they distrust it’s effectiveness be the basis of your communication with them.

It wouldn’t do you any harm to try and value the goodness in others and not automatically ascribe malice to them. You’ve addressed me (although you had to get the backhander in by calling me vicious) but what about the numerous NFP instructors you accused of malice in dealing with you. They’ve accused you of cheating. They’ve accused you of lying. They’ve accused your husband of being a sex deviant. Instead of using your perceived grievances to attack the whole NFP service and staff… why not write a letter to the organisations these particular instructors work for detailing your serious accusations and let justice and truth take its course. I personally know people enough to know I’m not going to change their opinions once they form them… but my main interest is in the next generation of spouses who already see that NFP means restrictions on sexual freedom in marriage and are sponges for any and every reason put forward to reject it.

Praise be for all the NFP instructors and the organisations that fund it. Let them continue the good work of the Church even in the face of harsh accusations.

 

[MarkInOregon]

You call it “living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future.”

I call it basic prudence.

Potato, pot-ah-to.

Likewise with chromosomal abnormalities. I can look at a chart and see that women my age have a 1 in 66 chance of having a baby with chromosomal abnormalities (and a greater and greater chance every year until menopause).

You may think that that’s “living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future” to avoid under those circumstances, but that just happens to be my and my husband’s comfort zone. If I were to wad up the charts, I would start feeling unbearable anxiety–as it is, I can feel calm, peaceful and accepting of whatever comes, as I’m doing the best I reasonably can.

embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Genetic_risk_maternal_age

Without siding with “living a life based on fear” or “prudence” – I do have a question.

Are we called to live in our comfort zone? Or does Christ and our faith in God call us to something more than that? Doesn’t growing in holiness stretch us an take us out of our comfort zone? As our trust in God grows doesn’t that push us out of our comfort zone? Doesn’t trying to live a Christian life push us out of our comfort zone?

On judgment day will “that wasn’t in my comfort zone” be a defense or will it be kind of like saying “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?”

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[bitterhope]

You call it “living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future.”

I call it basic prudence.

Potato, pot-ah-to.

Likewise with chromosomal abnormalities. I can look at a chart and see that women my age have a 1 in 66 chance of having a baby with chromosomal abnormalities (and a greater and greater chance every year until menopause).

You may think that that’s “living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future” to avoid under those circumstances, but that just happens to be my and my husband’s comfort zone. If I were to wad up the charts, I would start feeling unbearable anxiety–as it is, I can feel calm, peaceful and accepting of whatever comes, as I’m doing the best I reasonably can.

embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Genetic_risk_maternal_age

Ok, I’m not going to get continue in this tit for tat. This is the last post for me.

I said it’s not healthy to lead a life based on fear of what could happen. I didn’t say that you may not use NFP if you choose to. If NFP works and you choose to use it, perhaps God agrees with your reasoning. If a person has reasons that are so unbearable that it would devastate them mentally, physically or whatever, it’s probably best if they avoid all sexual contact instead. I can’t see how a person is willing to chance pregnancy at all if things are that bad. If a person is willing to use NFP they need to be willing to accept bad things might happen but remain hopeful that God has a plan. I never advocated getting pregnant purposely when it is clearly not a good time. I have said personal reasons need to be evaluated and personal vices should be overcome. I have said it is individual and no one can or should attempt to evaluate another person’s reasons. I really don’t know how to make it any clearer and I’m tired of the running in circles. This place has proven to be very bad spiritually for me. I hope other people have better results.

I have no ill feelings against anyone here. I am sorry if I offended anyone. May God bless each of you and hold you close to Him during times of trial.

 

[jmjZelie]

You call it “living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future.”

I call it basic prudence.

Potato, pot-ah-to.

Likewise with chromosomal abnormalities. I can look at a chart and see that women my age have a 1 in 66 chance of having a baby with chromosomal abnormalities (and a greater and greater chance every year until menopause).

You may think that that’s “living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future” to avoid under those circumstances, but that just happens to be my and my husband’s comfort zone. If I were to wad up the charts, I would start feeling unbearable anxiety–as it is, I can feel calm, peaceful and accepting of whatever comes, as I’m doing the best I reasonably can.

embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Genetic_risk_maternal_age

That is the difference in perspective between you and I that I have noticed before. It is excellent that you can be so crystal clear about your priorities. It was reading and responding to your posts in the past, that helped me to crystallize my own personal perspective. While my perspective is obviously different from yours (ours ages are the same, but our experiences and circumstances have been vastly different) I always appreciate seeing that sort of self-awareness in others and have been helped by the counterpoint of your perspective. Far too often in my adult life, I have encountered people of brittle minds, where they are unable to consider any perspectives different from their own without automatically getting aggressive. Many have lost that sense of playfulness and adventure and flexibility and trust. I think self awareness is the best antidote to such brittleness, as well as an awareness that there do exist different temperaments and lifestyles and circumstances. As a lighthearted example, see my thread on one bag minimalism. My ideas that my family can be happier with less (including extremely minimal furniture) was met with horror and disbelief. Some people were unable to imagine a comfortable and happy and creative and fulfilling life with an intentionally minimal lifestyle. Anyway, that was slightly off topic, but I just wanted to mention that self-awareness and crystallizing one’s thinking is an excellent habit, as demonstrated by you here, and earlier by PaulinVA, and by several others in this thread.

 

[bitterhope]

It wouldn’t do you any harm to try and value the goodness in others and not automatically ascribe malice to them. You’ve addressed me (although you had to get the backhander in by calling me vicious) but what about the numerous NFP instructors you accused of malice in dealing with you. They’ve accused you of cheating. They’ve accused you of lying. They’ve accused your husband of being a sex deviant. Instead of using your perceived grievances to attack the whole NFP service and staff… why not write a letter to the organisations these particular instructors work for detailing your serious accusations and let justice and truth take its course. I personally know people enough to know I’m not going to change their opinions once they form them… but my main interest is in the next generation of spouses who already see that NFP means restrictions on sexual freedom in marriage and are sponges for any and every reason put forward to reject it.

Praise be for all the NFP instructors and the organisations that fund it. Let them continue the good work of the Church even in the face of harsh accusations.

You continue to miss the point. It’s hard to believe that it is not intentional. And if those instructors want to explain themselves I will listen and apologize as necessary. They know who they are. They are aware of what they said and how I received it. With some I have discussed at length and we’ve come to reconcile. With one in particular it is best we never cross paths again. There comes a time to cut your loses and move on.

 

[Xantippe]

Without siding with “living a life based on fear” or “prudence” – I do have a question.

Are we called to live in our comfort zone? Or does Christ and our faith in God call us to something more than that? Doesn’t growing in holiness stretch us an take us out of our comfort zone? As our trust in God grows doesn’t that push us out of our comfort zone? Doesn’t trying to live a Christian life push us out of our comfort zone?

On judgment day will “that wasn’t in my comfort zone” be a defense or will it be kind of like saying “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?”

The peace of Christ,
Mark

You’re giving an example of what I mentioned upthread–the tendency of many on CAF to nuke the entire concept of “serious reasons.”

We have Humanae Vitae, which says that “With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

Likewise the Letter to Midwives, we hear that “Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

Why isn’t that good enough?

 

[Xantippe]

That is the difference in perspective between you and I that I have noticed before. It is excellent that you can be so crystal clear about your priorities. It was reading and responding to your posts in the past, that helped me to crystallize my own personal perspective. While my perspective is obviously different from yours (ours ages are the same, but our experiences and circumstances have been vastly different) I always appreciate seeing that sort of self-awareness in others and have been helped by the counterpoint of your perspective. Far too often in my adult life, I have encountered people of brittle minds, where they are unable to consider any perspectives different from their own without automatically getting aggressive. Many have lost that sense of playfulness and adventure and flexibility and trust. I think self awareness is the best antidote to such brittleness, as well as an awareness that there do exist different temperaments and lifestyles and circumstances. As a lighthearted example, see my thread on one bag minimalism. My ideas that my family can be happier with less (including extremely minimal furniture) was met with horror and disbelief. Some people were unable to imagine a comfortable and happy and creative and fulfilling life with an intentionally minimal lifestyle. Anyway, that was slightly off topic, but I just wanted to mention that self-awareness and crystallizing one’s thinking is an excellent habit, as demonstrated by you here, and earlier by PaulinVA, and by several others in this thread.

That’s very kind!

 

[jmjZelie]

Marriage and family are a delicate ecosystem. The Church has said that couples should not be disturbed or disquieted in deciding family makeup. The decision is to be left to them to make taking into consideration internal and external factors known to them alone. It’s impossible for us to say that any particular couple is using unjust reasons or reproducing irresponsibly. Only the couple can know that. It’s between them and God.

The reason that we guard this delicate ecosystem of the family is because it is the basis of healthy society. Healthy families make healthy society.

I think this is true. I wonder how often we do more harm than good in giving our own thoughts on this to others. I know that I have attempted at times to deflect questions by giving vague answers, and then being challenged. I make it a point never to do that to anyone else. Yet I do sometimes ask questions here, since as a convert, I am still trying to understand how Catholics think (for those cradle Catholics, you will have to trust me that the Catholic mind works differently than the non-Catholic mind). Sometimes it can get really confusing, though, because personal experiences and circumstances come into play a lot on the forum.
When someone talks to me about adding to their family, I try my best just to let them talk it out. I think that by being a listening ear, and my encouraging them to talk it out, they will figure out the answer for themselves. That is a type of conversation not conducive to forum participation, unfortunately.
With respect to the topic of contraception, however, I remain totally silent in regards to their actions. Other people tell me of their forms of contraception, and I wonder why they are sharing it with me, and what they expect me to say. What does a person say to “I decided no more and I made my husband go get snipped!” or “I had the doctor tie my tubes” or “There are other things ya can do besides the stuff that gets ya pregnant, ya know!” (<—Eeeew)
I don’t even know how to begin talking about God’s design for marriage and procreation or NFP. It is only ever here at CAF that I see/hear this being discussed, sadly.

On a final note, if what you say is true, LongingSoul, the fact that society is not flourishing but is instead collapsing should not be surprising at all, given the fact that the family is collapsing, under the weight of divorce and contraception and redefinition of marriage by the secular state.

 

[Regina7]

You’re giving an example of what I mentioned upthread–the tendency of many on CAF to nuke the entire concept of “serious reasons.”

We have Humanae Vitae, which says that “With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

Likewise the Letter to Midwives, we hear that “Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

Why isn’t that good enough?

I’m guessing because some people will use anything as a just reason. I’ve heard all kinds of interesting ideas for what “just” means. One mom said they were through having children because another child would mean they can’t take their yearly cruise. While most of us would shake at our heads at that, this woman truly defended this as a just cause.

 

[Xantippe]

Without siding with “living a life based on fear” or “prudence” – I do have a question.

Are we called to live in our comfort zone? Or does Christ and our faith in God call us to something more than that? Doesn’t growing in holiness stretch us an take us out of our comfort zone? As our trust in God grows doesn’t that push us out of our comfort zone? Doesn’t trying to live a Christian life push us out of our comfort zone?

On judgment day will “that wasn’t in my comfort zone” be a defense or will it be kind of like saying “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?”

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I think what may be going on is that you are treating specific superogatory acts as the minimum, whereas the whole idea of superogatory acts is that they go above and beyond, and we are free to do them or not to do them.

I am not an expert on this area of Catholic ethics (I just know the term superogatory!), but it occurs to me that there are practically an infinite variety of possible superogatory acts–having a larger family than necessary, giving more to charity than necessary, being kinder to the stranger than necessary, reading an extra board book at bedtime, playing an extra round of catch, playing an extra encore, etc.

It isn’t actually possible to perform every single possible superogatory act–but you could come close if you found yourself living Ground Hog Day like Bill Murray. But, under more normal circumstances, we have finite resources in terms of time, money, and energy. So we have to choose to do some and not to do others. So, for instance, a smaller family might in fact be in a better position to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, comfort the sick, etc.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m guessing because some people will use anything as a just reason. I’ve heard all kinds of interesting ideas for what “just” means. One mom said they were through having children because another child would mean they can’t take their yearly cruise. While most of us would shake at our heads at that, this woman truly defended this as a just cause.

I wonder if her husband thought it was worth it…

I would find that a bit unflattering, if I were the wife, to find that my charms were outweighed by the attractions of carved ice sculptures, all-you-can-eat buffets and 3rd rate live entertainment.

But, on the other hand, if there is a big yearly extended family event, it is a sacrifice to have to sit it out. I know, because my extended family usually does a big ski trip together, and because we don’t do that, we simply don’t have the same opportunity to stay in touch with the cousins, aunties, and uncles.

The vast majority of people can’t afford a yearly cruise, or anything like that–even if they have “only” two children.

 

[jmjZelie]

I think what may be going on is that you are treating specific superogatory acts as the minimum, whereas the whole idea of superogatory acts is that they go above and beyond, and we are free to do them or not to do them.

I am not an expert on this area of Catholic ethics (I just know the term superogatory!), but it occurs to me that there are practically an infinite variety of possible superogatory acts–having a larger family than necessary, giving more to charity than necessary, being kinder to the stranger than necessary, reading an extra board book at bedtime, playing an extra round of catch, playing an extra encore, etc.

It isn’t actually possible to perform every single possible superogatory act–but you could come close if you found yourself living Ground Hog Day like Bill Murray. But, under more normal circumstances, we have finite resources in terms of time, money, and energy. So we have to choose to do some and not to do others. So, for instance, a smaller family might in fact be in a better position to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, comfort the sick, etc.

That is very interesting. I have never heard of superogatory acts before, but this concept makes sense. It is a regret that I have, to not be able to give more to our parish or to charity, because it takes so much of our resources to clothe, feed and shelter our family. The money just isn’t there to do what I was brought up to believe we must do as a minimum. Perhaps I need to learn more about this concept so that I can directly address my sense of guilt over that issue.