Why does NFP require a 'reason'?

[Armor_of_Light]

Hmmmm, not so sure about the supposed self-regulating nature of the “serious reason” inquiry.

To give a stark example, what of a couple who decides they really want to remodel their kitchen, but having another child would drain away their income from that project. Not wanting to sin, because they’re good Catholics, they resort to NFP, despite the woman’s desire to batt her eyelashes, etc. Who are we, after all, to suggest that their reason may not really be as serious as they imagine. Or is there really no objective standard to apply to individual cases, and whatever the couple decides is just jim-dandy?

An exaggerated example, perhaps, but it’s not difficult to imagine couples deciding for objectively unworthy reasons to resort to NFP. A modest suggestion would be for such a couple to seek guidance from a spiritual director, rather than relying on their own, not exactly disinterested judgment on whether they have a truly serious reason purposefully to avoid conceiving a child.

I agree with this wholeheartedly…
It is best to have direction from a spiritual and strong catholic in this area, given our fallen nature and talent for rationalization. Couples talk themselves out being more open to life if they are the only ones questioning the motives.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

What if they already had 6 kids in a tiny 3 bedroom, 1k sqft house and delaying the 7th a year or so would let them remodel the kitchen that’s been torn to shreds by 6 kids so they could sell the house and get more reasonable sized one

You don’t like self regulating NFP we get it, but that is how the Church set it up like it or not.

So true!!

I’d say that is a no-brainer and needn’t be discussed with a spiritual director! If this is in fact your case, then have at it and best of luck in getting larger digs.

 

[LJN21]

So true!!

I’d say that is a no-brainer and needn’t be discussed with a spiritual director! If this is in fact your case, then have at it and best of luck in getting larger digs.

LOL no, but we did just do the cleaning up, repainting and fixing of a 1.4k sqft house that had been torn to sherds by six kids to sell and move Fortunately, NFP was not necessary because I was also still nursing the baby.

 

[thewanderer]

Not really. There are other grave reasons to avoid conceiving.

From Humanae Vitae

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

not that this has anything to do with this thread as it is not about what the reasons are but rather about why reasons are necessary.

 

[manualman]

To give a stark example, what of a couple who decides they really want to remodel their kitchen, but having another child would drain away their income from that project. Not wanting to sin, because they’re good Catholics, they resort to NFP, despite the woman’s desire to batt her eyelashes, etc. Who are we, after all, to suggest that their reason may not really be as serious as they imagine. Or is there really no objective standard to apply to individual cases, and whatever the couple decides is just jim-dandy?

The couple themselves will likely find that granite counters and stainless steel are a poor substitute for their intimacy. God knew about our ability to rationalize and invented hormones to help compensate! He’s pretty smart.

Seriously, ask around in catholic circles. Find a whole lotta NFP only couples with one or no kids, no health issues and luxuries abounding that say they “can’t afford more kids?” It just doesn’t happen. Most people assume that NFP “doesn’t work” because it’s users have more than the average number of kids. In reality, it works GREAT precisely because they have multiple kids. Those kids mostly aren’t “oopsies” they are “what the heck” kids. They’re what happens when the couple realizes in the heat of the moment that their frilly kitchen was a dumb idea and PRESTO: another baby.

This is where the rubber meets the road on the substantial difference between NFP use and contraceptive use. Contraceptive users know what “planned kids” and “unplanned kids” are, but don’t have any idea what an “oh what the heck” child is. NFP users usually have at least one or two of those!

 

[fpt]

Natural family planning is only one of element of responsible procreation (a bilateral, mutual and reciprocal agreement to have conjugal sex during the infertile times of cycle of the wife – a simple medical presumption --, this is the bilateral system for spacing pregnancies or for avoiding a new baby).

Per se, spacing of pregnancies is already a serious reason. The fact of saying the contrary seems to me very strange.

In addition, there are other rules concerning the licit refusal to have conjugal sex (this is the unilateral system).

 

[fpt]

RHYTHM: THE UNHAPPY COMPROMISE
Fr. Hugh Calkins, O.S.M.

Written in June 1948 for Integrity magazine, Fr. Hugh Calkins discusses the problems of Natural Family Planning (NFP), then known as the “Rhythm method”. Angelus Press reprinted the article in Raising Your Children; The Integrity Magazine Series.

For reading about the issues of NFP: only for a simple information.

sspx.org/against_sound_bites/rhythm_unhappy_compromise.htm

 

[LJN21]

RHYTHM: THE UNHAPPY COMPROMISE
Fr. Hugh Calkins, O.S.M.

Written in June 1948 for Integrity magazine, Fr. Hugh Calkins discusses the problems of Natural Family Planning (NFP), then known as the “Rhythm method”. Angelus Press reprinted the article in Raising Your Children; The Integrity Magazine Series.

For reading about the issues of NFP: only for a simple information.

sspx.org/against_sound_bites/rhythm_unhappy_compromise.htm

If we are looking for what the Church has to say in the matter, information from an order without canonical recognition is not a good place to start.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

The couple themselves will likely find that granite counters and stainless steel are a poor substitute for their intimacy. God knew about our ability to rationalize and invented hormones to help compensate! He’s pretty smart. Seriously, ask around in catholic circles. Find a whole lotta NFP only couples with one or no kids, no health issues and luxuries abounding that say they “can’t afford more kids?” It just doesn’t happen. Most people assume that NFP “doesn’t work” because it’s users have more than the average number of kids. In reality, it works GREAT precisely because they have multiple kids. Those kids mostly aren’t “oopsies” they are “what the heck” kids. They’re what happens when the couple realizes in the heat of the moment that their frilly kitchen was a dumb idea and PRESTO: another baby. This is where the rubber meets the road on the substantial difference between NFP use and contraceptive use. Contraceptive users know what “planned kids” and “unplanned kids” are, but don’t have any idea what an “oh what the heck” child is. NFP users usually have at least one or two of those!

Also, don’t forget the “Oh…OK…If you say so then I’ll do my best” kids.

 

[thewanderer]

fpt, I’m pretty sure that it is the language barrier at fault again, but I just wanted to point out that

1. This post makes it seem as though you agree with this article, which, from your previous posts, I am fairly certain is not the case.

For reading about the issues of NFP: only for a simple information.

sspx.org/against_sound_bites/rhythm_unhappy_compromise.htm

1. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. Maybe you could try to explain it a different way?

Per se, spacing of pregnancies is already a serious reason.

 

[fpt]

fpt, I’m pretty sure that it is the language barrier at fault again, but I just wanted to point out that

1. This post makes it seem as though you agree with this article, which, from your previous posts, I am fairly certain is not the case.

On this forum, there are a lot of thread about the NFP.

I wanted only to give one of points of view of SSPX who uses an old document coming from a priest (Written in June 1948), before Humanae Vitae. This is a simple illustration of theological debates, before the rules given by Paul VI , inside the church. Or outside the church, or in border line of church (red line, yellow ligne??) after the papal document.

The moral debate is not a new thing. The questions were existing and are existing. Much better, the moral application of rules and their moral interpretations are in the debate. This article is only for helping to know some issues of the practical uses of NFP.

SSPX is in the canonical situation very strange, no canonical recognition. The doctrine from Vatican II nd, is always or very often attacked by Her. But, sometimes SSPX asks good questions without good intellectual approaches for solving them.

 

[fpt]

fpt, I’m pretty sure that it is the language barrier at fault again, but I just wanted to point out that

1. This post makes it seem as though you agree with this article, which, from your previous posts, I am fairly certain is not the case.
2. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. Maybe you could try to explain it a different way?

The question of this thread is – " Why does NFP require a ‘reason’? " – and me, with my sentence – " Per se, spacing of pregnancies is already a serious reason " – I wished to explain that the debate on the serious reasons is still existing and that sometimes priests or lay persons have strange intellectual positions.

Everything requires one reason or many reasons? and why, because of metaphysics.

 

[LJN21]

But, sometimes SSPX asks good questions without good intellectual approaches for solving them.

I think part of the reason for that is because they have lost the organic growth that happens in the Church as a whole. A lot of them out right reject the ideas of JPII “responsible parenthood” as some kind of heresy.

Form what I’ve read of older material, I think that article really reflects the dissenting minority of the day. The major failing of it is the confusion in the consequences inside the Church cause by a huge number of people that outright rejected the “ban” on Contraception and doing it anyway, with people who were ‘abusing’ the rhythm method.

 

[thewanderer]

thewanderer;9768862:

fpt, I’m pretty sure that it is the language barrier at fault again, but I just wanted to point out that

1. This post makes it seem as though you agree with this article, which, from your previous posts, I am fairly certain is not the case.

On this forum, there are a lot of thread about the NFP.

I wanted only to give one of points of view of SSPX who uses an old document coming from a priest (Written in June 1948), before Humanae Vitae. This is a simple illustration of theological debates, before the rules given by Paul VI , inside the church

. Or outside the church, or in border line of church (red line, yellow ligne??) after the papal document.

The moral debate is not a new thing. The questions were existing and are existing. Much better, the moral application of rules and their moral interpretations are in the debate. This article is only for helping to know some issues of the practical uses of NFP.

SSPX is in the canonical situation very strange, no canonical recognition. The doctrine from Vatican II nd, is always or very often attacked by Her. But, sometimes SSPX asks good questions without good intellectual approaches for solving them.

Thats fine, I just wanted to warn you that the way it was written it kind of seemed as though you agree with the entire outlook of the article, or at least that that could easily be taken to be true.

 

[Glennford]

I honestly think a person could read the USCCB published guidelines on the use of NFP and come to the reasonable conclusion that they should consider using NFP to be able to afford a boat. I am not joking.

Also, those posters who think NFP is self-regulating, in that people without a serious reason will cave and have sex…have you never lived this lifestyle? When we were trapped in this, we were so gung-ho about NFP that we would have considered it a major failure to cave for any reason. It’s entirely possible for spouses to feel they have to help the other one be accountable for letting themselves get too excited or attracted. Yep, that’s screwed up, and that’s exactly how we were taught. I was down for the whole bloody awful Chris West/Steubenville axis of abstinence. Walk a mile in my moccasins, then tell me how self-regulating NFP is.

 

[maryjk]

I honestly think a person could read the USCCB published guidelines on the use of NFP and come to the reasonable conclusion that they should consider using NFP to be able to afford a boat. I am not joking.

Also, those posters who think NFP is self-regulating, in that people without a serious reason will cave and have sex…have you never lived this lifestyle? When we were trapped in this, we were so gung-ho about NFP that we would have considered it a major failure to cave for any reason. It’s entirely possible for spouses to feel they have to help the other one be accountable for letting themselves get too excited or attracted. Yep, that’s screwed up, and that’s exactly how we were taught. I was down for the whole bloody awful Chris West/Steubenville axis of abstinence. Walk a mile in my moccasins, then tell me how self-regulating NFP is.

Okay. I have.

 

[underacloud]

I honestly think a person could read the USCCB published guidelines on the use of NFP and come to the reasonable conclusion that they should consider using NFP to be able to afford a boat. I am not joking.

Yes, but a fisherman needs a boat in order to provide for his family.

I presume you mean for recreational purposes…

Anway, way off topic now…

 

[Glennford]

Heh. Affording a pleasure boat is always the example the NFP police bring up as an illicit use of NFP.

 

[underacloud]

Heh. Affording a pleasure boat is always the example the NFP police bring up as an illicit use of NFP.

Well, I’d probably have to agree. Using NFP to avoid children for the sole purpose of being able to afford a recreational boat seems rather selfish.

But we can’t assume that anyone who has a recreational boat ought to be having more children. They may have other serious reasons for avoiding children.

 

[Glennford]

Well, having a pleasure boat is quality family recreation time, and quality recreation can help a family to develop strong relationship bonds. These bonds can help a family together in times of crisis and to have the close and comfortable relationships necessary for family members to trust one another and be honest with one another.

Ergo, a boat can be serious and important family project worth sacrificing for.