Why does NFP require a 'reason'?

[LJN21]

The fun part is baby 5 and 6, statistically should not be here, we were being pretty careful. That said, my charts were stupid hard to decipher because I was still nursing both times.

Point is, I really believe if you trying to do the Will of God in your life then Gods Will > NFP.

 

[mtbender]

Here is a really good write-up on the subject. It is not doctrine, but offers a great perspective.

catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/natural.htm

 

[LJN21]

Here is a really good write-up on the subject. It is not doctrine, but offers a great perspective.

catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/natural.htm

It offers a flawed perspective.

The author of that article is Father Gerard Rusak of the SSPX. The SSPX holds a very hostile view of any “family planning” not in keeping with the rest of the Church.

 

[mtbender]

It offers a flawed perspective.

The author of that article is Father Gerard Rusak of the SSPX. The SSPX holds a very hostile view of any “family planning” not in keeping with the rest of the Church.

And the flaws in this article would be?

 

[Bookcat]

A summary of the Teaching of the Church:

From Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

1. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?

2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.

1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

[LJN21]

Moreover, the allotted reasons must not be “inseparable from the law itself, nor inherent in its fulfillment” (790). This important precision, made by Pius XII in 1958 eliminates as reasons the difficulties that accompany every pregnancy, the risk of deformation in every conception, the duty which al! Parents have to educate their children, the normal restrictions which every new mouth to feed will put on a family budget, etc… All of these difficulties are inherent in the fulfillment of the law of matrimony. They should have been foreseen before entering into this state.

That statement is completely unreasonable. There is no way newlyweds can be expect to foresee how much they are going to make in 20 years, how many kids they are going to end up with. Go have 5 kids in 5 years and tell me how possible it is to “foresee” that when you first get married.

AND THIS IS A GRAVE DUTY, OBLIGING UNDER PAIN OF GRAVE SIN.

Says who? I’m really wondering here because there is no reference provided other than caps lock. That said…it is in caps lock… so it must be true… Right?

Well there is this part next.

“Therefore, the motive in question must be real and proven, not imaginary, supposed or improbable.” Pope Pius XII, in his allocution to midwives already quoted, points to four sources, in which we may find truly grave motives, exempting husband and wife from their obligatory and positive debt for a long period, or even for the entire period of their matrimonial life. Since the Pope states that these four “indications” (622) arise "not rarely "(622), we shall take a special look at each of them.

I don’t see anything about gave sin, I do see these things can happen “not rarely”. If something is not rare, then is common.

Like Pope Pius XII, Paul VI spoke, in his encyclical “Humanae vitae” (n 10) of the possibility of practicing periodic continence "for serious reasons and in respect for the moral Law". It is this “respect for the moral law” that interests us here. The Catholic Marriage Manual quotes on this point, Father John A. Goodwine, of St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie, N.Y… Assuming that, in one particular case, circumstances of a medical, eugenic, social or economic nature justify periodic continence, Father Goodwine explains that there would already be sin if mutual agreement on its use was not present. “Neither partner may insist on abstinence against the reasonable protest of the other. The reason for this is the marriage contract. By that contract each partner agrees to satisfy the reasonable and serious request of the other for marital relations; for one partner to default on this contract would be a serious violation of justice. Accordingly, the practice of periodic continence would be lawful when, and just as long as, it is mutually agreeable to the spouses (Op. cit.,p.57).” Father Goodwine continues: "The second requisite is thai’ both husband and wife must be able to** practice continence during the so-called fertile days.** The use of periodic continence demands no little self-control. When a couple attempts to restrict the use of marriage to the sterile period, there may arise occasions of serious sin. The attempt may lead to sins of self-abuse, to mutual fondling to the point of culpable pollution, and even to infidelity. These dangers are especially great in the case of men; but women are by no means exempt from them.

Sounds to me like they are construing “respect for the moral law” to mean something it doesn’t here. You must still respect the moral laws regarding the conjugal act, you can’t go seeking sexual satisfaction somewhere else. It doesn’t mean that if you are tempted, and sometimes fail, it negates your reason for using NFP, or complete abstinence. Example. A woman finds her self in a situation where, she would very likely die if she conceived anymore children. They have never really practiced abstinence at all, and are having a hard time staying chaste during the fertile time, because of biology and all that. Is she required to risk death because they have not had to practice chastity since before their marriage?

Practicing rhythm is particularly inadvisable for young couples. During the early years of marriage, the emotional and physical needs for intercourse probably are at their greatest. Moreover, a young husband and wife who abstain during the fertile 'period have no way of knowing whether their marriage really will be fertile. And If they are not fertile, the best time to discover this condition is when they are young - and when cures for sterility have the best chance to succeed." If rhythm is not advisable for young couples, self-restraint is. Pius XI warns that the married should: “use their matrimonial rights always in a Christian and sacred way, especially in the early days, so that, should circumstances subsequently require them to observe continence, their habit of self restraint will help them more easily to do so”

That doesn’t even make sense. You can’t learn any self restraint by not using self restraint.

There is a part farther down talking about the sin incurred. That’s fun, specially since their “moralist” can’t even agree on how the sin happens. This was my favorite:

"When matrimony is used exclusively on infertile days, with the intention of avoiding only temporarily, the conception of a child, there will be mortal sin when two or three children are not born as a consequence of this practice

The first kid you don’t have is a free-be, I guess, and how are you supposed to know when you hit the two or three kid mark to confess that? Are the 4th and 5th free again or are you excommunicated?
Anyway there is more in there but that’s not the purpose of this thread.

 

[ahs]

And the flaws in this article would be?

…That they represent a rigorist point of view that is in conflict with actual doctrine. For example, the Church teaches that birth regulation can represent "one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.” (CCC 2399). However, the author would have us believe that it is sinful to regulate birth. He is in conflict with this…and trying to blurr the lines between NBR and actual contraception:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?
   2368-2369
   2399
   The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
2. What are immoral means of birth control?
   2370-2372
   Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation. (Compendium of the Catechism, Pope Benedict XVI)

The author would also have us believe that the Church’s Doctrine contradicts itself in praising periodic continence while condemning contraception. His rigorist viewpoint ignores this fact:

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. (HV 16)

If you’d like to read an article from a Priest who is actually in line with Church teaching, try this one from Fr. Brian Harrison O.S., M.A., S.T.D.
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

 

[ahs]

That statement is completely unreasonable. There is no way newlyweds can be expect to foresee how much they are going to make in 20 years, how many kids they are going to end up with. Go have 5 kids in 5 years and tell me how possible it is to “foresee” that when you first get married.

Says who? I’m really wondering here because there is no reference provided other than caps lock. That said…it is in caps lock… so it must be true… Right?

Well there is this part next.

I don’t see anything about gave sin, I do see these things can happen “not rarely”. If something is not rare, then is common.

Sounds to me like they are construing “respect for the moral law” to mean something it doesn’t here. You must still respect the moral laws regarding the conjugal act, you can’t go seeking sexual satisfaction somewhere else. It doesn’t mean that if you are tempted, and sometimes fail, it negates your reason for using NFP, or complete abstinence. Example. A woman finds her self in a situation where, she would very likely die if she conceived anymore children. They have never really practiced abstinence at all, and are having a hard time staying chaste during the fertile time, because of biology and all that. Is she required to risk death because they have not had to practice chastity since before their marriage?

That doesn’t even make sense. You can’t learn any self restraint by not using self restraint.

There is a part farther down talking about the sin incurred. That’s fun, specially since their “moralist” can’t even agree on how the sin happens. This was my favorite:

The first kid you don’t have is a free-be, I guess, and how are you supposed to know when you hit the two or three kid mark to confess that? Are the 4th and 5th free again or are you excommunicated?
Anyway there is more in there but that’s not the purpose of this thread.

 

[ahs]

I am not sure but I suspect that possibly the reason why you must have a grave or serious reason to use Natural Family Planning to prevent a pregnancy is because it would be selfish to prevent a pregnancy for a non-serious reason. Again, I may very well be wrong but that is what I think. If I am wrong, I would appreciate being corrected by anyone.

This is my understanding as well. Marriage is primarily for a couple, now united as one, to procreate. If they choose not to procreate, they are, in a certain way, rejecting a primary purpose of Marriage. However, if there is a serious reason why they cannot have children (or more children) for a time, they are not obligated to have children. In those cases, they are obligated to perform the conjugal act in the proper manner (ordered BOTH to unification and procreation) but not obligated to conceive…as long as no steps are taken to remove the procreative nature from an act that is inherently procreative.

So basically, avoiding children would be a sin of selfishness, if it’s for non-serious reasons.

 

[Ana_v]

Refraining from sex is not a serious moral matter.

Refraining from sex with the intention of avoiding pregnancy is a serious moral matter.

I don’t think this (in and of itself) constitutes grave matter. Rather, knowingly and deliberately* restricting sex to the infertile periods *with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, is a serious moral matter. (Note I am attaching serious matter to the act of sex, rather than to abstinence.)

Abstinence is passive whilst sex is active. The serious moral matter concerning sexual behavior comes in when the sexual powers are exercised in a way or context that is not in comformity with the moral law. Abstinence however, by very definition, does not involve the exercise of the sexual powers.

 

[ahs]

I don’t think this (in and of itself) constitutes grave matter. Rather, knowingly and deliberately* restricting sex to the infertile periods *with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, is a serious moral matter. (Note I am attaching serious matter to the act of sex, rather than to abstinence.)

Abstinence is passive whilst sex is active. The serious moral matter concerning sexual behavior comes in when the sexual powers are exercised in a way or context that is not in comformity with the moral law. Abstinence however, by very definition, does not involve the exercise of the sexual powers.

Yes, I think you are right on this. This is where it would become selfish…in restricting sex to only the non-fertile periods…if there was not a sufficient cause (serious/grave reason) to avoid conception.

But, restriction of sex to those periods could not be a matter of exercising the sexual powers in a way that is not in conformity with moral law unless, when the couple has sex in those infertile periods, they also contracept (use a barrier, withdrawal, chemical, etc…). As long as a couple is having natural sex (intavaginal ejaculation), then the act they take part in is ordered toward its proper ends and in conformity with moral law. There is no error on their part for the abstinence (as long as they are in agreement) and there is no error in having sex on infertile days (as long as the sex is still properly ordered) and there is no error in restricting sex to only the infertile periods as long a the couple has discerned a serious reason for doing so, and as long as that condition exists.

 

[lerapt78]

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!

I like this part.

 

[fpt]

I repeat it, in catholic moral there are two system for abstinence of marital act:

A.The bilateral agreement between spouse, the mutual and reciprocal will of each spouse not to practice conjugal sex:

1. during a temporary time for spiritual and religious reasons, in knowing that at each time (at each second) the agreement can be stopped by the will of only one or by both of them. The break of this temporary time without sex is not immoral and is not a bad event for the couple, it is not sinful.
2. during the time where there is a presumption of fertility of wife for serious reason (grave), objective, real and fair in order to avoid a baby (to delay and to postpone the arrival of an other child) or for the spacing the pregnancies.

B. The unilateral will from one of member of couple:

1. if and only if there is a serious motive, thus the refusal of the request of marital act from wife or from husband is permitted;
2. For the wife during pregnancy if and only if there are realistic medical issues or if the wife is tired by the pregnancy. Per se, the pregnancy is not a reasonnable reason.
3. For wife between 2 weeks and 6 weeks after childbirth.
4. For wife during the menstruations if and only if she is tired because per se, menstruations are not resaonnable causes.

5.If there is an adultery, but after the forgiveness, the marital sex is the rule, the refusal is not morally licit.

1. If the request of marital act is too often in the short time (the moderation): but no number and no quantity, per se, can be given like example.
2. If one of member is drunk or has lost temporary the reason.

Each time, the reasons have to be reasonable, real, objective, fair and serious. Why a reason? Because the marital act is the rule of the marriage.

 

[OurNFPBlog]

The “Ooops Factor” scared us, especially as converts who were new to this whole chastity thing (at least the Catholic version). And we DID have three kids within four years of converting.
But what scared us the most, I think, wasn’t the prospect of having more (number 5 arrived last year, and we are both in our 40s now). It was the “teaching” of some Catholics that you HAVE to have more. The Church is pretty clear that “grave” reasons go beyond the health of the child and mother, but that’s not good enough for some folks. And when we were new to the faith, that was cause for alarm. “What did we get ourselves into???”
Fortunately the U. S. Bishops put out a letter that covers these questions. We have a link to it and a blog post over at www.OurNFPBlog.com.

 

[fpt]

The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of holiness of the couple.
The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of of unholiness of the couple.
The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a moral obligation for the couple.
The fact having a large family is not, per se, a moral mission for the couple.

Because there are the culture of death (the direct and voluntary abortion, the direct and voluntary contraception, the so-called "marriage for the persons of same sex " , the euthanasia, the lack of liberty for couples to educate freely kids, the wrong point of view on the woman (wife and mother), the wrong point of view on the man (husband and father), the wrong point of view on the children, the adultery, the divorce, the separation), it is not a good reason for not being prudent, vigilant, moderate, fair, serious in the intellectual approach concerning the true message of the responsible procreation with their corollaries.

The moderation, in all is the rule. Be careful, is a nice slogan. Quiverfull movement, theoritical providentialism , absolute natalism, absolute procreationsim can look very well and in favor of the life, but it is not enough.

This doctrines can be " wrong " on some aspects!!!

Prudence is the rule.

 

[sainthumbert]

The use of NFP to delay pregnancy requires a serious reason since the principal ends of marriage is the procreation of children. Gaudium Et Spes - “Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted… Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice, married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate.”

According to Guadium Et Spes, married couples have a duty to procreate. Perhaps some would argue that the duty is fulfilled after procreating one child and the duty no longer exists thereafter. Therefore, the duty cannot be hindered unless serious reasons are present.

So, How many children are we supposed to have?

Is there a target we are shooting for? If we reach our target relatively quickly, what do we do for the rest of our marriage?

PaulinVA - I believe the target is somewhere around 22 or 24. Once you hit the target you get to buy the recreational boat (if you can still afford it) and enjoy it for the rest of your marriage.

 

[johnotc]

My answer to this question is simple and practical: Every month, PRAYERFULLY consider whether there is any tinge of selfishness in your quest NOT to have children. NFP requires a reason because just like any other form of contraception, the decision INVOLVES another person, your future child. To judge whether YOUR reason to practice NFP is a valid one requires prayer with a pure heart.

 

[DavidSears]

Listen, I’m 16 and I’ve been getting very frustrated with the church. Now don’t get me wrong, I love the Catholic Church. I’m a lector and a very active member of the Catholic Church, BUT, Jesus didn’t write the catechism. I see no sin at all within marriage. You can’t always be trying to have a child when having sex (within marriage of course, all sex outside of marriage is a sin). Sex is not just for conception, it’s an “I love you so much I want to show you rather than tell you” act as well. What about a woman way past menopause? She can’t make love with her husband? That’s where I throw a challenge flag. I agree with 95% of the catechism, but I disagree about a lot of the sex stuff (masturbation especially). If Jesus didn’t mention it, then why do Catholic EXTREMISTS (yes extremists) take it as he did? Man made rules. A lot of it. God once said “It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules as though they were my laws!” I don’t think NFP needs a reason. I think that artificial family planning is a sin, but that’s my opinion. Don’t go by me, I haven’t lived on Earth very long. But God doesn’t put us on earth to skip on hot coals. “No masturbation. No sex before marriage. Okay now you’re married, don’t have sex unless you can have kids. Okay you have 12 kids, you’re in menopause, don’t ever have sex again.” Please don’t condemn me for this post, it’s my head, not my heart or soul talking. And if I’m wrong, hey, I hope God corrects me, because God has proven me wrong many times. That’s why I love Him!
Pax Christi

 

[DavidSears]

Having said that, I want you all to know I want to have kids. I want to wait to have sex until I’m married. I’m not a bad kid, I want to do God’s will. I just get frustrated when people try to condradict the bible. I think St Paul once said that you should never deprive your spouse from sex. I don’t think God wants us to have more kids than we can handle either, but God wants us to become one flesh! Again, if I’m out of line here (or way off) I sincerely apologize. I have terrible Scrupulosity so I also get very nervous when giving advice so don’t follow it, I’m just putting in my two cents. I’m sorry…
Pax Christi

 

[maryjk]

Listen, I’m 16 and I’ve been getting very frustrated with the church.

Let’s see if I can help.

Now don’t get me wrong, I love the Catholic Church. I’m a lector and a very active member of the Catholic Church, BUT, Jesus didn’t write the catechism. I see no sin at all within marriage. You can’t always be trying to have a child when having sex (within marriage of course, all sex outside of marriage is a sin).

No sin at all within marriage?? First know that nowhere does the catechism say that every time a married couple has relations they have to be trying to have a child. I am not sure where you got that?

Sex is not just for conception, it’s an “I love you so much I want to show you rather than tell you” act as well. What about a woman way past menopause? She can’t make love with her husband? That’s where I throw a challenge flag.

As do I, but my flag is at your understanding of this topic.

I agree with 95% of the catechism, but I disagree about a lot of the sex stuff (masturbation especially). If Jesus didn’t mention it, then why do Catholic EXTREMISTS (yes extremists) take it as he did?

Any other rules you don’t like? It isn’t Catholic extremists. You just need to do some research.

Man made rules. A lot of it. God once said “It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules as though they were my laws!” I don’t think NFP needs a reason. I think that artificial family planning is a sin, but that’s my opinion. Don’t go by me,

Actually, there is a lot misunderstanding and opinion in your post. You might want to do some reading on this topic.

I haven’t lived on Earth very long. But God doesn’t put us on earth to skip on hot coals. “No masturbation. No sex before marriage. Okay now you’re married, don’t have sex unless you can have kids. Okay you have 12 kids, you’re in menopause, don’t ever have sex again.” Please don’t condemn me for this post, it’s my head, not my heart or soul talking. And if I’m wrong, hey, I hope God corrects me, because God has proven me wrong many times. That’s why I love Him!
Pax Christi

Again, you need to learn what the Church teaches, rather than what you think it teaches.