Why the conversations explaining why NFP is moral don't work

[LongingSoul]

So you agree that no one should say that a starving third world family, or the Christian families whose babies are being beheaded in Iraq are irresponsible for having children.

Right?

In fact this whole eye opening past few months has really put a damper on the whole. “gee we just can’t have a baby because it is stressful and we can’t “afford” it”

That kind of falls apart when looking at those pictures of those babies doesn’t it?

As I posted on another of the volumunious threads on NFP active at the moment…

Even in 1951, the Church was not as rigid and judgey as the ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ crew…

“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.”

‘Not rarely arise’ is an old fashioned way of saying ‘often’ or ‘normally’. People rightly have a lot of freedom in deciding the makup of their family. They base that decision on the circumstances of their own lives and capabilities, as well as on the conditions of the era. Unless a couple reject children on principle in contradiction to their natural and spiritual instincts, that is reject ‘family’… they are free to plan their family according to many and varied factors of the age.

The Church could and would never make the ‘family’ ideal an optional of marriage but she rightly affirms the freedom of a married couple to form the family size that suits their capabilities.

 

[LongingSoul]

YEs, personally we should mind our own bees wax. But in the promotion of NFP we have gone the opposite direction. It is the industry of NFP that has made it everyone’s business by promoting it is the “catholic birth control” it has tapped into the contraceptive mentality.

The ‘contraceptive mentality’ is about consequence free sex… not avoiding pregnancy. Abstinence in no way embodies the ‘contraceptive mentality’.

 

[HelenRose]

The ‘contraceptive mentality’ is about consequence free sex… not avoiding pregnancy. Abstinence in no way embodies the ‘contraceptive mentality’.

Simple sensible answer. I agree.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The ‘contraceptive mentality’ is about consequence free sex… not avoiding pregnancy. Abstinence in no way embodies the ‘contraceptive mentality’.

There sure are a lot of people out there and some on these threads who seem to want consequence free sex. But as you can see, thread after thread page after page, word after word, the NFP issue is not as simple as one might have you believe. If indeed this was “old theology” you would think there would have been some better ink spilled on the issue. Because it is probably the single biggest issue of every day first world Catholics. Sex, and children.

No wonder most Catholics contracept, it is simpler. Erroneous but simpler.

NFPs marketing has been to try to appeal to those who contracept. Sadly this has muddied the water and made it hard to defend. The exact opposite of the intent of the marketing.

(when I say the marketing I mean the modern C2CL or the mentality that NFP and it’s methods are the default in a marriage not the exception.) Which is how it is taught.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

As I posted on another of the volumunious threads on NFP active at the moment…

Even in 1951, the Church was not as rigid and judgey as the ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ crew…

“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.”

‘Not rarely arise’ is an old fashioned way of saying ‘often’ or ‘normally’. People rightly have a lot of freedom in deciding the makup of their family. They base that decision on the circumstances of their own lives and capabilities, as well as on the conditions of the era. Unless a couple reject children on principle in contradiction to their natural and spiritual instincts, that is reject ‘family’… they are free to plan their family according to many and varied factors of the age.

The Church could and would never make the ‘family’ ideal an optional of marriage but she rightly affirms the freedom of a married couple to form the family size that suits their capabilities.

Where is that quote from?

 

[LongingSoul]

Where is that quote from?

It comes from this document…

NATURE OF THEIR PROFESSION
Pope Pius XII
Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It comes from this document…

NATURE OF THEIR PROFESSION
Pope Pius XII
Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

Thanks. I have read this document before.

I have some comments later on it.
But for now, here is the whole paragraph from which you cited.

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. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

Indeed the whole document focuses more on the blessing of children and the sexual act being primarily for the procreation of the human race. I will comment later.

 

[fpt]

Encratism, manicheism, catharism, quietism, fideism, jansenism, puritanism, victorianism, theoretical providentialism, quiverfullism, absolute procreationism, angelism, primary anti-personalism, primary anti-phenomenologism, primary anti-conjugal erotism, the moralism against the conjugal joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife, angelism, conjugal asexualism, conjugal desexualism and the regidism in the definition of what is a grave or serious reason for the use of N.F.P. have to be fought by each “true catholic”.

The race to the large family is not a requisite for the validity of marriage. The race to the large family is not a moral obligation, a moral duty and a moral right for the couple. Per se, the large family is not a sign of the holiness of a couple. Per se, an un-large family is not a sign of the un-holiness of a couple.

The responsible procreation (responsible maternity and the responsible paternity) is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. The conscientization of the marital act for the procreation is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple.

The Pope, the bishops, the priests, the nuns, the friars, the monks, the friends, the community, the lays persons, the State, the civil laws, the administrative laws, the penal laws have no competence, and have no power coming from the natural law for deciding the number of children in the family. **Only, the couple, wife and husband, has this natural competence and natural power. All other persons, even the catholic hierarchy, have to stay at distance. **The ultimate decision is the hands of the couple. The priests can give, only, information and advice in link with the true doctrine, in the details with all subleties: nore more and not less. The ultimate decision is the hands of each member of couple. The priest does not take the decision, he does not have to take the decision.

 

[fpt]

Encratism, manicheism, catharism, quietism, fideism, jansenism, puritanism, victorianism, theoretical providentialism, quiverfullism, absolute procreationism, angelism, primary anti-personalism, primary anti-phenomenologism, primary anti-conjugal erotism, the moralism against the conjugal joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife, angelism, conjugal asexualism, conjugal desexualism and the **rigidism **in the definition of what is a grave or serious reason for the use of N.F.P. have to be fought by each “true catholic”.

The race to the large family is not a requisite for the validity of marriage. The race to the large family is not a moral obligation, a moral duty and a moral right for the couple. Per se, the large family is not a sign of the holiness of a couple. Per se, an un-large family is not a sign of the un-holiness of a couple.

The responsible procreation (responsible maternity and the responsible paternity) is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. The conscientization of the marital act for the procreation is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple.

The Pope, the bishops, the priests, the nuns, the friars, the monks, the friends, the community, the lays persons, the State, the civil laws, the administrative laws, the penal laws have no competence, and have no power coming from the natural law for deciding the number of children in the family. **Only, the couple, wife and husband, has this natural competence and natural power. All other persons, even the catholic hierarchy, have to stay at distance. **The ultimate decision is the hands of the couple. The priests can give, only, information and advice in link with the true doctrine, in the details with all subleties: nore more and not less. The ultimate decision is the hands of each member of couple. The priest does not take the decision, he does not have to take the decision.

The fact of having a large family is not a dogma or a moral obligation (a end of marriage that has to be attempted), per se;

The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;

The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;

The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;

The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;

The fact of wanting a baby can be irrresponsable in special cases, and that is not morally okay;

The fact of not wanting a baby can be selfish, and that is not morally okay;

The absolute natalism and the absolute procreationism are so morally wrong;

The irresponsible paternity is morally wrong, the irresponsible maternity is morally wrong, the irresponsible procreation is morally wrong;

The fact of practicing the marital act during the different times of the cycle of the wife, is, per se, moral (infertile times, fertile times, pregnancy, menstruations, breastfeeding, just before menaupose, menaupose, after the menaupose);

The fact of practicing the marital act if husband is naturally sterile is morally okay, it is totally moral;

The fact of practicing the marital act if wife is naturally sterile is morally okay, it is totally moral;

The fact of practicing the marital act if the wife and the husband are naturally sterile is morally okay, it is totally moral;

The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally morally okay, it is moral.

The fact of practicing the marital act with the intention and the will of wanting a baby is morally okay, it is totally moral;

By nature, the using of the NFP is not contraception. The practice of NFP in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because of a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), an economical reason, an educative reason is morally okay and moral, if the two members of couple agree with and if its reasons are objective, real and true ,and is not unfair (fair). **The NFP is not intrinsically evil, is not objectively wrong, is not of itself, from itself, for itself and by itself immoral.
**

 

[Rau]

:thumbsup:Exactly. There is nothing inherently evil or immoral with wanting to be in control of your life and sexuality, including the # of children you can AFFORD to raise.

I’m not sure what control over sexuality you mean - you already have control over when to have sex, with whom, how often, etc. Are you looking for more?

How would you like to exercise influence over the # of children you have, which the Church in fact teaches is an element of responsible parenthood? I mean…if Contraception is intrinsically evil (Church Teaching), and you’ve separately declared that NFP is contraception (though patently it is not), how would you like to influence the # of children in your family?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Thanks. I have read this document before.

I have some comments later on it.
But for now, here is the whole paragraph from which you cited.

Indeed the whole document focuses more on the blessing of children and the sexual act being primarily for the procreation of the human race. I will comment later.

more.

Today, besides, another grave problem has arisen, namely, if and how far the obligation of being ready for the service of maternity is reconcilable with the ever more general recourse to the periods of natural sterility the so-called “agenesic” periods in woman, which seems a clear expression of a will contrary to that precept.

You are expected to be well informed, from the medical point of view, in regard to this new theory and the progress which may still be made on this subject, and it is also expected that your advice and assistance shall not be based upon mere popular publications, but upon objective science and on the authoritative judgment of conscientious specialists in medicine and biology. It is your function, not the priest’s, to instruct the married couple through private consultation or serious publications on the biological and technical aspect of the theory, without however allowing yourselves to be drawn into an unjust and unbecoming propaganda. But in this field also your apostolate demands of you, as women and as Christians, that you know and defend the moral law, to which the application of the theory is subordinated. In this the Church is competent.

Emphasis mine:

Here we see that it is “new” theory. And that it is indeed others business not just the priest and that there is propaganda involved that people should not be a part of.

 

[LongingSoul]

Today, besides, another grave problem has arisen, namely, if and how far the obligation of being ready for the service of maternity is reconcilable with the ever more general recourse to the periods of natural sterility the so-called “agenesic” periods in woman, which seems a clear expression of a will contrary to that precept.

This was written in 1951 and addressed to Midwives who were the first port of call for women with ob/gyn and related issues. I guess you’re taking a very liberal stance on what constitutes ‘new’ and the fact that midwives can literally read as ‘everybody’.

You would hope that these women being addressed are professional in accordance with their careers mission and have a genuine Catholic outlook. They discern with the married couple based on ‘private consultation or serious publications on the biological and technical aspect of the theory’.

It is no secret that you don’t like NFP and think that lots of us use it ‘contraceptively’ and that periodic abstinence hurts people and marriage. Do you really think that that passage to Midwives allows others to judge people objectively based on their financial circumstances in relation to the number of their children?

No it is beyond our place to do that and not the Catholic spirit.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This was written in 1951 and addressed to Midwives who were the first port of call for women with ob/gyn and related issues. I guess you’re taking a very liberal stance on what constitutes ‘new’ and the fact that midwives can literally read as ‘everybody’.

It is no secret that you don’t like NFP and think that lots of us use it ‘contraceptively’ and that periodic abstinence hurts people and marriage. Do you really think that that passage to Midwives allows others to judge people objectively based on their financial circumstances in relation to the number of their children?

No it is beyond our place to do that and not the Catholic spirit.

This was written in 1951 and addressed to Midwives who were the first port of call for women with ob/gyn and related issues. I guess you’re taking a very liberal stance on what constitutes ‘new’ and the fact that midwives can literally read as ‘everybody’.

theology from that was new in 1951 is still new, in the mind of the Church. Any theology that is “new” and then people are still alive who were alive when it was declared “new” Certainly newer than say, baptism…
Many on these threads take the stand that it is not new. It is.

It is no secret that you don’t like NFP

It must be a secret then because I LOVE NFP! You can quote me on that. NFP can be a life saving and marriage saving grace that the Church has allowed. It allows a couple that may not be able to safely engage in the marital embrace an avenue to do so. And it keeps some marriages alive. Imagine a woman who would die if she got pregnant. Imagine her never being able to be intimate in her marriage. Because of NFP she can do so safely now even more safely than before “methods” were developed.

and think that lots of us use it ‘contraceptively’ and that periodic abstinence hurts people and marriage.

By saying “us” I have no idea what you mean but it might indicate that you are personally offended by any criticism I have of the employment or marketing of NFP. I have never accused you personally of using it contraceptive. I am sorry you feel that way. But it is important that you are able to separate the personal feelings out of the subject when discussing it generically. We are arguing and debating a principle and a theology. lets keep the “logy” part in it. I have no place to judge or condemn you personally for any use of NFP. If you have ever felt that way because of something I posted I apologize.
Now, that being said, you left out two HUGE qualifiers when posting what you think my position is. I do think that MANY people use NFP inappropriately and are not open to the calling they may have. That is just human nature. And I think it CAN and MAY hurt marriages when it is employed either inappropriately, selfishly or awkwardly. And I feel that in our race to combat real artificial contraception we have ignored and devalued these very real risks and happenings in NFP.

Do you really think that that passage to Midwives allows others to judge people objectively based on their financial circumstances in relation to the number of their children?

No, we do not judge people that way. But it does open up a conversation that we need to have. We need to be able to talk about and educate a public and a Church on the fact that NFP is not a cure all answer to anyone who is nervous about having a child.
My beef is indeed not with NFP per se, but rather with it’s complete corporate marketing strategy from marriage prep, to NFP courses to "its the dirty little secret we don’t dare mention we assume all those grey haired people at mass and no kids is because somehow everyone practices NFP with a complete understanding and unified purpose with the Lord God Himself.

That is why I abandoned NFP, and teaching NFP. Not only because it was damaging and sinful in my own marriage, but because I could not in good conscience follow the marketing and direction the modern NFP movements like C2CL have taken.

By first hand knowledge and the intimate knowledge of many many couples marriages and sex lives you gain by being involved with the NFP movement you start to see though not only their marketing but the entire purpose may parishes even have a class (if they have a class) And that is that it is brought up as the Catholic response to ABC. Which is why the Church has been caught off guard by the NFP failure to catch on. NFP should not be the Holy answer to ABC. When we market it that way, (and we have because that is how people see it as evidenced by this thread and the countless others that never seem to be able to articulately solve the issue) we lose the entire purpose of NFP or the creation of life all together.

NFP can be used and taught sinfully and it is indeed ambiguous. The meat of this thread is about how NFP is different than other things. IF we market it without combating a contraceptive mentality that our society is teeming with (and yes that includes many Catholics) we need to understand that it is really no different than ABC.

Now, in the document you cited you picked one part for your point. As you can see the context is important. As is looking at the 99 percent of the document that is encouraging abundance of life and the purpose of marital sex. You cannot have it both ways. You used the document to back a point, you cannot then say the document cannot be used by non-midwives, or that something in the 50s is outdated.

If we discuss NFP on these boards or to another individual at all, it is very much our place to discuss the gravity of it’s employment. But we cannot judge a soul.

 

[fpt]

As catholic, we have no right to put more conditions than the magisterium. Only, the doctrine, **not more and not less. **If the conditions are so large and no strict, thus, it is wished by the Catholic Roman Church. The fact of wanting to impose more conditions than the official documents of the church is morally wrong, it is a falsification, it is a lie, it is totally uncatholic.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical , of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.

This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.

However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the . The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Wow, hard core Papa!

 

[kozlosap]

I’m not sure what control over sexuality you mean - you already have control over when to have sex, with whom, how often, etc. Are you looking for more?

How would you like to exercise influence over the # of children you have, which the Church in fact teaches is an element of responsible parenthood? I mean…if Contraception is intrinsically evil (Church Teaching), and you’ve separately declared that NFP is contraception (though patently it is not), how would you like to influence the # of children in your family?

I just mean that being able to raise children that you can AFFORD to educate through undergrad and raise in a safe environment is important to me. Luckily I’m 61 and my child just turned thIrty and is an attorney. I do not believe that contraception is evil, especially after I visited South Africa and poor areas in Central America. I also do not think that those couples that use NFP as contraception are sinning.

 

[ahs]

Here we see that it is “new” theory. And that it is indeed others business not just the priest and that there is propaganda involved that people should not be a part of.

He says it is the Midwives’ business to educate couples on the theory (the new developments in fertility charting) and to avoid propaganda…NOT in helping couple’s decide family size ro what their serious motives are.

And who discerns “serious reasons”? Well, according to the Church, ONLY THE COUPLE. You never find any Church document that prescribes the timeliness of childbearing for couples or sets some number of children that constitutes an openness to life. What you WILL find however, is this:

“After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation" (TheologIia Moral by J Montanchez, quoting the Magisterial response to Bishop of Amiens, France at the Sacred Penitentiary in 1853)

You also see this: “ …all pressures brought to bear in limiting "the freedom of couples in deciding about children constitute a grave offence against human dignity and justice" (Pope JPII, Homily In Perth (Australia) Apostolic Pilgrimage to Bangladesh, et. al., November 30, 1996.).

You will also find, in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the following: “ The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society…” (CSDC, 234).

Now, admittedly, the above 2 quotes (excluding the 1853 response) were more in regards to the state trying to compel its citizens in regards to child bearing and rearing. But the statements can’t be clearer; when it comes to birth and spacing, it is the couple and the couple alone who have authority, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, to discern this. Any outside pressure is “a grave offence”.

Quotes taken from: A Catholic Response to ‘The Scandal of NFP’

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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

Lets take a look at this a little closer because there is an interesting choice of words here.

Lets look at the word “exempt.” It is dealing with an obligation. If one is obliged to do something they can be exempt from it for serious reasons. The most easy to understand example of this would be a dispensation from Mass. Now, can that be abused? Sure, and does it mean that all one has to do is decide for themselves what is a good reason and go from there? No, they must seek counsel and then be dispensed, (or not dispensed)

NFP needs to be looked at like this. Not that a priest should (or even could) give a dispensation to the marital act, but rather like something that is not a good thing.

If one said, “Gee, I am sorry you cannot get to Mass because you are at war, you are starving, you are a captive, you are sick etc…” No one would be offended. In fact we should be encouraged to say those things to someone.

But If you say "Gee, I am sorry you cannot create a life at this time because of (fill in the reason) people would freak out. But really there needs to be some sort of education on the spiritual employment of the EXCEPTION of NFP.

 

[ahs]

Lets take a look at this a little closer because there is an interesting choice of words here.

Lets look at the word “exempt.” It is dealing with an obligation. If one is obliged to do something they can be exempt from it for serious reasons. The most easy to understand example of this would be a dispensation from Mass. Now, can that be abused? Sure, and does it mean that all one has to do is decide for themselves what is a good reason and go from there? No, they must seek counsel and then be dispensed, (or not dispensed)

NFP needs to be looked at like this. Not that a priest should (or even could) give a dispensation to the marital act, but rather like something that is not a good thing.

If one said, “Gee, I am sorry you cannot get to Mass because you are at war, you are starving, you are a captive, you are sick etc…” No one would be offended. In fact we should be encouraged to say those things to someone.

But If you say "Gee, I am sorry you cannot create a life at this time because of (fill in the reason) people would freak out. But really there needs to be some sort of education on the spiritual employment of the EXCEPTION of NFP.

“…may exempt…from the obligatory, positive debt…” He’s talking about sex. For serious motives, a couple may practice abstinence “for a long period, or even the entire period of matrimonial life…”.

And, no, it’s not a dispensation. To cliam that it is, one would have to first establish the prescribed schedule by which the Church expects couples to have sex. I address this logical fallacy as well in this article:

CMTV’s ‘Reply’ to ‘A Catholic Answer to ‘The Scandal of NFP’’ Refuted

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

“…may exempt…from the obligatory, positive debt…” He’s talking about sex. For serious motives, a couple may practice abstinence “for a long period, or even the entire period of matrimonial life…”.

And, no, it’s not a dispensation. To cliam that it is, one would have to first establish the prescribed schedule by which the Church expects couples to have sex. I address this logical fallacy as well in this article:

CMTV’s ‘Reply’ to ‘A Catholic Answer to ‘The Scandal of NFP’’ Refuted

LOL way to pimp the article! I have enjoyed your writings on the subject though we definitely disagree.

Meanwhile Muslims are having an average of 8 children. They must not have any grave reasons to avoid…

Perhaps they could use this as a recruiting tool for frustrated Catholic husbands…