Pandora's Nfp

[Aloysius]

I'm all about marriage being primarily for procreation and the ideal goal of marriage being one in which a couple simply fulfills all their marital duties in love, faith, and trust in God's providence (since NFP is given only for those with serious reasons to use it, I ascertain that the ideal is to not have serious reasons to use it)

I'm also young and my girlfriend and I are planning to be married within the next couple of years. But in keeping with my high ideals that I would stick to even if they drove me mad against a cruel unforgiving world, I have this idea that if one has this knowledge and understanding of the morality surrounding children and family, one should not marry unless they are ready to enter into this ideal situation. In other words, I don't want to marry until we can safely engage in marriage without planning about when to have or not have children, the ideal state of marriage.

I was wondering, however, if NFP used at the beginning of marriage makes the ideal state of marriage, as I have described it, impossible for a couple. It would seem to me that once the couple knew of the cycle, that knowledge could always be known... that even if they stopped tracking it they would have a rough idea of when babies could be made and when they could not... it would seem they could never again really resign themselves to Divine Providence in ignorant bliss of whether or not one or the other act of marital love could bring them a child.

So... is it possible to really end NFP and resign yourself to total acceptance of Divine Planning for your family? or is it a Pandora's Box for a couple, that once they know the mechanism by which life comes into their marriage they are forever bound to have some type of natural family planning?

I am not here critiquing anyone who uses NFP or anything... all Catholics should understand that it is an acceptable deviation from what has always been held to be the ideal form of marriage wherein the couple does not plan their children but merely accepts them and thus should be confident that they have serious reasons and are not threatened in the least by the idea that this is the ideal way to do things.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

You can always use NFP to find the best times for having children, i.e. when your wife is most fertile.

Oh, and the cycle can change...a lot. I know women who've had their periods two weeks early because finals stressed them out too much. Plus, dorms usually alter the cycle because there's usually one dominant girl who screws up everyone else's cycle.

Anyway, I think NFP can be used without necessarily having it programmed into the marriage. However, I also think that waiting for the ideal marriage situation is going to keep you waiting a long time. You probably won't raise enough money to support as many children as you happen to have if you're having them in a completely random pattern. You never know what serious difficulties life may throw at you.

[Aloysius]

my asking of these questions is indicative of my flexibility on just how ideal of a situation we would have to be in to contract marriage. I would not want to use NFP to have children (unless there was some serious reason, ie we were having prolonged failure to have children without it) any more than I would want to use NFP to avoid children, I would want my marriage to plateau into a situation where we did not feel it was our place to plan one way or another even if it began using NFP. but the knowledge of NFP seems like it would make that plateau very difficult to reach if not impossible. how does one completely dissavow their knowledge of how to plan when and where to have children? even if the cycles change, a rough idea of the cycles would still always cloud this ideal somehow it seems... maybe not, I don't know. but if it was going to damage the possibility for the ideal, I would much rather wait until we could enter into marriage without any knowledge or intention of using NFP (which I do not believe is too high of an ideal; one needn't be rich, just moderately well-off and capable of weathering storms). I don't care if that's when I'm 30 (well, I do CARE, but I would have priorities that would supercede that emotion, and I'd certainly try to acheive that stage ASAP)... if NFP seems like too much of a pandora's box to me I won't be able to begin a marriage with it in good conscience.

but the jury's still out for me on whether it's a pandora's box... I'm wondering if there's anyone with personal experience who used NFP for a time but stopped altogether at some point in their marriage. To date, I have never seen any testimonies about NFP to this effect... I have seen the testimonies of couples who used NFP to avoid conception for a while, then used it to acheive conception, then used it to space out the conceptions and determine exactly how many kids they want. And if circumstances and grave reasons necessitated that, I do not judge that against them... but that's still not the ideal as far as two millenia of Catholic Teaching are concerned and I'd rather have a go at the ideal if at all possible (or at least a plateau of the ideal)

[Archaeology cat]

I would agree with Raphael here. I've only been married a little over a year, so I can't help with anything about stopping NFP. When we got engaged we both had jobs, then my husband lost his and then God led us to go back to school, so postponing conception is necessary at the moment. However, we both eagerly await the time that we can use NFP to achieve conception.

Personally, there are many benefits to using NFP. One is that it increases communication and awareness of my body. I used to be on BCPs for medical reasons, but have obviously stopped that now. Using NFP allows me to see exactly what's going on so that I can get treatment as soon as something changes. I've actually done that; my chart showed something abnormal, and I was able to point it out to the doctor who could then use that to provide a treatment. It turned out to be nothing serious, but I'm glad that I could see that anyway.

And just a note that spacing children isn't just about the finances. It is actually fairly unhealthy to have children too close together, especially if you're like me and have a low body weight to begin with. In my family, a lack of planning after the birth of one child and therefore getting pregnant very quickly after that has resulted in numerous miscarriages for my mother & grandmother.

And if we were to stop using NFP at some point, well, it would be quite difficult to tell anything about my cycle because it's so irregular (it was even worse when I lived with other women, because I wasn't the one with the dominant hormones). Of course, since I know the signs I'd have some idea probably, but so would any other woman, though I wouldn't necessarily see the pattern anymore without charting it. Of course, I'm also the geek who thinks it's really cool to see the patterns.

[N/A Gone]

There needs to be a balance in understanding Divine planning and personal responsability. Drifting too close to Calvin and his utter predestination could be at risk. I personally do not apply the "divine planning" argument to myself or to others. The idea that if you have a child it is because God wanted you to have that kid, and if He does not want you to have a kid you wont. Thats not how it works. There is personal responsability in using the gift that God gives us. NFP is viewing the natural process. Intentions can be wrong, but the process itself isnt.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1219463' date='Mar 25 2007, 04:38 PM']There needs to be a balance in understanding Divine planning and personal responsability. Drifting too close to Calvin and his utter predestination could be at risk. I personally do not apply the "divine planning" argument to myself or to others. The idea that if you have a child it is because God wanted you to have that kid, and if He does not want you to have a kid you wont. Thats not how it works. There is personal responsability in using the gift that God gives us. NFP is viewing the natural process. Intentions can be wrong, but the process itself isnt.[/quote]
Yeah. I think God wants us to ask for children, too. I mean...He doesn't expect us to just sit around and go, "okay, God...whenever you want." If we really, really want to have kids at a certain time, then that is good and God favors it, because we want to help create life. It may not be according to His schedule, but I don't see any downside to trying diligently to conceive...God sees it, sees the love, sees the desire for life...I think He's pleased by that, not disappointed that we're trying to take it into our own hands. In fact, think about it this way: you know that such-and-such a time is the best time to conceive and the time God is producing the most fertility...taking that into consideration, when you try very hard during that time to conceive, you are giving God your body and your fertility, and so you are actually placing more love and trust in His hands. So long as you also place your will in His hands, I think it's a very admirable thing.

[Aloysius]

so do you disagree with the idea of the ideal being no-NFP? then why must NFP only be used in grave circumstances? it seems pretty clear that the Church is saying "unless something forces you to use NFP, you should not attempt to gain control over when you have children"

this has nothing to do with calvinism. the natural state of marriage is one which does not include planning; this is a sacred truth about the sacrament passed down from Old Testament times through the entire history of the Church. this is not about what is predestined, it is about the attitude which is to be taken in marriages ideally.

and I'm not saying not to desire babies at a certain time... just that during those times you merely make love more often than normal and petition God to bless you with children at that time. but it is not good to try to take control over when and how many children you have. that's what the whole cult of the golden calf is about... the symbol of the horns is like a crescent moon, it was a cult of fertility and it's symbol was all about the cycle which is so central to NFP. using it without necessity one way or the other would be just as bad as those pagans of the cults of fertility of old.

it is clear from the teaching of the Church that the ideal does not include family planning, natural or otherwise; because NFP is offered in the context of being acceptable only in grave circumstances; grave circumstances are clearly never preferable.

It should be undisputed that the ideal situation according to the Church does not include control and planning over fertility; that is clearly offered as a concession when circumstances NECESSITATE it.

so no matter how much you like knowing about all this, from the Church's perspective the use of that knowledge must be reserved solely to when there is a non-ideal situation constraining you from carrying out the marital duties the way countless Catholics through the centuries have carried them out; perfect openness to life but not control unless it is necessary.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I'm with Aloysius on this situation...

We live in a society that has a VERY different perspective on economics and family life. NFP is used by well-intentioned couples far more often than is "gravely necessary". We have no concept of what "grave" means in a society where efficiency equals NOW. I am of the strong opinion that a couple should not knowingly enter into a marriage that would start out with NFP-- NFP impedes the "freedom" to totally enter into the marriage. NFP implies a deep hesistation on the part of the couple to fully engage the purpose of marriage. If you can't reasonably conceive a child right away, then there is reason enough to prolong the engagement until the couple is fully ready for marriage.

[Birgitta Noel]

No, the Church does not teach that one may only have a grave reason to use NFP. They teach that there must be a serious, not grave, reason to use NFP to avoid having children. One may use NFP to chart one's cycle which may reveal that the woman has a progesterone deficiency which could effect her ability to carry a pregnancy to term. Or one might need to postpone children for a short period of time, ie three months or so after childbirth to allow the woman's body time to heal. We are blessed by the gift of reason. It's not foolish to use the knowledge of our bodies given to us by God to work in tandem with Him. We co-operate in becoming parents. Note, that's CO-operate.

As for not getting married until one is able to not use NFP to avoid NFP that has been hotly debated here before. Do a search and I'm sure you'll find the thread. That mindset suggests that the couple is sinning by using NFP. Be careful what you suggest.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Interesting discussion...

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1219481' date='Mar 25 2007, 11:56 PM']Yeah. I think God wants us to ask for children, too. I mean...He doesn't expect us to just sit around and go, "okay, God...whenever you want." If we really, really want to have kids at a certain time, then that is good and God favors it, because we want to help create life. It may not be according to His schedule, but I don't see any downside to trying diligently to conceive...God sees it, sees the love, sees the desire for life...I think He's pleased by that, not disappointed that we're trying to take it into our own hands. In fact, think about it this way: you know that such-and-such a time is the best time to conceive and the time God is producing the most fertility...taking that into consideration, when you try very hard during that time to conceive, you are giving God your body and your fertility, and so you are actually placing more love and trust in His hands. So long as you also place your will in His hands, I think it's a very admirable thing.[/quote]

You said it much better than I could have (or did).

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='The Little Way' post='1220147' date='Mar 26 2007, 09:41 PM']As for not getting married until one is able to not use NFP to avoid NFP that has been hotly debated here before. Do a search and I'm sure you'll find the thread. That mindset suggests that the couple is sinning by using NFP. Be careful what you suggest.[/quote]
The thread was in the NFP phorum, which was deleted.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1219780' date='Mar 26 2007, 01:31 AM']so do you disagree with the idea of the ideal being no-NFP? then why must NFP only be used in grave circumstances? it seems pretty clear that the Church is saying "unless something forces you to use NFP, you should not attempt to gain control over when you have children"[/quote]
I don't think that's what the Church is saying at all. I think the Church is saying that you may always use NFP to conceive and should be entirely encouraged to do so as much as possible. I think the Church also says that for a grave/serious reason (I'm sorry, but I don't see a semantic difference between grave and serious), you may use NFP to space children (which still has the intention to have children, just at a better time, and is still open to life).

God bless,

Micah

[Aloysius]

grave mans serious. the distinction you make is helpful for those who are no familiar with the english language, though. I do believe "grave" is the word used in the official translation of Humanae Vitae. it doesn't mean life-or-death reasons, that would be "mortal", it means serious, and that means

after I made the last post I thought about it and figured this would be a potential position, but I think I still disagree with it (the position being that one only has to have a grave reason to avoid children, not to use NFP)

the reason I disagree with this position is this: the knowledge of NFP puts a couple in direct control of when they DO or DO NOT have children. therefore, the use of NFP directly gives the couple the capacity to avoid children. THEREFORE, even when they keep track of it in order to plan when they are having children, they are including periods of avoiding having children.

"grave" reasons, the word used by Humanae Vitae, imply that those reasons are not the ideal situation. perhaps, now that I think about it, your attempt to distinguish into "serious" vs. "grave" does, in fact, lose a vital connotation. but you are right to note "grave" is not intended to be "mortal", but rather "serious" and "unfortunate"

[quote]In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.[/quote]the official translation chose the word "grave" for a reason (the same word used later to refer to consequences of artificial birth control). It clearly connotates that this is something NOT PREFERABLE, NOT IDEAL. Only when one lives in a situation that is not ideal can one use NFP to avoid, and for the reasons above (namely the connectedness between planning a specific time and thus avoiding other times) plan to have children.

I would only agree with using the word "serious" if one kept in tact the idea that these serious reasons are not objectively good. It is not objectively good that a couple is unable to afford many children (read: blessings). this comes strait out of Catholic Teaching 101, we should all understand that it is the less-than-ideal situation to use NFP. It is only allowed when something BAD causes its NECESSITY. Humanae Vitae applies Thomistic double effect: the act is not evil in itself (unlike Artificial Birth Control which would be evil in itself), the effect is to avoid children that could not be supported, and the double effect is to not have a natural unplanned cycle of marriage as has been done always.

I figured I should re-read Humanae Vitae in order to refresh myself and make sure I was not in error in my assertion that the ideal situation is to not have to use NFP. I was not dissappointed in my efforts, catching a great paragraph that I had not previously noted but which definitively puts to rest the the question of whether it is ideal to have to use NFP. Perpetual-NFP marriages make procreation subject completely to the will of the couple.

[quote]In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church[/quote]

This is what I am saying, and this makes it clear that marriage is ideally excercised in conformity to the creative intention of God WITHOUT proceeding completely at will; that will must only be excercised over this act when grave circumstances necessitate it.

so the question: is there any example of any testimony of folks who started using NFP but, when the grave circumstances were over, ceased to use NFP one way or the other (keeping in mind that using it to produce children implies periods of avoiding them as well)? because otherwise, this pandora's box of NFP makes a couple incapable of ever acheiving the ideal state of marriage as manifested by the constant teaching of the Church: that is not the place of the couple's will to plan but rather the place of God's creative intention.

again, anyone who uses NFP for serious reasons (which are not ideal) need not feel attacked by this; they are caught up in a situation which is not ideal and it is the only way they are able to engage in responsible parenthood. the doctrinal point being made is that NFP should ideally not be necessary. NFP is a life-saver thrown out to couples drowning in modern economic conditions: the ideal is for the couple to be back on the boat and capable of not planning one way or the other.

[LouisvilleFan]

I can't claim to be any kind of expert on the fertility cycle, but I'm pretty sure that within a month or so of quitting NFP, you really can't know where your wife is in her cycle. I think there are a few days, perhaps following the period, when you can be sure that conception is impossible. But that's really about all you could know without tracking things, which is why the cycle has to be tracked

[marielapin]

Here are some interesting quotes to add to this conversation:

The Catechism actually states that you need a "just" reason to use NFP:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156



And Christopher West weighs in:


Trusting in Providence

So what constitutes a "serious reason" for avoiding a child? Here’s where the discussion typically gets heated. Correct thinking on the issue of responsible parenthood, like all issues, is a matter of maintaining important distinctions and carefully balancing various truths. Failure to do so leads to errors on both extremes.

An example of one such error is the hyper-pious notion that if couples really trusted in providence, they would never seek to avoid a child. This simply is not the teaching of the Church. In some cases, "increase in the size of the family would be incompatible with parental duty" (Karol Wojtyla [John Paul II], Love and Responsibility, Ignatius Press, 243). Therefore, avoiding children "in certain circumstances may be permissible or even obligatory" (Karol Wojtyla, Person & Community: Selected Essays, Peter Lang Publishing, p. 293).

We are certainly to trust in God’s providence. But this important truth must be balanced with another important truth to avoid the error of "providentialism." When the devil tempted Christ to jump from the Temple, he was correct to say that God would provide for him. The devil was even quoting Scripture! But Christ responded with another truth from Scripture: "You shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Luke 4:12).

A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test. Today, knowledge of the fertility cycle is part of God’s providence. Thus, couples who make responsible use of that knowledge to avoid pregnancy are trusting in God’s providence. They, no less than a couple "who prudently and generously decide to have a large family" (HV 10), are practicing responsible parenthood.

The Enemy of Selfishness

It’s certainly true that, like all good things, NFP can be abused. Selfishness, as the enemy of love, is also the enemy of responsible parenthood. It’s clear from the Church’s teaching that frivolous reasons for avoiding children will not do. But neither are spouses required to have a "life and death" situation before they make use of NFP.

In determining family size, Vatican II teaches that parents must "thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those that the future may bring. . . . [They must] reckon with both the material and spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself" (Gaudium et Spes 50). In terms of limiting family size, Humanae Vitae teaches that "reasonable grounds for spacing births" might arise "from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances" (HV 16).

The Church’s guidance is purposefully broad. Following the Church’s lead, I do not intend to spell things out more than this. It is the duty of each and every couple to apply these basic principles to their own particular situations. Moral dilemmas are much easier when others draw the line for us, but, as Vatican II says, "the parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in sight of God" (GS 50). John Paul II adds that this point is "of particular importance to determine . . . the moral character of ‘responsible parenthood’" (Theology of the Body, 393).

Therefore, the surprisingly widespread idea that a couple must obtain "permission" from a priest to avoid pregnancy is not only false but reveals serious confusion about the nature of moral responsibility. If a couple is uncertain of their motivations, it is certainly advisable to seek wise counsel. But the Church places responsibility for the decision squarely on the couple’s shoulders. If spouses choose to limit family size, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches only that it "is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood" (CCC 2368).

On this point, there is another more subtle and little discussed form of selfishness that conflicts with responsible parenthood. I once counseled a couple that had several children very close together. The parents rightly recognized each child as a divine blessing and did all they could to love and care for them. The mother, emotionally drained since the third child, had desired a larger space between babies. It came to light that the reason they did not space their children was that the husband selfishly wouldn’t (or couldn’t) abstain.

Here, when looked at more closely, what on the surface might pass as a generous response to Church teaching actually demonstrates a failure to live Church teaching. The point is that, in order for parenthood to be responsible, the decision to avoid sexual union during the fertile time or the decision to engage in sexual union during the fertile time must not be motivated by selfishness.

[Birgitta Noel]

Ok, so grave it is, my error and apologies. And yes, as ML rightly pointed out "just" is the word the CCC uses.

AL you're assuming that economic issues are the only ones that might come into consideration. There are as CWest explains many other reasons, physical, mental, etc.

[quote](keeping in mind that using it to produce children implies periods of avoiding them as well)[/quote]Also, you seem to be suggesting that by having sex in the natural period of infertility in the cycle which cannot be avoided even if one is using NFP to conceive that the couple is "using NFP" to avoid pregnancy during this time. That doesn't make sense. If I am infertile and have sex then as well as when I am fertile I am not avoiding pregnancy, I am simply not capable of conceiving at that time. That is a natural state.

[quote]the reason I disagree with this position is this: the knowledge of NFP puts a couple in direct control of when they DO or DO NOT have children. therefore, the use of NFP directly gives the couple the capacity to avoid children. THEREFORE, even when they keep track of it in order to plan when they are having children, they are including periods of avoiding having children.[/quote]
I'm not sure I agree with your argument that having this knowledge puts a couple in DIRECT control. The couple is still co-operating with God. They are still open to the possibility of life even when they believe the woman is infertile.

Just some thoughts to ponder....

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Aloysius,
Where is the translation you have? The Vatican website uses the term "well-grounded reasons" in section 16:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/...e-vitae_en.html[/url]

[Aloysius]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm[/url]

I think there was some sort of re-translation at some point which would be what is on the Vatican site now.

I am not assuming it is just economics. I am saying that IDEALLY there would not be circumstances that required NFP, economic, psychological, or otherwise. And that IS the clear teaching of the Church. it is not providentialism to leave procreation in the proper domain of God. when we have children is not supposed to be under the control of our wills; we are only permitted to subject it to the control of our wills when unfortunate circumstances force us to need to do so. The ideal situation is to be strived for if at all possible. Humanae Vitae gives NFP as an exception when circumstances force your hand.

[quote]Also, you seem to be suggesting that by having sex in the natural period of infertility in the cycle which cannot be avoided even if one is using NFP to conceive that the couple is "using NFP" to avoid pregnancy during this time. That doesn't make sense. If I am infertile and have sex then as well as when I am fertile I am not avoiding pregnancy, I am simply not capable of conceiving at that time. That is a natural state.
[/quote]using NFP implies altering your sex schedule based on the cycles. not having sex when you know you are fertile means you are purposefully attempting not to have a child. Knowing your cycle is not the same as NaturalFamilyPlanning, because then you participate in the act of planning. of course, I wonder if one can really know when they are fertile and when they are not and not let it affect their schedule.

people who are using NFP with grave reasons are not doing anything less right than people who do not use NFP; they are simply subjected to unfortunate circumstances which do not allow them to simply excercise their marital functions without subjecting when it will happen to their choice. the ideal state is the state of total acceptance of the natural consequences of a sex cycle which does not fluxuate with plans about procreaiton one way or the other. again, this is not some providentialism wherein one does not plan for themselves trying to trust in God for everything: one plans by working towards this type of economic stability that would allow them to do so.

now, I personally don't think it is ever [i]obligatory[/i] to use NFP unless one is in extreme poverty without the ability to be helped by family and friends in raising their children.

with the standard of living in our country, nearly every middle class family has the economic capacity to excercise marriage without planning numbers of children. their physical conditions obviously vary; their psychological conditions also vary; but the word is psychological conditions; a totally fully healthy psychological position would permit total acceptence of Divine providence in the numbers and times of their procreation.

it's not providentialism. the ideal situation allows you to plan and work to acheive economic and psychological stability and health such that marriage can procede un-affected by attempted control of when and how children should be conceived.

[quote]if couples really trusted in providence, they would never seek to avoid a child.[/quote]
this is not my position. my position, which I think is absolutely inevitable from the objective principals taught by the Church, is that IF all conditions were IDEAL, then NFP would not be necessary. Therefore, working towards making all those conditions ideal is good, and if that is done then one should be able to engage in sexual activity on a basis that was not determined by when one could and could not conceive a child.

the technical reason why NFP is not morally wrong is that it technically does not directly impede the possibility of life. but practically, it does. that's its DOUBLE EFFECT. and of course, an act which produces a non-ideal double effect is not an ideal act even though it is not morally wrong; if it is at all possible to do an act which does not produce a non-ideal double effect then that is preferable.

[quote]A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test.[/quote]

this is true. the option I offer to acheive the ideal would be to, if you come to a deep understanding of these realities prior to marriage, post-pone marriage until you are stable enough to support how ever many children God will give you. this is not putting God to the test; you certainly should only engage in sexual activity with a real possibility of procreation when you are in the ideal situation by which you can provide for your children.

I accept the use of NFP and do not suggest people procreate irresponsibility with the idea that God will provide: I suggest working towards the ideal situation in which one is able to engage in sex without subjecting procreation to your will; and I propose that the teaching of the Church clearly implies that it would be ideal to be in such a situation by saying that NFP can only be used with serious/grave reasons.

whether or not the word "grave" is used, I still see the connotation that the reasons are not ideal because they necessitate a deviation from the previous norm of marriage which is only morally acceptable if these conditions are present. it clearly indicates that these things are not good, but that they exist and must be dealt with in this responsible way. serious reasons are still not ideal.

I can see the way NFP can plateau and cease to be used... I just never hear about it. I do continue to assert that this would be ideal to be able to stop using NFP one way or the other.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I just want to say that I've looked up the Latin, which simply translates: "just cause." Not sure how authoritative a certain translation is.