Pandora's Nfp

[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.

[Brother Adam]

What exactly is an "ideal state of marriage' suppose to be? I don't like it when it becomes all about money. You need relatively little money to raise children. Most people will laugh at me, but its the truth. You don't need luxury baby items or many of them. Handy downs work perfect. A babies food for a good amount of time comes from breastfeeding. Baby toys can be handed down as well. The WIC program works great in the US (its about the only program from the government that DOES work) and provides food for mom and children. Having been married about 4 years I think NFP is great - it should be used to help a couple get pregnant, to make sure there are no health issues, and to help a couple avoid pregnancy for 6 months after a baby is born (increased risk in miscarriages and damage to the moms body if a couple is pregnant before that).

My two cents.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1221098' date='Mar 28 2007, 08:56 AM']What exactly is an "ideal state of marriage' suppose to be? I don't like it when it becomes all about money. You need relatively little money to raise children. Most people will laugh at me, but its the truth. You don't need luxury baby items or many of them. Handy downs work perfect. A babies food for a good amount of time comes from breastfeeding. Baby toys can be handed down as well. The WIC program works great in the US (its about the only program from the government that DOES work) and provides food for mom and children. Having been married about 4 years I think NFP is great - it should be used to help a couple get pregnant, to make sure there are no health issues, and to help a couple avoid pregnancy for 6 months after a baby is born (increased risk in miscarriages and damage to the moms body if a couple is pregnant before that).

My two cents.[/quote]

OK, to all the youngsters out there who aren't even married and/or who have no children:

Raising children costs a lot of money, even when not going for luxury baby items, etc. Yes, we can all simplify and get by with less, and that's a good thing. But doctor's visits cost money. Braces cost money. Shoes, even if not Nike's, cost money. And those are just the bare necessities of life, unless you consider braces a "luxury." How about pre-school, to give one's children a good start? Believe me, children are expected to come in to kindergarten already knowing their ABC's, numbers, etc. And what about college? How are you going to pay for that?

Yes, we can all live some kind of minimalist existence where we have a bed to sleep in, food on the table and a roof over our heads, and that's a beaver dam sight better than a lot of people in this world have it. But in 21st century America, if you want your children to have a future, you've also got to think about a host of extracurricular activities such as sports, music lessons, etc. to help your children be well-rounded individuals who can excel in a complicated world, not to mention finding their God-given gifts.

So, I'm not sure what counts as "grave," but being a responsible parent who can provide for the reasonable necessities - not "luxury" items - of life seems pretty good.

[Archaeology cat]

First off, let me just say that I think it's wonderful you're thinking about all this at this point, Aloysius. I know I wasn't thinking about it that much until much closer to marriage.

I'd just like to point out the health side again (sorry if I'm harping on it, but it gets overlooked sometimes). For some things that are relatively asymptomatic, a change in the chart may be able to serve as an early diagnosis. At any rate, it can be used to discuss that with the doctor, and it's been my experience so far that doctors appreciate seeing the chart when you come in with a question or problem. Obviously, charting means you're also aware of your fertility. Charting also means increased communication and, I think, understanding between husband and wife.

And like Brother Adam said, 6 months really is the minimum time recommended in between pregnancies for the health of both mother and child. I think some even say to wait a minimum of 15 months to give your body time to build back up, but maybe that's more if you have a low body weight to begin with.

I'd also like to echo The Little Way, who said we use NFP to cooperate with God. Simply having sex at a certain time does not absolutely guarantee you will or won't conceive, just that chances are greater during that time.

So basically, I don't see a problem with using NFP to conceive, or to postpone conception due to certain circumstances.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Archaeology cat

[Aloysius]

Yeah, I looked up the latin and it seemed more of a direct translation to "serious". I still think the english word "grave" is perfectly accurate, thoguh.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1221141' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:34 AM']Yeah, I looked up the latin and it seemed more of a direct translation to "serious". I still think the english word "grave" is perfectly accurate, thoguh.[/quote]
No, the Latin is "causa iusta." Serious/grave are different from "just." It makes me wonder exactly what the Church meant.

[marielapin]

When I was doing a little research yesterday on this subject, I found that the word "grave" was only used when a couple needed to use NFP in order to not conceive AT ALL. Living in China or a place where having more than one or two children would mean you would be forced to have an abortion was listed as being MORALLY OBLIGATORY that you use NFP to not conceive. "Grave" reasons for using NFP to not have children were usually related to health of the mother, and extreme poverty.


One thing to keep in mind, is that the Church teaches that sex in marriage involves both love AND responsibility. We do not live in an ideal world. If we did there would not be such a thing as sickness, hunger, poverty, war or even sin. God has given us knowledge of our bodies not only to heal sickness, but also in order to understand ourselves. NFP used correctly allows us to responsibly cooperate with God's will, not to try and control God's will for us.

[Aloysius]

[quote]Si postea ad condiciones physicas, oeconomicas, psychologicas et sociales respicimus, ii paternitate conscia fungi dicendi sunt, qui aut, prudenti consideratione magnoque animo ducti, statuunt numerosiores suscipere liberos, aut, [b]seriis causis[/b] moralibusque praeceptis observatis, animum inducunt ut, vel ad certum vel ad incertum tempus, aliam filium non gignant.[/quote]
-Humanae Vitae

I searched humanae vitae for "causa iusta", it's not in there.

haha but I was obviously replying to the bottom of the first page without realizing the second page haha.

ken, Bro Adam is a parent

there is a period after one pregnancy in which to totally abstain from sex. why would one break from that period before being healthy enough to potentially conceive again? I don't see a good purpose to that... you should be busy enough with your newborn anyway.

serious reasons make it acceptable to use NFP, but serious reasons are not preferable. the ideal situation is one without serious reasons stopping you from having as many children as your natural process of marriage will produce. The ideal state of marriage is as is described in the paragraph of Humanae Vitae I quoted.

[quote]\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]

the total ideal is one in which your will does not attempt to excercise your will over when you do and do not have children. this is very clear from the Church's teaching of the primary purpose of marriage and sex, and the whole practice of marriage over the centuries of the Church. the more degree to which your conform your activity to the creative intention of God (and therefore the less degree you excercise your will over it) the more ideal your marriage is. of course, you can only do that when the situation economically, physically, and psychologically is okay for you to do it with this type of abandonment.

no matter how much I can agree about raising children to be potentially inexpensive in this way, I would say that one should not attempt this ideal unless they have a substantial economic stability. you don't have to be able to provide luxuries for the baby; but you shouldn't do it if it's going to spiral the whole family into economic struggle just to get by with two working parents in a small apartment. such situations necessitate NFP.

Again: if the Church says "ONLY use NFP if x conditions are present" and x conditions are economic, health, and psychological dangers and problems; then the direct conclusion is that: the ideal is for there to be none of these economic and health dangers, ergo the ideal would be to not have to use NFP. She permits NFP only when it is NECESSITATED; only when you're FORCED INTO IT by situations. I'm not trying to judge anyone's situations; I'll make the presumption that everyone who's using it is using it for serious reasons. But they should, if at all possible, try to make it so these situations are no longer a concern.

There is no precedent under Church teaching for the idea that it is ideal to use NFP. NFP is always spoken of in authoritative documents as only permissable in necessity.

Now, I assume the words "just cause" "iusta causa" are from the Catechism. Now, the source document of the Catechism provides the context by which this should be interpretted; it is clear to me that a "just cause" is a cause which is justified because it is keeping you from descending into the problems brought about by problems. It's a really neutral phrase; and from the source document of Humane Vitae it is clear to me that it's supposed to mean these problems, these serious reasons. Like: there can be a just cause for anger; but ideally that would not be present. the anger would be justified, but it'd be better if it didn't have to be justified. Christ was totally right in throwing over the moneychanger's tables, but it would have been better if the moneychangers had never set them up in the first place.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='marielapin' post='1221328' date='Mar 28 2007, 06:36 PM']When I was doing a little research yesterday on this subject, I found that the word "grave" was only used when a couple needed to use NFP in order to not conceive AT ALL. Living in China or a place where having more than one or two children would mean you would be forced to have an abortion was listed as being MORALLY OBLIGATORY that you use NFP to not conceive. "Grave" reasons for using NFP to not have children were usually related to health of the mother, and extreme poverty.
One thing to keep in mind, is that the Church teaches that sex in marriage involves both love AND responsibility. We do not live in an ideal world. If we did there would not be such a thing as sickness, hunger, poverty, war or even sin. God has given us knowledge of our bodies not only to heal sickness, but also in order to understand ourselves. NFP used correctly allows us to responsibly cooperate with God's will, not to try and control God's will for us.[/quote]
but we ought to strive for the ideal if at all possible.

the Church teaches that sex in marriage has the primary purpose of procreation with a purpose subserviant to that procreative purpose of intimacy. increasing intimacy has the primary purpose of deepening the bond of two potential parents.

responsibility would entail not having children if you cannot afford them economically or health-wise; but also striving to put yourself into a situation in which you would be able to afford them in these ways. if you cannot acheive that, ok. it's outside of your control. Christ couldn't stop the moneychangers from setting up (well, technically he coulda struck them dead, but speaking in merely human terms to make it relevant as an analogy) and thus he was moved by this just cause to anger. if you cannot overcome situations which make it impossible for you to responsibly live without NFP, then you must use NFP by a just cause.

[Aloysius]

Anyway, as to my original question... I'm beginning to see a nice context by which a situation could plateau and NFP could cease to be used. It would be a potentially difficult transition, but if one got into a position where they could cease to use NFP then they ought to do so. I still wonder if I should contract marriage while planning to use NFP, because I am an idealist and would rather wait to contract marriage when it is ideal; however, I can definitely see contracting marriage that would use NFP at the beginning while working towards an eventual plateau when NFP would no longer need to be used.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

What I found:

Section 16, the line in question:
"Si igitur [b]iustae[/b] adsint [b]causae[/b] generationes subsequentes intervallandi..."
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_lt.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/...e-vitae_lt.html[/url]

I don't know what that means but...