Yesterday I typed out an excerpt from the book This Is The Faith by Canon Francis Ripley on NFP.
Any practicing Catholic knows the NFP debate is nothing new. The "contraceptive mentality" vs."reponsibility" argument. Neither side really spoke logically to me, and that may simply be because everyone's set of circumstances are slightly different.
Perhaps that is why Humanae Vitae says "grave" and leaves it at that.
I read the following passage a few years ago when I first acquired the book, and I found these few words to be very helpful to me. I liked it because it did not have all the pro-NFP propaganda (which I find annoying, unrealistic and really quite contraceptve in mentality). At the same time, it took into consideration that there are circumstances where NFP might be a valid choice while still sounding pro-family and quite Catholic.
Since I typed it out recently, I thought I would share it.
A word also needs to be mentioned about Natural Family Planning or periodic continence. Each method of limiting the birth of children relies on the use of the reproductive faculty only during the women’s infertile periods, thus avoiding pregnancy. The use of the term “Natural Family Planning” has come under sharp attack from traditional Catholic writers in recent years because it implies the right of the couple to “plan” their family; whereas the Catholic norm is to let God plan one’s family and to accept the children when (and if) God gives them-as a blessing from Him on the marital union and on society. Except for the use of NFP for fertility reasons, i.e., to aid in a legitimate way to conceive a child (as opposed to in vitro fertilization), the planning aspect would appear to reflect acceptance of the neo-pagan practice of “family planning”-albeit using “natural” as opposed to artificial means. Proponents of NFP, it would seem, are confusing a legitimate means during an emergency situation or for a “serious reason” with an illegitimate end in the case of no family emergency or “no serious reason, “ and presume then to conclude that NFP is morally acceptable as a way of life. The end or purpose of NFP-that is, “planning” one’s family-is not acceptable in principle, being against Natural Law and the teachings of the Church. A couple does not have the right to “plan their family,” even though the means used are those of NFP and do not violate the Church’s proscriptions against artificial birth control. As Cardinal Ottaviani, former head of the Holy Office (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), declared before the assembled bishops at Vatican Council II, “I am not pleased with the statement in the [draft] text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the history of the Church.” This is the 2,000-year tradition of the Church, supported by Sacred Scripture (cf. Genesis 38:1-10, et al) and reiterated by the Popes in the Ordinary Teaching of the Magesterium of the Church (e.g. Casti Connubii-“On Marriage,” Pius XI, 1930; Address to Midwives, Pius XII, 1951; Humanae Vitae-“On Human Life,” Paul VI, 1968, No.10). Also, it should be noted the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., 1997) does not the term “Natural Family Planning.” Rather, it uses the term “periodic continence” (CCC, No. 2370), that is, the practice of continence, or abstinence from sexual union, during the women’s fertile cycle each month.(p. 356-359, Tan)On the other hand, periodic continence, i.e., refraining from use of the marital act during the woman’s fertile time each month, as a “safety net” for serious reason (cf. Humanae Vitae, No. 10), is completely legitimate, but only under certain very specific conditions. And they are the following:
1. That there be a serious reason to practice periodic continence.
2. That it be with the mutual consent of the marriage partners.
3. That this continence not be near the occasion of mortal sin for either party.
4. That the periodic continence last only as long as the serious reason lasts.
5. It is recommended that the situation be reviewed by one’s confessor to insure that all the requisite conditions are present.In his 1951 Address to the Italian Catholic of Midwives Pope Pius XII said the following: “From the obligation of making this positive contribution [the generation and rearing of children], it is possible to be exempt, for a long time and even for the whole duration of married life, if there are serious, such as those often provided in the so-called ‘indications’ of the medical, eugenical, economic, and social order. It therefore follows that the observance of the infertile period may be licit from the moral point of view; and under the conditions mentioned, it is so in fact.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the Church is not asking married couples to do the impossible.
It should be stated here, however, that couples should practice complete abstinence from marital relations, for good reason, with the mutual consent of both partners and so long as there is no danger of sin to either. This can be for the lifetime of the marriage partners in which case is called a Josephite Marriage, called such after St. Joseph, who lived in celibate marriage with the Blessed Virgin Mary; or it could be for a time only.
Lest there be any misunderstanding about the meaning of Pope Pius XII’s use of the terms “medical, eugenical, economic, and social order, “ some further explanation follows:
“Medical” refers to the physical (or even psychological) health of one or both of the marriage partners, usually the woman. If there is a serious risk, for example, to her life or health, this could constitute a “medical” reason. A woman who has had a number of children, for example, and is approaching the end of her childbearing years may develop serious physical complications that would pose serious risk to her to her unborn child in a new pregnancy. This could constitute a serious medical sphere.
“Eugenic” refers to couple’s not being genetically able to produce offspring. Perhaps the couple’s children are all being born with Down’s Syndrome or are deficient in some other serious way.
“Economic” refers to true financial hardship brought about despite the couple’s best efforts to support their family, all the while not wasting their means on luxuries and non-essentials. Perhaps their country is very poor; perhaps good economic opportunity just does not exist for them. When severe financial hardship exists, there can be sufficient reason to practice periodic continence. But the economic “serious reason” would be the easiest to misinterpret or abuse when deciding in favor of periodic continence-this because of poor stewardship by the parents, or an improper set of values that puts materialism before one’s primary responsibility in marriage. The key to a right decision is honesty-with God, with oneself, with one’s spouse and with one’s confessor.
“Social Order” refers to unusual interruptions in the social sphere that disrupt one’s normal life-due, for example, to a catastrophic flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, hurricane, tornado, war, fire, etc.-and which impinge immediately upon the family’s ability to function well.
In all these cases, a couple may resort to periodic continence, yet they are not obliged to do so. Traditionally the Church has never criticized married couples for simply accepting the children God sends. Overall, it should be noted, as a classic Catholic marriage manual states: “The control of births, therefore, should always be the exceptional situation in marriage, never the normal.” Further, “The modern Catholic couple must be reminded that parenthood is the business of marriage. This is their vocation. The Catholic husband and wife should do this work with wisdom and prudence, and, where there is good cause, may consider family limitation. But family limitation does not have to be considered. Most of you will find that the best evidence of a lifetime of worthwhile work will be your children. You should want children; and parenthood, God willing, should be more than an incidental experience in your married lives. If you have a truly Catholic conscience and a love of children, you will find that alleged obstacles can be overcome. Far from losing happiness, you will gain long-range satisfaction.”
Are you sharing this to be debated? Because the can of worms, it is opened! I disagree with the general gist here (!), but I won't go into it or else I might combust.
Oh oh but I can't help myself. Just this final sentence: "Far from losing happiness, you will gain long-range satisfaction.� - is infuriatingly illogical. So if it's all for the will and glory of God what is the importance of long-range satisfaction? Isn't long-range satisfaction what the evil materialistic people seek when they limit the number of their offspring? So how are we different, huh?
I will shut up now.
Are you sharing this to be debated?
No. For the past month or so I have been debating ad nauseum at another blog (about abortion), and I didn't realise how upsetting it was to me. I pulled the plug and decided to crawl back to things that comforted me, and this is one of them.
I really found the information here helpful, and not at all infuriating to me.I did not mean to put it here to lecture or judge the right way to use NFP (I am assuming that is what bothered you?). I found it enlightening for the reasons I stated. On one hand I am always reading a very pro-NFP perspective that I never find appealing i.e. "NFP strengthens marriages; Catholics don't have to have large families". Not saying that is not true for some people, but I find it to be a generalisation.
On the flip side is "NFP is totally evil" and in fact I think there are circumstances where like I said, child spacing is necessary.
It just always seems to me one side or the other. To me, this excerpt said in a nutshell (much more eloquently than I could word): NFP is licit in warranted circumstances. It should be used within a Catholic context meaning the decision to not to have children should be seriously contemplated; and no one has to use NFP (which for me I suppose is the biggie).
I also found the last line particularly refreshing not antagonizing. Especially in conjunction with the line before it about overcoming obstacles. To me it spoke about the last three that were my "NFP children" (which might be another reason for my perception of NFP as it has yet to work well for me and be not much more than huge source of frustration rather than a respite), who once they arrived, I could not see my life without them. Had I listened to my MIL, FIL, Grandmother, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker (OK, I lied, I don't go to a candlestick maker) and every other person who sees fit to stop us on the street and tell my husband to get snipped or use something more permanent, they would not be here.
I just got that many people contracept with the fear that kids will ruin their lives, but it may turn out that children bring great joy. I honestly did not see anything hypocritical in that statement.
I often feel like enjoying my children is some sort of selfish, guilty pleasure.
I suppose in the end, I guess you see this passage as a judgement and condemnation at how other people might be misuing or abusing NFP (I think?), and to me it was a comfort that 6 kids (and maybe more someday) is OK in the eyes of God. Personally, I know that God intended for them to be here, but it is just nice to hear once in awhile because I certainly hear the opposite a lot.
I am sorry if you were insulted, I honestly did not forsee that (actually I thought people who would take issue with this passage would be more of the total providentialist opinion-and even then I was hoping not to piss anyone from that side off, but maybe people would see what I saw).
Dinka, I read that to mean the satisfaction will come from doing God's will. The long term satisfaction I mean. It isn't a seperate result/goal itself. Isn't that true? I mean there are tons of times I do hard stuff bc I know it is God's will and maybe even to this day my will has yet to conform to that completely, but I do have a contented sense of long term satisfaction because I know that me doing that thing was God's will.
I think we have to remember that much material that is "pro- NFP" is wriiten that way for those who ARE listening to every opinon around them. It makes NFP out to be like everything else, which sells married love short, but I also think the hope and intention of those people, is to get the intention of those who may not have considered NFP as a first choice, and thru time, they will come to understand/appreciate the gift of Children. I'm not sure I'm making sense. I teach NFP, and I do feel there is a definate slant to teach couples how to NOT have kids, which is totally wrong and misguided, but often attitudes change and so do hearts, often the couple who "was done", is thinking about the next child.
Dani, I know where you're coming from. It's sad to need confirmation in the attitude that 6 kids are "ok" with God (how on earth would they not be!?)or that children are a joy no matter how they came about or that one does not have to use NFP (DUH!). To me those are such givens, especially from what the church is saying that I don't see how there needs to be another theological text on it, but ok.
What is annoying in this passage is the spelling out of "serious reasons" which are basically severe medical indications, earthquakes, severe financial hardship (poor country?) and what,ah, volcano eruptions. All of these are fine, but there might be a great variety of other personal reasons that do not fit any of these descriptions in their severity but still consitute good reasons to put off children for a while and i hear some judgement in this text that if it is not as severe the reasons certainly are selfish. After you define serious reasons as natural or medical catastrophies "alleged obstacles" sound like.. well, basically everything bar a rock falling on your head. I agree with the philosophy of not taking control of one's life in order to mess with God's plan but NFP is not that and trying to space children according to one's capabilities is being honest with oneself and with God and also considerate towards the children one already has. It is self-understood that within that attitude ANY child that comes along, whether it was a surprise or not, is welcome and a blessing and will of course be cared for.
But anyway. More than anything I'm sorry you are surrounded by people who make you feel dumb or guilty for having many children. That is complete cruel b.s. At the same time it doesn't mean that trying to plan one's family size is selfish. To me so-called "surprises" are part of living NFP.
Polly,
I do understand that NFP is shoveling sand against the tide of our contraceptive culture. And better to get couples to use NFP rather than the pill.
But, it is like a similar frustration I have with parish life around here. When I was on a parish council, every conversation was about thinking of new and clever ways to try to get non-Catholics, or non-practicing Catholics to Church. This certainly has it's place, but they never addressed the needs of the people who were sitting in the pews every Sunday. Not that there was something more special about me because I was more Catholic or something, but I had different needs and a different perspective. I didn't need "welcome to our parish" flyers and a cup of juice.
Anyway, it is almost the same with NFP. We started NFP after #3, after our first intention was nothing because we didn't see that need, or have access to the information. When we learned NFP, I sort of feel like I opened Pandora's Box on so many different levels. Just to keep on topic of this entry, one of those "levels" was that question of "what the heck does grave circumstances mean?" I felt like that boy with the tootsie pop. Anyway, that explanation made me feel most comfortable.
Dinka,
Yes, I agree that the descriptions are kind of, um,extreme. I mean I doubt anyone in the middle of Hurricane Katrina wanted to do it let alone chart.
Again, that was not the part that spoke to me as much as the whole idea that NFP is really not meant to be "Catholic contraception" so-to-speak. I am sitting here staring at the screen trying to figure out why I find that concept so comforting.
I think one of the things I like about being Catholic is the teaching on contraception makes sense to me. But then when I read things like "Catholics don't have to have large families because there is NFP", it's like mixed signals or something. And honestly, it's not that I care how other Catholics decide to have 1 or 16.I'm too busy to stay up for TV shows after 9 PM, let alone worry about other people's family size. It's that I see a trap door for judgement.
Besides the NFP part, I like the part about having this pile of little boys rolling on the floor not just a pile of noisy little boys, but God's work. I really like my children and as much as I complain about the drudgery of housework, I am doing what I always wanted to be doing. I like that my faith got my back on that one.
Pansy:
What I am hearing most loudly here is your refusal to utilize a candlestick maker. This is a legitimate trade and should not be reduced to the afterthought of nursery rhymes.
Sincerely,
People for the Advocacy of Candlestick-Making
PS Who needs candlestick-makers anymore? I mean what an archaic profession!
Sincerely,
People for the non-advocacy of Candlestick-Making
Good stuff--thanks for the excerpt!
I personally object to the fact that NFP done in accordance with the Church must be practiced "with the mutual consent of the marriage partners." Therefore, my (non-Catholic) husband, who really wants more biological children, technically has the "right" to require me to produce them, although I do not want more unless we adopt them.
And then again, my non-practicing catholic husband can go and get himself a vasectomy whether I like it or not, and then expect that not to affect our relationship? I think there definitely should be some agreement... forcing someone to have more kids is no better than forcing someone to not have any more. That is why communication is supposed to exist between husband and wife. In an ideal world.
Do you have difficult pregnancies L?
"Difficult" is relative. I have no major, life-threatening health problems, nor did I develop any when I was pregnant. But I wanted to sleep all the time, got migraines, and felt as if I had a hangover for nine months. And I`ve had 3 c-sections -- I had uncomplicated recoveries, but it can`t be good for my body to keep getting cut open, and one doctor said my uterus is getting thin.
A hundred years ago, I probably would have qualified for the "serious risk to life and health" exception. However, in this day and age, I am statistically likely to get through another c-section just fine.
I am open to adoption, and growing our family that way. But adoption is not very common in Japan, and my Japanese husband is uncomfortable with that idea.
But I wanted to sleep all the time, got migraines, and felt as if I had a hangover for nine months.
I have the samething. Plus nausea. Nothing health threatening, but debilitating. Life pretty much stops while I am pregnant. Or at least slows down.
I was wondering though because even with that because I find pregnancy (or anything in the world) easier than taking care of toddlers.
Perhaps that is why Humanae Vitae says "grave" and leaves it at that.
I recall hearing once that Dr. Janet Smith argues that the term "grave reasons" as it is used in HV is better translated along the lines of "non-trivial reasons".
Anyone else ever hear this?
I wouldn't know, as I never studied Latin. (The Christian Brothers high school I attended dumped it a few years before I got there. I know it's not good to hold grudges, but...)
Hmmm. I never minded taking care of my toddlers -- and two out of three of mine were VERY high-maintenance (loud, active, demanding BOYS, who ran circles around me). And I didn`t like breastfeeding much, but I did it for all three.
I just feel that each pregnancy/birth aged me 10 years. Maybe it was the c-sections -- I figured I probably had an easier time than some of my friends who had difficult vaginal births, but it just seemed that my body took a few months to recover. I don`t know -- after all, I have nothing to compare them to, so I can`t really say.
Anyway, even with all the sleep deprivation and toddler-chasing, I enjoyed those years overall. Sure, there were lots of times that absolutely sucked, and I don`t miss all the diapes. But I`m open to the idea of another baby -- I just don`t want to grow any more inside me, and then get my stomach cut open again.
It also bothers me that there are so many children in the world with no one to love them. I would adopt in a second, if my husband ever agreed.
The English translation up at the Vatican website translates it as "serious reasons" in section 10 and "well-grounded" in section 16.
I wonder if not wanting to get my stomach cut open again would be considered "serious" enough? I mean, serious in the eyes of the Church -- for me, it`s serious enough to have led me to make the personal decision to use contraception instead of NFP alone.
I wonder if not wanting to get my stomach cut open again would be considered "serious" enough?
In the end, I am not your confessor or conscience, so in way I cannot say (anymore than I can tell you "don't wean that kid at 12 months-wait until 18 months" or other personal, moral decisions). But if it were me, I'd say "um, yeah".
I have similar pregnancies like the one you described. I do not have C-sections, just normal deliveries, but the recovery period is a bit much more everytime. I get bouts of mastitis, low iron, and PPD. If God did not naturally give me sort of long spaces between them, I am not sure how I'd cope.
I have a friend who has 5 children and what she describes as "paper-thin uterus". She has a pelvic deformity that requires C-secions everytime. So they use NFP to avoid.
I don't think "grave","non-trivial", "well-grounded" or "serious" means "always deadly" reasons. I think the norm in our culture is to contracept until something comes up that makes everything just perfect to have a child, and I *think* this is asking Catholic couples to look at it form the opposite end-be open to having a child unless something comes up that makes that difficult.
I struggle so much with this, too. I've got the three sections, the deformed pelvis, and now get health-threatening illness when pregnant. We use effective NFP. I'm holding my newborn daughter right now, feeling like she is my last due to health, but still wondering if I'm being ungenerous with God.
I wonder if I need to confess to a case of scruples? (rolling own eyes at silly me.)
I guess this isn't supposed to be easy -- but I sure wish it was a bit easier!
Congrats Cin. I was wondering if you had the baby.
"I wonder if not wanting to get my stomach cut open again would be considered "serious" enough? I mean, serious in the eyes of the Church"
The thing about all this is personal conscience and its formation. It comes down to what what *your* well-formed conscience after much prayer says to you. The Church gives us guidance to form our conscience, but it can not set forth the infinite instances in which we must make decisions in daily life. The problem with trusting our conscience occurs when it is not well-formed. we have a duty to form it to the best of our ability through the tools of the Church and much prayer.
So the Church can't really say if you not wanting to get your stomach cut open again is "serious" enough. only you and God can. everyone else is speculating.
I can give you stories of people where one pregnancy was too much on her health and another where 10 c-sections later (with #9 being performed with NO anesthia due to a medical error resulting in a lawsuit) the woman in question wishes she could have more (she is menopausal). but none of their stories help you, they make no difference. What matters is you and your life and your conscience. What I am trying to say is we can all find one anecdote or another (or 50) to support our opinion or "guide" us, but we are supposed to be guided by our conscience.
Thanks, Pansy! Naomi Elizabeth Pearl, 8 lbs, 8 oz -- and she actually sleeps!!! (unlike my baby men.) Baptism date TBA.