NFP for "Spacing"

[RhetorTheo]

I've read that NFP for the purposes of preventing conception is wrong, but NFP can be used for "spacing" children. What does this mean? If a couple wants two children with a 10 year spaces between each child it's okay, but you can't have two children and then just space until menopause? How do you "space" children without reducing the overall number of children? Does anybody actually use it to "space" or is it really just used to reduce the number of children because having 15 kids is too expensive?

 

[Servant of the Kingdom]

I work as a lawyer and this looks legalistic to me

 

[geocajun]

My wife and I use NFP to regulate birth. Ideally my wife says she wants 4 kids - I could go for more, but we both agree that having another one right now would not be a good idea - so respecting her body, we abstain during her fertile period.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Geo, is that "spacing" or reducing the number of births? I've heard some say it's wrong, selfish, whatever to use NFP to reduce the number of births, even if you need to because of financial constraints. (They say to give the kids up for adoption, or God will provide, etc.)

 

[Miss Shelby]

. What does this mean? If a couple wants two children with a 10 year spaces between each child it's okay, but you can't have two children and then just space until menopause?

I'm pretty sure this is not the philosphy behind NFP.

Michelle

 

[Ampmonster]

what's NFP stand for?

 

[Miss Shelby]

Natural Family Planning....and that's about all I know about it.

 

[Benedicta00]

It is what ever your motives and mentality is that makes you contracept, not the NFP.

If you only want and decided for yourself all you will have is one or two, and you use NFP, you still contracept. If you want to have them 10 years apart because you want to have more money in your pocket and you use NFP, then you contracept.

It is about not trusting in what God wants for you and trusting in what you want for yourself. If you have an illness, have to take care of children with special needs, if you sincerely are not in a financial situation where you can afford more or if you are at risk, these are some of the legitimate reason to space children or limit them but if it is just because, then you contracept.

 

[geocajun]

Geo, is that "spacing" or reducing the number of births? I've heard some say it's wrong, selfish, whatever to use NFP to reduce the number of births, even if you need to because of financial constraints. (They say to give the kids up for adoption, or God will provide, etc.)

Rhetor, I think you might be splitting hairs here.
NFP can be used as a contraception, and therefore, by intention be immoral, however, it can also be used with a proper intention for regulation of child birth. The folks who get to choose if NFP is right for them to use, is the couple, not anyone else btw - not even their priest can make this choice.

There are some folks out there who think NFP must be only used if the couple would starve to death if they had another child, however this is not the teaching of the Church.

One will find in FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO that "When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration"

A couple as you suggested, who was having children with the knowledge that they could not support them and with the intention of giving the child up for adoption while continuing to have sex has likely been misinformed of the teachings of the Church.

I hope that helps, if not please keep asking questions

 

[marciadietrich]

Hi - this subject has killed some of my brain cells. ... some info...

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.
...

The primary end of marriage
Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

Serious motives, grave reasons, in extreme cases suggests total rather than periodic abstinence (section not quoted called heroic continence), matrimony has the primary end procreation and raising children.
---
Humane vitae there is a word some say translated serious, but is more equivilent to "just" ... but still reiterates seriousness. And I'm not sure meant to be all encompasing for every reason, and this before NFP as it is today came along - which has a success rate in preventing pregnancy comparable to (or they claim better than) contraceptives.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

...

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

---
This next article done by someone who is on the edge of being outside the Church type traditionalist, but good points nonetheless and worth reading.
http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=7836
Called "substituting the exception for the rule" I think there is a lot of truth there. That what was meant to be an exception is being taught and pushed as the norm. That there is a shift away from the language that it needs to be grave or serious motives (and those terms are used against birth control, it is considered a "grave sin") but in terms of NFP the reasons given for use rarely seem grave/serious and not even "just" much of the time (we want to get to know each other, finish college, etc.).
---
Go down to the posts by Brian Kopp, think he makes sense in a middle ground position. He teaches NFP but believes it should be for grave reasons, and a bridge to becoming open to life (crossing from contraception) not a way of life. He also tells exactly what eariler posters were talking about, making fun of traditionalists who were offended by an NFP book citing how a family had their son chart his sister's cycle. holy cow
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/003953.php

NFP is NOT an end, it is NOT a way of life! It is to be the exception, under grave circumstances, to a Catholic family life of being open to LIFE! It is a bridge or ladder out of the contraceptive mentality and a tool to be used in grave circumstances which make complete openness to life imprudent.
This idea of instilling this NFP obsession even to our children, belies a misunderstanding of the proper role of NFP in marital life. It is to be an exception, not the rule. It is not to ever be a lifelong way of life!
The extreme trads who reject NFP out of hand are wrong. It is morally licit in certain grave circumstances.
Likewise, those who ardently promote NFP as a way of life, even forcing it upon their children in an impudent manner, and failing to emphasize first and foremost that NFP is only to be used for grave reasons, are also wrong.
Both sides here are guilty. Especially those who reject NFP completely and on the other side of the fence those who deny that NFP proponents are never guilty of extremism themselves in their zeal for the NFP way of life.

---

Alot of information there. Sorry if it is too much. Just this is something that has bothered me. In talking with someone I know, don't think I am the only person to feel NFP is being overadvertised and utilized in an improper way. But I don't happen to have to worry on this at the time, just I don't find it intellectually consistent to have it used so much but contraception being called evil. It makes it harder for me to understand the issues, because it seems inconsistent.

Got to run

Marcia

 

[RhetorTheo]

It is what ever your motives and mentality is that makes you contracept, not the NFP.

If you only want and decided for yourself all you will have is one or two, and you use NFP, you still contracept. If you want to have them 10 years apart because you want to have more money in your pocket and you use NFP, then you contracept.

It is about not trusting in what God wants for you and trusting in what you want for yourself. If you have an illness, have to take care of children with special needs, if you sincerely are not in a financial situation where you can afford more or if you are at risk, these are some of the legitimate reason to space children or limit them but if it is just because, then you contracept.

Is it all semantics then? If it's done for what you believe is a good reason, it is "spacing" but if it's done for what you believe is a bad reason it is "contracepting"? If you have money and want fewer children, you are "not trusting in God to give what you want," but if you don't have money then trusting in God is not an issue? (If anything, I would think it's the opposite - those who cannot afford more children and use NFP are failing to trust in God, while those who are wealthy and using NFP to avoid children know that God will provide enough money and enough children but reject the children nonetheless.)

If a couple is in financially dire straits, and cannot afford ten children, can they use NFP or should they just abstain?

 

[RhetorTheo]

Marcia, thanks for showing me the origin of the "spacing" term. That seems very ambiguous, and appears to allow a couple to avoid pregnancy for financial reasons.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Marcia, thanks for showing me the origin of the "spacing" term. That seems very ambiguous, and appears to allow a couple to avoid pregnancy for financial reasons.

The very best thing to do is to read Humanae Vitae... financial reason is a very gray area..... it really means that right now a couple doesn't have enough money to provide for basic needs of their family. This does not mean that the couple won't be able to afford the Ivy Leagues if they have more than two children....I seriously question the money issue for many, as we make less than $25,000/ year and have three children right now and might be expecting a fourth. We all have clothes and shoes, and eat healthy food, my children are very well educated, and even participate in some 'extras' like gymnastics and we belong to the Y, where we go swimming. I really think we a greatly blessed, but we also don't have a lot of things other people see as necessary- like DSL, or cell phones, or SUV's,( we also happen to not need them, for work, like some others do!) or vacations that don't involve staying with familiy or friends....

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

MArcia - your post was great!! RT-- 'grave reason' is vague on purpose-- as a list for one family may not be the same for another family. It is grave reason if a mother is physically or emotionally exhausted-- but the deal is that with ALL grave reason- a couple must strive to overcome it-- some issues can never be overcome, such as health issues, but a couple must strive to overcome grave reason.

 

[Caedmon]

.

 

[geocajun]

I happen to believe that Humane Vitae was prophetic, but folks often misapply its 'grave reasons'.
You will not find that reitereated anywhere in a magesterial teaching in the last 20 years, instead you will find what is written in Familiarus Consortio which I linked above.
In my study, I found that folks to way off the deep end to almost say that Catholics do not permit regulation of birth except in extreme circumstances with is far from accurate information.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

I happen to believe that Humane Vitae was prophetic, but folks often misapply its 'grave reasons'.
You will not find that reitereated anywhere in a magesterial teaching in the last 20 years, instead you will find what is written in Familiarus Consortio which I linked above.
In my study, I found that folks to way off the deep end to almost say that Catholics do not permit regulation of birth except in extreme circumstances with is far from accurate information.

Hey geo-- was that directed at me?? Do you feel I am misrepresenting the Church'c teaching??

 

[Benedicta00]

Is it all semantics then? If it's done for what you believe is a good reason, it is "spacing" but if it's done for what you believe is a bad reason it is "contracepting"? If you have money and want fewer children, you are "not trusting in God to give what you want," but if you don't have money then trusting in God is not an issue? (If anything, I would think it's the opposite - those who cannot afford more children and use NFP are failing to trust in God, while those who are wealthy and using NFP to avoid children know that God will provide enough money and enough children but reject the children nonetheless.)

If a couple is in financially dire straits, and cannot afford ten children, can they use NFP or should they just abstain?

No, it is not There is an objective reason and difference in not being able to have children and just not wanting them whether it be for the time being or for ever.

It is a discernment every month of your life, not a 5 year 10 year or how ever long you impose on yourself. That is NOT being open to life, but trusting in God’s will for you as a couple and discerning the issue is being open to life and it is not contraception.

When you have made up your mind that you are just not going to have kids right now or in 5 years or for how ever long, you are using NFP for contraception. I used what I did as an example only, not as a guideline.

I have 5 kids, 1 who is autistic, I am having another one, I could be one of those who have a legitimate reason not to have more but that does not mean I make up my mind not to without daily discernment. We can not ever get to the point where we make up our minds that we can’t or never will be able to have children, that is not being open to life.

I don’t think this is something that is easily comprehendible. It is all about your mentality, not being open to life vrs. being open to life. The situation and circumstance are really a secondary issue. They have couples who will just use what ever they want as an excuse to not have kids, they are not open, they have those who do not use their situation as an excuse but use judgment and prudence. Only the individual really know what their motives and mentality are and it is between them and God. It is truly a matter of the heart.

 

[Debi1967]

I would like to point out here my opinion on something that was said.
Yes it is said that God will provide when it is needed, but He also does for those that do for themselves. So although NPF can be used as a form of birth control which by our teachings is WRONG, to use in the fashion of spacing children so that they will be properly provided for by what we know we can handle, I do not believe is wrong.

To say well I just don't want children right now, once you are married, is wrong. Because part of marriage is reproduction, but to say that you believe that you can properly attend to and provide for this many children and to then plan accordingly for that I do not believe is wrong. I think that at times we abuse our responsibility when we say well God will provide.....Just my humble opinion of course. We are active participants in what we do not only in Faith but in how we act in our Faith and how we present ourselves in all aspects of our lives.

In Christ
Debi

 

[Benedicta00]

What it is about is what is in your heart. I don't understand why some think you must live in one extreme or the other. It is not about having a bunch of kids; it is about not taking God out of the plan, that is all.

If you need to space, then space. If you don't want to space then don't but please do not think that God wants you to be careless and irresponsible by thinking you can have one after the other with no job, no money and poor heath. A little common sense will go a long way. The huge difference is in when you can not legitimately have children, how you go about not having them.