NFP for "Spacing"

[marciadietrich]

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.

That is part of my point, it looks like the teaching has mutated over the last 40 or so years (since Humane Vitae). Almost to the point of the new being in opposition to the old teaching. Is there anywhere in the prior 1980 or so years to indicate that abstinence can be used to space births? (Not to dedicate themselves to prayer, but to "space births" and "plan families")

If the reasons allowing periodic abstinence have gone from "grave" or serious to "just" (and many leaning from that towards frivolous) and from needing to be nearly "extreme" circumstances to being taught as an essential for those getting married ... then why can't the teaching on birth control go from grave/evil towards something that is perhaps still wrong but less - even venially- sinful?

Is there that much wiggle room in the teachings? Isn't all of this - periodic abstinence included - under the teaching authority of the magisterium? Though perhaps not infallibly declared (or is it?) shouldn't we see a constant teaching from the time of the apostles to now? Can the focus shift that far? Similiar to the shift from a close to absolute "no salvation outside of the Church" focus to the very common nearly universalist take? The truth is somewhere inbetween I suppose, but seeing such a huge change in the focus, it makes me think there is a problem.

I hate sounding like a traditionalist, because I'm not traditionalist. Just how does someone determine exactly what is the constant teaching of the Church versus what might be an improper too-liberal (or conservative) focus that will change later on?

Marcia

 

[geocajun]

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

Shannon, I did not direct that to anyone - I was just making a general statement which I feel inclined to make when anyone mentions humanae vitae, and emphasises 'grave' in the same post

I think it can be safely said that grave, just and serious as taught in humanae vitae was a redundant statement, and that it has been clarified as 'serious and just reason' with the confusing statement of 'grave' dropped.

 

[geocajun]

That is part of my point, it looks like the teaching has mutated over the last 40 or so years (since Humane Vitae). Almost to the point of the new being in opposition to the old teaching. Is there anywhere in the prior 1980 or so years to indicate that abstinence can be used to space births? (Not to dedicate themselves to prayer, but to "space births" and "plan families")

I think the proper way to view it is that it has been further defined - which happens with doctrine all the time.

If the reasons allowing periodic abstinence have gone from "grave" or serious to "just" (and many leaning from that towards frivolous) and from needing to be nearly "extreme" circumstances to being taught as an essential for those getting married ... then why can't the teaching on birth control go from grave/evil towards something that is perhaps still wrong but less - even venially- sinful?

Artifical Contraception being immoral has been the constant teaching of the Church - for reasons of denying nessecary aspects of sex.
Methods for evaluating proper intention when regulating births naturally and thereby preserving and respecting the aspects of sex have not been constant teaching - in fact the rythm method was first discovered in 1930 at the same time the [anglican] lambeth council determined artifical birth control would be OK in some cases.

That said, the difference between natural and unnatural birth control is blurred when one uses the natural method with the intention of making the procreative aspect impossible. If this is done, it is immoral.

If one is not open to the possibility of procreating they should not have sex.

I hate sounding like a traditionalist, because I'm not traditionalist.

sure you are traditionalist - your Catholic

Just how does someone determine exactly what is the constant teaching of the Church versus what might be an improper too-liberal (or conservative) focus that will change later on?

It is not always easy to discern, but for smart folks like you, I suggest you study the CCC - "a sure norm for teaching the faith" - Pope John Paul II

 

[marciadietrich]

Hi geodude,

Thanks for the reply. I didn't know that the rythm method came about that late. So basically some of this is new because it is dealing with new discoveries, like cloning or artificial insemination being seen in light of the existing beliefs.

All that thinking has made me tired. Think I am going to call it a night.

God bless

Marcia

 

[Caedmon]

That is part of my point, it looks like the teaching has mutated over the last 40 or so years (since Humane Vitae). Almost to the point of the new being in opposition to the old teaching. Is there anywhere in the prior 1980 or so years to indicate that abstinence can be used to space births? (Not to dedicate themselves to prayer, but to "space births" and "plan families")

If the reasons allowing periodic abstinence have gone from "grave" or serious to "just" (and many leaning from that towards frivolous) and from needing to be nearly "extreme" circumstances to being taught as an essential for those getting married ... then why can't the teaching on birth control go from grave/evil towards something that is perhaps still wrong but less - even venially- sinful?

Is there that much wiggle room in the teachings? Isn't all of this - periodic abstinence included - under the teaching authority of the magisterium? Though perhaps not infallibly declared (or is it?) shouldn't we see a constant teaching from the time of the apostles to now? Can the focus shift that far? Similiar to the shift from a close to absolute "no salvation outside of the Church" focus to the very common nearly universalist take? The truth is somewhere inbetween I suppose, but seeing such a huge change in the focus, it makes me think there is a problem.

I hate sounding like a traditionalist, because I'm not traditionalist. Just how does someone determine exactly what is the constant teaching of the Church versus what might be an improper too-liberal (or conservative) focus that will change later on?

Marcia

Marcia, I'm only a new Catholic, so I know that my opinion counts next to nothing in this forum, but I wanted to tell you that I agree with you. I feel as though NFP has taken too much liberty with the "serious reasons" clause of Humanae Vitae. But then again, I'm not a real Catholic, so what do I know...

 

[Debi1967]

Marcia, I'm only a new Catholic, so I know that my opinion counts next to nothing in this forum, but I wanted to tell you that I agree with you. I feel as though NFP has taken too much liberty with the "serious reasons" clause of Humanae Vitae. But then again, I'm not a real Catholic, so what do I know...

I would say that everyone is going to read into it what their heart tells them is right and what they feel the Holy Spirit has moved them to feel about it...
It is not a cut and dry issue and there is room for both sides of this...
Are Doctrines at times redefined as to what the specifics to them are when certain issues become apparent that they are now a reality that needs to be further defined under it? Yes they are and that is why we have the CCC and the Canon and the Church to help us in these matters so that it is not all personal interpretation.....I do believe if it is at the point that we are going to discuss it and start arguing over it then it would be better to discuss the matter with our own respective Priests to obtain further instruction on the matter...
Caedmon, I seriously hope that you understand that you and your opinions around here do count and that just because you are new to the Faith does not mean that you do not have anything to contribute. Sometimes as the Bible says the Wisdom we seek will come out of the mouths of Babes ....The Lord uses us all as Vehicles not just those that have vast amounts of knowledge....

In Christ
Debi

 

[Rosa Mystica]

I'm not a real Catholic, so what do I know...

Caedmon, you are a real Catholic! Just out of curiousity, why don't you use the Catholic icon?

 

[geocajun]

Hi geodude,

Thanks for the reply. I didn't know that the rythm method came about that late.

Whats I really thought was interesting, is that in 1930 when the pill was first given an exception by the anglican church, the rythm cycle was discovered at the same time, and both methods had the exact same effectivness.
Now, 70 yrs later, NFP has the exact same effectivness that the pill has - and they have always been neck and neck.

 

[Ampmonster]

i dont really understand all this talk. my basic question is; if a married couple wants to "knock the boots" but not concieve, what can they do?

oh is nfp just like timing ovulation or something?

 

[Papist]

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.

I'm glad you've said that. I am earning the maximum I can with my qualifications and we have no luxuries at all, and we barely scrape by. Another child would finish us off. Another child would mean that to survive financially, my wife would have to work outside the home. We have cut all expenditure to the minimum and still often have to go into overdraft to pay for the essentials because the cost of living is so high and the economy is geared to two incomes.

We live in a society where simply to live requires debt -- to educate yourself you end up with a huge student loan and here, home loans are essential as the rental market is virtually non-existent.

I have totted up essentials, including food, utilities and mortage, and tax payments, car taxes, propery taxes, levies for this, that and the other, and a family of four such as us needs to gross NZ$60,000 to live on, giving NZ$43,000 after tax ($27k USD), unless you are both jobless and can get benefits. I struggle to earn that amount. It would be easy if we were both earning but that would be to the detriment of our children. We fear conceiving another child, frankly.

 

[geocajun]

i dont really understand all this talk. my basic question is; if a married couple wants to "knock the boots" but not concieve, what can they do?

if they have prayerfully considered their reasons for avoiding conception, and determined they should avoid pregancy, then they should abstain from sex during the fertile periods.

oh is nfp just like timing ovulation or something?

Modern NFP is more accurate that timing or rythm cycles of yesterday.
My wife and I are learning the Sympto-Thermal method which is very scientific, and Shannon is an expert in the Billings method which is also a great method - and there are other methods such as the Creighton method with Mother Theresa taught in her missions - that method essentially involves only checking the cervix each day to determine fertility.

 

[Ampmonster]

gotcha. i see this is the important part
"if they have prayerfully considered their reasons for avoiding conception, and determined they should avoid pregancy, "

 

[Benedicta00]

I'm glad you've said that. I am earning the maximum I can with my qualifications and we have no luxuries at all, and we barely scrape by. Another child would finish us off. Another child would mean that to survive financially, my wife would have to work outside the home. We have cut all expenditure to the minimum and still often have to go into overdraft to pay for the essentials because the cost of living is so high and the economy is geared to two incomes.

We live in a society where simply to live requires debt -- to educate yourself you end up with a huge student loan and here, home loans are essential as the rental market is virtually non-existent.

I have totted up essentials, including food, utilities and mortage, and tax payments, car taxes, propery taxes, levies for this, that and the other, and a family of four such as us needs to gross NZ$60,000 to live on, giving NZ$43,000 after tax ($27k USD), unless you are both jobless and can get benefits. I struggle to earn that amount. It would be easy if we were both earning but that would be to the detriment of our children. We fear conceiving another child, frankly.

Wow, you make me value where I live. Things aren’t nearly that bad around my parts and now from what I recently learned there really is no excuse to believe you can’t afford the medical cost of giving birth or the first year of feeding the child. I don’t know what is happening in other states but the Medicaid program as extended so drastically here that even if you area two income family that owns property, cars, has money on hand, and even medical insurance, the state will pay for what the insurance doesn’t. The qualifying income level is upper middle class. I was really shocked at this because this is all new and it supposedly is because women even if they can afford it are neglecting proper medical care for themselves and the baby. It is a sad society we live in when there is no excuse and you still care so little about having a healthy baby.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

I was really shocked at this because this is all new and it supposedly is because women even if they can afford it are neglecting proper medical care for themselves and the baby. It is a sad society we live in when there is no excuse and you still care so little about having a healthy baby.

A lot of this has do with poor education, particularly of the poor in our country. There is a lot of fear of condemantion by doctors- or that free care is laborious in other ways... like ridiculously long wait times, impersonal care, being shuffled from one doctor to another, being victimized by having a room full of students observe while an examination is done. A lot of prenatal care for the underprivledged screams at them how little value they have in our society. Basically, it's humiliating, and how many people readily avail themselves of services that humiliate them? Our government is slow to recognize the flaws and faults of our medical system, per se- and pressure the ACOG/OB- to make the changes that would improve care, and decrease mortality and morbidity rates. Despite all our country's bragging of our scientific superiority- we remain between 13-20 in maternal mortality and morbidity rates.... interestingly, all of the countries who outperform us in that area use the midwifery model of care- where healthy, low risk pregnancies are all seen by midwives-- The same is true about our abysmal breastfeeding rates-- how much money would hat save our government?? I wish WIC would not pay for formula, that hospitals would not distribute formula-- the money going to better services for new moms learning to nurse...

Anyway, off soapbox...

HEy, and Caedmon-- I happen to whole heartedly-agree with you! NFP is not just another means of contracepting-as is how it is often taught and presented... which does not mean a couple should just have baby after baby, but that they should always let generosity and prudence be the guide for deciding whhetther or not to have another child....

 

[RhetorTheo]

If you are engaging in the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation, for any period of time, during that time you are contracepting.

 

[Benedicta00]

Shannon,

I agree with all that but what shocked me is this was in the news paper last week and it is for those who aren't poor and can well afford to pay for quality care but won't.

The income level was ridiculous, a family of three can make up to 50,000 and family of 8 around 80,000 almost and if you make over that, you can deduct for child support payments and day care expenses. The qualifications are strictly by income and not based on any assets you have, not even cash in the bank or insurance. I think this is crazy. What this says is that people are just too cheap to spend their money on having a baby, they would rather spend it on other things.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

If you are engaging in the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation, for any period of time, during that time you are contracepting.

Are you saying that everytime that my husband and I refrain from relations during my fertile time that we are contracepting?? Contraception is an action, but more importantly it is a mindset- one that refuses to prayerfully discern month to month whether our resons for wanting to abstain are selfish... which I really thought was easily identified, but I guess I am wrong... If I are being selfish in any area of my life- I am NOT doing the will of God-- why would our sexuality be any different???

 

[Benedicta00]

If you are engaging in the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation, for any period of time, during that time you are contracepting.

Depends on what is in your heart and your mentality. If you are trying to keep God out and seek your own will.

 

[Benedicta00]

Are you saying that everytime that my husband and I refrain from relations during my fertile time that we are contracepting?? Contraception is an action, but more importantly it is a mindset- one that refuses to prayerfully discern month to month whether our resons for wanting to abstain are selfish... which I really thought was easily identified, but I guess I am wrong... If I are being selfish in any area of my life- I am NOT doing the will of God-- why would our sexuality be any different???

I agree that is a weak argument. How are you compromising the integrity of the act by removing procreation if there is no act taking place to remove it?

 

[RhetorTheo]

Are you saying that everytime that my husband and I refrain from relations during my fertile time that we are contracepting??

No, the dictionary does. It is defined as "deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation." http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contraception