| Author | |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Oct 12 2006 at 7:54pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
kaw912 wrote:
However, I take issue with those who say that it is a bad thing for Parishes or Dioceses to require engaged couples to take an NFP class. Sadly, the vast majority (something like 90 %) of couples walking into a priest's office at a typical American Catholic Parish asking to be married in the Church are doing so with the full intention of using artificial contraception after marriage, and most are probably already using contraception before marriage to avoid pregnancy resulting from premarital relations that they are engaging in. Requiring an NFP class is the best way to present the Church's true teaching on marriage and offer an alternative to those who are contracepting/are planning to contracept. |
|
|
I disagree. In fact, I strongly disagree. The *best* way to present the Church's teachings is WAY before a couple ever reaches the point of getting married. It is not "best" to assume that all marriages should start by avoiding pregnancy - regardless of the method used.
kaw912 wrote:
| I honestly doubt that anyone who is fully aware and accepts the Church's teaching that contraception is evil and plans to be totally open to whatever number of children God sends them are goiong to walk away from an NFP class saying "Oh, I didn't know that we were SUPPOSED to use NFP so we don't have 10 kids". Rather, the purpose of requiring NFP classes is meant to address those couples who are planning to contracept in order to wait at least three years to start having kids, and then have two kids three years apart, and then get sterilized. These couples sadly outnumber the couples already planning to be totally open to life by leaps and bounds. Kathy in VA |
|
|
Maybe. Maybe not. But they sure aren't going to walk away from it feeling supported and encouraged in having children either. Most likely they will walk away feeling NFP is just "catholic birth control" and just another choice amoung all other forms of birth control to consider. Maybe they will get a great instructor (all there are some!) who manages to pull it off w/o that impression, but most don't.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SaraP
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 15 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Oct 12 2006 at 8:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well now, that article exhibits exactly the kind of confusion I was thinking of here.
Quote:
Quote:
Also the issue of Mary and Joseph or other saints who practiced celibacy would tend imo to fall more accurately under St Paul's intention - prayer and fasting - since they were doing it purposes other than to not conceive. That was the by-product of the choice, a secondary effect vs a primary motivation. Had they done it simply to avoid conception they would have fallen under the Church's condemnation for not being open to life.
That's a good point. I wonder if anyone has argued along a similar line for the responsible use of NFP?
To me, NFP does not quite make sense. It's like an indigestible lump in my understanding of marriage. But the Church has spoken, so my understanding is sort of irrelevant. |
|
|
Actually the Church has always considered it morally acceptable for a married couple to live as brother and sister for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy provided that they were in agreement about the need to do this and that their reasons were truly serious. Many couples throughout the ages have lived out pretty sizable portions of their marriages this way (and if the people who write to me are representative, more than I would have expected still do) and as far as I can tell there was generally pastoral support for them.
What makes NFP different and 'stickier' to understand is not that it allows married couples a morally acceptable way to avoid pregnancy - celibacy does this even more reliably than NFP - but that it seems to allow us to have our cake and eat it too by revealing the times prior to menopause when, by God's design, we can experience only the unitive and not the procreative end of the marital act.
Why do we have this option now when most people didn't for the first 1950 years (give or take) of Christian history?
I don't have a firm or official answer, but my own thinking is that it is a merciful gift from God to those couples in this day and age who do have truly serious, long-lasting reasons to avoid pregnancy. I'm sure celibacy within marriage was never easy, but in a world where we can't go to the grocery store or drive down the freeway without being assulted by pornographic images and where women regularly walk around wearing clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination and where contraceptives are all but shoved down our throats, I have to think it is much, much harder that it has ever been before - especially for men. Perhaps God has allowed us a little more understanding of the mysteries of fertility and little more responsibility to freely cooperate with his plans for our families as a grace to combat the overwhelming temptations to all kinds of unchastity that many couples trying to live celibately would experience.
Again, just my own reflections . . . for what they're worth!
Edited for clarity
__________________
Mama to six on earth, two in heaven and two waiting in Russia. Foxberry Farm Almanac
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: Oct 12 2006 at 9:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Martha wrote:
| Maybe they will get a great instructor (all there are some!) who manages to pull it off w/o that impression, but most don't. |
|
|
Most don't? That's an awfully sweeping statement for which I don't think there is evidence, other than a few anecdotes. I would be really surprised if the majority of NFP teachers were teaching nothing but "Catholic birth control" given the fact that all of the teachers I know have large families (or are using NFP to have more children), are open to life and go out of their way to defend the magesterium and the Church's teachings to other parishioners and often the priests and bishops themselves.
I'm not an expert and I haven't been trained to teach but I have never heard of anyone finding any teachings other than the Church's teachings in CCL's or other training organizations. I'm certain our bishop, one of those who requires NFP before marriage, would have recognized it if this were the case.
I'm not sure if it's just where I live or something but the Catholics around here who are not supportive of large families and purposely stop early are not the same ones giving of their time and resources to teach NFP.
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MarilynW
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 28 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4275
|
| Posted: Oct 12 2006 at 9:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I wish we had had NFP presented to us at our Engaged Couples class. I got married in England - and I was totally ignorant about the church's teaching on birth control, the encyclicals, etc (despite being the youngest of 7). It was not something that was ever discussed - abortion yes - but never the whole being open to kids issue. I did not know a single person in our church who did not use birth control - in fact as my mother was in a different country - I got lots of "advice" from older married ladies about how to prevent pregnancy. My good friend who was in Texas sent me a NFP book and it was a real eye opener to me. I feel that at least if we had had an NFP class I would have known earlier. I was fortunate that I was not able medically to take any form of B/C pills or anything - but I wish I had been more knowledgeable right at the start of my marriage.
Just my two cents...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Oct 12 2006 at 9:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
momwise wrote:
| Most don't? That's an awfully sweeping statement for which I don't think there is evidence, other than a few anecdotes. I would be really surprised if the majority of NFP teachers were teaching nothing but "Catholic birth control" given the fact that all of the teachers I know have large families (or are using NFP to have more children), |
|
|
There is a difference between what a teacher may be trying to teach and what a teacher is leaving an impression of. I'll agree how sweeping it is would depend on perspective.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
folklaur
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2816
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 2:32am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
| There are dioces where a course in NFP is required for engaged couples (I know this is not terribly common, but it is out there). |
|
|
Our Diocese does. And I know of one couple who was using birth control, and the to-be wife told me once that she would NEVER not use the pill, she felt that she needed it for medical issues, plus. Then she took the required class. And her thinking totally changed.
Baby steps.
If that class had not been required, I do not think she would have ever felt that need to even look into it.
Just another perspective,
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 7:06am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I brought this up again because I got into a discussion on someones blog. There were comments saying those who don't use NFP are very irresponsible, silly, or not being prudent. I made my point in my long winded sort of way, and now it's come to "That's great for YOU Lisbet, but not everyone can handle lots of little kids, many pregnancies, yadda yadda...
This brings me back round to how muddled our thoughts can get when we have such accurate knowledge of how to avoid pregnancy without abstaining altogether. I don't know NFP well enough to avoid a pregnancy if dire reasons were to arise. We'd simply have to abstain until I learned, or abstain until the reasons passed. Not being able to come together as husband and wife would make us SERIOUSLY consider just how dire our circumstance are.
Plus, I think many, many more married couples are called to have bigger families, NFP just muffles that call. KWIM?
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
StephanieA
Forum Pro
Joined: May 11 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 7:50am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I am totally against having the diocese requiring NFP classes as I am against having my kids in CCD that require chastity education. You really don't know what is going to be said and relayed. Do I think some couples will benefit from NFP? Yes. Do I think that some couples will be hurt by it? Absolutely.
Our NFP classes hurt our marriage. It solidified the idea to my dh that children should be planned. We knew our instructors personally and while they both came from large families, they had no intention of raising a large family themselves. Again, it depends on the instructor and the mindset. I subscribed to CCL for many years. While some articles are certainly uplifters, others promote the idea of planning. So it's a mixed bag.
The use of NFP is not going to change until Catholics view children as a blessing. Period. Yes, the magesterium supports families and children as a blessing, but many Catholics really don't. Last Sunday, when a perfect opportunity arose (per the Gospel to preach the blessings of children, our rather orthodox priest took the oppportunity of preaching on the acceptance of divorced Catholics and how we should not judge. He wasn't condoning divorce, but it sure came across to my 3 teenage sons as such. When Catholics of many children can't enter their own church and receive smiles and support, you know something is amiss. When we have to get onto blogs, FIND a support system outside our own parish, seek out pro-child priests, and feel insolated, then you know something is amiss.
True, NFP MAY help some couples who are contracepting or planning to. But the emphasis should be the discussion of the loving acceptance of children .....as in one of the 2 purposes for marriage. The Church taught throughout the centuries up until this century that raising a family was the primary reason for marriage. Why is this teaching SO neglected? Because of societal pressure.
Teaching the 2 purposes of marriage is what the Church needs to require of all marriage prep instructors or of their priests.
Blessings,
Stephanie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 8:15am | IP Logged
|
|
|
StephanieA wrote:
| Last Sunday, when a perfect opportunity arose (per the Gospel to preach the blessings of children, our rather orthodox priest took the oppportunity of preaching on the acceptance of divorced Catholics and how we should not judge. He wasn't condoning divorce, but it sure came across to my 3 teenage sons as such. When Catholics of many children can't enter their own church and receive smiles and support, you know something is amiss. When we have to get onto blogs, FIND a support system outside our own parish, seek out pro-child priests, and feel insolated, then you know something is amiss. |
|
|
ug. Do we go to the same parish? We had the same homily given by a deacon for that gospel! A beautiful gospel about welcoming children and the only message he could manage was about divorce.  How twisted is that? I was so glad my dh was home with the sick kids.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 8:16am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I completely agree with you Stephanie. I really needed to come back to this discussion to remind myself that their are others that feel the way I do. I HATE that the other discussion came back to the whole "We'll it's great that YOU have it all figured out for YOUR family and YOU can handle a bunch of little kids but not everyone is CALLED to that." I'm truely stumped over that line of thinking, because, like you said, the Church has always taught that marriage is for raising a family, babies are part of that. Throughout history, when a Catholic couple married, children, lots of them, were almost expected. Now, all of a sudden, this is a special "calling"??? Really? I don't think so.
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 8:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
| the other discussion came back to the whole "We'll it's great that YOU have it all figured out for YOUR family and YOU can handle a bunch of little kids but not everyone is CALLED to that." |
|
|
This is very frustrating if for no other reason than in my personal case it isn't even true. I don't have it all figured out (to be fair I haven't met anyone else brave enough to claim that either!) and I don't feel "called" to this and I didn't know I could handle all these kids.
I think they presume that this is a life I chose. But it's really not quite as black and white as that.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 8:34am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Exactly Martha! The chioce we make is to live his design for marriage, we made that choice when we made those vows on our wedding day.
I never in a million years thought I could handle 8 children. Heck, I don't think I can handle 9, but, God thinks I can, so that's all I need, is to trust Him!
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 9:21am | IP Logged
|
|
|
StephanieA wrote:
| The use of NFP is not going to change until Catholics view children as a blessing. |
|
|
Neither is the use of contraception, aboritifacients, abortion, fetal stem cell research or invitro fertilization. To blame NFP for a lack of openess to life is sort of like missing the forest for the trees.
The Church approved of NFP and the fact that some people misuse it or look down on those with large families does not negate that fact. In addition, to view NFP with a narrow lens (as in only applying to rich Westerners) is to totally miss the point of why the Church approved it. There is a whole world full of dire poverty out there and the NFP (which is a chaste practice within marriage)is the one weapon that Catholic aid workers can use against the predators of death in Developing countries. I'd like to see how long they'd last going around and convincing married people to abstain indefinitely when there are a million condoms waiting to be dumped in their laps.
StephanieA wrote:
| Yes, the magesterium supports families and children as a blessing, but many Catholics really don't. |
|
|
Again, this is nothing new. But the culture of death and the sexual revolution was welcomed in by many Catholics who came from large families who were not using NFP and were welcoming life, not by a bunch of NFP teachers. I know a few them. The majority of Catholic couples began using ABC in the 60's and 70's, not NFP. The Church always has a gentle plan to bring back the prodigal son. NFP, according to the Church is one of the antidotes, not a cause, of the culture of death; it is not meant to take a place in marriages that are already open to life and have no just reason to limit or space children.
StephanieA wrote:
| True, NFP MAY help some couples who are contracepting or planning to. But the emphasis should be the discussion of the loving acceptance of children .....as in one of the 2 purposes for marriage. |
|
|
NFP may help?? I am really sorry that the women, who in this and past threads, rather meekly and quietly tried to explain that their NFP classes were a moment of grace and conversion for them and others they know were totally ignored.
StephanieA wrote:
| The Church taught throughout the centuries up until this century that raising a family was the primary reason for marriage. Why is this teaching SO neglected? Because of societal pressure. |
|
|
Stephanie, the Church did not stop teaching that raising up a family is the primary purpose for marriage. I do not see anywhere where the Church stopped teaching this in this century. Our pastor preaches this all the time. He openly encourages couple to stop using ABC from the pulpit. He is not bowed down by societal pressure, nor is our bishop. If you look up the writings of Archbishop Chaput, you'll find a tremendous amount of counter cultural messages, so many in fact that he had to get extra security at the diocesan offices before the last election. Nevertheless, he does encourage NFP instruction in the diocese. Is he missing the fact that some families are courageously welcoming lots of beautiful children as blessings? I don't think so.
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 9:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
| The chioce we make is to live his design for marriage, we made that choice when we made those vows on our wedding day. |
|
|
I have always been ecstatic for those couples who received the graces to do this. It is no reason to be indifferent to those who made other choices and later came to regret them when they found out the truth. If NFP helped couples who were using ABC, had abortions, were near divorce or other catastrophes, why not be happy about that? The fact that many Catholics hate those with large families because they chose a more selfish way should not negate those who were helped by NFP.
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 10:10am | IP Logged
|
|
|
SaraP wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also the issue of Mary and Joseph or other saints who practiced celibacy would tend imo to fall more accurately under St Paul's intention - prayer and fasting - since they were doing it purposes other than to not conceive. That was the by-product of the choice, a secondary effect vs a primary motivation. Had they done it simply to avoid conception they would have fallen under the Church's condemnation for not being open to life.
That's a good point. I wonder if anyone has argued along a similar line for the responsible use of NFP?
To me, NFP does not quite make sense. It's like an indigestible lump in my understanding of marriage. But the Church has spoken, so my understanding is sort of irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify though -- I agree with what you said, Sara, but I understood Martha to be talking about primary vs secondary motives in the cases of spouses choosing to live celibate lives together. There are so many of them throughout Church history but they were living celibate lives in order to devote themselves better to God, either because of circumstances (ie arranged marriages) or because it was in the times when the distinctions between religious vows and marriage vows hadn't been made as clearly as they are made now.
None of those couples decided to be celibate with a primary motive of avoiding children. I believe it was the Albigensians that did that, thinking procreation was evil -- and of course that was a heresy.
And it's true about the couples allowed to abstain completely for very serious reasons -- but again, life and health are the primary reasons -- avoiding pregnancy is an "accident" of the primary motives (don't know if I'm using that term correctly, there).
I was thinking tentatively that perhaps you could make a similar case for NFP. That the primary motive of the parents is to preserve a stable healthy married life for the kids that presently exist and the avoidance of pregnancy is a secondary motive. But these are just speculations.
I can't process NFP completely, even though we use it, but that is just me -- not a failing on the part of the Church. It's like when I first converted -- the veneration of Our Blessed Mother was such a hard thing for me to accept intellectually or spiritually. I had to just accept it on pure, dark faith, by will alone. Then later the emotional and spiritual and intellectual consent came in basketfulls -- but at the beginning it was not there.
So hopefully that clarifies the second part of the quote, which was mine. I think it's important to be clear on these things because we are witnessing to what is right and true and beautiful -- even though in layman's language.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 10:34am | IP Logged
|
|
|
momwise wrote:
| The Church approved of NFP and the fact that some people misuse it or look down on those with large families does not negate that fact. In addition, to view NFP with a narrow lens (as in only applying to rich Westerners) is to totally miss the point of why the Church approved it. There is a whole world full of dire poverty out there and the NFP (which is a chaste practice within marriage)is the one weapon that Catholic aid workers can use against the predators of death in Developing countries. I'd like to see how long they'd last going around and convincing married people to abstain indefinitely when there are a million condoms waiting to be dumped in their laps. |
|
|
ha. Like no one in america gets faced with a million condoms being dumped in their lap? And the Church did not approve NFP because of 3rd world countries. The church approved NFP because it is in line with what the church always said to begin with - abstain if you don't want kids. NFP gives some couples the hope of needing to abstain less vs abstaining completely.
momwise wrote:
| The Church always has a gentle plan to bring back the prodigal son. NFP, according to the Church is one of the antidotes, not a cause, of the culture of death; it is not meant to take a place in marriages that are already open to life and have no just reason to limit or space children. |
|
|
I disagree. NFP is an alternative to ABC, not a cure for it. I've never heard anyone claim otherwise. And the Church says that ALL married couples must be open to life, even if they use NFP.
momwise wrote:
| NFP may help?? I am really sorry that the women, who in this and past threads, rather meekly and quietly tried to explain that their NFP classes were a moment of grace and conversion for them and others they know were totally ignored. |
|
|
Yes, may help some. I don't know why you would feel sorry for the women who have posted that it has been a benefit to them? No one here has argued that NFP is allowed by the Church, not required - allowed - or that some women do have just cause to use it. In fact, most here have readily noted that is the case for some women. They were not ignored. The thread was about those who choose to not use NFP. If anything those who don't use NFP get blasted for it. And I think the use of the words 'may' and 'some' are fine. NFP does not help everyone. And the majority shouldn't use it. If anyone is being ignored it's all those that NFP has not helped or has hurt.
momwise wrote:
| Nevertheless, he does encourage NFP instruction in the diocese. Is he missing the fact that some families are courageously welcoming lots of beautiful children as blessings? I don't think so. |
|
|
Then you are blessed in your parish and I'm very glad for it. 
Let me put it this way, a typical backwards compliment so to speak...
Someone comes up to me and says, "Oh what a wonderfull family you have! It so great that you are willing to be open to life! But you know you do have the option of NFP."
I have to admit that doesn't leave the impression of a person who truely thinks it's all that great that I'm open to life. 
You seem to have taken it personal that some Cathlics do not want NFP or admit that they see some harmfull uses of it? I'm sorry for that. No one is saying that NFP should not be allowed or that some catholics may find it neccessary.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 10:34am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
| Plus, I think many, many more married couples are called to have bigger families, NFP just muffles that call. KWIM? |
|
|
I don't think NFP does. I think our society does, and our society affects people. NFP is counter-cultural because it works against instant gratification and "quick fixes". It is a fasting, and a deprivation. Of course, it can be used wrongly, but possibility of abuse doesn't mean the thing in itself is abuse. There are many, many precedents of things that God has given us that allow us to exercise our free will rightly or wrongly. Like alcohol -- the Puritans forbade it -- Jesus celebrated it in its proper context (liturgical and festive) but made it up to us to use it responsibly.
I agree with you though that there is a fallacy in the thinking: "Well, Lisbet can handle all those children..." (substitute anyone who is having more than 2 or 3 children or having them more quickly than societal norm). It's not really a matter of capability. I don't even think I could (naturally speaking) have raised ONE child well. I certainly don't think I'm capable of raising seven. If they do turn out all right, it will be God's grace pure and simple.
That thinking -- of large families as simply an option among others -- seems to ignore the mystery in the marital sacrament and even in the Church communion. It seems to leave the large families isolated and without moral support except from other large families. And then in turn the right-living small families suffer; it does not seem fair.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 10:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
momwise wrote:
| I have always been ecstatic for those couples who received the graces to do this. It is no reason to be indifferent to those who made other choices and later came to regret them when they found out the truth. If NFP helped couples who were using ABC, had abortions, were near divorce or other catastrophes, why not be happy about that? The fact that many Catholics hate those with large families because they chose a more selfish way should not negate those who were helped by NFP. |
|
|
No one has used the word "hate" and no one has argued that we should be happy for couples that see the light of church teaches by using NFP vs ABC or being open to life by going from ABC, to NFP, to nothing.
And by the way, I have seen benefits to NFP in my own life with my dh. I credit it with giving him a chance to reconsider getting a vas long enough for God to change his mind completely. It would take a truely serious reason for us to use it again. And to be honest, I hope that day never arrives because if it was that serious, I think my dh would consider a vas rather than risk NFP. NFP was very hard on our marriage and it's not as user friendly for everyone as some claim it to be.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 10:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
SaraP wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also the issue of Mary and Joseph or other saints who practiced celibacy would tend imo to fall more accurately under St Paul's intention - prayer and fasting - since they were doing it purposes other than to not conceive. That was the by-product of the choice, a secondary effect vs a primary motivation. Had they done it simply to avoid conception they would have fallen under the Church's condemnation for not being open to life.
That's a good point. I wonder if anyone has argued along a similar line for the responsible use of NFP?
To me, NFP does not quite make sense. It's like an indigestible lump in my understanding of marriage. But the Church has spoken, so my understanding is sort of irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify though -- I agree with what you said, Sara, but I understood Martha to be talking about primary vs secondary motives in the cases of spouses choosing to live celibate lives together. There are so many of them throughout Church history but they were living celibate lives in order to devote themselves better to God, either because of circumstances (ie arranged marriages) or because it was in the times when the distinctions between religious vows and marriage vows hadn't been made as clearly as they are made now.
None of those couples decided to be celibate with a primary motive of avoiding children. |
|
|
I would agree with that. The married vocation requires that we accept that all intercourse must be open to life. The goal should not be to avoid pregnancy, the goal is to deal with whatever grave reason is present. Reduced chances of conception would simply be the by-product of dealing with those grave situations, not the end goal itself.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SaraP
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 15 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 11:02am | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
| I was thinking tentatively that perhaps you could make a similar case for NFP. That the primary motive of the parents is to preserve a stable healthy married life for the kids that presently exist and the avoidance of pregnancy is a secondary motive. But these are just speculations. |
|
|
Yes, I think this is exactly correct . . . thanks for clarifying.
__________________
Mama to six on earth, two in heaven and two waiting in Russia. Foxberry Farm Almanac
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Mothering and Family Life
Topic: Grave and Serious Reason?
