“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Again, the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, not pleasure. To seek the latter without the former is a grave sin. We don’t yet know, though, what constitutes frustration. However, I think it’s safe to say that this warning applies not only to any use of artificial methods of contraception, but also the abuse of natural methods (whatever might constitute abuse).
“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Genesis 38:8-10]”
There seems to be a great deal of disagreement amongst scholars and theologians as to whether Onan’s sin was spilling his seed or failing to help his sister-in-law conceive an heir for his deceased brother. Therefore, I’ll leave that point alone and just move on.
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Here, Pius XI lays the smackdown on the Anglican Communion and reiterates his statement that to deliberately frustrate the generate functions of the marital act is a grave sin.
“58. As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.[47]”
….
“60. We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children.”
“61. However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian Faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent. ‘Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you.'[48]”
In other words, there is no valid excuse for doing that which is intrinsically evil. God does not ask the impossible. To claim that avoiding the sin of frustrating the marital act is impossible in some instance is to claim that God has lied and will not or cannot provide the necessary help to avoid sin.
“63. But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother’s womb…”
Just for good measure, in paragraphs 63-66, he throws in a reminder that abortion is immoral – even to save the life of the mother. For, “however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent?” I think His Holiness mentions it here because abortion is essentially last-chance contraception. Pius also speaks at length about the evils of divorce. I won’t quote it here for fear of getting off track, but I think it’s relevant to the topic. Remove childbearing from the definition and purpose of marriage is just one of the steps in destorying the institution altogether. First, remove the Church. Then, remove childbearing. Then, remove permanence. Then, remove heterosexuality. Then, remove monogamy. And so it goes until marriage is a thing of the past. But I digress.
“91. To conclude with the important words of Leo XIII, since the destruction of family life ‘and the loss of national wealth is brought about more by the corruption of morals than by anything else, it is easily seen that divorce, which is born of the perverted morals of a people, and leads, as experiment shows, to vicious habits in public and private life, is particularly opposed to the well-being of the family and of the State. The serious nature of these evils will be the more clearly recognized, when we remember that, once divorce has been allowed, there will be no sufficient means of keeping it in check within any definite bounds. Great is the force of example, greater still that of lust; and with such incitements it cannot but happen that divorce and its consequent setting loose of the passions should spread daily and attack the souls of many like a contagious disease or a river bursting its banks and flooding the land.'[Encycl. Arcanum, 10 Febr. 1880.]”
“92. Thus, as we read in the same letter, ‘unless things change, the human family and State have every reason to fear lest they should suffer absolute ruin.'[Encycl. Arcanum, 10 Febr. 1880.] All this was written fifty years ago, yet it is confirmed by the daily increasing corruption of morals and the unheard of degradation of the family in those lands where Communism reigns unchecked. “
Continuing in his decrying of divorce, Pius reminds his readers that more than any other reasons, be they war, famine, or plague, corruption of morals has destroyed civilizations. To him, divorce is a pandora’s box of passions. Without going in to details, he says that once marriage is wounded by the permission of divorce, lustful sins will “spread daily and attack the souls of many like a contagious disease”. Presumably, he means sins like pornography, rape, prostitution, and promiscuous extramarital sex. Pius warned, quoting Leo XII’s encyclical Arcanum, that ‘unless things change, the human family and State have every reason to fear lest they should suffer absolute ruin.’ It bothered him that fifty years later Leo’s warnings were coming true, especially “in those lands where Communism reigns unchecked”. And now, seventy-six years after this encylcical, those corruptions of morals and degradations are commonplace in lands where Democracy reigns. *sigh*
“104. Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.”
In other words, private judgement must not be segregated from the public judgement of the Church. First of all, it’s a mistake to think that the Church is a moldy medieval institution that’s clueless about modern affairs and ignore her teachings as though they’re no longer relevant. Secondly, it’s also a mistake to think that the Catholic magisterium ends with the individual and has nothing to say about public affairs. Thirdly, obedience to Catholic teachings is not restricted to dogma; if the Church binds an action as sin, it is a sin. Lastly, all Catholics’ consciences should be formed and informed by the Church. A true follwer of Christ doesn’t check his faith at the door when he enters public forums.
Must. Resist. Tempation. To Make. Snarky. Remark. About. Catholic. Politicians…
“110. Even the very best instruction given by the Church, however, will not alone suffice to bring about once more conformity of marriage to the law of God; something more is needed in addition to the education of the mind, namely a steadfast determination of the will, on the part of husband and wife, to observe the sacred laws of God and of nature in regard to marriage. In fine, in spite of what others may wish to assert and spread abroad by word of mouth or in writing, let husband and wife resolve: to stand fast to the commandments of God in all things that matrimony demands; always to render to each other the assistance of mutual love; to preserve the honor of chastity; not to lay profane hands on the stable nature of the bond; to use the rights given them by marriage in a way that will be always Christian and sacred, more especially in the first years of wedlock, so that should there be need of continency afterwards, custom will have made it easier for each to preserve it. In order that they may make this firm resolution, keep it and put it into practice, an oft-repeated consideration of their state of life, and a diligent reflection on the sacrament they have received, will be of great assistance to them. Let them constantly keep in mind, that they have been sanctified and strengthened for the duties and for the dignity of their state by a special sacrament, the efficacious power of which, although it does not impress a character, is undying. To this purpose we may ponder over the words full of real comfort of holy Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who with other well-known theologians with devout conviction thus expresses himself: ‘The sacrament of matrimony can be regarded in two ways: first, in the making, and then in its permanent state. For it is a sacrament like to that of the Eucharist, which not only when it is being conferred, but also whilst it remains, is a sacrament; for as long as the married parties are alive, so long is their union a sacrament of Christ and the Church.'[St. Rob. Bellarmin., De controversiis, tom. III, De Matr., controvers. II, cap. 6.]”
The Church ought to do everything in her power to educate and help married couples to live out their vocation well. However, couples must realize that they have an active role to play. The sacrament of matrimony makes graces available that couples should take advantage of. In other words, the Church can lead people to water, but she can’t force them to drink. The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, but that doesn’t mean some of her members won’t pass through them as the result of their own obstinance.
“119. When these means which We have pointed out do not fulfill the needs, particularly of a larger or poorer family, Christian charity towards our neighbor absolutely demands that those things which are lacking to the needy should be provided; hence it is incumbent on the rich to help the poor, so that, having an abundance of this world’s goods, they may not expend them fruitlessly or completely squander them, but employ them for the support and well-being of those who lack the necessities of life. They who give of their substance to Christ in the person of His poor will receive from the Lord a most bountiful reward when He shall come to judge the world; they who act to the contrary will pay the penalty.[94] Not in vain does the Apostle warn us: ‘He that hath the substance of this world and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?'[95]”
“120. If, however, for this purpose, private resources do not suffice, it is the duty of the public authority to supply for the insufficient forces of individual effort, particularly in a matter which is of such importance to the common weal, touching as it does the maintenance of the family and married people. If families, particularly those in which there are many children, have not suitable dwellings; if the husband cannot find employment and means of livelihood; if the necessities of life cannot be purchased except at exorbitant prices; if even the mother of the family to the great harm of the home, is compelled to go forth and seek a living by her own labor; if she, too, in the ordinary or even extraordinary labors of childbirth, is deprived of proper food, medicine, and the assistance of a skilled physician, it is patent to all to what an extent married people may lose heart, and how home life and the observance of God’s commands are rendered difficult for them; indeed it is obvious how great a peril can arise to the public security and to the welfare and very life of civil society itself when such men are reduced to that condition of desperation that, having nothing which they fear to lose, they are emboldened to hope for chance advantage from the upheaval of the state and of established order.”
Is this a list of sufficiently grave reasons to avoid having a/another child? I’m not entirely certain, but I’m inclined to say it is not. It seems to me that the keys to understanding this paragraph are the phrases “it is patent to all to what an extent married people may lose heart, and how home life and the observance of God’s commands are rendered difficult for them” and “in the ordinary or even extraordinary labors of childbirth”. The implication of the first seems to be that difficulty in dutiful observance does not nullify the duty. These scenarios might lead a couple to believe that sucessfully raising a/another child would be impossible. Refer back to section 61 to remind yourself what Pius thought of “the impossible”. The implication of the second is that even these dire circumstances do not stop couples from having children.
Having said that, I think it is fair to treat the given list as containing examples of scenarios that at least represent the beginning of a clarification of serious/grave reasons. Let’s assume they are at the edge of “serious”, even if Pius may not have thought they were sufficiently serious to periodically abstain.. Here they are in list form.
- The family lives in an unsuitable dwelling.
- The husband cannot find employment and means of livelihood.
- The necessities of life cannot be purchased except at exorbitant prices.
- The mother of the family is compelled to go forth and seek a living by her own labor.
- The mother is deprived of proper food, medicine, and the assistance of a skilled physician during pregancy and after childbirth.
“121. Wherefore, those who have the care of the State and of the public good cannot neglect the needs of married people and their families, without bringing great harm upon the State and on the common welfare. Hence, in making the laws and in disposing of public funds they must do their utmost to relieve the needs of the poor, considering such a task as one of the most important of their administrative duties.”
That is, Christian brethren and, if need be, the civil government should assist families in caring for their needs. Particular attention is to be paid to the poor. To fail in this duty is to lead people to despair of being able to have a family at all. We Christians, in our ineptitude and laziness, are largely to blame for our society’s contraceptive attitude. Perhaps if we were more generous and supportive, more people would have the courage to marry and raise a family, knowing that they’d have help in times of trouble.
The rest of Casti Connubii is largely summary and conclusion. Section 53 seems to be the only reference to natural regulation of births Pius XI made in this encyclical. If someone finds another reference, let me know. We have now an idea of what some of the illicit uses of NFP would be, but we still don’t know much about its licit uses, though section 120 shed a little more light on the matter. The bright line rule still isn’t there. Actually, that’s not entirely true. There is a very bright line which a couple must not cross and that is the use of artificial contraceptives. What Lightwave and I are looking for, though, is a bright line rule for determining when abstinence from sex during fertile periods is licit. Perhaps Pius XII will provide some insight.
Click here to read the next article in this series.
Pingback: Right Truth
Pingback: HerbEly
Is this a list of sufficiently grave reasons to avoid having a/another child? I’m not entirely certain, but I’m inclined to say it is not.
I think you’re right that it’s not a list of reasons to abstain- but that’s not because these aren’t “serious enough” reasons. That’s not even a question here, because Pius isn’t concerned here with the couple’s decision to be continent at avoid conception, but with the responsibilities society has towards the family. If there’s adequate societal support for the poor, he says, the family will not be strained by these negative conditions.
This paragraph, I think, is a contribution to the Church’s social teaching, not to its teaching on NFP.
That bit of commentary from me was a last minute addition. I almost didn’t include it. I eventually decided to include it because that list represents some of the reasons that a couple might “lose heart” and avoid conceiving out of fear. That list includes some pretty serious problems that a couple can face. Yet, as you’ve stated in agreeing with me, it is not a list of reasons to abstain. If reasons as gravely serious as these are do not meet criteria for licit periodic abstinence, what reasons do?!?
What Lightwave and I are looking for, though, is a bright line rule for determining when abstinence from sex during fertile periods is licit.
I wanted to comment on this, because the more I think about it, the more I think that this whole investigation is based on a false premise: you assume that it is job of the Church (meaning the official teaching office of the Church, the Magisterium) to offer clear guidelines as to what constitutes “grave reasons,” helping individual couples determine whether they have such reasons.
Actually, though, that is not how the Church works with regard to moral theology. Rather, historically, the Church makes pronouncements on what actions constitute sin. But these statements are often broad and sweeping, not always designed to address specific nitty gritty situations. Then moral theologians propose various theologies based on moral dogma, but their conclusions aren’t binding. (You don’t have to agree with Ligouri on how often it’s okay to withold the truth!) From the books of moral theology, practical helps were designed to aid priests in confession, such as the medieval confessor’s manuals, or the textbooks used in seminary.
The whole process is a bit different now that most Catholics (not just the elite) can read. The confessional is no longer a primary site of moral education, as it used to be. It can be and often is assumed that Catholics are reading official church documents on their own.
But it would still be a mistake to assume that any of these encyclicals and Church documents are meant to replace the work historically done by moral theologians. We’re still supposed to turn to moral theology to offer (non-infallible) opinions on the applications of broad moral laws. In other words, we’re expected to turn to people like Lawler, Most or even Christopher West to help us determine what constitutes “grave reasons.” To expect the Church -the Magisterium- to do that work itself is to expect something that it never intended to do.
If reasons as gravely serious as these are do not meet criteria for licit periodic abstinence, what reasons do?!?
It seems that you didn’t understand my comment. This list hs NOTHING to do with reasons for periodic abstinence, therefore, nothing in the text -or left out of the text- indicates that these AREN’T reasons for such abstinence. Rather, this passage is concerned entirely with PREVENTING these situations from occuring.
Your question above still presupposes that because Pius doesn’t mention that they are licit reasons, they must not be. But such an argument from silence doesn’t work here, because all his silence on the matter indicates is a preference for solving these problems at the root. But this preference doesn’t say what happens if the state and/or private organizations don’t jump in and fix a given couple’s problem. There is nothing here to indicate whether, in that case, the couple would or wouldn’t be right in using periodic continence. The document simply isn’t intended to address that question.
A friend of mine brought up similar points in private. As a result of that conversation and your comment, I believe that in the last post in the series I will posit that the responsibility for clarifying these matters lies in with the bishops and bishops’ conferences. I don’t went to get to involved in this line of conversation, though, since I intend to address this topic later. Nevertheless, regardless of who is responsible for clarifying these teachings, I think it’s important to know what the teachings are.
Perhaps my last-minute decision was unwise. I’ll leave the current version up for a while to get others’ opinions, but I might end up deleting that bit.
From Lightwaves NFP post:
“From my humble perspective, I can’t see how NFP is any better than any contraception method. I use NFP. I support NFP, because I’m following that 2000 years of accumulated wisdom. But I still think NFP IS contraception and is no different than methods such as a condom, diaphragm, or The Pill.”
From this post:
“The bright line rule still isn’t there. Actually, that’s not entirely true. There is a very bright line which a couple must not cross and that is the use of artificial contraceptives.”
I hope this helps Lightwave out a bit. 🙂
Squat makes an insightful point. For a moment I thought I had my answer too. However, after re-reading the post, I realized that I am not as interested in the “bright line” as where the “actual” line lies.
Indeed, in the comment thread from my original post, I suggest that NFP may be permitted not because it is objectively different than other contraceptive methods, but rather that it is less likely to be abused. If this is the *only* difference, then it would make other methods just as moral as long as they, too, were not abused. It is important to note here, though, that I am not actually saying this is the only diference (in fact, this is still a matter in question for me).
I’m inclined to agree with Spacemouse, and I know you’re not trying to go down this road just yet, but here I am antagonizing you anyway. 🙂
I have chatted with a good friend of mine about this issue off and on and she gave what I think is a good analogy. The Church gives the extremely general guidelines for marriage that you must at least be open to children/large family and you must be responsible for your family. Then it says that artificial contraception is right out. We are then given rules for avoiding sin and general guidelines and opinions for achieving holiness in the vocation of married life.
Perhaps God isn’t calling every married couple to have 12 children, give or take. God allows you the free will to determine your own path to holiness – and while some accept the call to heroism (i.e. 12 kids), it’s not necessarily in God’s plan for everyone.
Many specific examples are found in the lives of the saints, though not specifically regarding NFP/marriage. The example my friend gave was that of Maria Goretti: it would not have been sinful for her to give in unwillingly to her aggressor and submit to rape. It was heroic, saintly grace for her to protect her purity at the high price of her very life. I immediately thought also of Gianna Molla, who gave her own life for her unborn child despite full understanding of her dire prognosis.
So while some may be called to bear children in the direst of circumstances, placing all their trust in God’s merciful care, making babies all the time is not the hard and fast rule for everyone. Hence Pius’ mention of “virtuous continence” and its allowance by Church law.
Keep in mind, though, that we are all called to be saints! Which is why your current investigation into your own situation, accompanied by lots of prayer and good counsel, is so important.
Nevertheless, regardless of who is responsible for clarifying these teachings, I think it’s important to know what the teachings are.
That’s certainly true. I am definitely not saying that it’s a bad idea to study the documents related to marriage, childrearing, and NFP use. I just fear that you are expecting far too much specificity in the teachings. And if you approach documents ASSUMING that they have an answer to question X, when in fact they are dealing with question Y, then misreadings can occur.
So, in short, if people keep telling you that the Church documents in question aren’t the place to look for answers about what constitute grave reasons, I’d listen to them. 😉
If you want to understand how the Church defines serious reasons, you really need to look no further than Gaudium et Spes 50 which I believe I cited in my first post on this. The Church leaves it to the couple to decide, “in the sight of God” what constitutes a serious reason. The “default” in Christian marriage is set neither to having or not having children, but to prayer and seeking God’s will together as a couple in the context of living a holy life.
It is always easier to say, “The Church isn’t being clear” than it is to say, “I don’t want to accept the responsibility of having a mature spiritual life with my spouse and genuinely seeking God’s will.”
For more info. Here’s what Pius XII said in his address to midwives in 1951, “Serious motives [for postponing pregnancy] such as those which not rarely arise from medical, economic and social indications, may exempt couples from the obligatory positive debt [i.e., intercourse during fertile times] for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”
Building on this, Pope JPII wrote, “In deciding whether or not to have a child, [a married couple] must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary.”
It isn’t up to you or anyone else to decide for others what constitutes a serious reason for postponing pregnancy. It is the height of pride to ordain ourselves to do that which even the Church herself refuses to do. The couple is responsible before God for making this decision. No one else.
Are there not other important decisions that the Church leaves to people or couples? Does the Church not give any helpful guidelines for those? My difficulty is not with the decision being up to the couple. I’m a big fan of free will. 😉 Rather, it is with the seeming lack of guidance for couples to properly inform their consciences by the teachings of the Church.
Am I just being extra sensitive/paranoid right now or did you just imply that my wife and I don’t want a mature spiritual life or to genuinely seek God’s will? I’ll assume I’m just being paranoid; you certainly don’t seem judgmental in your books. For the record, though, much of my inspiration to write this series came from frustrations my wife and I have encountered while using NFP. We very much would like a clearer idea of what reasons can be considered serious or grave. Much as the joke goes about Anglicans, if you put two theologians, bishops, priests, or catechists in a room you get three opinions about what constitutes “grave”. 😉
I’m still writing my post about Pius XII, which is why I’ve refrained from commenting about him as much as possible. I didn’t find this bit very helpful. “Medical, economic and social indications” are very broad categories. What kinds of indications in those categories are objectively not grave? Also, what you give is not the full quote. Pius also mentions “eugenic” in his list of indications. I was under the impression that the Church was squarely opposed to eugenics, so I’m at a loss to explain that.
Just as a child does not know selfish use of toys (i.e. not sharing) is wrong until told so by his parents, I find myself, merely 6 years a Catholic, struggling to determine if my reasons for avoiding conception are selfish or not.
I do not and have not denied this. However, is it not the Church’s duty to inform cconsciences? While she cannot be expected to speak directly to every person or couple’s situation, she can and does set up guidelines of objective truths for people to follow. All I’m asking for is some guidance. Stopping at saying “grave” or “serious” reasons is just too vague for me. I need to know more about what those reasons look like so I can compare them to my own. How is that too much to ask the magisterium?
I apologize if I seem in any way rude, short-tempered, or arrogant. I’m just getting really frustrated with being told that this issue is simple and clear when I see it as complex and muddy.
I’ve read some pretty obviously didactic stuff on the net in which the author very clearly arrogates to himself teaching authority that rests with the Church. I am not seeking to do anything like that. I sincerly hope that I haven’t appeared to be doing so. This investigation is for my benefit and for the benefit of those who find themselves in a similar quandry (a set whose cardinality I know to be nonzero because it includes dear friends). Also, I cannot stress enough that this is a work in progress. My feelings might very well change by the time I make it to JP2. If I have appeared to be certain of myself and certain that the Church is wrong, I apologize. I do not wish to lead anyone astray with my public ponderings.
I promised Eric I’d chime in, so here goes.
I am a single lay Catholic, striving to follow the Church’s teachings on sexual ethics. As my boyfriend and I become more serious, I am necessarily considering issues about NFP and childbearing. I have to say that, like Eric, I struggle with the role of NFP in a marriage, although, unlike Eric, I’m not married and so am not using it at this point.
On the one hand, I hear some Catholics saying that there are absolutely NO good reasons to use NFP, several papal proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding. Their position seems to be that a couple should have as many children as they can physically bear — basically, that ever using NFP to avoid pregnancy is sinful.
On the other hand, I hear many Catholics suggesting that NFP can be used just as artifical contraception can, touting the high effectiveness rate. A couple of years ago, when I was engaged to be married, I attended an Engaged Encounter retreat in which the entire discussion of NFP revolved around its effectiveness at avoiding pregnancy (by the way, when I was engaged, I read your book, and it helped me realize that the relationship was not a good one).
Yet those saying this never address the Church’s teachings that NFP should only be used for serious reasons. What are serious reasons? I don’t think that the list has to be exclusive — i.e., reasons X,Y, and Z are serious, but Q is never serious. Such a list fails to account for the myriad possibilities of human life. That said, I do think we need to have some sort of discussion about what constitutes a serious reason. I think it is entirely possible to use NFP selfishly, with a contraceptive mentality — and don’t we want to prevent that by helping people understand just what a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy might be?
(And then there are the many Catholics who defy the Church’s teachings and use artificial contraception anyhow, but that’s another story.)
Just catching up on this series again (which I find highly interesting) – and I want to encourage Lightwave to consider NFP as about a MUCH more broad thing than whether or not it is contraception and ultimately works like the pill, etc. NFP is a way of life and a set of actions that cultivates virtue in one’s life (sometimes that is a vast struggle, I admit). It isn’t solely about the question of contraception – that’s a question that has a good place – but it’s just not the ultimate end of NFP.
In some small way, there’s a parallel between this and abstaining from meat during Fridays in Lent – this action, simple as it is, is cultivating the virtue of love (of God) because it’s supposed to be geared toward thinking of Christ’s sacrifice for us – it is also a means of moderating our lives and becoming more dependent on God and acknowledging that fact. We could (and some do) get caught up in questions about “what constitutes meat”, “why is Friday any better than Thursday – they’re both just days”, etc. Those questions have a place, but they also tend to obscure the larger question about the purpose and place of the action itself in the context of the Christian life.
This explanation of “primacy of conscience” doctrine, though not directly related to this topic, is worth reading.
No, I’m not trying to be judgemental. I apologize if it seemed that way at all.
Here’s the thing. The Church can’t define it any better than she already does because the circumstances are different for each couple. You aren’t going to get any clearer answers than this from the Church and the more you look, the more frustrated you’ll become. The problem is that too many times, we Catholics want the Church to tell us what God wants instead of developing the prayer-life and the capacity for discernment that God will use to tell us directly what his will is for our lives.
You’re a pgh boy, I think, right? Well perhaps you knew Fr Ron Lawler from Pgh. He was one of the authors of Catholic Sexual Ethics and worked with Bishop Wuerl on The Teaching of Christ. I once interviewed him for an article I did on discerning family size for Catholic Parent magazine. His initial comment was, “the first step to discerning your family size is to seek to live a holy life.” His comment echo’s Augustine’s “Love God, then do as you please.” The idea here is that when we are genuinely seeking God’s will and prayerfully asking him how he wants us to live our lives, he will tell us. We have to have the confidence in the prayer life we have with our mate to know that God will help us discern what constitues a “serious reason” and what doesn’t in our particular marriage.
And that’s why I argue that NFP is primarily a spiritual exercise. It focuses our prayer life on discerning what God’s will is for our marital lives each month. It forces us to prayerfully reckon with the question, “Lord, this month, are you saying that we should work on the unitive end of our marriage and family life so that at some point in the future we could have another child, or are you saying that this month we already celebrate a love so strong that in nine months it has to be given its own name?”
Does that make sense.
Look, I don’t want to monopolize your discussion here. If you want any more comments from me, feel free to send me an email at the address I list above. I’m happy to help as much as you like, but I don’t want to be a budinski.
God Bless,
Dr. P.
That said, I do think we need to have some sort of discussion about what constitutes a serious reason.
I understand your desire for such discussions, but I hope you realize that it is VERY difficult to talk about this subject without seeming as if you’re judging other people’s reasons. I know that no one here intends to do so, but precisely because the issue of family planning is a concern to many married couples (and as you point out, most don’t even bother to follow the Church’s teaching anyway), it is hard to talk about it without ruffling unnecessary feathers. People are going to take it personally.
I’m almost tempted to argue that the issue has to be a personal one, because it isn’t actually possible to talk about the issues abstractly- or, to the degree that it is, it’s necessary to use the very vague terms which seem to be frustrating Lightwave, Funkydong, and you.
For example, everyone agrees that it is wrong to use NFP to avoid children for selfish motives, but much as one might want to figure out exactly what such selfish motives might look like, it’s doesn’t work very well to describe them in the abstract, because then the question still remains “how do I apply this to me?” Motives are personal and individual. One can only analyze motives in the concrete, and the only concrete example one is justified in examining is one’s own. I could tell you what my serious reasons are, but I can’t tell you what might or might not be serious reasons for anybody else. The more I think about, the more I think this is how such discussions about “what constitutes serious motives” flounder: they are either so vague that they may not seem useful, or they are so concrete/absolute that they become or seem to become judgmental.
You -and everyone here who is concerned with selfish motives- might find Kimberly Hahn’s Life-Giving Love to be useful, as she lists a number of common reasons give for not having another child and then suggests ways around them. The book doesn’t label any of these reasons as serious or not, because that’s not the point: the point is that someone who is truly serious about using NFP unselfishly will be willing to examine his or her reasons and say “Would it put too much strain on our marriage/ our health/ our finances/ our spirituality / our community to have another child in our current situation? If so, is there a way around this situation? If there’s no way around it now, are there things we can do to get out of this situation eventually?”
Hahn herself is a prime example of how what constitutes serious reasons can vary. At the time of writing, she had had six c-sections and three miscarriages. Many women would have used NFP to avoid further conceptions after just a few c-sections- and they may have been justified in doing so, since repeated c-sections can wreak havoc on a woman’s body. Many women would have used NFP to avoid the pain (physical and mental) of further miscarriages- and they may have been justified in doing so. God called Kimberly to make a heroic sacrifice, but it doesn’t follow that He calls all women to do so. Trying to draw generalizations about just reasons from Hahn’s case and applying them to other women could result in physical, mental, or spiritual anguish- or even death. It just doesn’t work that way. I suppose no one is saying that we should take a case like Kimberly’s and extrapolate rules about what is and isn’t selfish, but I don’t see any other practical course of action if one wants clear guidelines.
As for myself, I think the church documents on the subject are vague for a reason, and we should respect that reason. But I realize that I’m posting quite a bit for someone knew to the blog, and like Dr. Popcak, I don’t want to overwhelm the combox, so I’ll try to quit repeating myself.
The idea here is that when we are genuinely seeking God’s will and prayerfully asking him how he wants us to live our lives, he will tell us.
That does make sense when you phrase it that way… but I still do struggle with this point. Maybe it’s because of my Protestant background.
I remember that growing up we used to joke about praying: “God, reveal your will to me, and send me where You will — anywhere but Africa.” The idea was that if God really did want you to go to Africa to spread the Gospel, even though you were praying to discern God’s will, you might not hear that call because you already had decided that God’s will was probably not for you to go to Africa.
I guess that’s where I stumble, really.
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Investigating NFP: Preface
Pingback: Light Along the Journey » Blog Archive » Christian Carnival 113—The Innovation Edition
My apologies concerning the post Mohammad in the Bible. I was posting a link to the Christian Carnival, and listing a few of the related posts for my readers to click over and read.
Seems TypePad is having a mental breakdown. It does that sometimes. I’m so sorry and have gone back and corrected things. I don’t know why Typepad goes weired at times, but it does. I’m thinking about switching to something else.
Very nice blog and post. Please forgive any problems I caused for you or your site.
No problems caused. I’ll just delete the trackback. Feel free to make a new trackback from the post about the Christian Carnival. 🙂
And I’m sorry for being hypersensitive and reacting badly.
I’ll have to troll the Catechism to be sure, but I’m fairly certain there are issues that the Church gives broad stroke guidelines but refrains from giving specifics for the reasons you state. What I’m not seeing are the broad stroke guidelines (once one gets past “artificial methods are objectively immoral”).
Well, for the past 11 years I have been.
Nope. Like I said, I’l only been in Pgh for 11 years, and I’ve only been Catholic for 6 of them.
Both of those books are on my ever-growing book queue. 😉
What’s the title of that article? Is it available online?
That’s an interesting way of putting it. I’ll have to think about that a bit.
Yes, but I still feel like well-meaning couples could easily believe they have discerned God’s will but really haven’t and fall far short of the ideal. It’s hard to know if you’re acting in accord with God’s plan when you don’t have a clear idea of what that plan is.
You’re not a budinski. Your comments are welcome and appreciated. I just felt as though you’d prematurely and incorrectly judged my motives and reacted poorly. Feel free to add to the discussion. My Pius XII post is almost ready to go up and I’m looking forward to your feedback. 🙂
I realize that fact but I don’t really understand it. I’m the kind of guy that can usually (but certainly not always) argue matters, perhaps even vehemently, in a “disconnected” manner. I don’t usually have difficulty arguing from a purely objective standpoint and it frustrates me when others either have difficulty or are entirely incapable of doing so. It’s part of why political partisnaship annoys the hell out of me. 😉
Either there is objective truth or there isn’t. I understand that subjective circumstances can reduce culpability for failure to adhere to objective truths, but they cannot eliminate them.
I’d be happy to see some clarification of the classes of reason given (medical, etc). Even if you have to throw a hundred caveats at me, at least I’d have something to compare to.
I might just check that book out. Thanks for the tip. 🙂
And like Dr. P, your comments are welcome and appreciated. Keep ’em coming. 🙂
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Investigating NFP: Pius XII
I think Dr. Popcak and Spacemouse make some excellent points that there is a level of personal discernment that must surround how an individual applies the Church’s teachings to their lives. I would, however, prefer *a lot* more guidance. Again, I am left to wonder if I am listening to my conscience or my desires. I also find I must agree with Funky’s assessment of objective truths and subjective circumstances. If this doesn’t seem to make a single bit of sense, it’s because I’m feeling a bit confused too!
Clattercote: I appreciate your suggestion, and I do indeed realize that NFP can, and often has, other benefits than merely the “spacing of births” when used in accordance with Church teaching. Without rehashing the 140 some odd comments from the previous thread, however, lets just say this isn’t a sufficient differentiator to help me understand the difference in prohibition.
By the way, I do use NFP. I’m not sure I’ve personally seen all the virtuous and spiritual benefits that everyone talks about (maybe I get them, but just don’t “see” them). I certainly don’t feel particularly more virtuous for its use. I do feel obedient though. 🙂