Why We Quit Contracepting (Two couples tell their ‘conversion’ stories)

"Periodic continence" was introduced as a rare exception in unusual cases

It was not "introduced". It was approved by the Sacred Penitentiary as being without fault that anyone could use with just reasons, and encouraged for suggestive use by those addicted to onanism.

Just as we are charged by Christ to choose either God or Mammon, and we are warned not to make the mistake of trying to serve two masters, in the area of marriage, we must choose either generous fruitfulness or planned sterility.

I do not see how you can square this philosophy of condemnation of family limitation with the marriage of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin, which was based on that very premise of planned sterility from its beginning, or with the practice of the early Church of imposing marital continence on married major clerics in Holy Orders who then accepted planned sterility.

Frustrating the primary purpose of marriage is not a morally acceptable ends.

This would make St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin sinners, since they purposefully and with forethought thwarted the primary purpose of marriage in contracting their marriage. Similarly, many saints in the early Church contracted such marriages to avoid punishment for the pledge of continence. This condemns them also.

It seems to me that whether one uses artificial birth control or one uses NFP, people are trying to avoid pregnancy.

Thus if the intent, the "end" is to avoid pregnancy, it is really splitting hairs to say it is okay in one case, and a terrible sin in another case.

This is what appears to be the precise locus of moral confusion here.

There is no sin of "contraception". Provided that duties towards social justice are being met, there is no sin for a married couple to not have additional children.

Sin is involved in artificial birth control because it frustrates the natural workings of an action and is meant to satisfy lustful intent.

The sin of artificial birth control is primarily and always the use of unnatural means of sexual intercourse and secondarily only possibly a sin against social justice of the end of not having children.

Of course NFP does not make sense if you invent a sin of being married and not having children.

I do not see how you can square this philosophy of condemnation of family limitation with the marriage of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin

Comparing the Holy Family to NFP seems sacrilegious to me. The big difference, first of all, is that, as her name implies, the Blessed Virgin Mary was a VIRGIN. St. Joseph also was celibate, at least during his marriage to Mary. They didn't have sex. Virginity is a higher calling. But users of NFP want to have sex but just not have children, thus frustrating the nature and purpose of the conjugal act.

Here's a simple suggestion: any Catholic couples who feel they have grave reasons to avoid conception could simply imitate the Holy Family and avoid all marital relations until they are ready once again to conceive. This would completely eliminate the need for thermometers, beads, charts, graphs, etc.

Sin is involved in artificial birth control because it frustrates the natural workings of an action and is meant to satisfy lustful intent.

Exactly. What do the condemnations of contraception by the Church say?

"Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 14

"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." Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 54

Nothing about "and they won't end up having enough children" mentioned there.

Unfortunately confusion has been created by mixing the duty, in justice, of having children - which is imposed upon all married couples which make use of their marriage, unless just causes exist - with the prohibition of sins against the nature of the conjugal act. Unless these are properly distinguished, the confusion evident in this thread will result.

I would say, if another pregnancy puts you in bankruptcy, it is a valid reason. If another pregnancy crowds your children in bunk beds or dashes the hopes for a boat and an SUV, it is not.

That isn't quite right. If one has met the obligations of social justice to provide posterity, it is perfectly licit to avoid having additional children to afford material things. It is certainly not at all virtuous though.

"All things are lawful to me: but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful to me: but I will not be brought under the power of any." (1 Corinthians 6.12)

"All things are lawful for me: but all things do not edify." (1 Corinthians 10.23)

Just because some act is without fault does not make it full of virtue if wordly motivations are at work. This is why abstaining from foods to diet to lose weight is not virtuous, while fasting and abstinence at the appointed times as a means of penance is.

Of course NFP does not make sense if you invent a sin of being married and not having children.

Thank you for this admission. We agree that "NFP does not make sense" as long as marriage imposes an obligation to have children. You yourself have often stated that the "sin of being married and not having children" is not an "invention," but a reality, although you qualify that statement by saying that "4 is enough."

Here is what Pope Pius XII stated on the topic:

Marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Therefore, following your own reasoning, "NFP does not make sense," since all couples who make use of their right to conjugal intercourse have imposed upon them a positive obligation to "fruitful marriage."

Artificial contraception is an illegitimate means in and of itself, but even licit means become "a sin against the very nature of married life" if they are used to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage and to avoid one's positive obligation to procreation.

But users of NFP want to have sex but just not have children, thus frustrating the nature and purpose of the conjugal act.

You can't really mean this, since frustration of the nature and purpose of the conjugal act is intrinsically evil, per Pius XI, and therefore can never be permitted.

Rather, not having children by use of NFP is problematic because of the failure to fulfill the duty owed to society of propagating the human race. This has to be separated from the malice involved in contraception, just as Pius XII does:

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Otherwise your reasoning will be unable to distinguish at all between the practice of periodic continence and the use of contraception, leading either to approval of both or the condemnation of both, conclusions which are ruled out for us by the authority of the Church.

When couples abtain in the practice of NFP, are they making a sacrifice "for the kingdom of Heaven", or is their intention not rather to avoid children for those just reasons which are admitted by the Church?

You would have to ask those couples. I can only say that I believe that gaining mastery over the sexual appetite is incredibly important for any advance in Christian virtue, since the sexual appetite is a part of the love of sensual pleasures that is concupiscence and which is the form of original sin. NFP can be used in this way by a couple if they use this as their motivation.

NFP does not have to be a part of ascetical struggle to be licit, but it does to be virtuous.

How humorously ironic that we were simultaneously posting the same quotation from Pope Pius XII to each other!

frustration of the nature and purpose of the conjugal act is intrinsically evil, per Pius XI, and therefore can never be permitted

You make a valid point here, that I should have distinguished between "nature" and "purpose." Artificial contraception violates the "nature" of the conjugal act, which is always and in every case wrong. Periodic continence may violate the "purpose" of the conjugal act, depending on the motives of the participants.

One is condemned in all cases, the other is approved only in exceptional circumstances. I believe that the comparison to missing Mass on Sunday is apt. What were to happen if the exceptions which justify missing Mass on Sunday were extended to a universal approval, and it was even praised as a positive good? That would be analogous to the current situation in which there is a culture of NFP propaganda.

Comparing the Holy Family to NFP seems sacrilegious to me.

I didn't make that comparison at all. I pointed out that your false choice of sterility versus unlimited fecundity in marriage also condemns the Holy Family. You may not like that, but, well, there it is, because the Holy Family did not choose unlimited fecundity.

But users of NFP want to have sex but just not have children, thus frustrating the nature and purpose of the conjugal act.

The conjugal act has more purposes than the conception of children, otherwise it would only be licit for conceiving children, and would be illicit when one cannot.

The path you are travelling down condemns couples who have sex once the wife is already pregnant or after menopause or after a licit operation causing sterilization (i.e. removal of cancerous generative organs). Where do you find such a harsh attitude in the teaching of the Church?

You seem very upset at the thought of couples using their marriage without a probability of conception. But this is no different than the use of marriage when pregnancy is definitely impossible in the cases I listed above. If you do not condemn the use of marriage in the cases above, then you cannot condemn those who justly limit their use of marriage to infertile periods. There is certainly no difference in the act, means, motivation, or end in the case of sex during pregnancy or after menopause and the use of NFP.

Your serve Max.

If one has met the obligations of social justice to provide posterity, it is perfectly licit to avoid having additional children to afford material things.

OK. It is somewhere in that ballpark, and, of course, there is a point when NFP to avoid pregnancy becomes allowable, even though it is not yet virtuous (it becomes virtuous, for sure, if that extra child puts the couple on welfare). A couple that feels it has "met the obligations of social justice" should examine their conscience with a priest before they can embark on pregancy-avoidance with NFP. I would caution the reader against an impression that God sets any kind of procreation quota, from your post, or that social justice can overrule the procreative activity of God, but I would not have a drawn-out discussion over it.

You are very well aware that I never said any such thing, nor does the authentic teaching of the Church lead to any such conclusions. "The procreation of children" is the primary purpose of the marriage act. It also has secondary purposes which are perfectly legitimate, as long as the primary purpose is not violated. In situations where the wife is already pregnant, is past child-bearing age, or has suffered from cancer, the fulfillment of the secondary ends of the marriage act demonstrates no evident intention to frustrate the primary end. NFP does, except in sufficiently grave circumstances.

There is certainly no difference in the act, means, motivation, or end in the case of sex during pregnancy or after menopause and the use of NFP.

In my own experience I have found that there is all the difference in the world, the difference between night and day. If I always and in every case never disregard my intention towards fruitfulness, then my conscience need never feel troubled. All conjugal acts carried out in non-fecund circumstances share in my continuous, permanent and uninterrupted intention towards fruitfulness. But once that intention is broken, then my non-fecund marital acts share in a non-fruitful intention.

You can compare it to playing hooky from school. The boy who went to school and studied hard all day is still rightly looked upon as a scholar even when he is home eating his dinner. But the boy who played hooky from school is considered a truant, even when he is home eating his dinner. The school day is over and both are home eating their dinners, but the continuity of intention is very different in the two cases.

One is condemned in all cases, the other is approved only in exceptional circumstances.

Not true. It is only in exceptional circumstances where the demands of social justice are not being met. This is extremely clear in the teaching of Pius XII in the Allocution, and the moral theologians I have previously referred you to, and it is what you continue to deny because you wish to invent the obligation of unlimited childbearing for married couples. Pius XII:

However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.
The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

So if a married couple has provided for the preservation of mankind and the needs of the Church, they are under no such restriction on their actions in the married state to use only the infertile periods. That, as I pointed out, is the unanimous teaching of the moral theologians, and their teaching was quantitatively settled at a minimum of 4 children to satisfy this obligation. This teaching was already set prior to the giving of this Allocution, and the moral theologians writing afterwards state that they view the Allocution as a confirmation of this then general teaching on this very topic. The Allocution did not require a revision of the practical application already being made of the decrees of the Sacred Penitentiary of 1853 and 1880.

I agree that there is a serious problem with "NFP propaganda" (that article from Crisis does an amusing job of pointing out some of the silliness involved). What is especially problematic is the practical - and sometimes explicit - setup of an "it's either NFP or contraception" mindset, complete with the implicit or explicit rejection of "providentialism" and having a large family. This is actually somewhat evident in the original post of this thread:

They began using natural family planning, and have welcomed two more children into their lives. ... They recommend abstinence before marriage and NFP in marriage to their young patients.
“Love means giving your whole self to your spouse,” adds Penny. “And that’s the great gift of NFP.”

Is this a "gift of NFP" or of not using contraception? It seems that they are being considered as equivalent.

I also agree that the Sunday obligation is a good comparison, seeing as, like the duty of having children ("the function of providing for the preservation of mankind" Pius XII), it is a positive obligation which binds unless just circumstances excuse. I think it is reasonable to note though that this obligation can be fulfilled by couples to the point where it no longer binds under pain of sin (here our analogy breaks down).

It also has secondary purposes which are perfectly legitimate, as long as the primary purpose is not violated. In situations where the wife is already pregnant, is past child-bearing age, or has suffered from cancer, the fulfillment of the secondary ends of the marriage act demonstrates no evident intention to frustrate the primary end. NFP does, except in sufficiently grave circumstances.

Either NFP does or does not frustrate the primary end. It can't frustrate it in some circumstances and not in others, because the act being performed (or rather, not being performed) does not change based on the circumstances. The only change based on circumstances is the motivations. Hence Pius XII speaks of "the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives" in judgin this practice.

The only question with NFP is whether or not one has worthy reasons to motivate its use. Similarly, this is the only question to be asked regarding the use of the sexual faculties when conception is physically impossible. Obviously, NFP must be excluded if the only motivation is sterile lust, just like any sexual act must be excluded if that is its only motivation.

If I always and in every case never disregard my intention towards fruitfulness, then my conscience need never feel troubled. All conjugal acts carried out in non-fecund circumstances share in my continuous, permanent and uninterrupted intention towards fruitfulness. But once that intention is broken, then my non-fecund marital acts share in a non-fruitful intention.

You cannot actually intend to do what is physically impossible. You can no more intend to be fecund when nature does not allow it than you can jump off a building and intend to fly like a bird by flapping your arms. It is impossible to intend to be fecund when your wife is already pregnant.

Reliance upon God's divine providence is not a burden -- quite the opposite -- it is a joy.

The burden is requiring people to do more under pain of sin than they are actually required to do, not the reliance on Providence.

I encourage everyone to read them for themselves and then to decide for themselves.

That is the Protestant way. Catholics allow the Church to teach them, they do not "decide of themselves" what a proclimation of the Church means. If approved moral theologians tell us that proclimation X is telling us to do Y, we accept that with docility. We don't judge it for ourselves.

Hemann: "If one has met the obligations of social justice to provide posterity, it is perfectly licit to avoid having additional children to afford material things."

What does God have to say??

Genesis 1:22
And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

Genesis 1:28
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Genesis 9:1
So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

Genesis 9:7
And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it."

Genesis 35:11
Also God said to him: "I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

Etc., etc.,etc.

I have trouble seeing how avoiding children fulfills this command. Does God not open and close the womb? Is it excusable to disobey God's command in order to avoid going on welfare?? In God's view there is no such thing as "licit" or "illicit". There is only obediance or disobediance. God cares nothing about the laws of man, only His own Holy and loving commands.

BTW, I notice Biblical evidence is very sparse on this thread. Much opinion but little evidence...

Dear visually_augmented,

I think that perhaps the couple employing NFP could possibly be compared to "binge and fast," but not "binge and purge," as no effort is made to undo the effects of what has already been done.

However, my own experience is that folks who employ NFP are not sex-mad maniacs who are boinking 24/7 during their infertile time, and then holding on for dear life during their fertile time. LOL.

Rather, these are usually couples who often have done a good job of integrating a morally-worthy life of physical intimacy into their overall marital relationships.

Unfortunately, many Catholics who are married and fertile use artificial contraception, so the number of folks employing NFP is too-reduced, and thus not especially representative of Catholics, as a whole. This is to be regretted.

However, the end result is that most of the folks I know that are employing NFP are not trying to limit their families to none, one, two, or three children. All of the families that I know where the married couple is using NFP either have a bunch of kids, or are looking forward to more, or have problems that have prevented large families (I know one woman who has miscarried several times - that's heartbreaking).

Now, I don't know many families with a passel of children where the couples manage to have these maniacal sex lives 17 or 18 days out of the month. So, at least with these folks, the "binge then fast" model isn't accurate either.

It is, however, insulting to suggest that that is prevalent over a population that probably averages five children per family.

sitetest

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.