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

National Catholic Register ^ | August 16, 2005 | Stephen Vincent

[HighlyOpinionated]

Oh, as to pornographic hyperventilating?

You're either not married or you're not happily married or you have never loved another more than you love yourself or you're looking in the mirror and don't like what you see.

Go to another forum is the best advice I can give you. I think that's the response you were looking for, right?

[sitetest]

Dear bornacatholic,

Thanks!

However, it may be more of the reverse - I'm very blessed to have them as children.

God knows I'm weak, so He sent me very easy children.

As well as a saint for a wife.

Between them all, there is hope for me yet!!!


sitetest

[HighlyOpinionated]

Doesn't NFP place the act of coupling on a higher plane than what is being broadcast by all the media? It's chaste. It's between a married couple who have eyes only for each other. It's about knowing your mate and knowing yourself.

I think it's our Society and the Media who place WAY too much importance on the act of coupling (in or out of a marriage) that seems to place this idea as something BIG in Catholic Families. I just don't see it. Coupling is a small part of a bigger whole. And I did a small survey of older Catholic couples who agreed that the act of coupling is not what marriage is about. And they never felt that it was during their fertile years, either.

[annalex]

It has been posted here that lust makes sex sinful

Lust is somewhat a term of art in Catholicism. You may want to take it up with the poster, -- I did not post it. Certainly, a healthy sexual appetite directed at the spouse is salutary. Some may refer to that as "lust". However, technically, "lust" is a disposition where the unitive and the procreative aspect of the intercourse are ignored and only the physical pleasure starts to matter. This is indeed considered sinful. But it is not sunful because the pleasure per se is sinful, but because it is not ordered toward love of God and love of the spouse, even though the spouse is the physical partner.

women are more "receptive" during their fertile times, exactly when one abstains in NFP

NFP is not a method of contraception. In NFP one abstains either during infertile time in order to store up sexual energy for the fertile time, or one abstains during fertile time in order to avoid a pregnancy. However, a valid moral excuse is necessary in order to avoid pregnancy. One who wishes to avoid pregnancy for frivolous reasons is not practicing NFP correctly. Please read the thread form the beginning if you feel like understanding what these valid excuses are. The fact that the female body is naturally oriented toward achieving pregnancy points to the fact that in natural law, any attempt to avoid pregnancy needs a valid morally excuse.

[diamond6]

bttt

[pa mom]

What if you have enough children in your family? For that reason a woman should abstain, for the rest of her fertile life, from sex during the time she is most excitable? And of course it is God's plan that women are the most interested during their fertile time.

I do realize that NFP should not be used to avoid pregnancy except for grave reasons.

I see from your posts that you feel we should have as many children as we can afford, but not to the point of bankrupcy. Or I should say that is God's wish for us.

I guess my question to you, and other very devout Catholics, is what constitutes a grave reason not to have more? I know four to a bedroom isn't a reason. Is the inability to pay for a Catholic school a valid reason? Are stressful pregnancies with much medical intervention a valid reason? What if you are not a very good mother/father and cannot handle more? Or is it up to the individual conscience?

It seems from reading this thread there are so many interpretations of "be fruitful and multiply."

[sitetest]

Dear Maximilian,

You failed to post one of the funniest posts from that thread:

To: sitetest

I agree with Maximilian.

Will wonders never cease. Hopefully no one will bookmark this thread to use as evidence against you in the future.

the minimum stupidity content on any thread is mandated at 15%, and threads will be removed that don't abide by this quota

Finally we are given the reason for this phenomenon -- it's actually an FR rule! No other reason could explain its consistency.

40 posted on 08/29/2003 12:32:35 PM EDT by Maximilian


sitetest

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The way NFP is often presented is at odds with it's intended use. Classes are given in Pre-Cana and they act like it's just a pill substitute.

There is a simple reason for this. The typical Catholic in pre-Cana is probably already in a premarital sexual relationship involving the pill. The pastors of the Church feel that if we could at least get the faithful to return to the situation of the 1920's through 1960's, where Catholics who wanted to limit their family size used the rhythm method, this would be a great step forward in eradicating sin. This may be a poor prudential judgement on their part, but it is the path they feel they need to follow.

You cannot use NFP to avoid pregnancy for any reason other than a "grave" one. Illness, financial strain, etc. Using NFP just because you don't want more that 3 or 4 kids is just as sinful as using a condom.

This is totally mistaken, but we've discussed this before, and I can't expect you to produce any more proof of this assertion now than you were able to back then, namely none.

[Tax-chick]

You are always informative, Hermann. I learn a great deal from your posts.

[cyncooper]

You're either not married or you're not happily married or you have never loved another more than you love yourself or you're looking in the mirror and don't like what you see.

Well, you've certainly demonstrated you're not perceptive, decent or smart.

Can't win 'em all but you've completely struck out.

Poor you.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Yes, we agree, except to this extent: I contrast "NFP" with "periodic continence." The phrase "periodic continence" appropriately describes the means and implies appropriate ends. "Natural Family Planning," in contrast, while in theory it should be identical, has instead morphed into a cult of its own. So when I attack "NFP," what I am opposing is not the method of periodic continence, but the propaganda enterprise which has misled Catholics into believing that "providentialism" is a bad thing.

Perhaps I have mistken some of the thrust of your comments on this thread and been overly harsh towards your point of view. If so, I apoogize. If what you have been attacking is more the position of the Greg Popczak's of the world in their deformation of NFP and Rhythm and the actual weirdness of their presentation, I am 100% with you.

I noted my own position on providentialism before, but perhaps you missed it.

Because there is not an obligation to have as many children as naturally are conceived by purposefully not planning out a family, and because children are a great good for a family as well as being our greatest work of patience and love as a family, to have more children than one is obliged to is a great work of supererogation that brings enormous merit in heaven.

Someone who limits themselves to only doing what is necessary is cheating themselves out of the great blessings God is offering to them.

Again, I would liken it to attending daily Mass. To attend Mass daily and receive communion daily is a wonderful act of supererogation. All the faithful are warmly encouraged to do this, and there is a marvelous spiritual bounty for those who do. But ... BUT! ... there is no obligation to do anymore than attend Mass on Sundays and Holydays and receive communion just once at Easter. So no one should be made to feel guilty if they do nothing more than that. That minimum is sufficient for salvation, just as having a minimal number of children is sufficient to fulfill the obligations of the married state and be saved as a married couple.

The question really becomes to what extent do you as a Christian want to do more than the bare minimum to increase your glory in heaven, and your happiness while here on earth?

If we are Providentialists, we do like what Christ asked of the rich young man - "if you want to be perfect, sell what you have and give to the poor and you shall have treasure in heaven, and come follow me." (St. Matthew 19.21). But while Christ asked this of the rich young man, he did not condemn Zaccheus, when Zaccheus informed him that he only gave "one half of his possessions to the poor" (St. Luke 19.8), rather He praised him fully for this lesser effort.

[fatima]

Thanks Max.For all-be open to life.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Nearly all the NFP families I know homeschool, in part because, at least in our area, if you have five or eight kids to send to Catholic school, you need to be very, very well off. A year of elementary school will typically cost $4,000, and a year of high school will run around $8,000 - $12,000. Very little by way of "family discounts."

This is so sad!

I keep repeating the reality of the situation in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Catholic elementary school in the diocese will run around $1800 per year for 1 child and $2400 per year for 2 or more children. The extensive Catholic High School system (I think we have 21 diocesean High Schools) cost $3800 per year for 1 child and $7600 per year for 2 or more children. So at current rates, the most any family will ever pay at one time for schooling as $10,000 per year, and for the first 13 years of anyones marriage, they will never pay more than $2400 per year, so it is extremely reasonable for young families.

Given the rates of Property Taxes in the suburbs versus those in the city, 50-75% of that cost will be covered for city residents by the different in property taxes. Most of the rest of the cost is covered by the differential on property values. The same thing holds for a number of the suburbs with poor public school districts and hence low poprety values, and also large Catholic populations (Upper Darby, Ridley Park, Norristown, Coatesville, Bristol come to mind).

Is Philadelphia the last Catholic diocese in the US to take the education of young Catholics seriously by providing it in a manner almost anyone can afford? The Philadelphia area is 40% Catholic, and at least 25% of all children are in the Catholic school system.

[annalex]

what constitutes a grave reason not to have more?

I attempted to answer that in #72. Hermann gave a very detailed answer in #75. The differences I have with Hermann are probably differences in emphasis or wording, at most -- differences in corner cases not likely to present themselves to real people often. The universal answer is, when in doubt, talk to a priest, and if you feel the priest is one of those liberal pat-on-the-back servers at the Amchurch Cafeteria, find another priest. In that sense it is not up to individual conscience but rather to an honestly examined conscience. For example, if a parent does not work on his parenting skills, and then says, -- I am not a very good father, let's not have more children -- is not using a just reason, but I suppose circumstances exist when inability to properly parent children is a just reason.

Another distinction is between an obligation and virtue. I made some posts even here, where I did not carefully distinguish between the two. To love your spouse and to love God is an obligation. This is why artificial birth control, or generally sex excluding a possibility of procreation is a moral impossibility. To give of yourself in order to put forth more fruit, -- for example, have another child, when the effort is legitimate (no welfare, no artificial insemination) but extraordinary, is virtuous while not obligatory.

Self-examination is also needed to distinguish between ordered and disordered sexual drive. A strong sexual urge during fertile time might be a call from God to have another child. But sometimes we have sexual urges that are disordered, this includes sexual urges that are badly timed; it is then an obligatory thing to suppress them. Suppression of the sexual urge in order to fulfill a commandment of God, such as vows of celibacy or monogamy, or abstinence due to fasting are in that category, but abstinence due to inability to support another child is there as well.

Generally speaking, of course, the sexual urge is a signal from God that He wants us to procreate.

[pa mom]

Rudness is uncalled for. I appreciate your respect as I offer the same to you.

[annalex]

the talk about prevention to be much more prevalent than the discussion about getting pregnant

Perhaps, but that is a defect of teaching rather than of the subject matter.

[pa mom]

I appreciate your reasoned and thoughtful response. And that you take the time to express it fully.

As to sexual urges--can they not also be there to further the connection between spouses, not just as a signal to procreate? And I guess oral sex is out of the question, too? (Don't mean to be graphic, sorry, but I think it's a part of this whole discussion.)

[pa mom]

I think the emphasis on PREVENTION of pregnancy for NFP is the hang-up here. For those of us of younger years, that is how we view NFP--another bc method, albeit one that is sanctioned by the Church. I think that is why many of us fail to grasp the difference b/t NFP and condoms or such.

Not agreeing, just stating fact.

[sitetest]

Dear Hermann the Cherusker,

It is, indeed, sad. Very sad.

To me, a good, solid Catholic education is one of the cheapest, easiest ways of helping young Catholics become old Catholics.

It used to be that the parishes very heavily subsidized the Catholic schools. Wwhen I was a child, about 80% of the cost of my elementary school education was borne by the parish, now, the maximum is 25%. I'd happily give more to make sure that every Catholic parent could afford a Catholic education for his Catholic children.

But, the prior Ordinary of Washington disagreed with me, as does, apparently, the Ordinary of Baltimore. And they weren't much concerned with my opinion.

However, you folks up in Philadelphia have a tremendous advantage in that the state (or local govt?) picks up some of the costs associated with Catholic education. Here in Maryland, we passed a law a few years ago to provide about $60 per child subsidy for non-religious textbooks for private schoolchildren. You'da thought we were asking that the Pope be appointed President of the United States, the opponents screamed so loud.

However, even at the very high prices, there are still a fair number of kids in Catholic schools. About one out of five Catholic children attends Catholic school (large numbers of Protestants also go to our schools).

But for large families, it's tough. I sit on the board of a small scholarship fund that gives small grants to Catholic families for Catholic education. I see applicants paying close to $30,000, or even more, annually for Catholic school tuition. Ouch, that's tough. I always aim my vote for the families with the most kids. I'm prejudiced that way. ;-)

The bright side is we have a fair number of dedicated, really wonderful homeschoolers who are very serious about the practice of their Catholic faith. These are the children around which my own sons are growing up. It could be a whole lot worse.


sitetest