[Hermann the Cherusker]

The only correct statement I could see is "the Church ASSUMES that they have sufficient reasons".

The Church does not attempt to dictate our lives to us beyond our moral duties to God, and our fellow men.

In fact, the whole notion of consulting ones confessor for instructions in frequency of marital sexual acts is revolting.

But I can't see how merely using NFP is itself a serious/grave/etc. reason, and the language he uses implies NFP is a positive good that must be practiced, rather than tolerated knowledge which is "ad libitum" of the spouses.

This grave/serious/etc. reasons language of the Church applies most especially to those couples who are avoiding their duty to society to have at least four children for some reason. Once you have done that, this same criteria does not apply. No one is obliged to have as many children as physically possible.

The shirking of the four children teaching by modern NFP promoters is the cause of all the confusion over this issue. If people clearly understood the traditional teaching laid out from 1860-1960 which I have brought to your attention before, that there is only a duty to society to provide for the replacement rate of reproduction (taking into account sterile couples and unmarried persons) plus some modest growth, this wouldn't even be an issue.

The whole NFP brouhaha is greatly clarified by sticking to the former consensus of moral theologians discarded by the anti-Humane Vitae heretics, and ignored by the "you must have 12 children" crowd.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"The whole notion of consulting ones confessor for instructions in frequency of marital sexual acts is revolting."

Much better to ask your fellow Freepers:
"Getting lots lately"?

[John Beresford Tipton]

"The whole notion of consulting ones confessor for instructions in frequency of marital sexual acts is revolting."

Much better to ask your fellow Freepers:
"Getting lots lately"?

[narses]

In fact, the whole notion of consulting ones confessor for instructions in frequency of marital sexual acts is revolting.

At first glance your comments seem reasonable. Then the questions. Are you suggesting my consultation with my confessor and my wifes with hers, regarding our use of NFP (that would be specifically "instructions in frequency of marital sexual acts", as that is intrinsic to NFP) is revolting? Are you suggesting that sex is not a subject for the confessional?