Has anyone tried combining methods of NFP to increase its effectiveness? For example, combining commercial fertility monitors with sympto thermal method? Is there any research showing a combination is more effective?

Thanks.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003

Answers

-- (top@top.top), November 19, 2003.

Why not just make it easier, not fool with all that, and leave the begetting of children to God? He knows best, after all, and wouldn't give one more than they can handle.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), November 19, 2003.

Actually the reason I ask is because my wife is not a Catholic, doesn't believe in the church teaching on contraception, but might be willing to consider NFP if it is shown to be reliable. I know that theoretically it is very reliable, in practice somewhat less reliable. However, there are many factors that reduce its reliability in practice, such as couples choosing to have relations during known fertile periods. Which of course would not be considered a failure of the method.

My basic question is would combining methods increase its effectiveness in preventing conception. Let's also assume for the sake of argument that the couple have grave reasons for postponing a child.

Thanks.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.

I know that theoretically it is very reliable, in practice somewhat less reliable...

...than say, the "pill", for instance?

relations during known fertile periods. Which of course would not be considered a failure of the method...

...because "success" of the method means no baby, right?

My basic question is would combining methods increase its effectiveness in preventing conception...

...because that's what NFP is for, right?

Let's also assume for the sake of argument that the couple have grave reasons for postponing a child.

Such as?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

Jake,

One legitamite use of NFP is to reduce the possibility of conception. If NFP does this when a couple has legitamite reasons for postponing children then it is an appropriate use of NFP, although not the only use. The church does allow couples to attempt to postpone children (using nfp) for grave reasons, that is not something that anyone can dispute. Anyone attempting to use it to reduce the chance of conception has a right to be concerned about effectiveness, otherwise why bother with nfp at all.

I am not asking a theological question here about the merits of children and anyone who wishes to postpone childbirth should not be treated a guilty until proven innocent. I am just asking a practical question about using nfp for one of its legitamite uses.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.

NFP as a practice can be judged by those promoting it most agressively.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 20, 2003.

Maybe JFG can verify this, but a priest in my diocese who legitimately celebrates the Tridentine rite informed me that the correct translation of the document is that NFP is legitimate for serious reasons, not only grave reasons.

Jake and James, NFP is reliable, but the reason is it permitted is because it remains open to new life in a way that contraceptives aren't. Further, NFP is used towards the end of having children as much as it is towards spacing them apart or postponing until a family has means to support them.

And Jake, you're being a very bad traditionalist. No faithful Catholic before Vatican II would condemn rights granted to Catholics directly by the Church. Stop being such a liberal.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.

Jmj

Hi, Skoobouy (and James).
You are right, Skoobouy. The key teaching on this is found in article 10 of Pope Paul VI's encyclical, "Humanae vitae" (of 1968).
[Apparently, the pseudo-traditionalists (ex-Catholics) are not familiar with this, or they reject it as erroneous teaching.]
I will quote HV 10 now. It's worth reading the whole thing, but if you are short on time, jump to the highlighted section, which has what you asked about specifically. At the bottom, again highlighted, I have added the Latin original of the key paragraph.

God bless you.
John

"10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

"With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person.

"With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

"With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

"Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

"From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out."

"Si postea ad condiciones physicas, oeconomicas, psychologicas et sociales respicimus, ii paternitate conscia fungi dicendi sunt, qui aut, prudenti consideratione magnoque animo ducti, statuunt numerosiores suscipere liberos, aut, seriis causis moralibusque praeceptis observatis, animum inducunt ut, vel ad certum vel ad incertum tempus, aliam filium non gignant."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.

Paragraph 2368 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church lowers the bar even further:

A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. ...

Peculiaris huius responsabilitatis ratio ad procreationem regulandam refertur. Coniuges, iustis de causis, possunt suorum filiorum procreationes intervallis separare velle. Ad eos pertinet comprobare eorum optatum ex caeco sui amore (ex « egoismo ») non promanare, sed illud iustae generositati paternitatis responsabilis esse conformem. ...

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.

James;

I don't know the answer to your question, but I'll ask my mother, who is a certified instructor in the Billings method.

I think, though, that the increase in accuracy (a small percentage) would not really be worth the increase of time spent (possibly doubled) in learning and working through more than one method.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), November 20, 2003.

Mark, I don't think that the Church was "lowering the bar" by using the phrase "just reasons." In order for a reason to be a "just reason," it would have to be a "serious" one. Put another way, only "serious reasons" are "just reasons" for using NFP.

James, there is nothing inherently wrong in combining methods. Don't forget, the "sympto-thermal method" is itself an intentional combining of observations for the purpose of greater accuracy than that which is obtained by using just one sign.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.

James, a great book: The Art of Natural Family Planning by John & Sheila Kippley, 4th edition. Available from your bookstore or the Couple to Couple League. Very detailed, very thorough, very spiritual, very marriage-focused. One great example: where's the best place to make love? in the kitchen, in front of your children (no, not sex), showing your love & affection for each other on a daily basis!

In terms of effectiveness, within the use of NFP, couples can decide how "conservative" they wish to be, i.e. in terms of maximizing the effectiveness of NFP for postponing pregnancy. There are a number of different "rules" on length of abstinence, etc, for "very conservative" reasons to less conservative. As a member of CCLI, you have access to counseling and advice, based on the charts kept by the couple to monitor the wife's fertility cycles.

I imagine you could spend the extra money on fertility monitors, but all the signs God gives you through observing what is happening in the wife's body are more than enough....temperature, mucus, cervical changes, ovulation pain, etc!

After 2 years of prayer, I had my sterilization reversed Oct 20...my husband & I just finished our first month of very conservative NFP. For one reason, trying to conceive is not recommended the first month after surgery; for another, this is a very challenging time for our 18 year marriage to use NFP after years of artificial contraception...I would be thrilled to welcome a child if that is God's will but my husband (not yet a believer)still adamantly states NO MORE KIDS! So we did really well on the abstinence part! I am 40, he is 42, we have 3 great boys ages 16, 12, and 9. I continue to pray for his conversion and acceptance of all the Church's teachings, and that the Lord will turn his heart to his children & being open to life. It is amazing to me that prayer opened the doors for his agreement to my reversal surgery, so I am happy to perservere on behalf of our marriage and family on this issue! Cindy Brown

-- Cindy Brown (cindybrown@gorge.net), November 21, 2003.

John, Are you claiming that "just reason" and "serious reason" are always the same, or does this equivalence only apply to this particular instance?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 22, 2003.

Why is NFP evil?

NFP is evil because it is birth control; it is against conception. It is a refusal on the part of those who use it to be open to the children that God planned to send them. It is no different in its purpose than artificial contraception, and therefore it is a moral evil just like artificial contraception.

The Teaching of the Catholic Papal Magisterium

Pope Pius XI spoke from the Chair of Peter in his 1931 encyclical Casti Connubii on Christian marriage. His teaching shows that all forms of birth prevention are evil. We quote a long excerpt from his encyclical which sums up the issue.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of the family circumstances.

“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 powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

-- Sweet Cherub (Molly h.r.@yahoo.com), November 22, 2003.

You think that the above quote from Casti Connubii CONDEMNS Natural Family Planning? If so, you have no understanding of what you posted. Unlike your personal interpretation of this document, the actual meaning of the document fully supports NFP. Far from suggesting "that all forms of birth prevention are evil", the second sentence of this quote clearly differentiates between "virtuous continence" from the marriage act, vs. "frustrating the marriage act". It further clearly states that "virtuous continence" IS PERMISSIBLE in matrimony! So it seems rather peculiar that you are posting this in an attempt to demonstrate that virtuous continence, which is the very essence of NFP, is NOT permissible. Did you read this quote before posting it?

In stark contrast to the permissible practice of "virtuous continence" FROM the marriage act, the term "frustrating the marriage act" refers specifically to methods of rendering the marriage act itself infertile WHILE PARTICIPATING in it. Such methods are totally opposed to "virtuous continence", being neither virtuous nor continent. Such methods are known collectively as "artificial contraception", and are clearly condemned in the above quote, AND in the ongoing teaching of the Magisterium. Note the concluding paragraph of your quote, where the contraceptive use of "anything intrinsically AGAINST NATURE" is once again specifically condemned. This however has nothing whatsoever to do with NATURAL methods of family planning based upon "virtuous continence", which are specifically approved in the same document!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 22, 2003.

The couple should be open to life. Yes, abstain is legitimate, as long as that same couple also, at times abstains from the so called safe time. If all the abstaining is done during the fertile time, it is obvious that the reasons are a bit tainted.

-- Sweet Cherub (Molly h.r.@yahoo.com), November 22, 2003.

During the time a couple is using NFP for a just reason, abstaining would obviously occur during the fertile period. Otherwise the couple is not practicing NFP at all. However, it is also true that indiscriminate, prolonged use of NFP, simply as a means of avoiding the necessary openness to conception which is an integral part of marital love, is not morally defensible.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 22, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Mark. You wrote:
"Are you claiming that 'just reason' and 'serious reason' are always the same, or does this equivalence only apply to this particular instance?"

No, I am not claiming that "just reason" and "serious reason" are always the same. [There are moral contexts in which a less weighty reason could be sufficiently just.] But here we can tell that "just reasons" are "serious ones" from two indications:

(1) Several footnotes for this group of paragraphs of the CCC point to "Humanae vitae," which refers to "serious reasons" related to "physical, economic, psychological, and social conditions".
(2) In the paragraph you quoted, I think that the sentence after the one that mentions "just reasons" helps one to understand that "just" means "serious" in this context: "It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 22, 2003.

John, Thanks for your response. You won't be surprised to hear that my understanding on this is different: The Church uses relatively standard terminology to refer to the different levels or degrees of causes or reasons, as follows: "just" (iustus), "just and reasonable" (iustus et rationabilis), "serious" (serius), "grave" (gravis), and "gravest" (gravissimus). A just cause or reason is one level up from "whim" (ad nutum), where no reason is required, and the other levels that I listed proceed upward from there.

For example, a just reason for spacing ones children four years apart might be the inability to afford having two children in college at the same time, together with the belief that an essential part of properly raising children includes sending them to college. I don't think this would qualify as a serious reason, which might involve medical complications.

The only adjective that I am aware of for causes or reasons whose definition would depend on the associated context to the degree that you suggest in this case is "lawful" (legitimus).

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 22, 2003.

As I recall from a distant memory, there are places along the path the sperm would travel on its journey toward its target that afford it (them as there are many) protection for a few days, off the beaten path so to speak, which could allow for a pregnancy, for instance were intercourse to occur in the days preceeding ovulation and there was an attempt to avoid pregnancy through abstinance during the most fertile days.

This answer I think is a bit off the main thrust of the thread but may be some food for thought, particularly for those whose intent may be to avoid conception altogether and who would find themselves outside the norms of Catholic teaching in regard to the " openness to children" required for Catholic married couples.

Certainly, it would be nice to hear from an OB/GYNregarding this if there are any "listening".

KArl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 23, 2003.

"A just cause or reason is one level up from "whim" (ad nutum), where no reason is required, and the other levels that I listed proceed upward from there."

Horse puckie. Why should any of us belief this? One of the red flags I look out for is when people are quick to call teachings inconsistent so they can attack the Church. If you had any interest in the unity of the Church, then you would see the rightness of JFG's understanding. But, because your goals lie in portraying the Magisterium to be some sort of untrustworthy Mason- ridden lie-factory, you favor an interpretation of inconsistency that the authors of the CCC would certainly deny.

And I don't like that one bit.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 23, 2003.

Jmj

Mark, it is not the Catholic way to look for "loopholes." It seems that you are trying to make the words, "just reasons," mean something other than the authors intended, so that you (or others) may practice NFP for less than "serious reasons." I have to repeat my belief that a married couple must have "serious reasons" for using NFP to space their children.

I quoted "serious reasons," above, from Pope Paul VI's encyclical "Humanae vitae" [HV] (#10). Neither that pope nor either subsequent one has withdrawn or revised anything stated in the encyclical. Quite the contrary, since our current pope has repeatedly emphasized his complete support of what it teaches. As you know, the Catechism passage that you quoted (from 2368) was published in 1992. It is instructive to note that, five years later, the Pontifical Council for the Family published a "Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life." Within this document, you will find the following passage:

"... profoundly different from any contraceptive practice is the behavior of married couples, who, always remaining fundamentally open to the gift of life, live their intimacy only in the unfruitful periods, when they are led to this course by serious motives of responsible parenthood. This is true both from the anthropological and moral points of view, because it is rooted in a different conception of the person and of sexuality. 35"

The number "35" at the end refers to footnote 35, which points to "Humane vitae" #16. Note: that is #16, not the #10 that I quoted earlier. So now look at how Pope Paul equates the "serious reasons" (mentioned in #10) with "just reasons" (in #16):
"[Si igitur adsint iustae causae ...] If therefore there are [just reasons] for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained." [Note: one translation, at the Vatican site, of the Latin "iustae causae" says "well-grounded reasons," while the one in the Vademecum footnote says "serious reasons"!]

So it seems pretty clear that the CCC's use of "just reasons" (in #2368, which you quoted) comes from HV #16. And we can further see, from HV #10, that, in this context, only "serious reasons" are "just" ones.

God bless you.
John
PS: Skoobouy, just in case you hadn't heard about it, the "Vademecum" can be found here. The footnotes make up 50% of the document!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 23, 2003.

John,

Thanks again for your reply. I hope you'll agree that overstating a requirement of Church teaching (such as Karl did when he said that the "living as brother and sister" option only applied to the innocent spouse) is just as bad as teaching a loophole where there is none. I've found a paper by Janet E. Smith that I think contains a quite reasonable presentation of Church teaching on NFP. I have to warn you that it is very long, and I'm not suggesting that you need to read it or that if you do you will find it convincing. One quote:

It is my view that the common rendering of some of these phrases, such as “serious reasons” or “grave reasons” may suggest weightier reasons are required than is necessary. I believe the phrase “just reasons” to reflect more precisely what is meant. Trivial reasons will not do, but reasons less than life-threatening conditions will.

Anyway, just FYI, I am accepting the full explanation contained in the paper as an accurate reflection of Church teaching on NFP, and I don't feel a need to debate it here further, although I do appreciate the input you've provided so far. Thanks again.

Skoobouy (or whatever imposter may have posted in his name),

I'm sorry that I offended you. However, I can't agree with your interpretation of my post, nor with your implicit suggestion that a good Catholic is one who would deliberately misrepresent the teachings of the Magisterium out of a feeling of embarrassment over the fact that the Church's understanding of natural law grows over time. The unity of the Church need not fear the truth.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 23, 2003.

If you don't want to concieve, don't do anything. Ask yourself then, in that case, why you don't want to concieve. It usually boils down to some matter of inconvenience or selfishness or attachment to the world.

If you don't want to concieve, and do something, and then try to do something at a particular time such that you don't concieve, you're just trying to get out of something. You want your something without something else. It usually boils down to some matter of inconvenience or selfishness or attachment to the world.

Look, you either accept what's possible as God's Will or you don't. If you don't, there's always some available excuse. In the sight of God, it will always be just that... an excuse.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 23, 2003.

Perhaps God gave us the tools to make intelligent decisions, because he wants us to do just that. I think God wants us to be responsible parents. Being responsible is making decisions about the number of children that can be cared for and taking the steps to make it happen.

Burying your head in the sand and not planning your life's responsibilities doesn't mean you are of the world, it means you are a good christian Catholic parent.

Natural Family Planning worked very well for us. We used it to have two wonderful children . . . rather late in life. For us to have more children would not be God's will, it would be irresponsible on our part, especially if God gave us the understanding to control the situation and we chose to do nothing about it.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 24, 2003.

Mark,

"A just reason for spacing ones children four years apart might be tha inability to afford having two in college together..."

This is a sad case of putting the cart before the horse Mark. How can you plan 18 years ahead and use this as an excuse?

How do you know that the children will live to make it to college? How do you know you child would be born healthy enough to need a college education?[you could be blessed with a handicapped child]How do you know you(or your wife) will be alive to worry about that (college) bill?

Let God's will be done and buy a BIG life insurance policy on yourself if you want to worry about the future for your babies.[I would also suggest investing in EMC now because this is a once in a life time oppt.]

Jesus I trust in you.

PS: Or maybe you might end up with a ignorant child like me that refused to go to college:-( But, even us UN-educated Catholics have souls to bro.)

-- - (David@excite.com), November 24, 2003.

David,

So you are saying that because events sometimes don't go as planned that it is a sin to try to plan?

In this case, it's odd that you endorse life insurance. Seeing as how I didn't die last month, I should have cancelled my life insurance policy and instead donated the premium to the Church. And if I'm going to use "trust in God" as an excuse to avoid all planning, that should apply whether I live or whether I die.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 24, 2003.

Mark,

If you were really interested in authentic Catholic teaching you would understand that the "brother and sister" situation, indeed only applies to an innocent abandoned spouse, regardless of what you might otherwise think or hear.

If you took the issue up with an orthodox Catholic Moral Theologian, who understood the issues of justice and truth with a Catholic understanding of true Charity, you would learn that one cannot profit or take advantage of a sinful situation they have created as would be the case when a guilty spouse would attempt to live as brother and sister with their lover who assisted them in the destruction of a sacramental marriage. Indeed, what you would have is a situation where the end(rearing children conceived in open adultery) justifying the means(failing to live up to the public vows made in a sacramental marriage). This should be clear to you if you would open your mind to truth and justice.

Explain to me Mark, how such an arrangement is consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church that there are two equal ends of marriage, neither of which takes precedence over the other. One being the good of the sacramental spouse - that being evidenced by fidelity, not in the negative sense but in the positive sense through actually being a help mate to the sacramental spouse(not the adulterous unrepentant partner) and the raising of all children in a Catholic environment, which would be impossible by defintion if the gulity spouse has not reconciled with the spouse they abandoned.

You need to rethink your misunderstandings.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 24, 2003.

Karl,

The concept that you keep on forgetting is called "forgiveness." As our Lord prayed, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." And I'm afraid you are a perfect example of this: Your inability to forgive has destroyed both your relationship with your children and your relationship with the Church. But the good news is that it is never too late to change. Just approach the situation with humility, and do what you need to do in order to restore those relationships. I'll be saying a rosary for you.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 24, 2003.

Mark,

Your self-righteousness is apparent and your offer to say a Rosary for me is an affront to God himself who would rather you turned towards justice than to simply say prayers, when your heart refuses HIS justice, which you would bend if you could with your misunderstandings regarding forgiveness and Charity, as taught by the Catholic Church.

It is attitudes such as yours which support sin and its consequences to the innocent. You would rather appease the sinner than hold them to accountability and by doing so you harm the innocent, who often remain the victims as a consequence of foolish actions based upon wrong opinions such as yours.

You are a typically misguided, touchy feely, pretender Catholic.

What you believe in is not Catholic. There is no forgiveness without justice. Such belief is fantasy.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 24, 2003.

Karl,

You are more than welcome to pray for my sin of self-righteousness in whatever way you see fit. A rosary would be great.

But just remember that we sinned against Jesus much much more than your wife and her lover ever sinned against you. And Jesus not only forgave us, he died on a cross for us so that we could have eternal life. Please also remember that your kids still need you, even if you don't think so. I am also learning this lesson, and I'm finding the book Wednesday Evenings and Every Other Weekend very helpful. Not everything in it may apply to your situation, but I am sure that some parts of it will be very helpful.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 24, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Mark.
Before I get into what I want to tell you, I'll react to these words of yours: "I hope you'll agree that overstating a requirement of Church teaching (such as Karl did when he said that the 'living as brother and sister' option only applied to the innocent spouse) is just as bad as teaching a loophole where there is none."

I'm not going to try to decide which is worse than the other. I'll just say that both are bad. Both of you are wrong. As I'm sure I've already told "Karl's Krowd," the "brother and sister" option is applicable in any "irregular marriage-with-children" situation in which circumstances make it impossible for the original, validly married couple to be reunited.

It was interesting that you brought up Dr. Janet Smith. I first met her in 1988, when I attended a pro-life conference in Orange County, California. She was a very young professor at the University of Notre Dame then, and she spoke about "Humanae vitae" at the conference. She made a very good impression on me.

I remember (maybe ten years ago) when she decided that she wanted to re-translate "Humanae vitae" because she thought that the official Vatican translation was not good enough. I have nothing against re-translating documents, because original translations are made by human beings and can thus have errors in them. However, we have to keep in mind that Dr. Smith is also human and can make errors in her re-translation (verbal errors and/or errors of judgment).

I may have already read the document that you linked. At the moment, I don't have time to read anything long, and my small computer has been choking on PDF documents anyway. So I'm glad that you gave me a quotation from it. I partly disagree with these words of Dr. Smith:

"It is my view that the common rendering of some of these phrases, such as 'serious reasons' or 'grave reasons' may suggest weightier reasons are required than is necessary. I believe the phrase 'just reasons' to reflect more precisely what is meant. Trivial reasons will not do, but reasons less than life-threatening conditions will."

She is right to say that the word "grave" has a connotation that goes beyond what the pope wrote, but she is wrong to cast aside the word "serious," when that was the very word the pope used. It is necessary to retain "serious" in #10 to clarify the meaning of "just" in #16. She is wrong to say that using "serious" implies "life-threatening" to the average reader. Actually "serious" serves her purposes -- as a word to speak of "reasons less than life-threatening." Conversely, there is too great a danger in using only "just," which some weak couples will interpret as something too close to "trivial." (I think that the error that someone made -- to which Dr. Smith is now overreacting -- was the unwarranted use of the word "grave.")

Mark, you went on to say something that was surprising to me:
"... I am accepting the full explanation contained in the [Smith] paper as an accurate reflection of Church teaching on NFP, and I don't feel a need to debate it here further ..."

It is true that you can do far worse than to rely on a paper by Dr. Smith. From years of watching her (at conferences and on EWTN) and reading things she's written, I don't hesitate to say that she is brilliant and right almost always. But therein lies the rub. She does rarely misinterpret things -- as in the serious/just case I discussed above. That's why you should rely on papal and other Vatican documents (such as the "Vademecum" I quoted for you) as and even more "accurate relection of Church teaching on NFP" than what Dr. Smith offers.

Again, Mark, your attitude here comes across here not as that of a Catholic, but of a person looking for loopholes. Being a Catholic means not being a "minimalist" -- trying to get away with doing what you figure is the least that is barely necessary. (Your standards will keep dropping.) Being a Catholic means making sacrifices and willing to do more than what you figure is the minimum -- and asking God for the graces to keep trying to give still more.

John
PS to "Emerald": Shoo, fly! You either don't know the Church's teaching on this subject (including "Humanae vitae"), or you have decided to reject it. Either way, it results in your posting comments that are of no help to anyone, because you are contradicting the pope.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 24, 2003.

"PS to "Emerald": Shoo, fly!"

No. lol! Sorry.

My wife and I have never practiced NFP and never will. There is no contradiction whatsoever to Church teachings in taking this approach. All we have to do is to not inhibit procreation in any manner, and looking at my children, I couldn't image why anyone could ever think to do so. I will admit, though, that's it taken years to learn how to appreciate my own family members.

I'm not leaving. Deal with it. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 25, 2003.

Tell me John,

What situation could exist where there are two living spouses in a sacramental marriage, where one could chose to stay with their criminal partner refusing to make restitution for all of their wrongs, as is required by the teaching of the Catholic Church unless you know something more than has been taught from the time of Christ and are hence schismatic, unless the innocent partner refuses to follow the teaching of the Church to heal the marriage through justice, and truth.

No such situation can exist as it flie in the face of justice.

Gecik, you cannot do what is wrong for the sake of what is good.

Period. As I see it you are teaching what is NOT approved by the Catholic Church.

When has the Church taught that what you have stolen you are not required to return? Or that you may use the criminal situation you have created to profit from it? You are sincerely mistaken.

Karl.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hoitmail.com), November 25, 2003.

Karl, I have no idea what you are talking about. Scroll up, read your first paragraph, and please admit that no human being on Earth could understand it. What I mentioned to Mark, above, is the situation that I raised on another thread a few weeks ago. I think that you saw it then, and I think you unreasonably rejected it then. Why do you expect me to waste time going over it again for you, an anti-Catholic, ex-Catholic defector who is not here for a valid purpose? I will explain it to you if you swear that you didn't see it on that other thread. (I suppose that it's possible that I was speaking only to your two "comrades in crime" on that thread.)

Mr. Moeller, you wrote: "My wife and I have never practiced NFP and never will. There is no contradiction whatsoever to Church teachings in taking this approach."

As long as your non-practice of NFP leaves you in a condition of practicing "responsible parenthood" (rather than "irresponsible parenthood") then you are correct. But when I criticized you in my last message, it had nothing to do with your personal decision within your marriage. Rather, I was telling you that you were going against papal/Catholic-Church teaching by claiming that other married couples are not permitted to use NFP. [Now perhaps you didn't actually claim that, because you assent to "Humanae vitae" and support others' use of NFP. If so, then I just concluded wrongly because your writing was cryptic -- and I would withdraw my criticism.]

You wrote: "I'm not leaving. Deal with it."

I don't have to "deal with it." Now that you are totally prohibited from posting messages about certain topics, I don't mind if you stick around. In fact, if you behave yourself, it would be refreshingly like when you first came to the forum, when you actually made legitimate contributions (and we were friends). When I said "Shoo, fly," above, I wasn't saying, "Get out of the forum." I was saying, "Stay out of this discussion" (because I got the impression that you were publicly dissenting from "Humanae vitae").

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.

I'm sorry John, but I'll be posting as I see fit, not as you see fit.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 25, 2003.

John,

Again, Mark, your attitude here comes across here not as that of a Catholic, but of a person looking for loopholes. ...

I believe that this is the fundamental disconnect that is at the root of all our disagreements. Because stripped of your pejorative terms, this is exactly what I think the attitude of a Catholic, or indeed any Christian, should be. The Pharisees (according to a sermon I heard a long time ago) were always trying to outdo each other in terms of finding obscure rules or stricter interpretations of unclear rules to follow. For example, if one Pharisee fasted for two days, another Pharisee would find some reason to fast for three days, and then claim to be closer to God for doing so. But I think that Jesus made it very clear that this is exactly the wrong attitude to take.

As you know, I have an interest in studying Canon Law. Unlike civil law, it is more than just a manmade system of arbitrary rules. The many canons of Canon Law attempt to capture, as much as is possible, what it means to be a good Catholic. And I find the attitude that I embrace, and which you reject, readily visible in those canons. We have discussed this issue before, with respect to 1983 CIC 14, the canon that states that doubtful laws do not oblige. My view is that this canon is one essential component of what Jesus and His Church teach, and not merely a "loophole" that true Catholics should eschew.

I'm glad that we both share a respect for Dr. Janet Smith. I feel more than a little bit silly repeating my simple-minded line of reasoning alongside her well-supported professional opinion, but since you brought up the matter of papal and other official documentation, here goes: The CCC says, "For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children." My understanding of ecclesiastical terminology is that the Latin terms for "just reason" and "serious reason" have as much precision as, say, the adjectives "red" and "green" for describing colors. So I see the CCC as saying that NFP is red, with the additional discussion helping to clarify if it is more of a magenta or a cherry or a maroon. So if someone claims that what the CCC is really saying is that NFP is green, I see that as a significant departure from the actual text of the CCC. While I do admit of the remote possibility that the clear and plain statement of CCC is in fact just a very poorly worded exposition of what in reality is a much stricter standard for using NFP, I would need much more evidence to be convinced of this. And if this is indeed the case, then the Pope needs to have the CCC text corrected at once, because it is surely responsible for leading untold number of people into unknowing sin.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

Discussions of the morality of NFP seem to go no where because posters seem to forget the criteria for making moral judgments and then stubbornly refuse to make proper distinctions between apples and oranges.

In Catholic moral theology, moral guilt or innocence is found by looking at a person's Intent, the Act (or thought, or omission) itself, and the particular Circumstances. One defect is enough to make something morally sinful, whereas you need all 3 levels to be good for a person to be good.

But if you notice, only the Act and Circumstances are "public source" realities: only the person(s) involved (including God) know their Intentions. This is why it's really hard to judge other people's moral culpability but is not hard to judge the morality of a given action. But most people confuse the two as though just knowing something is wrong or hurtful is enough to know that the person doing it is a moral leper.

Yet in law (and other areas) we accept that role of intent: thus premeditated murder is worse than man-slaughter because the difference of intent, but is not much difference in act or circumstances since someone kills someone else. In either case, a man dies, and that's objectively bad, yet in one case the killer is morally guilty and in the other he/she isn't guilty of murder.

So much hinges on information.

In the NFP arena without knowing a couple's circumstances (health wise or time wise) or intentions, a 3rd party can't make a moral judgment about their moral culpability for not having lots of kids.

Actions however are clear: if you use contraceptives, condoms, etc. thus frustrating either the otherwise fertile conditions of the woman or keeping otherwise fertile sperm from being exchanged... no amount of circumstance or intent can save the act from being sinful.

But then I think we all agree on the above. The question is the moral situation of a means of tracking the fertile cycle of women and what use we make of this knowledge.

Looking at the result: no children, is NOT useful, as that can be the end "result" between infertile couples, morally good or morally bad couples.

You might intend to have children, but be ignorant of the woman's fertile window and just be unlucky... that happens. While never seeking to avoid pregnancy, you might just never have relations during the right time window.

Many married couples don't intend to avoid conception, they just don't have sex all the time for a variety of reasons: colds, exhaustion, different work schedules, the practical responsibilities they have for other children or dependents - the lack of time and energy to do it right rather than to do it perfunctorily, forced, and rushed.

If we say that procreation is so important that the unitive dimension takes second place, it would seem that in the above scenario, couples who know they're fertile should never miss a "date" during their fertile window on pain of mortal sin - regardless of mood, health or time.

Now for men, sex at the drop of a hat is entirely possible and doesn't seem "rushed" at all. But how many women out there look forward to a 30 minute session? Even biologically their bodies don't get going, lubricating that fast. Or doesn't that matter? Are they just to submit as if doing a chore? Seriously, this is a moral consideration to keep in mind. If you aren't going to have time or the energy for a delicate, detailed and delightful marital "embrace" is the fact of fertility so important that it doesn't matter?

After all - marriage is not solely for procreation... husbands can't force themselves on their wives or expect quick satisfaction. Romance, build-up, fore-play, and coitus are all essential parts of a healthy interpersonal marriage as well as healthy PHYSICAL prelude to procreation. Yet it takes time and energy to do it right - and many folk don't have this time or energy every night week after week.

In most subjective sins (private, personal) the calculus is fairly straight forward. But when actions involve others it gets complicated exponentially - because now you are dealing with Intents, acts, and circumstances that involve not just one but two or more people.

Thus a wife might be guilty of sin while her husband is not - by withholding herself from him when there is no objective (or serious subjective) reason to. The husband, obviously not wanting to force himself on the wife would abstain... thus he wouldn't be morally culpable of "spacing births", while she would be.

Or the wife could be open to life and want relations, but the husband could be miserly or scared, or whatever and refrain from giving himself to his wife...

While the simple calculation is that one or the other has been sinful...since they didn't actually have sex during the fertile period (which they'd only know if they used NFP), the second question is how grave is this sin? Mortal?

God commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply"... one of the first commands to humanity. Does this mean "fruitful to the maximum physically possible?

Does it mean a pregnancy a year on the pain of hell fire? Surely that's absurd. But it is possible and many good Catholic families do have a child a year for the first 15 years of marriage... so is it a question of what is best as opposed to merely good? Or if you don't push the pedal to the metal are you sinful? "Some 100, others 60, others 30 fold"... is the wheat stalk that only produces 30 less morally good than the stalk that produces 100 fold?

Clearly "Be fruitful and multiply" means: seek pregnancy as part and parcel of marriage. So NFP for the newly wed couple would seem moral ONLY for health reasons on the part of the woman or for the sake of children should the wife be taking medications for something else which are risky for children in utero... The couple's abstaining from relations in that situation wouldn't be closed to life. It would be an intent to properly prepare the woman's ecosystem to receive life! Just as you don't plant crops in winter, it'd be sinful to seek pregnancy when the biological conditions of the woman would be detrimental to new life.

But only the couple would know that this was the case...yet how easy would it be for others to cast judgments on a couple, married for 2 years who haven't yet gotten pregnant but recently just bought a home or new car? Here they may be actively preparing "the nest" but abstaining until health conditions are safe for the child to be...

Thus when we outsiders look at a married couple we can't just judge them so quickly as "greedy" because the woman has a cycle. Cycles exist even in people who are sick or taking strong medication...

That being established we then must look at the hypothetical situation of a married couple who are healthy and wealthy but don't have children or aren't pregnant yet.

It would seem on the face of it that their general circumstances allow for children but that they are avoiding it (Intent), since the act in otherwise healthy individuals has a high chance of success.

If you knew positively that they were using NFP to purposely avoid pregancy - out of fear or greed... then sure, your moral judgment of their guilt would be correct.

But what about the CIRCUMSTANCE of a woman who has just had a child, has recovered, and is biologically healthy - and could be fertile within 2-3 months...are good Catholics to seek immediate return of pregnancy?

The anti-NFP crowd would seem to say YES! But then for them, apparently CIRCUMSTANCES are such that they feel capable of handling the responsibility of new born, other children, and pregnant wife.

But on that token, they can't easily presume that other couples' CIRCUMSTANCES are equal. A morally responsible couple who abstains because they want to provide as optimal a womb and mother and family situation as is reasonable to new life to all the world it might look like they're "spacing" births out of greed. But unless you know such a private circumstance, you simply can't in conscience make the call!

Even apart from intent, circumstances of family, friends, job stability, support network, settledness of marriage, etc. have powerful places in the woman's life and can't be pooh-poohed by us men as though they should just "trust in God" and get over it. Trusting in God means taking into account all the signs and support he sends us, not being foolhardy.

If there was such a thing as "the fullness of time" for the Incarnation, and God waiting thousands of years before sending his Messiah is OK, then it would seem there is also a fullness of time for married couples too.

After child birth most women need weeks if not MONTHS to recover physically. Abstinence seems to be the only moral - and practical - option here given the demands of new borns on parents' time and energies. Then too, breastfeeding (and general fatigue) normally keeps the woman from being fertile for some -though unspecified- time.

If procreation was the primary duty and reason for relations, as the anti-NFP people (not here on this thread but elsewhere) seem to suggest, then breastfeeding infants too long (thus spacing children) would also be a moral infraction by the end result (no new pregnancy) rather than a moral option given the benefit to the breastfeeding child.

Finally, post-partum... if, given the hectic schedule many couples live: long commutes to work, late night returns, fatigue, the need to study or do house work during the evenings, bathe, feed, put smaller children to sleep...the prospect of early morning rush to work... a couple decides to arrange certain days of the month for their "date" night - because other children, work, and commitments keep them from doing justice to one another in the marital act... this would appear - as intent- to be a responsible use of our reason in regulating our passions.

Yet given the often irregular cycle women experience however, not every "date" is going to land on a fertile window... would this CIRCUMSTANCE and the INTENT based on the NFP's information of the woman's infertile condition make relations on these nights illicit?

After 6 to 8 months post-partum, when fertility comes back, is the Catholic couple demanded by their procreative responsibility to attempt a new pregnancy as soon as physically possible, even if other factors are not yet in place - emotional stability for example?

"Look honey, we have to get pregnant ASAP so let's go"... doesn't seem very "unitive" an attitude to me. Especially given the Pope's near poetic writings on the delicate and gentle relations - far removed from an animalistic view of things - that husbands are to have with wives.

That word "grave reasons" isn't defined or clarified anywhere to my knowledge. Does "grave" mean exclusively physical?

If for example it's been 10 months post-partum, but by NFP we know we'll hit the fertile window on a Monday night - yet I have a business trip... would this mean I must cancel, on pain of mortal sin and stay home instead? After all, if emotional conditions are not "grave" enough, how could economic ones be?

Or what if I or my spouse is momentarily ill - the flu - during that window of opportunity. It is not physically IMPOSSIBLE to have relations, just highly inconvenient (head ache, sneezing, feeling chills). Does the Church say we must forge ahead regardless? I don't think so.

Thus it appears that CIRCUMSTANCES exist in the lives on faithful Catholic couples who INTEND to have more children, and never commit any overt act against life, that leads them to space children over more than 1 or 2 years.

Not all families using NFP are the same - either by intent or circumstance.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

If it's all that complicated, one might wonder if even talking about NFP is contraceptive. I've got a headache already.

j/k

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 26, 2003.

Jmj

Mark, after reading your reply, I am more convinced than ever that you are not approaching this properly. Indeed, to say it for a third time, "Mark, your attitude here comes across here not as that of a Catholic, but of a person looking for loopholes. ..."

You have overreacted to my statement by trying to label me as a Pharisee because I insist on adhering to the actual word that Pope Paul VI used -- "serious." This has the effect -- which you ought to want to studiously avoid -- of calling the pope a Pharisee too. The problem is that you have overlooked the facts that prove that neither the pope nor I is pharisaical.

You said: "The Pharisees ... were always trying to outdo each other in terms of finding obscure rules or stricter interpretations of unclear rules to follow."

Actually, the pope and I would argue that there is nothing "unclear" about the fact that he used the word "serious" in HV #10 and then "just" in HV #16 -- to refer to the sort of "reasons" that a couple must have for using NFP (i.e., to be just, they must be serious).

Now you need to stop mixing me and the pope up with those who really are pharisaical -- i.e., people who call themselves Catholic but dissent from HV by claiming either (1) that NFP is contraception and must be totally abandoned or (2) that NFP may be used only in some "grave" [to use JS's word, "life-threatening"] circumstances. I condemn that kind of thinking, because it is against the Church's teaching.

So, with these things in mind, you can see that the pope and I are "smack in the orthodox middle" -- between the two extremes of the "pharisaical dissenters" and the "lax dissenters." I fear that you are attracted to becoming one of the latter, I pray that you will now flee from the temptation.

Joe Stong, above, is with the pope and me, I believe. He knows that the content of "serious reasons" varies from couple to couple -- which is why the Church has never enumerated just what qualifies as "serious reasons." I trust that God will help a prayerful couple exercising their informed consciences to know when they do or do not have a serious reason to delay their next (or even first) child by using the natural (in)fertility he has given them.

Mark, you wrote: "We have discussed this issue before, with respect to 1983 CIC 14, the canon that states that doubtful laws do not oblige. My view is that this canon is one essential component of what Jesus and His Church teach, and not merely a 'loophole' that true Catholics should eschew."

I will not speak against canon 14, but I will speak against the dishonest misapplication of it for a person's convenience (but to the person's actual detriment). In the case we are discussing, though, there is no "doubtful law" at all. We are talking about an unchangeable matter of sexual morality -- not a changeable matter of canonical discipline. The truth is quite plain if one approaches what the pope wrote with honesty and generosity.

You also wrote: "My understanding of ecclesiastical terminology is that the Latin terms for 'just reason' and 'serious reason' have as much precision as, say, the adjectives 'red' and 'green' for describing colors."

Your "understanding" is completely wrong, as I already explained. This is one of the toughest chores I have in taking part in a forum -- correcting a person's mistake, only to have the person repeat the same mistake in his next post -- as though my correction were written in invisible ink! Maybe you need to go back and re-read. I showed you clearly how the pope used the words "serious reasons" (in HV 10) and "just reasons" (in HV 16) to refer to the same reasons -- making the phrases synonymous within the context of justifying the use of NFP. But then I went two steps further, showing you (a) that the CCC section that you quoted footnotes HV extensively and (b) that the Vatican's 1997 "Vademecum" for confessors says that even HV 16 requires "serious reasons"!

For these reasons, your next to last sentence does not correspond to reality: "While I do admit of the remote possibility that the clear and plain statement of CCC is in fact just a very poorly worded exposition of what in reality is a much stricter standard for using NFP, I would need much more evidence to be convinced of this."

In other words, we are not talking about "remote possibilit[ies]", and we are not saying that the CCC is "very poorly worded." Rather -- as proved by what I have repeated above (about HV 10, HV 16, and the Vademecum) -- the CCC's words, "just reasons" (from HV16) are accurate, but need to be understood in light of their synonym ("serious reasons") in HV10. That is why the CCC doesn't need to be "corrected." It is correct already, but its words need to be interpreted accurately by following the entirety of the supporting document, "Humanae vitae."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.

"... John, but I'll be posting as I see fit, not as you see fit. -- Emerald"
Not for a minute do I believe this ... because, if you post "as [you] see fit," most of your posts will be deleted by the moderator. Even you are smart enough to avoid that.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.

;-) Ha ha! good one Emerald!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

This is an interesting thread, but I have a question here....

"I imagine you could spend the extra money on fertility monitors, but all the signs God gives you through observing what is happening in the wife's body are more than enough....temperature, mucus, cervical changes, ovulation pain, etc! "

The above (without using a thermometer) might work for any woman who has her periods like clockwork, on time and with the aforementioned changes. They do not take place in every woman the same way. Many women skip periods and it is no big deal to them (i.e. you're not in an "up the creek" situation). If you're in the right age bracket, 3-4 months without a period could mean either pregnancy or menopause.

So, for the rest of these women, you probably need to use a gadget, either a fertility monitor or a thermometer for the method to be even reasonably reliable, which then introduces "artificiality" to this method of birth control/family planning. So it is then not much different than say, using a condom.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 26, 2003.

John,

I fear that we are again at an impasse; in fact, the same impasse as before.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you truly believe that I called Pope Paul VI a Pharisee. Let me explain again why I did not. The specific behavior that I labeled as pharisaical was that in the case where there is a authoritative rule or standard that is less strict (e.g., only fasting for two days, or only having a just reason for spacing children) than another rule or standard (resp. needing to fast for three days, or needing to have a serious reason for spacing children), the Pharisee would say that the "correct" way to resolve the conflict between the two rules or standards is by following the one that is more strict because it is more strict. This seems (to me) to be exactly what you are doing when you denigrate the less strict rule as a "loophole".

Having said that, I do not see any statement or action of Pope Paul VI that fits this model. In fact, if he had had pharisaical tendencies, I think that he would have tried to remove or weaken the canon law about doubtful laws not obliging (1917 CIC 15, 1983 CIC 14) during the post-Vatican II revision of Canon Law. But of course he did not.

This is one of the toughest chores I have in taking part in a forum -- correcting a person's mistake, only to have the person repeat the same mistake in his next post -- as though my correction were written in invisible ink!

With me repeating myself, and you saying things for the third time, I agree that this conversation is going nowhere. However, you should recall that I entered this discussion by quoting the CCC in my first post, and only in later posts did I call upon Dr. Janet Smith for additional support. So I'm not sure what other response you expected when you told me to rely on official Vatican documents instead of Dr. Smith.

Joe Stong, above, is with the pope and me, I believe. He knows that the content of "serious reasons" varies from couple to couple -- which is why the Church has never enumerated just what qualifies as "serious reasons."

I agree that the specific content of what a serious reason is varies from couple to couple. However, this fact does not give you license to play "Humpty-Dumpty" with the language, redefining words to mean what you want them to mean. The term "just reason" is simply not synonymous with "serious reason", any more than "preponderance of the evidence" is synonymous with "clear and convincing evidence" or "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard of proof in civil and criminal law. Even though the application of a given term may vary slightly from case to case, the use of one term wherever another is actually meant is just plain wrong, and needs correction.

The truth is quite plain if one approaches what the pope wrote with honesty and generosity.

Just out of curiosity, which of these attributes do you see Dr. Smith as lacking?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

"...the Pharisee would say that the "correct" way to resolve the conflict between the two rules or standards is by following the one that is more strict because it is more strict. This seems (to me) to be exactly what you are doing when you denigrate the less strict rule as a "loophole"."

There's two ways to look at this though, Mark, imho. The other way is from the fact that love seeks to get rid of all available loopholes and burn impurities out of itself, and the stricter rule would in that sense become the only option.

Joe, I like a lot of what you say, but there is still that burning question of what is actually a legitimate intervention between the unitive and procreative, to the point where I am willing to posit that there are in fact none. It seems anymore with a lot of subjects that people make distinctions and deal with the parts separately. Some things are composites and just can't be busted up into parts so easily without losing something of their essence.

Also, if marriage is a type of some larger reality, then it would seem that to examine it too closely is to take it for it's own sake instead of what it in itself aspires to participate in. In a way, that's the trademark of sin right there in a nutshell, taking the creature in place of the creator. That could even happen with objective goods like earthly families, where the family itself can be taken as the end-all be-all instead of the family of the Heavenly Court that's the goal that it strives to imitate and obtain.

The thought of imposing the human will on a marriage in the form of that kind of planning bothers me. There are other, truer ways to put human reason and planning to good use: adapting to new demands seems more in the domain of human capabilities than to determine the will of God, if that were possible. The latter seems something like saying "certainly God does not will us to have another child when we are so busy right now with this, that and the other thing". Doing the will of God seems like it would be more like this: "we might have another family member, so let's prepare / adjust accordingly. If we have to suffer, we suffer... so what".

If you consider the possibility of another child coming along as a sort of fixed, or a principle, and whatever changes need to be made to accomodate that new child as a variable, or what really and truly is within your control, then one would seem to be more ready to accept God's will than to make their own will out to be God's. Rationalizing, in other words. God's will can really truly seem bizarre sometimes, at least from our perspective. How can we be open to it if we have everything planned according to our working standards?

Imho one should just act according to nature and grace, and be done with it. Otherwise they may take the means as being the end itself. I can't help seeing every so-called legitimate reason as just a loophole; after all, we live for a while and then we're dead. All the planning in the world won't make a bit of difference then, but the souls we bring into the world will still exist.

I'm not sure if that made any sense whatsoever Joe, but I'll chart the responses to it for a month and try to find a convenient loophole to get out of this conversation. =)

I guess what I mean is, seek first the Kingdom, and all this other stuff will be added?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 27, 2003.

After reading all the post, rather hurriedly, esp. John's valid difficulties etc., it seems that NFP is very much necessary in today fast and insecure world. We know, those married, did not marry because they primarily wanted to procreate, but rather wanted to have legitimate sexual outlet, which even St. Paul in his letters to 2 Corinthians cites as a primary reason "better to marry than to die of passion." But, then making a strict law that every desire of love for one's spouse ending in sexual expression should necessarily lead to conception does not necessarily reveal anything godly. Spacing using NFP, in fact can be more godly and loving in some circumstances such as the poor health of your spouse, just after a child was born, difficulty providing attention or education should a new child be born, or convinced of birth defects or serious illness that could be transmitted in the newborn, etc. "You Pharisees bind heavy burdens on the poor, but you yourself do not lift a finger to help" keeps ringing throughout. "The law of letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Let us see the spirit behind which the laws were written. If love and concern for my wife and my children (even future ones) leads me spacing, then I need not have any guilt or fear, for "in love there is no fear" and "against such there is no law" Gal.5:23. This is much noble than a barren couple feeling that they are faultless in spite of all the sexual expression they can have, as they do break the law of love and life, simply because they are not responsible for no life. So, you see spacing out of genuine love is better than giving life that one cannot take enough responsibility for the security and education. Does not the scripture and the Church say that "love is the greatest."?

-- leslie john (leslie_jn@yahoo.com), November 27, 2003.

Emerald,

There's two ways to look at this though, Mark, imho. The other way is from the fact that love seeks to get rid of all available loopholes and burn impurities out of itself, and the stricter rule would in that sense become the only option.

There may be some called to the stricter rule out of a true love of God, and for them, following the stricter rule does bring them closer to God. However, IMHO, it is a mistake to believe that the stricter rule must apply to everyone.

For example, St. Francis of Assisi gave up all his possessions and led a life of poverty because he heard God's specific calling to him. For him, everything he owned was a loophole, separating him from God. But neither he nor the Church teaches that this is the standard that every single Christian is called to.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 27, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, GT and Mark.

GT, you wrote: "The above [temperature, mucus, cervical changes, ovulation pain, etc] (without using a thermometer) might work for any woman who has her periods like clockwork, on time and with the aforementioned changes. They do not take place in every woman the same way. Many women skip periods and it is no big deal to them (i.e. you're not in an 'up the creek' situation). If you're in the right age bracket, 3-4 months without a period could mean either pregnancy or menopause. So, for the rest of these women, you probably need to use a gadget, either a fertility monitor or a thermometer for the method to be even reasonably reliable, which then introduces 'artificiality' to this method of birth control/family planning. So it is then not much different than say, using a condom."

GT, you could not be more wrong! I'm amazed that you could still say such things after having read so much here at the forum on this subject -- and especially after you have spent a lot of time studying this subject in depth at www.ccli.org (Couple to Couple League), which I have recommended several times. What's this? You've ignored all my past suggestions to go to www.ccli.org? A major mistake, my dear!!!

What I mean by saying you are "wrong" is this ...
1. When a well-trained woman -- even an illiterate woman, even a woman with extremely irregular cycles -- observes all the signs listed above (as CCLI will explain to you), she knows her (in)fertility to an amazingly reliable degree, even without the need to use a newfangled monitor.
2. Any woman who does use a fertility-determining instrument of some kind is not contracepting. Using a device to determine a natural fact is not telling God he can't be God -- which is what contraceptives do. The action of a woman using a measuring device is nothing whatsoever like a condom, which erects a barrier that destroys potential fertility (a sin against God and one's spouse). Couples who practice periodic abstinence, by contrast, remain open to a new life that God may choose to give, and they never destroy potential fertility.

Mark, this will be my last message to you on this thread. Contrary to what you said, we are not "at an impasse." Instead, your mind seems so closed to what I am writing that my words are going in one ear/eye and out the other. I have told you the same facts two or three times, but you just seem to ignore them -- including the single most important fact. I'll say it one last time, in the hope that my presenting it in this "dramatic" context will finally result in a breakthrough. I'll even put it in a little paragraph all by itself:

In "Humanae vitae," Pope Paul VI refers -- in #10 -- to the need for a couple to have "serious reasons" for using NFP. [Read the actual text above.] Then six paragraphs later -- in #16, the same pope refers to the necessity of "just reasons" to be present for a couple to use NFP.
The pope did not also say, in #16: "Oh, by the way, I messed up when I said 'serious' back in article #10. I meant to say 'just,' as I've just said now."
Thus, a person whose mind is thinking clearly can see that the "just reasons" of #16 are the same "serious reasons" of #10. We are not talking about two different classifications of "reasons" (one more weighty than the other). We are talking about the very same reasons. This means that, for the use of NFP, any kinds of reasons that are less than "serious" would not be "just." And that is exactly why the recent Vatican document, the "Vademecum," again refers to "serious reasons" -- even in its quoting of HV 16!

Now do you get it? I will pray for you tonight to grasp this, because it is so very important.

God bless you.
John
PS: About one of my comments ("The truth is quite plain if one approaches what the pope wrote with honesty and generosity"), Mark, you asked, "Just out of curiosity, which of these attributes do you see Dr. Smith as lacking?" I cannot answer that without reading her whole document, to see if the portion you quoted has been removed from a context -- a context that may show that she does not contradict the pope and me after all.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 27, 2003.

"There may be some called to the stricter rule out of a true love of God, and for them, following the stricter rule does bring them closer to God. However, IMHO, it is a mistake to believe that the stricter rule must apply to everyone."

I'm not sure about that last sentence. Each according to their state in life, but it seems to me there must be some common principle, don't you think? After all, we all die.

What you are getting at I understand, but I'm not sure it's a mistake.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 27, 2003.

John,

I appreciate your prayers, and your efforts to explain your point of view to me. However, what you are saying is just too contrary to everything else I have studied for me to accept. I am just going to have to take the Catechism at its word, instead of [what appears to me to be] forcing into it some other preconceived interpretation.

If your time frees up before you get your PDF problem fixed, you can do a Google search for Dr. Smith's document, and click on "View as HTML" to avoid PDF altogether. You will find that it is not taken out of context, but is her summary of the detailed consideration of a number of reasons for spacing births, and her examination as to whether they are licit or not.

Again, thanks.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 28, 2003.

Emerald,

I'm glad you understand what I am getting at. I'm afraid to say I don't understand what you are trying to ask or say in your last post. Is it that Jesus was wrong to condemn the Pharisees? Or that His condemnation of the Pharisees did not extend to their pattern of viewing as unworthy all those who did not always follow the stricter rule?

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you are not now living naked in a cave with no possessions. If this is so, then why are you not following the stricter rule that Jesus imposed on the rich man in Mark 10:21, and that St. Francis followed?

The reason that I personally have not sold all of my possessions is twofold: (1) the Church does not require this of me; and (2) I do not feel that it will bring me closer to God, your flowery language about "burning out impurities" notwithstanding. And these are the same reasons that I feel free to use NFP to regulate having children.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 28, 2003.

Jmj

Mark, last time I said that I wouldn't be replying to you again on this thread. However, I just had an opportunity to use someone else's computer to look at the essay by Dr. Smith. I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but I read certain parts thoroughly and skimmed the rest.

My reactions are these ...
1. If you and your wife read the whole essay with care and follow what she advises, you won't go wrong. Why? Because, even though Dr. Smith suggests avoiding the use of the term "serious reasons" -- preferring to use only "just reasons" -- the whole thrust of her essay identifies those "just reasons" as what a normal person would consider "serious" ones. [Even the CCC, after referring to "just reasons," follows that up with a brief explanation that (in my opinion) refers to serious considerations that must be present.]

2. My opinion is that, in advising people to avoid referring to "serious reasons," Dr. Smith has made an error in prudential judgment, probably arising from some conversations she has had with Catholic couples who have attended her lectures or listened to her tapes.

3. It is good that she wants as many people to use NFP as ought to use it. I suspect that several overly scrupulous people have said to her, "Well, we aren't using NFP because my spouse and I don't know if we really have serious reasons." So I suspect that, out of an overabundance of solicitude for these people, to help them to be at ease with using NFP, she decided to recommend using only the phrase, "just reasons."

4. My belief is that this was a mistake on her part, because: (a) Paul VI didn't confine himself to only one characterization ["just reasons"] and (b) the phrase, "just reasons," alone is too ambiguous -- a phrase that may help the overly scrupulous, but would simultaneously harm those who are poorly informed or lax. Upon hearing only the phrase, "just reasons," this latter group would rationalize the use of NFP for even frivolous reasons. They need to see the word "serious" (or at least a clear explanation of "just" as referring to something far more than "trivial reasons").

Mark, in your last message, you wrote: "I am just going to have to take the Catechism at its word, instead of [what appears to me to be] forcing into it some other preconceived interpretation."

This wrongly states that I am "forcing" the CCC to say something that it does not. It also falsely implies that I don't take the CCC "at its word." By using "just reasons," the CCC authors were not intending to say that something less than "serious reasons" are needed. [Once again, I remind you of what you have consistently ignored in this thread -- the post-CCC (1997) Vatican document that reiterates the need for "serious reasons."]

I would never argue against the CCC's use of "just reasons," because Pope Paul VI uses that phrase. However, when a person with a well-formed conscience is told, "You may use NFP if you have just reasons," that person is going to ask, "Well, tell me more, because I don't know if my reasons are 'just.'" In other words, the person needs a better explanation (or at least a characterization) than merely "just reasons." That better characterization is provided by the phrase, "serious reasons." And that better explanation (if the person desires one) is seen in the excellent details offered by Dr. Smith.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 28, 2003.

Semantics, semantics. It is clearly the seriousness of the reason which renders it just. I can kill another person for a sufficiently serious reason, such as saving my own life or the lives of my family. To do so is a just act, based on a just reason. But the reason is just in this situation ONLY because it is extremely serious. Bringing a sandwich to a honmeless person is a just act too; but it cannot be considered justification for killing someone, because it is not sufficiently serious. The two terms are not opposed. The seriousness of the reason required to justify an otherwise unjustifiable act is dependent upon the seriousness of the act itself. If the act is not a morally serious matter, a just reason need not be serious. But if the act is a serious moral evil, then "just" and "serious" are one and the same.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 28, 2003.

John,

Well, I consider it a small miracle that we now at least agree on the actual reasons that justify the use of NFP. Slightly encouraged by this, I am going to try to explain my viewpoint one more time. In my past posts, I have restricted myself to statements that I am absolutely sure of. This time, I will include explanations that I think likely, but I am not sure of.

But before that, I want to encourage you, the next time you have the opportunity to talk to a canon lawyer, to ask about the hierarchy of gravity of reasons from "ad nutum" through "gravissimus" that I explained above. Perhaps you will believe it if you hear it from someone other than me.

I would also like to point out that in addition to being incorrect, your explanation is also illogical. Because suppose for the sake of argument we assume that the term "just reasons" isn't precise as I claim, but malleable (and thus equally vague) as you claim. Then there is no reason for Pope Paul VI to have used it in HV #16. Humanae Vitae was a long awaited document that desperately needed to clarify the Church's position on these marriage issues. Having already set the bar at "serious reasons" in HV #10, there was no need confuse the issue by switching to vaguer terminology.

Your ideas about lax people and overly scrupulous people are completely backwards, as you surely must know. If anything, the use of the two different terms has further enabled the lax people to focus on the "just reasons" level, while the overly scrupulous people focus on the "serious reasons" level, thus creating an even greater divide.

Going back to my earlier analogy, there are some judges that view "clear and convincing evidence" to mean 65%, and "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" to mean 80%. There are other judges that view "clear and convincing evidence" to mean 80%, and "evidence beyond a reasonable double" to mean 95%. Yet the terms are not interchangeable, nor are there any situations where both terms are used together to attempt achieve consensus across the different types of judges. (As an aside, judges are very consistent with respect to "preponderance of the evidence", where the meanings only range from 50%+ to 51%.)

But this leaves open the question of why there are two different terms. My likely belief is that it is because two slightly different things are being discussed. Note that HV #10 is in the general section on "Responsible Parenthood", while HV #16 is in the specific section on NFP, i.e., "Recourse to Infertile Periods". Also note that HV #10 includes the situation of not having additional children for an indefinite period of time, while HV #16 refers only to spacing births. I think it is possible that "serious reasons" are required to plan to hold off on children indefinitely, but merely planning to space another child after the birth of one's last child is at the level of "just reasons."

You asked why I haven't referred to the Vademecum in my responses. First of all, it is because it is not as authoritative as the Catechism. Second, it is because I believe that my idea of slightly different situations having different of levels of reason is consistent with the discussion contained in the Vademecum. But if we can't agree on the Catechism and Humanae Vitae, then there is absolutely no hope of us agreeing on the Vademecum.

Finally, the level of "just reason" is typically used in cases where the means and/or co-occurring results are morally acceptable or neutral, as in the case of using NFP to space children. Higher degrees of reason are required when there are moral issues with the means and/or co-occurring results, with the higher degree of reason being sufficient to offset the related moral issues.

Paul,

The examples you give, such as killing another person to save your own life or the lives of your family, are perfectly adequate as far as general English usage is concerned. However, the correct ecclesiastical term for the level of justification required in this case is "proportionally grave reason" (proportionate gravis).

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 28, 2003.

"I'm afraid to say I don't understand what you are trying to ask or say in your last post."

It's something harder than what I can express, maybe. It has something to do with being in the world and not of it; I'm not sure I grasp that statement of Christ yet, but I'm trying and making mistakes here and there, maybe succeeding in others. I don't live in a cave, but business has been better so to speak, and there's something to learn in all that. A word to the "wise" though in face of any such admission... for those who are presumed to have "eyes to see, and ears to hear":

"As soon as your worldly friends perceive that you aim at leading a devout life, they will let loose endless shafts of mockery and misrepresentation upon you; the more malicious will attribute your change to hypocrisy, designing, or bigotry; they will affirm that the world having looked coldly upon you, failing its favour you turn to God; while your friends will make a series of what, from their point of view, are prudent and charitable remonstrances. They will tell you that you are growing morbid; that you will lose your worldly credit, and will make yourself unacceptable to the world; they will prognosticate your premature old age, the ruin of your material prosperity; they will tell you that in the world you must live as the world does; that you can be saved without all this fuss; and much more of the like nature... all this is vain and foolish talk..."

-- St. Francis De Sales

You said:

"The reason that I personally have not sold all of my possessions is twofold: (1) the Church does not require this of me; and (2) I do not feel that it will bring me closer to God, your flowery language about "burning out impurities" notwithstanding."

The "impurities" comment wasn't so much about worldly possessions as it was about something more general, like this: sparing no hardship for the sake of the loved one; in this case not just the spouse, the child or the family, but for the love of God and the hereafter, something which married life is a type or a shadow of. Human marriage partakes in something of the essence of the Kingdom of God and a heavenly family, and an existence hereafter. "Sparing nothing" for the Kingdom of God is necessary, but how to apply it here or there in this situation or that situation is more than a little tricky.

But being in the world and not of it changes imho the way we view marriage as Catholics and offspring, as opposed to the rest of the civilized world.

I can't answer your questions in terms of specifics regarding the distribution of worldly goods; the particular answer to that question is outside of my ability to understand and is best left to others. I know that I do know the principle at work behind it.

Let me just say this: when it comes to justification for avoiding having children, or even spacing them, I just can't find any. I believe there is no such thing as chance, and I believe in a Divine orchestra of ultra-reality where nothing happens by accident, and God wins all battles. It's strange but I believe it's real and true.

Here's an interesting link about King St. Louis IX; he's from the other side of the tracks, but note that the principle is the same.

Why? Why do you want to space the children, or to avoid one now? That's where anyone has to be honest with themselves.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 28, 2003.

Jmj

Mark, I wish you wouldn't keep drawing me back into this by saying more (or the same) wrong stuff!

1. "... I want to encourage you, the next time you have the opportunity to talk to a canon lawyer, to ask about the hierarchy of gravity of reasons from 'ad nutum' through 'gravissimus' that I explained above. Perhaps you will believe it if you hear it from someone other than me."

Oh, I already "believe it," but -- as I explained earlier (when your attention must have been distracted) -- these canonists' categories pertain to Canon Law (discipline), not to the subject we are discussing (doctrines of sexual morality). The immorality of contraception and the possible morality of the use of NFP has nothing to do with Canon Law. Thus the popes and CCC are not using canonists' jargon, but ordinary language. I imagine that this misunderstanding on your part has been a key factor in your improper reasoning.

2. "... in addition to being incorrect, your explanation is also illogical."

No. It's both correct and logical!

3. "... suppose for the sake of argument we assume that the term 'just reasons' isn't precise as I claim, but malleable (and thus equally vague) as you claim. Then there is no reason for Pope Paul VI to have used it in HV #16."

Ouch! I have, in effect, explained at least three times that the "iustae causae" of HV #16 was not "vague," because the pope intended it to be understandable from the phrase, "seriae causae," of HV #10.

4. "Your ideas about lax people and overly scrupulous people are completely backwards, as you surely must know. If anything, the use of the two different terms has further enabled the lax people to focus on the 'just reasons' level, while the overly scrupulous people focus on the 'serious reasons' level, thus creating an even greater divide."

My ideas aren't backwards. I suffer from no dyslexia! But thanks for finally admitting that you are among "the lax people" who "focus on the 'just reasons'". (Jest kidding!)

You are mistaken to say that "lax people ... focus on the 'just reasons' level". In reality, "lax people" focus on no "level" at all right now, because they are busy using contraceptives and are not even aware of the words in HV. But if they suddenly become aware of a version of HV that contains a mistranslation, they may begin to use NFP for insufficiently serious motives. What is needed is not a "watering down" of the pope's language (via mis-translation of "seriae causae"), but a careful explanation of his language to all Catholic couples. Dr. Smith provides an explanation that would be helpful to them. But her weakened translation would not be helpful to anyone.

5. "But this leaves open the question of why there are two different terms. My likely belief is that it is because two slightly different things are being discussed. ... Also note that HV #10 includes the situation of not having additional children for an indefinite period of time, while HV #16 refers only to spacing births."

Your "likely belief"? No. The same "things are being discussed" by the pope in #10 and #16. Therefore your "belief" is not only not "likely." It's incredible. It appears to be something you created after you finally grasped my repeated explanation about the interrelationship of #10 and #16. You seem to have gone desperately looking for a loophole, and you came up with the idea that the pope must have been talking about different situations -- one requiring "serious reasons," the other not. No way. Neither the popes nor the CCC nor the Vademecum nor Dr. Smith say such a thing. Only Mark.

Let's take another look at these passages -- in the official Vatican translation. By the way, both of them are in the section entitled "II. Doctrinal Principles" -- so this is not a papal opinion, but a teaching -- and each is simply under a descriptive sub-heading, not one in a "general section" and another in a "specific section":

......... "10. ... With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time...
......... "16. ... If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. ...

The equivalents in the two articles jump right off the page. The second article is a recapitulation of the first, not a discussion of something new and different.
(1) "physical ... conditions" = "physical ... circumstances"
(2) "moral precepts" = "moral principles"
(3) "decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time" = "spacing births" [during those] "times that are infertile" [for a certain or indefinite period (understood)]
(4) "serious reasons" = "well-grounded reasons"

6. "You asked why I haven't referred to the Vademecum in my responses. First of all, it is because it is not as authoritative as the Catechism."

You can be sure that those bishops who prepared the Vademecum were seeking to reflect the CCC's teachings. The pope would never have allowed it to be published if it contained any errors. As I said, it is the work of bishops who have a magisterium. Dr. Smith has no magisterium, meaning that I must put the judgment of the Pontifical Council's bishops before hers 366 days of the year.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

John,

Sorry for drawing you back into the conversation! I'll keep my post short this time by focusing on where we agree instead of where we disagree:

I agree that the Vademecum is a part of the magisterium of the Church, and is thus more authoritative than anything written by Dr. Smith.

Emerald,

I'm beginning to think that you are one of the people who is called to a higher standard with regard to NFP, just as St. Francis was called to a higher standard with regard to possessions. But I can't really think of anything else to add beyond what I've already written, so I'm going to try my analogy again. Even though you weren't called to the highest standard with regard to possessions, you still clearly realize that you are called to some standard. Similarly, the couples who aren't called upon by God to have as many children as they are physically able to are still called to a definite standard that reflects fixing their whole heart on God, as King St. Louis IX very nicely wrote.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.

Thanks, Mark. Vaya con Dios. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

have as many children as they are physically able

That's not the point, either. It has more to do with being generous with God; writing Him a blank check, so to speak, and letting Him fill in the amount.

He knows what your balance is.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 29, 2003.

Jake,

... writing Him a blank check, so to speak, and letting Him fill in the amount. / He knows what your balance is.

What better way to do this than to sell all your possessions, and trusting God to provide for everything, as it says in Matthew 6:25- 34. My claim is that if it is possible to be generous with God and still keep some possessions, then it must also be possible to be generous with God and still use NFP.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.

Sorry I'm not doing well saying what I mean, Mark. I don't think I'm called to a higher standard at all... in fact, my biggest gripe about most issues is that I think we are all called to a higher standard.

Maybe I'll try again later, but in the mean time, jakes blank check analogy works perfectly.

Even this:

"What better way to do this than to sell all your possessions..."

...could actually just be someone enforcing their own will instead of God's. Not all are called to do that, but that's not to say that it's a lesser standard if one is not called.

There's a principle at work there, and it's going to express itself in different ways, but the principle is going to remain the same. I'll try again later maybe.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 29, 2003.

Emerald,

It is definitely a difficult issue. There is a certain tension between planning and trusting in God, but it is also the case that God gave us the ability to plan. It's just that I don't see any real difference in how that tension plays out in the area of possessions vs. how that tension plays out in the area of having children. But I don't know how to express that very well.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.

it is also the case that God gave us the ability to plan

...and the free will to contracept. Careful.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 30, 2003.

In either case, the key thing is that planning isn't perfect. God will do what He wants to. I can plan to have a million dollars when I retire, but if the stock market tanks, it won't happen. Or I can plan to be broke when I retire, so that I can rely completely on God's bounty, but that might not happen either. Similarly, a couple can plan to have one child every year, but they may be infertile. Or they can plan to avoid children altogether, but NFP isn't 100% effective, so they may have a child anyway.

In both cases, the planning can be done for selfish reasons, or because they are trying to follow God's will. Also in both cases, if the planning is done for selfish reasons, the means used may not be moral, e.g., using contraception or robbing a bank.

My view is that, in both cases, it is okay to plan, as long as the means are moral, the end is not for selfish reasons, and you remain open to God's will being different than your plan.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.

This might seem a little strange, Mark, but give it some thought and prayer when you have the chance. Knowing as you do how the Annunciation and the Incarnation are so essential to the Faith, look at these two translations of the Virgin Mary's response to the will of God in Luke Chapter 1, verse 34:

New American Bible:

But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"

Douay Rheims Bible:

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

There is a what seems only a nuance between the two translations in the bolded parts above, with the latter being the more perfect translation. There is a big difference though, and if you can discern it, it may help to show what jake means by writing a blank check.

This passage is woven in tightly with the question of family planning itself. It has to do with offspring, the will of God and the ways and means of accomplishing the will of God. With the Virgin Mary involved, you can't go wrong in discovering the heart and mind of the Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

There is a big difference though, and if you can discern it, it may help to show what jake means by writing a blank check.

Right. It has to do with consent, with abandonment of your own will and the emptying of self so that the Holy Ghost has a place to dwell when He comes. Think and pray about it; in front of the Blessed Sacrament if you can. Read that Scripture account of the Annunciation again and again. Slowly, one word at a time.

All you have to do is sign the check, but you do have to sign it.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 30, 2003.

It all has to do with stewardship. Some people go through their whole lives and never save anything for retirement. I know some Catholics who think that they are being spiritual by neglecting their finances. The same thing applies to the number of children. For some people the responsible thing to do is to attempt to limit the number of children or influence the timing of when they arrive. It would be better to have a couple practice nfp who spend time in front of the blessed sacrament praying about their decision that someone who just blindly attempts to have as many children as possible.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

"...someone who just blindly attempts to have as many children as possible."

That wouldn't be a blank check either.

It's not a balance; it's a principle.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

blindly attempts to have as many children as possible.

That's spiritually dishonest.

It's a thin coat of paint that attempts to equate using NFP with acting responsibly, and not using NFP with recklessness, and you're not the first person in this thread to take a stab at it.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 30, 2003.

I appreciate the additional explanations. However, I still don't feel that using NFP is inconsistent with giving God a blank check, any more than having a bank account is inconsistent with giving God a blank check with regard to your possessions. God still controls how many children he will give you.

Again, I'm not denying that NFP can be used selfishly and against God's will. I'm just saying that isn't always the case that every use of NFP is selfish and against God's will.

Now, if you or someone else were to say that the only real way to hand God a blank check is to never use NFP and to sell all your possessions, then I would see this as still contrary to what the Church teaches, but at least it would be a self-consistent position. But being strict in the one without being strict in the other doesn't sit well with me at all.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.

Emerald, regarding your questions, I suggest that you read Dr. Janet Smith's artice linked to by Mark.

It addresses many things that you mention, including the "higher call" issue (pages 9-11).

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), December 01, 2003.

And here's a link to another article I found some time ago, at the same time when I met and bookmarked Dr. Janet's

It is a commentary over a lecture given by Dr. Janet, and addresses "providentialism" and "pharisaism":

http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/VII,1,4-20- 2002/vanSchaijik.htm#ref-ftnt2

(sorry, I'll never learn how to make links! :-)

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), December 01, 2003.

Can you give the link again Atila? The above doesn't seem to work.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 01, 2003.

Atila's Link (Look for footnote 2)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 01, 2003.

Good information for both sides of the issue.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), December 01, 2003.

Jake or Emerald, have you ever read any of the articles (links) on the following site? re: NFP & Contraception I'm not finished reading all of them, but so far thought they were interesting.

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

I just viewed latest link. Not only do they have a conspiracy theory against NFP, they also have a theory against vaccinations. No good "traditionalist" should vaccinate his kids. I suppose it has something to do with not leaving things up to Divine Providence. Oh, dear...

Pretty wacky, those schismatics...

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 01, 2003.

Feel the love... Spread some o' that 'cumenism.

I was never vaccinated myself for anything.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 01, 2003.

The battles of the past two years are over. Wasting time and forum space on certain subjects is now forbidden by the moderator. One of many things to avoid now is publicly calling people "schismatics."

Nothing can prevent a person from taking the tired old debates to private e-mail -- that is, nothing except common sense.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

I get it. I see the link now; thanks Mateo.

I get it now. Haha! Mateo wants to hag it out over "pharicaism" and "providentialism". lol.

Oh, alright. You got first...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 01, 2003.

"Feel the love... Spread some o' that 'cumenism"

I'm always open to new ideas on how I should dialogue with non- Catholics.

"I was never vaccinated myself for anything."

I hope you didn't vaccinate your kids! That's un-traditionalist! BTW, the first time I heard about the "Vaccine Conspiracy" was from a New Age doctor on Pacifica radio.

Wacky Californians... Wait, am I allowed to call people "Californian" on the forum?

"One of many things to avoid now is publicly calling people 'schismatics.'"

I must have missed the revised rules. Anyway, how long do links to schismatic websites (I mean "traditionalist" websites) stay on the forum?

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 01, 2003.

"I get it now. Haha! Mateo wants to hag it out over "pharicaism" and "providentialism". lol."

"Pharisaism," not "pharicaism." And, no, I have no interest in your hag.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 01, 2003.

"BTW, the first time I heard about the "Vaccine Conspiracy" was from a New Age doctor on Pacifica radio."

First time I ever heard about it was from my mother back in the 1970's. Who also taught NFP.

Go figure.

So, where should we start?

First, perhaps, we should try to get a fix on the word providentialism used in the above link. Can we define what this term means, accurately that is, and can we find this concept in use in the history and theology of the Roman Catholic Church? Has it been declared a heresy?

And pharicism would make for a good study as well... but maybe this isn't, well, the right time.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 01, 2003.

Apologies to our fellow Catholics of the Eastern rites in communion with Rome... I should have said Catholicism instead of Roman Catholicism.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 01, 2003.

One of many things to avoid now is publicly calling people "schismatics."

There are those, sadly, whose whole purpose of posting here is to level such accusations and to rally others to support their untruths. May I respectfully suggest they move on to greener pastures?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2003.

"There are those, sadly, whose whole purpose of posting here is to level such accusations and to rally others to support their untruths. May I respectfully suggest they move on to greener pastures?"

I couldn't have said it better myself. Didn't you guys make your own forum so that you could attack the Catholic Church? I guess that didn't work out for you.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 02, 2003.

Test of manhood?

You win.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2003.

Test of disobedience to the Church?

You win.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 02, 2003.

I will not continue this nonsense with you publicly, in accordance with the Moderator's wishes.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2003.

I suppose the "Test of Manhood" comment was also "accordance with the Moderator's wishes?" Well, thank goodness you've been so faithful to the moderator's wishes. Give me a beak...

Go in peace, Jake. There's a greener pasture for you.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 02, 2003.

"Give me a beak... "

Or a break...

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 02, 2003.

Yeah, yeah. Hey listen, I went to Fr. Perricone's evening of recollection last night. Should I post about it, send you an email, or neither ('cause I'm cool with any of the above)?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2003.

Gee maybe I'm missing something but we're not copulating like rabbits every night.... in other words, parents with young babies are simply too tired and too busy to do justice to the marital act every night or even every other night... or even week! What's that called if not "periodic abstinence"?

That's a core element of my long (surprise surprise) post. NFP happens more by chance than by design for many parents.

Now we're frazzled parents of twins, going on at most 6 hours of sleep per night, jumping up 2-3 times per night to feed or soothe a little one... and it doesn't look like things will settle down for another couple of months.... lo and behold: period abstinence and viola! natural spacing!

Maybe other couples have help and so have 3-6 hours to devote to a nice candlelight dinner, a dance, and delicate marital relations... that's wonderful. It's also essential for the unitive aspect to be in harmony with nature's procreative powers. I don't think the Church has anywhere spelled out in detail or even oblique reference that married couples' procreative powers be used as quickly as physically possible on a frequent basis so that pregnancy will occure every 11 months... but that seems to be the underlying and unspoken presumption with respect to married couples and NFP - as though every night was spent in wild abandon while they lived in fear of pregnancy.

The real moral dilemna comes in after things stabilize, the woman recovers physically and emotionally, and we both get full nights sleep! Then sure, "all things being equal" we'll have to make use of reason and free choice to decide: we could either have relations tonight knowing we're fertile, or abstain from relations.... OR we could completely ignore the woman's cycle and just go with the flow, having relations "whenever" and take what comes.

Those who suspect NFP abstinence as being contraceptive or selfish are essentially saying not that the tracking of the cycle is bad, but the abstinence (omission) is bad. The alternative would be: sex is permissible in marriage ONLY when the woman is known to be fertile, and during no other time. Yet who out there is teaching this or believes this to be the case?

Now, explain to me again please how abstaining from any sexual relations during KNOWN fertile periods is "contraceptive" or "less love" when conception itself is not in any way being unnaturally hindered or messed around with?

Given the lack of an action (use of pills, barriers or weird practices) against procreation, and the circumstance of abstinence and prayer... a moral judgment can only rendered on the INTENT of the couple...and hence whether their intentions (of abstaining from sexual intercourse) are based on "serious" reasons.

Most NFP couples I've spoken with aren't spacing children out every 1 to 2 years because they want to buy 3rd cars, 2nd homes, and go on 2 week vacations to Hawaii every summer...

So apparently the moral dilemna is not a question of greed as much as a question of a couple's unique calling. If it's true that laity are not lesser Christians because they are not all consecrated virgins...then on what principle are those who have only 6 children lesser Christians than those who have 12?

In other words, just as there are differences of religious devotion, poverty, chastity and obedience and it's not better or worse to be a Carthusian or a Dominican etc. there would seem to be a just diversity among married couples: some adopt 25 handicapped kids. But are we all threatened with hell fire if we decide we can't adopt any at all?

When it gets right down to it...if your trump argument is: "Have faith, God will provide" then why stop at 25 adopted kids and 12 of your own? Wouldn't your decision to not go for pregnancy 13 and adoptee 26 be "selfish"?

Yet wouldn't the typical Catholic response be: to those who feel so called OK, but to those who don't feel so called, also OK. Isn't that the meaning of Our Lord's parables about the wheat bearing 100, 60, and 30 fold or the workers who spend a day, half day and quarter day in the vineyard but receive the same wage? Or the widow who only gives a penny to the Temple?

Provided you don't actively try to frustrate nature....how could a marriage in which the couple abstain from relations be intrinsically evil?

I hesitate to mention Mary and Joseph... they were validly married but abstained from relations for life. Yet they are the "Holy Family". I'm sure no one would suggest that Mary and Joseph weren't really married or weren't really in love with each other and weren't really delicate and kind to one another. When husbands practice NFP they immitate St Joseph in his concern and gentle care for their wives...choosing to "make love" not "have sex".

Think about it. There is a big difference.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.

"The value of the testimony offered by the parents of large families lies not only in their unequivocal and forceful rejection of any deliberate compromise between the law of God and human selfishness, but also in their readiness to accept joyfully and gratefully these priceless gifts of God-their children - in whatever number it may please Him to send them."

Address of Pope Pius XII to the Directors of the Associations for Large Families of Rome and of Italy, January 20, 1958.

Is NFP an "unequivocal and forceful rejection of any deliberate compromise between the law of God and human selfishness"?

-- jake (j@k.e), February 01, 2004.

As of a couple days ago, Joe was in the hospital. I'm pretty sure he'll be ok, but if anyone wants to put in a prayer for him and his well being, I'm sure he wouldn't mind.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 01, 2004.

Is NFP an "unequivocal and forceful rejection of any deliberate compromise between the law of God and human selfishness"?

Obviously, yes. If it were not, it would not have been approved by the very writer of those words, Pope Pius XII and all his successors. NFP, practiced for serious reasons, was approved by all of them.

-- No more Catholic than the Pope (Lover@Of.JPII), February 01, 2004.

"Many believers strive faithfully to follow these teachings of the Lord. Here I would mention those parents who willingly take on the responsibility of a large family, mothers and fathers who, rather than considering success in their profession and career as the highest value, make every effort to pass on to their children those human and religious values that give true meaning to life."

Pope John Paul II, Message for Lent 2004

-- Unambiguous (permit@doesNOTmean.approve), February 02, 2004.

The above quotation from Pope John Paul II is irrelevant, a red herring. It approves of and praises one thing without disapproving of or criticizing another.

E-mail address --- permit@doesNOTmean.approve

Neither Pope Pius XII nor Paul VI nor John Paul II ever "permitted" NFP. It is not within their power to "permit" or forbid it. It is only in God's power. And He permits it! We know this because these popes have taught us so.

The objector is apparently a non-Catholic who rejects papal teaching -- or a Catholic who doesn't understand it. A reading of ALL that our pope has written on the subject of NFP -- and a realization that he required his Krakow flock to learn NFP when preparing to be married -- and a knowledge that he encouraged Blessed Teresa of Calcutta to have her sisters teach NFP to the poor -- all show that our pope realizes and teaches that God permits each just use of NFP.

-- Not "more Catholic than the Pope" (Lover@Of.JPII), February 02, 2004.