Pages

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

"What's Your Beef with NFP?"

Someone commented on my post “The Saving Grace of NFP”, saying, “I just don’t understand the beef you have with NFP.” I have much I want to write on this topic and the related concepts of marital chastity, marital love, and “generous” vs. “responsible” parenthood. For the moment, though, I’ll just throw out a few thoughts addressing my “beef with NFP”.

Let me clarify that it is definitely a problem I have with the concept – not necessarily with the individuals who are practicing NFP. As has been pointed out repeatedly, and as I have agreed, no one can know the couple’s situation better than they do. Still, it is the duty of the Church to offer guidelines as to what constitutes a “serious reason” to use NFP, and I see the Church failing in that regard.

First of all, it seems to me that we should be promoting God's family "planning", which would likely mean less "control" and more children. The Church seems to have been convinced by “modern” reasoning that it is not good to have many children. For instance, Humanae Vitae starts out with a statement that

…there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships…[G]reater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family. (par. 2)

And yet there is firm evidence against the myth of overpopulation, and we are seeing associated problems emerging for nations like Japan, where the birth rate has been too low for too long.

Besides, truth never changes. Either God said, “Be fruitful and multiply” or He didn’t. I know God did not say, “Go forth and beget according to responsible parenthood”, and He didn’t say, “Be fruitful and multiply, but only until the earth is overpopulated”. The value and virtue of a large family was once understood and taught; now, having many children is seen as selfish and irresponsible.

That NFP education is required in most dioceses before Catholics can get married seems like clear evidence that Church leadership is taking for granted that couples will want to practice birth control; they just want to make sure a licit method is used. The idea is to offer an alternative, but to avoid the “baggage” of that dissented teaching of Humanae Vitae. In other words, don’t talk about the evil of contraception – just skirt the issue and offer something that is “just as effective as” the prohibited practice.

There is virtually no teaching about the sin of birth control as such – whether it’s birth control by artificial or “natural” means. If a couple gets married and plans to postpone having children for an unspecified number of years while they finish school, establish their careers, pay off student debts, build their house or whatever, then they are not prepared to get married, and they should not. No one leading today’s marriage prep classes is going to say that, but, really, to marry at such a time is elevating the secondary end of marriage to primary status. Children have become a "commodity" that is "purchased" when a couple is "ready."

Oh…wait…Certain documents in recent times have begun to allude to the two inseparably intertwined ends of marriage – procreative and unitive – without giving primacy to the procreative end. But, as John Galvin points out, Humanae Vitae introduced the concept of that inseparability with virtually no support from the tradition of the Church on the meaning of marriage. It is a new and novel concept with little support.

The fact is, the teachings of the Church on marriage, going back to the Fathers of the Church, properly order the ends of marriage, with "procreation" as primary. In actuality, there is no point to marriage as a social institution without an explicit reference to procreation: we marry in order to have children, not to find "soul mates" with whom we can plan how many or even whether to have children. Sex with the explicit intention to avoid pregnancy is wrong in itself, rendering discussion of contraceptive methods quite secondary.

I take exception, too, to the claim that "we're just taking advantage of the natural cycles of fertility created in us by God". Yes, there is a natural cycle of fertility placed there by God, possibly so that we're not just scared to death that every time we have sex with our spouses we'll get pregnant! I think God is perfectly fine with married couples expressing their love with one another in intimate ways, else why would the Song of Songs be so "sexy"? 

The natural flow of married life and love will inevitably overlap with times of fertility and infertility, but it's not up to us to "chart" this so that we can deliberately frustrate the Will of God. Why would it make sense to think that God would want us to have this kind of "control" over fertility such that God is left out of the procreative process except when we want Him to be part of it?

Harry Crocker was absolutely and brilliantly right when he said that it's a blessing that his children came "by accident" while trying to practice NFP because if it were left up to him and his wife, they probably would have found any number of reasons not to have children "at this time."

All married men and women know that if they are continent they will not get pregnant. And that's exactly the way people "spaced births" in the past. That is respecting "the natural cycles of fertility”. But even that is to be discouraged because it can be an occasion of sin for either spouse to deny or deprive the other. As the priest of the NFP homily says, "The marriage debt must be paid generously." And the "marriage debt", remember, is the "duty of motherhood." We're not supposed to say "No, not now" to God, and try to "work the divine system" to our alleged advantage.

I know there are couples who have truly serious reasons for using NFP. Still, it seems that using NFP in such situations is tantamount to saying, "There is a good reason not to have children at this time, but we very much want to continue to have sex." How does that translate to “responsible parenthood”? In situations where NFP has been practiced for many potentially fertile years, it is arguable that the couple have seized from God the Divine Providence of life and put themselves in control.

In the case where death might result from pregnancy, either for the woman or the child conceived, sexual relations themselves could even be considered reckless and irresponsible. After all, there is some margin of error in every method of birth control. In my opinion – and that's all it is – the "heroic" response would be abstinence, a laughable value in today's culture. But ask yourself: why would a husband risk the life of his wife or baby? Would he say, “There’s only a one percent chance that I’ll get in a car accident today, so for this short trip to the grocery store, I won’t buckle the baby into his car seat”?

It's a lot easier to reflect on issues of "family planning" and "contraceptive methods" from the vantage point of "no dog in the hunt." I’m too old for the issue to affect me personally. I have the luxury of gazing back over my life and recognizing "the follies and selfishness of youth" – and, regrettably, I have a checkered past from which to speak.

From the perspective of age and experience, and from the perspective of the traditional teachings of the Church, family planning as such is morally problematic. I'll address that further in another post. But currently, the Church says that NFP can be practiced for serious (grave) reasons and I can in no way judge any couple's particular circumstances. That's a decision made before God - but the Church needs to provide some guidance so that we do not deceive ourselves as to our motives. 

My point in raising this issue at all is to "reveal" that there can be and is a lot of selfishness present in any form of "intention" against children. Teaching couples to use NFP without addressing the "serious reasons" and the idea of "generous" parenthood seems negligent to me.

Other posts about NFP:

The Saving Grace of NFP

16 comments:

  1. Wow, Jay, very good post. You elucidate perfectly the crux of this NFP debate raging around the blogosphere. I imagine you'll get the usual outraged and defensive replies, but as for me, you're spot on.

    Elizabeth

    ReplyDelete
  2. "There is virtually no teaching about the sin of birth control as such – whether it’s birth control by artificial or “natural” means."

    This is because birth control itself is no sin. It is only the means of artificial contraception that make it sinful. There is no sin in charting. There is no sin in having relations on an infertile day. There is no sin in choosing not to have relations (although this choice can be made for improper reasons). Three licit acts do not make an illicit one.

    "If a couple gets married and plans to postpone having children for an unspecified number of years while they finish school, establish their careers, pay off student debts, build their house or whatever, then they are not prepared to get married, and they should not."

    So, what does this verse mean: "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:9) If a couple desires to marry, does not desire children, quite yet, and has a moral means to prevent pregnancy, then what, exactly, is the problem? Your interpretation reads this passage right out of the Bible. Whether they remain unmarried or marry and use NFP, they will still not be having children.

    "The natural flow of married life and love will inevitably overlap with times of fertility and infertility, but it's not up to us to "chart" this so that we can deliberately frustrate the Will of God. Why would it make sense to think that God would want us to have this kind of "control" over fertility such that God is left out of the procreative process except when we want Him to be part of it? "

    It seems as if you are stating that ignorance is more holy than knowledge, which is far more fundamentalist than Catholic. Charting is knowledge which gives the couple a better idea of what relations on a given night might lead to. They are free to use the night as they wish. Charting may help a couple conceive and may help a couple successfully carry a pregnancy to term and avoid a miscarriage.

    "All married men and women know that if they are continent they will not get pregnant. And that's exactly the way people "spaced births" in the past. That is respecting "the natural cycles of fertility”. But even that is to be discouraged because it can be an occasion of sin for either spouse to deny or deprive the other."

    And thank goodness modern science has given couples a way to minimize the continence required. These are largely the discovery of Catholic doctors who responded to Paul VI's appeal to men of science. (Humanae Vitae 24) While nothing is 100% effective, NFP can be used very conservatively to avoid pregnancy with nearly perfect effectiveness without resorting to total abstinence and thank God for that.

    And if one spouse is truly "deprived" for the week or two of fertility, they probably have some self-control issues that they need to work on. Inability to practice "virtuous continence" for even this short a time is not a virtue.

    "We're not supposed to say "No, not now" to God, and try to "work the divine system" to our alleged advantage."

    I think this is your real "Beef with NFP." You cannot believe that God would give couples a way to enjoy each other without becoming pregnant. You seem to believe that having sex without the intention of pregnancy must be somehow sinful and only tolerated when there are serious reasons for doing so. But this is not so. Sex in marriage is good in and of itself. Our God is both generous and good. We are not "gaming the system" when we learn and make use of the natural systems of our bodies. You are making up sins where there are none, and devaluing God's gift to married couples.

    JD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with providentialism or having a large family. (Although charting does have health benefits.) However, this is not REQUIRED of Catholics. Many couples have found such a lifestyle very rewarding (and often surprisingly rewarding), but not every couple is called to do this. This is a question of discernment for the couple and God may be calling the couple to either "openness to life" or "virtuous continence" in marriage. But this does not make one automatically superior to the other.

      JD

      Delete
  3. JD:

    “This is because birth control itself is no sin…” Well, not exactly. There IS teaching from the Church Fathers and even recent popes that points to intentional birth control having some sin attached because it frustrates God’s purpose for marriage. More on that in another post.

    “So, what does this verse mean: ‘But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.’ (1 Corinthians 7:9)” St. Paul is not saying they should get married and use birth control! I think we are safe in assuming he sees the direct correlation between sexual relations and pregnancy, and he encourages marriage for those who cannot “control themselves” in order for them to avoid the sin of extramarital sex and to provide the proper home for the children that will result.

    “If a couple desires to marry, does not desire children, quite yet, and has a moral means to prevent pregnancy, then what, exactly, is the problem?” The problem is, NFP is only to be used for “serious reasons” – it’s not just a licit form of birth control that can be used indiscriminately.

    “And thank goodness modern science has given couples a way to minimize the continence required.” The knowledge we gain from modern science is not always something that should be used, especially indiscriminately. It has to be regulated by Church teaching. “Serious reasons” and all that.

    “You cannot believe that God would give couples a way to enjoy each other without becoming pregnant. You seem to believe that having sex without the intention of pregnancy must be somehow sinful and only tolerated when there are serious reasons for doing so.” Personally, I think there may be some sinfulness involved in having sex without the intention of pregnancy (St. Augustine stated this to be true in no uncertain terms). But more accurately for my personal point of view, I think it is sinful to have sex with the full INTENTION to THWART conception.

    “Sex in marriage is good in and of itself.” I’m not sure that’s true. Sex is inexorably tied to procreation. I will have to ponder this thought further. I’m out of time for now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Saying that Augustine condemned NFP is taking him out of context. Augustine was addressing the Manichean belief that childbearing was bad. Yet the Manicheans had no problem with sex, as observed by their use of a crude Rhythm method. In other words, what Augustine was condemning was requiring that couples use NFP and requiring them to avoid at all times, not use of the infertile period in general. No Catholic NFP advocate that I know of holds this position.

    At any rate, Augustine, although influential, was not infallible.

    Since it was first theorized in the late 1800s, the Church has allowed use of the infertile period. Pius XI condemns the use of artificial birth control, but mentions that preventing pregnancy through "virtuous continence" is allowed through agreement of the spouses. Using NFP to avoid is "virtuous continence", although science has made this period shorter than it was in Pius's day.

    You say "I think it is sinful to have sex with the full INTENTION to THWART conception." But I ask exactly what is the couple doing to have sex and thwart conception? If they are abstaining, they are not having sex; if they are using the infertile period, they are not thwarting conception. The fact that it will not happen naturally is beside the point. The Church has no problem with pregnant women and post menopausal women to have sex even though conception is biologically impossible in both cases. This is NO SIN. The infertile part of the cycle is just another part of natural infertility.

    "The problem is, NFP is only to be used for “serious reasons” – it’s not just a licit form of birth control that can be used indiscriminately."

    No, it should not be used indiscriminately. But this is a matter of discernment of how the couple should best use their fertility. While couples may fail to properly discern or may use their fertility selfishly, NFP is not and cannot be illicit of itself. Over a century of Church teaching on the subject is constant on this.

    JD

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear JD:

    You are, if I may say so, forgetting the primary cause of the sin: it's your motivation. The motivation is the first sin, if our motivation is to refuse children. Ergo, if we decide to avoid children for non-serious reasons (and the number of genuinely grave serious reasons for doing so probably don't number more than one, or one-half), we have committed the sin. The fact that NFP doesn't compound the sin, like artificial birth control does, does not take away from the fact that we have done something wrong.

    In other words, artificial contraception is always morally wrong, and NFP is very often morally wrong, and that is because of the disordered motivation of the couple.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan...serious and grave are two separate issues.

    A grave reason may be the physical safety of the mother.

    A serious reason may be the life circumstances of the couple (dad out of work).

    I do agree with you that the motivation makes all the difference in the world.

    Jay...love ya, can't agree with you on this one. Sex in marriage is a gift from God, even when it does not include the possibility of conception (from menopause, birth defect or disease). It remains a gift from God to the couple.

    When using NFP with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, the couple is fully aware that the possibility exists that conception will occur. If they aren't fully aware of the fact that any number of things (stress, illness, advancing age) can alter the woman's cycle, they were NOT paying attention in class. Responsibly using NFP to avoid pregnancy means remaining open to the reality that God is the one in charge here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "All married men and women know that if they are continent they will not get pregnant. And that's exactly the way people "spaced births" in the past. That is respecting "the natural cycles of fertility”. But even that is to be discouraged because it can be an occasion of sin for either spouse to deny or deprive the other. As the priest of the NFP homily says, "The marriage debt must be paid generously." And the "marriage debt", remember, is the "duty of motherhood." We're not supposed to say "No, not now" to God, and try to "work the divine system" to our alleged advantage."

    In the sermon, the priest's reference to "the marriage debt" is the marital act. We must render the marital act generously. He also says that we should be generous to God in bearing children, but that's not exactly what he's speaking of here. I think you are missing the good priest's point, and drawing conclusions that he didn't intend to be drawn.

    You say that "currently, the Church says that NFP can be practiced for serious (grave) reasons and I can in no way judge any couple's particular circumstances," and yet you say here and also in more recent posts that you don't really think people should use NFP at all - if they have a life-threatening reason to avoid pregnancy, they should practice total abstinence, because that is the heroic thing to do. But the thing is, that is not what the Church tells us we must do. That is not what good and holy priests (including the one whose homily you posted) tell us we must do. The Church says we may use NFP for serious reasons. This priest says we may use NFP for serious reasons. He says in his sermon that serious does not necessarily mean life-threatening. He is reiterating the teaching of the Church. We do not have to be on our deathbed to use NFP, nor must we practice complete continence if we are unable to have a child right now.

    I'm afraid that in telling people they must go above and beyond what the Church requires, there is a huge danger in being scrupulous - not only for ourselves, but also for the many people who are reading. Should we strive for the minimum? No. But we should not tell others to "wear a hair shirt", so to speak, because it is more pleasing in God's eyes. We can always do MORE. Attend daily Mass? Twice a day is better. Weekly confession? Why not twice a week? That dress might meet the modesty guidelines, but wearing a burka is MORE modest because it covers even more. You might be using NFP for a serious reason, but you should be MORE generous and practice total continence because that requires more virtue.

    SOME people are called to do some of these things, but that is something they have come to through personal discernment. It is something we can discern ourselves, but it is not something we can require of others. And by telling others that they might not be doing enough for God, we may actually be hurting them because they can become scrupulous, which is a serious spiritual disease. We should encourage others to virtue but we should not ask them to do more than the Church asks.

    (continued...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (continued from above)

      There are many people who read here who have honest-to-goodness SERIOUS reasons they are using NFP. One friend is on medication that causes severe birth defects or fetal demise. She has been on this medication for over a decade, and has to be on it for the rest of her life. She has tried to get off it multiple times unsuccessfully. If she were to conceive on it, she would pray hard for the health of her unborn child, mourn and bury the child if he did not live to see his birth, and tenderly care for him if he were born with grave health issues. But the Church does not tell her she must practice complete continence. The marital right - the "marriage debt" - must be rendered with an openness to children, without the couple doing anything deliberately to frustrate the marriage act. She and her spouse are rendering the marriage debt to each other in this exact way. In focusing on the primary end of marriage, the procreation and education of children, we cannot forget that there is another end - the mutual help and comfort of spouses, and as a remedy for concupiscence. Provided they are doing nothing to frustrate the primary end, and are using NFP only for a serious reason, there is no reason they cannot partake in the marriage act for the benefit of the second end of marriage. This is what the Church teaches.


      And for the record, I have no skin in this game. I gave birth to 3 children and had 1 miscarriage over the course of 32 months. I have a 6 month old. We are not using NFP. We are completely open to whenever God decides to plan our children for us. Your suggestion that people shouldn't practice NFP unless they have a life-threatening reason or that people should only practice total continence doesn't prick at my conscience or cause me to worry that we're doing something wrong - that's not even on our radar right now. So I'm not writing this in self-defense of any decision I have made. I am simply writing as an appeal that you reconsider how you discuss NFP. I wonder if you have discussed your thoughts with a solid spiritual director? Or if it would be possible to even speak to the priest in the homily you linked up several months ago and get some guidance from him. It seems that he does not take the extreme position that NFP is always wrong, or that total continence is the only legitimate method of avoiding pregnancy. I would be interested to hear what he would say.

      I write this not to condemn at all - I find your writing very valuable and your search for the Truth refreshing! I write this simply as a sister in Christ who is concerned that you are misunderstanding the Church's teaching, and that you are placing undue burden on souls, a burden that Christ Himself does not place. I would love to discuss this more with you, if you would like. God Bless!

      Delete
  8. Colleen, I don't believe I have taken the position that a couple should never use NFP, or that they should only use it in life-threatening situations! I have noted time and again that the Church has said NFP is licit...for serious reasons, which are not clearly defined, and that is because conscience and individual situations do certainly have to play a part. But consciences must be formed properly, and so we have to understand that we need "serious" reasons. We should understand "serious reasons", I believe, in the context of the Church's encouragement of large families and "generous" parenthood, meaning that we shouldn't listen to society's ideas that limiting family size is good because we have to conserve our resources or some such thing.

    We should probably also recognize that we may be better able to trust God's providence more and more as time goes on, as we mature both chronologically and spiritually, and so reliance on NFP for spacing births may change over time. I fully agree with some commenters that "what is 'serious' for one couple may or may not be for another". But there has to be a context, and we have to be honest enough not to use frivolous reasons like "I want to look good in my sister's wedding".

    I don't think I have misunderstood the priest on "marriage debt" and "duty of motherhood". Perhaps I didn't express it well.

    I do have a good spiritual director, and have also been in contact with the priest who gave the homily.

    Feel free to email me at drjayboyd@msn.com. Sometimes I find it easier to have these conversations via email (these little "frames" for comments are awkward and my cursor jumps around unpredictably at times!).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Boyd,

    I was referring to comments on the post "What If I'm Wrong About NFP?" where it was suggested by two commenters and you replied with, "I have been thinking all day about Creary's proposal that danger of death might be the "serious reason" required for periodic continence. While Humanae Vitae implies that "lesser" reasons might suffice, that's not really consistent with past teaching, is it?", and also the suggestion that was made in the comments of another post that using NFP is at least a venial sin. You said in your post "NFP is Not Required" that "there might be venial sin involved in the marital act," and in your post about "Sex for Pleasure" you suggest that St. Thomas might be proposing that using NFP is venially sinful, and Creary suggests that according to St. Augustine, the only way the marital act is NOT sinful is if the procreation of a child is the only goal. I don't pretend to be a theologian, nor do I know the context of the St. Augustine's quote, and of course I agree that the marital act may not be used exclusively for pleasure; however, I don't think that it is a consistent teaching of the Church that the marital act is always venially sinful unless procreation is the ultimate goal. We must always be open to it, but if it is the ultimate goal and any other motive is sinful, then the marital act during pregnancy should be forbidden - as it stands, the Church has always stated that it is permitted during times of natural infertility such as pregnancy. (I don't have the resource in front of me but I can search for it.)

    I don't disagree that concupiscence plays a part in the marital act sometimes but is that not why marriage has been considered in the past "a remedy for concupiscence"? Why would that wording have ever been used if it was considered sinful to remedy that concupiscence (provided the other criteria have been met to make it licit)? (I am asking this genuinely.) I think part of human nature is that there is always a bit of selfishness and a giving in to concupiscence in every choice we make - I chose pizza instead of a sandwich for lunch because I like it better, I turned the air conditioning on because I was hot, etc. We can and should always push ourselves to be more unselfish and to purify our wills, whether it's in what we eat or our reasons for the marital act, but that doesn't mean that by NOT being 100% unselfish that we are sinning, either. At most, I suppose it could be a semi-deliberate venial sin, because we are choosing a comfort over a sacrifice, but I think we can agree that turning on the air conditioning is not sinful, even if we do it for comfort or pleasure. It may be a good thing to offer up to help cut short some of our Purgatory time, just like it may be a good thing to abstain from the marital act as a penance (as many people did/do during Lent, for instance.) However, since it involves two people, we have to ensure that by trying to be completely unselfish, we aren't putting a stumbling block in our spouse's path, as well, and with the vast range of human emotions and all the tangles in an intimate relationship between two humans, sometimes the line between unselfish and self-serving is vague. (Of course we should always strive to do things out of pure charity! But humans are messy and pure charity is something that most of us fall short of in one way or another.)

    (continued...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (continued from above)

      Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now, and like I said, I truly am not trying to nitpick at your posts. I think it was less of what you proposed in your posts and more the comments on your posts that you seemed to be agreeing to that made me think you were saying NFP in itself was sinful, and I just can't understand why, if it were, any Pope would EVER condone it, or not expressly forbid it. (Such as, for instance, how contraception is intrinsically evil, and in every place it is written about, our Popes have made it plainly clear that contraception is NEVER okay.) Thank you for clarifying that that wasn't what you meant. Like I said, I can certainly see how it can be used in a sinful way. I agree with your assertions that it needs to be taught in the context of serious reasons only, and that the USCCB, Greg Popcak, etc, should not be promoting it as Catholic contraception (which they frequently do, no mistake about it!). I, too, am frustrated with the "NFP movement" in GENERAL - I appreciate the idea of "calling people to a lesser sin" (i.e. using NFP to sway people away from contraception) but the Church's true message often gets lost in that, and that's not okay. I greatly appreciate that you are getting the message out there - people do need to know that NFP should only be used for serious reasons. But then there is the question (which I know you have posed) - what reasons are serious enough? And how to properly form your conscience in this area? I guess that's why solid spiritual direction in this area is important, but then, if you are disingenuous, you can "priest shop" and get the answer you want to hear (although I don't think any solid priest would say looking good in your sister's wedding is a serious reason - at least, I would seriously hope not!) ;) I don't think the Church is going to give a list of specific serious reasons anytime soon, and I suppose this is one of those areas where we have to trust that God will lead each individual who truly seeks to know His will on the matter.

      I hope I didn't offend you, that was not my intent at all, I simply wanted to clarify. I know people are all over the spectrum on NFP-related things, and I really appreciate your honesty on the matter and trying to get to the crux of what the Church actually teaches.

      Delete
    2. Also, I'm no stranger to combox discussions about NFP, as I'm still recovering from a war in one of mine from a couple months ago - I LOVE the discussion, and I feel like in discussing it, I continually gain a new insight, but it's such an intensely personal topic, as well, that I always hesitate to write on it myself because I struggle with people misjudging my motives. Either I am not providential enough or I am not responsible enough or somewhere in between, or a well-known Catholic blogger states condescendingly on her public page that I'm not qualified to write on why we don't use NFP because I only have 3 kids right now! Talk about an ego blow. ;) But I write in hopes to reach just one soul, for God's glory, and not for my own, so it really shouldn't matter, because "let Him increase" while I decrease... but it still stings a little because I am human.

      http://www.catholicsistas.com/2012/05/11/why-you-dont-have-to-use-nfp/

      Delete
    3. Colleen, thanks for all your comments. I read your post - very nice! I read a lot of the comments, and it seemed like you had a lot of support from people who did not feel a need to use NFP! And actually, I was very encouraged by that! Well, the bottom line is, there is a problem with contraceptive mentality in general in our culture, with misuse of NFP, and with a lack of understanding of conscience, the salvific value of suffering, the notion of sacrificing for one's children, etc. I think it reflects the moral relativism that has invaded the world! Fallen human nature, and all that...anyway, keep fighting the good fight!

      Delete
  10. If this post is correct, then we should all also implicated for not following the advice of Our Lord who said "Foresake everything, and follow me."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, in a sense that would be correct. Be sure to read that scripture in context, and to look at an authentic Catholic interpretation of it.

    ReplyDelete

Please be courteous and concise.