Believing NFP is intrinsically sinful

[DavidJoseph]

Of course, contraception is gravely sinful, and so is using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. However, I’ve encountered some ultraconservative Catholics who claim that using NFP is intrinsically evil no matter what and that married couples with sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy must TOTALLY abstain from sex – even during infertile periods. They further claim the Church is wrong to allow NFP. My question is, while those who condemn NFP as intrinsically evil are obviously mistaken, is it heresy or something like that to believe such a thing? Thanks in advance.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If it isn’t heresy, it’s something very close to it. It sounds rather that they are seeking to infallibly define an act as immoral that the Church says can be perfectly moral.

 

[AB_Juney]

And this boys is girls is where schisms come from!

 

[ahs]

If it isn’t heresy, it’s something very close to it. It sounds rather that they are seeking to infallibly define an act as immoral that the Church says can be perfectly moral.

And this boys is girls is where schisms come from!

Right. It boils down to Authority in this case. You’ll see debate threads about NFP fairly often (there are a coupld going on as we speak) regarding when it’s okay to use it, is it the same as contraception, was the Church right in its decision/why/why not, do I agree with the Church although I accept what She says, etc…

But when it comes to saying “NFP is intrinsically evil no matter what” while the Church has CLEARLY said otherwise, it becomes a matter of putting one’s own beliefs above the Church’s. Not just a matter of debating whether we think the Church was right, but outright stating the Church is wrong. That’s not any different than what Luther or Calvin or Zwingli, etc…did.

 

[R_C]

I’ve encountered some ultraconservative Catholics who claim that using NFP is intrinsically evil no matter what …] [t]hey further claim the Church is wrong to allow NFP.

What does the adjective “ultraconservative”, or any adjective, do when associated to Catholic? While we are all Christians by Baptism, we are Catholic if and only if we follow the teachings of the Magisterium. If we do otherwise, we are in disobedience to the Catholic Church. We have seen this happen quite a few times.

Let us skim through some teachings of Holy Church on this matter.

Catechism

2368 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.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil

Note on the banalization of sexuality

On this issue the Pope proposes instead – and also calls the pastors of the Church to propose more often and more effectively (cf. Light of the World, p. 147) – humanly and ethically acceptable ways of behaving which respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meaning of every conjugal act, through the possible use of natural family planning in view of responsible procreation.

Address to teachers of Natural Family Planning

The moment has come for every parish and every structure of consultation and assistance to the family and to the defence of life to have personnel available who can teach married couples how to use the natural methods. For this reason I particularly recommend that Bishops, parish priests and those responsible for pastoral care welcome and promote this valuable service.

Encyclical Humanae Vitae

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church …] The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

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.

Statement of the Holy See

The Church has approved Natural Family Planning, which is highly effective when used properly.

Message of Pope Paul VI

The second area which His Holiness would stress is that of promotion. He repeats his encouragement and gratitude to all those who work for the promotion of natural family planning, whether directly with couples, or in medical and social endeavors.

The third area of pastoral importance which the Holy Father emphasizes is precisely that of the ideals which must inspire any program of natural family planning. Natural family planning is not another method of birth prevention.

Address of Pope John Paul II

natural family planning is not an end in itself but is one of the many dimensions of the Church’s pastoral concern for married couples.

The teachings of Holy Church on this matter are very clear. With regards to the consequences of dissent, here is a document by Fr. Robert J. Levis on this matter:

l. If it is a teaching proclaimed by the extraordinary magisterium, a good Catholic must assent under pain of heresy.

2. If it is a teaching proclaimed by the ordinary magisterium, e.g. the 10 Commandments, a good Catholic must assent under pain of serious sin.

3. If it is a teaching seriously proclaimed by the magisterium in a non-infallible way, on a non-infallible topic, a good Catholic must assent under pain of sin, possibly mortal. Canon 752 covers this case ...]

In brief, when the official Church teaches, we must assent. If we dissent, the gravity of the sin will depend on the gravity of the matter involved.

 

[1ke]

If it isn’t heresy, it’s something very close to it. It sounds rather that they are seeking to infallibly define an act as immoral that the Church says can be perfectly moral.

No, it isn’t heresy:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

It is a failure to give religious assent:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

And, it would be the sin of scandal if their erroneous judgments led someone to sin by falling into despair.

 

[bzkoss236]

Of course, contraception is gravely sinful, and so is using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. However, I’ve encountered some ultraconservative Catholics who claim that using NFP is intrinsically evil no matter what and that married couples with sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy must TOTALLY abstain from sex – even during infertile periods. They further claim the Church is wrong to allow NFP. My question is, while those who condemn NFP as intrinsically evil are obviously mistaken, is it heresy or something like that to believe such a thing? Thanks in advance.

Those ultraconservative Catholics seem to be missing the point that NFP can also be used for couples who struggle to conceive and use NFP to get pregnant.

I wouldn’t call it heresy if they just chose not to use NFP and just let things happen as they may, but I would call it heresy to say that it is always evil.

 

[Glennford]

I’m reading some of these opinions for another thread, and I cannot find one that says exactly that NFP is intrinsically immoral. I’d like to have a link to one, please, because it seems that apart from a reason (a just one, if you want to do it right) NFP is just information gathering…how can gathering information about fertility be immoral? It seems to me it has to be conditional on the reason or else we’d be saying that things like…oh, measuring blood sugar or other medical tests could be immoral.

 

[Glennford]

I’m suddenly getting a funny idea of a paper chart with red and green stickers being intrinsically immoral. ooooo. Dis chart is from…the devil!

I guess in this case it would be spelled “debbil”.

 

[Rence]

Of course, contraception is gravely sinful, and so is using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. However, I’ve encountered some ultraconservative Catholics who claim that using NFP is intrinsically evil no matter what and that married couples with sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy must TOTALLY abstain from sex – even during infertile periods. They further claim the Church is wrong to allow NFP. My question is, while those who condemn NFP as intrinsically evil are obviously mistaken, is it heresy or something like that to believe such a thing? Thanks in advance.

Well, I’ll put it this way: when someone demands of people more than the Pope demands, then they put themselves above even the Pope. But I also think there’s a difference between saying, “I feel like this about NFP” or “I feel that I would only use NFP for these reasons”, and quite another to hold others accountable for their own misinterpretations of what the Pope has said. You know there are many different plates in the cafeteria, and there will be some that are palatable to conservates, just as their are some that are palatable to liberals. It’s like that for everything. It’s very rare for someone to go along with everything all the time, whether someone is conservative or liberal.

 

[epan]

Of course, contraception is gravely sinful, and so is using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. However, I’ve encountered some ultraconservative Catholics who claim that using NFP is intrinsically evil no matter what and that married couples with sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy must TOTALLY abstain from sex – even during infertile periods. They further claim the Church is wrong to allow NFP. My question is, while those who condemn NFP as intrinsically evil are obviously mistaken, is it heresy or something like that to believe such a thing? Thanks in advance.

If contraception is gravely sinful, then it makes sense that NFP could be seen by some to be gravely sinful. Contraception, is contraception, is contraception… Simple as that. Creating artificial nuances and rationalizations is suspect.

 

[helplesspilgrim]

The argument probably goes something like this:

1.Contraception is not allowed because it seperates the unification and procreative act from each other.

1. Contraception works by creating a hostile enviornment for conception.
2. NFP uses timing to naturally create a hostile procreative enviornment and the users know it.

So in the end, after all the flowery talk of being “ordered towards procreation” its actually just playin lip service to it.

Thats likely the reasoning.

 

[Cristiano]

Of course, contraception is gravely sinful, and so is using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. However, I’ve encountered **some ultraconservative Catholics who claim that using NFP is intrinsically evil no matter what and that married couples with sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy must TOTALLY abstain from sex – even during infertile periods. **They further claim the Church is wrong to allow NFP. My question is, while those who condemn NFP as intrinsically evil are obviously mistaken, is it heresy or something like that to believe such a thing? Thanks in advance.

The highlighted part is really a nonsensical statement, because it says that it is fine to postpone a pregnancy by not having relations and that is an aspect of NFP. It also says that people during a non fertile period should not have relations at all because the chances of pregnancy are low.

Having conjugal intercourse when the woman may not be fertile is acceptable to the Church and it is a morally neutral act. NFP is a behavior that is a set of intent and circumstances coupled with that act. If the intent is to avoid a pregnancy then it is not NFP because the intent is wrong, if the intent is to accept the possibility that the pregnancy could be delayed in time thus following a plan to grow as a family then it is NFP.

 

[maryjk]

Believing this ( that NFP is intrinsically sinful ) sounds way too much like the Quiverfull movement.

 

[Allegra]

Of course, contraception is gravely sinful, and so is using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. However, I’ve encountered some ultraconservative Catholics who claim that using NFP is intrinsically evil no matter what and that married couples with sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy must TOTALLY abstain from sex – even during infertile periods. They further claim the Church is wrong to allow NFP. My question is, while those who condemn NFP as intrinsically evil are obviously mistaken, is it heresy or something like that to believe such a thing? Thanks in advance.

These aren’t ultra-conservative Catholics. “Conservative” indicates a strict adherence to the teachings and traditions of the Church. Anyone who thinks this way is waaaaay out on a limb.

 

[jilly4ski]

The argument probably goes something like this:

1.Contraception is not allowed because it seperates the unification and procreative act from each other.

1. Contraception works by creating a hostile enviornment for conception.
2. NFP uses timing to naturally create a hostile procreative enviornment and the users know it.

So in the end, after all the flowery talk of being “ordered towards procreation” its actually just playin lip service to it.

Thats likely the reasoning.

umm, your number three is an incorrect premise/conclusion(?). It is not flowery talk, because we don’t create a hostile or infertile environment. A woman’s cycles with their fertile and infertile periods are give to us by God, they are part of the natural order. We do not create them, like we do with pills, IUDs and others. Besides how contraception works in irrelevant (condoms and withdrawl are also banned and they have nothing to do with creating a hostile environment for conception) to why the church bans contraception. It is all about the nature of the marital act, which contraception disrupts.

Also nothing you do changes anything that happens during the marital act wile charting. Think of it this way: A couple is not charting and they have sex during the infertile period, a charting couple has sex during the infertile period, as you see the only thing that is different is the knowledge that you are infertile or not. (though you must know that there has been rough knowledge about a woman’s cycles for a very long time.

If contraception is gravely sinful, then it makes sense that NFP could be seen by some to be gravely sinful. Contraception, is contraception, is contraception… Simple as that. Creating artificial nuances and rationalizations is suspect.

Abstaining from sex is not an artificial nuance, if you understand why the Church opposes contraception. As I stated above, it is about the very nature of sex, which contraception disrupts, but abstaining cannot disrupt the nature or purpose of sex, because you aren’t having sex, (you are abstaining), or when you are having sex you are not disrupting the marital act or its nature/purposes, because the sex is the same as when you are trying to get pregnant or not avoiding.

 

[LJN21]

1. NFP uses timing to naturally create a hostile procreative enviornment and the users know it.

How exactly does doing nothing create something?

 

[helplesspilgrim]

Come on now. Your body creates it. Its what it does. Its passive creation of a hostile enviornment for sperm, all natural spermicide you could say. And what your doing with NFP is exploiting it. I can see how some people would see no difference between NFP and contraception, same intention, the method is different thats all, hostile enviornment through medicine or through waiting until your really really sure. Frankly they are both active in a way one you pop a pill or whatever, the other you draw on a calendar and try to forecast the likehood or the hostile environment. Its purely lip service to the procreative aspect. Its like throwing seed on a barren cold plot of soil and when nothing grows go “oh well it was ordered to blooming”.

Additionally the methods of tracking fertility for avoiding are indeed ancient and condemned by church fathers such as St. Augustine.

P.s. i’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate here FYI.

 

[jilly4ski]

Come on now. Your body creates it. Its what it does. Its passive creation of a hostile enviornment for sperm, all natural spermicide you could say. And what your doing with NFP is exploiting it. I can see how some people would see no difference between NFP and contraception, same intention, the method is different thats all, hostile enviornment through medicine or through waiting until your really really sure. Frankly they are both active in a way one you pop a pill or whatever, the other you draw on a calendar and try to forecast the likehood or the hostile environment. Its purely lip service to the procreative aspect. Its like throwing seed on a barren cold plot of soil and when nothing grows go “oh well it was ordered to blooming”.

Additionally the methods of tracking fertility for avoiding are indeed ancient and condemned by church fathers such as St. Augustine.

P.s. i’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate here FYI.

What is your definition of create? Because the way you are using it is way out of the ordinary.

And hostile environment? I suppose in a way, does that mean all women who know the are infertile through a hostile environment are therefore exploiting it? And really that is the wrong way to phrase NFP, while it is true while in an infertile phase sperm has a shorter live time, because mucus is scant, it is really the lack of an ovum that makes you infertile during those time periods. If a woman ovulates waits a few days and then has sex, no matter how inviting the environment the sperm will not live until her next ovulation. It is impossible. (Even in the best environment sperm only live 5-7days).

Well I guess if that is the case, then nobody can have sex when they know they are infertile. So no sex if you are menopausal, pregnant, infertile, in an infertile time, sterilized, etc.

And really **just **the methods are different? Are not methods very important in how we accomplish what we want. Ever hear the phrase, the ends do not justify the means. This is the difference between contraception and NFP. NFP is abstaining when you are fertile, and contraception is having sex anyways and distorting the marital act.

And source on Augustine please, (and note Augustine was not the pope nor the magisterium of the Church).

 

[TrueLight]

When I was married and didn’t think there was anything wrong with birth control, I still abhored the pill and felt weird using condoms with my husband. So I used the calendar method, which surprise, surprise, worked for me. When my friends would ask me what I was using for birth control, I would say “the calendar method”.

Anyway, my point is not to talk about my business but to say that NFP is still a birth control method. It’s just not artificial, IMHO.

I know it is accepted by the Church and probably if I were to remarry, I would use it. But I never could understand how people cannot see that it is still a method of birth control.