Believing NFP is intrinsically sinful

[helplesspilgrim]

Lets continue the weather anaolgy. So lets Say a device was created that could stop rain in heavy flooding areas. Would it be a sin to use it because it violates the natural law and cycles of the rain of that area? Even if it could save lives? Or should those people just not live there, and move immediately regardless of economic or physological strain induced by losing their land?

 

[Bookcat]

Well they are simply wrong. It is not sinful per se. Could it be sinful (perhaps to various degrees)? sure it could --such as when used without the needful reasons. But no it is not intrinsically evil. And the Catholic Church disagrees with their “private” ideas.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[mgoforth]

Augustine qoute.

Aren’t you the ones [the Manicheans] who were accustomed to advise us, as much as you could, to pay attention to the time when the woman is able to conceive after menstruation and to abstain from sex at that time, lest a soul become involved with flesh? From this it follows that you recommend marriage, not for the procreation of children, but for the satisfaction of sexual desire. However, marriage, as the nuptial documents themselves proclaim, unites the male and the female for the procreation of children. Therefore, anyone who says that having children is a more serious sin than having sex certainly forbids marriage, and no longer makes the woman a wife but a whore, if she (in full knowledge of the facts) is married to a man in order to fulfill his sexual desire. After all, if she is a wife, then it is a marriage. But there is no marriage where actions are taken to prevent her becoming a mother; therefore she is no wife. Ergo, you forbid marriage, and you possess no argument by which to defend yourself against this crime, which once was prophesied about you by the Holy Spirit (1 Tim 4:3).

De liber grammatica, 18.65

I’ve emphasized the key part above. What St. Augustine is saying here doesn’t contradict the Church’s teaching on NFP at all. You’ve failed to take this statement in the appropriate context. He said this to the Manicheans because they wanted to avoid having children at all costs, but still wanted to say they were married and have sex.

Their false belief that the soul becomes imprisoned within the body at birth would not qualify as a “serious reason” to practice NFP, which the Church requires us to have. Also, their whole attitude of wanting sex, but being totally closed to the possibility of life is not at all what NFP is supposed to be. My wife and I have practiced NFP for over 5 years (since we learned that the pill can kill the developing fetus), and we’ve “failed” 4 times. C’est la vie. We always understood that God could intervene despite our best efforts to delay pregnancy, and that’s just what He did…4 times.

 

[helplesspilgrim]

To them it would be a grave reason. And the church doesn’t say what are grave reasons in specifics. My wife and I avoid pregnancy at all costs does that make it a sin? according to your statement thats what the manicheans were doing that was wrong. Since they [manicheans] had grave reasons to avoid pregnancy, which they determined themselves, as the church allows us, then it is the method that is the issue.

Lets change it a bit. Instead of a soul being trapped in flesh, lets say there was a 100% chance that any pregnancy you had would lead to debilitating defects, as i’m sure the manicheans thought being enfleshed was. If you thought this grave reason to avoi pregnancy at all costs but still have sex using NFP, than its the same justification as the manicheans and augustines comment objection would be the same.

Just a note: my wife and i are abstinent, becuse NFP does not work for us (multiple methods) and medically its dangerous for her and a child.

 

[helplesspilgrim]

Also this part:

But there is no marriage where actions are taken to prevent her becoming a mother; therefore she is no wife.

Would invalidate any marriage that was abstinent or using nfp to avoid. If they are not actively trying to be a mother they are not a wife. According to st. augustine.

 

[ValPal]

The “just” reason part is where people disagree.

I agree 100%.

I’m one of those people that try to think through things logically, and I simply can’t reconcile “just reason” in any way, shape, or form with the requirement of sex being unitive and procreative.

 

[mgoforth]

To them it would be a grave reason. And the church doesn’t say what are grave reasons in specifics. My wife and I avoid pregnancy at all costs does that make it a sin? according to your statement thats what the manicheans were doing that was wrong. Since they [manicheans] had grave reasons to avoid pregnancy, which they determined themselves, as the church allows us, then it is the method that is the issue.

Lets change it a bit. Instead of a soul being trapped in flesh, lets say there was a 100% chance that any pregnancy you had would lead to debilitating defects, as i’m sure the manicheans thought being enfleshed was. If you thought this grave reason to avoi pregnancy at all costs but still have sex using NFP, than its the same justification as the manicheans and augustines comment objection would be the same.

Just a note: my wife and i are abstinent, becuse NFP does not work for us (multiple methods) and medically its dangerous for her and a child.

I’m afraid you’re missing the point. There are valid reasons to use NFP and invalid reasons. Heresies against the Church are invalid reasons by default. How do I know this to be true? Because the Magisterium of the Church says it’s true…I know that’s probably not going to satisfy you since your profile says “wandering Christian”, but it should certainly satisfy ANY and ALL Catholics.

Also, there’s no such thing as a 100% chance of birth defects. God can work miracles. I’m not saying that a serious risk of birth defects wouldn’t be a valid reason to use NFP…that’s up to the couple and their priest to decide. It’s just irksome when people choose to present strawman arguments like that one.

 

[Bookcat]

I agree 100%.

I’m one of those people that try to think through things logically, and I simply can’t reconcile “just reason” in any way, shape, or form with the requirement of sex being unitive and procreative.

The logic falters due to a error in part of your premise

Martial relations are NOT required to be procreative –

—what is required beyond the* serious reason*— is that nothing be done to the act or before or after the act – to cause the act to not be open to life…nothing be done to “hinder” procreation. The couple remains open to life…even in they are both in their 80’s and cannot possibly have children.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[LJN21]

I agree 100%.

I’m one of those people that try to think through things logically, and I simply can’t reconcile “just reason” in any way, shape, or form with the requirement of sex being unitive and procreative.

There is no requirement for sex to be procreative. If this was the case sex while infertile would be immoral. The requirement is for the act to respect the procreative and unitve nature God gave it.

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02fc.htm

When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original dynamism of “total” self-giving, without manipulation or alteration.

It is impossible to frustrate an act your not doing.

 

[SusanneT]

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.

My husband and I would not consider ourselves ultra conservatives generally (certainly not on social matters by US standards) bur we are conservative when it comes to sexual morality.

Of course NFP isn’t intrinsically evil, as someoene said in some ways it is just the gathering and application of information and how can mutually agreed abstinace be evil ?
But a contraceptive mentality is sinful, we are suposed to be ‘open to life’ and marital intimacy is supposed to be unitative and “ordered towards procreation”.

If a couple choose to use their knowledge to abstain during the wife’s fertile time (for reasons good enough for them) but remain truely open to life, fine…but I wonder how many couples do that, the problem is that it is a fine line between that and @a contraceptive mentality’ and that is where it becomes as sin.

That is where we got to and that is why we believe we should abstain until we are again truely open to life… surely no heresy ?

 

[DavidJoseph]

My husband and I would not consider ourselves ultra conservatives generally (certainly not on social matters by US standards) bur we are conservative when it comes to sexual morality.

Of course NFP isn’t intrinsically evil, as someoene said in some ways it is just the gathering and application of information and how can mutually agreed abstinace be evil ?
But a contraceptive mentality is sinful, we are suposed to be ‘open to life’ and marital intimacy is supposed to be unitative and “ordered towards procreation”.

If a couple choose to use their knowledge to abstain during the wife’s fertile time (for reasons good enough for them) but remain truely open to life, fine…but I wonder how many couples do that, the problem is that it is a fine line between that and @a contraceptive mentality’ and that is where it becomes as sin.

That is where we got to and that is why we believe we should abstain until we are again truely open to life… surely no heresy ?

Well, in my original post I did indeed say that using NFP with a contraceptive mentality is gravely wrong. And if you’re abstaining totally because you truly believe it would be best right now, that’s up to you (although perhaps you’re starting to be scrupulous; I don’t know). But when you (collectively speaking, I"m not addressing this to SusanneT personally) start telling people that using NFP is always and everywhere sinful and cannot possibly be used without a contraceptive mentality, then there’s a problem.

 

[LJN21]

My husband and I would not consider ourselves ultra conservatives generally (certainly not on social matters by US standards) bur we are conservative when it comes to sexual morality.

Of course NFP isn’t intrinsically evil, as someoene said in some ways it is just the gathering and application of information and how can mutually agreed abstinace be evil ?
But a contraceptive mentality is sinful, we are suposed to be ‘open to life’ and marital intimacy is supposed to be unitative and “ordered towards procreation”.

All the Church means by “ordered toward procreation” is that you do nothing to your self or in the act to make it sterile. NFP by definition cannot be used in away that is not “ordered towards procreation”.

Form a Marriage and Morals manual from 1936 with an Imprimatur and Nihil obstat, which means there is nothing contained in that is contrary to our Catholic Faith and it was publish 25 years before Vatican II, 34 years before the founding of the SSPX and 52 years before the founding of the FSSP.

Let this be made quite clear. The Catholic Church is not opposed
to rational birth-control as an end. Catholics, of course, do not
agree with the propaganda for birth-control based on the
difficulties of present social and economic conditions. Blessings
should not be surrendered when the causes making them difficult
can be changed. It should be intolerable that in a world of
plenty many parents are unable to have as many children as they
would like and could have, were the social structure not so
unjust. Nor can Catholics admit the disinclination to have
children because they are tiresome and worrying. Marriage is not
a perpetual honeymoon, but a serious responsibility, and none the
less happy for that.

The Catholic Church’s condemnation is directed at the means
employed for birth-control. What is opposed is not birth-control
or the regulation of births, but certain methods of ensuring
this. They are generally without qualification called birth
control, but more accurately they should be classed under the
term of contraception. They consist in altering or interfering
with the natural character of sex-intercourse, or its antecedent
or consequent processes. They are species of injustice or of
impurity: of injustice when the family and social quality of sex
is affected; of impurity when the sex impulse itself is
disorganized. All wrongful methods of birth-control fall under
these heads. Unjust methods may be reduced to sterilization and
abortion, impure methods to onanism.

It has long been known that conception is less likely to occur at
certain times than at others. A woman’s body goes through a
monthly process in her organs of generation, and for a period in
the month, it is said, is less ready to conceive than at other
times. Some scientific men now say that she cannot conceive at
such times. Though it is impossible to lay down hard and fast
rules governing each and every case, they claim to be able to
determine this monthly period of sterility with a fair amount of
precision. It may be mentioned that this period lasts more than a
few days, that during it a woman is not physically averse from
intercourse and that it differs importantly as regards dates from
the idea previously held that a woman is less likely to conceive
about midway between two menstruations. The reader must be
referred elsewhere for an account of these investigations. The
present question turns only on the point of morals: may a married
couple restrict intercourse to such periods?

The answer is affirmative, with two qualifications. First, there
must be no desire of evading an obligation to have children, when
such exists; in other words, the reasons against pregnancy at
that time must be valid. Secondly, intercourse must be really and
genuinely desirable for good reasons at such times (though
clearly the need may not be so solemn as this language suggests)
and must serve to express and strengthen the sacramental love of
the man and woman. The habit of restricting intercourse to such
periods may become mixed with meanness and impurity, a selfish
prudence on one hand, mere indulgence on the other. But given
healthy motives, the action itself is sound and life-offering in
the sense described above, and intercourse at such periods is not
wrong.

From what has been said in the course of the foregoing chapters
it will be realized that sex-passion is the field of the virtue
of purity, and that such questions as the childless marriage or
the numerous family are more directly the concern of the virtue
of justice. A healthy sex life and the family, though bound
together, are two issues that should not be confused.

Full document ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT

 

[jilly4ski]

My husband and I would not consider ourselves ultra conservatives generally (certainly not on social matters by US standards) bur we are conservative when it comes to sexual morality.

Of course NFP isn’t intrinsically evil, as someoene said in some ways it is just the gathering and application of information and how can mutually agreed abstinace be evil ?
But a contraceptive mentality is sinful, we are suposed to be ‘open to life’ and marital intimacy is supposed to be unitative and “ordered towards procreation”.

If a couple choose to use their knowledge to abstain during the wife’s fertile time (for reasons good enough for them) but remain truely open to life, fine…but I wonder how many couples do that, the problem is that it is a fine line between that and @a contraceptive mentality’ and that is where it becomes as sin.

That is where we got to and that is why we believe we should abstain until we are again truely open to life… surely no heresy ?

If a couple has a normal sexuality I actually think it is more difficult to practice nfp with a contraceptive mentality than you suppose here. That abstinence during ones fertile period is difficult, and without serious reasons to abstain, it is difficult to maintain. This is the link to procreation (the abstinence) when you don’t want to, which is a natural barrier to the contraceptive mentality.

There is no requirement for sex to be procreative. If this was the case sex while infertile would be immoral. The requirement is for the act to respect the procreative and unitve nature God gave it.

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02fc.htm

It is impossible to frustrate an act your not doing.

I would not phrase it that way. There is a requirement for sex to be procreative and unitive (how the church defines those terms). I would instead say: There is no requirement for procreation to result from sex. Thus the Church doesn’t forbid sex during a woman’s infertile time, or when pregnant or breastfeeding, or after menopause.

 

[underacloud]

Of course, contraception is gravely sinful, and so is using NFP with a contraceptive mentality.

I’ve never found the term “contraceptive mentality” to be helpful in these discussions.

What does it exactly mean? I know of no agreed definition. Certainly, it is not a term I’ve ever seen used by the Church with regard to these matters. We need to be clearer in our discussions. For example…

Using NFP without serious (just, grave) reasons is sinful.

Using NFP with serious reasons is not sinful, even for a long or indefinite period of time.

Within Catholic moral teaching, a couple may licitly use NFP indefinitely if they have serious reasons to do so (eg pregnancy carries serious health risks). If people using the term “contraceptive mentality” are implying that a couple cannot use NFP to permanently avoid children (assuming a serious reason as above), they are contradicting Church teaching.

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.

This!

 

[fpt]

An article on Abusing NFP

theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html

My thought:

The fact of having a large family is not a dogma or a moral obligation (a end of marriage that has to be attempted), per se;
The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;
The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;
The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;
The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;
The fact of wanting a baby can be irrresponsable in special cases, and that is not okay;
The fact of not wanting a baby can be selfish, and that is not okay;
The contraceptive mentality is wrong;
The absolute natalism and the absolute procreationism are so wrong;
The irresponsible paternity is wrong,the irresponsible maternity is wrong, the irresponsible procreation is wrong;
The fact of practicing the marital act during the different times of the cycle of the wife, is, per se, moral (infertile time, fertile time, pregnancy, menstruations, breastfeeding, just before menaupose, menaupose, after the menaupose);
The fact of practicing the marital act if husband is naturally sterile is okay, it is moral;
The fact of practicing the marital act if wife is naturally sterile is okay, it is moral;
The fact of practicing the marital act if the wife and the husband are naturally sterile is okay, it is moral;
The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally okay , it is moral.
The fact of practicing the marital act with the intention and the will to want a baby is okay, it is moral;

By nature, the NFP is not contraception. The practice of NFP in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because there is: a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), economical reason, an educative reason is okay and moral if the two members of couple are okay together and if its reason is objective, real and true ,and is not unfair (fair). NFP is not intrinsically evil, is not objectively wrong, is not of itself, from itself, for itself and by itself immoral.

 

[SusanneT]

It seems to me the issue of ‘a contraceptive mentality’ is key but also very hard to pin down.

NFP is difficult (in many ways emotional, relationship and physical - often not discussed) and no- one does it lightly.

NFP is not contraception - couples simply abstain during the fertile time that don’t in any way prevent nature from taking it’s course.

The marital act simply has to be ordered towards procreation - that is capable of leading to conception in the natural way in a normal healthy & fertile couple. It does not have to be done with the intent of conceiving and it’s just as loving and blessed for couples for whom at any time in any circumstances conception is impossible.

But NFP is practised by fertile couples with the aim of allowing them to enjoy the marital act without significant risk of conception - indeed it’s proponents emphasis it’s ‘effectiveness’ as a means of birth control and it’s advantages to a relationship as well as saying how with this or that method the period of abstinance can be minimised.

It is a fact that most Catholics practise contraception in part because they don’t trust NFP - but I don’t think a (disputed) lack of effectiveness renders NFP automatically acceptable (if it did, why not withdrawal, condoms etc). It is intention which counts.

I know when we used NFP we did it because I didn’t want to get pregnant, we didn’t want another baby (for a time at least) and had I got pregnant I would have been mortified. and regarded it as a failure of NFP. I’m 100% sure I’m not alone in feeling that way !? We would never use contraceptives, but to me that iwas having a contraceptive mentality and therefore sinful so what is the alternative ? Stop using it and either be intimate and probably get pregnant or abstain.

 

[LJN21]

I know when we used NFP we did it because I didn’t want to get pregnant, we didn’t want another baby (for a time at least) and had I got pregnant I would have been mortified. and regarded it as a failure of NFP. I’m 100% sure I’m not alone in feeling that way !? We would never use contraceptives, but to me that iwas having a contraceptive mentality and therefore sinful so what is the alternative ? Stop using it and either be intimate and probably get pregnant or abstain.

I really hate the phrase “contraceptive mentality” because of reasons like this. If you have serious reason to not have children it only makes since you would be upset if NFP failed. If I found out I was pregnant I’d be completely panic, worried, scared, and possibly even mad for a little while. If you don’t feel you have the means to care for the child, whether that’s physical, emotional, or financial.you are going to react in an emotional way. That doesn’t mean you are not going to love your child. No you put your trust in God and get ready for a baby.

I honestly doesn’t see how its possible to use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. Its hard, your only going to use it as long as you absolutely have too. If it fails your not going to go to some back up contraception or go get an abortion. I think the whole phrase is really nothing more than a stick providentialist use to try and beat people in to thinking unless your going to die form having another kid NFP is somehow gravely wrong. How is NFP ever “Gravely” wrong… Its simply not having sex. If your doing it for selfish reasons, well then its the sin of selfishness, not the sin of contraception.

 

[SusanneT]

I really hate the phrase “contraceptive mentality” because of reasons like this. If you have serious reason to not have children it only makes since you would be upset if NFP failed. If I found out I was pregnant I’d be completely panic, worried, scared, and possibly even mad for a little while. If you don’t feel you have the means to care for the child, whether that’s physical, emotional, or financial.you are going to react in an emotional way. That doesn’t mean you are not going to love your child. No you put your trust in God and get ready for a baby.

I honestly doesn’t see how its possible to use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. Its hard, your only going to use it as long as you absolutely have too. If it fails your not going to go to some back up contraception or go get an abortion. I think the whole phrase is really nothing more than a stick providentialist use to try and beat people in to thinking unless your going to die form having another kid NFP is somehow gravely wrong. How is NFP ever “Gravely” wrong… Its simply not having sex. If your doing it for selfish reasons, well then its the sin of selfishness, not the sin of contraception.

I completely agree no one who uses NFP can be accused of the sin of contraception and I’m sure no one who uses it does so without deep contemplation. It’s cirtainly not easy (although many apparently find it a positive in many ways).

Where we differ is that by my definition I think many off us do use it with a ‘contraceptive mentality’ maybe despite our best intentions.

 

[jilly4ski]

I completely agree no one who uses NFP can be accused of the sin of contraception and I’m sure no one who uses it does so without deep contemplation. It’s cirtainly not easy (although many apparently find it a positive in many ways).

Where we differ is that by my definition I think many off us do use it with a ‘contraceptive mentality’ maybe despite our best intentions.

Except that no one has defined what a contraceptive mentality is. The Church does not use that phrase, but rather says that using periodic continence for selfish reasons is wrong. It is the selfishness or lack of generosity that the Church sees as the true problem, not just being afraid if a pregnancy does happen. (if a couple experiences extreme health issues during a pregnancy don’t you think they would be very afraid of a pregnancy despite wanting to conceive a child?). Even in your example you said you didn’t want to get pregnant or have anther baby at least for a time. (of course I don’t know if your reasons were perhaps deeper than you are admitting here, but again that would be perhaps a lack of generosity or selfishness, not a “contraceptive mentality.”

 

[LJN21]

Where we differ is that by my definition I think many off us do use it with a ‘contraceptive mentality’ maybe despite our best intentions.

This sounds scrupulous to me. If you have just reason to use NFP you should not be worried that your falling in to a “contraceptive mentality”. The Church is not against Birth Control, we can use reason to decided if it is prudent to have another child. I see no place in the documents of the Church that say "If you have just cause to avoid a birth also be on guard to against a “contraceptive mentality.” The ONLY requirement the Church has is your cause be serious/just. The only place I even see the idea of NFP with a “contraceptive mentality” pushed is in certain groups that push the idea NFP was just a cop out by the modern church to keep people form using contraception. I think the fact of the matter is the actual teaching of the Church is far laxer than some people would like and instead of using some docility in trying to understand the teaching they made up a phrase to attempt make people feel they are sinning when they are not.

If you don’t think your reasons are serious enough, its still not a contraceptive mentally just possible selfishness.