Catholic mum answers, "isn't NFP just Catholic birth control?"

[Rico_S]

Its not mental gymnastics, its logic. If someone doesn’t understand the difference between having sex and not having sex, they’ve already failed at logic.
.

Indeed!!

The morality of NFP and condoms has nada to do with effectiveness.

Agreed Never said it did.

You could even argue it has nothing to do with birth control at all. For example if someone who is natural infertile wanted to have relations with an intact condom because they liked how it felt, it would still be an intrinsically evil act, because you have divorced the dual nature of the marital act. It can be argued that not only does a condom make the act sterile it also frustrates the unitive as well. It is the intentional divorcing of the natures of the marital act the thing determines morality, not the intention to have children or not.

Don’t disagree at all.

But I still think maintaining that “open to life” is the fundamental difference is problematic.

 

[Xantippe]

LJN21 said:

“I think the realities of giving up relations (read:fasting) to avoid children almost precluded it in fact.”

I wonder if there’s ever been an NFP using couple that managed only 1 child over 25 years without extremely serious reasons or some sort of fertility issues?

Conceivably, if one spouse were totally frigid/asexual, they might be able to maintain the sort of perfect use NFP that would result in only 1 child over the course of 25+ years of fertile married life, but in that case I think the selfishness would be of a different nature–it would be selfishness that offends specifically against the spouse who does not wish to abstain that much.

If both spouses have such low libido that they actually don’t want to have sex very much at all, I wonder if there is any sin at all? I doubt it.

 

[LJN21]

I wonder if there’s ever been an NFP using couple that managed only 1 child over 25 years without extremely serious reasons or some sort of fertility issues?

I highly doubt it. I think the couple using NFP selfishly for their whole marriage is mental fabrication by those worried about the so called 'contraceptive mentality" using NFP. Frankly I’ve never heard of anyone even willing to contemplate using NFP that has the mentality of "if my birth control fails I’ll get an abortion, which is btw the definition of a “contractive mentality”.

If both spouses have such low libido that they actually don’t want to have sex very much at all, I wonder if there is any sin at all? I doubt it.

I’m not sure there is ever a time simply not having sex is a sin.

 

[Rau]

I’m not sure there is ever a time simply not having sex is a sin.

Yet the Church teaches that NFP may only be practiced when one has “serious” reasons to avoid a pregnancy, and as a result, we read posts asserting that using NFP absent such reasons is sinful. So if one is disinclined to conceive, but without serious reason, then to avoid sinning one should eradicate knowledge of current fertility, or have sex regardless of fertility despite the anxiety about the results. This just seems odd.

It seems to me that any “sinning” here may revolve more around one’s devotion to the material world than to the scheduling of sex.

 

[Xantippe]

It seems to me that any “sinning” here may revolve more around one’s devotion to the material world than to the scheduling of sex.

Or indifference to one’s spouse’s needs.

 

[Rau]

Or indifference to one’s spouse’s needs.

Well, possibly, but the context I assumed was a couple acting in unison, otherwise the central issue is confused with other issues.

 

[LJN21]

Yet the Church teaches that NFP may only be practiced when one has “serious” reasons to avoid a pregnancy, and as a result, we read posts asserting that using NFP absent such reasons is sinful. So if one is disinclined to conceive, but without serious reason, then to avoid sinning one should eradicate knowledge of current fertility, or have sex regardless of fertility despite the anxiety about the results. This just seems odd.

Yeah, I’ve always wondered how people go from what the Church says, “If you have serious/just reasons to avoid children you may use NFP” turn that in too, “if your reasons aren’t serious/just enough you’re sinning by not having sex!.” Maybe I’ve missed it but I’ve never seen where the Magisterium of the Church has defined the sin that comes with less than perfect reasons for NFP use. God gave us an intellect, He also gave women and intuitive cycle. I don’t see how using what he has given us with respect to natural law is sinful.

It seems to me that any “sinning” here may revolve more around one’s devotion to the material world than to the scheduling of sex.

I agree, I think the sin is not whether or not to have sex, or knowledge of fertilely, or the magic combining of the two but users attachment to the material world. Everyone is called to master all the virtues. Sure you can be sinning against charity by wanting material goods over a family, you can also sin by using you spouse as an object whether to make babies or simply for sex on demand. Temperance in all things!

 

[LJN21]

I wonder if there’s ever been an NFP using couple that managed only 1 child over 25 years without extremely serious reasons or some sort of fertility issues?

Yeah I don’t think it happens.

Conceivably, if one spouse were totally frigid/asexual, they might be able to maintain the sort of perfect use NFP that would result in only 1 child over the course of 25+ years of fertile married life, but in that case I think the selfishness would be of a different nature–it would be selfishness that offends specifically against the spouse who does not wish to abstain that much.

I completely agree. We know it’s sinful to deny your spouse reasonable request for sex. It seems like this might fall into that category using abstinence as an excuse for selfishness.

If both spouses have such low libido that they actually don’t want to have sex very much at all, I wonder if there is any sin at all? I doubt it.

I agree. Someone would have to prove spouses are compelled to have relations based on possible fertility to claim there is any sin here at all. Since we know that is absurd, I think its safe to say there is no sin involved.

 

[maryjk]

Yeah, **I’ve always wondered how people go from what the Church says, “If you have serious/just reasons to avoid children you may use NFP” turn that in too, “if your reasons aren’t serious/just enough you’re sinning by not having sex!.” **Maybe I’ve missed it but I’ve never seen where the Magisterium of the Church has defined the sin that comes with less than perfect reasons for NFP use. God gave us an intellect, He also gave women and intuitive cycle. I don’t see how using what he has given us with respect to natural law is sinful.

To, “if you *think *you have just reasons, you always need to check with a priest. ONLY a priest can decide if your reasons are serious enough.”

And yes, I have had people tell me that.

 

[LJN21]

To, “if you *think *you have just reasons, you always need to check with a priest. ONLY a priest can decide if your reasons are serious enough.”

And yes, I have had people tell me that.

No where has anyone with the authority to do so made this demand form of the faithful! This one always ticks me off when someone tells me that! I’ve heard it SO often and it is such and injustice!

Priests are not magically infallible in the case of NFP. I have seen so much hurt and bad advice because of of this myth. The reasons why this is not the case is pretty logical when you talk to a couple different priests on the issue. These are all different takes on NFP by various local priests on NFP:

1. It is reasonable to use NFP to avoid children in the first year of marriage.
2. it is reasonable to use NFP to space kids up to three years.
3. Grave (danger of death reasons) are the only ones reasonable for use of NFP. (This one told people who already had lots of kids they could not use it for 3 months after a miscarriage because it wasn’t a serious enough reason.)
4. I don’t care as long as your not using Contraception.
5. I can’t tell you, that is between you and your husband and ONLY you and your husband, just do the best you can and keep being faithful to God.

These statements can’t all be right…

Edit: Sorry original post came off a lot harsher than I intended,

 

[Xantippe]

1. Grave (danger of death reasons) are the only ones reasonable for use of NFP. (This one told people who already had lots of kids they could not use it for 3 months after a miscarriage because it wasn’t a serious enough reason.)

And yet, it wouldn’t be crazy for the wife to just not want to have sex for three months after a miscarriage?

My hobby horse on this is that a lot of times, NFP is just a fancy name for abstinence. If it’s not selfish to abstain for three months after a miscarriage, it’s not selfish to do NFP.

 

[LJN21]

And yet, it wouldn’t be crazy for the wife to just not want to have sex for three months after a miscarriage?

My hobby horse on this is that a lot of times, NFP is just a fancy name for abstinence. If it’s not selfish to abstain for three months after a miscarriage, it’s not selfish to do NFP.

I see what your saying and agree. I think the mindset that, you can only use nfp if death is involve, comes form an idea that it is somehow ‘cheating the system’ by using your God given marital rights, during a God given infertile time in your cycle to enjoy your marital right to intercource. Clearly procreation is the ONLY good that EVER came from sex.