Does the church officially teach that NFP is okay?

[joshrp]

I don’t really know much about this subject, but I want to know what the Catholic Church’s magisterium officially teaches about it.

Everything else is just commentary and is not guaranteed by God to be truthful.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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:159

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2399

 

[manualman]

Read Humanae Vitae itself. It’s on the web for your convenience. It’s better to understand principles than to memorize rules. Read the document and you’ll get a better idea when, where and why NFP is sometimes acceptable in marriage while contraception is never a legitimate option.

It’s important to recognize that not just anybody can use NFP to avoid pregnancy for any reason. Sex divorced from procreation is a distortion of human sexuality. Contraception encourages that divorce. It CAN happen with NFP, but it isn’t structurally oriented towards it.

 

[joshrp]

This is really starting to give me a headache trying to understand this. For some reason, this idea popped into my head “If you don’t want a kid, don’t have an orgasm.”

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I don’t really know much about this subject, but I want to know what the Catholic Church’s magisterium officially teaches about it.

Everything else is just commentary and is not guaranteed by God to be truthful.

Wording that way it seems a 500 page book falling into sex. Gosh, things are not that way. As someone told in another post, human sex is animal sex but it is human too. so, it must be human. the Church teaches that artificial methods of contraception are not that really human and I have heard it said by many doctors who were nothing catholic.

It is complex and you’ld better read about it. Read from man’s point of view and from women’s point of view. It is complicated. At least for me.

 

[joshrp]

Wording that way it seems a 500 page book falling into sex. Gosh, things are not that way. As someone told in another post, human sex is animal sex but it is human too. so, it must be human. the Church teaches that artificial methods of contraception are not that really human and I have heard it said by many doctors who were nothing catholic.

It is complex and you’ld better read about it. Read from man’s point of view and from women’s point of view. It is complicated. At least for me.

Well, I’ve read both John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility and Theology of the Body. I don’t know what else to read. I’ve also read the document The True Meaning of Human Sexuality. I still don’t get it. What does the church say about orgasms, I guess is what I am wondering.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

This is really starting to give me a headache trying to understand this. For some reason, this idea popped into my head “If you don’t want a kid, don’t have an orgasm.”

I mean, for a man, it is almost true. But not totally. Even if you do not have an orgasm, for some reason, some sperm may come out through the prostate liquid and reach the uterus and go up and fertilize the ovule(s). I know a case that is almost unbelievable how she got pregnant. But she got…

Funny thoughts of yours. But everybody has funny thoughts. Here, they say the babies come from Paris brought by a stork.

 

[joshrp]

I mean, for a man, it is almost true. But not totally. Even if you do not have an orgasm, for some reason, some sperm may come out through the prostate liquid and reach the uterus and go up and fertilize the ovule(s). I know a case that is almost unbelievable how she got pregnant. But she got…

Funny thoughts of yours. But everybody has funny thoughts. Here, they say the babies come from Paris brought by a stork.

Well, I was saying in another forum thread that the men shouldn’t be so selfish. Woman have been going a long time without having orgasms from what I read of history, and if a man is really in love with her, he should focus on giving her all the orgasms until he wants to have a kid. Maybe it will make up for all the pain she is going to have giving birth to the child. What do you think of this? Is this consistent with the Church’s magisterium?

 

[manualman]

You plowed through Love & Responsibility and that’s all you got? That is some dense reading and in depth thinking and you believe it reduces to a sound bite.

By now you should be able to see that some couple DO have serious reasons not to get pregnant and that those couples are perfectly able to enjoy marital physical intimacy during the times that God made them naturally infertile. They may not purposely sterilize themselves in order to get what they want though. Fundamentally different things. As Westerners, this IS hard for us to comprehend. I want what I want when I want it. We’ve forgotten just who is god and who is mere man.

 

[RosaryFan]

I don’t really know much about this subject, but I want to know what the Catholic Church’s magisterium officially teaches about it.

Everything else is just commentary and is not guaranteed by God to be truthful.

I attended my NFP training classes at the Seminary, so I’d say yes.

 

[joshrp]

You plowed through Love & Responsibility and that’s all you got? That is some dense reading and in depth thinking and you believe it reduces to a sound bite.

By now you should be able to see that some couple DO have serious reasons not to get pregnant and that those couples are perfectly able to enjoy marital physical intimacy during the times that God made them naturally infertile. They may not purposely sterilize themselves in order to get what they want though. Fundamentally different things. As Westerners, this IS hard for us to comprehend. I want what I want when I want it. We’ve forgotten just who is god and who is mere man.

I can’t remember what I got out of that book specifically. I know I got something out of it, but all the books I’ve read sort of blur together sometimes. I’m not trying to make sound bites. I’m having trouble with what you are saying here. I am not married, so a lot of this stuff is just words right now, and I don’t have a clue what they mean because I’ve never experienced any of this stuff. So bear with me please.

 

[joshrp]

I attended my NFP training classes at the Seminary, so I’d say yes.

Well, I’m trying to find specific statements by the Church. I’ve discovered that not everything that is taught in a church seminary is orthodox. There was some crazy stuff going down in I guess it was the 70s maybe and 80s. I’m not saying NFP isn’t right. I just don’t understand it yet, and I’m trying as best I can.

 

[manualman]

I’ll try to paraphrase the HV section briefly from memory (but read it again yourself, it’s quite short). Sex is not ONLY about procreation (making babies). It has a significant unitive function within marriage as well. But it is NOT accidental that God made sex completely entangled with making babies. When we assume that it is accidental (which is what underlies contraceptive attempts), we not only block the procreative aspect of sex, but disable much of the intended unitive aspect of it as well.

When the couple tries to take the pleasure while actively rejecting the fertility God gave them, they inherently send each other a subtly selfish message as well. When they ABSTAIN from sex to avoid pregnancy, they make a sacrifice or their own will to achieve the (presumably) just end of avoiding pregnancy and that damage to the unitive nature of sex is avoided. God didn’t make woman fertile all the time. Her very fertility function suggests that sex isn’t only about babies. But that same function says that you can’t divorce the two concepts either. It’s like gravity: you can’t break the laws of gravity, you can only break yourself in trying.

 

[joshrp]

I’ll try to paraphrase the HV section briefly from memory (but read it again yourself, it’s quite short). Sex is not ONLY about procreation (making babies). It has a significant unitive function within marriage as well. But it is NOT accidental that God made sex completely entangled with making babies. When we assume that it is accidental (which is what underlies contraceptive attempts), we not only block the procreative aspect of sex, but disable much of the intended unitive aspect of it as well.

When the couple tries to take the pleasure while actively rejecting the fertility God gave them, they inherently send each other a subtly selfish message as well. When they ABSTAIN from sex to avoid pregnancy, they make a sacrifice or their own will to achieve the (presumably) just end of avoiding pregnancy and that damage to the unitive nature of sex is avoided. God didn’t make woman fertile all the time. Her very fertility function suggests that sex isn’t only about babies. But that same function says that you can’t divorce the two concepts either. It’s like gravity: you can’t break the laws of gravity, you can only break yourself in trying.

What you are saying probably makes sense, but I feel like I’m studying something that is more complicated than rocket science, and I can understand rocket science. But this is just a step beyond that. Does that make any sense? I think it’s hilarious, but I’m very serious about this too at the same time.

 

[joshrp]

I’ll try to paraphrase the HV section briefly from memory (but read it again yourself, it’s quite short). Sex is not ONLY about procreation (making babies). It has a significant unitive function within marriage as well. But it is NOT accidental that God made sex completely entangled with making babies. When we assume that it is accidental (which is what underlies contraceptive attempts), we not only block the procreative aspect of sex, but disable much of the intended unitive aspect of it as well.

When the couple tries to take the pleasure while actively rejecting the fertility God gave them, they inherently send each other a subtly selfish message as well. When they ABSTAIN from sex to avoid pregnancy, they make a sacrifice or their own will to achieve the (presumably) just end of avoiding pregnancy and that damage to the unitive nature of sex is avoided. God didn’t make woman fertile all the time. Her very fertility function suggests that sex isn’t only about babies. But that same function says that you can’t divorce the two concepts either. It’s like gravity: you can’t break the laws of gravity, you can only break yourself in trying.

I’ve read HV a couple times or more already. I’ve heard that that document would have been far better if Karol Wjotyla had not been kept from attending the conferences on it by the Communists in Poland. I’ve been reading George Weigel’s biography of John Paul II Witness to Hope. So I am trying to understand this, but I don’t think that Humanae Vitae said enough. It wasn’t clear enough. John Paul II had a better idea on this subject. How do priests understand this stuff if they don’t get married and don’t have sex? That amazes me about John Paul II.

 

[RosaryFan]

Well, I’m trying to find specific statements by the Church. I’ve discovered that not everything that is taught in a church seminary is orthodox. There was some crazy stuff going down in I guess it was the 70s maybe and 80s. I’m not saying NFP isn’t right. I just don’t understand it yet, and I’m trying as best I can.

Here. Read this and put your mind at ease.

ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

 

[mark_a]

I don’t really know much about this subject, but I want to know what the Catholic Church’s magisterium officially teaches about it.

Everything else is just commentary and is not guaranteed by God to be truthful.

I’d stick with the CCC, then.

Separation of the unitive and procreative aspect of sex is wrong.

That’s what is wrong with every single devient form of sex.

Go ahead, ask yourself a question, any question about any type of sex besides married sex. It can be answered by the above.

The Church is just brilliant!

 

[Bookcat]

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.

 

[joshrp]

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.

Say someone is totally scared of the prospect of having a kid. They should just completely abstain right? There is a paranoia about pregnancy. I think if a person is so paranoid about having a kid that they do not absolutely, under any circumstances want one, they should just abstain. I don’t know why anyone would want to have sex when that kind of psychological turmoil is present.

What am I trying to get at? I’m not sure. Maybe I’m afraid of people having children that they didn’t plan for. I mean you can’t plan for a child. But I just have a problem with the idea of a child that is conceived who wasn’t an idea in the minds of his or her parents first.

 

[joshrp]

Say someone is totally scared of the prospect of having a kid. They should just completely abstain right? There is a paranoia about pregnancy. I think if a person is so paranoid about having a kid that they do not absolutely, under any circumstances want one, they should just abstain. I don’t know why anyone would want to have sex when that kind of psychological turmoil is present.

What am I trying to get at? I’m not sure. Maybe I’m afraid of people having children that they didn’t plan for. I mean you can’t plan for a child. But I just have a problem with the idea of a child that is conceived who wasn’t an idea in the minds of his or her parents first.

Like for example, what do you tell your kid when he grows up if you were using NFP and got a surprise. This is what I’m trying to get at. What do you do if you use NFP and you end up having a kid you really didn’t want in the first place?