Does the church officially teach that NFP is okay?

[sw85]

I think it’s reasonable to say that if you aren’t prepared to bring a child into the world you shouldn’t be having sex, and therefore shouldn’t be marrying.

I don’t see that every single child needs to be “planned.” It is enough to be open to the possibility of life.

 

[joshrp]

I think it’s reasonable to say that if you aren’t prepared to bring a child into the world you shouldn’t be having sex, and therefore shouldn’t be marrying.

I don’t see that every single child needs to be “planned.” It is enough to be open to the possibility of life.

Ok, I think that makes sense to me now. This basically gets to the fundamental answer to what I was concerned about.

 

[maryjk]

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?

Well, my parents raised me, loved me and treated me like their own.

I am now in my 40’s, my father just moved in with my family. He had to, he needs daily help and my mother just passed away 3 months ago. She was living at our house under hospice care. So I guess all in all, they are glad they had me.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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.

Well, let’s go other way.
Answering your question, yes, NFP for the Church is OK.
Now, what is the problem?

1. 
   *]Do you want to have as many children as it takes? Then, no problem, you may have as mny times sex as both of you want.
   *]you want some some children but not all that would come to the net, then use NFP, if you want. Study the ovulation period of your wife through the methods of calendar, temperature and uterus mucus (and others that may appear) and void having sex within the red zones where your wife may get pregnant. Outside that period each month, you may have as many orgasms as you both agree.
   
   Sorry, that is what I understood from your question that was not clear for me.

 

[joshrp]

Well, let’s go other way.
Answering your question, yes, NFP for the Church is OK.
Now, what is the problem?

1. 
   *]Do you want to have as many children as it takes? Then, no problem, you may have as mny times sex as both of you want.
   *]you want some some children but not all that would come to the net, then use NFP, if you want. Study the ovulation period of your wife through the methods of calendar, temperature and uterus mucus (and others that may appear) and void having sex within the red zones where your wife may get pregnant. Outside that period each month, you may have as many orgasms as you both agree.
   
   Sorry, that is what I understood from your question that was not clear for me.

1. 
   I think I’ve got it figured out now. Thanks for everyone who put up with me on these questions.

 

[yablabo]

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.

To my knowledge, what we call “natural family planning” is not taught explicitly by the magisterium.

Pope Paul VI does talk on using “infecund” periods during marriage, however, in Humanae Vitae, #16:

To this teaching of the Church on conjugal morals, the objection is made today, as we observed earlier (no. 3), that it is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orientate them towards an end conformable to the good of man. Now, some may ask: in the present case, is it not reasonable in many circumstances to have recourse to artificial birth control if, thereby, we secure the harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the education of the children already born? To this question it is necessary to reply with clarity: the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but she affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.

The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

So, one can have recourse to infecund periods as long as one does not offend the moral principles. One such that I can think of would be the primary purpose of marriage: to beget and educate children. If one impedes the development of the natural processes, he is offending against the primary purpose of getting married in the first place. We cannot use the infecund periods in marriage in a way that is directly contrary to fecundation.

So, if NFP teaches to use the infecund periods in marriage in a way that is directly contrary to fecundation, then it falls under the condemnation spoken of here. If it does not, but rather teaches to use the infecund periods in marriage in a way that is not against the moral principles (i.e., always welcoming new life, not violating the purposes of marriage, or any other moral principles outlined in Humanae Vitae) then NFP falls under a licit use of the generative function in marriage.

– Nicole

 

[ahs]

To my knowledge, what we call “natural family planning” is not taught explicitly by the magisterium.

Catechsim of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2370 quotes the same Pope in the same encyclical you referenced and explicitly approves what we call “natural family planning”.

“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. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom”. (CCC 2370, quoting Humanae Vitae)

 

[Bookcat]

Catechsim of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2370 quotes the same Pope in the same encyclical you referenced and explicitly approves what we call “natural family planning”.

“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. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom”. (CCC 2370, quoting Humanae Vitae)

and from the 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.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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.

Sex is a pleasure like any other pleasure: drinking, eating, having a shower, listening to music, seeing the sunset, taking heroin. I left this for the last. I do not need to take heroin to know what heroin is and to talk about the subject. I do not need to have 4 wives to talk about poligamy or to be gay or lesbian to talk about the subject. As well a doctor does not need to have cancer to treat it. A nun does not need to have the experience of a prostitute to run organizations to save these girls from slavery.

Once you distinguish the words pleasure, self-centered, altruism, egotism, generosity, tenderness, joy, happiness, suffering, you know everything about sex.

like John Paul II