Exactly how is NFP (Natural Family Planning) NOT just another form of birth control?

[LJN21]

I am not calling you a liar as you have called me.

Ma’am, please do not put words in my mouth. I posted a statistic that disagreed with your statement. If you wish to count that as calling you a liar, that is your prerogative. In a normal discussion, proof to the contrary of a statement is not “calling someone a liar”. If you wish to post said studies or statistics that prove contrary to mine, please post them.

Bear in mind however, a rise in pregnancy rates prior to widespread use of contraceptives absolutely indicates an increase in sexual activity. A decrease in pregnancy rates AFTER widespread use of contraceptives does NOT prove a decrease in Sexual Activity.

Sexual activity is what results in pregnancy (and thus abortion). This is the what must be stopped.

But I stand by the studies that show that sex education coupled with availability of ABC’s have and do reduce teen pregnancy and thus abortions. All studies show that abstinence only does not appreciably change the numbers at all. These studies are done by groups that have no vested interest in the outcome of the study. Your stats show nothing about abstinence whatsoever. I did not claim that pregnancy rates were falling by the way. I said that SE and ABC do have an impact and a proveable one on the numbers.

Of course it reduces teen pregnancy compared to the abstinence only. Not because there having less sex (which is what we want) but because they are contracepting! In fact, to get the high number of teen pregnancy’s and STD’s we have now, how much sex must be going on with the “low” failure rates of condoms and the pill!

My stats show that since artificial birth control and sex ed in public schools has become a mainstay of American life, teen pregnancy and abortion have sky rocketed.

Now you are changing the argument. I submit that even people who use ABC know where babies come from. NFP may certainly be cheaper, but I am told it is something that takes a lot of time and work to learn how to do effectively. What consequences am I trying to eliminate. Aren’t they the same for both? pregnancy? Again, your argument is nonsensical. How is one form or the other leaving someone unsuspectingly “stuck with an unwanted baby?” Don’t failures in NFP result in the same? a child that was not desired? What is the point of using it then?

I stand by my point. You can’t get an unwanted baby by not having sex. You get it when you expect your drugs or devices to work when they don’t. The argument for ABC is nonsensical if you are in a situation when you really truly cannot afford to have another child. If you can’t afford a child, you really can’t afford to be having sex.

NFP is easy to learn. In the process you also learn far more than just popping a pill every morning. You’ll learn exactly how responsibility ties in to sex. If you are going to have sex ever you need to be ready for the responsibility of parenthood. If your just not ready for that commitment you better just keep you pants on. All contraception does is reinforce the lie of “safe sex”. Sex is NEVER safe, which is printed on the guidelines of every pack of condoms and fine print of Birth Control pills, there is ALWAYS a “Chance”.

I guess you are unaware of what constitutes sex education. It is not simply handing out condoms as you so blithely announce. Abstinence works, but unfortunately it is not followed. It is as good as doing nothing according to statistics. If it worked it would be embraced.

Money and power disagree with you. What works isn’t always what is embraced. Please explain why the STD and Prengancy rate has steadily climbed WITH Contraceptives and Condom use being shouted from every rooftop by our culture to any teen with ears to hear since the 70’s?

If teaching abstinence does nothing, then my statistic posted earlier would be a flat line. In the late 60’s and 70’s is when Artificial Birth Control and Sex ed REALLY began to be pushed into the public schools. Prior to that, it was what you were taught at home, or more likely, “Don’t Do IT”. Logical conclusion is that the sky high STD and Pregnancy rates are a product of Sex Ed, not the other way around. If this were not the case, then the 40’s, 50’s and early 60’s would be on the high end, and 70’s and 80’s on the low end. The numbers just don’t agree with you.

I’m also perfectly aware of what sex ed teaches. I am a product of the late 90’s public school system. I’m also perfectly aware of what its is like to be a teenager. There is no way you can stand your ground on moral and right and wrong with some kinda of wishy washy stance of “Oh well don’t have sex, but if you can’t help your self use this”. A teenager can hardly tie their shoes with out thinking about sex, they need firm solid support of, “Sex before marriage is a ** mortal sin AND will cause you to be a parent before you ready**.” Not, “you and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals, so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel.” Which is exactly what the concept of “safe sex” boils down to, to a teenager.

You have no corner on wanting to reduce teen pregnancy and other diseases spread by promiscuous sex believe me. It is arrogant to claim that you do.

Conjecture, I never said I held the corner on it nor wanted to. If I did, please quote me.

 

[LJN21]

Some people just dont listen apparently. I cannot tell you why it didnt work for you. That is like asking why some alcoholic isn’t helped by AA while others are. Nothing works for everyone. And for some folks NOTHING works at all. I suspect you can’t speak for what others would have done. That fact that you had other stops in play that kept you from having sex doesn’t mean you can speak for everyone else. The fact that some have sex with no protection is evidence that what worked for you doesn’t work for others.

I think you misread what I wrote…ABSTINENCE ONLY taught with contraception is IMMORAL was the ONLY thing that kept me and many of my child hood friends virgins. There were a few it didn’t work for, but as you said before some people just don’t’ listen.

Stating that it doesn’t isn’t proof of anything. I remember being a teenager as well. Anecdotal evidence, especially of yourself is not evidence of much of anything. Sorry. Teenagers are in effect fairly stupid. It’s a medical certainty. The frontal lobes which control impulse and judgement are not fully formed until about the mid twenties. That’s exactly why kids make mistakes.

So, If someone told you when you were a teen, “You know, you really shouldn’t have sex, lots of bad things can happen like STD’s and pregnancy, but if you insist on having sex, use this thing, oh and this pill will reduce your risk of maybe getting pregnant by even more.” How long do you give the normal teen to last before their first premarital affair? The statistical evidence from 74 up says “Not very long”.

I mean no offense when I say this, but I’m quite a bit closer to my teenage years. I can remember with crystal clarity. It was very hard, it was almost impossible with the culture blaring “Do what feels good, damn the consequences” Yet, I made it, and what kept me through was the solid rock foundation of everything wrong that Sex Before Marriage brings, and there was only one place that has never wavered on that message.

 

[newbetx]

The main argument against the Church is that it hangs onto its dogma

Oh, yeah… “dogma bad, popular belief good”

in the face of international disasters such as AIDS and offers nothing but abstinence as a solution.

Well, abstinence IS a solution. And an inexpensive, effective one if used. Granted, not a popular option.

If they worked, we wouldn’t have any problems.

Well, we seem to agree here.

The fact is that people have been promiscuous since the dawn of civilization and we have to address the reality and not simply preach a standard that the vast vast majority of humanity since time immemorial are unwilling and unable to adher to.

Well, we can act like animals or demand more of ourselves. For centuries, marriage has been a pre-requisite for sex in most civilized countries. Granted there are notable exceptions. But really, reserving sex for marriage isn’t a recent idea.

You are denying the reality of the world.

I don’t deny the reality, I bemoan it. I thought the idea is that we are to improve our world, not throw up our arms and “do as the Romans do.”

The fact that contraception is available in most of the world is not a requirement that it be used,

I thought it was going to solve so many problems…why wouldn’t it be used?

and obviously some don’t, and so the problems continue.

The problem with sex education today… many don’t practice what they were taught. Like how to use (properly or at all) a condom, take pills… but mostly, they never want to believe that something “bad” could happen to them.

Now I will pose a question to you… which is a better America?
A) 50 % of kids having sex with 50% of them either getting an STD or getting pregnant with 50% of those getting an abortion…or
B) 0nly 10% of kids having sex with 10% of them either getting an STD or getting pregnant

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What studied are you basing this opinion. Even those who do not favor abstinence programs admit they have impact although they say it is minor only 23 % but nowhere is zero claimed.

I remember when a study came out saying that sex education not only didn’t work but that it added to the problem. The first ones to set up a howl was planned parenthood.

I am not certain if sex education is totally to blame to our current situation but it didn’t help. Sex education came in and the stigma of sex outside of marriage went out. The attitude that everyone has sex and we can’t expect them not to is giving into the baser side of life. Unless you are suggesting that we are just animals that can’t be expected to control ourselves this is a bad attitude. It is also unjust to those who obey God and respect the sanctity of marriage.

Before pulled from the website by the current administration, the CDC carried studies which showed under their “Programs that Work” quantitative studies that comprehensive sex education did indeed reduce both teen pregnancy and SDS’s. No abstinence only programs had any reduction rate.

Countries with the lowest abortion rates have the highest pro-choice alternatives available. Those that are pro-life and restrictive of options have the highest abortion rates.

Schools in the south are 5 times more likely to teach abstinence only, They have the highest HIV/AIDS rates, the hightest STD rates and the hightest teen pregnancy rates. (Southern States Manifesto on HIV/AIDS and STD study-- funded by the CDC)

93% of all persons in the US support contraception. 80% of all pro-lifers do as well.

I know of no study that suggests that sex education results in more promiscuity. Promiscuity has been around far longer than sex education. There is no corrolation between that and divorce or anything else. These factors are a result of a social world in which women can afford to leave abusive relationships. They can gain successful employment and provide for themselves.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Ma’am, please do not put words in my mouth. I posted a statistic that disagreed with your statement. If you wish to count that as calling you a liar, that is your prerogative.

You referred to my remarks as an outright fabrication by the pro-contraception crowd. Fabrication denotes knowing falsehood.

Of course it reduces teen pregnancy compared to the abstinence only. Not because there having less sex (which is what we want) but because they are contracepting! In fact, to get the high number of teen pregnancy’s and STD’s we have now, how much sex must be going on with the “low” failure rates of condoms and the pill!

My stats show that since artificial birth control and sex ed in public schools has become a mainstay of American life, teen pregnancy and abortion have sky rocketed.

You are conflating a whole lot of different things and drawing conclusions willy nilly. You make assertions out of thin air. Your study did not refer to the effects of sex education in controlled populations and did not address abstinence only controlled populations at all.

I stand by my point. You can’t get an unwanted baby by not having sex. You get it when you expect your drugs or devices to work when they don’t. The argument for ABC is nonsensical if you are in a situation when you really truly cannot afford to have another child. If you can’t afford a child, you really can’t afford to be having sex.

You simply refuse the point that is obvious. you can teach abstinence all day long but if teens refuse to go along, you have accomplished nothing. You can’t unfortunately have what you wish, abstinence and low pregnancy and abortion rates for teens. At least ABC and comprehensive sex education do reduce the numbers as the CDC has published.

Money and power disagree with you. What works isn’t always what is embraced. Please explain why the STD and Prengancy rate has steadily climbed WITH Contraceptives and Condom use being shouted from every rooftop by our culture to any teen with ears to hear since the 70’s?

The actual question would be how much higher would they be without these alternatives. You can turn to the South there for the answers. Where abstinence is taught at a 5 times greater rate than the rest of the nation, their pregnancy, and STD rates are are seriously higher than the rest of the nation.

You are not taking into account an entire list of other social occurances that impact on promiscuity and pregnancy rates. You avoid them and try to tie all increases in sex to only this one thing–birth control. Any expert in the field will disabuse you of that notion quickly. You are conflating statistics that have many many other variables that are not accounted for in your simplistic analysis.

I’m also perfectly aware of what sex ed teaches. I am a product of the late 90’s public school system. I’m also perfectly aware of what its is like to be a teenager. .

Youre the one who started the “I was once a teenager” so dont blame me for responding in kind. The fact is simply this, you can tell some kids no and they accept no, you can tell a good many others no and they will ignore you. If you are willing to see that price paid in disease, abortion and unwanted pregnancy to maintain a “moral” precept, then so be. I am not.

Conjecture, I never said I held the corner on it nor wanted to. If I did, please quote me.

There is a tendency among the moral minority to explain to the rest of us that we don’t care about morals, we are just wanton creatures. YOu suggested I and others who are not against ABC are simply chasing the almight dollar. You deserved to be reminded that we are just as moral as you claim to be, we are just not willing to hand over such grevious consequences to our youngters to prove a point.

 

[LJN21]

I know of no study that suggests that sex education results in more promiscuity. Promiscuity has been around far longer than sex education. There is no corrolation between that and divorce or anything else. These factors are a result of a social world in which women can afford to leave abusive relationships. They can gain successful employment and provide for themselves.

Promiscuity and divorce are factors of the “liberation” of women huh… alrighty then.

There is a tendency among the moral minority to explain to the rest of us that we don’t care about morals, we are just wanton creatures. YOu suggested I and others who are not against ABC are simply chasing the almight dollar. You deserved to be reminded that we are just as moral as you claim to be, we are just not willing to hand over such grevious consequences to our youngters to prove a point.

I’m sorry but there is no way you can construe its okay to use an intrinsic evil to treat a immoral behavior issue. There is simply nothing moral about that. I don’t care how moral you think that is, its simply not and has never been ever. The teaching against contraception goes back to the early church and the Bible. Every protestant denomination even realized as much until 1930. I guess then the methods get better some how that changes the moral issues. Relativism alive and well I see, not that that should surprise me I guess.

Anyways, I think we’re done here not that I’m not willing to discus those points in more detail with you but this is getting WILDLY off topic and its pretty apparently you are completely blind the social aspects and why the Church teaches what it does on this issues. (Its not to oppress women and and attempt to control out sex lives even in marriage btw.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Promiscuity and divorce are factors of the “liberation” of women huh… alrighty then.

I’m sorry but there is no way you can construe its okay to use an intrinsic evil to treat a immoral behavior issue. There is simply nothing moral about that. I don’t care how moral you think that is, its simply not and has never been ever. The teaching against contraception goes back to the early church and the Bible. Every protestant denomination even realized as much until 1930. I guess then the methods get better some how that changes the moral issues. Relativism alive and well I see, not that that should surprise me I guess.

Anyways, I think we’re done here not that I’m not willing to discus those points in more detail with you but this is getting WILDLY off topic and its pretty apparently you are completely blind the social aspects and why the Church teaches what it does on this issues. (Its not to oppress women and and attempt to control out sex lives even in marriage btw.)

Yes relativism has gone wild, to the tune of 98% of the entire population of the country. You are in a 2% position claiming that everyone by you is immoral. I think that wuold cause me to rethink things a tiny bit. I am not at all unclear of what the church teaches and why. i am saddened the Church has talked itself into a corner and now cannot admit the mistake nor figure out a way to get out of the situation. It is the most major of reasons that other faiths feel the Church is wildly out of touch with reality and not competent to speak to issues of the day. I certainly don’t agree with that, but i cannot defend what is purely indefensible. If yuou wish answers to questions of serious proportions-- namely abortion and serious and even deadly diseases, then you must conclude that contraception is a necessary thing. I cannot stand by and watch the cruelty of the Church’s position go unanswered. I leave it to God to judge who is doing the best and I am not about to condemn anyone for choosing to limit their possibility of pregnancy and disease for good healthy reasons.

I guess I see sex as a biological function, and not meant to be limited to procreation or reserved only for those who are formally entwined with the only real purpose the production of children. I have no quarrel as I said with anyone who uses NFP, I just am rather tired of the “holier” that thou claim by them and the resultant judgement of the rest of humanity. If it makes you feel superior to follow this “rule” then so be it, but I see no need or reason to crow about it.

 

[LJN21]

Yes relativism has gone wild, to the tune of 98% of the entire population of the country. You are in a 2% position claiming that everyone by you is immoral. I think that wuold cause me to rethink things a tiny bit. I am not at all unclear of what the church teaches and why. i am saddened the Church has talked itself into a corner and now cannot admit the mistake nor figure out a way to get out of the situation. It is the most major of reasons that other faiths feel the Church is wildly out of touch with reality and not competent to speak to issues of the day. I certainly don’t agree with that, but i cannot defend what is purely indefensible. If yuou wish answers to questions of serious proportions-- namely abortion and serious and even deadly diseases, then you must conclude that contraception is a necessary thing. I cannot stand by and watch the cruelty of the Church’s position go unanswered. I leave it to God to judge who is doing the best and I am not about to condemn anyone for choosing to limit their possibility of pregnancy and disease for good healthy reasons.

I guess I see sex as a biological function, and not meant to be limited to procreation or reserved only for those who are formally entwined with the only real purpose the production of children. I have no quarrel as I said with anyone who uses NFP, I just am rather tired of the “holier” that thou claim by them and the resultant judgement of the rest of humanity. If it makes you feel superior to follow this “rule” then so be it, but I see no need or reason to crow about it.

If morals are based on majority rule then slavery and human sacrifice were perfectly moral at one time. (Hum, I guess God made a mistake destroying Sodom.) I know there are many smarter people then me. If someone like I don’t know, all the popes ever, the apostles, the doctors of the Church, all of Christan humanity until 1930 and pretty much every teaching authority of the Church tells me something is immoral, I’m going to believe what they say over Margret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, the CDC, the UN, and “Sister Mary Feminist.” What the majority (or the minority for that matter) thinks has no bearing on what is or is not moral. When something goes against its natural, God intended, purpose that makes it immoral, it doesn’t matter if no one in the world believes it. I do not have conclude contraception is necessary, in fact, I conclude contraception has done NOTHING but hurt society, especially women, and weaken over all morals and your posts are a perfect example.

Oh and this:

I guess I see sex as a biological function, and not meant to be limited to procreation or reserved only for those who are formally entwined with the only real purpose the production of children

I’m really sorry you see sex as just a biological function, it is really truly sad.

And to be clear, I am not passing some kind of judgment on the state of anyone soul that uses contraception thats Gods job.

If you would like to discuss my moral minority views form the obviously uneducated dark ages when all us women were supposed to stay with our abusive husbands (who we were forced to marry) and just shut up and have baby’s, I’d be happy to. However I’m going to insist you start another thread and not keep taking this one farther off topic.

 

[adrift]

Yes relativism has gone wild, to the tune of 98% of the entire population of the country. You are in a 2% position claiming that everyone by you is immoral. I think that wuold cause me to rethink things a tiny bit.

Is morality decided by what the majority of people do?
This is what I see you saying.
The Church is not swayed by an opinion that is not based on right and wrong. That is what makes the Church a beacon for us sinners.
Others try to pull us to the wide road of hell. The Church tries to lead us to the narrow way Jesus told us about. Did it ever occur to you that the Church isn’t the one making the mistake?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I guess I see sex as a biological function, and not meant to be limited to procreation or reserved only for those who are formally entwined with the only real purpose the production of children.

At least you’re honest.

 

[rlg94086]

I guess I see sex as a biological function, and not meant to be limited to procreation or reserved only for those who are formally entwined with the only real purpose the production of children. I have no quarrel as I said with anyone who uses NFP, I just am rather tired of the “holier” that thou claim by them and the resultant judgement of the rest of humanity. If it makes you feel superior to follow this “rule” then so be it, but I see no need or reason to crow about it.

In that case, I have another book for you to read:
Holy Sex! A Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving

Much of what you have posted on this thread is debunked in this book. More importantly, I think you and your spouse would love this book!

 

[Geremia]

Please don’t get me wrong. I have used nfp exclusively and enthusiastically, but I never claimed that I was open to the possibility of conception when I knew it wasn’t going to happen or still sending God an invitation, etc.

So you use NFP sinfully, because you are “not open to the possibility of conception,” right?

 

[Geremia]

Not seeing anything in your quote that says that children are the only or the greatest purpose of marriage, just that it is a purpose of marriage.

Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii says that

The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.

 

[Geremia]

Because thats isn’t the only purpose of sex, there is another purpose and that is to reinforce the bond between husband and wife, to renew their wedding vows. Sex in marriage is a sacramental, a scared act, not just something you do to make kids.

This is not true. Again, Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii says:

Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

This, also from Casti Connubii, is relevant, too:

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

 

[bugz2007]

This is not true. Again, Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii says:

Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

That is the point. NFP is different from ABC because there is nothing being done to deliberately frustrate the natural power and purpose of the conjugal act. This quote refers to the exercise of the conjugal act itself, not when it is done, or how often. The sin is wrought when, in actually performing the act, something is done to deliberately interfere with the procreational design of
that act. (AKA, ABC)

And a side note - as the third quote from Casti Connubii allows, primary does not equal only. It just means the most basic, and, some would argue, most important. That is why a couple must be very careful in determining their reasons for using NFP. It is not intended to be something to be used for an entire marriage. If a couple just does not want children, they should be abstaining. Though, according to this same document, Casti Connubii and your understanding of the use of the word “primary,” a couple should not marry if they will never plan to have children, even if they are willing to abstain for the entire marriage.

 

[wanner47]

This is not true. Again, Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii says:

Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Emphasis mine.

NFP does not “deliberately frustrate” the natural power of the conjugal act. Inaction is not deliberate frustration. Contraception, by its very nature, does frustrate the natural act. This is what the pope was speaking about.

Can you find me a quote from Pius XI which specifically condemns NFP?

This, also from Casti Connubii, is relevant, too:

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Again, nothing in this quote would indicate that NFP is wrong as long as couples are using it in a way that is subordinated to the primary end of the conjugal act; that is, as long as they are open to the possibility of life. This does not mean trying for a child whenever a woman has a potentially fertile cycle; rather, it means prayerfully deciding in every fertile cycle if one should practice abstinence or not.

St. Paul recommended abstinence to married couples in order to cultivate their spiritual life. Do you think Pope Pius XI disagreed with St. Paul in this respect?

 

[LittleDeb]

Emphasis mine.

NFP does not “deliberately frustrate” the natural power of the conjugal act. Inaction is not deliberate frustration. Contraception, by its very nature, does frustrate the natural act. This is what the pope was speaking about.

Can you find me a quote from Pius XI which specifically condemns NFP?

Again, nothing in this quote would indicate that NFP is wrong as long as couples are using it in a way that is subordinated to the primary end of the conjugal act; that is, as long as they are open to the possibility of life. This does not mean trying for a child whenever a woman has a potentially fertile cycle; rather, it means prayerfully deciding in every fertile cycle if one should practice abstinence or not.

St. Paul recommended abstinence to married couples in order to cultivate their spiritual life. Do you think Pope Pius XI disagreed with St. Paul in this respect?

Well said!

 

[gardenswithkids]

…You are in a 2% position claiming that everyone by you is immoral. I think that wuold cause me to rethink things a tiny bit. I am not at all unclear of what the church teaches and why. i am saddened the Church has talked itself into a corner and now cannot admit the mistake nor figure out a way to get out of the situation. … I cannot stand by and watch the cruelty of the Church’s position go unanswered…

I guess I see sex as a biological function, and not meant to be limited to procreation or reserved only for those who are formally entwined with the only real purpose the production of children. I have no quarrel as I said with anyone who uses NFP, I just am rather tired of the “holier” that thou claim by them and the resultant judgement of the rest of humanity…

SpiritMeadow,

I already re-thought my position and came to believe what the Church teaches after using contraception. The Church didn’t make a mistake; I did.

As far as judgmental attitudes, sin such as pride is a problem for many people, including people who argue both for and against the Church teachings. Everyone should check their own eyes for logs. There is nothing cruel about the Church teachings. If they were followed, STDs and out-of-wedlock pregnancy wouldn’t be problems. The problem is people don’t follow the Church teachings. That brings us back to the problem of sin, which is a very old problem.

If sex is merely a biological function, wouldn’t a large part of the biological function be reproduction? Yet, the Church does *not *see sex as merely a biological function of reproduction, hence the Church allows natural family planning.

 

[LJN21]

Geremia,

Try Humanae Vitae.
Humanae Vitae:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

Humanae Vitae:

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. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.** But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another.**In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

And you might wanna read this catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp it will give you even more quotes from Pope John Paul II, I also recommend you pick up a copy of the Theology of the Body or pretty much any of one of Christoper Wests books on the Theology of the Body.

 

[newbetx]

… It is not intended to be something to be used for an entire marriage. If a couple just does not want children, they should be abstaining. Though, according to this same document, Casti Connubii and your understanding of the use of the word “primary,” a couple should not marry if they will never plan to have children, even if they are willing to abstain for the entire marriage.

Bugz… love your posts, but there may be a fine point here that needs clarification.

"a couple should not marry if they will never plan to have children" is true. IF a couple has no intention of ever having children, (assuming child bearing years) then they should not get married. What would be the point to saying “yes” to “Are you willing to accept children if God Blesses you with them” at your wedding? Same reason a man that is impotent (permanately) is not to get married. But I suppose this will take us into the "the woman is post menopause, so “can’t they get married?” argument. Yes they can but they must be willing to have children if God sends one their way, however unlikely. I’m sure that would send chuckles to all the witnesses at a wedding of octogenerians, but the same rules apply no matter what age.

Again, this has to do with intent. And some will want to argue this fringe point or that… Again, the intent is that a couple should not expect sex without regard to the consequences inherent in doing so.

A couple may use NFP for any “just” cause. Posted numerous times elsewhere so I won’t repeat them here. And Yes, a couple could forgo planning to have their own by adopting or foster parenting.

Complete abstenence… I can not imagine a marriage this way but it appears to be acceptable (with mutual consent) of a couple because the Church does not require a frequency of marital relations.

We don’t deny that some that practice NFP may be doing so for selfish reasons. God will sort them out. Not our job. What we know is that NFP is allowed by the Church and to proclaim that the Church is wrong about that is similar to stating it is wrong about contraception.

I guess some folks just require “black and white.” or “a line on the floor.” NFP seems, to some, to be a grey area. It’s clearer than that, really, but some don’t understand.