If NFP is really 99% effective

[jmcrae]

I just think we let “experts” spook us these days.

Yes, we do. And those “costs” they scare you with also include housing and utilities that you have to pay whether or not you have kids - you aren’t going to live in student housing for the rest of your life, after all - and your kids are going to live with you. It’s not as if each kid is going to have his own apartment that you have to pay for.

 

[Link0126]

I’d have to disagree.

When I got my vasectomy I had really bought into the whole idea that having kids was great, but not to many because then they are a burden in the long term. I wanted to enjoy my three children and then when they were grown up be able to enjoy the rest of my life.

I admit, I sometimes think it will be fun once the kids are all grown up but more often I find myself “missing” the kids that I never had. I would never presume to compare it to someone that lost a child but there is certainly a sense of loss.

I look at my three children and think wow, I deprived them of a younger brother or sister (or 2, or 3…). I deprived myself and my wife of our future children. I may have deprived your sons or daughters of their future husband or wife or best friend!

Also, while it may have been a venial sin then it is a mortal offense and was only venial because I did not have full knowledge. I regret my decision in many ways.

I wish I had really thought my decision through rather than just assumed I knew everything because lots of people did it that I knew.

I’m glad to hear you and your wife are approaching your marriage in this positive way!

yes, we are open to the idea of having kids and I want very much for us to be able to have children. I really hope we can be blessed with our kids one day. We have been married only two years and would like to wait a year or two more, at the absolute most! Trust me, I do not want to be a really old Dad.

Now that I think about it though, are you committing a mortal sin by having intercourse with the vasectomy? You might need to get that reversed…

 

[Fidelia]

yes, we are open to the idea of having kids and I want very much for us to be able to have children. I really hope we can be blessed with our kids one day. We have been married only two years and would like to wait a year or two more, at the absolute most! Trust me, I do not want to be a really old Dad.

Now that I think about it though, are you committing a mortal sin by having intercourse with the vasectomy? You might need to get that reversed…

Only a valid sacrament of confession is needed. Reversing it is not required, and future marital intercourse is not sinful as far as the procedure is concerned.

 

[Newbie2]

basically.

I must say at the outset, that natural family planning seems to me the best of alternatives.

However…

My Lutheran mind has to ask, what’s so different theologically from using one intentional method of having sexual relations without the possiblity of children, versus using another intentional method to accomplish the same ends? Assuming that birth control is not abortive in nature (a grave and mortal sin, indeed) what’s the real difference between it and NFP? Both are seeking to have sexual relations without producing children, in effect, preventing conception.

Sure seems to me like the same thing.

See below.

Well, I do not know about everyone. I know of at least one couple who uses NFP, and they only have three kids. They have been married for nearly 8 or 9 years.

My wife and I have never used anything but NFP and we have 3 children all planned and all when we planned them. My oldest is 21 and we have been married 24 yrs so we have used it for 24 yrs

Thank you. That is good to know and very helpful.

So, ready to reconsider that “basically” “everyone” practicing NFP has 6 or 7 kids and counting?

Thank you for taking the time to post the reference below.

However, I don’t think it answers the question presented. Preventive birth control doesn’t kill grandma, nor anyone else… it prevents conception, which is the same aim of the acts and planning of NFP. Really, the question is whether preventing pregnancy during sexual relations is either sinful or not.

Unfortunately, I think there are really two background questions arising here. One is whether or not the Roman Catholic teaching authority has spoken on a matter, and the other is whether or not that decision bears up to rational scrutiny. Since I don’t think this falls under the banner of what Rome calls infallible (though I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am) I would suppose Catholics are free to debate the subject.

Yep, it’s infallible teaching. Encyclicals fall under infallible, and Humanae Vitae is an encyclical. vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
It is rational to argue (though some might disagree) that sex without the possibilty of procreation is sinful. It is also rational to argue that sex without the possibilty of procreation is morally nuetral (though some might disagree.) What doesn’t sound rational to me, is to argue that sex without the possibility of procreation is sinful, except when you do it this particular way, and don’t provide justification for how options are either included or excluded. That smacks more of authoritative fiat, than rational justification.

Once again, I’m not talking about sterilizations, or abortive agents. I’m talking strickly about preventative birth control of various forms… of which, NFP is obviously one among several. Frankly, with easily reversible hormone therapy or IUD devices, all we seem to be arguing about is whether one can prevent pregancy during sex with or without tools… and even NFP presumes certain predictive and analyticaly tools to create the target rythm chart.

Still seems to contain a bit of cognitive dissonace to me.

When you consider that using ABC is an act, and abstainance from sexual relations is a non-act, the distinction becomes much clearer.

Barrier contraception doesn’t cause abortions, but it does interfere with the unitive nature of the marital act, by preventing skin-to-skin contact. **Skin-to-skin contact is necessary for the emotional bond to take place between the spouses. **The emotional bond is essential to the survival of the marriage, and it is also very good for the whole family - it even improves the overall health of the children, from what I am told.

Oh, please, don’t reduce this argument to skin-to-skin contact, that is simply wrong. Skin-to skin contact (or more properly skin-to-mucosa contact ) occurs when a woman is using a diaphragm, so the skin-skin argument falls flat on its face.

 

[limabeanerson]

yes, we are open to the idea of having kids and I want very much for us to be able to have children. I really hope we can be blessed with our kids one day. We have been married only two years and would like to wait a year or two more, at the absolute most! Trust me, I do not want to be a really old Dad.

Now that I think about it though, are you committing a mortal sin by having intercourse with the vasectomy? You might need to get that reversed…

I did look into it. I do not need to get it reversed, only confess it which I have. I now live my sex life as if I were not sterile.

 

[John21652]

why does everyone who practices it have like 6 or 7 children, and counting… with still like 10 years left of fertility. Which means they are likely to have like 17 kids before it’s all said and done…

Me and wife want to learn NFP b/c we want to do the right thing (I’m pushing for it more than her) but she is getting more and more worried b/c her potential future teacher has 6 screaming kids all the time… To be perfectly honest, we can’t afford 1 kid, let alone 6-17.

It probably doesn’t work that well, does it?

Please let me know if it working for you and how long you’ve been using it and how many “unplanned” pregnancies have occured.

Thank you.

My grandparents reared twelve kids through the great Depression. Jobs as scarce as hens teeth, no money most of the time and sometimes it was bread with dripping. Yet all twelve kids, one of whom was my mother, all attested to having a wonderful childhood and wouldn’t have swapped it for the world. It depends upon priorities and if the pill is thrown into the mix, well, how easy it is to rearrange one’s priorities. The question is, at what ‘cost’?

 

[Steadfast_love]

I must say at the outset, that natural family planning seems to me the best of alternatives.

However…

My Lutheran mind has to ask, what’s so different theologically from using one intentional method of having sexual relations without the possiblity of children, versus using another intentional method to accomplish the same ends? Assuming that birth control is not abortive in nature (a grave and mortal sin, indeed) what’s the real difference between it and NFP? Both are seeking to have sexual relations without producing children, in effect, preventing conception.

Sure seems to me like the same thing.

As a freshly baptised Catholic, I hope my perspective is helpful.

Catholics believe that actions speak louder than words. When you perform an action it can be a truthful action or a lying action. An example of a truthful action is at the final Judgement when ‘every knee shall bend’ to confess that Christ is Lord. An example of a lying action is when Judas kissed Jesus. The Judas kiss is a lie because the action says that he loves Jesus, but his intent is the opposite. And then of course you can also abstain from acting but that’s hardly exciting enough to warrent an example.

The “marital act” has meaning too. The meaning of the marital act is not opposed to periodic abstinance but it is opposed to contraception. The difference is akin to the difference between the apostles who abstained from kissing Jesus on the cheek, and Judas who kissed Jesus. Neither is as good as showing that we love him with a kiss, like his mother Mary gave him, but a Judas kiss is far worse than abstaining.

That’s how I think of it anyway. Kiss > no kiss > Judas kiss.

 

[C27433]

No, you are not being perfectly honest.

There are people on welfare with more than one child. My mom had ten brothers and sisters. I have a friend with six. People have been having more than 2.5 children per family since history began. Most people, if they were honest, would admit that they didn’t want to give up a certain lifestyle in order to afford more children, that they simply prefer cable TV and iPhones over children.

The only problem with this argument is that people on welfare CANNOT afford their children as you claim. What you really mean is that the rest of society can afford their children. As much a married couple has the obligation to procreate, its not the obligation of society, or even the Catholic community to foot the bill for other people’s children through the welfare system, school taxes for education, and tax payer funded health insurance subsidies.

As far as NFP goes, for some reason its been elevated to a quasi-doctrinal level, where heaven forbid anyone should argue against its use. The contraceptive mentality is so entrenched in society, that even Catholics desperately had to find a way to have sex without procreating. This “openness to life” statement that many argue as the crux of what makes this different from artificial contraception is outlandish.

The bottom line is, those who use NFP to avoid conceiving have the same contraceptive mentality as the rest of society. It is impossible to approach NFP any other way than to have as your intention the desire to have sex, without having children, no matter how open you are to the failure of the method. It is an unequivocal statement that “I want sex; I do not want a child.” Otherwise, you wouldn’t care at all about where the woman was in her cycle.

Even if you could somehow justify the act itself, the moral intention simply is not there. Instead we have a legion of apologists and theologians defending the method. For the lay apologist who is married, they buy into the idea because they get to have their cake and eat it too in their marriage. The theologians, who are mostly made up of the ordained priesthood, embrace the method also because they know their congregations would be leaving the Church in droves, even more than they are already, if they were told there was no moral way to avoid procreation.

 

[tafan]

why does everyone who practices it have like 6 or 7 children, and counting… with still like 10 years left of fertility. Which means they are likely to have like 17 kids before it’s all said and done…

Me and wife want to learn NFP b/c we want to do the right thing (I’m pushing for it more than her) but she is getting more and more worried b/c her potential future teacher has 6 screaming kids all the time… To be perfectly honest, we can’t afford 1 kid, let alone 6-17.

It probably doesn’t work that well, does it?

Please let me know if it working for you and how long you’ve been using it and how many “unplanned” pregnancies have occured.

Thank you.

Link0126, I have read all of your posts on this thread, but will respond to your first, since it is the most pertinent. I can believe you may not be able to afford 1 kid right now, that first kid does cause an increase in cost of living. But the second one is much less, the third less still, etc. Do not believe the common hype that kids are expensive!!! Lifestyles are expensive, not kdis.
I know a lot of good people, who have used NFP their whole marriage and only have 2 or 3 kids, so it can be done, and I neve question their motives. On the other hand, the reason why a you see quite a few 6 or 7 kids families is that they have figured out kids are not that expensive. They just aren’t. And speaking from experience, all of us dads need a little motivation in life. A housefull of kids is a great motivator towards professional success, trust me. But look at the life styles of those catholic families with 6 or 7 kids, and you will find they live pretty simply, and they are happy.

 

[Fidelia]

The only problem with this argument is that people on welfare CANNOT afford their children as you claim. What you really mean is that the rest of society can afford their children. As much a married couple has the obligation to procreate, its not the obligation of society, or even the Catholic community to foot the bill for other people’s children through the welfare system, school taxes for education, and tax payer funded health insurance subsidies.

As far as NFP goes, for some reason its been elevated to a quasi-doctrinal level, where heaven forbid anyone should argue against its use. The contraceptive mentality is so entrenched in society, that even Catholics desperately had to find a way to have sex without procreating. This “openness to life” statement that many argue as the crux of what makes this different from artificial contraception is outlandish.

The bottom line is, those who use NFP to avoid conceiving have the same contraceptive mentality as the rest of society. It is impossible to approach NFP any other way than to have as your intention the desire to have sex, without having children, no matter how open you are to the failure of the method. It is an unequivocal statement that “I want sex; I do not want a child.” Otherwise, you wouldn’t care at all about where the woman was in her cycle.

Even if you could somehow justify the act itself, the moral intention simply is not there. Instead we have a legion of apologists and theologians defending the method. For the lay apologist who is married, they buy into the idea because they get to have their cake and eat it too in their marriage. The theologians, who are mostly made up of the ordained priesthood, embrace the method also because they know their congregations would be leaving the Church in droves, even more than they are already, if they were told there was no moral way to avoid procreation.

A couple of obstacles to understanding NFP:

One is to keep comparing it to and considering it as an alternative to contraception. It is not contraception, nor is it an alternative to it. Contraception is already not an option. It is against the Sacrament of marriage itself, and is not rightly part of the equation. Honestly, it should not even be brought up in a discussion on NFP, because it is simply not relevant. (It’s as if during a discussion on hospital vs home hospice care for the terminally ill, someone chimes in and says, “well, what’s wrong with euthanasia?”) It’s irrelevant because it is already not part of the equation on the basis of it not being moral.

If a couple wishes to postpone having a child, the options are complete abstinence, or using natural family planning. NFP is an alternative to complete abstinence, not an alternative to contraception (because we already know that’s out of the equation). NFP allows a married couple to still have sex in their marriage. Not because they just want to have sex, but because sex is part of marriage. This brings us to the second obstacle to understanding:

The second is to forget that sex is an integral part of marriage. That’s not because people want sex, so we made it that way; it’s because it is literally part of living the SACRAMENT of marriage; the SACRAMENT, which was given to us by GOD, not designed by man. It is the physical manifestation of the vows made at the altar. (You can’t even validly get married if you can’t physically consummate- that’s how intrinsically important it is.) It is unitive and procreative and also of course pleasurable. However, if all three of these characteristics are not present, it falls to an act of lust, rather than love. Lust being defined as the act of using another person in order to satisfy one’s own desire. One should not want sex only for the pleasure, nor only for unity, nor only for procreation.

When a couple discerns that they should not conceive right away, instead of completely abstaining until they can, they may choose to time their sex for when the woman is least likely to conceive. This is a licit alternative to no sex at all, which I don’t need to point out, would really put a damper on a marriage. It is not wrong to have sex knowing one likely can’t conceive. (That’s why it’s ok for post-menopausal women to still have sex with their husbands.) However, it is wrong to have sex and deliberately act to remove one of its faculties. That’s a corruption of the marital act, and a degradation to the sacrament itself.

Read about the sacrament of marriage in the Catechism, and read about theology of the body.
Christopher West has written a few good books about theology of the body. The official corpus of JPII’s teachings on it are in a book called “Man and Woman He Created Them: a Theology of the Body.”
I’d also recommend “Called to Love” by Anderson and Granados
and “Three to Get Married” by Fulton J. Sheen.

nota bene to everyone: When people recommend material to read, it’s not because we are unwilling to communicate and help others to understand; it is because we must be willing to fully educate ourselves on Church teachings in order to be able to fully understand. Read something authoritative on the teaching you don’t understand, then come here, having read it, and ask for further clarification if you need it. Don’t just ask a crowd of people to tell you about a teaching and why you should accept it. As Catholics we are responsible for understanding the teachings of the Church to the best of our ability. While having discussions with other Catholics is well and good, we need to do our homework.

 

[FightingFat]

why does everyone who practices it have like 6 or 7 children, and counting… with still like 10 years left of fertility. Which means they are likely to have like 17 kids before it’s all said and done…

Me and wife want to learn NFP b/c we want to do the right thing (I’m pushing for it more than her) but she is getting more and more worried b/c her potential future teacher has 6 screaming kids all the time… To be perfectly honest, we can’t afford 1 kid, let alone 6-17.

It probably doesn’t work that well, does it?

Please let me know if it working for you and how long you’ve been using it and how many “unplanned” pregnancies have occured.

Thank you.

I have four children, three still living. My wife and I practice NFP and we think it is truly the best way to be married. We would like to have another child, and because of NFP we have the understanding to give ourselves the best chance possible, however it’s not happened (yet). This may be because we are nearly 40 now (this report explains why that makes things tougher)

We have never had an “unplanned” pregnancy. We have lived our married life open to God’s plan for us and trusting in what He has planned for our family.

Catholic marriage is undoubtedly the best way to live out your marriage vocation.

 

[Fidelia]

I have four children, three still living. My wife and I practice NFP and we think it is truly the best way to be married. We would like to have another child, and because of NFP we have the understanding to give ourselves the best chance possible, however it’s not happened (yet). This may be because we are nearly 40 now (this report explains why that makes things tougher)

We have never had an “unplanned” pregnancy. We have lived our married life open to God’s plan for us and trusting in what He has planned for our family.

Catholic marriage is undoubtedly the best way to live out your marriage vocation.

A great and concise post!

 

[WorkerPriest]

Fidelia, and others,

I thank you for the charity and kindness displayed in what can often be a contentious discussion. I do understand the claims of the arguments made (and I appreciate the clarification of Roman doctrine via the papal encyclical, though I did not realize this rose to the rank of infallible pronouncement.) Perhaps I can better phrase my confusion this way.

Contraception (non-abortive) is a human intervention designed and implemented to prevent conception while retaining the sexual congress. Natural Family Planning is a human intervention, designed and implemented to prevent conception while retaining the sexual congress. In these ways, they are very similar, in that the human actors are preventing, through their intentionality, conception while continuing to have sexual relations. Just like a couple could use an IUD to forever preclude conception, they could also forever use NFP to preclude conception. Why is one intentional prevention of conception sinful, when the other is not?

Where my issue arises, is that it’s either improper to intentionally prevent conception during sexual activity, or it is not. While the means themselves are not without relative value (some are certainly preferable to others,) sin is a matter primarily of the heart and the will. Perhaps another way of phrasing the question would be, why would intentionally preventing conception during sex be licit via NFP, while it would be illicit through any other means? What makes exercising the will to have sexual relations while intentionally precluding conception acceptible in some circumstances, but not in others?

Again, I understand that from an authority perspective, Roman Catholics are bound to do and think as they are directed through their structures. However, the question is more theological and philosophical, touching upon whether the teaching itself is rationally congruent.

Blessings to you all.

(P.S., for the record once again, I still think NFP is the best of all possible solutions.)

 

[Fidelia]

Fidelia, and others,

I thank you for the charity and kindness displayed in what can often be a contentious discussion. I do understand the claims of the arguments made (and I appreciate the clarification of Roman doctrine via the papal encyclical, though I did not realize this rose to the rank of infallible pronouncement.) Perhaps I can better phrase my confusion this way.

Contraception (non-abortive) is a human intervention designed and implemented to prevent conception while retaining the sexual congress. Natural Family Planning is a human intervention, designed and implemented to prevent conception while retaining the sexual congress. But there’s no human intervention. There is no deliberate act rendering the sex to be sterile. In these ways, they are very similar, in that the human actors are preventing, through their intentionality, conception while continuing to have sexual relations. Infertile periods of the cycle are not the result of human intervention; they are the result of God’s design. To have sex in those periods is completely licit. Just like a couple could use an IUD to forever preclude conception, An IUD is wrong because it kills an embryo, though I think you know that. they could also forever use NFP to preclude conception No, it is not permitted to refuse to ever conceive. In theory, yes it could probably be done, but again, it is achieved by simply using the way God created the reproductive system, it’s not human intervention. Why is one intentional prevention of conception sinful, when the other is not? Because it’s in what is being done or not being done.

Where my issue arises, is that it’s either improper to intentionally prevent conception during sexual activity, or it is not. While the means themselves are not without relative value (some are certainly preferable to others,) sin is a matter primarily of the heart and the will. Perhaps another way of phrasing the question would be, why would intentionally preventing conception during sex be licit via NFP, while it would be illicit through any other means? What makes exercising the will to have sexual relations while intentionally precluding conception acceptible in some circumstances, but not in others?
Again, you continue to make the mistake of thinking of NFP as “Catholic contraception.” You (we all) need to avoid this mentality. NFP is not “Catholic contraception” any more than a decree of nullity is a “Catholic divorce.”

We also need to avoid the secular mentality that children are not to be desired in marriage. This is exactly what I was trying to point out in my first post in this thread.

Again, I understand that from an authority perspective, Roman Catholics are bound to do and think as they are directed through their structures. However, the question is more theological and philosophical, touching upon whether the teaching itself is rationally congruent. If the teaching wasn’t rational, it wouldn’t be Church teaching. God is rational. It is we who lack understanding, not His Church. When we don’t understand, it is for us to educate ourselves and try to understand. I see that you are asking questions in order to aid your understanding, which is good. Where I find issue, is how you imply that there may be some error in Church teaching, rather than a shortcoming in human ability to understand it.

Blessings to you all.

(P.S., for the record once again, I still think NFP is the best of all possible solutions.) I see.

I typed in blue

 

[prstoessel]

Contraception (non-abortive) is a human intervention designed and implemented to prevent conception while retaining the sexual congress. Natural Family Planning is a human intervention, designed and implemented to prevent conception while retaining the sexual congress. In these ways, they are very similar, in that the human actors are preventing, through their intentionality, conception while continuing to have sexual relations. Just like a couple could use an IUD to forever preclude conception, they could also forever use NFP to preclude conception. Why is one intentional prevention of conception sinful, when the other is not?

Where my issue arises, is that it’s either improper to intentionally prevent conception during sexual activity, or it is not. While the means themselves are not without relative value (some are certainly preferable to others,) sin is a matter primarily of the heart and the will. Perhaps another way of phrasing the question would be, why would intentionally preventing conception during sex be licit via NFP, while it would be illicit through any other means? What makes exercising the will to have sexual relations while intentionally precluding conception acceptible in some circumstances, but not in others?

While NFP can be used to avoid conception, that is not the premise for which a married couple practices it. In other words, it’s not the norm. So, it is incorrect to say that NFP is designed specifically for the purpose of avoiding conception. Married couples who are avoiding conception MUST have a sound, moral reason for doing so. Health issues, age, etc. are all valid considerations for avoiding conception. It is best that this decision not only be made through prayer, but also with the consultation of a priest.

A couple who is using NFP or any other type of method to avoid conception without a sound, moral reason is not living out their marriage promises and can be culpable for mortal sin.

The other difference is this: There is only one place that the seed may go. Any act or device or other means that puts the seed other than the place God intended it goes against the Natural Law of Life. Thus, it is an intrinsic evil always, and potentially a mortal sin to do anything to confound that law (if done with full knowledge and consent).

A couple who has intercourse intentionally during a time of infertility is still living out their wedding promise to be open to life. With God, all things are possible, including conception during what is perceived as an infertile time. While my wife and I are no longer planning any more children, we will still always accept children lovingly from God. Every time we consummate our wedding vows, we are telling God that we will always be in cooperation with His will. If we were to ever do anything different, we are telling God that we no longer wish to be a part of His plan of life in exchange for our own selfish, personal indulgence.

It does not have to be an infallible teaching (ex cathedra) in order for it to be considered a mandatory practice. Any teaching on faith and morals given by our Holy Father should be listened to and followed. Rejecting any such teaching can be a grave matter, indeed.
“He who hears you, hears Me. He who rejects you, rejects Me.” (Lk 10:16) To this, I am specifically referring to Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body.

 

[choose_to_love]

Hoo, boy.

@OP: we have used NFP for going on 11 years now, no unplanned pregnancies. We have 4 kids, soon to be 7,6, 4, and 1. Aha! you may say, this is what I am talking about, choose! Wrong, my friend. We have two adoptions in there - - our discernment led us to this. I would recommend reviewing Catholic thought on responsible parenthood, as outlined in Humane Vitae. Responsible parenthood involves prayerfully discerning 1) what God is calling the couple to, 2) the couple’s responsibilities to each other, i.e, is one spouse under heavy pressure at work, is one spouse overwhelmed with child care; 3) the couple’s responsibilities to the existing family, i.e., is there a special or high needs child, are they caring for an elderly family member, and 4) the responsibility to society. I am not saying the above examples are absolute reasons to postpone pregnancy for every couple in every instance, but only as examples of things that could possibly impact the discernment.

If the couple discerns that they are not being called to have a child for serious reasons, they can abstain totally, or periodically when the woman is fertile. This is a conversation that the couple has monthly, and ideally not when in the heat of the moment. Discernment is an ongoing process and part of the couple’s prayer life.

Further, that discernment is entrusted to the couple. The Church offers guidelines, but this is one area where the couple can use their collective conscience. Note that the couple cannot use immoral means to accomplish postponing pregnancy, but the discernment is up to them. Think about that - - the God of the Universe trusts you to co-create a new eternal soul with HIm! What an awesome gift and responsibility

@ Maureen: Am I correct in that your total experience with NFP families is one family besides your own? How can you offer an opinion based upon that sample size? Please see also humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.abstract pregnancy rate of 0.6 per 100 women per 13 cycles, studying 900 women and 17,000+ cycles. As far as I know, Petra Franck Herrman is a secular researcher. Further, from what you have offered, perhaps the family you know is called to have a larger family?

@C27433: except that is not the argument Tim was making, i.e., the state should support your family. The argument was that families with little income can support a child.

the rest of your post is, IMO, completely unsupported and unsupportable. All “those who use NFP have the same contraceptive mentality as the rest of society”? Really? And how would you know that, exactly? You are painting with way too broad a brush. Is it your position, then, that there is no moral way to, as you put it, avoid procreation? How do you square that with the clear teaching in HV? It seems the cafeteria may be open to all persuasions.

@workerpriest: You are aware of Luther’s thoughts on contraception, right? Courtesy of CAF member Mark A : touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f. I am not sure why it is difficult to see that the ends do not justify the means. IIRC, the morality of an act is determined by object, action, and intention.

@robertanthony: I think the issue with NFP is moreso in the use of it if there are not serious reasons to postpone pregnancy, rather than what you described, althought certainly there may be some trust issues there.

 

[WorkerPriest]

I think this gets closest to answering my thoughts. If I understand you, your point is that to intentionally use NFP as contraception is just as sinful as intentionally using any other non-abortive method for contraception. That makes sense, and is congruent.

If, however, NFP can be used intentionally to avoid conception, in grave circumstances and with appropriate pastoral consultation and prayer, then the natural question will arise as to why other non-abortive methods might not also be used in those same grace situations. Here the issue is the heart and the will of the actor(s) rather than the means and the methods.

Another poster noted below that an IUD causes abortions… this I have never heard before. I have always heard them referenced as purely contraceptive. I shall have to research this.

Blessings to you.

While NFP can be used to avoid conception, that is not the premise for which a married couple practices it. In other words, it’s not the norm. So, it is incorrect to say that NFP is designed specifically for the purpose of avoiding conception. Married couples who are avoiding conception MUST have a sound, moral reason for doing so. Health issues, age, etc. are all valid considerations for avoiding conception. It is best that this decision not only be made through prayer, but also with the consultation of a priest.

A couple who is using NFP or any other type of method to avoid conception without a sound, moral reason is not living out their marriage promises and can be culpable for mortal sin.

 

[prstoessel]

If, however, NFP can be used intentionally to avoid conception, in grave circumstances and with appropriate pastoral consultation and prayer, then the natural question will arise as to why other non-abortive methods might not also be used in those same grace situations. Here the issue is the heart and the will of the actor(s) rather than the means and the methods.

I answered that question in my previous post:

There is only one place that the seed may go. Any act or device or other means that puts the seed other than the place God intended it goes against the Natural Law of Life. Thus, it is an intrinsic evil always, and potentially a mortal sin to do anything to confound that law (if done with full knowledge and consent).

This is true for those who are avoiding conception (i.e. use of condoms, pills, et al) as well as those who use artificial means of achieving conception (i.e. in vitro fertilization). Both are intrinsically evil because they do not follow the natural law of life.

Upholding the dignity of the conjugal act in marriage is the best way for us to show our gratitude to God for the precious gift of sexuality that He has given us. He is the Creator, but He has allowed us the opportunity to cooperate with His will. Every time a married couple makes love in the appropriate manner, they are cooperating with His will. Even if the couple is perceivably infertile, they are telling God “thy will be done”.

If the seed lands on the bed (intentionally), or in a condom, or is killed through chemical means, it is a direct insult to God. It is saying “this is not your will, it is my will that shall be done.”

 

[smichhertz]

As a freshly baptised Catholic, I hope my perspective is helpful.

Catholics believe that actions speak louder than words. When you perform an action it can be a truthful action or a lying action. An example of a truthful action is at the final Judgement when ‘every knee shall bend’ to confess that Christ is Lord. An example of a lying action is when Judas kissed Jesus. The Judas kiss is a lie because the action says that he loves Jesus, but his intent is the opposite. And then of course you can also abstain from acting but that’s hardly exciting enough to warrent an example.

The “marital act” has meaning too. The meaning of the marital act is not opposed to periodic abstinance but it is opposed to contraception. The difference is akin to the difference between the apostles who abstained from kissing Jesus on the cheek, and Judas who kissed Jesus. Neither is as good as showing that we love him with a kiss, like his mother Mary gave him, but a Judas kiss is far worse than abstaining.

That’s how I think of it anyway. Kiss > no kiss > Judas kiss.

That’s a really interesting way to look at it. I had never thought of using Judas’s kiss as a parallel to artificial birth control.

Very insightful. Thanks!

 

[RosaryFan]

As a freshly baptised Catholic, I hope my perspective is helpful.

Catholics believe that actions speak louder than words. When you perform an action it can be a truthful action or a lying action. An example of a truthful action is at the final Judgement when ‘every knee shall bend’ to confess that Christ is Lord. An example of a lying action is when Judas kissed Jesus. The Judas kiss is a lie because the action says that he loves Jesus, but his intent is the opposite. And then of course you can also abstain from acting but that’s hardly exciting enough to warrent an example.

The “marital act” has meaning too. The meaning of the marital act is not opposed to periodic abstinance but it is opposed to contraception. The difference is akin to the difference between the apostles who abstained from kissing Jesus on the cheek, and Judas who kissed Jesus. Neither is as good as showing that we love him with a kiss, like his mother Mary gave him, but a Judas kiss is far worse than abstaining.

That’s how I think of it anyway. Kiss > no kiss > Judas kiss.

Wowie! Love that analogy!!