I'm starting to believe NFP is sinful

[PaulinVA]

I recently read Life-Giving Love by Kimberly Hahn(every married couple should ) and I have the same feelings about NFP being a form of birth control.

You are engaging in semantics. It* is* a form of birth regulation, as is hormonal birth control and barrier methods. But not having sex is very different from having sex that is purposely sterilized.

If it is used for “Serious reasons” the couple should still seriously pray and consider that God could want to bless them in whatever experience they’re having through this child.

God’s biology dictates whether a child is conceived as a result of two people having sex. The couple cooperate with God, but God follows His biology.

**Children are ONLY and ALWAYS blessings never should we deny the life of a child because of selfish reasons. We deny souls the entrance to heaven that way. **We can be co-creators with God to bring this soul into existence if God so blesses us with that child He WILL bless us and always provide for us. We just need to trust Him FULLY.

What?! The first two sentences are very troubling. Do you think that they follow Catholic teaching? I don’t think that souls are “planned” but not “in existence” and if the parents don’t have sex at the proper time that soul will never have a body. Is that what you are trying to say?

As for the rest of that paragraph, I’m not sure that the parents in Sudan or other parts of Africa would agree with you, as they watch their child die of starvation.

 

[camerong]

Great words, Cat.

OP, I think we can become so focused on our understanding of the Church’s teachings, that we loose sight of what they actually are. Do you really think that, having spent a few years as a Catholic, you have better understanding of God’s will, as conveyed through the Church, on this topics than the last several popes combined? That has been one of my go-to thoughts as I struggled with other similar issues. If I sat down in a room with Pope Benedict to discuss this, I cannot possibly imagine that I would walk away thinking my divergent views were superior to his.

Coming at it a different way, I think you really do face the same problems as those who we typically call cafeteria Catholics. You agree with most but perhaps not all of the Church’s teachings, no? My question is, then, if the Church is wrong about NFP, how can you know it is right about Christ? If Humane Vitae is wrong, how can you follow anything else the Church teaches?

On a different note, I question what the relevance of this issue is to your life. If your family is in a position where you are comfortable not avoiding conception, then wonderful! There are lots of others like you. But what is the use of trying to determine whether such an intensely personal and subtle decision is wrong for others? Another poster who agreed with you mentioned that others who space births might commit “grave sin.” The obvious conflict with Humane Vitae notwithstanding, it troubles me that this poster is concerning him or herself with other’s potential sins in this way. Whom does this profit?

Finally, give the following blog post a read: ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/nfp-providentialism-and-future-you/ I think it is a good analysis of this issue, by the devout and highly orthodox Simcha Fisher.

 

[tominrichmond]

Historically, the Church has taught NFP to be the proper solution to be applied for “serious reasons.”
Recently, there are many Pre-Cana classes and educators that are ignoring the Church’s teaching and pretending that birth control is acceptable as the norm. Historically, the Church has seen it as possible to misuse NFP by choosing to practice it for the wrong reasons. Thus, NFP could be sinful if used frivolously by a couple who were aware of the need for serious reason and ignored the requirement. Serious reasons may differ from person to person since this relies upon the interior forum, but it is a requirement.

Also my experience that NFP “catechesis” rarely if ever discusses the moral obligation that these methods be used only for serious reasons. College for the kids, living in the new subdivision, having nice vacations, and things of this sort are not serious reasons to avoid the openess to new life that God expects of married persons.

It is true that the “serious reasons” issue is of the internal forum; as such, a Catholic couple ought not to rely on their own inherently self-interested view of “serious reasons” but should consult with an orthodox spiritual advisor, i.e., a priest, who can give them an objective view of whether there are serious reasons in their marriage justifying this extraordinary departure from the ordinary use of the marital privilege.

 

[camerong]

Also my experience that NFP “catechesis” rarely if ever discusses the moral obligation that these methods be used only for serious reasons. College for the kids, living in the new subdivision, having nice vacations, and things of this sort are not serious reasons to avoid the openess to new life that God expects of married persons.

It is true that the “serious reasons” issue is of the internal forum; as such, a Catholic couple ought not to rely on their own inherently self-interested view of “serious reasons” but should consult with an orthodox spiritual advisor, i.e., a priest, who can give them an objective view of whether there are serious reasons in their marriage justifying this extraordinary departure from the ordinary use of the marital privilege.

There ought to be a distinction made between what is right vs. what should necessarily be taught in pre-Cana. I certainly understand that idea that we ought to fully lay out the bare truth in pre-Cana, take it or leave it. But when I was the non-Catholic fiancee attending the class, I was fiercely anti-NFP and anti-Church sexual teachings, and I sat there itching to hear the Church’s oppressive intrusion on our married life. Instead, I heard a detailed explanation of the methods of NFP, and gracious testimonies by the teaching couples as to how NFP has benefited their life. Although it was several years before I converted, the class definitely disarmed me. Perhaps had they ramrodded the ideas you mention above (with which I now thoroughly agree), I would have become recalcitrant and never would have been open to joining the Church.

I don’t know what the right answer here is, just like preaching hard sermons on contraception. The body needs to hear it, but we would rather have cafeteria Catholics in the pews who can potentially be fully converted than former-Catholics who never hear the sermons.

 

[PaulinVA]

Also my experience that NFP “catechesis” rarely if ever discusses the moral obligation that these methods be used only for serious reasons. College for the kids, living in the new subdivision, having nice vacations, and things of this sort are not serious reasons to avoid the openess to new life that God expects of married persons.

So, we are supposed to pop out kids until we can’t send them to college, can’t afford a house to live in, and *can’*t afford vacations? What kind of a life is that?

It is true that the “serious reasons” issue is of the internal forum; as such, a Catholic couple ought not to rely on their own inherently self-interested view of “serious reasons” but should consult with an orthodox spiritual adviser, i.e., a priest, who can give them an objective view of whether there are serious reasons in their marriage justifying this extraordinary departure from the ordinary use of the marital privilege.

Pick five priests in your diocese and you will get at least three different answers. Since the Church does not define “grave” or “serious”, what criteria would the priest use? It’s entirely subjective. He might help you understand the teaching and the issues, but the decision is the couple’s.

 

[KellyPalmer]

OP, I am a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism.

I’m going to say something that might be hard for you to hear.

You say that you are “more traditional than the typical Catholic.”

What I see is that you are more Protestant than the typical Catholic.

You are making up your own mind about an issue instead of trusting and obeying Holy Mother Church. That’s the essence of Protestantism.

You need to submit to Holy Mother Church in this issue, and stop trying to impose your own personal beliefs on Holy Mother Church.

The Catholic Church does not teach that you MUST practice NFP and chart, abstain, space children, etc.

But the Catholic Church DOES teach that NFP is acceptable.

Telling others that NFP is “sinful” is a rebellion or “protest” against the Church–in other words, “Protestantism.”

Think about what I have said, and I hope it is helpful to you and others.

Yeah, this .

 

[tominrichmond]

Living the middle/upper middle class American lifestyle is not reason enough to thwart the primary end of marriage, procreation of children. Given the importance of abiding by the natural and Divine precept of procreation in marriage, the reasons for departing from this grave obligation must themselves be weighty, i.e., extreme poverty or serious health issues of the woman related to many pregnancies occurring in close succession.

The fact that people can come to different conclusions about whether a particular set of circumstances constitute “serious reasons” to depart from the norm of procreative marital sex does not mean that these serious reasons are simply relative and anything goes. The safe course is to consult a good priest who can help a couple decide if their reasons are truly serious or merely selfish.

When we die, God will call us all to a strict account of our moral choices; I don’t think “well, everyone seemed to think it was OK” or “I can judge my own case, no priest can tell me what’s right or wrong for me” is going to be a valid excuse for violating His laws.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by tominrichmond View Post
Also my experience that NFP “catechesis” rarely if ever discusses the moral obligation that these methods be used only for serious reasons. College for the kids, living in the new subdivision, having nice vacations, and things of this sort are not serious reasons to avoid the openess to new life that God expects of married persons.

---

 

[Chiltepin]

I used to think that you probably ought to just have however many kids and leave it up to God and didn’t bother with NFP. My first child was an emergency C-Section . Now I am learning that there are only a limited number of C-sections a doctor will let you have in our country. I have to wait until my son is at least one year old to get pregnant again otherwise I will not be able to have a VBAC. If I have another C-section my family size is in danger. After 3 or 4 C-sections OB’s will not accept you as a patient for liability reasons. You would have to just wander in to a hospital in labor and make them deal with your “emergency.” So yeah, if I want to have that big Catholic family, I will need to space them right and THANK GOD FOR NFP!

I used to see why some people would reject it and leave everything up to God. Now I see that you have just as much spiritual responsibility to abstain from sex as a married person at times.

I didn’t read the whole thread. Sorry if anyone said something similar.

 

[SusanneT]

So, we are supposed to pop out kids until we can’t send them to college, can’t afford a house to live in, and *can’*t afford vacations? What kind of a life is that?

Pick five priests in your diocese and you will get at least three different answers. Since the Church does not define “grave” or “serious”, what criteria would the priest use? It’s entirely subjective. He might help you understand the teaching and the issues, but the decision is the couple’s.

No one is suggesting that a couple cannot agree how many children they want, for whatever reason, what is being questioned is whether it is morally acceptable to use NFP to do so. Unless the reason for doing so is sufficiently serious as to be justified.

We are supposed to be open to children in marriage, but if a couple who already have children want to delay for a purely selfish reason - dare I say it they can just abstain.

 

[PaulinVA]

No one is suggesting that a couple cannot agree how many children they want, for whatever reason, what is being questioned is whether it is morally acceptable to use NFP to do so. Unless the reason for doing so is sufficiently serious as to be justified.

We are supposed to be open to children in marriage, but if a couple who already have children want to delay for a purely selfish reason - dare I say it they can just abstain.

I don’t see how periodic abstinence would be bad, but *total *abstinence is acceptable. They are the same means and produce the same result.

But, your addition of selfish reasons into the discussion further muddies the waters.

And, the Church says that periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons is acceptable. If you don’t believe that, then don’t use it.

 

[jwinch2]

College for the kids, living in the new subdivision, having nice vacations, and things of this sort are not serious reasons to avoid the openess to new life that God expects of married persons.

You are correct that the couple should properly form their consciences and discern God’s will through prayer, contemplation, and discussion between themselves and with their priest. However, as noted above, many priests are not trained in NFP nor the ramifications of a couple’s given situation. This has nothing to do with their orthodoxy or lack thereof. Thankfully, our pastor recognizes this and when he has questions he consults a moral theologian in the diocese so that he can give sound guidance. I would add that couples should, if possible, seek counsel from an OB who is trained in NFP so that the medical advice they are getting can take that into consideration. Unfortunately, the number of OB’s who do this is rather small and many couples may not have access to such a physician.

However, per my understanding, the Church has not defined specific scenarios as serious vs. not serious in terms of postponing pregnancy via NFP. Taking the scenarios you list above, we can see that there might be selfish reasons for them, or there might be serious reasons. For example: if having more children puts the family into a financial situation where they cannot provide for the education of their children, this could be a serious reason; if a family lives in an area which is high crime or too small for their family, they may legitimately wish to move to that new subdivision so that their kids have a safe area and the family has enough room or perhaps where the schools are better, etc.; having that "nice vacation’ as you termed it might be related to seeing the rest of their family. In my own situation we live almost a thousand miles from my family, and my wife’s family is in another country on another continent. So, unless I take a vacation (an expensive one), I cannot see my parents, grandparents, or any of my extended family and neither can my wife see hers.

We need to be careful throwing out scenarios randomly as if we understand all of the surrounding issues related to them and present them as if they are sinful, when in all reality they might not be. In addition, basic charity suggests that we should give people the benefit of the doubt on the reasons for their behavior rather than condemn them. Of course, actions can be judged, but the state of their souls cannot. That is up to God.

 

[ahs]

I crossed the Tiber a few years ago and over the course of the years, have noticed that I am more traditional than the typical Catholic. It’s getting to the point where I’ve considered becoming Sedevacantist but I do not support a split in the Church.

One of the things bothering me as of late is NFP use. I think NFP to help treat medical issues in women is great and it does help. A lot of women have doctors forcing immoral treatments on them (contraceptives) and NFP is good for treatment because it helps with tracking hormones. However, I cannot in good conscience use it for birth control use because I see nothing in the Church’s history saying family planning is acceptable.

**Sure, there was a pope who did say family planning was okay from time to time, but his words were fallible. He wasn’t making an infallible statement **and I’ve read enough to know NFP is preventing pregnancy. Preventing pregnancy is the same thing as using the pill, or a condom. How is having couples deliberately avoiding sex during their fertile times any different from withholding your fertility all the time with condoms, the pill, shots, the patch, etc.?

The Magesterium actually formally addressed this in 1853 and 1880. Read this article:
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

You are confusing “birth control” with “contraception”. There is nothing inherently sinful in controlling/regulating birth, as long as an inherently immoral act is not employed in doing so. Or do you suppose it is a sin for a couple to have sex during infertile periods? Or a sin to avoid sex at certain times? Or is it a sin to not feel ready to have a child at any given time?

There is a reason the Church says a couple needs a “just cause”, “grace reason”, “serious reason”…and that is due to the nature and meaning of Marriage. But there is no inherent sinfulness in regulating births, so long as the couple is not explicitly closed to parenthood and each sexual act is not thwarted of its procreative nature.

Do you suppose a couple can remove the procreative nature from an act during the infertile period by engaging in natural sex? Do you suppose the couple can remove the procreative nature of an act by abstaining form an act…where said act doesn’t even take place?

 

[severus68]

You are engaging in semantics. It* is* a form of birth regulation, as is hormonal birth control and barrier methods. But not having sex is very different from having sex that is purposely sterilized.

God’s biology dictates whether a child is conceived as a result of two people having sex. The couple cooperate with God, but God follows His biology.

What?! The first two sentences are very troubling. Do you think that they follow Catholic teaching? I don’t think that souls are “planned” but not “in existence” and if the parents don’t have sex at the proper time that soul will never have a body. Is that what you are trying to say?

As for the rest of that paragraph, I’m not sure that the parents in Sudan or other parts of Africa would agree with you, as they watch their child die of starvation.

Well said.

 

[severus68]

Also my experience that NFP “catechesis” rarely if ever discusses the moral obligation that these methods be used only for serious reasons. College for the kids, living in the new subdivision, having nice vacations, and things of this sort are not serious reasons to avoid the openess to new life that God expects of married persons.

It is true that the “serious reasons” issue is of the internal forum; as such, a Catholic couple ought not to rely on their own inherently self-interested view of “serious reasons” but should consult with an orthodox spiritual advisor, i.e., a priest, who can give them an objective view of whether there are serious reasons in their marriage justifying this extraordinary departure from the ordinary use of the marital privilege.

This is a decision to be made by husband and wife only. They may want to consult a priest/spiritual adviser but it is their decision. It is really not for 3rd parties to make a judgement on this.

 

[severus68]

Living the middle/upper middle class American lifestyle is not reason enough to thwart the primary end of marriage, procreation of children. Given the importance of abiding by the natural and Divine precept of procreation in marriage, the reasons for departing from this grave obligation must themselves be weighty, i.e., extreme poverty or serious health issues of the woman related to many pregnancies occurring in close succession.

The fact that people can come to different conclusions about whether a particular set of circumstances constitute “serious reasons” to depart from the norm of procreative marital sex does not mean that these serious reasons are simply relative and anything goes. The safe course is to consult a good priest who can help a couple decide if their reasons are truly serious or merely selfish.

When we die, God will call us all to a strict account of our moral choices; I don’t think “well, everyone seemed to think it was OK” or “I can judge my own case, no priest can tell me what’s right or wrong for me” is going to be a valid excuse for violating His laws.

Yes, God will judge. It is not for human beings to tell judge on the decision to avoid/postpone pregnancy.

The Church tells us that we should educate our children too, not have as many children as possible, even if it means, they are barefoot, in rags and hungry. Who deliberately wants to live a 3rd class lifestyle of want?

 

[28562]

Hmmm. You think NFP is sinful?

I think me getting my wife pregnant right now would be sinful, as it may be very difficult to adaquately provide financially for my family, especially after the government just forced a tax increase on us that causes me to bring home less money in my paycheck. Shouldn’t there be something sinful about having kids you can’t provide for?

 

[ahs]

Living the middle/upper middle class American lifestyle is not reason enough to thwart the primary end of marriage, procreation of children.

There are issues with this statement. First, do you have it on good authority (one’s honest testimony) that “Living the middle/upper middle class American lifestyle” is the NFP users’ reason to utilize NFP? No, you don’t. Second, have you shown with logic that utilizing NFP is “thwart[ing] the primary end of marriage, procreation of children.”? No you have not.

Given the importance of abiding by the natural and Divine precept of procreation in marriage, the reasons for departing from this grave obligation must themselves be weighty, i.e., extreme poverty or serious health issues of the woman related to many pregnancies occurring in close succession.

Pope Pius XII gave us some example of what serious/grave/weighty reasons would be, and he was not so restrictive as you. Do you suppose you are more wise and able to give counsel on this matter than he?

The fact that people can come to different conclusions about whether a particular set of circumstances constitute “serious reasons” to depart from the norm of procreative marital sex does not mean that these serious reasons are simply relative and anything goes. The safe course is to consult a good priest who can help a couple decide if their reasons are truly serious or merely selfish.

The Church does not impose this regulation, of seeking guidance form one’s Priest prior to utilizing natural birth regulation. Why do you? Do you suppose you are superior to the Church in giving counsel to potential NFP-couples on whom they should consult with?

When we die, God will call us all to a strict account of our moral choices; I don’t think “well, everyone seemed to think it was OK” or “I can judge my own case, no priest can tell me what’s right or wrong for me” is going to be a valid excuse for violating His laws.

Have you shown that the use of NFP violates anything? No. And the Church disagrees with you. Shall we take your word over that of the Church? I’ll leave you with the same questions I posed to the OP:

The Magesterium actually formally addressed this in 1853 and 1880. Read this article:
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

You are confusing “birth control” with “contraception”. There is nothing inherently sinful in controlling/regulating birth, as long as an inherently immoral act is not employed in doing so. Or do you suppose it is a sin for a couple to have sex during infertile periods? Or a sin to avoid sex at certain times? Or is it a sin to not feel ready to have a child at any given time?

There is a reason the Church says a couple needs a “just cause”, “grave reason”, “serious reason”…and that is due to the nature and meaning of Marriage. But there is no inherent sinfulness in regulating births, so long as the couple is not explicitly closed to parenthood and each sexual act is not thwarted of its procreative nature.

Do you suppose a couple can remove the procreative nature from an act during the infertile period by engaging in natural sex? Do you suppose the couple can remove the procreative nature of an act by abstaining form an act…where said act doesn’t even take place?

 

[JackieMom]

I’m still not sure what couples who do not wish to concieve should do during fertile periods. Let’s say a couple is in a bad place financially or emotionally maxed out, mom has health problems, they’re overwhelmed with the kids they already have, are still in college, etc.etc. - If avoiding sex during fertile periods is “sinful” - should this couple have sex anyway, just to make sure they don’t sin? I can’t imagine not wanting to become pregnant, but then going ahead and having intercourse when I knew there was a high likelyhood that I would conceive.

So what are couples who are not ready to get pregnant aupposed to do? Is abstaining entirely acceptable? If periodic abstinence is a sin, exactly how much sex must a couple have in order to make sure every opportunity for conception is capitalized upon? What if a couple mutually desires sex only once a month. Are they sinning? Should they force themselves to have more sex so that they can have more pregnancies?

 

[jwinch2]

I’m still not sure what couples who do not wish to concieve should do during fertile periods. Let’s say a couple is in a bad place financially or emotionally maxed out, mom has health problems, they’re overwhelmed with the kids they already have, are still in college, etc.etc. - If avoiding sex during fertile periods is “sinful” - should this couple have sex anyway, just to make sure they don’t sin? I can’t imagine not wanting to become pregnant, but then going ahead and having intercourse when I knew there was a high likelyhood that I would conceive.

So what are couples who are not ready to get pregnant aupposed to do? Is abstaining entirely acceptable? If periodic abstinence is a sin, exactly how much sex must a couple have in order to make sure every opportunity for conception is capitalized upon? What if a couple mutually desires sex only once a month. Are they sinning? Should they force themselves to have more sex so that they can have more pregnancies?

Your entire premise is inaccurate. Abstaining temporarily, providing both members of the couple are in agreement and have discerned the seriousness of their reasons for doing so, is not a sin.