T
tominrichmond
Guest
Here is what Pius XII had to say about NFP:
“Consequently to embrace the state of matrimony, to use continually the faculty proper to it, and in it alone, and on the other hand to withdraw always and deliberately, without a grave motive, from its primary duty, would be to sin against the very meaning of conjugal life”
"If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those [infertile] periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.”
“On married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.”
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called ‘indications,’ may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”
So yes, NFP is permissible for grave reasons only. My only point is that given the importance of procreation as the primary end of marriage, discerning whether grave reasons exist is something that should (note: not must) be discussed with a spiritual advisor, if we hope to avoid self-deception and self-delusion, which would be very easy when tempted by material considerations to avoid a new life.
Of course, anyone is free to reject this advice and make their own call, and I wish them well and hope they are not abusing this allowance of NFP.
“Consequently to embrace the state of matrimony, to use continually the faculty proper to it, and in it alone, and on the other hand to withdraw always and deliberately, without a grave motive, from its primary duty, would be to sin against the very meaning of conjugal life”
"If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those [infertile] periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.”
“On married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.”
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called ‘indications,’ may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”
So yes, NFP is permissible for grave reasons only. My only point is that given the importance of procreation as the primary end of marriage, discerning whether grave reasons exist is something that should (note: not must) be discussed with a spiritual advisor, if we hope to avoid self-deception and self-delusion, which would be very easy when tempted by material considerations to avoid a new life.
Of course, anyone is free to reject this advice and make their own call, and I wish them well and hope they are not abusing this allowance of NFP.
he had hidden his true reasonings under the guile of my scar tissue. Another OB told me i ought to go on BC because it would regulate me (I was not even irregular at this time) and that as a side effect would stop any more births but because it would be to regulate me it would fall under medical reasons and be OK w the church! I dont disagree w anyone using NFP to space births 'specially if it is due to space them out r/t c sections. i just wanted to throw out there that NOT all DRs have ur best interste in mind…either physical or spiritual. do research. pray. pray. pray. we are open to children now , however they may come and if they dont come at all. My c sections ahve healed better and better throught the grace of God. But as I said before, this isa very deeply personal and case by case scenario. 
