Is constant use of natural family planning a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mercuriel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mercuriel

Guest
Hi all,

I understand the key difference between contraception and natural family planning; one is preventive whereas the latter is regulatory using the natural God-given cycles of a woman.

However if the ultimate purpose of marriage is to produce offspring how can one justify the constant use of natural family planning? Isn’t that going against God’s plan for marriage and thus a sin?

What if a couple is married for 20 years and constantly uses natural family planning and does not produce any children (unlikely perhaps but possible), then it seems to me how come the Catholic Church does not warn against constant use of natural family planning since it potentially bypasses God’s plan of procreation within marriage?

Isn’t the heart behind using a condom (to prevent kids) the same heart as using natural family planning excessively?

Or to phrase it this way: if procreation is one of the main purposes of marriage then isn’t constant abstinence during the wife’s most fertile period going against God’s intentions?
 
mercuriel said:
However if the ultimate purpose of marriage is to produce offspring how can one justify the constant use of natural family planning? Isn’t that going against God’s plan for marriage and thus a sin?
Click to expand...
Yes it can be a sin. One needs a serious reason to use “periodic continence” (NFP is a form of such) - it is that reason that “justifies” the continued use - even constant avoidance of fertile times.

Such is in keeping with the will of God…and not contrary to Marriage and openness to life.

One would judge such before God - in ones conscience. Of course one is to form ones conscience according to the teachings of the Church.

One can also seek good advice from say ones Pastor or confessor.

One can yes come to that judgement that at this time one has such a reason. That judgement may continue and be repeated in some cases for a very long time as needed.
 
**Compendium **issued by Pope Benedict XVI

497. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
 
I think it depends on the reason. 20 years of nfp warrants a just reason- no money? Will a pregnancy harm the woman? Is there a genetic disorder? Is there any intention of having a kid at all?
 
One of the “nice” things about NFP is that this problem can “self-correct.” The more serious the reason, the more committed to the method.

I think it would be very rare indeed for a couple to decide to continue with extra abstinence if it wasn’t seen as necessary.
 
How do we view this quote from Lactanius?

“[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes6:20 [A.D. 307]).
 
mercuriel said:
How do we view this quote from Lactanius?

“[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes6:20 [A.D. 307]).
Click to expand...
Such is simply his (Lactanius) quote…

Not what the Church teaches per se.

(they did not know how fertility worked in 307…)
 
Bookcat said:
Such is simply his (Lactanius) quote…

Not what the Church teaches per se.

(they did not know how fertility worked in 307…)
Click to expand...
Yes, I appreciate that science has enlightened our understanding.

All the Church says you need to engage in NFP are ‘just’ reasons (whatever that actually means). Lactanius - who was esteemed by Church Fathers - would seem to suggest being poor is not a ‘just’ reason.

So what are ‘just’ reasons? Could we potentially be disregarding Christian quotes from the 4th Century simply because we do not like them?
 
mercuriel said:
Yes, I appreciate that science has enlightened our understanding.

All the Church says you need to engage in NFP are ‘just’ reasons (whatever that actually means). Lactanius - who was esteemed by Church Fathers - would seem to suggest being poor is not a ‘just’ reason.

So what are ‘just’ reasons? Could we potentially be disregarding Christian quotes from the 4th Century simply because we do not like them?
Click to expand...
Just reasons are to be discerned by the couple in touch with conscience and reason. Would you really want it to be any other way?
 
Rau said:
Just reasons are to be discerned by the couple in touch with conscience and reason. Would you really want it to be any other way?
Click to expand...
But reason tells us we are to form our consciences. Maybe reading the early church fathers is a good start? (I’m playing the devil’s advocate!)
 
In short - yes - unless they have in prayerful consciousness a really good reason to do so and to abstain would result in greater sin.
 
Yes, however one can have perfectly valid consent and still use natural family planning to indefinitely avoid children.

There are couples who want children but must avoid having a child for a time or maybe even indefinitely. I can give a personal example of a friend with a congenital heart defect who also contracted Hep C due to her surgeries. Although she and her husband want children, they must refrain from pregnancy because of her ongoing medical issues. They have adopted children. They have no permanent intention against children and would love to have a biological child should her doctor ever clear her for pregnancy. (Since they are now in their early 40s, that’s not likely). They have used NFP the whole of their marriage to avoid because she’s never been cleared by her doctor.

So, while a permanent intention against children renders consent invalid, that is not the same thing as using NFP indefinitely.
 
Hi all, I’ve been doing a bit more study…

I’ve been reading up on what the Church Fathers have had to say about marital intercourse. It seems to me that many of them (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Jerome etc.) are essentially saying that you should only have sex with the intention of procreation.

Most who use NFP are doing so precisely with the intention of avoiding procreation, even if it is just for a time.

Doesn’t this show a change between Tradition and what the Church now teaches?
 
mercuriel said:
Hi all, I’ve been doing a bit more study…

I’ve been reading up on what the Church Fathers have had to say about marital intercourse. It seems to me that many of them (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Jerome etc.) are essentially saying that you should only have sex with the intention of procreation.

Most who use NFP are doing so precisely with the intention of avoiding procreation, even if it is just for a time.

Doesn’t this show a change between Tradition and what the Church now teaches?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you ought provide some references, both to what was said, and to what level of teaching authority attaches to the statements by these persons.
 
Trying to express this without causing offence etc, please bear with me.

I understand totally that chemical contraception can be abortofacients, but not why eg condoms cannot be used especially in cases as above where there is sound medical reason not to get pregnant.
 
Rosebud77 said:
Trying to express this without causing offence etc, please bear with me.

I understand totally that chemical contraception can be abortofacients, but not why eg condoms cannot be used especially in cases as above where there is sound medical reason not to get pregnant.
Click to expand...
Condoms, like other contraceptives, violate & frustrate the natural plan of God regarding procreation. It is against natural law so is objectively gravely immoral. You cannot mend any situation with evil - even if it seems logical (or even perhaps understandable). Read about it with Onan in Genesis 38. He is clearly punished by God for spilling his seed on the ground deliberately.
 
Quotes from some Church Fathers:

Clement of Alexandria - “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature”

Augustine - “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage…”

Jerome - “Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?”

I got these quotes from here: catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization

I don’t know how the Catholic Church determines what Tradition is capital ‘T’ and lower case ‘t’. Anyone wants to shed light on that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top