Is it possible that NFP could be sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joclucsylv

Guest
I wonder what our church fathers would have thought about NFP. Obviously ABC is wrong, but I have to wonder if they would have thought that NFP was also slamming the door in God’s face. I would think NFP only started being used when science started to understand the menstural cycle of a woman. Any thoughts??
 
I wonder what our church fathers would have thought about NFP. Obviously ABC is wrong, but I have to wonder if they would have thought that NFP was also slamming the door in God’s face. I would think NFP only started being used when science started to understand the menstural cycle of a woman. Any thoughts??
Interesting question. I would imagine it would vary depending on which Church Father you were speaking of. I think Augustine would disapprove. One thing about NFP is that, although it does not artificially inhibit anything, it works to detect times when it is least likely for life to result from sex. So it is really only removed from ABC by a small criteria IMO…namely, that ABC is intended to stop the creative process artificially, while NFP is intended to stop the creative process naturally. Although many proponents of NFP would say it doesn’t “stop” anything…it simply lowers the probability, and furthermore works WITH the body and the natural processes which God also created. That’s fine and quite agreeable, but the intent is still the same…no children wanted at the moment.

Hence what it boils down to is what was the early thought on procreation? Did some (or many, or all) Church Fathers believe that Catholic parents should have as many children as possible, without concern for the grave emotional, physical, or psychological effects that many children might have on the parents? Not sure if there’s any documentation on that. But obviously that’s the prevailing thought process today in most circles…spacing children, that is.

Anyway, don’t have many good answers for you, but I like the thread idea.
 
From what little cherry picking of the Father’s I have read, they would not have supported NFP because they basically viewed the sperm as being a zygote. Releasing the zygote when it won’t implant would have been abortifacient.

But we think differently now.
 
It is not possible that NFP could be sinful. The Church has said that it is not sinful if used for a serious reason and therefore it is not sinful if used for a serious reason. The Church would never condone something that is immoral.
 
I wonder what our church fathers would have thought about NFP. Obviously ABC is wrong, but I have to wonder if they would have thought that NFP was also slamming the door in God’s face. I would think NFP only started being used when science started to understand the menstural cycle of a woman. Any thoughts??
Fortunately the church has grown up from the acorn to the oak tree. We do know more information and we can wonder in delight at God’s plan for man and woman . We can also marvel at this information and the church can evaluate how it can be used from a moral perspective.

NFP itself is morally neutral. Of course NFP can be used in a sinful way. Any thing can be. Couples have to be careful not to use it with a contraceptive mentality . They need to be prayerful and utilize all the gifts of the Holy Spirit when determining if they can be open to a child at any given time.
 
Interesting question. I would imagine it would vary depending on which Church Father you were speaking of. I think Augustine would disapprove. One thing about NFP is that, although it does not artificially inhibit anything, it works to detect times when it is least likely for life to result from sex. So it is really only removed from ABC by a small criteria IMO…namely, that ABC is intended to stop the creative process artificially, while NFP is intended to stop the creative process naturally. Although many proponents of NFP would say it doesn’t “stop” anything…it simply lowers the probability, and furthermore works WITH the body and the natural processes which God also created. That’s fine and quite agreeable, but the intent is still the same…no children wanted at the moment.

Hence what it boils down to is what was the early thought on procreation? Did some (or many, or all) Church Fathers believe that Catholic parents should have as many children as possible, without concern for the grave emotional, physical, or psychological effects that many children might have on the parents? Not sure if there’s any documentation on that. But obviously that’s the prevailing thought process today in most circles…spacing children, that is.

Anyway, don’t have many good answers for you, but I like the thread idea.
The intent of NFP is the same as ABC so how can it not be sinful!?! NFP does “stop” pregnancy if a couple knowingly does not have reations during ovulation even though they may want to. This causes great anxiety in my life and causes me to think alot. 😦

It did also occur to me what Augustine would have thought. If he was living today and if we could speak with him, what would he say?
 
The intent of NFP is the same as ABC so how can it not be sinful!?!
I suggest reading some Church material on means and ends. The end of spacing children, or avoiding for a time, isn’t immoral and the Church has never taught it is.

1 Cor 7:5 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

St Paul teaches a couple can abstain for a time by mutual consent.

Women have known that there is a rhythm to their cycle for hundreds of years. It was very common to abstain for long periods of time if there was a good reason. This could be a short time or indefinitely.

NFP is simply adding more observation points to the natural cycle of the woman. Abstaining is nothing new.

Contraception on the other hand, has been condemned from the beginning.

It is not the end, but the means, that differ. Contraception is immoral. Abstaining is not.
 
I suggest reading some Church material on means and ends. The end of spacing children, or avoiding for a time, isn’t immoral and the Church has never taught it is.

1 Cor 7:5 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

St Paul teaches a couple can abstain for a time by mutual consent.

Women have known that there is a rhythm to their cycle for hundreds of years. It was very common to abstain for long periods of time if there was a good reason. This could be a short time or indefinitely.

NFP is simply adding more observation points to the natural cycle of the woman. Abstaining is nothing new.

Contraception on the other hand, has been condemned from the beginning.

It is not the end, but the means, that differ. Contraception is immoral. Abstaining is not.
NFP is not abstaining. The Church teaches that sex must be ‘open to life’. Choosing to have sex only when believing conception is impossible is not open to life.
 
No NFP is not sinful.

Though some exercise of it can be.

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches:

Compendium of the Catechism issued by Pope Benedict XVI
  1. 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.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
 
The intent of NFP is the same as ABC so how can it not be sinful!?! NFP does “stop” pregnancy if a couple knowingly does not have reations during ovulation even though they may want to. This causes great anxiety in my life and causes me to think alot. 😦
NFP does not stop pregnacy. A contraception acts to make the marital act infertile. NFP does not act in any way to change the marital act.

As to the OP question. NFP is not itself sinful but can be used sinfully. Any attempt to avoid children for selfish or trivial reasons could be sinful.
 
I wonder what our church fathers would have thought about NFP. Obviously ABC is wrong, but I have to wonder if they would have thought that NFP was also slamming the door in God’s face. I would think NFP only started being used when science started to understand the menstural cycle of a woman. Any thoughts??
Hi joclucsylv!

An interesting thought, for sure. I believe in the times of the church fathers good ol’ abstinence was the way to regulate birth. But it’s probably also helpful to keep in mind that children were seen as a great blessing. One’s worth was viewed in his descendants. They didn’t view children as burdens like our society tends to do.

Two things to keep in mind:
  1. The Holy Spirit through time has slowly revealed more of the God’s Truth to us.
  2. The Holy Spirit will never contradict himself.
So this means that NFP was never declared sinful in the church. For if that were true, it could not be morally permissible today. Beyond that, I can’t offer much more knowledge as I’m not that familiar with the subject.
 
The intent of NFP is the same as ABC so how can it not be sinful!?! NFP does “stop” pregnancy if a couple knowingly does not have reations during ovulation even though they may want to. This causes great anxiety in my life and causes me to think alot. 😦
I, for one, can understand the confusion. Here’s a good way to look at it:

Suppose I’m going to get someone a gift. I could go to a store and buy it. Or I could steal. Who cares, right? The end result is the same, I end up with a gift for my friend.

But as we know, just because the result is the same, doesn’t mean that both were moral means to obtain that end. I can’t steal a gift, that’s immoral.

Same with NFP vs ABC, sure the ends result is the same, but the MEANS are not. One is morally permissible, one is not.

Hope that helps!
 
Hello,

What of self-control? Mind over Body spirit over flesh? Gaining spiritual strength through abstaining (sacrafice) for the good.

The moral condemnation of contraception was once the universal teaching of all Christian churches and denominations, not just the Catholic Church; this was the case up to the year 1930. Martin Luther, for example, was as vehemently opposed to birth prevention as any pope, then or now.

Contraception and abortion are promoted by secular authorities , enemies of the Church, who would promote New World Order, global control through population control (eugenics).
undermining the Catholic Church, and in the process, attempting to erase man’s natural orientation to the eternal. Some early contraception devices were developed by those for population control and actively undermining the catholic church i.e the coper ‘T’ IUD, norplant, Jadelle (norplant II) and the mirena.

see Catholic Investigative Agency
http://www.realcatholictv.com/free/index.php?vidID=ciax-2011-06-17

Catholic Matters: Contraception
catholicmatters.com/contcept.htm

God bless,
john
 
NFP is not abstaining.
Certainly it is. Couples abstain for periods of time.
The Church teaches that sex must be ‘open to life’.
No, that is not what the Church teaches.

The Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be per se ordered to unity and procreation.
Choosing to have sex only when believing conception is impossible is not open to life.
Each act of intercourse is per se ordered to unity and procreation.
 
NFP is not abstaining. The Church teaches that sex must be ‘open to life’. Choosing to have sex only when believing conception is impossible is not open to life.
That is EXACTLY how I feel!
 
“How you feel” is not the same as “what the Church actually teaches.”
Yup, I know. Noone has actually spoken yet of what the Church fathers would have thought about the prevention of pregnancy by NFP. Many have sited the catechism and that is good but I am looking for thoughts from the Church Fathers. I am anxious to get some thoughts.
 
Yup, I know. Noone has actually spoken yet of what the Church fathers would have thought about the prevention of pregnancy by NFP. Many have sited the catechism and that is good but I am looking for thoughts from the Church Fathers. I am anxious to get some thoughts.
They would have taught what the Church teaches.

If the Doctor where to go fetch say St. Augustine in the TARDIS and bring him to the 21st century and tell him of the knowledge etc we have and of NFP and asked him–is this moral? He would ask what does the Church teach? What does Peter say?

and having been given the answer…he would say: so say I.

(for non-Dr. Who persons…the Tardis is basically a time and space machine…)
 
Yup, I know. Noone has actually spoken yet of what the Church fathers would have thought about the prevention of pregnancy by NFP. Many have sited the catechism and that is good but I am looking for thoughts from the Church Fathers. I am anxious to get some thoughts.
staycatholic.com/ecf_contraception.htm
John Chrysostom

[l]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet) and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization] (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion] (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her, is joined to the man to gratify his passion (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago *, when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny (ibid. 22:30).*
 
Yup, I know. Noone has actually spoken yet of what the Church fathers would have thought about the prevention of pregnancy by NFP. Many have sited the catechism and that is good but I am looking for thoughts from the Church Fathers. I am anxious to get some thoughts.
The Fathers never spoke against abstaining. The Fathers never gave any positive commandment that a couple had to have sex with any specific frequency. The Fathers never required that spouses continue to have children-- or attempt to-- when there were serious reasons not to. I pulled out my Early Church Fathers materials, and here we have evidence of the opposite:

Lactantius

[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 Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

and this

Caesarius

Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

Unless you can show otherwise, I think this discussion has gone about as far as it can as to what was in the minds of the Fathers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top