is NFP a sin?

[Chiefsinner]

Here is an extract from Pope Pius IX

Pope Pius XI spoke from the Chair of Peter in his 1931 encyclical Casti Connubii on Christian
marriage. His teaching shows that all forms of birth prevention are evil. We quote a long excerpt
from his encyclical which sums up the issue.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we
shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First
consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the
disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by
married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in
matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify

this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify
their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one
hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties
whether on the part of the mother or on the part of the family circumstances.
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically
against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore,
the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who
in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature
and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards
with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As
St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and
wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did
this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).
“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some
recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this
question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity
and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her,
in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by
this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our
mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that
the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence
against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with
the guilt of a grave sin.”

Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the
procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the
procreation and the education of children.”3
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of
children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose
sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”4

Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage, such as mutual
aid, the quieting of concupiscence, and the cultivating of mutual love. But these secondary
purposes must always remain subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation
and education of children). This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use
of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the
cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife
are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE
PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

My question is if someone wants to have kids after 3 years into marriage one should abstain from sexual activity?

since the fruits of the spirits are

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

 

[Chiefsinner]

Any help would be appreciated I don’t plan to marry anytime soon but this subject has been worrying me a lot…

 

[agnes_therese]

You do know that the Church approves NFP, right?

 

[jpjd]

The sin is in** frustrating the natural powers **of the conjugal act. That is what artificial birth control does.

NFP does not frustrate the natural powers of the conjugal act because in abstaining from intercourse, the conjugal act does not take place. If abstaining was sinful, then every minute we were not engaging in intercourse would be sinful, which is of course absurd.

 

[Xantippe]

Since NFP is abstinence (except when trying to conceive more quickly), I’m not sure what you point is.

Also, pretty much all the quotes you give are rather obviously addressing the question of contraception and unnatural acts, rather than abstinence. I expect somebody else who is better informed than me will be able to provide quotes from the encyclical where the pope talks about how periodic abstinence is OK.

Actually, scratch that, I went to the Wikipedia article on Casti Connubii and immediately found this quote from the encyclical:

“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

I was also just looking at the Wikipedia article on the history of the rhythm method, and Casti Connubii came out in 1930, right around the same time that some breakthroughs in the understanding of female fertility were happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhythm_Method

It’s rather perverse to look to Casti Connubii as a condemnation of periodic abstinence, when it was largely written to allow it.

 

[Chiefsinner]

so basically you can do this for example, about 5 years and it won’t be considered a sin?

1 Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

[JackieMom]

so basically you can do this for example, about 5 years and it won’t be considered a sin?

1 Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Many people use NFP long-term when a pregnancy would be dangerous or highly illadvised. I know a couple that will use it very conservatively for the rest of their marriage because they both carry the genes for a fatal degenerative illness that took the life of their first child.

 

[losh14]

NFP is not a sin. Read Casti Connubii in its entirety and you’ll arrive at:

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth

Spouses who make love outside of periods of ovulation, or when either or both are naturally infertile (age, menopause, lactational amenhorrea, ovarian failure, damage to reproductive organs, etc), do not commit sin.

Consider that a woman may be fertile on any given day of her cycle. However, for most women, fertility and pregnancy are only possible during a predictable window of between 3 and 7 days during ovulation. NFP recognizes this and is the practice of abstaining from sex during that 3 to 7 day window.

This is not a frustration of the natural procreative function of sex. This procreative function is not continual (ie, women are not constantly ovulating) but periodic, so that while a woman may ovulate at any point in her cycle, her fertility, by design, is only possible for this brief window. Is it a frustration for the husband and wife to not attempt pregnancy every month? Not at all, nor does the Church teach such a thing. If a woman cannot get pregnant because she is not ovulating, there is no procreative function to frustrate.

NFP recognizes the Divine Wisdom in such a method that allows for control of family size and order of births, while celebrating both the gift of self-control (which includes, but is not limited to, periodic abstinence), and the need to for the couple to abstain for a time in order to connect in other ways.

If you’re having difficulty in reconciling encyclicals on human sexuality with the officially-sanctioned teaching on NFP, consider picking up a text by Christopher West who explains the purpose of NFP very well. I’ve seen him speak (and was privileged to hear hecklers - a group of young radical Jesuits no less - decry his opposition to homosexual acts) and his talk assisted my wife and I in adopting NFP at a time when even her doctor wouldn’t help - her OB simply wrote her a script for The Pill.

 

[BethanieRyan]

so basically you can do this for example, about 5 years and it won’t be considered a sin?

1 Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

In NFP, you are “depriving one another…by agreement for a limited time.” And then when the woman is no longer obviously fertile (although God can make babies whenever He wants to), the couple can “come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” I’m sure that here Paul is talking about lust and perhaps infidelity. Lust, even in marriage, isn’t good. You shouldn’t want your partner simply to fulfill your basest desires. But NFP, regardless of what it’s used for, is never sinful because it is not rendering the sex act infertile. It is using knowledge of the woman’s body to make conception unlikely.

 

[ffg]

The short answer is no.

Some people are going to tell you there can be a “contraceptive mentallity”.

This is mind games. Just have a good understanding of the purpose of marriage and you won’t need to worry about the above type of thought.

There is some key info to think about.

Probably first it’s important to understand that fertility is not something that just is, you will not know your fertility for certain until it happens.

Second is to understand the purpose of marriage.

If you think it’s for selfish adults to do as they please, reference the current court battle today.

Just looking at that chaos, it’s easy to wipe that out as an answer, so then we have to look deeper.

It must have something to do with the children.

If you are blessed to have good health and a wife with good health, you will find comfort when the shock comes with that first “time to get responsible”, if you know that is why you are married.

 

[thewanderer]

Look a little more closely at your quote from Casti Connubi

“And now, Venerable Brethren, we
shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First
consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the
disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by
married people **not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in **
matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify

NFP is nothing besides gaining knowledge and then using that knowledge to help you make a judgement as to whether or not it is prudent at any point in time to have relations. In other words, the only “action” in NFP that avoids children is the “action” of continence/abstinence, which Casti Conubi explicitly says is not immoral. So any of the other quotes you pointed out were clearly not speaking about NFP/continence, but rather about other forms of birth control.

Also, as to the primary and secondary ends argument… to me it almost sounds as though you think it is actually immoral to have relations if the couple is infertile… Is that what you are arguing? If thats not what you are arguing then I do not at all see how that is an argument against NFP.

My question is if someone wants to have kids after 3 years into marriage one should abstain from sexual activity?

Well, if they have a good reason to wait three years, then yes, either via complete or partial abstinence. Thats what the Church teaches (and has always taught) as the only legitimate way to avoid conceiving when doing so would be imprudent.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This issue was a point of concern for myself, and I’ve actually spent quite a bit of time trying to sort through this myself. I’ll address your points in the context of Natural Family Planning.

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.

Having conjugal relations during the infertile period is not intrinsically against nature. In fact, spouses just having relations at random with no care of where the wife is in her cycle are going to be have relations during the infertile period at times.

As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and
wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did
this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).

This one is easy…Onan withdrew (there more in the case of Onan, but I leave that aside for the purpose of this discussion). Unobstructed relations do no prevent conception of offspring.

raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our
mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that
the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence
against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with
the guilt of a grave sin.”

Once again, this is reference to contraceptive sex. Uninterupted relations do not frustrate natural power.

My question is if someone wants to have kids after 3 years into marriage one should abstain from sexual activity?

If you wish to. You can also use NFP if necessary.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Since NFP is abstinence (except when trying to conceive more quickly),

The interpretation is not quite correct, and is a very common misunderstanding. NFP includes abstinence AND relations during the infertile period. See Humanae Vitae for reference.

With that understanding, your parenthetical exception is unnecessary. NFP is a natural method for both avoiding and having children.

 

[Chiefsinner]

I am sorry you are so worried, clearly you are looking for specifics to ease your mind and unfortunately I don’t think you will get the specific answer that you are seeking.

When you ask the question is using NFP a sin, the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no. Think of it this way if I were to ask you “Is drinking a glass of wine a sin?” well the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no. If you are having a glass of wine with dinner with friends and enjoy it then that is wonderful! If you are drinking to excess and neglecting other things because of your drinking then that may be sinful.

Just remember that any everyday activity can be sinful if done selfishly without regard to God and others! Eating, spending money, using NFP, drinking, all of these! Goodness even buying flowers for a loved one could be sinful if your purpose in the act were trying to manipulate them.

It is what is in the heart that makes using NFP sinful at times, not NFP itself.

Great post I got the answer needed. Thanks!

 

[spunjalebi]

NFP is not a sin. Read Casti Connubii in its entirety and you’ll arrive at:

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth

**Spouses who make love outside of periods of ovulation, or when either or both are naturally infertile (age, menopause, lactational amenhorrea, ovarian failure, damage to reproductive organs, etc), do not commit sin. **

Consider that a woman may be fertile on any given day of her cycle. However, for most women, fertility and pregnancy are only possible during a predictable window of between 3 and 7 days during ovulation. NFP recognizes this and is the practice of abstaining from sex during that 3 to 7 day window.

This is not a frustration of the natural procreative function of sex. This procreative function is not continual (ie, women are not constantly ovulating) but periodic, so that while a woman may ovulate at any point in her cycle, her fertility, by design, is only possible for this brief window. Is it a frustration for the husband and wife to not attempt pregnancy every month? Not at all, nor does the Church teach such a thing. If a woman cannot get pregnant because she is not ovulating, there is no procreative function to frustrate.

NFP recognizes the Divine Wisdom in such a method that allows for control of family size and order of births, while celebrating both the gift of self-control (which includes, but is not limited to, periodic abstinence), and the need to for the couple to abstain for a time in order to connect in other ways.

If you’re having difficulty in reconciling encyclicals on human sexuality with the officially-sanctioned teaching on NFP, consider picking up a text by Christopher West who explains the purpose of NFP very well. I’ve seen him speak (and was privileged to hear hecklers - a group of young radical Jesuits no less - decry his opposition to homosexual acts) and his talk assisted my wife and I in adopting NFP at a time when even her doctor wouldn’t help - her OB simply wrote her a script for The Pill.

Okay I am glad someone asked this because I have been using NFP for a few months now to treat a health issue.

I often wonder how to answer questions such as “how is abstaining from sex during the fertile period any different than using contraception?” along with the “how is knowing you are refraining from ‘coming together’ when you are fertile different than ABC and not sin?”

IIRC, a couple years ago or so someone made the comment that a couple using a condom and having sex when a woman was in her fertile days wasn’t committing sin and were MORE open to life than a couple abstaining on fertile days and never using a condom on the infertile days. I also remember reading how people thought never having sex on a fertile day to avoid a pregnancy was sinful because you aren’t fully giving yourself to your spouse.

If anyone could elaborate further or provide me with some direction on how to address these questions, it would be appreciated. I believe NFP works with our body’s natural functions and allows husbands and wives to give themselves to each other in a whole fashion, but the idea that knowingly abstaining when you are fertile is a tough cookie for me.

 

[thewanderer]

Okay I am glad someone asked this because I have been using NFP for a few months now to treat a health issue.

I often wonder how to answer questions such as “how is abstaining from sex during the fertile period any different than using contraception?” along with the “how is knowing you are refraining from ‘coming together’ when you are fertile different than ABC and not sin?”

IIRC, a couple years ago or so someone made the comment that a couple using a condom and having sex when a woman was in her fertile days wasn’t committing sin and were MORE open to life than a couple abstaining on fertile days and never using a condom on the infertile days. I also remember reading how people thought never having sex on a fertile day to avoid a pregnancy was sinful because you aren’t fully giving yourself to your spouse.

If anyone could elaborate further or provide me with some direction on how to address these questions, it would be appreciated. I believe NFP works with our body’s natural functions and allows husbands and wives to give themselves to each other in a whole fashion, but the idea that knowingly abstaining when you are fertile is a tough cookie for me.

The difference is not in intention but in means. Another example would be a man who wishes to procure enough money to buy a house for his family. He has two options, either take up an extra job to save money for it or kill off his elderly and wealthy aunt who has left him a large inhereitence. In both circumstances his intention is the same, to gain enough money to buy a house for his family. This is in itself a good intention. However, in one case the means are perfectly moral (taking on an extra job) and in another case the means are immoral (killing his wealthy aunt). This is similar to NFP and contraception. In both cases one wishes to aoid procreation. this intention is not sinful in and of itself. However, what is sinful is taking a sexual act and twisting it so as to make it be no longer naturally ordered towards procreation is sinful. In other words, it is not sinful to say “well, since I know that you, Oh Lord, made sex as a sacred act that can at certain times creat life, and since you have given us humans with the ability to reason and to use reason to prudently guide our actions, and since at this current time it is likely that if I have sex with my wife she will get pregnant, I will respect the nature of this sacred act of sex which you have created and abstain from sex” whereas it is not ok to say “Well, Lord, I know you made sex into a sacred act through which you bring life, not just any life, but human souls which will never cease to exist once created into existence, I also know that I cannot afford to have a child right now, but I also really really want to enjoy the pleasures of sex, so, instead of respecting the nature of sex as you ordained it and only engaging in it when it is prudent to do so I am going to twist its nature to remove one of its sacred aspects from it”. On course of action respects God’s order and the other doesn’t.

 

[aspirant]

The very first paragraph of your quote makes an important contrast. Allow me to highlight it:

Here is an extract from Pope Pius IX…

“virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent)
{versus} frustrating the marriage act.”

Abstaining from sex is not the same thing as frustrating sex. This is important for what follows, such as:
Pope Pius IX:

those who in exercising {the conjugal act} deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Note that the people mentioned here are having sex (“exercising the conjugal act”), not abstaining from sex (“virtuous continence”).
Pope Pius IX:

St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’

No disagreement with the Pope’s previous distinction; Augustine refers to people having sex, not people abstaining from sex.

 

[spunjalebi]

This is similar to NFP and contraception. In both cases one wishes to aoid procreation. this intention is not sinful in and of itself.

I’m not sure I see the difference. Aren’t we supposed to always be open to life? How is using a condom to avoid pregnancy and using NFP to avoid pregnancy any different? It’s still avoiding a pregnancy.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not sure I see the difference. Aren’t we supposed to always be open to life? How is using a condom to avoid pregnancy and using NFP to avoid pregnancy any different? It’s still avoiding a pregnancy.

Humanae Vitae puts it this way:

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

 

[spunjalebi]

Yes I understand that. However, I’ve been recently thrown with arguments that because NFP is lauded with high effectiveness rates against pregnancy, it’s no more moral or more spiritual than using a condom or the pill.