Is NFP "intrinsically evil"?

[Madaglan]

Hello. I’m not married, nor do I shack up with chicks often, so I’m not too familiar with all the ideas behind contraception and NFP. However, from what I have read so far, I am having difficulty understanding why contraception is “intrinsically evil” in all cases while NFP is upheld by the Church.

I understand that, according to Western Catholic theology, the primary aim of marriage is to produce children–to populate the earth with warriors for Christ. As this is the goal of marriage, to purposely hinder this goal is to transgress the role of marriage in the Christian life. So, I can understand why the Church disapproves of those who use contraception with the specific goal in mind to prevent having children. However, I don’t understand why NFP, which although open to life nonetheless actively seeks to limit times of fertility, is considered as being any different than someone who practices contraception but is nontheless open to the possibility that the contraception will not work and that they will have children.

At this point, I wonder if, in labeling contraception as “intrinsically evil” we are falling into an anti-materialism–calling the contraceptive devices themselves evil rather than the intents of the individuals.

Could someone please explain to me why a couple that knowingly uses condoms that are, say, 95% effective, and is open to life in the case of that 5%, is any more wrong that the family that practices regular NFP, well knowing that there is only, say, a 1% chance of pregnancy, although it is open to life in the case of that 1% chance.

It just seems that we should focus more on the evil intent–namely to make a “plan” of when to have so many children–rather than the method of this plan. It seems that NFP, since its intent to actively limit times of fertility, though not an ulterior intent, is somehow wrong.

Again, perhaps someone who is more of an expert on the differences between artificial contraception and NFP, and why the latter is acceptable whereas the former is not.

 

[maendem]

Madaglan:

Hello. I’m not married, nor do I shack up with chicks often, so I’m not too familiar with all the ideas behind contraception and NFP. However, from what I have read so far, I am having difficulty understanding why contraception is “intrinsically evil” in all cases while NFP is upheld by the Church.

I understand that, according to Western Catholic theology, the primary aim of marriage is to produce children–to populate the earth with warriors for Christ. As this is the goal of marriage, to purposely hinder this goal is to transgress the role of marriage in the Christian life. So, I can understand why the Church disapproves of those who use contraception with the specific goal in mind to prevent having children. However, I don’t understand why NFP, which although open to life nonetheless actively seeks to limit times of fertility, is considered as being any different than someone who practices contraception but is nontheless open to the possibility that the contraception will not work and that they will have children.

At this point, I wonder if, in labeling contraception as “intrinsically evil” we are falling into an anti-materialism–calling the contraceptive devices themselves evil rather than the intents of the individuals.

Could someone please explain to me why a couple that knowingly uses condoms that are, say, 95% effective, and is open to life in the case of that 5%, is any more wrong that the family that practices regular NFP, well knowing that there is only, say, a 1% chance of pregnancy, although it is open to life in the case of that 1% chance.

It just seems that we should focus more on the evil intent–namely to make a “plan” of when to have so many children–rather than the method of this plan. It seems that NFP, since its intent to actively limit times of fertility, though not an ulterior intent, is somehow wrong.

Again, perhaps someone who is more of an expert on the differences between artificial contraception and NFP, and why the latter is acceptable whereas the former is not.

These are good questions, Mag, and all of them have been addressed AT LENGTH in numerous posts. Just do a search.

 

[felra]

Madaglan:

Hello. I’m not married, nor do I shack up with chicks often, … , I am having difficulty understanding why contraception is “intrinsically evil” in all cases while NFP is upheld by the Church.

Perhaps you should first try increasing your “understanding” of the actual sins that you are committing, however infrequently.

 

[Island_Oak]

Agreed that most of these concerns have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere on these forums.

One issue which I have not found discussed as much is of a different focus. Is it possible that all who choose to marry and have familes are not necessarily called to have herds of children? I feel I have been truly blessed with my three kids and as I mature, I find that my focus and energies are being pulled into new positive and spiritual directions that do not necessarily involve endless procreation. It is not that I am saying ‘I have X number of children and that’s enough’ or ‘I’m X number of years old and it’s too old for more children…’ but that I feel I’m being drawn in a different direction. Does this resonate with anyone else?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Let’s start with the example of eating:

The primary purpose of eating is nourishment. Secondary purposes are things like enjoyment, celebration,etc. What would you say of someone who pigged-out, vomits it up, and continues to pig out? Disordered right?

Now marriage:

The primary purpose of marriage is having children.
The secondary purposes of marriage are mutual bonding, help, licit satisfaction of sexual desire, and any other benefit you can think of. They are very important mind you, but they are subordinate to the primary. God for whatever reason designed fertility so that it is not always there. When it is naturally absent there is no problem with marital relations because when the primary purpose cannot be met, it moves smoothly to and fulfills the secondary purpose. When one contracepts artificially, there is a clear, willful attempt to thwart God’s design by kicking out the primary and forcing the secondary to be primary. It is pulling apart what God put together. That is, it’s disordered.

NFP is morally neutral–it is not an act, it is information about the fertility cycle. How we act on that information determines its goodness or badness. When there are serious reasons to delay pregnancy, one may act upon the information of NFP because it works with God’s design, not against it. (Remember that many people use NFP to increase the chance of getting pregnant.) I would say that these serious reasons need to be re-evaluated from cycle-to-cycle. NFP can be just as sinful if it is regarded as the Catholic end-run around the teaching on contraception.

Scott

 

[dcmac]

“Is NFP “intrinsically evil”?”

No.

 

[theMutant]

“Is NFP “intrinsically evil”?”

No.

Follow up: Can it be used in a way that is evil because it is with a “contraceptive mentality?” Yes.

 

[KCT]

theMutant:

Follow up: Can it be used in a way that is evil because it is with a “contraceptive mentality?” Yes.

Many things can be used for good or evil. NFP is not evil because it is not, and can never be, contraception. I don’t believe practicing NFP can be evil. Can our attitude about welcoming children be off? Sure. But that doesn’t make NFP a sin, it makes our attitude the problem, not our action. --KCT

 

[BibleReader]

Madaglan:

Hello. I’m not married, nor do I shack up with chicks often, so I’m not too familiar with all the ideas behind contraception and NFP. However, from what I have read so far, I am having difficulty understanding why contraception is “intrinsically evil” in all cases while NFP is upheld by the Church.

I understand that, according to Western Catholic theology, the primary aim of marriage is to produce children–to populate the earth with warriors for Christ. As this is the goal of marriage, to purposely hinder this goal is to transgress the role of marriage in the Christian life. So, I can understand why the Church disapproves of those who use contraception with the specific goal in mind to prevent having children. However, I don’t understand why NFP, which although open to life nonetheless actively seeks to limit times of fertility, is considered as being any different than someone who practices contraception but is nontheless open to the possibility that the contraception will not work and that they will have children.

At this point, I wonder if, in labeling contraception as “intrinsically evil” we are falling into an anti-materialism–calling the contraceptive devices themselves evil rather than the intents of the individuals.

Could someone please explain to me why a couple that knowingly uses condoms that are, say, 95% effective, and is open to life in the case of that 5%, is any more wrong that the family that practices regular NFP, well knowing that there is only, say, a 1% chance of pregnancy, although it is open to life in the case of that 1% chance.

It just seems that we should focus more on the evil intent–namely to make a “plan” of when to have so many children–rather than the method of this plan. It seems that NFP, since its intent to actively limit times of fertility, though not an ulterior intent, is somehow wrong.

Again, perhaps someone who is more of an expert on the differences between artificial contraception and NFP, and why the latter is acceptable whereas the former is not.

The logic is this: With NFP, I never actually steal a fertile moment from God to get at risk-free pleasure-filled sex.

Instead, I only vastly enlarge my actual knowledge of when He gives these to me and my wife, and enjoy those.

 

[Vincent]

The difference between contraception and NFP is the difference between having sex and not having sex.

Is not having sex intrinsically evil? No.

 

[demolitionman65]

Could someone please explain to me why a couple that knowingly uses condoms that are, say, 95% effective, and is open to life in the case of that 5%, is any more wrong that the family that practices regular NFP, well knowing that there is only, say, a 1% chance of pregnancy, although it is open to life in the case of that 1% chance.

Response from another thread:

Sex has three purposes: Procreative, unitive and pleasure. NFP, among other attributes, allows the married couple to still say “yes” to the will of God in terms of children. ABC deliberately separates the procreative component from the sexual act. NFP still has a built-in “yes” to the procreative component.

ABC funamentally disorders the marital act. NFP does not (though it CAN become disordered in itself if it is used to eliminate pregnancies as opposed to the ordered spacing of them).

 

[theMutant]

KCT:

Many things can be used for good or evil. NFP is not evil because it is not, and can never be, contraception. I don’t believe practicing NFP can be evil. Can our attitude about welcoming children be off? Sure. But that doesn’t make NFP a sin, it makes our attitude the problem, not our action. --KCT

Exactly what I meant when I said that it could be used/] with a contraceptive mentality. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[chevalier]

The problem is not in condoms or calendar, but in contraceptive mentality.

If you use NFP to get kids out of your life, it’s not much different from pills. However, people who use NFP usually aim to reduce the chance and are aware of the possibility of nature still doing the trick (some would even talk about leaving room for God, but please…), while condoms or pills typically follow the intent totally to remove the possibility of pregnancy.

Artificial contraception puts pleasure in the first place and makes it autonomous. It doesn’t take a moral theologist to realise that relationships based on sex and/or revolving around sex are sad and emotionally harmful (actually, total abstinence is more worth it, even from a simple profit/loss perspective). If sex is sought for mere fun of it, it becomes a chore. And what else do people have if they are together for sex alone (or mostly)? Their life together is nothing to envy from that point on.

Also, condoms create a barier. It’s not the same and the difference can be felt. Women hate condoms. They want a man who won’t use a condom on them. Just ask.

Pills are messing with their organism and women know that. It doesn’t make them feel great about themselves, to say the least. Even if they are virgins and only use pills to regulate periods, they still feel bad about it deep inside.

Next, birth control pills typically have an abortifacient effect as well as contraceptive. Knowingly using a potential abortifiacient is like committing homicide in dolus eventualis - e.g. you put a barn on fire without caring if people are inside or not, even if you don’t specifically want them to burn - this is still homicide.

Vasectomy or sterilisation is downright messing with the organism and it’s visibly unhealthy. Reverting it is even more unhealthy, should someone regret his decision and desire to have children later in his life.

NFP does not entail any risk of abortion, nor does it mess with your organism. You aren’t getting “protection” for nothing - you actually give up sex on fertile days. Therefore, the notion of all fun and no responsibility prevalent in contraception is (as a rule) non-existent in NFP. Investigating the periods also forces you to slow down, look around and think a bit, effectively making sure that you give a damn about your woman and she about her body instead of treating her like resource.

Hope this helps. You could get more insight from people who are married or experts in moral theology.

 

[KCT]

chevalier:

The problem is not in condoms or calendar, but in contraceptive mentality.

If you use NFP to get kids out of your life, it’s not much different from pills.

I think it’s very different. One way uses chemicals, messes w/ a woman’s body, and over rides what God created. The other works with God’s creation. Personally, I dislike the term ‘contraceptive mentality’ used along w/ NFP. Maybe ‘selfish mentality’ or ‘materialistic mentality’, but NFP can never be contraception and I don’t think the mentality can be either. (and I hesitate to say materialistic or selfish, because I have no idea why each couple has chosen to use NFP) —KCT

 

[chevalier]

Perhaps my wording wasn’t very fortunate and I probably went too far. What I meant by “getting kids out of your life” was not a legitimate decision to put if off till later for good reasons but something more decidedly directed at simply avoiding pregnancy. However, you are right that avoiding is not the same as preventing. Also, it strikes my mind that people who avoid pregnancy for whatever un-good reason are actually not ready to have children, which sort of means they actually do have a good reason without even knowing.

 

[jlw]

The UNITIVE AND the CREATIVE.

NFP may “avoid” conception, but it certainly isn’t opposed to it. We are called to be open to life.

Also, theologically speaking, Marriage IS the sexual union. The inherent meanings of both CANNOT (in truth) be separated.