Is NFP ok as long as you are open to children?

[jilly4ski]

Please help me restate it. What I mean is that if a couple’s is not open to having children for selfish reasons but use NFP like an artificial contraceptive to claim they are within Church teachings, that is duplicitous and sinful. They just as well use some artificial means and drop the hypocracy.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I can’t agree with this either. The catechism of the Church defines artificial birth control an “intrinsic evil” CCC 2370. Since NFP can be used for just reasons it cannot be an intrinsic evil. Therefore the sins of artificial birth control and selfishly using NFP are different sin. They might be both grave sins but they cannot be the same, and we should never encourage people to participate in an “intrinsic evil” just so they are not hypocritical.

 

[Newbie2]

Please help me restate it. What I mean is that if a couple’s is not open to having children for selfish reasons but use NFP like an artificial contraceptive to claim they are within Church teachings, that is duplicitous and sinful. They just as well use some artificial means and drop the hypocracy.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I see what you’re saying, but we have to be careful to distinguish between contracepting and using NFP. NFP is not contraception. Contraception in a sin. NFP is not a sin.

The couple who uses NFP is not “not open to having children” since they are not contracepting, rather, they are open to having children in the sense that they are not contracepting. Seems circular, but they are doing nothing to contracept.

They don’t WANT children, but are not actively contracepting…this may be a subtle difference, but is significant, IMHO.

Now if they are permanently using NFP in order not to ever have any children, that would be a curious thing; I agree with you that it would seem hypocritical to do so on the grounds that one is not intending to have children while all the while “being open to children” by using NFP.

If we place too much “sin” on intent alone and not consider the act of contracepting as sinful, then yes, contracepting by artificial means and avoiding having any children, ever, by permanently using NFP are equavalent in sin. However, Catholic moral theology makes a distinction between intent of avoiding pregnancy and acting towards that end. Subtle, maybe. But distinct.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I see what you’re saying, but we have to be careful to distinguish between contracepting and using NFP. NFP is not contraception. Contraception in a sin. NFP is not a sin.

The couple who uses NFP is not “not open to having children” since they are not contracepting, rather, they are open to having children in the sense that they are not contracepting. Seems circular, but they are doing nothing to contracept.

They don’t WANT children, but are not actively contracepting…this may be a subtle difference, but is significant, IMHO.

Now if they are permanently using NFP in order not to ever have any children, that would be a curious thing; I agree with you that it would seem hypocritical to do so on the grounds that one is not intending to have children while all the while “being open to children” by using NFP.

If we place too much “sin” on intent alone and not consider the act of contracepting as sinful, then yes, contracepting by artificial means and avoiding having any children, ever, by permanently using NFP are equavalent in sin. However, Catholic moral theology makes a distinction between intent of avoiding pregnancy and acting towards that end. Subtle, maybe. But distinct.

By golly I think we are together. I don’t know of any couple that would use NFP as a permanent contraceptive either. But HV indicates that the couple must have worthwhile reasons to use NFP…avoiding contraception just to avoid contraception is morally wrong.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I can’t agree with this either. The catechism of the Church defines artificial birth control an “intrinsic evil” CCC 2370. Since NFP can be used for just reasons it cannot be an intrinsic evil. Therefore the sins of artificial birth control and selfishly using NFP are different sin. They might be both grave sins but they cannot be the same, and we should never encourage people to participate in an “intrinsic evil” just so they are not hypocritical.

I didn’t say NFP was an intrinsic evil. However, a grave sin is a grave sin circumstances not withstanding. Either a couple needs well-grounded reasons i.e. psychological, physical or other external circumstances (HV #16) or they don’t. It is not the use of NFP that is ever sinful but if the reasons for using it is disordered then it is a grave sin.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[casey_zia]

I didn’t say NFP was an intrinsic evil. However, a grave sin is a grave sin circumstances not withstanding. Either a couple needs well-grounded reasons i.e. psychological, physical or other external circumstances (HV #16) or they don’t. It is not the use of NFP that is ever sinful but if the reasons for using it is disordered then it is a grave sin.

I think we’ve made a leap from “grave reasons” for using NFP to defining its use as “grave sin”. I have searched through many Catholic articles (including the encyclical “Humanae Vitae”) and can find nothing linking the use of NFP to “grave sin”. Rape, incest, sodomy, contraception: yes, grave sin. NFP?

Even “grave reasons” has to looked at through translation from “iustae causae”. One article suggested that this Latin term can be translated in several ways into English: “well grounded reasons,” “serious motives”, and “grave reasons.” But the term itself is simply the plural of “iusta causa,” which literally translates “just cause.”

From Humanae Vitae (10): In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

The Church does not deny a couple’s legitimate need for the responsible regulation and spacing of births. The use of NFP in marriage may seem “selfish”, but over time, NFP does change the hearts and motives of the couple. The desired end (avoiding pregnancy) is not the sin. The means of limiting family size must be moral, and NFP is a moral means.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I think we’ve made a leap from “grave reasons” for using NFP to defining its use as “grave sin”. I have searched through many Catholic articles (including the encyclical “Humanae Vitae”) and can find nothing linking the use of NFP to “grave sin”. Rape, incest, sodomy, contraception: yes, grave sin. NFP?

Even “grave reasons” has to looked at through translation from “iustae causae”. One article suggested that this Latin term can be translated in several ways into English: “well grounded reasons,” “serious motives”, and “grave reasons.” But the term itself is simply the plural of “iusta causa,” which literally translates “just cause.”

From Humanae Vitae (10): In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

The Church does not deny a couple’s legitimate need for the responsible regulation and spacing of births. The use of NFP in marriage may seem “selfish”, but over time, NFP does change the hearts and motives of the couple. The desired end (avoiding pregnancy) is not the sin. The means of limiting family size must be moral, and NFP is a moral means.

HV is very clear…for a couple to use NFP they must have well-grounded reasons i.e. psychological, physical or external circumstances. It is a matter of their conscience. If they use NFP without ‘well-grounded’ reasons is it sinful or not? If you are arguing that it is impossible to use NFP in a disordered manner and therefore impossible to commit a grave sin by doing so then the need for HV is abrogated.

Gob Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[jilly4ski]

HV is very clear…for a couple to use NFP they must have well-grounded reasons i.e. psychological, physical or external circumstances. It is a matter of their conscience. If they use NFP without ‘well-grounded’ reasons is it sinful or not? If you are arguing that it is impossible to use NFP in a disordered manner and therefore impossible to commit a grave sin by doing so then the need for HV is abrogated.

Gob Bless,

Iowa Mike

Well I guess it depends, because the Church also juxtaposes “just reasons” with “selfish reasons,” meaning using NFP without just cause (ie using NFP for selfish reasons) is the sin of selfishness. Is selfishness a grave sin? I don’t know, I suppose it could be depending on the severity. Things can still be a sin and not be a grave sin. Using NFP without just reason would be a sin, at the very least be a venial sin or could even be a grave sin. The Church only defines it as a sin, not as either grave or venial. It would really be up to a confessor to decide where the sin fell.

I would guess that most couples who use NFP have a collection of both just and selfish reasons for using it, because NFP requires sacrifice to ones own needs and desires it would be difficult to maintain the discipline necessary to abstain, if one was using it for purely selfish motives. (note: not impossible but difficult).

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Well I guess it depends, because the Church also juxtaposes “just reasons” with “selfish reasons,” meaning using NFP without just cause (ie using NFP for selfish reasons) is the sin of selfishness. Is selfishness a grave sin? I don’t know, I suppose it could be depending on the severity. Things can still be a sin and not be a grave sin. Using NFP without just reason would be a sin, at the very least be a venial sin or could even be a grave sin. The Church only defines it as a sin, not as either grave or venial. It would really be up to a confessor to decide where the sin fell.

I would guess that most couples who use NFP have a collection of both just and selfish reasons for using it, because NFP requires sacrifice to ones own needs and desires it would be difficult to maintain the discipline necessary to abstain, if one was using it for purely selfish motives. (note: not impossible but difficult).

The single greatest motivation for people to use artificial birth control is ‘selfishness’. They don’t want the expense, they don’t want a baby to interfere with their lifestyle, they don’t want the long term commitment, they want to buy a new house, car, boat or that expensive vacation…so they turn to contracetption.

Check out reasons women have given for having had an abortion you will read…My parents, husband, boyfriend insisted; I didn’t want to be tied down with a baby right now while we are so young; I didn’t want to be pregnant on vacation this fall; we can’t afford the new car, house, vacation, boat etc. with the expense of a baby…on and on.

If you then listen to people to contacept…the reasons are often the same. But the couples I know who practice NFP acknowledge and accept that God may have a different plan up front and their concerns, reasons etc. are secondary.

God is the final judge but I believe any time a couple puts the prevention of life in front of God’s wishes is in big trouble. That would include sexual acts like fellacio, cunnilingus, masterbation, withdrawl before climax (ineffective as well), pornography etc. These are all grave sins and many people engage in these activities rather engage in the conugal act and risk pregnancy.

No it’s the intent is the real issue.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[jilly4ski]

The single greatest motivation for people to use artificial birth control is ‘selfishness’. They don’t want the expense, they don’t want a baby to interfere with their lifestyle, they don’t want the long term commitment, they want to buy a new house, car, boat or that expensive vacation…so they turn to contracetption.

Check out reasons women have given for having had an abortion you will read…My parents, husband, boyfriend insisted; I didn’t want to be tied down with a baby right now while we are so young; I didn’t want to be pregnant on vacation this fall; we can’t afford the new car, house, vacation, boat etc. with the expense of a baby…on and on.

If you then listen to people to contacept…the reasons are often the same. But the couples I know who practice NFP acknowledge and accept that God may have a different plan up front and their concerns, reasons etc. are secondary.

God is the final judge but I believe any time a couple puts the prevention of life in front of God’s wishes is in big trouble. That would include sexual acts like fellacio, cunnilingus, masterbation, withdrawl before climax (ineffective as well), pornography etc. These are all grave sins and many people engage in these activities rather engage in the conugal act and risk pregnancy.

No it’s the intent is the real issue.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I am not sure we disagree. Obviously selfishness could be a reason people turn to ABC, but people who use ABC could have serious reasons (health etc.). But using ABC is still wrong regardless of the intent. Intent is only one of the issues, the other issue is ones objective actions in distorting the marital act. So you have “double sin” when one uses ABC for selfish reasons, selfishness and the grave sin of ABC. (note: I don’t think “double sin” is the right words, maybe committing multiple sins, or compounding ones sins would be better )

 

[budgie2]

NFP is approved by the Catholic Church because the union between husband and wife is always open to life. Any Catholic who claims that it is just another form of artificial contraception is either ignorant of Church teaching or rationalizing their use of some other form of artificial contraception.

NFP is equally for more effective than artificial methods.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

It’s wrong to say NFP is open to life as it’s 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. The Kippleys argument is that NFP doesn’t interfere with the unitive elements of the sexual act but it can make a couple’s sex life non-procreative if always used to prevent pregnancy. Barrier methods are sometimes justifiable in accordance with conscience for those in difficult relationships. Birth control drugs are anabolic steroids made from cholesterol and they increase the risk of heart disease and cancer.

 

[jilly4ski]

It’s wrong to say NFP is open to life as it’s 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. The Kippleys argument is that NFP doesn’t interfere with the unitive elements of the sexual act but it can make a couple’s sex life non-procreative if always used to prevent pregnancy. Barrier methods are sometimes justifiable in accordance with conscience for those in difficult relationships. Birth control drugs are anabolic steroids made from cholesterol and they increase the risk of heart disease and cancer.

No this is incorrect. Barrier methods are never acceptable per the Church’s teaching. NFP is said to be “open to life” because it does not change the marital act. It is either a fully procreative and unitive act or there is no act at all. All methods of ABC, including barrier methods, change the procreative, the unitive, or both purposes of the marital act.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think we may be talking past one another. Humanae Vitae #16 states,

The couple decides on their mental and physical readiness and what external circumstances cause them to employ NFP. There are infinite reasons/circumstances people may have which cause them to space children. It is up to them to discern. There’s no board, no-place for them to go and ask permission, the Church does not provide detailed direction…so if in good conscience and based upon their circumstances if they feel they need to wait it is perfectly licit for them to use NFP. Having said that…HV #16 continues by making a comparison:

I think this is where we are talking past one another. A couple who use NFP for frivolous reasons commit the same sin as if they used some artificial means. But the sin isn’t in the use of NFP it is in their desire to thwart life for immoral reasons. Perhaps they don’t want children because they won’t fit into their lifestyle or for materialistic reasons. Here use of NFP is morally wrong.

So I continue to believe that married couples who have ‘well grounded’ reasons are free to use NFP the terms grave and serious notwithstanding.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I’m not sure I agree.

Say DH and I want no more kids because I need the third Ferrari, an the time share in Monaco.

Abstaing from sex, per se’ is not a sin…the siful part would be the selfish attitude. The times we would be together would not be objectfully sinful.

But, if in order to not have anymore children, I had a tubal ligation and not confessed, each time DH and I were intimate would be a mortal sin compounded with the sin of selfishness.

 

[Alan55]

NFP is only allowed when there is ‘grave reason’ according to church teaching.

Here is the relevant quotation from Humanae Vitae:

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

HV refers to “serious reasons” and not “grave reasons,” which would be a much higher bar.

 

[jilly4ski]

HV refers to “serious reasons” and not “grave reasons,” which would be a much higher bar.

Maybe it hasn’t been discussed on this thread yet, but depending on the document (there are more than HV) and translation there has been a plethora of terms including just/serious/grave etc. reasons usually used interchangeably. How that effects how one discerns those reasons is still a murky area.

 

[spunjalebi]

Don’t intentions have a lot to do with this issue?

I’ll be honest-- my husband and I have been married a couple of years and still don’t have a child yet, and probably won’t for at least another couple years. We are both Catholics and to most people, that’s “wrong” but my personal intention is to bring a child into our marriage when my husband and I are both healthy and psychologically fit to raise a child. It’s not even so much about money, or living space, or any of those arrangements-- but more about mentally being able to do it.

My husband has a lot of anger issues, and I find it irresponsible to bring a baby into a situation where even if we DID have enough money, enough living space, a great job flexibility arrangement, everything on paper was great-- I would still not do it. To me, bringing a baby into an environment where someone can’t get a handle on their emotions is pure terror to me. And trust me, I would love to have a baby, I really would. And a baby isn’t going to cute the difficulties in our marriage, that’s for sure.