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

[dominikus28]

I’ve heard arguments (mostly from traditional Catholics) that NFP is just as wrong as artificial contraception, although I think what would be wrong is using it as a contraceptive method. So if it is used as a means to satisfy one’s lust an not have kids, that would be wrong. But would it be wrong to use NFP even when you are open to children? What I mean is that, say you think about it and you ask yourself, what if there was a 100% chance that this would result in a child? WOuld you still have sex? If the answer is yes, then would using natural family planning be wrong, even though you are open to children? Alternatively, if your answer was no, then in that case NFP would be wrong I imagine

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I’ve heard arguments (mostly from traditional Catholics) that NFP is just as wrong as artificial contraception, although I think what would be wrong is using it as a contraceptive method. So if it is used as a means to satisfy one’s lust an not have kids, that would be wrong. But would it be wrong to use NFP even when you are open to children? What I mean is that, say you think about it and you ask yourself, what if there was a 100% chance that this would result in a child? WOuld you still have sex? If the answer is yes, then would using natural family planning be wrong, even though you are open to children? Alternatively, if your answer was no, then in that case NFP would be wrong I imagine

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

 

[tjm190]

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

 

[dominikus28]

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

So does that mean that even if you are completely open to accepting a child, if a pregnancy resulted, you cannot use NFP if it reduces your chances of pregnancy to minimum? It isn’t using it as a contraceptive, because if you used it as a contraceptive and pregnancy happened, you’d be disappointed to some extent but if you consider that it would be a certainty and still had sex, even though you knew it wasn’t a certainty, it would still be all natural, open to life.

 

[tjm190]

So does that mean that even if you are completely open to accepting a child, if a pregnancy resulted, you cannot use NFP if it reduces your chances of pregnancy to minimum? It isn’t using it as a contraceptive, because if you used it as a contraceptive and pregnancy happened, you’d be disappointed to some extent but if you consider that it would be a certainty and still had sex, even though you knew it wasn’t a certainty, it would still be all natural, open to life.

If you are ‘completely open’ you wouldn’t be intentionally plotting and avoiding the fertile times. Now, sometimes it’s okay to not be completely open- financial or health burdens for example. In this case, the Church gives you leeway. In general, you are not allowed to use NFP though.

And there is no intrinsic reason that using a contraceptive will make you anymore disappointed by a pregnancy than an NFP using couple.

 

[Windfish]

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

Yeah, I would have to agree, here. I am not an authority by any means, but every conjugal act would be open to life even if that act occurs during non-ovulating times of the month.

 

[dominikus28]

And there is no intrinsic reason that using a contraceptive will make you anymore disappointed by a pregnancy than an NFP using couple.

What I mean is that when a couple uses artificial contraception, they expect there to be no pregnancy as a result and do so just for the lustful satisfaction. I mean, if you use a condom, generally if a pregnancy resulted, the response would be “What?! But I used a condom!”
Whereas for a NFP couple, if a pregnancy results, then “great, a child” and if there is no pregnancy then “Oh well”. You know? I think of it this way, a couple (who already have a child) wants a child, but they choose to have sex not during times when chance of conceiving is 100% but when it is as, let’s say, 10%. So, they can have an intimate relationship (obviously not based solely on sex, but including sex once in a while) and if pregnancy results, then they are happy, and they can consider themselves blessed by God because they conceived with only 10% chance. If this couple didn’t have kids and wanted them badly, then obviously have sex when it is 100% chance of conceiving. Otherwise, if you have a couple that is happy with their number of children, that has no financial reason to not want anymore kids, then they would not ever have sex. Is that right?

I’ll believe in whatever the Church teaches, I just need some clarification:shrug:

 

[jilly4ski]

When the Church talks about “open to lie” (which it doesn’t actually use) it is referring not to the couples mindset but each discrete physical marital act. So each time a couple comes together they must be “open to life” but all this means is that they are not intentionally sterilizing the act. Engaging in the marital act when the couple is infertile is not intentionally sterilizing the act so therefore is “open to life.” Where artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, NFP is a morally permissible way to “regulate births” which can be done for “grave/serious/just reasons” (depending on translation or document). It can also be part of our call to responsible parenthood to discern these reasons and decide to use or not use NFP.

So in summary if a couple is using NFP, each time they come together they are being %100 “open to life” according to the Church’s definition, but sin may enter the picture if they are using NFP for selfish reasons (w/out a grave/just/serious reason).

Hope that helps.

 

[Prophesy]

If you are ‘completely open’ you wouldn’t be intentionally plotting and avoiding the fertile times. Now, sometimes it’s okay to not be completely open- financial or health burdens for example. In this case, the Church gives you leeway. In general, you are not allowed to use NFP though.

And there is no intrinsic reason that using a contraceptive will make you anymore disappointed by a pregnancy than an NFP using couple.

The point is NFP is not a prevention of the marital act in the way that contraception is. Is there a publication of the Church that outlines NFP as being only permitted with ‘grave reason’?

-Prophecy

 

[Newbie2]

So does that mean that even if you are completely open to accepting a child, if a pregnancy resulted, you cannot use NFP if it reduces your chances of pregnancy to minimum? It isn’t using it as a contraceptive, because if you used it as a contraceptive and pregnancy happened, you’d be disappointed to some extent but if you consider that it would be a certainty and still had sex, even though you knew it wasn’t a certainty, it would still be all natural, open to life.

NFP, be definition, cannot be used as “contraception”, because there is nothing in NFP that acts contrary to conception. The moral objection to contraception is that it is…well…an act contrary to conception. NFP is open to life in that there is no act in NFP that is contrary to conception.

So we really cannot accurately say that NFP is or can be used as “contraception”.

The point is NFP is not a prevention of the marital act in the way that contraception is. Is there a publication of the Church that outlines NFP as being only permitted with ‘grave reason’?

-Prophecy

Good question. I’m not sure about that wording either.

 

[casey_zia]

There is nothing morally wrong in not intending to conceive a child.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2368 “…For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children.” (There is quite a nice section about NFP in the Catechism: 2366-2370.) Spacing children and/or avoiding pregnancy can be a legitimate need for couples trying to live their Catholic faith!

JPII’s The Christian Family in the Modern World (1981) discusses the differences between contraception and NFP, upholding the lifestyle and loving attitudes involved in practicing NFP in marriage:
“The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility, and self-control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion, and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity.”

Janet Smith has a great analogy between contraception and bulemia compared to NFP and dieting. “Contraceptors and bulimics both wish to engage in an act and prevent that act from attaining its natural consequences: Contraceptors want the pleasure of the sexual act but not the baby that might result; bulimics want the pleasure of food but not the consequences. By contrast, dieters and users of NFP deny themselves legitimate pleasure when they are not able to accept the consequences of those pleasures. The desire to lose weight does not require that one not eat at all; rather, one eats those foods that do not have the consequences one needs to avoid, while users of NFP avoid the time of that has consequences they judge it good to avoid.”

Contraception violates the sexual act, NFP doesn’t. Even if NFP is practiced with a “contraceptive mentality”, the sin is selfishness and not in engaging in anti-procreative acts.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

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

Sorry tjm190, it is entirely acceptable and in accordance with church teachings to use NFP to space children; CCC 2370,

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

.

And CCC 2399,

The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

So long as the conjungal act is open to life it is in accordance with the teachings of the Church therefore a grave reason is unnecessary.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[choose_to_love]

Iowa Mike, not sure your last response is clear, or if you are making a distinction between “serious” and “grave”, but responsible parenthood requires a serious reason to space kids, and due recourse to moral precepts. HV 10 vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

From Casti Connubii 59: 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.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Sorry tjm190, it is entirely acceptable and in accordance with church teachings to use NFP to space children; CCC 2370, .

And CCC 2399,

So long as the conjungal act is open to life it is in accordance with the teachings of the Church therefore a grave reason is unnecessary.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

While it is morally acceptable to space children, there needs to be a serious/just/grave reason.
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/seriousq.shtml
<<“Grave and Serious”]
Paul VI in his encyclical, Humanae vitae (1968), while condemning the use of all contraceptive methods for even grave (gravia) reasons declared licit the recourse to the infertile periods if the spouses have good (just and seria) reasons to postpone even indefinitely another pregnancy. (HV, nos. 16, 10). The language here is similar to Gaudium et Spes no. 10. But first those spouses are commended who, with prudent deliberation and generosity, choose to accept a large family. The spouses are to consider their responsibilities towards God, themselves, the family, and human society. Each of these factors may be taken into account in right order in determining “serious and just reasons.”

In other words the spouses are to discern together first, what is God’s plan for their family here and now, then, their own physical and emotional resources for accepting another child, the needs of other family members, and lastly the good of the human society in which they live. The pope gives special encouragement to scientists to perfect the natural methods, (HV, no. 24) declaring that the discipline of chastity exercised in periodic continence enhances married life provided the spouses value the true blessings of family. (HV, no. 21)>>

 

[tjm190]

Sorry tjm190, it is entirely acceptable and in accordance with church teachings to use NFP to space children; CCC 2370, .

And CCC 2399,

So long as the conjungal act is open to life it is in accordance with the teachings of the Church therefore a grave reason is unnecessary.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39854

My apologies, “serious reasons” rather than grave.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

While it is morally acceptable to space children, there needs to be a serious/just/grave reason.
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/seriousq.shtml
<<“Grave and Serious”]
Paul VI in his encyclical, Humanae vitae (1968), while condemning the use of all contraceptive methods for even grave (gravia) reasons declared licit the recourse to the infertile periods if the spouses have good (just and seria) reasons to postpone even indefinitely another pregnancy. (HV, nos. 16, 10). The language here is similar to Gaudium et Spes no. 10. But first those spouses are commended who, with prudent deliberation and generosity, choose to accept a large family. The spouses are to consider their responsibilities towards God, themselves, the family, and human society. Each of these factors may be taken into account in right order in determining “serious and just reasons.”

In other words the spouses are to discern together first, what is God’s plan for their family here and now, then, their own physical and emotional resources for accepting another child, the needs of other family members, and lastly the good of the human society in which they live. The pope gives special encouragement to scientists to perfect the natural methods, (HV, no. 24) declaring that the discipline of chastity exercised in periodic continence enhances married life provided the spouses value the true blessings of family. (HV, no. 21)>>

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

“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 reporductive system and engage in marital intercouse 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.”

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:

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 latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.

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

 

[Newbie2]

A couple who use NFP for frivolous reasons commit the same sin as if they used some artificial means.

Um…well…I just can’t agree with the way this is stated.

Artificial=contraception NFP=Open to the possibility of conception

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Um…well…I just can’t agree with the way this is stated.

Artificial=contraception NFP=Open to the possibility of conception

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

 

[casey_zia]

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.

As stated before in this forum, the difference between contraception and NFP is in the means, and not the end. There may be no moral issue with avoiding a pregnancy. But the use of NFP or contraception to reach this end is the difference. Even if NFP is used with the less-than-ideal mindset, the selfishness or ignorance of a “contraceptive mentality” is not the same as the troubling and intrinsically evil use of contraception.

Fr. Hogan (NFP Outreach) recognizes that there can be selfish or unjust reasons for using NFP but that the very nature of NFP instills virtue and deepens the appreciation of the dignity of the human person, and fosters authentic love. I really don’t know any couples who practice NFP who can maintain a selfish reason for continuing to use it. NFP will strengthen marriages, foster profound and lasting love. Couples who start practicing NFP find their hearts changed, and welcome more children into their lives than was in the original plan! (I speak from personal experience. I would have turned around at the altar if it had been announced then that we would have 7 children in 12 years!)

The benefits of using NFP go deeper than simply not getting pregnant: dialogue, mutual respect, shared responsibility, self control, fidelity, tenderness, affection, never using your spouse as an object of self-gratification. Who wouldn’t want these gifts in marriage? Read FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO #32 (Pope John Paul II–On the Christian Family in the Modern World (ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2famil.htm).

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’ve heard arguments (mostly from traditional Catholics) that NFP is just as wrong as artificial contraception, although I think what would be wrong is using it as a contraceptive method. So if it is used as a means to satisfy one’s lust an not have kids, that would be wrong. But would it be wrong to use NFP even when you are open to children? What I mean is that, say you think about it and you ask yourself, what if there was a 100% chance that this would result in a child? WOuld you still have sex? If the answer is yes, then would using natural family planning be wrong, even though you are open to children? Alternatively, if your answer was no, then in that case NFP would be wrong I imagine

Hi Dominikus,

The disagreement between different catholics is about what constitutes the serious/grave/just reasons for a married couple to avoid having a child. But all good catholics agree that NFP is the moral way to avoid pregnancy when you have a serious/grave/just reason to avoid it.

You’ll never get a clear answer on what constitutes a good reason. To some people, nothing short of imminent starvation is a good enough reason, and to others, things like quality-of-life issues and over-population are serious enough reasons. People can argue all day, but the Church doesn’t clearly define it. That’s where your conscience comes in.

Hope that helps!

Neil