Is the Church wrong about NFP?

[Ana_v]

First and most important order of business: **Is the Church’s teaching about the moral permissibility of Natural Family Planning, an infallible teaching? If not, then it is possible the Church has erred, correct? ** (i.e. possible that NFP is NOT morally permissible).

I read a very intriguing essay that characterizes the Church’s permission of natural birth control as a “novelty” and argues that the traditional teaching in the Church has been that sex (knowingly) had during the woman’s infertile period, is immoral, because in such a situation couple is having intercourse with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, when each marital act should be procreation-oriented, both in terms of the male’s performance and condition of the body, and in terms of the female’s performance and condition of the body.

At this point, I will quote the parts of the essay that are the most impressionable to me (the numbers correspond to sequence, not priority):

The Church has changed (as opposed to developed) non definitive teaching on a number of occasions. The most famous are the issues of Usury, the Geocentric Cosmos, Antisemitism, Religious Liberty and Slavery.

Prior to Pius XII, it was taught that “The Marriage Act” was licit only when specifically directed towards procreation.

In any simple interpretation of Aquinas, the intentional use of “the safe period” is sinful, because it is *directly purposed *to discharge semen in a way that generation is *known to be impossible *in itself: “The emission of the semen then ought to be so directed as that both the proper generation may ensue and the education of the offspring be secured.”

“Under the so-called “Alexandrine” rule, in accordance with the teachings of Sts Gregory and Thomas, the only sexual activity permissible for married Catholic couples was that directed at procreation. Use of “the safe period” was condemned, following the explicit teaching of St Augustine. It should be noted that “the safe period” is related closely to menstruation.”

“The Ezekiel passage [Ezek 18:5-9] is interesting as it characterizes sexual intercourse with a menstrual woman as a moral violation comparable to idolatry, adultery, oppression, physical assault and usury. In other words, it is not classed as a matter of ritual purity, but of justice.”

Some Fathers of the Church, such as Jerome and Clement of Alexandria, condemned sexual intercourse with a menstrual women as a major sin. Others, such as Augustine as a venial violation. St John Chrysostom repeatedly condemned it without explanation or commentary. None explicitly allowed it. The early medieval penitentials generally treated it as a venial sin.

Medieval scholars, such as Aquinas and Duns Scotus, universally disapproved of menstrual intercourse, though their condemnations varied in gravity. The more common opinion was that sex during menstruation was a mortal sin.

The history of the reversal of the traditional teaching is as follows:

-1774 De Lignoir refuted the idea that sexual intercourse during menstruation risked misconception.
-1853 and 1867 The Holy Office indicated that those exploiting “safe periods” should not be disturbed, pending further study.
-1873 August Joseph Lacomte (citing De Lignoir) propounded the use of “the safe period” to avoid conception.
-1880 Rome allowed that such a method could be used as an alternative to “onanism” but it was not recommended.
-1930 Pope Pius XI referred to avoiding births by natural means [Casti Connubii], but did not elucidate what might count as natural.
Contrary to the teaching of Pope Gregory the Great, this encyclical also taught that the mutual society of the spouses was the chief reason and purpose of marriage, developing teaching explicit in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It also suggested that: “… in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as … the cultivating of mutual love”
-c1928 reliable methods of identifying the woman’s “safe period” were developed.
1932 and 1933 Books representing such “rhythm methods” as “natural birth control” were given imprimaturs.
-1951 Pope Pius XII publicly referred to “the rhythm method” as licit within marriage.
-1965, the Second Vatican Council taught [Gaudiem et Spes] that:
-It was wrong for one spouse to force themselves sexually on the other.
This reversed the idea that for a husband to force his wife to have sexual
intercourse was not rape because the only fault was hers for resisting him,
when she had no right to do so.
- Marriage is not just for procreation but also has a distinct role of being a “whole
manner and communion of life”, of value even when sterile. This, wisely,
contradicted the narrow-minded teaching of Pope St Gregory.
- Performance of “Marriage Acts”
“fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and
gratitude”. Again contradicting the puritanical teaching of Pope St Gregory.

 

[Ana_v]

Then I read another article, also critical of NFP. (The article comes from a source that thinks the the post-Vatican II Church is apostate. But please, let us not commit the genetic fallacy. Let’s judge the contents on its own merits or lack thereof).

The gist of the essay is this: Natural birth control (specifically, intercourse restricted to the wife’s infertile period) and contraception are equal in terms of purpose – prevention of pregnancy. Both methods prioritize pleasure over procreation. As such, both methods – not just the latter – are evil.

The article quotes from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii:

“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powersand purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

In support of NFP, someone would say “intercourse during the wife’s infertile period does not frustrate the procreative process of the body. No interference to the reproductive system has been introduced. Whereas, with contraception, interference is introduced: the body is altered chemically/physically, through the use of artificial devices, barriers, or hormones.”

But someone opposed to NFP would then point out (as the article does) where the encyclical says, quoting St. Augustine:

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

The word “prevented” is broader in meaning. It can be active or passive. NFP is passive birth control. Contraception is active birth control. Both prevent conception.

Going back to where I said both methods prioritize pleasure over procreation, the article also quotes:

“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.” (emphasis original to the article)

The rhetorical question is, does intercourse that is sheduledly (I realize that’s not a word. The importance is that you know what I mean) had during a womans “safe period” subordinate to the primary end of intercourse?

The article then quotes from Tobias, very thought provoking…

Tobias 6:17 – “The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after three days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity. Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Raphael that to engage in the marital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the Devil hath power.” (emphasis original to article)

In summary, those Catholics opposed to NFP, will argue that NFP is evil, NOT because of interference with the body’s natural procreative powers (it doesn’t interfere) but rather, because NFP replaces the primary purpose of sex (procreation) with mutual pleasure.

 

[spencer2]

If the church is wrong then will we who follow the nfp guidelines for the right reasons be held accountable on judgement day?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Ana, as you read my response, you’ll probably notice my frustration and perhaps a bit of snarkiness.

Please know that none of it is directed at you. Your questions are fine, and your treatment of the matter is actually quite well organized. I’m ticked off at these Pharisaical types, who make burdens unnecessarily heavy by means of really poorly executed philosophy. Nothing ticks me off like poorly executed philosophy deployed to make morality harder.

No act of sexual intercourse is morally licit if it is not specifically directed to procreation.

But that has always referred to the act. On any given occasion, whether the couple intends to conceive is immaterial.

To use NFP is to measure fertility. Is it a sin to measure fertility? No. If a couple chooses to use that knowledge to abstain during the woman’s fertile period…

Then during the fertile period, there is no sex going on to contracept, so obviously they’re not guilty of contraception then.

During the woman’s infertile period, their sexual acts are still directed toward procreation, because the act is by nature of the kind that results in conception, and nothing has been done by anyone to hinder that act’s procreation.

The intention of the couple, while not entirely immaterial from a moral perspective, does not necessarily include conceiving through that particular act in order to be morally acceptable.

The Church’s teaching on NFP is not even a development; it’s a self-evident fact of the natural moral order. The only reason we don’t see something like it in earlier centuries is because, scientifically speaking, NFP had not yet been invented.

Now onto your comments/summary:

I read a very intriguing essay that characterizes the Church’s permission of natural birth control as a “novelty” and argues that the traditional teaching in the Church has been that sex (knowingly) had during the woman’s infertile period, is immoral, because in such a situation couple is having intercourse with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, when each marital act should be procreation-oriented, both in terms of the male’s performance and condition of the body, and in terms of the female’s performance and condition of the body.

I’m already unimpressed and, to be honest, rather intellectually contemptuous of this article even after reading merely the first section you quoted. The fact that the author asserts Church teaching has “changed, not developed” on “Usury, the Geocentric Cosmos, Antisemitism, Religious Liberty and Slavery” shows that this person really doesn’t have the capacity for nuance that doing good theology requires - if only “religious liberty” or “usury” were on that list, I could understand it, but it takes quite an ignoramus to refuse to understand that an ecclesiastical court (like the one that condemned Galileo) cannot teach in a universally binding way, or that particular Church leaders’ going along with or instigating - and thinking to be good - anti-Semitic policies of certain states in previous centuries carries no implications whatsoever against antisemitism’s inherent immorality.

Plus, what accounts for the arrogant audacity of people like this? Although the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments, ask yourself: Is it really likely that everyone in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and also three popes have just missed the logic that some Internet theologian has discovered?

In any case, even the documentation you cited leaves an ambiguous picture of where the Church Fathers stood.

Furthermore, that patristic and scholastic ambiguity on the matter is actually preserved in the contemporary Catholic position, which - while allowing objectively speaking for NFP (since avoiding pregnancy by means of abstinence is self-evidently in no way objectively wrong) - nonetheless maintains that a couple must have just cause in order to avoid pregnancy in this manner. That seems quite in keeping with earlier teaching that exploiting the safe period is “not recommended” pending further study.

We got that further study in the twentieth century, culminating in Humanae Vitae.

Then I read another article, also critical of NFP. (The article comes from a source that thinks the the post-Vatican II Church is apostate. But please, let us not commit the genetic fallacy. Let’s judge the contents on its own merits or lack thereof).

The gist of the essay is this: Natural birth control (specifically, intercourse restricted to the wife’s infertile period) and contraception are equal in terms of purpose – prevention of pregnancy. Both methods prioritize pleasure over procreation. As such, both methods – not just the latter – are evil.

The article quotes from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii

Pius XI wrote, “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.”

A couple who abstain during the fertile period have not frustrated the sexual act’s natural procreative powers. They haven’t interfered with them at all.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

In support of NFP, someone would say “intercourse during the wife’s infertile period does not frustrate the procreative process of the body. No interference to the reproductive system has been introduced. Whereas, with contraception, interference is introduced: the body is altered chemically/physically, through the use of artificial devices, barriers, or hormones.”

But someone opposed to NFP would then point out (as the article does) where the encyclical says, quoting St. Augustine:

In what sense is it true that such a couple has “prevented” the conception of offspring? By not having sex during some of the time the woman is fertile?

Then where do you draw the line? By this logic, a couple is guilty of “preventing” conception by abstaining at all - even without NFP, they may be unknowingly abstaining during some of the woman’s fertile period. Where do you draw the line? Is a Catholic couple obliged to have sex every day lest they “prevent conception” by accidentally abstaining on a day the woman might be fertile?

If they do, have they not “prevented conception” in the broadest sense? But no one takes that as sinful if done by accident… adding the intention not to conceive is tautologically not objectively sinful: the intention and object are different components of the moral act.

The Church allows for the possibility that such an intention makes such abstinence immoral. But it’s not objective - again, the object and intention are different components, and matters of intentionality are subjective - in the literal sense, even: intention is by definition determined by the will of the subject.

This is precision, good philosophy, something these schismatic Internet people aren’t capable of.

The rhetorical question is, does intercourse that is sheduledly (I realize that’s not a word. The importance is that you know what I mean) had during a womans “safe period” subordinate to the primary end of intercourse?

It does subordinate to the primary end of intercourse, because the nature of the marital act *itself *is preserved. It is the type of act that results in children, and nothing objectively is done to thwart that procreation. If the couple’s intention thwarts procreation, then if that is wrong - as Church teaching today acknowledges it might be - it is, at least, not objectively sinful but subjectively so for that couple’s particular circumstances. You need just cause to postpone pregnancy, and as I said above, sinning in intention is by definition subjective - i.e. an “intention” is by definition determined by the will of the subject.

 

[Bezant]

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Pius XI wrote, “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.”

I thought of a stronger way of explaining why NFP is in full conformity with that Pius XI quote: a couple who abstains during the woman’s fertile period in order to temporarily avoid pregnancy has not “in exercising [the conjugal act] frustrated its natural powers,” because they are not exercising the act at all.

The only possible way abstaining to temporarily avoid pregnancy can be sinful is if the intention to do so is wrong. But as I discussed above, where do you draw the line? Does a couple have to intend to have a baby every time they have sex? Are you allowed to have sex during the infertile time at all? What if you do so by accident? Is it wrong unless you’re really gung-ho about having a baby every single time?

The fact is, the morality of the intention behind an act with a moral character is of a subjective significance: this is little more than a tautology. By definition the intention is determined by the subject, not the object of the act.

Church teaching today is ambiguous on whether or not the intention to avoid pregnancy is wrong, because it depends on the circumstances. This is entirely in keeping with Tradition on the matter.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

To cap off my argument, let me ask this: if sex when the woman is known to be infertile is wrong, then why does the Church not consider sterility to be an impediment to marriage?

Impotence - the inability to have sexual intercourse - is an impediment to marriage for that individual. But sterility is not.

If a couple known to be sterile finds themselves in dire economic straits, and one of them temporarily discovers that he or she is, emotionally speaking, grateful not to have to worry about children for the moment, does that make sex between them automatically and instantaneously immoral?

See, all these thorny, legalistic cans of worms get opened up when people like these schismatic Internet “theologians” attempt to say that intending not to have a baby while sexually active for a period, is always and everywhere sinful.

 

[ahs]

I noticed the essay you linked did not bother to name the author and was "inspired by an earlier study by Paul Halsall to be found in his “Compendium of Errors” on the Gay Catholic Handbook website. " The essay appears to me to be a collection of ignorant misconceptions of Church Teaching and the teachings of the early Church Fathers. Even Augustine, Gregory I, and Aquinas saw a unitive purpose to sex, contrary to the beliefs of those who claim to read their works.

Here is a much more clear article, that actually carries the Imprimatur, and is written by someone who is actually qualified to explain these matters:

rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

My final thought for now would be this:

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. (HV 16)

 

[1ke]

Is the Church’s teaching about the moral permissibility of Natural Family Planning, an infallible teaching?

Yes.
Ana v;8646877:

I read a very intriguing

Dissent and heresy are always “intriguing”. The Devil wouldn’t have it any other way.

 

[Leegal]

By the proposition of the argument that the Church is wrong on NFP, I would assume that a person’s inability to have sex during a fertile period would also be wrong – illness, away on business – anything. As was suggested, isn’t this taking it a bit far? Does it suggest that the Church is wrong and couples should have sex every day so as not to be in sin, just in case they miss a day?

I looked at the site because someone brought up the validity of the site. This is now only the second time in my life where I have heard it suggested that Jesus was homosexual and it’s on this site – merely suggested. It’s careful not to state it outright – but suggests that he showed a love for men but did not show this same kind of “love” for women (though the author qualifies that by stating maybe he did but it’s not there, but goes to name two men that Jesus hinted at “love” in that way). It makes many other such hints as to Jesus’ inclination, but I don’t need to repeat them. It uses as it’s reference the “Secret Gospel of Mark.” This is the site for that intriguing essay.

In a Letter to the Bishops, the Pope cautions His Bishops:

“With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful.”

I suggest that whatever this Pharsea site is, where the essay comes from, it is one of the very kind the Bishop (and the faithful) are cautioned to be mindful of, by the Pope. First the primary focus is on advancing homosexuality within the Church. Second, of all his objections or “corrections” he makes about the Church, NFP is way down the list. So, it’s primarily focused on advancing homosexuality. It does not discern the sinner from the sin. Many gays find comfort there, but I cannot say he’s advancing the cause for abstinence. Agenda?

1. Know the source before becoming intrigued as the Church cautions us against those with agendas. We should be mindful.
2. Do not pick and choose, even in scrupulosity. You can be overly scrupulous and seek out information that is wrong or seemingly right, but has another agenda. That which tries to deceive comes in many forms and likely will come as one that is intriguing. The one that deceives will use the method that best works – even your own scrupulosity – to deceive you.
3. If I were to even for a moment assume that the site, Pharsea, was a theologian writing (he likely is not), theologians hold no infallibility.
4. If a couple were to decide that no family planning was desired or necessary, and every baby would be welcome, then they don’t need that site to tell them that. If a couple is stuggling with the issue of NFP, I would suggest clarification from a Catholic priest – not that site where the essay comes from, at least without examining the site as a whole. This site is not the argument against the Church’s position on NFP.

 

[Leegal]

Yes.

Dissent and heresy are always “intriguing”. The Devil wouldn’t have it any other way.

Of course.

 

[Ana_v]

To cap off my argument, let me ask this: if sex when the woman is known to be infertile is wrong, then why does the Church not consider sterility to be an impediment to marriage?

I see sterilization as artificial infertility, temporary or permanent. And since infertility is not an impediment to marriage, logical consistency demands that the Church teach that sterilization is not an impediment to marriage either. And since the Church permits sex between a married couple in which one or both partners have been sterilized, logical consistency demands that She permit sex between a married couple when the woman is on the infertile period of her cycle. But logical consistency does not translate to moral permissibility.

My question would be, which teaching came first: the teaching that NFP is morally permissible, or that sex with a sterilized spouse is morally permissible / that sterlization is not an impediment to marriage?

I do really hope that the latter came first. If it’s the other way around, then that would just re-encourage by moral concern about NFP.

Opposition to NFP --specifically, systematically having sex with the wife during her infertile periods and avoiding sex during her fertile periods – carried out to its logical conclusion, would seem to mean that a husband and wife could not (licitly) have sex once past their (or rather the wife’s) child bearing age. I don’t know if the early church fathers or medieval theologians commented on the morality of sex had by couples that are past their child bearing age (e.g. elderly couple) but if they did, I’ve no idea what their teaching is.

What I do know is that my private interpretation of Scripture does not indicate to me that sex between such a couple is morally wrong. Abraham and Sarah come to mind.

Gen 11:29-30

The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. Now Sarai was barren; she had no children.
Gen 17:17

Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?”

Gen 18:11-15

"Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?” Then the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son.” Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.” But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.”

Gen 11:29-30 states that Sarah was barren – that is an objective statement, and inspired. God knew that the reason Sarah wasn’t becoming pregnant, was because she was barren. But that does not necessarily mean that Sarah herself knew that she was barren. *That’s important.

In any event, apparently Abraham and Sarah were still having sex because they were anticipating the son that God had promised. And if they knew that Sarah was barren, that means they were having sex while knowing she was infertile. This may be subtle indication that such sex is morally permissible (thus bolstering the pro-NFP position).

On the flip side … someone opposed to NFP could argue that the only reason Abraham and Sarah were having sex in their old age/during her infertile stage, is precisely because every time they did so, they were trying to actualize the prophesy, thus they were intending to procreate – not having sex merely for pleasure.

 

[yablabo]

Then I read another…because NFP replaces the primary purpose of sex (procreation) with mutual pleasure.

The main error here is based upon certitude.

There is no means of coming to a certitude that a woman will not conceive during her so-called “infertile” periods. Many women conceive using the rhythm method or other NFP methods, just as many women conceive using artificial contraceptive methods because there is no means of coming to a certitude in order to prevent this.

This being said, as long as the act is not done to prevent conception, there is nothing wrong with having recourse to the marital embrace either during menses or non-peak times.

You should read the entirety of Casti Connubii and Arcanum, as well as Humanae Vitae and St. Augustine’s “On the Good of Marriage.”

A minor error presented in your first post is that the Church has changed its teaching regarding usury, geocentrism, its view of the Jews, religious liberty and slavery. Nothing’s changed regarding usury, since it’s a matter contained in both scripture and tradition…and been solemnly judged at the Fifth Lateran Council.

– Nicole

 

[Abu]

Ana v
You have had good advice that the Church’s teaching against contraception is infallible and it has always been condemned. You should study the references and not allow yourself to be led astray by dissenters as evidenced in your first post.

Similarly Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) has been developed by Catholics and always approved by Christ’s Church.

This answer goes to the heart of the question and the writer is renowned for his faith and reason.

As Fone Bone 2001 posted in another thread: ‘To “use NFP” is, objectively speaking, simply to measure fertility. What prevents pregnancy is the subsequent abstinence._And obviously that’s not contraception, since there’s no sex to contracept in that case.’

That is the heart of the matter!

Contraception gravely immoral; NFP praiseworthy for serious reasons
Clear cut:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I see sterilization as artificial infertility, temporary or permanent. And since infertility is not an impediment to marriage, logical consistency demands that the Church teach that sterilization is not an impediment to marriage either.

I said “sterility,” not “sterilization.” By “sterility” I meant “permanent infertility.”

I wasn’t even trying to bring sterilization into it.

 

[twoangels]

I think the Church’s stance on NFP as a legimate practice among married couples is not against its earlier teachings. The Church still affirms the procreative purpose of all sexual activity and that each sexual act never be willfully diverted from its orientation to procreation. The Church has never said that having sex when you are infertile is immoral, nor has the Church condemned periodic abstainence.

Unforunately, I would say that NFP gets promoted as Catholic contraceptive. This is partially because we refrain from teaching girls about their entire cycle when they hit puberty. Often Catholic parents think that teaching a girl about her fertility cycle and how to observe all the changes her body goes through will somehow lead her unchaste behavior. We pretty much insist that girls live under the allusion that once they get their period, they are fertile all the time. Then suddenly they come for their marriage prep classes and are told “That was a lie. You’re not always fertile.” Meanwhile that even seems to contradict what their medical doctors have told them. So we’re busy convincing them that the method can be relied upon and we are teaching it only to women who intend to use the knowledge to limit and space births. As such we reduce NFP to contraception but then deny it is because “It can be used to get pregnant too” (we just emphasize it a bit less)

NFP can be abused, but when it is, it’ll harm the marriage and tempt the couple to contraceptives. With NFP, when you are rejecting fertility you are forced to reject your spouse and that rejection is clearly felt. Contraceptives don’t allow that rejection to be as clearly felt. As such, the temptation to contracept when you’re fertile and trying to prevent pregnancy can be there and often this leaves a couple to discern their motivations. If the couple continues to embrace NFP, a purification of the intentions occurs. Either the couple will recommit and selflessly deny each other, making that self denial a true act of love and thus not a rejection. Or the couple will refrain from rejecting each other and a whole new thing will happen in their hearts that would not happen if they used a condom. They are faced with the clear distinct goodness of the unitive aspect of sex that they cannot deny without hurting each other, and as such in maintaining that value and refraining from contraceptives, their hearts change to also affirm the procreative purpose of sex along with it.

Total abstainence without NFP would lead a couple to reject the unitive aspect with the procreative aspect. And spacing children can indeed be a practice in the virtue of temperance and prudence.

 

[domandcarols]

 

[WhiteLeather]

If a person follows Church teachings and abstains from sex before marriage, sex is then a metaphorical “carrot” being dangled as a prize, as a destination, as something you’ll now be able to do after marriage. I oversimplify this - read on.

Then, if a couple doesn’t want to raise a large number of children out of respect to the burgeoning population of the world, they must refrain from that act which they may have very well been looking forward to as part of their married life.

So I can’t help but wonder the difference between the forms of contraception: why is using a pen and paper (to keep track of the body cycles) any different than a condom? The intended result is the same. Dress it up however you want, both prevent conception.

Let the discussion continue!

 

[bltp2011]

This has given me many hours of thought. When I researched into the married saints, I pretty much found these options:

1. Marry but never consumate it and live as brother and sister
2. Marry and have as many children as God sends
3. Marry, have children and once the couple has discerned not to have more, then simply live as brother and sister

What I found interesting about them is that they weren’t trying to find a way that they can have the cake and eat it too… in other words (as far as I can understand their choices) … they rejoiced in having a family large or small… or they rejoiced in living a celibate life for the kingdom of Heaven!.. They didn’t come across as too worried about finding out a way they could enjoy the ligimate marital intimacy and leave out procreation…

The church can’t be wrong in matters of NFP. Jesus said so. But can WE who try to use it, abuse it? Are those using it truly discerning correctly whether they ought to be using it or not?

I once heard a priest say that NFP ought to be used (if a couple deems it must use it) with a sense of sorrow - in a way they are to long for the time when they are relieved from the burden of NFP. I liked his perspective… very much.

For the saints, it’s very simple.