Isn't Natural Family Planning just another form of birth control?

[TLM08]

I understand the Church’s position on birth control is that separating the marital act from it’s intended purpose is a grave offense. Even for a married couple with 10 children, birth control is still a mortal sin.

By watching the calendar, counting days, or whatever else is involved, the sole purpose of NFP is to prevent conception while allowing the couple to enjoy the pleasure of relations. Maybe I’m crazy, but how in the world can NFP be permitted given the strict Catholic teaching on birth control?

Any way you look at it… the goal is still to prevent, delay or control birth!

 

[Scottgun]

This subject comes up so often that I typed up this Moral Evaluations 101 cheat-sheet a few years ago and just pasted it when the issue came up. It probably needs serious tweaking, but here it is. (I’m lifting and paraphrasing most of this from CCC 1749-1761):

The goodness or badness of an act must be evaluated according to 3 criteria:

1. The objective–this is the rightness or wrongness (or indifference) of an act in and of itself. (Examples: murder is objectively bad, almsgiving is objectively good.)
2. The subjective–this is the intent of the one doing the act (called the agent). Note that a good intention does not make an objectively evil act good, and that an evil intent can render a good act evil. (Such as giving alms in order to trick people into thinking you are pious).
3. The relative–this is all the surrounding circumstances and the actual result of the act or the end achieved. These do not change the objective goodness or badness of the act in and of themselves.

Plugging the above in it becomes abundantly clear that NFP is NOT morally equivalent to ABC and that the Church’s teaching is entirely consistent.
By the way, the techniques of NFP are not really an act, it’s information gathering. Having marital relations is the act. So:

1. The objective–Abstaining from sex is in and of itself morally indifferent (not doing something is never wrong unless there is a duty to do something). Putting barriers between couples in the marital act or rendering the womb hostile to life with chemicals is objectively wrong. (Doing something and deliberately thwarting the proper, natural and good consequences of that act.) NFP passes gate #1. ABC does not, so it goes down as morally unacceptable up front. NFP passes, but is not quite out of the woods yet ’till we get to:
2. The subjective–as stated above, good intentions do not make objectively evil acts good. Here we can see that with an NFP-practicing couple, there is a possibility of evil intent which would render abstinence evil, but obviously it is hard for outsiders to judge others, because ta-da! it is subjective. (We can have a giant debate about what constitutes bad intent, but here I’m just dismantling the NFP=ABC canard. See my other entry: Pius XII and Birth Regulation, which suggests that the possibilites are indeed very wide for legitimate use.)
3. The relative–and here is the cause of much of the contentiousness regarding this teaching. We are living in the age of a widespread mental blindness that denies the existence of #1 (objective right and wrongs), that everything is #2 and #3, and says the ends justify the means (consequentialism). So people look at the ends: ABC=no pregnancy, NFP=no pregnancy, and wrongly conclude they are morally equivalent. T’ain’t so.
   So while one can lodge all kinds of complaints against the Church’s teaching on contraception, logical inconsistency or “distinction without a difference” with ABC should not be among them.

 

[1ke]

I understand the Church’s position on birth control is that separating the marital act from it’s intended purpose is a grave offense.

What the Church teaches is that every act of intercourse must be objectively untive and procreative.

This means it is a completed act of vaginal intercourse that is unaltered in any way.

Even for a married couple with 10 children, birth control is still a mortal sin.

This is inaccurate.

*Birth control *is not a mortal sin. “Birth control” is merely the spacing of children.

*Contraception *is intrinsically disordered (i.e., always a gravely wrong act) and objectively a mortal sin.

By watching the calendar, counting days, or whatever else is involved, the sole purpose of NFP is to prevent conception while allowing the couple to enjoy the pleasure of relations. Maybe I’m crazy, but how in the world can NFP be permitted given the strict Catholic teaching on birth control?

The Church does not teach “birth control” is immoral. It teaches the opposite. It teaches that when a couple has a *just reason *it is appropriate to space/postpone another child.

What the Church does teach, and has always taught, is that *contraception *is an immoral *means *of spacing/postponing a child. Abstaining is not.

The natural cycle of the woman has fertile and infertile periods. A couple may abstain for a time, and engage in the marital act during an infertile time.

When they do so, they have taken NO action to alter their marital act. It is a completed act of vaginal intercourse that is objectively unitive and procreative.

Any way you look at it… the goal is still to prevent, delay or control birth!

Yes, this is a true statement.

 

[Jeanne_dArc]

I used to have trouble understanding this a bit also (why non-abortive contraceptives were different than NFP.) I trusted the Church and agreed, I was just slightly confused as to the logistics and reasoning.

Anyway, I had one of my philosophy professors teach the difference between contraception and the “sin of contraception” (I might add he is a Catholic professor that is faithful to the Church and has promised fidelity to the Church )

Contraception is preventing pregnancy through artificial means. Now for there to be the “sin of contraception” the married couple must be both 1. choosing sexual intimacy and 2. making the sexual act non-fertile.

Periodic abstinence (NPF) is not “the sin of contraception” because the couple is not choosing sexual intimacy. AND The couple is not making the sexual act non-fertile. So periodic abstinence (NFP) is not “the sin of contraception.”

A contraceptive device is in itself is indifferent, for example if one is being raped it is not a sin for you them to ask the rapist to use a condom. (IF you are being raped you are NOT choosing sexual intimacy, and so thus, not guilty of the sin of contraception, if your rapist uses a condom. All you are doing is self-defense.)

 

[manualman]

The difference is why so few want to use NFP: it takes a sacrifice to avoid pregnancy. ABC, on the other hand, leads you down a lust/gluttony slippery slope.

Imagine this. If the physical downsides of bulemia could be eliminated, would it be a morally acceptable means of weight control? No. Same reason.

 

[R4G03]

The Church does not teach “birth control” is immoral. It teaches the opposite. It teaches that when a couple has a just reason it is appropriate to space/postpone another child.

First off, i’m new. so…hi. My question is what would be considered a “just reason” for birth control to be appropriate?

Here’s my situation, my fiance and i are getting married in december and she has been keeping track of her charts and realized that there is a very high possibility that she will be fertile on our honeymoon. Now, neither of us is really ready to have a child. She’s still in college and i’m getting ready to deploy back to Iraq in March. So she’s very nervous about getting pregnant on our honeymoon and wants to use birth control. I tried to talk her out of it, but she was being very stubborn and doesn’t know what the big deal is if she’s only going to use it this one time.

I’m somewhat divided on this issue. I believe that ultimately contraception is wrong, but i don’t believe it would be wrong for certain circumstances, like mine. We have a legitimate reason for postponing a pregnancy, and at the same time want our honeymoon to be something special. Now people may say “Well, you’d have to abstain then.” Now, in all sincerity, that is just not going to happen. We will have a very short time together before she has to be back at school and i have to deploy to Iraq.

So my question is: Would it be a “just reason” for us to use birth control on our honeymoon since it would be very unwise of us to conceive a child at that time?

 

[sherimarie]

R4, please do not start your marriage off on the wrong foot, Artificial birth control would put a shadow over your special day that would taint its memory forever. The sacrifice would certainly be a great one but what an amazing offering to God for a blessed marriage!
If you give in to the temptation to have it your own way now there will always be that temptation there, always another “better” reason to disobey the church.
I think it would be very prudent of for you both to go talk to a priest about why it is wrong to use ABC, you both need to be a united force in order to make your marriage fruitful, and this is one of the most important issues you will face as a couple.
My family will be praying for your safety (both spiritual and bodily after your wedding and deployment) and for your new family.

 

[Jennifer_J]

First off, i’m new. so…hi. My question is what would be considered a “just reason” for birth control to be appropriate?

Here’s my situation, my fiance and i are getting married in december and she has been keeping track of her charts and realized that there is a very high possibility that she will be fertile on our honeymoon. Now, neither of us is really ready to have a child. She’s still in college and i’m getting ready to deploy back to Iraq in March. So she’s very nervous about getting pregnant on our honeymoon and wants to use birth control. I tried to talk her out of it, but she was being very stubborn and doesn’t know what the big deal is if she’s only going to use it this one time.

I’m somewhat divided on this issue. I believe that ultimately contraception is wrong, but i don’t believe it would be wrong for certain circumstances, like mine. We have a legitimate reason for postponing a pregnancy, and at the same time want our honeymoon to be something special. Now people may say “Well, you’d have to abstain then.” Now, in all sincerity, that is just not going to happen. We will have a very short time together before she has to be back at school and i have to deploy to Iraq.

So my question is: Would it be a “just reason” for us to use birth control on our honeymoon since it would be very unwise of us to conceive a child at that time?

There are no “just reasons” for contracepting–contraception for the purpose of being against conception is a mortal sin. There are “just reasons” for abstaining if you wish to avoid conception. If you would need to abstain around the time of your “official” honeymoon, it would only be a few days and you’d have time to “consumate” the relationship after that. Also be aware that the stress of weddings/marriage often delays ovulation and this might not be an issue. One more thing, and I don’t want to be morbid, however, you are being deployed to a war zone. There is a chance, however slim, that you could be injured or killed. There are worse things than you and your future wife conceiving on your honeymoon, don’t you think?

 

[graceandglory]

I understand the Church’s position on birth control is that separating the marital act from it’s intended purpose is a grave offense. Even for a married couple with 10 children, birth control is still a mortal sin.

By watching the calendar, counting days, or whatever else is involved, the sole purpose of NFP is to prevent conception while allowing the couple to enjoy the pleasure of relations. Maybe I’m crazy, but how in the world can NFP be permitted given the strict Catholic teaching on birth control?

Any way you look at it… the goal is still to prevent, delay or control birth!

The heart of Catholic teaching on marriage and sex and having children is that the couple keep God in the equation. God cares more about the conversion of our hearts than anything.

Read John Paul II on Responsible Parenthood

This explains that it’s being open to God’s will that is really the heart of the matter.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP840801.htm

 

[graceandglory]

Any way you look at it… the goal is still to prevent, delay or control birth!

It’s been said that it takes a*** moral maturity*** to really understand the holiness of Natural Family Planning. On one level the plan is to delay pregnancy, when by prayer and counsel, it might not be a prudent time to be pregnant.

The deeper issue is the matter of growing in holiness and chastity in your marriage. Sacrificing your fleshly desires and learning continence (practicing marital abstinence together as a couple) is a virtuous thing.

It’s even*** heroic virtue,*** the stuff Saints are made of.

 

[graceandglory]

It’s been said that it takes a*** moral maturity*** to really understand the holiness of Natural Family Planning. On one level the plan is to delay pregnancy, when by prayer and counsel, it might not be a prudent time to be pregnant.

The deeper issue is the matter of growing in holiness and chastity in your marriage. Sacrificing your fleshly desires and learning continence (practicing marital abstinence together as a couple) is a virtuous thing.

It’s even*** heroic virtue,*** the stuff Saints are made of.

Periodic continence is even Biblical. In Corinthians 7:5, it says:

***Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

---

Tell that to a protestant!

 

[mcs7474]

I understand the Church’s position on birth control is that separating the marital act from it’s intended purpose is a grave offense. Even for a married couple with 10 children, birth control is still a mortal sin.

By watching the calendar, counting days, or whatever else is involved, the sole purpose of NFP is to prevent conception while allowing the couple to enjoy the pleasure of relations. Maybe I’m crazy, but how in the world can NFP be permitted given the strict Catholic teaching on birth control?

Any way you look at it… the goal is still to prevent, delay or control birth!

Yes, it is a form of birth control, but it is natural. It is not bad for you like all the other forms either.

 

[1ke]

I’m somewhat divided on this issue. I believe that ultimately contraception is wrong, but i don’t believe it would be wrong for certain circumstances, like mine. We have a legitimate reason for postponing a pregnancy, and at the same time want our honeymoon to be something special. Now people may say “Well, you’d have to abstain then.” Now, in all sincerity, that is just not going to happen. We will have a very short time together before she has to be back at school and i have to deploy to Iraq.

A sin is a sin whether you do it “one time” or many. You have a choice to make-- serve God or serve yourself. You are only fooling yourself if you talk yourself into believing contraception is ok for your “circumstance”. There is NO circumstance in which contraception is moral. It offends God and makes a sacrilege out of the marital act.

If you don’t want to abstain, then engage in sexual intimacy but do not contracept.

So my question is: Would it be a “just reason” for us to use birth control on our honeymoon since it would be very unwise of us to conceive a child at that time?

NO. Contraception is intrinsically disordered. This means there is NO circumstance in which it is moral or “just” to use it.

Now, again, if you have a just reason to avoid a pregnancy, you can abstain during the fertile time.

Don’t get too uptight about what her cycle “may” be when you marry. Stress can really impact a woman’s cycle and so you don’t know what may happen as you get closer.

Also, starting off your marriage committing a mortal sin is a bad idea.

Trust God if you choose to engage in relations, and if you just absolutely cannot become pregnant then restrain yourselves for a few days until her fertile time is past.

 

[TLM08]

Following the logic of the Church it would seem to me that ANY deliberate aviodance of pregnancy, including NFP would be against the natural order, and the only acceptable solution for the married couple who cannot properly provide for any more children would be total abstinence.

 

[davidv]

Following the logic of the Church it would seem to me that ANY deliberate aviodance of pregnancy, including NFP would be against the natural order, and the only acceptable solution for the married couple who cannot properly provide for any more children would be total abstinence.

Based on this comment I would say that you either have not read, or do not understand, the Church’s teaching on periodic continance.

From the CCC, article 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:

 

[1ke]

Following the logic of the Church it would seem to me that ANY deliberate aviodance of pregnancy, including NFP would be against the natural order, and the only acceptable solution for the married couple who cannot properly provide for any more children would be total abstinence.

How so?

In what way do you believe periodic continence to violate what the Church teaches about sexual intercourse between spouses?

 

[TLM08]

How so?

In what way do you believe periodic continence to violate what the Church teaches about sexual intercourse between spouses?

The periodic continence isn’t the issue here. The issue is using a calendar to take advantage of enjoying the marital act only when you know that conception is highly unlikely. The intent is still to prevent conception… contra-ception.

I realize that the church has authority and I respect that… I simply do not understand how in the world NFP can be permitted given the intent of the teaching

 

[Jennifer_J]

The periodic continence isn’t the issue here. The issue is using a calendar to take advantage of enjoying the marital act only when you know that conception is highly unlikely. The intent is still to prevent conception… contra-ception.

I realize that the church has authority and I respect that… I simply do not understand how in the world NFP can be permitted given the intent of the teaching

Total abstinence also prevents conception–is that okay? Of course it is. The Church has no teaching on WHEN we have relations, only that the relations that we participate in are within a sacramental marriage and that it is open to PROCREATION (that doesn’t mean fertile, btw, just that the act itself is not made sterile). Women are not fertile 24/7 every day of the month. We have naturally occuring fertile and nonfertile cycles. It is well within the rights of a married couple to engage in relations at any day of her cycle. Whether a woman knows she’s fertile or not is irrelevant. The ACT is not modified in any way. Procreation isn’t modified. The couple is simply using an infertile day of the cycle.

 

[Rico_S]

Total abstinence also prevents conception–is that okay? Of course it is. The Church has no teaching on WHEN we have relations, only that the relations that we participate in are within a sacramental marriage and that it is open to PROCREATION (that doesn’t mean fertile, btw, just that the act itself is not made sterile)

Yes, you point about abstinence is well taken and is a clear distinction between NFP and other contraceptive methods.

However, the intent of couples using NFP is to have relations when conception is nearly impossible. Only engaging in the sexual act when the conception is nearly impossible seems to contradict the procreative aspect the marital act.

–Rico

 

[Jennifer_J]

Yes, you point about abstinence is well taken and is a clear distinction between NFP and other contraceptive methods.

However, the intent of couples using NFP is to have relations when conception is nearly impossible. Only engaging in the sexual act when the conception is nearly impossible seems to contradict the procreative aspect the marital act.

–Rico

But the Church doesn’t teach that each act of intercourse must result in pregnancy, just that the act has procreative potential–the act itself is not interfered with. A woman isn’t always fertile, that’s just a fact of life. The Church doesn’t teach that we can only have relations during the fertile time. This is why NFP is allowed. Can it be abused? Certainly.