Natural Family Planning Classes- too expensive!

[moon1234]

This is just wrong. If the intent of avoiding children is wrong, then that means abstaining is wrong. It’s not the intent to need to space children (for serious/just/grave reasons) it’s the method one goes about doing it. Contraceptives are wrong because they seek to separate the unitive and procreative aspect of every act of sex. NFP is licit because each and every act is done as God intended–regardless of the natural state of fertility. NFP keeps the procreative and unitive aspects of each act intact.

Last post on this, but please find any authority from the magesterium BEFORE vatican II that allowed such practice. You will find none as doing this was considered contraception. My wife and I will be happy to welcome whatever children come along as God sends them. I will not have to get to the perly gates and answer why I did not trust God to only send me what I could handle. I will also be in comfort with almost 2000 years of church teaching.

In fact we have Pope’s just years before VII stating that NFP and it’s like are evil and to be avoided. Quoted from Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, Dec. 31, 1930:

*“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. 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.

“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).

…

any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”2
*

Please tell anywhere else in nature where you see ANY other species PURPOSEFULLY try to avoid the conception of offspring? You will not find it. In fact you will find the exact opposite. Most species mate ONLY when the female is fertile.

The pope is not just referring to Condom’s and Pills. These were not common items in St. Augustine’s day, nor were Pills common in Pope Piux XI day. Rythm method and withdrawl were the common methods of “avoiding” children in his day.

The fact that NFP and other methods are used today for the specific avoidance of having children while still having a conjugal act is what previous Popes and Saints warned against. The only acceptable method for married people is to avoid having sex at all. This is allowed, but warned against doing for an protracted length of time.

Many parts of Theology of the Body are not in keeping with the tradition of the Catholic Church. They are new ideas introduced in the 1960’s that in some parts are directly opposed to traditional Catholic teaching. If you take the time to read what the fathers and doctors of the church has said in this topic thru the millenea you will see that the idea of NFP was something dreamed up in the 1960’s. It never would have been acceptable even 80 years ago when Pope Pius XI wrote the above.

Remember that Theology of the Body is not dogmatic or inspired. Therefore it is open to error and future revision.

 

[moon1234]

One more thought to chew on. If NFP to avoid children is not sinful, then why could a couple not practice it their entire lives for the purpose of avoiding all children? What would happen if people did this on a grand scale? The human species would slowly die out.

This very example shows that NFP used for the purpose of avoiding children is against nature and the natural law.

NFP can be used for valid purposes such as helping infertile couples to conceive and helping a woman with irregular cycles to know when she is fertile for purposes of trying to conceive.
*
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.”*

Here is an example from the OLD testament. Showing that God wishes that we never try to frustrate the primary purpose of sex, which is to have children. If the primary purpose is not possible due to old age or health reasons then it is not possible to frustrate it.

Many of our best known saints were the LAST or ALMOST THE LAST of many children. The children at Fatima were at least the seventh, eighth or ninth child. If their parents used NFP to avoid children they may never have been born.

 

[wanner47]

Last post on this, but please find any authority from the magesterium BEFORE vatican II that allowed such practice.

Why would we need to? Whether the teachings occurred before or after Vatican II, they are still valid teachings of the Catholic Church (unless you mean to suggest that there have been no valid teachings since Vatican II, in which case the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church and there’s no such thing as Catholicism so it’s a moot point).

Regardless, you’re wrong.

From the article Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy? by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.:

The first time Rome spoke on the matter was 1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?” The reply was: “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation” (quoted in J. Montánchez, Teología Moral 654, my translation). By the expression “impedes generation,” it is obvious the Vatican meant the use of onanism (or coitus interruptus, now popularly called “withdrawal”), condoms, etc. Otherwise the reply would be self-contradictory.

The next time the issue was raised was in 1880, when the Sacred Penitentiary issued a more general response . The precise question posed was this: “Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to occur?” The response was: “Spouses using the aforesaid method are not to be disturbed; and a confessor may, with due caution, suggest this proposal to spouses, if his other attempts to lead them away from the detestable crime of onanism have proved fruitless.” (This decision was published in Nouvelle Revue Théologique 13 [1881]: 459–460 and in Analecta Iuris Pontificii 22 [1883], 249.)

One could not ask for a more obvious and explicit proof that more than eighty years before Vatican II, Rome saw a great moral difference between NFP (as we now call it) and contraceptive methods, which Catholic moralists then referred to as onanism.

This was the doctrine and pastoral practice that all priests learned in seminary from the mid-nineteenth century onward. Before Pius XI was elected, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Benedict XV all clearly approved of this status quo established by their own Sacred Penitentiary and never showed the slightest inclination to reverse its decisions of 1853 and 1880.

 

[cincyann]

For the record, the Couple to Couple League does not turn anyone away who expresses a true financial hardship. They have a process to request financial aid. Ask a Teaching Couple.

 

[mizznicole]

Hey, AC Claire,

As far as I understand/remember, you are only “required” to attend the Creighton intro class which is free. At least, that satisfies the requirement at the Cathedral.

And as you probably know by now, the Creighton people at St. Austin’s have a sliding scale.

But I’m sure this is old news.

 

[therese_louise]

hi ac claire,

I am a certified billings ovulation method instructor. I have been teaching for the last 20 years or so. Try to go on line for the nearest BOM instructor to see if you are close to one. I know the cost would be much lower. Most of the time I charge $25. This a a ministry for me I don’t make any money on it! If not, let me know I can help you via the phone!

therese louise

 

[moon1234]

This is just wrong. If the intent of avoiding children is wrong, then that means abstaining is wrong. It’s not the intent to need to space children (for serious/just/grave reasons) it’s the method one goes about doing it. Contraceptives are wrong because they seek to separate the unitive and procreative aspect of every act of sex. NFP is licit because each and every act is done as God intended–regardless of the natural state of fertility. NFP keeps the procreative and unitive aspects of each act intact.

I spoke with several of my parish priests about your post and they affirmed to me that if NFP is being used to intentionally avoid children WHILE STILL HAVING RELATIONS than NFP is contraceptive and the intention is no different than those who take the pill for the same reason.

The reason that Abstinance is NOT sinful is that the couple are not frustrating the primary purpose of the ACT for a secondary purpose of the ACT (pleasure, marital unity, etc.). If there is NO ACT than it can not be frustrated. Your statements are not in keeping with Catholic tradition and the history of the Church.

Theology of the body is NOT an absolute dogma of the faith. The teachings in it concerning reproduction are a break with what all previous popes, Saint Paul and other saints have stated on this matter. If you choose to blindly follow along without knowing the history of the church then you do yourself and those around you a disservice. Once you start reading the history of the church, the teachings of previous Popes, saints, etc. You will being to see how current laws/norms should be understood and where some of those norms may not be in keeping with tradition.

Keep in mind the Church is made up of sinners. Even the clergy are human. Not every document the church issues is guaranteed to be free from error as they are written by humans. Only revealed truth (Those things told to us by Godf thru his Angels, etc.) of Faith and Morals are considered infallible. The current thinking on being able to use NFP to avoid children does not come from God. It is a human interpretation and it is not in keeping with Catholic Tradition.

You can’t just say that you are going to ignore the teachings of all of the previous history of the church. To do so is to say that you reject that the Holy Spirit has been working to slowly perfect the truth thru history. A radical departure from previous teachings of the church is usually a clear indication that something is the work of failed human logic.

 

[agapewolf]

I spoke with several of my parish priests about your post and they affirmed to me that if NFP is being used to intentionally avoid children WHILE STILL HAVING RELATIONS than NFP is contraceptive and the intention is no different than those who take the pill for the same reason.

The reason that Abstinance is NOT sinful is that the couple are not frustrating the primary purpose of the ACT for a secondary purpose of the ACT (pleasure, marital unity, etc.). If there is NO ACT than it can not be frustrated. Your statements are not in keeping with Catholic tradition and the history of the Church.

You are contradicting yourself.

you say, If there is no act, then it cannot be frustrated. NFP to avoid children is just that abstaining during the fertile time. It is Non-action. It’s not a an action. Its the use of information to Not act. Its not frustrating anything.

 

[moon1234]

You are contradicting yourself.

you say, If there is no act, then it cannot be frustrated. NFP to avoid children is just that abstaining during the fertile time. It is Non-action. It’s not a an action. Its the use of information to Not act. Its not frustrating anything.

I think you may not be seeing the distinction here. Abstinance means that you are not avoiding sex for the express purpose of not conceiving children. You are not charting, taking your temperature, examing secretions, etc. all for the express purpose of NOT conceiving children. This action is subrogating the primary purpose of marraige/sex (having children) to any secondary purpose.

Abstinance between married adults without subrogating the primary purpose/Act of sex to a secondary purpose is fine and is advocated by St. Paul and previous Popes. This is alluded to by Saint Paul in his caution that Married people not remain apart for a lot period of time.

This statement pretty much sums it up:

“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."

Pope Pius XI is speaking her about the purpose of sex. If you are PURPOSEFULLY having sex at times when the woman is LEAST likely to conceive (If she is menstrating then it is 100% impossible) then you are frustrating the purpose of sex. Mutual abstinance does not frustrate the purpose of the marital act when practiced without the express purpose of ONLY avoiding sex during certain times of the month so as to make the primary purpose subject to the secondary purpose.

 

[agapewolf]

I think may not be seeing the distinction here. Abstinance means that you are not avoiding sex for the express purpose of not conceiving children. You are not charting, taking your temperature, examing secretions, etc. all for the express purpose of NOT conceiving children. This action is subrogating the primary purpose of marraige/sex (having children) to any secondary purpose.

Abstinance between married adults without subrogating the primary purpose/Act of sex to a secondary purpose is fine and is advocated by St. Paul and previous Popes. This is alluded to by Saint Paul in his caution that Married people not remain apart for a lot period of time.

You are not understanding the distinction. Gathering information on health symptoms is a good thing. It gives information to know when conception is likely. A decision to have sex during the infertile time is doing nothing to frustrate the act. These 2 items are completely separate. To abstain during the fertile time is NOT an action…it is the absence of an action. It is impossible for it to be “frustrating” or or “subrogating” doing anything to the act if the act is not taking place.

 

[moon1234]

You are not understanding the distinction. Gathering information on health symptoms is a good thing. It gives information to know when conception is likely. A decision to have sex during the infertile time is doing nothing to frustrate the act. These 2 items are completely separate. To abstain during the fertile time is NOT an action…it is the absence of an action. It is impossible for it to be “frustrating” or or “subrogating” doing anything to the act if the act is not taking place.

You view is directly contradictory to what my local parish priests teach. It is not in keeping with Catholic traditions. Charting to conceive is fine as you are not taking the primary purpose of sex (to conceive children) and making subject to the secondary purpose of marital unity. Usingyour charts to make the primary purpose of marraige subserviant to any secondary purpose is wrong.

You can NOT seperate the two items. This is an error in logic. Theology of the body even states that you CAN NOT separate them. It then goes on to contrdict itself.

To abstain during the fertile time is NOT an action… Actually it is. It is deliberate act designed specifically to subjegate the primary purpose of marital relations to a secondary purpose.

*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.”

What this is essentially saying is sex during infertile times is fine as long as you are not intentially avoiding the fertile times in order to subordinate the primary end to the secondary end.

 

[agapewolf]

You view is directly contradictory to what my local parish priests teach. It is not in keeping with Catholic traditions. Charting to conceive is fine as you are not taking the primary purpose of sex (to conceive children) and making subject to the secondary purpose of marital unity.

You can NOT seperate the two items. This is an error in logic. Theology of the body even states that you CAN NOT separate them. It then goes on to contrdict itself.

To abstain during the fertile time is NOT an action… Actually it is. It is deliberate act designed specifically to subjegate the primary purpose of marital relations to a secondary purpose.

You are the one that has an error in logic. You also misunderstood what I meant by 2 separate items. I was talking about separating the “Gathering of health information” from sexual activity.

a non-action, is exactly that…a non-action. By saying a non-action is an action is absolutely contradictory. THAT is the illogial position.

By abstaining during the fertile time, there is nothing taking place. Its a non-action.

 

[moon1234]

You are the one that has an error in logic. You also misunderstood what I meant by 2 separate items. I was talking about separating the “Gathering of health information” from sexual activity.

a non-action, is exactly that…a non-action. By saying a non-action is an action is absolutely contradictory. THAT is the illogial position.

By abstaining during the fertile time, there is nothing taking place. Its a non-action.

But it is. The church has always taught that “not-acting” can have just as grave or more grave results than an action. Not going to Mass is a NON-Action, but mortal sin is attached to this as we are commanded to attend Mass. The same logic can be applied to your thinking as well. You are thinking only in a physical sense. If we don’t have sex then there is no action. That is not true. Just because you are not physically moving does not mean you are not taking action.

 

[Tosk]

But it is. The church has always taught that “not-acting” can have just as grave or more grave results than an action. Not going to Mass is a NON-Action, but mortal sin is attached to this as we are commanded to attend Mass. The same logic can be applied to your thinking as well. You are thinking only in a physical sense. If we don’t have sex then there is no action. That is not true. Just because you are not physically moving does not mean you are not taking action.

So imagine a couple where a pregnancy would likely result in the death of the woman. They decide to abstain until menopause and then resume having sex. So basically they are waiting to take advantage of the natural infertility that comes with menopause. They are using there knowledge of a woman’s fertility as a form of birth control according to your definition. How is that any different than a couple who uses the monthly times of infertility?

 

[Liberanosamalo]

“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."

Moon, you seem to ignore that God created us women to not be fertile 24/7 12 months a year. And he gave us, unlike animals, free will and intellect to discern certain patterns for our bodies.

The Church has never taught that we have to have 20 kids. While some people CAN and do, God bless them, not everyone has the capacity. Numerous popes have discussed the obligation couples have to look realistically at their financial, spiritual, emotional and physical resources when spacing children in a family. For instance, some would say if you have 3 handicapped children and are jobless and the wife has breast cancer, it is irresponsible to have another child. The Church never taught that a couple was forced to have sex during all times of fertility and infertility and not allowed to take advantage of the GOD-GIVEN design of infertile periods to express their love and unity. YOUR quote says “those who IN EXERCISING it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose” is really a reference to actions DURING INTERCOURSE that frustrate its natural powers and purpose. NOT EXERCISING it is not a sin. Just like NOT EATING or NOT DRINKING is not sinful and is a neutral act, or even a positive act if done for a sacrificial penance purpose. Refraining from sexual intercourse during a fertile time can even be such a chance for penance, offering up the sacrifice (when the woman’s hormones actually make her more desirous of unity) for the sins of others can be a way to grow in virtue and self control.

There are many couples who have serious reasons to avoid or space children. YOUR interpretation of a couple seeming to only be allowed and even obligated to have sex during fertile times to have as many children as possible feeds into the most negative accusations against the Church by society, portraying Her not to care about the health of women who physically can’t take the burden of having 10 kids in 10 years. Have you ever had one? Do you know what’s involved? Have you endured one pregnancy and delivery. If you did, you’d understand why some people need to space their children judiciously.

Yes, NFP can be used for contraceptive intent in a marriage that is not about trusting God. Yes, it can be abused. That is for a couple to discern with their confessors. But you seem to be taking the view that any NFP usage is sinful and that has NOT been the Church’s teaching. Using God’s biological plan and respecting God’s creative design is very different from injecting chemicals beforehand and using barriers during intercourse.

To the OP, I didn’t read the whole thread, but a one-time fee of $159 versus the many accumulated doctor visits and monthly prescription fills of contraceptives is really a no-brainer math-wise.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

By the way, I’ve noticed in life that people who pride themselves on being “more Catholic than the pope” often end up becoming much LESS Catholic than the pope…

 

[Jennifer_J]

But it is. The church has always taught that “not-acting” can have just as grave or more grave results than an action. Not going to Mass is a NON-Action, but mortal sin is attached to this as we are commanded to attend Mass. The same logic can be applied to your thinking as well. You are thinking only in a physical sense. If we don’t have sex then there is no action. That is not true. Just because you are not physically moving does not mean you are not taking action.

Simply stated, your traditionalist priest is in error and rejecting the teaching of the Church.

Abstaining to avoid children is LICIT if there is valid/serious/grave/just reason. A married couple may not totally or periodically abstain for no good reason. THE purpose of married couples abstaining is to not have children–that’s the intent and that’s not immoral so long as a just reason exists. So you are saying every night we choose to not have sex we are sinning as a married couple. No Way. That means, right now, I’m not having sex and therefore I’m sining. No Way. That means you think I sin if I refuse my husband because I am literally too tired or too sick. No Way. Your logic is very flawed and the logic of your priest is very flawed. Priests are not infallible, esp when they veer from authentic Church teaching.

 

[moon1234]

So imagine a couple where a pregnancy would likely result in the death of the woman. They decide to abstain until menopause and then resume having sex. So basically they are waiting to take advantage of the natural infertility that comes with menopause. They are using there knowledge of a woman’s fertility as a form of birth control according to your definition. How is that any different than a couple who uses the monthly times of infertility?

No because their primary purpose is a medical one. To treat the woman. It is not done as a selfish act of the couple. Just as a woman who is pregnant and gets uterine cancer can morally have a hysterectomy even though the procedure will result in the death of her child. This is not abortion as the primary purpose is not an abortion, but to save the life of the woman.

In your example the woman is not using abstinance to suborn the primary purpose to any secondary purpose. She is using it to treat a diagnosed medical condition. Once menopause is reached the primary purpose is no longer possible so it can no longer be make subject to any secondary purpose.

 

[agapewolf]

No because their primary purpose is a medical one. To treat the woman. It is not done as a selfish act of the couple. Just as a woman who is pregnant and gets uterine cancer can morally have a hysterectomy even though the procedure will result in the death of her child. This is not abortion as the primary purpose is not an abortion, but to save the life of the woman.

In your example the woman is not using abstinance to suborn the primary purpose to any secondary purpose. She is using it to treat a diagnosed medical condition. Once menopause is reached the primary purpose is no longer possible so it can no longer be make subject to any secondary purpose.

No, the primary purpose is to avoid children. The reason to avoid children is a serious one, but the primary purpose of abstaining is to avoid children.

You are making some seriouis flaws in logic here.

You also mention a woman who is not pregnant but has a hysterectomy that results in the death of a child? That doesn’t make sense

 

[Jennifer_J]

No because their primary purpose is a medical one. To treat the woman. It is not done as a selfish act of the couple. Just as a woman who is pregnant and gets uterine cancer can morally have a hysterectomy even though the procedure will result in the death of her child. This is not abortion as the primary purpose is not an abortion, but to save the life of the woman.

In your example the woman is not using abstinance to suborn the primary purpose to any secondary purpose. She is using it to treat a diagnosed medical condition. Once menopause is reached the primary purpose is no longer possible so it can no longer be make subject to any secondary purpose.

Abstinence does not treat a medical condition, it prevents pregnancy. No sex= no babies That would be the “purpose” of abstinence for a married couple.