Natural Family Planning Classes- too expensive!

[wanner47]

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.

Your parish priests are wrong, Moon, and in conflict with many pre-VII popes. See above.

 

[moon1234]

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.

This is not true. He is not “rejecting” a teaching of the church as Theology of the Body is not a required belief in order to be attached to the church. It is an interpretation by one Pope on some topics that are NOT requirements to believe in order to be Catholic.

The authentic church teaching you point to is not traditional and is open to interpretation. Ask any preiest and he will confirm this. Simply stated you may NOT suborn the primary purpose of the marital act to a secondary purpose. Grave reasons are NOT:

• lack of money
• not being able to go on vacation
• children are too hard, we don’t want a large family
• etc.

Almost all couples today use NFP to contracept. They take the primary purpose and say, we don’t want children now so we will set aside the primary purpose and make the secondary purpose the most important. Marital unity and begetting children are NOT equally laudable goals. Begetting children is always the primary purpose for the marital act.

The Church does not command that you have sex every day, etc. It does demand that you do not use the marital act in a way that makes it’s primary purpose subhect to a secondary purpose. The simple question to ask is: am I having sex NOW avoid getting pregnant? If the answer is YES then you are making the primary purpose subject to the secondary purpose.

Having sex in the infertile times is perfectly fine as long as you are NOT doing it to frustrate the primary purpose of begetting children. Simple, easy, and traditionally Catholic.

 

[moon1234]

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.

Abstinence can be used for OTHER purposes as well. It can be used as a way of giving to God and self sacrifice. Priestly abstinence is NOT used to avoid babies. There are many reasons for abstinence OTHER than to avoid children.

 

[wanner47]

This is not true. He is not “rejecting” a teaching of the church as Theology of the Body is not a required belief in order to be attached to the church. It is an interpretation by one Pope on some topics that are NOT requirements to believe in order to be Catholic.

The authentic church teaching you point to is not traditional and is open to interpretation. Ask any preiest and he will confirm this. Simply stated you may NOT suborn the primary purpose of the marital act to a secondary purpose. Grave reasons are NOT:

• lack of money
• not being able to go on vacation
• children are too hard, we don’t want a large family
• etc.

Almost all couples today use NFP to contracept. They take the primary purpose and say, we don’t want children now so we will set aside the primary purpose and make the secondary purpose the most important. Marital unity and begetting children are NOT equally laudable goals. Begetting children is always the primary purpose for the marital act.

The Church does not command that you have sex every day, etc. It does demand that you do not use the marital act in a way that makes it’s primary purpose subhect to a secondary purpose. The simple question to ask is: am I having sex NOW avoid getting pregnant? If the answer is YES then you are making the primary purpose subject to the secondary purpose.

Having sex in the infertile times is perfectly fine as long as you are NOT doing it to frustrate the primary purpose of begetting children. Simple, easy, and traditionally Catholic.

This belief is in conflict with PRE-VATICAN II teaching, Moon. See the evidence in my previous post.

 

[moon1234]

This belief is in conflict with PRE-VATICAN II teaching, Moon. See the evidence in my previous post.

Your evidence is not in conflict with what I have been stating. It actually is fully in line with it. You can NOT frustate the primary purpose for the secondary one. These pre vatican II teachings ALL concern sex during infertile times, but they do NOT allow the frustration of the primary purpose for the secondary. This was what Vatican II did with these teachings.

In the past it was thought that sex during infertile times was not allowed as children could not be conceived. The bible even alludes to sex during mestration as contraceptive, so even the anceint peoples knew this.

What the documents you pointed to are teaching is that sex during the infertile times is allowed so long couples do NOT use to frustrate the primary purpose of marraige which is conceive children. It is a subtle, but big difference.

 

[Jennifer_J]

This is not true. He is not “rejecting” a teaching of the church as Theology of the Body is not a required belief in order to be attached to the church. It is an interpretation by one Pope on some topics that are NOT requirements to believe in order to be Catholic.

The authentic church teaching you point to is not traditional and is open to interpretation. Ask any preiest and he will confirm this. Simply stated you may NOT suborn the primary purpose of the marital act to a secondary purpose. Grave reasons are NOT:

• lack of money
• not being able to go on vacation
• children are too hard, we don’t want a large family
• etc.

Almost all couples today use NFP to contracept. They take the primary purpose and say, we don’t want children now so we will set aside the primary purpose and make the secondary purpose the most important. Marital unity and begetting children are NOT equally laudable goals. Begetting children is always the primary purpose for the marital act.

The Church does not command that you have sex every day, etc. It does demand that you do not use the marital act in a way that makes it’s primary purpose subhect to a secondary purpose. The simple question to ask is: am I having sex NOW avoid getting pregnant? If the answer is YES then you are making the primary purpose subject to the secondary purpose.

Having sex in the infertile times is perfectly fine as long as you are NOT doing it to frustrate the primary purpose of begetting children. Simple, easy, and traditionally Catholic.

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEOLOGY OF THE BODY!!! As Wanner has posted over and over again, this IS the teaching of the Church.

NFP does nothing to change the act. Part a + part b w/the finish in the right place IS the way the act was intended to be done. The act’s licitness has nothing to do with the FERTILITY of the act, just that the act COULD end in pregnancy because it is done “properly”.

You just said, having sex in the infertile times is fine–the use of NFP doesn’t frustrate ANYTHING before, during or after the act…the fact that the woman is infertile has nothing to do with it, the fact that the couple KNOWS that the act is infertile has nothing to do with it. The knoweldge of the cycle doesn’t take away from the natural completion of the act.

I will additionally say, NFP is VERY difficult to use in a contraceptive way. It takes SACRIFICE and LOVE to do it properly (if there is grave/just/serious need). Couples use NFP to space or avoid children, just like people who are abstaining are doing so to space or avoid children. A couple may certainly abstain for spiritual growth, etc, however, so can the NFP couple w/serious need to space a baby. YOU also do not get to list out the grave/serious/just reasons, because certainly the CHURCH doesn’t and never has. YOU DON’T get to the be the POPE. These decisions are between God and the couple (and a priest/spritual advisor as needed).

 

[agapewolf]

This is not true. He is not “rejecting” a teaching of the church as Theology of the Body is not a required belief in order to be attached to the church. It is an interpretation by one Pope on some topics that are NOT requirements to believe in order to be Catholic.

The authentic church teaching you point to is not traditional and is open to interpretation. Ask any preiest and he will confirm this. Simply stated you may NOT suborn the primary purpose of the marital act to a secondary purpose. Grave reasons are NOT:

• lack of money
• not being able to go on vacation
• children are too hard, we don’t want a large family
• etc.

Almost all couples today use NFP to contracept. They take the primary purpose and say, we don’t want children now so we will set aside the primary purpose and make the secondary purpose the most important. Marital unity and begetting children are NOT equally laudable goals. Begetting children is always the primary purpose for the marital act.

The Church does not command that you have sex every day, etc. It does demand that you do not use the marital act in a way that makes it’s primary purpose subhect to a secondary purpose. The simple question to ask is: am I having sex NOW avoid getting pregnant? If the answer is YES then you are making the primary purpose subject to the secondary purpose.

Having sex in the infertile times is perfectly fine as long as you are NOT doing it to frustrate the primary purpose of begetting children. Simple, easy, and traditionally Catholic.

This is not church teaching. Not every single act must intend to have children. There can be nothing done TO the act itself to frustrate the conception of children. Read Love and responsibility and it will explain further.

 

[moon1234]

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.

If God intended women to control when they get pregnant he would have given the ability to ovulate as a willful act. He did not do this. He gave woman the same reproductive cycles as all of his creations. This shows that he does NOT want us to frustrate his primary purpose for reproduction.

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.

Quite the opposite. NFP can be used for good as you state. My wife and I have taught it to friends who could not seem to get pregnant. Our friends discovered that the woman did not ovulate on a regular schedule. They were able to use this information to finally conceive. This is the good and proper use of NFP.

This is the exception, rather than the norm for most Catholics. The majority of Catholics use it solely to contracept. The NFP classes that are taught usually tell couples that they can use this method to avoid children. This is where NFP strays away and where people activly frustrate the primary purpose of marraige.

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.

I have five children ages 9 years to 8 months. Abstinence is acceptable is there is medical reason. If a woman is suffering a breakdown and can not physically handle her duties as a mother then by abstaining the couple is not frustrating the primary purpose of marraige. The primary purpose is medical. The number of children argument is a canard. Many of the greatest saints came from very large families who were usually dirt poor. They lovingly accepted the children God sent to them. This modern idea of large families=bad because we can not give our kids a college education, tv, a large home, etc. are all material desires that are not grave or valid reasons.

The Church has never taught that we have to have 20 kids.

Quite correct. The church expects you to honor the vow you took when you got married. “Will you lovelingly accept children from God should he choose to send them to you?” Did you answer Yes or did you answer “Yes, but only if it is on my time when I am ready and not too stressed out. Ohh yea, we also only want children from God when he have the amount of monney we think we need and the house we want, etc. etc.” See how little so many people value this vow they take.

NOT EATING or NOT DRINKING is not sinful and is a neutral act

Unless the primary purpose of the act is to keep you alive. Starving yourself would be wrong as well. How many people do you know who eat only a few weeks a month and skip all of the rest? They don’t want to get fat after all. This is what people do with NFP.

The better response is to eat smaller amounts every day. For couples this would be acting on their wishes to be intimate when they feel like it, not when a calendar dictates they can have sex with the least chance of getting pregnant. This places a self (name removed by moderator)osed artifical barrier between two people. It can add tension to a marraige that should not be there.

 

[moon1234]

fact that the couple KNOWS that the act is infertile has nothing to do with it.

Actually this has everything to do with it. If the couple is intentionally having sex during infertiles times and not during the fertile times, they are frustrating the PURPOSE of the marraige act. This is what Pope Pius XI spoke of when he stated:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:
“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.”4

The PURPOSE of only having sex during the infertile times is to frustrate the ability to conceive a child. Notice Pope Pius XI does NOT say “Prevent” he says “Frustrate”. This was worded specifically this way so people would not eventually arrive at how NFP is understood by so many today.

This is evidenced by your thought pattern. It is what Pope Pius XI was trying to prevent in the way this was worded.

 

[moon1234]

This is not church teaching. Not every single act must intend to have children. There can be nothing done TO the act itself to frustrate the conception of children. Read Love and responsibility and it will explain further.

Every single Act MUST intend to have children. The fact that it does not result in children is up to God. This is what it MEANS to be open to life.

 

[moon1234]

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…

Which is a self serving statement. It is up to all of us to spread the truth and correct error where we see it. To ignore this duty is to ignore Christ’s command to preach his gospel to all.

 

[wanner47]

Moon,

Your reading comprehension needs some work.

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 Bishop is clearly asking, “What about couples who only have sex during presumably INFERTILE periods?” Note the bolded portion above. Again, the couples in question are ONLY having sex ON INFERTILE DAYS. The Vatican’s reply was that it was an acceptable practice as long as the sexual act itself was not frustrated.

 

[wanner47]

Every single Act MUST intend to have children. The fact that it does not result in children is up to God. This is what it MEANS to be open to life.

So my husband and I are currently sinning every time we have sex? We certainly don’t intend every act to conceive a child right now.

By your logic, it is a sin for Catholic couples to have sex during infertile periods. Apparently, we must only have sex when we know we are fertile, otherwise we are sinning. Is this your stance?

By the way, the Biblical Old Testament prohibitions about sex during menstruation were related to uncleanliness, not contraception. Those prohibitions are not in effect due to the New Covenant. They are ritual law, not moral law.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

For couples this would be acting on their wishes to be intimate when they feel like it, not when a calendar dictates they can have sex with the least chance of getting pregnant. This places a self (name removed by moderator)osed artifical barrier between two people. It can add tension to a marraige that should not be there.

There is no artificial barrier. Only God’s natural design for hormonal fluctuation.

By your rules, if a wife after having five children in 9 years cannot have any more, you would consign her to either do that or abstain till menopause, which to me would add LOTS more tension to a marriage.

That “calendar” you condemn is really her God-given ability to recognize her own fertility. And to choose to have intercourse or not if she is not ready to conceive. Unlike animals who have no such intellect or free will, they must mate. They can’t not resist the hormonal onslaught. Doubt that and you’ve never had an army of tomcats yowling outside your house when a female cat is in heat.

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

Again, Acts which deliberately frustrate the natural powers and purpose of the conjugal act in its exercise…

That’s acts before, during and after the exercise of the act.

Take eating as an example.

God gave us that pleasure for the purpose of sustaining life. Now, if we eat too much, there is the chance we’ll ruin our health. We are allowed to not eat at the times of day when it would be worst for our metabolism. Every act of eating is geared to gaining every calorie possible and those who resist eating before they go to bed are thwarting the metabolic regulation of their bodies. What fool would say that?

It is not immoral to fast, or eat lesser. Or go a day without eating. Christ went 40 days without eating. But it would be immoral to stick your finger down your throat during dinner and purge so that you can eat more without consequence. Or to drink ipecac afterwards, or take laxatives. It thwarts God’s design for food and drink.

But nowhere are we commanded to eat at every opportunity and gather every calorie possible just because food is God’s way of sustaining life. And those who cannot take weighing 300 lbs are somehow wrong in your book.

The reason the Church says NFP is licit is that even if the couple did not INTEND the act to be fertile, by their actions they have left open the possibility that conception might occur. They have not done anything outright in violation of God’s natural plan to inhibit it. So sometimes conception occurs with NFP even despite the couple’s intent. Even though by practicing NFP they are saying they are open to God’s plan. That part of NFP instruction often gets lost by the wayside.

The couple is saying “We recognize our mutual fertility pattern. We will exercise self restraint and continence in keeping with that to space children. But we recognize that ultimately God is the Author of Life and His plan may be otherwise for us. And we are open to that.”

That is the basic difference between NFP and ABC. You are ignoring that completely.

 

[wanner47]

Let’s look at Casti Conubii a little closer, shall we?

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

1. 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 power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Is the Pope contradicting himself? He says that consensual continence is absolutely allowed by Church law. He does not say WHEN or for HOW LONG this continence must happen.

*59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. 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.

This contradicts your claim as well. See the red, bolded portion above – a woman’s NATURAL infertile period fits this description.

 

[agapewolf]

Every single Act MUST intend to have children. The fact that it does not result in children is up to God. This is what it MEANS to be open to life.

No moon, you are wrong. Every single act does not have to intend for children. It must be OPEN to the fact, but does not have to intend for it. If it did, sex during the infertile time would be wrong, which it isn’t. It can’t do anything deliberately to frustrate the act though. That is the difference.

You are interpreting the pope’s statement absolutely incorrectly. It is not frustrating the purpose by NOT having sex. It is frustrating the purpose by having sex and sterilizing it. These are 2 different things completely.

You are in serious error against the church’s teachings here.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Every single Act MUST intend to have children. The fact that it does not result in children is up to God. This is what it MEANS to be open to life.

So that means that a couple can’t have sex while the wife is pregnant, because you can’t intend for more children, right? Your logic really falls apart when you try to apply it.

A couple needs to have procreative sex–that is the marital embrace itself must be unaltered. NFP doesn’t alter the act, each act is procreative, regardless of the natural fertility of the couple. THIS is what it means to be “Open to Life”.

 

[moon1234]

So that means that a couple can’t have sex while the wife is pregnant, because you can’t intend for more children, right? Your logic really falls apart when you try to apply it.

A couple needs to have procreative sex–that is the marital embrace itself must be unaltered. NFP doesn’t alter the act, each act is procreative, regardless of the natural fertility of the couple. THIS is what it means to be “Open to Life”.

If the primary purpose is not possible and you are not doing anything to frustrate it, then the secondary purposes are always valid. If the woman is pregnant/infertile, etc. then it is not possible to frustrate the primary purpose.

A couple needs to have procreative sex–that is the marital embrace itself must be unaltered. NFP doesn’t alter the act, each act is procreative, regardless of the natural fertility of the couple. THIS is what it means to be "Open to Life

Which is the same was as saying that each sexual act must first be a procreative one. IE your not doing anything to block procreation. That is what it means to be open to life. You can not have sex without being open to life and wanting to welcome any children that come from such an act. The statement above that each act does NOT need to be open to life is wrong. You can not have sex purely for pleasure without also being open to life.

 

[moon1234]

No moon, you are wrong. Every single act does not have to intend for children. It must be OPEN to the fact, but does not have to intend for it. If it did, sex during the infertile time would be wrong, which it isn’t. It can’t do anything deliberately to frustrate the act though. That is the difference.

You are interpreting the pope’s statement absolutely incorrectly. It is not frustrating the purpose by NOT having sex. It is frustrating the purpose by having sex and sterilizing it. These are 2 different things completely.

You are in serious error against the church’s teachings here.

Every single act must intend for children (That is the primary purpose and you must always intend for that to be your primary reason. Nothing wrong with also being horny, etc.) That is what it means to be open to life. The fact that you may not conceive is just a possible side effect.

Please stop with the “You are in serious error against the church’s teachings here.” stuff. It is just like a child picking up his football and saying I’m going home cause you are just mean.

 

[moon1234]

Let’s look at Casti Conubii a little closer, shall we?

Is the Pope contradicting himself? He says that consensual continence is absolutely allowed by Church law. He does not say WHEN or for HOW LONG this continence must happen.

This contradicts your claim as well. See the red, bolded portion above – a woman’s NATURAL infertile period fits this description.

You are guessing here about the time statement. Time could be referring to the natural sterility that comes with menopause. Certain defects most likely referrs to medical conditions which render a woman sterile.

The line you quote is followed up by "so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. ". Please explain how the couple can be “subordinated to the primary end” when they are doing their best to thwart it?