Natural Family Planning

  • Thread starter Thread starter bsm138
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bsm138

Guest
I’m new entering the church and still have many questions. One has to do with Natural Family Planning.

Now, I had thought that Catholic teaching says that all acts of sex must have the goal or motivation of procreation. Is NVP kind of like a “it’s safe because we won’t get pregnant” which would then go against the goal of procreation?

Please clarify.
 
Now, I had thought that Catholic teaching says that all acts of sex must have the goal or motivation of procreation.
Nope. Each act must be ordered, per se, toward procreation. That means that you can’t purposefully act to remove the procreative aspect from an act which is taking place. But you don’t have to have the goal of getting pregnant. You just have to have to goal of completing the marital act in the natural manner, which is both procreative and unitive in nature.
 
That means that you can’t purposefully act to remove the procreative aspect from an act which is taking place.
But wouldn’t acting when knowing that procreation will not happen be purposefully removing the procreative aspect?
 
But wouldn’t acting when knowing that procreation will not happen be purposefully removing the procreative aspect?
How do you remove the procreative aspect from an act that is naturally infertile (during the infertile period, for example) when the act is still completed in the natural manner?
 
But wouldn’t acting when knowing that procreation will not happen be purposefully removing the procreative aspect?
Well, my wife and I were intimate when we were sure procreation wouldn’t happen. He will be celebrating his 1st birthday in about 8 weeks. 😃
 
Women usually only have any significant chance of getting pregnant on a few days out of the month. Obviously, God did not intend that couples limit sexual activity to those few days since the scientific knowledge behind natural family planning is only very recent and would have been unknown to the ancients. It is not a sin for a couple to have sex and it is not a sin for them to abstain. This is all that NFP is materially, so NFP cannot be immoral on that account.
 
Nope. Each act must be ordered, per se, toward procreation. That means that you can’t purposefully act to remove the procreative aspect from an act which is taking place. But you don’t have to have the goal of getting pregnant. You just have to have to goal of completing the marital act in the natural manner, which is both procreative and unitive in nature.
What ahs said.

Also, with all of the bells and whistles of the different NFP methods, it’s worth remembering that NFP is abstinence. The reason people don’t get pregnant when using NFP is that they aren’t having sex.

(Of course, there’s also NFP to achieve pregnancy, but that’s not what the thread is about.)
 
One way to look at the admonition that each act be procreative and unitive is this: IF the woman were fertile and IF the man were fertile, COULD pregnancy occur due to the act that was performed? If the answer is yes, you are on the right track.

The fact that the woman isn’t fertile at the time or the man isn’t fertile doesn’t matter for the purposes of judging the act.
 
NFP is such a great blessing. My wife and I use it, and it is such a wonderful thing. There are times when we should not become pregnant. However, sexual intercourse is a beneficial part of marriage - as Pope St. John Paul II taught, it is a renewal of our wedding vows. What kind of marriage would it be, if we were able to renew our vows and never did? NFP also allows connection via other methods when engaging in the marital embrace is not desired - abstinence in itself can be a very loving thing.
 
I’m new entering the church and still have many questions. One has to do with Natural Family Planning.

Now, I had thought that Catholic teaching says that all acts of sex must have the goal or motivation of procreation. Is NVP kind of like a “it’s safe because we won’t get pregnant” which would then go against the goal of procreation?

Please clarify.
As has been pointed out NFP to avoid is abstinence. You can chart all you want but if you don’t abstain you will not be doing NFP to avoid. Charting simply gives you more accurate information as to whether or not it is prudent for you to have sex at any given point in time
Whether you abstain completely or only periodically you are still using the information you have to decide whether or not sex is prudent for you, its just that with periodic abstinence (ie, NFP to avoid) you have more accurate information on which to base your judgment.

With any other form of birth control you are taking a fertile couple and making them become infertile so that you can avoid abstaining. The Church has no issue with people spacing children or having sex while hoping they do not get pregnant and while they expect to not be able to get pregnant. The Church has issues with people making themselves or their sexual acts infertile. If you are already infertile and, knowing you are infertile have sex all while not wanting kids there is nothing wrong with that. Just as there is nothing wrong with knowing you are fertile and knowing it would be imprudent to have kids right now and so abstaining. Again, the problem is with knowing you are or may be fertile and then acting to change the status of your fertility so that you can have sex without having kids.

Does that make more sense?
 
I don’t think the OP is aware that his thread was moved to “Family Life” (it was initially opened in “Apologetics”). I sent a PM to let him know.
 
I’m new entering the church and still have many questions. One has to do with Natural Family Planning.

Now, I had thought that Catholic teaching says that all acts of sex must have the goal or motivation of procreation. Is NVP kind of like a “it’s safe because we won’t get pregnant” which would then go against the goal of procreation?

Please clarify.
Pope Pius XII explains in Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951:
The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
Code:
 The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the     inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state.     Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the     Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the     characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the     <bonum prolis>. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church     itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful     marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty     proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its     primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married     life.

 Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic     and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the     obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial     life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be     lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If,     however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons     either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity     of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the     result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top