NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[IntegraCatholic]

Also I think it should also be mentioned that using permanent abstinence to avoid conception can also be wrong, and can involve the so-called “birth control mentality” as much as ABC or NFP can.

If there is no marital act, there can be no contraception, for there is no possible conception to work against. One who has a contraceptive mentality may use abstinence, though, of course. It would not be wrong to do so for grave reasons or for the practice of a more perfect virtue.

 

[timrohr]

Thanks Tim that was a useful post. One question, in the highlighted section above are you referring to short periods of abstinence as used in NFP followed by relations during infertile periods or are you saying that long term abstinence (no relations for months or years) in marriage without serious reason is sinful?

Actually, it’s not “me” saying it. The Church says (Humanae Vitae and elsewhere) that periodic abstinence (a la NFP) is not justified without serious (grave) reason. Neither Paul VI nor JPII spell out “serious reason” but Pius XII does.

 

[timrohr]

It is ok to use NFP any time. You have to clarify if you mean that as using NFP to practice periodic continence to try to avoid pregnancy.

Are you married and having children every 12 months?

Sorry, it is NOT ok to use NFP any time. There must be serious reason or just cause as per Humane Vitae and elsewhere. I am married and have had children every two years. Natural spacing that normally happens when the mother breastfeeds.

 

[Bluegoat]

Sorry, it is NOT ok to use NFP any time. There must be serious reason or just cause as per Humane Vitae and elsewhere. I am married and have had children every two years. Natural spacing that normally happens when the mother breastfeeds.

I think the point was that NFP can be used for purposes other than avoiding pregnancy.

 

[PaulinVA]

The concept that it is sinful if my wife is fertile and we do not engage in relations is hard to understand. This implies that the Church has put an obligation on both of us to have relations on purpose because of fertility. I do not see that written anywhere.

If neither of us requests relations during the fertile period, what’s the harm? I am talking within the context of serious reasons.

Some on this thread have argued that a couple shouldn’t track fertility and just leave conception to God. Knowing what we know about biology, conception occurs along predictable rules. God adheres to those rules, doesn’t He, except in miraculous situations. So, knowing the rules is cooperating with God to be cocreators, isn’t it?

 

[Brendan]

Breastfeeding, pregnancy, menopause, etc., naturally prevent or can prevent pregnancy, but the intention of the spouses isn’t to avoid conception. In NFP (used to prevent pregnancy), the spouses are actively attempting and have every intention to avoid conception.

Really, we use NFP to MARK the fertile times as we had trouble concieving without it. We’ve got #6 due in Dec

NFP is simply a tool to help mark where a woman is fertile or infertile. It is simply biological information that is neither moral or immoral.

How, why and under what circumstances such information is used determines the morality of the act.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The concept that it is sinful if my wife is fertile and we do not engage in relations is hard to understand. This implies that the Church has put an obligation on both of us to have relations on purpose because of fertility. I do not see that written anywhere.

If neither of us requests relations during the fertile period, what’s the harm? I am talking within the context of serious reasons.

Some on this thread have argued that a couple shouldn’t track fertility and just leave conception to God. Knowing what we know about biology, conception occurs along predictable rules. God adheres to those rules, doesn’t He, except in miraculous situations. So, knowing the rules is cooperating with God to be cocreators, isn’t it?

Again, Paul, it all boils down to intent. If you choose to obstain during fertility because you do not want to become pregnant, that would be sinful. If you obstain because you are exhausted, busy with children, or ill, that is quite different.

God does follow natural rules and our duty is to freely cooperate with God in the creation of souls. If we use the knowledge of God’s rules to prevent pregnancy or to conform pregnancy to our personal convenience, that would be sinful.

 

[PaulinVA]

Again, Paul, it all boils down to intent. If you choose to abstain during fertility because you do not want to become pregnant, that would be sinful.

And I have a problem with that. What other voluntary act is sinful if not performed at a certain time?

In this instance, as in you can’t take the whole marriage as being open to life but every act has to be open to life, does a couple have to have marital relations every day during the period they know is fertile? Is every other day sufficient? How about once during the fertile period?

Once you say that the couple is obligated to have relations during the fertile period, you have to answer these questions. They seem silly, but that’s the logical end to the argument.

A serious reason to use NFP to avoid conception is not specified by the Church. There is no list. Yes, it can be abused, but, frankly, it is subjective. If a woman feels that one more child would drive her over the edge, who are we to second guess her? If a couple doesn’t think they can afford another child, well, is the Church going to provide a financial planner?

As I say during these discussions about NFP abuse, come on, 3-5% of Catholics use NFP. Go pick on the other 95-97% that don’t.

 

[Bluegoat]

Again, Paul, it all boils down to intent. If you choose to obstain during fertility because you do not want to become pregnant, that would be sinful. If you obstain because you are exhausted, busy with children, or ill, that is quite different.

I don’t think this is at all what the CC teaches about this. Every Catholic resource I have read says that it is ok to avoid pregnancy for good reasons, either by abstaining all the time or during fertility.

This must be done in the context that one of the primary purposes of marriage is to have and raise children.

 

[whm]

I don’t think this is at all what the CC teaches about this. Every Catholic resource I have read says that it is ok to avoid pregnancy for good reasons, either by abstaining all the time or during fertility.

This must be done in the context that one of the primary purposes of marriage is to have and raise children.

With the exception of older materials (pre 1960’s) had much stronger wording.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Really, we use NFP to MARK the fertile times as we had trouble concieving without it. We’ve got #6 due in Dec

Which is why I said “In NFP (used to prevent pregnancy)” as opposed to NFP (used to conceive).

How, why and under what circumstances such information is used determines the morality of the act.

Precisely.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I don’t think this is at all what the CC teaches about this. Every Catholic resource I have read says that it is ok to avoid pregnancy for good reasons, either by abstaining all the time or during fertility.

This must be done in the context that one of the primary purposes of marriage is to have and raise children.

I’m not sure if you are paraphrasing the term “good” reasons but I have never seen the Popes use any other than grave reasons … never “good”.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m not sure if you are paraphrasing the term “good” reasons but I have never seen the Popes use any other than grave reasons … never “good”.

I was using my terminology - good, meaning, well, good. Acceptable. I wasn’t commenting on what might constitute a good or acceptable reason.

 

[rwoehmke]

Did John Paul II have anything to say about the proper use of NFP?

 

[wanner47]

This is a great article that discusses this subject. It’s long, but well-written and extremely thorough.

becomewhatyouare.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/nfp-licit-or-illicit/#com-head

 

[Onegin]

I highly suggest reading the article I linked to below called “Rhythm: The Unhappy Compromise”. And before people discount it for being on the SSPX website, I should point out that the article was written in 1948 - long before the SSPX ever existed. I believe it offers some insight into the traditional view on the use of NFP in Catholic Marriage and why it may not be as great as so many people market it to be:

sspx.org/against_sound_bites/rhythm_unhappy_compromise.htm

The thing is out of hand. A method meant to be a temporary solution of a critical problem has become a way of life, a very selfish, luxury-loving, materialistic way of life. What theologian would ever justify practices like these actual cases I now cite: parish priests giving a copy of a book on Rhythm to each engaged couple with a word of approval; preachers explaining in weekend retreats the advantages of this method for having children as you planned them; teachers in some of our best colleges teaching the method, often to girls who are well set financially; gynecologists lecturing in leading Catholic medical schools and telling classes of young doctors how to teach this method to patients, so that the doctors assume Church approval to recommend the method has now been given them; engaged couples planning their wedding day with rhythm cycle all plotted so no pregnancy results until a year or two passes, so that they can enjoy all the privileges and none of the obligations of marriage.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

It is the contraceptive mentality that is the problem not NVP itself, the contraceptive mentality can be found among Catholics just the same among Catholics who use NVP to avoid as others who use ABC and this evil mentality does not become suddenly good because a person picks one method of avoiding pregnancy over another.

NVP is not sinful, but the contraceptive mentality is nearly always sinful, it is a version of Satan’s Non Serviam to God in which the people involved say to God “No! we will not cooperate with you to create a new life! Our will must come before your Divine Will!”

Ultimately is a lack of trust and faith in God that leads to this.

 

[white_sheep]

I’m not sure if you are paraphrasing the term “good” reasons but I have never seen the Popes use any other than grave reasons … never “good”.

The CCC says “just reasons”

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality

 

[whm]

The CCC says “just reasons”

This what I found after investigating NFP a little closer. The older documents including statements from Popes are in stark contrast to current materials. That quote from the CCC is a great example…it doesn’t say much of anything.

 

[white_sheep]

This what I found after investigating NFP a little closer. The older documents including statements from Popes are in stark contrast to current materials. That quote from the CCC is a great example…it doesn’t say much of anything.

My point was simply that the word ‘grave’ is not the sole word used to describe the situation, and that it might not mean what some think it means. Canon law and Church documents tend to use their own vocabulary and are often in a language other than English and must be translated. This leaves some words with imperfect analogues that must be used in the translation.

Do you have any links or know the titles to any pre-1960 Church documents dealing with this matter?