NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[PaulinVA]

The reason that I disagree with the idea that God simply creates things and then steps back and lets nature take it’s course is because I believe this strays too close to the Deist mentality, or rather the rejection that God intervenes in human affairs. The Deist position considers God to be like a clockworker who simply designs the mechanism and then lets it tick away.

Yes, I agree that I sometimes stray too close to deism. I would agree with a statement along the lines of God occasionally intervenes, because intervention implies changing the outcome. I’m not sure he changes the outcome of everything like a child playing with toy soldiers on the floor.

I am not one to comfort people with “It’ll be alright. Everything happens for a reason”. That just isn’t true. If a loved one is killed by a drunk driver - there is no reason. A person exercised their free will and did something stupid. That’s all. God didn’t want that person dead at all.

 

[rwoehmke]

Like it or not, young people are going to take responsibility for the size of their families. Knowing this most priests would rather they be well aware of NFP rather than leaving them to wolves liken Planned Parenthood and others who have no qualms about recommending every sort of device or pill.

We are no longer an agrarian society and it is not possible to plant an extra row of potatoes because there is a new baby on the way. The use of NFP in one form or another has been less and less restricted with the passage of the decades as the Church has implicitly recognized the need for a morally acceptable means of birth control in today’s industrial urban society.

It is certainly possible for some to completely abstain from sexual relations for the remainder of their married life, but I doubt if its even one in ten. Moral theological discussions as are going on in this thread are certainly interesting, but I doubt that the vast majority, including practicing Catholics, would even be concerned or find it interesting. Enjoy yourselves; its good for the health of your brains.

 

[whm]

We are no longer an agrarian society and it is not possible to plant an extra row of potatoes because there is a new baby on the way. The use of NFP in one form or another has been less and less restricted with the passage of the decades as the Church has implicitly recognized the need for a morally acceptable means of birth control in today’s industrial urban society.

If that is the case, will the Church eventually allow condoms?

It is certainly possible for some to completely abstain from sexual relations for the remainder of their married life, but I doubt if its even one in ten.

Once you abstain for a number of years, it is not likely you will resume, even if the reason for abstaining no longer exists. So those who do go down that path would likely abstain for the rest of their married life.

Moral theological discussions as are going on in this thread are certainly interesting, but I doubt that the vast majority, including practicing Catholics, would even be concerned or find it interesting.

You may be right, but it is sad.

 

[rwoehmke]

If that is the case, will the Church eventually allow condoms?

Once you abstain for a number of years, it is not likely you will resume, even if the reason for abstaining no longer exists. So those who do go down that path would likely abstain for the rest of their married life.

No I don’t expect the Church will. Why should it when it already has a perfectly legitimate
way of controlling births?

A couple of years? And therein lies the rub.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I have followed this thread with interest- (although my mind is entirely made up on the question of NFP. It is possible to have a contraceptive mentality whether one is “using anything or not,” so the question of NFP is simply moot. Put another way, I can’t think of any Church teachings which would prohibit a woman from being familiar with the functioning and health of her body and cycle of fertility and infertility.)

I do, however, have a question for those of the mindset that any attempt at “controlling” births (whether spacing children or avoiding) is immoral and thus NFP should be condemned.

Quite apart from using the information NFP provides to attempt to conceive or avoid children, NFP also provides information that can prevent miscarriage. I myself was able to discover that I have a (very treatable and not uncommon) disorder (luteal phase defect caused by thyroid deficiency) that puts me at extremely (i.e. almost guaranteed) risk of miscarriage. Current medical protocol dictates that doctors need not attempt to find root causes of miscarriage until 2 to 3 have occurred. Arguably, NFP can save lives.

What say those who object to NFP almost in principle? Is there any obligation to learn NFP given that it can be lifesaving?

I, for one, am frankly grateful that the Church promotes NFP, because it is legitimate science that is good for the health of women and their unborn children that the secular culture of death would otherwise suppress.

 

[whm]

No I don’t expect the Church will. Why should it when it already has a perfectly legitimate
way of controlling births?

I don’t think the Church will either. I do think it is a logical end to the line of thinking in your post. I don’t know that it (NFP) is all that effective. The stats often throw out people who cheat/don’t follow the rules closely enough. The problem with that is too many people cheat or don’t chart “religiously” enough. Plus it is way too complex for many parts of the world. I just see this as a conundrum. How about “catholic” condoms where every 10th one has a whole in it ? That’s what NFP seems like to me.

A couple of years? And therein lies the rub.

Yes the abstinence route requires very serious discernment.

 

[whm]

What say those who object to NFP almost in principle? Is there any obligation to learn NFP given that it can be lifesaving?

I don’t recall anybody in this thread objecting to NFP (ie charting) itself, only using it with a contraceptive mindset.

 

[white_sheep]

I don’t recall anybody in this thread objecting to NFP (ie charting) itself, only using it with a contraceptive mindset.

Yes, that’s right. There have been those in this thread who disagree with the Church’s teaching that for just reasons NFP may be used to space births or try to avoid pregnancy. Or at the least they say that almost no one would, in their opinion, have just reasons for doing so.

 

[ac_claire]

Quite apart from using the information NFP provides to attempt to conceive or avoid children, NFP also provides information that can prevent miscarriage. I myself was able to discover that I have a (very treatable and not uncommon) disorder (luteal phase defect caused by thyroid deficiency) that puts me at extremely (i.e. almost guaranteed) risk of miscarriage. Current medical protocol dictates that doctors need not attempt to find root causes of miscarriage until 2 to 3 have occurred. Arguably, NFP can save lives.

What say those who object to NFP almost in principle? Is there any obligation to learn NFP given that it can be lifesaving?

Well the Church does make it an obligation these days, with some kind of NFP course or training being a required part of marriage prep in most American diocese. I only wish that any possible life-saving benefits like you mentioned, along with the benefit of helping couples understand cycles and the way a woman’s body works, etc., were emphasized more, and simply using it to TTA emphasized less. TTA was pretty much the only thing emphasized when we studied it as part of our marriage prep.

 

[rwoehmke]

I don’t think the Church will either. I do think it is a logical end to the line of thinking in your post. I don’t know that it (NFP) is all that effective. The stats often throw out people who cheat/don’t follow the rules closely enough. The problem with that is too many people cheat or don’t chart “religiously” enough. Plus it is way too complex for many parts of the world. I just see this as a conundrum. How about “catholic” condoms where every 10th one has a whole in it ? That’s what NFP seems like to me.

I disagree, the logical end to my line of thinking is that one takes a legitimate method and allows broader usage for just reasons. Condoms are not legitimate to start with and there is no rational way to legitimize them. Further it is my opinion that only the couple has a full picture of their circumstances and the decision should lie with them and not a priest. Priests advise on moral decisions, but to the best of my knowledge they do not make the moral decisions for anyone, but them selves.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I disagree, the logical end to my line of thinking is that one takes a legitimate method and allows broader usage for just reasons. Condoms are not legitimate to start with and there is no rational way to legitimize them. Further it is my opinion that only the couple has a full picture of their circumstances and the decision should lie with them and not a priest. Priests advise on moral decisions, but to the best of my knowledge they do not make the moral decisions for anyone, but them selves.

The decision to contracept is only moral within the bounds the church sets and the priest is the only one that can advise you. You cannot create your own morality. To contracept outside the guidelines that the church sets, namely a grave situation (which you can certainly discuss with a priest), is immoral regardless of how you and your wife feel. The church is always the final arbiter of morality. We all certainly make the final decisions on what to do but we cannot legitimize it based on how we feel.

I find it hard to believe that a priest would not be able to recognize a ‘grave’ situation.

 

[PaulinVA]

The decision to contracept…

I would feel better if you said “postpone pregnancy”. but that’s a topic that’s been discussed* ad naseum *on the moral theology forum.

That said, on the way to work this morning I was struck by the many generations of Catholics before us, who, without the benefit of fertility awareness, followed Church teaching against artificial contraception and abortion and had many children. I admire them greatly.

 

[sulkow82]

I have had a difficult time figuring out the morality of using NFP in marriage. I am looking for traditional Catholic’s opinions on the subject. One thing I found that was interesting is that the american SSPX website appears to consider it a mortal sin. Is this consistent with pre Vatican II beliefs? or is this something that came up with on their own?

One thing which i have found interesting in this thread is the assumption of how NFP would be used. My fiancé and I took an NFP class in preparation for getting married. When we were in the class, the instructor took a “purpose neutral” approach to teaching the technique. By this, I mean NFP could be used to avoid pregnancy (as this thread is discussing), however, it can also be used to increase the chance of pregnancy when a child is desired. If we are to address the morality of the technique for avoiding pregnancy, lets also look to the opposite… using the technique for a desired pregnancy.

Lastly, one point which was brought up in my previous research on NFP for avoidance is this: Mary (Mother of Christ) was celibate and she still got pregnant. If God can do that with a celibate virgin, then (when God decides it) sexual contact timed to avoid fertility would still result in pregnancy. It is the closure to life by artificial contraceptives which is the sin.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

We are no longer an agrarian society and it is not possible to plant an extra row of potatoes because there is a new baby on the way . . . the Church has implicitly recognized the need for a morally acceptable means of birth control in today’s industrial urban society.

Exactly.

If that is the case, will the Church eventually allow condoms?

No, because the two are not in any way comparable. To use a condom is to contracept sexual intercourse, an act that is objectively sinful.

There is nothing objectively sinful about a couple abstaining from sex if they know that it will most likely result in pregnancy. The couple there is obviously not guilty of contraception, because there’s no sexual act to contracept! NFP is qualitatively, objectively different than contraception, so we ought not to equate them, even by analogy.

How about “catholic” condoms where every 10th one has a whole in it ? That’s what NFP seems like to me.

Let me help you understand something. The Church accepts the use of NFP not because, “Well, technically, it’s still possible for you to conceive.” If that were the case, then every form of birth control would be acceptable, since no method besides abstinence (other than a hysterectomy or the removal of the husband’s testicles) is going to prevent conception 100%, no matter what.

So the possibility of conceiving has nothing to do with why NFP is moral. The use of NFP is moral because all it consists of is measuring and accurately recording a woman’s fertility.

If the couple uses that information to avoid pregnancy, they do so by abstaining from sex when the wife is known to be fertile. Obviously that’s not contraception, since there’s no sex going on to contracept! Do you understand?

Now, that said, of course such abstinence would be immoral if a couple uses it to avoid pregnancy altogether, indefinitely. But their sin in that case is not contraception - they’re not committing any act whose object is immoral - rather, the sin there is in their intention.

 

[whm]

No, because the two are not in any way comparable. To use a condom is to contracept sexual intercourse, an act that is objectively sinful.

So why are the couple having sex on infertile days and not have sex on fertile days?

There is nothing objectively sinful about a couple abstaining from sex if they know that it will most likely result in pregnancy. The couple there is obviously not guilty of contraception, because there’s no sexual act to contracept! NFP is qualitatively, objectively different than contraception, so we ought not to equate them, even by analogy.

I think you have to package the abstinence during the fertile period with the sex during the infertile period to discuss the morality of the situation.

Let me help you understand something. The Church accepts the use of NFP not because, “Well, technically, it’s still possible for you to conceive.” If that were the case, then every form of birth control would be acceptable, since no method besides abstinence (other than a hysterectomy or the removal of the husband’s testicles) is going to prevent conception 100%, no matter what.

So the possibility of conceiving has nothing to do with why NFP is moral. The use of NFP is moral because all it consists of is measuring and accurately recording a woman’s fertility.

Note a poster a couple of post ago made that very argument that it is okay since their is a possibility to conceive. This sounds like testing God to me. I’m not comfortable with it at all. The ironic thing is many believe this and when they get pregnant they freak out and claim NFP doesn’t work for them.

I agree that NFP (e.g. charting) is not immoral in anyway. Neither is a condom, which is (or at least used to be) used for medical reasons, such as covering a prostate exam probe. It is the intent of its (NFP or ABC) that determines if it is sinful. I am afraid that many people use NFP with the identical intent of those who use condoms.

If the couple uses that information to avoid pregnancy, they do so by abstaining from sex when the wife is known to be fertile. Obviously that’s not contraception, since there’s no sex going on to contracept! Do you understand?

See my comment above about packaging the abstinence during the fertile and sex during the infertile together.

Now, that said, of course such abstinence would be immoral if a couple uses it to avoid pregnancy altogether, indefinitely. But their sin in that case is not contraception - they’re not committing any act whose object is immoral - rather, the sin there is in their intention.

If your saying true abstinence is immoral, I would have to disagree. If you are saying periodic abstinence then I agree. Abstinence and periodic abstinence are entirely different things. The question is where in the gray area do you draw the line between moral and immoral use of NFP to avoid pregnancy?

 

[PaulinVA]

So why are the couple having sex on infertile days and not have sex on fertile days?​

I think you have to package the abstinence during the fertile period with the sex during the infertile period to discuss the morality of the situation.

But, that takes us back to the situation of the sinfulness of watching the late news and going to sleep when you should be having sex.

Since we have to talk about each act individually (where is Ron Conte when you need him?) how in the world can it be sinful to not have sex?

 

[whm]

Since we have to talk about each act individually (where is Ron Conte when you need him?) how in the world can it be sinful to not have sex?

Well for one it is (or at least used to be …for 2000 years or more) a mortal sin to refuse relations with your spouse without grave reason. I know this sounds like a smart-alec comment but it is crucial to the discussion of NFP since using NFP to avoid requires that neither spouse is denied the marriage debt. I don’t think spouse A can say “not tonight” to spouse B, “we might get pregnant” and deny the marriage debt.

 

[giuseppeTO]

It is the closure to life by artificial contraceptives which is the sin. .

No, actually, that is not accurate. It is the avoidance of conception that is the sin. Successfully employing NFP to remain childless or regulate childbirth to our plan is the sin. That is what the church teaches on the subject.

 

[rwoehmke]

The decision to contracept is only moral within the bounds the church sets and the priest is the only one that can advise you. You cannot create your own morality. To contracept outside the guidelines that the church sets, namely a grave situation (which you can certainly discuss with a priest), is immoral regardless of how you and your wife feel. The church is always the final arbiter of morality. We all certainly make the final decisions on what to do but we cannot legitimize it based on how we feel.

I find it hard to believe that a priest would not be able to recognize a ‘grave’ situation.

I never said that the advice of a priest was not a good thing. I merely said that when the decision is made it can only be made by the couple involved. When it comes to sin or not sin, it is not a priest who makes the decision for you.

 

[giuseppeTO]

But, that takes us back to the situation of the sinfulness of watching the late news and going to sleep when you should be having sex.

Since we have to talk about each act individually (where is Ron Conte when you need him?) how in the world can it be sinful to not have sex?

You folks are mixing up all kinds of partial truths. We do not have an obligation to have relations during fertile periods to produce a pregnancy. Watch the news on any given night is not a sin unless you are doing it to avoid relations during a fertile time so as to prevent pregnancy.

It can be sinful to not have sex, again as we’ve said several times in this thread, if your intent is to successfully use NFP to enjoy sex only when there is a row risk of pregnancy. This “contraceptive” mindset goes against the teaching of the church.