NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[giuseppeTO]

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.

More to the point, the priest will be the one who best understands the teachings of the church to tell you whether or not something would be sinful. He is trained in moral theology and on the teachings of the church on this and you are not. The priest obviously does not make any act sinful but he is the one to make that determination, not you and your wife. As you said, whether you decide to do it anyway is certainly up to you.

 

[Onegin]

… ]how in the world can it be sinful to not have sex?

I think the crucial issue here (as guiseppe and whm addressed at various points) is not the abstinence, after all, couples have been practicing periodic abstinence throughout history at times when they have had to do so for a good reason.

The problem is that the NFP position wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to supposedly promote the same spirit of chastity found by couples who abstain completely whilst still allowing them the benefits of the marital act without the subsequent responsibility. NFP, when used for trying to avoid a pregnancy, involves the couple deliberately choosing to have relations on those days on which the couple knows that they are biologically unlikely to conceive.

This presence of a premeditated, deliberate choice on the part of the couple is essential, I believe, to understanding why it is the Church has been clear that serious reasons need to exist before the couple can make such a deliberate, contraceptive choice. It is not a frivolous thing by any means, hence the suggestion that a Priest be consulted as the temptation to use NFP for a less than serious reason can prove to be overwhelming for some. Thus, NFP becomes the default and not the exception and this again is disordered.

As you mentioned, Paulin, there is something awe-inspiring about the Catholics throughout history who managed to raise good, holy families without all this supposedly essential fertility knowledge that we have today. I would wager that, at the time, one was simply taught to trust God to provide and so people did. This childlike faith is something that Christ has exhorted us to strive for, and this seems to be one notable area in life where many are reluctant to surrender control.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

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?

The sin isn’t in abstaining (except as noted). The sin is engaging in the marital act with the intention not to conceive. We already discussed this on the first few pages.

 

[PaulinVA]

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.

Well, say the woman is on a drug to treat a disease and the drug produces horrible birth defects or the child won’t grow to term. It’s irresponsible, and maybe sinful, to demand the marriage debt during the fertile time in that case. Yes, that is a serious reason. I’m with you in that, without serious reasons, a couple should not be trying to avoid pregnancy.

giuseppeTO:

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.

But, there is no requirement on any given night for a couple to have sex. Can’t be.

yes, Onegin, I agree that one must have serious, just, grave (pick your document) reasons to avoid pregnancy.

integraCatholic:

The sin isn’t in abstaining (except as noted). The sin is engaging in the marital act with the intention not to conceive. We already discussed this on the first few pages.

That’s an awfully big brush you are painting with. I daresay many a faithful Catholic through the ages had sex with no intention of getting pregnant, and prayed they wouldn’t.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

That’s an awfully big brush you are painting with. I daresay many a faithful Catholic through the ages had sex with no intention of getting pregnant, and prayed they wouldn’t.

And I daresay they committed at least a venial sin.

 

[whm]

Well, say the woman is on a drug to treat a disease and the drug produces horrible birth defects or the child won’t grow to term. It’s irresponsible, and maybe sinful, to demand the marriage debt during the fertile time in that case. Yes, that is a serious reason. I’m with you in that, without serious reasons, a couple should not be trying to avoid pregnancy.

Yes, I agree with you, the husband would be totally in the wrong to request the debt in the situation you describe. In my opinion, the couple would be completely irresponsible to use NFP in this situation too. It calls for complete abstinence in my opinion.

 

[PaulinVA]

Yes, I agree with you, the husband would be totally in the wrong to request the debt in the situation you describe. In my opinion, the couple would be completely irresponsible to use NFP in this situation too. It calls for complete abstinence in my opinion.

Well, my wife and I are in this situation and have been using the sympto thermal method to avoid pregnancy. For us, up to this point, the signs have been clear enough.

Just a friendly little dig - don’t be a chauvinist. Sometimes it’s the wife that could request the debt even though she knows…

 

[whm]

Well, my wife and I are in this situation and have been using the sympto thermal method to avoid pregnancy. For us, up to this point, the signs have been clear enough.

Just a friendly little dig - don’t be a chauvinist. Sometimes it’s the wife that could request the debt even though she knows…

I know I was trying to be careful with the wording early on, got lazy and tired (in fact at first glance I thought you told me not to be a Calvinist).

 

[white_sheep]

The sin isn’t in abstaining (except as noted). The sin is engaging in the marital act with the intention not to conceive. We already discussed this on the first few pages.

We’ve also already discussed how what you just wrote is heretical.

 

[PaulinVA]

(in fact at first glance I thought you told me not to be a Calvinist).

Only the elect are allowed to have sex?

 

[wanner47]

We’ve also already discussed how what you just wrote is heretical.

Exactly. The Catechism states:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.*These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

So either the Church is right, or the Church has been teaching error for the last 100+ years (when the rhythm method was first discussed) and thus is not Christ’s true church and this whole discussion is moot.

 

[white_sheep]

Exactly. The Catechism states:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.*These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

So either the Church is right, or the Church has been teaching error for the last 100+ years (when the rhythm method was first discussed) and thus is not Christ’s true church and this whole discussion is moot.

It would be 157 years.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

And I daresay they committed at least a venial sin.

What about older couples? Oe women who are already pregnant?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

What about older couples?

If they engage in the marital act purely for pleasure, this seems to be a venial sin. If they use it for the remedy of concupiscence, it is not a sin. I need to look into this more, though.

Or women who are already pregnant?

Unless they use the marital act for the remedy of concupiscence (when there is an actual occasion of sin for one of the spouses), then this is not sinful. Otherwise, because there is no possibility for conception, it seems sinful. I addressed this in a previous post, quoting St. Alphonsus Liguori.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

We’ve also already discussed how what you just wrote is heretical.

LOL… what dogma of the Church does it deny, again?

Exactly. The Catechism states:

Unfortunately, this statement: “Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality,” is only true insofar as it can be demonstrated from moral principles. That’s all I’ve said since the beginning of this thread. What moral principles allow someone to engage in the marital act with absolutely no intention to conceive? Please provide the criteria and argument for this.

So either the Church is right, or the Church has been teaching error for the last 100+ years (when the rhythm method was first discussed) and thus is not Christ’s true church and this whole discussion is moot.

The document doesn’t say rhythm is okay. It says those couple who would otherwise engage in a act that is mortally sinful ought not to be disturbed for engaging in rhythm (only venially sinful).

 

[PaulinVA]

If they engage in the marital act purely for pleasure, this seems to be a venial sin. If they use it for the remedy of concupiscence, it is not a sin. I need to look into this more, though.

I gotta tell you, in all Christian love, I am not examining my motives at the point that my wife and I are interested in relations.

integraCatholic:

…Otherwise, because there is no possibility for conception, it seems sinful. I addressed this in a previous post, quoting St. Alphonsus Liguori.

Are you saying that all couples should use NFP to be able to absolutely be sure they are not having relations during an infertile period? Pregnancy, breast feeding, menopause, half of every month - sinful to have relations?

I thought this was discussed previously and abandoned. All relations have to be ordered towards procreation - they don’t actually have to result in conception.

 

[Julianna]

If they engage in the marital act purely for pleasure, this seems to be a venial sin. If they use it for the remedy of concupiscence, it is not a sin. I need to look into this more, though.

Unless they use the marital act for the remedy of concupiscence (when there is an actual occasion of sin for one of the spouses), then this is not sinful. Otherwise, because there is no possibility for conception, it seems sinful. I addressed this in a previous post, quoting St. Alphonsus Liguori.

**You have got to be kidding me? **

 

[ac_claire]

Unfortunately, this statement: “Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality,” is only true insofar as it can be demonstrated from moral principles. That’s all I’ve said since the beginning of this thread. What moral principles allow someone to engage in the marital act with absolutely no intention to conceive? Please provide the criteria and argument for this.

I get where you’re coming from, but don’t understand what you’re saying above. Could you clarify a bit? What do you think this passage in the Catechism is teaching?

 

[sulkow82]

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.

Could you give me a papal document which supports what you are talking about. I would need a document which specifically states your point. I want to verify that what you are saying is official church stance and not a private interpretation of the documents.

I looked up NFP in the tract section of Catholic Answers and I found Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy which states:

But nowhere does Pius XI stress “plans” or “goals” to avoid having children. He does not teach that such a “desire” or such a “deliberate plan” is essentially sinful. What the Pope brands as sinful is “frustrating the marriage act” (vitiando naturae actum)—that is, “frustrating its natural power and purpose.” But when couples carry out conjugal acts on the infertile days exclusively, they are not frustrating the natural power and purpose of those acts that they perform on those days. Those particular acts do not have any natural [procreative] power and purpose to begin with. You cannot frustrate a nonexistent power or purpose. (emphasis mine)

So, again I respectfully require a papal document which directly states your opinion.

 

[wanner47]

LOL… what dogma of the Church does it deny, again?

Unfortunately, this statement: “Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality,” is only true insofar as it can be demonstrated from moral principles. That’s all I’ve said since the beginning of this thread. What moral principles allow someone to engage in the marital act with absolutely no intention to conceive? Please provide the criteria and argument for this.

I refer you to the Catechism:

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.

From Gaudiem et Spes:

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfil their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice, (1 Cor. 7:5) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family. (Pius XII, Address Tra le visite, Jan. 20, 1958: AAS 50 (1958), P. 91)

**Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; **rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.