NFP is a Heresy?

[kleary]

I WOULD NOT trust those people from “Most Holy Family Monastery” in NY at ALL.

I am a parishioner at what used to be “Most Holy Family Monastery” in Berlin, NJ that is now under the auspices of the Diocese of Camden, called “Mater Ecclesiae Roman Catholic Church” and we have the TLM every day of the year. And without “Brother Michael Diamond” mind you.

I will not go into all of it… but I will tell all to STAY AWAY from those people at MHFM in NY. They are nuts, feel the world and all Christianity is against them most especially the Papal Antichrist…

So they are in no way “Traditional Catholics” in any way shape or form.

Ken

 

[kleary]

As far as NFP goes I was suggested and mandated by my pastor to go to NFP classes as part of Pre-Cana.

I do not see any moral objections to NFP. I mean simply abstaining for nine days or so from the marital act is supposed to be wrong?

Ken

 

[thistle]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

My issue is obvious: **I think NFP is immoral ** - unless the life of the mother depends on it.

You are wrong. The Church does not teach and allow anything which is immoral and it teaches that NPF is allowed so you are in fact rejecting the Church’s teaching by saying you consider it immoral.

CCC 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.157 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.

This is also consistent with HV 16 which another poster has quoted to you.

The issue is clear. You do not have to use NFP but you are allowed to use it. It is not immoral but you somehow seem to be using this issue to attack the Church.

 

[StCsDavid]

I gotta tell you…I don’t get it. ABC is for the prevention of pregnacy…NFP is open to God’s creation. Couples have to communicate and be in concert with the whole process. How is this a bad thing? It seems that a couple that would be looking forward to the woman’s period so they can have sex without worry of children are not in the proper frame of mind about what the sexual relationship is all about in the first place. On the other hand, for a couple to honestly evaluate their present situation and abstain from marital relations at a time when she is most likely to conceive…I’m sorry…I just don’t see the evil here.

For those who say sex is only for procreation, would you posit that after a woman surpasses child-bearing age and has gone through “the change” that she should stop having sex with her husband all together as the only reason they would be having sex would be for their own mutual pleasure?

 

[AquinasXVI]

The Theology of the Body to me explains the balance of NFP. We can use NFP in a selfish way or in a selfless way. It goes back to our ethos. As couples assent to the church’s marital declaration in accepting God’s fruitfulness and our responsibility in raising healthy children in the faith, there is the couple’s consciencious and conscious use of these gifts. NFP is the tool in which we can accomplish this happily and morally. Now, if we use NFP for the sole purpose of preventing procreation, then our problem is not NFP but the disposition that we bring into the relationship.

Balance is difficult in any endeavor, can we expect less from the dynamic relationship of a husband and a wife trying to make it in the world? Of course it’s difficult. That’s the given. The response is totally up to us.

On the other side, should we make the effort to practice the dynamics of chastity and charity (in the procreative sense), we are promised the fulfillment (in terms of happiness) that the entire Gospels propose to us.

in XT.

 

[TobyLue]

gardenswithkids

But I disagree when you term it a “serious and grave sin” to use it if you think it’s wrong.

My point is, and this is what I have been taught since a kid in the late forties and fifties, if something is NOT a sin, but you think in your heart that it IS a grave sin and you willfully commit it then it becomes a grave sin. Same thing as if you honestly do not know something is a sin and commit it, you do not sin. I was talking to some boys at my sons school last year and the lesson had to do with confession. One of the boys did not know that all mortal sins must be confessed. One of the boys argued that no, just whatever you wanted. I explained church teachings and he somberly said that he honestly did not know that all mortal sins had to be confessed. I told him that if truthfully and honestly he didn’t know then to forget it, his sins were forgiven because he was ignorant of it. He then stated “Well, I guess I know now!!” Remember, for a mortal sin, you must know that it is a grave sin, you think about doing it and you do it. So if you think NFP is immoral and gravely sinful and you use NFP willfully after thinking about it, then it becomes a grave sin. I know what the Church teaches regarding NFP.

 

[YinYangMom]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

But meticulously planning, calculating, and engaging in all kinds of internal exams and doing anything, anything to still have sex just for the pleasure of it, not for the natural end, which is children, then how, HOW, can this be moral?

It’s not ‘just for the pleasure of it’. It’s for renewing marital vows each and every time a married couple unite in that way. Each and every time with, or without NFP, that couple remains open to life should God will it. Yes, there are many couples out there who practice NFP for wrong reasons and those would not be living morally, as you’ve noted.

But the Church’s teaching is not about people like that. The Church’s teaching is saying marriage is between the couple and God. It’s a trinitarian covenant, so-to-speak. The priest did not marry the couple…the couple married each other and the priest witnessed. GOD was the third party to that covenant and remains such til death do them part. So, what the Church’s teachings reflect is the sanctity of marriage.

Only God knows what is in the heart of each of us and as a married couple, our hearts became one with His. IF a couple discerns from God now is not the time to bring life into the world, that there is another time for that, then that couple can abstain until they discern the ‘right’ time or they can practice NFP with an open heart - one which says, “Lord, we believe we understand your will for us is to hold off on another child now, thus our obedience to your teaching about NFP, but in case we aren’t reading you right, we trust you will make your will known by bringing us a child despite our efforts and we welcome that child completely and lovingly and thank you for being so generous with us, in leading us closer to you through this part ouf or marriage.” The couple then engages in sex - obviously, not ‘just for the fun of it’ - but because they are trying, together, to understand God’s will for them, to grow closer to Him, to learn how to discern His will better each time.

 

[YinYangMom]

TobyLue:

So if you think NFP is immoral and gravely sinful and you use NFP willfully after thinking about it, then it becomes a grave sin.

Nope. If you think NFP is immoral and gravely sinful, then you are obliged to find out for certain so that you ‘properly form your conscience’ through which you then decide whether or not to proceed with the action in question.

Through the proper formation process you’d learn that NFP is not immoral and gravely sinful in and of itself. You would also learn, as tiny’(name removed by moderator)my and others have pointed out that there are many ways one can use NFP which would deem the act immoral and gravely sinful.

As Catholics we are obliged to consider all our actions in light of Church teaching. If we aren’t certain about the teachings of a particular action we’re called to refrain from such act (out of prudence) until such time as we can acquire knowledge of the church’s teachings on that matter.

Now, if we happen to react impulsively so that we do the act before we have time to look into it, and later, once we do research it we find out it was indeed a cause for sin, then we confess the sin, though not as a mortal sin (since we didn’t have full knowledge before committing it), but it’s not venial either, really, since we had an inkling it would be wrong but were not disciplined enough to supress our desires (I guess that would be the real sin to confess??)…anyway, I digress…sorry…

 

[Anima_Christi]

Semper Fi:

Natural Family Planning is not a heresy because it does not take God out of the question of sex. There is still the chance that you may conceive, and this is what doesn’t make it a heresy. The church teaches that there are legitimate reasons such as health issues or financial issues where a person may want to legitimately limit the number of children they have.
Bless,

There is still a chance you may conceive using a condom or being on the pill or other forms of birth control. So that is irrelevant.
I have been struggling with the morality of NFP too and I don’t see how something can be OK just because it’s “natural”.

 

[bear06]

Sigh! So many threads on this topic. I would like to point out that if the liberals hate NFP and the radical traditionalists hate NFP one might want to think about their stance on it. I’m not talking about peanut butter but a moral teaching of the Church.

Here’s a couple of links. I’d recommend reading the links off these pages too.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39854&highlight=natural+family+planning

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36172&highlight=natural+family+planning

 

[Agricola]

Dear Tiny’(name removed by moderator)my,

I had a difficult time understanding NFP for some time. I was immediately put off by the suggestion that it was a good in itself. The first time the concept was introduced to me, it was put forth as a Catholic form of contraception. I think that this is the reason that many people have problems with it.

Because of my distrust of NFP I went through the Church documents that mention it and it’s prerequisites. I found that the Church does not teach that it is okay to use it whenever one wishes. It is a last resort. There are arguments over what ''serious reasons" means, but it is fairly clear to me, that by “serious” the Church means very serious. Any license taken because of a perceived vagueness of terminology is on the consciences of those who willfully misinterpret the relevant documents.

If a woman is ill, or has a condition that prevents her from safely conceiving, then she and her husband may abstain from sexual relations during the fertile time of the month. If the married couple is having difficulty feeding their existing children, then they may also abstain, but in this case it is not as clear. From what I gather from the relevant documents, the couple may legitimately abstain, but it is required that they remain “generously open to new life”. Having children when you are just getting by is not irresponsible parenthood unless it truly endangers those who you are already responsible for. Also, having children when you are poor can be a sign of heroic generosity, as it is in the case of a woman who refuses to abort her child to save her own life.

There is great pressure put on Catholics to use NFP these days, both by pastors, and by Catholics who use it themselves. I think the emphasis is misplaced. NFP should not be taught, as it often is, as a regular form of birth control. There is no virtue expressed in spacing children unless it is truly necessary, and then only according to the dictates of Church teaching and the limits of one’s own conscience.

Please, whatever you do, do not confuse the Church with individuals within it. What the Church teaches on NFP is not heresy, but an allowance that is made for people who need it. Those who promote or practice NFP for lesser reasons should re-evaluate their decision to do so and not try to excuse themselves by misinterpreting the right teaching of the Church on the matter. It is not something that should be taken lightly in theory or practice, as it concerns the gift of life, the greatest gift that God gives us, and the product of marital love.

If I were you, I would talk to your husband and express your concerns. Sit down with him and evaluate your present situation. Talk about whether your situation necessitates abstinence for the time being. Have him go through the process verbally with you, so that all concerns are presented and considered mutually. NFP is not something that should be entered into because of a unilateral decision on the part of one spouse. Complete openness may help. If your husband does not want to discuss it with you in depth, then perhaps you should suggest that you seek spiritual guidance together from your local priest. I doubt that any priest will tell you to go against you conscience on this matter, as from what I have read of your posts, on this thread and others, you have legitimate concerns and are not convinced that NFP is necessary for you at all.

I believe that you are not attacking the Church, or it’s teachings. I believe that you are truly seeking to reconcile what your conscience is telling you with the Church’s position on NFP. Do not worry. What you take as the truth is not so far away from what the Church teaches.

I suggest that you look into Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and other documents on human sexuality, women, and marriage, if you have not already done so. Read the complete documents. Get everything in context. Understand that the Church must makes the allowance for NFP, because abstinence is sometimes* necessary*, but not because it is ideal. NFP makes it possible for a married couple to participate in the secondary, or unitive, part of marital relations during these times of necessity.

I hope that what I’ve written may help you. Keep trying to reconcile with the Church’s teachings on this matter. Don’t let anything, or anyone discourage you from embracing the truth.

God bless,
you are in my prayers,

Agricola

 

[thistle]

Anima Christi:

There is still a chance you may conceive using a condom or being on the pill or other forms of birth control. So that is irrelevant.
I have been struggling with the morality of NFP too and I don’t see how something can be OK just because it’s "natural".

Because the Church teaches that it is okay and not immoral and you have to accept the teaching of the Church.

 

[Jocelyn]

My question is how long has the church been teaching that NFP is ok. My understanding is that the church sanctioned NFP in 1951.

 

[fix]

…If the application of that theory implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. In this case they do not hinder or jeopardize in any way the consummation of the natural act and its ulterior natural consequences. It is exactly in this that the application of the theory, of which We are speaking, differs essentially from the abuse already mentioned, which consists in the perversion of the act itself. If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely…

Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession Vatican, October 29, 1951

 

[kamz]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

I feel like the churches are pressuring us to use it. Before you can get married now you have to be told all about NFP. Before we got married, a Catholic professor of mine asked if my husband-to-be was a practicing Catholic, and I said, yes, and he said, well, then he’ll be open to NFP, and I said we aren’t goning to use any birth control, and he said, what do you mean? and I said, we’re just going to have children, like our parents, and he looked at me like I was a wild animal! Like anybody who woundn’t use “responsible parenting” shouldn’t get married! There is all kinds of pressure to use it. And I don’t believe that the Church really teaches that mere “spacing” is okay. I haven’t seen that anywhere, even in all this mushy “responsible parently” rhetoric.

You seem bitter and upset with the church but isn’t it your husband who you should really be having this discussion with? You want to do one thing and your husband wants to do something else (he wants to space your children) so if you are not in agreement with your husband you should be having this discussion with your husband? If you feel one way and he feels another then you need to work as a couple to find a way to reach an agreement. The church gives us NFP and yes, some will always abuse it but we can’t know what every Catholic in the world has in their hearts and there are just as many Catholics who use NFP in the way it should be used. You personally don’t want to use NFP and your husband wants to use NFP if I am understanding you? So, you need to talk to your husband and convince him to your way of thinking but you don’t need to come on to this board and try to blast NFP, NFP when used as the Church has taught us is a beautiful wonderful part of marriage and I take offence with you bashing what God has given us just because your angry with your husband that you have to use NFP.
That is between you, your husband and God don’t you think?
Who are you trying to convince on this board?? Is your husband reading this board? Its seems to me you have your mind made up, you don’t like NFP, you don’t want to use NFP and everyone has said “then don’t” and you say its becuase of you husband, well, talk to him, take this to him, isn’t that who needs to open his ears and listen??

 

[jpusateri]

mlchance:

And HV 10 says:With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark,

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. If so, I apologize.

I somehow got the impression that you thought HV was not requiring “serious” OR “grave” conditions in order to use NFP to delay or avoid conceiving.

 

[javelin]

Anima Christi:

There is still a chance you may conceive using a condom or being on the pill or other forms of birth control. So that is irrelevant.
I have been struggling with the morality of NFP too and I don’t see how something can be OK just because it’s “natural”.

This is a bit difficult to understand, and I struggled with it myself until a particular explanation made sense to me. I’ll try my best to present it here.

The question of the morality of ABC (artificial birth control) vs. NFP should be boiled down to the direct actions of the participants. In the case of ABC, the couple (or one member) is acting specifically to block the normal fertility of the sexual act they are in, or are envisioning. Once doing that, they continue with intercourse. In this case, they are envisioning a life that could result from their actual union at that time and acting specifically to stop that life from being created. The intercourse itself is not immorral – it is the action that deliberately removes natural fertility from the act that is immorral. Thus, with the use of ABC, there is an immorral act involved.

In the case of a couple practicing NFP, there is no act to hinder or block natural fertility while continuing to have intercourse. Rather, the couple does nothing at all – abstinence. There is no action by either member that can be judged to be moral or immorral.

Note that the use of NFP is NOT considered a virtuous act (a moral good), it is simply morally neutral.

Thus, when serious reasons exist, the use of morally neutral NFP is allowed because it is not morally wrong, as ABCs are.

When looked at in this way, it can be understood why it can be morally licit to use medications or treatments for serious medical reasons that also happen to hinder or block fertility. Take a patient undergoing chemotherapy, for instance. In that case, the treatment also hinders fertility, but the treatment itself is not being done in order to thwart a life that God could naturally bring with a sexual union. It is, rather, an undesired side-effect. Thus the sexual union is still good and holy (when done out of love and within the marriage covenant), and is not accompanied by a deliberate morally evil act to thwart life.

This perspective also allows for the understanding that NFP, being morally neutral, can be practiced for morally wrong reasons (a selfish desire to be free of children, for instance). In that case it is the selfish reasons that are sinful, not NFP or the sexual act itself.

I learned this from a highly regarded monseignor (who was an adult convert from protestantism, BTW) who teaches medical ethics. I hope that I have not misrepresented what he taught me.

I hope this makes sense to you. I know I am not always the best at explaining things, so please ask for clarification if you feel the need.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

jpusateri:

Mark,

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. If so, I apologize.

I somehow got the impression that you thought HV was not requiring “serious” OR “grave” conditions in order to use NFP to delay or avoid conceiving.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I read him as making a distinction between “serious reasons” and “grave reasons”. Someone earlier used “grave reasons”, which I believe are understood to be more restrictive than “serious reasons”. HV uses “serious”.

Peace,
javelin

 

[mlchance]

javelin:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I read him as making a distinction between “serious reasons” and “grave reasons”. Someone earlier used “grave reasons”, which I believe are understood to be more restrictive than “serious reasons”. HV uses “serious”.

Precisely. One may properly use NFP to avoid conception for financial reasons. Of course, those financial reasons must be genuinely serious. If the choice is between having, say, a vacation home and avoid conception, or not having a vacation home and having a child, the latter would be the proper course of action (to use a very obvious example).

Of course, no use of NFP can be justified without proper examination of conscience and, quite possibly, spiritual direction as well.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[migurl]

I think a lot of people have trouble accepting NFP because of its effects. The point though is that we are using our natural cycles, the ones God set up to determine when we can or cannot get pregnant. Now, there are plenty of catholics out there who use NFP like they would ABC, but the purpose of NFP is to use God’s rules in a way that is natural and w/o perversion. NFP is ONLY acceptable if the couple has a serious reason, like bankrupcy, serious illness (mental or physical). THey are supposed to talk to a priest about the decision and recieve guidance so that they can come to the right decision. SImply saying a prayer together doesnt’ cut it, you’ve got to go to a good priest and tell him your reasons and they he is supposed to be honest and tell you whether that is good enough or not. If it is a good enough reason, you can’t keep yourself in that situation just so you can use NFP and you can’t use NFP for longer than the situation exists.