NFP is a Heresy?

[tiny_smommy]

I started a thread over in Family Life about how I really don’t like NFP. It feels like Catholic contraception to me, and it has really made me sad. I agreed to go through it with my husband, however, and he sees no problem with it. I thought I was alone in feeling like we were playing a game that cheats God and nature, but, lo and behold, the Traditionalists, i.e. schismatics, feel the same way I do about it. Here is an exerpt from one of their websites on the subject:

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Natural_Family_Planning.html

Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:

“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage, such as mutual aid, the quieting of concupiscence and the cultivating of mutual love. But these secondary purposes must always remain subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children). This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

---

Now I am not a Traditionalist! This article is interesting, and I agree with much of it, however I am Eastern Catholic and I aline myself with the Orthodox view of marriage: the primary purpose is mutual salvation of souls - first the husband and wife and a natural extention of that is to the children. The Greek Orthodox have a 1937 encyclical that also condemns birth control, although I know some Orthodox instruct their faithful on NFP. I had been told before that John Paul II’s dual purpose of marriage, both procreative and unitive, was a later innovation and that originally it was taught that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. Now, I don’t aline myself with either of those views, as I said before, but I am an experienced NFP user and it does feel very wrong to me. My so-called grave reason for using it, as some one pointed out on the other thread, is marital harmony. And we have no money, but that’s life. Any thoughts or comments?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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,

 

[fix]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

I started a thread over in Family Life about how I really don’t like NFP. It feels like Catholic contraception to me, and it has really made me sad.

How is it a form of contraception? God ordained times of fertility and non fertility for a reason. I would think NFP may be misused by some with a “contraceptive” mentality, but the technique is not contraceptive at all.

 

[BillyT92679]

Of course it’s not heretical, it’s sanctioned by the Holy Catholic Church.

Artificial contraception is sinful because it reduces sex to mere pleasure without the possibility of having children, plus it’s often an abortifacient. NFP means that you are always open to the possibility of kids.

 

[TobyLue]

Now I am not a Traditionalist! This article is interesting, and I agree with much of it, however I am Eastern Catholic and I aline myself with the Orthodox view of marriage: the primary purpose is mutual salvation of souls - first the husband and wife and a natural extention of that is to the children. The Greek Orthodox have a 1937 encyclical that also condemns birth control, although I know some Orthodox instruct their faithful on NFP.

Here is where the Orthodox Church wavers regarding birth control. Because even though the Orthodox Church condemns it, the people have a way out. From the OCA “Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.” oca.org/QA.asp?ID=147&SID=3

If one priest tells the couple they cannot practice artificial birth control apparently the couple can go around until they find a priest (a spiritual father) that will tell them its OK.

Likewise in regards to abortion even though its condemned they approve it in certain circumstances if I read that same site correctly.

 

[tiny_smommy]

I’m not so much concerned with the Orthodox position on birth control. But your point illustrates my point. Isn’t NFP just Church sanctioned birth control? If the couple decides for themselves that they have “grave” reasons to “space” their children, then they have the blessing of the Church to do so, but can such a couple pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God? I can’t see how, unless the mother truely was so ill that she might die if she conceived, and that is the only truely grave reason I can think of. How can poverty be a reason? People in the past, long before NFP were much poorer. Why can’t Catholics trust God anymore?

 

[YinYangMom]

I still get the impression from your threads that you sincerely do not want to practice NFP, but rather than work with your husband to remove the restriction from your marriage you seek to find ways to discredit Church teachings on the matter.

The teaching is correct.
You do not have to rely on NFP.
You do have to be in union with your spouse on life issues.
Pray for your husband.
Keep communicating with him how unhappy you are with NFP.
Attend seminars sponsored by the Church which deal with family planning within Catholic marriages so that you may come to a fuller understanding of Church teachings.
Parenthood does need to be approached responsibly. If future children will force your family to go on welfare or be unable to provide health and nutrition for your existing children then the situation is grave. It is not only the mother’s health which needs to be considered, but the health and welfare of the other children as well.

 

[fix]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

I’m not so much concerned with the Orthodox position on birth control. But your point illustrates my point. Isn’t NFP just Church sanctioned birth control? If the couple decides for themselves that they have “grave” reasons to “space” their children, then they have the blessing of the Church to do so, but can such a couple pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God? I can’t see how, unless the mother truely was so ill that she might die if she conceived, and that is the only truely grave reason I can think of. How can poverty be a reason? People in the past, long before NFP were much poorer. Why can’t Catholics trust God anymore?

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

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.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)HUMANAE VITAE

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.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3462

 

[maximus]

My wife and I are certified instructors for NFP. Sometimes I wish that the Vatican would have a small Synod and issue a detailed encyclical covering NFP so that these valid questions which you have could be answered unequivocally. The Church has been hands off on NFP and has allowed couples to use their prayerful judgment on this matter. Providentialism is for believers who are able and compelled by their conscience to practice it. NFP is for Christians who prayerfully consider their NFP decision to space children and not provide barriers to God creative powers. Also, NFP is for couples of low fertility, it’s not just for spacing children. It has helped us along with God’s providence to have a child; hence, I am thankful for it. For now the Church has not issue definitive statements regarding NFP and continues to promote it. I believe that NFP it is not a heresy, but if the Church issued a definitive statement or document saying that it is and should not be practiced then I would comply and stop teaching NFP.

God bless you and hopefully you and your husband can be of one mind either with NFP or Providentialism.

 

[gardenswithkids]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

…Isn’t NFP just Church sanctioned birth control? If the couple decides for themselves that they have “grave” reasons to “space” their children, then they have the blessing of the Church to do so, but can such a couple pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God? …

Of course it’s a form of birth control. Total abstinence is also a form of birth control. I also dislike NFP and prefer not using it. I am a former contraceptive user, and I find when using it I slip back into the contraceptive mindset of fearing more children. It certainly can be misused, and I think it often is.

I get really frustrated that people rarely mention that we should have a valid reason to use it for the purpose of avoiding children. I think that confuses many Catholics into justifying their own use of illicit contraceptives because they don’t see the much difference between contraceptives and NFP. The Biblical concept that children are blessing gets lost.

But that doesn’t mean NFP is a heresy. Couples shouldn’t just make the decision to avoid more children on their own; they should take that decision to prayer. We will all answer to God for how we used the gifts He gave us, and that includes the gift of our fertility.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

gardenswithkids:

Of course it’s a form of birth control. Total abstinence is also a form of birth control. I also dislike NFP and prefer not using it. I am a former contraceptive user, and I find when using it I slip back into the contraceptive mindset of fearing more children. It certainly can be misused, and I think it often is.

Yes it is a form of birth control, but it still gives the chance at conception if done properly. ARTIFICIAL birth control is where the problem comes in. My girlfriend before I started following the Faith was on birth control and I find that when she was on birth control it let me treat her more like a sex object than I should have (we are now both abstinent). Artificial birth control is not a good thing for women, it makes men treat women like sex objects (is that the real freedom women want?).

 

[mlchance]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

I can’t see how, unless the mother truely was so ill that she might die if she conceived, and that is the only truely grave reason I can think of. How can poverty be a reason?

You don’t see what the Church truly teaches. The Church does not teach one must have grave reasons to use NFP. Instead, according to Humanae Vitae, one must have serious reasons, among which, according to HV and the CCC, are financial reasons. Now go and submit to the Church’s authority.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Jocelyn]

Oh Tiny’(name removed by moderator), how I agree with you. I have a hard time grasping how NFP and ABC are different. In my mind they are both cheating God. I believe that if one truly trusted God with EVERYTHING that NFP wouldn’t be used. Back in the old days, it was common to see families who had 15-22 children. In my eyes, these people truly believed that God would provide.

The church ok’d NFP in 1951.

NFPers think they are better then those who use ABC. I am still praying about this and hoping that God and the Blessed Mother will show me the way.

The church was forced to provide some means of birth control. NFP may be natural, but it is still BC.

 

[jpusateri]

mlchance:

You don’t see what the Church truly teaches. The Church does not teach one must have grave reasons to use NFP. Instead, according to Humanae Vitae, one must have serious reasons, among which, according to HV and the CCC, are financial reasons. Now go and submit to the Church’s authority.

– Mark L. Chance.

HV’s number 16 says

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

I don’t think I am reading into “well-grounded” too much…

This is in line with the biblical suggestion that husband and wife may abstain from physical relations at times.

It seems quite different from ABC to me.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Semper Fi:

Yes it is a form of birth control, but it still gives the chance at conception if done properly. ARTIFICIAL birth control is where the problem comes in.

First, I’m glad to read you’ve changed!

Maybe my post wasn’t clear enough. I do distinguish between NFP and artificial birth control. Artificial birth control is always contraceptive (against life). NFP can be used with that mentality, but I don’t refer to NFP as a contraceptive.

While you say NFP gives the chance at conception “if done properly”, some might say it’s being done “improperly” if it does that. Many boast NFP properly used is “as effective as the pill”. That type of NFP marketing makes it sound like an alternative to the birth control pill, which can confuse some.

NFP isn’t considered licit merely because it gives conception a chance. Every form of artificial birth control–including sterilization–can give conception a chance. I’ve heard people justify their use of artificial birth control because if God wants them to be pregnant that vasectomy, pill, diaphram or condom won’t stop Him.

The Church says there should be ___ reason for the couple to use NFP for the purpose of avoiding children. (I’ve read the adjective in front of reason translated as “serious” or “grave”.) The Church leaves it to the consciences of the individual married couple to decide if they have such a reason.

I do believe financial hardship is a legitimate reason to use NFP, but in our very affluent society, few married couples believe they can afford large families. (The high price of Catholic education may have something to do with that, but that’s a whole different topic.) In any case, I remember a lot of large Catholic families when I grew up, and now with seven I have the largest family of anyone my age that I know. I honestly wish I had the support of seeing more large families in church.

Some Catholics push NFP on those who might otherwise consider more children. Yes, it’s better than artificial birth control, but it still says to God, “we’d rather not accept your blessings.”

 

[mlchance]

jpusateri:

HV’s number 16 says

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.

 

[tiny_smommy]

Okay, I’m not attacking the Church, first of all. The Traditionalists are, and what else is new. I just thought it was interesting that I came to this conclusion from my own experience and here are another group of “catholics” who feel the same way, and then some! Last time I checked Dr. Creighten wasn’t part of the magesterium.

My issue is obvious: I think NFP is immoral - unless the life of the mother depends on it. My grandparents were raised during the depression for crying out loud, and they had more than 2.5 kids in their families. If you want to believe the culture (of death, mind you) then NOBODY can afford children. I’m just not buying it, no pun intended. Kids from middle class families are typically spoiled, even if the parents make every effort not to. It’s inevitable. I mean Jesus was poor! That’s what made him great! What if Mary had said to God, “Gee, I’d really like to be the Mother of God, but I just don’t think that would be responsible parenting right now. Come back when I’m married and we get that inheritance from Joseph’s uncle.”

I just don’t understand how, if the objective is the same as birth control, that NFP for mere “spacing” reasons is moral? How? I’m not convinced. All this “responsible parenting” rap sounds like something from Planned Parenthood - not the Catholic Church! I have read over and over again that NFP can be used for “just and grave” reasons. Some of you say “serious.” I can accept “grave,” and by grave I mean death, but “serious” is just too wishy washy. It’s like saying an abortion is okay to save the life of the mother. No it’s not! If saving the life of the mother happens to result in the death of her child, that was not the intended consequence. In the same way, if rarely engaging in sexual intercourse because your wife is sick results in no pregnancies, then that wasn’t the intended consequence. The intended consequence was to preserve the health of the mother. 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? How is this not a contraceptive mentality?

 

[TobyLue]

OK this is the thing. If you in your heart honestly believe that NFP is immoral, than DO NO use NFP. The Church is not forcing anybody to use it. The Church is against “artificial” birth control, i.e. the pill, condoms, tube litigation, vasectomy, etc. NFP does not involve anything artificial. The thing to do then is put your trust completely in God. If you believe that NFP is immoral and is a sin and you use it, then the sexual act using NFP becomes a serious and grave sin. Using NFP strictly with a “contraceptive mentality” is wrong. See this for a more complete answer.

 

[tiny_smommy]

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.

 

[gardenswithkids]

TobyLue:

If you believe that NFP is immoral and is a sin and you use it, then the sexual act using NFP becomes a serious and grave sin. Using NFP strictly with a “contraceptive mentality” is wrong. See this for a more complete answer.

Thanks for the link. I agree with the brother who wrote he wasn’t going to tell them if they had a just reason or not. I do think we need to be careful not to do that to others.

But I disagree when you term it a “serious and grave sin” to use it if you think it’s wrong. My understanding of the teachings is that if used for the wrong reasons, it is a venial sin, (whereas contraception use is a mortal sin.) And the wife (or husband) who wants more children but uses NFP for the sake of marital harmony probably isn’t even sinning to use it.