NFP sinful

[LionHeart777]

The Most Holy Family “Monastery” is a Sedevacantist group (the Dimond brothers) 2 brothers.

Please read up on them as you want to avoid them like the plague.

Dr. Sungenis has debated them a bit as has William Albrecht of Catholic Legate. John Salza too.

*edit, it may be a Monastery, I leave that to the Church but the members (2 biological brothers) are Sedevacantists last I checked

 

[joclucsylv]

The Most Holy Family “Monastery” is a Sedevacantist group (the Dimond brothers) 2 brothers.

Please read up on them as you want to avoid them like the plague.

Dr. Sungenis has debated them a bit as has William Albrecht of Catholic Legate. John Salza too.

I asked this question in the traditional Catholic part of this forum, but I will ask it here as well.

I have used their book The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church several times to refute protestants on our teachings such as purgatory, Mary, etc. I found this book to be so useful or so I thought.

The book is available on their site pdf for free. Do you think this book is still legit and ok for me to use? If not what apologetics book would you recommend.

 

[Geist]

I still do not see the difference between NFP and ABC as both are deliberately preventing conception. I found the following article which I agree with.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/42_NFP.pdf

Please read the article and comment. Thank you!

I agree with your opening sentence. The intent is the same in that of preventing conception, and in reality so it the effect; both have a chance of failure and thus still allow the possibility of conception.

My wife had her tubes tied after her last pregnancy, works for us.

 

[LionHeart777]

I asked this question in the traditional Catholic part of this forum, but I will ask it here as well.

I have used their book The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church several times to refute protestants on our teachings such as purgatory, Mary, etc. I found this book to be so useful or so I thought.

The book is available on their site pdf for free. Do you think this book is still legit and ok for me to use? If not what apologetics book would you recommend.

I am not a Priest, but I would recommend only using quality Catholic Apologetics by Catholics in good standing with the Church.

As a former Protestant I found apologetics by Dr. Sungenis, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, John Martignoni, Steve Ray, Patrick Madrid and others very helpful (as well as many conversations on this forum.)

Books, I know Sungenis has books dealing w/ Protestant issues as do Staples, Ray and Akin. There is also “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating. Patrick Madrdid as well.

Perhaps someone could recommend you some specific titles, as I have not read many of books by these authors, only debates cd’s etc. I did read “Upon this Rock” by Steve Ray which I recommend. I would take a look at these authors and others such as Mark Shea, and Dr. Scott Hahn. Also Dave Armstrong.

God Bless!

 

[fpt]

What are the compatibilities of the theoretical providentialism with Catholic teaching of responsible procreation? For me, that is the great issue concerning Natural Family Planning?

N.F.P. is the application of the notion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood via the natural knowledges of the physiological of the woman. The spacings of fecundations with the respect of the woman body is not against the natural law.

 

[1ke]

NFP is a fairly new idea don’t you think?

Not at all.

 

[Nate13]

I agree with your opening sentence. The intent is the same in that of preventing conception, and in reality so it the effect; both have a chance of failure and thus still allow the possibility of conception.

My wife had her tubes tied after her last pregnancy, works for us.

Exactly and thus if the argument stands abstinence with the intention of preventing conception would be sinful as well. This difference between NFP and contraception is not intent though and the author of the article makes that very clear by specifying “within the marital act”. The difference is the object of the action. The object of the action of sexual act committed while using contraception is to reduce the fertility of either party during that act. The object of a sexual act committed while using NFP does not include reducing the natural fertility inherent to a woman or man inherent at that point.

The periods of abstinence have the intent to prevent pregnancy which the Church never argues is sinful in and of itself.

The defining characteristic of NFP is that you accept the natural fertility of the woman and man involved whenever you have sex and do nothing with the express intent of denying it. Acts committed while using contraception to prevent fertility can never claim this, period. Denying there is a difference between NFP and contraception is absurd. We can debate why this difference is important, but it should be easily agreed upon by all that there is a difference.

 

[sw85]

I still do not see the difference between NFP and ABC as both are deliberately preventing conception. I found the following article which I agree with.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/42_NFP.pdf

Please read the article and comment. Thank you!

Well, first, your inability to see the difference does not make it a sin. You aren’t the magisterium. The Church is the magisterium. Do not presume to correct understandings formed by wiser and holier people than yourself.

Per natural law theology, good is the characteristic of excellence according to your mode of being. Our mode of being includes a sexual faculty ordered naturally toward the end of procreation. Therefore “goodness” consists in using the sexual faculty in a manner consistent with the end of procreation. This means marital, noncontraceptive, intravaginal ejaculation.

Nothing in NFP is in principle contrary to the use of the sexual faculty in a manner consistent with this end. After all, NFP is nothing more than a combination of acts none of which are illicit in themselves: monitoring one’s fertility cycle and periodically abstaining from sex. Therefore, NFP is not in principle sinful.

By contrast, contraception does explicitly and directly inhibit the function of the sexual faculty. Therefore it is disordered and, when intentionally acted upon, sinful.

That said, the Church has made clear NFP is to be made use of lightly. The couple who views NFP as simply “the Catholic contraception” are sinning. Grave reasons need to be in place before a couple can take advantage of the marital right (i.e., sex) without proper respect for the marital duty (i.e., procreation). Previous Popes have identified these circumstances as being very grave, indeed: things like serious persecution, natural catastrophe, extreme financial hardship, extreme health problems, etc. To my knowledge, no recent papal teachings have abrogated these, so I assume they are still in effect.

 

[Geist]

Exactly and thus if the argument stands abstinence with the intention of preventing conception would be sinful as well. This difference between NFP and contraception is not intent though and the author of the article makes that very clear by specifying “within the marital act”. The difference is the object of the action. The object of the action of sexual act committed while using contraception is to reduce the fertility of either party during that act. The object of a sexual act committed while using NFP does not include reducing the natural fertility inherent to a woman or man inherent at that point.

The periods of abstinence have the intent to prevent pregnancy which the Church never argues is sinful in and of itself.

The defining characteristic of NFP is that you accept the natural fertility of the woman and man involved whenever you have sex and do nothing with the express intent of denying it. Acts committed while using contraception to prevent fertility can never claim this, period. Denying there is a difference between NFP and contraception is absurd. We can debate why this difference is important, but it should be easily agreed upon by all that there is a difference.

I bolded the part that I find interesting, because you’re saying the intent to prevent pregnancy is OK with one method, but not another.

Using contraception also accepts the natural fertility of the woman…for if she were not aware of her fertility she would not be using it.

Seems to me its absurd trying to claim one one is OK and the other not when they genuinely differ only in method and not intent or outcome.

Both intend to prevent pregnancy and both have a risk of failure, so the possibility of conception still exists no matter what.

Yes one has the word “natural” in it, but there also “natural” contraceptives created by Gods own natural design free from human laboratories or tinkering. Rutin, an extract of Rue for instance is a natural “morning after pill”. Is this Ok too since it is also “natural”?

 

[nodito]

I bolded the part that I find interesting, because you’re saying the intent to prevent pregnancy is OK with one method, but not another… Seems to me its absurd trying to claim one one is OK and the other not when they genuinely differ only in method and not intent or outcome…

The means are absolutely essential. Consider a person who intends to provide for his family. He can choose to find a job and earn the money legally, or he can choose to rob a bank. In both situations, the intent (to acquire money) and the outcome (providing for one’s family) is the same, but the means are very different and so we rightly judge the two acts (work and theft) to be very different morally.

Both intend to prevent pregnancy and both have a risk of failure, so the possibility of conception still exists no matter what.

Yes one has the word “natural” in it, but there also “natural” contraceptives created by Gods own natural design free from human laboratories or tinkering. Rutin, an extract of Rue for instance is a natural “morning after pill”. Is this Ok too since it is also “natural”?

The morality (or lack thereof) of a method of birth control is not dependent on the probability of that method’s failure. Nor is NFP acceptable because it’s “natural” and contraception wrong because it’s “artificial”. Contraception is wrong because it is an act that violates that marital act. It is an act that perverts a moral good (sexual intercourse within marriage). Contraception alters and distorts the marital act. Natural family planning is just knoweldge. The couples learns when they are fertile and, not wanting to pervert the marital act, they instead choose to abstain when they know pregnancy might result if they are unable to assume that responsibility at that time.

 

[Nate13]

I bolded the part that I find interesting, because you’re saying the intent to prevent pregnancy is OK with one method, but not another.

The intent to prevent pregnancy is never intrinsically evil no matter the method used assuming the couple has a serious reason to avoid. The intent or desired ends of the action is not the difference maker. Rather its the object or means of the action taken that make contracepting intrinsically evil.

See this link from Catechism for a breakdown of how the morality of an action is determined.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Your focusing in on the intent or ends of the action which is to prevent pregnancy. That goal in and of itself is not what is being said to be immoral or intrinsically evil about contraception.

Rather, what is being said to be intrinsically immoral is the object or means of the action as defined in the link I provided. This end or intent of preventing pregnancy is achieved when contracepting by the object/means of the action which is to reduce the natural fertility of the man or woman while committing the sexual act. NFP goes about achieving these same ends by way of only committing the sexual act when a couple is prepared to accept the natural state of fertility inherent to that act. NFP achieves the same morally permissible goal as does contraception but uses a moral means to do so: abstinence.

Read the definitions and breakdown on how the morality of actions is determined because the terminology I’m using is based on those definitions. Seeing the difference between the intent/ends and the object of an action takes some work.

 

[Abu]

Geist #27
Rutin, an extract of Rue for instance is a natural “morning after pill”. Is this Ok too since it is also “natural”?

No, as the substance is deliberately taken to remove any embryo as an abortifacient – murder.

The difference is quite clear:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[LilyM]

I bolded the part that I find interesting, because you’re saying the intent to prevent pregnancy is OK with one method, but not another.

Using contraception also accepts the natural fertility of the woman…for if she were not aware of her fertility she would not be using it.

Seems to me its absurd trying to claim one one is OK and the other not when they genuinely differ only in method and not intent or outcome.

Both intend to prevent pregnancy and both have a risk of failure, so the possibility of conception still exists no matter what.

Yes one has the word “natural” in it, but there also “natural” contraceptives created by Gods own natural design free from human laboratories or tinkering. Rutin, an extract of Rue for instance is a natural “morning after pill”. Is this Ok too since it is also “natural”?

The means (or method) you use to do something is very important - every bit as important as intent or outcome.

Let’s say I intend to get $1,000 to buy myself a new computer. Not something I need, but something I want. Nothing wrong with that.

So. I could adopt method a - working in an honest job for a few weeks and saving up that $1,000, or I could adopt method b - prostitute myself, being careful to stop once I made $1,000 profit and never start again.

In both methods the intent (to obtain the money to buy the computer) is the same, and the outcome (I obtain the $1,000 and buy it) is the same as well. The only difference is the method. And surely we can agree that method a is clearly perfectly moral and method b clearly immoral, the fact that I am achieving the same ends with both methods doesn’t change the morality of the honest work or the immorality of the prostitution in this case.

 

[joclucsylv]

Not at all.

So NFP has been used for 2000 years??

I wonder if the women in the apostle’s time watched their cycles in order to avoid pregnancy? Did they understand how the body worked enough to do that?

You see, my grandmother is of the generation where families of 13, 15, even 20 children were common. They were the ones truly open to life at all times, at all costs. There was never a good reason not to be open to life. A child is a blessing. This is why NFP is difficult for me to accept.

 

[joclucsylv]

One can use NFP and not be in grave sin if they HAVE GOOD REASON not to have a child. When was that rule adopted in the Catechism of the church?

How is that biblical? Certainly that thought was not handed down in Tradition. The Church was forced to give some leeway, because the days of having/wanting families of 15 children were done. The church moved with the world.

We are a church who embraces suffering. It seems to me that even if a child would bring about more suffering (be it financial, health) then it is all for the greater good. Obviously any good reason a couple would have for not having a child is an attempt to avoid suffering.

 

[thewanderer]

So NFP has been used for 2000 years??

I wonder if the women in the apostle’s time watched their cycles in order to avoid pregnancy? Did they understand how the body worked enough to do that?

You see, my grandmother is of the generation where families of 13, 15, even 20 children were common. They were the ones truly open to life at all times, at all costs. There was never a good reason not to be open to life. A child is a blessing. This is why NFP is difficult for me to accept.

If by natural family planning all one means is the use of ones knowledge of the biology of procreation to affect whether or not one participates in the marital act, then yes, it hasbeen practiced for a very long time. It’s called abstinence.

It is clearly not wrong to engage in the marital act while one or both spouses are infertile. This means that if using NFP is sinful then the intent of avoiding pregnancy must be the reason that it is sinful. If this is true, it is sinful to intend to avoid pregnancy through abstinence (once you are married) no matter what. This would mean that a couple who abstains from the marital act because they know it will likelylead to the death of the wife are sinning in abstaining!!! This is such an absurd conclusion that it is obvious that
NFP (when used to avoid pregnancy) is not sinful in and of itself.

 

[joclucsylv]

One can use NFP and not be in grave sin if they HAVE GOOD REASON not to have a child. When was that rule adopted in the Catechism of the church?

How is that biblical? Certainly that thought was not handed down in Tradition. The Church was forced to give some leeway, because the days of having/wanting families of 15 children were done. The church moved with the world.

We are a church who embraces suffering. It seems to me that even if a child would bring about more suffering (be it financial, health) then it is all for the greater good. Obviously any good reason a couple would have for not having a child is an attempt to avoid suffering.

I could not edit the above post. Here is another question. Is an attempt to avoid suffering selfish?

 

[LilyM]

I could not edit the above post. Here is another question. Is an attempt to avoid suffering selfish?

Why would it be? A crucial part of the arts and sciences of medicine and nursing are what is called palliative care - the alleviation of suffering in those for whom a cure is impossible. Think of it - most of us take all sorts of painkillers on a not infrequent basis.

Not only is none of this sinful, Christ Himself set the example by alleviating the sufferings of lepers, curing the High Priest’s servant of his undoubtedly painful ear amputation etc etc. Further, He charged His followers to do what they could to lessen the sufferings of the hungry, thirsty, naked and so on. Heck, He even pleaded in the Garden for the relief of His own suffering!

The only possible sin is in attempting to avoid the unavoidable sufferings - and some are - for example seeking to avoid a painful death from terminal illness by suicide, or avoiding the difficulty of raising a child that has some major health problem by aborting it before it is even born.

 

[LilyM]

If by natural family planning all one means is the use of ones knowledge of the biology of procreation to affect whether or not one participates in the marital act, then yes, it hasbeen practiced for a very long time. It’s called abstinence.

It is clearly not wrong to engage in the marital act while one or both spouses are infertile. This means that if using NFP is sinful then the intent of avoiding pregnancy must be the reason that it is sinful. If this is true, it is sinful to intend to avoid pregnancy through abstinence (once you are married) no matter what. This would mean that a couple who abstains from the marital act because they know it will likelylead to the death of the wife are sinning in abstaining!!! This is such an absurd conclusion that it is obvious that
NFP (when used to avoid pregnancy) is not sinful in and of itself.

In fact if mere avoidance of pregnancy is in and of itself wrong, the corollary is that one would be obliged to have frequent enough sex during the childbearing years that no potentially fertile day would be wasted. This would mean having sex far more frequently than is the norm for many married couples. We KNOW that this is not what the Church teaches. On the contrary, couples used to be (and still are among some of our Eastern Catholic brethren) taught to abstain from sex during Lent as they might from meat or dairy.

 

[fpt]

So NFP has been used for 2000 years??

I wonder if the women in the apostle’s time watched their cycles in order to avoid pregnancy? Did they understand how the body worked enough to do that?

You see, my grandmother is of the generation where families of 13, 15, even 20 children were common. They were the ones truly open to life at all times, at all costs. There was never a good reason not to be open to life. A child is a blessing. This is why NFP is difficult for me to accept.

We must be careful when we study the past that could appear as a very good Age concerning the family and life. At this time, since the world is world, and more after french revolution until 1930, there were in catholic couples some approaches -intellectual thoughts - not very catholic: Fideism, jansenism, obscurantism, puritanism, victorianism…and not enough of conjugal charity.

What is exactly marital charity in the couple? and for the children who are already here? Sexual marital life is not “only” for babies.