NFP: When is it acceptable to use?

[jimmy]

Considering that NFP is not to be used in a contraceptive fasion in which you use it to control contraception; when can it be used? This is a very important point because a non-Catholic will be quick to point to NFP as being a form of contraception. It is also important for those who desire to use it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

jimmy:

Considering that NFP is not to be used in a contraceptive fasion in which you use it to control contraception; when can it be used? This is a very important point because a non-Catholic will be quick to point to NFP as being a form of contraception. It is also important for those who desire to use it.

Yes, the word game seems to throw a lot of people off. We use NFP for licit purposes to control conception of children and exercise responsible family planny, and even “reduce the chance of” conception, but certainly not to “prevent” or “discourage” conception, and it certainly is not used as “contraception.”

From what I understand, we are allowed to “responsibly plan” our families. That means, in part, spacing out the children due to “serious” reasons such as health, and surprisingly, finances.

In these cases, once it is determined by our well-formed conscience that it is licit to space out births, then the method becomes important because NFP is just playing with statistics and not “physically” intervening in the sex act in such a way as to make it incomplete union or procreative purposes.

If that sounds like gobbledigook, then I’m probably finally starting to catch on!

Alan

 

[masterjedi747]

Short Answer: When the couple has sufficient and valid (unselfish) reasons for doing so.

I just typed out a response to a question like this in another thread a few minutes ago, so I’ll post it in here too. Sorry for not re-editing it to answer your question directly, but it’s there:​

When a couple uses condoms, they are saying “I want to have sex whenever I want to AND I don’t want to completely unite myself with my spouse in the sexual act of marriage AND I don’t want to have kids”…all selfish motives. Morally unacceptable.

When a couple uses NFP properly, they are saying “I want to abstain from sex with my spouse during the times when we are most likely to concieve AND I want to completely unite with my spouse in the sexual act of marriage whenever possible AND if, however unlikely, we do concieve a child during that time, we will lovingly accept it into our lives as a gift from God”…nothing selfish about the motives there. Morally acceptable.

And it should also be noted:
NFP used improperly can be selfish, and therefore may not morally acceptable. If the only reason the couple is seeking to avoid having more children is because “I don’t want to have any kids because then it would be too much work AND it would inconvenience me during my relaxation time during the day and/or my vacation time, which is unacceptable to me because I like having those things AND we never planned on having kids when we got married anyway…but we’re “good Catholics” (quotations added for emphasis) so we’re going to use NFP to determine when we can have sex together and when we should just consider doing other sexually related things together…God knows what we might have to consider if we ever do get pregnant”…I think you get the point. If NFP is going to be used for reasons like this, then it’s essentially serving no point at all, other than for just allowing the people to go through the physical steps without the correct intentions. Think Pharisees. If these were the type of reasons that a couple was using NFP for, then I think you’d be absolutely right…it would essentially be no different than using condoms, because the intent is exactly same.​

 

[KCT]

NFP can never be used in a contraceptive fashion. It’s not, and never will be, contraception.

Couples can be selfish in not wanting kids, but the sin would be selfishness, not the act of practicing NFP. —KCT

 

[AlanFromWichita]

KCT:

NFP can never be used in a contraceptive fashion. It’s not, and never will be, contraception.

Couples can be selfish in not wanting kids, but the sin would be selfishness, not the act of practicing NFP. —KCT

NFP can be used to reduce the chances of conception, that is, it can be used to work against the likelihood of conception. Contra- means against. How is this not using NFP in a “contraceptive” fashion? It either increases, decreases, or affects in neither way the chances of conception.

It’s like we have reserved the word “contraception” to mean an entirely different thing than discouraging conception.

Alan

 

[masterjedi747]

AlanFromWichita:

NFP…can be used to work against the likelihood of conception. Contra- means against. How is this not using NFP in a “contraceptive” fashion?

Because it is not “contra-” anything during the marital act itself. Contraceptives (such as condoms) work against the chances of conception during sex. Does that answer your question? :yup:

 

[mark_a]

On Catholic radio, NFP is seemingly nearly always pushed as an alternative to the pill, etc. Almost like we’re not getting the full scoop, maybe we are to be filled in later or something.

Well, now that I’ve said that, maybe the shows are designed to draw people away from aborticants (spelling?).

I guess potentially sinful marital relations are better than unwittingly committing murder by aborticants.

Now I’m really confused.

Please don’t tell me that sex with my wife once she is past the age of being able to conceive is out the window too.

 

[Shiann]

mark a:

On Catholic radio, NFP is seemingly nearly always pushed as an alternative to the pill, etc. Almost like we’re not getting the full scoop, maybe we are to be filled in later or something.

Well, now that I’ve said that, maybe the shows are designed to draw people away from aborticants (spelling?).

I guess potentially sinful marital relations are better than unwittingly committing murder by aborticants.

Now I’m really confused.

Please don’t tell me that sex with my wife once she is past the age of being able to conceive is out the window too.

Nope, you should enjoy eachother sexually even past the age of being able to conceive… just so long as you still remain open to life.

 

[masterjedi747]

mark a:

Please don’t tell me that sex with my wife once she is past the age of being able to conceive is out the window too.

No, of course not. That would be horrible, wouldn’t it? Although I can think of a few Bible characters who honestly thought that they were “past the age of being able to conceive”…

 

[KCT]

AlanFromWichita:

NFP can be used to reduce the chances of conception, that is, it can be used to work against the likelihood of conception. Contra- means against. How is this not using NFP in a “contraceptive” fashion? It either increases, decreases, or affects in neither way the chances of conception.
It’s like we have reserved the word “contraception” to mean an entirely different thing than discouraging conception. Alan

There’s a difference between avoidance and prevention.

Contraception is using some unnatural means to prevent conception. NFP is using a natural means to avoid conception.

I always thought the word contraception meant actively working against conception, not avoiding it.
—KCT

 

[1ke]

jimmy:

Considering that NFP is not to be used in a contraceptive fasion in which you use it to control contraception; when can it be used? This is a very important point because a non-Catholic will be quick to point to NFP as being a form of contraception. It is also important for those who desire to use it.

I think you misunderstand NFP and contraception. Yes, both are birth control. The church **does not ** teach it is immoral to plan, space, or postpone pregnancy. That is “birth control” and many people use the terms “birth control” and “contraception” interchangeably when they should not. NFP and Contraception are both methods of birth control.

What the Church DOES teach is that there are moral and immoral ways to postpone pregnancies.

Contraception is immoral-- engaging in sex while taking an action to prevent conception.

Abstinence to prevent conception is acceptable. NFP allows couples to determine on which days abstinence is necessary.

The Church also teaches that abstaining to postpone pregnancy is acceptable if the couple has “just reasons”. These reasons are NOT listed because they are unique to each couple. The main principle is that they are not derived from selfish motives. Each couple must form their conscience in this matter.

 

[1ke]

AlanFromWichita:

NFP can be used to reduce the chances of conception, that is, it can be used to work against the likelihood of conception. Contra- means against. How is this not using NFP in a “contraceptive” fashion? It either increases, decreases, or affects in neither way the chances of conception.

It’s like we have reserved the word “contraception” to mean an entirely different thing than discouraging conception.

Alan

Yes, contraception comes from contra conception, “against conception”. However, the important element you have left out is that contraception is so termed because it is an ACTION taken before, during, or after intercourse to allow intercourse and SIMULTANEOUSLY prevent conception. Contraception is an ALTERED sex act.

NFP cannot be called contraception because intercourse is NOT engaged in at all. There is not act of intercourse. Therefore, NFP is properly termed “birth control” but not “contraception”.

Hope that helps.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

NFP can be used to reduce the chances of conception, that is, it can be used to work against the likelihood of conception. Contra- means against. How is this not using NFP in a “contraceptive” fashion?

Hmmmm… NFP is nothing more than family planning. You plan when to have natural sex, and planning when you will abstain from sex. It is not contraception. The only way such planning can prevent conception is by planning NOT to have sex. So, it is not contraception but contra-sex. Contra-sex is not a sin, as I’m doing it right now!! When my wife has a headache or is feeling tired, we practice contra-sex.

Now, contra-sex can be licitly practiced in a marriage if both agree to it. Yet, there are times when contra-sex is immoral within a marital relationship. For example, if a spouse refused to ever consummate the marriage against the will of the other spouse, that would be immoral. And since the purpose of marriage is to raise children, then deliberately and willfully failing to do so would also be immoral.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From *This Rock *Magazine:

Why is Natural Family Planning accepted by the Church while contraception is condemned? They both do the same thing–prevent pregnancy.

Because you don’t judge the morality of actions by their effects or consequences. You judge their morality by what they essentially are. Using contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms may accomplish the same end result as NFP, but the ways they go about it are very different.

Humanae Vitae defines contraception as “every action which, 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” (14). Such an action actively eliminates or witholds the procreative good of the marital act. This is sinful because “every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” (11). Since one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other being unity of husband and wife, 12), engaging in sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative act is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly called it, “a lie in the language of the body.”

If practicing contraception is to lie in the language of the body, to practice NFP is to take the Fifth. Natural Family Planning involves restricting sexual relations to infertile periods in the woman’s cycle. Although intercourse during these times is less likely to produce a conception, a couple always remains open to the possibility, having taken no action to render it impossible; therein lies the difference (see Humanae Vitae 16). During fertile periods abstinence is practiced, a sacrifice which shows respect for God’s gift of sex and its proper ends. Conversely, practicing contraception during these times displays a lack of respect for this gift and a focus instead on selfish pleasure. One further difference needs to be pointed out. Contraception is often a practice of convenience, while NFP, to be licit, must be a practice of necessity, requiring “serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (16). Thus it is not, as some have accused, “contraception Catholic style.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

jimmy:

Considering that NFP is not to be used in a contraceptive fasion in which you use it to control contraception; when can it be used? This is a very important point because a non-Catholic will be quick to point to NFP as being a form of contraception. It is also important for those who desire to use it.

Jimmy,

You are not “controlling contraception,” whatever that means. Perhaps you meant “control conception.” That is certainly something every Father of a daughter hopes and prays for.

Yet, the only licit means in which humans can control conception is by not having sex. If you have sex, you must be open to procreation. If you have sex, but are not open to procreation, they you lie in the language of the body, as JPII put it.

Non-procreative sex is not immoral, yet human actions which render sex non-procreative IS immoral.

 

[john_ennis]

It seems like the protest about NFP being no different from artificial contraceptives comes from a belief that the Church says artificial contraceptives are wrong *because they prevent pregnancy. *That’s not what the Church says. It’s wrong because it’s an attempt to “take advantage” of the gift of sex, and thwart the God-created consequences of each specific act, making the act something it wasn’t given to be.
With NFP, the God-created consequences of each act are entirely accepted–any inability to conceive in each instance is sanctioned by God Himself!
Their protest is like saying that, since both dieting and binging and purging are intended to prevent weight gain, they are morally equal. It is not the end which is absolutely wrong–it is the misuse of the physical act.