NFP?

[CollegeKid]

How can one argue that the marriage act is open to life if it is exercised deliberately during those times when it is least likely for fertilization to result?

Again, the secondary aims are made to eclipse the primary.

Amongst the errors condemned by Pope Innocent IX: “9. The act of marriage for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect.” - CONDEMNED. (taken from The Sources of Catholic Dogma" by Denzinger, 1957)

Because, assuming the couple is employing NFP in accordance with the teachings of the Church, they are still open to life- the marital act is not closed off to the possibility of birth because of any obstruction they’ve gone out of their way to put in place, but due to factors beyond their control- a woman’s periods of fertility. Thus, it would seem, the intrinsic nature of the marital act is preserved.

That being said, you make some good points. I’m not totally sure. Its a tough issue for me to wrap my mind around completely, I guess I need to devote more thought to it.

I will say this- I find the idea of “second-guessing” the Church on various aspects of its teachings that we perceive to be not in accord with tradition problematic. It seems to me that in a spirit of obedience to the Magisterium, we ought instead to be able to say, “I trust the Church, even if I don’t completely understand this.”

 

[billpenn]

I wrote the following several years ago when my wife and I used to teach NFP (I think the bulimia/contraception comparison came from Scott Hahn originally.)

We don’t teach any more. I could never get over the impression that the NFP industry teaches values-free NFP/ NFP as Catholic contraception and that the majority of Catholics we taught NFP often did not have “grave reasons.”

This in particular struck me:

If NFP is used in a selfish manner, it too can be sinful. If it is used only in grave circumstances, it is not sinful.

It is by its nature selfish. The secondary benefits of sex serve nobody else except its participants…they take it upon themselves to reverse the order that God intended…procreation first, mutual love/benefit/quieting of concupisence comes second.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Hi Adam,

I think that you are 100% on target!!!

Thank you. I would also like to add that even nature confirms the plan of God for the conjugal act to always be primarily for procreation in that the man is always fertile and the woman, even though having periods of infertility, is most inclined to have relations during the time when she is fertile, and is thus able to realize the objective procreativity always existing in the conjugal act. Those who point to the woman’s cycle of infertility as evidence that God didn’t write procreation into the conjugal act at all times forget that the same woman they are discussing is most inclined according to her God-given nature to engage in the conjugal act when she is fertile.

God bless,

Adam

 

[billpenn]

Because, assuming the couple is employing NFP in accordance with the teachings of the Church, they are still open to life- the marital act is not closed off to the possibility of birth because of any obstruction they’ve gone out of their way to put in place, but due to factors beyond their control- a woman’s periods of fertility. Thus, it would seem, the intrinsic nature of the marital act is preserved"

But indeed they have gone out of their way - have they not? Charts, graphs, temps, measurement of cervical mucus…perhaps they’ve taken a course, watched a video, bought books…that’s a lot of work!

I can see that some people will argue ABC…ARTIFICIAL opposed to NATURAL birth control…are the charts and thermometers NATURAL? Did they leave the womb with you?

There is nothing wrong at all with having sex during infertile periods so long as the aim of sex at that time is NOT to prevent pregnancy.

Again, from Casti Connubii, #59: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.”

So, it is OK to have sex during infertile times, or if the husband or wife is sterile…but it is not OK to restrict sex to those times where pregnancy is unlikely for the purpose of avoiding children.

And I am trusting completely in the Church’s magesterium. Pope Pius XI was very explicit I think. I argue that Humanae Vitae was a major flip-flop! Please recall that in Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI himself calls it birth control!

From HV, #16 “…and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, CONTROLLING birth…”

 

[CollegeKid]

To both Billpen and ForeverAdam:

FA, judging by your post I think you’ve devoted a lot of logical thought to this, and I respect that, but I disagree with your equivalency of NFP and barrier methods of contraception.

To me, it would seem that the only “barrier” being used when couples employ NFP is not engaging in sexual intercourse during the fertile periods. The barrier methods of contraception such as condoms or diaphragms are all methods that are used immediately during the marital act.

I’m reminded of the example of Onan, who was punished for (I believe) using the withdrawal method. The thing about this that sticks out in my mind- it was a birth control method that he used immediately during the marital act.

 

[otjm]

If you believe there is no moral issue with avoiding pregnancy in and of itself, then it becomes a question of the means employed in that avoidance…as you can plainly see from the paragraphs I quoted from Casti Connubii, the primary end of the conjugal act is procreation…the good of the spouses, mutual love, etc., are secondary aims…having intercourse during times of suspected infertility to avoid pregnancy SUBORDINATES procreation to those secondary aims. And a lot of effort goes into that avoidance - charts, temperatures, mucus measurement…

The Church does not say how many children you have to have. It does say that you need to care for the ones you have, and for yourselves.

The Church says that you need 1) to be open to children; but 2) does not say that you cannot space them out to what you feel is reasonable, following the will of God as best you can discern it, and 3) that sexual relations have two purposes - children, and the mututal relationship of the spouses. God Himself did not make women fruitful 24/7/365; He gave them a cycle. There is a misunderstanding of NFP if it is considered birth control as ABC is considered birth control; one using ABC is doing two things - the first is an act to frustrate the natural end of the sexual act - conception - which is the use of either the Pill or a mechanical method of preventing pregnancy, and the second is the sexual act.

NFP does not do anything to frustrate the natural end of the sexual act, as it does not render the act infertile. Having sexual relations during the time that the woman is infertile is a natural part of God’s plan - he gave us the cycle, we didn’t invent it or cause it. So if one is using NFP or is not using NFP, the results are the same during that time; the womna will not conceive. Having intercourse during that time has never been consdered immoral in and of itself.

What you seem to be confusing is that a couple can be open to life, but not right now. There is no moral requirement that a couple have intercourse during a woman’s fertile period.

Because NFP requires sacrifice on the part of both parties - the period of fertility is normally the period of time the woman is most sexually interested in the male, so she has to agree to give up intercourse during that time, and the male is generally interested most of the time, so he too has to give up intercourse, it is highly unlikely that two people who view sexual realtions selfishly are going to engage for any length of time in NFP.

Given this sacrifice, it is possible that a couple may adopt an attitude that is not open to children; but given that true sacrifice is based on love, and openness to children is based on love, it is a bit of a stretch to think that much of anyone is using NFP out of a contraceptive mentality. “Not having a child randomly” is not the description of a contraceptive mentality. The description of a contraceptive mentality is a “me first” attitude.

A good source of information about NFP is from One More Soul, and if you truly want to know what the mind of the Church is about this, I would suggest that you google it and get their catalgue.

The short answer is that the Church, from at least Pius XII (and I think it goes back to Pius X, but I am a lousy historian) has approved spacing children by natural means. Each couple needs to determine what they can legitimately deal with; some are graced with more materially; others with patience; others with better mental and/or physical health. All of this and more enters into the determination of when and how many children to have.

But your comment about the means is not in the mind of the Church. It is not an issue of avoiding pregnancy; it is an issue of when and how often one is pregnant. The Church encourages large families; that is entirely different from requiring them.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Because, assuming the couple is employing NFP in accordance with the teachings of the Church, they are still open to life- the marital act is not closed off to the possibility of birth because of any obstruction they’ve gone out of their way to put in place, but due to factors beyond their control- a woman’s periods of fertility. Thus, it would seem, the intrinsic nature of the marital act is preserved.

The intrinsic nature of the marital act is that it always has procreation for its primary end and marital union as its secondary end. By deliberately altering your sexual activity in order to arrive at a marital act that lacks procreativity is to violate the objective procreative end that God, himself, placed into the act. Couples who are infertile due to nature or some unintended action didn’t do anything to prevent conception from occurring. However, couples that deliberately plan their intercourse to arrive at a time when procreation cannot generally occur violate God’s design of the nature of the marital act being for procreation as much as couples who reject procreation once it is there, naturally. Since the objective procreative end of the act is always present any attempt to keep it from realizing itself is to do violence against the nature of the marital act that the Lord designed.

God bless,

Adam

 

[billpenn]

The Church does not say how many children you have to have. It does say that you need to care for the ones you have, and for yourselves.

The Church says that you need 1) to be open to children; but 2) does not say that you cannot space them out to what you feel is reasonable, following the will of God as best you can discern it, and 3) that sexual relations have two purposes - children, and the mututal relationship of the spouses…

WHICH PURPOSE is primary? Which is secondary?

God Himself did not make women fruitful 24/7/365; He gave them a cycle. There is a misunderstanding of NFP if it is considered birth control as ABC is considered birth control; one using ABC is doing two things - the first is an act to frustrate the natural end of the sexual act - conception - which is the use of either the Pill or a mechanical method of preventing pregnancy, and the second is the sexual act.

“act to frustrate the natural end of the sex act - conception” - isn’t the aim of NFP to PREVENT conception? Isn’t it the same thing as saying, " I want to enjoy the secondary benefits of sex…I don’t want the primary purpose to be realized."?

NFP does not do anything to frustrate the natural end of the sexual act, as it does not render the act infertile.

See above please.

Having sexual relations during the time that the woman is infertile is a natural part of God’s plan - he gave us the cycle, we didn’t invent it or cause it. So if one is using NFP or is not using NFP, the results are the same during that time; the womna will not conceive. Having intercourse during that time has never been consdered immoral in and of itself.

you are right - intercourse during that time is not infertile, per Casti Connubii # 59 - but restricting intercourse to that time for the purposes of avoiding pregnancy subordinates the primary end of the act to the secondary ends.

What you seem to be confusing is that a couple can be open to life, but not right now. There is no moral requirement that a couple have intercourse during a woman’s fertile period. \quote]

I am perfectly clear on this. Prayerful continence is the way.
otjm;2876048:

Because NFP requires sacrifice on the part of both parties - the period of fertility is normally the period of time the woman is most sexually interested in the male, so she has to agree to give up intercourse during that time, and the male is generally interested most of the time, so he too has to give up intercourse, it is highly unlikely that two people who view sexual realtions selfishly are going to engage for any length of time in NFP.

Given this sacrifice, it is possible that a couple may adopt an attitude that is not open to children; but given that true sacrifice is based on love, and openness to children is based on love, it is a bit of a stretch to think that much of anyone is using NFP out of a contraceptive mentality. “Not having a child randomly” is not the description of a contraceptive mentality. The description of a contraceptive mentality is a “me first” attitude.

A good source of information about NFP is from One More Soul, and if you truly want to know what the mind of the Church is about this, I would suggest that you google it and get their catalgue.

The short answer is that the Church, from at least Pius XII (and I think it goes back to Pius X, but I am a lousy historian) has approved spacing children by natural means. Each couple needs to determine what they can legitimately deal with; some are graced with more materially; others with patience; others with better mental and/or physical health. All of this and more enters into the determination of when and how many children to have.

But your comment about the means is not in the mind of the Church. It is not an issue of avoiding pregnancy; it is an issue of when and how often one is pregnant. The Church encourages large families; that is entirely different from requiring them.

 

[CollegeKid]

But indeed they have gone out of their way - have they not? Charts, graphs, temps, measurement of cervical mucus…perhaps they’ve taken a course, watched a video, bought books…that’s a lot of work!

I can see that some people will argue ABC…ARTIFICIAL opposed to NATURAL birth control…are the charts and thermometers NATURAL? Did they leave the womb with you?

There is nothing wrong at all with having sex during infertile periods so long as the aim of sex at that time is NOT to prevent pregnancy.

Again, from Casti Connubii, #59: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.”

So, it is OK to have sex during infertile times, or if the husband or wife is sterile…but it is not OK to restrict sex to those times where pregnancy is unlikely for the purpose of avoiding children.

And I am trusting completely in the Church’s magesterium. Pope Pius XI was very explicit I think. I argue that Humanae Vitae was a major flip-flop! Please recall that in Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI himself calls it birth control!

From HV, #16 “…and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, CONTROLLING birth…”

As I said, you make some good points. I concede that the rightness or wrongness of NFP is something I need to devote more thought to, because truth be told I’m not completely convinced of my own position, although I’m still holding to it for now.

That being said, though nothing specific comes to my mind right now, I have the vague sense that I’ve read pre-concilliar encyclicals and such that basically declared it valid for a man and woman to refrain from marital relations for grave reasons, as noted by a few posters already, such as the certainty that they would not be able to feed another child at that time should the wife conceive. Would you agree with this?

In the mean time, I’ve got to get some studying done tonight. Thanks for a stimulating conversation.

 

[billpenn]

As I said, you make some good points. I concede that the rightness or wrongness of NFP is something I need to devote more thought to, because truth be told I’m not completely convinced of my own position, although I’m still holding to it for now.

That being said, though nothing specific comes to my mind right now, I have the vague sense that I’ve read pre-concilliar encyclicals and such that basically declared it valid for a man and woman to refrain from marital relations for grave reasons, as noted by a few posters already, such as the certainty that they would not be able to feed another child at that time should the wife conceive. Would you agree with this?

In the mean time, I’ve got to get some studying done tonight. Thanks for a stimulating conversation.

Regarding the grave reasons - I am on the fence with that one. In all honestly, I am not sure. My wife has epilepsy, and is on medications that might cause birth defects…despite this, we conceived and prayed constantly and now have a seemingly healthy and gorgeous 5 month old boy. But the pregnancy was hi-risk, and ultra stressful for the both of us, and I think we both aged 10 yrs during that 9 months! Is that grave?

Or do we say that we cast all things into the hands of the Lord, and be open to whatever he might send our way, knowing with confidence that the Lordy will supply?

 

[wanner47]

However, couples that deliberately plan their intercourse to arrive at a time when procreation cannot generally occur violate God’s design of the nature of the marital act being for procreation as much as couples who reject procreation once it is there, naturally. Since the objective procreative end of the act is always present any attempt to keep it from realizing itself is to do violence against the nature of the marital act that the Lord designed.

You keep talking about God’s design of the marital act, but you seem to be forgetting about God’s design of a woman’s menstrual cycle. NFP is working within God’s design in order to space one’s family; the same cannot be said for any type of ABC. If God wanted sex to be the way you describe, wouldn’t He have made a woman fertile 24/7/365, like a man is?

Wouldn’t having more children even though one cannot afford to support them be putting God to the test as well? For example, saying, “Well, we’re going to get pregnant again even though we can’t pay our current bills and are barely putting food on the table, because God will provide.”

 

[ForeverAdam]

To both Billpen and ForeverAdam:

FA, judging by your post I think you’ve devoted a lot of logical thought to this, and I respect that, but I disagree with your equivalency of NFP and barrier methods of contraception.

To me, it would seem that the only “barrier” being used when couples employ NFP is not engaging in sexual intercourse during the fertile periods. The barrier methods of contraception such as condoms or diaphragms are all methods that are used immediately during the marital act.

Your case would only be valid if the procreative nature of the conjugal act was only present when it naturally appears. This may be the modern Roman Catholic position. However, the traditional Roman Catholic position is that God has written the primary end of procreation and the secondary end of marital union into every occurrence of the marital act. Since this procreative end is always in the act any deliberate attempt to block it from realizing itself is to abuse the nature of the conjugal act.

I’m reminded of the example of Onan, who was punished for (I believe) using the withdrawal method. The thing about this that sticks out in my mind- it was a birth control method that he used immediately during the marital act.

But you’re forgetting that the Lord has written the primary and secondary ends of the conjugal union into their every occurrence. If the procreative nature of the conjugal act is always present it would be a sin to reject its presence by deliberately keeping it from appearing, be it in the form of arranging for it not to show up or kicking it out once it does show up. Both cases are equal because the procreative nature of the conjugal act is always present and in both NFP and barrier methods this procreative nature is deliberately removed. Since procreation is written into every occurrence of the conjugal act, Onan was condemned for refusing its presence during the act. However, he would have equally been condemned for refusing its presence through deliberately avoiding it.

God bless,

Adam

 

[billpenn]

You keep talking about God’s design of the marital act, but you seem to be forgetting about God’s design of a woman’s menstrual cycle. NFP is working within God’s design in order to space one’s family; the same cannot be said for any type of ABC. If God wanted sex to be the way you describe, wouldn’t He have made a woman fertile 24/7/365, like a man is?

Wouldn’t having more children even though one cannot afford to support them be putting God to the test as well? For example, saying, “Well, we’re going to get pregnant again even though we can’t pay our current bills and are barely putting food on the table, because God will provide.”

Space children through continence, not an act that has, as its intention, the avoidance of pregnancy…and therefore the subordination of the primary ends of the act to its secondary ends.

Continence? Hard…um…OF COURSE. But this is just another cross to bear for our Lord.

Matthew 16:24 - “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”

The one time you have sex because you want to enjoy one of its secondary benefits while avoiding its primary end, you SUBORDINATE it’s chief end to its ancillary ends.

Again, back to Casti Connubii:

Pope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii, #54, said that the “conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children…”

He goes on to say in #59 that “…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 concupisence 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.”

St. Ceasar of Arles said, “As often as he knows his wife without a desire for children, without a doubt he commits sin.” (from the Faith of the Early Fathers, by Jurgens, 1970.)

 

[CollegeKid]

Regarding the grave reasons - I am on the fence with that one. In all honestly, I am not sure. My wife has epilepsy, and is on medications that might cause birth defects…despite this, we conceived and prayed constantly and now have a seemingly healthy and gorgeous 5 month old boy. But the pregnancy was hi-risk, and ultra stressful for the both of us, and I think we both aged 10 yrs during that 9 months! Is that grave?

Or do we say that we cast all things into the hands of the Lord, and be open to whatever he might send our way, knowing with confidence that the Lordy will supply?

Congratulations on the birth of your child, I’m glad he is healthy. You and your wife certainly showed a lot of trust in the Lord, probably more than most people would in such a time, myself included. That being said, I think a lot of couples in your situation might, quite legitimately, not be comfortable at all with the idea of bringing forth a child at a time like that, and I think they would not committing sin by refraining from marital relations out of a desire to not to bring on the wife’s death or to bring forth a child with severe birth defects.

Just to make clear- I’m only saying NFP is legitimate for grave reasons, because that is how I understand the Church’s teaching on it, so our views on this might be closer than we had previously thought.

 

[billpenn]

Congratulations on the birth of your child, I’m glad he is healthy. You and your wife certainly showed a lot of trust in the Lord, probably more than most people would in such a time, myself included. That being said, I think a lot of couples in your situation might, quite legitimately, not be comfortable at all with the idea of bringing forth a child at a time like that, and I think they would not committing sin by refraining from marital relations out of a desire to not to bring on the wife’s death or to bring forth a child with severe birth defects.

Just to make clear- I’m only saying NFP is legitimate for grave reasons, because that is how I understand the Church’s teaching on it, so our views on this might be closer than we had previously thought.

Thanks!

I think NFP is to be avoided, period…spacing for grave reasons is OK…but space through prayerful continence…A LOT of prayer.

 

[ForeverAdam]

You keep talking about God’s design of the marital act, but you seem to be forgetting about God’s design of a woman’s menstrual cycle. NFP is working within God’s design in order to space one’s family; the same cannot be said for any type of ABC. If God wanted sex to be the way you describe, wouldn’t He have made a woman fertile 24/7/365, like a man is?

You’re forgetting that even though the woman has periods of infertility that she is chiefly inclined to have intercourse only when she is fertile. I interpret this as saying that even though the woman has periods of infertility that God still wants her to fulfill the primary procreative end that he designed into every conjugal act. What is clear is that the traditional Christian teaching has always been that the primary and secondary ends of the conjugal union are concrete and apply to every conjugal act, equally. Until modern times there was never the idea that these primary and secondary ends are conditional on the woman’s fertility cycle, and thus able to be totally inverted on certain days, and that it was even possible for the act to lose its procreative end in the case of infertile couples. To say such a thing is to make a mockery of the encyclicals of the Popes on the absolute primary and secondary ends of marriage and sexuality.

Wouldn’t having more children even though one cannot afford to support them be putting God to the test as well? For example, saying, “Well, we’re going to get pregnant again even though we can’t pay our current bills and are barely putting food on the table, because God will provide.”

It might be possible for some practice of “double-effect” to be applied in these cases. However, the teaching on the primary and secondary ends of the conjugal union cannot be compromised at the risk of changing immemorial Christian teaching.

God bless,

Adam

 

[CollegeKid]

Your case would only be valid if the procreative nature of the conjugal act was only present when it naturally appears. This may be the modern Roman Catholic position. However, the traditional Roman Catholic position is that God has written the primary end of procreation and the secondary end of marital union into every occurrence of the marital act. Since this procreative end is always in the act any deliberate attempt to block it from realizing itself is to abuse the nature of the conjugal act.

But you’re forgetting that the Lord has written the primary and secondary ends of the conjugal union into their every occurrence. If the procreative nature of the conjugal act is always present it would be a sin to reject its presence by deliberately keeping it from appearing, be it in the form of arranging for it not to show up or kicking it out once it does show up. Both cases are equal because the procreative nature of the conjugal act is always present and in both NFP and barrier methods this procreative nature is deliberately removed. Since procreation is written into every occurrence of the conjugal act, Onan was condemned for refusing its presence during the act. However, he would have equally been condemned for refusing its presence through deliberately avoiding it.

God bless,

Adam

Maybe so-like I said, I’m not totally sure about NFP because both you and Billpen have raised some good points. Its something I need to devote more study to. I’m still pretty sure, however, that grave reasons makes the use of NFP legitimate.

 

[billpenn]

Maybe so-like I said, I’m not totally sure about NFP because both you and Billpen have raised some good points. Its something I need to devote more study to. I’m still pretty sure, however, that grave reasons makes the use of NFP legitimate.

Spacing might be legitimate…FA and I argue that NFP is not.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Maybe so-like I said, I’m not totally sure about NFP because both you and Billpen have raised some good points. Its something I need to devote more study to. I’m still pretty sure, however, that grave reasons makes the use of NFP legitimate.

If you allow NFP for grave reasons you must also allow barrier methods of contraception since they both deliberately reject the procreative nature written into every conjugal act. According to traditional Roman Catholic teaching, the only option is to practice true continence (as opposed to the contraceptive continence of NFP).

Pius XI in *Casti Connubii *seems to have foreseen the need of couples to practice prayerful continence when he said in Section 60-61:

1. We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children.
2. However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian Faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent. "Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you."

It is clear that the Pope was talking about true continence and not NFP, as nobody complains about NFP being impossible to observe.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

Spacing might be legitimate…FA and I argue that NFP is not.

What do you make of Pius XII’s allowance for couples to use NFP for grave reasons in 1951? I can only interpret it as a compromise of the traditional Roman Catholic teaching.

God bless,

Adam