NFP?

[bobzills]

If the primary and secondary ends of the conjugal union exist in every conjugal act and NFP involves a deliberate attempt to keep procreation from occurring, then you are contradicting the command to keep both ends of the conjugal act intact.
All of NFP is an abuse of the procreative end intrinsic to every conjugal act.

This is correct, in my opinion. Also, before Vatican II, it was taught that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation, the unitive was secondary. now with NFP, you are inverting the two and making the unitive primary and doing everything you can to avoid procreation. And we see in written documents such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a studied ambiguity as to the primary and secondary ends of marriage.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I really would love a woman’s perspective on the NFP is evil idea.

 

[Red_Meg]

I really would love a woman’s perspective on the NFP is evil idea.

Woman here. I don’t think it’s evil.

It can certainly be used for silly, trivial reasons, which would of course be an abuse. It can also be used for “justa causa” as Humanae Vitae puts it. (It is just me, or are people on this thread ignoring that encyclical???)

I probably don’t have suitable “Traditional” credentials, as I don’t attend the TLM and don’t have any especial desire to do so. I do, however, consider myself to be an orthodox Catholic.

I’ve been married for fifteen years. DH & I have eight children and hope for more. Now, the kicker is, those eight have arrived still with reliance on NFP to postpone pregnancies on a few occasions.

None of those circumstances have been life-threatening, which seems to be the standard some on this thread are upholding. Some of the circumstances involved needing to take care of other health issues before becoming pregnant again. Some of the circumstances involved keeping mommy out of the loony bin. There was a point in time when I had so many babies so close together that I felt, in all earnestness, that if I did get pregnant again right away, I would really have no alternative but to give away said child for adoption.

Thankfully, Holy Mother Church in her wisdom allows spouses to work with the natural cycles of fertility and infertility to postpone pregnancy when there is just cause.

Margaret

 

[tcraig]

**It is a sad thing to see Catholics disregarding the Supreme Teaching Authority of the Church. **

The Beauty of our Catholic Faith is that through the Magisterium of the Church we can follow what the Church teaches as they faithfully transmit what God wants and permits.

So any discussion of ‘I think’ or ‘I feel’ when contrary to the the Teachings of our Faith are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

NFP is a Church approved practice when followed obediently by the Church.

I agree with this statement 100%. And despite the fact that this is the “Traditional Catholicism” forum, there are some here who question the Church’s teachings as much as the most extreme liberal.

It just goes to show that a disobedient mindset does not belong exclusively to the clown mass/women priests crowd.

 

[childofmary1143]

If the primary and secondary ends of the conjugal union exist in every conjugal act and NFP involves a deliberate attempt to keep procreation from occurring, then you are contradicting the command to keep both ends of the conjugal act intact.

All of NFP is an abuse of the procreative end intrinsic to every conjugal act.

But the conjugal act will eventually occur and it will either bear the marks of you trying to keep its intrinsic nature of procreation from being present or it will not. With NFP it will bear the marks of the latter and this is contraception.

I think Bill is. I’m not. But neither were the Popes who said that it was wrong to deliberately frustrate the intrinsic procreativity of the conjugal act.

God bless,

Adam

A simple search on the above mentioned’s Profile reveals that he isn’t Catholic. So it would be irrelevant to show him how the Catholic Church teaches that NFP is permitted in the right circumstances.

 

[thecoach]

I differ here - just because their priest is telling them it is OK to use doesn’t mean it is OK to use…I recently confessed something to a priest that the Church condemns as gravely sinful…and he told me “not to worry” about that!

From what I’m coming across in my researches, it seems that prayerful abstinence is the only way to go…and maybe not even that because one should be open to all of the children that the Lord would send to them.

NFP has always been accepted by the Church, since while it is true that it is to control birth, it isnt 100%, and leaves the possibility as it were. Abstinence should be very carefully considered, as in my estimation, it is against the teaching of the Church to the extent that conjugal relations are an inherent part of the marriage state.

 

[thecoach]

This is correct, in my opinion. Also, before Vatican II, it was taught that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation, the unitive was secondary. now with NFP, you are inverting the two and making the unitive primary and doing everything you can to avoid procreation. And we see in written documents such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a studied ambiguity as to the primary and secondary ends of marriage.

Couldnt disagree more.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Woman here. I don’t think it’s evil.

Some of the circumstances involved keeping mommy out of the loony bin. There was a point in time when I had so many babies so close together that I felt, in all earnestness, that if I did get pregnant again right away, I would really have no alternative but to give away said child for adoption.

Thankfully, Holy Mother Church in her wisdom allows spouses to work with the natural cycles of fertility and infertility to postpone pregnancy when there is just cause.

Margaret

You know, so far I have only had one, and I had such horrible PPD, that at one point, I was going to take out myself and my child. To have gotten preggers again right away would have pushed me to the edge.
Men (cause those are the people who are posting this “NFP is evil” stuff) don’t understand the insanity that we women have to go through, and for everyone’s safety health, and physically, it is sometimes best to postpone.

 

[wynd]

You know, so far I have only had one, and I had such horrible PPD, that at one point, I was going to take out myself and my child. To have gotten preggers again right away would have pushed me to the edge.
Men (cause those are the people who are posting this “NFP is evil” stuff) don’t understand the insanity that we women have to go through, and for everyone’s safety health, and physically, it is sometimes best to postpone.

Please understand, no one is saying you have to be a baby-making machine. The point of the anti-NFP crowd here is this: “NFP and ABC are basically the same. If you don’t want kids, then prayerfully consider not having sex.”

 

[Cat]

Please understand, no one is saying you have to be a baby-making machine. The point of the anti-NFP crowd here is this: “NFP and ABC are basically the same. If you don’t want kids, then prayerfully consider not having sex.”

If you don’t want to have sex, then prayerfully consider not getting married.

Sex is so important to the unitive aspect of marriage. It is the thing that my husband and I do that makes our relationship different than all the other relationships we have. I have fixed meals, taken out garbage, planned finances, cleaned, cried, and laughed with “roommates” (female).

But I have never had sex with any them. Only my husband.

The Church Itself teaches the dual purpose of sex–unitive and procreative. Sex contributes to the strength of a marriage.

To say that sex is only for procreation is to contradict the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

 

[MMLJ]

**Where in the encyclical Casti Connubii does Pope Pius
mention any kind of specific birth control? **

The focus is on the intentions of the married couple on having children, primary end. Pope Pius XI ends the encyclical by stating the example of Onan as an evil use of man’s free will.

Genesis 38:8-10
8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

St. Jerome’s exegesis is, "Onan who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’ve been doing a lot of research on this lately because my wife and I just had our first child, and we’re in the middle of talking about NFP now.

I think it is birth control because its purpose is to do just that…control births - as in whether or not they happen. Same primary aim as the birth control pill or condoms - just a different mechanism of action.

I think it is another case of the ends justifying the means…the ends here being not to get pregnant.

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.”

So to my mind, NFP subordinates the conjugal act’s primary purpose (as stated above in #54…that is, creation of children) to the secondary purposes (stated in #59). It brings the secondary aims of it to the forefront by endeavoring to avoid pregnancy.

Here is the link to Casti Connubii… and the quote you’re referring to is this… correct?

1. Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: “As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,”[19] – and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law – “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”[20]

This refers to a quote from Canon Law… but it was changed in 1983…
Current Canon Law says…

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

Ahh… but you also mentioned #54 in Casti Connubii… but you failed to leave out the bolded portion…

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

It’s only sinful if you frustrate the ability to procreate when EXERCISING the marital union. This says nothing about choosing to abstain.

Which is also reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

2363
The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Please understand, no one is saying you have to be a baby-making machine. The point of the anti-NFP crowd here is this: “NFP and ABC are basically the same. If you don’t want kids, then prayerfully consider not having sex.”

Isn’t that what DH and I are doing when we abstain?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Please understand, no one is saying you have to be a baby-making machine. The point of the anti-NFP crowd here is this: “NFP and ABC are basically the same. If you don’t want kids, then prayerfully consider not having sex.”

NFP IS abstaining… your statement makes no sense!

The Church Itself teaches the dual purpose of sex–unitive and procreative. Sex contributes to the strength of a marriage.

To say that sex is only for procreation is to contradict the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Agreed.

 

[Sure]

A couple of points…

First, the Church DOES teach that the primary end of sex is procreation. However, this does NOT mean primary in the sense of MORE IMPORTANT, it means primary in an ontological sense, that which is prior or comes first. The primary end of intercourse is procreation. This primary end is shared with all animals and is of a natural level. The secondary end is NOT shared by the animals because it is of a moral level which requires the existence of an eternal soul. Because man is elevated by God with the immortal soul he is also given a secondary end to the act of intercourse, namely the unity of husband and wife in the Sacrament of marriage. They are of equal value but the end of procreation remains primary as it is prior to the secondary end of unity. However, since we are body and soul, both ends must be sought after and neither of them frustrated.

Secondly, there are ZERO reputable moral theologians who speak of NFP as intrinsically evil.

Thirdly and most importantly, if the Church is wrong on it’s clear teaching on the morality of NFP then that means there is error in a matter of faith and morals and Satan has triumphed against the Church. It means there is no Church and all the Popes from Pius XI onward (if not before) are false Popes. So, just on a matter of authority we must accept the teaching on NFP or else we are not Catholic, for there is no Church.

 

[MMLJ]

**More than a couple of points but important nevertheless: **

**Where in the encyclical Casti Connubii does Pope Pius
mention any kind of specific birth control? **

The focus is on the intentions of the married couple on having children, primary end. Pope Pius XI ends the encyclical by stating the example of Onan as an evil use of man’s free will.

Genesis 38:8-10
8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

St. Jerome’s exegesis is, "Onan who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?

St Augustine:
De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia #15, “It is, however,* one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance.* They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honorable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practiced in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin.”

**St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica :
**
Suppl.Q.49,a.2, “One of these is required on the part of the agent and is the intention of the due end, and thus the offspring is accounted a good of matrimony”(newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm)

Suppl. Q.49,a.3, “Secondly, faith and offspring may be considered as in their principles, so that offspring denote the intention of having children, and faith the duty of remaining faithful, and there can be no matrimony without these also, since they are caused in matrimony by the marriage compact itself, so that if anything contrary to these were expressed in the consent which makes a marriage, the marriage would be invalid.”(newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm)

Suppl. Q.41,a.4, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust.(newadvent.org/summa/5041.htm)

Suppl.,Q.49,a.5, “make a marriage honest and holy, so too, in so far as they are in the actual intention, they make the marriage act honest,…but not its act, as though its act were wholly excused from sin, through being done on account of some signification. Consequently there are only* two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt; otherwise it is always at least a venial sin.”*

St Thomas Aquinas is extremely.

Please remember these are from very important ‘Saints’.

GOD Bless.

 

[Sure]

**More than a couple of points but important nevertheless: **

**Where in the encyclical Casti Connubii does Pope Pius
mention any kind of specific birth control? **

The focus is on the intentions of the married couple on having children, primary end. Pope Pius XI ends the encyclical by stating the example of Onan as an evil use of man’s free will.

Genesis 38:8-10
8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

St. Jerome’s exegesis is, "Onan who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?

St Augustine:
De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia #15, “It is, however,* one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance.* They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honorable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practiced in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin.”

**St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica :
**
Suppl.Q.49,a.2, “One of these is required on the part of the agent and is the intention of the due end, and thus the offspring is accounted a good of matrimony”(newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm)

Suppl. Q.49,a.3, “Secondly, faith and offspring may be considered as in their principles, so that offspring denote the intention of having children, and faith the duty of remaining faithful, and there can be no matrimony without these also, since they are caused in matrimony by the marriage compact itself, so that if anything contrary to these were expressed in the consent which makes a marriage, the marriage would be invalid.”(newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm)

Suppl. Q.41,a.4, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust.(newadvent.org/summa/5041.htm)

Please remember these are from very important ‘Saints’.

GOD Bless.

All of these quotations are completely consistent with the Church’s teaching on NFP. You haven’t found some silver bullet here.

Are you proposing that due to error there is no Church, no Pope?

Don’t you find it troubling that there are NO moral theologians (even the most traditional, even schismatic anti-Vatican II) who support your position?

 

[MMLJ]

All of these quotations are completely consistent with the Church’s teaching on NFP. You haven’t found some silver bullet here.

Are you proposing that due to error there is no Church, no Pope?

Don’t you find it troubling that there are NO moral theologians (even the most traditional, even schismatic anti-Vatican II) who support your position?

Elaborate starting with the Question at the beginning of my previous post and then if possible to the Saints remarks.

Thank you and GOD Bless

 

[Sure]

Elaborate starting with the Question at the beginning of my previous post and then if possible to the Saints remarks.

Thank you and GOD Bless

I don’t have a copy of Casti Cannubii. I would guess he doesn’t list any methods, but refers to birth control.

The saint’s remarks are all consistent and supportive of NFP.

Read my other posts.

Are you Catholic?

Perhaps this quote will help you understand that this is not some new teaching:

"The Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Penitentiary:

“Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?”

On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Pius IX) answered as follows:

“Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.”

 

[billpenn]

NFP has always been accepted by the Church, since while it is true that it is to control birth, it isnt 100%, and leaves the possibility as it were. Abstinence should be very carefully considered, as in my estimation, it is against the teaching of the Church to the extent that conjugal relations are an inherent part of the marriage state.

Conjugal relations with rightly ordered ends…