Question concerning NFP

[Texas_Roofer]

Here’s the problem I’m having…how can I reconcile this:

“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious”

What is “ALWAYS UNLAWFUL the use of means which directly prevent conception”?

the teachings on intending to avoid pregnancy, vs the teaching on artificial means of contraception, vs the teaching on marriage, vs the teaching on sex are not the same. These teachings do not contradict each other. understanding how to synchronize the teaching is the issue

Isn’t the INTENT OF THE USE OF MEANS TO PREVENT CONCEPTION IS ALWAYS WRONG?

the Pope & Magisterium say no

In other words, if my intent is to prevent conception, and I am using a woman’s infertile period EXCLUSSIVELY to obtain that goal…by relying on NFP’s considerable success in this method…isn’t that wrong?

I think you are asking about marriage here not sex

If my intentions are selfish…by that I mean, I DO NOT INTEND TO IMPREGNATE a woman in any way to have a baby…by using the contraceptive method of NFP…thus using sexual intercourse in a self gratifying way ONLY, and EXCLUSSIVELY…isn’t that wrong?

I think you are asking about sex here

I really don’t know how could I be more direct in my question, especially that today couples are using NFP exactly for that reason alone…this points out an apparent conflict in the stance of the Church, and the real end of NFP. What exactly is the real goal of NFP in this case I just described? The NFP is used in a contraceptive way, as a method TO PREVENT PREGNANCY!

are you back on the marriage issue?

This is where I’m having difficulty understanding the morality of the issue…on one hand …“the use of means is unlawful to directly prevent conception” (or pregnancy)…but it is OK to use NFP (which does prevent conception, or pregnancy). To me that is a paradox.

for years we were taught the standards was “grave reason” now we are told “serious reason”

I always thought that “the intent” differentiates the right from wrong, and all my examples point to that. When I bring this up, then there are all kind of objections, which is surprising… Am I right to assume that in this case INTENT is irrelevant?

Intent is the key issue balancing child care, health, marriage, and acting morally. If that is the intent the participant is okay.

 

[tr1954]

the teachings on intending to avoid pregnancy, vs the teaching on artificial means of contraception, vs the teaching on marriage, vs the teaching on sex are not the same. These teachings do not contradict each other. understanding how to synchronize the teaching is the issue the Pope & Magisterium say no I think you are asking about marriage here not sex I think you are asking about sex here are you back on the marriage issue? for years we were taught the standards was “grave reason” now we are told “serious reason” Intent is the key issue balancing child care, health, marriage, and acting morally. If that is the intent the participant is okay.

I wish I could answer you in the same manner you answered me…but alas, I have no idea how to break down a post, and answer a certain paragraph. I never learned how to do that…so I will try to answer you by numbering your answers.

1. I never meant artificial means of contraception. By “artificial” I mean man made, like condoms, or pills. I only meant NFP as a method of natural contraception. The real question I raised, was the possibility of misusing NFP.
2. the Pope & Magisterium say no. …WOW! I did not know that. Especially that I copied and pasted most of my point from the text you provided.
3. I did mean sex. Sorry if you misunderstood.
4. Indeed…sex is the topic.
5. Actually I mean a sexual act, in which the ultimate goal is avoiding pregnancy.
6. I wonder what is the difference between grave reason and serious reason? I have no idea how you came to this…
7. Intent is the difference between a just act or a sinful act. Did the Jews intent was sinful or just, when they circumvented God’s Commandment about resting on the day of Sabbath?

I wish I could give you the context…but I don’t know how…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I wish I could answer you in the same manner you answered me…but alas, I have no idea how to break down a post, and answer a certain paragraph. I never learned how to do that…

open braket “/quote” close bracket then insert your comment open bracket “quote” close bracket ( same as you see at the beginning and end after you have pushed the quote button}

…so I will try to answer you by numbering your answers.

1. I never meant artificial means of contraception. By “artificial” I mean man made, like condoms, or pills. I only meant NFP as a method of natural contraception. The real question I raised, was the possibility of misusing NFP.

sure, if the couple is only avoiding children for superficial reasons

1. the Pope & Magisterium say no. …WOW! I did not know that. Especially that I copied and pasted most of my point from the text you provided.

they directly answered the question

1. I did mean sex. Sorry if you misunderstood.

1. Indeed…sex is the topic.

1. Actually I mean a sexual act, in which the ultimate goal is avoiding pregnancy.

this is where many get lost because they use one teaching as marriage to judge a different issue as sex this crossing of issues creates confusion

1. I wonder what is the difference between grave reason and serious reason? I have no idea how you came to this…

I did not come to it at all it happened most were taught grave meant life and death type standards yet today serious seems to mean practically everything quaifies

1. Intent is the difference between a just act or a sinful act. Did the Jews intent was sinful or just, when they circumvented God’s Commandment about resting on the day of Sabbath?

again intent is core to all issues let’s stay with one issue at a time

I wish I could give you the context…but I don’t know how…

piece by piece we can work out any concerns you have

 

[Good_Daughter]

Technically NFP does not circumvent the teaching of the RCC, yet it does exactly what the Church forbids. It uses the NFP AS A METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL to avoid pregnancy, by carefully abstaining on a woman’s fertile period, and engaging in sexual activity on her INFERTILE PERIOD ONLY! Thus, those couples who MISUSE NFP for anything But procreation are doing exactly the same thing the Jews were doing with regard to Sabbath.

Would you show us exactly where the Catholic Church forbids the use of birth control for couples who have serious reason to postpone pregnancy? I’ve never heard of such a teaching.

Catholicism, in documents like the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Humane Vitae, teaches couples always to keep sex procreative or “ordered toward life”. The Church does not always require couples to keep sex “open to life”.

The only circumventing that takes place with NFP is when married couples follow Church teaching in a technical sense, keeping sex ordered toward life when they are actually called to be open to life. This kind of thing seems rare among Catholics. Most who are not open to life ignore Catholic teaching and contracept.

And what about those who want to space out the birth of their children?..here’s a question…what if one decided to use NFP for contraceptive purposes ONLY, for the next 5 years to space out childbirths…yet once the 5 years are up, they unilaterally postpone of the next childbirth for another 5 years by avoiding pregnancy using the same method?.. and then repeat it for another one…in essence circumventing the teachings of the Church which forbids the use “OF ANY ACTION” WHICH FRUSTATES THE PROCREATION PURPOSE of the conjugal love (sexual intercourse) Isn’t that action promotes only the selfishness of such union? They never intended to create a new life in the first place, and they misused NFP selfishly…

All these examples illustrate how easily one can circumvent the teaching of the RCC…the truth lies in the INTENT of the heart. Unfortunately no one knows the real intent of the heart…not one, but God…

A Catholic couple is called to prayerfully discern how God would like them to use the fertility He has given them. If they have a serious reason to postpone pregnancy for 5 years,10 years, even indefinitely, then they should do so. If their situation changes for the better, the Church teaches them to be open to life.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches couples must never do anything to avoid procreating? Would you show us where this is taught, because it sounds unfamiliar to me.

Are you saying that NFP circumvents Church teaching by allowing couples to avoid procreating?

A couple’s intent in avoiding pregnancy can be good (or bad), regardless of the means used.

Thank you for your honest questions.

 

[tr1954]

.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches couples must never do anything to avoid procreating? Would you show us where this is taught, because it sounds unfamiliar to me.

QUOTE]

God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Let the debate begin!!!

 

[Good_Daughter]

God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Let the debate begin!!!

In order to frustrate the natural end of sex, you have to be having sex.

A couple who use only NFP for birth control can’t possibly frustrate procreation. Think of it this way: My husband is at work right now and I’m at home. Because of our physical separation, aren’t we deliberately frustrating the natural end of the sex act? When he comes home in the evening, we usually sit together on the couch, just to talk and unwind. Aren’t we deliberately frustrating procreation then? Of course not because, in both cases, we’re not engaging in the act of sex. The same applies to a couple who choose NFP and periodic abstinence in postponing pregnancy.

By contrast, a couple who contracept will engage in sex, ignore their God-given level of fertility, and fake sterility, thereby frustrating the natural end of the act.

Sorry to disappoint, but I almost never debate CAF tracts.

 

[Joya]

This is the most excellent post bringing up objections to the use of the NFP as a contraceptive method. Let me bring up another example which better illustrates this very same point.

God ordered the Israelites to observe the Sabbath, and do not engage in works on that day. God even said that a person can only do some light work around the house or property, but he is forbidden to travel further than 500 paces from his belongings…so, what did the Jews do to circumvent God’s commandment?..they went 499 paces away from their belongings, and dropped a handkerchief, then from that point on they went another 499 paces and dropped another one, and so on… So in essence they were never further away than 499 paces from their belongings, which technicially meant they were observing God’s commandment…yet they were miles away from their homes. LOL!

NFP does EXACTLY THE SAME THING THE JEWS DID with regard to Sabbath as a resting day. Technically NFP does not circumvent the teaching of the RCC, yet it does exactly what the Church forbids. It uses the NFP AS A METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL to avoid pregnancy, by carefully abstaining on a woman’s fertile period, and engaging in sexual activity on her INFERTILE PERIOD ONLY! Thus, those couples who MISUSE NFP for anything But procreation are doing exactly the same thing the Jews were doing with regard to Sabbath.

And what about those who want to space out the birth of their children?..here’s a question…what if one decided to use NFP for contraceptive purposes ONLY, for the next 5 years to space out childbirths…yet once the 5 years are up, they unilaterally postpone of the next childbirth for another 5 years by avoiding pregnancy using the same method?.. and then repeat it for another one…in essence circumventing the teachings of the Church which forbids the use “OF ANY ACTION” WHICH FRUSTATES THE PROCREATION PURPOSE of the conjugal love (sexual intercourse) Isn’t that action promotes only the selfishness of such union? They never intended to create a new life in the first place, and they misused NFP selfishly…

All these examples illustrate how easily one can circumvent the teaching of the RCC…the truth lies in the INTENT of the heart. Unfortunately no one knows the real intent of the heart…not one, but God…

tr1954,
Thanks for the helpful analogy. I agree that nfp can be used in that manner. Don’t get me wrong; I think it’s a beautiful method of family planning, but not without flaws in its logic regarding why it is morally superior to contraception.

 

[Joya]

Catholicism, in documents like the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Humane Vitae, teaches couples always to keep sex procreative or “ordered toward life”. The Church does not always require couples to keep sex “open to life”

Good Daughter, are you aware of what Paul VI wrote in HV: “…it is necessary that each and every act must remain open to the transmission of human life?”

How do you reconcile with the above statement you made to
tr1954 with what the pope wrote in HV? Did he really mean “ordered toward life”?

With nfp, how can a husband and wife “remain open to the transmission of human life” if they are using the infertile period to have relations but not impregnate, when they know through the observations and charting that it is biologically imposssible to conceive?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Catholicism, in documents like the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Humane Vitae, teaches couples always to keep sex procreative or “ordered toward life”. The Church does not always require couples to keep sex “open to life”

It is a play on words

Good Daughter, are you aware of what Paul VI wrote in HV: “…it is necessary that each and every act must remain open to the transmission of human life?”

How do you reconcile with the above statement you made to
tr1954 with what the pope wrote in HV? Did he really mean “ordered toward life”?

again it is just a play on words

With nfp, how can a husband and wife “remain open to the transmission of human life” if they are using the infertile period to have relations but not impregnate, when they know through the observations and charting that it is biologically imposssible to conceive?

the Church is referring to the natural process of relations which include infertile periods. The standard is to have normal relations without creating the infertility.

 

[tr1954]

the Church is referring to the natural process of relations which include infertile periods. The standard is to have normal relations without creating the infertility.

We’re not questioning the purpose of NFP. We question the morality of the NFP. That is the end result which we disagree with. We recognize that NFP does not artificially frustrate the procreation process, you’re very correct in stating the normalcy of the relations under NFP.

But the morality of the usage of NFP is very questionable. Not for everybody, but only for those who close it to the transmission of human life. What if a couple choose not to allow the transmission of life, b/c they don’t desire to EVER have children. Under the current understanding, that is their choice…but when did they followed the teaching of the Church, and had their act open EVER to the transmission of life? They choose not to follow the teaching of the Church, cause they never allowed the act to be open to the transmission of life, and that in itself is…or should be wrong. Then the method of using NFP for not opening it up to the transmission of life becomes a selfish act…or sinful.

On the other hand, if the Church would MODIFY the declaration and the strict observance to the openness to life, by giving an exempt status to the NFP, in case some couples decide not have it open to pregnancy (transmission of life) then all this discussion would be moot. But I never found any exception for NFP in any writings of the Church on this issue.

 

[Joya]

We’re not questioning the purpose of NFP. We question the morality of the NFP. That is the end result which we disagree with. We recognize that NFP does not artificially frustrate the procreation process, you’re very correct in stating the normalcy of the relations under NFP.

But the morality of the usage of NFP is very questionable. Not for everybody, but only for those who close it to the transmission of human life. What if a couple choose not to allow the transmission of life, b/c they don’t desire to EVER have children. Under the current understanding, that is their choice…but when did they followed the teaching of the Church, and had their act open EVER to the transmission of life? They choose not to follow the teaching of the Church, cause they never allowed the act to be open to the transmission of life, and that in itself is…or should be wrong. Then the method of using NFP for not opening it up to the transmission of life becomes a selfish act…or sinful.

Very good points in both paragraphs. Regarding the couple using nfp to never have children: nfp advocates would say, “Yeah, it’s wrong for them to use nfp never to have children…in essence, it is sinful to use nfp with a “contraceptive mentality”. But still, they are not actually contracepting.” I have actually read that sentiment expressed on these boards. Ridiculous!!!

 

[LittleDeb]

But the morality of the usage of NFP is very questionable. Not for everybody, but only for those who close it to the transmission of human life. What if a couple choose not to allow the transmission of life, b/c they don’t desire to EVER have children. Under the current understanding, that is their choice…but when did they followed the teaching of the Church, and had their act open EVER to the transmission of life? They choose not to follow the teaching of the Church, cause they never allowed the act to be open to the transmission of life, and that in itself is…or should be wrong. Then the method of using NFP for not opening it up to the transmission of life becomes a selfish act…or sinful.

Very good points in both paragraphs. Regarding the couple using nfp to never have children: nfp advocates would say, “Yeah, it’s wrong for them to use nfp to never have children, in essence, to use nfp with a contraceptive mentality. But still, they are not actually contracepting.” I have actually read that sentiment expressed on these boards. Ridiculous!!!

I have been trying to stay out of these threads as of late but I do feel it is important to respond here. There are appears to be some confusion in both of these posts as to what NFP is and isn’t. In order to contracept one must first have the mentality to do so, even those who are “obviously” contracepting (using condoms, IUDs etc.)

Gathering information on our fertility is morally neutral. What a couple does with that information becomes Natural Family Planning. Obviously, the best example is the couple who charts to achieve pregnancy shows using the information toward a moral good. Something, anything, cannot simultaneously be morally good and morally bad. It is one or the other or neutral.

It seems that there is the confusion of intent and means. One can have an intent to contracept and not use the means. Separate problems. The couple who has the “mentality” might need to confess their intent. (We do not know their hearts) They do not, however, need to confess their means. Their means is neutral.

It is uncharitable to indict those who use NFP with a properly formed conscience (regardless if it is called ‘grave’ or ‘serious’ reason) based on the worst case scenario. Yes, there are those who use NFP with an improperly formed conscience. It would seem that you would rather NFP did not exist and instead they would contracept?

Please address the authentic problem. NFP is not the problem. In fact, many who used it previously with a contraceptive mentality were changed by the abstinence required. Some folks who would have been formally condemned for their mentality are now champions of large families!

Address the contraceptive mentality of the whole of society. It required the mentality FIRST in order to have a market for contraceptive devices and practices.

 

[LittleDeb]

With nfp, how can a husband and wife “remain open to the transmission of human life” if they are using the infertile period to have relations but not impregnate, when they know through the observations and charting that it is biologically imposssible to conceive?

I read back through and I think I discovered one of your struggles in understanding NFP.

The design is what matters. Why are women cyclically fertile? Why are men fertile 24/7? Why are the signs of fertility so easily observable? Why is it impossible to conceive when one is already pregnant?

If the confusion of “impossible to conceive” were a correct understanding than it would be sinful to have sex while pregnant (or menopausal or infertile.) So it is not a correct understanding of the design. The design matters. The design of the marital act is built into us. One man and one woman make a baby. That is the design.

What many have suggested by the idea you have presented is that it is wrong to understand our fertility. There are a lot of terms bandied about in these types of threads. The term, “using the infertile periods” is actually a common one. I always want to ask those who like that term, “Don’t you use the infertile periods too?” I don’t mean any disrespect by it. I am just being a little playful there.

But as I said, the design is that infertile phases are there and the design is good. What is really being asked is about the exclusive use of the infertile phase. Ok. Now we are getting somewhere.

So then let’s examine what it means to exclusively make use of the infertile phase and what a couple is attempting when doing so. It is certainly NOT contraception since contraception revolves around rendering a fertile act sterile. That is the very definition of ‘contraception’–against the beginning.

NFP cannot be looked at as just morally superior to contraception since it isn’t even in the same category. Yes, it is birth control. But then, permanent abstinence and (sadly) abortion are also forms of birth control. So let’s not chase down THAT red herring again. (And on a personal note, since I sooooo dislike the horrible eugenicists who coined the term “birth control” in the first place, I try not to use the term at all so I don’t have to go to confession for very uncharitable thoughts about long deceased persons.)

Despite the popular myth, NFP is nothing new. We have known about it since the dawn of time. It certainly did not take our original parents long to figure out that not every act of sex resulted in a new life. As I said in my previous post, it is much more helpful to look at each and every contraceptive thought in our society as a whole, and first and foremost in ourselves.

 

[fix]

Very good points in both paragraphs. Regarding the couple using nfp to never have children: nfp advocates would say, “Yeah, it’s wrong for them to use nfp never to have children…in essence, it is sinful to use nfp with a “contraceptive mentality”. But still, they are not actually contracepting.” I have actually read that sentiment expressed on these boards. Ridiculous!!!

Contraception involves frustrating the marital act in some manner. The so called contraceptive mentality may be some type of sin, but the marital act is not altered.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Good Daughter, are you aware of what Paul VI wrote in HV: “…it is necessary that each and every act must remain open to the transmission of human life?”

Hi Joya, I’ve been skimming Humanae Vitae for the line that you’ve quoted above and I’m having the worst time finding it. (Maybe we’re working from a different translations?) Would you please provide the the exact location of your quote, I’m looking forward to reading it in context and continuing our discussion. Thanks.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Joya, I’ve been skimming Humanae Vitae for the line that you’ve quoted above and I’m having the worst time finding it. (Maybe we’re working from a different translations?) Would you please provide the the exact location of your quote, I’m looking forward to reading it in context and continuing our discussion. Thanks.

It probably refers to

*Observing the Natural Law (section 11)

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)”*
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[tr1954]

I have been trying to stay out of these threads as of late but I do feel it is important to respond here. There are appears to be some confusion in both of these posts as to what NFP is and isn’t. In order to contracept one must first have the mentality to do so, even those who are “obviously” contracepting (using condoms, IUDs etc.)

Gathering information on our fertility is morally neutral. What a couple does with that information becomes Natural Family Planning. Obviously, the best example is the couple who charts to achieve pregnancy shows using the information toward a moral good. Something, anything, cannot simultaneously be morally good and morally bad. It is one or the other or neutral.

I totally agree with this so far. And no one questions the method of gathering info

It seems that there is the confusion of intent and means. One can have an intent to contracept and not use the means. Separate problems. The couple who has the “mentality” might need to confess their intent. (We do not know their hearts) They do not, however, need to confess their means. Their means is neutral…

Bingo!! This is at the heart of the problem. First…is it sinful to use NFP as the method of contraception ONLY? Never opening up to the transmission of life clearly stands against the teaching of the Church. Ever since Jesus changed the burden of proof regarding sin, and I would give you the example of how the Jews circumvented the law of the Sabbath as a resting day, God needed to answer that, and Jesus started his ministry by closing this loophole, by declaring that from now on those who look with lust upon a woman (having a lustful INTENT IN THEIR HEARTS) IS JUST AS SINFUL AS IF SOMEONE COMMITS THE ACT…in essence Jesus told the Jews that with regard to Sabbath, breaking the law IN THEIR HEARTS is just as sinful as actually doing the act itself. No need to drop the handkerchief, that won’t help the lawbreaker, as the INTENT became elevated to the same place the sinful act was. And since we’re Christians, not Jews… we follow the teaching of Jesus, and view, and monitor the intent of the heart just as closely as doing the act itself. I’m glad that we agree on this.

It is uncharitable to indict those who use NFP with a properly formed conscience (regardless if it is called ‘grave’ or ‘serious’ reason) based on the worst case scenario. Yes, there are those who use NFP with an improperly formed conscience. It would seem that you would rather NFP did not exist and instead they would contracept?.

I’m not saying that at all…But with regard to INTENT, I wish the Church would set up more clearly what is acceptable, and what is not. Yes, I said the worst scenario…but the same applies to everybody who harbors the same INTENT. What if a couple does have ONE child, and they arbitrarily close the process of transmission of life? Aren’t they breaking the spirit of the teaching of the Church just as those who decided not to have children in the first place? Yes, they do have one child, but their INTENT is just the same from that point onward!

Please address the authentic problem. NFP is not the problem. In fact, many who used it previously with a contraceptive mentality were changed by the abstinence required. Some folks who would have been formally condemned for their mentality are now champions of large families!.

Have you read some of the posts on this topic by others? To me that is the most alarming when discussing NFP…why are so many couples UNHAPPY when they use NFP?? If NFP is so good for all those who practice it, then why are couples abandoning it? No…not everybody is unhappy…but quite a few couples posted their displeasure and complaints about NFP, stating in some cases that NFP DISTANCED their relationship, INSTEAD OF BRING IT CLOSER. That in itself should raise a red flag!

Address the contraceptive mentality of the whole of society. It required the mentality FIRST in order to have a market for contraceptive devices and practices.

I am addressing the problems NFP seems to induce in some couples. The morality is questioned, not the deed. I wish you separate the two. But this is a greatly debated topic among us Catholics, who are fully aware of the great evil of what artificial contraceptives create. There are plenty of discussions on that in other treads on this forum.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

We’re not questioning the purpose of NFP. We question the morality of the NFP. That is the end result which we disagree with. We recognize that NFP does not artificially frustrate the procreation process, you’re very correct in stating the normalcy of the relations under NFP.

But the morality of the usage of NFP is very questionable. Not for everybody, but only for those who close it to the transmission of human life. What if a couple choose not to allow the transmission of life, b/c they don’t desire to EVER have children. Under the current understanding, that is their choice…but when did they followed the teaching of the Church, and had their act open EVER to the transmission of life? They choose not to follow the teaching of the Church, cause they never allowed the act to be open to the transmission of life, and that in itself is…or should be wrong. Then the method of using NFP for not opening it up to the transmission of life becomes a selfish act…or sinful.

On the other hand, if the Church would MODIFY the declaration and the strict observance to the openness to life, by giving an exempt status to the NFP, in case some couples decide not have it open to pregnancy (transmission of life) then all this discussion would be moot. But I never found any exception for NFP in any writings of the Church on this issue.

Not to frustrate you but this would violate both the sacrament of marriage and the grave or serious reason standard. So you suggest multiple problems, which indicate church teachings were not being followed.

 

[tr1954]

Not to frustrate you but this would violate both the sacrament of marriage and the grave or serious reason standard. So you suggest multiple problems, which indicate church teachings were not being followed.

Exactly right! Oh, I’m not advocating the change in the teaching of the RCC…as a matter of fact, I agree with all of her teachings. (I threw that out knowing full well that someone will object to it) But the undeniable fact is, that SOME of the couples are not following the teachings b/c the end result is manifested in UNHAPPINESS. Why are some of the couples unhappy, and not others? We did narrow it down to INTENT, and I think that also could be changed, if all the possibilities are discussed by couples who want to use NFP. By opening up to the possibility of misuse, the NFP can become a powerful birth control measure if couples choose to misuse NFP. That should be emphasized more forcefully, IMHO…couples need to be aware that once the INTENT is to misuse NFP, than that is completely against the Church’ teaching, and inevitably will lead couples to unhappiness in marriage first…then in unhappiness with the stance of the Church. And that might be a very serious problem.

In final…I really would like if positive steps are taken and they might be…I don’t follow this closely, and it is entirely possible that steps ARE TAKEN to inform the faithful of these dangers. But if not…I hope they will in the future. Following the Church’ teachings more closely, should lead the faithful to HAPPINESS AND JOY! And that’s the true intent of all of us…

 

[fix]

It seems that there is the confusion of intent and means. One can have an intent to contracept and not use the means. Separate problems. The couple who has the “mentality” might need to confess their intent. (We do not know their hearts) They do not, however, need to confess their means. Their means is neutral.

Very true.

It seems you are saying contracpetion is always wrong, no matter how good the intent is. The means of NFP are not evil, but the intent can be evil?

The confusion, for some, is that they see NFP as equal to contraception because the ends may be the same. So, here is a question for a moral theologian.

It seems apparent the sin of contraception falls under the 6th commandment. Would having an evil intent to use NFP fall under 6? Perhaps it would fall under 1?

I would like to know.