Sadness over NFP misuse/misunderstanding

[Jennifer_J]

I’m sorry, but the Catechism clearly states that the use of NFP “must be determined by objective criteria”. Also, the “morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention…”

Are you arguing that the objective criteria are subjectively determined?

As another aside, this is why the Catholic boast about being able to infallibly interpret the Bible doesn’t carry much weight. Who can then infallibly interpret the Catechism? It isn’t clear to me how to determine what the “objective criteria” are.

You need to go back and reread that section.

2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether 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” is intrinsically evil:159

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Let me rewrite the sentence:
Periodic continence (NFP) is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.

Any method of ABC that interfers with relations either before or after is evil.

You need to read the whole Catechism. It’s not that hard and it doesn’t need to be interpreted. It’s based on scripture and the magisterium.

The only subjective part of NFP is what your grave/serious/just reasons are. These vary by married couple. It would be impossible to come up with an exhaustive list and there would always be exceptions. The couple is to prayerfully decide if they need to abstain. They can ask for spiritual guidance from a priest if needed.

 

[Em_in_FL]

The more I read about NFP, and “Humanae Vitae”, the more I question that NFP is an alternative to abstinence. If followed properly, NFP methods are nearly 100% effective, while still allowing for intercourse.

In the Humanae Vitae document, there is this part:
" the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life."

A method that is nearly 100% effective hardly seems open to life does it? There is no sin in abstinence for serious reasons, as there is no sexual activity, but NFP has a major gray area, and that is, why is it OK to continue to engage in sexual intercourse while intentionally making it almost impossible for the woman to conceive?

Yes it’s perfectly fine for two people who are medically sterile to be married, but they are not choosing to be sterile, nor are they intentionally thwarting the purpose the marital act.

You’re misusing the word “while”… When couples abstain they are not having intercourse… There is no “while” involved…

Consider situations where a couple is dealing with depression, for example. Medications may be involved that would not be safe for a pregnancy, and the marital embrace may be a source of comfort and compassion during a time of extreme suffering.
Just an example…

 

[choose_to_love]

“you use it when necessary, not as a perpetual state with small variations”

You cannot know what is necessary, or serious reasons, for any particular couple at any particular time, and that is the point.

I agree that NFP can be abused. I also think the other posters are correct in that in actual practice, even if a couple starts out with said contraceptive mentality, having that monthly conversation about what you as a couple are being called to with respect for children, possibly abstaining for several days to maybe two weeks, and praying about your vocation as spouses and potential parents makes it unlikely that any couple will use NFP for any lengthy period of time with this mindset. Its practice does encourage the couple to examine their reasons and work on solutions if impediments exist. I think JPII thought the practice of NFP promotes growth in holiness for those reasons; now, not every couple is at the same place, and may not need the same growth that other couples might.

Again, it is important to keep in perspective. My bride and I teach marriage prep for our diocese, and of the 20 to 25 engaged couples per session, 21 to 24 are typically living together, having sex, and using contraception prior to the marriage, along with irregularly attending Mass. Using NFP, even if with a contraceptive mentality initially, is a step in the right direction, a first step to trusting God with their whole lives and beginning a prayer life together. Progress, not perfection, at first.

 

[PaulinVA]

A method that is nearly 100% effective hardly seems open to life does it? There is no sin in abstinence for serious reasons, as there is no sexual activity, but NFP has a major gray area, and that is, why is it OK to continue to engage in sexual intercourse while intentionally making it almost impossible for the woman to conceive?

Okay, please explain how a couple is commiting a sin by not having relations on any specific night, or by having relations on a specific night.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The more I read about NFP, and “Humanae Vitae”, the more I question that NFP is an alternative to abstinence. If followed properly, NFP methods are nearly 100% effective, while still allowing for intercourse.

In the Humanae Vitae document, there is this part:
" the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life."

A method that is nearly 100% effective hardly seems open to life does it? There is no sin in abstinence for serious reasons, as there is no sexual activity, but NFP has a major gray area, and that is, why is it OK to continue to engage in sexual intercourse while intentionally making it almost impossible for the woman to conceive?

Yes it’s perfectly fine for two people who are medically sterile to be married, but they are not choosing to be sterile, nor are they intentionally thwarting the purpose the marital act.

Because when we engage in the act during a naturally infertile time, I’m not DOING anything to the act. I’m not sinning when we have sex, I’m not sinning if we choose NOT to have sex. The NATURAL fertility of the act is irrelevant (as is the effectiveness rate). If fertility was a necessary component, then infertile couples couldn’t get married, couples in menopause couldn’t get married nor have sex, pregnant couples couldn’t have sex and so forth. This is NOT the teaching of the Church. We are free to either engage in the act or not, as long as the married couple is acting together (ie, not witholding the act for silly reasons). As in your final example, I don’t choose to be infertile nor fertile during my cycle, it is what God made it. I’m free to use any part of my cycle for intercourse. NFP is knowlege of my cycle, certainly, but NFP doesn’t alter my fertility nor does it keep me from becoming pregnant. My natural state of infertility does that.

 

[EEgirl]

Good explanation.

It should be noted that natural breastfeeding also spaces babies. That’s how all the kids in my family are spaced 2-3 years apart.

I’m happy this worked for your family. I hope you don’t believe every woman’s fertility is the same. Some women do get pregnant within months of giving birth, while exclusively breastfeeding. It is absolutely prudent and valid to use NFP to space children. Pregnancy is extremely taxing on a woman’s body. For some, it is more taxing than others. I have vomited the entire nine months of each of my pregnancies, suffered from preeclampsia (in every pregnancy), and had extremely traumatic and life threatening labors (for myself and the child). As others have said, economic factors are not the only considerations. Many couples suffer from infertility, or serial miscarriages.

I hope no one is arguing against Church teachings. I certainly do not intend to. However, my husband and I do NOT approach the situation with “We are done having children, and are avoiding forever,” but rather “Now is not the right time, we are avoiding for now.” Charity dictates I assume the best intentions in other people as well. My (wise) grandfather liked to say that you could never know another person’s intentions, so you should never judge those intentions. Rather, you should judge actions, and assign the best motives possible. I think this advice may serve you well also.

It is good that you are concerned for the spiritual welfare of others. May I suggest you dedicate your zeal to prayer for those couples who (may) be misusing NFP?

Please also remember that NFP is by nature open to life. I conceived my second child while attempting to avoid. I did hope for another child, just not yet. So, that is my real life example of how even using NFP to avoid is in fact, concretely open to life.

 

[CountrySinger]

Okay, please explain how a couple is commiting a sin by not having relations on any specific night, or by having relations on a specific night.

That would be a fun rule.

All couples must have sex every third Wednesday of the month. To not do so is a mortal sin.

Didn’t you get the memo?

 

[NoAvailableName]

You need to go back and reread that section.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Let me rewrite the sentence:
Periodic continence (NFP) is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.

Any method of ABC that interfers with relations either before or after is evil.

You need to read the whole Catechism. It’s not that hard and it doesn’t need to be interpreted. It’s based on scripture and the magisterium.

The only subjective part of NFP is what your grave/serious/just reasons are. These vary by married couple. It would be impossible to come up with an exhaustive list and there would always be exceptions. The couple is to prayerfully decide if they need to abstain. They can ask for spiritual guidance from a priest if needed.

Jennifer,

2370, which you quoted, is not meant to be read in isolation. 2368, from which I quoted, establishes the criteria for when one is allowed to space births. 2370 merely states that NFP is an acceptable method for accomplishing the spacing of births when it is allowed in 2368

 

[jilly4ski]

I’m sorry, but the Catechism clearly states that the use of NFP “must be determined by objective criteria”. Also, the “morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention…”

Are you arguing that the objective criteria are subjectively determined?

As another aside, this is why the Catholic boast about being able to infallibly interpret the Bible doesn’t carry much weight. Who can then infallibly interpret the Catechism? It isn’t clear to me how to determine what the “objective criteria” are.

No, this is not what the catechism said, it said that the regulation of births (the responsible transmission of life and married love) MUST be determined with objective criteria. Meaning that no matter how just/serious/grave your reasons for avoiding a child one may not use immoral means. It was saying that one cannot use objectively immoral means to regulate births, and the church objectively says what those immoral means are. NFP as defined in the subsequent paragraphs is not an immoral means to regulate births, though must be used in a non-selfish way.

t’s the modern perspective that everyone should continue to participate in sexual relations no matter how old they are. Sexual relations are primarily for the purpose of creating new life, not personal pleasure. Obviously the drive to create new life is NOT what drives married couples to engage in the marital act, but that doesn’t mean it should be intentionally thwarted.

Also you don’t need NFP to space children. The people who discovered NFP methods didn’t discover breastfeeding, so calling breastfeeding “NFP” is silly.

Statements like this above is why people here seem not to be respecting your opinions.

Elderly people who still engage in marital relations are not intentionally thwarting the purposes of marriage. They did not create their infertility, God did, and like Elizabeth and Sarah, God could grant them a miracle. If these elderly couples had stopped having relations because they were too old, I think our Christian history would by sadly lacking. The church’s teaching is that you cannot separate the procreative from the unitive functions. The elderly couple could still need the unitive function and as long as they are not preventing conception (by using immoral means) they are still fulfilling the procreative function.

Where did you get the idea that you don’t need NFP to space children. (Your understanding of NFP is sadly limited) NFP is using the infertile time of a women in order to not have a child at this time. When (some) women breastfeed they are naturally infertile (just like they are during parts of their cycle, during pregnancy, and after menopause). So really breastfeeding is a form of NFP, the only difference is that you agree that having a newborn in the house is a serious reason to avoid having another child. (Not to mention that breastfeeding does not delay the return of fertility for all women, and I could see them having serious reasons to use NFP to avoid another pregnancy at that time).

You seem to know (some) of the church’s teaching on this matter, which is great. But I think why people are questioning your lack of experience, is because it seems you fail to take into account very real circumstances and just assume that people are misusing NFP.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Jennifer,

2370, which you quoted, is not meant to be read in isolation. 2368, from which I quoted, establishes the criteria for when one is allowed to space births. 2370 merely states that NFP is an acceptable method for accomplishing the spacing of births when it is allowed in 2368

Oops, you are correct That’s what I get for multitasking with the kids and the computer.

Again, those objective criteria are transmitted in Humane Vitae section 10:
Responsible Parenthood

1. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.
Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

 

[NoAvailableName]

No, this is not what the catechism said, it said that the regulation of births (the responsible transmission of life and married love) MUST be determined with objective criteria. Meaning that no matter how just/serious/grave your reasons for avoiding a child one may not use immoral means. It was saying that one cannot use objectively immoral means to regulate births, and the church objectively says what those immoral means are. NFP as defined in the subsequent paragraphs is not an immoral means to regulate births, though must be used in a non-selfish way.

Jill,

2368 sets the criteria for when you are allowed to space births. Since NFP is an acceptable means of spacing births (2370), its use is clearly regulated by 2368, and in the manner that I previously quoted.

Well I’m rather busy now, so I’ll have to bow out of this conversation at least for awhile.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

You’re misusing the word “while”… When couples abstain they are not having intercourse… There is no “while” involved…

Consider situations where a couple is dealing with depression, for example. Medications may be involved that would not be safe for a pregnancy, and the marital embrace may be a source of comfort and compassion during a time of extreme suffering.
Just an example…

Sounds like a misuse of the marital embrace to me. Since it would be a bad thing if the couple accidentally got pregnant while using said medications, the couple would naturally be trying their best to NOT allow for any possibility of conception. What a terrible thought.

Because when we engage in the act during a naturally infertile time, I’m not DOING anything to the act. I’m not sinning when we have sex, I’m not sinning if we choose NOT to have sex. The NATURAL fertility of the act is irrelevant (as is the effectiveness rate). If fertility was a necessary component, then infertile couples couldn’t get married, couples in menopause couldn’t get married nor have sex, pregnant couples couldn’t have sex and so forth. This is NOT the teaching of the Church. We are free to either engage in the act or not, as long as the married couple is acting together (ie, not witholding the act for silly reasons). As in your final example, I don’t choose to be infertile nor fertile during my cycle, it is what God made it. I’m free to use any part of my cycle for intercourse. NFP is knowlege of my cycle, certainly, but NFP doesn’t alter my fertility nor does it keep me from becoming pregnant. My natural state of infertility does that.

No no, you are not sinning in the least by engaging in the martial act during infertile times. Nothing wrong with that at all. The problem is with intent.

Say a newlywed couple desires no children at all, but they know that God will decide if they will have children or not, so they don’t use NFP or ABC, and don’t intentionally avoid specifically fertile times. Consequently, they have a child. That couple does not sin, as even though they desired no children, they did not act on that desire, and still allowed God to have a say in the matter, putting up no barriers at all.

Now take for instance, a newlywed couple that desires to have no children at all, but they use NFP and effectively avoid pregnancy completely. This couple has done something wrong, as they had a wrongful desire, and acted on it.

I understand how some people might use NFP to space children, but I don’t understand why anyone would support the use of NFP when a couple desires to have no more children at all.

Okay, please explain how a couple is commiting a sin by not having relations on any specific night, or by having relations on a specific night.

Obviously they are not committing a sin either way. But if that couple is having relations on infertile nights, and no relations on fertile nights, there could be a problem if they have no grave reason to do so.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I had posted this in another NFP thread…it seems apprpriate to post it here as well:

I think NFP(to avoid) users mostly do so because they want to do the right thing in the eyes of the Lord, learned through the Church. I assume that NFP’ers are being as obedient to the Church as possible. I assume that because, our society is bombarded with the message of contraceptives. There is a commercial that comes on for an IUD. It shows a frazzled mom with two naughty kids, and a Dad reading the newspaper as his kids play. She says," 2 is enough."

I’ve been married almost 13 years. We haven’t used contraceptives for nine of those years.

We have regretfully used contraceptives…partly in ignorance, mostly for convenience. I personally see the difference between using contraceptives and using NFP.

When using contraceptives, the “marital debt” (love that phrase, btw) is always expected to be delivered. But payment is in the form of a "check with non sufficient funds " , the removal of our fertility. The marital embrace had no consequences. If you ever watched Mass on EWTN, Father Shaughnessy (no longer there) gave a homily on contraception. He called it, mutual masturbation. Unfortunately, I have the personal knowledge that, yep, that’s what it is.

In the beginning of our marriage, we fought about sex often…basically the frequency. There is a weird disconnect about wanting more frequency while simultaneously not wanting a child.

If most NFP’ers were being selfish in their reasons to abstain…that selfishness would rear it’s ugly head pretty quickly. When a couple loves one another, truthfully and honestly , it is a BIG SACRIFICE, to abstain. It’s not like there is no desire for each other. The desire is still there…and probably more so on the days we should avoid. But we sacrifice that longing, and we offer it up, with the hope that this is what God wants for us.

We’ve been selfish…I honestly can say, we are not being selfish now. When we were contraception it was, “I don’t want to be pregnant. I don’t want a baby.”

Now when we avoid it’s because we are thinking of all the possibilities, and how we need to be prudent, for our own health, for the health of our future baby, and for our family life in general. But, if it were to happen that we should conceive agian, that baby would be soooo loved and welcomed.

I also like to think this. My DH and I are faaaaaaar from being the perfect Catholic couple.

I’m sure there are many more devout couples…and more devout couples using NFP than us. If we aren’t being selfish, than I can assume that they are not either.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Jill,

2368 sets the criteria for when you are allowed to space births. Since NFP is an acceptable means of spacing births (2370), its use is clearly regulated by 2368, and in the manner that I previously quoted.

Well I’m rather busy now, so I’ll have to bow out of this conversation at least for awhile.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of 2368…

2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

This is not speaking about the objective reasoning for using NFP… it’s speaking AGAINST the idea of using artificial birth control…

Read the references:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

 

[PaulinVA]

Obviously they are not committing a sin either way. But if that couple is having relations on infertile nights, and no relations on fertile nights, there could be a problem if they have no grave reason to do so.

Well, I don’t think there is ever an obligation placed by the Church to have relations on any given night.

I do agree that one needs a grave/serious/just reason to practice NFP to avoid.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Sounds like a misuse of the marital embrace to me. Since it would be a bad thing if the couple accidentally got pregnant while using said medications, the couple would naturally be trying their best to NOT allow for any possibility of conception. What a terrible thought.

This is precisely where you lack empathetic experience.
You’ll be in my prayers.

No no, you are not sinning in the least by engaging in the martial act during infertile times. Nothing wrong with that at all. The problem is with intent.

Say a newlywed couple desires no children at all, but they know that God will decide if they will have children or not, so they don’t use NFP or ABC, and don’t intentionally avoid specifically fertile times. Consequently, they have a child. That couple does not sin, as even though they desired no children, they did not act on that desire, and still allowed God to have a say in the matter, putting up no barriers at all.

Now take for instance, a newlywed couple that desires to have no children at all, but they use NFP and effectively avoid pregnancy completely. This couple has done something wrong, as they had a wrongful desire, and acted on it.

I understand how some people might use NFP to space children, but I don’t understand why anyone would support the use of NFP when a couple desires to have no more children at all.

Agree with you… except that there may be more of a “just” or “serious” reason involved than simple “desire”. Desire is a very shallow and selfish term which lacks understanding of the full picture.
Imagine a mother who’s had so many C-sections that her doctor insists she doesn’t get pregnant again for fear of rupturing her uterus and possibly dying. Do you realize how often couples are put into a situation like this? Very, very real.

Obviously they are not committing a sin either way. But if that couple is having relations on infertile nights, and no relations on fertile nights, there could be a problem if they have no grave reason to do so.

Agreed… but who are you or I to judge whether that reason is “grave” enough?

 

[jilly4ski]

Say a newlywed couple desires no children at all, but they know that God will decide if they will have children or not, so they don’t use NFP or ABC, and don’t intentionally avoid specifically fertile times. Consequently, they havll.
e a child. That couple does not sin, as even though they desired no children, they did not act on that desire, and still allowed God to have a say in the matter, putting up no barriers at a
Now take for instance, a newlywed couple that desires to have no children at all, but they use NFP and effectively avoid pregnancy completely. This couple has done something wrong, as they had a wrongful desire, and acted on it.

I understand how some people might use NFP to space children, but I don’t understand why anyone would support the use of NFP when a couple desires to have no more children at all.

Obviously they are not committing a sin either way. But if that couple is having relations on infertile nights, and no relations on fertile nights, there could be a problem if they have no grave reason to do so.

No one on this thread has suggested or supported the idea that people use NFP to avoid children all together. If fact if a couple didn’t want children at all when they were married, there might be a good case that their marriage is invalid in the eyes of the church. (the couple would have a good chance of obtaining an annulment). This is part of the marriage vows and is up to marriage prep to cover this.

I took an NFP class in marriage prep (required) and it did not support what you say it supports. The teachers had several kids and they had used NFP at various times during their marriage to both conceive children and space children. Their testimony was that at one time the wife got very ill and they had to abstain completely for one year, and NFP had helped prepared them for this trial in their life.

 

[jilly4ski]

I don’t think you understand the meaning of 2368…

This is not speaking about the objective reasoning for using NFP… it’s speaking AGAINST the idea of using artificial birth control…

Read the references:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Thanks Em.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

This is precisely where you lack empathetic experience.
You’ll be in my prayers.

Agree with you… except that there may be more of a “just” or “serious” reason involved than simple “desire”. Desire is a very shallow and selfish term which lacks understanding of the full picture.
Imagine a mother who’s had so many C-sections that her doctor insists she doesn’t get pregnant again for fear of rupturing her uterus and possibly dying. Do you realize how often couples are put into a situation like this? Very, very real.

Agreed… but who are you or I to judge whether that reason is “grave” enough?

It’s not our place to judge. That’s why before a couple decides to delay or avoid pregnancy using NFP, they should consult a priest who hopefully give them some perspective about their problem.

This website is short, and contains some good info on the subject:
catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/nfamp.htm

 

[Em_in_FL]

This website is short, and contains some good info on the subject:
catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/nfamp.htm

Now I can see where you’re gaining your perspective…

It has interesting points, but I prefer to go directly to the SOURCE of the teachings of the faith rather than someone’s opinion website.