Should Catholic Teenagers understand and be knowledgable of NFP?

[bitterhope]

I think that girls should be taught about all aspects of fertility, motherhood, pregnancy and nursing but in an age appropriate way, with a firm Catholic moral framework and without undue detail with regard to anything beyond the basic biology of intimacy.

Knowledge of one’s cycle is useful and most easily learned before it is complicated by pregnancy etc after marriage. However if NFP is to be taught outside of marriage it needs to be taught within an absolutely consistent moral framework stating clearly that it is only relevant in marriage and then only when the couple have mutually agreed prayerfully based serious reason to avoid. Especially that it is not an alternative to contraception and that in marriage we vow to be open to children.

This is the perfect answer. I agree completely.

 

[Rau]

…Instead they use various methods, usually STM, of NFP or monitors such as ladycomp. They use it simply to not get pregnant.

That is indeed its main purpose. Is your point that they have no reasonable reason to avoid pregnancy? Perhaps that is so, but it is entirely a matter for the couple concerned. In any event, such situation does not amount to the sin of contraception.

 

[Rau]

…After my oldest sister’s horrific experience of losing two babies, my younger sister uses NFP and barrier methods as contraception. She says that if the method fails, at least she’ll end up with a live baby she can give to a good home and not a stillborn baby.

The barrier methods are contraception. The NFP is not that - it is a licit means of avoiding pregnancy, whether that avoidance is innocently born out of fear, or something else. Where it is “something” else, there may be a moral failing in evidence, but the wrong is not that of contraception.

The expression “NFP with contraceptive intent” may readily confuse, and I wish people would cease to use it. To not desire children, to take (licit) steps to have “few” children is not contraception.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The barrier methods are contraception. The NFP is not that - it is a licit means of avoiding pregnancy, whether that avoidance is innocently born out of fear, or something else. Where it is “something” else, there may be a moral failing in evidence, but the wrong is not that of contraception.

The expression “NFP with contraceptive intent” may readily confuse, and I wish people would cease to use it. To not desire children, to take (licit) steps to have “few” children is not contraception.

I think it’s more expressive if the way it can be abused. In my marriage I have contracepted using abc, used nfp with a contraceptive mentality, used nfp correctly, and not used it at all. Between that and my confessor I think it is descriptive to say. I think it is a real issue that should be talked about and not dismissed. Perhaps it is confusing but there really is no other way to handle it. We have been over this before so I guess we should get back to the subject at hand. Though I would think in discussing nfp with a teen the subject of when to use it might come up… The answer should not be “never” nor should it be “always”.

 

[Rau]

I think it’s more expressive if the way it can be abused. In my marriage I have contracepted using abc, used nfp with a contraceptive mentality, used nfp correctly, and not used it at all. Between that and my confessor I think it is descriptive to say. I think it is a real issue that should be talked about and not dismissed. Perhaps it is confusing but there really is no other way to handle it. We have been over this before so I guess we should get back to the subject at hand. Though I would think in discussing nfp with a teen the subject of when to use it might come up… The answer should not be “never” nor should it be “always”.

Being “more expressive” of the wrong concept is unhelpful.

I can only state that as a matter of definition, the “means” intrinsic to NFP is **not **the “means” intrinsic to contraception - and contraception as sin arises from the means chosen to an end, not the desiring (choosing) of the end.

There is no doubt that while adopting only the means of NFP (“periodic continence”) one may be acting in a morally flawed way eg. by failing to give due regard to the positive obligation of married persons to bring forth children, by becoming self-obsessed, and so forth. But these things are a different wrong.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Being “more expressive” of the wrong concept is unhelpful.

I can only state that as a matter of definition, the “means” intrinsic to NFP is **not **the “means” intrinsic to contraception - and contraception as sin arises from the means chosen to an end, not the desiring (choosing) of the end.

There is no doubt that while adopting only the means of NFP (“periodic continence”) one may be acting in a morally flawed way eg. by failing to give due regard to the positive obligation of married persons to bring forth children, by becoming self-obsessed, and so forth. But these things are a different wrong.

It’s not the wrong concept.
We’ve been over this before.

Moving on…

 

[Rau]

I’m sorry for brining it up. Apparently you know more than myself and my confessor.

Your discussions with confessor is not something we can deal with here. But the meaning of words, and theology, is. Our different points of view have been expressed, so I agree, moving on…

 

[catrina2223]

I do think they should be taught nfp. It doesn’t have to be all in depth, but i do think they should know about it. Funny thing, my husband and i were talking about this this morning, before i even saw this!

Our kids are young, 8 and under, but i will tell them about it once they get to “that age”. If parents can talk to their kids about other methods of birth control they can talk about nfp. I will guide and talk to them about waiting until marriage…so nfp is all a part of that as well.

 

[jmjZelie]

I think it’s more expressive if the way it can be abused. In my marriage I have contracepted using abc, used nfp with a contraceptive mentality, used nfp correctly, and not used it at all. Between that and my confessor I think it is descriptive to say. I think it is a real issue that should be talked about and not dismissed. Perhaps it is confusing but there really is no other way to handle it. We have been over this before so I guess we should get back to the subject at hand. Though I would think in discussing nfp with a teen the subject of when to use it might come up… The answer should not be “never” nor should it be “always”.

I have seen you and others here say “used NFP with a contraceptive mentality” as well as seeing that in Catholic journalism and commentary elsewhere.

I don’t understand what is meant when people use that phrase.

Can you please elaborate what you mean? I am not asking you to defend the phrase, just to explain it.

Thanks HoosierDaddy. God bless you and your family.

 

[Joe_5859]

I have seen you and others here say “used NFP with a contraceptive mentality” as well as seeing that in Catholic journalism and commentary elsewhere.

I don’t understand what is meant when people use that phrase.

Can you please elaborate what you mean? I am not asking you to defend the phrase, just to explain it.

Thanks HoosierDaddy. God bless you and your family.

I think what people are going for with that phrase is that a couple would use NFP with an identical closed-to-life disposition as those using artificial contraception.

I don’t much care for the phrase myself.

 

[jmjZelie]

I think what people are going for with that phrase is that a couple would use NFP with an identical closed-to-life disposition as those using artificial contraception.

I don’t much care for the phrase myself.

Okay I guess I need to now ask what is meant by closed to life. Because a couple might very well have attitudes of really desiring to avoid pregnancy, for just or unjust reasons. But if practicing NFP, the marital relations themselves are still ordered to procreation. They are still sacrificing the good of marital relations in order to avoid pregnancy. It is acceptable to intend to avoid relations for just reasons.

So is the phrase “closed to life” and "NFP with contraceptive mentality perhaps merely referring to the practice of periodic continence without just reasons supporting the intention to avoid pregnancy?

Is there any precedent in authoritative Church documents, or even bishops’ letters, that would point to this meaning?

Thanks for your response. And I will restate that I am trying to understand the meaning, not asking for a defense. I don’t want to put anyone on the defensive, just to understand the argument. Thanks!

 

[Rau]

I think what people are going for with that phrase is that a couple would use NFP with an identical closed-to-life disposition as those using artificial contraception.

I don’t much care for the phrase myself.

Right. Being “closed to life” (a somewhat general and vague term which I understand to be in opposition to having children without good cause) is not what defines contraception. The latter is a particular means to give effect to that end.

 

[LongingSoul]

Okay I guess I need to now ask what is meant by closed to life. Because a couple might very well have attitudes of really desiring to avoid pregnancy, for just or unjust reasons. But if practicing NFP, the marital relations themselves are still ordered to procreation. They are still sacrificing the good of marital relations in order to avoid pregnancy. It is acceptable to intend to avoid relations for just reasons.

So is the phrase “closed to life” and "NFP with contraceptive mentality perhaps merely referring to the practice of periodic continence without just reasons supporting the intention to avoid pregnancy?

Is there any precedent in authoritative Church documents, or even bishops’ letters, that would point to this meaning?

Thanks for your response. And I will restate that I am trying to understand the meaning, not asking for a defense. I don’t want to put anyone on the defensive, just to understand the argument. Thanks!

Firstly, “NFP with a contraceptive mentality” has no basis whatsoever in Church teaching and is an invention of the anti NFP crowd. It’s a phrase that distorts the meaning of contraception and why it is an ‘intrinsically evil’ act.

Contraception relates directly to the act of sex and what you do before, during or after that act, to prevent conception happening in that process.

Abstaining from sex is not interfering with the act whatsoever.

 

[jmjZelie]

Firstly, “NFP with a contraceptive mentality” has no basis whatsoever in Church teaching and is an invention of the anti NFP crowd. It’s a phrase that distorts the meaning of contraception and why it is an ‘intrinsically evil’ act.

except as far as I can tell, Hoosier Daddy is not anti-NFP.

Contraception relates directly to the act of sex and what you do before, during or after that act, to prevent conception happening in that process.

Abstaining from sex is not interfering with the act whatsoever.

right. I understand that. Which is why I am asking for clarification from Hoosier Daddy.

I know you are opposed to the use of the phrase. I just want to know what those who use it mean by it.

Edited to add: in another active thread, you and I were each struggling with using terms that the other found objectionable or problematic. Once we addressed those problematic terms, conversation became easier. I think the same might be true here with HoosierDaddy. He is not the only one using that phrase. So I really want to understand what is meant by it. No defense or apologies or recanting. Just an explanation so I can understand the meaning.

 

[LongingSoul]

I know you are opposed to the use of the phrase. I just want to know what those who use it mean by it.

I’d suggest asking the question of the Priests and theologians in the “Ask an Apologist” section.

 

[jmjZelie]

I’d suggest asking the question of the Priests and theologians in the “Ask an Apologist” section.

So priests and theologians use the phrase “NFP with contraceptive mentality” too? If so, there might be precedent for the phrase somewhere official.

If they don’t use the phrase, however, then I see no point in asking them what they mean by a phrase they do not use.

 

[LongingSoul]

So priests and theologians use the phrase “NFP with contraceptive mentality” too? If so, there might be precedent for the phrase somewhere official.

If they don’t use the phrase, however, then I see no point in asking them what they mean by a phrase they do not use.

They can advise you of correct Catholic teaching about contraception. My dislike of the phrase isn’t a personal dislike. It is because it is a false phrase. It distorts the nature of the intrinsic evil that contraception is. It misleads people to believing that faithfully respecting the nature of sex as per Church teaching… can be an intrinsically evil thing if they don’t have a good enough excuse for avoiding pregnancy. Misleading people in that way can affect their growth of faith.

 

[jmjZelie]

They can advise you of correct Catholic teaching about contraception. My dislike of the phrase isn’t a personal dislike. It is because it is a false phrase. It distorts the nature of the intrinsic evil that contraception is. It misleads people to believing that faithfully respecting the nature of sex as per Church teaching… can be an intrinsically evil thing if they don’t have a good enough excuse for avoiding pregnancy. Misleading people in that way can affect their growth of faith.

Okay then I think you have misunderstood me

I don’t need to learn Catholic teaching on NFP, as I have tried to explain in the other active thread. I already have read and understood and given assent and obedience.

I want to know what is meant by the people who use the phrase. I am not out to judge anyone or prove them wrong. I simply want to understand their arguments fully.

And more to the point, it is possible to use NFP to avoid pregnancy for unjust reasons. It may not be the same sin as contraception, which is intrinsically evil, but such use of NFP would be sinful. So I don’t fault anyone for pointing that out. Just like someone putting out a sign warning that you shouldn’t leave food out in your campsite in a national forest because it could attract bears who will eat you, is not the same as someone saying that camping in a national forest is the same as offering yourself as a tasty meal for a bear.

 

[Rau]

I know you are opposed to the use of the phrase. I just want to know what those who use it mean by it.

Edited to add: in another active thread, you and I were each struggling with using terms that the other found objectionable or problematic. Once we addressed those problematic terms, conversation became easier. I think the same might be true here with HoosierDaddy. He is not the only one using that phrase. So I really want to understand what is meant by it. No defense or apologies or recanting. Just an explanation so I can understand the meaning.

If I may comment, I’m sure he has a reasonable intended meaning. It is just that to employ the word “contraception”/“contraceptive” is bound to cause confusion, given there is objectively no contraception.

 

[jmjZelie]

If I may comment, I’m sure he has a reasonable intended meaning. It is just that to employ the word “contraception”/“contraceptive” is bound to cause confusion, given there is objectively no contraception.

Yes I agree. HoosierDaddy is an intelligent, well-catechized Catholic who used to teach NFP. I think it is very likely that his use of the phrase (and others I have seen use it) has a very reasonable meaning, but that it is just not readily apparent to me, and perhaps to others.

I know Pope St. JPII used the phrase “contraceptive mentality” much like Pope Francis has been known to use a similar provocative term “throwaway culture”.

I assume “NFP with contraceptive mentality” is therefore an extension of the good pope’s colloquialism, but the precise meaning of it is what I must admit I am not quite sure of yet.