Theological basis for NFP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alyosha13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alyosha13

Guest
This is my first post here, I read this forum a lot but have finally found the desire to post and begin contributing.

What is finally prompting this is my earnest and genuine difficulty with NFP. Primarily, my problem is that in all of my reading and research and talking with others, I have never had it clearly explained to me why artificial, nonabortifacient contraception is a sin.

I understand that NFP can foster communication between husband and wife, and that it has many other very beneficial side effects. But I also realize that husband and wife do not, and of course should not, have to rely on something like NFP to communicate.

I agree with the notion of sexual fasting (as well as fasting in all other areas of life) but don’t see why it must be matched with a woman’s fertility cycle.

I also believe that children are a blessing from God. Many people say that using artificial birth control is “selfish” and “taking the decision away from God”. But this doesn’t make sense to me. Because a couple using artificial birth control can decide to have 5 children, and a couple using NFP can decide to only have 1 child, or none. So the question here is not the method of planning, but the intention of the planning. Because NFP stands for… natural family planning. Many times, the 99.8% success rate of NFP is touted as another reason to use it. If you care about its effectiveness, it must mean that deliberately planning the number and spacing of children is not a bad thing. So it is not selfish at all to plan when and how many children one has.

Many people counter this with the idea that using artificial birth control “takes the decision away from God.” I have never understood that statement at all, because there is not a pill that is more powerful than God. Just as He can bless an infertile woman with child, he can bless a woman using artificial birth control with a child. So, no, God is not rendered powerless (perish the thought!!!) by artificial birth control.

Some say that only “natural” planning is permitted, and that anything which does “harm” to our bodies can’t be good (aka the pill). I like to ask those people why they cut or color their hair, or bleach their teeth, or trim their nails. All of these things “harm” the body too. Heck, anybody who goes out into the sun to tan their skin is damaging it. So it can’t be that doing “harm” to the body is the reason why it is a sin.

I say all of that because it is in reference to the common talking points that are always raised. But, coming back to how I started this thread, I never hear a clear line of thinking that unambiguously defines why artificial birth control is a sin. One can debate the health reasons, the practicality, or any number of practical concerns. But theologically speaking, what is the basis of defining artificial birth control as a sin?

I am really hoping I get a great answer!
 
Contraception separates the unitive from the procreative aspects of the marital act…every marital act must be open to life and unitive.

(it is not the fact that NFP is “natural” as opposed to artificle that is key here…that is just the “name” that stuck…really it is “periodic continence”)

There are a lot of articles out there that will fill this out…search the main Catholic Answers site put "contraception"in the key word…and NFP. catholic.com/ And Janet Smith has a number of articles such as “Contraception why not?”

and here are some from CUF

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=24

NFP can help one conceive or if the couple has a serious reason…to wait.

Here is a “terse” overview

From the Compendium of the Cathechism --issued by Pope Benedict XVI
  1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?
2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.
  1. When is it moral to regulate births?
2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
  1. What are immoral means of birth control?
2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
 
Alyosha13 said:
This is my first post here, I read this forum a lot but have finally found the desire to post and begin contributing.

What is finally prompting this is my earnest and genuine difficulty with NFP. Primarily, my problem is that in all of my reading and research and talking with others, I have never had it clearly explained to me why artificial, nonabortifacient contraception is a sin.

I understand that NFP can foster communication between husband and wife, and that it has many other very beneficial side effects. But I also realize that husband and wife do not, and of course should not, have to rely on something like NFP to communicate.

I agree with the notion of sexual fasting (as well as fasting in all other areas of life) but don’t see why it must be matched with a woman’s fertility cycle.

I also believe that children are a blessing from God. Many people say that using artificial birth control is “selfish” and “taking the decision away from God”. But this doesn’t make sense to me. Because a couple using artificial birth control can decide to have 5 children, and a couple using NFP can decide to only have 1 child, or none. So the question here is not the method of planning, but the intention of the planning. Because NFP stands for… natural family planning. Many times, the 99.8% success rate of NFP is touted as another reason to use it. If you care about its effectiveness, it must mean that deliberately planning the number and spacing of children is not a bad thing. So it is not selfish at all to plan when and how many children one has.

Many people counter this with the idea that using artificial birth control “takes the decision away from God.” I have never understood that statement at all, because there is not a pill that is more powerful than God. Just as He can bless an infertile woman with child, he can bless a woman using artificial birth control with a child. So, no, God is not rendered powerless (perish the thought!!!) by artificial birth control.

Some say that only “natural” planning is permitted, and that anything which does “harm” to our bodies can’t be good (aka the pill). I like to ask those people why they cut or color their hair, or bleach their teeth, or trim their nails. All of these things “harm” the body too. Heck, anybody who goes out into the sun to tan their skin is damaging it. So it can’t be that doing “harm” to the body is the reason why it is a sin.

I say all of that because it is in reference to the common talking points that are always raised. But, coming back to how I started this thread, I never hear a clear line of thinking that unambiguously defines why artificial birth control is a sin. One can debate the health reasons, the practicality, or any number of practical concerns. But theologically speaking, what is the basis of defining artificial birth control as a sin?

I am really hoping I get a great answer!
Click to expand...
Well there certainly is no support for NFP at all in Apostolic Tradition or from patristics. That is why you won’t see a single Church father cited in all of Humanae Vitae. 😉
 
So do not think just in terms of natural vs artificial…

The term NFP …Natural Family Planning is used because well…for one thing it is “natural” and for another it can be helpful in p(name removed by moderator)ointing fertile times to assist one in having children too…

But the theological term has been “Periodic Continence” that is one is “continent” during certain times when a married couple judge they have a serious reason to do so.

Of course one can also do so also for the sake of prayer as Paul notes in the New Testament…(which by the way would have been read by the Early Fathers too…)

but then one is not looking at if one is fertile or not…on is doing so for the reason of prayer.

It is not that cause it is natural that it is good…and if something is artificial it is evil …

So you are correct there.
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

*#2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples **should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life **and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154

#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*:
It would help if more instruction and preaching took place on what constitutes "just reasons"; also good explanations of what is meant by “desire"…"motivated by selfishness”. Because there is almost total silence about these important criteria for moral use of NFP, I think most Catholics think NFP can be used as a contraceptive for the same reasons and as regularly as others use the pill (or other artificial means) – which IMO is usually for what would be classified as desire “motivated by selfishness”.
 
Marital relations are a renewal of the marriage bond. That is, of the Sacrament of Matrimony. If a couple choose not to have relations for a time then they merely do not renew their bond for that time. When they come back together, their "I do"s are genuine.

However, if they engage in contraceptive relations, they are making a distortion of the marriage bond. They may as well have laughed off their vows or replied with a grim “whatever.”

Scott Hahn has a talk about NFP where he compares marital relations to the Eucharist. He likens NFP to someone who remains in the pew during Eucharist. He didn’t do anything wrong because he didn’t do anything at all. However, Mr. Hahn likens contraceptive relations to a person who takes ipecac syrup just before receiving, causing him to vomit just afterward. A clear act of desecration. Do you want to vomit out the sacrament of your marriage?
 
in Catholic theology, the ability to procreate and give sexual expression is quite a privilege. Not even the angels have this privilege, which makes us in a way more like God. The sexual act is understood as the total giving of one’s self to the other. You see why the analogy of Christ and the Church as bride and bridegroom works? Because one member is given entirely to the other. Look at a crucifix. Christ gives all of Himself. The union of husband and wife is in itself a theological figure, the summit of Christ’s ultimate union with His bride the Church. Abstaining for a time respects the proper fulfillment of that figure.
 
Nita said:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

#2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples **should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life **and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154

#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:
It would help if more instruction and preaching took place on what constitutes "just reasons"; also good explanations of what is meant by “desire"…"motivated by selfishness”. Because there is almost total silence about these important criteria for moral use of NFP, I think most Catholics think NFP can be used as a contraceptive for the same reasons and as regularly as others use the pill (or other artificial means) – which IMO is usually for what would be classified as desire “motivated by selfishness”.
Click to expand...
It is important to note that for a reason to be a “just reason” in terms of using NFP to avoid (periodic continence) such a reason must be a “serious reason”.

Compendium of the Catechism --issued by Pope Benedict XVI:

From the Compendium of the Cathechism --issued by Pope Benedict XVI
  1. When is it moral to regulate births?
2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

The term “serious reasons” is also in other various documents…it tends to be the term often used.

But it is important to note that a serious reason of course does not mean only life or death things…there are various things that can be such…the couple need to judge before God (and perhaps with advice at times)
 
Bookcat said:
Contraception separates the unitive from the procreative aspects of the marital act…every marital act must be open to life and unitive.
Click to expand...
So does only having sex when the wife is infertile.

How do you define being “open to life”? Isn’t that a state of mind? Why is it that somebody cannot use artificial birth control as the method of regulating children and still be open to God blessing them with an unplanned child? As I said, pills are not God-proof.
There are a lot of articles out there that will fill this out…search the main Catholic Answers site put "contraception"in the key word…and NFP. catholic.com/ And Janet Smith has a number of articles such as “Contraception why not?”
Click to expand...
There always seems to be a pattern of somebody directing me towards a website, or a brochure, or a DVD, etc… What I am hoping for is answers not from a third party, but somebody whom I can speak to and ask questions.
  1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?
Click to expand...
2362-2367
Click to expand...
The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how the method of regulating births is influenced by this statement.
  1. When is it moral to regulate births?
Click to expand...
2368-2369
2399
Click to expand...
The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
Click to expand...
This only asserts that artificial birth control is not moral, but it doesn’t explain why.
  1. What are immoral means of birth control?
Click to expand...
2370-2372
Click to expand...
Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
Click to expand...
That’s not an explanation of what makes it immoral. Why is it a mortal sin to hinder procreation? What that statement says is that the “actions” are intended to hinder procreation, and that when somebody takes this action, it is immoral. The argument then follows that if the body is already “naturally” infertile, it’s okay.

So what is immoral about artificially altering the cycles of infertility? I never hear a theological explanation of this.
 
Bookcat said:
As he notes…contraceptive intercourse is an exercise in meaninglessness…

It does not even unite the spouses…
Click to expand...
How does only having sex when the woman is not fertile not also an exercise in meaninglessness?

And how does this explain why contraception is a sin?
 
SonCatcher said:
However, if they engage in contraceptive relations, they are making a distortion of the marriage bond. They may as well have laughed off their vows or replied with a grim “whatever.”
Click to expand...
Can you explain this logic? How does only having sex when the woman is infertile not also distort the marriage bond?

Again, this does not explain why artificial contraception is a sin.
Scott Hahn has a talk about NFP where he compares marital relations to the Eucharist. He likens NFP to someone who remains in the pew during Eucharist. He didn’t do anything wrong because he didn’t do anything at all. However, Mr. Hahn likens contraceptive relations to a person who takes ipecac syrup just before receiving, causing him to vomit just afterward. A clear act of desecration. Do you want to vomit out the sacrament of your marriage?
Click to expand...
Scott Hahn’s analogy doesn’t make any sense.
 
MarcoPolo said:
in Catholic theology, the ability to procreate and give sexual expression is quite a privilege. Not even the angels have this privilege, which makes us in a way more like God. The sexual act is understood as the total giving of one’s self to the other. You see why the analogy of Christ and the Church as bride and bridegroom works? Because one member is given entirely to the other. Look at a crucifix. Christ gives all of Himself. The union of husband and wife is in itself a theological figure, the summit of Christ’s ultimate union with His bride the Church. Abstaining for a time respects the proper fulfillment of that figure.
Click to expand...
That didn’t explain why artificial contraception, as opposed to only having sex when the woman is infertile, is a sin.
 
Alyosha13 said:
That didn’t explain why artificial contraception, as opposed to only having sex when the woman is infertile, is a sin.
Click to expand...
The answer to this question was provided in post #2. Perhaps a careful re-reading of it is order?
 
Aloysha13, I have the same question.

I want somebody, anybody, to explain to me unambiguously, truthfully, and logically why NFP is right. And explain why NFP is right but other contraceptives are wrong.
 
davidv said:
The answer to this question was provided in post #2. Perhaps a careful re-reading of it is order?
Click to expand...
Maybe I didn’t understand it completely as it was presented.

Can you summarize?
 
Does somebody have these two documents, in English:

(19) See Pius XII, Address to 26th Congress of Italian Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].
(20) See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846.

These might have some theological justification for this teaching.
 
Whiggamore said:
Aloysha13, I have the same question.

I want somebody, anybody, to explain to me unambiguously, truthfully, and logically why NFP is right. And explain why NFP is right but other contraceptives are wrong.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, NFP is not “right.” It is neutral. Used judiciously, it is acceptable for the couple. As Alyosha13 said in the opening post, it can be abused if the couple use it unjustly. Even when abused, the action of NFP is nothing. Because a couple using NFP does nothing there is never an objective moral wrong committed.

Contraception, however, is always an abuse of the Creator’s design. Even when they have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy for a time, a couple actively works against God when they resort to it. Contraception therefore is an objective moral wrong even if the motives are otherwise acceptable.

There are, indeed, 2 levels in discussion here: the act and the motive. It is impossible for us humans to judge the motive. God alone can do that.

However, it is possible for us to judge the act. Certain things we know about. We know murder is wrong because it is explicitly condemned in the Bible. Contraception is not explicitly addressed in the Bible but it has been explicitly, consistently addressed by the Church. Jesus assured us that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore we can be confident that what she teaches is true.
 
Alyosha13 said:
Can you explain this logic? How does only having sex when the woman is infertile not also distort the marriage bond?
Click to expand...
How can periodic abstinence (NFP) be a distortion when, by definition, it is doing nothing? Doing nothing cannot distort anything.

When the couple do come together, it is in the usual way, so there is no distortion there, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top