Vent about NFP threads

[pnewton]

It is mentioned on this website: catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/nfamp.htm

I not that they too offer no references, something odd for an “apologetic” site. I just went to the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law and was unable to find this rule. I think there is a logical disconnect in their reasoning. The site stated that denying each other sex is gravely sinful because one’s body is no longer your own. I have never know an NFP situation that did not involve the consent of both parties. Thus, one spouse is not denying the other.

I looked and it seems that this website is geared toward traditional Catholicism. Perhaps that is the audience they wish to address.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I was told this in my NFP class. I’m sorry I don’t have any official back-up.

It is mentioned on this website: catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/nfamp.htm

(This is not directed toward mfrances.) Stuff like this really bums me out. Serious Catholics want to do the right thing but erroneous information like this makes it more difficult. On one hand couples are told by the secular world, and sometimes other Catholics, that contraception is a good thing and what are you supposed to do, have 20 kids running around? On the other, we have this and other overly strict “teachings.” They are both wrong. How are Catholics, many of whom are poorly catechized, supposed to sift through all this misinformation. I’ve read this factoid quite a bit on this forum and I bet I’ve heard it from others sources too. I hope I haven’t, but I may have even repeated this thinking the information was a from a “trusted” source. That link has the appearance of being orthodox but it doesn’t mean it is authentic teaching from an authentic source.

 

[The_Bucket]

I was told this in my NFP class. I’m sorry I don’t have any official back-up.

It is mentioned on this website: catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/nfamp.htm

That website republished the Protocols of Zion in full. It also referred to female gymnasts as “lacking in serious moral guidance” simply because of their attire. Oh and the fact that competitive sports are apparently affronts to femininity.

In short, that website is run by lunatics and should not be considered a legitimate reference to anything except perhaps the mind of a Jew-hating crazy person.

 

[Joe_5859]

That website republished the Protocols of Zion in full. It also referred to female gymnasts as “lacking in serious moral guidance” simply because of their attire. Oh and the fact that competitive sports are apparently affronts to femininity.

In short, that website is run by lunatics and should not be considered a legitimate reference to anything except perhaps the mind of a Jew-hating crazy person.

Further, I cannot find anywhere on the site that gives names and credentials of the person running it.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I don’t think mfrances was saying this was a good source but that the link mentioned the teaching in he or she learned in an NFP class. I take more issue with that being taught in an NFP class.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Enough!! “Serious reasons” are for the couple to determine. No one else. If the couple says their reasons are serious, then their reasons are serious. Period.

I admit I am confused about “serious reasons.” I suspect that everyone else is also, otherwise there would be no need to have this discussion. If serious reasons are needed to use NFP for pregnancy prevention, and nobody knows what these reasons are, it’s enough to drive someone that is concerned about the state of their soul absolutely nuts.

It is impossible to use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality.” If the couple had a contraceptive mentality, they would be using contraception. No one goes through the hassle of charting and abstaining when the woman most wants to have sex for a trivial reason.

The reason I associate “contraceptive mentality” with NFP is due specifically to the requirement of “serious reasons.” The “serious reason” requirement gives the impression that there is something inherently wrong having sex at certain times. Take the “serious reason” out of the picture, and I’ll throw the “contraceptive mentality” right out the door with it.

 

[sw85]

I have to get this off my chest. It seems like whenever someone posts about how they are using NFP to avoid pregnancy, a bunch of people pile on about how their reasons for avoiding aren’t good enough. I see it on this forum and all over the Catholic blogosphere.

Enough!! “Serious reasons” are for the couple to determine. No one else. If the couple says their reasons are serious, then their reasons are serious.

Well, hold on. That serious reasons are for the couple to determine doesn’t always mean that whatever reasons they determine really are serious. People often make decisions for bad reasons, out of self-interest, lack of prayerfulness or foresight, etc. I don’t see a reason why married couples can’t also make such bad decisions with respect to their sexuality.

It is impossible to use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality.”

Impossible? So “we’re using NFP because we hate babies and we’d rather spend our money backpacking through Europe next year” isn’t evidence of a contraceptive mentality?

NFP is naturally good but, like any good thing, it is capable of being misused or used for the wrong reasons. The idea of a “contraceptive mentality” simply means “use of NFP with illicit intentions,” with the result that NFP simply becomes a substitute for contraception which, like contraception, we use to gratify our passions while evading responsible use of the marital faculty. It may not be the place of anyone else to judge what is or isn’t an illicit intention but that doesn’t mean illicit intentions don’t exist. And I would think charity would oblige to say, to those who would warn others off from using NFP frivolously, that they are only trying to help.

 

[ellzeena]

I understand your frustration, people give a lot of hasty advice and judgement without knowing all the details. I think people mean well when they warn someone about their ‘reasons’

Catholic teaching is that the couple is to use NFP under the guidance of a priest. Not just the couple’s own judgement… think about it, one’s own judgement often falls us into sin.

I disagree that "it is impossible to use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality.” because couples can choose to use NFP indefinitely and never have a child… which is certainly not its purpose. Or their reasons could be superficial and not according to God’s plan. People who are very into organic, pharmaceutical free, natural living but they are vehemently “child free” and this is basically what they are doing .

And not all women have a peak sexual desire during the furtile time. Some women don’t have all that much sexual desire at all. I’m not sure why this assumption is being made.

I happen to strongly agree with this statement. There IS a “contraceptive mentality” attached to NFP and this is self proclaimed by several posts I’ve read in the past months from women who got pregnant using NFP and are sorry or regretful about this pregnancy, don’t welcome this child, etc. I think this poster’s point is spot on: “under the guidance of a priest” is the only way to use NFP. “Fertile” period simply means ovulation and does not particularly influence desire (I’ve been a woman a long time lol). AND fertility can, and does, occur EVEN while a woman is menstruating. There are no guarantees of avoiding pregnancy except one: chastity within the marriage. My two cents. I wish I had ten children, I really wanted a large family and I lost my only child.

 

[Cojuanco]

I was told this in my NFP class. I’m sorry I don’t have any official back-up.

It is mentioned on this website: catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/nfamp.htm

You do know that website teaches, contrary to the Successor of Peter, that the Ordinary Form in itself promotes error?

 

[RedSparklyShoes]

Using NFP, even when really not open to life still opens you up to the possibility of life. We ALL know of people or have a friend of a friend of a friend who got pregnant at some random point in their cycle. When they “were infertile”. God IS in control and if he wants to send us a child, he’ll do it, no matter when we time our intercourse.

 

[mommamaree]

I heard that was called “abandoning the method”.

Anyway, that was how my son and my infant daughter were conceived. We were not planning a pregnancy at that time, but we both agreed that we would be happy just the same if a baby came along 9 months later, and so we threw caution to the wind! Best reckless decisions we ever made!

 

[maryjk]

Further, I cannot find anywhere on the site that gives names and credentials of the person running it.

I really searched around and found this.

Catholic Apologetics Information, was founded by a group of Catholic Apologists who seek only the glory of God, the salvation of souls and the freedom and exaltation of Our holy mother, the Catholic Church.

The site is maintained by Mr. Laurie Myers, Charles M. Hammer and Anthony Malleus. We also have a number of other lay apologists who contribute their time and knowledge in answering emails and writing articles.

Catholic Apologetics Information is a non-profit organization. We are not affiliated with any particular religious group or organization. We are simply a small group of Catholic Apologists who seek to work for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls according to our own limited capacity (Can. 298: 1; Can. 299: 1 & 2), as we work to restore all things in Christ (Eph 1:10) by making available good Catholic literature and providing online Catholic Apologists to help those who seek to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4).

“Limited capacity” I’ll say.

 

[jilly4ski]

Well, hold on. That serious reasons are for the couple to determine doesn’t always mean that whatever reasons they determine really are serious. People often make decisions for bad reasons, out of self-interest, lack of prayerfulness or foresight, etc. I don’t see a reason why married couples can’t also make such bad decisions with respect to their sexuality.

Impossible? So “we’re using NFP because we hate babies and we’d rather spend our money backpacking through Europe next year” isn’t evidence of a contraceptive mentality?

NFP is naturally good but, like any good thing, it is capable of being misused or used for the wrong reasons. The idea of a “contraceptive mentality” simply means “use of NFP with illicit intentions,” with the result that NFP simply becomes a substitute for contraception which, like contraception, we use to gratify our passions while evading responsible use of the marital faculty. It may not be the place of anyone else to judge what is or isn’t an illicit intention but that doesn’t mean illicit intentions don’t exist. And I would think charity would oblige to say, to those who would warn others off from using NFP frivolously, that they are only trying to help.

I would still not use the phrase “contraceptive mentality” to describe reasons like you mention above. I would call those selfish reasons.

 

[sw85]

Yes, probably not. But the claim on the table was quite broad: essentially, “It’s impossible to use NFP in an illicit manner.” So refuting it requires only that we envision at least one possible scenario in which someone might use NFP in an illicit manner, to show that it’s possible for someone to use it badly. If it’s possible, well, it’s not impossible.

I don’t see how anyone could know that, and I don’t think it’s impossible to imagine a circumstance in which someone uses NFP in that sort of careless, selfish, exploitative way. For instance, they might use NFP that way because people like Mark Shea keep telling them it doesn’t matter why they use it.

I would still not use the phrase “contraceptive mentality” to describe reasons like you mention above. I would call those selfish reasons.

Well, you can assign whatever terminology to it you like; the point is that it is impossible to use NFP for the wrong reasons.

But I don’t think the terminology is that inaccurate precisely because “contraceptive mentality” just does, to me, mean “selfish reasons.” It simply means “you’re not using contraception, but you’re using NFP as if it were contraception.”

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

One thing we can be certain of, though, is that people use NFP solely for the purpose of not having children, and don’t even know they are supposed to have serious reasons for doing so. They just think of it as Catholic Birth Control.

Where did I get this information from…right here on this very forum. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people talk about NFP for birth control purposes, and when someone notes they need a serious reason for doing so, they say “huh?”.

 

[jilly4ski]

Well, you can assign whatever terminology to it you like; the point is that it is impossible to use NFP for the wrong reasons.

But I don’t think the terminology is that inaccurate precisely because “contraceptive mentality” just does, to me, mean “selfish reasons.” It simply means “you’re not using contraception, but you’re using NFP as if it were contraception.”

Here is the problem, the Church uses the term “selfish reasons.” It is an easily understandable term not complicated by lack of definitions.

Also I think your second paragraph is wrong. Contraception is wrong, period the end. Whether you have good reasons or bad reasons to avoid a pregnancy. Contraception is an evil means regardless of the intention. NFP is a licit means to avoid a pregnancy. But you could make your use of NFP sinful by having bad intentions. (ie selfishness reasons).

So if a couple has good reasons (lets say a serious medical condition) they could not sin and use NFP (or abstain completely) or they could sin and use contraceptives.

Another couple wants to travel and do all the fun things before they get old and tied down and say they are going to wait to have kids until 5 years at least… They will be guilty of the sin of contraception and selfishness if they use contraception, and they will be guilty of selfishness but not contraception if they use NFP.

So, no. You cannot use NFP just like it is contraception. Because contraception disorders the marital act. Abstaining from the marital act or completing it the way God intended cannot be (by definition) contraception.

I find this the most misunderstood practical teaching. Contraception isn’t wrong because we need to have lots of children. Contraception is wrong because it disorders the marital act. That is the act itself, not a couples general disposition, not how many kids they already have, but each time they engage in the marital act, are they doing it “right.”

 

[sw85]

Another couple wants to travel and do all the fun things before they get old and tied down and say they are going to wait to have kids until 5 years at least… They will be guilty of the sin of contraception and selfishness if they use contraception, and they will be guilty of selfishness but not contraception if they use NFP.

You’re nitpicking. No one is saying using NFP under such circumstances is literally the same thing as contraception but that it represents a “contraceptive mentality,” i.e., disordered intentions.

You can with respect to the intentions of the act, which is again why it’s called a “contraceptive mentality” and not “literally just contraception.”

 

[thewanderer]

You’re nitpicking. No one is saying using NFP under such circumstances is literally the same thing as contraception but that it represents a “contraceptive mentality,” i.e., disordered intentions.

You can with respect to the intentions of the act, which is again why it’s called a “contraceptive mentality” and not “literally just contraception.”

While I understand that that is what people mean by it, I think the terminology is confusing and so should be abandoned seeing as there is already less confusing terminology in existence. There is enough confusion about the Church’s teachings on sexual matters, we should be doing our best to find the clearest and least confusing terminology we can to make it easier for others to understand.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Contraception is an evil means regardless of the intention. NFP is a licit means to avoid a pregnancy. But you could make your use of NFP sinful by having bad intentions. (ie selfishness reasons).

More specifically,

Contraception is illicit artificial birth control.

NFP with no serious reason is illicit natural birth control.

NFP with serious reason is licit birth control.

And, by NFP, I am referring specifically to have sexual relations during the infertile period. Abstinence is always licit, as there is no requirement for either party to have sex, provided both parties agree.

 

[thewanderer]

More specifically,

Contraception is illicit artificial birth control.

NFP with no serious reason is illicit natural birth control.

NFP with serious reason is licit birth control.

And, by NFP,** I am referring specifically to have sexual relations during the infertile period. **Abstinence is always licit, as there is no requirement for either party to have sex, provided both parties agree.

Having sexual relations during the infertile period is also always licit.

Actually, I see what you’re saying by saying that Abstinance is always licit, and that is not true in the way you mean it. You need just as serious reasons for complete abstinance when trying to avoid children as you do for NFP (periodic abstinance). The intention to avoid children for selfish reasons is just as selfish when you abstain completely as when you abstain only periodically and it is this selfish intention which is immoral, not abstaining while fertile or having relations while infertile.