What is NFP and why is it permitted?

[Dtmccameron]

Right then, so, NFP. To my knowlege, it an attempt to time sexual intercourse so that the chances of conception are reduced.

Am I far off? I wouldn’t be surprised if I was.

Now, the Church has a “No” policy in regards to contraceptives, nasty little devices or chemicals that screw around with stuff and just make it plain hard for conception to occur.

Why then is the NFP method, ah…allowed. It seems to me just a less effective, more labor intensive form of contraception.

Further, the point of sex was the union betwixt husband and wife. The fruit of that union is the child. Why then, would anyone want to have a fruitless union?

I mean, it’s not like they say after the act, or several days after the act, “Ooops, I guess we’ll have to try again for a kid.”

No, see, it’s the intent part that gets me. They don’t WANT to have a kid, yet their using sex! They’ld probobly be upset if the wife DID become pregnant!

Why then, does the Church allow, ah…this?

 

[Desert_Dancer]

I’m speaking from personal experience with NFP, and hope someone with better skill to explain will do so.

When my husband and I are practicing NFP, we remain open to the possibility of life. We voluntarily and willingly give the final say to God. If I conceive, amen. If not, amen.

There are a variety of benefits that come about through NFP, particularly for me. I am grateful I avoid using drugs and chemicals. I am glad I am far more familiar with my body’s signs and signals than the majority of women I know. And the time apart from my husband is challenging, but beneficial. After nearly 10 years of marriage, at a time when many of our friends’ marriages are ending in divorce or I find myself in conversations in which women complain “The spark’s gone!” I can’t relate. Our intimate relationship is better every year, and I give credit to NFP. My husband doesn’t take me for granted, nor I him .

And as for saying a few days later, “Oops, I guess we’ll have to try again for a kid,” – yes, we’ve said that.

 

[LilyM]

The point is birth control (planning or spacing out children) is NOT a problem in and of itself - not unless you’re doing so for utterly selfish reasons.

In fact it’s included in God’s plan for us - He created human females who naturally have fertile and infertile periods, menopause etc and yet, unlike most animals, are still able to have sex during those infertile times. Clearly His plan isn’t that we ONLY have sex when we’re fertile, and so we’re allowed to take advantage of those natural periods of infertility.

The problem is when we use ARTIFICIAL methods (ABC) that artificially produce a permanently infertile state, contrary to God’s plan that we only have SOME natural periods of infertility.

 

[Seatuck]

NFP is natural family planning. God created the fertility cycle - the menstrual cycle.NFP works with knowlege of that cycle that God created to allow the couple to determine if they are able to support a child with the various resources they have.

God did not reveal a moral law that says that spouses can only engage in marital relations if they are fertile. That is why there is not a problem with NFP. There is also no moral law against not having intercourse from time to time when both spouses agree .

There is a moral law against doing something to the marital act that renders it unfruitful , however. That is why that is why contraception- whether artificial like pills and condoms or natural such as onanism is not allowed.

 

[1ke]

The Church does not teach that one must have sex with one’s spouse every day or with any particular frequency. Couples are completely free to choose when and if they engage in relations.

NFP observes the woman’s natural cycle of fertility and assist couples in choosing when or if they wish to engage in sexual intimacy. NFP can be used to **achieve **pregnancy as well as avoid pregnancy. NFP is merely information, not an action.

A couple’s decision whether to have intercourse is morally neutral. Whenever they do engage in intercourse it must be a completed, unaltered act of intercourse. When one uses contraception, this criteria is not met. The couple engages in the act and takes an action to frustrate the natural outcome.

Whenever a couple who has observed their fertility signs through NFP decides to engage in intercourse, that act is complete and unaltered. The couple has taken no action to alter the natural end of the act.

 

[OSUbride0708]

NFP simply allows the couple to know when the wife is fertile and when she is not, by observing the natural signs that God has given us. NFP is always open to the possibility of life, never putting any kind of barrier between husband and wife. The couple then has the decision, to engage in intercourse, or not to. During fertile times, if a couple wishes to abstain for any grave reasons, they must make a sacrifice, abstaining from intercourse when they know the wife is fertile.

It’s really quite simple. However, God created us to WANT to have babies, and therefore sometimes, even when a couple intends on abstaining, it happens anyway. And we always welcome the resulting life with open arms and open hearts.

This was really hard for me to understand at first too. Then I listened to Christopher West and we decided that it was the truth, what JP teaches in Theology of the Body.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Here are the relevant quotes from the Catechism…

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

2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

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

    Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

 

[Dtmccameron]

Thank you all and may God bless each and every one of you and yours! That sure cleared things up…Kinda.

But what I said before, it could be used for ill if the couple were using it purely for selfish reasons? Such a case, I think, could apply to any situation or action; but that a process can be abused does not make the process wicked.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

But what I said before, it could be used for ill if the couple were using it purely for selfish reasons? Such a case, I think, could apply to any situation or action; but that a process can be abused does not make the process wicked.

**Exactly. It is just knowledge. How we choose to use it is up to us. As Catholics, we are called to be open to life and to respect the purposes of sex (unitive and procreative together). So, if we need to postpone or space conception, we only have two moral choices:

1. total abstinence
2. periodic abstinence using the knowledge of NFP

But many non-Catholics use NFP as well. For many reasons.**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Why then is the NFP method, ah…allowed. It seems to me just a less effective, more labor intensive form of contraception.

Some “basics” in moral theology might help clarify…

Something evil cannot be a “means” or an “end.” So, the goal of regulating birth is not evil as an “end.” That can certainly be a “good” end, and a necessary part of responsible parenting. However, it is insufficient that the “goal” or “end” be morally licit, but also the “means” in which one chooses must also be morally licit.

For example, it is a “good” goal to want to love and raise a child. However, if one were to use as their “means” the act of kidnapping to achieve their goal, it would be immoral, no matter the “good” intention.

The means of NFP is abstinence. Abstaining from having sex is clearly a “good,” or at least not instrinsically immoral. I’m abstaining right at this very moment. Mary abstained. Jesus abstained. Can’t be a bad thing, instrinsically speaking.

However, when you will something (such as sex), inherent to willing it is the intention of the act itself. “Reproduction” is the biological purpsose of what biologist call the “Reproduction system.” Funny how they named it that, huh?

It’s not the “orgasm system.” It’s not the “pleasure system.” It’s the “Reproductive system.” So, inherent to the act is what ethicists call “the goal of the work” which is reproduction or procreation.

When you will something, by deliberately choosing that “will-act” you inherently also will the “goal of the work.” When you will contraception, you contradict human reason, because you are simultaneously willing something and not willing something at the same time, which is irrational and opposed human nature, and is therefore morally illicit from a “natural law” perspective.

We have more than natural law to help us, however. We also have Divine revelation. Onan, in the book of Genesis, sinned mortally when he contracepted. This was considered a grave sin by Jews well before the advent of Christ, and throughout the entire history of Christianity, throughout every century it was considered a grave sin.

So, natural law arguments support the belief that contraception is immoral, Divine law explicitly tells us it is a grave sin, and Christian tradition always taught that it was grave sin.

So, the morality of doing something instrinsically evil is evaluated differently than the morality of omitting doing something good. That’s why NFP differs from articificial birth control.

Fr. Gerald Kelly, S.J. explained the moral distinction between NFP and artificial birth control very accurately and succinctly in his book, Medico-Moral Problems (1958):“The Church teaches that contraception is a sin because it means doing what is evil. It is not the same with [Natural Family Planning (NFP)]. Those who practice [NFP] do nothing evil. They simply omit doing something good — that is, they abstain from intercourse at the time when it might be fertile. Therefore, the morality of using [NFP] must be judged in the same way as other omissions: if the abstinence from intercourse is a neglect of duty, it is sinful; if it does not imply a neglect of duty, it is not sinful.”Contraception involves contrary human acts, one which wills conception while simultaneously wills human acts contra-conception (contraception).

Articifial birth control, furthermore, has terrible side effects. For instance, studies show the “pill” lowers a woman’s immunity, which increases the likelihood of contracting all sorts of deadly diseases, including sexually transmitted diseases. The “pill” is also a carcinogen, which combined with a lower immunity is likely to result in increased cancer among women (by the way, the cancer rate in men is declining, but the cancer rate in women is increasing). Condom use doesn’t have such side effects, but it is not as effective as a method of birth control.

You stated that NFP is “less effective.” That’s incorrect.
NFP (specifically the Sympto-Thermal Method) is the MOST EFFECTIVE method according to medical studies (see here), and it has NO medical risks.

 

[Dtmccameron]

Fr. Gerald Kelly, S.J. explained the moral distinction between NFP and artificial birth control very accurately and succinctly in his book, Medico-Moral Problems (1958):

“The Church teaches that contraception is a sin because it means doing what is evil. It is not the same with [Natural Family Planning (NFP)]. Those who practice [NFP] do nothing evil. They simply omit doing something good —

---

You stated that NFP is “less effective.” That’s incorrect.
NFP (specifically the Sympto-Thermal Method) is the MOST EFFECTIVE method according to medical studies (see here), and it has NO medical risks.
​

But, in my parish at least, we say at the beginning of Mass,

“I confess to Almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters,
That I have sinned through my own fault,
in my thoughts, and in my words,
In what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…”

So then, wouldn’t a failure to do good be the same as doing evil?

I personally disagree that things can be nuetral. Even the most dull and innocent of actions could be, if done for the glory of God, good.

And sorry about that bit with the uneffectivness. I meant to say, its ineffective if the people practicing it do so poorly.

At the same time, as the couple is open to life, I doubt that there’s any dissapointment at all, no matter how fruitful or -less the outcome.​

 

[Jennifer_J]

There are sins of commission (what I have done) and sins of omission (what I have failed to do). Since NFP is the recording of fertility signs and is morally neutral and since not having sex is not a sin, there’s no moral problem there. The use of NFP should be for just/serious/grave reasons and the Church has stated that it’s use is morally okay, just as okay as TOTALLY abstaining. So, what’s the problem?

CCC:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm
<<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. 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:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. >>

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

But, in my parish at least, we say at the beginning of Mass,

"I confess to Almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters,
That I have sinned through my own fault,
in my thoughts, and in my words,
In what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…"

IF it were a sin to not have sex during every fertile day of a woman’s married life THEN what you say would be true.

So then, wouldn’t a failure to do good be the same as doing evil?

IF having sex during every fertile time was a good.

I personally disagree that things can be nuetral. Even the most dull and innocent of actions could be, if done for the glory of God, good.

It is not the action that is neutral, it is the thing. The knowledge of NFP is morally neutral. It is how we apply that knowledge that can be used for good or evil.

And sorry about that bit with the uneffectivness. I meant to say, its ineffective if the people practicing it do so poorly.
**
As is every other form of birth control. Even abstinence will fail you if you don’t practice it properly**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But, in my parish at least, we say at the beginning of Mass,

"I confess to Almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters,
*That I have sinned through my own fault, *
in my thoughts, and in my words,
In what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…"

So then, wouldn’t a failure to do good be the same as doing evil?

Only if the omission of an act is a neglect of a duty. What is the duty? See more about that here: **What is the morally correct level of children? **where the obligation is discussed more in depth.

And sorry about that bit with the uneffectivness. I meant to say, its ineffective if the people practicing it do so poorly.

True. A friend of my daughter just got pregnant, and she was “shocked” as she was using the “pill.” It seems every method out there is ineffective, if done so poorly. Yet, there’s ONE method that is the 1) MOST EFFECTIVE, and 2) has no medical risks, and 3) morally licit, and that is abstinence.

 

[manualman]

Why is prayer more effective when you fast? It’s a deep question that goes to the heart of our human frailties and fallen nature.

NFP is different from ABC precisely because for it to work you must SACRIFICE those days on which the woman is totally fertile. That sexual fast is what allows your soul to hear God’s voice more clearly in regards to the blessings of children. ABC on the other hand subtly changes sex into a mutually taking experience and leads the coule away from considering more children to be a blessing.

Surely you don’t miss the “coincidence” of today’s tiny families and the widespread practice of contraception. It happens everywhere around the world that contraception becomes commonplace.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Since NFP is the recording of fertility signs and is morally neutral and since not having sex is not a sin, there’s no moral problem there.

Not necessarily. The omission of an act (conjugal relations) is a sin if it is a neglect of duty. Married couples have a moral obligation to procreate, unless the “good” of procreation is set aside for a “greater” or even a “proportionate” good. Thus, there is a “duty” that needs to be met, unless justifying reasons exempt them from the duty.

According to John Paul II:

The use of the infertile periods for conjugal union can be an abuse if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number of births in their family below the morally correct level. This morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind.
[John Paul II, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb120.htm”]General Audience address, 5 September 1984

]

Consequently, the use of abstinence to avoid conception within marriage is morally licit, only under certain conditions.

The text Contemporary Moral Theology,Vol. II, Marriage Questions, by John C. Ford, S.J. and Gerard Kelly, S.J., (Westminster Maryland: Newman Press, 1964), dedicates three chapters to the moral licitness of using periodic continence (i.e. periodic sexual abstinence) to avoid pregnancy. According to Fathers Ford and Kelly, there are three conditions for the morally licit use of periodic sexual abstinence (pg. 387-388):

(1) both parties were willing to do so (this meant that they were
mutually agreed, that neither party forced the practice on the other);

(2) both parties were able to do so (this meant that the practice
did not involve either one in the unjustifiable occasion of sin, for
instance solitary sin *, or other sins against chastity, etc., and did not expose the marriage to unjustifiable dangers);

(3) provided that there existed a legitimate reason for avoiding conception.

So, what is a “legitimate reason?”

Pius XII used the phrase “serious proportionate motives,” and said that he had spoken on periodic continence "in order to put an end to the anxieties of conscience of many Christians," AAS, 50 (1958), 732-40, at 736." (ibid., p. 425-426). He called those motives “indeed quite broad” (AAS 43 (1951), 855-60, at 859).

Consequently, the expressions ‘grave motive,’ ‘serious reasons,’ etc., are the equivalent of the expression “proportionate reasons.” They can be medical, social psychological, economic, etc. Can such reasons be “selfish?” Yes. But it is up to the married couple to discern whether their reasons for using NFP are for “serious proportionate motives.”*

 

[Jennifer_J]

Not necessarily. The omission of an act (conjugal relations) is a sin if it is a neglect of duty. Married couples have a moral obligation to procreate, unless the “good” of procreation is set aside for a “greater” or even a “proportionate” good. Thus, there is a “duty” that needs to be met, unless justifying reasons exempt them from the duty.

According to John Paul II:

Consequently, the use of abstinence to avoid conception within marriage is morally licit, only under certain conditions.

The text Contemporary Moral Theology,Vol. II, Marriage Questions, by John C. Ford, S.J. and Gerard Kelly, S.J., (Westminster Maryland: Newman Press, 1964), dedicates three chapters to the moral licitness of using periodic continence (i.e. periodic sexual abstinence) to avoid pregnancy. According to Fathers Ford and Kelly, there are three conditions for the morally licit use of periodic sexual abstinence (pg. 387-388):

(1) both parties were willing to do so (this meant that they were
mutually agreed, that neither party forced the practice on the other);

(2) both parties were able to do so (this meant that the practice
did not involve either one in the unjustifiable occasion of sin, for
instance solitary sin *, or other sins against chastity, etc., and did not expose the marriage to unjustifiable dangers);

(3) provided that there existed a legitimate reason* for avoiding conception.

So, what is a “legitimate reason?”

Pius XII used the phrase “serious proportionate motives,” and said that he had spoken on periodic continence "in order to put an end to the anxieties of conscience of many Christians," AAS, 50 (1958), 732-40, at 736." (ibid., p. 425-426). He called those motives “indeed quite broad” (AAS 43 (1951), 855-60, at 859).

Consequently, the expressions ‘grave motive,’ ‘serious reasons,’ etc., are the equivalent of the expression “proportionate reasons.” They can be medical, social psychological, economic, etc. Can such reasons be “selfish?” Yes. But it is up to the married couple to discern whether their reasons for using NFP are for “serious proportionate motives.”

Yes, I knew someone would catch that, but I didn’t have time to spell that out when I posted. Thanks for exounding upon that very valid point.

 

[Dtmccameron]

Feanaro’s Wife
*
“IF it were a sin to not have sex during every fertile day of a woman’s married life THEN what you say would be true.”*

I hope you know that TOTALLY not the meaning I meant to convey.

"As is every other form of birth control. Even abstinence will fail you if you don’t practice it properly"

And that is precicely the meaning I meant to convey.

I just can’t help but feel that the users of the method (the ones that aren’t trying to conceive) are trying to…manipultate things. It seems to thought out! If the couple just happened to have relations on a womans infertile period, then, fine! And if they did during the fertile one, fine! But to time it! And pick the time! It seems so mechanical, so unnatural!

I mean, timing for goodness sakes! We’ve put scheduals and quotas on everything, even that!

"Exactly. It is just knowledge. How we choose to use it is up to us. "–Feanaro’s Wife

There, see! Ignorance is bliss! Such knowledge only opens up the possibility of evil! Would it not simply be permissible to say, “No sex unless you want a child”?

“Married couples have a moral obligation to procreate…”–itsjustdave1988

That’s been pumped down my cultures throat, though in our case, they oft omit the

“(1) both parties were willing to do so (this meant that they were
mutually agreed, that neither party forced the practice on the other);” clause.

A moral obligation to procreate. Something tells me “Deus Vult” won’t get the Misses in ‘the mood’.

I mean, what’s the big deal? If you behaved, you abstained untill you wed. What’s wrong with skipping the whole…procreation bit. Not that the world couln’t use another kid, I’m not saying that, the more the merrier!

It’s a bit like "Which one of these things doesn’t belong!

“Don’t lie”
Okay (fingers crossed)
“Don’t steal”
Alright.
“Don’t kill”
Dig it.
“Love your enemy”
Huh? Oh, alright.
“Be nice”
Sure thing.
“Be generous.”
Okey dokey.
“No premarital sex”
Whatever you say, boss.
“And no playing with yourself, and no dirty thoughts or pictures”
Got it.
“And have lots of kids.”
Ah buh wha?

Moral obligation? Would then the couple that never procreates go to Hell for lack of making the next generation?

What about what St. Paul said, “I would that all were like me”

That is, single. Living entirely and wholely for God. Why? Because you can’t take you wife and kids with ya to Rome to get beheaded! Or stoned! Or suffer any other sort of persecution! And that’s what we’re called to do, isn’t it? “Go out, and preach”!

Preach in the worst places to the worst people. And die. I’ve always seen martyrdom as a critical bit of being a missionary.

Converts should be our next generation! There’s no need for Christians to have sex! We simply have to convert the pagans which keep breeding! And when we’re done, we can die and go to purgatory(Well, y’all can. I doubt I’ll make it that far), and, The End. Well, no, not really. Purgatory is only temporary, after that comes Eternity to which there is no end. So, The …

Does the jury find the defendent crazy?

Quick question, How long has the NFP method been in use/been practiced?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…

A moral obligation to procreate. … I mean, what’s the big deal? If you behaved, you abstained untill you wed. What’s wrong with skipping the whole…procreation bit. Not that the world couln’t use another kid, I’m not saying that, the more the merrier!..

…“And have lots of kids.”

The Church has never taught that we should have “lots of kids.” Did you read the link: What is the morally correct level of children? which I posted earlier?

Here’s what the Church teaches:

Pius XII:

"The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state * and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty* without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life. [Address to Midwives, 1951]

So, for “grave reason” or a “proportionate” good, one may be exempt from the marital obligation to procreate. However, it is a sin for a married couple to neglect their duty to procreate for selfish motives (e.g. want to buy that second home in France, etc.). [BTW, St. Paul was not married, so the obligation to procreate is only for those having the vocation of marriage].

So, there have been many Catholic couples who, for serious reasons, live a life of permanent celibacy, for the sake of the Kingdom of God (a proportionate good). They have no sex, and therefore NO children in their entire marriage. This is morally licit according to Catholic doctrine.

There are other Catholic couples who have conjugal relations within the fertile period often, attempting to have children, but through no fault of their own, they NEVER have children. They too act in accord with Catholic moral theology.

There are some Catholic couples, who have conjugal relations within the fertile period, and have ONLY ONE child. While they attempt to have others, through no fault of their own, they have NO MORE children. They too act in accord with Catholic moral theology.

There are some Catholic couples, who have conjugal relations within the fertile period, and have ONLY ONE child. However, they discern that ONE CHILD is what John Paul II called the “morally correct level” of children, given their subjective circumstances, and so, for the remainder of their marriage, they practice NFP. They too act in accord with Catholic moral theology.

There are some Catholic couples, who marry but find that due to their circumstances (medical, social, psychological, financial, etc.) they have “serious reasons” for not having ANY children. So, they use NFP for their entire marriage, having NO children. They too act in accord with Catholic moral theology.

Finally, let’s say, hypothetically, that a Catholic couple has grown rather fond of the big vacations they get to take every year to far off lands. They decide that they don’t want to have any more children (or perhaps have had none at all), and their motive is that they don’t want to decrease their luxorious lifestyle which they’ve grown accustomed to. So, they practice NFP (a morally licit means) such that they have NO MORE children. This couple, unlike the others above, do NOT act in accord to Catholic moral theology, as their motive is not a “propotionate” or “just” reason for using NFP. Their use of NFP is an “abuse” and is therefore a sin.

Moral obligation? Would then the couple that never procreates go to Hell for lack of making the next generation?

That last couple I described above committed a sin. However, was it a damnable or mortal sin or merely a venial sin, according to Catholic moral theology?

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Remember the three conditions for licit use of NFP to avoid pregnancy are…

(1) provided that both parties were willing to do so (this meant that they were mutually agreed, that neither party forced the practice on the other); (2) provided that both parties were** able** to do so (this meant that the practice did not involve either one in the unjustifiable occasion of sin, for instance solitary sin *, or other sins against chastity, etc., and did not expose the marriage to ther unjustifiable dangers); (3) provided that there existed a legitimate reason for avoiding conception."

According to Catholic moral theology:

"…[Catholic] theologians were in agreement further that a violation of either of the first two

conditions was per se mortally sinful. There was a debate about the gravity of the third condition. A small minority held that to practice periodic continence, as least for a long time, without a legitimate reason, was mortally sinful. But there was no justification for allowing a confessor to impose this view on penitents, when the opposite view, that it was only a venial sin, was so obviously probable and so much more widely held." (Kelly, Ford, p. 388)

Therefore, according to Catholic moral theology, if a married couple were to use NFP in violation of either of the first two conditions, they commit objectively grave sin. However, if a couple lacked a “serious reason”, then the couple are indeed committing sin, but the sin is only venial, and therefore, not in and of itself (i.e. by virtue of the matter), a damnable sin.

One thing to note, however, any venial sin can become “grave” or damnable if the motive was contempt for the Divine will. So, lack of serious reason would be “venial” in light of the “matter” lacking grave consequences, however, it may be “mortal” if the motive was contempt for God’s will.*