When is NFP morally permissible?

[alessandro]

(Sorry 'bout the double-post, but the forums were acting up!)

In what circumstances is Natural Family Planning permissible, per the rules set forth by the Magisterium?

Please cite specific sources. No anecdotal evidence or support for your arguments – let’s try to keep this academic

 

[Brendan]

*Humanae Vitae * declared that Catholics may delay the conception of a child for ‘serious’ reasons.

How that applies to an individual couple should be decided after prayer, discernment and discussions with an orthodox priest or spiritual director.

The specifics would therefore vary between couples.

 

[YinYangMom]

From Humanae Vitae:

"If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former** the married couple rightly use a faculty** provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.** It cannot be denied** that in each case the married couple,** for acceptable reasons**, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another.** In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love**. "

 

[Brendan]

YYM,

The Vatican website lists the translation as:

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.

That word is critical, because it has certain canonical meaning.

There are 3 terms used to describe motives or reasons for an action: *Just, Serious * and Grave. Each has a certain defined body of Canon Law decisions to assist the faithful in determining the level of depth they must discern.

 

[alessandro]

Brendan:

There are 3 terms used to describe motives or reasons for an action: *Just, Serious * and Grave. Each has a certain defined body of Canon Law decisions to assist the faithful in determining the level of depth they must discern.

I guess I am confused by the ‘vagueness’ of the term serious. I also find it difficult to accept that it is left up to the general public to discern whether or not they have a serious reason to use contraception (and by that, I mean NFP). It seems like a lot of 20th-century Church documents, especially Vatican II and post-Vatican II, are couched in such loose language that they are open to tremendous variety of interpretation.

What I fear is that, because of the loose language, some people will use NFP for the wrong reasons. Take the example from the poll, above, of the couple wanting to save up to buy a new car. Is this a ‘serious’ reason? No doubt it depends on the circumstances (for example, if a new car means being able to move to a new area, or school district, or commute to a new job, that might be ‘serious’). But what if a couple just wants a new Mercedes for more materialistic reasons… They might rationalize the choice toward contraception, thinking, “A new car is a serious reason,” when to others, in this particular case, a new car would not be a legitimate reason.

And worse still, this attitude (“We don’t want a new baby, and we’re actively working against that possibility”) may even become an air of supercilious contempt à la Holier-Than-Thou, when the couple judges others: “They’re using condoms? Well, we’re using NFP!” While I agree that there is an important moral difference between the various forms of contraception (from NFP or the rhythm method, to condoms, to OCP, to sterilization procedures, to frank-out abortion), if used for the wrong reasons, NFP can also be morally wrong.

Of course, I guess if anyone is going to be really selfish, they wouldn’t choose a method that involves self-sacrifice, such as NFP; but would rather choose a more ‘convenient’ method such as the OCP.

Thanks to the previous commentators for their citations. Are there any other Church documents to reference?

 

[mumto5]

More people think it’s acceptable to use NFP due to financial difficulties than due to the health/life of the mother being in danger? I find that shameful.

 

[KCT]

alessandro:

What I fear is that, because of the loose language, some people will use NFP for the wrong reasons.

I’m sure couples do. But it’s up to God’s justice and mercy to deal with them. We don’t get to decide who’s reason is ‘good enough’.
—KCT

 

[Black_Jaque]

Sorry, I think this whole argument is rubbish.

Why? Because each and every act must be open to procreation. If NFP is acceptable at all, it is because engaging in sex during the infertile phase is still open to procreation.

Therefore, no matter what reason, no matter how frivolous it may seem, a couple is still open to life if they practice NFP in such a way as to avoid pregnancy indefinitely.

You can take a nickel for every soul lost through practicing NFP for the wrong reasons. I’ll take a nickel for every soul gained by practicing NFP for those same reasons but whose heart was softened by the very practicing of NFP.

Browbeating sinners because they are obeying the Church, but they aren’t doing it “with a smile” will only discourage people. Instead they should be commended for carrying their cross. Let the Lord work on changing their hearts.

Frankly, anyone who practices NFP for the reason that they “already have 2 children - that’s it! - Finito” is probably a greater saint than anyone else on this board. Why? Because in spite of how they see the situation, in spite of how they would rather take the easy way of ABC, they still choose to be obey the Church. That is heroic virtue! It’s easy for us to practice NFP when we can see why.

Blessed are they who cannot see why, yet still obey.

 

[KCT]

Black Jaque:

You can take a nickel for every soul lost through practicing NFP for the wrong reasons…

Soul lost? What do you mean? There aren’t souls floating around out there waiting for bodies. Souls are not created until conception. I don’t see how we can say a soul is lost because a couple chooses this month to abstain. There is no soul to be lost. --KCT

 

[Ana]

One can use anything sinfully. Any decision made can be from a selfish sinful motivavtion. I do not find the Church’s teaching to be vague at all.Yin Yang was kind enough to quote Humanae Vitae, with emphasis in red. Where is the loose language? I think some people are disappointed with the Church proclaiming that it is the decision of the husband and wife WITH God as opposed to God alone. I think it’s obvious that someone whose goal is a Mercedes is leaving God out of the equation.

If one is not privy by friendship to the reasons as to why some families may have fewer children then it is best to assume there is no sin.There may be serious reason that is not apparent to onlookers. Only God can read hearts. If they openly share that they are seeking a new Mercedes than I don’t think you need our confirmation that this is a sinful motivation.

To often I have seen an overgeneralization that those who use no form of birth spacing and just let the chips fall where they may are holy, while those who choose to space their children or perhaps only have two or three, as opposed to twelve, do not trust God.

I think there is also opportunity for sin in those families that do not use NFP and take no responsibility for how many children thay have. Just “letting things happen.” Is nature our God? I think for some financially and emotionally overwhelmed parents, NFP would be the morally right thing to do, and unfortunately sometimes more difficult. Especially in the face of the persecution they will face from their (less involved in the decision making process) peers and the self sacrifice involved in abstaining.

God bless!

 

[Ana]

Brendan:

YYM,

The Vatican website lists the translation as:

That word is critical, because it has certain canonical meaning.

There are 3 terms used to describe motives or reasons for an action: *Just, Serious *and Grave. Each has a certain defined body of Canon Law decisions to assist the faithful in determining the level of depth they must discern.

VERY interesting! Could you perhaps posts the definitions of these three terms?

God bless!

 

[Ana]

KCT:

I’m sure couples do. But it’s up to God’s justice and mercy to deal with them. We don’t get to decide who’s reason is ‘good enough’.
—KCT

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[Shiann]

KCT:

Soul lost? What do you mean? There aren’t souls floating around out there waiting for bodies. Souls are not created until conception. I don’t see how we can say a soul is lost because a couple chooses this month to abstain. There is no soul to be lost. --KCT

I think he meant *lost *as “what could have been” not as “was here and is gone”.

 

[Benedictus]

KCT:

Soul lost? What do you mean? There aren’t souls floating around out there waiting for bodies. Souls are not created until conception. I don’t see how we can say a soul is lost because a couple chooses this month to abstain. There is no soul to be lost. --KCT

I think the poster means that people commit a mortal sin by using NFP for the wrong reasons (and I agree).

 

[Black_Jaque]

Soul lost? What do you mean?

What I mean is the souls of the husband & wife who practiced NFP for the wrong reasons. Souls lost to Hell is what I meant. Which would equate to zero, because you can’t be condemned for doing good. No more than you can be condemned for praying for the wrong reasons. (To the wrong God definitely, but not for so-called wrong reasons)

I think it’s obvious that someone whose goal is a Mercedes is leaving God out of the equation.

Perhaps the couple is committing a deadly sin by being covetous, but they are NOT sinning by practicing NFP.

The Church teaches (somewhere don’t have the documentation yet) that in order to eliminate evil, we must do good. Ah, yes, the Bible states something about not being able to serve two masters. That covetous couple who wants a Mercedes, but is willing to practice NFP out of sheer obedience to the Church cannot serve two masters. Either their covetousness will be cured, they will switch to ABC, or they will get their Mercedes (which may indicate that God willed them to have a Mercedes, ever think of that?)

 

[mumto5]

I’d like to know the reasoning of the 7/24 who think that the life of the mother being at risk doesn’t justify NFP. Are these voters male? I think it’s shocking. Do we really value women and their role so little we consider them disposable?

I could die having another baby and almost died having the last one. I’m incredibly lucky to be here today. Should I risk having another one and maybe leave six children without a mother and my husband alone to raise them? Leave five children without a mother and take the baby with me,a duoble loss for my family? I am valuable to my family and in the circumstances, never need have another baby. Even the most devout Catholic I know told me that.

Please tell me I’m reading it wrong because if so many feel this way, maybe I’m in the wrong church!

 

[yochumjy]

mumto5:

I’d like to know the reasoning of the 7/24 who think that the life of the mother being at risk doesn’t justify NFP. Are these voters male? I think it’s shocking. Do we really value women and their role so little we consider them disposable?

I could die having another baby and almost died having the last one. I’m incredibly lucky to be here today. Should I risk having another one and maybe leave six children without a mother and my husband alone to raise them? Leave five children without a mother and take the baby with me,a duoble loss for my family? I am valuable to my family and in the circumstances, never need have another baby. Even the most devout Catholic I know told me that.

Please tell me I’m reading it wrong because if so many feel this way, maybe I’m in the wrong church!

mumto5,

Who said that a mother at risk doesn’t qualify? There might have been people who didn’t know that you could check multiple ones, if you are using the graph alone. You don’t really know who it was that voted for anything, there could be protestants, athiests, or anyone as well as catholics voting. So, don’t assume anything from reading the poll results. I doubt anyone who is faithful to the church would ever say that you shouldn’t use NFP under the conditions you stated!

And congratulations on your five blessings!

Bless You,

 

[Shiann]

If I use the pill (for non medical reasons) I am using it to prevent life. This is against life, against God’s creationary Will, and is a sin. Now coupled with the fact that it may also be an abortificant, I’m also committing another grave sin… double whammy.

We know that NFP is nearly 100% effective when used to prevent pregnancies. It is in fact, statistically more effective than any other type of contraception.

When NFP is used indefinately for the specific intent of contraception (for other than valid reasons), the couple is using NFP to prevent life and is using NFP against itself. It too is going against God’s will for creation. They are relying on their biology, rather than regular, prayerful contemplation and God, as to the number of children in their family.

If the fact that there is some portion of 1% statistical chance that one might become pregnant anyway- doesn’t discount the fact that the couple using NFP as a permanent method of contraception really isn’t doing anything different than those couples using other artificial methods.

Many contracepting Christian couples have given the argument that NFP use is inherently NO different than artificial contraception. So why shouldn’t they be able to use ABC anyway? In substance, they are absolutely correct. There IS NO difference between indefinite NFP use and ABC when looking at the biological contraception aspect.

So there must be another difference that makes NFP morally superior to ABC.

NFPers say that it is ‘remaining open to life’. But how can a couple claim that when statistically speaking NFP is nearly as effective as abstinence? The fact remains that the intent of a couple practicing indefinate NFP without valid reasons is still contraceptive in nature. They are just choosing to use the biological pattern that God gave them to go against God’s creationary plan and avoid children indefinately for invalid reasons.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Shiann,

I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not.

Your point is exactly why this tripe about when NFP is morally permissible is rubbish. Because if NFP is not inherently open to life, then the ABC argument that it is no different morally speeking is correct.

But each and every act of NFP is open to life. Therefore, no sin.

You may be a covetous illigitimate, but you’re not sinning by using NFP.

Plus, for NFP to prevent pregnancy with 99% effectiveness you have to practice it 100% correctly. That’s not easy.

Look at it this way. People who are greedily pursuing a Mercedes Benz, along with the mansion and the white picket fence, are possibly hedonistic, and buying these things on credit anyway. What do you think the chances are that they will have the discipline to wait through the hottest part of the cycle?

 

[Ana]

Black Jaque:

Shiann,

Look at it this way. People who are greedily pursuing a Mercedes Benz, along with the mansion and the white picket fence, are possibly hedonistic, and buying these things on credit anyway. What do you think the chances are that they will have the discipline to wait through the hottest part of the cycle?

Depends how badly they want the car, I guess.