When is NFP morally permissible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alessandro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you agree that in this particular situation the wife is being uncharitable in NOT considering NFP as an option?

Honestly, I’m not so sure. Her husband does not have to go along with her, I assume as a non-Catholic he has no problem with ABC, so why didn’t he just insist on a vasectomy? Like I said before, maybe it is God working on him. Spouses do not need to act thrilled to agree with the other. Let’s face it, even if she was ok with NFP, I doubt he would be thrilled about that idea considering the abstinence involved! I am not being unsympathetic to their situation, but I can’t help but think even the families in great situations who plan all of their children sometimes find themselves in unfortunate situations later on (death, illness, adultery, etc). You just never know.

God did not FORCE children on you. You and your husband had marital relations on a day that conception was possible (natural law),

Yet we didn’t think conception was possible that day. Which is why I jokingly said God forced children on us. We thought we were doing the responsible thing considering we (thought) we had very serious reasons, we were not sinning because we conceived “accidentally”,.Yet if we decided like your friend that we didn’t agree with NFP under any circumstances, decided to completely trust in God like your friend does, we would have been sinning by conceiving that child. This is where I get confused.

God bless your family, and I am so grateful God in His Mercy moved your husband to conversion. He did the same with my husband, so I share your joy.

God bless your family too!
 
Some Church Teachings about Natural Family Planning
Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI)
10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of “responsible parenthood,” which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.

In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions, human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.(9)
In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.
In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.
Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.
In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.(10)
16. 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."(20)
Gaudium et Spes (Second Vatican Council)
50.2 Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfill their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice,(12) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfill their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family.(13)
Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.
 
40.png
Ana:
…

Shian, I hope that my post didn’t imply I thought you were being judgemental. I don’t think that at all!

…

Now that I think about it, I wonder if not wanting kids right now would be the result of an underlying reason, not the reason itself? Even if they state that as their reason, I mean there has to be a reason they don’t want kids right now, and I think that would be where the opportunity for sin is, with not having kids being the consequence.

God bless!
Click to expand...
Exactly. And further, using NFP to follow through with that “opportunity for sin”, seems an afront to God.

It doesn’t make NFP sinfull per se, because as you said, the sin was in the reasoning.

Blessings!

PS I don’t think you were calling me judgmental- I just wanted to make my point crystal clear. There is a very fine line we walk in this discussion. There is an obvious distinction between ABC vs. NFP.

But as we start to discuss their use when postponing children- this can be quite difficult to bring to focus. The key is the intent and reasoning of the couple. If they are choosing to indefinitely postpone kids for NO good/valid/licit reason there is error.

THEN ON TOP OF THAT, we all know that using ABC to accomplish this is sinfull for all the reasons given us in Humanae Vitae.

I am of the mind that when a couple is using abstinence (within a marriage) to accomplish the same INDEFINITE postponing of kids for no good/valid/licit reason, this is also error. Is it sin? I am not a theologian- but it does seem very wrong.

Again,

God Bless!
 
Those documents certainly provided lots of information, yet after reading it I am just as puzzled as I was the first time I’ve read them. One thing I am quite clear on is that it states NFP is licit,but not absolutely required for couples. I just wish it provided concrete examples of what it actually means to be a “responsible parent”, and of course a good example of a serious reason. Guess I need to pray more to understand, have been trying to figure out for the last 14 years of marriage!

I really have no problem with NFP, I have used it myself, I only have a problem with others implying a family with six kids should have stopped at 2, because of some unfortunate situation. Who is to say they shouldn’t have been born? I have experienced this attitude the many people myself, yet I refuse to believe God desired # 1, 2 and 3 and maybe 4 to be here, but God really preferred # 5, 6, 7 and 8 not to exist, but only allowed it knowing I should have learned a better NFP method.
 
40.png
char34:
I just wish it provided concrete examples of what it actually means to be a “responsible parent”, and of course a good example of a serious reason.
Click to expand...
I have always looked at the serious reasons as things that should be there to even think about using NFP to regulate birth. So like:
  • The couple can not possibly afford to have a child at the moment.
  • That either of the spouses are psychologically unstable and not fit mentally to raise a child.
  • That it is not being done out of a desire that is motivated by selfishness.
  • That NFP should not even be a possible thought if the couple has the money and physical and psychological well being to be parents.
to list a few.
 
Yet we didn’t think conception was possible that day. Which is why I jokingly said God forced children on us. We thought we were doing the responsible thing considering we (thought) we had very serious reasons, we were not sinning because we conceived “accidentally”,.Yet if we decided like your friend that we didn’t agree with NFP under any circumstances, decided to completely trust in God like your friend does, we would have been sinning by conceiving that child. This is where I get confused.
Click to expand...
GAAAAAHH!

See? This is why this whole topic is balogna!

You’re worried about silly stuff, which is probably distracting you from real sins.

In fact your story seems like a perfect poster-child for how NFP actually “works”.

You commit to using NFP. In so doing you are open to life. The path of NFP means you are making yourself vulnerable to God’s methods. A glass of wine, the kids fell asleep early, the pitter-patter of rain on the window. . .

God is talking. There IS no sin there!

That does it. I’m starting a new thread on “How do you discern whether you should have more kids?”
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Financial difficulties put a huge strain on the marriage. Would God want a child put into an already stressful situation? Many of our social problems are coupled with poverty…problems such as child abuse, spousal abuse, poor health, alchoholism, etc. As a person who was a victim of abuse, I would not wish this on another.
 
balogna!

Is it balogna or balogne? And why is it spelled with an a if you don’t pronounce it like that? It’s a mystery.

Thanks for your post by the way!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top