Why is NFP ok?

[TommyWommy]

I think I understand why contraception is wrong. I’m not as sure, however, why NFP is ok. If a husband and a wife decide not to have children by using NFP, aren’t they acting against (contra) conception? Aren’t they being the “barrier” by making the plan to abstain during fertility? This argument has been put to me by someone who insists that NFP is just a Catholic double standard. Just another way to reap the fun of sex without the responsibility of pregnancy.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I think I understand why contraception is wrong. I’m not as sure, however, why NFP is ok. If a husband and a wife decide not to have children by using NFP, aren’t they acting against (contra) conception? Aren’t they being the “barrier” by making the plan to abstain during fertility? This argument has been put to me by someone who insists that NFP is just a Catholic double standard. Just another way to reap the fun of sex without the responsibility of pregnancy.

Would this person claim that it is wrong for a couple who are not practicing NFP to have sex during the infertile time? If not, he has no basis for complaint. If it is wrong for NFP, it is wrong for everybody.

Or, is he saying that if we have sex during non-fertile times, we are morally obliged also to do so during fertile times? What is the basis for this new moral teaching? Did he just make it up? Are Catholics bound by his idea of morality, or the Church’s?

God created our bodies, and bodies manifest fertility in natural cycles. There is nothing immoral about using the natural cycles of the human body (which God created) to plan for our family.

And, BTW, if Catholics were just looking to have fun, we would pick a method that allows us to “have fun” for the OTHER two-thirds of the month as well.

 

[Rence]

Pregnancy is not always responsible. For example, if one of the parents is too ill, or if the mother’s life is at risk due to another pregnancy, or if the family’s resources can’t sustain another child. Of course it’s ok to use the body’s natural cycles to regulate pregnancies.

 

[TommyWommy]

Would this person claim that it is wrong for a couple who are not practicing NFP to have sex during the infertile time? If not, he has no basis for complaint. If it is wrong for NFP, it is wrong for everybody.

Or, is he saying that if we have sex during non-fertile times, we are morally obliged also to do so during fertile times? What is the basis for this new moral teaching? Did he just make it up? Are Catholics bound by his idea of morality, or the Church’s?

.

I was trying to explain that the bottom line regarding marriage is sharing in the creative process with God, that procreation is why sex exists, and that the pleasure is a perk God gave us. That using a condom defeats this purpose and goes against (contra) the bottom line intention of both marriage and sex. The response was that a Catholic couple could defeat the same purpose with NFP, so my argument against condoms was a double standard. As far as condoms being “unnatural” there are lots of scientific applications applied to human behavior and health that are “unnatural” so why single out and complain about condoms?

Since either NFP or condoms could be used to defeat God’s purpose for marriage and sex, then, yes, if it’s wrong for one it’s wrong for everybody. The intent is still there (contra) despite the difference in methods, natural or synthetic.

I think this person believes that a Catholic couple or a non-Catholic couple could both go against (contra) God’s intention, just by different means, which makes NFP just as bad as condoms in that case.

 

[maximus]

I think I understand why contraception is wrong. I’m not as sure, however, why NFP is ok. If a husband and a wife decide not to have children by using NFP, aren’t they acting against (contra) conception? Aren’t they being the “barrier” by making the plan to abstain during fertility? This argument has been put to me by someone who insists that NFP is just a Catholic double standard. Just another way to reap the fun of sex without the responsibility of pregnancy.

As a teacher of NFP (currently on a long hiatus) we teach that NFP is to used for serious common sense reasons to avoid pregnancies. It can be miss-used, however the difference between the barrier method and NFP is that God’s action is not blocked in the marital act. Also, NFP can be used as a fertility aid to help couples with low fertility conceive; can’t do that with a barrier method.

You can get more in depth information from the Couple to Couple league (ccli.org/) on this topic. I am willing to guess that your friend is a little on the unreasonable side.

God Bless,

 

[TommyWommy]

As a teacher of NFP (currently on a long hiatus) we teach that NFP is to used for serious common sense reasons to avoid pregnancies. It can be miss-used, however the difference between the barrier method and NFP is that God’s action is not blocked in the marital act. Also, NFP can be used as a fertility aid to help couples with low fertility conceive; can’t do that with a barrier method.

You can get more in depth information from the Couple to Couple league (ccli.org/) on this topic. I am willing to guess that your friend is a little on the unreasonable side.

God Bless,

There are different layers here. The person in question tried NFP over an extended period of time with the help of an instructor as a way to conceive, but was not successful. A different approach did result in pregnancy. This has undermined confidence of NFP as a reliable method of managing fertility in general.

Another layer is that this person has been on a journey of trying to understand the Catholic Church due to the spouse reverting, and is coming from a background of strict religious legalism that took years to “escape” from. The CC position on fertility feels like more “unreasonable” religious legalism to this person, and it produces caution and skepticism.

This person is also very educated and practiced in the medical field and tries very hard to be sensitive to Christian, moral implications of scientific capabilities.

This person is not “unreasonable.” “Searching,” would be a better descriptor. I’m trying to be supportive in the search for understanding. Here is where we are stuck:

The fact that you said that NFP can be misused is helpful, but I don’t know if it will allow this person grasp the whole picture. The logic being used is thus: birth control is about “control.” God’s “action” is being “controlled” either by barrier or by abstinence (“God’s action” being the possibility of conception). The “control” is in the hands of the the one using either method rather than God, so what is the ultimate difference?

We are stuck at this point, and I’m trying to be gentle and sensitive to this person’s background both with religion and with NFP.

 

[Philthy]

Here is where we are stuck:

The fact that you said that NFP can be misused is helpful, but I don’t know if it will allow this person grasp the whole picture. The logic being used is thus: birth control is about “control.” God’s “action” is being “controlled” either by barrier or by abstinence (“God’s action” being the possibility of conception). The “control” is in the hands of the the one using either method rather than God, so what is the ultimate difference?

We are stuck at this point, and I’m trying to be gentle and sensitive to this person’s background both with religion and with NFP.

• NFP needs to be understood in the full context of the human person, sexuality and God’s sovereignty in creation.
• Basically, any time a human life is created God has chosen this life as a good. We may perceive it as bad in many respects, but ultimately it is God who has sovereign rule over the “appropriateness” of every new human life, and when a new person is created it is because God has willed it. Agreed?
• This mysterious sovereignty of God is intimately linked with the natural design of the male and female reproductive systems. God operates his sovereignty within the framework of human sexuality in creating new life. Agreed?
• Any time we actively (ie when we take action) interrupt the God ordered human reproductive system we do so independant of God’s will for us. Condoms, the pill, IUD’s etc all fall in this category. They actively pursue an interruption to the natural order ordained by God and seek to eliminate His will with respect to the creation of new life. Agreed?
• This is generally done to partake of a good that God has provided us (ie sexual gratification, intimacy) while seeking to eliminate the God ordered natural consequence of that good (possibility of pregnancy). It has as its essential feature the following sentiment: I know that pregnancy(requires Gods Will) could result, and I reject God’s wisdom in allowing such an outcome because I don’t trust God in this particular situation. In short, I know better than God.
• NFP is similar with respect to the intent: seeking to avoid pregnancy, but where it is FUNDAMENTALLY different is in the fact that it does not actively manipulate God’s natural order in accomplishing its end. Part of God’s natural order of the human reproductive system is that there is a period of time when a woman will be infertile. NFP does not negate the possibility of pregnancy, but it minimizes it within the confines of God’s sovereign design for human sexuality. Do you see the difference with respect to the NFP act and ABC?
• As was pointed out, NFP can be abused. It is not a free ticket to avoid children for largely selfish, insignificant reasons. It is meant to be a means for a couple who believes they have serious, valid reasons to avoid having more children and it is not to be taken lightly.

Blessings!