Why isn't Natural Family Planning sinful?

[fix]

Not only contraception because it mentions the frustration of the purpose of matrimony. The primary purpose of matrimony is procreation. It is wrong to frustrate this purpose.

But, it is not frustrated. The act is oriented toward procreation. Where does the Church teach you cannot space births?

 

[bobzills]

Do you have evidence the Church has taught one must never space births?

So you think it is OK to advocate an NFP type method of blocking the existence of saints in the Church such as St. Catherine?

 

[fix]

So you think it is OK to advocate an NFP type method of blocking the existence of saints in the Church such as St. Catherine?

NFP will not block any saints or sinners. Where does the Church teach how many children any couple is required to have?

 

[bobzills]

NFP will not block any saints or sinners. Where does the Church teach how many children any couple is required to have?

St. Catherine was the 25th child in a family of 25 children. If her parents had used NFP to avoid children, we would not have known anything about her. She would not have existed.

 

[fix]

St. Catherine was the 25th child in a family of 25 children. If her parents had used NFP to avoid children, we would not have known anything about her. She would not have existed.

What if a couple does not use NFP and has only 2 children? Are they guilty of not having a saint?

 

[nodito]

St. Catherine was the 25th child in a family of 25 children. If her parents had used NFP to avoid children, we would not have known anything about her. She would not have existed.

This is true. If St. Catherine’s parents had used NFP or had used contraception or had aborted their unborn child, the world would never have known St. Catherine. But it does not follow that therefore NFP is wrong. God doesn’t have a bunch of saint souls floating around in heaven waiting for parents to conceive. We’re not “missing out” on certain holy souls by spacing births. Rather, couples cooperate with God to co-create new souls when they are able to commit to raising them to be little saints. St. Catherine’s parents were able to do this, but not everybody is. And the Church has taught us that responsible parenthood demands that couples be realistic about when they cannot commit to raising more children for the time being.

 

[nodito]

So you think it is OK to advocate an NFP type method of blocking the existence of saints in the Church such as St. Catherine?

Furthermore, this is faulty logic because it can just as easily be applied to support that which you are arguing against. Hilter, Mussolini, Pol Pot - oh, if only their parents had used NFP!

 

[fix]

If people are using NFP, and seeking God’s will, they will not “block” any babies.

 

[foolishmortal]

The result is separated from the act, that being primarily, the making of children and secondarily, the physical enjoyment of the act, though in giving pleasure to the other primarily. Contraception was intended by the Protestants as something when necessary Ha! We saw where that went…the way of annulments in modern times. If most Catholics weren’t using contraceptives, they’d abuse NFP, In these soft times, many clergy would go along with it. As in the change to the N.O., when it happened, these rebellious recent decades are not the right decades for annulments and NFP, before it’s time for strict restrictions to be set that weak minded clergy cannot circumvent. I don’t believe those restrictions are established and so reason must come in to temper those who get literal with Biblical and catechetical interpretation when finding loopholes is the intention.

 

[bobzills]

If people are using NFP, and seeking God’s will, they will not “block” any babies.

I don’t see how you can say this. Suppose that the parents of St. Catherine had used NFP to avoid a few children. Since she was number 25, her birth would have been blocked by the use of NFP.

 

[bobzills]

The result is separated from the act, that being primarily, the making of children and secondarily, the physical enjoyment of the act, though in giving pleasure to the other primarily. Contraception was intended by the Protestants as something when necessary Ha! We saw where that went…the way of annulments in modern times. If most Catholics weren’t using contraceptives, they’d abuse NFP, In these soft times, many clergy would go along with it. As in the change to the N.O., when it happened, these rebellious recent decades are not the right decades for annulments and NFP, before it’s time for strict restrictions to be set that weak minded clergy cannot circumvent. I don’t believe those restrictions are established and so reason must come in to temper those who get literal with Biblical and catechetical interpretation when finding loopholes is the intention.

Annulments are another loophole as you mention.
The loophole we are considering here is to frustrate the primary puropse of marriage, but still enjoy the pleasure of the marital bed. You avoid having children and you can have your marital pleasure all at the same time. This is what your thermometers and calculations will give to you when you use NFP to avoid having children.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t see how you can say this. Suppose that the parents of St. Catherine had used NFP to avoid a few children. Since she was number 25, her birth would have been blocked by the use of NFP.

You don’t pay attention, as usual. Fix stated using NFP ACCORDING TO GOD’S WILL. The Church teaches that NFP is not to be used to avoid having children, but is to be used only for a grave reason (e,g, if pregnancy endangers the life of the woman). Your example is, like all your other examples in these forums, a mere, useless hypothetical. They are not valid points at all. It is like an atheist asking “can God make a rock he cannot lift.” If St, Catherine’s parents were indeed using NFP according to God’s will, she would still have been born, because her parents would not have been using NFP to actively avoid having children, since the Church teaches that that is not the purpose of NFP…

I haven’t read through the whole thread, but I’m sure someone has already pointed out to you that the difference between NFP and ABC is that NFP does not seek to prevent the NATURAL flow of the sperm to the egg during the sexual act. It is not a sin to want to remain chaste during certain periods of a woman’s fertility cycle, much less for a grave reason.

A cautionary comment to everyone here: If anyone has followed even a modicum of Bobzill’s posts in any of the Forums here on CAF, you will discover that his only purpose is to attempt to cause people to doubt the Catholic Church. Bobzills has argued against the Catholic Church on topics as diverse as women’s ordination (on the side of liberal Catholics), the rights of bishops (on the side of traditionalists), annulments (on the side of non-Catholic polemicists), and (here) NFP (on the side of non-Catholic polemicists). One could view him as a sincere gentleman who is really just trying to keep Catholics on their toes, playing devil’s advocate, but pretty soon, you’ll discover that his tactic is normally to evade refutations of his arguments, refusing to respond to them, and merely repeating his old arguments like a broken record.

At some point, it is best to just ignore him.

Blessings

 

[Holly3278]

Because Natural Family Planning still leaves open the possibility for life to form.

 

[kerath25]

Annulments are another loophole as you mention.
The loophole we are considering here is to frustrate the primary puropse of marriage, but still enjoy the pleasure of the marital bed. You avoid having children and you can have your marital pleasure all at the same time. This is what your thermometers and calculations will give to you when you use NFP to avoid having children.

bobzills, I am confused. Do you feel it is only appropriate to enjoy the marital act if the woman is in a fertile part of her cycle? Or are couples supposed to embrace in the marital act whenever they feel the need and accept whatever comes their way?

NFP (as I understand it, anyway), is to encourage the couple to have relations that do not inhibit the possibility of conception. As was noted earlier, NFP is not a sure-fire way not to become pregnant. There is still the possibility that a new life will be created from the natural union.

The use of other contraceptives is a notice *before * the marital act that this couple is not open to that possibility, that they intend to do all that they can to avoid it. However, they are not willing to sacrifice anything in the meantime. They will not use the self-discipline necessary for NFP, but they also will not accept the responsibility that comes from using the marital act whenever they please. Contraceptives are essentially a way of saying “I want this, right now, and I refuse to accept any consequences.” The difference between that and NFP (which says “I don’t want the consequences, so I will give up the thing that causes them”) is great.

 

[kage_ar]

The Church teaches that NFP is not to be used to avoid having children, but is to be used only for a grave reason (e,g, if pregnancy endangers the life of the woman).

Please, check your phrasing. The Catechism CLEARLY says “just reasons”, not “grave reasons”. I’ve posted the CCC citations in this thread - you can verify in your own copy.

 

[bobzills]

bobzills, I am confused. Do you feel it is only appropriate to enjoy the marital act if the woman is in a fertile part of her cycle? Or are couples supposed to embrace in the marital act whenever they feel the need and accept whatever comes their way?

NFP (as I understand it, anyway), is to encourage the couple to have relations that do not inhibit the possibility of conception. As was noted earlier, NFP is not a sure-fire way not to become pregnant. There is still the possibility that a new life will be created from the natural union.

The use of other contraceptives is a notice *before * the marital act that this couple is not open to that possibility, that they intend to do all that they can to avoid it. However, they are not willing to sacrifice anything in the meantime. They will not use the self-discipline necessary for NFP, but they also will not accept the responsibility that comes from using the marital act whenever they please. Contraceptives are essentially a way of saying “I want this, right now, and I refuse to accept any consequences.” The difference between that and NFP (which says “I don’t want the consequences, so I will give up the thing that causes them”) is great.

NFP is highly effective as a method to avoid pregnancy: “There’s no question about the reliability of the Sympto-Thermal Method — it can be used at the 99% level of effectiveness to postpone or avoid pregnancy, which is an effectiveness level as high or higher than all artificial methods except sterilization.”

 

[nodito]

NFP is highly effective as a method to avoid pregnancy: “There’s no question about the reliability of the Sympto-Thermal Method — it can be used at the 99% level of effectiveness to postpone or avoid pregnancy, which is an effectiveness level as high or higher than all artificial methods except sterilization.”

Yeah, I’ve never liked (nor agreed with) the argument that NFP is more open to life because it’s less effective than other family planning options.

 

[fix]

Annulments are another loophole as you mention.
The loophole we are considering here is to frustrate the primary puropse of marriage, but still enjoy the pleasure of the marital bed. You avoid having children and you can have your marital pleasure all at the same time. This is what your thermometers and calculations will give to you when you use NFP to avoid having children.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. The unaltered act is objectively ordered toward procreation. Nothing is frustrated.

 

[Pug]

Yeah, I’ve never liked (nor agreed with) the argument that NFP is more open to life because it’s less effective than other family planning options.

I don’t think people who use the “open to life” phrase mean it to be about being *more *open to life, as if both NFP and contraception are open to life by a percentage. I’m not sure, of course. I figure the “open to life” phrase means that a couple is accepting relations at the natural level of fertility that is theirs at that moment. They are *not *saying, “Well, we will have relations, but we will attempt to reduce the natural fertility of this moment.” Open to life seems to be code for a couple who doesn’t alter downward the natural fertility available on any particular day, and that includes people who have zero fertility as well (they can’t wear a condom either, afaik, even though it doesn’t seem to alter the fertility much, then it more seems to be a line about having an action ordered by itself to procreation).

I understand the confusion, though, with the open to life phrase. It is very easy to imagine it means someone using a condom is open to life by the amount of the failure rate, because otherwise they would abstain.

 

[foolishmortal]

abstinence could be ruled as sinful since you are going against your inborn, God-given desire to reproduce and refusing to do the married thing with your spouse.

That’s just a bizarre counter-argument. No one is talking about abstinance throughout the whole marriage, but just sex for child-bearing purposes (and enjoyment is fine in those circumstances). NFP abused is the outcome of not having child-bearing as the primary purpose. If you need sex that much, what would happen if your spouse was on a respirator or a spouse gets a bad attitude?

Just reasons? --typical soft post-V2 Catechism wording

The loophole we are considering here is to frustrate the primary puropse of marriage, but still enjoy the pleasure of the marital bed. You avoid having children and you can have your marital pleasure all at the same time. This is what your thermometers and calculations will give to you when you use NFP to avoid having children.

I haven’t read Bobzill’s posts throughout the thread, but I agree with this. Like moving Ascension Thursday to Sunday, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. That just gave us less times for most to go to Mass. I don’t know what whoever decreed that was thinking–lessening peoples’ devotions in a time of so many people leaving the Church or staying as lukewarm or heretics. If they can’t make it on a holy day of obligation or a Sunday observance Mass, they can’t. If they can, they must. It’s that simple. People hate literalism in religion, except to see what they can get away with–especially in these days. The Church leadership should act more practically by increasing us spiritually vigilant and cut out that which could be more easily abused, to be more efficient shepherds. Childbearing is the primary reason, despite wishful thinking from The Vatican that even devout people, though fallen, will assuredly use necessary discretion (total giving to the other or not, when making kids, is more difficult to manage, I’m sure). If you don’t want a stadium’s capacity of kids, just have sex less and do other non-sexual bonding activities.