Why isn't Natural Family Planning sinful?

[budgie2]

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.

I agree with you that there aren’t saint souls in heaven waiting to be conceived. I think God may have plans of human beings but the human being is made at conception both body and soul. Prior to conception it’s only a planned soul. I do not think we help create the soul, this is a free gift from God but we help create the body and give our children flesh. The egg and sperm create the body of the child and then God gives the gift of the soul as the soul is “of God”. Don’t nick this is my own theology.

 

[nodito]

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.

This is closer to how I perceive it. Open to life suggests to me that couples are not doing anything to frustrate the sexual act. It’s a mentality that supports a husband-wife union that is objectively ordered towards procreation. So NFP would be open to life but contraception would not be.

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’ve talked with people who do justify NFP by saying that it’s “open to life” because it’s not as effective as contraception. I think this stems for their confusion that “open to life” means “having the possibility of getting pregnant.” Thus, sterilizations, IUDs, etc are not open to life because they are very effective at preventing pregnancy, whereas NFP is open to life because there’s the possibility that it will fail (sometimes chalked up to divine intervention, as if God could override a fertility cycle but not an intrauterine device, and sometimes attributed to the ineffectiveness of the method itself). I find this reasoning problematic and get frustrated that these people don’t realize that practicing NFP is both open to life and highly effective at preventing pregnancy.

 

[nodito]

I do not think we help create the soul, this is a free gift from God but we help create the body and give our children flesh. The egg and sperm create the body of the child and then God gives the gift of the soul as the soul is “of God”.

Sorry if my post was confusing. I agree, we do not create the souls. We contribute the sperm and egg to make the body, but since God infuses the soul at the moment of conception, it’s fair to say that we cooperated with God to create a new person (soul).

 

[mardukm]

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.

I’ve heard/read it phrased both ways. Here’s a statement from the USCCB:
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/seriousq.shtml

Is there a difference from your perspective?

Blessings

 

[Florida_mom]

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.

Not necessarily!

Women have a finite number of eggs with which to conceive.

St. Catherine’s DNA that came from her mother could have still been conceived regardless of the number of children.

Whether her mother had 1, 10, 15, or none–NFP doesn’t interfere with the biology of St.
Catherine’s mothers cycles. If God planned for their to be a St. Catherine–NFP would not have prevented that nor interfered with her coming into this world.

It is likely that St. Catherin would have been #1, 2, or 9 as opposed to 25.

The egg that provided half of St. Catherine’s DNA would not have disappeared in other words! The timing of her existence may have been altered, but St. Catherine could/would have existed.

If this confuses you–there is one (sometimes 2) eggs per cycle–NFP could have been used to not have children for 24 cycles, but on cycle 25–they decide to do so. Egg #25 happens to be Catherine’s egg and voila–she exists perhaps with far fewer siblings.

If this still confuses you, please read up on the female reproductive system.

 

[Florida_mom]

This is closer to how I perceive it. Open to life suggests to me that couples are not doing anything to frustrate the sexual act. It’s a mentality that supports a husband-wife union that is objectively ordered towards procreation. So NFP would be open to life but contraception would not be.

I’ve talked with people who do justify NFP by saying that it’s “open to life” because it’s not as effective as contraception. I think this stems for their confusion that “open to life” means “having the possibility of getting pregnant.” Thus, sterilizations, IUDs, etc are not open to life because they are very effective at preventing pregnancy, whereas NFP is open to life because there’s the possibility that it will fail (sometimes chalked up to divine intervention, as if God could override a fertility cycle but not an intrauterine device, and sometimes attributed to the ineffectiveness of the method itself). I find this reasoning problematic and get frustrated that these people don’t realize that practicing NFP is both open to life and highly effective at preventing pregnancy.

I’m not following how abstinence “frustrates the sexual act” when there is no act taking place to frustrate.

It could follow that cleaning my house “frustrates the sexual act” b/c I am not openly available to my husband while I am doing a load of dishes.

It is absurd to suggest that NFP frustrates the sexual at when the observences are made outside of the act (when going to the bathroom or upon waking in the morning).

For NFP to be sinful–a number of life experiences both voluntary and involuntary would have to be considered sinful for frustrating the act by either delaying it or making it impossible all together.

Taking care of the kids.
Doing laundry.
Running to the store on an errand.
Completing tax forms.
Vacuuming.
Dusting.
Exercising.
Playing piano.
Taking the cat to the vet.
Employment.
Urination.
Showering.
Cleaning the pool.
Giving birth (sorry honey–I need to push the baby out right now–I apologize for frustrating the sexual act.)

As asenine as these things are–it is tantamount to a sin if NFP is to be considered a sin for mere abstinence.

NFP is open to life b/c in any instance–you can opt to procreate and if God plans for a child–He’ll make it happen. Far more difficult when humans put in barriers to kill off life.

 

[kage_ar]

I’ve heard/read it phrased both ways. Here’s a statement from the USCCB:
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/seriousq.shtml

Is there a difference from your perspective?

Blessings

Just and Grave are different words, they carry different meanings.

Just is a positive word.

1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations. 2.done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply. 3.based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim. 4.in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis. 5.given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty. 6.in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right: just proportions. 7.(esp. in Biblical use) righteous.8.actual, real, or genuine.

Grave has a different meaning:

1.serious or solemn; sober: a grave person; grave thoughts. 2.weighty, momentous, or important: grave responsibilities. 3.threatening a seriously bad outcome or involving serious issues; critical: a grave situation; a grave illness.

A reason may be just - like (as the CCC says) spacing of children - and not grave.

 

[nodito]

I’m not following how abstinence “frustrates the sexual act” when there is no act taking place to frustrate. It is absurd to suggest that NFP frustrates the sexual at when the observences are made outside of the act (when going to the bathroom or upon waking in the morning).

Florida Mom, please reread my post. I wrote:

Open to life suggests to me that couples are not doing anything to frustrate the sexual act. It’s a mentality that supports a husband-wife union that is objectively ordered towards procreation. So NFP would be open to life but contraception would not be.

That is, I believe NFP is open to life. I believe it does not frustrate the sexual act.

NFP is open to life b/c … if God plans for a child–He’ll make it happen. Far more difficult when humans put in barriers to kill off life.

No. See, this is the logic I’m disputing. NFP is open to life because the sexual act is ordered towards procreation. It is *not * because God can “override” the natural fertility cycle more easily than he can override contraception. God is God. He can do anything he likes. It’s not “more difficult” for him to create a child when someone is using artificial contraception. But God works with the nature he designed. He doesn’t spontaneously make women get pregnant. So what I’m suggesting is that even though natural family planning is as effective at preventing pregnancy as contraception, it is still open to life. Contraception is not open to life, not because it’s more difficult for God to create a new person when someone’s contracepting, but because by contracepting the couple deliberatly frustrates the sexual act.

 

[Florida_mom]

Florida Mom, please reread my post. I wrote:

That is, I believe NFP is open to life. I believe it does not frustrate the sexual act.

No. See, this is the logic I’m disputing. NFP is open to life because the sexual act is ordered towards procreation. It is *not * because God can “override” the natural fertility cycle more easily than he can override contraception. God is God. He can do anything he likes. It’s not “more difficult” for him to create a child when someone is using artificial contraception. But God works with the nature he designed. He doesn’t spontaneously make women get pregnant. So what I’m suggesting is that even though natural family planning is as effective at preventing pregnancy as contraception, it is still open to life. Contraception is not open to life, not because it’s more difficult for God to create a new person when someone’s contracepting, but because by contracepting the couple deliberatly frustrates the sexual act.

My apologies–on the latter portion I am not entirely in disagreement–I just see it a bit differently.

How else would one explain the story of a woman that I knew–met her in my Lamaze class while pregnant with my first child. They were infertile for over 10 years and finally adopted. She was in Lamaze class as they hadn’t utilized any birth control b/c they were told adamently that she was unable to conceive–yet she did. To say that God had no hand in that–is to devalue His power and His authority. Out of over one hundred cycles, God just had an off day versus showing this couple grace of their compassion and obedience and oopsie–her reproductive cycle just decided to cooperate?

Aside from Mary, no he isn’t spontaneously impregnating any woman who does not engage in the marital act. But to say that he is not part of that does not sit well with me.
We are created in His image and everything about us is God’s design. There is a reason that we have a “wanting” to be with our spouse. Anticipation and enjoyment of the act is His gift to us.

Contraception is the act of Satan’s forces to have humans believe they can truly do whatever they want and control whatever they want in spite of God.

These NFP observations that are being condemned–are physical signs that God provided. I think most of the anti’s forget about that. It isn’t like Satan decided that women should have mucous to avoid creating any more Faithful. Man didn’t invent hormones that cause temperature rise. Man didn’t manufacture the cervix.

The body in and of itself is not a sin–nor is observing the systems contained with in for how they work and what they do. It is when we take that knowledge to do wrong–that’s when it is sinful. Abstaining is not morally wrong within the Bible or within the church. It is when it is used for bad (i.e. “never have children so that we can live the life that we want”) that it is sinful.

I take exception with NFP being referred to as "contra"ception when NFP is not against anything or stopping anything.

 

[budgie2]

This is closer to how I perceive it. Open to life suggests to me that couples are not doing anything to frustrate the sexual act. It’s a mentality that supports a husband-wife union that is objectively ordered towards procreation. So NFP would be open to life but contraception would not be.

I’ve talked with people who do justify NFP by saying that it’s “open to life” because it’s not as effective as contraception. I think this stems for their confusion that “open to life” means “having the possibility of getting pregnant.” Thus, sterilizations, IUDs, etc are not open to life because they are very effective at preventing pregnancy, whereas NFP is open to life because there’s the possibility that it will fail (sometimes chalked up to divine intervention, as if God could override a fertility cycle but not an intrauterine device, and sometimes attributed to the ineffectiveness of the method itself). I find this reasoning problematic and get frustrated that these people don’t realize that practicing NFP is both open to life and highly effective at preventing pregnancy.

I do not believe NFP is open to life if a couple are following it’s rules rigorously and, as has been previously said, it is 99% effective against pregnancy whereas a non-spermicidal condom is 90%. It has a higher effectiveness against pregnancy than many other forms of birth control when followed strictly. However, a couple who are committed to using NFP may be less likely to opt for sterilisation although it’s still possible and I’ve read that some couples that used NFP for a while then had sterilisations. Sterilisation is probably one of the major factors for the reduction in family size alongside divorce. Condoms slip. Sterilisation makes a person permanently infertile unless they choose reversal. However, it’s not the worst form as it’s not abortifiacient. Abortifacient forms of contraception are worse such as contraceptive pill/morning after pill aswell as abortion pills and surgical abortion.

 

[bobzills]

Just and Grave are different words, they carry different meanings.

A reason may be just - like (as the CCC says) spacing of children - and not grave.

Of course, you are absolutely correct in this and mardukm is absolutely wrong.

 

[foolishmortal]

It’s admirable of people doing it, if those reasons are restricted, as it sounds complicated as heck. Separate the act from the natural outcome and you’ve got problems, due to psychological reasons. It sounds good on paper, but it’s easily abused. That is why sex being only for the generation of children adds reason to faith for a total Catholic perception of this. I guess, if a couple can’t control themselves or find a deeper bonding method than sex, it beats contraception, but I think it carries with it the contraceptive mentality that makes the cart go before the horse with pleasure being more primary than procreation.
If sterilization of people is similar to the sterilization of animals and sex between chickens during an infertile time is how we get eggs you can eat, I don't see why the macro-evolution radical liberals, who see us as elevated animals aren't all over it, except it doesn't make easy money and convenient for people.

 

[Florida_mom]

sex between chickens during an infertile time is how we get eggs you can eat

It’s hard to take your post seriously when you don’t know that hens do not require a rooster to lay an egg.

The eggs we eat are unfertilized and laid without assistance of a rooster.



NFP is NOT a complicated process…it could be complicated discipline based on the partipants–but it is not a complicated process. No more complicated than that hen laying her egg ALONE!

 

[Pug]

NFP is NOT a complicated process…it could be complicated discipline based on the partipants–but it is not a complicated process. No more complicated than that hen laying her egg ALONE!

I think some of the methods of NFP (to avoid) are more difficult to learn and execute than others. Sympto-Thermal is a total pain. It has a large gap between method and user effectiveness (98% drops to 80%). I’ve wondered if that is due to the difficulty involved in charting, waking up on the dot each day at the same time, etc. The standard days method, although having a lower method effectiveness, doesn’t suffer quite the same drop for user effectiveness (95% drops to 88%). I assume this is because of ease of use? I think it would be noticeably harder to learn sympto-thermal than to learn standard days for your average couple.

Figures for NFP obtained here. Scroll to bottom of page, and convert from 100%. Compare those user effectiveness ratings to a condom, for example. I see that figure running at 85% here. (they don’t say, but I believe that is a user effectiveness quote based on other figures I’ve seen). I offer these comparison percentages since there seems to be an air of discussion here about a method being okay depending on how effective it is. (I don’t think effectiveness is the distinguishing factor, myself).

 

[foolishmortal]

It’s hard to take your post seriously when you don’t know that hens do not require a rooster to lay an egg.

The eggs we eat are unfertilized and laid without assistance of a rooster.

Are you serious? That discredits whatever I’ve written or do you just not like to hear that NFP is Catholic contraception, though the act itself is not an intrinsic evil–but then neither is moving Ascension Thursday (and similar weekday holydays) to Sunday, so theologically-lapsed Catholics don’t get put-out about having to go on a weekday (which could be another reason?). Just because it’s technically OK doesn’t make it a reasonable thing to do. It’s time to bring back the pre V2 disciplines. We’ve gotten too soft except, maybe, pro-life stuff. It seems the way to avoid fixing the kind of problems that kept liturgical texts from being closer in meaning to its Latin version recently and sending away misbehaving clergy, because that, I believe, leads to people voting for politicians like Obama.

Maybe the mucous version happened pre-V2, but little soft thinking was done then and people did not depend on sex to stay close then.

 

[Florida_mom]

It’s hard to take your post seriously when you don’t know that hens do not require a rooster to lay an egg.

The eggs we eat are unfertilized and laid without assistance of a rooster.

Are you serious? That discredits whatever I’ve written or do you just not like to hear that NFP is Catholic contraception, though the act itself is not an intrinsic evil–but then neither is moving Ascension Thursday (and similar weekday holydays) to Sunday, so theologically-lapsed Catholics don’t get put-out about having to go on a weekday (which could be another reason?). Just because it’s technically OK doesn’t make it a reasonable thing to do. It’s time to bring back the pre V2 disciplines. We’ve gotten too soft except, maybe, pro-life stuff. It seems the way to avoid fixing the kind of problems that kept liturgical texts from being closer in meaning to its Latin version recently and sending away misbehaving clergy, because that, I believe, leads to people voting for politicians like Obama.

Maybe the mucous version happened pre-V2, but little soft thinking was done then and people did not depend on sex to stay close then.

Yes, when you throw around analogies with falsehoods–it is difficult to find the rest of the post to be cogent.

Then we have to question why the act is pleasurable at all if there is to be no enjoyment out of it.

One would have to question if from 4 days post ovulation up to the final day of the cycle (possibily up to 2 weeks) is then immoral when no children can be created b/c there is no egg.

Or if anovulatory cycles in which the couple engage in the act–is the couple sinning?

Quite the conundrum.

People voted for Obama b/c he was black and not George Bush.

Abstinence is not a contraception which prevents pregnancy during the sexual act.

Let’s look at the definition, shall we?

con·tra·cep·tion (kŏn’trə-sěp’shən)
n. Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

[contra- + (con)ception.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

contraception

Any practice that serves to prevent conception during sexual activity.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

Are we really saying that virgins who are abstaining until marriage are contracepting?

Or spouses that are on TDY in the Middle East are contracepting?

Am I contracepting right now b/c I am not engaging in the marital act at this very moment? No!

Am I altering my or my husbands body in any way to prevent pregnancy? No!

Am I altering the act or frustrating it in any way if we don’t engage in the act this Saturday? No! (Well actually yes, b/c I’d be in phase III and it would be impossible to conceive–but then again, is it a sin if my body is unable regardless of what my chart might indicate the rest of this month without me providing any private information to you as to what happened this month including my husband being out of country for 2 weeks.)

It is a spiritual stretch to call abstinence or failure to engage in the act as a contraceptive unless the church is calling for deliberate daily sexual activity in order to increase the chances of conceiving each and every month (until one is pregnant, then is the failure to not be able to get pregnant again for 9 months a frustration of the sexual act due to the current pregnancy?)

I know the purists would like to claim there is sinning–but then one must ask if they are engaging in that which they believe is sin?

On your last statement–so you are saying that any and all sex from Original Sin until Vatican II was simply to procreate? If he didn’t design it for closeness, he would have us mate like the 4 legged creatures. He would not have designed us with all the emotions involved in the act. With passion–and love.

If he didn’t intend any of that–we’d mate and be done like the rest of the animal kingdom. You simplify the act too much. A precious gift from God and you are reducing it to untamed animal reproductive behavior.

We become one in our marriage vows and the act solidifies that onenness. Yet it wasn’t about closeness prior to Vatican II.

 

[Pug]

I’ve talked with people who do justify NFP by saying that it’s “open to life” because it’s not as effective as contraception. I think this stems for their confusion that “open to life” means “having the possibility of getting pregnant.” Thus, sterilizations, IUDs, etc are not open to life because they are very effective at preventing pregnancy, whereas NFP is open to life because there’s the possibility that it will fail (sometimes chalked up to divine intervention, as if God could override a fertility cycle but not an intrauterine device, and sometimes attributed to the ineffectiveness of the method itself). I find this reasoning problematic and get frustrated that these people don’t realize that practicing NFP is both open to life and highly effective at preventing pregnancy.

It is frustrating, I agree. I suppose each person grapples with the Church teaching and comes up with a reason to explain to themselves why it is what it is, and the reason that makes sense to them is the one they give for it if someone wants a reason given for the Church teaching.

I’m glad the Church allows infertile couples to have relations, even if they know they are infertile. (Infertile because of pregnancy, loss of a uterus or ovaries to cancer, lack of sperm count, age, time of the cycle, etc.) Otherwise I’d have to sit here and grapple with it and find some reason for that.

 

[budgie2]

Contraception means preventing conception. Yes, I can prevent conception by not having sex. I can also prevent conception by using a contraceptive. Some contraceptives are also abortifacient so abstinence is preferable to the use of a contraceptive. Some times it depends on the intention. It’s up to a married couple when they choose to have sex however, in systematic NFP the intention may be to reduce the possibility of conceiving as far as possible. There’s a difference between abstinence in marriage and abstinence outside of marriage and the two should not be treated the same. We are asked to abstain from sex in extra marital relationships, however, marriage is specifically designed for the procreation and upbringing of children. So NFP could be said to break natural law.

From the Catechism:

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#I

 

[nodito]

Contraception means preventing conception.

No. Contraception speaks of a specific way of preventing conception; it means engaging in the act of sexual intercourse and then doing something (before, during, or after) to render that act infertile. It’s much more than simply preventing conception.

Yes, I can prevent conception by not having sex. I can also prevent conception by using a contraceptive.

Right, there are two different options for preventing conception: abstinence and contraception. Contraception (for example, the pill, withdrawal, an IUD, sterilization, a non-spermicidal condom) are immoral means of preventing conception because they deliberately render the sexual act infertile. By practicing abstinence or using NFP, a person does not render any sexual act infertile, and thus both are moral means of preventing pregnancy.

Some contraceptives are also abortifacient so abstinence is preferable to the use of a contraceptive.

Abstinence is always preferable to using a contraceptove, abortifacient or not.

It’s up to a married couple when they choose to have sex however, in systematic NFP the intention may be to reduce the possibility of conceiving as far as possible.

Yes, and this is permitted by the Church for just reasons.

There’s a difference between abstinence in marriage and abstinence outside of marriage and the two should not be treated the same. We are asked to abstain from sex in extra marital relationships, however, marriage is specifically designed for the procreation and upbringing of children. So NFP could be said to break natural law.

Natural law holds that people and things will flourish when they are treated in accord with their purpose. So, for example, our bodies will be healthy when we eat a balanced diet. Our hearts will be strong and fit when we engage in regular excercise. If, on the other hand, we eat only chocolate cake, or we binge and then purge, or we sit on the couch every day watching TV, our bodies will start to reflect this neglect. We may get sick or stressed or gain weight. This is natural law; anyone can observe it, even those who do not believe in God.

What can natural law teach us about reproduction? Women naturally cycle through periods of fertility and periods of infertility. Sexual intercourse can occur at any time, and no harm occurs when a couple has sex during the infertile period. Anyone can know this simply by observation. It’s part of natural law. Natural family planning is in accord with natural law because couples who use it treat their bodies the way they were designed to be treated. That is, NFP users allow their bodies to cycle through natural periods of fertility and infertility, as in nature. They disrupt nothing. They harm nothing. When they are able to care for a new child, they can time intercourse so that the may become pregnant. When they are unable to care for a new child, they simply abstain during the fertile period. Our bodies will not suffer from disease or infirmity by doing so.

 

[fix]

Contraception means preventing conception.

It means preventing conception while enaging in the act.