Great points in here. When I hear people say this, my first thought is that you must not have ever practiced NFP. It’s a whole different way of thinking and fundamental posture towards sex and the life that comes from it.
I chuckled. But truly, anything other than contraception (of any kind!) was quite literally never taught or even alluded to in my many years as a Protestant. I only learned about my cycle (and therefore everything else downstream of that, thanks to Catholics) in my late twenties. It is the norm for my Christian peers to not only use *any* type of birth control but to get sterilized as a matter of course when they're "done". I have visceral reactions to every casual comment or allusion made to it. I'm looking around wondering if I have a tender conscience or if others' are seared and truly do not care about mutlilating their bodies, among other things. After all, we aren't Meat Lego Gnostics as Mary Harrington coined it. Anyways, thanks for taking the time to write this. It's a way of thinking about sex that is foreign to many.
Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts! I've truly found so much freedom in this area thanks to what the Church teaches. The culture contraception has created boggles my mind.
Hey, either way. It can feel like you are a lone wolf realizing these things as a protestant. When I brought up using NFP with my fellow protestants, I was laughed at an looked at like I was insane. To me it seemed like a Trojan horse had made its way into Christianity with contraception and sterilization.
Excellent read. NFP changed the dynamic of marriage and rally shed a light on some ugly behaviors and misconceptions of sex I had that needed to be dealt with.
Im a better Catholic and husband because of it and now a father with our first in the way in November.
Thank you for sharing and putting the good word out there about NFP. I am in training to become a certified sympto-thermal instructor for our diocese. I am teaching my first class tonight as part of my practicum. I am so excited to get started!
This is awesome! My husband and I learned sympto-thermal during engagement. It wasn't a great fit for us, so we switched to Marquette, but I'm still thankful for everything we learned! :)
There's absolutely no talk of nfp before the 20th century.
The people from the previous centuries of the church weren't too dumb to figure it out, they simply had such radically different values that the question was never discussed.
We ought to seriously consider if our new values are worth keeping. Because they are not serving us well
It is my understanding that there's been a lot of discovery in this area (the role of cervical mucus, temperature, hormones in urine, etc.), so it makes sense that this teaching has developed over time.
The push back against NFP is ultimately a push back against something the Church has taught.
I think the values are serving many couples well by giving them knowledge that isn't given in schools or by many parents today. A woman deserves to know about her body (and go to most OBs and they'll be quick to prescribe the pill without doing ANY digging whatsoever regarding her cycle/hormones), and a husband should know about his wife's body. These leads to a greater understanding of one another.
I'm not going to continue arguing this topic with Catholics, as this post doesnt contradict Church teaching, but defends it.
NFP is a easy way to tell the difference between a trad and a conservative post-V2 Catholic. They aren't wrong per se with all this stuff, but if they had a pre-V2 mindest none of this stuff would even be necessary. A lot of it comes off as trying to sound hip to the world like many evangelical prots do.
"Check us out guys.. ~we have sex~ *wink wink*"
I am not accusing Jamie of doing this, but that is the tone I get from most NFP discussions and I won't pretend it isn't.
As opposed to the previous answer which was incredibly simple. If you're not ready to have a kid ... don't have sex! Telling people to stop worrying and having actually big families (not just 2-6, but potentially 9+) doesn't fall within the approved parameters for what is safe edgy at your typical diocese parish. You can talk about abortion being bad, or gay marriage being fake, Humanae Vitae or the culture of death all day. But don't you dare touch anything that will offend the Suzannes on the parish council. If you suggest people should stop making this complicated and just have a big family, you will be decried as insensitive for not thinking of people's mental health or economic factors. Those things can be valid in serious cases, but in Saint Suburbia almost everyone is way to sensitive to these things which is why we have therapy speak and endless NFP talking sessions.
It is the same way for bringing up the immodest clothing fathers let their wives and daughters wear to Mass and in general. Or bringing up the many crypto-feminist mindsets that many men and women hold. These things are why I became "trad". It was nice to leave the insanity of the secular world when I returned to Catholicism, but I didn't feel truly home in a coherent world until I found the trads. The difference was plain to see. You can hear it in their vocabulary. And not just the latin, but the everyday words people used to describe the world.
The conservative types for the most part will not understand us. Much like how the right understands the left better than vice versa, so it is with the trads and the conservative Catholics.
The Catholic teaching of NFP is that one is only supposed to use it in dire need. Not to deliberately space children, or time them, or anything else. We're supposed to have large families. Examples of Dire need
1. Real financial hardship - already can't pay bills, will lose the house, and can't make more sacrifices (ie - you're already in cheaper cars, don't have boats, aren't trying to keep up with the Jones etc)
2. You can't educate your Children in a Catholic manner already. Very rare.
3. Fear of death of mother, and need to get her health in order. Usually takes 1 year if legit and actually trying with diet, exercise, etc. After that you start having to ask if one is actually pursuing health diligently, if she's able to make a recovery, or if you're making excuses.
The Church doesn't command us to all have large families, and we, as the laity, don't have the authority to put more intense requirements than have been set by the Magisterium.
The Church commands us to be fruitful in our marriages as much as God gives us the ability to be.
From Casti Canubi:
"10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:[9] "These," says St. Augustine, "are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament."[10] And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: "By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained."[11]
11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth."[12] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy[13] when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'."[14]"
From Pius 12 Allocution to Midwives:
"However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.
The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles."
Marriage is primarily ordered to the procreation of children, in natural law and Catholic teaching. All other blessings of marriage flow from that. The use of NFP in any other way other than dire need is outside of Catholic teachings, against natural law, and against traditional teachings of the Catholic Church
I agree, but no where does it say we must have large families.
It's also important to recognize the varied life circumstances of families! You or I can't give a list and say "these are the only reasons where NFP can be used". The Church is vague for a reason.
God bless! Praise God for all the children He does bless us with!
The Church isn't vague. The Church says dire needs, and says that outside of those dire needs that the married couple does violence to their marriage if they use NFP in a contraceptive manner as it violates the principles and foundational purpose of marriage.
As such, the majority of Catholic marriages should, barring fertility issues, have large families.
I don't have the book with me at the moment and can't quote it, but can try to find it another day, but St. JPII brings up the topic of large families in A Theology of the Body.
I'm not concerned about how many kids other people are having. We should be more concerned about Catholics using contraception than Catholics who are trying to follow the Church's guidance.
I choose to focus on God's call for the family He's placed in front of me and constantly remain open to Him in all ways. I'll continue encouraging others to do the same, even when it doesn't make sense! The beauty of our faith is the personal relationship we can have with our Lord.
I can see that you love the Church and have good intentions! Know that we are on the same "side".
An interesting post. I would argue, however, that NFP is clearly against Scripture... both as a form of contraception and in that it is directly against God's clear commands.
I certainly can. I have written whole posts on this but in brief:
1) The point of ‘contraception’ is ‘contra’ (against) ‘ception’ (Conception, conceiving a child). Obviously the ‘normal’ forms of contraception have that as their goal, and add in the goal of getting to have sex to. Some of them actually murder the child.
NFP (which I have practiced) shares the goal of not conceiving a child. If you wished to conceive, or were neutral toward it, you would not be practicing NFP. You use it because you are contra-conception.
(The name is also very close to the blaphemous ‘planned parenthood’ group of murderers.)
2) The Scriptures are clear that sexual activity is required in marriage. It states that the only permissible exception is for a short period of mutually agreed prayer and fasting. Not for preventing conception.
NFP is not only against these clear Scriptures, but does so in the most anti-Biblical way. God created man and woman, husband and wife, to most desire sex during a woman’s fertile period. That is literally how God designed us, and it is precisely then that NFP comes along and says ‘don’t have sex’.
So it is an immoral action (witholding sex) for an immoral reason (preventing conception).
There's nothing preventing the conception of a child, though. This is a big point I tried to emphasize in this post.
Sex is good, but so is self-control. Acting on our desires isn't always permissible. I'm sure we can both agree that abstaining is sometimes necessary in marriage, whether it be because of health, a concern during pregnancy, postpartum, etc. Couples should learn to love each other fully, not just sexually.
Where does scripture command a married couple to have sex?
One could take a different approach to your point on the desire being highest during the fertile times: it is a great opportunity to grow in virtue. It is in those moments when we have the most desire for something and don't proceed that we can experience the greatest growth. Self-mastery leads to self-gift.
>>One could take a different approach to your point on the desire being highest during the fertile times: it is a great opportunity to grow in virtue.
One could take that position if:
1) One ignored creation and
2) One could point to some Scripture that said that abstaining from sex in marriage for the purpose of not conceiving children led to virtue. Defrauding your spouse is not a virtuous action.
>>There's nothing preventing the conception of a child, though.
Well, yes, there is... the failure to have sex. The goal of the failure to have sex is that a child not be concieved.
Because, well, let me propose an alternate. Suppose that I agreed with you about marital abstinence leading to virtue. And so I proposed an alternate schedule. Suppose that I proposed that the couple not have sex during her period, and not have sex in the three days after her period, or the week before they think her period will begin. That would be, what, seventeen days of the twenty eight? (assuming clockwork periods). Seventeen days out of 28, that's pretty strict, eh? That will put some virtue into them. Why not accept that schedule...?
Because the goal of NFP is... to not conceive a child. To avoid conception. To avoid God's blessing of a child.
Not having sex isn't a "failure", though. Is it sinful to not have sex when the women is fertile for reasons such as my husband traveling for work?
You are describing the rhythm method, which isn't used by anyone, and those 17 days you've proposed are the infertile days, not the fertile days (assuming the 28 day cycle that you are presenting)
NFP is actually twofold: fertility awareness and discernment. It's not meant to be mechanical. Prayer is constantly involved. It can also be used to conceive.
>>You are describing the rhythm method, which isn't used by anyone, and those 17 days you've proposed are the infertile days, not the fertile days (assuming the 28 day cycle that you are presenting)
Yeah, that was my point. Suppose that you decided to increase your virtue by ONLY HAVING SEX during the FERTILE days. Let us assume that you abstain the exact same number of days as for NFP.
The difference between these two systems would be that NFP is contra-conception... its goal is that a child not be conceived.
>>Is it sinful to not have sex when the women is fertile for reasons such as my husband traveling for work?
When one cannot have sex, one is not 'abstaining'. If your husband dies, you do not then 'abstain' from sex. (Well, except for fornicaiton and adultery). One 'abstains' when your husband is home, and you do not have sex with him. When you could, but you do something else instead.
The verb 'fail to' means 'don't' in normal speech.
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
"Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control." - 1 Corinthians 7:5 sounds a lot like NFP!
1) It calls a lack of sex ‘depriving’, not growth in virtue. (The best translation is ‘defraud’)
2) It is just for a short time.
3) It acknowledges that a lack of sex leads to lack of self-control via Satan’s temptation.
AND
4) The reason is not ‘in order to avoid having a child’.
(And that is a really bad translation! It even deleted fasting! LITV:
1Co 7:5 Do not deprive one another, unless by agreement for a time, that you may be free for fasting and prayer. And come together again on the same place, that Satan may not tempt you through your incontinence.)
Suppose that I were to say that because I believed in self-mastery I was going to abstain from exercise for part of the month. Unless I was some hunk totally addicted to exercise you would probably look at me funny and say, "Ummm, I think you have that backwards. I think you will get self-mastery by exercising MORE, not LESS."
I would propose the same thing for modern couples. Compared to our forebears we are probably having a lot less sex. We are watching TV, catching up on social media, etc etc. How about if, instead, every time you were tempted to watch TV or scroll FB... you went and had sex with your spouse instead?
Great points in here. When I hear people say this, my first thought is that you must not have ever practiced NFP. It’s a whole different way of thinking and fundamental posture towards sex and the life that comes from it.
Absolutely. Thanks for reading!
I give this message a P rating, which means suitable for all Protestant audiences. Seriously, this is something protestants never hear but need to.
I chuckled. But truly, anything other than contraception (of any kind!) was quite literally never taught or even alluded to in my many years as a Protestant. I only learned about my cycle (and therefore everything else downstream of that, thanks to Catholics) in my late twenties. It is the norm for my Christian peers to not only use *any* type of birth control but to get sterilized as a matter of course when they're "done". I have visceral reactions to every casual comment or allusion made to it. I'm looking around wondering if I have a tender conscience or if others' are seared and truly do not care about mutlilating their bodies, among other things. After all, we aren't Meat Lego Gnostics as Mary Harrington coined it. Anyways, thanks for taking the time to write this. It's a way of thinking about sex that is foreign to many.
Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts! I've truly found so much freedom in this area thanks to what the Church teaches. The culture contraception has created boggles my mind.
I'm a convert too and empathize completely.
Oh, I should clarify I’m not Catholic! 😅 Maybe I phrased “years as a Protestant” weird.
Hey, either way. It can feel like you are a lone wolf realizing these things as a protestant. When I brought up using NFP with my fellow protestants, I was laughed at an looked at like I was insane. To me it seemed like a Trojan horse had made its way into Christianity with contraception and sterilization.
Thank you! I hope it comes across in a way that would be received well.
Excellent read. NFP changed the dynamic of marriage and rally shed a light on some ugly behaviors and misconceptions of sex I had that needed to be dealt with.
Im a better Catholic and husband because of it and now a father with our first in the way in November.
This is beautiful! NFP has the potential to bring so much freedom.
Congrats!! New life is such a miracle. Praise God!
That’s exactly it. It really is freedom. I’ll keep spreading the word about this. Even in my channel!
Thank you ! Looking forward to meeting him. 🥹
This is great Jamie!!! ❤️
Thank you! :)
Thank you for sharing and putting the good word out there about NFP. I am in training to become a certified sympto-thermal instructor for our diocese. I am teaching my first class tonight as part of my practicum. I am so excited to get started!
This is awesome! My husband and I learned sympto-thermal during engagement. It wasn't a great fit for us, so we switched to Marquette, but I'm still thankful for everything we learned! :)
I have used Marquette as well. I think it’s great that this system exists as well and that we have options that can meet diverse needs!
There's absolutely no talk of nfp before the 20th century.
The people from the previous centuries of the church weren't too dumb to figure it out, they simply had such radically different values that the question was never discussed.
We ought to seriously consider if our new values are worth keeping. Because they are not serving us well
It is my understanding that there's been a lot of discovery in this area (the role of cervical mucus, temperature, hormones in urine, etc.), so it makes sense that this teaching has developed over time.
The push back against NFP is ultimately a push back against something the Church has taught.
I think the values are serving many couples well by giving them knowledge that isn't given in schools or by many parents today. A woman deserves to know about her body (and go to most OBs and they'll be quick to prescribe the pill without doing ANY digging whatsoever regarding her cycle/hormones), and a husband should know about his wife's body. These leads to a greater understanding of one another.
I'm not going to continue arguing this topic with Catholics, as this post doesnt contradict Church teaching, but defends it.
Have a blessed day!
I'm extremely skeptical of any argument which starts with "we are now smarter than the fathers of the church"
NFP is a easy way to tell the difference between a trad and a conservative post-V2 Catholic. They aren't wrong per se with all this stuff, but if they had a pre-V2 mindest none of this stuff would even be necessary. A lot of it comes off as trying to sound hip to the world like many evangelical prots do.
"Check us out guys.. ~we have sex~ *wink wink*"
I am not accusing Jamie of doing this, but that is the tone I get from most NFP discussions and I won't pretend it isn't.
As opposed to the previous answer which was incredibly simple. If you're not ready to have a kid ... don't have sex! Telling people to stop worrying and having actually big families (not just 2-6, but potentially 9+) doesn't fall within the approved parameters for what is safe edgy at your typical diocese parish. You can talk about abortion being bad, or gay marriage being fake, Humanae Vitae or the culture of death all day. But don't you dare touch anything that will offend the Suzannes on the parish council. If you suggest people should stop making this complicated and just have a big family, you will be decried as insensitive for not thinking of people's mental health or economic factors. Those things can be valid in serious cases, but in Saint Suburbia almost everyone is way to sensitive to these things which is why we have therapy speak and endless NFP talking sessions.
It is the same way for bringing up the immodest clothing fathers let their wives and daughters wear to Mass and in general. Or bringing up the many crypto-feminist mindsets that many men and women hold. These things are why I became "trad". It was nice to leave the insanity of the secular world when I returned to Catholicism, but I didn't feel truly home in a coherent world until I found the trads. The difference was plain to see. You can hear it in their vocabulary. And not just the latin, but the everyday words people used to describe the world.
The conservative types for the most part will not understand us. Much like how the right understands the left better than vice versa, so it is with the trads and the conservative Catholics.
The Catholic teaching of NFP is that one is only supposed to use it in dire need. Not to deliberately space children, or time them, or anything else. We're supposed to have large families. Examples of Dire need
1. Real financial hardship - already can't pay bills, will lose the house, and can't make more sacrifices (ie - you're already in cheaper cars, don't have boats, aren't trying to keep up with the Jones etc)
2. You can't educate your Children in a Catholic manner already. Very rare.
3. Fear of death of mother, and need to get her health in order. Usually takes 1 year if legit and actually trying with diet, exercise, etc. After that you start having to ask if one is actually pursuing health diligently, if she's able to make a recovery, or if you're making excuses.
The Church doesn't command us to all have large families, and we, as the laity, don't have the authority to put more intense requirements than have been set by the Magisterium.
The Church commands us to be fruitful in our marriages as much as God gives us the ability to be.
From Casti Canubi:
"10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:[9] "These," says St. Augustine, "are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament."[10] And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: "By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained."[11]
11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth."[12] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy[13] when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'."[14]"
From Pius 12 Allocution to Midwives:
"However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.
The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles."
Marriage is primarily ordered to the procreation of children, in natural law and Catholic teaching. All other blessings of marriage flow from that. The use of NFP in any other way other than dire need is outside of Catholic teachings, against natural law, and against traditional teachings of the Catholic Church
I agree, but no where does it say we must have large families.
It's also important to recognize the varied life circumstances of families! You or I can't give a list and say "these are the only reasons where NFP can be used". The Church is vague for a reason.
God bless! Praise God for all the children He does bless us with!
Jamie,
The Church isn't vague. The Church says dire needs, and says that outside of those dire needs that the married couple does violence to their marriage if they use NFP in a contraceptive manner as it violates the principles and foundational purpose of marriage.
As such, the majority of Catholic marriages should, barring fertility issues, have large families.
I don't have the book with me at the moment and can't quote it, but can try to find it another day, but St. JPII brings up the topic of large families in A Theology of the Body.
I'm not concerned about how many kids other people are having. We should be more concerned about Catholics using contraception than Catholics who are trying to follow the Church's guidance.
I choose to focus on God's call for the family He's placed in front of me and constantly remain open to Him in all ways. I'll continue encouraging others to do the same, even when it doesn't make sense! The beauty of our faith is the personal relationship we can have with our Lord.
I can see that you love the Church and have good intentions! Know that we are on the same "side".
Theology of the Body is heterodox and goes against Church traditions. It needs to be discarded and thrown out wholesale.
An interesting post. I would argue, however, that NFP is clearly against Scripture... both as a form of contraception and in that it is directly against God's clear commands.
Could you expand on this?
I certainly can. I have written whole posts on this but in brief:
1) The point of ‘contraception’ is ‘contra’ (against) ‘ception’ (Conception, conceiving a child). Obviously the ‘normal’ forms of contraception have that as their goal, and add in the goal of getting to have sex to. Some of them actually murder the child.
NFP (which I have practiced) shares the goal of not conceiving a child. If you wished to conceive, or were neutral toward it, you would not be practicing NFP. You use it because you are contra-conception.
(The name is also very close to the blaphemous ‘planned parenthood’ group of murderers.)
2) The Scriptures are clear that sexual activity is required in marriage. It states that the only permissible exception is for a short period of mutually agreed prayer and fasting. Not for preventing conception.
NFP is not only against these clear Scriptures, but does so in the most anti-Biblical way. God created man and woman, husband and wife, to most desire sex during a woman’s fertile period. That is literally how God designed us, and it is precisely then that NFP comes along and says ‘don’t have sex’.
So it is an immoral action (witholding sex) for an immoral reason (preventing conception).
There's nothing preventing the conception of a child, though. This is a big point I tried to emphasize in this post.
Sex is good, but so is self-control. Acting on our desires isn't always permissible. I'm sure we can both agree that abstaining is sometimes necessary in marriage, whether it be because of health, a concern during pregnancy, postpartum, etc. Couples should learn to love each other fully, not just sexually.
Where does scripture command a married couple to have sex?
One could take a different approach to your point on the desire being highest during the fertile times: it is a great opportunity to grow in virtue. It is in those moments when we have the most desire for something and don't proceed that we can experience the greatest growth. Self-mastery leads to self-gift.
>>One could take a different approach to your point on the desire being highest during the fertile times: it is a great opportunity to grow in virtue.
One could take that position if:
1) One ignored creation and
2) One could point to some Scripture that said that abstaining from sex in marriage for the purpose of not conceiving children led to virtue. Defrauding your spouse is not a virtuous action.
>>There's nothing preventing the conception of a child, though.
Well, yes, there is... the failure to have sex. The goal of the failure to have sex is that a child not be concieved.
Because, well, let me propose an alternate. Suppose that I agreed with you about marital abstinence leading to virtue. And so I proposed an alternate schedule. Suppose that I proposed that the couple not have sex during her period, and not have sex in the three days after her period, or the week before they think her period will begin. That would be, what, seventeen days of the twenty eight? (assuming clockwork periods). Seventeen days out of 28, that's pretty strict, eh? That will put some virtue into them. Why not accept that schedule...?
Because the goal of NFP is... to not conceive a child. To avoid conception. To avoid God's blessing of a child.
Not having sex isn't a "failure", though. Is it sinful to not have sex when the women is fertile for reasons such as my husband traveling for work?
You are describing the rhythm method, which isn't used by anyone, and those 17 days you've proposed are the infertile days, not the fertile days (assuming the 28 day cycle that you are presenting)
NFP is actually twofold: fertility awareness and discernment. It's not meant to be mechanical. Prayer is constantly involved. It can also be used to conceive.
>>You are describing the rhythm method, which isn't used by anyone, and those 17 days you've proposed are the infertile days, not the fertile days (assuming the 28 day cycle that you are presenting)
Yeah, that was my point. Suppose that you decided to increase your virtue by ONLY HAVING SEX during the FERTILE days. Let us assume that you abstain the exact same number of days as for NFP.
The difference between these two systems would be that NFP is contra-conception... its goal is that a child not be conceived.
>>Is it sinful to not have sex when the women is fertile for reasons such as my husband traveling for work?
When one cannot have sex, one is not 'abstaining'. If your husband dies, you do not then 'abstain' from sex. (Well, except for fornicaiton and adultery). One 'abstains' when your husband is home, and you do not have sex with him. When you could, but you do something else instead.
The verb 'fail to' means 'don't' in normal speech.
Scripture: (Note: Duty of marriage is a euphemism for sex)
Exo 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Scripture: (Note the word 'defraud')
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
"Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control." - 1 Corinthians 7:5 sounds a lot like NFP!
Except for all the ways it doesn’t:
1) It calls a lack of sex ‘depriving’, not growth in virtue. (The best translation is ‘defraud’)
2) It is just for a short time.
3) It acknowledges that a lack of sex leads to lack of self-control via Satan’s temptation.
AND
4) The reason is not ‘in order to avoid having a child’.
(And that is a really bad translation! It even deleted fasting! LITV:
1Co 7:5 Do not deprive one another, unless by agreement for a time, that you may be free for fasting and prayer. And come together again on the same place, that Satan may not tempt you through your incontinence.)
Scripture:
Pro 5:15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.
Pro 5:16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.
Pro 5:17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee.
Pro 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Pro 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
>>Self-mastery leads to self-gift.
Oh, I believe in self-mastery but...
Suppose that I were to say that because I believed in self-mastery I was going to abstain from exercise for part of the month. Unless I was some hunk totally addicted to exercise you would probably look at me funny and say, "Ummm, I think you have that backwards. I think you will get self-mastery by exercising MORE, not LESS."
I would propose the same thing for modern couples. Compared to our forebears we are probably having a lot less sex. We are watching TV, catching up on social media, etc etc. How about if, instead, every time you were tempted to watch TV or scroll FB... you went and had sex with your spouse instead?