Best Biblical support for NFP


What are the best Biblical verses to support NFP? I know the Onan verse, but need some more to help out a buddy. I’ve showed him a few ECF writings and other info but he wants more from the Bible. Thanks for the help.



Here’s a good list of “proof texts.” But, as we all know, the Bible is not the sole authority on matters of faith and morals - the Church is.


Here’s a recent thread discussing the same question…
Hope that helps!


Em_in_FL referred you to a thread above called “NFP Bible Only Explanations.” And in that thread I referred folks to another thread, “Question on permanent birth control:”

Nobeerinheaven, thanks for that reference to Scripture Catholic in post #2. I wasn’t aware of that excellent resource.

Best wishes,


Thanks for the replys… They did help but also led to more confusion for both my friend and I. I will believe what the Church teaches because I’m Catholic and have faith in God’s Church, but it doesn’t work so well to tell a Protestant friend that… as I’m sure you all know. His question now and mine somewhat also is this… which I hope someone can explain:

Why do we sometimes refer to the OT to defend our beliefs and the next time say the OT laws have passed away with the new covenant? This is in reference to several of the Biblical verses used to defend NFP and birth control in particular this one

Lev 21:17-20 – "Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles

I read it and can only assume that these people are unable to serve the sacred food because their defect was caused by their own sins??? Please help me clarify this to my friend as he is at a point of wanting to trust but needs those few things to help him over the hump. Thanks



**Referring specifically to the passage you quoted, Lev. 21:17-20: **

It is true that at least some Jews believed at various points in time that illness, suffering, and handicapping conditions were imposed by God as a punishment for personal sin. Remember the Gospel reading of Jesus healing the man born blind and how the question was asked, “Was the man blind because of his parents’ sin or because of his own sin?” So assumption of sinfulness could have been one reason to refuse priestly service to handicapped/disfigured men in Old Testament times.

This issue may also affected by the idea of wanting to give God the best we have to offer. For example, the lamb or kid goat offered for the Passover sacrifice must be young, healthy, and unblemished, a prefigurement of Jesus’ sinlessness making him the perfect sacrifice in atonement for sin. I’ve heard that at various points in our Catholic Church history, handicapping conditions/disfigurements – even something as simple as being tone-deaf and therefore unable to carry a tune to sing the Mass properly – could eliminate a man from consideration for the (Catholic) priesthood, although I’m sure bishops selecting candidates nowadays are more understanding. :wink:

But I believe the relevance of that particular passage (Lev. 21:17-20) to the topic of BIRTH CONTROL is to point out that crushed (damaged) testicles and the resulting sterility/infertility was considered a DEFECT, so surely no one in his right mind would want to deliberately and voluntarily do that to himself – permanent sterilization through vasectomy or tubal ligation or temporary sterilization through hormonal methods like the Pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, etc. See the point?

On the more general question, “Why do we refer to Old Testament teachings sometimes, but at other times say they don’t apply to us anymore?”:

My understanding is that MORAL TEACHINGS from the Old Testament still apply, e.g. the Ten Commandments. However, specifically Jewish customs like circumcision of newborn males, specific ways to wash hands and dishes to “purify” them, no eating shellfish or pork, no marital relations during menstruation and seven days thereafter, etc. no longer apply after Jesus’ coming.

To me, this sounds similar to how the Catholic Church cannot change settled doctrines in matters of FAITH AND MORALS, but is free to change customs or matters of discipline, e.g. from a married priesthood in early Church times to current requirement of celibate priesthood, what days are Holy Days of Obligation or not, how many hours to fast before receiving Holy Eucharist, what kind of fasting and abstinence regulations to observe Lent, etc.

Is this distinction between teachings on faith and morals – what to believe and what to do regarding duties toward God and duties toward our neighbor – clear? Though many examples are clear-cut, I’m sure we could come up with other examples that might be confusing somewhere in the middle. Maybe bring this question over the “Scripture” Forum?

Best wishes,


Thanks for the info, it does help. I can except these things just because the Church says so, but I’m sure you know it doesn’t work that easy when a Protestant friend asks you to tell them why Catholics believe these things. Thanks again.



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit