NFP sinful


#1

I still do not see the difference between NFP and ABC as both are deliberately preventing conception. I found the following article which I agree with.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/42_NFP.pdf

Please read the article and comment. Thank you!


#2

As you were told in the other thread you posted concerning whether Vatican II was a heresy:The site you linked to is in schism. “Be extremely cautious about this using this website or reading its materials, for they do not believe that the Pope is the Pope (they accuse Pope Benedict XVI of heresy – and that he, JPII, JPI, Paul VI, and John XXIII were antipopes) and they are not in communion with Rome.”

Do not trust, and please stop posting links to, sites that are in schism and are spreading false beliefs while pretending to be Catholic.


#3

Before reading the article, I took a look at the rest of the website.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/john_paul_ii_heresies_file.php


#4

Yes…I know I was told to stay away from this site and that it is a schism.

However…what they write about NFP makes sense.

As I said I could never see the difference between ABC and NFP. Both are intentional pregnancy prevention.


#5

See…I don’t think these people are pretending to be Catholic. I think they are of the Catholic church of old hanging on to truths.

I do believe that the Catholic church is truth, but could it be that the church has somewhat changed with the world? NFP is a fairly new idea don’t you think?


#6

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

  1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

  1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.


vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

NFP is a form of “periodic continence”


#7

Right certainly a site to stay away from…and certainly not a reliable source. As they say “consider the source”.

If one looks more into the site one finds that they are acting contrary to the Church.

As to the difference between Contraception (better term than ABC) and NFP --there is a huge difference and we look to the Catholic Church in understanding such.

Lots has been written on this.


#8

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

  1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

  1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.


vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

NFP is a form of “periodic continence”


#9

I am still not convinced about NFP bookcat. I honestly think NFP and ABC are wrong. If we are all to be good Catholics, I feel we need to be open to life at all times and not be frustrated with taking a pill or watching a chart.


#10

The article argues that the sin of contraception is:
“to deliberately avoid the conception of a child while carrying out the marital act.”

NFP in essence does not actually contradict this definition for one. Every marital act while using NFP can be done with complete acceptance of a couple’s fertility at that point and time which is all your article is demanding. Its not demanding the couple always strive to conceive, but rather can be ambivalent. The problem the author of the article has is that they have to add the qualifier “while carrying out the marital act” or else complete abstinence for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy also becomes a sin.

Action wise NFP only differs from just having sex whenever the mood suits you in that the couple chooses to abstain during certain parts of the month. Your article above included the qualifier “while carrying out the marital act” thus I can only conclude the action of abstaining is not a sin, because it does not occur during the marital act. Thus the actions of NFP are not sinful in and of themselves… The object of the actions committed during NFP are not sinful in and of themselves, which is the first question that must be asked when considering the morality of an action.

This only leaves the ends or intention with which NFP is used to be subject to disapproval. The ends of NFP are to avoid pregnancy when a serious reason for doing so arises. This is the same ends as complete abstinence would have were that being practiced by the couple.

Thus it can only be concluded that if you are going to reject NFP as a means to avoid pregnancy you must also reject abstinence and make the intention of avoiding pregnancy in general a moral evil. Since this is not the case and not what your article is arguing it should be concluded that NFP is morally permissible.

If you wish to show NFP is immoral you will have to show that the object or means used while using NFP are immoral in and of themselves or you will have to commit to saying abstinence in general for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy is intrinsically evil.


#11

Yes, I know lots has been written on this. However, is it an attempt to convince ourselves that NFP is ok when in reality it is not.


#12

OK…that is a good point. Something to think about as I try to grasp the concept.

My problem is perhaps I think to much. :smiley:


#13

Thankfully feeling has less to do with things.

Periodic Continence has been a moral approach for years…even prior to newer NFP approaches. Something the Church teaches is a moral approach.

One who uses NFP for the right reasons is certainly open to life.


#14

I could understand someone believing NFP is sinful if they thought abstinence with the intention to avoid pregnancy was sinful, otherwise it just doesn’t add up. The author of your article making sure to say “while committing the marital act” seems to disqualify that this notion is being made though.


#15

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=9085334&postcount=7


#16

#17

In reality with your thread, you are opening the debate concerning some topics of family life:

  • Responsible procreation is a principle or an exception? What is it exactly ? (N.F.P., take care or educate, debate on the theological and philosophical basis of Humanae vitae);

  • Finalities of marriage (primary purposes, secundary purposes before vatican II and the same level like in Humanae Vitae);

  • Conjugal act (general meaning, meaning of sexual pleasure, meaning of conjugal orgasm - why, what for - ; material element, intellectual element, when, where, how before and after the act itself; the limits of sexual pleasure - how to evaluate the moderation - ; wife impotence, husband impotence in the catholic meaning);

  • Wife role and husband role in the couple and in the family;

In my opinion, before to discuss about those subtopics, it is important to avoid the following approaches:

Absolute Procreationsim, Theoretical Providentialism, Pharisianism, Legalism and Juridicism, Externalism, Prejudicism ; Rigorism; Obscuranticism ; Primary Anti-personalism.


#18

Please take the advice of others who have given valid reasons for staying away from that website.If you have any questions re NFP and clarification as to why it is nothing like ABC read Humane Vitae,This will clear up any confusion re NFP. Holy Mother Church is very wise ::wink:


#19

If I understand this document and if the writer keeps its absolute logic, he should state that :

it is objectively sinful to practice conjugal act during wife’s periods (menstruation), intertile time of woman, during pregnancy, during breastfeeding, during menopause, after menopause.

Also, It is objectively sinful to have marital act if the woman is sterile (no ovaries, no uterus or without fallopian tubes).

The same thoughts, if the husband is sterile (without prostate, sterility coming from testicular problems…etc.)

Conjugal debt is only for making babies, it is not unitive and procreative - not for unity and potential procreation -.

According to the teaching of catholic church , marriage is love between wife and husband, it is for love between wife and husband and it is for the fruit of love (children) with the notion of responsible procreation that is not absolute procreation and reproduction.


#20

One thing to keep in mind.
ABC prevents pregnancy.

NFP does not. It attempts to avoids pregnancy by avoiding sex.


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