Author Topic: Is natural family planning a sin? (Read 11616 times)

gobosox91 · « **on:** April 15, 2014, 03:32:25 PM »

I have a friend who is struggling with scrupulosity, and she contacted Most Holy Family Monastery, who said that taking part in natural family planning is a sin, along with all forms of contraception. Now, I don't endorse contraception (birth control pills, condoms) but what is wrong with having sex when your bodies won't conceive?

Say I'm married and my wife and I have a few kids already, but we still decide to have sex without contraception, but plan it during her "time of the month..." This is natural, and I think Pius XI condemned things that go against nature, so how could this be a sin?

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2014, 03:34:49 PM »

According to Pope Pius XII it is a sin because of the intention to avoid pregnancy, unless you have a grave reason. Sex doesn't exist so you can have fun. It exists so you can have children.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:14:20 PM »

Natural Family Planning... The very title implies that it is us who decide when and that places us in the position reserved for God. It's really that simple.

NFP as the novus ordo practices it may as well be honest and call in "organic birth control" or something equally catchy.

It's like Pope Paul VI referring to "responsible parenthood" in his encyclical that the novus ordites are all agog over - Humanae Vitae.

Gobosox91, tell your friend to never use NFP and to engage in relations with her/his spouse at will. That's the way to do it.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:38:33 PM »

Quote from: Matto

According to Pope Pius XII it is a sin because of the intention to avoid pregnancy, unless you have a grave reason. Sex doesn't exist so you can have fun. It exists so you can have children.

Actually, it exists for both-- the primary end being the procreative one, to which the secondary ("having fun") must be subjugated. If there was not this second end, it would never be licit to observe the non-fertile periods; but this end exists and is still served and is still an end of marriage proper, which is why Pius XII taught as he did, in the limited way that he taught it.

Cantarella · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:39:32 PM »

Quote from: Matto

According to Pope Pius XII it is a sin because of the intention to avoid pregnancy, unless you have a grave reason. Sex doesn't exist so you can have fun. It exists so you can have children.

What Matto said. The intention behind NPF is the same than with any other contraceptive. There is not difference. The Lord is the only giver and taker of life. We sin when we want to play God.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:40:39 PM »

Quote from: gobosox91

I have a friend who is struggling with scrupulosity, and she contacted Most Holy Family Monastery, who said that taking part in natural family planning is a sin, along with all forms of contraception. Now, I don't endorse contraception (birth control pills, condoms) but what is wrong with having sex when your bodies won't conceive?

Say I'm married and my wife and I have a few kids already, but we still decide to have sex without contraception, but plan it during her "time of the month..." This is natural, and I think Pius XI condemned things that go against nature, so how could this be a sin?

The last thing someone with scruples should do is contact MHFM.

Your friend should read Castii Connubii to cultivate a good and holy understanding of Christian marriage. The address from Pius XII to the Italian midwives deals with what is often called "NFP" though he did not call it that and that term has Novus Ordo Catholic birth control connotations.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:44:25 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Matto
According to Pope Pius XII it is a sin because of the intention to avoid pregnancy, unless you have a grave reason. Sex doesn't exist so you can have fun. It exists so you can have children.

What Matto said. The intention behind NPF is the same than with any other contraceptive. There is not difference. The Lord is the only giver and taker of life. We sin when we want to play God.

No one is playing God by working within the natural limits of his providence and the natural order-- which is what Pius XII taught. As is usual, we need to distinguish between his address to the midwives in 1957 and what the Novus Ordo practices; these are two very different things. The former is true Catholic teaching for grave instances, the latter is taught as being necessary for a good marriage and is de facto treated as birth control, as anyone who has endured a diocesan sponsored "marriage preparation" can tell you.

Contraception proper is a sin against nature because it frustrates the natural process which God has ordained-- what Pius XII taught does not do this at all. If a couple purposefully and with no grave reason and appropriate discernment practices NFP, they may be guilty of not trusting in providence or of selfishness or of abusing the marital privilege, but they are not guilty of contraception. That has a very specific meaning.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:56:38 PM »

By way of observation, the rejection of Pius XII's teaching is very much along the lines of Feeneyism, in that it is a reaction to a liberal heresy (if we can call the N.O.'s approach to NFP that, it is an error at least) but an over-reaction. Whereas VII made the error of not recognizing the hierarchy of ends in marriage (elevating the unitive ends of marriage to the level of procreation) this reactionary position recognizes one end and one end only (procreation), which is not traditional teaching, either. We should not be content with such reactions, as the truth is never served with falsehoods, even if the falsehood in question is "closer" to the truth than the falsehood which is being avoided.

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:57:22 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Matto
According to Pope Pius XII it is a sin because of the intention to avoid pregnancy, unless you have a grave reason. Sex doesn't exist so you can have fun. It exists so you can have children.

Actually, it exists for both-- the primary end being the procreative one, to which the secondary ("having fun") must be subjugated. If there was not this second end, it would never be licit to observe the non-fertile periods; but this end exists and is still served and is still an end of marriage proper, which is why Pius XII taught as he did, in the limited way that he taught it.

If it were only the former, it would preclude infertile couples/older couples from engaging in sex barring an Abraham and Sarah miracle.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:59:16 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Matto
According to Pope Pius XII it is a sin because of the intention to avoid pregnancy, unless you have a grave reason. Sex doesn't exist so you can have fun. It exists so you can have children.

Actually, it exists for both-- the primary end being the procreative one, to which the secondary ("having fun") must be subjugated. If there was not this second end, it would never be licit to observe the non-fertile periods; but this end exists and is still served and is still an end of marriage proper, which is why Pius XII taught as he did, in the limited way that he taught it.

If it were only the former, it would preclude infertile couples/older couples from engaging in sex barring an Abraham and Sarah miracle.

Yes it would, and the Church's mind can be seen in this by the diriment impediments surrounding marriage-- none of which include infertility. If the Church regarded such relations as illicit, she would make infertility a diriment impediment to marriage, but she has not-- she has only made impotence, which is the inability to perform the marital act, a diriment impediment.

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2014, 05:02:51 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: gobosox91
I have a friend who is struggling with scrupulosity, and she contacted Most Holy Family Monastery, who said that taking part in natural family planning is a sin, along with all forms of contraception. Now, I don't endorse contraception (birth control pills, condoms) but what is wrong with having sex when your bodies won't conceive?

Say I'm married and my wife and I have a few kids already, but we still decide to have sex without contraception, but plan it during her "time of the month..." This is natural, and I think Pius XI condemned things that go against nature, so how could this be a sin?

The last thing someone with scruples should do is contact MHFM.

Ain't that the truth.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2014, 05:05:16 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Matto
According to Pope Pius XII it is a sin because of the intention to avoid pregnancy, unless you have a grave reason. Sex doesn't exist so you can have fun. It exists so you can have children.

What Matto said. The intention behind NPF is the same than with any other contraceptive. There is not difference. The Lord is the only giver and taker of life. We sin when we want to play God.

No one is playing God by working within the natural limits of his providence and the natural order-- which is what Pius XII taught. As is usual, we need to distinguish between his address to the midwives in 1957 and what the Novus Ordo practices; these are two very different things. The former is true Catholic teaching for grave instances, the latter is taught as being necessary for a good marriage and is de facto treated as birth control, as anyone who has endured a diocesan sponsored "marriage preparation" can tell you.

Contraception proper is a sin against nature because it frustrates the natural process which God has ordained-- what Pius XII taught does not do this at all. If a couple purposefully and with no grave reason and appropriate discernment practices NFP, they may be guilty of not trusting in providence or of selfishness or of abusing the marital privilege, but they are not guilty of contraception. That has a very specific meaning.

I'm not sure why, but I wrote marital privilege-- I meant to write "marital right." The cement dried, though.

Matto · « **Reply #12 on:** April 15, 2014, 05:08:44 PM »

I guess I should have said "primarily" in my post above because it is okay to have fun while having marital relations. But I thought if you have sex for pleasure alone it is a sin.

The following proposition was condemned by the Pope Innocent XI:

“The act of marriage exercised for pleasure
only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect.”

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #13 on:** April 15, 2014, 05:26:01 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I guess I should have said "primarily" in my post above because it is okay to have fun while having marital relations. But I thought if you have sex for pleasure alone it is a sin.

The following proposition was condemned by the Pope Innocent XI:

“The act of marriage exercised for pleasure
only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect.”

The condemnation is not saying that engaging in the marital act "for" pleasure alone is necessarily sinful; it is condemning the statement that engaging in the marital act for pleasure alone is entirely free of all fault and venial defect. Also notice that it is not entirely free of venial defect; not that it is entirely free of all venial SIN. The concupiscence which puts one in a position to even be moved to engage in the marital act for "pleasure alone" is a defect; but a defect is not a sin-- rather it is a symptom of original sin; if this is difficult to understand just recall the difference between temptation and actual sin, as it is a similar operation at work here. The secondary end of marriage exists precisely as a lawful way to exercise and alleviate this defect, this is what St. Paul and St. Augustine teach.

Matto · « **Reply #14 on:** April 15, 2014, 05:30:08 PM »

I don't agree with your explanation, Mith, but I have no desire to discuss this matter any more. God bless.