photosynthesis Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 So most of us know that NFP is morally acceptable according to the teachings of the Church. But I have also heard it said that it is not acceptable in certain cases. When should couples not be using NFP, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onathing1 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I've never heard of this and I don't understand why it would never be acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 it can only be used for special reasons: (ie poor) if it used without reason it is contraception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onathing1 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 That's not what the Church teaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 [quote name='onathing1' date='Mar 6 2006, 11:06 PM']I've never heard of this and I don't understand why it would never be acceptable. [right][snapback]904878[/snapback][/right] [/quote] it's unacceptable if the couple is using it as birth control, i.e. for the same reasons secular couples use the pill + condoms... to have sex without having to deal withthe consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 (edited) ummmm hello........... that is exactly what sex is if there is no room for concpetion. to use NFP in order NOT to have kids is the same as using a contraception. Edited March 7, 2006 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 [quote name='onathing1' date='Mar 6 2006, 10:19 PM']That's not what the Church teaches. [right][snapback]904890[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yes, in fact, it is what the Church teaches. if it has taught you otherwise you have been misinformed. The proper end of marriage is procreation. Only with grave reasons, be they economic, psychological, or medical, may a couple use natural family planning. [quote][b]If therefore there are well-grounded reasons[/b] for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles[/quote]-Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae It would be sinful for a couple to refuse to have children, even if using NFP, unless there was a medical, psychological, or economic reason that they could not afford to have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Note that NFP can be used to regulate as well as to facilitate pregnancy. If you know when your fertile periods are or whatever, you can "plan" around it. So most couples who use NFP use it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 sure. but it's immoral to use it to try not to get pregnant without good reasons. personally, me and the fiance are hoping to be able to set up a well enough financial situation that we don't have to worry or plan either way. I think it's very beautiful for a couple to leave it completely up to God. That [i]is[/i] the most preferable way of doing things if nothing is impeding you from having children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Couples have a duty to be "responsible" parents. Having a child when you are in no position to do so is not responsible. It is not enough to say "God will provide". God works through nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 that is how it was in the olden days. plus these fininical "obligations" that would force one into NFP is very ambigious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 6 2006, 11:53 PM']that is how it was in the olden days. plus these fininical "obligations" that would force one into NFP is very ambigious. [right][snapback]904965[/snapback][/right] [/quote] These are not the olden days. The Church intentionally keeps the criteria "ambiguous", because only a couple can adequately understand and evaluate its own situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 your right. these are the days of neo-modernism and novelty church teaching oops sorry i forgot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 6 2006, 10:52 PM']Couples have a duty to be "responsible" parents. Having a child when you are in no position to do so is not responsible. It is not enough to say "God will provide". God works through nature. [right][snapback]904964[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I was lamenting the fact that in our society it is so difficult to be in a situation where having large families is easy. Me and the fiance won't be getting married for a good 2 years (1-23-08 ) and what I meant by that was that I'm hoping by then to be well enough off financially that we can afford to not need to plan. It is not a positive thing that a couple has to plan out when to have their children and when not to. The preferable thing is a society wherein they would not be forced into that. and EENS, in the "olden days" the economic situation looked more favorably upon having more children. well, except during the great depression and well, even most Catholics didn't procreate big families during that time. today's economic climate has been drastically altered by the widespread use of birth control in that it is very difficult to get by having large families. of course, it can be done (and I think by most people) if sacrifices are made. expensive college is not a necessity of life to ever child you have. today's economic sitaution makes it difficult to be able to afford large families and that is an adequate reason for using NFP to space them (not indefinitely, because then the marriage itself is contraceptive). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Mar 6 2006, 11:48 PM']sure. but it's immoral to use it to try not to get pregnant without good reasons. [right][snapback]904959[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I agree. The vocation of marriage is ordered to the union of the husband and wife, and to the procreation of children. If this is not their primary focus, I would suggest that they reprioritize themselves. But, as I said, there is no one-size-fits-all definition for "good reasons". It's something the couple has to discern for themselves, always keeping in mind their vocation and the moral guidance of the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts