Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

Discussion related to living as a Catholic in the single state of life. As long as a topic is being discussed from the perspective of a single Catholic then it will be on-topic.

Tobias and Sarah's story is from the Book of Tobit, and his journey is guided by Saint Raphael.
Learn More: Tobias & Sarah as led by Saint Raphael

Apr 19th 2013 new

(Quote) Carrie-529869 said: I do not believe anywhere has the church laid out what and to what extent constitutes a JUST rea...
(Quote) Carrie-529869 said:

I do not believe anywhere has the church laid out what and to what extent constitutes a JUST reason (the correct term) to avoid pregnancy.

I find this post a bit presumptious. While based on truth-- yes, one does need a just reason. I find a bit arrogant to actually come up and lay out opinion as facts of church teaching.

The reasons are not for us to judge on, but are between the couple and God, and hopefully a good spiritual director.

Also, you are incorrect that there is primary and secondary reasons for marriage. They are of equal importance.

The fact is, is that the sacrifices, communication, and self-discipline required to practice NFP make it a VERY good filter and prevention against mortal sin. Not to say that its impossible to use NFP with selfish reasons, but even then for it to be a sin meeting the conditions to be mortal would be very unlikely.

--hide--

Well said. The reasons used are between God, the couple and the Priest (should one be cosulted) and that is all that counts.

Apr 19th 2013 new

(Quote) Carrie-529869 said: To clarify some terms here. "Birth regulation/spacing" is not a problem i...
(Quote) Carrie-529869 said:


To clarify some terms here. "Birth regulation/spacing" is not a problem in church teaching. As referred to earlier, we are supposed to be responsible parents. There is an infinite difference between NFP and contraception though, and the natural vs artificial is the least of them.


NFP uses judgement to decide to not engage in the sexual act. Contraception is AGAINST conception. Its desecrating the sexual act itself.

Couples don't engage in the marital act for many reasons. Sickness, staying with relatives, exhaustion, children around etc. Those are all tangent reasons though. All the more reasonable to not engage in an act simply because one wants to avoid the natural intended consequences of the act.

--hide--



The Church explicitly states the reasons when NFP is permissible, such as health reasons, living in a war/famine, extreme financial difficulty, etc. I understand you have to be responsible, but the Church clearly states the reasons for using NFP (which are responsible reasons), and that it can be abused and sinful if the intent is to avoid pregnancy for reasons other than the ones she gave.

Apr 19th 2013 new

And I am certainly not condemning anyone as a sinner or anything like that, I am just stating my understand of what the Church says.

Apr 19th 2013 new
(Quote) Jim-873983 said: This is in response to the recent blog post from Lisa about Natural Family Planning.Lisa was right when s...
(Quote) Jim-873983 said:

This is in response to the recent blog post from Lisa about Natural Family Planning.

Lisa was right when she listed Natural Family Planning (NFP) as a viable, Church-approved route to reduce the chances of a pregnancy, but she didn't give the whole picture. This is sady a topic that many Catholics of good faith do not understand correctly.

There are certain serious conditions that can make NFP lawful under Church law:

1. Medical- serious real and objective dangers to the physical or mental health of one or both partners.

2. Eugenic- real possibility of serious and incurable hereditary defects in the child. This can last for the duration of the marriage, or just for a period of time (like when the mother is taking perscription drugs that might cause birth defects)

3. Social- covering socal disturbances like famine, war, unjust laws limiting the number of children a family can have, etc.

4. Economic- In the case of TRUE SERIOUS financial hardship for supporting another child. This is perhaps the most common reason cited for NFP-practicing couples. But this reason requires brutal honesty before God. "The reason must be serious. Trifles are not enough. That the birth of other children might mean buying a less expensive car or sending the children to a less fashionable school would not justify the decision to have no more, for that would be making the ornaments of life more valuable than life itself. And not only could no Christian see things so, but only the devitalized could. Indeed, for one who has grasped what a human being is- made in God's image, immortal, redeemed by Christ- only the most serious reason would be strong enough to support such a decision." -Frank Sheehy

There are two purposes of marriage:

1. Allowing for the procreation and education of children.

2. The mutual comfort and support of the spouses and allowing a lawful outlet of concupisence (carnal desires) in the marital act between spouses.

#1 is the primary purpose, #2 is the secondary.

Natural Family Planning, if practiced simply because another child would be inconvenient, is essentially flipping the two purposes of marriage, making #2 the primary and #1 the secondary- the same spirit of those who practice artificial contraception. Regardless of whether the spouses are "open to life" despite their precautionary timing of the marital act, if Natural Family Planning is habitually practiced to take precautions against the likelihood of pregnancy, simply for its own sake, IT IS A MORTAL SIN. Please be aware of that.

Please don't think me a moral busybody. I've just recently learned about all the strings attached to NFP and want to clear the air. NFP is not instrinsically evil like artificial birth control. But it can be abused.

NFP can result in the loss of souls, and not just to Hell. Think of all the souls that could have been created if their parents were more generous in allowing God to bless them with as many children as He desires.

--hide--


Jim, Thank you for posting this.
Apr 19th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: Before NFP teaching was deemed acceptable, what was catholic marriage all about? I assume it wa...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:

Before NFP teaching was deemed acceptable, what was catholic marriage all about? I assume it was mainly about procreation - something that has been somewhat lost in modern society. It is hard for to me condemn anyone using NFP when just about everyone else (it seems) uses contraception - so I am aware of that.

Although I clearly understand the differences between NFP and artificial contraception, I think intent should matter. If a married couple is having sexual relations hoping NOT to conceive a child, although acceptable under NFP, there is part of me that finds that somewhat wrong. I know NFP is considered acceptable due the openness to life, an obvious significant distinction to artificial contraception.


So the unitive element is there, but is the procreative element there more than in a technical sense? Is a sexual act performed by a married couple hoping to procreate a child on the same level as a sexual act that is hoping not to? Now, in cases where there are infertility issues, I think that is different because the couple is expressing the unitive without hoping the procreative doesn't happen. Many infertile couples have ended up having a child when it was thought virtually impossible.


The main thing is that catholic marriage shouldn't be thought of as freedom to have as much sexual relations as a couple wants without consequence. I think some people think of that way, which is why I have some issues with Christopher West's NFP lectures, which seem to give that impression.

--hide--


Periodic abstinence has always been acceptable in the church.


Christopher West does not give NFP lectures, nor promotes "as much as without consequences". You are way off here on what West says.

Apr 19th 2013 new

(Quote) Jessica-951024 said: The Church explicitly states the reasons when NFP is permissible, such as health re...
(Quote) Jessica-951024 said:




The Church explicitly states the reasons when NFP is permissible, such as health reasons, living in a war/famine, extreme financial difficulty, etc. I understand you have to be responsible, but the Church clearly states the reasons for using NFP (which are responsible reasons), and that it can be abused and sinful if the intent is to avoid pregnancy for reasons other than the ones she gave.

--hide--


No, the church does NOT explicitly state when NFP is acceptable. As posted earlier, there are some suggested ideas. It is not an exhaustive list, simply an undertsanding that situations exist that could lead to delaying pregnancy.


I was simply answering your statement about NFP not being different from contraception.

Apr 19th 2013 new

(Quote) Emmanuel-940296 said: I've been finding this discussion to be fascinating, but am starting to be become ...
(Quote) Emmanuel-940296 said:



I've been finding this discussion to be fascinating, but am starting to be become confused by it as well. For a while I was getting the impression that as long as there was equal consent between a husband and wife on having sex, with the intent of having children during a point or some points during the marriage there wasn't anything wrong there. My sister had 3 children back to back, with her 3rd child likely being the last one she'll have in her life time.

According to some of the information being discussed in various posts, unless I'm misreading it, it would sound like she'd be a sinner if she indefinitely continued to use the NFP method throughout the rest of her marriage and never had another child, even if she was open to the possibility should the NFP method still ended with a child in that rare circumstance. My own parents had 3 children, from a financial stand point perhaps around the time they had me, maybe they could have afforded another child, but I find it to be a rather grey area, as I feel my father follows church teaching extremely well, and is a very holy man, does that mean for all the years following any sexual relations he had in his marriage would be considered sinful since there was an indefinite spacing?

I find it difficult to pin sinfulness on a couple using NFP who are in a loving marriage, and having sex consentually, along with the intent of having children, especially if they've had a couple children already and understand the fact that NFP isn't 100% effective.

--hide--




I wouldn't say that is sinful and don't want to talk about anyone specifically. I can understand that large families aren't for everyone so there are legitimate circumstances for that. I come from a family of 3, and I am the youngest, 5 and 6 years younger than my sister and brother, respectively. I have never asked and never plan to whether or not there was intended spacing going on, and if there was, that is ok.


I just would like more couple to be tring to conceive more babies in more situations.

Apr 19th 2013 new

(Quote) Jim-873983 said: This is in response to the recent blog post from Lisa about Natural Family Planning.Lisa wa...
(Quote) Jim-873983 said:

This is in response to the recent blog post from Lisa about Natural Family Planning.

Lisa was right when she listed Natural Family Planning (NFP) as a viable, Church-approved route to reduce the chances of a pregnancy, but she didn't give the whole picture. This is sady a topic that many Catholics of good faith do not understand correctly.

There are certain serious conditions that can make NFP lawful under Church law:

1. Medical- serious real and objective dangers to the physical or mental health of one or both partners.

2. Eugenic- real possibility of serious and incurable hereditary defects in the child. This can last for the duration of the marriage, or just for a period of time (like when the mother is taking perscription drugs that might cause birth defects)

3. Social- covering socal disturbances like famine, war, unjust laws limiting the number of children a family can have, etc.

4. Economic- In the case of TRUE SERIOUS financial hardship for supporting another child. This is perhaps the most common reason cited for NFP-practicing couples. But this reason requires brutal honesty before God. "The reason must be serious. Trifles are not enough. That the birth of other children might mean buying a less expensive car or sending the children to a less fashionable school would not justify the decision to have no more, for that would be making the ornaments of life more valuable than life itself. And not only could no Christian see things so, but only the devitalized could. Indeed, for one who has grasped what a human being is- made in God's image, immortal, redeemed by Christ- only the most serious reason would be strong enough to support such a decision." -Frank Sheehy

There are two purposes of marriage:

1. Allowing for the procreation and education of children.

2. The mutual comfort and support of the spouses and allowing a lawful outlet of concupisence (carnal desires) in the marital act between spouses.

#1 is the primary purpose, #2 is the secondary.

Natural Family Planning, if practiced simply because another child would be inconvenient, is essentially flipping the two purposes of marriage, making #2 the primary and #1 the secondary- the same spirit of those who practice artificial contraception. Regardless of whether the spouses are "open to life" despite their precautionary timing of the marital act, if Natural Family Planning is habitually practiced to take precautions against the likelihood of pregnancy, simply for its own sake, IT IS A MORTAL SIN. Please be aware of that.

Please don't think me a moral busybody. I've just recently learned about all the strings attached to NFP and want to clear the air. NFP is not instrinsically evil like artificial birth control. But it can be abused.

NFP can result in the loss of souls, and not just to Hell. Think of all the souls that could have been created if their parents were more generous in allowing God to bless them with as many children as He desires.

Mod Edit: Please post a link to articles when you are discussing. www.catholicmatch.com

--hide--
Hello Jim! A question pops up immediately as a read this:

"2. Eugenic- real possibility of serious and incurable hereditary defects in the child. This can last for the duration of the marriage, or just for a period of time (like when the mother is taking perscription drugs that might cause birth defects)"

If the woman develops a condition which requires a medical treatment that has serious side effects to a growing fetus, for a longer period of time. Would you say that NFP is a safe enough method to prevent fertilization, to still allow the spouses to have a healthy sex life, yet not risking to harm a child?

Apr 20th 2013 new
(Quote) Jim-873983 said: This is in response to the recent blog post from Lisa about Natural Family Planning.Lisa was right when s...
(Quote) Jim-873983 said:

This is in response to the recent blog post from Lisa about Natural Family Planning.

Lisa was right when she listed Natural Family Planning (NFP) as a viable, Church-approved route to reduce the chances of a pregnancy, but she didn't give the whole picture. This is sady a topic that many Catholics of good faith do not understand correctly.

There are certain serious conditions that can make NFP lawful under Church law:

1. Medical- serious real and objective dangers to the physical or mental health of one or both partners.

2. Eugenic- real possibility of serious and incurable hereditary defects in the child. This can last for the duration of the marriage, or just for a period of time (like when the mother is taking perscription drugs that might cause birth defects)

3. Social- covering socal disturbances like famine, war, unjust laws limiting the number of children a family can have, etc.

4. Economic- In the case of TRUE SERIOUS financial hardship for supporting another child. This is perhaps the most common reason cited for NFP-practicing couples. But this reason requires brutal honesty before God. "The reason must be serious. Trifles are not enough. That the birth of other children might mean buying a less expensive car or sending the children to a less fashionable school would not justify the decision to have no more, for that would be making the ornaments of life more valuable than life itself. And not only could no Christian see things so, but only the devitalized could. Indeed, for one who has grasped what a human being is- made in God's image, immortal, redeemed by Christ- only the most serious reason would be strong enough to support such a decision." -Frank Sheehy

There are two purposes of marriage:

1. Allowing for the procreation and education of children.

2. The mutual comfort and support of the spouses and allowing a lawful outlet of concupisence (carnal desires) in the marital act between spouses.

#1 is the primary purpose, #2 is the secondary.

Natural Family Planning, if practiced simply because another child would be inconvenient, is essentially flipping the two purposes of marriage, making #2 the primary and #1 the secondary- the same spirit of those who practice artificial contraception. Regardless of whether the spouses are "open to life" despite their precautionary timing of the marital act, if Natural Family Planning is habitually practiced to take precautions against the likelihood of pregnancy, simply for its own sake, IT IS A MORTAL SIN. Please be aware of that.

Please don't think me a moral busybody. I've just recently learned about all the strings attached to NFP and want to clear the air. NFP is not instrinsically evil like artificial birth control. But it can be abused.

NFP can result in the loss of souls, and not just to Hell. Think of all the souls that could have been created if their parents were more generous in allowing God to bless them with as many children as He desires.







Mod Edit: Please post a link to articles when you are discussing. www.catholicmatch.com

--hide--


Thanks for the good explanation of NFP. You lost me a bit there when you start talking about Hell.

You are too young to turn into one of the forum pharisees.
Apr 20th 2013 new
(Quote) Peter-793888 said: Marriage doesn't cease to exist in heaven simply because there is no procreation. Marr...
(Quote) Peter-793888 said:




Marriage doesn't cease to exist in heaven simply because there is no procreation. Marriage, like any of the other sacrements are outward symbols of God's Grace, a road sign to get to heaven if you will. When you're in heaven there is no need for the symbol (the road sign) because you're already there!



Both the unitive and the procreative are equally important, because if you say that the procreative is more important then the unitive wouldn't it follow that we should always be able to seek what is most important? That simply isn't the case, a marriage where the couple is infertile and unable to have children is NO LESS valid then then the marriage where the couple has 9 kids!

--hide--


right on Peter
Posts 41 - 50 of 113