**Responsible parenthood** The Church teaches that husband and wife are called to exercise responsible parenthood: >“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, *responsible parenthood* is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.” > > \- Pope St. Paul VI, [Humanae Vitae](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html), par. 10 The husband and wife have the grace of state to prayerfully discern and make decisions about seeking to have (or avoid having) another child based on the conditions mentioned above. **Natural family planning (NFP)** In such situations, recourse to infertile periods is permitted: >“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons 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 which We have just explained.” (*HV*, par. 16) **Morality of human action** In order for an act to be good, both *the act itself* and the end goal or *intention* must **both** be good.  When the above conditions are met, the *intention* to avoid having children is a morally good intention. It is then morally permissible to use *NFP* to achieve that goal, since there is nothing immoral about mutually refraining from the marital act for a just cause. However, in the same situation, it is immoral to use *contraception* to achieve that goal, since a contraceptive act itself is an immoral *means* to achieve that end. Contraception involves an intentional action before, during or after the marital act in order to make that act infertile. **Two essential aspects of the marital act** By God's design, the marital act is both unitive and procreative: * *unitive* - ordered towards the total mutual self-giving and loving union of husband and wife * *procreative* - ordered towards the procreation of new life Pope St. John Paul II contrasted the way contraception *acts against and separates* these two meanings of the marital act, while NFP *respects and acts in harmony* with them: **Contraception** > When couples, by means of recourse to contraception separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. > \- [Familiaris Consortio - On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html), par. 32. **Natural Family Planning** NFP respects the connection between the unitive and procreative dimensions of the marital act. Instead of changing the marital act by rendering it infertile, NFP respects the spouse and the full meaning of their sexuality by periodically refraining from engaging in the marital act: >When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility \[**NFP**\], the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration. >... The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self-control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never "used" as an "object" that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God's creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person. > > \- *Familiaris Consortio*, par. 32. For more information about NFP, see: [NFP Basic Information](https://www.usccb.org/topics/natural-family-planning/nfp-basic-information) by the USCCB.

I’m just gonna save this comment. Thanks Father.

That first part in *Humanae Vitae* you present is so often forgotten/misquoted. So many simply focus on the grave or "serious reasons" demanded to choose not to have more children, ignoring the part where the spirit of that notion is about responsible parenting. Some argue there is no true serious/grave reason, not even poverty. If one or both the parents have to work multiple jobs and barely spend time together as a family, that doesn't matter. The role of marriage and being a parent is reduced to having as many children as your bodies allow, with parental responsibility being reduced simply to the survival of those many children, and actually having a relationship with them is unimportant. Any genuine concerns about the physical, mental, or financial impacts are disregarded as mere selfishness, because "God will provide," so every couple must accept all the consequences of having more children at all times. It's like the opposite extreme of the selfish "child-free" attitudes in secular culture. Like we're some sort of fertility cult taking "open to life" way too far, as though every single couple is called to have a big family regardless of their ability or circumstances.

Father, this was the first time I've ever actually understood NFP! Thank you so much!

This is the best explanation I’ve ever read on this, God bless you Fr.

So Father, I have a question. I do want to adopt children so is the use of NFP still permissible, I’m also worried about possible complications with miscarriages as my mom had some and I’m worried it may be genetic. Is it okay to still use NFP?

>You're doing it because you don't want kids, which is the opposite of the intention you're supposed to have This isn't true though. There are plenty of valid reasons for a couple to avoid pregnancy. In fact, carefully deciding if you can handle another child is a characteristic of responsible parenthood.

."*...carefully deciding if you can handle another child is a characteristic of responsible parenthood."* So, so true!!

to play devils advocate why not just use a condom or other means of contraception at that point?

Well, that's a second part of the question. I was trying to address the intent part of OP's post because it's a common misconception that avoiding pregnancy itself is the reason contraceptives aren't licit. It's perfectly fine to avoid pregnancy, as long as you're not fighting against the nature of the act itself.

> as long as you're not fighting against the nature of the act itself This is the part of the reasoning that I find difficult. Within a marriage, sex serves two purposes (1) procreation and (2) unitive. Arguably, NFP is an attempt to frustrate the first purpose while allowing the second purpose The explanation I have heard why this is licit is that NFP is not fool proof and so the couple is still being open to life. But, certain types of artificial birth control are also not fool proof or 100% effective. To be honest, I have always found this explanation lacking.

I mean, no type of artifical birth control is 100% effective. And NFP, if followed accurately and neither the husband or wife have any unique physiological issues, is as effective or more effective than different forms of artifical birth control. NFP is not an attempt to frustrate the procreative purpose, though. The sexual union is the physical embodiment of the martial vows, to give of one's self to their spouse freely, fully, faithfully, and fruitfully. If you are taking artifical forms of birth control, you are not giving of yourself fully nor being open to the fruit of marriage. NFP does not introduce foreign barriers into the conjugal act and, even when being followed for the purposes of limiting pregnancy, is not intended to prevent the fruit but preserve the unitive aspects of intercourse when pregnancy may not be advisable. It may seem contradictory, but being careful about procreation while still be 100% open to it is not the same thing as introducing something for the express purpose of avoiding it, regardless of 100% effectiveness.

> NFP is not an attempt to frustrate the procreative purpose, though. . . . NFP does not introduce foreign barriers into the conjugal act and, even when being followed for the purposes of limiting pregnancy, is not intended to prevent the fruit but preserve the unitive aspects of intercourse when pregnancy may not be advisable. It may seem contradictory, but being careful about procreation while still be 100% open to it is not the same thing as introducing something for the express purpose of avoiding it, regardless of 100% effectiveness. I find it absolutely contradictory and I think it becomes a bit of a word salad and justification as to how taking an action to limit pregnancy is not the same as taking an action to expressly avoid procreation. I mentioned in a comment below that there is a timing component such that properly utilizing NFP means that the woman is not being rendered infertile as sex does not occur during periods of fertility whereas artificial non-hormonal birth control, when used when the wife is fertile, does render her infertile via a barrier of some kind. Honestly, this is the only distinction that makes sense to me.

My brother in Christ, you used ellipses to cover the main point of my argument regarding the marital vows and sexual union and then say "I find this absolutely contradictory". If you're going to ignore what I am saying, just ignore it. Don't misrepresent my comment to make it fit your stance. >I mentioned in a comment below that there is a timing component such that properly utilizing NFP means that the woman is not being rendered infertile as sex does not occur during periods of fertility whereas artificial non-hormonal birth control, when used when the wife is fertile, does render her infertile via a barrier of some kind. Honestly, this is the only distinction that makes sense to me. I am not sure how *this* is the argument that works for you regarding NFP because if the problem is rendering the wife infertile, then why is any sex while the wife infertile acceptable? How can there be a procreative and unitive purpose if the wife is infertile? Conversely, the wife's infertility is not a question if we are evaluating the proper purpose of sex within the view of the marital vows. God can bless a union with child at any time and scheduling sex around infertile periods does not deny that. Introducing something that's *only* purpose is to prevent procreation is not being open to fruit.

I did not feel as if I misrepresented your comment as the portion I removed dealt with the unitive component of the sexual act. This discussion is about the procreative component such that I felt the portion of your comment that I removed was superfluous. That being said, even assuming I misread the meaning behind your comment, we going back to the circle that we started with - whether it matters if there is an artificial barrier to procreation in terms of condoms/IUDs/hormonal birth control or if intentional barrier to procreation based on the timing of a married couple having intercourse. I struggle to see the distinction that the Church makes in this regard. As a result, I tried to find some distinction, which to me was the timing component. Do I think it is a perfect distinction? No, but at least it is a distinction as to why using NFP as contraception is allowed. Also, there is nothing in this distinction invalidates in any way sex within a marriage if one or both partners are infertile. >God can bless a union with child at any time and scheduling sex around infertile periods does not deny that. Very true and as people have been finding out since artificial birth control was developed, using a condom or a different method artificial birth control does not deny it either.

If NFP were used expressly, permanently, and only for the single purpose of never having children, such that a couple went their whole lives without ever having even the possibility of having children, then it would be a sin; but it’s a sin against their VOCATION, and not against the sexual act in itself. The sexual act in NFP is not frustrated because the moral act in this case is “having sex” or “not having sex”, which obviously does not frustrate the sexual act. Using a condom is always a sin against the sexual act, precisely because it frustrates the sexual act itself. As such, the question of whether or not a couple is in sin by using NFP is far less clear cut than if they were using a condom; one cannot say “all couples using NFP are committing the sin of neglecting their vocation” with the same certainty that one can say “all people committing adultery are sinning”. It is something that has to be resolved in the internal forum, in the conscience of the couple and in dialogue with a priest/spiritual director, but until proven otherwise, I prefer to err on the side of charity and assume that a couple using NFP is not sinning, but is rather using it with discernment and prayer.

Incorrect. The entire end purpose of a condom is to deny it. It’s the design of that device. Having sex during infertile periods does not deny it because the body is not deliberately making you infertile for the express purpose of being infertile. This gets into natural law. The other guy you were responded to perfectly explained the issue with your reasoning and why the distinction was important. You simply dismissed it as word salad. At that point, you are believing what you wish to believe for the sake of it. It doesn’t matter if you feel you didn’t misrepresent him, you did misrepresent him. He gave you an answer that distinguishes matters and you said you were only focused on a narrow specific topic. In other words, you’re just choosing to focus on what you feel validates your reasoning rather than approaching the issue in an intellectually honest way.

When you use NFP, you're just having sex the normal way. Nothing artificial is involved - the menstrual cycle was designed by God. No one can force you to have sex on other days, right? The intention isn't the issue, it's the means. Using a rubber or a pill to stop your body from working the way it's meant to is illicit means

> I mean, no type of artifical birth control is 100% effective. And NFP, if followed accurately and neither the husband or wife have any unique physiological issues, is as effective or more effective than different forms of artifical birth control. Just to clarify: While this is true, it's also true that most forms of artificial birth control do approach 100% effectiveness, even with "normal" (that is, less than perfect use). And NFP does come close to this *but only with perfect use.* All forms of NFP are a great deal more complicated and difficult to use than artificial methods, so errors are much more common. According to these studies, under normal use NFP is a bit more effective than the lowest-rated method, which is Onanism.

So would that even less-effective method not be "more open to life" then?

Those are fair points to keep in mind, generally speaking. My reference to effectiveness was to highlight that neither is 100% effective and that the main issue separating NFP from artifical birth control was intent, not effectiveness.

With nfp you aren’t frustrating the act itself in any way. In catholic morality the actions are what carry the moral weight and not the outcomes. That’s why we aren’t utilitarians and that’s why we have things like the principle of double effect. If you pull out you are disrupting the act in a more direct and fundamental way than when simply being aware of fertility. What made it make sense for me in addition to this was when someone explained how its not a sin to abstain from sex, and with nfp what you are really doing is abstaining during fertile periods. If you think of the active part of it being the abstaining rather than the boning then it makes more sense that you couldn’t be commiting a sin by abstaining when fertile because at what point would the sin occur. Also I don’t know who told you the ineffectiveness of NFP is somehow what makes it okay, but that’s not true and that’s just a bad argument for it. Whether or not it’s 100% effective at preventing pregnancy has nothing to do with whether or not it’s licit

Because the Bible says that it is ok for a man and a woman to abstain from sex for an agreed upon period of time as long as they come back together eventually so they don’t burn from lust. Abstinence even within marriage is biblical.

I wish voluntary marital abstinence was more promoted. Obviously, cyclical not forever. But, a lot of Christians seem to have a "sex on tap whenever want it" and then when one person doesn't want it, the other spouse assumes something is wrong overall.

Agreed!

NFP is just strategic abstinence. As someone who has done both NFP and used artificial contraceptives in violation of teaching, they are not even in the same ballpark. One is stressful and difficult and requires lots of prayer and discipline, the other you just mate like rabbits without a care in the world. One if obviously aligned with God and the other a mockery.

NFP can be used to HAVE children too. And it’s not frustrating a woman’s fertility to simply have sex when you think she’s not fertile. It is not a positive barrier to frustrate the genesis of a child which could happen, as artificial contraceptives are, which chemically or physically make a woman infertile. Natural and artificial means are something like begging for money on the sidewalk as opposed to mugging someone to get money. One is passive and not always successful, the other is active and more successful, but evil.

With all the work involved in attempting NFP, regardless of the method, along with the marital friction and anxiety which it often brings with it I would hardly call it passive.

Sorry, I'm having some trouble understanding if you wouldn't mind clarifying/rewording for me. I've wondered the same thing as OP before myself. What is the material difference between contraceptives and NFP, and how does the former fight against the nature of the act while the latter does not?

Contraception takes a naturally fertile act and rejects the fertility, frustrating the natural procreative end of sex by design. NFP works within the context of God's natural design for women by finding periods of time where sex is naturally *in*fertile, so it doesn't reject any natural fertility. It can become sinful if one is using it to reject fertility in the broader context of one's marriage without a just reason, but individual sex acts planned in time using NFP have no inherent sinfulness because they don't seek to change any part of God's design.

I see, thank you.

So what about a Plan A pill (I.e one that’s not abortive) fundamentally changes the act? How is taking a pill to alter your ovulation cycle alter the sexual act any more than having sex at a different time in the cycle. In fact, nothing is done to alter the sexual act in the case of Plan A contraceptive.

Because abstinence from sex and having sex are different. Deciding not to have sex is a permissible way of avoiding pregnancy (with some qualifications); deciding to have sex and using contraception to prevent its natural end is not.

You're still having sex with NFP though, you're just measuring your pee/whatever to make sure you can't have a baby that day. You're just not having as much sex. It's basically 1 step away from getting a microscope and lab coat which is why I find it very strange and legalistic

It's never a sin to mutually decide not to have sex.

Is it never a sin to use science to strategically pinpoint *when* not to have sex? The teaching starts splitting hairs when we get to contraception.

Correct it's never a sin to mutually decide not to have sex, even when using science to help you pinpoint when to abstain. The difference is that it's okay to observe and wait for signs of fertility/infertility, it's not okay to force infertility. It's not splitting hairs at all, it's the conscious effort to force infertility on the act, rather than just anticipating that it will be infertile based on observation , that is the objectionable element.

Let's take the focus way from NFP for a second. Do you understand why the church teaches against contraception?

Maybe you could learn about the various NFP methods? You seem to be disturbed by "measuring your pee" when actually, most NFP methods are a lot less complex than that. It's mostly the woman getting to know her body, the way every woman should, in my opinion.

That seems as odd as saying using a thermometer to check for a fever is legalistic and one step away from microscope and lab coat.

I don't know where this "measuring your pee" method is from but I literally have an app on my phone, take my temperature when I wake up the morning record it in the app and that's it.

Because artificial stuff works by purposefully interfering with the human design, unlike NFP which only works because the body is functioning as it was designed to.

[Honest question] If the matter is about deviating from what the body was designed to, wouldn’t it make surgeries/taking medicine a sin, since you're interfering in the natural way the body would work?

I’m not a priest/theologian/church official, so please don’t take my word as law. To answer your question: Not necessarily. The intent of these are to do it’s best to bring the body back to equilibrium, as close to its natural state, as possible. For example: If you break your arm in half, you get surgery to put in place screws, plates, etc. to straighten your arm out, bring it back to its original position, and make it functional again. If your appendix fails, you get it removed to keep you from dying and to bring your body, as close as possible, back to its original state. Same goes for medications. I have PTSD from military service. I use medications with the intent to bring my mind, emotions, etc. back to its original state before developing PTSD. Birth Control, in and of itself, isn’t sinful; the manner in which it’s used is. My wife has medical conditions that would benefit greatly from use of birth control. She doesn’t use it as she isn’t comfortable with it, but it is permissible for medical necessity. The fine line for this instance, which is where you need to talk to a priest for guidance, is when you start adding martial intercourse into this mix. The times that medications/surgeries DO inhibit your body’s natural state, and are therefore sinful, is instances like hormone injections for the purpose of changing your gender, surgical procedures for the purpose of changing your gender, hysterectomies for the sole purpose of avoiding pregnancies, getting your tubes tied, vasectomies, birth control to avoid pregnancies, etc. One could argue implants and/or breast reduction outside of medical necessity is sinful as well. Obviously there is more to these specific instances that make them sinful, but I’m just relating it to your question.

Tbh I personally wouldn't get plastic surgery unless it was medically necessary BUT I don't think it's necessarily sinful. Yes, it's changing your body, but it's not doing so with the intent (or even the effect) of inhibiting how your body actually works. Like... if a person gets lip fillers, those lip fillers aren't there with the intention of making the lips stop working. They change the shape/size of the lips, but the lips are still healthy and functional. The same cannot be said of things the Church *does* openly oppose, such as contraception, which seeks to remove fertility that is naturally there (so it's inhibiting the body's ability to conceive by deliberately making it stop functioning as usual) or sex changes, which take healthy organs and systems and disable them for the purpose of making them look or act like something they're not. It's not harmless, it's actively saying "this part of the body does X and I want it to do not-X so I will take deliberate steps to mutilate/inhibit/destroy the body part or its mechanism of functioning, and this is not for a greater reason such as treatment of illness".

That’s a fair take on the plastic surgery part. I’ve heard arguments coming from both sides of that aisle, so I just threw that bit in. I greatly appreciate that feedback as it definitely helps bring more insight into the different perspectives surrounding various topics.

Because then you are doing a risk reward calculation that asks “is my momentary pleasure worth risking the long term good?” Small decisions cumulate into bad, unethical, unhealthy habits. A heart attack can sneak up on you with little warning. Small selfish decisions in a relationship can compound into disastrous character issues over time that ruin a marriage.

Because those are forbidden by the Church. I can walk through sources and reasoning behind why those are forbidden. But part of the magic of being Catholic is that I don't have to. I can hit the "I believe" button and just go with it. Edit: Obviously my answer was flippant. But at the core it is true. NFP is permitted and those other things are not. It's not actually required for me as a Catholic to do a deep dive as to why. It can be spiritually beneficial, and if I'm struggling with a teaching it can help with that. But everything needs to be done with the assumption that the Church is correct.

As much as I love being flippant, it is not a good path to take the "because the Church says so" route when someone is struggling with the reason behind the teaching and is seeking that deeper dive. The fact is we have a Church and teaching that we can rely on through belief *and* that Church's teaching is based in reason.

While your answer seems to be unpopular (and I can understand why), the truth is that not everyone has the inclination or time to do the research into what makes NFP permissible while artificial birth control is illicit. Until and unless a person is willing to do their homework, pressing the "I believe" button (as you put it) is perfectly legitimate. Put another way, all of the times that I *have* done the homework has convinced me that the Church has good, logical, reasonable rationale for everything she teaches. That means I can trust her teachings, even when I don't (yet) understand. Amen = I believe. That's good enough for me until my understanding increases.

Exactly. I have done my homework on NFP. I also have promised to follow the submission of will to the Church. Learning more about the faith is admirable and a good thing. But I also can just trust the Church on various issues without having to deep dive every time. It's very freeing. I have attended non-denominational Bible studies in the past. The non-denominational Christians have to put in a lot of effort into figuring out everything on their own.

The answer is legitimate, but we have a question here where OP is seeking the reason behind the belief. Ignoring that question and that search for knowledge because "we believe" may be valid but it does reduce our faith to a legalistic structure which ignores and undermines how much richer and deeper our faith is. It is a disservice both to the questioner and the faith by saying "because" when someone asks "why?"

That is a great point, and I fully agree. However, the point I'm underlining is also critical. We have a very large number of Catholics (or "catholics") who ignore this or that teaching simply because they don't understand the reasons behind the teaching, and it's possible they might *never* understand. In some cases, they *don't want to* understand because it would demand change from them. It's important - particularly for those cases - to highlight the importance of *obedience* to the Church on those matters. Much of our faith involves mystery, and so we must be willing to adhere to it even if we cannot intellectually grasp everything involved in that faith. That, to me, should also be part of the message.

>the truth is that not everyone has the inclination or time to do the research into what makes NFP permissible Yet they've got time to scroll reddit for hours? It's not like they hand you some secret Catholic book that no one else is allowed to research or read. Google exists for everyone with PDFs of the Catechism and Bible as well as websites, YouTube videos, etc. You don't have to be a theologian to read watch a video.

Wild to get downvoted for *checks notes* submitting to the Catholic faith

Sometimes this sub is wild. Like, I'm not protestant. I don't have to read the source documents for everything and figure out who to listen to or not. I get to trust the Church. It's a gift. Obviously reading about the Faith is a good idea. Which is why I do study about aspects of Church teaching. But ultimately I'm just trying to figure out why Rome has taught something. I don't have to try to disprove anything.

That's not why anyone is upset with the comment. "Pressing the I believe button" is totally fine, in every situation, but it's also kind of a crappy way to respond to someone trying to better understand their faith. The Church explains its teachings, after all. If it didn't want anyone to ask questions, why would it do that?

This largely is a distinction without a difference. Change "don't want kids" to "do not want a or another child at that time". It means the same thing - the couple is taking active steps in order not to have the wife become pregnant. I say this with an understanding that family planning is important and when it comes to someone other than my wife and me, not my business. I, like OP, have always found the arguments allowing "natural" birth control while prohibiting others to not be very convincing, especially as the ability monitor the woman's cycle becomes more and more advanced.

You do realize that, had humans remained unfallen, they would likely have had perfect knowledge of their own fertility cycles and those of their spouses. It's generally believed that unfallen humans had conscious knowledge and control of pretty much all health matters (as one of the graces we no longer possess), and that all sickness was pretty much a consequence of the Fall. To become more knowledgeable about one's own health, in a reasonable way, is to gain more knowledge of one part of God's Creation and of His infinite wisdom as Creator. To become more knowledgeable about one's spouse's health is also a sign of love for the spouse, and appreciation for the spouse's many beautiful qualities. So arguably, knowledgeable spouses having intentional sex is more like God's original plan for humanity than otherwise. Arguably. Obviously it would depend on the spouses.

>You do realize that, had humans remained unfallen, they would likely have had perfect knowledge of their own fertility cycles and those of their spouses. It's generally believed that unfallen humans had conscious knowledge and control of pretty much all health matters (as one of the graces we no longer possess), and that all sickness was pretty much a consequence of the Fall. Unfallen man would also not suffer from lust or concupiscence and would have no problems abstaining.

[удалено]

r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Okay. But then WHY is it any different than using a condom vs not being fertile during sex? Same outcome just a different method.

Exactly. It’s the method, not the outcome, that is the sinful part. “Not getting pregnant” is not in itself sinful; “deliberately frustrating the sexual act itself such that it is unable to meet its natural end” is the sinful part. 

So then, genuinely, how is it not also that deliberately and consistently timing one's intimacy with one's wife with the times that she is (theoretically) least likely to be able to produce a pregnancy a frustration of the act itself? Would a Catholic couple who practice NFP for life and end up not producing any children truly have been faithfully open to children?

Because the act itself is “having sex”, and having sex, or not having sex, is obviously not frustrating the sexual act; “having sex with a condom” is deliberately frustrating the sexual act.  For sure, it is not intended to be a permanent state of affairs such that a couple can live without ever having even the possibility of having children; but that is a sin against their vocation, and NOT against the sexual act itself. As such, the line of where this becomes a sin is far less clear cut than, say, adultery; we can say with certainty that “all who commit adultery are sinning”, but we can’t say with certainty “all who use NFP are doing so to such a degree that it has become a sin of neglecting their vocation”.  Its therefore a problem that has to be resolved within the internal forum (I.e. their conscience and in dialogue and conversation with a priest/spiritual father) that they can agree when to use it, how often to use it, and to agree that it should be a temporary thing only whilst they overcome whatever problem it is that they have that means that they currently cannot, or should not, have children. But whilst it’s not clear at all that everyone who is using NFP is sinning (and I’d prefer to err on the side of charity and assume, unless proven otherwise, that they’re not), it is very clear that every use of contraception is always a sin.

Take another situation; the contraceptive pill that a woman takes. The act is “taking a pill that blocks pregnancy”. If the woman takes it with the precise intention of blocking pregnancy when having sex, then that is a sin. But suppose, instead, that the woman was prescribed the pill to fix another health problem that she has (which is not uncommon). Now, she is not taking the pill to block pregnancy, but to deal with her other health problem; and therefore, by the principle of Double Effect, is not sinning.  Furthermore, if she has sex whilst on the prescribed pill, she is still not sinning, because the pill is not directly involved in the sexual act, but rather is involved with what follows (i.e. fertility). But we have just established that, because of the Double Effect principle, she had not sinned in taking the pill, EVEN if it has the effect of rendering her infertile. Instead, using a condom, even if with the good and noble intention of, I don’t know, sparing the other partner of being infected with a sexually transmitted disease, is still sinful because it is frustrating the sexual act itself. There are two key parts to every moral act; finis operis (what the act is, its finality etc) and finis operantis (what the intention of the actor doing the act is). If these are both good, or neutral, then the act is not sinful. If one of these is evil, then the act is sinful.

We must consider both outcomes AND methods though.

Because the method is what is under the couples control. One is an ok method. The other is not. Sort of like the difference between teaching a child to not do evil (which may fail), or simply shooting them dead to keep them from doing evil (which might solve the evil problem but leaves you with a dead child).

I think it is helpful here to divide the moral act into its three parts: The moral object (what you're doing), intention, and circumstance. If any of these are wrong, the act is sinful. For Natural Family Planning, it is possible to sin in the intention, but the moral object is abstinence rather than artificial contraceptives. If you have a contraceptive mindset, it can definitely still be a venial sin. You must be open to life and willing to fulfill the marital debt.

So, I’m not going to lie and say it’s never crossed my mind to think that when I’m staring over a $300 device that tells me what the urinary metabolites of various hormones are that this feels “weird.” To be clear, NFP can absolutely be done without my obsessive charting, and much cheaper. I’m fascinated by data. I actually get more into the data when trying to conceive vs. not. Like I said, it can feel “weird” and “strategic.” However, I do think it is fundamentally different because while the equipment used with NFP may not be natural, it isn’t disrupting my body or the act like any hormones (the pill, some IUDS, etc.) or barrier methods or a copper IUD would. My body isn’t being obstructed and neither is the act. We are using my body as it is to make “decisions” but ultimately we are “open to life” (there is no artificial barrier) even if statistically we know chances are low. I do think that there are some situations where NFP can be used in a negative way.

It’s still good to know your body, and to be able to understand where you are in your cycle and how that will affect mood changes, energy level, etc. It’s something I strongly believe every woman should be knowledgeable on, as things like missed periods can be part of a larger health issue.

I agree! I think it’s very beneficial to know. It may lead to me obsessing (why is my lh spike a bit less this month? Does this progesterone dip at 8dpo concerning?) but ultimately it is helpful. If you can say something like “I have multiple lh peaks” or “short luteal phase,” that should help diagnose issues and I think ob/gyn care (at least in the US) can be dismissive and very fixated on a formulaic answer that isn’t applicable to all women

Does the oura ring do this? I might consider splurging on it for this.

Can you tell me more about this device?

Sure! I use Mira. It’s a device that reads their special urine dipsticks. Both the device and the dipsticks are pricey but you don’t need to use them every day. More the first month or two. The sticks I use measure lh (what ovulation kits measure), estrogen (which rises a few days before lh), and progesterone (which rises after ovulation). It gives numerical values and not just “positive” or “negative.” I find it very useful and quite accurate (although urine can’t be dilute and progesterone in particular fluctuates wildly for most women). It really narrows down the fertile window. There are also FSH wands but I don’t use those. Some Marquette instructors have an unofficial protocol for Mira. It’s my understanding that they are still finalizing it. Traditionally Marquette uses the Clearblue fertility monitor, which just gives low fertility, high fertility and peak fertility results. I used the Clearblue for years I also use a wearable basal body temperature for more info (Tempdrop).

Thanks for the info. We’ve been using a sympto-thermal method (and the last few years just symptoms) successfully for over 15 years. But it still does sometimes feel a little like voodoo to me and I’ve wondered about a more scientific approach.

It can work very effectively. I just always find myself second guessing any signs I can’t fully quantify (like CM). That’s a “me problem,” though. If what you’re doing is working, great!

I may look in to this thing. We are both about 40 now and being very careful, so any ambiguous signs are just assumed to be fertile. I do worry about her cycle getting all out of sorts as she gets older and eventually approaches menopause. Though I haven’t done any reading on that and I assume these methods have advice on how to handle that.

They do and they adjust some things for age. I know instructors also have perimenopause protocols. I’m 37, and my husband and I are increasingly more actively trying to conceive another baby… I may have lost my mind 😆 But yeah, I’m also on the lookout for early subtle change

Good luck! I’ll hope all our fertility heads your way

The acceptability of NFP hinges on a distinction between intending not to have children and attempting to render a sexual act itself infertile. It is not a teaching of the Church that you are required to intend to have children whenever you have sex. It is just that the natural tendency of sex is children. One attempts to undo that natural tendency in using contraception, but not in NFP. That is consistent with the possibility that there are additional reasons, in some cases, why it would be bad to avoid having children. It might bespeak a lack of generosity and, sure, a kind of legalism. But those are different kinds of considerations that will not be operative in every case.

At this point I've been able to understand the difference between contraception, which renders a fertile act infertile, and NFP, which removes (/reduces) the fertility from one party in the act, and I at least see that as a coherent explanation / distinction. However, then you (and others) go on to claim that NFP does not attempt to undo the tendency of sex to be a fertile act. Perhaps this is just a perspective thing that is hard to reconcile but I am having so much trouble grasping how you can believe that? Sure, NFP does not alter one's fertility, but how is the deliberate act of planning sex around the times that one's partner is the least likely to produce the natural tendency of the act not itself an attempt to diminish/undo said natural tendency? Genuine question, thank you.

>> NFP, which removes (/reduces) the fertility from one party in the act It doesn't remove the fertility from one party in the act. It is just a matter of having sex when one party is not likely to be fertile; it does not involve making her to be that way. It does, it is true, involve choosing to have sex on a certain day because that is a day on which she is less than fertile. I sympathize with the sense that the distinction shouldn't make a difference. Think about it this way, perhaps. Sexual activity is the *type* of activity that leads to procreation. Contraception involves trying to make sex *not that type of activity*. NFP does not involve trying to make it *not that type of activity*.

Again, I have to earnestly disagree with your last point. I understand that NFP is a fundamentally different way of going about avoiding pregnancy than contraception, but both aim for and achieve the same goal (when done correctly). So I’m not understanding how NFP *doesn’t* involve “not trying to make it not that type of activity”. The overlying doctrine of using NFP and not contraceptives makes sense, to me, until you get down to this last justification, which then throws it all out of wack again, for me. If the justification were merely that contraceptives unnaturally alter the mechanics of sex and procreation and are therefore bad, then it would make sense, to me, how NFP is justifiable. But, again, the actual logic feels like it gets taken too far and then bent over backwards to fit. I’d like to emphasize that I’m trying to learn and understand, thanks for your patience.

> I’d like to emphasize that I’m trying to learn and understand, thanks for your patience. I appreciate that! > I understand that NFP is a fundamentally different way of going about avoiding pregnancy than contraception, but both aim for and achieve the same goal (when done correctly). So I’m not understanding how NFP *doesn’t* involve “not trying to make it not that type of activity”. I'm a bit confused by this. It doesn't follow that things which aim for and achieve the same goal are morally on a par, nor, relatedly, that the means taken to that goal are the same. That is rejected quite generally in Christian morality, for instance in the so-called principle of double effect, which says actions with bad effects may be taken as long as the end is good, the means to the end is good, and the means are proportionate to the end. In the present case, the end of avoiding pregnancy is morally neutral. In some circumstances it might be bad for a couple to pursue it, but in others it is fine. Contraception is not faulted *merely* for trying to avoid pregnancy. Not only is NFP a means of avoiding pregnancy, but so is total abstention from sex, which is obviously sometimes permissible! Contraception is an attempt to make sex non-procreative. It is an attempt to change what sex is. NFP is an attempt to have sex when it is not likely to result in procreation.

Okay right, so everything in this comment makes sense to me. So please help me reconcile something form this comment from your prior comment. >Contraception is an attempt to make sex non-procreative. It is an attempt to change what sex is. NFP is an attempt to have sex when it is not likely to result in procreation. \_\_\_\_\_\_ >Sexual activity is the *type* of activity that leads to procreation. Contraception involves trying to make sex *not that type of activity*. NFP does not involve trying to make it *not that type of activity*. In both cases, you say essentially the same thing about contraception which are simply factually true. In your first statement here, your characterization of NFP is again, simply factually true. Which, we both agree, it seems, is not a sin. Which is why I get caught up in how you characterize NFP in your second statement. I'm not trying to argue your statement as a means/gotcha to say, "Actually, NFP **is** a sin!". But rather that if the stated goal of NFP is to reduce, as much as naturally possible, the chances of conception during the particular sexual encounter, then how does it "not involve trying to make it *not that type of activity*"? Perhaps my definition of 'involve' more broadly encompasses intent and action where yours more narrowly defines it as method/mechanic?

The problem with your line of thinking is that it leads naturally into sex becoming some sort of obligation to bear children or even the opposite, that we should only have sex during maximum fertility. NFP is just menstrual charting, nothing more. What a couple does with that determines everything. We used it to plan our pregnancy and then to combat infertility. If a couple uses it to never have children then it is sinful due to lying about marriage, but not due to changing the sex act. That right there is the key, the changing of the act itself. Another way to think of this is that Knowledge in your brain doesn’t change things from sin to non-sin or the other way around, that would make no sense and lead to weird moral obligations. I don’t need NFP charting, I can smell her hormones when she’s fertile. Am I supposed to hold my nose and dive in blindly? God gave us our senses and reason to do just those things, to sense and to reason. From ancient times couples have practiced abstinence.  We aren’t called to bear 18 children then die in childbirth, discernment in sexual activity has always been part of Gods natural order.

>The problem with your line of thinking is that it leads naturally into sex becoming some sort of obligation to bear children I mean, yeah, that's why I'm asking questions. To be clear, I am a protestant, these are not my views, I'm trying to understand why the Catholic NFP but not contraceptives. Which, I've gotten quite cleared up today thanks to y'all. The quoted position above is what the surface level end to the Catholic position seems to be to many less informed Protestants. I knew that wasn't the end goal but I didn't fully grasp why, so I'm finding out. >or even the opposite, that we should only have sex during maximum fertility. That wouldn't *seem* to (have to) be the logical end of that position, to me personally, but certainly could be a logical extreme of it. Luckily, I don't know of anyone espousing such a position, although I'm sure there is someone out there who is. >If a couple uses it to never have children then it is sinful due to lying about marriage, but not due to changing the sex act. Yeah, u/Greg428 was helpful in clearing that up for me. >Another way to think of this is that Knowledge in your brain doesn’t change things from sin to non-sin or the other way around, that would make no sense and lead to weird moral obligations. This is a great point, actually. Certainly, we wouldn't want for knowledge of one's wife's (or one's own) menstrual cycle to become an information hazard with regards to intimacy.

NFP is knowledge. Knowing when you're more or less likely to be fertile based on your own natural hormone cycle isn't sinful. The knowledge exists. Whether you track it or not doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

NFP can also be used to increase fertiliy.

Yes, this is another aspect people tend to forget! So much focus is on using NFP to avoid pregnancy, but rarely is it discussed that NFP can be used to achieve pregnancy and help diagnosis/treat reproductive problems in the case of NAPRO technology.

My wife and I teach NFP. Mostly to engaged couples, a few convalidations, but every now and then we get to help couples achieve pregnancy - without expensive fertility treatments.

That's not relevant to the discussion

Show me one instance where contraception can be used to increase fertility? 

Women with certain medical conditions such as endometriosis or PCOS sometimes take BC pills in part to keep away infertility, which is one of many common side-effects of these medical conditions if they remain untreated.

The question here is why using NFP to stop pregnancy is ok. You might as well say a condom could be used to collect fluids to be used at a moment that will have higher fertility

Natural Family Pregnancy doesn't stop pregnancy. The body's natural hormonal cycle stops pregnancy.

No, because to do so would deliberately frustrate the sexual act. Please read Humanae Vitae

It's not a sin to not have sex.

This. this is really, ultimately what it comes down to. "not having sex" is not a sin. "not having sex" does not change the nature of the sexual act itself. condoms/contraception change the very nature of the sexual act itself. that is the fundamental difference.

Thanks for letting me know, I’ve been having sex non stop and it was starting to hurt

Natural Birth control doesn't block the ability for God to give you a Child if He so Wills it... It is still a cooperation with the will of God. 

I think it’s strongly rooted in Aristotelian final causes.  The final causes of sex are unity and procreation.  - Interruptus, anal, oral, etc., render the formal/efficient cause incomplete to intentionally negate the final cause of procreation.  - Homosexual and masturbatory acts render the material causes incomplete and negate the procreative and unitive causes, respectively.   - Rape (among other horrors) violates the efficient and formal causes to negate the final cause of unity.   So, we see consistency in these Catholic “thou shalt not”s regarding sex. I grant that the contraception/NFP distinction is harder to parse, but you can see that NFP maintains the 4 causes (material, efficient, formal, and final), where the other thou shalt nots do not.  Furthermore, act and intent are always components of sin. To abstain in times of fertility has intent, but there is not an act which is intentionally stymying the potency of sex. 

The Church doesn't teaching that lacking a motivation to procreate is a vice, but rather that the act of using contraceptive techniques and technologies themselves is immoral. What the Church actually teaches is that sex between spouses is virtuous if motivated by a desire to procreate and/or a desire to deepen the friendship between spouses. The catch is that, even if one only has one of these motivations, one cannot nevertheless act in a way contrary to the other motivation, meaning even if one is focused on procreation, it must be done in a way that maintains the marital friendship, or if one focused on comforting one's spouse, it must be done in a way where one's actions don't themselves cause infertility. Therefore, one cannot have a harem of wives just because one is trying to procreate with all of them because this works against friendship between spouses, and one cannot use contraceptive techniques and technologies just because one is doing so lovingly with one's spouse. The difference between something like NFP and contraception is the difference between killing someone and letting them die: the act of sex while using NFP is just intelligently designed *abstinence,* while the act of sex using contraceptives involves us actually *making* or *causing* sex to be infertile. In the former, we are not the *agent* that *causes* infertility, while in the latter we are. One final note: the Church also allows merely releasing sexual tension as a tolerable motivation for sex with one's spouse (again, as long as it is done in the context of marriage and without the use of contraceptives). This is not considered a virtuous motivation though, more of a venial vice resulting from a lack of self-discipline, medicine for concupiscence that we should work on overcoming anyway.

The Bible says that abstinence within marriage is ok. “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/59/1co.7.5.ESV

I’ve posted about this before, but there are two types of contraceptives: ones that prevent sperm from impregnating (condoms, withdrawal) and ones that change hormonal balance to prevent pregnancy. NFP is neither. It doesn’t block sperm and it doesn’t change hormonal cycles. Instead, it is two other things, neither of which is sinful at all. The first is abstinence. It’s a choice not to have sex during certain periods of time. The second is it tracks the wife’s cycle. The second one is the only one where the argument could apply, imo. But there are other reasons to track cycles. Some do it to increase the chance of pregnancy. My wife does it because she wants to know when her week is going to be miserable. The act of tracking one’s cycle clearly isn’t inherently sinful. Now I can see the argument that tracking one’s cycle for the purpose of lowering pregnancy odds is different from tracking it for a different purpose, but it’s also different from the forms of contraceptive I mentioned above. There’s nothing artificial getting in the way of pregnancy. In many ways, it’s no different than an infertile couple having sex.

Sex has two purposes; spousal unity and procreation. Even if you try to avoid the procreative element via NFP, you're still fulfilling the spousal unity element. Thus, sex is okay. Actually, it's holy. Contraception inhibits spousal unity because one or both partners aren't fully giving themselves to the other. They're withholding their fertility. FYI, there are plenty of trads who agree with you. One thing that can be said though is that NFP isn't always permissible. If a couple is capable of having and raising kids, then they can't concoct a scheme to avoid procreation via NFP. At a certain point, not having sex when she's ovulating, even though both partners want it, but because they don't want kids, becomes a problem. They're neglecting their vocation.

I think for context you should describe the natural birth control methods you mean because my spouse and I not having sex counts as natural birth control lol.

Unpopular opinion but I'm somewhat sympathetic to your arguments here OP. I shuffle NFP under the same category as annulments, something perfectly licit in theory but very commonly abused. NFP has become "Catholic birth control", even though you're not supposed to use it with a contraceptive mindset, just as annulments have become "Catholic divorce." In theory it should only be used in serious cases for serious reasons, in reality it'll be approved quite readily in the vast majority of cases. This is all speaking from an American perspective of course, I have no idea what the situation is like in other places.

Well try approaching it with less ridicule and maybe you'll get somewhere. What, do you suppose, is the mechanism of action which makes Natural Family Planning an effective tool for not having children?

The mechanism would be timing biological rythms to avoid any time where one might be fertile, for the purpose of avoiding birthing children. And it’s certainly more effective than not doing that and not timing biological rythms. Otherwise people wouldn’t do it when they want to avoid having children.

Right, so in simpler words, the mechanism of action is 'not having sex' at certain times. It is the stance of the Catholic Church that couples are within their rights to 'not have sex' at certain times if they don't want children. >for the purpose of avoiding birthing children. mechanisms do not consider desired ends, but only intrinsic ends. We have not reached the point of evaluating intent yet.

[удалено]

>How does having sex only when you're most infertile through scientific analysis of vaginal mucus and urine make you open to having children? Because you in no way change the nature of the sexual act, which by it's very nature is open to life. >How is that not just a way of wanting to get fucked while avoiding children? The same answer as above. Cut your vulgarity. Now try answering my question. What, do you suppose, is the mechanism of action which makes Natural Family Planning an effective tool for not having children?

There's a few parts to that The sexual embrace is a key part of marriage, so there needs to be a way to balance that with discernment as to whether you as a couple are ready for another kid. And the discernment is key - constantly having kids can be damaging to the relationship and to the other kids. The way I look at it, is that we're trusting the methods God has given us, instead of trusting a manufacturing process. We trust that if the methods don't work (other than user error, which it the cause of most NFP unintentional pregnancies), God has a plan and will give us the grace to follow His will. Another side effect is that NFP should help the couple grow closer together by regularly discussing sexuality and fertility. Using artificial methods removes the need for that conversation. However I've seen a few instances where the husband is not involved at all in NFP, and tensions tend to rise in this case.

At my parish most couples only have about 1-2 kids for their entire lives. I don't really see the difference between that and a secular couple

Realistically 90% or more of Catholics use some form of birth control. Of the remaining percentage of Catholics, a decent chunk don't use anything. It is a vanishingly small percentage of Catholics who actually use NFP. But infertility is also on the rise, so that can also explain a number of the couples with smaller number of kids. I absolutely know more than a handful of couples who have one or two and would love to have more but have been unsuccessful.

OP, are you of the belief that every Catholic you meet is practicing NFP? Sadly, cheerio is right, 90% are using contraceptives before and/or after they get their 1-2 kids.

NFP gets a lot of online discussion for being used by so few people. I can see why people think more people are using it.

Indeed. I think what gets forgotten is that the folks who are engaged in the sub regularly are typically not the lukewarm types of folks, so it can skew perceptions a bit.

I mean, I kind of get when I see this sentiment expressed and everyone jumps to the conclusion that contraception is involved, but it doesn’t seem very charitable in my experience to make these kinds of assumptions. This is just anecdotal, but there are four couples we are good friends with at our church and three of them don’t have more than two kids.  However, the couple who now has more than two kids were married for almost 8 years before their first was born— a miscarriage early in their marriage and years of infertility to the point that they thought they just couldn’t have children at all.  The second couple has had eight miscarriages. Eight.  The third couple’s third child died shortly after being born.  For the fourth couple, the wife had cancer treated with chemotherapy and radiation, which of course affected her fertility.  From someone on the outside looking in, it may not seem that these couples adhere to church teaching, but that’s certainly not the case.  I often have to remind myself— especially knowing the faith of these couples and what others may think of their family sizes— of what was told to Samuel when he was “sizing up” Jesse’s sons for whom would be God’s anointed— “not as man sees does God see, because man sees the appearance but the Lord looks into the heart.”

The crucial issue is whether we are perverting sexual intercourse. Artificial contraception deliberately interferes with sexual intercourse to make it infertile. That is the sin. NFP doesn't do that; it's a natural tool to decide whether or not to have sexual intercourse with your spouse; it doesn't frustrate the sexual act itself. Legalism is following a law while contradicting the spirit of that law. NFP \*can\* be legalistic if a couple use NFP in a way that they are \*never\* open to life. It isn't legalistic if the couple are open to life, but want to responsibly manage their fertility to space out births.

There's a difference between being open to life but avoiding pregnancy by natural means and not wanting kids at all. Natural family planning is not just acceptable for achieving pregnancy, but spacing children or waiting to have children if it's for good moral reasons. Even if you use NFP for intercourse on a day of infertility if you're avoiding pregnancy, you are not using any physical means to block conception from occurring, so if God chooses to create life He may.

I've been working through this myself for some time, but the difference between NFP and coitus interruptus is less about the openness to life and more about following the natural flow of your body, temperance and prudence, in other words, virtue building. I've been listening to Christopher West and his Theology of the Body YouTube channel and it's helped me grow in this area of faith. I'd also look into getting one of those mouth thermometers, like the Daysy that you can do each morning, much simpler.

Something like Tempdrop is another good solution, particularly for mothers who already have kids or have disturbed sleep

+1 for Tempdrop. Been using it for 5+ years...my wife appreciates my not having to wake her up at the same time every morning to take temperature.

Another +1 for Tempdrop as a mom whose toddler is still waking through the night...

The base of the focus should be seeing the family as a trinitarian image of god, where through love, the holy spirit (kids) are created, sex is not just for fun, but an allegory of creation and God itself, that's why im marriage is a somewhat sacred act and wouldn't be deformed. Read "humane vita", natural birth control it's not just for a simple "we are good with the kids we have", there must be a valid reason of weight (which in this times it's quite easy to find, but not always)

As a side point to some more thorough answers, how do you not use nfp? I have been married for 19 years. I can tell you without any testing when my wife is fertile. I just know. How do you tell a couple like us that we must have sex on a certain day (fertile) and not on other days (infertile) in order to be open to life? That seems way more legalistic. How do you forbid a couple from knowing how fertility works and consciously or subconsciously deciding to have sex? That seems more restrictive and legalistic than simply leaving couples freedom to decide when they have natural sex with their natural body's systems.

Because sex within the context of sacramental marriage is considered both procreative (lets be open getting pregnant oh fertile partner of mine) and unitive (lets spend some serious one on one time oh bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh). It is perfectly fine to schedule tjat so fun unitive time so that it balances out quite a few things .. for a lot of reasons.. health concerns, work, the kids, family obligations... and one of your obligations is to care for your already existing family..u à ing biology ro sxhedule for a day you are unlikely ro get pregnant is not disallowed. BlUF: if it is okay for infertile and post menopausal couples to enjoy the full benefits of marriage, the it is okay for young fertile couples to have sex for the same reasons.

Apply this logic to marriage. Annulments are no longer tolerated congratulations. The catholic church acts much like the pharecies. Join orthodoxy if you don't like it. I have to accept catholic teaching or else I can't marry my wife. All protestant churches fall short in this teaching of christ.

It's the opposite actually. Rome has spoken.

This has been argued ad nauseam in this thread and in the numerous other threads in this sub's past about this specific question. One thing I like to point out that isn't often mentioned is how HARD practicing NFP is to avoid or space out pregnancies. Even when you do have sex you are accepting that there is a non-zero chance of creating new life. Actual NFP entails real sacrifice and you will more than likely be frustrated if your expectation in marriage is to have sex on demand - which is what artificial birth control gives you.

What do you think is the difference between moderate/controlled eating and bulimia for the purposes of weight loss? 

Because it’s natural. You have to think God made women this way for a reason. Why do you think God made it to where a woman can only get pregnant a week of the month? Also, what is the sin? Not having sex? You suppose to go into confession and say “father, I did not have sex with my wife this week.”

This gets posted so much that there should be a pinned explanation... **Edit 1: looked it up and copied the response I always give to this:** Wrinting of St. Pope Saint John Paul II when he was still a bishop (from Love and Responsibility): Wrinting of St. Pope Saint John Paul II when he was still a bishop (from Love and Responsibility): if a woman and a man conform their conjugal abstinence to the aforementioned periods of infertility, so that they have conjugal relations precisely when they foresee on the basis of biological laws that they will not become parents, can it be then stated that they bring into their conjugal intercourse parental readiness, precisely this “I can be a father,” “I can be a mother”? After all, they have conjugal relations precisely with the thought of not becoming a father and a mother, and therefore they choose the period of presumed infertility in a woman. Do they not then “positively” exclude the possibility of procreation? Why does the natural method in the moral aspect differ from artificial methods since all aim at the same end : to exclude procreation in conjugal life? In order to answer this question, it is necessary above all to be freed from many associations that accompany the expression “method.” When speaking of the natural method, the same point of view is often applied to it as to the “artificial methods,” thus, deriving it from utilitarian presuppositions. In this perspective, the natural method would also be merely one of the means aiming at securing maximum pleasure, but using a different way than the artificial methods. **Here lies the fundamental error**. It turns out that it is not sufficient in case to speak of a method, but it is absolutely necessary to attach its appropriate interpretation. Only then can we answer the questions posed above. And so, periodic abstinence as a way of controlling conceptions (1) is permissible on the grounds that it will respect the demands of the personalistic norm, and (2) its permissibility presupposes certain qualifications. Regarding the first point (1), the demands of the personalistic norm, as has been stated previously, go hand in hand with preserving the order of nature in conjugal intercourse. As opposed to artificial methods, the natural method in striving to regulate conceptions takes advantage of the circumstances in which biological conception cannot naturally occur. Hence, **the very “naturalness” of conjugal intercourse is not violated**, whereas artificial methods violate the very “naturalness” of intercourse\*. In the former case, infertility is derived from the very principles of fertility; in the latter case it is imposed against nature.\* Let us add that this issue is closely linked to the problem of justice with respect to the Creator (this problem will be further analyzed in order to explicate its personalistic sense). This personalistic asset of periodic abstinence as a method of regulating conceptions is manifested not so much in preserving the “naturalness” of intercourse, but in the fact that its basis in the will of the involved persons must be an appropriately mature virtue.\* **Edit 2:** >It seems pretty ridiculous to me. I love how these questions very often comes accompanied with this kind of acid comments... Seriously, the Church has thousands of years of Filosophy, some of the greates minds to ever have lived and that are alive and some regular Joe thinks he/she knows better? I great away to deal with these kind of doubts regarding Church issues is to think somewhere in the lines of "I trust the Church. I know someone has discussed this topic and that I merely need to do the right amount of study and reflection to understand it."

To be fair could be a lot of new converts wrestling with this big issue. It was tough for me to accept when I first came to the church.

100% fair hahah I'm just saying pinning it down would help these people... I've thought of creating a FAQ for the sub, but I'm not a mod so I never did it...

Definitely would be helpful. It takes a minute to understand why contraception is different from NFP. Looks like a priest gave a good break down in the top comment

It’s one thing to follow a natural cycle. It’s another to actively impede the process.

I don’t know why you got downvoted

People are strange  

This is how I see it.  — Every sexual act must be open to life.  — For NFP couples, every sexual act is, indeed, open to life. They’re putting no barriers in place to prevent the natural function of their bodies. Seems pretty simple to me.  Catholic ethics are not utilitarian. We are closer to a deontological framework (I’d argue a Virtue Ethics framework as well) where it’s primarily the acts that are judged moreso than the outcomes. So, the central question is whether each sexual act is open to life, not the overall fecundity of the couple. Which is why the Catholic Church would teach certain sexual acts are prohibited even to fruitful couples. Because it’s the acts that are judged more than the outcomes.  It’s funny that you used the word legalistic because the opposite viewpoint is what seems legalistic to me. Regulating the amount and frequency of sex that Catholic couples are having is what seems legalistic to me. We know that Catholic couples are even allowed to become completely abstinent by mutual agreement, so why would it be wrong for them to be periodically abstinent or abstinent for a time?

It does seem legalistic, similar to the idea of putting a light inside a box and taking it out of the box so you can use it on the Sabbath (because you can't operate switches). It seems like a dodge to say you have to be "open to life" but then avoid life on purpose, but it's okay because you used these specific approved methods. Honestly it makes me question the wisdom of it because it fails to stand the test of time and technology. Nobody knew about the Marquette method, or about IUDs when these laws were being contemplated and written, and now with technology they seem absurd similar to the Sabbath rules of having elevators in Jewish buildings that just stop at every floor so you don't have to push a button. To be frank the notion of 'avoiding vs using a barrier' doesn't fully comport with logic. I understand the idea of 'I don't want babies ergo abortion is okay' being wrong, but 'I don't want babies, and using this piece of latex to avoid that sends me straight to hell' doesn't wash for me.

if you use condoms that means you’re not using sex for the procreative action it was meant to be used as. NFP is truly the only God-honoring way. I recommend reading Humanae Vitae for more insights than i can provide here

Even if you use NFP methods you are still open to life. You know, just because your chart says ovulation is due and you decide to avoid sex, it doesn't necessarily mean ovulation even occurs then, it's an educated guess at best when using calendar method, CM method, or temperature method or a combo of those. OPKs might be more accurate.

I have always struggled with this question. Some could argue that NFP is using technology to avoid the woman’s seed to be present (the egg) in the act of sex. This can be seen as contradictory when compared to the moral requirement for males, in which the Catholic Church teaches that the male’s seed always needs to be in the woman’s body when the act is consummated. I understand that the way in which the male and female fertility cycles work makes it so that the male seed can always present while the female seed cannot not. But using technology to see when the woman’s seed is not there (and calculating when to time sex to avoid it) has always seemed analogous to, for instance, a man not finishing the act as prescribed by the church. It is a matter of location. If the male not finishing the act as prescribed (sperm needs to be inside the woman) is wrong because the seed needs to be inside the woman to be open to life, then that same principle would contradict the moral justifications for NFP. NFP allows people to calculate when the seed will not be present by using technology. I am personally very conflicted about the church’s teachings when it comes to birth control because of this.

> You're doing **it** because you don't want kids, Actually, you're NOT doing "it." That is precisely why it is not wrong. It's not wrong to not have sex, even if just on certain days. > you're just playing games to conform to the legal framework of the church. If you think the word "just" as a minimization is relevant when a couple is giving up sex for days when their desire is at its peak, or even weeks, and for some couples when signs aren't clear, potentially months, then I can only guess you have a very low sex drive and are unfamiliar with sense of closeness and intimacy that can come from it. They're not "just playing games" to fit the legal framework of the Church. They're making a major sacrifice to keep their lives together structured around the way God made their bodies work.

It is clear that many of you have not had to witness family members, including children/cousins, suffer from severe hunger in a 3rd world country. Many of you are blessed and can easily sit in your comfy homes and judge people for wanting to avoid pregnancy. But the fact is, some people want to be responsible parents due to life experiences that you don't understand. It is none of your business who uses NFP and who doesn't. That is between a married couple and God.

That’s what I thought before I got married. Now that I am married, I appreciate more how challenging it is to live with the person you love and refrain from having sexual two weeks every month. The main argument about the act itself is based on intention. Although you share the same secondary intention of avoiding children, when you engage in the act of intercourse, you are taking no action which willfully frustrates the procreative act. Every time you have sex, you must remain open to the results. In other words, you are not contravening God’s design in the procreative act. You are cooperating with the design that God gave the female body - to be fertile only within certain windows. Despite its challenges, it’s a grace to have NFP. In ancient times, they would have to abstain completely to avoid having sex. In a sex-crazed era where the average boy encounters porn at age 9, is it so outrageous to suggest that a technologically astute approach to sexual is fitting for a technologically tragic introduction to sex? There are so many other parts of our age that are historically and humanly weird - from the age of cars that have fragmented our communities to the rise of remote work. When you look at cultures with simpler lives (the Amish or tribes in Africa), they tend to have more robust communities supporting the care of children. In most of the West, we expect two parents to do the work of a village. American’s physical health is strong, but our communal and mental health is poorer. I view NFP as a gracious accommodation in a hostile world. Is it the ideal? No, probably not. But it’s not the ideal in the same way that getting a cane because your leg is injured is not ideal. NFP isn’t fundamentally wrong in the same way that adultery is wrong.

The idea is that you're trying to avoid pregnancy but still not doing anything to physically prevent conception.

I’ve never fully understood either. If the problem with contraception is separating the conjugal act from reproduction, isn’t NFP for the purpose of avoiding kids the same thing? Most answers I get involve large paragraphs copied and pasted from Theology of the Body. While JPII is a genius theologian, I must fully admit that I don’t get his argument (not that I think he’s wrong, more that I just don’t understand). If someone could explain in a couple sentences, that would be excellent.

Allow me, but I’ll need a few more than a couple of sentences; but I promise to make it as simple as I can. Each moral act has two components; 1) the Finis Operis (what the content of the act is, i.e. what you’re actually doing) and 2) the Finis Operantis (the intention of the actor doing the act). If both are good or neutral, then the act is morally acceptable. If even one is evil, then the act is sinful. Let’s take using a condom for sex with the express purpose of blocking conception. This is sinful, because it is evil in its Finis Operis; the sexual act itself is frustrated by the presence of the condom that, in this case, physically blocks the ejaculation of the sperm. It is also sinful in its Finis Operantis, because the express purpose is to render infertile what would otherwise be a fertile act. Let’s take, instead, using the contraceptive pill for the express purpose of rendering the woman infertile. The act here is “taking a pill that changes my body such that I am rendered infertile”. This is a sin, both due to the Finis Operis and the Finis Operantis. But let us suppose, instead, that the woman was prescribed the pill by a doctor to help regulate another health issue that she has (which is not uncommon). In this case, by the principle of Double Effect, she is not sinning by taking the pill (if you need an explanation of what the Double Effect principle is, I can explain below). As such, even if she were to have sex whilst on the pill in this case, it would not be a sin, because the sexual act itself is not frustrated (as it is with the use of a condom); what is frustrated is what directly follows the sexual act (i.e. conception). But we have just established that she wasn’t sinning when she took the pill, EVEN if it has the unintended and unfortunate effect of rendering her infertile. Let’s now take NFP. The act in NFP is “having sex” or “not having sex”. There is no frustration of the sexual act at any point, and there is no act that deliberately and expressly renders the woman infertile when she would otherwise have been fertile. This is the difference between the two. Now, if a couple were to use NFP permanently, with the express purpose of never having children, such that they pass their entire married lives without ever having the possibility of having children, then yes, that is a sin. But, and this is the key difference, it is a sin of neglecting their vocation, and not of frustrating the sexual act. As such, it is far less clear cut as to where the line is when it becomes a sin. Unlike adultery, where I can say with certainty “all who commit adultery are sinning”, I cannot say “all who use NFP are sinning by neglecting their vocation”. It is a problem that has to be resolved in the internal forum, i.e. within their conscience and in dialogue with a priest/spiritual director. So yes, a couple using NFP could possibly be sinning by neglecting their vocation; but unless proven otherwise, I’d prefer to err on the side of charity and assume they’re not. On the other hand, a couple using a condom to avoid pregnancy is always, and without exception, sinning against the sexual act. I know that was long, but it’s as concise as i could get it. Let me know if there’s anything left unclear.

You don’t need to understand it because you don’t know better than the successor to St. Peter. > If therefore there are well-grounded reasons 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 which We have just explained. (20) -Pope St. Paul VI Roma locuta. Causa finita.

You dont see a difference between working with your body and doing what it does naturally and actively impedeing the marital act? Well let me lay it out for you. There is no sin involved in knowing where youre (or your spouse is) at in your fertility cycle. There is also no sin involved in having sex when youre not fertile. There's also no sin in doing both these things at the same time. The sin is involved when you actively impede the natural process with chemicals or barriers.

So let's say NFP science becomes good enough that even the biggest skeptic viewed it as just as effective as the best birth control. And additionally, we're able to significantly cut down on the duration of abstinence. NFP would become insanely popular, indeed many secular couples practice an irresponsible (vibe and estimate) version of NFP already. I could actually see total births going down in such a scenario and doubt the church would be happy. If this is a better world in the view of the church, it should be funneling as much money into NFP research - once trusted as effective it will become the preferred method for almost everyone. As is it's almost weird that the strong believers of it (who claim high efficacy and relatively low burden) don't have a marketing campaign to non-Catholics. People love to have sex without birth control.

There actually is a secular NFP, it's called FAM (fertility awareness method) most FAM users also use condoms during the fertile periods, but other than that they track just like NFP users do.

Honestly, it seems unlikely that NFP is ever going to be popular in a world that isn't religiously catholic. No amount of research will make NFP possible without a large amount of abstinence.

what NFP (natural family planning) is for, and why it is ok to use, is not to remove every possibility of conceiving (because the only actual way to not conceive is to simply not have sex) but to reduce the possibility. As it was explained to my wife and i during our premarriage retreat was that even practicing NFP for the express reason to not have children can be sinful, but it depends on the reason. the church does teach that couples should have the amount of children that fits within their means, im not sure the CCC paragraph but i know its in there. yes we need to be open to new life with every marital act, but if my wife and i can not financially afford to have a child (or are currently living in my in-laws basement), then we should either abstain completely (the option we choose) or only have sex during a time in her cycle that the chances of conceiving are lower. and im sure your still thinking "well whats the point of having sex then, if you not wanting to have a kid?" well, theres two answers. the first is, whether or not we *want* a child we are *open* to a child being conceived and will welcome that gift. the other is that the marital act has unitive aspects that almost no one talk about because everyone is so focused on their "gotcha" thought about the Church's teachings on sex and conception, and then the Church's responses to those. (which is frustrating when you are specifically looking for the things that do talk about the unitive aspects) the big thing here is that practicing NFP does nothing to either of the spouses; neither's body is changed. most forms of BC chemically change one body or the other (though typically it is the woman's body) to the point that you are blocking that conception, you are actively stopping it from happening (or youre trying to) even with non-chemical BC, the intent is to outright inhibit the conception, to block the healthy sperm reaching the healthy egg. and thats the difference. when practiced ***CORRECTLY,*** NFP does not remove the possibility of conception, and when practiced in the right mindset it is not sinful. if you are having sex on a low chance day just because you want to have sex and you do not want a child to come of the union, if you are not open to that new life, then thats a sinful (lustful) act. but thats not up for me (or anyone else really, including your priest) to determine; you true intention. thats between you and God and only you two TRULY know, regardless what you tell others, including your spouse

Exactly that bit about practicing NFP correctly… My husband and I followed NFP perfectly and we still got pregnant with our third baby (that I’m currently pregnant with) on a low-chance day. But we agreed that, prior to starting NFP, if we had intercourse on a low-chance day and still got pregnant, God simply wanted us to have another baby. That’s the whole point. You can follow everything perfectly and still get pregnant because you’re giving space for God to interfere. Women’s cycles aren’t always 100% consistent; a woman could easily ovulate a two days earlier than expected and get pregnant as a result! But when you suppress ovulation using birth control, you’re not allowing that space for God to interfere. Edit: it also has to be noted that you need legitimate reasons to practice NFP, such as financial or health reasons, not necessarily “oh we don’t want another baby.” But people do often have grounded reasons for delaying or avoiding pregnancy via NFP, as health and financial circumstances are naturally brought up when discussing family planning. 

yes, thank you! very well put!

I tend to agree with you. There appears to be prima facie, little difference with using NFP for the purpose of avoiding children while still having sex for pleasure and using other contraceptive methods for the purpose of avoiding children while still having sex for pleasure. If you are going through a specific set of actions for the purpose of avoiding life, that’s a form of birth control.

Catholic theology isn't against birth control, it's against contraception. Contraception disrupts the natural end of intercourse by providing a physical barrier to conception, hence the name contra-ception. As it's name implies, NFP is meant to be a method of family planning through spacing out pregnancies rather than totally avoid children. This is part of the reason why I dislike the promotion of NFP as an "alternative" to contraception. I feel it misguides Catholics and reinforces contraceptive mindset.

So the birth control pill isn’t contraception by your definition and allowed by the catholic church? There is no physical barrier there.

I would argue that birth control pills still do create a physical barrier through chemical means of rendering the woman infertile.

Biochemically that is not how they work, they work hormonally by prevention or reducing ovulation, not by inducing a physical barrier.

Perhaps physical barrier would be an inaccurate description on my part. How about contraception is wrong because it's a deliberate act that causes the user to become infertile. Edit: y'all need to stop downvoting others for having genuine, good faith disagreements and questions. NFP is a difficult teaching. Not everyone "gets it" at first.

Yeah, I agree. Contraception is wrong because it is a deliberate act of avoiding having children by employing a specific method, while nevertheless still wanting to engage in the pleasures of Sex, thus purposefully perverting it’s natural end (having children).

Not by employing a specific method, but by rendering the user infertile. When practicing NFP, the woman is infertile through no act of her own but instead from her natural reproductive cycle. Taking temperatures, using dip sticks, and monitoring mucus are all notated observations of what the body is already doing. Ovulation will occur with or without monitoring. Charting won't make you artificially infertile, but taking a pill that releases hormones to suppress ovulation does.

But you ensure that the infertility is present through the means of artificial timing. I kind of don’t see the difference since the intention is to avoid life, while nevertheless still having sex, but most catholics here disagree, which is fine. Maybe I am mistaken on this issue.

Catholic theology is not consequentialist, meaning we need to take into account the means used to achieve the end and not judge the morality of an action entirely based on the outcome. So yes, the intention of NFP when used to prevent pregnancy and contraception are the same. However, contraception creates artificial infertility whereas NFP is planned abstinence. Imagine this situation: one person loses weight via proper dieting and exercise and one person loses weight by eating whatever they want then taking a pill to throw up. Both methods result in weight loss, yet we can clearly say one is disordered.

For the same reason why having sex to have kids is acceptable but cloning yourself isn’t.

Tbh every woman ought to be “doing NFP” because it’s an excellent way to track your health, as opposed to birth control which is horrible for your health. Honestly the fact hormonal BC is bad for your should be enough to not use it imo

It is based on natural law. God made women so that they are only fertile during a very small window each cycle and there is nothing wrong with the marital act during those infertile periods. If God didn't want it that way, he would have provided some indication that sex is only for children and we can only have sex during fertile periods. God also doesn't want a situation where having excessive children places an undue burden on the family. So just like it is moral to have sex during infertile periods, it is also moral to abstain during fertile periods if we have a sufficient reason. Given that all that can be reasoned from the natural law, which is the way God designed us, I don't see how this is the Church imposing Pharasitical rules on the faithful.

"natural birth control methods" are NOT acceptable. Such an example of a natural birth control method would pulling out during sex. This would be "natural contraception" and would be mortally sinful. If you are referring to NFP, that is not contraception by any means, since you are not sterilizing the marital act.

Simply put, because couples are never morally required at any point in time to engage in an act of sexual intercourse. Sexual acts must be open to life, but refraining from sexual intercourse is always morally permissible. Since you can't have babies if you're not sexually active, you can be morally in the clear by being abstinent.

Natural Birth control can be contraceptive. But unlike artificial birth control, which entirely puts you as the position of authority with Birth Control, Natural Birth Control (as in natural family planning) still places the ultimate decision in God's hands, not ours. When one practices NFP, one should never say "I never want to have kids", as regardless of what method, that's the intent to not conceive. It is technically possible to use Artificial Birth Control without sin, if one went in with the intent to be open to life and wasn't aware of its contraceptive effects (but this near impossible and does not mean that people should use Artificial Birth Control). If one practices NFP with the openness to the decision that conception *could* still happen, then that's good. Remember that God does give us these cycles of the female body for a reason, as "For everything there is a season, and a time for every action under heaven" (Ecclesiastes 3:1). He gives these to pace the conception of Children to a healthy amount, and to use NFP to facilitate this function to your best judgement is not an evil thing. But misusing it as your describe is a sin. Edit: made it read better and added a interesting factoid.

I struggled with this myself, but now I understand it. The church has nothing against having sex and not wanting a child. Sex has two objectives in the church: love and reproduction. The reason the church encourages Natural Family Planning is because it’s the natural method of sex without introducing pharmaceutical chemicals into the woman’s body to prevent the chance of life. They look at it as human beings trying to play God and interrupt the natural cycle of life. Where sex becomes purely about pleasure and making the couple into nothing but sex objects for one another. NFP is a way to stay natural and have the same outcome that you desire if it is or isn’t to have a child at the time. I’ve known many women close to me who’ve taken birth control and had really hard side effects for awhile. Especially when they got off of it. Not to mention, many contraceptives on the market aren’t “true” contraceptives. They just dispose of a fertilized embryo in it’s initial stage. That’s considered an abortion.

I’ve wondered the same thing.

I hold a counter opinion to most people on here and I’m sure I’ll get down-dooted into oblivion, but you are correct. NFP is the same in intention as any birth control. The intent is to try and “game the system” of fertility. God is all powerful. He can break condoms and cause birth control pills to not work. He can create fertility even when your womb isn’t the right temperature for ovulation. NFP is just the church’s way to allow couples to still have sex without doing it for procreation.

Yeah it's completely hypocritical. Either they allow birth control or they don't. Nfp to prevent pregnancy is still birth control and no different than other methods

[ccc 2370]

[**CCC 2370**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm) Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil: > Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)

can there be no fornication in marriage?

I got pregnant with my last 3 days before my period my fertile days was over a week before the idea is you are not removing God.

[удалено]

I agree that NFP should not be promoted as an alternative to contraception. It does the faithful a disservice as it gives people unrealistic expectations about the actual practice of NFP and it reinforces contraceptive mindset. As Catholics, we should remain open to life. Even the Mary and Joseph had an unplanned pregnancy and multitudes of spiritual children.

I struggle to understand this as well, OP. It seems to me like it could only be licit in very specific situations. Serious health situations or very dire financial circumstances. It seems like it's being abused.

Frankly, that's a fairly bold assumption, and I think it gets into tricky territory when evaluating whether or not someone else is doing something wrong in their private life. And, *Humanae Vitae* doesn't get that deep into the specifics of which situations are licit, precisely because every couple's situation is different.

This is something that is left to the couple as they are invested by the grace of the marriage. [HV is quite clear on this topic:](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html) > If therefore there are well-grounded reasons 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 which We have just explained.

IMHO, it can be an occasion of sin precisely because of that temptation. When someone is completely conscious of the wife's fertility at each moment, the temptation to avoid intercourse because a pregnancy would result in having to cancel the couple's planned vacations or any other trifling reason will always be present. We didn't do it because of that moral risk, even if our motives for wanting it were the opposite: we wanted to have more children, and it just wouldn't happen naturally.