Is not practicing NFP while married through the church a mortal sin?

[u/Muted_College_199]

Is not practicing NFP while married through the church a mortal sin? For example if a couple is using coitus interruptus, that’s technically not artificial birth control but I do understand that it prohibits the completion of the unitive act. However, if a couple wishes to connect within their marriage to strengthen their bond during a turmoils time and doesn’t currently have the resources to practice NFP (but is working towards enrolling with an instructor once they have the means to do so in the near future) would that be permissible? Also to note, wife is healing from a medical condition that requires her to not get pregnant at this moment, would they be not allowed to receive communion for this alone? If it is a mortal sin, which commandment is being broken? Thanks for the discussion!

[u/AutoModerator]

Moderator Announcement Read More »

This is a space for Catholics and those curious about the faith to ask questions, learn how to defend Catholicism, and engage in meaningful conversations (not debates).

Reminder: Please provide any sources or references used for your post by replying here. Sharing sources helps others explore your information and participate in more thoughtful discussions.

Looking for debates instead? Check out our sister subreddit: r/DebateACatholic.

Want to connect further? Join our Discord community for real-time discussions, additional resources, and support.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/cowboy_catolico]

Yep. If you want to have sexual release, it has to all be ejaculated into her vagina or your mortal soul is in danger. No one has a right to sexual pleasure. It’s gravely mortally sinful unless you’re open to having a baby. Can’t afford one? NFP or you don’t get to have sex.

[u/lpburke86 → u/cowboy_catolico]

Or…. The other option…. Throw NFP out the window also, know that no one is ever actually financially prepared to have a kid and everyone has to figure out the finances anyway so “can’t afford one” no longer matters, have sex when you want to without having to pull out a calendar and a checklist and remain open to kids….. or don’t have sex.

Not practicing NFP is not the problem.
Having sex and forcing the ability to do it without the risk of children is the problem.

This obsession that people have with making sex in marriage as cold and clinical as possible is realllllly weird.

[u/Beneatheearth → u/lpburke86]

Imagine if people had always had to think about being able to afford having a kid instead of just having them. That’s the state of the world we live in now and it’s disgusting.

[u/lpburke86 → u/Beneatheearth]

It is. According to the world, I'm one of those people.... But screw that. I started poor, had a couple of kids, got successful, had another couple of kids, lost almost everything during COVID, and had another kid.

The one thing I know for a fact.... You're never financially ready for a kid. Get over it. The only thing having more money does is make the price of the stuff you buy for the kid go up, and the kid does not care about the quality of the stuff they are going to chew on, leave in the dirt, or take in the bathtub.

[u/Euphoric_Leather_118 → u/lpburke86]

OP said “wife is healing from a medical condition that requires her to not get pregnant at this moment,” so “screw around and find out” isn’t good advice for their situation…

Also, there’s nothing wrong with NFP/planned periods of abstinence and planned periods of intercourse. It can be planned and still be romantic! How do you think people end up with multiple kids? 😂

[u/lpburke86 → u/Euphoric_Leather_118]

Good thing I wasnt replying to the OP.

I was clearly replying to "Can’t afford one? NFP or you don’t get to have sex."

[u/Euphoric_Leather_118 → u/lpburke86]

That poster’s comment (“can’t afford one? NFP or you don’t get to have sex”) was talking about OPs situation, though? So I assumed your response to the poster was also in regard to OP’s situation.

If you meant to suggest “the other option” to someone other than OP, it was not clear at all.

[u/trulymablydeeply]

Coitus interruptus is a contraceptive act. It’s not “artificial birth control” in the sense that it’s not a chemical like the pill or a physical barrier like a condom, but it deliberately frustrates the telos of sex, and is intrinsically evil. It’s a sin of grave matter.

It also has a terrible failure rate. NFP would be a moral way to prudently space pregnancies and is more reliable to boot.

[u/Antique-Respect8746 → u/trulymablydeeply]

So the position is that the thing that results in actual fewer pregnancies is actually the thing that is more open to life? 

Not calling you out or anything, just seems backwards. 

[u/Euphoric_Leather_118 → u/Antique-Respect8746]

Yes! Because with NFP, sex is still completed as intended (ie, in the woman’s vagina). Though the timing of sex may make pregnancy more or less likely, such timing is utilizing the woman’s natural cycles.

Pulling out, on the other hand, is unnatural and frustrates the purpose of sex.

I know it seems a bit odd, but as the other commenter mentioned, it’s not about effectiveness—it’s about whether the method frustrates the unitive and procreative aspects of intercourse, or utilizes something natural and always present during intercourse (the woman’s cycle).

Think of it this way—if we considered sex during non-fertile periods to be sinful, than couples could only have sex during fertile periods, which seems unfairly restrictive and would drastically limit the amount of intercourse couples could have. It is a gift to bring couples closer as well as provreate, and the Church doesn’t require such extreme measures. And even then, we would still be using NFP and period abstinence to obtain a desired result—similar to using NFP to avoid pregnancy

[u/Antique-Respect8746 → u/Euphoric_Leather_118]

Genuinely appreciate the explanation! Respectfully, that all just doesn't add up for me. 

Not that my opinion matters, but just saying. 

Intentionality plays a huge role in Catholicism, see double effect for health procedures, etc. 

The idea of making it a sin to intentionally avoid sex during fertile periods in order to avoid conception is very plausible.

This really wouldn't effect how much sex a couple could have.

The sin would intentionally avoiding sex to prevent pregnancy. 

[u/Euphoric_Leather_118 → u/Antique-Respect8746]

Sure thing! I’m sure my explanation wasn’t the best, granted, as I am certainly no theological scholar.

I agree that intentionality matters a good deal to the Catholic Church—you are certainly right there! But I would disagree that it’s any different here—intention still matters.

For example, yes the Catholic Church teaches that intentionally avoiding sex during certain periods to avoid pregnancy is not a sin. But this is only true so long as the reasons of doing so are sufficiently serious (ie, non-frivolous). Ie, the intention must be good—for health of the mother, in order to ensure the child won’t be born into poverty or an already-overwhelming household, etc. It can’t be “so I can buy a Lamborghini,” because that would be a selfish/bad intention.

This alone is not the full teaching on why NFP is permitted, thankfully, because one could equally apply this reasoning to using contraceptives as well as NFP to avoid pregnancy. So I can see why someone would ask: “why is intentionally avoiding pregnancy using NFP ok, while intentionally avoiding pregnancy using contraception is not?” And that is because intention, while important, is not ALL there is to sin.

For example, theoretically, one could partake in the sin of sodomy it with the best of intentions (ie, “I really love this person”); however, irregardless of the intentions behind it, it is ALWAYS a sin. This is because the act itself is disordered. It is not the intention behind sodomy which makes it a sin (except that, as with all sin, one must know it is a sin to be culpable for it); it just IS because it defies natural law.

We know this for a few reasons. First, very practically, that part of the body wasn’t designed for sex: it is unnatural. Second, it also frustrates the procreative nature of intercourse because sex between two men can never result in life.

In the same way contraception is fundamentally disordered. We weren’t designed to have sex with condoms, artificial hormones, etc. We were designed, however, with natural fertile and infertile periods. While contraceptions unnaturally result in no pregnancy with little sacrifice, NFP naturally results in no pregnancy but requires sacrifice. And this isn’t even to get into how some forms of birth control kill the child after it is conceived.

I hope this makes sense! And this is all my understanding of it, which I believe to be fairly accurate but could be off. And happy to chat more.

[u/trulymablydeeply → u/Antique-Respect8746]

>Intentionality plays a huge role in Catholicism, see double effect for health procedures, etc. 

Intention is only one part of what determines the morality of an act. The act itself and the foreseeable, unavoidable consequences also come into the calculation.

Some acts are intrinsically evil. No intention whatsoever can justify them. Other actions are neutral or good. An evil intention can make a good or neutral act evil, but a good intention can’t make an evil act anything other than evil.

Killing a person is not intrinsically morally evil, but murder (the unjust killing of a person, especially an innocent) is. I can use lethal force in self-defense or defense of others. I can’t kill someone preemptively someone even if it’s to stop them from committing an evil I’m certain they’ll commit in the future. That would be murder. Vigilante “justice” is also murder.

Even when considering an action that’s morally neutral or good, I have to consider the foreseeable consequences and make sure I’m not causing disproportionate or avoidable harm, especially if there’s an alternative action available. If I’m a doctor treating a pregnant woman, I have to take into consideration any harmful effects on the unborn child when prescribing treatment, and use alternatives that are less harmful when treatment is absolutely necessary.

Double effect requires that the action itself not be intrinsically evil. I cannot do anything intrinsically evil for any reason. If faced with a situation where I must avert an evil, I can perform a neutral or good act with good intention even though the foreseeable, unavoidable consequences lead to harm. A doctor can perform a very early c-section on a mother who has pre-eclampsia and is in danger of going into eclampsia, even though the baby may be too young to survive. The intent is to save the mother. The surgery isn’t itself evil, the foreseeable consequences are the possible death of the child, but those consequences aren’t available.

[u/trulymablydeeply → u/Antique-Respect8746]

>So the position is that the thing that results in actual fewer pregnancies is actually the thing that is more open to life? 

>Not calling you out or anything, just seems backwards. 

It’s because the morality of the act isn’t about effectiveness, it’s about not deliberately frustrating the ends of sex.

[u/romanempire2014]

It isn't a sin It os only of you do that Just to have sex