A Catholic Response to "The Scandal of NFP"

[Julian_Bashir]

How a couple uses NFP is between them and God and, quite frankly, I find it offensive that someone would think it’s any of their business at all.

Voris seemed to be addressing how it was being marketed, moreso than an individuals choice. Not sure why that would bother anyone. My wife and I use it, though we are still actively growing our family as quickly as we can. When others use it, it is the business of them and God (through the Church) only.

Yes, the Church does make clear we cannot just abstain willy nilly for no good reason. Thus, seeing it portrayed as Catholic birth control misses the important theology behind it, and renders it just a licit tool to not procreate, and often, the fact that NFP.

The norm for Catholics is to procreate and bring life. NFP is not intended to simply be an alternative to that for no good reason. It is those “good reasons” that are left to the prayerful discernment of the individual. I suspect, as with most things, that discernment doesn’t occur as it needs to, but that is between them and God.

 

[ahs]

Voris seemed to be addressing how it was being marketed, moreso than an individuals choice. Not sure why that would bother anyone. My wife and I use it, though we are still actively growing our family as quickly as we can. When others use it, it is the business of them and God (through the Church) only.

Yes, the Church does make clear we cannot just abstain willy nilly for no good reason. Thus, seeing it portrayed as Catholic birth control misses the important theology behind it, and renders it just a licit tool to not procreate, and often, the fact that NFP.

The norm for Catholics is to procreate and bring life. NFP is not intended to simply be an alternative to that for no good reason. It is those “good reasons” that are left to the prayerful discernment of the individual. I suspect, as with most things, that discernment doesn’t occur as it needs to, but that is between them and God.

Well, Voris LIGHTLY covered how it was being marketed, but spent the greater portion of his time talking about what HE thinks “serious” reasons are and saying that people who use it do so with a contraceptive mentality, referring to it as “contraception light”.

What makes you think that NFP is not ordered toward procreation and bringing life? I use NFP and have 4 children in 7 years of Marriage. Was my use of NFP not ordered to procreation and bringing life? Your comment is one that I have only ever heard from 2 groups of people: 1) singles 2) married persons who have never used NFP. If you are Married, I challenge you to abstain from sex in the fertile period without “discern[ing] occur[ing] as it needs to”. I wager you will find that more discernment happens in that short window that some people do in a lifetime.

 

[ahs]

Just FYI, Mr. Voris’ staff did respond to me. I have not read through it all, just skimmed. I’ll consider a reply tomorrow maybe. Here it is:

Dear David,

Thank you for sharing your thoughtful response.

I can’t tell from your response to “The Scandal of NFP” whether you listened to the program on which it was based, the Mic’d Up episode of August 28, the previous Wednesday, where Michael Voris interviewed both Christopher Gawley, author of a recent essay on NFP, and Dr. Mike Manhart from the Couple to Couple League. I don’t know that it will change your understanding of what was said in the subsequent Vortex episode, but it would provide a more complete understanding of why Michael said what he said.

To understand “The Scandal of NFP,” it would helpful to be familiar with the sources which formed and shaped it. Your reflection is well reasoned within the limits of what you understand Michael to have said and all the issues involved. But your perspective is incomplete.

I’m not going to respond to each of your points because that would concede that the points you raise are all the important ones and the only ones that need to be considered. You are reasoning from within your own experience and your limited understanding of how the Church has addressed this issue over the centuries. If we are to seek a “hermeneutic of continuity” with the past, it is necessary to understand what the Church teaches today in light of what it has taught before, not merely in terms of what the Church has taught for the past 150 years or so. If you would like to continue what I hope can be a very fruitful discussion, please take the time to read some of the resources that we think make a compelling case both for the content and tone of “The Scandal of NFP.”

[part 2 of 3 to follow]

 

[ahs]

Michael Malone, “The Case Concerning Catholic Contraception”

Carey J. Winters, “Natural Family Planning: “Catholic Contraception”?”

Anonymous Priest, “The Sanctity of Marriage: The Duty of Motherhood Versus the Abuses of NFP” a sermon preached February 12, 2012 transcribed here and available as audio here.

Dr. Jay Boyd, “Natural Family Planning: Trojan Horse in the Catholic Bedroom?”

Christopher Gawley, “Heroic Parenthood” originally published as a blog posting “Heroic Parenthood, The Sorrow of Natural Family Planning.”

So that you don’t have to track down the links again to the Mic’d Up and Vortex episodes on NFP, here they are plus another presentation you might find interesting by Fr. John Fisher aired a couple of days following the Mic’d Up episode:

Michael Voris, “The Truth About Natural Family Planning,” interview with Christopher Gawley, author of “Heroic Parenthood,” and Dr. Mike Manhart of the Couple to Couple League. Mic’d Up episode August 28, 2013.

Fr. John Fisher, a discussion within his radio program on Blog Talk Radio “Romanus Contra Mundum,” starting at about the 25 minute mark. August 30, 2013

Michael Voris, “The Scandal of NFP” Vortex episode September 5, 2013

You did ask in your reflection where, in Church teaching, is periodic continence described as a “dispensation.” I believe you provided your own answer in the quote you include from Pope Pius XII:

“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

Intentional limitation of marital relations to the infertile times is allowed as an exemption from “the obligatory, positive debt” of the marriage covenant. I consider “exemption” and “dispensation” to be synonymous here. Husbands and wives have an obligation before God to be open, always, to the blessings of children as potential new citizens of Heaven. For “serious motives,” husbands and wives may be exempt from this obligation, for short periods of time or even the entirety of their marriage.

Probably the “exemption” or “dispensation” with which most Catholics are familiar is the situation of the obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. There are legitimate reasons to miss Mass on Sundays, but missing Mass on Sunday shouldn’t be judged any kind of “positive good” in itself. It’s what is permitted when there are good reasons. It’s actually a sorrowful thing to be unable to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. Similarly, it should be a sorrowful thing that one has circumstances in one’s life such that there is a need for an “exemption” or “dispensation” from the ordinary obligations of married life.

I don’t think it is accurate to describe NFP as nothing more than “gathering information.” There is a purpose to the gathering of that information so that it may inform behavior. That information can be used well or poorly. It can be used virtuously or not. I don’t see it as all that different from the “gathering of information” used in insider trading. There is no sin in the “gathering of information” unless that information is used immorally or illegally. Within NFP, one can use that information to inform the decision to act or not to act in a specific way, just as one can use “insider trading” information to act or not to act in a specific way. The sin, if there is any, lies in the decision regarding how one will act. NFP allows couples with “serious motives” to refrain from sexual relations during the fertile times, and to engage in sexual relations during the infertile times. There’s a lot more to the evaluation of the morality or immorality of NFP in a given instance than observing that it is a morally neutral “gathering of information.” If I “gather information” to help me kill someone, that “information gathering” is hardly morally neutral.

NFP is, in our judgment, something permitted by the Church in response to exceptional situations that is, unfortunately, marketed and often practiced as a routine part of Catholic marriage and as a natural rather than artificial method of birth control. I know, NFP is routinely defended as “not birth control” but that’s a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? NFP isn’t really doing nothing but gathering information! It is information gathered to control something, either conception or its avoidance. True, there is no “contraceptive act” in NFP since abstinence is judged as “doing nothing.” But if it’s really “doing nothing,” then why is it so hard to do? When I fast from food, am I really “doing nothing?”

One last point I would like you to consider. We all know and accept that periodic continence is permitted by the Church in response to serious circumstances. But since we know that NO method of avoiding pregnancy is perfect and 100% effective, why is the diminished risk through NFP worth it at all? It seems to me that if one’s reasons for avoiding pregnancy are truly serious – economic hardship, psychological issues, risk of death etc. – why is ANY degree of risk worth it? Is it not a bit like playing Russian Roulette with one’s serious reasons? Why risk severe economic hardship, psychological damage, or life itself, for sex? We all know that total abstinence is 100% effective in preventing births. Is the routine practice of NFP within Catholic marriages, as if it were an integral part of daily married life and not merely a response to unexpected challenges, truly virtuous? Are we really better off having the choices that NFP makes possible to us? Are we really able to be as confident as our Catholic ancestors could be that they were trusting in Divine Providence?

[Part 3 of 3 to follow]

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Well, Voris LIGHTLY covered how it was being marketed, but spent the greater portion of his time talking about what HE thinks “serious” reasons are and saying that people who use it do so with a contraceptive mentality, referring to it as “contraception light”.

What makes you think that NFP is not ordered toward procreation and bringing life? I use NFP and have 4 children in 7 years of Marriage. Was my use of NFP not ordered to procreation and bringing life? Your comment is one that I have only ever heard from 2 groups of people: 1) singles 2) married persons who have never used NFP. If you are Married, I challenge you to abstain from sex in the fertile period without “discern[ing] occur[ing] as it needs to”. I wager you will find that more discernment happens in that short window that some people do in a lifetime.

I didn’t say NFP wasn’t ordered towards procreation. I said some people’s use may not be, as it is intended.

Like I said, I use it. The more I reflected on it, I actually think people who use NFP likely do give it more thought than most non-users, only because it is still such a counter-cultural lifestyle. Even among Catholics, its use is lower than contraception.

 

[ahs]

[Final portion of CM.TV’s response]

I’ll leave you with a very interesting essay forwarded to us by someone who wishes to remain anonymous after listening to the Mic’d Up episode on NFP:

NFP and Choice

The Libertarian philosophy is based on the fundamental presupposition that “Choice makes us happy.” I am not simply attributing this to them, any libertarian would be in complete agreement with this statement. This applies to both the intellectual libertarians like Ron Paul as well as to the lower-class libertines for whom “libertarianism” is just a euphemism for smoking pot, free sex and royalty-free downloads. Both classes of libertarians share the fundamental philosophy that “Choice is what makes us happy.” This philosophy has spread to the wider society as well, and most Americans are philosophically libertarian.

I thought about this again after watching the “Mic’d Up” video about NFP. The guy from the Couple-to-Couple League said (rather disingenuously) that NFP is not about Catholic birth control, it is about information and choice. He presented NFP in a libertarian context. NFP provides you information so that you can choose. He saw this as a proposition which is self-evidently a good thing. He assumed that no one could argue against information and choice.

The problem with this philosophy is not its pragmatic consequences but its foundational philosophy. Choice does not make us happy, choice makes us miserable. Choice is the source of anxiety and ennui. Choice is the real reason for the misery of modern life. Choice is fundamentally antithetical to the life of the soul.

Imagine a mother who has just finished giving birth. She is joyful at seeing her newborn child. But then someone comes to give her some information. “We have finished genetic testing, and it turns out that your child has some anomalies which might cause health problems in the future. You have the choice to terminate your child. What do you choose to do?”

Suddenly she has been presented with information and choices. Does this make her happy? No, it makes her miserable. It sucks all the joy out of her childbirth. It crushes her soul. It places a tremendous, insupportable weight upon her shoulders. One choice will make her much more unhappy than the other, but whichever choice she makes, the knowledge will continue to eat away at her, destroying the delight she should have experienced.

Lack of choice, on the other hand, is the foundation of the religious life. The reason why religious practice poverty, chastity and obedience is because these virtues destroy all possibility of choice. What one eats, what one wears, whom one loves, what one does all day, none of these things are any longer within our choice once we take religious vows.

To the worldly person, a life of poverty, chastity and obedience is the ultimate misery. But the reality is that the religious life properly lived results in a sort of ecstatic state. Relieved of the burden of choice, the soul is free to breathe and grow and be happy.

Unfortunately, we are like monkeys with our hands in the cookie jar of choice. We have to let go in order to free ourselves, but it is very difficult to release from our grasp the choices which we have made and intend to make in the future.

It is also the case that we cannot effectively make the argument against NFP and similar projects if we ourselves continue to believe in the myth of choice. If we at heart believe that choice makes us happy, then we don’t really have a good argument against the guy from the CCL. It’s true that NFP is fundamentally a libertarian proposition, and that is what makes it attractive to modern people, but that is also what makes it anti-Catholic. Only by recognizing that choice is what makes us miserable can we effectively argue for the providentialist position.

Moreover, we also have to recognize that the anti-choice argument is fundamentally religious and supernatural. One chooses either God and renunciation of self-will or else the world and its choices. These are the two paths at the fork in the road. NFP is a sort of compromise to allow us the illusion of taking both roads at once. But ultimately only one path leads to eternal happiness.

Thank you for your thoughts and I look forward to continuing this discussion, but not until after you are more familiar with the resources that shaped our conclusions!

God bless you.

Terry Carroll

 

[fpt]

[Note to Moderator: This is another “apologetic”, but I placed it in Moral Theology due to the fact that it deals with right vs wrong in a morally theological sense. But it could just as easily be “Apolgetics” or “Family Life”, depending on how responses go. Please move as appropriate.]

On “The Vortex” episode released September 5, 2013, Mr. Michael Voris discusses what he feels is a scandal in the making centered around a Catholic couple’s welcoming, or not, of children per Catholic Doctrine. In all honesty, I believe Mr. Voris is sincere and is focused on what SOME Parishes SEEM to be doing…which is advertising NFP as a form of “Catholic Birth Control”. But, his Vortex episode does not make this distinction…that’s my own appraisal, giving him the benefit of the doubt. If we take his episode at face value, not only does he misrepresent what NFP is, but he crosses over a boundary in trying to discern for every Catholic couple whether they can use NFP or not.

Here’s just a quick overview on NFP: NFP is information that can tell a couple whether they are fertile or infertile, whether they can increase or decrease their chances of conception, on any given day. Sex is an act. Contraception is the acting-against-conception that takes place when an act is engaged in. Catholic married couples are not required to have sex at any particular interval. Catholic couples are required, by God’s natural moral law, to have sex in the natural manner WHEN THEY DO have sex.

Here are a couple of quick questions we can ask to determine whether or not NFP can be used as contraception (these will be important later):

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

Moving on…

At the end of his segment, Voris says, “…no one here is trashing the authentic need for spacing of children in authentically challenging circumstances”. Rather, he is going after the “attitude, which sounds and feels very much like the culture at large that couples need to be taught how to have sex and avoid children AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE” [emphasis in original script].

I think Mr. Voris is being disingenuous, however. While he says he’s not after those who use it authentically, his starting point contradicts this…as does his seeming need to define for every couple what an “authentic” need might be. I find it disconcerting that Mr. Voris has deemed himself able to discern what every couple’s true authentic reasons for spacing children are, even though the Popes, or the Magisterial Church, never did. But I’ll get to that in a bit. I’ll start first with Michael’s opening, and move down from there.

[part 2 of 4 to follow…]

I did read your messages and I like your comments, your questions, your intellectual approaches and your intellectual methods. Your thread is very interesting: your analysis is very well done, in the details and with all the subtelties, in my humble opinion.

*The N.F.P.(the responsible procreation, the responsible paternity, the responsible maternity, the natural regulation of procreation, the marital act during the infertile times of wife) implies:

The question of the articulation of ends of marriage;
And
The question of marital act (the conjugal sexual rights, the conjugal sexual privileges, the conjugal sexual debt, the conjugal sexual pleasures, the sexual orgasms, the conjugal sexual sensuality, the conjugal sexual lust, the conjugal sexual desire, the conjugal sexual selfishness);*

Your quick comments about the N.F.P. show that the topic is not very understood, is misunderstand and is full of wrong intellectual approaches, **in the good faith or in the bad faith, and unconsciously or consciously. **

The theoretical providentialism of the procreation, the quiverfullism of the procreation (the absolute procreationism, the absolute physiologism of procreation), the primary anti-personalism of the procreation are the dangers. **Those heresies or ideologies are not catholic. **

The pharisaism, the externalism, the judgmentalism, the scrupulism, the rigorism, the neo-rigorism, the moralism, the neo-moralism, the pessimism, the negativism, the sinful presumptionism, the jansenism and the neo-jansenism, the puritanism and the neo-puritanism, the victorianism and the neo-victorianism about the N.F.P and Co are too powerful,** it is sad**

The catholic doctrine is very in the middle, is moderated and is in the just balance.

Not more and not less than the catholic doctrine.

The conscientization of the marital act and the conscientization of the possible fertility of the marital act are ** rights, duties and obligations**

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Voris Staff:

The Libertarian philosophy is based on the fundamental presupposition that “Choice makes us happy.”

This is a very shallow understanding of libertarian philosophy. I would certainly not say that choice is a bad thing, nor do I wish to even imply it as Voris’ staff practically does in that statement. But again, it is a very shallow understanding.

If all we cared about was having a bunch of choices, then libertarians would be confiscating the money of millionaires and dividing it up among the people, so they can all have more choices! Yay, choices!

I’m not a big Ron Paul fan, but since they mention him later on, let me say something about him. Ron Paul would like to see Roe V. Wade overturned. So how does that jive with their suggestion that libertarians just care about choice above all else?

The fact of the matter is, regardless of the political system or lack thereof, there will be a nearly uncountable number of choices being made by people every day. That would be true in a feudalistic society, under a King, in democratic societies or totalitarian ones. Choice is a fact of life, it is a given, it is not escape-able.

So the question that all political systems, or lack thereof, the question that needs to be answered is who gets to make which choices and why? Again this is a question for every political system or lack thereof, not just one.

So what libertarianism really is as a philosophy is not something that values choice for choice’s sake. It’s not something that seeks to expand choice or to restrict choice. It’s something that seeks to define who gets to make which choices and explain why they can/cannot make those choices.

Again if libertarianism merely valued choice for choice’s sake then any choice would be fair game. The choice to plant a tree on my neighbors lawn. The choice to shoot my neighbor in the head. The choice to walk inside a business facility and cause disruption, etc. Since libertarianism would deny all such choices as listed, it cannot be said to value choice above all else.

I am not simply attributing this to them, any libertarian would be in complete agreement with this statement.

Oh yeah? I’m a libertarian and I’m not in full agreement with that statement, and most libertarians that I know wouldn’t be either. So…

This applies to both the intellectual libertarians like Ron Paul as well as to the lower-class libertines for whom “libertarianism” is just a euphemism for smoking pot, free sex and royalty-free downloads. Both classes of libertarians share the fundamental philosophy that “Choice is what makes us happy.”

And if the government tomorrow decides to ban alcohol consumption, including the wine used for communion, then will Voris be outraged? And if he is, does that mean he shares the fundamental philosophy of both libertarians and libertines?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thank you for your thoughts and I look forward to continuing this discussion, but not until after you are more familiar with the resources that shaped our conclusions!

Which are:

**
**Michael Malone, “The Case Concerning Catholic Contraception”

Carey J. Winters, “Natural Family Planning: “Catholic Contraception”?”

Anonymous Priest, “The Sanctity of Marriage: The Duty of Motherhood Versus the Abuses of NFP” a sermon preached February 12, 2012 transcribed here and available as audio here.

Christopher Gawley, “Heroic Parenthood” originally published as a blog posting “Heroic Parenthood, The Sorrow of Natural Family Planning.”

**

---

I’ll be honest, I never heard of most of these authors, and I am having a difficult time finding them.

My question would be, are these writings approved by the Church. Have they received a Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur?

I have a few resources for you, Ahs, that do.

1.Sex and the Marriage Covenant, John Kippley

1. The Way of the Lord Jesus, Volume 2. Chapter 9, section F. by Germain Grizes.

Also, I’m cringing at the graphic used in the Voris video.

On one half is a picture of a Pill packet. The other half is the circular image used by both Billings and Creighton. It symbolizes the monthly cycle of a woman. Is it meant to equate the two?

 

[ahs]

Fpt, VeritasLuxMea, and Mary Gail 36,

Thanks so much for the feedback and information. Veritas…I hope you don’t mind me using some of that in my response to Terry.

Mary Gail, yeah…why do I need to read all those opinions when I have already read the Church-approved versions. Do I really need to version that has NOT been approved by the Church?

(For the record, I have heard of a couple of them, and I HAVE seen the CMTV videos…so yes, Terry…I DO know Voris’ context which I actually defended in my argument against this particular Vortex episode.)

One thing that did get a bit under my skin, at least briefly, was when she said, “You are reasoning from within your own experience and your limited understanding of how the Church has addressed this issue over the centuries.” Ya’ know…I don’t claim to have a complete understanding on the Church’s all-time position on NFP. But let’s look back at CMTV’s Vortex in question, vs. my rebuttal, and see who actually used Church Teaching. NOT ONCE did Voris cite Catholic teaching as a source for his opinions. NOT ONCE. In my response, on the other hand, of over 2,500 words, over 20% is directly quoted from the Church…and that does not count me referring back to those same sources again within that text…that’s only the direct quotes from the Church…whose position I presented as far back as 1853 when the notion of birth regulation was first presented to the Magesterium for an answer. Sure, I may have a imited understanding…but at least my limited understanding is in synch with what the Church ACTUALLY has said over the past 160 years.

 

[ahs]

This is the reply I sent to CMTV while I work on an actual response to Terry’s email. It may take a week for me to do it though…or maybe a day…who knows…

Terry, I’m not sure how much of my argument you actually read, because you should have noticed that I DO actually see Michael’s context from his other works, which I have followed on CMTV since before it was CMTV. I actually mentioned my support of his context, but pointed out that this was lost in the remainder of the message of this video. While I take time to respond to your email, I hope you will take another moment to re-read my argument, because it seems like you didn’t.

By the way, there is one thing I do take issue with, and it’s an “ad hominem” on your part. You said,

“You are reasoning from within your own experience and your limited understanding of how the Church has addressed this issue over the centuries.”

Terry, it shouldn’t matter what my experience and understanding is when it comes to objective facts. Either I presented factual statements, or I did not. If my understanding is limited in terms of the Church’s position on NFP, it should be easy enough for you to show me the Church’s position and correct me of this limited understanding. Ya’ know…I don’t claim to have a complete understanding on the Church’s all-time position on NFP. But let’s look back at CMTV’s Vortex in question, vs. my rebuttal, and see who actually used Church Teaching. How many times did Voris quote/cite Catholic teaching as a source for his opinions on NFP? NOT ONCE. In my response, on the other hand, of over 2,500 words, over 20% is directly quoted from the Church…and that does not count me referring back to those same sources again within that text…that’s only the direct quotes from the Church…whose position I presented as far back as 1853 when the notion of birth regulation was first presented to the Magesterium for an answer. Sure, I may have a limited understanding…but at least my limited understanding is in synch with what the Church ACTUALLY has said over the past 160 years.

Anyway, I’ll check out your links and get back to you with a response to your email. Thanks so much for taking the time to visit with me on this. May God bless you guys in your ministry, and please pray for me as I do my part to shine Christ’s Light.

In Christ,

[me]

 

[ahs]

Okay, so I want to take brief moment to show how this fits into Apologetics (regardless of topic). What I have done is made an argument against what I believe to be an incorrect position regarding a topic (NFP in this case).

In making my argument, I first checked to make sure I understood the person I am opposing, so to speak. I am familiar with the person and his program…been a fan for years…so I know his position fairly well, at least enough to make an argument for or against it.

In my argument, I actually present, correctly, his position. I note what I believe to have been his “intended” focus (marketing of NFP and a culture of contraceptive mentality), show where I actually agree with parts of his position, and then point out the parts I disagree with.

I use direct quotes to address him, and I cite authentic Catholic documents, teaching, Doctrine, etc…to defend my position. I do not rely on my own opinions, though I do make them know, NOR do I resort to pointing out my opponents flaws or shortcomings to discredit his.

To close my argument, I admit there my opponent may be right in THEORY…but in practicality I challenge an example to be put forward to support his position.

And now in preliminary response to his staff, I point out their own use of logical fallacy, which only strengthens my argument since part of their defense it to resort to deceptive reasoning tactics. Yet, I work to maintain charity throughout (easier said than done and you could very well point out my failings in this very thread) and recognize my opponent as my fellow Christian (Catholic in this case) brethren.

 

[ahs]

Just FYI, I did write up a response, but it ended up being just over 4,000 words. (That’s twice as long as my OP, but it also contains the email that was sent to me. I responded point by point.)

I’ll post the whole thing to my blog and plop a link here, after I sent it to Terry and give CMTV a chance to address a couple things (which could potentially and significantly shorten what I make available).

In the meantime, I believe the entire thing can be summarized into 1 question a 3 sentence answer:

CMTV: Is the routine practice of NFP within Catholic marriages, as if it were an integral part of daily married life and not merely a response to unexpected challenges, truly virtuous?

According to the Catholic Church, yes it is. I have provided ample quotes and citations from the Church saying so. On the other hand, CMTV, who seems to think it NOT virtuous, has provided NO Catholic Church teachings to defend their position.

 

[CorieDreams]

I respect your liking for this ministry OP, but to me…I’ve never cared for the air of condemnation and “better Than You” vibes I get from them, including on this issue

 

[Pug]

I should have prefaced this post with the fact that I am a Voris fan. I agree with most of what he says, and sometimes with his manner of presenting it. This happens to be a subject that I think he misrepresented. I don’t intend to discuss Mr. Voris here, or his program. I’d like to focus on the “mentality” that believes NFP users are falling into this “contraceptive mindset”.

I’d like to know how *self-mastery and abstinance * (which are hallmarks of NFP) can be equated to the “contraceptive mentality” that demands self-gratification and sex-on-demand-without-consequence.

I don’t think Voris mentioned a thing called the contraceptive mentality, so I’m not sure why you reference his program, then. I watched it (the Vortex). The example he briefly mentioned of concern to him was something like cars and houses, which seems aimed at the idea of you can have more concrete possessions if you have fewer children. He seemed more concerned by the idea of NFP being something that is the standard state for a Catholic couple, and not being rare or exceptional. On that point I somewhat agree. I don’t understand the idea that all Catholic couples who plan to marry need NFP instruction (they are required in my neck of the woods).

 

[oneofmany]

From what I got out of it, Voris was saying couples should be open to having as many children as God gives them. Yes, use NFP during the times when the couple does not want to conceive if they have financial problems or do not want to have their children too close.

I guess I don’t agree with that. I think most couples talk about how many children they want when they go into a marriage. I know my mother said she didn’t want a big family. Both of my parents came from big families and at least my mother didn’t want a big family for some reason.

If the couple wants a big family and feel they can handle as many children as God sends them than fine, they can space their NFP accordingly but if another couple doesn’t think they can handle a big family why can’t they use NFP as a contraceptive too? My BIL had a volitile temper when his children were young and I am glad they only had 2 children, I think more would have caused him to be abusive. Some people just cannot handle a lot of children and if that is going aginst God’s plan than a lot of people are doing that.

I know our society thinks children are a bother now and the pill has turned sex into something other than procreation but I am glad couples have NFP and can use it instead of the pill. If they teach people to use NFP only in the strictest circumstances I think a lot of people will fall back on the pill and say the heck with it.

 

[fpt]

I did read your messages and I like your comments, your questions, your intellectual approaches and your intellectual methods. Your thread is very interesting: your analysis is very well done, in the details and with all the subtelties, in my humble opinion.

*The N.F.P.(the responsible procreation, the responsible paternity, the responsible maternity, the natural regulation of procreation, the marital act during the infertile times of wife) implies:

The question of the articulation of ends of marriage;
And
The question of marital act (the conjugal sexual rights, the conjugal sexual privileges, the conjugal sexual debt, the conjugal sexual pleasures, the sexual orgasms, the conjugal sexual sensuality, the conjugal sexual lust, the conjugal sexual desire, the conjugal sexual selfishness);*

Your quick comments about the N.F.P. show that the topic is not very understood, is **misunderstood **and is full of wrong intellectual approaches, **in the good faith or in the bad faith, and unconsciously or consciously. **

The theoretical providentialism of the procreation, the quiverfullism of the procreation (the absolute procreationism, the absolute physiologism of procreation), the primary anti-personalism of the procreation are the dangers. **Those heresies or ideologies are not catholic. **

The pharisaism, the externalism, the judgmentalism, the scrupulism, the rigorism, the neo-rigorism, the moralism, the neo-moralism, the pessimism, the negativism, the sinful presumptionism, the jansenism and the neo-jansenism, the puritanism and the neo-puritanism, the victorianism and the neo-victorianism about the N.F.P and Co are too powerful,** it is sad**

The catholic doctrine is very in the middle, is moderated and is in the just balance.

Not more and not less than the catholic doctrine.

The conscientization of the marital act and the conscientization of the possible fertility of the marital act are ** rights, duties and obligations**

Of good faith or of bad faith, and consciously or unconsciously, whatever, the speeches, the critics, the comments, the interpretations, the intellectual approaches of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church about the marriage with all his corollaries, here in this particular topic - the N.F.P., the responsible procreation with the using of the marital act during the infertile times of wife for avoiding of having a new baby for just, grave and serious reasons - are often is full of wrong intellectual approaches. The topic is not understood, is misunderstood because *of full of wrong intellectual approaches: the theoretical providentialism of the procreation, the quiverfullism of the procreation, the absolute procreationism of the marital act, the absolute physiologism of using of the marital act, the primary anti-personalism of the procreation, the primary anti-personalism of the marital act are very powerful, inside or outside the church, of good faith or of bad faith, and consciously or unconscious. *

The quiverfullism, the theoretical providentialism, the absolute procreationism and co are linked with some past heresies, as the fideism and the quietism. The links are existing.

Those ideologies or those heresies are not moderated, are very unfair, are not in link with the nature of marriage and of the conjugal sex life explained by the Roman Catholic Church. *" Not more and not less than the catholic doctrine " is the only rule: no taboo, no lie, no more, no less, in the details with all subtelties.
*

 

[Randy_Carson]

Email sent!

Cool. It will be interesting to see what response you get.

 

[Usige]

I don’t think Voris mentioned a thing called the contraceptive mentality, so I’m not sure why you reference his program, then. I watched it (the Vortex). The example he briefly mentioned of concern to him was something like cars and houses, which seems aimed at the idea of you can have more concrete possessions if you have fewer children. He seemed more concerned by the idea of NFP being something that is the standard state for a Catholic couple, and not being rare or exceptional. On that point I somewhat agree. I don’t understand the idea that all Catholic couples who plan to marry need NFP instruction (they are required in my neck of the woods).

I have to agree. I just watched the episode and he reiterates the basic teachings of the Church that NFP is supposed to be used for serious reason and that the issue is that it is “marketed” as an alternative to birth control and is the default mode Catholics should operate in. Our parochial vicar made similar comments in a homily about 5 or 6 weeks ago. He said many couples go into marriage saying they are open to life; with conditions. The example he used was a couple he talked to that said they would have kids “once we buy a house, payoff our cars, get our student loans paid off and build up our retirement and savings. Then we’ll be ready for kids.” He asked them what if none of that happens? The response was “I guess we won’t have kids.” He said that is not authentic to the teaching on marriage and children; that we should expect children and to avoid without serious reason is antithetical to authentic marriage.

My wife is a diocesan approved NFP instructor and we have recently been going over the class materials with a growing concern about how information is presented. Why? We have approximately 40 - 50 minutes on Church teachings around how conjugal love fits into marriage, parts of Casti Conubii and Humana Vitae, etc. We then lead up to reasons to use NFP. It is there where the issues begin.

We use various materials (including from the USCCB) that go to great length to show that NFP is just as effective as the pill and other forms of contraception. The question is effective at what? Avoiding children. And that is where I think the issue starts to arise. Most NFP material that we use or have access to presents things in ways to to avoid children. The rules attached to charting are 95% focused on avoiding children and then give a little blurb about “oh yeah do this if you are trying to achieve.” We also have a brochure from USCCB Publishing called “NFP: Myths and Reality” that has 10 myths of NFP. They cover the effectiveness, compare the number of times couples engage in the marital embrace, and use the phrase “responsible parenthood” when saying that the Church doesn’t require Catholics to have as many kids as possible. While nothing is incorrect in the brochure, it never touches on the fact that NFP is supposed to be used for serious reason not as a morally licit way to achieve the same end results as those naughty neighbors that are using the pill.

So what’s my point? NFP is not the issue, but rather the way is it taught and “marketed”. In our diocese (and many others), NFP training is a prerequisite part of marriage prep. One has to ask why something that should be used for serious reasons (and therefore by a relatively small group) is required to be taught to the populace at large. NFP training overwhelmingly positions itself as the moral alternative to contraception. It lays out that it has all the benefits of contraception, but none of the physical or spiritual “side effects”.

I believe that we should refocus how NFP is presented. Instead of a full course there should be more teaching on children being the default and trusting in providence rather than our life plans over the next 40 years. Including a basic overview of NFP should be provided so those with serious reason are aware that it is available should be as far as it goes unless the couple seeks it out. No, I don’t think someone should be the gatekeeper on what is serious reason, but I do think it should be presented as something that should be used as an exception rather than as the norm. In many ways it is presented as “well since you’re going to limit your family size anyway, then use this instead of the pill.”

Let me use an analogy. Chemotherapy can be useful to fight off cancer, but is generally used as a last resort. Just because it is useful in some circumstances does not mean we should call it a good thing and therefore let everyone have it. In the same way, NFP can be a boon for couples that have serious reasons to avoid, but one should be sad when they have recourse to use it not hold it up as some great good. Think of it this way. Christ had to die for our salvation. Yes, we received good from that act, but at the same time it is a tragedy and something we should weep for our part in.

 

[Usige]

I know our society thinks children are a bother now and the pill has turned sex into something other than procreation but I am glad couples have NFP and can use it instead of the pill. If they teach people to use NFP only in the strictest circumstances I think a lot of people will fall back on the pill and say the heck with it.

But that is exactly the point. Just as the ends doesn’t justify the means, neither does the means justify the ends.

Look at is this way. Let say you have an annoying neighbor that you wish would go away. You would shoot him if you could get away with it. One day you notice a large boulder on the hill above his house that is highly unstable and will likely roll down the hill and crush his house in months if not a few weeks. Since it will likely only kill him you don’t say anything to anyone. Two weeks later a heavy rain fall comes and just as you suspected the boulder breaks loose and kills him on his back porch. You did nothing to make it happen, but you still rejoice that the SOB is dead. Weather his death was from your action (shooting him) or inaction (not telling him or others about the danger) your desire for his death would still be a moral issue.

My point is that just using the “correct method” does not remove one’s moral culpability is that method is used for unjust reasons. That is not a judment on you Brother in Law, but rather a general statement that people that us NFP simply because the Church said no to the pill are missing a key component on the moral licitness of using periodic continence.