NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[whm]

I have had a difficult time figuring out the morality of using NFP in marriage. I am looking for traditional Catholic’s opinions on the subject. One thing I found that was interesting is that the american SSPX website appears to consider it a mortal sin. Is this consistent with pre Vatican II beliefs? or is this something that came up with on their own?

Here are my thoughts - NFP is allowed under some circumstances, this is clear from the CCC. The CCC is a little vague in not defining what “serious reasons” are. Just because it is allowed doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good idea (sort of like alter girls, communion in the hand, wearing shorts to Mass etc)

I have also read people suggesting use of a fertility monitor as being equivalent to NFP. I guess I can see that.

Assuming it is allowed, how would you view a situation where the wife gets serious postpartum depression (to the point of being tempted to her herself). Well this is tricky to me, certainly the PPD is serious on one hand, but there are medications that can control it, on the other hand the medications may effect any potential baby before birth or after birth through the milk, not to mention the effects on the mom. The options are complete abstinence, NFP/monitor, or have relations and deal with what comes of it. All of them have potential negative consequences(relationship, health/potential sin/lack of virtue, health respectively).

btw there are other issues involved that have lead to the abstinence path, but I am trying to find peace one issue at a time.

 

[rwoehmke]

The so called Rhythmn method of NFP was allowed long before Vatican II. It requirted pemission from ones confessor. That was how the need to use it was determined. After this calender method which was not very effective the sympto-thermal method of NFP was used. This used a very sensitive thermometert to measure the woman’s basal temperature on arising and plotting the changes. At about this point in time it was left up to the couple to decide if they were justified in using it. Since then much progress has been made and contemporary NFP is very effective if practiced properly. Most dioceses have couples who are very knowlegable who teach these approved methods to neophytes. Often they are members of the Couple to Couple League.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I have had a difficult time figuring out the morality of using NFP in marriage. I am looking for traditional Catholic’s opinions on the subject. One thing I found that was interesting is that the american SSPX website appears to consider it a mortal sin. Is this consistent with pre Vatican II beliefs? or is this something that came up with on their own?

Here are my thoughts - NFP is allowed under some circumstances, this is clear from the CCC. The CCC is a little vague in not defining what “serious reasons” are. Just because it is allowed doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good idea (sort of like alter girls, communion in the hand, wearing shorts to Mass etc)

I have also read people suggesting use of a fertility monitor as being equivalent to NFP. I guess I can see that.

Assuming it is allowed, how would you view a situation where the wife gets serious postpartum depression (to the point of being tempted to her herself). Well this is tricky to me, certainly the PPD is serious on one hand, but there are medications that can control it, on the other hand the medications may effect any potential baby before birth or after birth through the milk, not to mention the effects on the mom. The options are complete abstinence, NFP/monitor, or have relations and deal with what comes of it. All of them have potential negative consequences(relationship, health/potential sin/lack of virtue, health respectively).

btw there are other issues involved that have lead to the abstinence path, but I am trying to find peace one issue at a time.

I found this at the SSPX website concerning NFP:

…derives also from the same contraceptive mentality. Since marriage is considered primarily for the couple itself, they consider themselves free to determine the number of children and their spacing. This can be a mortal sin if NFP is employed without sufficient reason, as approved by the Church (e.g., serious eugenic, social, or medical reasons, such as danger to the life of the mother through additional children).

I think all serious Catholics, Traditional or not, understand that NFP can be abused. It appears to me that the Society has published an opinion that NFP is permissible if employed with “sufficient reason”. The list provided does not seem to be exhaustive.

 

[Melchior_1]

I think all serious Catholics, Traditional or not, understand that NFP can be abused.

Quoted for truth.

The SSPX’s stance on this certainly isn’t unreasonable, and is perfectly in line with Church teaching. The spacing of children through NFP is acceptable provided the reasons are just. If you aren’t sure you have just cause, speak with a Priest you trust (your confessor would be a good choice).

 

[whm]

I think all serious Catholics, Traditional or not, understand that NFP can be abused. It appears to me that the Society has published an opinion that NFP is permissible if employed with “sufficient reason”. The list provided does not seem to be exhaustive.

from SSPX website sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#naturalfamilyplanning

“It is ultimately this new concept of marriage, as being for the couple themselves, and not so much for children, which has resulted in the refusal of Catholics since Vatican II to have large families. Artificial birth control, which is the destruction of Catholic families, is no longer condemned as a mortal sin, for marriage is now considered in a selfish way, as being for the couple itself, rather than an outpouring of love desiring to participate in God’s work of creation and sanctification of His children. The so-called practice of Natural Family Planning (NFP), propagated in the post-Conciliar Church as a “Catholic” method of contraception, derives also from the same contraceptive mentality. Since marriage is considered primarily for the couple itself, they consider themselves free to determine the number of children and their spacing. This can be a mortal sin if NFP is employed without sufficient reason, as approved by the Church (e.g., serious eugenic, social, or medical reasons, such as danger to the life of the mother through additional children). Whether it be through artificial or natural means that the first purpose of marriage is frustrated, such couples who are not willing to accept all the children God sends them do indeed fail to live up to their marriage vows.”

I see now that it is allowed by SSPX in some circumstances, I guess I keyed on the rest of the paragraph posted above, which had quit a negative tone regarding NFP. This is actually similar to some older (50 years ago) Catechisms and examinations of consciences that I’ve found.

So I guess for serious Catholics it comes down to the definition of serious reason. If life of the mother is the serious reason, I would submit that NFP is by an immoral choice, like playing Russian roulette. Serious financial reason seems a little tricky to justify for most people in the US (compared to 3rd world countries). I just keep going round and round on this issue, perhaps that is my answer, if I can’t feel at peace about NFP in our situation it shouldn’t be used.

 

[Melchior_1]

So I guess for serious Catholics it comes down to the definition of serious reason. If life of the mother is the serious reason, I would submit that NFP is by an immoral choice, like playing Russian roulette. Serious financial reason seems a little tricky to justify for most people in the US (compared to 3rd world countries). I just keep going round and round on this issue, perhaps that is my answer, if I can’t feel at peace about NFP in our situation it shouldn’t be used.

Here’s the deal; Regardless if you use NFP or not the reasons your described as being uneasy about it will always still be there. The reason being is fairly obvious:

When you have sex babies can happen.

You can try to justify whether NFP is moral or not and that’s all well and good, however the alternative is pure abstinence.

 

[whm]

Here’s the deal; Regardless if you use NFP or not the reasons your described as being uneasy about it will always still be there. The reason being is fairly obvious:

When you have sex babies can happen.

You can try to justify whether NFP is moral or not and that’s all well and good, however the alternative is pure abstinence.

Exactly! abstinence.

The ultimate choice is (the potential for) babies or abstinence. That is it what gets so confusing for me, we (people) run off all these serious reasons why we should avoid pregnancy, then do something (actually not me for the last 7+ years) that can lead to babies. Maybe if you are trying to space babies (say every other year) the logic works better.

 

[Melchior_1]

Exactly! abstinence.

The ultimate choice is (the potential for) babies or abstinence. That is it what gets so confusing for me, we (people) run off all these serious reasons why we should avoid pregnancy, then do something (actually not me for the last 7+ years) that can lead to babies. Maybe if you are trying to space babies (say every other year) the logic works better.

The difference is that NFP can often be quite effective in the spacing of children when done correctly and specifically in a moral and loving family. If you run a more conservative route it’s even more effective. My wife and I did not get pregnant for several months after our wedding simply because we played it incredibly more conservative than normal. For example, when using the ST Method you have to wait until you have three days above the line. We waited four to six days.

It wasn’t until we said “this probably isn’t the best time to do this…meh” that the baby came about.

 

[whm]

Thanks Melchior and others, your responses are helpful. I’m kind of a math guy and don’t really do well with gray areas

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

One thing I found that was interesting is that the american SSPX website appears to consider it a mortal sin. Is this consistent with pre Vatican II beliefs?

What did the genius’ at SSPX say exactly? Which material act is actually being committed?

 

[whm]

What did the genius’ at SSPX say exactly? Which material act is actually being committed?

See post #5, I suspect they are saying it effectively contraception.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

See post #5, I suspect they are saying it effectively contraception.

Yes, thank you. I tried to delete, but it didn’t work.

They are wrong.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Although this thread is not about what the SSPX says about NFP, the grave sin comes from the “contraception mentality”. As a married with children SSPX’er (and not by any means a genius), I take this to mean that even the use of NFP to space your children every other year, which on the surface appears exceedingly reasonable to most modern couples, still smacks of a contraception mentality where for financial reasons or non-serious health reasons, we want the children to come every 19 months but in between we want to be free to enjoy the human reward which God has provided to us in loving gratitude for our cooperation with Him in the awesome task of creation.

I won’t even get into what is a grave health reason or how a grave a sin it is to use NFP. Just trying to give you, in my own layman’s terms, what the SSPX text means, which I believe, is consistent with what the church has traditionally taught on the matter of contraception.

When in doubt, if you want to follow traditional teaching then find a solidly traditional priest you trust, and then trust in his counsel.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Although this thread is not about what the SSPX says about NFP, the grave sin comes from the “contraception mentality”. As a married with children SSPX’er (and not by any means a genius), I take this to mean that even the use of NFP to space your children every other year, which on the surface appears exceedingly reasonable to most modern couples, still smacks of a contraception mentality where for financial reasons or non-serious health reasons, we want the children to come every 19 months but in between we want to be free to enjoy the human reward which God has provided to us in loving gratitude for our cooperation with Him in the awesome task of creation.

I won’t even get into what is a grave health reason or how a grave a sin it is to use NFP. Just trying to give you, in my own layman’s terms, what the SSPX text means, which I believe, is consistent with what the church has traditionally taught on the matter of contraception.

When in doubt, if you want to follow traditional teaching then find a solidly traditional priest you trust, and then trust in his counsel.

What is contraception mentality?

Contraception is not allowing God to create life in arena He designed where we freely co-operate and become co-creators with and under Him.

 

[anns82]

I don’t think this was addressed yet after the OP, but I was wondering about the postpartum depression. I do not know enough to have a concrete opinion, but I was wondering if a woman who has PPD in one pregnancy is “guaranteed” to have PPD with every child. I thought it’s likelihood was tied to genetics, but it was not 100%. I would think that with not really being able to predict PPD, the couple would need to treat it if it occurred, but avoiding children all together because of temporary depression seems to be basing very big life choices on something that might or might not happen. I do not mean to treat PPD lightly at all - I have never experienced it, but I have experienced sever depression before - I am just happy I did not make any life-changing decisions based on how I felt at the low moments. I would think that would be part of the importance of having a strong, supportive husband and accepting legitimate medical help.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Thanks Melchior and others, your responses are helpful. I’m kind of a math guy and don’t really do well with gray areas

Hi whm,

I understand very well what you mean. But the reason some areas are not rigidly defined is that sometimes the “sufficent reason” is difficult to measure. One can correctly ask good priests to decide for us and they often will, but the Church leaves it to us to be good and honest judges of our own circumstances.

All that is necessary to miss a holy day of obligation is sufficient reason. Gray areas. There are always going to be disagreements among individual Catholics as to what qualifies. At what point is an illness sufficent to be excused? How much financial need is sufficient to work on Sunday and be excused?

If I am not mistaken, the good God and His Church expect us to have differing ways of measurement. Some of these things can be judged only by a good interior witness, our consciences. Those who love God and are happy to go to Mass have a pretty easy time deciding without fear that they are trespassing an invisible line by excusing themselves from going to Mass.

I suspect that in a social climate that frowns upon large families, sometimes having parents and other relatives that frown upon large families, Catholics are susceptible to influence from the same contraceptive mentality. I was talking to a guy at work the other day, outraged because his neighbors won’t quit “breeding”. There are many people who have been taught that it is extreme selfishness, because of alleged scarce resources, to “indulge yourself” with a large family. Whether the pressure is from the outside, or from one or both of the couple, the ubiquitous contraceptive mentality which is all around us complicates matters to where it might be difficult to discern when a reason has reached sufficiency. No one wants to be hated for “breeding”.

It seems to me like this is an area where you can, if you have doubt that keep lingering, ask a good priest, and trust that the answer comes from God. It also seems to me like if you know that you want to please God, you know you have educated yourself about the primary purpose of marriage, you know that you agree with the teaching of the Church, and you have peace about Natural Family Planning because you perceive a reason that is sufficient, then you are free to do so.

If after examining your conscience and the purpose of marriage, one still has doubts as to their “sufficient reason” then don’t do it. It is no different than getting up on Sunday with a sniffle and wondering if you should fuflill your Sunday obligation. If you have doubt about whether you have sufficient reason for not fulfilling what would otherwise be obligatory, fulfill the obligation. The black and white line for which you are looking, if I understand correctly, is drawn where the confirmed and mature Catholic’s doubt begins. But we can’t expect that everyone’s doubts will begin in the same place.

I hope this helps, and if anyone thinks my opinion is contrary to sound Catholic principles, please criticize. It is easy for an old man like me to have an easy conscience about such a question. I have to think that young Catholic married people should not feel torn or even tormented about it either though.

Rory

 

[giuseppeTO]

What is contraception mentality?

Contraception is not allowing God to create life in arena He designed where we freely co-operate and become co-creators with and under Him.

The Contraception mentality would be that which goes contrary to your definition.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I don’t think this was addressed yet after the OP, but I was wondering about the postpartum depression. I do not know enough to have a concrete opinion, but I was wondering if a woman who has PPD in one pregnancy is “guaranteed” to have PPD with every child. I thought it’s likelihood was tied to genetics, but it was not 100%. I would think that with not really being able to predict PPD, the couple would need to treat it if it occurred, but avoiding children all together because of temporary depression seems to be basing very big life choices on something that might or might not happen. I do not mean to treat PPD lightly at all - I have never experienced it, but I have experienced sever depression before - I am just happy I did not make any life-changing decisions based on how I felt at the low moments. I would think that would be part of the importance of having a strong, supportive husband and accepting legitimate medical help.

I don’t think you can take any one ailment and apply it across the board to everyone. I would say, in general, the threat of a problem is not the same as a manifest problem, like for example, a cancerous tumor. Against, that is where individual spiritual direction would come in.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Since you asked for opinions from traditional Catholics, here’s my opinion on the issue:

The primary end of the marital act is procreation. It is contrary to natural law to divorce an act from its primary end. It can be permissible to divorce the other ends under certain circumstances. That is why, for example, polygamy and even divorce were permitted in the Old Law. This does not contradict the primary end of marriage (procreation), even if it does contradict its secondary ends. While it is certainly permissible to abstain from the marital act altogether, to use periodic continence to avoid conceiving a child seems to remove the marital act from its primary end. Intention is central to discerning the moral goodness or evil of a human act. While neither the act of abstaining nor the act of engaging in the marital act is sinful, when taken as a whole act (the intentional avoidance of conception but participation in the marital act), NFP presents serious problems philosophically and morally. Many Fathers (St. Augustine and St. Gregory, to name two of the most important) held that engaging in the marital act without the at least virtual intention to have children is sinful. Of course, to intend just the opposite would fall under this category. I don’t recall if St. Gregory distinguishes between mortal or venial sinfulness, but St. Augustine says that it would be venially sinful, if my memory serves me correctly. St. Thomas follows his position.

I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings [This seems to be the case of couples using NFP], namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust. (Summa, Supplementum, 41, iv.)

What does he mean by an act of virtue? Let’s consider some other passages from the Summa:

I answer that, The more necessary a thing is, the more it behooves one to observe the order of reason in its regard; wherefore the more sinful it becomes if the order of reason be forsaken. Now the use of venereal acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race. Wherefore there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts. Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin. (Summa Theologia, IIa IIae Partis, 153, iii.)

I answer that, A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order of reason. Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its end in a fitting manner. Wherefore it is no sin if one, by the dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the end to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly good. Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): “What food is to a man’s well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race.” Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation. (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae Partis, 153, ii.)

These considerations make it difficult to justify NFP. The only legitimate course of action seems to be abstinence, but (of course) with the understanding that either spouse must render the debt if asked, and the husband even has an obligation to render the debt if he realizes by signs that the wife would like to engage in the marital act but is too embarrassed to ask outright. What’s more, if one is in danger of falling into sin because of such abstinence, he has an obligation to ask the debt to be paid. While this is sort of like NFP, there is no intention to avoid conception in the particular marital acts. There is no planning to avoid conception, no charts, no “smiley” and “frowney” days on the calendar, etc. You simply abstain except when the obligation for the marital debt arises. The intention in the act is still good. Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. The only substantial difference is the intention, but for an act to be good, it must be entirely good: in the act, the intention, and the circumstances.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The Contraception mentality would be that which goes contrary to your definition.

So a “contraception mentality”, according to your definition, is nothing different than actual contraception. What a meaningless term.