NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[IntegraCatholic]

I was doing some more research concerning the legitimacy of the marital act during lactation, pregnancy, etc. There are many opinions, but St. Alphonsus (rightly, in my opinion, and it would be consistent with what I’ve been saying here regarding the necessity of using the marital act according to reason, that is, according to procreation or for the remedy of concupiscence when that concupiscence would lead to grave sin) says the following:

Caeterum mihi arridet sententia, quam tenet *Pont. l. 10. c. 14n. *7.Azor, t. 3. c. 31. quaest. 14. Boss. c. 9. num. 36. cum Guil. Paris. Perez, Con. Barbos. Fill. Hurt. Avers. etc., et huic adnectunt etiam Pal. et Ronc. ll. cc. nempe quod coitus cum praegnate non possit excusari a culpa veniali, nisi adsit periculum incontinentiae, vel alia honesta causa, juxta dictum num. 882. *dub. *1., etc.

St. Alphonsus teaches that (so long as there is no danger of an abortion, which would be a mortal sin), the marital act is not permitted during pregnancy without venial sin except for the case of the danger of incontinence.

In n. 882, dub. 1, he basically explains the two opinions (1. that is is always at least a venial sin to marry primarily for the remedy of concupiscence but with the intention also to have children and 2. that is it not sinful to marry primarily for the remedy of concupiscence; he applies this to the marital act, saying that it is not sinful even when engaged in primarily for the remedy of concupiscence so long as procreation is intended at least virtually and habitually). The first is commonly taught by the Fathers, though St. Alphonsus follows the latter opinion (referencing I. Cor. vii. 9, among other things). Notice that in either opinion the intention must still be procreation. One cannot choose the secondary end in place of the primary end, even though he can primarily choose the secondary end, since marriage was still instituted by God for that end.

We do this all the time, in fact. Except under an extreme necessity, no one eats candy with the purpose of receiving nutrition primarily, but that doesn’t make it wrong. To divorce any nutritional value from food (e.g., the vomitoriums of the Romans) would be sinful–albeit only venially, according to St. Thomas, for there isn’t a sin of gluttony that is mortally sinful except to make food one’s last end, which would be a form of idolatry and can be true of any sin.

 

[Onegin]

Do you have any links or know the titles to any pre-1960 Church documents dealing with this matter?

Casti Connubi
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
31 December, 1930

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

nfp is simply a tool to help mark where a woman is fertile or infertile. It is simply biological information that is neither moral or immoral.

How, why and under what circumstances such information is used determines the morality of the act.

Well said! As you also pointed out, NFP can be used to achieve pregnancy as well. “To use NFP” is simply to measure a woman’s fertility. That’s it. If a couple using it to avoid pregnancy is sinning, it’s because of the contraceptive mentality.

and i have a problem with that. What other voluntary act is sinful if not performed at a certain time?

In this instance, as in you can’t take the whole marriage as being open to life but every act has to be open to life, does a couple have to have marital relations every day during the period they know is fertile? Is every other day sufficient? How about once during the fertile period?

Once you say that the couple is obligated to have relations during the fertile period, you have to answer these questions. They seem silly, but that’s the logical end to the argument.

A serious reason to use nfp to avoid conception is not specified by the church. There is no list. Yes, it can be abused, but, frankly, it is subjective. If a woman feels that one more child would drive her over the edge, who are we to second guess her? If a couple doesn’t think they can afford another child, well, is the church going to provide a financial planner?

As i say during these discussions about nfp abuse, come on, 3-5% of catholics use nfp. Go pick on the other 95-97% that don’t.

Exactly.

 

[wanner47]

Casti Connubi
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
31 December, 1930

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

An excerpt of this:

1. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

 

[wanner47]

This is an excellent article as well:

Is NFP a Heresy? by Fr. Brian Harrison

 

[timrohr]

The concept that it is sinful if my wife is fertile and we do not engage in relations is hard to understand. This implies that the Church has put an obligation on both of us to have relations on purpose because of fertility. I do not see that written anywhere.

If neither of us requests relations during the fertile period, what’s the harm? I am talking within the context of serious reasons.

Some on this thread have argued that a couple shouldn’t track fertility and just leave conception to God. Knowing what we know about biology, conception occurs along predictable rules. God adheres to those rules, doesn’t He, except in miraculous situations. So, knowing the rules is cooperating with God to be cocreators, isn’t it?

Yes, and one of those “rules” is the normal desire of the woman to have sexual relations during her fertile time. God made that desire for a reason.

 

[PaulinVA]

Do some people have an issue with NFP because it is so effective?

As Wanner47s post mentions, periodic abstinence has been approved for a long time. It wasn’t that effective, though. The rhythm rules didn’t fit everyone, so there were a lot of babies made. In the view of some people today, did this make the practice of periodic continence more acceptable when rhythm was all there was?

 

[Onegin]

Do some people have an issue with NFP because it is so effective?

What does “effective” mean in this context, though? If you mean “effective” as a means of having children (i.e. dealing with infertility issues) then, yes, I can see how NFP might be “effective”.

However, if we mean “effective” at “postponing” pregnancy then I think that NFP becomes little more than Catholic birth control. After all, if we are supposed to view the whole business of NFP as either being effective or ineffective based on whether children are born or not, then there is something seriously wrong in Catholic culture.

And the poster who mentioned that NFP goes against the natural process is absolutely correct. After all, typically, the desire for intimacy goes hand in hand with the natural process of fertility. With NFP, the couple is taught to abstain during that time.

 

[wanner47]

What does “effective” mean in this context, though? If you mean “effective” as a means of having children (i.e. dealing with infertility issues) then, yes, I can see how NFP might be “effective”.

However, if we mean “effective” at “postponing” pregnancy then I think that NFP becomes little more than Catholic birth control. After all, if we are supposed to view the whole business of NFP as either being effective or ineffective based on whether children are born or not, then there is something seriously wrong in Catholic culture.

And the poster who mentioned that NFP goes against the natural process is absolutely correct. After all, typically, the desire for intimacy goes hand in hand with the natural process of fertility. With NFP, the couple is taught to abstain during that time.

What you’re missing here is that NFP does not teach this at all. I used information derived from the practice of NFP to **conceive **four of my children. I’ve similarly used this information to practice abstinence during fertile periods.

NFP just provides information. What the couple chooses to do with that information is at issue here.

You also need to remember that in addition to being called to generous parenthood, we’re also called to *responsible *parenthood. Birth control in and of itself is not an evil. There are serious and legitimate reasons (health concerns, serious financial problems) to want to space children. What’s wrong is to use contraception as birth control, or to use birth control at all when there aren’t just or grave reasons to space children.

See this article I posted earlier for a longer, more thorough explanation:

becomewhatyouare.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/nfp-licit-or-illicit/#com-head

 

[PaulinVA]

However, if we mean “effective” at “postponing” pregnancy then I think that NFP becomes little more than Catholic birth control. After all, if we are supposed to view the whole business of NFP as either being effective or ineffective based on whether children are born or not, then there is something seriously wrong in Catholic culture.

What? Yes, NFP is “effective” for those trying to conceive, and it is also “effective” for those trying to avoid. The Church has approved it’s use for couples trying to avoid pregnancy for just, serious or grave reasons.

The fact that it can effectively be used to postpone pregnancy, in accordance with Church teaching, seems to be your problem. In that case, I would suggest you personally not use it to postpone pregnancy.

Onegin:

And the poster who mentioned that NFP goes against the natural process is absolutely correct. After all, typically, the desire for intimacy goes hand in hand with the natural process of fertility. With NFP, the couple is taught to abstain during that time.

Uhm, there are a lot of “natural urges” that we don’t give in to. Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean we need to give in to it.

 

[white_sheep]

Casti Connubi
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
31 December, 1930

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.

Casti Connubii is really about ABC. It doesn’t condemn NFP but actually seems to confirm it here in accord with prior Church teaching on the matter. It seems to me that since the first time this issue was ever raised the consistent Church teaching on the matter has been that NFP is licit with just cause. This is 150 years of unbroken Church teaching.

Now we are left to prayerfully discern on our own and preferably with the aid of a confessor what just cause means in our personal situation. To deny that circumstances exist whereby a couple could licitly use NFP for social, economic, or medical reasons is contrary to Church teaching. In modern society where both parents often have to work to support the family and the average family has $7,000 in credit card debt and a savings of only $1,000 the idea that finding a family that could licitly employ NFP to avoid pregnancy based on social or economic grounds would be like finding a needle in a haystack is seriously misguided.

However, it is also true that such a situation should not endure for an unending time period, and for circumstances within our control. By this I mean a couple would probably be over the line who decided not to have any children for 15 years because they can’t afford to. There’s always a way to push it too far. Not being able to afford to have additional children should also not be caused by personal excess and luxury. Not having time to care for children should not be caused by our hobbies or self-gratifying lifestyle. For instance, “I golf 14 hours a day, I don’t have time for kids!”.

 

[white_sheep]

Equating NFP with other methods of birth control, particularly hormonal or non-barrier methods, is contrary to Church teaching. From the article linked in an earlier post:

The next time the issue was raised was in 1880, when the Sacred Penitentiary issued a more general response . The precise question posed was this: “Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to occur?” The response was: “Spouses using the aforesaid method are not to be disturbed; and a confessor may, with due caution, suggest this proposal to spouses, if his other attempts to lead them away from the detestable crime of onanism have proved fruitless.” (This decision was published in Nouvelle Revue Théologique 13 [1881]: 459–460 and in Analecta Iuris Pontificii 22 [1883], 249.)

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

 

[Onegin]

Equating NFP with other methods of birth control, particularly hormonal or non-barrier methods, is contrary to Church teaching. From the article linked in an earlier post:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

The quote you provide appears to suggest (as I believe is true) that NFP is a last resort only to be used in quite serious circumstances. In this example, to avoid the sin of onanism, where all other attempts to deal with the issue have failed. Or, as some might call it, the avoidance of concupiscence which is one of the lesser purposes of Marriage.

What I take issue with (and another poster tried to catch me on this) is NOT the use of NFP as an aid to fertility, which I believe is wholly legitimate and not really the issue of discussion here, but instead the widespread teaching and counselling of of engaged couples on the use of NFP to “postpone” pregnancy. NFP is extolled by groups in most parishes and one comes away thinking that every couple should make use of such a wonderful tool to “prudentially regulate” your family size.

This suggests two things which I believe to be erroneous:

1. That the couple should use NFP whenever and wherever they please, and
2. That NFP should be used at the outset of marriage and, indeed, should be the “default” practice for the couple.

Both of these ideas are disordered - the first because it puts the very serious issue of regulating fertility at the whims and discretion of the couple alone (instead of at the prudential discretion of good priest of confessor who may help them determine if the reasons are just and serious enough) and the second because it suggests that NFP is the norm rather than the exception.

Consider again the words of Fr. Hugh Calkins in the article I linked to previously. I make no real distinctions between Rhythm method and NFP except that, as one poster put it, NFP is more “effective.”

The Rhythm mentality has a tear-jerker argument. It’s turned on, full stops, something like this: “But God wants people to use prudence in bringing children into the world. Neither God nor His Church demands people have as many kids as possible. People should use discretion, be decent enough to plan their family. Isn’t it far better that a few kids be well fed, clothed, educated than a large family endure poverty.” It sounds good, doesn’t it? People advancing this line are often quite righteous about it. With pharisaical smugness, they feel sorry for “imprudent pregnancy” of poor parents. But I’m sick of them. They’re the kind who probably pitied Mary of Nazareth, carrying a Baby God has sent, but for whom Joseph and Mary couldn’t find a home (talk about a housing shortage and tough landlords). They’re the kind who pitied my own mother, when she carried me, her twelfth child. Sweet chance I, and many another poor kids like me, would have to be priests, if Rhythm mentality prevailed. And what would the bleeding heart of another day have done about Nancy Hands carrying the Baby who became Abe Lincoln? There would have been no Bernadette of Lourdes, coming from a jail flat, nor Teresa of Lisieux from sickly parents and a mother who lost three babies in a row, and most certainly not a Catherine of Siena, a twenty-third child, if the “prudent planners” had their way. What all these extollers of prudence forget is: God’s Will is the end of man. The essence of the world: ours to do His Will. Prudence is a cardinal virtue, highly praiseworthy indeed. But faith, hope, and charity are supernatural virtues far more praiseworthy. And the greatest of these is charity. What nobler way to practice charity than to co-operate with God in passing on new life, when God wants it to be born, not when humans think it should?* Let only God play God.*

 

[PaulinVA]

The quote you provide appears to suggest (as I believe is true) that NFP is a last resort only to be used in quite serious circumstances. In this example, to avoid the sin of onanism, where all other attempts to deal with the issue have failed. Or, as some might call it, the avoidance of concupiscence which is one of the lesser purposes of Marriage.

What I take issue with (and another poster tried to catch me on this) is NOT the use of NFP as an aid to fertility, which I believe is wholly legitimate and not really the issue of discussion here, but instead the widespread teaching and counselling of of engaged couples on the use of NFP to “postpone” pregnancy. NFP is extolled by groups in most parishes and one comes away thinking that every couple should make use of such a wonderful tool to “prudentially regulate” your family size.

I wasn’t trying to trip you up, just trying to get you to get you to see the church view.

This suggests two things which I believe to be erroneous:

1. That the couple should use NFP whenever and wherever they please, and
2. That NFP should be used at the outset of marriage and, indeed, should be the “default” practice for the couple.

Both of these ideas are disordered - the first because it puts the very serious issue of regulating fertility at the whims and discretion of the couple alone (instead of at the prudential discretion of good priest of confessor who may help them determine if the reasons are just and serious enough) and the second because it suggests that NFP is the norm rather than the exception.

I agree with you. NFP for avoiding should not be the default in marriage. Absolutely. You should have as many children as you possibly can - but that is left for the couple to prayerfully decide. I’'m okay with adding the priest in there if you wish.

But, the bottom line is that there can be just, serious reasons to avoid pregnancy. Sometimes it is temporary. Sometimes it is permanent.

 

[white_sheep]

The quote you provide appears to suggest (as I believe is true) that NFP is a last resort only to be used in quite serious circumstances. In this example, to avoid the sin of onanism, where all other attempts to deal with the issue have failed. Or, as some might call it, the avoidance of concupiscence which is one of the lesser purposes of Marriage.

I don’t think it necessarily means what you have deduced. Read it a few more times. When asked what about people who use NFP to TTA(try to avoid)? The answer was leave them alone. Nothing more or less, don’t disturb them. The ‘caution’ portion of the answer was in approaching the situation of recommending NFP to couples practicing onanism or using condoms.

What I take issue with (and another poster tried to catch me on this) is NOT the use of NFP as an aid to fertility, which I believe is wholly legitimate and not really the issue of discussion here, but instead the widespread teaching and counselling of of engaged couples on the use of NFP to “postpone” pregnancy. NFP is extolled by groups in most parishes and one comes away thinking that every couple should make use of such a wonderful tool to “prudentially regulate” your family size.

Oh, I agree, they should simply deliver the Church’s teaching on it and not add their own. If they aren’t ready for children they really aren’t ready for marriage either, IMO.

This suggests two things which I believe to be erroneous:

1. That the couple should use NFP whenever and wherever they please, and
2. That NFP should be used at the outset of marriage and, indeed, should be the “default” practice for the couple.

I agree those are both errors which should be avoided.

Both of these ideas are disordered - the first because it puts the very serious issue of regulating fertility at the whims and discretion of the couple alone (instead of at the prudential discretion of good priest of confessor who may help them determine if the reasons are just and serious enough) and the second because it suggests that NFP is the norm rather than the exception.

While a good idea, the Church does not teach that a confessor must be involved in the decision to use NFP to TTA.

Consider again the words of Fr. Hugh Calkins in the article I linked to previously. I make no real distinctions between Rhythm method and NFP except that, as one poster put it, NFP is more “effective.”

He can feel about it however he wants, and that is predominantly what his comments were, feelings. The Church teaching on the matter is fairly clear and is not an all out condemnation of NFP to TTA.

 

[wanner47]

Oregin, given that you don’t believe it’s sinful to use NFP to conceive children, will you please stop using terminology such as, “NFP is sinful because…”

NFP is not sinful because it’s just information. It’s what people do with the information that may or may not be sinful.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Everyone discussing this thread knows (and anyone who were to hear someone say such even outside of context would have to assume) that when someone says that NFP is wrong, he isn’t talking about measuring anything. He is talking about using that knowledge to attempt to avoid conception.

 

[Onegin]

I agree with you. NFP for avoiding should not be the default in marriage. Absolutely. You should have as many children as you possibly can - but that is left for the couple to prayerfully decide. I’'m okay with adding the priest in there if you wish.

But would you agree that the way NFP is currently “marketed” (in absence of another term) in many parishes gives an incorrect view of the purpose of NFP? For example, I’ve attended an “informational” NFP session at a very conservative parish and, even there, the presenters seemed to imply that NFP is not just information but it is information that every Catholic should be using. Furthermore, in some parishes NFP classes are mandatory before one can get married in that parish. It’s as if the use of NFP is being extolled as a virtue in Catholic marriage.

This is where I think something is wrong. It sends the clear message to a couple that there is something wrong with them or they are not “informed” if they choose to not use NFP to postpone children.

Oregin, given that you don’t believe it’s sinful to use NFP to conceive children, will you please stop using terminology such as, “NFP is sinful because…”

NFP is not sinful because it’s just information. It’s what people do with the information that may or may not be sinful.

To give you the benefit of the doubt (I don’t want to think that you’re intentionally putting words in my mouth), I think you have me confused with another poster. I never said that NFP is sinful. I did say that NFP should not be used or extolled as the default or the norm in Catholic marriage.

I agree that NFP is morally neutral, but I think that today people are given a lot of misinformation about when and where it’s proper uses lie and consequently, NFP ends up being used at a whim which I believe creates a lot of unhappiness for couples who eventually realise that they have made (as the Priest in the article called it) an “unhappy compromise”.

NFP can still be used sinfully in certain circumstances. I would say that it’s use is AT BEST morally neutral (when used in accordance with Church teaching) and is never virtuous.

Hope this helps explain my position.

 

[Onegin]

On an added note - for those in this thread - what would be your gut reaction to meeting extremely poor Catholic family who has 10+ children and tells you that they refuse to consider using NFP?

Would you smile and nod, and say that’s wonderful whilst secretly thinking that they could seriously benefit from some “child spacing” or would you sincerely conclude that they are earnestly following God’s will without the interference of any sort of intermediary “planning”?

Be honest - I’m interested in the responses. I already know that society looks askance on such situations but what do fellow Catholics REALLY think about large families that live at or near the poverty level? Because, in the end, that’s the exact situation that most people who use traditional contraceptives are trying to avoid. But do Catholics who reject contraceptives embrace this possibility or do you think “that’s great, but that many children really isn’t for us?”

 

[white_sheep]

On an added note - for those in this thread - what would be your gut reaction to meeting extremely poor Catholic family who has 10+ children and tells you that they refuse to consider using NFP?

Would you smile and nod, and say that’s wonderful whilst secretly thinking that they could seriously benefit from some “child spacing” or would you sincerely conclude that they are earnestly following God’s will without the interference of any sort of intermediary “planning”?

Be honest - I’m interested in the responses. I already know that society looks askance on such situations but what do fellow Catholics REALLY think about large families that live at or near the poverty level? Because, in the end, that’s the exact situation that most people who use traditional contraceptives are trying to avoid. But do Catholics who reject contraceptives embrace this possibility or do you think “that’s great, but that many children really isn’t for us?”

What would you say if you found a family who simply followed Church teaching and didn’t act as their own magisterium? Would you just smile and nod saying that’s wonderful but secretly think they should come up with some new rules more to your liking? Or would you praise them for their devotion to Christ and willingness to obey His Church?