NFP?

[nobeerinheaven]

In any case, my stay here has been worn out. My initial post on this thread was to seek confirmation that my reflections on traditional Roman Catholic doctrine were correct. I received this and now I must take leave of you all.

LOL. It would be more honest of you to just say “I’m sick of arguing, and don’t care about the very good reasons the Catholic Church has for her teachings. I have my own, personal view, and I’m sticking to it.”

We know that’s what you mean, anyway.

 

[Wampa]

My apologies if I’m repeating a point already made. I stopped reading every single word after page 4, but I did skim everything else.

The argument has been made many times here that “using NFP = avoiding pregnancy”. That’s not always true. My wife and I have been using NFP for almost 2 years now TO TRY TO GET PREGNANT. We track her signs so that we know when she’s fertile so we can try especially hard at those times.

Never once have we used it to avoid pregnancy. Fortunately for us, we don’t have any grave matters that would require us to consider doing so.

 

[dessert]

One of the purposes that God created marriage for is to present a visible “picture” to the world of the love union between Christ and His Church, a union so strong, so mysterious, that we, His Church, are actually referred to as “The Body of Christ.”

We are joined with Him in such a way that we become one with Him and all other believers–we become One Body.

Marriage, including the act of love, perfectly illustrates this to a sinful world.

A good marriage is a witness to the world of what Christ intends for mankind.

A marriage with no sex means no mystical union; the couple do not become “one flesh” (illustrative of "one body), and that “non-union” is NOT Christianity. It is totally contrary to Christianity, which is Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Maybe there is such a thing as mystical marriage.??
D.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

The citation is based on a speech given by Pius XII and subsequently published. I cannot link to it because it is not available on the internet. It is referrenced in the moral theology text.

So it is not infallible, i.e. this excerpt from your book about what Pius XI Casti Connubii actually meant, right?.

 

[MMLJ]

Again, you are wrong. Moral theologians everywhere recognize that this is precisely what Pope Pius XI did refer to in Casti Cannubii.

“The fact that the licit use of the sterile period was already at that time a commonplace among theologians, the fact that the phrase ‘through natural reasons… of time’ was used, rather than ‘reasons of age’ or some similar expression, and the fact that the immediate context of the encyclical itself was concern for the difficulties of married people tempted to onanism — all these considerations convinced the great majority of theologians that Pius XI was here referring to the permissible use of the sterile periods as a means of avoiding conception. Pius XII, we may mention here, explicitly confirmed this view in 1958 (Address to Hematologists, 12 Sept. 1958, A.A.S., 50 [1958] 736), thus dispelling what little doubt had existed on this point.”

-Moral Theology by Fr. John C. Ford, S.J., and Fr. Gerard Kelly, S.J., 1959

This book above maybe a nice one but it is not Casti Connubii and not infallible. The Pope was clear:

There is no iota of mention in any way shape or form of regulating birth or utilizing Natural Family Method in the encyclical Casti Connubii .

Vatican I states, Denzinger #1839, “that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals;** and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”**

BTW, Casti Connubii is not in err so I do not why you keep going crazy with the highlights. I am sorry if I was not clear before, since I was quoting Castiu Connubii throughout, it is obvious that it is not in err.

Q: Have you ever wondered why it took about 4 decades (40 years) to clarify what the Pope Pius XI said in Casti Connubii when speaking ex cathedra(since it needed no clarification)? This time delay may be suggestive of a way justifying the practice of NFP? .

 

[dixieagle]

Hold them horses gal ! I didn’t describe your situation, you did.
I just gave two simple examples to express my view on the moral side of it.

I would not dare to advise you or anyone on the matter, other than to tell you to talk to your priest and follow your heart.
I don’t want to judge anyone. I’m having a hard enough time with myself

And as far as abstaining, that would be the route I’d go myself. Others can choose themselves. They know their situation, not me.

Why make it seem that the Church demands something when it does not? NFP is absolutely allowed, even encouraged, for serious reasons, which each couple must decide according to their situation. Humanae Vitae is a wonderful encyclical which speaks to this subject.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

We’re not just talking about the same intention. We are also talking about the same action/behavior. Those who use barrier methods and NFP not only intend to keep conception from occurring in the conjugal act that is always geared primarily for procreation. Both of them proceed to take deliberate action/behavior to ensure that this intention will be realized.

Adam this seems to represent a sea-change in your thinking on another thread:

ForeverAdam:

No, everything that is natural is not good. As a result of the Fall, nature is no longer a perfect reflection of God’s eternal law. On the contrary, nature is a mixture of good and bad. For example, our body naturally gets old and dies. We don’t receive this as good since we are allowed to try to prolong our lives and overcome sicknesses. Animals in nature aren’t monogamous. However, we believe we must be. We are naturally inclined to not fast. However, our Faith encourages us to do this often. Trying to base morality on what is “natural” is bound for failure. The “natural law” only refers to the eternal law of God that is made known to humanity. The question we must ask in issues of morality is what is the law of God, not what nature (which is fallen in any case) teaches us.

Regarding contraception, we must ask what the law of God is on the point. We believe that God’s law is in support of responsible parenthood, which allows the use of non-abortifacient birth control in particular cases. The justification for NFP operates on the same understanding.

God bless,

Adam

You’re stance would only be right if God allows you to limit the procreativity of the conjugal act to certain times of the month. This would be a change of doctrine. Do you want to admit that this happened in the Roman Catholic Church?

Rather the Catholic thinking on this is that a Catholic couple will not usurp God’s dominion. The times of fertility He reserves for His discretion to enter into the marital act for the transmission of life.

 

[hasikelee]

Wow.

The posts claiming NFP is selfish, contraceptive, evil, etc lead me to wonder if the posters have ever studied NFP or even attempted to practice it?

The level of maturity, true love, selflessness and open communication required to succesfully practice NFP is beyond any other marital program ever conceived. Haha, no pun intended.

To respect a woman so much that you would care for her body, pay close attention to the signs of her body and stay your sexual impulses can only lead to a closer, more loving, more Catholic relationship.

Maybe that’s why these NFP practicers can boast an amazingly miniscule divorce rate.

Furthermore, even if there was a reason to hate NFP methods, that would still be ignoring many other valuable aspects, such as using NFP to foster respect for womens’ bodies, using it to conceive a baby (yes, that’s right, PROCREATION) using it to keep track of disease such as endometriosis, using it to learn about miscarriages or fertility issues, etc.

www.christopherwest.com

Sheesh

 

[dixieagle]

This in particular struck me:

If NFP is used in a selfish manner, it too can be sinful. If it is used only in grave circumstances, it is not sinful.

It is by its nature selfish. The secondary benefits of sex serve nobody else except its participants…they take it upon themselves to reverse the order that God intended…procreation first, mutual love/benefit/quieting of concupisence comes second.

The marital act is the re-enactment of the marriage covenant, which mirrors the relationship between Christ and His Church. Humanae Vitae reflects the Church’s view that the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act are equal, and is abundantly clear that NFP, when used for sufficient reasons, is perfectly acceptable. It pretty much addresses any questions that might arise with regard to the proper use of natural means of responsible birth regulation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have read through this whole thread and here are my thoughts:

1)While people like the OP (billpenn) make some fair points, the fact they were cutting and pasting from a place not in union with the Church (in fact attacks the Church) loses credibility points in my book. (it amazes me how Catholics can even look to such “sources” in the first place) As the thread went on it became clear to me the intent of the OP fell from a reasonable one to that of a RadTrad attitude of distrusting everything the post V-II Church says.

2)Further, they have not answered simple direct questions such as whether they believe the Church taught error in regards to NFP. (A serious charge considering they say NFP is intrinsically evil). Also they have not pointed to any theologians who claim it is intrinsically evil as well.

3)I read all of Casti Connubii and here are some quotes that stood out: 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

1. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
2. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
   NFP wasnt even in sight here. This was talking about “deliberately frustrating its natural power” which is undeniably in reference to first and foremost “Onanism” and artificial barriers and contraceptive pills. There is no room to dance around here, the Pope calls this intrinsically evil and grave sin, if people like billpenn want put these passages against NFP they need to come out and say the Church erred and in turn leave and seek out the “true Church”. 59. 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.
   The first half of this is talking about when one spouse uses artificial contraception, the other spouse does not share in the sin if they say it is wrong. The bold says even if new life cannot be brought forth “using their right in the proper manner” is not intrinsically evil. The key is that all acts must be open to new life, if it comes, and “the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved”. It is undeniable that that passage states the marriage act can take place in conditions where new life has a low chance of coming forth, thus it falls to the intent which determines whether it is a sin or not (and thus it is not intrinsically evil).

 

[Cat]

It seems to me that twisting the theology to prove that NFP is wrong could lead to just the opposite of abstinence–rape, since the woman has no right at all to refuse a man access to her womb, and the man is actually “sinning” to abstain from giving his spouse children constantly.

I truly pity the spouses of some of these posters. How mixed up and twisted we become when we refuse to listen to and obey the beautiful teachings of our Holy Mother Church! How peaceful and ordered life becomes (even in large families with many children!) when we submit to our Church and Her teachings!

I am a convert from evangelical Protestantism, and I love being Catholic! Doing sex God’s way has made my marriage better than ever!

As for the abstinent marriage of Joseph and Mary, according to Christopher West, they were given the blessing of having a relationship like that of spouses in heaven. They were already experiencing a man/woman relationship like those in heaven (according to Jesus, as the angels). This means that they were experiencing something better than sex. We don’t know exactly what that was or the ecstasies that they enjoyed. I’ve read lots of speculations about how they enjoyed being in the presence of Jesus, just as we will when, by the mercy of God, we finally enter into heaven.

This is NOT the case with all the rest of the married couples on earth. We are enjoying the earthly plan for the sacrament of marriage.

 

[Sure]

So it is not infallible, i.e. this excerpt from your book about what Pius XI Casti Connubii actually meant, right?.

Are statements by subsequent Pope’s interpreting a previous Pope’s encyclical infallible insofar as we are discussing a moral teaching? Pope Pius XII stated clearly that Casti Cannubii WAS referring to periodic abstinence when it said TIME. So, either he was CORRECT in his interpretation or he was in ERROR in his interpretation. Last I checked, Pope’s don’t make errors in their teaching on moral issues. This statement was subsequently published authoritatively in Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1958. I don’t have an english translation of the document and haven’t found one on the internet, so I posted a quotation from a reputable moral theology text that references the quotation. I think it’s clear from my post that in no way was I insinuating that the moral theology book itself was infallible.

EVEN if you do not regard Pope Pius XII interpretation of Casti Cannubii as infallible, you still ought to admit that his interpretation deserves a bit more weight than that of a fringe sedevacantist group. At least in my book it does. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Sure]

This book above maybe a nice one but it is not Casti Connubii and not infallible. The Pope was clear:

There is no iota of mention in any way shape or form of regulating birth or utilizing Natural Family Method in the encyclical Casti Connubii .

Vatican I states, Denzinger #1839, “that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals;** and so such definitions** of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

BTW, Casti Connubii is not in err so I do not why you keep going crazy with the highlights. I am sorry if I was not clear before, since I was quoting Castiu Connubii throughout, it is obvious that it is not in err.

Q: Have you ever wondered why it took about 4 decades (40 years) to clarify what the Pope Pius XI said in Casti Connubii when speaking ex cathedra(since it needed no clarification)? This time delay may be suggestive of a way justifying the practice of NFP? .

It took 40 years because it was something commonly accepted and taught by the Church which is why the Sacred Penitentiary was confirming the morality of periodic abstinence in 1853, in 1880 and again in 1932 (AFTER Casti Cannubii).

But is Pope Pius XII’s interpretation of that passage an error?

Is Humanae Vitae in error?

Is Familiaris Consortio in error?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

It took 40 years because it was something commonly accepted and taught by the Church which is why the Sacred Penitentiary was confirming the morality of periodic abstinence in 1853, in 1880 and again in 1932 (AFTER Casti Cannubii).

You really think that should take about 40 years, something that you and others have discussed as so easy to understand (throughout this thread)?

Do you see where you are going with that line of thinking?
Your words my accentuation: ‘Commonly accepted’, ’ ‘taught by the Church’

Again, if this holds, why 40 years?
Those moral theologians and the Apostolic Penitentiary surely did take their time, possibly a lifetime for some.

Pope Pius XI was reaffiriming the status quo in Casti Connubii.
Their is no NFP in this encyclical.

A really good question for everyone on this thread :

*Is Casti Connubii quoted in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?
*

BTW, did you know that Pope Pius XII was a proponent of the BIG BANG THEORY of Creation? vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

 

[Sure]

You really think that should take about 40 years, something that you and others have discussed as so easy to understand (throughout this thread)?

Do you see where you are going with that line of thinking?
Your words my accentuation: ‘Commonly accepted’, ’ ‘taught by the Church’

Again, if this holds, why 40 years?
Those moral theologians and the Apostolic Penitentiary surely did take their time, possibly a lifetime for some.

Pope Pius XI was reaffiriming the status quo in Casti Connubii.
Their is no NFP in this encyclical.

A really good question for everyone on this thread :

Is Casti Connubii quoted in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?


BTW, did you know that Pope Pius XII was a proponent of the BIG BANG THEORY of Creation?

I think you missed it in my previous post. The Sacred penitentiary confirmed the morality of periodic abstinence in 1853, 1880 and 1932. So, this was being taught by the Church to its priests years BEFORE Casti Cannubii. The reason it may have taken time to ask the question is that it was a COMMON understanding.

Casti Cannubii is used as a reference in Humane Vitae 6 times.

Here is a really good question for you:

How did the Church teach error on a moral issue?

The burden here is on you to show that the Church has erred, not on us to show that the teaching is consistent.

So, far your entire argument has been that Casti Cannubii does not contain anything on periodic abstinence when according to the Popes of the 20th century it did (the mention of “time”). Quite frankly 3 people on the internet saying “no, it doesn’t mean periodic abstinence” is not enough to counter several Popes who say that it DOES mean periodic abstinence. So, come up with a document or a theologian who supports your interpretation.

 

[Jennifer_J]

BTW, did you know that Pope Pius XII was a proponent of the BIG BANG THEORY of Creation? vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

And what’s your point and how is it relevant to this thread???

Jennifer

ps incase you don’t know, a Pope can have personal opinions about things, even those things that have nothing to do with faith and morals–such as the big bang theory.

 

[He_Man]

I’ve been doing a lot of research on this lately because my wife and I just had our first child, and we’re in the middle of talking about NFP now.

I think it is birth control because its purpose is to do just that…control births - as in whether or not they happen. Same primary aim as the birth control pill or condoms - just a different mechanism of action.

I think it is another case of the ends justifying the means…the ends here being not to get pregnant.

Pope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii, #54, said that the “conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children…”

He goes on to say in #59 that “…in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love and the quieting of concupisence 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.”

So to my mind, NFP subordinates the conjugal act’s primary purpose (as stated above in #54…that is, creation of children) to the secondary purposes (stated in #59). It brings the secondary aims of it to the forefront by endeavoring to avoid pregnancy.

Aren’t you being a bit prideful in claiming to know more on the subject than the Holy Father?

If you want to be scrupulous, go ahead, but I wouldn’t come on CA and push the scrupluosity on others when they are in good standing with Church authority.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I think you missed it in my previous post. The Sacred penitentiary confirmed the morality of periodic abstinence in 1853, 1880 and 1932. So, this was being taught by the Church to its priests years BEFORE Casti Cannubii.

Since their is a misunderstanding with Casti Connubii, what was taught before it?

Casti Cannubii is used as a reference in Humane Vitae 6 times.

This may be deceptive so, Show this thread how it pertains to NFP.

How did the Church teach error on a moral issue?

I do not think Pope Pius XI taught error in the encyclical Casti Connubii.

**Is Casti Connubii (yes it is REFERENCED but not for NFP, WHY?) in Humanae Vitae for Natural Family Planning (NFP)?
**

BTW, did you know that Pope Pius XII was a proponent of the BIG BANG THEORY of Creation? vatican.va/holy_father/pi…eneris_en.html

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Throughout the thread, I have noticed that the “traditionalist” view does not explain the quotes they are posting.

Here are a few comments that haven’t been noticed in the thread as far as I have read, and which might stimulate other threads and ideas. I am too short for time to engage in a long discussion right now.

In the Genesis account, the woman was created in the first place – not spoken of as a vessel of children, but because “It was not good for the man to be alone.” If it were the other way around, the woman could have been created first so that even the first man could have been born from her.

The so called secondary purpose of marriage was the primary purpose of creation of Woman, the formation of a community of
persons which are to praise God through their complementarity.

God could also have created us individually, such that this community purpose were fulfilled without sexuality. However,
there is something about God (whether trinitarian of incarnational I know not) which makes sexuality – and therefore sex – an image of God.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Since God is Love (Though not all love is God, for lust is a distortion of love, as is pride – the excessive love of oneself) there must be a qualified reason that the sexual act is bound up with love – and is therefore an image of God.

Sexuality, as concupiscence ( with desire ) and the sinfulness
of the act depend on the circumstances. As the CCC notes, concupiscence is not a sin in and of itself. One idea that has
not really been addressed on the thread is what those circumstances are with regard to the traditional teaching of the church.

In St. Augustines day, and immortalized in later folk songs is notion of sexual restraint as a mercy to the wife. Indeed, St. Augustine was quite aware of the damage done in childbirth which often leads to ripped flesh and permanent scarring or wounding during the delivery.

The consequences of such damage are felt by the woman primarily ( as noted in the Genesis account ) and by the man secondarily as it interferes with the marriage relationship.
Often the delivery of a child resulted in death at that time.

Now certainly, in taking pleasure with a spouse, a man does not wish her death (nor was there any other way to have children) – so this can’t be considered mortal sin to take have taken the risk in Augustine’s day – yet to drive the risk to the maximum possible
does have grave matter (with many a dead woman) so that calling it venial sin is not inappropriate for Augustine.

The pains of childbirth were intended to limit the tendency toward
pleasure seeking to excess ( a lust ), just as work was given to the man as a limit to his time.

Today, there is a revolution in medical science where a doctor usually does prevent death, is able to repair most of the damage due to childbirth, and as such the gravity of the sexual act is different for most (not all) people today.

Also, not noticed in the thread is how language has changed through these same advances in medical knowledge. Conception of a child had a different meaning to St. Thomas (who was wrong) concerning a suspected ‘vegetative’ stage of the child’s life.
One has to be very careful in interpreting the ancient texts.

At the time of Jesus, and throughout the biblical text:
The seed of man (sperma) from which we get sperm – was taken to be the “clay” (see the dead sea scrolls for a clear example) from which each man was formed in the womb. The fertility of the act to Augustine would not have been seen as the joining of a sperm and egg with a narrow window of time:
as every act was the planting of ‘seed’ sperma in the womb is
naturally fertile with respect to the idea of seed.

The ancient Hebrews also record that having intercourse during the menstrual time (which was infertile) is a sin – not because of the infertility but because of the holiness of blood which prefigures the sacrifice of Christ. This is no longer needed since the prefigurement of Christ is fulfilled.

The analogy points to another perversion of the Genesis account of Onan, who not only spilled the seed – but upon the ground.
This suggests that Onan may have rationalized his evil act by planting seed in the wrong soil – which has all kinds of pagan overtones in it, wealth worship, and other interests.
(Note: the children would not have been his…)

His sin, however, was manifold – first in denying “the woman” offspring needed for her support (which was in the tribe of Judah no less, and as the firstborn SON the one getting the blessing.) – second in spilling the seed on the ground (This is fundamental) – and third denying the honor of his brother’s name – and fourth in taking the pleasure of the act without accepting the choice of God who opens and closes the womb.

On the other hand, if the woman had children (Not as many as possible – but just male children) – the Obligation of Onan would
not have existed.