Should Catholic Teenagers understand and be knowledgable of NFP?

[bitterhope]

So priests and theologians use the phrase “NFP with contraceptive mentality” too? If so, there might be precedent for the phrase somewhere official.

If they don’t use the phrase, however, then I see no point in asking them what they mean by a phrase they do not use.

madisondiocese.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=84YRbIWrOWc%3D&

Page 5 explains what the Diocese of Madison means by using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. At least some US Bishops do use this phrase, so it isn’t just made up by lay Catholics to shame other Catholics. It isn’t from the anti-NFP crowd as stated, it is actually used in the NFP office in some diocese.

Also from the Diocese of Rockford:

At the end of this month, many Catholic churches throughout the country will be highlighting Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, including many in our diocese. Natural Family Planning Awareness Week has always coincided with the anniversary of the release of the prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae.

In that encyclical, Pope Paul VI accurately predicted the pitfalls man would fall into with the proliferation of artificial contraception, such as higher rates of divorce and sexual exploitation of women. The late Holy Father also discussed in his encyclical the idea of responsible parenthood from a Catholic perspective, relying heavily on how observing the signs of our bodies by utilizing Natural Family Planning is an important part of responsible parenthood.

Since that prophetic encyclical, there has been a rift in the Church laity regarding artificial contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP). In fact, many surveys show that 80 percent of the laity are accepting of artificial contraception. It is because of this that NFP Awareness Week takes on special importance. While the current fight over the HHS mandate is being rightly focused on the larger issue of religious liberty, the mandate does allow us a unique opportunity to better understand the Church’s teaching regarding artificial contraception and better understand the difference between it and NFP.

God’s plan for marriage and the marital embrace is ordered towards two goods, union of spouses and the procreation of children. These two goods are revealed by the act of the marital embrace itself. With artificial contraception, the couple using it ends up harming both of these goods.

First, the couple puts a physical or chemical barrier between them during the time of their most intimate union, not allowing that true union. Secondly, the couple using artificial contraception is actively intervening to prevent the procreation of children, closing themselves in a way from trusting in God. It is for these reasons that the Church has taught that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, because it goes against the very nature of the marital embrace and by extension the very nature of marriage itself.

On the other hand, Natural Family Planning relies on communication between couples and does not put any physical or chemical barriers between them. NFP has no harmful side effects and generally orders a couple to being more open to the gift of new life. If a couple has a grave reason for postponing having a child, it requires sacrifice on their parts through the practice of periodic abstinence. This is very different than a couple who uses artificial contraception, which leads to the possibility that the spouses see themselves as sexual objects always available for their own selfish pleasures.

While a couple may have a grave reason to postpone pregnancy, and may use Natural Family Planning to do this, NFP provides a built in monthly mechanism for the couple to reevaluate this decision through the charting of the woman’s fertile signs. This is also very different than artificial contraception, which does not require communication between the spouses.

NFP uses knowledge of our bodies to determine when a woman may or may not be fertile. Church teaching maintains that the marital embrace is a gift of self to one’s spouse with four components: free, total, faithful and fruitful. When using NFP, if a couple has a grave reason to avoid a pregnancy, the couple simply abstains from the marital embrace on days when conception could occur. This ensures that each time a couple does engage in the conjugal act, their gift is free, total (not withholding anything), faithful and fruitful (open to the possibility of new life, however rare it might be).

A couple utilizing contraception does not exhibit the components — free, total, faithful and fruitful. Now, a couple can certainly use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. If a couple chooses to use NFP in order never to have children, without a just reason, then they are also going against God’s design for marriage. Therefore, not only are the means which we use important but also the mentality we carry with it.

Let us take more time this month to educate ourselves on the Church’s teaching regarding artificial contraception and the difference between it and NFP. Let us also help to spread the message. Participating in Natural Family Planning Awareness at the end of this month will help in these endeavors.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

madisondiocese.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=84YRbIWrOWc%3D&

Page 5 explains what the Diocese of Madison means by using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. At least some US Bishops do use this phrase, so it isn’t just made up by lay Catholics to shame other Catholics. It isn’t from the anti-NFP crowd as stated, it is actually used in the NFP office in some diocese.

Also from the Diocese of Rockford:

At the end of this month, many Catholic churches throughout the country will be highlighting Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, including many in our diocese. Natural Family Planning Awareness Week has always coincided with the anniversary of the release of the prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae.

In that encyclical, Pope Paul VI accurately predicted the pitfalls man would fall into with the proliferation of artificial contraception, such as higher rates of divorce and sexual exploitation of women. The late Holy Father also discussed in his encyclical the idea of responsible parenthood from a Catholic perspective, relying heavily on how observing the signs of our bodies by utilizing Natural Family Planning is an important part of responsible parenthood.

Since that prophetic encyclical, there has been a rift in the Church laity regarding artificial contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP). In fact, many surveys show that 80 percent of the laity are accepting of artificial contraception. It is because of this that NFP Awareness Week takes on special importance. While the current fight over the HHS mandate is being rightly focused on the larger issue of religious liberty, the mandate does allow us a unique opportunity to better understand the Church’s teaching regarding artificial contraception and better understand the difference between it and NFP.

God’s plan for marriage and the marital embrace is ordered towards two goods, union of spouses and the procreation of children. These two goods are revealed by the act of the marital embrace itself. With artificial contraception, the couple using it ends up harming both of these goods.

First, the couple puts a physical or chemical barrier between them during the time of their most intimate union, not allowing that true union. Secondly, the couple using artificial contraception is actively intervening to prevent the procreation of children, closing themselves in a way from trusting in God. It is for these reasons that the Church has taught that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, because it goes against the very nature of the marital embrace and by extension the very nature of marriage itself.

On the other hand, Natural Family Planning relies on communication between couples and does not put any physical or chemical barriers between them. NFP has no harmful side effects and generally orders a couple to being more open to the gift of new life. If a couple has a grave reason for postponing having a child, it requires sacrifice on their parts through the practice of periodic abstinence. This is very different than a couple who uses artificial contraception, which leads to the possibility that the spouses see themselves as sexual objects always available for their own selfish pleasures.

While a couple may have a grave reason to postpone pregnancy, and may use Natural Family Planning to do this, NFP provides a built in monthly mechanism for the couple to reevaluate this decision through the charting of the woman’s fertile signs. This is also very different than artificial contraception, which does not require communication between the spouses.

NFP uses knowledge of our bodies to determine when a woman may or may not be fertile. Church teaching maintains that the marital embrace is a gift of self to one’s spouse with four components: free, total, faithful and fruitful. When using NFP, if a couple has a grave reason to avoid a pregnancy, the couple simply abstains from the marital embrace on days when conception could occur. This ensures that each time a couple does engage in the conjugal act, their gift is free, total (not withholding anything), faithful and fruitful (open to the possibility of new life, however rare it might be).

A couple utilizing contraception does not exhibit the components — free, total, faithful and fruitful. Now, a couple can certainly use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. If a couple chooses to use NFP in order never to have children, without a just reason, then they are also going against God’s design for marriage. Therefore, not only are the means which we use important but also the mentality we carry with it.

Let us take more time this month to educate ourselves on the Church’s teaching regarding artificial contraception and the difference between it and NFP. Let us also help to spread the message. Participating in Natural Family Planning Awareness at the end of this month will help in these endeavors.

Yes. For me it is a personal description. And perhaps it is descriptive to me because we definately had s contraceptive mentality when using contraceptives. When we decided to use nfp initially, nothing in the mentality had changed. Only the mechanism in which we contracepted.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yes I agree. HoosierDaddy is an intelligent, well-catechized Catholic who used to teach NFP. I think it is very likely that his use of the phrase (and others I have seen use it) has a very reasonable meaning, but that it is just not readily apparent to me, and perhaps to others.

I know Pope St. JPII used the phrase “contraceptive mentality” much like Pope Francis has been known to use a similar provocative term “throwaway culture”.

I assume “NFP with contraceptive mentality” is therefore an extension of the good pope’s colloquialism, but the precise meaning of it is what I must admit I am not quite sure of yet.

Thanks for that characterization.
Just this weekend I attended a conference in which one of the speakers, I believe it was father Larry Richards. Specifically used the term contraceptive mentality. It isn’t really that confusing. You take the mentality that using contraception lends itself to and apply it to nfp. As someone involved in nfp I noticed it was common. Yet people think it doesn’t exist. That is part of the problem with the marketing mindset of nfp. And something that needs to be part of nfp instruction and discernment.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If I may comment, I’m sure he has a reasonable intended meaning. It is just that to employ the word “contraception”/“contraceptive” is bound to cause confusion, given there is objectively no contraception.

Wellllllll. Perhaps we don’t like the word contraception because it brings to mind abc. But the intent of using nfp for many is anti conception… Though nfp can indeed be used pro conception as well.

 

[Rau]

Thanks for that characterization.
Just this weekend I attended a conference in which one of the speakers, I believe it was father Larry Richards. Specifically used the term contraceptive mentality. It isn’t really that confusing. You take the mentality that using contraception lends itself to and apply it to nfp. As someone involved in nfp I noticed it was common. Yet people think it doesn’t exist. That is part of the problem with the marketing mindset of nfp. And something that needs to be part of nfp instruction and discernment.

What mentality does contraception lend itself too? “I wish to not become pregnant for the next 2 years (for some good reason…), so I will take the Pill”.

A person may equally choose NFP, on the grounds that “I do not wish to become pregnant for the next 2 years (for some good reason)”.

Which one of these has a contraceptive mentality??

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I suppose we could differentiate nfp with a contraceptive mentality with any other sexual mortal sin as well. And we also could indeed say practicing nfp for unjust or not grave reasons… But that brings its own confusion.

Arguing about the mechanics and phrasing is as futile as arguing over the pill vs the condom.

There are a lot of words and phrases I think are inaccurate but we have to live with them.
I don’t think social justice the way many say it accurately describes justice. I don’t think “progressive” is a term that should have the positive connotation of progress. I don’t think planned parenthood should use the word parent…
But I don’t get to change language, I wish I could.
If it is one thing I’ve learned its that when marketing fails getting figgety about names rarely corrects the problem. Kfc didn’t like the word fried… Changing the name didn’t change the reality of the delicious chicken.
Just within the last month on these boards someone tried to change the name of nfp. Despite no other single source acknowledging the change!

But let’s not rehash all of this.
On this thread we are specifically talking about our children.
Yes, we will teach my daughters nfp.
Not quite sure about ds though, that could be an awkward camping trip…

 

[Rau]

Wellllllll. Perhaps we don’t like the word contraception because it brings to mind abc.

The word “contraception”, by definition, brings to mind ABC (by which term is included means such as withdrawal and the like…).

But the intent of using nfp for many is anti conception…

“Anti-conception” - what is that? - it sounds like conception per se is being regarded as an intrinsically bad thing. The intent in using NFP for many (perhaps most) is to* avoid conception.* You speak as if there is something inherently wrong about that.

Contraception is a type of act - not the end (no conception) which it seeks to deliver. It is a bad act. Choosing an alternative act (periodic abstinence) seeks the same end. But it is not a bad act.

In either case, there may be some moral flaw at work in seeking to avoid conception - but where NFP is used, the act is objectively not contraceptive (by definition) - that is why I think the “contraceptive mentality” expression is a particularly poor one.

 

[Rau]

Yes. For me it is a personal description. And perhaps it is descriptive to me because we definately had s contraceptive mentality when using contraceptives. When we decided to use nfp initially, nothing in the mentality had changed. Only the mechanism in which we contracepted.

What does that mean - your intention was to “never have children”?

The Madison diocese doc says:
“If a couple chooses to use NFP in order never to have children, without a just reason, then they are also going against God’s design for marriage. Therefore, not only are the means which we use important but also the mentality we carry with it.”

This strikes me as the thinnest if bases to carry the term “contraception” over to the misuse of NFP. The context is marriage - but we don’t label one wrong act in that context with the name applicable to another - just because they share the same context.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The word “contraception”, by definition, brings to mind ABC (by which term is included means such as withdrawal and the like…).

“Anti-conception” - what is that? - it sounds like conception per se is being regarded as an intrinsically bad thing. The intent in using NFP for many (perhaps most) is to* avoid conception.* You speak as if there is something inherently wrong about that.

Contraception is a type of act - not the end (no conception) which it seeks to deliver. It is a bad act. Choosing an alternative act (periodic abstinence) seeks the same end. But it is not a bad act.

In either case, there may be some moral flaw at work in seeking to avoid conception - but where NFP is used, the act is objectively not contraceptive (by definition) - that is why I think the “contraceptive mentality” expression is a particularly poor one.

Sounds like you should be a linguist and come up with a new prefix!

 

[Rau]

Sounds like you should be a linguist and come up with a new prefix!

Sounds like a diversion…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Sounds like a diversion…

Or a job!

 

[LongingSoul]

madisondiocese.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=84YRbIWrOWc%3D&

Page 5 explains what the Diocese of Madison means by using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. At least some US Bishops do use this phrase, so it isn’t just made up by lay Catholics to shame other Catholics. It isn’t from the anti-NFP crowd as stated, it is actually used in the NFP office in some diocese.

Also from the Diocese of Rockford:

At the end of this month, many Catholic churches throughout the country will be highlighting Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, including many in our diocese. Natural Family Planning Awareness Week has always coincided with the anniversary of the release of the prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae.

In that encyclical, Pope Paul VI accurately predicted the pitfalls man would fall into with the proliferation of artificial contraception, such as higher rates of divorce and sexual exploitation of women. The late Holy Father also discussed in his encyclical the idea of responsible parenthood from a Catholic perspective, relying heavily on how observing the signs of our bodies by utilizing Natural Family Planning is an important part of responsible parenthood.

Since that prophetic encyclical, there has been a rift in the Church laity regarding artificial contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP). In fact, many surveys show that 80 percent of the laity are accepting of artificial contraception. It is because of this that NFP Awareness Week takes on special importance. While the current fight over the HHS mandate is being rightly focused on the larger issue of religious liberty, the mandate does allow us a unique opportunity to better understand the Church’s teaching regarding artificial contraception and better understand the difference between it and NFP.

God’s plan for marriage and the marital embrace is ordered towards two goods, union of spouses and the procreation of children. These two goods are revealed by the act of the marital embrace itself. With artificial contraception, the couple using it ends up harming both of these goods.

First, the couple puts a physical or chemical barrier between them during the time of their most intimate union, not allowing that true union. Secondly, the couple using artificial contraception is actively intervening to prevent the procreation of children, closing themselves in a way from trusting in God. It is for these reasons that the Church has taught that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, because it goes against the very nature of the marital embrace and by extension the very nature of marriage itself.

On the other hand, Natural Family Planning relies on communication between couples and does not put any physical or chemical barriers between them. NFP has no harmful side effects and generally orders a couple to being more open to the gift of new life. If a couple has a grave reason for postponing having a child, it requires sacrifice on their parts through the practice of periodic abstinence. This is very different than a couple who uses artificial contraception, which leads to the possibility that the spouses see themselves as sexual objects always available for their own selfish pleasures.

While a couple may have a grave reason to postpone pregnancy, and may use Natural Family Planning to do this, NFP provides a built in monthly mechanism for the couple to reevaluate this decision through the charting of the woman’s fertile signs. This is also very different than artificial contraception, which does not require communication between the spouses.

NFP uses knowledge of our bodies to determine when a woman may or may not be fertile. Church teaching maintains that the marital embrace is a gift of self to one’s spouse with four components: free, total, faithful and fruitful. When using NFP, if a couple has a grave reason to avoid a pregnancy, the couple simply abstains from the marital embrace on days when conception could occur. This ensures that each time a couple does engage in the conjugal act, their gift is free, total (not withholding anything), faithful and fruitful (open to the possibility of new life, however rare it might be).

A couple utilizing contraception does not exhibit the components — free, total, faithful and fruitful. Now, a couple can certainly use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. If a couple chooses to use NFP in order never to have children, without a just reason, then they are also going against God’s design for marriage. Therefore, not only are the means which we use important but also the mentality we carry with it.

Let us take more time this month to educate ourselves on the Church’s teaching regarding artificial contraception and the difference between it and NFP. Let us also help to spread the message. Participating in Natural Family Planning Awareness at the end of this month will help in these endeavors.

jmjZelie, just to let you know, wikipedia says this is a tradiionalist parish and Fr. Z belongs to the area. Traditionalists don’t reflect the Church position accurately on a number of points and that is reflected by Pope Francis efforts to fix this problem.

 

[UbiCaritas]

jmjZelie, just to let you know, wikipedia says this is a tradiionalist parish and Fr. Z belongs to the area. Traditionalists don’t reflect the Church position accurately on a number of points and that is reflected by Pope Francis efforts to fix this problem.

…the Catholic diocese of Madison or the Catholic diocese of Rockford is a traditionalist parish?! Wait, what?

And Father Z, while I disagree with him on a number of points, is a priest in good standing with the Diocese of Madison. Hardly makes him the ultimate authority on very much, but to impugn him on that area isn’t fair.

 

[LongingSoul]

…the Catholic diocese of Madison or the Catholic diocese of Rockford is a traditionalist parish?! Wait, what?

And Father Z, while I disagree with him on a number of points, is a priest in good standing with the Diocese of Madison. Hardly makes him the ultimate authority on very much, but to impugn him on that area isn’t fair.

I don’t have access to the posted links but the wiki page for Madison diocese calls it Latin Rite diocese.

Most people know that Fr Z is a traditionalist Priest with traditionalist views.

There are no documents from any bishops conference or the Holy See that have ever used the term ‘contraceptive mentality’ in relation to NFP. It is an invention of traditionalists.

Here is a document from the USCCB.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/awareness-week/upload/Why-NFP-Differs-from-Contraception-JPII.pdf

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

…the Catholic diocese of Madison or the Catholic diocese of Rockford is a traditionalist parish?! Wait, what?

And Father Z, while I disagree with him on a number of points, is a priest in good standing with the Diocese of Madison. Hardly makes him the ultimate authority on very much, but to impugn him on that area isn’t fair.

Seriously, it is stretch to disregard something because it comes from either a traditionalist parish (whatever the specific term is defined as) or a more modern parish (whatever that is).

Not once has the Pope said “disregard everything Traditionalists say.”

Take the teaching on its merit and agree or disagree based on Catholic teaching. They are both dioceses in good standing full of faithful Priests. Simply arguing the Church has never endorsed a particular phrase is silly. Saying they oppose it is not. There are nuances within dioceses that are guided by their Shepherds, to meet the needs of their flock. That is their role.

Honestly, the argument over semantics seems silly. The Church is currently rife with imprecise wording, and yet we usually told not to get “hung up on it”.

I have always assumed the NFP with a contraceptive mentality implied the existence of those who believe simply using NFP abrogates them of the responsibility for discernment about God’s call for their family, its size, and makeup. While the act itself is morally licit, the phrase to me always implied that its use required prayer and discernment about God’s desire for each of us.

A couple could use NFP without ever once thinking about God or His will, and while they would not strictly be using contraception, they would not be fulfilling God’s ultimate desire in His relationship with them.

Admittedly, selfish motives for avoiding children DO exist. The Church is not going to go line by line on these, because at the same time, these motives are personal and need to be examined with a well-formed conscience. But the Church is not going to disavow that there are couples who can avoid children for selfish reasons, but as we see on here, it becomes a dicey proposition to say who is or isn’t guilty. The Church leaves it to us to determine, and if we do not, we may be able to convince those on the internet or in real life, but God is never fooled. He knows what is in each couple’s hearts.

 

[LongingSoul]

Seriously, it is stretch to disregard something because it comes from either a traditionalist parish (whatever the specific term is defined as) or a more modern parish (whatever that is).

Not once has the Pope said “disregard everything Traditionalists say.”

Take the teaching on its merit and agree or disagree based on Catholic teaching. They are both dioceses in good standing full of faithful Priests.

Honestly, the argument over semantics seems silly. The Church is currently rife with imprecise wording.

I have always assumed the NFP with a contraceptive mentality implied the existence of those who believe simply using NFP abrogates them of the responsibility for discernment about God’s call for their family, its size, and makeup. While the act itself is morally licit, the phrase to me always implied that its use required prayer and discernment about God’s desire for each of us.

A couple could use NFP without ever once thinking about God or His will, and while they would not strictly be using contraception, they would not be fulfilling God’s ultimate desire in His relationship with them.

Admittedly, selfish motives for avoiding children DO exist. The Church is not going to go line by line on these, because at the same time, these motives are personal and need to be examined with a well-formed conscience. But the Church is not going to disavow that there are couples who can avoid children for selfish reasons, but as we see on here, it becomes a dicey proposition to say who is or isn’t guilty. The Church leaves it to us to determine, and if we do not, we may be able to convince those on the internet or in real life, but God is never fooled. He knows what is in each couple’s hearts.

Exactly, God is never fooled. People who are selfish in limiting their families will be judged for that selfishness and people who are selfish in their their use of sex and having children irresponsibly will be judged for that selfishness. What will not happen is that people doing NFP faithfully whether generously or selfishly will be judged for the intrinsic evil of contraception. They have not done the thing that God and nature find the most vile of all… messing with the sexual act to prevent pregnancy.

I honestly don’t think you guys will ever get the difference but I have said it for those lurking or coming to the threads years down the track who are open and honest enough to proclaim truth.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Exactly, God is never fooled. People who are selfish in limiting their families will be judged for that selfishness and people who are selfish in their their use of sex and having children irresponsibly will be judged for that selfishness. What will not happen is that people doing NFP faithfully whether generously or selfishly will be judged for the intrinsic evil of contraception. They have not done the thing that God and nature find the most vile of all… messing with the sexual act to prevent pregnancy.

I honestly don’t think you guys will ever get the difference but I have said it for those lurking or coming to the threads years down the track who are open and honest enough to proclaim truth.

I don’t disagree per se, but I’d say one could not conflate contraception with a contraceptive mentality in this case. Using NFP without true discernment may not be contraception, but it posses the same mindset that led to the advent of contraception in society, at least that’s how I view it.

The same way having the mindset of a throwaway culture is not literally the same thing as the act of throwing something away (the specific act of the throw).

Either way, judging the motives of folks who use NFP is a dicey proposition and one I avoid.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t disagree per se, but I’d say one could not conflate contraception with a contraceptive mentality in this case. Using NFP without true discernment may not be contraception, but it posses the same mindset that led to the advent of contraception in society, at least that’s how I view it.

The same way having the mindset of a throwaway culture is not literally the same thing as the act of throwing something away (the specific act of the throw).

But contraception could as easily be traced back to the sense of entitlement to sex as a male(or persons) right. Men who dictate sexual availability as a matter of principle would be using the ‘contraceptive mentality’ also under your definition.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So priests and theologians use the phrase “NFP with contraceptive mentality” too? If so, there might be precedent for the phrase somewhere official.

If they don’t use the phrase, however, then I see no point in asking them what they mean by a phrase they do not use.

I just wanted to address something.

The phrase “contraceptive mentality” was first used by Pope John Paul II.

He used it to describe actual contraceptive behavior and the link between contraception use and abortion.

Here is what I found:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2FAMIL.HTM

On the one hand, in fact, there is a more lively awareness of personal freedom and greater attention to the quality of interpersonal relationships in marriage, in promoting the dignity of women, to responsible procreation, to the education of children. There is also an awareness of the need for the development of interfamily relationships, for reciprocal spiritual and material assistance, the rediscovery of the ecclesial mission proper to the family and its responsibility for the building of a more just society. On the other hand, however, signs are not lacking of a disturbing degradation of some fundamental values: a mistaken theoretical and practical concept of the independence of the spouses in relation to each other; serious misconceptions regarding the relationship of authority between parents and children; the concrete difficulties that the family itself experiences in the transmission of values; the growing number of divorces; the scourge of abortion; the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization; the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality.

 

[pensmama87]

I don’t have access to the posted links but the wiki page for Madison diocese calls it Latin Rite diocese.

“Latin Rite” simply means “Roman Catholic,” as opposed to the other rites (Byzantine, Maronite, etc.) Most Catholics are Latin Rite Catholics, regardless of whether they normally attend EF or OF Masses.