SSPX and NFP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wintersdemise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wintersdemise

Guest
Apparently the SSPX is against all forms of birth control, including natural family planning.

I don’t quite comprehend this. Would they suggest a poor married couple with six children already to continue to produce more children they can’t afford?

This seems pretty irresponsible. Maybe somebody can help me understand this anti-NFP mentality a bit better. Thanks 🙂
 
Hmm. I don’t think that they’re totally against it, and I think my instinct is right on this one. From the Morality section of the SSPX website I pulled:
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. (Bold mine).
Click to expand...
In short, I see what I believe I’ve heard SSPXers say on the subject: NFP is okay, but it can be sinful if used selfishly or for bad reasons. Which is what the Church teaches as well.

Correct me if I’m wrong, guys!
 
Wintersdemise said:
Apparently the SSPX is against all forms of birth control, including natural family planning.

I don’t quite comprehend this. Would they suggest a poor married couple with six children already to continue to produce more children they can’t afford?

This seems pretty irresponsible. Maybe somebody can help me understand this anti-NFP mentality a bit better. Thanks 🙂
Click to expand...
No, they would suggest a poor married couple try to abstain from the marital act but in the end trust God that He will provide if He blesses them with another child.
 
There is definitely a subculture in the SSPX that looks on NFP with a jaundiced eye.

High emphasis is placed in SSPX circles on having lots of children, this being seen as the Catholic ideal.

NFP is seen as permissible only when one has very grave reasons for avoiding pregnancy - now I know the Church says you should have serious reasons (though I have been told this is not quite true also), but SSPX people tend to see these as “life and death” matters - i.e., if you were literally starving, or the mother would die if another child came along.

Some priests stress this more than others. One SSPX priest I knew (since left the priesthood), had a veritable fixation on parents having lots of kids and was very, very anti-NFP. Others less so. But one can basically say they adopt a more rigorist, stricter and narrower view of the circumstances under which NFP is permissible.

Many SSPXers have loads of kids and the “providentialist” attitude - let the babies come as they may, God will provide, any kind of human planning and prudence is lack of trust in God - is very common.

Please do not misunderstand me - I admire and respect large families, and am always cheered by the sight of a family with four or more children. I am in no way detracting from the wonderful, generous parents, who opt to raise a large family. It is counter-cultural in a wonderful way. However, my experience of the SSPX milieu is that NFP IS frowned upon, and there is excessive pressure to have lots of children, regardless of the consequences or circumstances. Far better than the contraceptive mentality all too common today, but still not right.

God bless.
 
Hi Mitch2007.

I was born and bred into the SSPX circles to which you refer. I am now starting my own family with my lovely wife.

I must say that I resent your remarks re: the SSPX attitude. The NFP attitude is of course a contraceptive attitude. When one considers that God will only allow a woman to become pregnant when He sees fit, then you can appreciate that large families happen, in the way God plans it, and not in the way man plans it.

You say “Many SSPXers have loads of kids and the “providentialist” attitude - let the babies come as they may, God will provide, any kind of human planning and prudence is lack of trust in God - is very common.” Do you have a problem with trust in God?

There is no pressure that I have come across (and I have lived and attended Mass in 3 different countries), and never come across the “excessive pressure to have lots of children, regardless of the consequences or circumstances” that you speak of.

God will provide. He will provide the children, and the means to support them. Those who “plan” children are often disappointed; when they have decided they’re ready for kids, sometimes God has decided that the couple didn’t take the opportunity when He was offering, and that He’s since withdrawn His offering of little blessings.

You wanna play with God’s plan, you gotta accept it when He decides that He’s not playing ball any more. Take the kids when He’s offering them. Could you ever look at a child and say “I wish that little bugger had never been born” ?
 
I have heard some criticism from an F.S.S.P. priest of the practice of teaching couples NFP -before- marriage, i.e. it is too explicit and too intimate for a couple to learn together before they have actually made vows as well as of -requiring- it for all couples.

I understand why it’s easier to teach people -before- marriage because that’s the normal time a couple required by a priest to prepare for marriage, but I also see the validity of the criticism – the couple are not married, and could break up. And too some couples may desire not to use NFP at all as well as having no contraceptive mentality.

The battle vs. the contraceptive mentality today is definitely… off target, in that by using NFP to beat it, the contraceptive mentality is not being directly aimed at to be taken down, but rather condescended to. . Thus the criticism that people are widely using NFP with a contraceptive attitude and not for serious reasons. This would be the natural result of fighting the contraceptive mentality by catering to all its anti-Providential concerns, rather than inculcating in couples a true Faith in Providence in regards to providing for any children God gives them.

Certainly in these times, vs. previous times, couples in general have the ability to care for many children all the more easily especially -if- they are willing to lower their living standard to something more resembling a few decades back… which is very likely precisely part of what God may be calling for them to do, but they not wish to.

That being said I believe NFP has done a great deal of good generally, there is just the natural concern about the method and focus of the implementation.
 
NFP, when used to prevent conception, is a mortal sin, in the same way that it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday. Just as it is licit to miss Mass on Sunday if you have a serious reason, so too is it permitted to use NFP for the same reason.

The problem is NFP is promoted as a positive good, without ever mentioning that to practice it without a a serious reason is a mortal sin.

Imagine if EWTN had testimony after testimony of people telling how their home life and marriage has improved since they started skipping Mass on Sudary. * “We have so much more time to be together. This has really improved our marriage. We rarely ever fight any more and our kid’s grades have improved dramatically”.*

This is what we have with NFP. It is promoted as a positive good as such, with no mention of a serious reason being present to justify it.

I have only heard two Priests mention this: One was Fr. Corapi and the other was the Priest at www.audiosancto.com. Aside from these two instances, EWTN and the usual suspects promote NFP as a positive good that all Catholics should practice, if they want their marriage to improve.
 
Yours_Truly said:
Aside from these two instances, EWTN and the usual suspects promote NFP as a positive good that all Catholics should practice, if they want their marriage to improve.
Click to expand...
:banghead: My brother and his wife were told this during their pre-marital classes. :rolleyes:
 
Yours_Truly said:
The problem is NFP is promoted as a positive good, without ever mentioning that to practice it without a a serious reason is a mortal sin. . . . This is what we have with NFP. It is promoted as a positive good as such, with no mention of a serious reason being present to justify it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you here, YT. But the Church has said that for “grave reasons” a couple may have recourse to NFP. She has not, as far as I can see, strictly defined just what a “grave reason” is. It would seem that 603304529 draws the boundaries a bit too narrowly in saying, without qualification, that “The NFP attitude is of course a contraceptive attitude.”

Whether one’s reasons are truly grave is best taken up with a good confessor, I think.
 
DavidPalm said:
It would seem that 603304529 draws the boundaries a bit too narrowly in saying, without qualification, that “The NFP attitude is of course a contraceptive attitude.”
Click to expand...
How many couple do you know of that are even aware that NFP is to be used for “grave reasons” only? For most Catholics, it is nothing more than “Catholic birth control,” just like an annulment is just a “Catholic divorce.” If this wasn’t the mentality of most, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Whether one’s reasons are truly grave is best taken up with a good confessor, I think.
Click to expand...
I would’ve specified “holy, orthodox” confessor, but maybe that went without saying?😉
 
Thanks for all the replies. My understanding on this matter is a lot more clear now!

Would economic instability qualify as a “grave matter” for using NFP?
 
latinmasslover said:
How many couple do you know of that are even aware that NFP is to be used for “grave reasons” only? For most Catholics, it is nothing more than “Catholic birth control,” just like an annulment is just a “Catholic divorce.” If this wasn’t the mentality of most, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Click to expand...
Well, the answer is “some”. I know of one couple who knew they needed grave reasons, thought they had them, asked a priest, and were told that they did not, so no NFP for them. But I would not argue with you in the least that the need for grave reasons is a huge gap in the NFP instructional culture. And I know of couples who have practiced NFP openly for what could not possibly be considered grave reasons by any traditional measure.
latinmasslover said:
I would’ve specified “holy, orthodox” confessor, but maybe that went without saying?😉
Click to expand...
Yup–He wouldn’t be good if not holy and orthodox. 👍
 
If the Church says that NFP is lawful to use then thats the way it is. If any priest has a problem with that then you and he can go before your bishop and see what he has to say about the matter. I’m tired of these “more Catholic then the Pope” rad trad clergy running around acting like they are the self appointed guardians of all things Catholic.
 
Kearney said:
If the Church says that NFP is lawful to use then thats the way it is. If any priest has a problem with that then you and he can go before your bishop and see what he has to say about the matter. I’m tired of these “more Catholic then the Pope” rad trad clergy running around acting like they are the self appointed guardians of all things Catholic.
Click to expand...
Well, for it to be lawfully used, it must be used the way the Church says that it CAN be lawfully used. If, for example, a couple used it to frustrate fertilility for the whole of their married life, that would be gravely sinful. Indeed, if they started their marriage with that intent, it would not even be a valid marriage.
 
According to Pope Paul Vi, it is permitted for a couple to have zero children if they so desire. Nobody is saying that married couples don’t have the right ot have 10 kids if they so desire. However it is wrong to try and force all Catholics to have as many kids as possible just because it’s traditional.
 
Kearney said:
According to Pope Paul Vi, it is permitted for a couple to have zero children if they so desire.
Click to expand...
Can you cite a text for this?
Kearney said:
Nobody is saying that married couples don’t have the right ot have 10 kids if they so desire. However it is wrong to try and force all Catholics to have as many kids as possible just because it’s traditional.
Click to expand...
The Church has never taught that Catholics should be “forced” to have as many kids as possible, so that can’t be “traditional”. And I’ve never heard of any religious order insisting that that is the “traditional” view. Did you have an example?
 
I’ll try to find the source for the Paul Vi statement (however I think it HV or mabye a CDF doc on NFP).

Some of the more trad orders like the FSSP arer extrememly against any type of NFP. Apparently their seminarians are taught this so it’s just something that your going to get from them. I’m not sure about the ICK though but I have heard they are more moderate about things then FSP.
 
Kearney said:
I’ll try to find the source for the Paul Vi statement (however I think it HV or mabye a CDF doc on NFP).

Some of the more trad orders like the FSSP arer extrememly against any type of NFP. Apparently their seminarians are taught this so it’s just something that your going to get from them. I’m not sure about the ICK though but I have heard they are more moderate about things then FSP.
Click to expand...
I would ask respectfully that you don’t make broad statements about traditional orders that you can’t back up with any evidence. Here and over on the veiling thread you’ve made pretty extreme claims based on what “you’ve heard”. If you can back up these things with more than hearsay, fine, but otherwise it’s not fair or just to these traditional orders to be making such claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top