Natural Family Planning

93 Comments

1. 

   Sandy said,

   November 14, 2009 at 6:54 pm

   What pictures is he talking about? Personally, I don’t see anything arousing about a drawing of a uterus or a fallopian tube.

   Really… anatomical drawings a “sin against modesty”… is it also sinful to look at nude paintings in mixed company? Is it evil to look at the statue of David while men other than my husband are around? Wrong for a nurse to help bathe a patient of the opposite sex?

   It is possible to misuse NFP, but I think he’s gone overboard with his accusations.

   Reply
2. 

   Finding Joy in Every Journey said,

   November 14, 2009 at 7:26 pm

   As a teacher of a NFP method, I don’t feel in anyway that our illistrations are imprudent. They are anything one would find online if one was insterested in anatomy. Most couples have no idea about their fertility and are completely enlightened after attending an Intro session. I do think that it takes baby steps to educate a couple that is contraceptive minded about NFP. It isn’t going to happen from one homily or even one Intro session. That happens by becoming a user of an NFP method and increasing their prayer life. I wonder what he would say about teaching teens about their fertility in a developmentally appropriate way…
   That is actually an inaccurate arguement about chastity. Where teaching couples about their fertility has the opposite effect, they become more appreciative aned respectful of how God made them.

   Reply
3. 

   Mama Kalila said,

   November 14, 2009 at 11:43 pm

   Definately gone overboard…

   I too agree with how NFP can be taken too far, and honestly I think I have reached that point a time or two (at least). Its something I worry about when we are TTA. Part of the problem I’m having with that though is that I’m constantly having to defend my practicing it to people who think BC is this wonderful (and non-sinful) thing.. and also feel that NFP is extremely unreliable… So I go overboard trying to explain how effective it is… And worse it can spill over to our personal life (esp when things are rough). I’m glad I’m not in that position now, but still… Its something I have to keep in mind for after the baby is born.

   Reply
4. 

   Margaret said,

   November 14, 2009 at 11:55 pm

   Wow, construing anatomical drawings with pornography sure gave me a good laugh. I can’t really imagine people being drawn to fornicate by looking at outlines and internal reproductive organs. The idea still makes me laugh. Seems like Fr. has issue with the actual specific of the method being taught in “mixed company”. I’ve never heard this issue taken up, but as many of the methods seem to have a lot of support from the Bishops and the Vatican (CCL says they received an endorsement from The Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family) I think I’ll trust the Bishops and Vatican on this one

   Certainly though, practicing NFP cannot become a substitute for devotion, prayer, and participating in the sacraments. It is a tool given to us by God, and should be viewed as such. Not the identifying mark of “true” Catholics as some do seem to make it out to be.

   Reply
   • 

     Robin C. said,

     November 17, 2009 at 6:43 pm

     The other priest quotes popes, including JP2. I’ll go with that over the CCL, the USCCB or any non-curial ‘Council for the Family’

     Reply
5. 

   Kat said,

   November 15, 2009 at 8:21 am

   Fascinating. So he’s also advocating no health classes in school (wow — teaching impressionable teens about their bodies!) or, heavens, even the old-time “marriage talk” must’ve been going over the edge.

   With knowledge comes respect. To be chaste without knowing what you’re being chaste for makes it an empty sacrifice. I’m not saying to rub temptation in your face all the time, but let’s be honest — the general culture will do that anyway, and in a less respectful way. We are not believers in the heresy that the body is evil. Let’s not treat it as such.

   I think what he says about NFP being “worshipped” is a good reminder to keep it in check, but I do believe he is caricaturing the issue. But perhaps, like the people who believe Catholics “worship” Mary, he merely doesn’t quite understand the subtleties of it.

   Reply
6. 

   thatmarriedcouple said,

   November 16, 2009 at 7:32 am

   Ditto to all above. I wonder if these priests have ever actually been to an NFP class? It seems unlikely.

   Reply
   • 

     Robin C. said,

     November 17, 2009 at 6:37 pm

     They seem all too familiar with those classes to me

     Reply
7. 

   Nicole said,

   November 16, 2009 at 8:38 am

   While George and I were getting ready to get married our parish required an NFP class. After the intro session George did two things:

   #1 told me he had no idea all that happened to me every month. He then became more sensitive to my cycle.

   #2 for the next 5 months before the wedding he had all the supplies at his house and at night when he called to say night prayers, he would write down what my sign was that day. Later, from the first night of our marriage on we were using the system together, as a couple.

   The Intro session and understanding how this all fit into our marriage had us even more determined to follow Gods plan and wait. It further educated us about our Catholic faith and the marriage we were preparing for.

   I think this priest needs to give a little more credit to those out here who are wanting the education about our faith, to better follow God’s will.

   Reply
   • 

     Steve said,

     November 19, 2009 at 8:43 am

     This is a great story. Thx for posting it.

     Reply
     • 

       nfpworks said,

       November 22, 2009 at 11:13 pm

       What did you think was great about it? You mean great as a conversation starter, or great that the priest accused perfectly decent diocesan employees of mortal sin?
8. 

   SAINThoodSEEKER said,

   November 16, 2009 at 10:52 am

   Between NFP and Bradley Method courses, and a physical therapy graduate program, I have had extensive exposure to said images. I realize the “near occasion of sin” here. I also acknowledge and respect the priest’s skepticism of such educational methods. Sadly, in today’s culture, we have to err on the conservative side and assume the worst (or near worst) when evaluating such things. Prudence is definitely a required tool in situations like these, especially for young males. As mentioned, the priest is probably also disturbed by the false view of NFP as “Catholic contraception” as it is so often viewed (although probably unintentionally). While definitely going “overboard” with his delivery, especially considering how “on the fence” many Catholics are today, he is pointing out some legitimate concerns that you won’t hear many places. The most wise thing for the faithful individual to do is to continue with practices that are in line with the teaching of the Magisterium while taking and using the good of Father’s message.

   Reply
9. 

   JimmyV said,

   November 16, 2009 at 11:56 am

   Not an NFP cultist, I hope. Though I have been accused in the usual combox flame war of being one. I generally assume that a person who speaks/types like the priest did is either extra sensitive to nudity or extra-scrupulous, neither of which is a pleasant cross to carry. I tend to agree with the above commentors, that I would be surprised to find that he has actually been to a class.

   But, seriously, who can be aroused by talking about mucus or cervical fluid? I was 22 when I learned this stuff, shortly after my re-Evangelization. It didn’t occur to me to be anything but awed by NFP instruction.

   Reply
10. 

    Kevin K said,

    November 16, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/chezami/2021055896189249502/?a=28975

    I thought the other sermon in the combox was even better. Nevertheless, I think all three priest hit the nail on the head.

    Great discussions since Popcak got canned by EWTN

    God Bless

    Reply
11. 

    Allen Jones said,

    November 17, 2009 at 11:43 am

    [For your "comfort," Lepanto, I've posted your comment rather than deleting this time. It seems you're *slightly* more on topic, and I thought some people would get a kick out of your erudite and verbose condescension, as if NFP advocates have no idea what the cross is. 2200+ words, by the way. Keep it shorter next time, please, or start your own blog.]

    LOST EDUCATION
    OR
    LOOKING FOR THE “COMFORTS” OF CHRIST CRUCIFIED

    We have failed. The last sixty years of education have been dismal in their effects. The whole purpose of Catholic education is to lead souls to God. In order to do this we must work against the disintegrating factors originating in the wounds of original sin. The cataclysmic effects within the human being must be counteracted by grace, constancy, selflessness, and perseverance. Love which is directed to something higher than ourselves must be learned. Grace leads through nobility, and honor satisfies the human heart, especially the masculine.

    Our first lesson in life must be that we live for the family, not ourselves. The human heart desires this nobility and its honor is to return to God, the infinite Source of all good. When education fails the individual literally disintegrates into selfishness. He descends into the realm, not of self-love, but of individualized love. This is a love that judges by its own false criterion: “What’s in it for me?”

    A proper Catholic education leads to a unity of life and a selfless sense of sacrifice: it teaches us to make holy the things of human life, sacrum facere. We have failed in Catholic education over these decades because we have let ourselves be led into the abyss of individualized and selfish “love.” We live for ourselves and the social chaos around us is the logical outcome of each asking the question: “What’s in it for me?” If this can be said of Catholics, what can be the situation of others? If the salt loses it savor with what shall it be salted? We are now being trampled under foot.

    Fortunately for us, we know that the Gospel is a reality which each must live and put into effect in his own life and in the lives of his family. The infidelity, or less than stellar performance, of others is no excuse for our own. Grace is given generously and our lives must manifest this. Unfortunately, the selfishness in education is only perpetuated by the smallness of heart found among far too many couples. They are meant to be joined in selfless, and crucifying, wedlock, but their reasoning is all too often selfish: “What’s in it for me?”

    The NFP question is of course a major one; if those who participate in the extension of Christ and the Church by the sacrament of matrimony are stingy in their lives the future is bleak. The reality of present day Africa, having once been the source and home of martyrs and doctors of the Church, now in such a state of desolation and apostasy, comes continually before my eyes. Why the supposed traditional Catholics think there is no possibility for the same thing to happen in Europe is beyond me, especially when we are also witnessing the extinction of Christianity in the very place of its origin. Jerusalem and the holy lands are dying in our generation and there seems to be none with a spirit of crusade, or even concern for what takes places.

    NFP, as you might correctly observe, is usually a manifestation of a complete misjudgment of values. “What’s in it for me?” What is truly necessary for a family? New cars and pools? Vacations? When I have spoken to Europeans of families in America who have simply embraced poverty as their condition in order to educate their children, I have been greeted by blank stares of incomprehension. Europeans setting forth the image of animalistic Americans who cannot educate their “vast quantity of” children (as if many children necessarily entailed the inability to teach them) is symptomatic of this mindset. No, I am not edified by the Europeans. They live surrounded by the monuments of Faith and their lives, for the majority, reflect none of it.

    Mass, as long as it is quick and not “too far” away; doctrine, as long as it does not go past ten minutes in explanation and does not require “too much” thinking; and being Catholic, as long as it does not make us “too different” from the world, is all pathetic in the truest sense of the word. That even traditional priests should discuss for three quarters of an hour whether 15 year olds should be allowed to date, and then decide “no they should not, but to insist on this would ‘drive them away’,” I find absolutely horrifying. The theory in all of this is good, but if it is not put into practice it avails nothing. The doctrine of the sacrament of matrimony must be central to our considerations. All practical considerations for preparation, and the responsibilities flowing from marriage are dependent on doctrine, not sentimentality, and even less on Hollywood.

    We have failed in educating our children. They have been lead to believe that religious life, or the priesthood, is a life of crucifixion; for the rest, well, they “just get married.” Anyone married longer than six months knows well the contrary, and should have taught so beforehand: as disciples of Christ, the choice of our state in life is simply to discern the manner of our crucifixion. Crucifixion, and bearing our cross daily, cannot be escaped by the faithful. To fail to teach this to our children is yet another failure. It has allowed for a false spirit in too many couples who would accept “some” sacrifices, but “not too many.” Who is to decide this? Is God no longer infinite Charity, Provident in His care? Or has the wisdom of God been somehow depleted since the Middle Ages?

    We have allowed ourselves, in our failed education, to become warped by naturalism and petty in our selfishness. If we are not open to life given by the Creator and sanctified by baptism, we are unworthy to be parents, Catholic parents who are meant to have been consecrated as extensions of Christ and the Church. How many are the Catholic fathers who see themselves as “other Christs,” crucified for the well-being and salvation of their families? Where are the Catholic mothers who would wear themselves out risking all, even martyrdom, as the Church in her mission has done to sanctify souls? Men and women are married first for the education of children, not for themselves. NFP as a way of life cannot possibly allow for the full blossoming of the beauty of matrimony. The graces of the family pass through the sacrament of matrimony, primarily through the father. We are hypocrites for even calling ourselves “traditional.” That we should even dare present ourselves as “saving the Church” is repulsive. Arrogance is one thing, but this is all insanity.

    Archbishop Lefebvre himself said that marriage was “a school of chastity.” Those married must learn to say both “yes” and “no,” and must know when to say it. Discipline is absolutely essential in all this and to think otherwise is to prepare oneself for disappointment, discouragement, frustration, and, in the end, infidelity. This must be taught to our young people, and from the example about 15 year olds that I cited above, I am not at all confident that this is the case — either from the parents or the priests. We prepare disaster by our pusillanimity.

    On the other hand, when those married are faithful to their state in life, even sometimes obliged to heroism, then the future is assured because it is in the home that the child is formed (by definition) while the school and catechism classes, while also essential (and in some even ways more important) act only as auxiliaries to the parents. Bad parents condemn us to future apostasy. Thus, when NFP becomes a way of life for Catholic parents it is the equivalent to the Church refusing to baptize or to evangelize. What false ecumenism is to the Church, NFP is to Catholic families. We calculate and we talk. We justify ourselves in seeking a comfortable way to preach or live the Cross of Christ. Selfishness is taught if only by example, and the children of such families will be the first to rise up against their parents. The punishment will be well deserved. God save us from the world we are creating for 2050.

    While there can be serious reasons of health or finance, these must be truly grave, permitting the contraceptive mentality intrinsic to NFP of which Pius XII spoke. As proffered by many, most of the excuses for NFP seem to be just that — excuses. The reasoning is often far too sensual, as if most people were incapable of being chaste, and it degrades the very people it seeks “to assist” by treating them as if they were only capable of barnyard morals.

    Catholics, I believe, are capable of greater nobility than mere animals, quand même. Otherwise, the reasoning would be in fact identical to those who wish to distribute condoms to everyone man, woman, child, and dog, only that we “Catholics” refuse artificial contraception. I say the reasoning is the same as the principle (“People cannot control themselves better than animals.”) seems to be the same; “we” just refuse artificial contraception, but apparently the contraceptive mentality is A-OK.

    To avoid pregnancy, whether by condoms or menstrual charts, is contraceptive in motivation and intention — this is the moral seriousness of the issue. The only reason why NFP is tolerated is because it is not unnatural; to say that it might be laudatory is ridiculous. Some in the Conciliar Church now present it as a form of “asceticism” for married couples! Being tolerable is not the same thing as being part and parcel of the matrimonial sacrament.

    While not going that far………some Catholics seem to think NFP acceptable for convenience, cars, or vacation. I have met few, if any, families in Europe who have embraced poverty for the sake of their children. When NFP is presented as a form of Catholic matrimonial asceticism we have truly reached the depths of confusion. This is the equivalent of stating that the path of the Church is man. In truth, where is our treasure today?

    In the end, men have always had to learn to “control themselves,” both during their wives’ pregnancies and after the birth of their children. This is part of the reason for sacramental grace. But honor and nobility I have always thought to be characteristics properly masculine, and men are certainly capable of virtue, even in 2008. The unfortunate thing is that many modern men are little better than whiny babies, sometimes boys, and more often adolescents. Obviously, the sacrifice necessary for honor and noblesse is impossible to the immature — thus our quandary. Do we ennoble men, or capitulate to modern immaturity? Those Catholics who choose NFP as a norm have embraced the latter.

    This acceptance of modern immaturity as normal, and thus as a norm, I might add, is the source of the whininess for “too far” and “too long” when it comes to the practice of religion. These men content themselves with “manifestations” because they are relatively rare occurrences. They pride themselves in “being faithful” because they go to a rare conference or say the rosary in public (or better, act obnoxiously in public before the “Novus Ordo”) but to persevere week in and week out with doctrine and prayer — dad leading the daily family prayer — is considered “too extreme.” Now, there certainly are families in which this is a reality, but these are too rare and scattered for an apostolate which has been going on now for over thirty years. We have, in some instances, lost a whole generation by now. The ethos of some tradi congregations is that these families are admirable, but somewhat “excessive” — edifying, but unnecessarily pious.

    Fathers are the source of vocations in a family. Christ calls to Himself His chosen few, and it is only logical that this should be reflected in the Catholic household. As the man has been consecrated as Christ in his household it is instrumentally through him that vocations pass. Mothers, consecrated as extensions of the Church, are sources of holiness. This is the reason we find so often the importance of mothers in the lives of the saints. The dearth of vocations in the modern world is in large part due to the absence of truly faithful masculine fathers.

    In the end, it must be said that I am not opposed to NFP as such, and there are cases in which it should/could be recommended; but I am diametrically opposed to the manner in which it becomes a “lifestyle” among so many who claim to be faithful Catholics. (Starting and stopping for “two year periods” is a lifestyle.) To make matters worse, this mentality is lethal as it mocks and ridicules as extremist those who wish to practice, if not perfection, at least a continually greater parental fidelity.

    Only Christians call one another Pharisees, but the Pharisees were those who lived “by the law,” not by a desire for perfection. The true Pharisees are those Catholics who know that you can come to Mass up to the Offertory and it is “only a venial sin.” They accuse those who desire perfection of being Pharisees because that pursuit shows up their truly pharisaical legalism.

    Mediocrity suffocates, and if we think like this, what makes us different from the conciliarists? In the end, if all this be true, why the resistance? How much longer do we wait to begin integrally Catholic education?

    May Catholic households be established once again for the Honor of God and the salvation of souls. Sacrifice renders things holy, and the Cross is the Source of all true good.

    Reply
12. 

    Jenn said,

    November 17, 2009 at 1:18 pm

    Ok, I am a little in the dark I guess, but why does a couple need NFP instructions before marriage? If there is some reason to avoid pregnancy, then you should not be getting married. I learned about NFP after the birth of my first child, because of a health reason (temporary) and have not used in much in the last 7 years since. Another thing is that I went to the classes by myself, and explained it to my hubby. There are some people out there who struggle with chastity, and no one else can decide what pics bother them or not. There is a dignity to the marriage act, it is too much talked about and thought about today. The talking about it should be only between the couple and necessary others…ie doctor, priest……Priests are in the business of saving souls, if they suggest that there is a problem with the use of NFP, maybe we should listen. We cannot imagine what they hear in the confessional. NFP, like everything, has its place. It is only allowed in severe cases. Not for child spacing, or for a ‘break’ etc…The main purpose of marriage is the family, if you can’t take having a large family, maybe marriage is not for you.

    Reply
    • 

      Margaret (not the one previously) said,

      November 18, 2009 at 12:35 pm

      It is a lot easier to learn the technique of NFP (which doesn’t mean you’ll be using it right away!!!) when the woman is not yet sexually active and not breastfeeding postpartum. Just getting a grip on how the mucous changes over the course of a cycle, without the additional “static” from seminal residue and breastfeeding hormones can be very helpful.

      I learned the basics informally from a friend long before I married simply because it gave me a convenient way to know when my somewhat-irregular periods would show up.

      Reply
13. 

    Shaun said,

    November 17, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    Wow! Saw the link to your site at Remnant Newspaper.
    Fr. Chad really Rips! His sermon was way cool. And I love the stuff he’s written for Ignatius Press’ H&PR.

    Probably no one in the USA has written more about the folly of “The NFP Cult.”

    Cordially,
    Shaun & Holly

    Reply
14. 

    Dan Guenzel said,

    November 17, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    Sooooo….where do I begin? I’ll try to keep it simple: the primary sin is in the intention. The method is something else, and in most cases is also a sin. If you intend not to have children, and carry out that intention, you have committed the sin – even if the method you use to carry out that intention is NFP. Ergo, avoiding childhood even by using NFP is a sin. That’s it in a nutshell.

    If, on the other hand, you use artificial contraception to avoid children, you are committing a second sin. Now you’ve two to deal with.

    The NFPers always bring up the “grave reasons” which they feel justify the use of this method. My answer? Name one. Name me one, single reason that would meet the dictionary definition of “grave”. Every single NFP user we’ve ever talked to – and I mean EVERY one of them – has given as a “grave” reason something either frivolous, or selfish, or stupid, or all three, and in every single case the common denominator was this: “We’re just not ready yet.”

    I rest my case.

    Reply
    • 

      Kat said,

      November 17, 2009 at 5:33 pm

      I hesitate to be rude, especially as I consider it highly important that we be welcoming, open, and respectful as we evangelize using the relatively new tool of the internet, but I must say your argument is a very arrogant and cold one and, frankly, lacking compassion and an understanding of human weakness and the state of the world.

      I will assume, by your arguments, that you do not use NFP. By that very decision, it is apparent you must view any reasons to not have children as not grave. But to assume that every one else both does and should share your worldview requires the assumption that everyone’s situation — physical, spiritual, financial, and mental — is exactly like yours; that assumption is heartless and unrealistic.

      I can give you many grave reasons that a couple might decide to use NFP. But despite asking for them, you have rested your case — so they clearly are unnecessary. I am sorry for that.

      Reply
      • 

        Steve said,

        November 19, 2009 at 8:57 am

        Well said, Kat. I know of some who have very grave reasons for using – some I would even call desperate reasons. We do not, but we are in a very different place financially, mentally, spiritually and physically. I cannot fathom determining whether someone’s reasons are grave, and am very glad that God alone is the judge.
15. 

    Shaun said,

    November 17, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    You are so right Jenn. The idea that NFP should be a requirement is absurd.
    Especially when you consider how many pastors don’t require a couple to be living separately prior to Marriage.

    Cordially,
    Shaun & Holly

    Reply
    • 

      Steve said,

      November 19, 2009 at 9:02 am

      Your statement about those living together is the exact reason we need this to be taught. Perhaps this class will show those living together, using BC, or engaging in improper activities prior to marriage what the Church teaches, why this are the guidelines for marriage, and why they need to change. We can change the Church and culture, one marriage at a time.

      Reply
16. 

    Chris said,

    November 17, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    One point I have read from an astute writer on this subject that makes sense to me is that we are all required to be providentialists (absolutely no family planning of any kind) unless and until we have a grave reason to do otherwise, and only then might we be justified to practice NFP. This of course requires that both husband and wife consent, and that NFP is stopped as soon as the reason for practicing NFP is no longer grave.

    Reply
    • 

      Kat said,

      November 17, 2009 at 6:01 pm

      Your last sentence confuses me. Are you assuming that NFP can only be used to postpone pregnancy? Because it is also used to achieve pregnancy.

      Let me give you a scenario in which NFP is being used after consent and still fits in with your grave argument: A woman has SAD. In order that she and her husband become pregnant at a time that will help her avoid having to take anti-depressants during pregnancy or immediately post-partum, they may try to time their attempts during a particular time of year.

      Obviously, NFP is still keeping them open to pregnancy at any other time — if God willed it, her cycle could shift and he could gift them with a child at a time not of their choosing. But otherwise, through NFP and prayer, they can work with God to help keep both child and mother safe during pregnancy and after. That is openness and respect for life.

      Reply
      • 

        Mama Kalila said,

        November 18, 2009 at 10:35 pm

        I have to say I loved this comment… esp after reading some of the others. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since I’m attacked about NFP from the other side constantly (being told that I need to use ABC instead by both Catholics and non), but I really didnt expect this…

        NFP works… Wow… I’m sorry your post ended up this way.
      • 

        nfpworks said,

        November 22, 2009 at 11:16 pm

        No worries, Mama K. It’s the way the blog world rolls, and when you mix spiritual battle and human pride, it’s a recipe for controversy and ill-expressed thoughts. On the bright side, it helps NFP advocates sharpen their skills.
17. 

    Robin C. said,

    November 17, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0307-kippley

    Whenever I see this topic come up on EWTN, someone predictably calls in and says “What about people who use it for the wrong reasons?” The guest will then ask rhetorically : “what do you mean the w r o n g reasons?” as if there couldn’t be any and the caller’s mic is silenced.

    Well God Bless Fr. Chad for having the courage to talk about this. The other priest on the Haloscan link gave some grave reasons and they aren’t the ones any NFP cultists I’ve heard speak about. We know what “grave” means in the catechetical sense. We can miss mass for grave reasons, not trivial ones.

    My husband and I came from large families and fantasized about the same for our marriage. We knew a little about “rhythm” but had never heard of mandatory NFP classes until we enrolled in pre-Cana. For us, it was the gateway to contraception. We had 3 perfectly spaced children; 2 girls and a boy. There would only have been two if we got the boy and girl first and second, truth be told. It was then easy for us to rationalize our way into the Pill.
    After my mini-stoke and reading about all the effects the pill can have, my husband and I had a long frank conversation with our new pastor, a young tradition minded priest. We concluded that I probably hadn’t been using the Pill long enough to have caused my stroke. We swore off it and “natural” family planning but we never conceived again. Who did we think we were trying to do it all on our terms and on our timetable ??

    I can’t thank you enough for posting Fr. Chad’s objections. Perhaps, this is the Holy Spirit guiding you and others away from what is truly The Cult of NFP.

    May God Bless You,

    RMC

    Reply
    • 

      JohnH said,

      November 19, 2009 at 11:28 am

      Will all due respect, blaming NFP for you using contraception is like blaming Lenten fasting for make you a bulimic. If you brought a contraceptive mentality to using NFP, then you had a problem. Blaming NFP for it is simply shunting responsibility for your own actions off to one side.

      I’m glad to hear you made it back from that mindset, though!

      God bless.

      Reply
      • 

        nfpworks said,

        November 19, 2009 at 11:01 pm

        Enough said. THANK you for addressing this, John. Blaming NFP for one’s own mentality and/ or lack of formation is inconsistent and problematic.

        It does bring up the excellent point, however, that discernment about grave/ just/ serious reasons needs to be addressed more clearly by NFP Instructors, Pastors and Spiritual Directors.
18. 

    Robin C. said,

    November 17, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    I should mention that if all contraceptors switched to NFP, that would be an infinite improvement.

    That still doesn’t excuse the twisting of Catholic Teaching on marriage done by mandatory NFP classes, Christopher West and Gregg Popcak.

    Fr. Chad is right to say that NFP should only be taught to the married after they are married, if ever.

    RMC

    Reply
    • 

      nfpworks said,

      November 22, 2009 at 11:19 pm

      I perhaps understand the Christopher West comment (though don’t agree with it necessarily), but will someone please explain to me why everyone’s defaming Popcak’s name?

      I humbly disagree about NFP being taught after marriage only for aforementioned reasons (it’s not de facto an occasion of sin, it’s required to get a couple months of charting to have any real understanding, and learning one’s fertility and charting doesn’t mean people are going to use it to postpone for selfish reasons, NFP IS NOT JUST FOR POSTPONING PREGNANCY!) See Steve’s Awesome and thorough comment below.

      Reply
      • 

        Tomas said,

        November 23, 2009 at 4:20 pm

        Popcak probably had the best intentions but he had some goofy ideas on NFP. These included advising couples to teach their sons how to chart their sister’s and mother’s cycles. Also, on Origins he spoke of the Big Bang as being a giant Or@$m on the part of God. (I don’t want that word to be the source of spam for you)

        It was all detailed very well in the lawyerly book “EWTN a Network Gone Wrong” the publication of which came out right before his departure.

        The network could see its errors when they were pointed out and did the right thing. He’s now on The Catholic Channel on Sirius with a much toned down approach.
19. 

    Robert said,

    November 17, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    NFP – the name in itself is not Catholic – In the realm of moral theology or let’s say on the question of conception – it is not permisable to “plan” your family. The Catholic term that most approaches this concept is called – “Periodic Continence” – whereby the couple, for dire reasons such as extreme poverty, serious medical, psychological or other reasons, can by mutual agreement refrain from the marriage act or watch the calender, so to speak, until the threatening problem is resolved. At the same time a priest is to be consulted, thus certifying the alleged problem is indeed worthy of the consideration of suspending or regulating the marriage act and not a lame excuse to avoid the responsibility of marriage. Subsequently, when the problem is overcome or aleviated the practise is to be stopped. To put it more simply – you have to have a very serious reason and I emphasize serious, to practice periodic continence and have the permission of the church. The Church teaches that a couple that are married by submitting to each other in the act of procreation is the practise of virtue and justice while the woman is in her child bearing years and becomes an act of justice towards one another after her child bearing years.
    St. John Vianney, the Cure de Ar’s once said in a sermon that most women go to hell because they did not have the children that God meant them to have – here we consider abortion and contraception and the abuse of what is called periodic continence, which can be a serious sin.

    Reply
20. 

    Robert said,

    November 17, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    On the subject of NFP – properly called “Periodic Continence” – which is somewhat explained in Pope Pius XII Encylical on Marriage and in Jone’s Moral Theology among others – It should certainly be taught during marriage lessons but their is no reason to show explicit pictures and diagrams other than reasons that are not in the realm of Catholic practise or reason.

    Reply
21. 

    Curmudgeon said,

    November 17, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    Fr Chad? Wow. I’ve met Fr. Ripperger, and I can never imagine ever calling him “Fr Chad.” That’s the great thing about FSSP priests: none of that silly “Fr. First Name” stuff.

    And the commenter above is probably right. My guess is that he wouldn’t witness most typical suburban Catholic marriages. It’s true that he’s talking to a congregation that’s an oasis of Catholicism as it was before the chaos of the late 20th century, but the response shouldn’t be a criticism of him or the traditional Catholic oasis; it’s an indictment of the rest of the “Catholic” world that has been capsized in the culture, and is so overworried about being relevant that it is too quick to compromise on the truth. .

    Reply
22. 

    Swamp Rabbit Press said,

    November 18, 2009 at 12:24 am

    My wife and I learned about NFP after the traumatic birth of our third child. Both she and he almost died during the childbirth, and I’m convinced the only reason she survived was because I was saying my Rosary during the whole operation. Some of the doctors were stunned she survived. My little son suffered severe asphyxiation, and was left severely brain injured. He lived almost three years, but died a little less than year ago now… Another pregnancy would be very, very dangerous for my wife. We felt as though this constituted grave reasons. We dreamed of having a large family, and are beginning to save money for the adoption process.

    Just some thoughts….

    Reply
23. 

    Danny said,

    November 18, 2009 at 7:47 am

    Not sure why my comment yesterday was removed. Considering that I think that Paul VI’s updating of the mass was the 2nd bravest thing he did next to publishing Humanae Vitae, I could hardly be called “a rad trad.”

    As a childless couple, you might think we wouldn’t have a dog in this fight. Well, we actually used NFP to try to get pregnant. But, when the instructors kept going into all of the other dimensions, it was really a turn off but we stuck with it. We didn’t think it could get any wackier UNTIL my wife borrowed a book from one of her girlfriends. It was written by a highly respected author who advises that parents teach their sons how to chart their sister’s cycles.

    This had gone too far.

    We had read Fr. Ripperger some time ago on this issue and found his words transformative.

    Reply
    • 

      nfpworks said,

      November 22, 2009 at 11:23 pm

      As I emailed to you, unless you were an unnamed person with the email handle “Lepanto”, I’ve not removed any comments. If you are said person, I emailed explaining that the combox is not the place for esoteric dissertations in the 1000 word count on traditionalist doctrines not directly related to this post. Further, a hat tip to Archbishop Lefebvre is not recommended.

      Reply
24. 

    Jeanne said,

    November 18, 2009 at 11:19 am

    I don’t think there is a strong NFP cult more so than a breastfeeding cult or any other type of lifestyle cult. Usually when someone experiences something profoundly positive in their lives they want to share the experience.

    There are many reasons to use NFP. It is not only about achieving or avoiding pregnancies. It can also be about health as well. I’ve had major menstrual cycle problems especially as a teenager. Once I learned NFP I was able to find habits that triggered my problems and start taking supplements that reduced my problems. Women should be taught NFP because it can show her early health signs into her body and reduce PMS especially as a teenager.

    Finally I want to comment about the number of children people have. It seems no matter what you do, you will be judged from both sides. The secular society will judge you for having too many kids once you have 3 and then the religious society will judge you for not having as many kids as possible. Our goal in life is to follow God’s will for each and every one of us. God can call a couple to have one child and God can call a couple to have 6 kids. I don’t adhere to the “grave” reasons for not having kids, the question is what does God want us to do. People should always ask what God wants us to do in our lives. Just because you are married does not mean you are meant to have many children. God can call people to only have one child for His own reasons. I agree that society needs to be open to having more children, but really it is between a married couple and God how many children to have. People should really focus on their own life and what God is calling them to do in their life. Trust in God to express His views to other people. Also leave the judging to Him as well.

    Jeanne

    Reply
    • 

      nfpworks said,

      November 22, 2009 at 11:27 pm

      Thanks again for reiterating that NFP is not for postponing pregnancy. I can’t believe how unknown it is in its efficacy for treating women’s wellness disorders and infertility. I think people meet one pro-NFP nut, make a judgement, and promptly re-close their minds.

      Also glad that you put in a good word about being pro-children and pro-family, but also about discerning God’s will.

      There’s a lot of judgement and self-righteousness from Catholics with large families. Even the word “large” seems relative to some. Six? Nah, you still must be working, 7? maybe 8 and up…that’s more like it! Really…like you can judge a family by it’s size for all we know that NFP family with “only” 4 children reference ben’s comment below) has had 5 miscarriages or infant deaths!

      Reply
25. 

    Margaret (not the one previously) said,

    November 18, 2009 at 11:23 am

    @Dan Guenzel–

    Really? You’ve never heard of a grave reason? Let me throw one at you. In January of this year, a few weeks before I turned 37, I was taken by ambulance to the ER with heart attack symptoms. While it was decided after many hours in the hospital that I hadn’t had a heart attack, it was definitely a “cardiac event” of some kind that needed to be examined and diagnosed.

    The “cardiac event” occured right the beginning of my fertile week. I was tracking it, since after losing a baby the previous fall, DH & I had waited the requisite cycle after having a D&C before trying to get pregnant again. (Would that be serious enough for you? Prolly not…)

    So suddenly our baby hopes had to be put on hold again. We had no clue what we were dealing with, and I was not about to conceive a child when I had no clue what the immediate future held in terms of medications, invasive diagnostic testing, etc.

    Thankfully, after a few really, really stressful months, my episode was deemed a one-time fluke that posed no long-term health risks. The cardiologist had no qualms about my getting pregnant again. (Suppose that had gone differently? Suppose it was actually a condition that in itself would have made pregnancy too dangerous, or required medication that posed a known harm to the baby? Grave enough for ya yet??)

    Fertile bunnies that we are, DH & I got pregnant again very next cycle. And tragically lost that one as well to miscarriage. At that point, the OB’s recommendation was to wait three months before getting pregnant again. (But that, too, surely couldn’t be a grave reason in your book. MY NFP-friendly, pro-life OB is surely an agent of the devil here.)

    Requisite three month having passed, the fertile bunnies got pregnant again right away. Thankfully, praise be to God, this baby seems to be sticking around and thriving, and will hopefully come home to his or her eight brothers and sisters in the spring.

    So, someone, please explain to me how I’ve sinned in using NFP in any of this. Seriously.

    Reply
26. 

    Your friend in MN said,

    November 18, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    I prefer the extraordinary form of the Mass, but traditionalism is infected in this country by Jansenism. Perhaps it’s the Irish legacy.

    Reply
    • 

      nfpworks said,

      November 18, 2009 at 10:30 pm

      Cheerio! Short and sweet, and with much more charity than I can muster after such a repsonse from my brothers and sisters.

      Reply
27. 

    Jenny K said,

    November 18, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    From what I’ve been able to gather from this entry, assuming a lot of posts haven’t been wiped out (which I highly doubt given the webmaster’s integrity[awww, thanks Jenny]), is that the real diatribe comes from the NFP side of the argument.
    As someone who used to wave the NFP flag until opening my mind and heart, I can say that the NFP/TOB crowd lives in a very protective cocoon. And, they are not going to be persuaded by name calling OR being hit upside the head with the illogic of their sophistry. Only a pastoral approach and good examples will move them.

    The other side should at least acknowledge, once in a while, that NFP isn’t an abortifacient. That makes them closer to the Church’s teaching on sexuality and marriage than 99.9% of the world.

    I have to laugh/cry at some stories people tell to make the “grave case.” Most of the time they pass muster. And then I have to ask: “What the heck is wrong with you people that you want to play with fire anyway!” Try to be Mary & Joseph for just a little while

    All goes back to NFPers liking to pat themselves on the back for “making great sacrifices.

    JHMK

    Reply
    • 

      nfpworks said,

      November 18, 2009 at 10:24 pm

      Jenny, I won’t do you the justice of an actual response to your “comment,” (making sure to use quotes around a word to emphasize my sarcasm in the same lovely way that you slight NFP users without even knowing them) except to say that I’ve approved all but one comment. I always email the commenter to explain why. If this is you with an opened heart post-NFP, Kyrie Eleison on who you were before your traddy conversion. I’ve met contraceptors with more mercy and understanding that you and many of the commenters on this particular entry. It’s the spirit, not just letter of the law.

      Reply
      • 

        Margaret (not the one previously) said,

        November 18, 2009 at 10:46 pm

        Wow… What an illuminating comment. We are playing with fire, not being like Mary and Joseph, and patting ourselves on the back for our sacrifices.

        I think the previous comments about Jansenism are spot on. I’m coming away with the strong sense that there are some people who think that one simply shouldn’t be allowed to “have fun” without “paying for it” down the road. I can only hope that the “paying for it” aspect gets “paid off” with the discomforts of pregnancy and pain of childbirth, and not the actual upbringing of the children.
28. 

    Tom said,

    November 19, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    It’s a very simple situation it seems to me, at least to any who submit to the moral teaching and authority of the Church.

    This type of deliberate frustration of the natural purpose of sexuality can be easily abused, and is permissible only for “grave reasons.”

    Now how do we figure out whether we are confronting a “grave reason” which would permit use of NFP? Consult our own consciences and proceed? No one is a suitable judge of his or her own case. No, this issue of a “grave reason” should be submitted to a sound, orthodox, spiritual adviser, i.e., a priest.

    What concerns me is not the dissemination of NFP information… heck, we used it to concieve a child… it’s that I rarely see mention of, much less a serious focus on, the requirement that this practice be engaged in (at least when trying to avoid conception) for a grave reason.

    Soft-peddling this requirement opens our Faith up to the charge that NFP is nothing but Catholic contraception.

    Reply
    • 

      Tomas said,

      November 19, 2009 at 9:40 pm

      Very interesting. Grave reasons had been specified by Pius XII. Now, some promoters are trying to do away with that.

      http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0307-kippley

      On Catholic Answers Live, Mr. Everett says what is required is neither grave nor serious reasons but “just reasons.” He cites no source.

      God bless this blog’s moderator for being open to criticisms she doesn’t necessarily agree with.

      Reply
      • 

        nfpworks said,

        November 19, 2009 at 11:12 pm

        Correction: by your example, “one” promoter, and with only two references to this thought taken out of consequence. Fr. Hogan is solid, and I’d be willing to bet that there’s more to this than it appears.

        As to Mr. Evert (I presume you mean Jason)–he’s a chastity pundit, not an academic. He doesn’t verbally footnote everything he says. If you want a source, why don’t you email him and ask? Though you’re probably aware of the whole just/ serious/ grave translation debate, so you may already know the answer. But just in case, why don’t you ask?

        Thank you kindly for the nod about publishing comments I (really) don’t agree with. It’s hard to receive barbs, even over the computer, from people you don’t know, and I regret when I fail in charity, too. Prayers for this. Thanks.
29. 

    ben said,

    November 19, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    Margaret (not the one previously),

    Speaking as one who has been counseled by a very tradition minded FSSP priest to use NFP for grave reasons, let me say that I don’t think anybody here is trying to attack you or your circumstances.

    Serious health conditions are grave reasons, I don’t think that anybody disputes that. Further, it seems obvious that Dan Guenzel is not talking about you. He said that those he has spoken with about reasons for using NFP all came down to “we’re not ready”. That is manifestly untrue in your case. Please don’t find offense where none was intended.

    NFPworks,

    I have to agree with JennyK here. The diatribe does seem to be from the NFP side. I count only 14 comments of 40 as being remotely opposed to NFP. I assume JennyK thought you must have deleted a lot because of your remark above that “Most commenters have been extreme traddies…”

    Further, none of the “traddies” have accused you of heresy. The post from “Your friend in MN” that you agreed with is uncharitable and incendiary. Jansenism has been condemned as heresy. How can call the accusation of jansenism charitible?

    There seem to be a sizeable number of people very involved with NFP who take offense at large families. I have been told by NFP instructors that I’m an irresponsible parent for having 9 kids.

    Reply
    • 

      nfpworks said,

      November 19, 2009 at 11:42 pm

      When I posted the update, many of the NFP advocates had not yet posted their comments.

      Where are the “sizeable number of people very involved in NFP” who take offense? I’m tempted to think you’re exaggerating, but in the case that you’re not, that has been the EXACT OPPOSITE of my experience. However, nearly all of the NFP families/ promoters I know either have large families themselves, are on their way to large families, or completely embrace large families as an awesome gift.

      Who are these NFP Instructors that told you you’re irresponsible? I don’t know your situation, but assuming they’re not close friends or spiritual advisors who know your state of soul intimately (and therefore might be in a position to call you out if –IF–you had been irresponsible), they sound ridiculously judgemental and lacking in discretion. They should give you the tools (if they were your teachers), and leave it there. I’m sorry you had a bad experience, I really am, but you can’t say all NFP and NFP promotion is bad because you got burned by a judgemental instructor.

      I personally would like to thank you for opening up your heart and life to your children. It’s a gift.

      Reply
    • 

      nfpworks said,

      November 23, 2009 at 11:04 am

      Re: “Jansenism,” I’m sure Friend in MN was not accusing anyone of formal heresy (and that’s not the way I took it). He didn’t say “You are a follower of Cornelius Jansen and hate Holy Mother Church.” I took it to mean that traditionalism tends toward a focus on concupiscence and a rigoristic living of the faith, lacking in an understanding of the Little Way, mercy and the freedom we’re given as humans. Having said that, I’m sure Tomas would like to accuse my emphasis on mercy (all mercy is just) and freedom as intellectual and spiritual laziness, and an excuse for lukewarmness, but it’s not. It’s just the Truth. I’m not one of those lukewarm or quasi-catechized Catholics who uses the “conscience clause” or “mercy clause” to excuse clear disobedience to the commandments.

      Reply
30. 

    ben said,

    November 20, 2009 at 11:58 am

    I certainly don’t paint all NFP teachers with the same brush. Some of my best friends and the Godparents of one of my children have taught NFP.

    Since Mark Shea reports that you live in the Denver area, I won’t name names of the teachers I had a negative experience with, they may be people you know. This was several years ago, when we had only 6 children. The teaching couple who accused us actually had more children than we did, but they were spaced farther apart.

    At around the same time we were told by a priest that “we didn’t have to have so many children” and that “there are things you can do about that now”. In a matter unrelated to NFP, I’ve also been told by chior members which priest in the archdiocese will give you permission to use the pill.

    It is certainly true that couples who are really dedicated to NFP work hard and make sacrifices for their faith, and that they generally have more children than other families. In my experience, such dedicated families usually have about 4 kids. That’s great, but 4 is not a large family. The lived experience of parish life is different with smaller families than larger families.

    This is a difficult thing to explain in words in a combox, but I think it really gets to the crux of the matter.

    I’ve attended mass at many parishes in the Denver area, and I’ve been an active member of at least 4 parishes in my life as a catholic (I’m an adult convert). What I have founds is that larger families (more than 6 kids) are often not well integrated into most parishes. Many larger families tend to parish-hop a lot. They might go close to home one week, to the Cathedral another week, another week to Holy Ghost for the music, Latin and solid preaching, they might occaisionally to one of a small number of parishes which have priests well known for orthodoxy. One of the reasons that large families have difficulty fully integrating with a parish is that it is difficult being the ONLY large family in a parish. It is even difficult being a large family at Holy Ghost, that bastion of tadition and Latin in downtown Denver. We were parishoners there for many years and still have a deep and abiding love for the whole parish. But all of the years we were at Holy Ghost, we were one of only 2 families whith more than 6 kids, and that makes a difference in parish life and the lived experience of the faith.

    After the birth of our 8th, we transitioned to becoming “traddies”. It had little to do with liturgy. Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, which officially became a parish this past July, is full of large families, many of whom have a decades long history of worshiping together. As a homeschooling family, one of the big reasons for moving was so that our children could have more firends. At Mt. Carmel there are more full-size and super-size vans in the parking lot on Sunday mornings than mini-vans.

    All of this makes a difference for how the faith is lived out in parish life–even for the smaller families. Let me give you some examples. 1). The normative experience for children at the parish is that they are raised by a stay at home mother. 2). Everybody knows something about child care, and helps to look out for the children–even the teenage boys 3) when somebody has a baby, the parish makes sure that the family has meals brought to them for 2 weeks. There is a real feeling of solidarity among the parishoners that the Christian life is fundamentaly different in every aspect from the lives of most of our neighbors. When the mother of a large family gets pregnant there are no snarky comments, she is congratulated and supported.

    I think the importance of community is one of the things that gets missed when traditionalists criticize NFP. Traditionalists work hard to organize their communities against the spirit of the world to be supportive of motherhood as a vocation. This community supports obviates the need for some of the reasons for delaying having children. I think some of the reason they come off as so angry is because they want to see the kind of support given to mothers in traditionalist communities given to all mothers, and all wives.

    It seems to me that we are on the same side in this.

    Reply
31. 

    Steve Pokorny said,

    November 20, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    It’s pretty fascinating reading many of these comments, and as the Associate Director for the Archdiocese of San Antonio, I’d like to put my six cents in:

    1) The Catholic Church is not opposed to birth control. She is opposed to contraception, precisely because it is against life. No where does the Church teach that a couple has to have as many children as physically possible. To paraphrase Humanae Vitae 10, couples are to “prudently and generously” discern whether they are called to have another child, and can postpone bringing new life into the world even for an indeterminate period of time. This means that they must use whatever resources are available to make a prudential decision, while still following the moral law that is inscribed into their bodies and fertility.

    2) Simply knowing about how our bodies and fertility works is not an occasion of sin, nor is it an offense to God. We are called to cooperate with God’s plan, and although God is ultimately the arbiter of that plan, we are also co-creators in that plan, using our free will to cooperate with His will. We must remember that the Catholic Faith is in support of faith and reason, using reason not to manipulate things to our fallen and reductive understanding of reality, but allowing the Holy Spirit to infuse our intellect and wills with wisdom. We are never called to do something willy-nilly, because this would be the antithesis of informing our freedom with the Truth. Simply knowing how our bodies works is not a sin; the more that we come to humbly learn God’s design brings about awe, and through that careful discernment, we would never want to do anything that would violate His desire for love and life within marriage.

    3) That being said, a couple must have a genuinely valid reason for avoiding a child. The Church does not give specific reasons, b/c times change, but it must be a serious matter. A couple must recognize that if they are being called to marriage, they are called to raise a family. Yes, there are exceptions to this, but in marriage, their “bodies are no longer their own.” They ultimately surrender them up to the will of God (especially as Catholics, b/c they have invited them into the marriage through the Sacrament) and surrender their fertility over to their spouse.

    4) Simply showing pictures of male and female genitalia within a scientific setting is not pornographic. It is never wrong to appropriately unveil (not lustful) the human body. Whereas pornography is trying to reduce the body down to the level of an object, any NFP teacher who knows what he/she is doing in an introduction class (or a full series for that matter) is using the images to unveil the full truth about the person (a.k.a. that our physical bodies speak the language of fatherhood and motherhood). If we could never show nakedness or the parts that differentiate us male and female, there should be no doctors, no nurses, no artists, and by golly, no Catholic should go into the Sistine Chapel, b/c there are naked people there! The problem is not nakedness but it’s our hearts, and when it is appropriately unveiled, it helps to rip the myth off of manicheanism and destroy the power of pornography. And an Intro to NFP class by a trained instructor is an appropriate place to unveil the body in an appropriate way. We must come to a healthy understanding of the body. The primary place to start: contemplating the naked Christ on the cross who reveals the truth about the body, that the body is a gift, and must be understood and lived from this perspective.

    5) A term that may help to use is not NFP with those who are unmarried, but Fertility Awareness. Every woman and man has a right to know how their bodies works. As I said before, knowledge, used with the intention of desiring to following God’s will, will lead to reverence.

    6) Given that a 2008 USCCB document (http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/08profile.pdf) reports that only .2% of women of reproductive age are using NFP, that means that around 99.8% of Catholic couples are contracepting (due to the fact that a vast majority of people are not going to be willy-nilly about family planning), NFP is absolutely needed to be promoted and proclaimed from the rooftop. When taught and used correctly, it is a great gift that has the ability to transform our culture.

    Reply
32. 

    Chet & Tina Flynn said,

    November 21, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    To all of those Rad Trads who have problems with NFP, how many kids did Chesterton have (0) or Belloc (4)? I’ve never met an NFP practitioner or teacher who thought they were sinning or going against Church teaching. I agree with Jason Everet’s interpretation that all you need are JUST reasons. Think “just reasons” are hard to come by? I’ve got two words for you: College Tuition. That may not register with many providentialists who home school and maybe didn’t go to college themselves. Often kids from these families get scholarships based on need if they decide to attend college. But this Church is big enough for more than just the poor and large families. It includes dual income families, and professionals who want to devote more time to fewer children and not rely completely on daycare or nannies. Our parishes aren’t as close or as generous as yours can be, point taken. Nevertheless, we too can assist you making ends meet. But charity doesn’t always equate to sympathy. These methods have been approved and available for a long time.
    When the Church, in her wisdom, made Her peace with evolution she only agreed to the possibility that we descended from apes not rabbits. NFP represents the median between the extremes of Planned Parenthood and the conception of marriage that nearly all christian communities had prior to the disastrous Lambeth Conference. It was then that our Church stepped in, not a moment too soon, and explored NFP.

    Respectfully,
    The Flynns

    Reply
    • 

      nfpworks said,

      November 22, 2009 at 11:40 pm

      Thank you for your comment, Flynns!

      Though I may not agree (I certainly cannot judge) about college tuition as a just/serious/ grave (pick your translation) reason, I do appreciate your affirmation for the diversity of family types in the Church, and that not all are able to have large families for a variety of completely valid reasons.

      The beauty of the Church’s teaching is that it leaves this decision up to the discernment of the married couple, provided they have a formed conscience, and is best guided by a wise and prudent spiritual director.

      As I’ve said numerous times, I agree with Fr. R that NFP can be abused or used for selfish reasons, and that we have to be careful with the way that we present it–it’s not a marital silver bullet or a cure-all. However, the benefits of widespread promotion far outweigh the detriment, since the “NFP switch” often leads to conversion, having more children, and sometimes a switch to a more providentialist view on things.

      Reply
    • 

      Tomas said,

      November 23, 2009 at 7:59 am

      Sounds like a diatribe to me. Most non-NFP couples I know are very accepting of childless couples or those with only a few.
      But your ‘charitable’ comments can be summarized as such.

      1. Non-NFP couples breed like rabbits
      2. They take handouts but shouldn’t ask for sympathy.
      3. Their kids are too stupid for them to have to worry about tuition

      As for your “median between the extremes” that sounds like intellectual laziness.

      When I first heard of an “NFP-cult” I was long out of the movement but still thought it was silly to say something like that. But I keep hearing about how NFP is not about postponing, spacing or achieving pregnancy but rather an art and a way of life.
      Maybe the critics aren’t that far off.

      Reply
      • 

        nfpworks said,

        November 23, 2009 at 10:50 am

        Tomas, I don’t know how you even got that from the above comment. I’m glad that you know non-NFP couples who aren’t judgemental, but by other peoples’ personal experience and by some of the comments on this post, NFPers are clearly judged.

        I disagree with your summary of my comments, and even how you got there. I never used the phrase “median between the extremes” in my post or comments, and anyone who knows me or has read my blog for more than two seconds knows I’m not intellectually lazy. I used the word “balance” in my post because it’s another word for prudence, discretion and discernment, all of which are required for a virtuous life, but especially in married life and with the use of NFP.

        As the the accusation of lack of charity, see my response to Ben’s reactionary response to my comment on “Friend in MN”’s comment.
      • 

        Tomas said,

        November 23, 2009 at 10:56 am

        my comments were directed at the Flynn not NFPwerks
33. 

    nfpworks said,

    November 22, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    Re: NFP vs. Contraception, and NFP as contraception, see a great post by Robert George for a reading list and commentary on this issue:

    “Natural family planning is not a form of contraception as the Church has always understood it. In Humanae Vitae, in line with the long tradition of Christian reflection on the subject, Pope Paul VI defined contraception as an action performed before, during, or after an act of sexual intercourse with the intent to render that act of intercourse sterile when it might otherwise be fertile. NFP does not fit the bill. It does not represent an attempt to render infertile what one supposes might otherwise be a fertile sexual act. Whatever one’s moral judgment about NFP, it cannot be said to involve the sterilizing of sex acts. It is true that NFP can be practiced with a “contraceptive mentality.” That occurs, for exapmle, when someone who would be perfectly willing to contracept chooses periodic abstinence because it is less unpleasant, more convenient, more effective (where reliable contraceptives are not to hand and only unreliable contraceptive techniques are available), or for other such reasons. I join Michael P. in suggesting that folks who are interested in the question of the morality of contraception and the question of whether NFP is properly understood as “relativizing the procreative norm,” do a bit of reading on the subject. ”

    http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/11/contraception-and-nfp.html

    Reply
34. 

    Stephen Hand said,

    November 23, 2009 at 10:32 am

    Interesting. My concerns are practical. I mean consider the young man who is only able to afford a two bedroom apartment in the city at a very steep price. How can he afford to have more than maybe three children? It is all well and good to say “God will provide” but that is too simple it seems to me.

    Reply
    • 

      Chet & Tina Flynn said,

      November 23, 2009 at 12:58 pm

      That’s because the providentialists impute a mystification to the marriage act that would seem downright insane if they applied it to the fifth car or the ninth dog or the twelve gerbil. They fail to see that it boils down to a bodily function with consequences not unlike others. Eat too much, you’ll get fat. Too many bowel movements will kill you as will too few breaths of air. Even the same water that can baptize has the capacity to drown us.
      We in the NFP movement are practicing it as an act of obedience. Will the Church ever permit contraception? We humbly say we do not know but we won’t practice it until it’s allowed by legitimate authority. That is a position very different from many providentialists who were attending the Latin Mass years before it was allowed by the current pope and are living as though the only encyclical on sex is Casti Cannubi and not Humanae Vitae. I would require them to demonstrate a better knowledge in these matters before posting and would make a reliable rendering of Theology of the Body required reading.

      Respectfully,
      The Flynns

      Reply
35. 

    ben said,

    November 23, 2009 at 11:58 am

    It seems to me that this conversation is not constructive.

    I felt the same way as Thomas after reading the Flynns response.

    We should never label a tradtional understanding that has been supported by the church for over 1900 years as “extreme”

    This is not to say that new expereinces are not possible. But you can’t just say that something the church has ALWAY taught was Holy is now something “extreme”.

    At the beginning of this conversation, I really thought there was nothing more than misunderstanding between the two sides. But now I’m begining to see that there is more to it.

    Maybe the reason that so many posters here have such a strong reaction to Fr. Ripperger is guilt.

    Traditionalists would tend to believe that College tuition is probably not a good reason to limit your family size (we have built colleges with very felxible payment options as a response to this pressure). We tend to believe that as a general rule that limiting family size to allow mothers the time to have a professional career outside the home is likewise a poor reason. Despite with the Flynns might think, we don’t see day care or nannies as the solution here, but we tend to believe that children should be raised at home by their mothers, and that their fathers should make the sacrifices necessary for that to happen.

    Reply
36. 

    Damon Clarke Owens said,

    November 23, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    Fr. Rippersberger gives rich catecheses using nature-ends arguments, but misses the “subjective turn” of the last 40 years. He is not alone in his apparent misunderstandings of the mind of the Church regarding the goods of NFP. She considers NFP a crucial gift to achieving marital holiness today.
    I address these issues more thoroughly in a 13-part series on NFP I filmed this year for EWTN, but since it won’t air until sometime next year, I’d like to offer a few key magisterial texts.

    Responsible Parenthood means knowing how the body works…yes, including the biology, anatomy, and physiology.

    HV10- “With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person.”

    Husband and wife are the interpreters who exercise responsible parenthood which cannot be judged by others by the number of children.

    HV10-”With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons [serii causae] and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

    HV11 It (sexual activity) does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed.

    “Grave”, “serious”, nor “just” does not mean “dire”, but weighty, well-grounded, serious, and corresponding to the virtue of justice (giving God and others what they are rightly due).

    HV16-If therefore there are well-grounded reasons [iustae causae] for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which we have just explained.

    Among many other documents, listen how the Church edifies NFP as a marital *good*, not just some morally acceptable concession as some mistakenly believe.

    Familiaris Consortio
    FC32- The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.

    Fr. Rippersberger does not believe all couples should learn NFP as part of marriage preparation and our diocesan programs are committing mortal sin through the instruction. Well, that is a calumnious charge and, in fact, out of harmony with the teaching of the Magisterium:

    FC33 – “But the necessary conditions also include knowledge of the bodily aspect and the body’s rhythms of fertility. Accordingly, every effort must be made to render such knowledge accessible to all married people and also to young adults before marriage, through clear, timely and serious instruction and education given by married couples, doctors and experts.”

    FC35 – In this matter, while the Church notes with satisfaction the results achieved by scientific research aimed at a more precise knowledge of the rhythms of women’s fertility, and while it encourages a more decisive and wide-ranging extension of that research, it cannot fail to call with renewed vigor on the responsibility of all-doctors, experts, marriage counselors, teachers and married couples-who can actually help married people to live their love with respect for the structure and finalities of the conjugal act which expresses that love. (I wish I could bold this next line) This implies a broader, more decisive and more systematic effort to make the natural methods of regulating fertility known, respected and applied.

    Reply
37. 

    Damon Clarke Owens said,

    November 23, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    What is NFP?
    NFP is two things – the biology of the body (the “whats”) and the theology of the body (the “whys”). It is fertility intelligence (FI) and faithful parenting (FP). Fertility Intelligence (literally “to read within”; ‘intus’ – within, ‘legere’ – to read) is the knowledge to read the sexual powers of fertility. Faithful Parenting is the moral framework for the right use of FI as defined by the Church.

    NFP is a tool to help couples achieve marital holiness (union with God). That is, it is at the service of the universal purpose of marriage. Of course it is not the *only* means to marital holiness nor *required* for marital holiness, but a gift to Church for “such a time as this”.
    Our Church has many devotions, devotionals, practices, and norms that she offers the faithful as good but not *required* for salvation (studying the Scriptures, the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration, daily Mass, Spiritual direction, etc.). All are gifts given to and by the Church to help us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” No doubt faithful have gained salvation before and without any of these goods.
    Are we to value the Rosary less because it was not available to the saints of the early Church?
    Or do we demean the Rosary because of zealous advocates of the “cult of Mary” who treat it like the “8th Sacrament” or “11th Commandment?”

    There are real graces available in sacramental marriage. Our vocation as husband and wife is to be “co-creators” with God – “co-” meaning “with” not “equal”. We are stewards of our fertility. That stewardship requires knowledge mediated by all of the virtues.

    Deliberate ignorance of the sexual functions and powers is not how we approach marital virtue. If we are working with an engaged couple in immediate marriage preparation and anatomy is a scandal to them, we are not dealing with an issue of modesty, but of shame.

    Modesty is rooted in a reverence of the sacramentality of the body. And, what is reverence but a mature form of awe and wonder (Pope BXVI).

    We NFP instructors are moved by a desire to restore awe and wonder to human sexual powers. It is with the help of reverent priests like Fr. Rippersberger that couples mature that awe and wonder through the Sacraments, including Matrimony.

    Not availing couples of NFP is withholding a powerful-and recommended-tool in their work of marital sanctity.

    Reply
38. 

    ben said,

    November 24, 2009 at 11:00 am

    The scandal is the temptation to fornication, not shame about biology. Please respond to what Fr. Ripperger actually said, not what you immagine him to say. His objection is not to biology lessons, but to biology lessons in mixed company prior to marriage. I’m sure he has no objections whatsoever about biology lessons for married couples, or single people in a single sex environment. The is the traditional way that our society has conveyed this knowledge to young adults.

    There really ought to be no reason for a newly married couple to practice a method of family planning. If the first pregnancy needs to be delayed then the marriage itself ought to be delayed, if the couple needs nfp to help in conception, such circumsances clearly can’t be known ahead of time and counseling can be sought at such a time as a problem arises.

    I really think that HV needs to be read in the light of tradition, just like all church documents. Clearly, one of the major worries of Paul VI in writing HV, and one of the concerns of the V2 council fathers, was overpopulation. It seems clear now 40 years later, that overpopulation is not an issue, especially in the affluent west.

    It seems clear to me that there are really very few parises where NFP is practiced regularly by very many people. In most parishes, the non-practitioners use mortally sunful contraception. In the samll handful of other parishes where NFP usage is low, those not using it just trust providence and live as married people have for a thousand years.

    While I would readily concede that NFP can produce great fruit in certain individual marriages, it is clear that 40 years of NFP activism has not produced fruit in parishes–very few people EVER use it. What has produced fruit in the few parishes where it has been preached is to see providence as the rule, and NFP only in certain circumsatnces.

    Why don’t you see that?

    Reply
39. 

    Tomas said,

    November 24, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Well said Ben.

    So few people have responded to what Fr. Ripperger actually said. Instead, they use this occasion to make the same old sales pitch. Well, marketing ain’t theology.

    It is true that HV was largely a response to a problem that didn’t materialize (overpopulation). And, sadly some of the strongest natural law language against ABC was avoided.

    Forty years of NFP activism has produced so little fruit. No wonder H.W. Crocker III says it needs a new marketing slogan geared toward the modern psychology of dissent : “Try NFP, it doesn’t work!”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1343114/posts

    Reply
    • 

      Tomas said,

      November 24, 2009 at 3:48 pm

      [Sermon link has already been posted through another link, Tomas.]

      Good examples of errors in NFP teaching and direct contradictions coming from the lips of three popes.

      God Bless all mothers from Our Lady the most perfect of women who brought our Lord into this world down to the scared teenager who conceives out of holy wedlock and needs our most fervent prayers for herself and the survival of her child.

      Reply
      • 

        Anne Lanzo said,

        November 26, 2009 at 6:57 pm

        How, pray tell, may we listen to this “other” sermon? Ms. Smith has done such an excellent job exposing the errors in the first, I thought it would be fun to take a stab at it.

        No doubt, it’s just more of the same pre-conciliar nostalgia that has been thoroughly rebutted here and elsewhere.
40. 

    Damon Clarke Owens said,

    November 24, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Hmm…here I was thinking my posting of full magisterial quotations in response to Fr. Rippersberger’s main points was excessive. I listened to his homily intently and took two pages of notes.

    Please read what our Church teaches, gentlemen. I recommend taking the *full text* of Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio to Adoration or a chapel.

    Marginalizing, ignoring, or contradicting magisterial teachings from a document or a council or a Pope is dangerous for the soul.

    No ideology -not even conservatism or traditionalism- equals orthodoxy.

    The Church is clear on the marital good of NFP- for ALL couples.

    Again, the money quote if my previous post was too long:

    FC33 – “But the necessary conditions also include knowledge of the bodily aspect and the body’s rhythms of fertility. Accordingly, every effort must be made to render such knowledge accessible to all married people and also to young adults before marriage, through clear, timely and serious instruction and education given by married couples, doctors and experts.”

    Reply
    • 

      nfpworks said,

      November 24, 2009 at 10:44 pm

      Damon, I like you a lot. You said everything succinctly and well. Unfortunately, the comment may have fallen of deaf ears since you quoted John Paul II, who *clearly* isn’t as much of a successor to St. Peter as, say, Leo XIII or Pius XII. My persistent commenters never bring up JP2, and consistently quote encyclicals written in the cultural context of other centuries or more than five decades ago. I’m not saying previous Popes are wrong, but they’re quoted out of context of the teaching of the complete (including contemporary) teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

      Reply
      • 

        Tomas said,

        November 24, 2009 at 10:47 pm

        The other sermon link quotes the late John Paul II
    • 

      ben said,

      November 27, 2009 at 12:34 pm

      Traditionalism is not an ideology.

      There are no traditionalists here marginalizing or ignoring any papal teaching. In fact, it is the traditionalists who are insisting that all such magisterial teachings be understood as an integral unity.

      Others have marginalized the teaching of Pius XI, are their souls in danger?

      Reply
      • 

        Damon Clarke Owens said,

        November 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm

        By traditionalism, I was speaking of the ideology that gives more weight to prior papal or conciliar teachings simply because they are older and more succinct, and more suspicion on later teachings that may appear to contradict those earlier succinct teachings.

        I am in complete agreement with you regarding the integral unity because that is the teaching of our Church and promise of her bridegroom.

        When there is an apparent contradiction in magisterial teachings, or development in doctrine, is in incumbent on us to pray for the wisdom to see the “both/and”.

        When anyone, priest or otherwise, says NFP should be understood with suspicions, conditions, and hyper-obligations beyond – or in contradiction to – current magisterial teachings, they are simply wrong to do so.

        Returning to the original post, Fr. Rippersberger is wrong to condemn the widespread teaching of NFP to engaged couples when the magisterium says
        “.. the necessary conditions also include knowledge of the bodily aspect and the body’s rhythms of fertility. Accordingly, every effort must be made to render such knowledge accessible to all married people and also to young adults before marriage, through clear, timely and serious instruction and education given by married couples, doctors and experts.”

        Certainly calling it a mortal sin is calumny.
41. 

    Carol said,

    November 26, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    Hi All, I really enjoyed reading your posts and debates. The bottom line is that every single person in their individual marriages have the ownership over their own relationship with God in the privacy of their own prayer life. One can from our human eyes judge the large family at church as being the parents who are really living out their faith and the two parent family as being the ones who are further down the ladder into purgatory. However, no one knows, what is goind on for either couple. What is apparent is that in the bible Our Lord states that the husband must love his wife like Christ loves the Church. Would Christ in his love of the Church not know all about his Church. Thus a man and woman together as a team must before entering marriage should know all about a woman and mans fertile cycle.

    The providential debate ‘Our Lord will provide’ – God gave us the intelligence to know when one is fertile and not – if he did not want us to recognise our fertile signs then it would not be so obvious to the woman. He gives us will power to abstain and to be conscious and considered when it comes to having a child. I wont go into at length how the Irish history of huge families – living in absolute povety in an oppressive, subjegated experience effected generations of people. The absolute poor died in a famine in a country of food rich exports. This is the same experience of those who have children in India / Africa, where people are dying of starvation. Does God deem these people into these lives? No. The rich countries of the world are over exploiting our poor neighboors leaving a mother and father having to sow sequences on tops for 2 cent an hour on a street with their young children all working too. Did God plan for this? No I think not. As such if you are starving and your family is homeless should you keep saying rely on providence?

    St Francis of Assisi survived on hand outs and begging. That is one vocation to saintliness. If everyone was called to this vocation that is; rely on providence surely no one would have anything to give? We would all be the ones begging and who to beg from? If we were unfortunate to buy a 2 bedroom apartment pre recession and it is now worth nothing and we are in serious debt? Are we expected to eat rice everyday and leave our senses out the window and reproduce and say leave it to Gods providence?

    The Catholic Church in Ireland has much reform to do. Its poor children were sent to industrial schools to be raped, physically beaten and many children died in unmarked graves. Please read the online Ryan report to see the devastation of people’s lives who had no sexual education and very often women did not have any ownership of ther sexuality. My Grandmother who nearly died in childbirth on her 6th child was thrown out of the confessional in front of a small close knit community for abstaining from sex to avoid a 7th baby. Did this man in a priests clothes mirror Christ? Women where denied basic knowledge of their body for so long and NFP brings women their God given right to listen to the communication of their cycles.

    I notice a theme here whereby women are expected not to earn money but to be the full time carer in the home. What about St Gianna Molla who loved her job as a doctor and said she planed on giving up work after her fourth child. She loved fashion, sport and believed in home birth. She also advocated non physical discipline. I know one family who have 10 children, those children are reared in fear of their parents. ‘Do to the least of my people do to me’. Children have two parents and as such fathers have an equal role in caring for their kids. If those in this thread believe that women are for only home making and can not combine this role with some sort of paid employment, then why offer women and education at all?

    Children require absolute sacrifice and necessitate the outpowering of love from a strong and fulfilled married couple. One of the great gifts we can give our children is the example of a strong, loving and respectful marriage. I challenge you to read a wonderful book called ‘Why Love Matters and How Affection Effects the Brain by Sue Garheardt. Wonderfully illustrates the care and level of devotion a little one needs to sustain strong mental health and physical health.

    We have a psychiatric repository of illness that are multiplying by the day and we need to protect our children from this. I know intimately a family whereby a child with special giftedness was born but with 3 children before and 6 after this child became a very broken, depressed woman who is surviving her life with little emotional maturity. Would it not have been more sensible for us to nurture the babies we have to give them the potential for sainthood?
    My first born, breast fed every 2 hours, for the first 4 months and there after would barely let me go let alone at night so privacy to even be intimate was limited. NFP is wonderfully joyous celebration of men and womens sexuality and I personally believe every girl of menstration age should know their cycle so that it will be second nature by the time they get married.
    Spare a prayer for the women in Afkanstan who can marry as young as 14 and have one in 7 chance of dying in childbirth.
    Lets remember when we look at HV we must see it from a global perspective not from a perspective that all have everything and one is selfish if not having 14 kids as was a family on EWTN recently. Most of the world are not in the position to survive nor have running water. Life is hard for families queueing for food parcels every week. Unfortunately so many women are living in marriages where they can not say no to sex and as such maybe they must use birth control if they are in poverty? No one can judge only our maker when we pass from this earth.
    NFP and leaving it all in Gods hands never a black and whilte issue it is fuzzy and cloudy. We must pray for real answers and only deep in our consciousness we can hear the way.
    Carol

    Reply
42. 

    Anne Lanzo said,

    November 26, 2009 at 6:42 pm

    Seems a lot of the commentators here are unaware that we had a major council of the Church sometime in the 20th Century!!
    The deacon who married us benefited from the fact that he too was married. He told us that it is perfectly acceptable for a couple to desire NO CHILDREN and to practice NFP though all of their fertile years. He did say that he would hold out hope that we would change our minds.

    And we did. Three of the most perfect children and not a financial worry because of them for what some people here, and in FEW parishes, would call selfish.

    A.L.

    Reply
43. 

    Anne Lanzo said,

    November 26, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    Still looking unless it’s the same as the sermon on his own site where, by the priest’s logic, rape is impossible within marriage.

    BTW, the priest whose arguments you have vanquished is associated with a quasi-schimatic group and has been publishing anti-NFP and anti-HV material for years.
    http://www.nfpandmore.org/nfpcourses.pdf
    http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/galvin2.asp

    Reply
44. 

    Trish said,

    November 27, 2009 at 7:54 am

    I agree with Ms. Smith. Birth control in all forms has made us wealthier and wiser. This just happens to be the one approved by the Church we choose to belong to. Whan to play; follow the rules. And, it builds character and has no ill side effects.

    Where is this other sermon and does it say anything different.

    Hope you all had a blessed Thanksgiving and gave thanks for all we have in abundance here in the US of A. And don’t forget to thank God for your sexuality.

    Reply
45. 

    ben said,

    November 27, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    Anne Lanzo,

    What you were told by that deacon violates Canon 1055 of the Code of Canon Law (1983).

    If a party to a marriage intends never to have children, the bond is impeded.

    And just who are you calling quasi-schismatic? Fr. Ripperger is in the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, a group founded as an explicit rejection of schism.

    I think that we are all aware that Vatican II is important. It marks an important change in the pastoral orientation of the Church, but it much be understood in accordance with prior tradition. The Council fathers said explicity:

    “Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought. to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.”

    The norms of theological interpretation do NOT include thowing out all teaching older than 40 years.

    Reply
46. 

    Stephand Hand said,

    November 27, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    Trish writes, “Birth control in all forms has made us wealthier and wiser.”

    Huh?

    Birth Control has caused demographic winter, and European nations are poised to yield more and more to islam in the decades to come. Only very serious reasons excuse us from the duty of replacing the next generations

    See Patrick Madrid: http://workstation3.blogspot.com/2009/07/patrick-madrid-on-demographic-winter.html

    Reply
47. 

    Barry Noe-Haigh said,

    November 27, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    I don’t know what this other sermon is that everyone is talking about but there are plenty dealing with sex, marriage, children and Contraception vs. Periodic Abstinence at Audio Sancto http://www.audiosancto.org/categories/marriage-and-family.php

    Anne, thanks for the links. They make the case that some of the cooler heads have been trying to get across only to be told we’re not acknowledging what recent popes have said:

    “”Casti Connubii is still in print,” and Dr. McArthur’s statement that only “someone lusting for anything the Pope will give him” would “try to justify NFP as the norm of matrimony,” the traditional doctrine has been discarded since Humanae Vitae. No less a personage than Msgr. Cormac Burke of the Roman Rota has published articles announcing that the Church’s traditional doctrine on marriage has been repealed by the papacy’s recent silence on these topics, combined with the new personalist approach to marriage. Fr. Torraco, who answers morality questions on EWTN’s website, claims that those who decline to use NFP and “leave procreation in the hands of God” are practicing a “deficient,” “deceptive” and “less than human” approach.” Father Hogan, who answers NFP questions, tells Catholics that “it is better to have 2 or 3 children you can educate all the way than 7 or 8 that you can only take so far.” If this is what the Roman Rota and EWTN teach, one shudders to think what is taught by liberals (although in fact we know only too well).”

    NFP and TOB have turned out to be the new gnosticism:
    çThe “theology of the body” enunciated by Pope John Paul II was completed in 1984. For a decade, it had little influence, but since the mid-1990s its influence, or at least reference to it, has increased tremendously. On the other hand, what any particular person means by her or his reference to the papal TOB is by no means clear. A few years ago, I asked three TOB writers for a definition of the TOB in 50 words or less. They gave me three completely different definitions or descriptions. >

    http://voiceofcatholicradio.com/walk,091018,randy_engel,j_bagnoli,theology_of_the_body_final,36_min.mp3

    Reply
48. 

    David Connor said,

    November 27, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    I would be reluctant to ascribe any ill will the the NFP cheering section. Rather, like many things, the exception has become the norm. A similar thing has happened with Extraordinary Ministers. I’m sure a priest could have been found to marry Anne and her husband but they went with a deacon. Laity are distributing communion when they aren’t needed. Though they should be extraordinary-they are the norm. Ditto with NFP.

    When we got married, we decided to attend the mandatory/optional NFP classes without protest. Then my brother, a Roman trained canonist with degrees in theology and philosophy protested for us. He caused them a lot of grief to the point where we felt sorrow for the instructors. According to him, this rationalization of NFP is a uniquely American phenomenon. In Rome, where the laity contracept to no lesser degree than Americans, no rationalizing is attempted and the NFP movement is the but of jokes for seminarians training in Roman Universities.
    As for Fr. Ripperger, he is the furthest thing from a schismatic. And his expertise in human psychology is impressive. This talk on our degenerate moderns and the scourge of modern psychology goes along way to explaining why so many well intentioned Catholics are swayed by dubious reasoning and their passions.

    http://uvcr.catholicam.org/mp3s/FatherR_DangersofModernPsychology.mp3

    And before you dismiss him as a rad trad, listen to what he has to say about problems in that movement.

    http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Sermons/Disk2/Problems.mp3

    Reply
    • 

      Damon Clarke Owens said,

      November 28, 2009 at 10:19 am

      David,
      Your comparison makes the case for NFP as the NORM within marriage.

      The abuses of EME’s are precisely known by reading what our Church teaches about the roles and duties of the Ordinary Ministers (clergy) which include, by the way, Priests AND Deacons. Deacons are clergy with proportionate share in the ordained priesthood of the bishop sufficient to witness a couple administering the Sacrament of Matrimony to each other (w.r.t. the Latin Rite). The Priest confers nothing more than the Deacon in that Sacrament (i.e. – official witness of the Church).

      A plain reading of our Church’s documents reveals why it is extra-ordinary (lit. – out of the ordinary) for non-clergy to assume ordinary clerical roles.

      Similarly, a plain reading of our Church’s documents reveals why it is NFP is encouraged as a NORM for marriage. There are far more references than the ones I posted earlier, but those are enough to see that the hyper-obligations, suspicions, and conditions placed on NFP by (usually) well-meaning detractors has NO corroboration in the current totality of Tradition. We are free not to use NFP. We are free not to participate in any devotion recommended or approved by the Church. None are needed for Salvation.

      But placing suspicion, conditions, condemnation, or hyper-obligations on Church approved practices *beyond* what the Church places is just wrong.

      What was your brother’s fear about you learning NFP? Perhaps a known problem with the specific instructors or method being taught, or something more broad such as fear that deeper knowledge of human fertility could introduce an impediment to you choosing to having children? Or perhaps a sincere belief that NFP is contrary to the Faith, and the Church, caught up in the turmoil and pressure of the 1960’s, conceded a narrow exception only for those Catholics who would otherwise contracept?

      I submit, respectfully, that the Church has made a deliberate turn in the last 40 years to affirm the ancient laws of the nature and ends of marriage – not by merely reiterating and insisting on them – but by offering a new and powerful *means* to joyfully embrace them.

      There is nothing in the knowledge or use of NFP that contradicts, directly or indirectly, the vocation of every married couple to motherhood and fatherhood. Nothing. On the contrary, the deeper knowledge of the biology of fertility are necessary tools to help restore awe and wonder to the definitive expression of marriage – sexual union – and the vocation that flows from it. Awe and wonder are the seeds of true reverence. Should not awe and wonder *increase* in the lover who learns more about his beloved?

      That is not my opinion, but plain reading of the Magisterium on the matter (HV10, FC32,33,35, et al).

      Yes, we NFP promoters have made – and continue to make – mistakes in our apostolates, but please understand how painful and wrong it is to go beyond fraternal correction (which I for one welcome) to calumny (assigning mortal sin to diocesan NFP offices).

      It’s worth remembering, too, that nearly all the postings here are from folks wanting to lovingly submit to the Magisterium. We are truly all brothers and sisters in the Lord – in the strictest and most exclusive sense recently written by Pope Benedict. I love the passionate debate, so long as we all keep that perspective.
      Happy New Year.
      Pax, Fratres

      Reply
49. 

    Sean Fitzwilliam said,

    November 28, 2009 at 11:23 am

    Damon:
    I think the NFP critics have done a good job explaining the short comings of the logic use by SOME of the promoters while keeping their comments charitable. No one is suggesting that knowledge is sinful. Rather, it makes sense to say that NFP can’t be the norm in all marriages or even most.
    Also be careful about confusing the love we share with the office of the Holy Father with papolotry and a distorted notion of infallibilty which has narrowly defined limits. Both John Paul and Benedict have spoken to this fact.
    The Church never declares what it said before is irrelavent.

    Reply
50. 

    Zoe Davis said,

    November 28, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Thanks for opening up this discussion and confirming so many suspicions. Here in Rochester, NFP is taught by some of the most heterodox nuns and priests (who have issues) and it is always presented as catholic birth control.
    Large families are ridiculed and acceptance of ABC by the Church is treated as being inevitable.
    If they were 1/2 as orthodox as the pro-NFP people posting here, it would be a huge improvement

    Reply
51. 

    Debbie said,

    November 28, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    We were never forced to take NFP instruction: it was just plain indifference on the part of the pastor. If we told him we were living together (we weren’t) he wouldn’t have blinked an eye.
    As far a being Catholic Birth Control, that wasn’t a factor with us as we tried a long time to conceive the one child we have.
    We shopped around for NFP instructors and found several of their approaches distasteful. Some would rationalize their positions by referring to obscure documents like the ones cited above. Never an authoritative source such as the CDF.
    No matter, we stuck with it and I think we increased our chances by learning the different methods and discussing the matter with experts.

    At NO time while we were practicing NFP did we feel “really married” as Janet Smith likes to say in her talks. God bless this lady when it comes to arguing against co-habitation. But when it comes to making the case for NFP, it’s as if her philosophical training goes out the window. Even during a debate she won’t go off a prepared speech except to utter her contraction of All Right: Height?, …height, height?, ..height?

    I don’t have any regrets at this point. We conceive two years AFTER abandoning the practice.

    We never experienced the hardening of our hearts that some of our peers claim to have experienced. This is an irony but sometimes couples who sterilize have an easier time feeling forgiven for a single sin than those who know they made the same decision every month. Never forget, we are not so great that we can sin so badly that even God can’t forgive us.

    God bless the openness of all those on both sides who are open to criticism without hurling vitriol at one another.

    Reply
52. 

    Curmudgeon said,

    November 28, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    Wow. Anne goes from calling a society of papal right established by John Paul II “quasi-schismatic” to sedevacantism, suggesting that the same John Paul II is the last true pope. Not sure what to think.

    Reply
53. 

    Br. David said,

    November 29, 2009 at 7:57 am

    Curmudegeon:

    Isn’t that what it all boils down to: de facto sedevacantism?
    From reading this blog, it seems the NFP critics have cooler heads and more logic on their side than the cheerleaders. Cardinal Ratzinger said some things at bishop’s conferences that would seem to dampen enthusiasm for NFP. Will he say something as the Holy Father? Will it matter?

    Now that John Paul the Great is gone, does the New Cafeteria really care what the pope says?

    I think not but pray I’m wrong.

    God Bless all who try to serve the will of Christ in this matter.

    Reply
54. 

    Leslie said,

    November 29, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    Great discussion. I never particularly liked being told I was irresponsible for not going the NFP route. Now, I see I have a lot of company

    Reply
55. 

    nfpworks said,

    November 24, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    Ooh, which quote, and out of what context? Would you agree with John Paul II’s teaching in FC?

    Reply
56. 

    Anne Lanzo said,

    November 26, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    I’d believe anything John Paul II said on this matter, in the proper context.
    He may go down in history as the last of the true popes.

    Reply
57. 

    nfpworks said,

    November 26, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    Check Mark Shea’s post on me in the combox.

    Reply

• Pages

  • About
  • Bloggers Wanted for NFP
  • Need Help Promoting?
  • Recommended Resources
  • What’s Your Method?

• Recent Posts

  • New Domain for NFPworks
  • Thankful for Sexuality
  • Prevention, not Prescriptions
  • Christopher West Responds
  • Awe, Anger, Frustration, Relief

• Blogroll

  • Dangers of Birth Control
  • Engaged Marriage
  • Feminine Genius
  • Gianna Healthcare NY
  • Heart, Mind & Strength Blog
  • Los Alamos FertilityCare Blog
  • NFP on Facebook
  • One More Soul
  • One More Soul, Eh?
  • Ruah
  • Surviving Endometriosis
  • That Letter on Birth Control
  • Truth About Contraception

• Follow me on Twitter!

  • Don't forget: new domain: http://nfpworks.wordpress.com/?p=836&preview=true 1 day ago
  • trying to figure out my new platform and new domain: http://www.nfpworksblog.com 1 day ago
  • I'm thankful for sexuality http://nfpworks.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/thankful-for-sexuality/ #twitterthursday 3 days ago
  • Join the PNP Train #KathleenShow http://nfpworks.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/prevention-not-prescriptions/ 5 days ago
  • Conception Woes Heightened by Lack of Fertility Knowledge http://www.catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=8173 5 days ago

• NFPworks Feed

  • New Domain for NFPworks
  • Thankful for Sexuality
  • Prevention, not Prescriptions
  • Christopher West Responds
  • Awe, Anger, Frustration, Relief

• Tags

  Art Birth Control Catholic Catholic Blogs Catholicism CCL Children Christian Christopher West Contraception Dr. Hilgers Dr. Thomas Hilgers Environment Family Family Planning fertility FertilityCare Health Humanae Vitae Humor Humor/Wit Infertility IVF Janet Smith Jobs Love Madison Medicine NaProTechnology Natural Family Planning News NFP NFP blog NFP Marketing NFPworks Paul VI Pope Paul VI Pro Choice Pro Life Religion Science Sex Theology of the Body Women's Health Women's Wellness

• Top Posts

  • Priest accuses Diocesan Programs of Mortal Sin!
  • New Domain for NFPworks
  • Thankful for Sexuality
  • Christopher West Responds
  • About

• Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

• Blog Stats

  • 54,079 hits

• Email Subscription

  Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog at WordPress.com. · Theme: Thirteen by Beccary