Do you belong to the “NFP cult”?
Blogger and Seattle acquaintance Mark Shea recently gave NFPworks a little nod in a post, which has attracted a clergyman in the combox who snarkily calls (and implies that I think this) NFP the “8th Sacrament” and a sympathetic commenter implies that NFP fans are (or can be) “worshippers” of the “NFPcult.”
Now [taking a deep breath]. If you listen to this homily by Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, which isn’t the priest in the combox, but it seems that they must be on the same page. (I’d really like to hear Fr. Perroni affirm this.)
Anyhow, the homily, unlike most watered-down, feel good verbosity is actually catechetical, and really quite decent. I appreciate the frank approach to catechesis that doesn’t underestimate his congregation. (Though I have a feeling this homily wasn’t given in the average suburban parish–I’d like to see that!)
“Contraception is against every category of ‘natural inclination’.” [Amen.]
I like how he begins by explaining the natural law, quoting St. Thomas, giving examples, and then speaks at length about Holy Matrimony and the Nuptial Act. I like what he has to say–even the part where he strongly emphasizes that NFP is only to be used for just, serious and grave reasons! Despite what Fr. Perroni and friends might think of this, I agree! I may not hit people over the head with my “grave reasons stick” when I begin a conversation with a Catholic (or non-Catholic) on contraception, but I believe what HMC teaches, and stick to it.
“Provided you have the right intention…it’s a morally licit thing.” [Amen.]
Then he goes on to articulate that artificial insemination and In Vitro Fertilization violate the unity of meaning of the nuptial act, meaning that they separate the unitive (by diminishing or eliminating the need for a physical union) from the procreative (the openness to children and hopefully conception).
“Some Catholics mistakenly believe that because the Church is pro-family and pro-children, that somehow that means that any means whatsoever is okay to attain having children, and that’s not true. The Church doesn’t allow us to do that precisely because she does not want us to violate the rule of God, and ultimately for us to lose our souls as a result of it.” [Amen.]
But he quickly transitions to his discussion of the Church’s only approved method of postponing pregnancy (as well as achieving pregnancy and diagnosing women’s wellness issues, the latter which he omits, either for brevity or lack of knowledge on this): NFP. Here’s where we transition to a more reactionary slippery slope:
“It is a mortal sin to use NFP without a sufficient reason.” [Well...yes and no. Debatable.]
Diocesan Family Life Offices & NFP Instructors: OUCH.
“The teaching of NFP , however, has become a bit problematic as of late. In addition to the fact that some people treat it like it’s the 8th Sacrament, and somehow or another if you’re not practicing NFP when you’re married that you’re committing sin–it’s silly, and quite frankly, it’s insulting to people’s intelligence.”
“It’s okay to teach philosophy or the philosophical and theological dimensions to NFP in a common group–I don’t have any problem with that; it’s a good thing. (And by common group we mean mixed company, and things of that sort.)”
“But there are practices that have arisen in virtually every diocese in this country in which detailed anatomical descriptions and even pictures of the two genders is given to people in mixed company. Now let me set this up as a scenario: you have people who are about to get married. The struggle for chastity is extreme already. And then they put pictures in front of them, and then they wonder why they’re fornicating. Hello!? The fact of the matter is that this is putting people in the proximate occasion of sin. It’s mortally sinful to be doing this….But to actually give anatomical details to people before they’re married in mixed company is utterly inappropriate.“
“It’s mortally sinful to be doing this [giving NFP classes to couples before they're married in mixed company]…It’s a sin against modesty!”
Soo…..where to begin?
First, I don’t think being part of the NFP Movement–either by using it, promoting it or teaching it, that it makes one a de facto member of the “NFP cult.” (See my newly revised “About” section to know where I stand on this.)
However, Father does have a point that some people become so devoted to Natural Family Planning, and are so eager to “convert” contraceptive users, that they pitch NFP in such a way as to present it as “Catholic Birth Control” or “Catholic Contraception.” This is wrong, and I hint at this a bit in my “7 Habits” post. It’s true. Sometimes in our enthusiasm for the Church’s teaching against contraception, we give the impression that NFP is a requirement to be holy, and that it’s a given in marriage, when, in fact, NFP (if you’re Catholic), is to be used only to achieve pregnancy, postpone pregnancy for just, serious or grave reasons, or to identify, diagnose and treat women’s wellness issues, including infertility.
Second, I also believe modesty is a vital virtue, one that’s lost on our generation nearly completely. However, to essentially equate an NFP class (and therefore–GASP! Anatomy diagrams!) to pedalling pornography IS RIDICULOUS! Further to accuse nearly every diocesan program (and therefore the individuals running the program, and their bishops!) who sponsors NFP Instruction for the engaged (for most it’s optional, and a few mandatory) OF MORTAL SIN WITHOUT EXCEPTION OR MITIGATION scandalizes me, frankly.
Father clearly leans towards concupiscence with his mention of the “scandal of NFP instruction,” but it seems to me he may not be aware of who the average couple getting married in the Church is. (Now that I think about it, he probably does know and wouldn’t witness the vows of most of the people getting married today.) Diagrams which enable them to learn about and appreciate God’s gift of fertility most likely don’t scandalous those going through NFP Instruction, and certainly wouldn’t scandalize the average couple who frankly are largely already sexuality active and cohabitating.
Prudence is the key to chastity and modesty. Obviously, if a couple has a sensitivity to things sexual or a tendency to lust, and their purity is strong and sensitive, then heck no–stay away from the NFP classes! But by and large, these are not the couples who are going through Engaged Formation in Diocesan programs.
Kyrie Eleison. I’ve gone on long enough. There’s a balance between the “cult of NFP” and the reactionary extremism of aforementioned brands of providentialism as fostered by certain clergy.
What do you think the balance is?
[Update: The discussion in the combox has brought some balanced perspectives, but mostly not. It seems that most people did not listen the homily and statement in question, nor did many care to reply to points made in my actual post. Comments are now closed.]
134 Responses to Priest accuses Diocesan Programs of Mortal Sin!
Connect with me!
7 Habits of Highly Effective NFP Promoters
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
my comments were directed at the Flynn not NFPwerks
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
[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.
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.”
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.
The other sermon link quotes the late John Paul II
Ooh, which quote, and out of what context? Would you agree with John Paul II’s teaching in FC?
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
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.
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.
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.
Check Mark Shea’s post on me in the combox.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
I’ve really enjoyed reading both sides of this blog over on the other site. There have been very few commentors who I think have bad intentions. All seem to want to do what is right.
But whereas the critics seem to be saying “wait a second, not so fast.” I’ve read some really nasty things from the other side: radtrads, extremists, calumny, schismatics etc.
I always felt uneasy about the way NFP is promoted in our parish and even more so about the way it’s peddled on TV. Now, I’ve been given some interestng leads to persue this further.
One thing is for certain, err two things: NFP isn’t the 8th Sacrament and it’s not the 11th Commandment.
Wow, Anne, it wasn’t just a slip of the tongue? It looks like nfpworks deleted your previous comment on the WordPress site, but then you repeated it in #56? If this is the way it’s gonna be, let’s get the SSPV and the CMRI people involved, too! Their claims are just as crazy, but far more interesting and quasi-intellectual than the neocatholic sedes.
Funny, I’ve said to people before who (in good faith) asked me if we were Humanae Vitae Catholics. Just to flummox them, I like say “We prefer to think of ourselves as Castii Connubii Catholics,” because of course they usually don’t have a clue what I’m talking about. But then again not so funny. When I reflect on it, it’s rather scary, because a lot of well-meaning people posting here are suggesting that somehow the Church’s teaching has changed between CC and HV. Yeah, the Church has changed it’s pastoral approach regarding marriage (and we’ve got the empty seminaries, gray-haired nuns who’ve kicked the habit and are now selling off the property that the CC generation donated in order to keep themselves stocked with Geritol, and millions of Catholics who don’t see the moral difference between a condom or a thermometer and a clipboard in their bedroom and who…btw…don’t see the difference between their faith and any of the liturgical protestant groups, but that’s another topic). I’ll acknowledge that the pastoral approach has changed, all right.
But to say that the Church has changed her teaching, or the interpretation of her teaching: no you can’t do that. HV can only be read as an elaboration and adaptation on prior teaching. To hold that it’s a change in teaching or a reinterpretation thereof, is to commit heresy. Paul VI or JP2 or Ben XVI, none of them, are/were subject to any man, but they ARE subject to and bound to protect and defend the Magisterial teaching of the church. It’s not theirs to change. If it were, no doubt Pope Clement VII would have done so for Henry VIII in order to keep an important ally against the Lutherans.
Trish, sorry about my delay in replying. I hope that when you said “I agree with Ms. Smith,” that you didn’t think that I am a contraceptive proponent. Natural methods of family planning, while technically can be used for controlling birth [birth control], is *non-contraceptive* family planning, and is fundamentally different than nearly all forms of family planning–spiritually, biologically, socially and relationally. Birth control may have made us wealthier, but not necessarily wiser. I think it’s one of the worst developments of the sexual revolution, impacting women and families more negatively that ever would have been thought. Cf. Mary Eberstadt’s article summarizing some of the studies about the negative impacts of contraception, which disproportionately affected women, minorities and children–all spiritual effects aside (which is HUGE!).
I am glad, however, Trish, that you have embraced natural methods of family planning, and hope you continue to thank God for your sexuality. You’re probably familiar with the Theology of the Body, but if you haven’t checked it out, do grab an Intro book…awesome stuff. Welcome, and keep stopping by! Btw, where are you??
Stephan, I agree with you here. See my response to Trish.
Though I’m clearly not a huge fan of Fr. R’s homily for the aforementioned opinion he expressed (and what he said towards the middle-end of his homily was exactly that–an opinion), the FSSP is a totally legit organization of the Church, Anne. Quasi-schismatic is a misnomer; one either is or isn’t. Their founder started the community precisely to be in union with the Holy See, and to get away from schismatics. Just because they celebrate the Liturgy according the 1962 Missal–or the extraordinary form, as it’s now commonly called– or because they have a certain pastoral outlook *does not* mean they are schismatic. I’m assured by a Bishop I know who likes the community very much that claims like this by Fr. R make him and perhaps a few others theological and pastoral outliers in the community, despite an obvious popularity.
I read the second piece, which is certainly in line with Fr. R’s interpretation of things. The first piece is by CCL co-founder, John Kippley, and that one seemed critical, though fairly well balanced.
Ben, I totally agree with you about the FSSP–see my response to Anne. Though I don’t agree with this particular homily of Fr. R, I know that the FSSP is completely legit, and doing amazing work in the Church.
I agree with you that what that Deacon gave as advice or opinion was ridiculous, and a serious occasion to sin. Though the Deacon was right that NFP and contraception are fundamentally different, one of the four promises one makes at the altar is to be open to children. Done. Impediment to a sacramental marriage? Definitely.
I agree with you that NFP isn’t the 8th Sacrament or the 11th commandment, though if someone has a serious/just/grave reason to postpone pregnancy, it may help you to keep the 6th commandment, and properly live one of the sacraments, a means to sanctification.
I think that you’re right: very few commenters on all sides have bad intentions, though the combox does lend itself to shades of uncharity quite often (even from myself, for which I’ve previously commented on.)
I’m glad you enjoyed the conversation. Stop by again some time.