The following comes from a September 2 story by Thomas Storck in Crisis Magazine.
When I entered the Church early in 1978 there was little enough discussion of natural family planning or of the Church’s teaching that use of contraceptives violated the law of God. The Couple to Couple League had been founded just a few years earlier, and NFP was not a subject even written about much in the Catholic press, but when it did get noticed by orthodox journalists or writers, it received favorable attention. But perhaps it is fair to say that it was seen at the time by most Catholics who had even heard of it as something a bit on the extreme side. Use of NFP was definitely associated with being in the orthodox “wing” of the Church, perhaps even a bit hyper-orthodox, for the vast shift among Catholic couples to contraceptive use which took place in the early and mid-1960s was long over.
Now one of the, to me, most curious things that has arisen in the Catholic Church in the United States since, roughly I guess the early 1990s, has been a vocal, albeit probably not very large, anti-NFP movement. Not surprisingly the Internet has facilitated this and perhaps allowed it to appear larger and more important than it really is. This anti-NFP group consists not of the modernist, pro-contraceptive Catholics, who have never been supporters of natural family planning, but of those who claim the mantle of orthodoxy in their opposition to a method of child spacing sanctioned by popes since Pius XI. I know that my claim that NFP has papal sanction will be hotly disputed by some critics. Rather than repeat what I have written elsewhere, I invite readers to consult my 2006 article in Homiletic & Pastoral Review that provides appropriate quotations from papal teaching. In this present article I want to discuss not the morality of NFP but the phenomenon of the opposition to it.
Most of this opposition to NFP appears to come from those who call themselves traditionalists, and are generally identified by their adherence to the 1962 Roman Missal, the traditional Latin Mass. I am myself an adherent of that liturgy, and moreover it is certainly the case that many of the questions and concerns which the traditionalist movement raises about the direction of the Church and the state of theology since the Council are perfectly valid. But on NFP they are just wrong. The scientific and medical aspects of natural family planning were beginning to be understood around 1930, and the only papal reference by Pius XI was favorable though not very specific. His successor, Pius XII, however, treated the subject more than once and at some length, and if anyone will read and understand the quotations provided in my 2006 article, he will be able to see that his attitude was favorable also. So it is puzzling to me why those who claim to adhere to Catholic praxis as it was before the Council would want to dissent on that particular point….
To read the entire article, click here.
CCC: ” 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.
These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.
In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil”.
All vocations in life require one form of chastity or another and self mastery.
CCC: ” 2349 People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life.
Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single. Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence. ”
There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
From what I have heard, many Catholics may not be aware that contraception is a sin. With the monumental changes that came with Vatican II and the other social upheavals not related to Vatican II that followed it, many people thought contraception was now permitted by the church. Where do most adult Catholics receive information about marriage and family life? They certainly don’t receive it from the Sunday homilies. How many Catholics regularly read the Catechism and other Catholic books and pamphlets?
Sarah: It is no surprise that many practicing Catholics believe that the church no longer objects to artificial birth control. The subject has been ignored for decades and treated with benign neglect. Indeed many priests and bishops openly disagree with Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae and made the decision not to speak about it. Google “Winnipeg Conference” and you will find out how the Canadian hierarchy openly defied the pope, and that many bishops in the US and elsewhere agree with them. Even today, the subject is taboo. Think back: When was the last time you heard a priest approach the subject of birth control during a homily? The only time I heard a priest condemn the pill and other chemical means of contraception was in a small Latin Rite chapel in San Jose. Our regular novus ordo presiders seem to be comfortable with the status quo which, essentially, is “don’t rock the boat”. If you push them on this issue, they might jump ship and join the Methodists.
What Pete says and what he uses as reference is absolutely accurate. That is what the Church teaches. The problem, for the Church and its members (?) is that about 90% don’t believe the teaching of the Church on this subject. I remember when the “pill” first became available. It was the first time in the history of the world when couples could have sex without worrying about having children they didn’t want for any number of reasons. As a result, in ten years or less the notion that you-only-had-sex-three times-in your life (pick a number based on the number of children you had) went out the door. People, even Catholics, started to enjoy sex for what it was, pleasure. The Church may teach one thing about sex, but few people believe it. That isn’t really a rebelion against the church as much as it is a sea change in the culture, especially in the West. This change is not likely to go away no matter the amount of preaching on the subject. Another example of being Catholic not being easy.
wow Bob One..what little hope you have. I was saddened by your comments. To think that people have no heart to obey the church. I usually hear those comments from our elders having so little faith on this generation, but I guess I can’t blame you because of the way things are going today but we must not give up…there is a new younger generation that is seeking to honor and follow exactly what the church has always taught on said subject.
You are quite correct, Bob One, in saying that being Catholic is not always easy, but in many instances disobedience IS a rebellion against the Church as the Lord constructed it. Christ never promised us a rose garden without thorns. There are wonderful times amidst the crosses, but if one does not take up ones cross daily and follow Him, one is not deserving of him and will not rearch that Eternal Goal. “Without the cross there is no crown”. “Without the tomb, no resurrection”. It is just that simple. I write that because I need to see and hear it too. We run a race, and by God’s grace, may we run it faithfully to the end.
I for one, am grateful for NFP…..this really has saved me. I almost lost my life with my last recent pregnancy….praise God I have permission from the church to follow NFP to save my life. I am grateful for that….I am anemic and I would worry if I bled to death again. If for some miracle the Lord wanted me to have another baby regardless of my past tragedies with 4 miscarriages, then I will trust solely in Him but for now…praise God for NFP.
Some devout Catholic women must use Natural Family Planning for serious medical problems they have when a pregnancy might be dangerous to them. Others also must take medicine that could cause a birth defect while they are taking it if they get pregnant, and they want to keep from harming a future child. Some pro life doctors can often find a better, less harmful medicine for a woman and her child but not always. We need more physicians and nurses trained in the Natural Family Planning methods and alternate medicines, for those who really need to avoid a pregnancy for serious reasons and also to help couples to have children when the they are racing infertility. It is a win win situation for everyone, including our environment.
No polluted waterways from the sewage from the Birth Control Pill and less deformed fish.
Of course I am talking about lawfully married heterosexual couples here — every child has a right to a mother and a father.
This belief held by certain traditionalists that NFP is against God’s will just shows that some people that identify with this movement do so for reasons that have nothing to do with God, obedience, or devotion to the Church. Instead, they are seeking some “extra” thing they can do so that they can think of themselves as “better” catholics than others.
Their so called devotion is actually worldly in nature. They’re just using religion as a vehicle for self-aggrandizement, likely because they’re failures at worldly pursuits, so have glommed onto creating arbitrary rules to set themselves above others. Truly pathetic.
Of course, if I were Catherine, I would then proclaim that this shows that EVERYONE who likes the Latin Mass or embraces traditionalism does so out of fake devotion. Thankfully, I have more than three functioning brain cells and realize that such a diatribe would not be accurate.
In any large group, there will be some reprehensible individuals. You cannot judge the whole by their actions any more than you can judge the Catholic Church by the choices of child molesting priests.
Jon J. be careful of harsh judgments. “Being a failure at worldly pursuits” is not always being a failure in spiritual pursuits. How many people have climbed to the top over the bodies of their dead aborted babies?
Anne, funny how you never tell Canisius or Skai to be careful of harsh judgements.
Yet, because these individuals make pious noises, suddenly harsh judgments against them are something that needs to be curtailed.
However, I am well aware worldly success and failure can be completely disconnect from moral virtue. The whole point of this post was more to illustrated the irrational nature of Catherine’s reasoning rather than to condemn these individuals caught up in the belief in the fundamental immoral nature of sex.
Jon J., you are wrong. I have corrected both Skai and Canisius at times, and so have others. It is not my job to correct them every time they are wrong if someone else has done so. Other times I did not correct Canisius because I felt he was not wrong or others had goaded him into righteous anger by defending same-sex marriage which is against Church teaching and should not even be encouraged on here at all. I can only imagine what he went through with those two women, his mother and her lesbian lover who abused him. I did tell him to forgive his mother and pray for her, though. As far as the other woman, she was in the wrong, and if she had not repented, he has no obligation to have anything to do with her.
You need to face it Jon. J. Some of us have gone through some very bad experiences regarding homosexuals. I had at least three men I trusted personally who molested an under aged male or who were later convicted of male on male molestation — a family member, a fellow co worker and a priest I had began to like and trust. As the saying goes, “Once burned, twice shy.”
The co worker actually molested little boys, not teens, which is still evil, but male children.
Perhaps, I should have stayed out of it Jon J., as it was clear you were not attacking me by your post at 5:5 p.m. on September 6. Nevertheless, I felt you were attacking unfairly some traditionalists who are against the misuse of NFP, and their are some misuses. NFP is supposed to be used only for serious reasons not for married Catholics just to refuse to have children. On the other hand, you are probably right that some traditionalists go overboard at times. That applies to all of us at times, though.
Click the link and see paragraph 5 on the proper translation.
Also, I know that not all homosexuals and lesbians molest the under aged, but children are better protected by a good mother and father and have a right to that.
Thank you, Anonymous, for getting me back on track and reading the whole article. Sometimes I do not read the rest of the article because I assume it just repeats the very same thing, but that is not always the case.