The Fathers of the Church are unanimously arrayed against the use of NFP for any reason. The unanimous opinions of the Fathers is infallible truth. For any Catholic who is honest with themselves, this is the undeniable truth, we can't use NFP for any reason.


Now, I ask, since Pius XII taught NFP, and practically every priest in the world today approves of it SPECIFICALLY in the case where the mother could die if she were to get pregnant (Please do not mention or address any other excuse for NFP on this thread, I am talking only of this precise excuse), kindly tell me what is the gravity of the sin if a person uses NFP in this specific case?

Considering, that they only use it to quiet concupiscence, as a type of "semi-abstinence", at most twice per month. Considering our times, when women are running around practically naked all over the place. Does God grade on the curve, cut us some slack for our times?

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]
[Author - Vincent shows himself also as a man of such remarkable perception that there is a certain timelessness to his writing. What he has to say of preserving the faith and of keeping to the rule of faith fits any period and all times, and might have been written yesterday.  

Vincent develops the notion that our faith is based on the authority of divine Law, which must be understood and interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. And this Tradition, if it need be discovered, is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediturn est: what has been believed in the Church everywhere, always, and by all.  Vincent’s doctrinal principle does not exclude progress and development; but it does exclude change. For Vincent, progress is a developmental growth of doctrine in its own sphere; change, however, implies a transformation into something different.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS says:

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.  I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.  [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic.  That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement.  And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.

To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.

He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.

"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition;  a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed. "Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing.  O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.

But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion.  The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.

We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers,   not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.

1.   This is the famous line: In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

Natural Family Planning and the Christian Moral Code

I've not read this but it was written by Mrs. Jeanine Dvorak, the mother of fourteen and from what I gather, she puts together a very strong case against NFP.

Happily, I know little about this subject, but from reading some of what has been written here lately, one thing I can say that seems to have been completely thrown out the window by pro NFPers is, when and where does Divine Providence fit into all of this?

Pius XII, Pope, by Divine Providence.

The Fathers of the Church are unanimously arrayed against the use of NFP for any reason. The unanimous opinions of the Fathers is infallible truth. For any Catholic who is honest with themselves, this is the undeniable truth, we can't use NFP for any reason.

"NFP" is a series of actions for a specific purpose, not an individual act. The use of sterile times or the use of the marriage right when conception is impossible isn't condemned by the Church as intrinsically evil.

I've put the "intrinsically evil" nonsense to bed several dozen times already.  Of course the individual objective or material act involved, i.e. abstaining during fertile times, is not intrinsically evil.  No one's arguing about that.

What's at issue is whether it's formally (call it "extrinisically" if you will) evil to deliberately attempt to exclude the primary end of marriage while pursuing the marital act for its secondary ends.

Based on the teaching of Pius XI (and those of the Church Fathers), it is.  No one has yet to demonstrate how NFP (a term used for convenience, so don't quibble about semantics) does NOT subordinate the primary ends of the marital act to the secondary as per the teaching of Pius XI.

PS -- Ambrose, please start another thread of the authority of the papal ordinary magisterium and stop just saying "Pius XII said so".  That's extremely tiring and is derailing the thread.  I'm interested in a discussion of the PRINCIPLES involved, i.e as to why it's right or wrong "intrinisically" (to use your term) vs. just because of papal authority.

I've put the "intrinsically evil" nonsense to bed several dozen times already.  Of course the individual objective or material act involved, i.e. abstaining during fertile times, is not intrinsically evil.  No one's arguing about that.

What's at issue is whether it's formally (call it "extrinisically" if you will) evil to deliberately attempt to exclude the primary end of marriage while pursuing the marital act for its secondary ends.

Based on the teaching of Pius XI (and those of the Church Fathers), it is.  No one has yet to demonstrate how NFP (a term used for convenience, so don't quibble about semantics) does NOT subordinate the primary ends of the marital act to the secondary as per the teaching of Pius XI.

PS -- Ambrose, please start another thread of the authority of the papal ordinary magisterium and stop just saying "Pius XII said so".  That's extremely tiring and is derailing the thread.  I'm interested in a discussion of the PRINCIPLES involved, i.e as to why it's right or wrong "intrinisically" (to use your term) vs. just because of papal authority.

Ladislaus, you seem to always claim you either have "put something to bed" or you will "put something to bed" at a later date. I've seen no indication that you've done anything remotely like it.

NFP isn't merely "sematics" as the idea of "family planning" is quite distinct from allowing the use of infertile periods for reasons other than a rather vague "family planning" which is parallel to artificial birth control. You dismiss the term "grave reasons" without any explanation, and as if it was never mentioned.

The fact is that the Church looks at things very differently than one like you might think. All one need do is look closely at the interpretations of the regulations concerning marriage itself (which I'm sure wouldn't meet your "interpretations.")

Bowler can you please post your source? From what I am aware of no one argues that in the case of the death of the mother NFP is the solution... Total abstinence is the solution, nay I would even argue that in such a case a priest could be able to intervene and say that if the science points to a 100% proof that she will die without a doubt. The other couple could deny the marital privileges to each other in such a case, it is stupid and absurd to think that at all times one can have marital relations. Divine providence ordains through something called life, when sometimes people have to abstain forceably... For example it happens ALL the time when people have to go out to work and travel, when the other person is in the hospital extremely sick etc... These things happen ALL the time, its called periodic abstinence...

I have yet to see a traditional priest ever argue for NFP as it was formulated by Bowler anti-clericalist tendencies with his Sola Denzingerite approach to all things dogmatic. This whole Pro-NFP and anti-NFP is a bunch of straw man arguments that are done with no real purpose in mind.

I have already argued this point previously in other post, unless you are in China where it will guarantee the death of your child and possibly extermination of you and your entire family. NFP is not licit to use in Western countries any health issues or anything other then that have to be dealt with responsibly by both couples. That means if you can't have marital relations, man up and carry your cross. Everyone in the world has to endure much more difficult crosses like total perpetual abstinence this of course applies to single/religious/priest. Just because their happens to be a certain moral situation where NFP as understood by most people is doable does not mean it will ever apply to you. We are talking real grievous reasons, that were never even conceivable before. Tell me where in the history of the world did you ever have state sponsored murder in such a massive scale as in China's One child policy? I will tell you, no such thing EVER. You can comparably go back to history and see the Hinduh caste system as a reference point of the first Eugenics program that was applied at such a massive scale. However, I am talking about not just death, imprisonment, guaranteed death to the child if you have more children. This will especially apply in the cities in China, and not equally apply to in the more Urban areas where there are some Chinese that have more then one child. I have personally spoken to two such families where they have 3 children and another one has 4 children, this is of course the minority. In some areas they are really draconian about this policy, but some other areas its not the same. In the Muslim part of China, when the NFP One Child government people go into the city to check "birth rates" they take him back on a body bag all the time. So in such a place it is safe, but all of these "first world" problems that people imagine up in their heads of "what hardship" is really like are a bunch of cowards and have no idea what real suffering is like. This is the ego-centric maniac individualistic narcissistic society we live in, ohhh poor me, poor me, poor me. Go out and meet some real people...

Many people think its permissible... They have never once been shown the contrary and to those folks their guilt is less, but this never eliminates the sin. However, I don't know if they truly have never thought about this issue before and I can't presume to know that. So if someone is practicing NFP, give them the benefit of the doubt, teach them the proper Church teaching. If they refuse to listen, you did your job. End of story. Its them going to hell, not you.

I don't know how much more clearly I could have said things... NFP is foreign to Catholicism, but certain historical major circuмstances could permit in a very limited circuмstance the practice, but it is NEVER because of health issues or economic hardship (alone). We are not talking economic hardship of raising a child, we are talking about imprisonment, fines, death... Yeah real serious problems here, none of the "I can't handle this anymore." St. Paul said that a woman shall be saved through child bearing, the same goes for the husband who has to love that woman and cherish her. We need real men in our society and more mother's that actually know what sacrifice means. This is the path to salvation, the narrow road as scripture says.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn

Natural Family Planning and the Christian Moral Code

I've not read this but it was written by Mrs. Jeanine Dvorak, the mother of fourteen and from what I gather, she puts together a very strong case against NFP.

Happily, I know little about this subject, but from reading some of what has been written here lately, one thing I can say that seems to have been completely thrown out the window by pro NFPers is, when and where does Divine Providence fit into all of this?

Pius XII, Pope, by Divine Providence.

That is probably the most terrible answer I've seen in all the replies so far. Congratulations. It bespeaks of your insincerity in the matter.  

In other words, you do not care if God wants to send you children, you will devote time and effort studying charts and cycles so and do what you can to satisfy your own wants as you see fit.

May as well be honest about the whole thing.

I just started reading the above link - - -you need to read it, you really do.

The reason you don't like the answer is because you missed the point.  God allowed Pope Pius XII to be Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth.  

God allowed Pope Pius XII, using his authority as Pope to teach the universal Church on this moral matter, therefore to bind every Catholic to believe it under pain of mortal sin.

Using your reasoning, the Pill is ok because God provided the guy who invented it with the knowledge to do so.

You reject that the Divine Providence is how Children are created - ask any childless couple trying to have kids and they will tell you this. They know that it's up to God.
The parents are supposed to plan to have as many children as God sends them, He, after all, is the creator, the Giver of Life, not the parents fyi.

The intention can be evil even if the act by itself isn't evil when used aright. Thus the intention can make an act which is not evil to become evil when it is perverted and used evilly.

All that says is that not all evil acts are intrinsically evil. Nobody is disagreeing with that point.

You monks are the ones who have rejected the teaching of the Church and that of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII. You favor your own opinions over that of Catholic authority. You are liberal Catholics which isn't surprising given the cesspool you grew up in and your lack of any real education.