What is the position of CMRI and SSPX and SSPV on NFP? Where do they officially approve this? The Sources?

I believe all three of these groups believe what Pius XII taught in his address to the Italian midwives.

All Catholics must believe Pope Pius XII's teaching under pain of serious sin.

Well, an allocution to midwives probably has questionable authority behind it (i.e. was it ex cathedra?).

NFP as such (along the lines of what parentsfortruth wrote), as "Family Planning" is an abomination.  Notice the euphemism of "Family Planning" as opposed to "Birth Control".  If it's "Artificial" then it's "Birth Control"; if "Natural" then it's euphemistically referred to as "Family Planning".

I would say that when used generally to control, space, plan pregnancies, etc. the two should be referred to as "Artificial Birth Control" and "Natural Birth Control".  In most cases, they're formally the same thing, the difference being that natural abstinence is not intrinsically evil but receives its moral quality from the formal intent.

In most cases, however, if the situation is SO grave that one cannot get pregnant, then just plain abstinence is the right thing to do, since the NFP method is anything but foolproof.  But, as parentsfortruth mentioned, probably 1 in 10,000 practioners of NFP have sufficiently grave reason to do what they're doing.  Most of them are using as a Birth Control alternative.  In fact, the NO pushes it that way, and increasingly so do "Traditional" priests.

I would disagree with Pius XII's allocution to the midwives, just as I disagree with his promotion of Bugnini in various liturgical experimentations (and with some of the Holy Week liturgical changes).  In many ways, Pius XII set the stage for Vatican II I'm afraid ... he greased the skids.

In Casti Conubii, Pius XI taught that the secondary ends of marriage could never subvert the primary ends.  In trying to exclude the primary end while engaging in the secondry end, you're doing exactly that.

So ... absolutely no to NFP.

It was one of the heretical novelties of Vatican II to make the primary and secondary ends of marriage co-equal primary ends.  And, as in many other areas, Pius XII was the precursor to this.

Interesting comments about Puis XII though.  But on this site they can get you  :heretic: as it seems most are under the impression that a valid Pope can do no wrong, nothing imprudent.  Avoid doing things when he shouldn't do things when he should not.  It is possible for a valid Pope to lack prudence, to be cowardly or any number of things.  I am not saying that Puis XII was either imprudent or cowardly but interesting things happened towards the end of his pontificate.  I am prepared for  :heretic: over that comment and will take it like a good Catholic.  Saint Paul rebuked Peter you know and I'm pretty sure he was a valid Pope.  But some people don't want to get the point.  

You mentioned one in 10,000 do not use NFP for the proper reasons but that is an admittal [perhaps unintentional] that there is a proper reason for it.  

If you are really serious about getting to the bottom of the NFP issue check out the following:

http://christorchaos.com/Forty-ThreeYearsAfterHumanaeVitae.html

He talks about how imprimatered books in the 20th are not 100% error free and if that is the only place you go to get your theology you can be on shaky ground.  There was an agenda within the Church to undermine the authentic teaching of the Church on marriage before the 1960's, but Pius XII allocution to the midwives was not part of that erroneous teaching.  Does that mean NFP is okay?  Ever?  For any reason?  Read the link above and below:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/natural.htm


 

Here is an introduction to Tom's article, He also mentions the term "NFP" was never used in the Catholic Church but only in the conciliar Church which is in fact different than the Catholic Church [For the record I believe Pius XII was good willed and courageous but I won't lump him in those who could be considered the best Popes of all time.  So much we don't know that would both put him in a negative or positive light.  I'm not sure if a Pontiff ever had more negative stuff going on beneath him, enemies within than Pius XII:

http://christorchaos.com/Forty-ThreeYearsAfterHumanaeVitae.html

Today, on which we observe the Feast of Saint James the Greater, a son of Zebedee and Salome, who was present at the foot of the Holy Cross with her other son, Saint John the Evangelist, is the forty-third anniversary of the issuance of Humanae Vitae by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI.

Far from being an "orthodox" statement of the Catholic Faith, Humanae Vitae was a revolutionary docuмent that inverted the ends of marriage, begetting, if you will, the cottage industry that is known today as "natural family planning," something that was not taught at any time in the history of the Catholic Church, no, not even by Pope Pius XII in his October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession.

The purpose of this study, which has taken up a considerable amount of time in the last few weeks and has been vetted rather extensively by numerous individuals, including several priests, has several parts:

First, to demonstrate that the mindset of "family planning" is alien to the Catholic Faith.

Second, to study the meaning of Pope Pius XII's 1951 address from a review of the pertinent passages therein and from a consideration of how that was considered by some of commentaries made about it in the 1950s, focusing on two in particular.

Third, an examination of the revolutionary nature of Humanae Vitae and its reliance upon the personalist philosophy of Dietrich von Hildebrand and Father Herbert Doms, explaining how that philosophy had been condemned by the Holy Office in 1944, a condemnation that was reiterated by Pope Pius XII in his Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession.

Fourth, an exploration of how the adversary used Humanae Vitae to propagate a belief in "family planning" while at the same time rallying "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics around the "pope" as he was attacked by "dissenters" who had been waiting for him to endorse contraception.

Fifth, a discussion of how it is not "impossible" for couples to observe complete marital abstinence, drawing from the very words of Pope Pius XII's 1951 address, in certain situations where this might be necessary or advisable.

What is outside of the scope of this study, which has gone through many revisions as it has undergone the vetting process, is any discussion of the issue of moral culpability on the part of those who have advised on this matter that they can licitly practice what is called "natural family planning." Although I completed all of the seminary coursework in moral theology necessary for priestly ordination, I am neither a pastor of souls or a moral theologian. Father Gerard Rusak of the Society of Saint Pius X has written what I believe to be a fine explication of the moral fault involved in the use of the rhythm method without the presence of the grave conditions outlined by Pope Pius XII in 1951 (see Natural Family Planning) that I found online Saturday evening. It is simply not the purpose of my study to delve into the matter as Catholics must rely upon their shepherds to guide them.

The purpose of this study can be summarized as follows: to explain that the term "natural family planning" has no relationship to anything that has ever been taught by the Catholic Church at any point in her history.

We can become so used to the proliferation of certain terms, my good and very few readers, that it is very easy to unthinkingly use the adversary's language in an effort to describe the teaching of the Catholic Church. We must avoid doing so. Precision of language is vital. We must not make the tragic mistake of adding the word "natural" to the words "family planning" as this cedes the linguistic "high ground" to the whole concept of the "family planning" movement that began in earnest in 1915 with the establishment of the National Birth Control League by Mary Coffin Ware Dennett and, of course, in 1917 under Margaret Sanger and her Birth Control Review, which became the foundation in 1921 of the American Birth Control League, the forerunner of what is known today as Planned Parenthood. Much confusion and unnecessary conflict can be generated by a imprecision of language.

One of those who reviewed this study is the Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, Mrs. Randy Engel, one of the greatest and most diligent researchers of our time. Mrs. Engel was kind enough to offer the following comments for publication on this site:

    Having spent the last six months working on a similar article on the ill-fated Vatican Birth Control Commission of 1963-1966, I was very happy to see this well-docuмented report on how the very concept of so-called “natural family planning,” much less its practice, is alien to traditional Catholicism.  

    In any war, words are weapons. By institutionalizing the term “NFP” the post-Conciliar Church has shot itself in the foot… actually both feet. “Family planning” is an anti-life term which means that a woman has the power to decide how many children a woman shall have and when she shall have them …. Never mind that God is the Lord and Giver of Life. Its incorporation in the term “natural family planning” has been huge propaganda plus for the enemies of God.  

    Nature does indeed have a plan for human procreation but it is of a different species than “NFP.” Nature favors youth in the matter of childbearing. The Church has, in the past, encouraged young large families using breastfeeding as a natural spacer. The first order of business of a married couple is to establish one’s fertility, not to practice family limitation or postpone having a child. This is absolutely necessary given the increase in sterility of married couples. Cana and pre-Cana classes need to stress these points …. Not promote “NFP” as a “way of life.”  

    Dr. Tom Droleskey has done a positive service for the Church with this scholarly work. Randy Engel, Director, U.S. Coalition for Life.

     

I thank Mrs. Engel for her comments, expressing my gratitude to her for all of the wonderful work she has done in behalf of Catholic truth on matters of family life and education. I look forward to the publication of her own commentary.

Another reviewer who has offered comments for publication is the pastor of Saint Jude Shrine in Stafford, Texas, Father Louis Campbell, who was ordained as a member of the Order of Saint Augustine in Nova Scotia, Canada, on September 3, 1961 before leaving in the 1990s to teach at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, first in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania, and then in Denton, Nebraska, consequently becoming convinced that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. He has been in Texas for the past ten years, and we have always enjoyed assisting at his offerings of Holy Mass. Here are Father Campbell's remarks:

    You have done us all a great service in demonstrating very clearly that we must return to the sound teachings of Pope Pius XII concerning the true ends of marriage. The deception and confusion caused by the Margaret Sangers and the false teachers of the ‘Vatican II’ Revolution have taken their toll, even among those who claim to hold to the Church’s traditional teachings. We have yet to see the full consequences of their evil plotting.

     

    The countries of Europe have sealed their doom because of the virtually universal use of contraception and ‘family planning’ in the European countries. I have read that their birthrates have declined beyond the point of no return, so that they will be unable to sustain their languages and cultures, and such vestiges of Christianity that still remain. Strangers speaking different languages, and of a culture and religion foreign to Europe are already invading, and there will be a violent struggle. Unless God sees fit to intervene European civilization is about to fall. The Vatican and many beloved Christian churches and shrines of Europe will be destroyed.

     

    Unfortunately, we must say the same for the United States and Canada. They will not be able to remain as they are. There will be invasions, violence and bƖσσdshɛd, and our beloved countries will never be the same again. May God protect us!

     

    I have to admit that I have not totally escaped the general confusion that still affects the whole Novus Ordo scene. I was a part of it, so I took for granted much of its erroneous thinking and teaching. But, thanks be to God, I returned to the Traditional Latin Mass, or at least a facsimile of in the Fraternity of St. Peter for five years, until ten years ago I was invited down to St. Jude’s Shrine. And I have come back to the more traditional teachings of the true Church concerning marriage. When I prepare young couples for marriage I do teach them that God decides how few or how many children they will have, as well as whatever else is necessary for their marriage.

     

Father Campbell, whose weekly sermons are gems of the Faith, had the humility to recognize that he had been drawn into the erroneous thinking and teaching of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. We must pray for that same humility to admit whenever we have permeated the slogans of the day to convince us to attach an anti-family life slogan such as "natural family planning" to the teaching of the Catholic Church. As one who used this term for a long term without seeing the dangers inherent in it (or the method itself--out of "loyalty" to Paul VI, you understand), I am grateful for the prayers and instructions of others who corrected my own quite erroneous ways.

 

This study is only that, a study. Nothing else It is subject to whatever criticism or comment that readers desire to offer. I will not, however, have time to respond to much in the way of correspondence. I will, though, write a follow-up article on whatever reaction is generated (do you think there will be any?) when a sufficient amount of time has passed (and when I have recovered from the writing of this piece!).

 

Although I stated in the text of the current article that there would be a follow-up article on the Modernist trends at work in the Catholic Church in the United States of America prior to the "Second" Vatican Council by tomorrow, Tuesday, the Feast of Saint Anne, I am exhausted. I am going to take a few days off, if you don't mind.

 

Let us pray an extra Rosary today, the Feast of Saint James the Greater, for Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal, remembering also the needs and intentions of our fellow Catholics no matter they are to be found in the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide as we seek by our Rosaries and sacrifices and voluntary penances to build up the Mystical Body of Christ on earth, the Church Militant, pledging our hearts as always to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Here is a quote from Tom's article:

However, it is a total misreading of Pope Pius XII's October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession to assert that he endorsed what is called today "natural family planning."

He did not.

Our last true Holy Father listed a series of specific conditions in which it was permissible, although never mandatory, for married couples to limit the use of the gift proper to the married state to a woman's monthly periods of infertility. He did not endorse the indiscriminate use of the rhythm method, less yet "mandated" its teaching. He himself referred to those conditions in a later address, given just weeks before his death on October 9, 1958, as "exceptional." Something that is exceptional can never be considered the norm.

We tend to come up with excuses today and not trust in the providence of God.  We are not obliged to save up for college, we are merely obligated to educate our children properly and sufficiently and provide food, clothes and shelter for them.  

So much we pay for that we don't need, such as cable, extra cars, vacations, special cloths, visits to the beauty shop, expensive restaurants.  We don't need all that.  God provides for our necessities.  If we lack financial, physical or spiritual capabilities and know this before getting married we should realize we are not called to marriage.

Have children as God gives them to you is the Catholic way.  Detach yourself from materiel goods and allurements.  You do not have to be a millionaire to have children as God gives them to you, just frugal, resourceful and prayerful.

All Catholics must believe Pope Pius XII's teaching under pain of serious sin.

I know that some people like the Dimond brothers think Pope Pius XII's teaching contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius XI. In that case, if they listen to you they are rejecting Pope Pius XI's teaching.