Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14

Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI  (Read 11459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Crayolcold

NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« on: July 19, 2023, 01:16:54 PM »
When I was catechizing myself as a 19 year old Catholic revert, a hypothetical circuмstance came to me: can a man and his wife have marital relations when there is no chance of having a child? So this circuмstance would have included elderly couples past child bearing age. Originally, my own reason had me deny that they would be able to. Now of course I understand my original theory to be false, but that strain of thought led me into another question which is the question of NFP.

My bias in reason as a catechumen — at a time when my faith was extreme and immensely vivid and fervent — led me to immediately detest the concept of a married couple having marital relations outside of the primary end of having and raising a child. But then I heard of NFP and wondered again if my original ideas were in fact incorrect according to the Church’s teaching.

It has been 2 years and I am still firm in my belief that any form of NFP is effectively contraception. You are subordinating the primary end of marriage (having and raising children) to a secondary end (relieving your concupiscible appetite). This is condemned in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii.

Then we get to the Vatican II years, where in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI addresses the topic of NFP and lauds it as a good and a Catholic form of — let’s call it what it is — contraception.

I am not a sedevecantist, but this point is troubling to me: how can a Pope affirm something as Catholic which has been previously condemned by another Pope? That it impossible. What would be the best way of traversing this seeming contradiction (which we know the Church can never admit)? If it is in fact a contradiction — which is what it seems to be — how could Paul VI have been a Pope?

I am hesitant to toy with these ideas since I do want to give off the appearance that I am presuming take it upon myself to condemn the Pope as an Antipope. I simply don’t know one way or the other but do not have the authority to say they are not the Pope and I believe the position of Archbishop Lefebvre was the same.  But I think this is a necessary conversation to had. To sedevacantists this would seem to be tangible proof confirming their position.

So, 1) how can we explain this seeming contradiction between the Popes Pius XI and Paul VI and 2) how should Pastors approach this topic from the pulpit. Since right now, many many traditional Catholics are practicing NFP, and likely, leaving unconfessed grave sins; and priests are not talking about it and the laity seem apathetic or ignorant of the issue.
Logged

Offline Crayolcold

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2023, 01:18:37 PM »
I posted this with the working title which I now wish I could change to something more neutral and in the format of a question. But… too late!:fryingpan:
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2023, 01:25:30 PM »
I've never seen a convincing argument about how NFP does not invert the ends of marriage.  Pius XII subtly opened the door on this conversation, but Vatican II opened the floodgates with attempting to define the primary and secondary ends of marriage as co-primary ends.  That is what can be used to justify any manner of non-married carnal relations, from fornication to sodomy.

In any case, if engaging in martial relations with a view to the secondary ends, while deliberately intending to exclude the primary ends, well, if that isn't an inversion of the two ends that was condemned by Pius XI, I'm not sure I understand what would be.  Someone needs to please give me an example of this.  Now, there are those who reject that begetting children is an end at all, but that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about those who still acknowledge that begetting children is AN end of marriage.  So, someone needs to provide an example of inverting the two ends (rather than merely eliminating the one entirely).
Logged

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2023, 03:19:20 PM »
NFP, as it is usually taught and practiced today, is not authorized in Humane Vitae. NFP is a bundle of scientifically-based techniques/technologies that help identify, through certain "actions," the wife's fertile time. The "actions" required by those NFP techniques and technologies are, by their nature, "artificial." On this point, Humanae Vitae says,

"Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sɛҳuąƖ intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." (Section 14)

So, if the couple is taking any "action," such as using thermometers and comparing the readings of the thermometers to a scientifically-determined fertility table, and the couple takes such actions with the specific intention to prevent procreation, then the couple has violated the law of the Church, according to Humanae Vitae.

On the contrary, if the couple simply "winged-it," not taking any preparatory, preventative actions before having sex, but just avoided sex on what their common sense told them might be infertile days, then they would not sin, in "deed," because their "inaction" is not an "action," and so, would not be covered under the restriction quoted above.

But Humanae Vitae (Section 16) also teaches that any desire ("thought") to have sex while at the same time wishing to avoid pregnancy requires that the couple have this desire for "well-grounded" reasons, and that their desire to avoid a pregnancy in that particular sɛҳuąƖ act is not a permanent desire, but rather only a temporary desire to "space births" because of some serious physical or psychological reason which is expected to pass.

So, in a roundabout and somewhat vague way, Humanae Vitae does uphold the traditional teaching.

Finally, to be fair, the techniques taught by the NFP books could, theoretically, be used to help determine the fertile window and be used by the couple with the intention to increase the chances of procreation (if they were having infertility issues). In that case, using NFP techniques would not be unlawful because the couple using NFP, in that case, do not intend to prevent procreation.

Logged

Offline Marulus Fidelis

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2023, 04:02:34 PM »
Couple of thoughts.

Good job on intuitively seeing NFP is sinful, I know a couple of people who needed no explaining as well.

You feel free to judge Humane Vitae is wrong but not that the person who promulgated it has no authority? Sorry to break it to ya, but you're already implying he's not the pope by rejecting his teaching authority.

Also, if this is the worst thing that's troubling you... You should go watch Vatican II Council of Apostasy on YT to see some real problems for the papal status of Paul VI.


Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
« previous next »