Do many couples literally not have relations after the mother is 35 if they "decide" to not have children? What a miserable marriage in my opinion, but that's just me. Something seems off about that.

 
What’s odd, is that many couples DO have relations after 35, but cease to have children.

While not having relations with one’s wife just to avoid more children sounds miserable, what is more miserable is the idea that, after already have brought children into this life and experiencing all of the joys of parenthood, a couple would decide that they don’t want to relive those joys but instead would use NFP to prevent more children. In a way, to me, it sounds like that couple may have some regrets about having their LIVING children.

Ever since I began this thread, I’ve become more certain that NFP is from the demonic and that anyone who uses it to avoid pregnancy is without a doubt acting against their conscious and very likely committing a grave sin. 

The intention behind avoidance NFP and onanism are the same. You are abusing each others bodies for pleasure and that’s the end of it. The issue with NFP does not primarily have to do with the “natural powers” argument which disingenuous Novus Ordites bring up, but instead with the “purpose” of the marital act being turned on its head.

I had a (former) N.O. friend at whos bachelor party had a trivia game in which the question was:

"How many children will x and y have"

One of the answers was: 3, with the excitement of being able to use NFP to space our children. 

Not too long after that party, him and I stopped talking completely. This is a huge black and white issue for me, and those who go against God's will in this subject are not someone I will voluntarily associate with.

Wow, we have a high number of lay popes in this thread. It would appear many people feel strongly about this issue, for various personal reasons. I clicked on Yeti's link -- the only contribution from an actual priest in this thread -- to see what he had to say about the issue. He made many good points, and I found his arguments convincing. And I'm not normally a fan of Fr. Cekada.

Note the bolded part in Fr. Cekada's introduction. That part is absolutely true. Moral theology IS very complex and that is why we mock "armchair theologians" and "lay popes" who attempt to pontificate with less than a Cracker-Jack-box degree in Moral Theology. They push something as dogmatic, when it's mere opinion, like "Which is better, Pepsi or Coke?" and about as worthless. EVERYONE has their own opinion. And unless you have a theology degree, these private, laymans' opinions are EQUALLY VALID.

My advice stands: ask your TRADITIONALLY-TRAINED, valid Traditional Catholic priest (privately) about this issue, if this question affects or interests you.

Following random armchair theologians on CathInfo, your chapel, or anyplace else is worse than simply following what you FEEL is right. At least in the latter case, you could say you were following your conscience or something.


Natural Family Planning: On Recent Condemnations of NFP
Rev. Anthony Cekada
NOTE: In Fall, 1998 the “Voice Crying in the Wilderness” newsletter, a widely-circulated traditionalist periodical, published an article condemning Natural Family Planning (NFP).The following is a letter to the Editor, written by Father Anthony Cekada. In addition to offering the traditional Latin Mass in Cincinnati and Columbus, Father Cekada is professor of canon law and pastoral theology at Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Warren, Michigan.
To the Editor:
This afternoon I spoke with a parishioner who was very upset over your article on Natural Family Planning (NFP).
            I had to assure her (as I will probably have to assure others) that your comments were —and there is no diplomatic way to put this — presumptuous, ignorant and dangerous.
            First, you have no business even offering an opinion on the morality of NFP, still less condemning it as sinful in a publication that you send out to tens of thousands of people.
            One may indeed (as you do in other articles) catalogue, dissect and condemn the Modernists’ doctrinal errors, since so many of them are obvious and have already been condemned. But the morality of NFP is an issue for moral theology — the branch of theology which analyzes right and wrong, virtue and sin.
            The subject matter of moral theology is vast and enormously complex, covering all the general principles of morality and all their particular applications. In the seminary moral theology is one of the major courses. It requires three or four years’ worth of classes conducted several times a week to cover all the material.
          Despite the length of this course, it can  only impart to the priest-to-be the mere “basics” for the confessional and counselling. Priests who wrote on moral issues before Vatican II — and it was only priests who were permitted to become moral theologians — always had advanced degrees. Their books were carefully checked by their religious superiors and diocesan censors.
            If moral theologians did any speculative writing, it never appeared in popular publications such as yours.
            You have no training in, and no experience dealing with, a complex moral question like NFP. We traditional Catholic priests have studied moral theology and we apply it in the confessional and in counselling. Leave such matters to us — and leave our people alone.
            Second, although moral theology manuals emphasize that NFP is not a topic one should discuss in sermons or mass-circulation publications, The Angelus, The Remnant, and your own publication have spread some dangerous errors on the issue, and it is necessary that someone correct them, lest Catholics wrongly conclude they are committing mortal sin.
The moral aspect of NFP and periodic continence may be summed up as follows:

1.      General Principles.

• Spouses are free to choose whatever time they want to exercise their marriage right or abstain from exercising their marriage right by mutual consent.
• Conversely, they are not obliged to exercise their right during fertile periods, or abstain during sterile periods.
• Deliberately to limit marital relations to sterile periods to avoid conception is morally lawful in actual practice, provided the requisite conditions are met.
• Family limitation without good and sufficient reason involves a degree of moral fault.
• Periodic continence is morally permissible because it fulfills the other ends of marriage (mutual love and fidelity, alleviation of concupiscence) and because it does not physically hinder the natural processes of conception.

2.      Requisite Conditions.

• Mutual consent or willingness of the spouses.
• Ability properly to observe periodic continence without danger of sin.
• Sufficient justification or cause, just and grave, either medical, eugenic, economic, or social, which justifications are outlined by various theologians.

3.      Gravity of the Various Obligations.

• The issues involved with NFP were not fully discussed by pre-Vatican II theologians.
• The gravity of an obligation (if any) to exercise the marriage right during fertile periods was not clearly established.
• Neither was the gravity of the unjustifiable use of periodic abstinence.

Do not presume that the defection of the post-Vatican II hierarchy gives you the right to settle all this, and then tell Catholic couples they are committing sin. Your article was ill-advised and very harmful. I suggest you issue a retraction and an apology to your readers.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Casti Connubii is part of the Magisterium. The Magisterium teaches Catholics directly, therefore, we do not need to consult theologians who two years later all apostatized with V2.

As I said already, there is no circuмstance in which the primary ends of marriage can be subordinated to the secondary, which NFP necessarily does. If you must not have a baby you must abstain and can't risk getting pregnant in spite of your unnatural birth control scheme (NFP).

Pope Pius XII taught that natural family planning is permissible under certain conditions. This teaching was addressed to midwives initially, but was later placed in the AAS, by which it was addressed to the universal Church. All Catholics must assent to papal teaching on faith or morals when it is addressed to the universal Church.

But Pope Pius XII was not the first pope to teach this. It was addressed by the Holy Office as far  back as the mid-19th century.

Fr. Cekada also refuted this absurd idea that NFP is a form of contraception.

And from the first article I quoted above:


Indeed.

Total hogwash.  Pius XII was clearly speculating in front of a bunch of midwives, and you can see from his language that he was not teaching or imposing any kind of teaching on anyone.  And the Holy Office verdict has been grossly misinterpreted.  We've gone through both of these before.

Cekada is dead wrong, as he his about other things.

We have only one Magisterial teaching on the subject, in Casti Conubii, where Pius XI clearly taught that it would be sinful to subordinate the primary ends of marriage to the secondary, and not a single individual who regurgitates Pius XII's speculation has ever expalined how engaging in marital relations for the secondary ends while deliberately attempting to exclude the primary does not constitute such an inversion of the ends.  If that doesn't invert the ends, then nothing does.

Pius XII did lots of things, like install Bugnini to begin his liturgical experimentations, opened the door to evolution, permitted the first Ecuмenical gatherings, and appointed nearly every single Modernist bishop who later brought us the glories of Vatican II.  Pius XII actively helped usher in the Vatican II era.

Wow, we have a high number of lay popes in this thread. It would appear many people feel strongly about this issue, for various personal reasons. I clicked on Yeti's link -- the only contribution from an actual priest in this thread -- to see what he had to say about the issue. He made many good points, and I found his arguments convincing. And I'm not normally a fan of Fr. Cekada.

Thanks, Mr. Lay Pope denoucing lay popes.

Yes, you're no fan of Father Cekada ... except when he serves your agenda.  Now that you've touted his bogus claims to having some kind of authority, you do know that Father Cekada would hold your R&R position to be objectively heretical and your attendance at una cuм Masses to be objectively grave sin.  But, you, as "lay pope", have decided to ignore those teachings of this individual who's "far more qualified" than you are to discern such things.

Father Cekada refers to "our people".  No, Father Cekada, you have no "people".  No Trad cleric has any authority or jurisdiction over anyone.  Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.

For all Father Cekada touts the "authority" of pre-V2 theologians, these same theologians nearly universally have endorsed the teaching of Vatican II as Catholic and the New Mass as Catholic ... with only a SINGLE exception that I know of (then-Father Guerard des Laurier).  But Cekada claims that the theological consensus is definitive and for all intents and purposes infallible ... while ignoring it.  Of course, these "pre-Vatican II" theologians were authoritative and definitive 2 days before Vatican II and then somehow all defected "en masse" 2 days after, where suddenly all their highly touted degrees and qualifications meant nothing.

It's all utter hypocrisy.  Since Vatican II, we're all "lay popes" ... except of course that no one pretends they have any right or authority to impose their opinions on the consciences of others ... well, except, most notably, people like the SSPV who refuse Sacraments to the faithful based on their own theological opinions.  They're hands down the most notorious for imposing themselves on the consciences of others and using the Sacraments as weapons for this enforcement.

Not to mention the obvious fact that the Trad clergy disagree among themselves on just about every issue, so which Trad cleric suddenly has this authority to act as a "clerical pope" (without a lick of jurisdiction)?

We have only one Magisterial teaching regarding the subject, from Pius XI in Casti Conubii (but, hey, R&R, what does it matter, since it wasn't an infallible docuмent, so you're free to disregard, eh).  I love the temerity of R&R complaining about lay popes when they claim that any papal teaching that doesn't meet the notes of infallibility can be ignored and disregarded.  In any case, Pius XI taught that it's sinful to subordinate the primary ends of marriage to the secondary, and if seeking the secondary ends while deliberately attempting to exclude the primary doesn't constitue such a subordination, then there's no such thing.  Pius XII, on the other hand, was teaching nothing.  He did not address the entire Church but was merely speculating in front of a group of midwives.  You can see in his language that he was merely thinking out loud and was not teaching or imposing anything at all on the Church.

But I love it here when R&R and the dogmatic SVs hold hands and sing kumbaya, when ironically the former hold that anything short of solemn papal teaching can be disregarded and the latter absurdly claiming (overreacting to the former) that a Pope is teaching solemnly every time he passes wind through his lips.  But suddenly you are a "fan of Father Cekada" when the two groups couldn't possibly be more polar opposities in terms of your principles.

So if you're entitled to reject the teaching of an ecuмenical Council backed by nearly all the bishops of the world, and endorsed by the man you claim is the Pope, Mr. Lay Pope, then I'm entitled to question an obvious speculation of a Pope before a group of midwives.  It's shocking to me that the utter absurdity of this contradictions doesn't even leave an impression on your mind.  You guys exist in a bizarre schizophrenic state where in principle it's permitted for Catholics to question any Magisterial teaching that doesn't have all the notes of infallibility, but then it's not permitted to question the opinions of the some theologians who were clearly all infected with Modernism in the years leading up to Vatican II.  That's from the R&R side.  On the Cekadist side, did all these theologians that were practically infallible in their consensus in 1957, suddenly lose this mysterious "charism" in 1962, when they all defected "en masse" from the faith?  ... since the overwhelming consensus of these theologians endorsed and approved of Vatican II?

We keep seeing these two absurd extremes between R&R who minimize the authority of Papal teaching (except when it suits their agenda) and the dogmatic SV overraction where Pius XII's long-winded speculative speech in front of some midwives might as well have been a solemn dogmatic pronouncement or even an Encyclical addressed to the Universal Church.

So, by your standards, every Trad is playing "lay pope".

Advocates of NFP, do you even acknowledge what NFP actually is? The biology and the very practice of it?

It requires purposeful daily actions by the wife including precise temperature charting and monitoring of other personal physical changes that need not be detailed here (hence it was that female nurses and female midwives were the audience for Pope Pius XII).

It requires literacy, numeracy, and the time and inclination for the woman to follow these steps diligently and correctly. Miss or mess up one critical day, and the whole system falls apart for the current cycle. (Easier for mothers who aren't constantly tending to the needs of numerous little ones.) Sounds modernist enough. Not something our grandparents would have done. The only thing "natural" about NFP is that it doesn't entail chemical or barrier methods.

It requires a state of mind and sustained forethought to prioritize these daily tasks. It requires the husband to follow his wife's lead as to when the conjugal act is permissible. "Not tonight, dear, I have an elevated basal temperature." Feminism much?

As to grave reasons, there's utterly life-threatening circuмstances (and there I'd agree with others here who've said that this is a cross that requires complete abstinence), and then there's the mindset of "oh no, then we'd need a bigger house and a minivan."

In contrast, toward the opposite ends of promoting conception when there has been difficulty with infertility, it can be a form of God-given knowledge about the human body that couples can rely on piously and fruitfully, no different from any other truly life-promoting knowledge that the gifts of inquiry and reason allow.

It's the "state of mind" you mentioned that urks me. These so called trad hypocrites "JOKINGLY" laughing about not having kids after 35 because I don't wanna get "fat" (had a sede mom tell me this) while living on a huge estate in a super nice house. But.. ya know they wear dresses and don't watch regular TV so they are faithful trads. Give me a break. There are very few families that I know that have children after 33-35... Now,  they may have 6-7 kids, but then stop just like a secular woman would and say: "See God, I had more kids than average, I can stop now." All this fuss about childbirth with modern medicine making childbirth more safe than it ever was..


I want to also give a disclaimer that I understand how fertility and age work, and that it's more difficult to get pregnant especially after 33 or so.