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 ... 5

Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI  (Read 9253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Crayolcold

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 78
  • Reputation: +60/-11
  • Gender: Male
NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« on: July 19, 2023, 01:16:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    Pray for me

    Offline Crayolcold

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 78
    • Reputation: +60/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #1 on: July 19, 2023, 01:18:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    Pray for me

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 43961
    • Reputation: +25501/-4408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #2 on: July 19, 2023, 01:25:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    • ***
    • Posts: 1032
    • Reputation: +448/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #3 on: July 19, 2023, 03:19:20 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +392/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #4 on: July 19, 2023, 04:02:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • 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

    Offline songbird

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4786
    • Reputation: +1825/-359
    • Gender: Female
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #5 on: July 19, 2023, 05:33:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • the anatomy and physiology is Gods.  the attitude is where it is.  NFP is what the world called it, with their attitudes and behavior where things may go wrong.  NFP is not sinful, it is the people who sin and it is God who made us. What God has made is His design and Thank you. Keep a prayerful life of the attitudes.

    For serious reasons: example:  A mother gives birth prematurely.  Baby can not be breast fed, it would be too much on the baby's energy.  Will end up with bottle and premie nipple.  Because the mother has no baby at the breast, the brain will know this and the fertility will return, soon.  therefore this would be a serious reason.  How long does a couple decided to incorporate what God has given for signs to resume?  This couple have the desires for more children, but for this time, it would be best to wait, and still give each other their love.
    Logged

    Offline Crayolcold

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 78
    • Reputation: +60/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #6 on: July 19, 2023, 07:36:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on July 19, 2023, 04:02:34 PM
    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.

    It is not that I "feel free to judge Humanae Vitae as wrong" but that I have real concerns with the apparent contradiction; which I admit I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to resolve myself. I do not know that Humane Vitae is wrong, that is why I made this thread. To see how (or if) we can justify the words of a supposedly valid text promulgated by a supposedly validly elected Pope.


    Quote from: Angelus on July 19, 2023, 03:19:20 PM
    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.

    I have not heard this argument before and on paper it seems good; but you are using a single text to justify itself -- that text being a problematic one as we have seen in my original post. What would be more helpful is comparing Humane Vitae to Casti Connubii and showing how the texts do not conflict. I agree somewhat with the first point quoted. There is no positive duty on behalf of a couple to ensure they ARE performing the marital deed ONLY on days in which the wife IS fertile.

    The problem seems to lay in their intention, which is where I have a problem with what you said. You stated: "...[if they] avoided sex on what their common sense told them might be infertile days, then they would not sin." This is an issue. They are intentionally trying not to have a baby. They are subordinating the primary end of the marital act to the secondary ends.

    As to the second paragraph, I do not see how a sin against the natural law can be justified by as long as it is not "permanent" or "regular". If, in fact, the primary end of the marital act is subordinated to any other end, then it is a done deal. From Casti Connubii for reference:

    "For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights 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." - Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii
    Logged
    Pray for me

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1032
    • Reputation: +448/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #7 on: July 19, 2023, 08:06:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Crayolcold on July 19, 2023, 07:36:21 PM
    It is not that I "feel free to judge Humanae Vitae as wrong" but that I have real concerns with the apparent contradiction; which I admit I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to resolve myself. I do not know that Humane Vitae is wrong, that is why I made this thread. To see how (or if) we can justify the words of a supposedly valid text promulgated by a supposedly validly elected Pope.


    I have not heard this argument before and on paper it seems good; but you are using a single text to justify itself -- that text being a problematic one as we have seen in my original post. What would be more helpful is comparing Humane Vitae to Casti Connubii and showing how the texts do not conflict. I agree somewhat with the first point quoted. There is no positive duty on behalf of a couple to ensure they ARE performing the marital deed ONLY on days in which the wife IS fertile.

    The problem seems to lay in their intention, which is where I have a problem with what you said. You stated: "...[if they] avoided sex on what their common sense told them might be infertile days, then they would not sin." This is an issue. They are intentionally trying not to have a baby. They are subordinating the primary end of the marital act to the secondary ends.

    As to the second paragraph, I do not see how a sin against the natural law can be justified by as long as it is not "permanent" or "regular". If, in fact, the primary end of the marital act is subordinated to any other end, then it is a done deal. From Casti Connubii for reference:

    "For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights 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." - Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii

    There are two main points that need to be separated:

    1. Sin of Deed/Action: Positively "acting" in such a way as to prevent conception is always sinful. That can never be justified, even for, so called, "well-founded reasons." But simply abstaining from the sɛҳuąƖ act is not a positive "action." It is "inaction. So "inaction," by its nature, can never be a sin of "deed" or action. This is related to the "actions" taken to implement the techniques of NFP to avoid conception. Never allowed.

    2. Sin of Thought/Intention:  Assuming that the couple did not resort to positive "actions," one must still consider their "intentions" driving their desire to abstain from the sɛҳuąƖ act during what might be, by common sense, a fertile period. If their "intention" is to never have any more children, then that "intention," to avoid sex during a fertile period, is sinful. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the pleasure of sex without the responsibility of children. However, the Church has consistently said there are exceptions in certain cases, when grave reasons exist, that a couple may, temporarily, resort to the periods of natural infertility.

    For more background on the exceptional cases, look at this:

    https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/OCR_layer_only/The%20%E2%80%9CRhythm%E2%80%9D%20in%20Marriage%20and%20Christian%20Morality,%20N.%20Orville%20Giese,%20S.T.D.,%201944_OCR.pdf
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 43961
    • Reputation: +25501/-4408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #8 on: July 19, 2023, 09:14:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on July 19, 2023, 03:19:20 PM
    NFP, as it is usually taught and practiced today, is not authorized in Humane Vitae.

    Have you read it?  Because HV certainly does endorse NFP as practiced today ... in spades.  Pius XII was more reserved, but Montini was promoting it as Catholic Birth Control.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 43961
    • Reputation: +25501/-4408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #9 on: July 19, 2023, 09:16:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on July 19, 2023, 03:19:20 PM
    "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.

    :facepalm: ... not, that's not what the section means.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 43961
    • Reputation: +25501/-4408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #10 on: July 19, 2023, 09:18:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on July 19, 2023, 08:06:08 PM
    If their "intention" is to never have any more children, then that "intention," to avoid sex during a fertile period, is sinful. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the pleasure of sex without the responsibility of children. 

    No.  Principles hold for each individual exercise of martial rights (marital relations), and not merely if the couple intends NEVER to have any children.  You need to stop promoting your errors.
    Logged

    Online Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3347
    • Reputation: +2399/-215
    • Gender: Female
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #11 on: July 20, 2023, 12:57:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • NFP, if used continuously for “birth control” would be sin against the spirit for which it was intended.  My understanding is that NFP may be practiced only in exceptional circuмstances with permission of a priest.  It certainly should not be included in standard pre-marriage counseling as it is in the novus ordo and in some traditional circles.  (If statistics are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of novus ordo Catholics ignore it and use regular birth control, which in a sense, is more honest!)  If a couple is really in a situation where another baby or pregnancy is not doable or is dangerous, wouldn’t both agreeing to a period of celibacy be the better choice?  Yes, each has conjugal rights, but sacrificing those rights for a time or even permanently may be what God calls for.  

    Logged

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +392/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #12 on: July 20, 2023, 04:36:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Seraphina on July 20, 2023, 12:57:21 AM
    NFP, if used continuously for “birth control” would be sin against the spirit for which it was intended.  My understanding is that NFP may be practiced only in exceptional circuмstances with permission of a priest.  It certainly should not be included in standard pre-marriage counseling as it is in the novus ordo and in some traditional circles.  (If statistics are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of novus ordo Catholics ignore it and use regular birth control, which in a sense, is more honest!)  If a couple is really in a situation where another baby or pregnancy is not doable or is dangerous, wouldn’t both agreeing to a period of celibacy be the better choice?  Yes, each has conjugal rights, but sacrificing those rights for a time or even permanently may be what God calls for. 
    There is no circuмstance in which the primary ends can be subordinated to the secondary. If you must not have a baby you must abstain and can't risk getting pregnant in spite of NFP. 
    Logged

    Offline Crayolcold

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 78
    • Reputation: +60/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #13 on: July 20, 2023, 08:22:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Seraphina on July 20, 2023, 12:57:21 AM
    NFP, if used continuously for “birth control” would be sin against the spirit for which it was intended.  My understanding is that NFP may be practiced only in exceptional circuмstances with permission of a priest.  It certainly should not be included in standard pre-marriage counseling as it is in the novus ordo and in some traditional circles.  (If statistics are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of novus ordo Catholics ignore it and use regular birth control, which in a sense, is more honest!)  If a couple is really in a situation where another baby or pregnancy is not doable or is dangerous, wouldn’t both agreeing to a period of celibacy be the better choice?  Yes, each has conjugal rights, but sacrificing those rights for a time or even permanently may be what God calls for. 

    This is something I see a lot when I ask questions and begin arguments on theological or doctrinal issues. People will simply state position of the opposing side and use that as an argument without stating WHY their position is correct.

    I am not lumping you in there Seraphina, just a small pet peeve of mine :laugh1:

    I would also like someone to explain to me how "temporary" or "non-regular" use of NFP would make it okay; seeing as everyone admits that it would be a sin to use it as a permanent form of contraception. How would the irregularity of its use to prevent children make it okay? A sɛҳuąƖ sin like this would be a sin against the natural law, if you err against a sɛҳuąƖ sin like this a single time you would be committing a grave sin. Repeated sins of this nature would just be compounding. We would never say of self-abuse that "if you do it every now and then to rid yourself of a serious headache, it's fine! The problem lies in the addiction and repeated abuse of the grave action..." It may seem like a silly comparison at first, but I think it holds. What are you doing with NFP? Pleasuring yourself with the intention of no pesky side effects -- like bringing one of God's children into the world. 
    Logged
    Pray for me

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 43961
    • Reputation: +25501/-4408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
    « Reply #14 on: July 20, 2023, 08:29:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on July 20, 2023, 04:36:44 AM
    There is no circuмstance in which the primary ends can be subordinated to the secondary. If you must not have a baby you must abstain and can't risk getting pregnant in spite of NFP.

    Yeah, this right here.  If you do have some grave circuмstances in play, then abstinence is required.  People seem to hold as some un-stated premise that everyone has some God-given right to marital relations.  If your spouse becomes ill or incapacitated, perhaps in a coma, or just comes down with a serious illness, then you're required to abstain.  Similarly, if the situation is grave enough to warrant NFP, then I should think one would need to completely abstain to prevent even the chance of conception.  I've heard the claim often enough that the wife's life is at risk if she has another child (typically made by idiot doctors who also agitate for couples to get abortions).  But if the wife's life is TRULY in danger, could you even morally take the risk that your NFP might "fail"?  It's constantly a case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
    « previous next »