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

Author Topic: NFP - is it a Defined Doctrine?  (Read 622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mobius

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Reputation: +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
NFP - is it a Defined Doctrine?
« on: September 11, 2013, 01:14:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is there an Obligation on the part of a Catholic to accept NFP as a Catholic Doctrine? In other words, a Catholic that refuses to believe in NFP - is he still a Catholic?


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4622/-480
    • Gender: Male
    NFP - is it a Defined Doctrine?
    « Reply #1 on: September 11, 2013, 06:59:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • NFP is not a doctrine, so of course, one need not "believe in" it to be a Catholic.


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4452
    • Reputation: +5061/-436
    • Gender: Male
    NFP - is it a Defined Doctrine?
    « Reply #2 on: September 11, 2013, 07:46:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is if you belong to the newchurch.  Otherwise, no.
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    NFP - is it a Defined Doctrine?
    « Reply #3 on: September 11, 2013, 05:15:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    NFP is not a doctrine, so of course, one need not "believe in" it to be a Catholic.
    This is correct and calling it a doctrine confuses the issue, which involves the morality of certain actions.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline CathMomof7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1049
    • Reputation: +1271/-13
    • Gender: Female
    NFP - is it a Defined Doctrine?
    « Reply #4 on: September 11, 2013, 08:52:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    There is if you belong to the newchurch.  Otherwise, no.


    They actually do believe it is doctrine and will quote to you from their Catechism about responsible parenthood and periodic abstinence.

    Recently, my husband argued with a few people on Catholic Answers and they declared that NFP was indeed a doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding marriage.

    Is is officially a doctrine?  Of course not.  Must you believe it?  Of course not  


    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1218/-4688
    • Gender: Male
    NFP - is it a Defined Doctrine?
    « Reply #5 on: September 11, 2013, 10:53:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, NFP is not a defined dogma of the Catholic Church. What should be remembered is that we are all still obligated to live chastity according to our state in life. For those who are married that means that all methods of artificial contraception are prohibited. Engaging in marital relations while using one of these methods is a mortal sin and you are prohibited from recieving Holy Communion before going to confession and mentioning that particular sin.

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +0/-6
    • Gender: Male
    NFP - is it a Defined Doctrine?
    « Reply #6 on: September 11, 2013, 11:15:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I can't make much sense of the question either. Anyway, that it is not intrinsically illicit (it may often be sinful in practice), if that was what was meant, is indeed part of Catholic teaching.

    Quote from: Fr. hαɾɾιson
    The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" The Vatican reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation"

    The next time the issue was raised was in 1880, when the Sacred Penitentiary on June 16 of that year issued a more general response (i.e., not directed just to an individual bishop).

    This time the Vatican goes further: not only does it instruct confessors not to "disquiet" or "disturb" married couples who are already practising periodic continence; it even authorizes the confessor to take the initiative in positively suggesting that method, with due caution, to couples who may not yet be aware of it, and who, in his prudent judgment, are otherwise likely to keep on practising the "detestable crime" of onanism. One could not ask for a more obvious and explicit proof that already, more than eighty years before Vatican II, the Holy See saw a great moral difference between NFP (as we now call it) and contraceptive methods (which Catholic moralists then referred to globally as 'onanism' of different types).

    The precise question posed was this: "Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to occur?" The response is: "Spouses using the aforesaid method are not to be disturbed; and a confessor may, with due caution, suggest this proposal to spouses, if his other attempts to lead them away from the detestable crime of onanism have proved fruitless." The editorial notes in Denzinger indicate that this decision was made public the following year (1881) in the respected French journal Nouvelle Revue Théologique, and in Rome itself in 1883 in the Vatican-approved series Analecta Iuris Pontificii.

    Now, this was the doctrine and pastoral practice that all priests well-formed in moral theology learned in seminary from the mid-19th-century onward ...  Approved moral theologians everywhere continued to teach this settled and authentic doctrine about the legitimacy of NFP for just and grave reasons.10

    "Regarding the Exclusive Use of the Infertile Period

    "Qu. Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons.

    "Resp. Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880."

    ...

    Pius XI's successor, Pope Pius XII, confirmed yet again the moral acceptability of NFP, for "grave reasons", in two allocutions of 1951 (on October 29, to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives, and on November 26, to the National Congress of the 'Family Front' and the Association of Large Families).

    10. For instance, Heribert Jone, Moral Theology (1st edition 1929), section 760; J. Montánchez (op. cit., 1946), p. 654; F. De Larraga, O.P., Prontuario de Teología Moral, (Madrid & Buenos Aires, 1950), p. 449-450, citing the 1880 Vatican decision; A. Tanquerey, Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et Pastoralis (Paris, Desclée, 1933), p. 653. The great Fr. Adolphus Tanquerey was the author of some of the most widely used and universally approved theological textbooks of the early 20th century. So it is particularly significant that he, less than three years after the promulgation of CC, could write the following (on the page cited above). After explaining the mortally sinful character of onanism ('withdrawal', condoms, etc.), Tanquerey asserts (with emphasis added here): "Ab onanismo omnino differt praxis copulam solummodo iis temporibus quibus conceptio raro accidit. . . . Talis agendi ratio non est peccaminosa ex S. Paenitentiaria (16 Jun. 1880)". Translation: "Totally different from onanism is the practice of having conjugal relations only at those times when conception rarely occurs. . . . Such a practice is not sinful, according to the Sacred Penitentiary (June 16, 1880)."


    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.