Author Topic: SV View of NFP (Read 14030 times)

EcceAgnusDei · « **on:** July 13, 2010, 10:48:57 PM »

Does anyone know if the SSPV or CMRI have a stance regarding NFP? I assumed they were against it but I recently read something which made me think that they are okay with it. If this is true, it's very disheartening.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2010, 10:53:18 PM »

Quote from: EcceAgnusDei

Does anyone know if the SSPV or CMRI have a stance regarding NFP? I assumed they were against it but I recently read something which made me think that they are okay with it. If this is true, it's very disheartening.

A lot of sedes seem to be strongly pro-NFP, without any reservations.

Certainly they are at SGG

Raoul76 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2010, 11:03:12 PM »

Every priest is pro-NFP. I bet a lot of them are confused by it, but I don't know any who are against it. Most just don't talk about it at all, probably for fear of starting a firestorm. It has become like the discipline that "dare not speak its name." Don't bring it up outside the confessional! On Bellarmine Forums, whenever someone raised the topic, everyone got all skittish and weird, like it was taboo. And in my readings on French websites I have not seen NFP come up even once -- it's like a non-issue.

Yeah, the sedes are the most pro-NFP of anyone. That is partly why last year I became a paranoid home-aloner. I thought that the sedes were the last of the Church and that even there the priests were trying to seduce people into mortal sins against chastity. That was the perfect circle that I thought the devil had drawn, the perfect net.

I'm kind of surprised the SSPV hasn't done away with NFP, since they took the dramatic step of rejecting Pius XII's Holy Week changes, the ones he made with Bugnini. From there it is a short step to also removing NFP. They are implicitly saying his disciplines can't be trusted.

I would not use it, though, and I'm probably not going to be married, so I am willing to just let this slide. I have exhausted myself on this topic. If the Church defines a discipline, it's done. If Pius XII were the Pope, NFP is a discipline. If he were not, it's a fake.

Until we know for sure, we can't expect those who accept Pius XII to teach against it. In a way, SSPV has the worst procedure, since they are cherry-picking what they want to follow when it comes to Pius XII. They are quite SSPX-like in regard to Pius XII! CMRI, though they make a big stink about defending NFP, which is hard to stomach, are actually being more consistent.

I don't blame the sedes for following the man they think is Pope. I just keep some reservations in my heart about Pius XII without any longer feeling the need to KNOW whether he was a Pope or an anti-Pope. I just know that, on the Day of Judgment, I think God will understand why I had reservations about him.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2010, 11:10:41 PM »

Correction: "I just hope that, on the Day of Judgment, God will understand why I had reservations about him [ Pius XII ]."

EcceAgnusDei · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2010, 11:21:55 PM »

I don't know much about Pius XII but it just surprised me that people who are so "traditional" and go through the lengths to leave the conciliar Church are still okay with NFP. To me, it seems very obvious that NFP is evil and goes against God's will. It's just like every other form of contraception out there except it's "natural".

Being a home aloner becomes more appealing (though that's not quite the word I was looking for) every day because there seems to be so much confusion with every "Catholic" church today, it's hard to figure out what's right.

Caminus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2010, 11:32:03 PM »

The abuse of so-called 'NFP' is evil. On the other hand, God dispenses from certain obligations to His positive law regarding many different moral actions, so long as the activity is not intrinsically evil and the will retains its rectitude. For example, if one is too sick to attend Mass, one is dispensed from the obligation of hearing Mass on Sunday. The action is not intrinsically evil and the will which still ultimately desires to fulfill its duty retains its rectitude. God then takes the will as fact. The same regarding this scenario. A wife and husband sincerely believe that greater evil will result from having more children, all else being equal, they can constrain the use of marriage to infertile periods. The act retains its integrity and they do not absolutely reject procreation, since it is an accidental situation outside of their formal intention, thus their will retains rectitude.

This practice is ultimately a concession to weakness in order to avoid greater evils. It is certainly not ideal for several reasons and should normally only be temporary, nevertheless, to claim it is intrinsically evil lacks any serious foundation. It is to confuse what is a lesser good with something positively evil, which is fallacious.

EcceAgnusDei · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2010, 11:49:19 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

The abuse of so-called 'NFP' is evil. On the other hand, God dispenses from certain obligations to His positive law regarding many different moral actions, so long as the activity is not intrinsically evil and the will retains its rectitude. For example, if one is too sick to attend Mass, one is dispensed from the obligation of hearing Mass on Sunday. The action is not intrinsically evil and the will which still ultimately desires to fulfill its duty retains its rectitude. God then takes the will as fact. The same regarding this scenario. A wife and husband sincerely believe that greater evil will result from having more children, all else being equal, they can constrain the use of marriage to infertile periods. The act retains its integrity and they do not absolutely reject procreation, since it is an accidental situation outside of their formal intention, thus their will retains rectitude.

This practice is ultimately a concession to weakness in order to avoid greater evils. It is certainly not ideal for several reasons and should normally only be temporary, nevertheless, to claim it is intrinsically evil lacks any serious foundation. It is to confuse what is a lesser good with something positively evil, which is fallacious.

If they think greater evil will result from more children, isn't the correct thing to do to abstain? NFP just seems like a way to enjoy the pleasure without the consequences.

EcceAgnusDei · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2010, 11:52:18 PM »

Caminus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2010, 12:08:59 AM »

You're right to an extent. It is a much better thing to abstain objectively speaking. But for some weaker men, such a proposition would result in grave evils. The Church has simply stated it is merely morally permissible, not that it is virtuous. If the act retains its integrity (which it does) then the question becomes one of the will. So long as the intention remains to have children absolutely speaking, particular circuмstances do not affect such an intention.

The captain of a ship antecedenty wills to retain the cargo aboard his ship, but consequently during a storm he must throw it overboard in order to save the ship. One could not accuse him of having contradictory wills, rather it is contingent on the circuмstances.

If I am detained by illness from attending Mass and I will to stay home because of it, I would not thereby be refusing to attend Mass absolutely.

It would be unjust for one to accuse the sick man of being more attached to the comforts of his home than the service of God.

Thus, to seek relief from concupiscence within marriage is not evil either.

EcceAgnusDei · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2010, 12:24:37 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

So long as the intention remains to have children absolutely speaking, particular circuмstances do not affect such an intention.

This doesn't make sense.

Someone who uses NFP does so with the intent to avoid conception so how does their intention remain to have children?

Caminus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2010, 12:32:01 AM »

How does the intention remain in one who doesn't go to Mass on Sunday's because they are ill? Or to provide a more relevant example, how does your intention remain of fulfilling your obligation of Sunday Mass while not actually attending Mass at all?

You in fact desire to attend Mass, but the circuмstances don't allow it. You retain your antecedent will, but consequently it is suspended in the concrete. It would be a major inconvenience for you to drive 5 hours to Mass. Who would accuse you of favoring your gas money and time over worshipping God?

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2010, 12:44:51 AM »

As distinctions are made in the Divine knowledge, so also in the Divine will, and one of these latter is of sufficient importance to deserve a passing notice here. This is the distinction between the antecedent and consequent will, and its principal application is to the question of man's salvation. God, according to St. Paul (1 Timothy 2:4),"wills that all men be saved", and this is explained to be an antecedent will; that is to say, abstracting from circuмstances and conditions which may interfere with the fulfilment of God's will (e.g., sin on man's part, natural order in the universe, etc.), He has a sincere wish that all men should attain supernatural salvation, and this will is so far efficacious that He provides and intends the necessary means of salvation for all — sufficient actual graces for those who are capable of cooperating with them and the Sacrament of Baptism for infants. On the other hand, the consequent will takes account of those circuмstances and conditions and has reference to what God wills and executes in consequence of them. It is thus, for example, that He condemns the wicked to punishment after death and excludes unbaptized infants from the beatific vision. ~The Nature and Attributes of God

Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circuмstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circuмstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place. ~ST, I, Q. 19, A. 6, Ad. 1

See also the two articles on the principle of Epikeia.

EcceAgnusDei · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2010, 12:49:13 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

How does the intention remain in one who doesn't go to Mass on Sunday's because they are ill? Or to provide a more relevant example, how does your intention remain of fulfilling your obligation of Sunday Mass while not actually attending Mass at all?

You in fact desire to attend Mass, but the circuмstances don't allow it. You retain your antecedent will, but consequently it is suspended in the concrete. It would be a major inconvenience for you to drive 5 hours to Mass. Who would accuse you of favoring your gas money and time over worshipping God?

I don't think you are drawing a valid comparison between going to Mass and NFP usage. It may be logically correct in theory, but in reality, it isn't a correct comparison.

I'll ask you again, someone who uses NFP does so with the intent to avoid conception so how does their intention remain to have children?

Caminus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 14, 2010, 01:00:30 AM »

It is due to the circuмstance which doesn't change their antecedent will. No man is bound to do violence to himself in order to fulfill his duties. The principle holds regarding any moral action or duty. The question can be reversed, how can you concede this principle as applicable to every other duty, yet refuse to concede that it also applies to the duties of marriage? By what principle or method do you make such an arbitrary distinction? The only way you could posit such is to claim that there is no circuмstance that could ever affect duties of procreation. This is patently false.

You should think about the text provided above as well.

EcceAgnusDei · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2010, 01:05:14 AM »

Again, you are not answering my question.What I am asking you is how can one practice NFP with the intent to avoid getting pregnant but still have the intention remain to have children?

What you are saying is contradictory. A person can't have the intention to avoid a child while still having the intention to have a child.