IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)

LIVING TRADITION (ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM) ^ | Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.

[Polycarp IV]

IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'?

by Brian W. Harrison

When we hear the Church's teaching on the transmission of human life coming under attack, the attackers are usually those who want to justify contraceptive practices. They denounce especially the alleged "rigorism" or "obscurantism" of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, who have continued to insist, like all their predecessors in the See of Peter, that it is always gravely sinful for spouses to manipulate, pervert or interfere with the conjugal act in such a way as to impede the possibility of procreation.

However, in recent times there has also been a growing tendency among some traditionalist Catholics to attack the encyclicals of the above Popes from the opposite direction. There are now quite a few magazine articles, booklets, and websites which loudly complain that recent papal teaching on this subject is not too severe or rigoristic, but too lax and permissive. They denounce Paul VI and John Paul II and "the post-conciliar Church" for explicitly permitting and encouraging those procedures now known generically as 'periodic continence' or Natural Family Planning (NFP). As is well known, these expressions refer to the identification and exclusive use of the naturally infertile period of the wife's cycle for having conjugal relations, in circumstances where a married couple has sufficiently serious reasons for wanting to avoid the conception of a new child. Ironically, such traditionalists often join forces with those at the opposite end of the theological spectrum – the liberal 'Catholic' dissenters – in claiming that there is no moral difference between NFP and the use of condoms, pills and other contraceptives. Using the self-same epithet employed by many of their liberal arch-enemies, they refer sarcastically to NFP as "Catholic contraception", claiming that if the Church were logically consistent she would either allow all methods of birth regulation (the liberal proposal) or forbid all methods (the traditionalist proposal).

This 'traditionalist' criticism of NFP exists in various degrees. And I should begin by acknowledging that, in its milder forms – that is to say, when it is directed more against some modern pastoral policies and practices rather than at the Church's authentic doctrine about NFP as such – the criticism seems to me reasonable and just. From what I have seen and read in my years as a priest, I agree with such critics that, among those promoting NFP, there is sometimes a one-sidedness or lack of balance. Married or engaged couples are often taught the legitimacy and the technique of the ovulation or sympto-thermal methods of NFP, but with little or no mention of that other part of the Church's teaching which insists that couples need "just reasons" (Humanae Vitae, 16; Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], #2368) for using NFP if they wish to be free from blame before God. (Indeed, quite frankly, I think we really need now from the Magisterium some less vague and more specific guidelines as to what actually constitutes a "just reason".) Very often, such couples hear nothing at all of the fact that "Sacred Scripture and the Church's teaching see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents'generosity" (CCC no. 2373). Still less frequently are they informed that, according to the Magisterium, merely temporal or worldly considerations are in themselves inadequate criteria for deciding when NFP can be justified: "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny" (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 51, cited in CCC no. 2371). Taking into account the whole spectrum of biblical and Church teaching in this area, I personally think that we need to bring back the word "grave" into the discourse about family planning. That is, we should be teaching that the temporal or worldly problems to be anticipated by another pregnancy and birth (mainly of health or poverty) need to be really grave in character before a married couple is entitled to conclude that they have a "just reason" for them to use NFP. (I said "bring back" above, because, as I shall show in this article, that key adjective, "grave", has in fact been used by the Magisterium in this context, in certain decisions that have been generally forgotten, but by no means repudiated.)

Having said that, we must now go on to point out the serious error of those Catholic "traditionalists" who go much further than simply to rebuke an unduly lax, permissive and one-sided pastoral approach to NFP, and who claim that the practice is, in principle, immoral, and that it also stands condemned by the previous ordinary (or even extraordinary) magisterium of the Church. Never has the use of quotation marks around the word "traditionalist" been more apt than in this case, because, as we shall see, there was never at any stage a Catholic "tradition" – not even a lower-level, 'non-infallible' tradition – against the use of periodic continence. Practically as soon as the first rudimentary methods of estimating the infertile period arose, with the advance of medical science in the mid-19th century, the See of Peter immediately and explicitly gave its blessing to this practice!

Ignorant of this fact, not a few "traditionalists" are now claiming that, from an orthodox Catholic viewpoint, the very notion of "regulating" or "planning" births and family size is an affront to God, and betrays a lack of trust in his loving Providence. They claim that married couples are always morally obliged either to engage in regular conjugal relations without any intention of "planning" their family size (and so leaving that entirely up to God's Providence); or, if they are really convinced there are grave reasons for avoiding another pregnancy, to abstain totally from conjugal relations for as long as that situation lasts, without making any attempt to identify, and make use of, the naturally infertile moments of the wife's cycle.

Perhaps the most outspoken and uncompromising proponent of this pseudo-traditional view is Mr. Richard Ibranyi, a prolific 'sedevacantist' writer whose booklets, bulletins and website articles ceaselessly denounce the "apostate" Church of Vatican II and the "anti-Popes" who lead it. Ibranyi has recently published a 32-page booklet¹ whose conclusions are nothing if not forthright and unambiguous. He declares: "All those who use Natural Family Planning commit mortal sin. There is a natural law upon all men's hearts and the practice of NFP violates the natural law. Pope Pius XI [in the encyclical Casti Connubii] teaches there are no exceptions and no excuses. No exceptions, even if your priest or bishop says it can be used."²

Well, did Pius XI in fact teach this doctrine in his 1930 document? To answer that question, we first need to set Casti Connubii (CC) in its historical context, since that encyclical was by no means the first statement coming out of the Vatican on this subject.

At this point we need to open a little parenthesis in order to clarify what sort of document does in fact constitute a genuine Vatican intervention. This is because some "traditionalists", including Ibranyi, refuse to accept as official, or even as authentic, any Vatican statement which is not published in its official journal, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS). Many readers will be aware that in recent years there has been something of a revival of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney's rigorist interpretation of the dogma "outside the Church, no salvation". And those who have kept abreast of this controversy will probably be aware that one of the main Feeneyite strategies is to deny the official character, and even the authenticity, of the famous 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. Since this Letter, which rejects Fr. Feeney's doctrinal position, was never published in the AAS, his followers claim that it simply doesn't count as an authentic intervention of the Magisterium. (The Fathers of Vatican II obviously thought otherwise, since they cited it along with other magisterial sources in the Council's most solemn document.³) In another of his many publications, Richard Ibranyi, who happens to be a Feeneyite as well as a sedevacantist, refers to this document as "the so-called Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney" and brands it (in large, bold type) as "fraudulent".⁴

The Feeneyite error on this point is evidently based on a misapplication of canon 9 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (paralleled by canon 8 in the 1983 Code), which states (among other things) that "universal ecclesiastical laws" must be promulgated in the AAS in order to be binding. Now, "ecclesiastical laws" are exercises of the Church's governing office. They are above all 'practical' decisions, establishing that something specific is to be done, or not to be done. Such decisions need to be carefully distinguished from those of the Church's Magisterium, or teaching office, which are above all concerned with the 'theoretical' task of clarifying the difference between true and false doctrine. Now, the 1949 Holy Office Letter clearly fell into the latter category. It decreed no penalty for Fr. Feeney or his 'St. Benedict Center', and issued no command to the Archbishop of Boston to take any specific action in this case. It limited itself to distinguishing authoritatively between true and false interpretations of the dogma under discussion. So there was absolutely no requirement for this Letter to be published in the AAS in order to be both genuine and official.

The fact is, as anyone familiar with standard Vatican procedures knows, that ever since the AAS was established by Pope St. Pius X in 1909, there have always been a great many official statements and decisions of the Popes and Vatican Congregations, including doctrinal documents from the Holy Office and Sacred Penitentiary (in moral questions especially relevant to confessors in the Sacrament of Penance), that never get to be published in the aforesaid journal. Often they are first sent privately by Rome to bishops, and perhaps only years afterwards (as in the case of the 1949 Letter) get published in some Catholic journal or other. The fact that such a journal is not itself an official Church publication by no means implies (as Feeneyites often claim) that the Roman document which it publishes is unofficial. Apart from "universal ecclesiastical laws", which do indeed have to be published in the AAS, the inclusion or non-inclusion of other types of papal and Vatican statements in the AAS is a measure, not of their "official" or "non-official" character, but rather, of the degree of public importance which the Holy See attaches to them.⁵

Let us now return to the subject of Natural Family Planning. It was first necessary to clarify the question about the necessity or non-necessity of AAS promulgation, in order to forestall a ready-made 'traditionalist' objection to the argument that follows below. For it so happens that several key magisterial documents approving NFP were never published in the AAS. And since they were never even published in the English-language version of Denzinger (a key source of pre-Vatican II doctrine for laymen such as Mr. Ibranyi, who has publicly admitted his own ignorance of Latin), these decisions have apparently remained unknown to those Catholics who denounce NFP as a recent 'modernist' aberration or heresy. At least, I have never seen any of those decisions cited, or even referred to, in 'traditionalist' attacks on the use of periodic continence.

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"⁶ By the expression "impedes generation", it is obvious the Vatican meant the use of onanism⁷ (or coitus interruptus, now popularly called 'withdrawal'), condoms, etc. For otherwise the reply would be self-contradictory and make no sense.

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."⁸ 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-19^th-century onward. So before Pius XI was elected, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Benedict XV all clearly approved of this status quo established by their own Sacred Penitentiary, and never showed the slightest inclination to reverse its decisions of 1853 and 1880. The future Pius XI himself was not born until 1857, four years after the initial Vatican permission was given for periodic continence. So, like all other obedient and studious priests of his era, Fr. Achille Ratti would have learned and accepted this authentic Vatican-approved teaching which allowed NFP as a means of avoiding offspring. Hence it is seems most unlikely a priori that after being elected Pope he would have had any intention of condemning that practice. It is well known that the main thing prompting him to speak out about contraception at all was the fact that the 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglicans had scandalized all morally upright folks by teaching, for the first time ever in the history of those claiming the name "Christian", that unnatural practices, i.e., 'onanism', could be morally acceptable. Periodic continence simply was not the issue in 1930, and in fact, Pius XI did not choose to address that issue in Casti Connubii.

The clearest proof that Richard Ibranyi's interpretation of CC – namely, that it condemns NFP as just another form of contraception – is incorrect is the fact that Pius XI himself very obviously did not interpret his own encyclical that way. Only a year and a half after it was promulgated, the Sacred Penitentiary yet again issued a statement on periodic continence, dated July 20, 1932. (Quite possibly this was because someone, somewhere, was trying to give an Ibranyi-style rigorist interpretation to CC.) This time the ruling, which simply referred back to the same dicastery's previous and positive response of half a century earlier, was eventually made public in the Roman documentary journal Texta et Documenta, series theologica (vol. 25 [1942], p. 95). The decision reads as follows (my translation):

"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."⁹

Now, it would clearly be preposterous to plead that perhaps Pius XI "never knew" about this 1932 decision, right up to his death seven years later! In all probability he was the first to know about it! Certainly, it was made right under his own nose in the Vatican, and would have been mailed out promptly to the bishops of the world for the benefit of their moral theologians teaching future priests in their seminaries! How could the only Catholic bishop in the world not to know of this 'heretical distortion' (in Ibranyi's view) of his encyclical be the Bishop of Rome himself? Approved moral theologians everywhere continued to teach this settled and authentic doctrine about the legitimacy of NFP for just and grave reasons.¹⁰

If we look at what Pius XI actually says in CC, it is clear why he himself saw no contradiction whatever between his own encyclical and the settled doctrine of the Sacred Penitentiary decisions, both before and after the encyclical, which approved NFP. To begin with, if the Pope had wanted to get through a clear message to theologians and the Church in general that he was reversing the doctrine of his four predecessors, i.e., condemning that NFP which they had all permitted, he would never have used the language that he does in fact use in CC. He would almost certainly have used, for the sake of clarity, the accepted language of the theologians of that time, which was practically universal in speaking of sinful onanismus on the one hand (sub-divided into "strict" or "natural" onanism, meaning 'withdrawal', and "artificial" onanism, meaning condoms, chemical means, vaginal sheaths, or any other such 'appliances'), and on the other hand, continencia periodica or usus exclusivus temporum agenneseos, to refer to what we now call NFP. The Pope would have stated unambiguously that the latter, as well as the former, was now to be judged sinful and unacceptable.

It is interesting to note the difference between what Ibranyi says in order to expound his personal (and un-Catholic) doctrine on this matter, and what Pius XI says to expound the true and Catholic doctrine. Ibranyi's doctrine¹¹ again and again repeats words like "plan" and "goal". It is summed up on p. 7, where he says that the essence of sinful contraception (defined by Ibranyi so as to include NFP as well as 'withdrawal' and condoms, pills, etc.) is "the desire to have marital relations while having deliberately planned to prevent conception". But nowhere does Pius XI stress "plans" or "goals" to avoid having children. He does not teach that such a "desire", or such a "deliberate plan", is essentially sinful. What the Pope brands as sinful is "frustrating the marriage act"¹², that is, "frustrating its natural power and purpose". But when couples carry out conjugal acts on the infertile days exclusively, they are not "frustrating" the "natural power and purpose" of those acts which they perform on those days. For those particular acts do not have any "natural [procreative] power and purpose" to begin with! You cannot "frustrate" a non-existent power or purpose – or a non-existent anything!

The point comes through clearly in the most solemn (and, in my judgment, infallible) passage of the encyclical. After referring to the recent decision of the Anglicans to permit contraception (though without mentioning them by name), Pius XI declares:

The Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and the purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately deprived of its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.¹³

The above is for the most part the standard English translation of this passage. However, I have used the words "deprived of" at the point where that translation uses the words "frustrated in". This makes the Pope's true meaning a little clearer. The Latin verb which he uses here is destituere. And as Latin dictionaries show, this verb, when used with the ablative, as in this case (naturali sua . . . vi), means precisely "to deprive of", "to strip" or "to rob". In such constructions, the accompanying noun in the ablative case is that thing of which the rightful owner has been "deprived", or which has been "stripped" or "robbed" from him. Now, of course, you cannot "deprive" anyone of something he never possessed to begin with. You cannot "rob" a man with no money, any more than you can "strip" him if he is already naked. Likewise, since conjugal acts carried out precisely in the infertile period do not, by the very nature of the case, have any natural procreative potential to begin with, it is obvious that they cannot be "deprived" or "robbed" of that potential.

Hence it is clear that Pius XI's solemn censure cannot be referring to NFP (periodic continence). He must be referring only to those conjugal acts which, if it were not for the unnatural intervention of one or both spouses, would have retained the said "natural power to generate life". In other words, the Pope's condemnation applies exclusively to conjugal acts carried out during what the spouses understand to be the wife's fertile period, but which they deliberately pervert (whether by 'withdrawal', condoms, pills, or any other technique) so as to deprive them of that fertility. They thus dare to raise their hands, as it were, against the approach of the Creator Himself; as if they were traffic policemen with the right to signal orders to the Lord, obliging Him to take a detour: "Stop! Halt! Go back! Not now! No entry allowed here for you!" Couples using NFP, on the other hand, are not guilty of any such presumption. They are respecting God's sovereignty over human life and death, and are simply following their God-given instincts, and using their God-given conjugal right, at those times when the Creator Himself has already made it clear, by the way He has fashioned human female biology, that He has no will to use their spousal love in order to create new life.

 

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). Since then, of course, we have had still further confirmations of the same doctrine from Popes Paul VI (in Humanae Vitae) and John Paul II (in Familiaris Consortio and many other statements). We are looking here at a long and totally unbroken tradition by which the See of Peter has approved the use by spouses of periodic continence in order to avoid conception, when their personal circumstances truly constitute a just cause for that avoidance. That sort of Catholic tradition ought to be enough to satisfy any Catholic traditionalist.

---

Endnotes

1. R.J.M. Ibranyi, Natural Family Planning Is Contraception (Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, 2002). I here refer to Ibranyi as the author of this work, although his title page informs the reader that it is actually "by" the following array of divine and heavenly influences: "The Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, the Grace of the God of the Holy Catholic Church, the Mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Good Counsel & Crusher of Heretics, the Protection of Saint Joseph, Patriarch of the Holy Family [and] the Intercession of Saint Michael the Archangel". Only at the very bottom of this list of supernal (and clearly infallible) authorities does Mr. Ibranyi reveal that the little book was also produced with his own "cooperation". It is good to see that the virtue of modesty is still alive and well out in the town of 'TorC', New Mexico.

2. Ibranyi, op. cit., p. 32.

3. See Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, article 16, footnote 19.

4. R.J.M. Ibranyi, The Salvation Dogma (Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, 2003), p. 63.

5. Thus, all one can reasonably conclude from the non-publication of the 1949 Holy Office letter in the AAS is that the Holy See, and almost certainly Pius XII himself, who was personally at that time the Prefect of the Holy Office, apparently did not think the local storm which had brewed up in Boston around Fr. Feeney was significant enough to bring to the attention of the whole Catholic world in a high-profile way. That does not, of course, imply that the doctrinal question raised in the Feeney controversy was unimportant in itself. But it seems that all the rest of the Catholic world by that time was peacefully holding the less rigorous view of the 'salvation dogma', which had long been taught explicitly by approved theologians and which had also been briefly taught by Pius XII in his 1943 Encyclical Mystici Corporis (see Denzinger-Schonmetzer [DS], #3821). And so Rome, it appears, did not want to create the impression that this was an issue causing serious division, confusion and controversy throughout the whole Catholic world.

6. Quoted in J. Montánchez, Teología Moral [Buenos Aires, 1946], p. 654, present writer's translation.

7. See Genesis 38: 8-10, wherein we read that God slew Onan for the practice of spilling his seed on the ground in order to prevent procreation.

8. "Qu:. An licitus sit usus matrimonii illis tantum diebus, quibus difficilior est conceptio?

"Resp.: Coniuges praedicto modo utentes inquietandos non esse, posseque confessarium sententiam de qua agitur, illis coniugibus, caute tamen, insinuare, quos alia ratione a detestabili onanismi crimine abducere frustra tentaverit" (DS 3148, present writer's translation given above). This decision was published in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 13 (1881), pp. 459-460, and then in Analecta Iuris Pontificii, vol. 22 (1883), p. 249.

9. "De uso exclusivo temporum agenneseos:

"Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?

"Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880."

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)."

11. Ibranyi, 2002, op. cit., pp. 6-7.

12. "vitiando naturae actum" (DS 3716, = Dz 2239).

13. In this standard English translation of the passage (with emphasis added here), I have replaced the words "frustrated in" by "deprived of". The original Latin text of the emphasized words is "quemlibet matrimonii usum in quo exercendo, actus de industria hominum, naturali sua vitae procreandae vi destituatur" (cf. DS 3717 or Dz 2240).

---

Go to: Roman Theological Forum | Living Tradition Index | Previous Issue | Next Issue

[ultima ratio]

One may commit heresy in a matter of morals--but the NFP is a relatively new debate within the Church. It is not so clearly established as the other issues you mention. We are talking about the deposit of faith, after all, which derives from what we've been bequeathed from the apostles. All of which would suggest a certain antiquity of opinion at least.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Wonderful comments. You ask what religion I am; you may be surprised to know that I am a practicing conservative Hindu, not a cradle one, but converted more than 35 years ago.

Where does that put you in the Caste system?

(Not baiting, just curious)

Best, OP

[Smocker]

Exactly.

The continual use of NFP by so many Catholic couples has made what could be viewed as emergency measures to become the Catholic form of Birth Control.

I for one, find it offensive to walk in to so many Church vestibules and find NFP pamphlets glaring at you in the face, as though that was the whole purpose and end of marriage, birth control. As though that is what I want my children to think that Marriage is all about. "Saying NO to God's Blessings."

It prostitutes the marriage act. It's contrary to God's admonishment to us to be fruitful and multiply, and it is contrary to the Holy Popes who encouraged families to have many children.

One more Neo Catholic dogma.

[Arguss]

"Therefore, one may indeed commit heresy by maintaining that NFP is always sinful."

So what you are saying there is that NFP is not always sinful, but is mostly sinful.

Spoken like a true deceiver. At the same time that you are luring people into using NFP, you subtly slip in to the conversation that it is mostly sinful. Let's see, who else does that? Hmmm?

[little jeremiah]

Interesting question. Deserves a more complete answer than your're going to get right now! But a short answer is that the caste system is a degradation of the system described in the Bhagavad Gita, which is society being ordered according to character and qualities, not birth. Originally, there were 4 orders of life (student, householder, retired, and renunciant) and 4 castes or divisions (servant or laborer, farmer and merchant, warrior or administrator, and teacher). Everyone went through the first four, and personal qualities and character placed one in the second.

Then there is the deeper understanding of the self as eternal soul, with the body and its social standing as a temporary vehicle only. Some "cradle Hindus" would accept me as a bona vide Hindu or Vaishnava, some who have more of a superficial or deviated understanding would see me as an outcaste due to my birth in a non-Hindu family. But most I have met were the former, not the latter.

[Arguss]

"Because NFP has been taught as morally licit in grave circumstances by quite a few recent Popes now."

I'm still waiting for the list of Popes, and what they said.

It seems 'grave circumstances' has become the crucial phrase in this discussion, which means you are now hiding behind it, as it covers only very limited circumstances.

I personally am willing to concede 'grave circumstances'. I always did.

But I put to you that the majority of Catholics using NFP do not qualify for 'grave circumstances'. It has become a way of life in order to stop having babies.

Now it's certainly not up to me to decide who qualifies, and it is cetainly not up to you to lure people into using it with a clear consience. Your actions could be a cause of sin in others. But apparently that is your goal.

So, please give us that list of 'quite a few' Popes you falsely claim supported "ex cathedra" that Catholics could limit the size of their family.

And if you could, maybe a list of grave circumstances that would be acceptable. Maybe if the husband or wife were on life support, in a coma, the other spouse should wait for a non fertile moment to demand their marital rights. I guess that would be grave enough.

List of 'quite a few' Popes and what they said please.

[patent]

>>>An interesting article with some relevant sources that useful for future reference. However, the article is undermined by the fact that Fr. Harrison is so clearly trying to prove one side of the argument. His polemical approach causes the reader to assume that he is not presenting the arguments fairly and objectively.

How is that different from your writing?

[Maximilian]

Wild jack-rabbits are a perfectly good Model provided in Nature. Go thou and do likewise."

LOL. How appropriate that we should take a lesson from our Puritan forebears as we celebrate Independence Day.

[St.Chuck]

Thanks for sharing your insights into the Hindu religion and culture. Several years ago I had access to several issues of "Hinduism Today", a monthly publication, and was struck by the news of that the cultural battles Hindu's face are identical or similar to what conservative Christians and Muslims face.

[Arguss]

Well, according to 2,000 years of Catholic faith, and specifically Humae Vitae, you are WRONG!

I beg your pardon! 2000 years of Catholic teaching says I am right. I'm not even sure where Humanae Vitae says I am wrong. Please show me. I know Paul VI spoke against contraception - but I am pretty sure (not positive) that he did not speak in favor of NFP. He conducted an extensive research into it, but did not endorse it

As far as a long list of Popes in favor of NFP - there is no such animal - Polycarp was lying, and broadsword is mistaken - badly.

I spent the morning surfing NFP sites, and not once did I find the phrase "use only inmatters of grave importance" or whatever the phrase is.

NFP is a lifestyle promoted to navigate around Catholic teaching, and falls far short to the discerning, but fills the needs of the gullible. I would be willing to bet that it is promoted by those wanting to tear down the Church brick by brick.

I know there is a problem with having too many babies, I'm a father of four myself. And I am not saying the are not legitimate problems. But strictly speaking, one is not trusting in the Lord if they seek to limit their offspring. Leave that to the pagans.

On the practical side, let your conscience be your guide, but don't be guided by those, even Priests, who counsel different than what the Church teaches. NFP is just another form of contraception, and the organization is no different than planned parenthood.

Jesus will watch over His Catholic babies.

[pro Athanasius]

Yes good points you understand the natural law which God has written in your heart. It is my prayer that you will consider the Word of the Lord God Jesus Christ when he said, “ I AM the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE, no one can come to the father except through ME.” and He established on St.Peter the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which he has established to lead people into His Kingdom.

Were you raised as a Christian and then converted to Hinduism?. I had friends who were Catholic Indians from Puna and Goah (sp?) one whose ancestor was of the Brahman cast. The Catholic religion is truly universal and cross cultural because of course God loves all people whom He has created and He wishes that they not perish but come to eternal life through His son Jesus the Christ of the World. For God so loved the World that he sent his ONLY begotten son..”

[Polycarp IV]

Spoken like a true deceiver. At the same time that you are luring people into using NFP, you subtly slip in to the conversation that it is mostly sinful.

Maximilian, maybe your trad credentials are good enough that a word of explanation from you would help Arguss realize his folly in the above characterization of me?

[Polycarp IV]

Now it's certainly not up to me to decide who qualifies, and it is cetainly not up to you to lure people into using it with a clear consience. Your actions could be a cause of sin in others. But apparently that is your goal.

You obviously know NOTHING about my position on NFP.

[Salvation]

BTTT!

[Polycarp IV]

And if you could, maybe a list of grave circumstances that would be acceptable.

Maybe this will help you realize just how very wrong you are in your attacks on me:

My wife and I used to teach NFP. We resigned from it because I thought the NFP industry was failing to teach that there must be grave reasons for having recourse to NFP, and instead too often the NFP cult made it seem like as long as one used NFP, they were a "good" Catholic.

When we taught I gave an in depth class just on the moral theology of NFP. We taught that there are 4 main reasons for having recourse to NFP.

1--Physical/ mental health---a pregnancy could kill you or so physically impair you as to prevent your fulfillment of your duties in your state in life---NOT because of a widening wasteline or drooping skin! Or psychological health, i.e., mom would literally have a nervous breakdown if she became pregnant---not because she "just couldn't stand being home with the little kids all day without the personal fulfillment of her professional job..."

2--Financial constraints---your child will starve if you have another. Wanting a bigger house or designer SUV just does not cut it!

3--work on the mission fields by one or both spouses that would proclude having children temporarily

4--active persecution or war---i.e., you or your child likely to die by coercive abortion, in concentration camp, in acts of war, etc.

Clearly we say these reasons must be SERIOUS, not trivial. Only the couple and their confessor can truly decide what truly constitutes grave reason.

We've had couples sit through my talk on this subject and literally say, "Gee, we thought we were being good Catholics just for deciding to use NFP. Now we realize we don't even have grounds for recourse to NFP," then tell us a month or two later they're pregnant.

NFP vs Contraception

Spacing children may be a desirable goal that does not violate God's laws in certain serious situations such as those outlined above. But the means of achieving the goal differ.

One is intrinsically evil (abortion, abortifacient contraception, barrier methods, sterilization) while one is morally neutral (Natural Family Planning.

In one, an act is performed (sex) but its natural outcome is artificially foiled.

In the other, no act is performed (simple abstinence during fertile times) so there IS no act, therefore the practice is morally neutral.

It is then the intention of using NFP that constitutes its relative moral licitness or illicitness.

If NFP is used in a selfish manner, it too can be sinful.

If it is used only in grave circumstances, it is not sinful.

The difference is real.

Dieting (decreasing caloric intake, the "act" of NOT eating) is a moral and responsible means of losing weight to maintain the body's health.

Bulimia (the ACT of eating, them vomiting) is rightly called an eating DISORDER.

An ACT is performed (eating in this case) and its natural outcome (nutrition) is foiled by expelling the food from the body.

Likewise contraception is a disorder. An ACT is performed (sex) and its natural outcome (procreation) is foiled by expelling the sperm or egg or both (abortifacient contraceptives) from the body.

Contraception is to NFP what Bulimia is to dieting.

But just as dieting can be misused (anorexia) so too can NFP be misused in a (gravely) sinful manner.

[Maximilian]

Maximilian, maybe your trad credentials are good enough that a word of explanation from you would help Arguss realize his folly in the above characterization of me?

I try to ignore all personal attacks on myself and generally just speed up the scroll button when I come across personal invective against anyone. It's such a waste of time. But as far as this issue goes, it is certainly true that you support the same position that Arguss does: NFP is only justified in "grave circumstances." You also agree that too often NFP has been promoted as a lifestyle choice. So both of you are in agreement with the teachings of the Catholic Church. One might wish to debate some of the fine points, but there is certainly no call for insults. Oh, and you have even ceased being an NFP counselor because of your moral qualms as to whether it was really being taught properly. One would hope that we could debate civilly even with people we think are wrong, but at the very least we should be able to be civil with people with whom we agree.

[Polycarp IV]

but I am pretty sure (not positive) that he did not speak in favor of NFP.

You don't even read the relevant documents, yet you have the unmitigated gall to insult and criticize us?

Get back to us when you've actually learned the Church's teachings on these subjects. Until then, I'll pray for you.

[pro Athanasius]

I have read, Francis Shaffer's "How then Shall we Live?" and thought it very good. His son Frankie became an Orthodox priest. Now I am giving you some quotes from the early Church fathers which clearly teach that any barrier methods, withdrawal or potions to prevent birth are wrong. The problem with your denomination is one of authority. Protestants must keep reinventing the wheel because they rely on the “protestant principle” which is “personal conscience” instead of the Catholic principle which is objective moral absolutes which do not change with the passing of time or evolve into new things as some modernist Catholic Churchman would have us believe. You might try the below site. Gerry Matatics was a former Presbyterian Minister who thought Catholics were going to hell and he converted. He has got some tapes on birth control and a ton of other issues. Someone may have already told you about him. Biblical Foundations International ... E-mail: About Gerry: Gerald Christian Matatics is known throughout the English ... Gerry is Founder and President of Biblical Foundations International, a ... www.gerrymatatics.org/ - 28k - Jul 3, 2004 Letter of Barnabas "Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11 :29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness"' ( 10:8 [A.D. 74]). Clement of Alexandria "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" ( 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]). Clement of Alexandria "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid. 2:10:95:3). Hippolytus "[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion]" ( 9:12 [A.D. 225]). Lactantius "[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" ( 6:20 [A.D. 3o7]). Lactantius "God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid. 6:23:18). Council of Nicaea I "[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (canon l [A.D. 325]). Epiphanius "They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" ( 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]). John Chrysostom "[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" ( 28:5 [A.D. 391]). John Chrysostom "[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5 :12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and be impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (ibid. 62:3). John Chrysostom "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well.... Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men——even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" ( 24 [A.D. 391]). John Chrysostom "Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers . . . 'I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5:12] .... On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: 'For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition." If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated' [Titus 3:10]. Where then are those who dare to mutilate [sterilize] themselves, seeing that they drawn down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" ( 5:12 [A.D. 395]). Jerome "But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" ( 1: 19 [A.D. 393]). Jerome "You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]" ( 22:13 [A.D. 396]). Augustine "You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" ( 15:7 [A.D. 400]). Augustine "For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30). Augustine "For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery].... [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" ( 11-12 [A.D. 401]). Augustine "This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" ( 18:65 [A.D. 388]). Augustine "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" ( 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]). Caesarius "Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" ( 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

[Maximilian]

Contraception is to NFP what Bulimia is to dieting.

I don't think your metaphor works for the following reason: What if our bodies were designed in such a way that we only digested our food on some occassions but there were other times when our digestive systems simply ignored any food we ate. In order to stay skinny, what if you deliberately ate only during the times when your body did not digest the food, but refused to eat whenever your body would digest the food? This would not really be equivalent to "dieting"; it would be a lot more equivalent to "bulimia." In both cases you are frustrating the natural purpose of the act.

I also disagree with the moral theology textbook that was posted earlier when it said that the moral issue revolved around abstinence with regard to issues of justice towards society. Clearly a couple can abstain entirely from marital relations if they wish to do so and are in agreement. If a grave reason existed which motivated a couple to avoid conception, they could abstain from marital relations for as long as they wished to avoid conception, and there would be no moral issue whatsoever.

It becomes morally tricky when the couple abstain only part of the time, while continuing to engage in marital relations at other times, but without any intention of fulfilling the primary purpose of those acts. The problem is not abstaining; the problem is having sex while at the same time deliberately frustrating the purpose for which the sex act was designed by God.

At the same time, one can clearly see that there is a significant difference between artificial contraception and NFP. In the former case the act itself as well as the intention are both inherently wrong. In the latter case, the acts themselves either of having marital relations or abstaining from marital relations are not inherently immoral, but the intention can make them immoral.

As a comparison, when one tells a deliberate lie, then that is a sin which could be a mortal sin depending on the gravity of the situation. The words themselves are false, and the intention is to deceive the listener. One can also tell words that are true, but which are equally intended to deceive the listener. One would still be guilty of a sin of deception.

Another comparison might be to the priest offering the consecration. If he uses bran muffins, then the matter is invalid and the entire consecration is invalid, no matter what his intention might be, although one would have to question the intentions of any priest who would commit such a sacrilege. Another priest might use perfectly valid bread as matter, but he has an intention directly contrary to the presumed intention of consecrating the host. His consecration would also be invalid.

[Polycarp IV]

This is the LAST time I will do YOUR homework for you:

HUMANAE VITAE (On The Regulation Of Birth)
Pope Paul VI

Encyclical Letter Of His Holiness promulgated on 25 July 1968.

"... it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

"... In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

"... If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier [20].