Loading ...
In a recent newsletter from the F.S.S.P., Fr. James B. Buckley, F.S.S.P. takes up the subject of periodic continence (NFP). (I should have begun by saying - WARNING: NFP will be discussed in this post. The faint of heart need read no farther.) Interestingly, his column does not appear to be aimed at those who need to practice NFP and so require some advice about when and how to implement it. Rather, he seems to be targeting those of us traditionalists who have sometimes taken a derisive tone when speaking of NFP. His column isn’t too long and I hope that I will not offend if I reproduce it in its entirety here. Since my purpose is to ask some pointed questions about the column, I wouldn’t want to do it a disservice by quoting portions of it out of context.
It was not until 1930 that through the independent researches of Knaus and Ogino the world learned of the days of infertility during a woman’s cycle of ovulation. That same year Pope Pius XI worte in his encyclical Casti Conubii: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.”Because there was now a scientific basis for the sterile period, Catholic moral theologians were prodded - in the light of Casti Connubii - to consider whether it was morally licit for Catholic couples to restrict their sexual intercourse to infertile periods for a long period of time. The moralists judged that this practice was licit provided three conditions were fulfilled: (1) Both husband and wife must be willing to practice periodic continence; (2) both must be capable of doing so; and (3) there must be a legitimate reason for avoiding conception.
First of all, I found this to be a very helpful summary of where the question stood after
What the encyclical did not establish is for how long one may thus knowingly abstain. For one day? A week? A month? A year? Taken in a vacuum, Pius XI’s statement might seem to justify a perpetual abstinence from sexual relations during the whole of marriage. Such a conclusion was certainly not what the pontiff had in mind!
But who were or are these “moralists”, these “Catholic moral theologians” who were prodded by Casti Connubii? If the question were less controversial, we might pass over this body of experts without another thought. By what authority were the moralists able to judge that this practice was licit provided the three above mentioned conditions obtain?
A violation of either of the first two conditions, the moralists further agreed, was mortally sinful. As for a violation of the third condition, only a minority claimed that it was morally sinful; the majority maintained that this condition bound couples only under pain of venial sin. Because of this division no confessor could impose on his penitents the view that the practice of periodic continence was mortally sinful. This practical common teaching of the moralists remained unchanged after Pius XII’s Address to the Midwives on October 29, 1951.
By now, I hope that you’re wondering with me: “Who in the world are these ‘moralists’?!” At least as he has presented the matter in his column, Fr. Buckley makes these “moralists” sound mighty powerful: because of their split, no confessor could impose, etc. Then we wonder: are these “moralists” constituted on the basis of a democracy?! What difference should it possibly make whether they were split 60-40? And as a consequence of this split, the Christian faithful do one thing rather than another?
Or has Fr. Buckley made a mountain out of a molehill? I’m all for academic debate, and these sorts of questions - i.e. about the licit length of periodic continence - ought to be debated and discussed, but I would be surprised if these sorts of debates would or should have much impact on the lives of ordinary Catholics.
In this particular question, I think that we can see why the debate is “academic”, at least with respect to a confessor’s advice to a penitent. Whether a sin is mortal or venial does not affect whether one ought to cease from doing it. Of course, we should really want to avoid mortal sins, but I can’t see how forming a plan to remain in long term venial sin can wind up being anything but a mortal sin. If I use a naughty word from time to time, and at that, absentmindedly, I’m culpable, venially; but if I make a plan to use bad language on a regular basis, it might not be the language itself which puts me in hell, but the intention to do, repeatedly and deliberately, something to contrary to God’s law.
Who is arguing with his confessor in the confessional that some sin is actually venial, not mortal, and what’s more, that he has the 61-39 majority of the moralists to support his position? But even if there were someone like that, the confessor should still be able to say: “Listen, jack, it’s a sin regardless; resolve not to do it anymore.”
Now Fr. Buckley continues:
What the Address did change, however, was a theoretical view. Having examined the books and articles of moral theologians during the period between Casti Connubii and the Address to the Midwives, the Jesuit Fathers John Ford and Gerald Kelly reported in Volume II of their Contemporary Moral Theology that “the great majority did not teach an explicit, affirmative obligation on the individual couple to have children.” If there was no such obligation why did this same majority insist that couples using periodic continence to avoid children were bound under pain of venial sin to have a legitimate reason? By contrast, the position of the minority was logical. Because they maintained that there was an affirmative obligation to procreate, they held that a legitimate reason to avoid conception was necessary under pain of mortal sin.
Again, a whole lot of talk of majorities and minorities - when did we start doing moral theology by democratic principles? A question: are we talking about the same majorities when we speak of those who thought (3) bound under pain of venial sin and those who thought that there was no explicit obligation to have children? As far as I can tell from Fr. Buckley’s column, they needn’t be - because Ford and Kelley weren’t mentioned in connection with the straw poll numbers from the preceding paragraph - yet this paragraph makes it sound as though they are the same majorities/minorities.
And does Fr. Buckley then want us to infer that the “bound under pain of venial sin” guys aren’t so cool because they also thought that there was no “explicit, affirmative obligation” on the individual couple to have children. The latter claim makes good sense to me, on the one hand, if we can take it to mean: (e.g.) a infertile couple has no moral obligation to adopt children. But the on the other hand, we see from the following sentences that by “have children” we should understand “procreate”, and so we wonder: who were these nutty moral theologians who thought that couples need have no children, just kinda willy-nilly? If they were the majority, so much worse for the majority!
The Address made two significant points: (1) there is a duty for married couples to procreate; and (2) because the duty is an affirmative obligation, it admits of excusing reasons. These same two points are made by Paul VI in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. On the topic of procreation the Sovereign Pontiff wrote: “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children.” Nevertheless, he goes on to recognize excusing reasons for the practice of periodic contience. “If, then,” he said, “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 function, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate births without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.”
Okay, this sounds pretty straightforward. But then we have a question, Fr. Buckley reminds us, about how we’re going to interpret the language of this address:
Neither in the Address to the Midwives nor in the encyclica Humanae Vitae did either of the popes decide the question of the gravity of practicing periodic continence without a justifying reason. Moreover, as Father[sic] Ford and Kelly explain, “serious motives” or “grave reason” are the equivalent of “proportionate reason”; they do not mean “binding under mortal sin.”
Well thank you very much Fathers Ford and Kelly! Who in the world are Fathers Ford and Kelly!? - okay, I know that they wrote Contemporary Moral Theology and that it has at least two volumes - and why should it matter one little bit how they understand “serious motives” or “grave reason”?!
Then we look at the smorgasboard of terms laid out on the table by the end of this column: “legitimate reason”, “serious motives”, “grave reason”, “proportionate reason”, and “justifying reason”. I can sorta see how these might all be synonyms after a fashion, but what weight can we seriously put on these terms? If we expect to get mileage out of them in terms of definite pronouncements about venial and mortal sin - something which the pontiffs themselves, as Fr. Buckley notes, did not do, I think we’re bound to be disappointed. This is why I really enjoyed the column: before I read it, I thought that “grave reason”, when absent, led to a mortal sin. Now that Fr. Buckley has reported the split in opinion, I had better reserve my judgment, too.
And it’s to those of us who are judgmental that the last paragraph of the column goes out:
In our day when the overwhelming majority of Catholic couples practice sinful contraception, the exceptional few who in their conjugal relations observe God’s law deserve praise and support not criticism and condemnation. It would be the rarest of exceptions that any among them did not practice periodic continence without a justifying reason. They space their children; they do not completely avoid them.
I guess I don’t spend enough time reading virulent traditionalist diatribes, but I’ve not yet come across one in which couples who practice NFP for grave, justifying, legitimate, and proportionate reasons are condemned. You’d have to be heartless and cruel to do so when the consequence of another child is the death of the mother or the starvation of the family. But I am one in a chorus of voices who ridicule the propagation of NFP just because. Unless it be for reasons of health, I can see no reason why a couple living in the developed world would need to worry about spacing children. Consequently, I’m of the view that NFP is something which very few couples would need ever to have heard of.
As Catholics commonly discuss this matter, the debate is around what counts as a legitimate, grave or justifying reason. Apparently, there is also a debate about whether having the proper reason binds under pain of mortal or venial sin. Fr. Buckley has made quite clear that the “moralists” are split about the mortal/venial sin debate, for whatever that’s worth. Fr. Buckley has not, however, done anything to make clearer what would count as a grave, justifying or legitimate reason for practicing NFP. I think that this is an area in which hard and fast rules cannot be given: prudence and sound sense need to be exercised on a case by case basis. But one could, at least, provide examples of obvious cases in which it would and would not be acceptable to use NFP.
Yet Fr. Buckley has chosen not to do this in his column and instead has taken aim at those who are guilty of “criticism and condemnation”. As I’ve already said, since I think that those who would actually criticize and condemn in cases of grave need are very few or non-existenent, I can’t help but think that Fr. Buckley is going after those who question the use of NFP on a vast scale. I think that we can ask legitimate questions in this area - e.g. should NFP be encouraged for every Catholic couple about to be married? - and so I was disappointed that Fr. Buckley appears to want to sweep these questions under the rug. On the other hand, in as much as he has written to inform us of some interesting discussions in contemporary moral theology, I thank him for his effort.
P.S. For those of you who are fans of NFP, I just found this delightful checklist for the fertile periods courtesy of the Diocese of Scranton:
Ten Suggestions for Days of Abstinence
DO say “I love you” daily.
DON’T avoid each other.
DON’T forget to say “Good Morning”, “Good Night”, “Hello”, and goodbye kisses.
DO hold hands as you watch TV, drive in the car, fall asleep at night, etc.
DO keep your appearance presentable.
DO avoid alcohol and suggestive books or movies that may lower resistance and affect your choice to abstain on fertile days.
DO reward each other whenever overwhelming feelings of desire are overcome with “rainchecks” or “IOU’s”.
DO small special things for each other (a favorite dessert, a flower, helping with supper or dishes, etc.). Remember, it’s the little things!
DO hold the sexy lingerie and special touches or kisses that are usually overtures to lovemaking until the infertile phase.
DO make plans for the infertile phase…candlelight dinner, music and whatever your hearts desire.
DO share charting responsibilities so both of you are aware of possible fertile days and when infertility begins.
DO make a pact at the beginning of each fertile phase to support each other one day at a time through the period of abstinence.
I’d say it seems obvious that the sinfulness of abstaining without a justifying reason could be a mortal or a venial sin, depending on circumstances. E.g. suppose a couple that already has six children, and has thus done a lot towards fulfilling the duty to procreate, decides to abstain for four months in order to avoid the expenses associated with a seventh pregnancy arriving four months earlier than would otherwise have been the case, because they want to be able to afford a more comfortable and capacious car than they would otherwise have been able to - although they could have gotten by with the less expensive car; this looks venial to me. On the other hand suppose a couple decides to only have one child in order to maintain a very high, rather than merely a quite high, standard of living, and in order to do so practice NFP for fifteen years. That looks uncontroversially mortally sinful. Of course there is no sharp line between mortal and venial sin in this area but that does not mean that there are not both mortal and venial sins; to say so is fallacious - as Dr. Johnson pointed out, because there is no exact time when day ends and nioght begins does not mean that there is no difference between day and night. By the way I read somewhere that moral theologians in the old days taught that having four kids satisfied the command to increase and multiply, so married couples who had four kids did not have to feel obliged to have more; although of course this position does not mean in itself that NFP would be a licit way of preventing having more than four kids, since that aim could also be attained by mutually agreed abstinence. Any views on this?
I thought there were already in 1800s reports of periodic abstinence in infertile periods. That was long before 1930.
And yes, there are people out there who condemn NFP in all its forms. I imagine that enough of them attend Fraternity chapels that a response seemed necessary. Still, that is not a very convincing response. Didn’t a majority of theologians deny the Immaculate Conception at one point? And a majority of the folks on the “Humanae Vitae” advisory committee wanted to permit artificial birth control.
Perhaps we should put a “BANNED SUBJECT” tag on this post? ;) I refuse to do more than register my agreement.
Iacobus,
Who are you agreeing with? Fr. Buckley?
I said all this before in private conversation with Iosephus, but I agree that this is a bit light as a doctrinal tract. I don’t think, however, that that was really the purpose. I suspect that Fr. Buckley was looking, not to keep us all abreast of the theological conversations going on regarding the use of NFP, but rather to illustrate that there isn’t any clear and definite Catholic position on this question. Anyone who thinks he knows what it is is thus either poorly informed or else exercising a lot of his own private judgment in reaching that conclusion.
The corollary to that might be that people ought to look on others charitably in such matters, and more generally to mind their own business about other people’s personal choices. It’s very hard to be fair in judging other people’s family lives from the outside, and we’re all often inclined to be critical of anyone who doesn’t make the same sorts of choices that we do. (And in this respect, I’m certainly as guilty as anybody.) But you really can’t know all the factors in other people’s situations, and it’s a large moral grey area anyway. There are lots of family questions on which the Church does have a clearly defined moral position, which we should take care not to compromise. Proper use of NFP is not one such.
I’d say I’ve encountered plenty of traditional Catholics who are eager to pick apart other people’s motives for using NFP and whether they’re good enough. It’s nosy and just generally not nice. It might be appropriate to draw on real-life examples as material for private conversation with one’s own spouse on questions of practical importance. Otherwise we should give people the benefit of the doubt. (According to Fr. Buckley, even confessors were advised to do this at least in some periods. The laity could hardly be expected to do less.)
I think the vast majority of NFP-using couples are aware that a justification is needed for practicing it, and they do at least worry over the question of which reasons are good enough. I’d bet that hardly any, unless for grave medical reasons, decide that they’re justified in remaining childless indefinitely. That puts them well ahead of the vast majority of Catholics in the West, and I think Fr. Buckley is suggesting that we should focus our angst on larger problems.
Actually, Pius XII is quite clear on what constitutes serious reasons. We’ve been down this road before so I won’t produce the exhaustive list (which includes eugenics, serious health reason, war/famine etc.). (Has everyone even read Pius XII’s instruction to mid-wives, by the way? Or do you eschew the words from the Vicar of Christ in favor of some half-baked German Jesuits.)
I could care less what the majority of theologians say anyway. As Iospehus pointed out, the majority were against Humane Vitae and wanted some sort of approval of artificial contraception for married couples, so it’s no surprise that a generation earlier the moral theologians took a heretical view of NFP.
Regarding this whole issue of certain traditionalists brow-beating poor good Catholic couples using NFP, that is just a bunch of hogwash. Clara, it’s not the case of “nosy and generally not nice” trads poking around into people’s private lives casting judgments left and right. Many NFP users and proponents feel the need to shout it from the roof tops. They are the ones who feel compelled to make sure everyone else is following their example. They are the ones mandating that every Catholic couple not only be educated on NFP as a precondition to Holy Matrimony, but every couple should also be charting their cycles and keeping track of all their most intimate marital details on a laboratory spreadsheet. You make it seem like those poor persecuted NFP’ers are just minding their own business and the traditionalists are the busy-bodies. It’s simply not the case. NFP is a religious dogma in the Novus Ordo. If you don’t believe it, love it, and embrace it, you’re anathematized by the Nervous Disorder. It’s just pure bigotry what you and Fr. Buckley are trying to put forward.
Let’s ponder two cases:
1) A traditionalist Catholic approaches a couple after mass and sees they have 4 children aged 5, 9, 15, and 20. What are the chances this trad is going to ask them about their intimate marital life? Why they only have 4 children? Did they consciously space their births and did they have sufficient grace reason?
2) A Novus Ordo or semi-traditionalist Catholic approaches a couple after mass and sees they have 11 children ages 1,2,4,6,7,9,11,13,14,16,18 and the mother is pregnant again. What are the chances this semi-trad Catholic is going to ask them if they practice NFP? Did they consider spacing the births out more? Is this going to be the last one?
I say unequivocally that case #2 is far more likely. I’ve personally seen case #2 happen several times. I’ve never seen case #1 occur. Most traditional parishes have couples with only 3, 4, or 5 kids and no one questions those couples. That’s an issue between them and their confessor. This is the traditional Catholic mindset.
However, if Mrs. NFP decides to shout from the roof tops after Mass about the glories of NFP and passes out her charts to show everyone how successful it is, then, perhaps, you get some “not nice” remarks traditionalists.
“so it’s no surprise that a generation earlier the moral theologians took a heretical view of NFP.”
Are you accusing an FSSP newsletter of publishing heresy, Joe Six Pack? Just wanted to clarify.
“Clara, it’s not the case of “nosy and generally not nice” trads poking around into people’s private lives casting judgments left and right. Many NFP users and proponents feel the need to shout it from the roof tops.”
These are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, this is exactly what I said: everyone likes to get snippy towards other Catholics who make different family decisions. And everyone should just cool it. If my Novus friends start complaining to me about traditionalists and their excessive fecundity, I’ll tell them the same thing.
But don’t try to tell me that traditionalists don’t get all angsty about whether particular couples have sufficient reasons for using NFP. I’ve seen it myself, probably more times than you’ve seen traditionalist mothers assulted after Mass by NFP-happy Novus people.
As for the rest, I suggest you take it up with Fr. James Buckley, FSSP.
I fault Fr. Buckley for apparently (I haven’t read the article - just going by what Iosephus stated) putting forth a heresy that the lesser of two evils (NFP over artificial contraception) is a viable option for Catholics. Artificial contraception is objectively a mortal sin. NFP can be a mortal sin under certain circumstances, so I don’t think the well-at-least-their-using-NFP approach of Fr. Buckley is good for souls.
I fault you and Fr. Buckley both for being bigoted toward traditionalists.
I don’t think there’s an equal hostility or judgmentalness on both sides. NFP is the 8th Sacrament of the Novus Ordo - to question the doctrine that it should be part of every marital life is heresy among conservative Novus Ordinarians.
Again, at our FSSP parish, we have middle-aged married couples with only one child and couples with no children at all and absolutely no one in my presence has ever questioned their lives or presumed any sin. Try going to a Novus parish with 11 kids and hear the howls - it’s quite scandalous you see to have too many children.
There’s a direct prophecy from our Lord that the Nervous Disorder wishes they could just ignore;
But Jesus turning to them, said: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not borne, and the breasts that have not given suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains: Fall upon us; and to the hills: Cover us. For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?
JSP,
You don’t have eleven kids, and so you could never have experienced such “howling.” Let’s stick to actual facts and personal experiences instead of hearsay and calumny, m’kay?
Also, I will in a trice shut down and hide the comments in this thread if anyone decides to continue down any of the past paths of unfair judgment, as defined by me. In fact, if I decide that refereeing these comments is too annoying, I’ll still shut them down. So don’t waste your time writing nasty or unhelpful things — they’ll just be either removed or hidden, and will also annoy me.
I’m not directing this at anyone in particular. It’s just that this subject has a way of drawing out some people’s worst side.
I’m going to defend Fr. Buckley here.
First, as to Iosephus’ objections to his appeal to “the majority of theologians”: this is a legitimate procedure in casuistry. Fr. Buckley is obviously not saying “whenever a majority of contemporary moral theologians say that p, then p is true even if it seems unlikely or even contradicts previous teaching”. He is using the method of probabilism that St. Alphonsus Liguouri uses in Theologia Morali. When we are agreed on moral principles but there are as yet no clear guidelines on how to apply them to concrete circumstances, we survey the opinions of various moral theologians. Then, either because the majority or the most wise agree on a certain point, we judge that a given opinion is the most probable. Iosephus nitpicked at Fr. Buckley’s choice of theologians or his failure to mention who these theologians were. Suffice it to say, (1) Fr. Buckley judged they were authoritative enough to have their opinions count and (2) this was a newsletter not a scholarly article with numerous footnotes.
Second, please keep in mind that Fr. Buckley is a priest not a blogger. He has pastoral needs to consider. From his perspective as a priest, I think he finds it harmful for the more rigorous opinion on spacing out children to circulate, especially if it is less probable than its alternative. Keep in mind that most American Catholics use birth control. Perhaps his point was that prudence and charity require that we do not publically insist on the more rigorous opinion since that will discourage contracepting Catholics from changing their ways (especially if the less rigorous opinion is more probable or equally probable).
As to the the numerous charges of the “NFP fanatics” in the Novus Ordo . . . that may be true in some cases. But I know the couple who teaches NFP in my area. They went around and asked all of the priests to mention the NFP class from the pulpit. Only one priest agreed to do it, one was noncomittal, and another refused to do it outright. Needless to say, in the meantime the majority of parishioners in the area will contracept.
Given this situation, I do not understand your insistence on the more rigorous opinion. Even if you are unsympathetic to the way NFP is often promoted, surely you could charitably view it as a way of “weaning” people off of contraception. Perhaps later, with God’s grace, they will come to truly understand their obligation to have children and will use it only for grave reasons (e.g. health, serious financial difficulties).
The hearsay is from direct experiences of my in-laws, who have only 8 children, not eleven. But even the 8 is scandalous.
However, did I calumniate?
JSP,
Everyone at every novus ordo parish, whom you have preemptively claimed will howl at large families.
Glad to concede that I overstepped, though.
Also, how come my comments seem to incite calls for censorship, but Fr. Buckley and Clara can make sweeping generalization against trads willnilly? (I’m not suggested anyone be censored, only to allow for equal time)
“But don’t try to tell me that traditionalists don’t get all angsty about whether particular couples have sufficient reasons for using NFP.”
Clara, how do these angst ridden people even find out that other people are NFPing? Are you suggesting trads are holding inquisitions during the coffee and donut sessions after Mass? Or, as I suggested, are NFPing couples compelled to announce this new gospel of procreation to every corner of the world?
“But you really can’t know all the factors in other people’s situations, and it’s a large moral grey area anyway.”
Regarding the first part Clara, Trads who I know are not interested in knowing all the factors in other people’s marital situations. The Traditional position is that NFP is not an 8th Sacrament, it is not the 11th Commandment, it is not something that every couple should be doing in order to grow in greater love and better understand the theology of their bodies. This is what Greg Popcak and his wife (EWTN/New Order prophets) recommend to all Catholic couples (and the engaged) - to start charting now and keep charting. And to go beyond charting and actually to practice NFP throughout the marriage to make procreating a thoughtful decision. To grow in love during the periods of continence. etc. etc. They have a whole JPII/Scott Hahn inspired theology revolving around NFP. It’s the sine qou non of the Novus Ordinarianism. (I’ve actually had several protestants come up to me, after finding out I’m a traditional Catholic, and announce that they are practicing NFP! And they’re proud as if this is a Catholic ecumenical achievement. They learn these NFP techniques from Catholic sources or parishes and they learn nothing, absolutely nothing, about the moral theology behind periodic continence and grave reasons, etc.
Regarding the second part of that remark, did you ever read Pius XII address to mid-wives its entirely? When did you read it?
Tone, not content, JSP. You always have good, or at least interesting/provocative, things to say, but need to make sure you address issues, instead of individuals, so far as possible.
My husband and I practice NFP, and I appreciated the essay from Fr. Buckley because I have come across quite a bit of disdain and even hostility from traditionalists who probably would not consider our justifications sufficient - yet as Clara says, it is not really appropriate eagerly to spend time dissecting other Catholic families’ decisions and situations. We believe in an openness to life as we vowed at our wedding and we plan to have many children, but we will make legitimate use of NFP to plan and space our children.
We don’t shout our use of NFP from the rooftops, because we believe modesty about such matters is prudent. However, we have decided that NFP is something we are happy to talk about if asked or if the situation warrants, simply because not that many people (not many Catholics, even) know about it and we believe it is a legitimate practice. We are happy to share this awareness and the moral reasoning for it with evangelical Protestant friends as well, for we do think this is a commonality to be welcomed - most Protestants long ago embraced ABC and for those who are now seeing the sad spiritual (and social, and relational) consequences of ABC, we should affirm their new knowledge.
Finally, despite JSP’s attempt to make couples’ “keeping track of all their most intimate marital details on a laboratory spreadsheet” sound immodest, artificial, and inherently distasteful, it’s not a big deal. My chart is on a legal-size sheet of paper (I may switch to an Excel file), and for women, keeping track of our fertility signs is a pretty unexceptional business. There’s nothing immodest about noting visible natural changes, and it’s not inappropriate for both spouses to be aware of such knowledge. I imagine husbands appreciate being able to anticipate our monthly hormone cycles, too. Knowledge of our bodies and cycles of our fertility is a blessing and while I don’t swoon over such knowledge (like some of the admittedly over-enthusiastic practitioners of NFP), it has made me appreciate more the way God made women.
Actually, the “weaning” argument doesn’t work, morally speaking, as it involves doing an evil so that good may come of it, i.e. the ends justifying the means, i.e. proportionalism.
I seem to recall Pope Benedict saying something about this explicitly in regards to NFP recently, but I can’t find it and don’t have time to look further. However, John Paul II did say in his Address to Participants in a Course on NFP, 14 Dec 1990, L’Osservatore Romano pg 3 English edition, “…it is not possible to practice natural methods as a “licit” variation of the decision to be closed to life, whcih would be substantially the same as that which inspires the decision to use contraceptives…”
This means not only must one have the proper intent in the proper degree, but that the object of the moral decision has the same gravity as that of using artificial contraception. That makes it grave matter. I’m a scholastic Thomist with a morals degree from the Angelicum, but even modern Novus theologians like Grisez agree that misuse of NFP is morally equivalent to contraception.
My personal opinion, after having spent a year doing research and debate on the issue, is that the Church seems to allow NFP as a technique only by means of the principle of double effect. Of course, that’s not explicitly stated anywhere, hence the disclaimer that it’s just my opinion, but that does seem the most logical explanation that will fit all the assembled data.
Iosephus, I agree with your disdain for the good father’s method of argument–it seems funny that any religious would trot out an argument from authority when the authority isn’t God (or a Doctor of the Church)!
But, thinking perhaps with Clara, wouldn’t a mind-one’s-own-business type of charity be best in this matter? If there’s anything our world needs less of, it’s the publicization of people’s private lives.
Besides, I know a fair number of people who have used the “NFP” system for real, unquestionable positive good: the method, and the dedication/information it requires, have helped not a few women get pregnant who were having trouble.
(Hope that didn’t offend any of you bloggers).
J
I’m not questioning Fr. Buckley’s style of argumentation - he’s not really arguing anything, so much as relating some interesting information. Rather, my question might well be abstracted from the particular context: who are these moralists and why should we care?
As one of the commenters said above, perhaps we should understand the “wisest” group of moralists as being the relevant group or majority rather than simply paying attention to majorities. But “wisest” might be unhelpful, depending on the case, as it might only beg the question. Probably not in any really life group of “moralists”, but possibly.
Second, I did want to call attention, as JSP has rightly taken up along with me, to the attack aimed at traditionalists who, I think, are rightly concerned about the attitude towards NFP in the Novus Ordo Church. I would have appreciated a substantive discussion of these concerns from Fr. Buckley instead of a reiteration of the claim, now well established, that periodic continence is licit in some circumstances.
And, yes, as another commenter said, it did seem odd, in as much as Fr. Buckley seems at the end of his column to veer towards a “just doing NFP is good enough”, given today’s awful moral situation with respect to contraception among Catholics. I think it’s only fair to ask some questions about whether that’s the right pastoral approach to take.
Remember: this is a theoretical discussion. No one has put under the microscope the NFPing of some particular family. So I don’t know how we can stay more out of other people’s business - unless you’re also saying that we can’t ask and debate moral questions of this sort.
But Iosephe, the point is that it was a pastoral letter (at least, I’m speculating that that was the point, and you don’t normally put doctrinal tracts in the newsletter) so it’s reasonable to suppose that he was motivated by pastoral concerns. And I’m sorry, but traditional Catholics do often like to put others under the microscope in analyzing whether or not their motives for using NFP are good enough.
I have a particularly vivid memory of hearing a conversation on this subject at a gathering of traditional Catholics (I won’t elaborate on the circumstances, just in case someone should read this and recognize himself) in one of my early contacts with the traditionalist community. Obviously, this was before I was actually Catholic. The discussion regarded the small number of children in particular family X, whether the couple was using NFP, whether they had good enough reasons for doing this, and whether they had cleared it with their confessor. I was so horrified by the intrusion of privacy that the incident instilled a definite “not sure how far I want my involvement with these lunatics to go” attitude in my mind for awhile afterwards. I’ve become a little more circumspect about this stuff now, but such things definitely do happen; one of our own commenters has testified to this, and we’ve even had “I know a couple who…” stories told on this blog. Evidently Fr. Buckley thinks this is a pastoral concern, and a more important one (at least for the people who would be receiving this newsletter) than overuse of NFP.
But of course, the only effective way to address the pastoral question would be to tell the rigorists that they aren’t necessarily in the winning camp, doctrinally speaking.
I’m not saying that we can’t debate questions of this sort in a theoretical context, but we should do it on the presumption that the question has not been definitively settled within the Church. Hence, tolerance for people with dissenting opinions/practices seems warranted.
“But Jesus turning to them, said: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not borne, and the breasts that have not given suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains: Fall upon us; and to the hills: Cover us. For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?”
Your application of this passage is rather extraordinary, I must say. I’ve never heard it interpretated to take the despair as a consequence of barrenness; rather it seems more natural to understand it as a symptom of a desperation inspired by something else. In other words: very terrible things will happen to God’s people at some future time, such that they will wish that they had not brought children into the world, and also that the rocks might crush them etc. And that would seem to go hand in hand also with Christ’s words about the last days: “And woe unto them that are with child, and to them the give suck in those days!” Partly he means, presumably, that it will be much more difficult for pregnant or nursing women to flee the horrors that are to come (which is consistent with the following verse, telling us to pray that we should not have to flee in wintertime.) But having children makes you more vulnerable in lots of ways, since you care about their safety. In a really desperate time, seeing your children suffer horribly, you might even wish that they had not been born.
I think that’s a much more standard way of reading that passage; it’s not saying that voluntary barrenness will precipitate the apocalypse.
Perhaps I had misunderstood the tone of this post–I was surprised to see NFP being debated in any form! I am not married, and have never been a participant in one of the legendary NFP “classes,” (and the manner of their teaching, woo! there’s another topic!) but I can say, hearing from those who have, that NFP IS a little bit of an obsession with the Church and matrimony. But, JSP, “eighth sacrament” is WAY too strong–I would say it’s more a Rite of Passage–and, simultaneously, a bit of a joke. I have heard more young, married Catholics joking around about NFP (Cf. Iosephus’ inclusion of those “suggestions,” which made me giggle) than trying to convert people to it. If, in fact, “traditionalists” are being criticized for their over-zealous opposition to the practice, this is an unfair criticism. The sanctity and purpose of marriage are important enough, we all agree, that insidious practices within the institution should be confronted. But, perhaps we should see the Church as attempting to use NFP to draw people mired in a culture of depraved sexuality slowly out of the mud? This is how I view it. Traditionalists are clearly helping to pull, but, please, pull us gently and with charity!
Clara, Scriptural passages like that are susceptible to multiple interpretations, some of which deal with specific historical prophecies (the destruction of Jerusalem in this case), some of which deal with morality generally. I have heard people cite these passages against Planned Barrenhood under the expression “Blessed are barren.”
“If there’s anything our world needs less of, it’s the publicization of people’s private lives.”
I couldn’t agree more.
At the very top of the list of what this world needs less of should go the publicization of people’s private lives. Then judgementalism. Then saturated fats in cooking oils and in fast food. Then another CSI series like CSI Hoboken or something. And then should come Sacrilege, Blasphemy, Heresy, Abject corruption of the Catholic clergy, Abortion on Demand, Unending Wars, Terrorism, Islamification of Western Civilization, Fetal Research, Euthanasia of the old and the infirmed, Sodomatrimony, Rampant pornography and the wholesale loss of innocence for pretty much all children over 7.
That’s true, and I’m not definitely saying that this interpretation can’t have anything in it, but I think it’s non-obvious at best given Jesus’ other, much clearer meaning. To use it as a damning inditement of people who just have four offspring instead of twelve seems like even more of a stretch — perhaps it would be better to go to the pssage from Proverbs about the blessing of a quiverful of children?
From Father Ripperger:
[I'll meet your Fr. Buckley and raise you a Fr. Ripperger!]
“The only reference Christ makes to contraception and the contraceptive mentality finds its place amidst the agony and torment of the passion. He approaches the weeping women who are wailing over His suffering. He then says to them one of the most powerful sets of words which speaks directly to our impenitent and selfish age “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming in which men will say ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.“ (Lk.23: 28-29)1 Throughout the entire history of humanity, never have we seen an age in which contraception is so wide spread than this one…”
Okay, so you’re not the only person who’s taken this from the passage. I’ll give you that. But I’ll see your Fr. Rippinger and raise you: Sts. Theophilus, Cyril and Bede.
From the Catena Aurea:
THEOPHYL. He bids those who weep for him cast their eyes forward to the evils that were coming, and weep for themselves.
CYRIL; Signifying that in the time to come women would be bereft of their children. For when war breaks out upon the land of the Jews. All shall perish, both small and great. Hence it follows, For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, &c.
THEOPHYL. Seeing indeed that women shall cruelly roast their children, and the belly which had produced shall miserably again receive that which it bore.
BEDE; By these miserably again receive that which it bore.
BEDE; By these days He signifies the time of the siege and captivity which was coming upon them from the Romans, of which He had said before, Woe to them that are with child, and give suck in those days. It is natural, when captivity by an enemy is threatening, to seek for refuge in fastnesses or hidden places, where men may lie concealed. And so it follows, Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For Josephus relates, that when the Romans pressed hard upon them, the Jews sought hastily the caverns of the mountains, and the lurking places in the hills. It may be also that the words, Blessed are the barren, are to be understood of those of both sexes, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, and that it is said to the mountains and hills, Fall upon us, and Cover us, because all who are mindful of their own weakness, when the crisis of their temptations breaks upon them, have sought to be protected by the example, precept, and prayers, of certain high and saintly men.
It’s true, of course, that (as TP points out) scriptural passages can have more than one true interpretation, but I think it’s worth noting that none of these saints seemed to think Christ’s words any kind of condemnation of voluntary barrenness, and it isn’t at all clear that the words “Blessed are the barren…” will be spoken by the wicked as opposed to the oppressed virtuous.
And even Fr. Rippinger counts this as a strike against voluntary BARRENNESS. NFP using couples typically are not barren, so you’re adding another layer again to the meaning.
JJ,
I did not give the “weaning” argument as you interpret it. My argument proceeded on the assumption that with respect to condition (3)–there must be a legitimate reason for avoiding conception–it has not been definitively taught how grave a reason must be in order to be “legitimate” nor has it been definitively taught whether there could be cases where a couples’ failure to meet (3) is merely venially sinful because the act is otherwise non-contraceptive.
In other words, my argument was intended to placate those traditionalists who acknowledge that there is a legitimate difference of opinion with respect to the interpretation of (3). It is perfectly consistent to say, “while I must adhere to the rigorous interpretation of (3) in conscience, I admit that another could adhere to the less rigorous interpretation of (3)in good conscience because it is a matter of opinion on how to interpret (3). Given that it is a matter of opinion, I ought to refrain from polemics on the matter if advocating the more rigorous interpretation might discourage contracepting Catholics from using NFP non-contraceptively.” This is consistent, charitable, and is NOT a case of advocating evil so that good may be done.
If Fr. Buckley is right about the lack of a definitive Church teaching on (3), and if one could in good conscience adhere either to the more rigorous or to the less rigorous interpretation, what is the problem? I really don’t understand the point of attacking Fr. Buckley. Shouldn’t we defer to someone who has to deal with this issue in the confessional?
I’d also like to point out, in connection with my “P.S.”, which I found randomly while looking for a picture for this post, in which task I failed, that in these list of suggested Do’s and Don’t’s, one has a pretty fine reductio of, at least, what seems to be the approach to NFP in many chanceries across this fair land.
Catharina Oxoniensis and I derived immense amusement from reading over the suggestions. It’s clear to me that they were written by a woman or a very gay man - can we begin to imagine other authorship for them? “Do hold hands as you watch TV, drive in the car, etc.” I guess that the “very gay man” hypothesis is more likely since this would fit well with the “cultural life” of many diocesan chanceries.
Which is all to say that this list of do’s and don’t’s - just to take one example - points to a kind of effeminization that is attached to the NFP culture - not, I mean, to the people NFPing, but with those who are its proponents and prophets. We might say that this effeminization does a disservice to whatever may be the merits of NFP itself.
Surely this, in combination with concerns about whether Principle (3) from my post is duly regarded or considered in both the rationale for Church-wide NFPing and the actual, case-by-case practice of it, can explain much of some traditionalist’s preoccupation with the question. Fairly or not, NFP - or the glorification of the same - has become associated with an effeminized, lax church culture.
Clara: I guess I don’t quite understand what you wrote back to me. I didn’t mean to say that it wasn’t a pastoral letter; in, fact, I thought I said the opposite: we got a history of an academic debate, but we really needed some discussion of what I think are legitimate questions among some traditionalists about their NFP-happy Novus brethren.
And then what I meant was - whether or not it ever happens out there in the world - here, at least, we’re discussing this on a theoretical level, not examining particular cases. Or are you saying that just in case we know anyone who NFPs, we aren’t allowed to talk about it even theoretically lest we be mistaken as talking about them? Okay, maybe . . . but I don’t feel uncomfortable with the debate over a moral question being silenced just because some people are already committed to its licitness.
Clara,
Have you ever read the Pius XII address to mid-wives?
I’m only asking because it’s the most detailed papal pronouncement on the subjective of NFP and one would think that everyone would read it before coming to conclusions one way or the other.
BTW, for those curious to know what Joe of the Six Pack is so often recommending, here’s a link to that address to Midwives
Pius’s address to the Italian Midwives
Here’s one key passage from that address, btw. Though, as JSP recommends, it should be read in full.
Clara, you could use your own retort to all those saints: “It’s not *obvious* that Jesus was referring to the sack of Jerusalem. That is just an *interpretation,* and I’m sure that the Church has never defined it as the only one.” Those saints were right — the destruction of Jerusalem met the description Our Lord mentioned. But those saints, who are dead, never saw the day when sterility would be a virtue. So obviously they could not refer to it. But we are alive in a day when people do say “blessed are the barren,” and it is a pretty bleak world. It is a reason for women today to weep for themselves — or shall we say that Our Lord said this to the women simply for a one-time prophecy of events in 70 A.D.?
Returning to the original context of JSP’s statement, I think it was referring to shock and abhorrence on the part of some people that others would want to have as many children as God gives them, seeing as they had no grave reason to do otherwise. To the extent that people enviously begrudge others large families, that would be an instance of people praising barrenness.
And to the extent that people condemn NFP as intrinsically wrong in all cases (and I have read long treatises to this effect and even pretty much bought into them for awhile “back in the day”) it is judgmentalism. JSP identifies the “cult of NFP” as a “conservative Novus Ordo” phenomenon. I identify criticism of the “cult of NFP” as a traditionalist phenomenon. So a traditionalist priest wanted to modify the vehemence of traditionalist critiques. In my opinion, his letter was simply unsatisfactory, for reasons Iosephus makes clear. But this reminds me of that Brazilian bishop’s list of traditionalist sins. “How could anyone fault us! Isn’t the Novus Ordo SO bad that SURELY it must absorb all criticism?” Well, no. When you’re in the confessional, you don’t get to say, “Hey, Father, but I’m a traditionalist Catholic! Couldn’t you focus on Novus Ordinarian errors and give me a pass?”
Just because traditionalists don’t walk up to families with four kids and scrutinize them doesn’t mean they don’t think unkind thoughts. Heck, I’m always tempted to do that! I try to excuse my thoughts: I don’t know if my cousin is having trouble conceiving with his wife and that’s why they have only two kids. But, gee, they have a nice house — surely they could afford a larger family. Why don’t people like that just announce, ‘Hey, we’re having troubles conceiving.’” Then my guardian angel, or on worse days, the “sting of Satan” that God has given me (read St. Paul) smacks me on the top of my over-educated pate and says, “Who the h–l do you think you are?!”
Could Fr. have addressed legitimate traditionalist concerns about NFP? Sure. And I am big critique of the whole mentality, myself, and I think that the “grave reason” point is obscured, often out of lack of generosity. But still, I can see traditionalists at a parish potluck saying, “Yeah, we have seven kids and make do fine. I don’t see how anyone could be ‘forced’ to use NFP if they had only, say three kids. Talk about stinginess! That’s not open to life.” And I can see them saying something imprudent and presumptuous around couples who have less than four children, while giving furtive looks at each other. I can see this happening since I can see myself being tempted to do it. So, hey at least Father’s letter got to me.
Now, what about Iosephus’ substantive issues with the letter? For I tend to agree with him on those points.
Right - the tendency towards judgment of others needs a column about unnecessary judgment and nosing in other people’s business. Temptations to regard couples with some sub-optimal number of children as NFP slackards is just one example. Really, we know that traditionalists face a whole host of such temptations; we need hardly limit ourselves to NFP!
The column might have addressed all these under a single heading. Instead, it focuses just on NFP and the temptation towads untoward judgment. But whether this was Fr. Buckley’s intention or not, the result of such organization or grouping of subjects for discussion is that traditionalists take themselves to be aimed at for questioning the NFP-happy cultural within the Church.
A column saying - “Look, some cool popes and a whole host of moralists say NFP is a-okay” doesn’t answer their concerns. Like I said in my post, unless someone is rather cruel, he will himself practice and will help others practice NFP if the alternative is death and starvation. We all know that NFP - as mentioned, sort of, by Pius XI in Casti Connubii is permitted: it’s permitted for the same reason that couples who have reached an advanced old age may still take a roll in the hay. What we want to know is, (e.g.) “Why do certain dioceses require NFP training as a precondition to marriage?”
To put you at ease, Joe Six Pack: yes, I’ve read the document in question. And I found it helpful, but I’m not at all convinced that it helps the case for your more rigorous position.
Iosephe, I think your using the “Dos and Don’ts” list as a reductio is frankly foolish. Yes, they’re funny, and I have no objection at all to you and Catherina using them at home as a source of lighthearted derision, but at the same time, ummmm, don’t you and your wife hold hands as you drive in the car, and remember daily to say, “I love you?” I don’t see anything necessarily effeminate or harmful about following the suggestions, even though it’s always amusing to see such things drawn up and distributed in a list.
If it’s fair game to use funny advice like that as a reductio of the whole mentality that produces them, merely on the basis of their humorous and exaggerated character, then traditionalists will be in a lot of trouble. A priest familiar to some of us here regularly provides from the pulpit advice so exaggerated and hilarious that I’m sure lots of Novus people could hardly be blamed for taking this as a reductio ad absurdum for traditionlism generally. And remember that list of tips for “How To Be a Good Wife” from the 1954 Home Economics textbook? (It’s advice for future wives on how to please their husbands when they arrive home from work. If you’ve never read it, you can see it here: http://iws.ccccd.edu/grooms/goodwife.htm) Well, that’s been passed around all over the place, basically as a reductio-type argument against gender roles within marriage. Though the suggestions might not all be bad, you do have to admit that it’s pretty hilarious reading on the whole. (I pretty much lose it when I get to the “Speak in a low, soft, soothing and pleasant voice” part, trying to imagine the Doctor’s puzzlement if I were to act like this upon his return from work. “Did somebody die? What’s wrong with you?”) And this was actually distributed, with perfect seriousness, to high school girls in the 1950’s. But presumably we can agree that it would be ridiculous to use a silly little thing like this to draw sweeping claims about gender roles generally. You always risk sounding a little foolish when you codify domestic advice too neatly, but that’s hardly the basis for serious argument.
Brad C — nice comment. You explained that very clearly and cogently, I thought. If you were one of my students, that comment would definitely get an ‘A’ :)
It is unclear if the legendary good-wife advice is real - to my knowledge, no one has ever found the original supposed text-book. And it always seemed fairly sensible to me, with nothing too hilarious in it, except perhaps the tone.
Also, I must place myself squarely in the Iosephus camp on that chancery piece: hilarious and unquestionably effeminate.
“Yes, they’re funny, and I have no objection at all to you and Catherina using them at home as a source of lighthearted derision, but at the same time, ummmm, don’t you and your wife hold hands as you drive in the car, and remember daily to say, “I love you?” I don’t see anything necessarily effeminate or harmful about following the suggestions, even though it’s always amusing to see such things drawn up and distributed in a list.”
Clara, the list is so preposterous because it gives the impression that during times when the couple is not, well “discharging the marriage debt,” the spouses will treat each other as Untouchables. What kind of an idiot would not tell his wife, “I love you,” because it is an “infertile” day? Good grief.
“Yes, they’re funny, and I have no objection at all to you and Catherina using them at home as a source of lighthearted derision, but at the same time, ummmm, don’t you and your wife hold hands as you drive in the car, and remember daily to say, “I love you?” I don’t see anything necessarily effeminate or harmful about following the suggestions, even though it’s always amusing to see such things drawn up and distributed in a list.”
Clara, the list is so preposterous because it gives the impression that during times when the couple is not, well “discharging the marriage debt,” the spouses will treat each other as Untouchables. What kind of an idiot would not tell his wife, “I love you,” because it is a “fertile” day? Good grief.
I’m smiling to myself now, picturing the future Mrs. Iacobus, straightening his pillow and speaking to him in a soft, soothing voice.
Well, “death and starvation” aren’t the only things that count as “grave reasons.” Pope Pius says, “Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications”. . . Death and starvation arise rather *rarely* as real threats in the West, which is where NFP is for the most part practiced. Pope Pius says that the grave reasons aren’t rare.
But yes, I agree with you when you call attention to questionable points in the letter. If I were the type of person Fr. Buckley seems to be targetting, then I don’t see how his letter would convince me to reconsider my position. I was responding to JSP for the most part, who seemed to be claiming that since Novus Ordo people are so pro-NFP, and since traditionalists don’t tend to assault families with four kids and subject them to an Inquisition, therefore it is difficult to see what pastoral situation could have provoked Fr. Buckley’s letter. That was what I gathered from JSP’s post. My response was to say that I can grant JSP his substantive claims, and yours too, Iosephe, and still see why there would be a concern on the part of Fr. Buckley that some traditionalists had gone too far and been too strict in their personal definitions of when NFP is allowed. And I can say that without agreeing with Clara on the point that “This is all up in the air, and discussing it in the abstract comes perilously close to judging others,” which is honestly what I think her posts come down to.
I knew this would get out of hand. ;)
Most of that last post was addressed to Iosephus. I reposted above about the list of do’s and don’t’s to change “infertile” to “fertile,” and no on this computer I don’t have any “edit button.”
At the risk of further stoking this fire, I have heard some theologians, moralists, and just generally sound-minded individuals voice the argument that Catholics are permitted to maintain their “state in life.”
My question is how far this permission goes with regard to NFP. For example, can a four-couple practice NFP to prevent a fifth child in order to have enough money to send all their children to college (especially if that’s what is expected within their “state in life”)? Can a family hold off on an additional child if it will necessitate their moving to a town further away from work? Or the purchase of a larger vehicle that they can scarce afford?
Mind you, I’m not talking here about boats, golf club memberships, etc. Rather, I’m talking about maintaining a rough level of existence (give or take) proportionate to one’s “state in life.”
If, for example, an attorney or successful banker is expected to “look the part,” with clean suits, good haircuts, etc., would holding off on additional children be permissible if these professional “obligations” could no longer be met?
In short, I am wondering if there is a line somewhere between “starvation” and “the annual European vacation” . . .. .
God bless,
DR
I never condemned discussing NFP in the abstract. That claim is completely unwarranted. It’s possible to bracket out a particular aspect of a problem without thereby implying that there are no other relevant aspects, or that the others should never be discussed. I think Fr. Buckley’s letter was more pragmatic than abstract in its orientation, which is why I’ve focused on that.
But okay, you’re probably right about this much: Fr. Buckley seems to be indicating more than just a distaste for individual instances of judgementalism. He also implies that opposition “the NFP cult” as a whole, should be more muted. That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it, but it might mean that we shouldn’t be preaching too loudly against NFP classes, pro-NFP literature and what have you. Which is again a prudential decision, and as most of you know from our past discussions of this subject, one I’d be happy to support. Some “NFP-happy” people may behave unfairly towards traditional Catholics, but there can be no doubt that their primary intended audience is contracepting Catholics, not big families. Clearly, converting some of the legions of contracepting Catholics into NFP-promoters debating sufficiently grave reasons, would be a great advantage. By opposing NFP, you obviously make it harder to reap those rewards. I certainly think, and I don’t doubt Fr. Buckley thinks too, that NFP can be used sinfully. But when I weigh the evils of possibly encouraging overuse of NFP against the good of getting a lot of couples to stop using contraceptives, well, I’m pretty willing to be tolerant of the NFP enthusiasm even while snickering a little at the “I’m fearfully and wonderfully made!” stuff. The underlying principle here is obvious: you have to infuse some enthusiasm into the thing, or else people won’t try it. Grim-faced traditionalists passing out “Are your kids starving? Is your country war-torn? We can help!” flyers aren’t likely to win many people over from the contracepting masses.
So okay, the letter’s purposes may be multiple, but I also think the judgementalism issue is a big part of it. And telling the rigorists that they don’t necessarily have the moral high ground seems like the warranted response, even if we might sometimes wish for a more complete philosophical discussion than we’re likely to get from the FSSP newsletter.
(to Iacobus) Of course! This subject always does.
What changes in the last 60 years!
The How to Be a Good Wife is the object of ridicule and the NFP Do’s and Don’ts are lauded in our feminized Church and general culture.
Can you imagine giving NFP instruction to any generation of Catholic men prior to WWII?
NFP is perfectly for our age.
Just like the “Blessed are the Barren” prophecy. Prophecies are only understood properly as you approach the era or circumstance being prophesized. Blessed are the Barren is being fulfilled now, in our age. Marriage as an institution is dead in Europe. People are at the most just living together without any commitment and without procreation. Married couples are designing families with at the most 1 or 2 children. NFP fits perfectly into this age and into this mindset. It’s the Evil One’s means of bridging the gap in sexual ethics between Catholicism and ways of the world.
You can have it all now! Good standing in the Catholic Church and design your family to fit your needs and the lifestyle choices of this age!
Dear JSP,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment. NFP is pretty much as counter-cultural as one can get in today’s society.
Nowadays, if couples want to avoid having children, they simply pop a pill, don a prophylactic, surgically “fix” themselves, or, if all else fails, “terminate” the pregnancy.
Practically NO ONE subscribes to the fundamental notions of NFP, namely that (1) in order to licitly space pregnancies, one must work WITH God’s design, not against it, and (2) one’s personal, subjective desires do not control the number of children one may have — couples are obliged to remain open to life absent a grave reason.
The critical question — and I am glad it has been raised on this blog — is what truly constitutes a “grave reason.”
DR
Okay, Clara, I take back that part about you not admitting the merit of the abstract discussion. But for some reason today, on all the computers I’ve been using, there is neither a delete button nor an “edit” one. I would have edited that sentence as soon as I wrote it but I simply was not able.
Upon re-reading your posts, I see that I couldn’t have “honestly” come to see your view that way, Clara. Sorry.
Apology accepted! Your readiness and honesty in correcting yourself should be an inspiration to us all.
Good, then. I’ll try addressing something Iosephus brought up in his post. He asked for a clear example of someone for whom no grave reason for using NFP existed. Think of Robert Kennedy. He had eleven kids, and that’s just with his wife. ;) Clearly, he came from a fantastically wealthy family — he could have eleven kids and more without falling from his “state in life.” Obviously, there was no outstanding medical problem that a pregnancy would have aggravated. So I don’t see how he could have been morally justified in halting procreation after the first four kiddies were born. Unless, of course, he or Ethel had a premonition of how much worse the country becomes the more Kennedys there are in power. But this isn’t a political blog . . .
Dear Brad,
I’m not sure what you mean by “definitive.” Please recall, however, that if one has serious doubt about whether or not some action is a mortal sin, you cannot take that action until you have moral certainty.
This means, interestingly enough, that the average person who is clueless about the gravity required for NFP is likely faultless. However, it is precisely persons such as those here who serve as knowledgable Catholic reference points for others who need to be certain in their (well-formed) consciences.
No one is saying NFP is evil or illicit. What is being said is that its use requires grave reasons. Grave means more than simple inconvenience. It is the difference between “I don’t want to” and “I cannot.”
I do not advocate lecturing or judging anyone on their use or non-use of NFP; gravity can sometimes be subjective but nonetheless real. I do, however, take issue with the concept that we shoudn’t teach that grave reasons mean severe hardship out of a fear that someone might be tempted to contracept. I am not saying that you said this; I am merely making a point, that it is not good to let people use NFP for reasons that ARE selfish under the idea that eventually they will come around or that at least they aren’t contracepting. You did not say this, nor did I say you did; however Janet Smith and Fr Richard Hogan, among others, have done so. It was to address that school of thought that I was adding clarification to your comment lest onlookers be confused.
I would, in truth, though, argue that Church teaching is much more definitive than Fr Buckley seems to indicate. That’s not an attack, that’s a disagreement. Both Pius XII’s Allocutio and the quote from JPII link to a well-defined moral tradition on the questions of well-formed conscience and judgment.
I do have confessional experience, as well as consulting experience for the Catholic Medical Association. I am a priest of the Arlington Diocese, and I typically use a pseudonym when I post. Sorry for the confusion. I enjoyed your post. Please don’t read something into my comments that isn’t there. God bless.
for the sake of argument I will suppose that both traditionalists and novus ordinarians are just as horrible as everyone has been saying and should repent in sackcloth and ashes, and look at the merits or demerits of Fr. Buckley’s position. There are three things that one can read him as saying (I’m not sure what exactly he is claiming as his position as described above is not too clear);
1. Criticism of NFP users and NFP enthusiasts by traditionalists is excessive and should stop.
2. We should presume that people who use NFP do so for licit reasons.
3. Wrong use of NFP can only be venially, rather than mortally, sinful.
It can be accepted that 2) is true, in normal circumstances (’normal’ excluding obvious exceptions such as e.g. being a confessor or spiritual director, or otherwise responsible for advising people on their moral lives in this regard.) So the issue is the truth of 1) and 3). He seems to be advancing 3) when he says ‘As for a violation of the third condition, only a minority claimed that it was morally sinful; the majority maintained that this condition bound couples only under pain of venial sin. Because of this division no confessor could impose on his penitents the view that the practice of periodic continence was mortally sinful.’ It is understood that he is claiming either that the majority was right, or that, since they were the majority, it was licit to follow their view (in accordance with the notion of probabililism). This looks to be his basis for advancing 1). Without going in to the merits of probabilism as such, it is clear that in this case it cannot be applied to support 3), because the reasons against the majority view are decisive. That is because there is a serious affirmative duty upon couples to procreate, as taught by Pius XII and Paul VI. (Not that this is new; it is clearly stated by St. Augustine when he gives the ends of marriage as ‘proles, fides, sacramentum’.) A violation of a serious duty, without any reason at all, is a mortal sin; NFP can be used to violate this duty when there is no reason at all for doing so; therefore, use of NFP can be mortally sinful, and the majority opinion given by Fr. Buckley, to the effect that use of NFP cannot be more than venially sinful and that confessors cannot advise their penitents that it is, is wrong. (It is worth pointing out that the majority view Fr. Buckley refers to is on his own showing based on the assumption that there is no such serious duty. The views of moral theologians after the teachings of Pius XII and Paul VI on this subject are not relevant to moral judgment, because the vast majority of people employed as moral theologians ceased to be Catholics around the time of this teaching.) The difference between venial and mortal sin is pastorally crucial, since a confessor may tolerate a venially sinful practice in order to avoid a greater evil, but he cannot do this with a moratlly sinful practice.
What about 1)? That seems to depend on the criticism being made (and also its manner, but I will leave that aside.) If the criticism is that NFP proponents do not allow for the possibility of NFP being mortally or venially sinful, or for the necessity of a serious reason for its use, such criticism is justified in the cases where it is true (as with Fr. Buckley himself). If it is that NFP proponents assume that NFP must be part of a Catholic marriage, but that this is not so because NFP requires a serious reason which may not be present, that seems justified as well; unless you assume that in practice such a serious reason will always be present. But this assumption seems wrong; if it were true, NFP could scarcely be said to require a ’serious reason’, and the popes would have been wasting their time in insisting on the necessity of the presence of such a reason.
You may all be bored by this prolix post but I’m glad about writing it, as I’ve made up my mind on this question in the process of doing so.
Is there ever an obligation (assuming both parties consent to it) for married couples to engage in the marital act? (I’m thinking of the example of the parents of St. Therese of Lisiuex and of St. Cecilia).
Anyways, it seem that what matters here is INTENTION. If one intends to use NFP for no reason with a anit-life mentality obviously, that is wrong. However, if one uses it for a grave reason and with proper intention, it’s ok.
St. Therese’s parents had 9 children, with Therese being the youngest. And the mother died of breast cancer when St. Therese was 4 years old, so this story about the parent’s marital celibacy seems kind of strange. At the most, they were celibate for fours years of a marriage that produced nine children, but during some part of those four years the mother was dying of cancer.
Anyway, complete abstinence from the marital act may be a sin of another kind. The sacrament of holy matrimony is invalid for any couple (or individual) who marries with the intent to not have any children. (This is grounds for annulment, since the marriage is invalid) So, it would be impossible to get married with the intent to abstain from the marital act - it would be a sacrilege in so far as it’s an invalid sacrament.
Assuming one enters marriage with the intent to have children and then later on decides to stop marital relations and have complete abstinence, then this would be a valid marriage, but the complete abstinence would have to be justified (the same grave reasons which can warrant NFP, can also warrant complete abstinence. AGAIN, read Pius XII address to the Italian mid-wives). But, if complete abstinence has the reasonable potential to lead one of the persons to sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, then it would seem to me that without sufficient, proportional grave reasons, that complete abstinence would be sinful in this case. Since it’s a sin to put yourself in the near occasion of sin without sufficient reason.
I don’t see how complete abstinence, used other than for the same grave reasons as NFP can be used for, can be justified.
1 - you have voluntarily entered in the Holy Matrimony, why did you do so if you plan on having complete abstinence for no good reason?
2 - if you wanted to live a celibate life you should have become a religious
3 - you may be recklessly putting yourself in the near occasion of sin
there are probably other issues here too, but this is my gut reaction to it.
Along these lines, sufficient grave reason alone is not enough for using periodic continence.
There are other requirements that go along with the grave reason such as -
1) both parties must agree
2) either married person can break the agreement at any time
there are other stipulations addressed by Pope Pius.
There marital debt can be refused only for a few reasons -
1) for a period of time after one party commits adultery (up until the adulterer is forgiven by the spouse)
2) if the spouse (usually the husband I’d imagine) is crazy, out of his mind, drunk..
3) if there is the risk of serious health problems or death.
4) for a period of time after child birth.
5) all other issues should be addressed to a traditional confessor (other than Fr. Buckley perhaps. Just kidding!)
Celibate, or “Josephite,” marriages were not unheard of in the Middle Ages. Several canonized saints of those times lived in such marriages, as well as the JPII-beatified Quattrocchis.
It’s not for everyone, nor should it be, but it’s not wrong or evil either, as long as both are willing and it is for spiritual purposes. Otherwise we wouldn’t have canonized the above people - look up St Nicholas of Flue, for one example.
Fr,
1) Isn’t one of the grounds for annulment that the parties entered in marriage with the intent to have no children?
2) What’s the point of a Josephite marriage? Are these actual marriage - Holy Matrimony - or are they separate sort of vows that allow a man and women to live together as brother and sister? Perhaps in the case of close family relations this would be appropriate since they could not have a standard marriage and yet this ‘civil union’ allows them to better take care of each other.
3) If one is so committed to the spiritual life to consider a Josephite marriage wouldn’t he be better off going into religious life?
4) Under what conditions would you as a confessor allow a couple to enter into a Josephite marriage?
Just an observation -
Most converts and almost all traditional Catholics are drawn to Catholicism because of its doctrinal clarity - especially on moral matters - which is unique to Catholicism and separates it from all other religions. (of course this unique feature is a result of Catholicism being the only true religion)
Others however inside the Church since its very beginnings have relished every shade of gray they could read into a doctrine and have attempted to find loopholes and exceptions. They parse words and ponder exceptional circumstances constantly searching for some ambiguity – like an enemy army probing the defending force’s lines looking for a weak spot in order penetrate or envelop.
Iosephus says “NFP - or the glorification of the same - has become associated with an effeminized, lax church culture.”
JSP says “the NFP Do’s and Don’ts are lauded in our feminized Church and general culture. Can you imagine giving NFP instruction to any generation of Catholic men prior to WWII?”
Question for the two estimable gentlemen: if the Church is the Bride and Christ is the Bridegroom, what is your objection to the church being “feminised”?
I am not referring to priests who, as alter Christus, should be masculine. I am just wondering how NFP is “feminine” or represents a “feminised church”. What is so wrong with that, and what is its automatic connection to “laxity”?
JSP — I believe that NFP instruction is primarily given to the women, not men. In my parish, at least. It’s not required that husbands/fiances tag along.
And here’s a question for everyone who considers the “Do’s and Don’ts” feminine/gay — what advice would heterosexual men give, then? Or is the giving of advice itself effeminate?
“They parse words and ponder exceptional circumstances constantly searching for some ambiguity – like an enemy army probing the defending force’s lines looking for a weak spot in order penetrate or envelop.”
This sounds to m