Yesterday I typed out an excerpt from the book This Is The Faith<\/i><\/a> by Canon Francis Ripley on NFP. <\/p>\n A word also needs to be mentioned about Natural Family Planning or periodic continence. Each method of limiting the birth of children relies on the use of the reproductive faculty only during the women’s infertile periods, thus avoiding pregnancy. The use of the term “Natural Family Planning” has come under sharp attack from traditional Catholic writers in recent years because it implies the right of the couple to “plan” their family; whereas the Catholic norm is to let God plan one’s family and to accept the children when (and if) God gives them-as a blessing from Him on the marital union and on society. Except for the use of NFP for fertility reasons, i.e., to aid in a legitimate way to conceive a child (as opposed to in vitro<\/i> fertilization), the planning<\/b> aspect would appear to reflect acceptance of the neo-pagan practice of “family planning”-albeit using “natural” as opposed to artificial means. Proponents of NFP, it would seem, are confusing a legitimate means<\/i> during an emergency situation or for a “serious reason” with an illegitimate end<\/i> in the case of no family emergency or “no serious reason, “ and presume then to conclude that NFP is morally acceptable as a way of life.<\/b> The end or purpose of NFP-that is, “planning” one’s family-is not acceptable<\/i> in principle, being against Natural Law and the teachings of the Church. A couple does not have the right to “plan their family,” even though the means used are those of NFP and do not violate the Church’s proscriptions against artificial birth control. As Cardinal Ottaviani, former head of the Holy Office (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), declared before the assembled bishops at Vatican Council II, “I am not pleased with the statement in the [draft] text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the history of the Church.<\/b>” This is the 2,000-year tradition of the Church, supported by Sacred Scripture (cf. Genesis<\/i> 38:1-10, et al<\/i>) and reiterated by the Popes in the Ordinary Teaching of the Magesterium of the Church (e.g. Casti Connubii<\/i>-“On Marriage,” Pius XI, 1930; Address to Midwives<\/i>, Pius XII, 1951; Humanae Vitae<\/i>-“On Human Life,” Paul VI, 1968, No.10). Also, it should be noted the Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/i> (2nd Ed., 1997) does not the term “Natural Family Planning.” Rather, it uses the term “periodic continence” (CCC<\/i>, No. 2370), that is, the practice of continence, or abstinence from sexual union, during the women’s fertile cycle each month. (p. 356-359, Tan)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Yesterday I typed out an excerpt from the book This Is The Faith by Canon Francis Ripley on NFP. Any practicing Catholic knows the NFP debate is nothing new. The “contraceptive mentality” vs.”reponsibility” argument. Neither side really spoke logically to me, and that may simply be because everyone’s set of circumstances are slightly different. Perhaps… Continue reading Once Again…To NFP or to Not NFP<\/i>, the continuous question<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1861","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-parenting-and-family-life","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/moss-place.stblogs.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1861","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/moss-place.stblogs.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/moss-place.stblogs.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/moss-place.stblogs.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/moss-place.stblogs.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1861"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/moss-place.stblogs.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1861\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/moss-place.stblogs.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1861"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/moss-place.stblogs.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1861"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/moss-place.stblogs.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nAny practicing Catholic knows the NFP debate is nothing new. The “contraceptive mentality” vs.”reponsibility” argument. Neither side really spoke logically to me, and that may simply be because everyone’s set of circumstances are slightly different.
\nPerhaps that is why Humanae Vitae<\/i> says “grave” and leaves it at that.
\nI read the following passage a few years ago when I first acquired the book, and I found these few words to be very helpful to me. I liked it because it did not have all the pro-NFP propaganda (which I find annoying, unrealistic and really quite contraceptve in mentality). At the same time, it took into consideration that there are circumstances where NFP might be a valid choice while still sounding pro-family and quite Catholic.
\nSince I typed it out recently, I thought I would share it.<\/p>\n
\nOn the other hand, periodic continence, i.e., refraining from use of the marital act during the woman’s fertile time each month, as a “safety net” for serious reason (cf. Humanae Vitae<\/i>, No. 10), is completely legitimate, but only under certain very specific conditions.<\/b> And they are the following:
\n1.\tThat there be a serious reason<\/b> to practice periodic continence.
\n2.\tThat it be with the mutual consent<\/b> of the marriage partners.
\n3.\tThat this continence not be near the occasion of mortal sin<\/b> for either party.
\n4.\tThat the periodic continence last only as long as the serious reason lasts<\/b>.
\n5.\tIt is recommended that the situation be reviewed by one’s confessor<\/b> to insure that all the requisite conditions are present.
\nIn his 1951 Address to the Italian Catholic of Midwives Pope Pius XII said the following: “From the obligation of making this positive contribution [the generation and rearing of children], it is possible to be exempt, for a long time and even for the whole duration of married life,<\/b> if there are serious, such as those often provided in the so-called \u2018indications’ of the medical, eugenical, economic<\/b>, and social order<\/b>. It therefore follows that the observance of the infertile period may be licit from the moral point of view; and under the conditions mentioned, it is so in fact.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the Church is not asking married couples to do the impossible.
\nIt should be stated here, however, that couples should practice complete abstinence<\/b> from marital relations, for good reason, with the mutual consent of both partners and so long as there is no danger of sin to either. This can be for the lifetime of the marriage partners in which case is called a Josephite Marriage, called such after St. Joseph, who lived in celibate marriage with the Blessed Virgin Mary; or it could be for a time only.
\nLest there be any misunderstanding about the meaning of Pope Pius XII’s use of the terms “medical, eugenical, economic,<\/b> and social order<\/b>, “ some further explanation follows:
\n“Medical”<\/b> refers to the physical (or even psychological) health of one or both of the marriage partners, usually the woman. If there is a serious risk, for example, to her life or health, this could constitute a “medical” reason. A woman who has had a number of children, for example, and is approaching the end of her childbearing years may develop serious physical complications that would pose serious risk to her to her unborn child in a new pregnancy. This could constitute a serious medical sphere.
\n“Eugenic”<\/b> refers to couple’s not being genetically able to produce offspring. Perhaps the couple’s children are all being born with Down’s Syndrome or are deficient in some other serious way.
\n“Economic”<\/b> refers to true financial hardship<\/i> brought about despite the couple’s best efforts to support their family, all the while not wasting their means on luxuries and non-essentials. Perhaps their country is very poor; perhaps good economic opportunity just does not exist for them. When severe financial hardship exists, there can be sufficient reason to practice periodic continence. But the economic “serious reason” would be the easiest to misinterpret or abuse when deciding in favor of periodic continence-this because of poor stewardship by the parents, or an improper set of values that puts materialism before one’s primary responsibility in marriage. The key to a right decision is honesty-with God, with oneself, with one’s spouse and with one’s confessor.
\n“Social Order”<\/b> refers to unusual interruptions in the social sphere that disrupt one’s normal life-due, for example, to a catastrophic flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, hurricane, tornado, war, fire, etc.-and which impinge immediately upon the family’s ability to function well.
\nIn all these cases, a couple may<\/b> resort to periodic continence, yet they are not obliged to do so. Traditionally the Church has never criticized married couples for simply accepting the children God sends. Overall, it should be noted, as a classic Catholic marriage manual states: “The control of births, therefore, should always be the exceptional situation in marriage, never the normal.” Further, “The modern Catholic couple must be reminded that parenthood is the business of marriage. This is their vocation. The Catholic husband and wife should do this work with wisdom and prudence, and, where there is good cause, may consider family limitation. But family limitation does not have to be considered. Most of you will find that the best evidence of a lifetime of worthwhile work will be your children. You should want children; and parenthood, God willing, should be more than an incidental experience in your married lives. If you have a truly Catholic conscience and a love of children, you will find that alleged obstacles can be overcome. Far from losing happiness, you will gain long-range satisfaction.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n