Replies

Fr. Hogan is saying:

when NFP is known properly, both the husband and the wife come to understand the awesome nature of God's gift of life to each of them and the incredible gift the other is. In other words, the body reveals the person which in turn reveals God because the body reveals an image of God and when an image of God is revealed, something of God is revealed. This newfound respect and awe leads to gratitude, then to love (because having received such an awesome gift, naturally one is grateful and wants to respond) and to generosity (because love is always generous). ,/i>

With this generosity, NFP couples usually desperately WANT to give of themselves, and to give this awesome gift of life to new human persons. They understand in a profound way the privilege of procreation and want to share in this activity with God. They will only postpone a pregnancy for the most weighty of reasons. Thus, NFP leads couples to "serious reasons" to postpone a pregnancy.

In practical terms, if a couple understands NFP properly, uses it properly, has their life in order (taking care of family obligations, Church obligations, work, social responsibilities, community responsibilities, etc.) then if they decide to postpone a pregnancy, the Church ASSUMES that they have sufficient reasons.

It is not so much that the reasons are not needed, it is that they come as a RESULT of the proper use of NFP and are not required as a PREREQUISITE.

I have found no Church documents that would verify that these statements are anything more than Fr. hogan's own personal beliefs and pious opinions. Do any of you know of any Church documents that support his thesis here, or is Fr. Hogan out on a limb by himself making these assertions?

This is my own opinion:

It appears that this is his personal theological opinion. I have never seen an official Church document that maintains or supports Fr. Hogan's position here. This is the first time I have even seen it argued this way!

Therefore, I disagree with his central thesis; i.e., its OK to teach NFP void of the requirements of "grave reasons" in the hopes that in the future virtue will develop in the context of which the proper grave reasons will ipso facto exist in that coupls' marriage. This is "doing evil that good may come of it" in my opinion.

I will be doing some further research over the coming days to ascertain whether this is an emerging consensus among NFP supporters or simply the pious and personal opinion of one sole priest.

I suspect it is the latter.

Any comments?

The only correct statement I could see is "the Church ASSUMES that they have sufficient reasons".

The Church does not attempt to dictate our lives to us beyond our moral duties to God, and our fellow men.

In fact, the whole notion of consulting ones confessor for instructions in frequency of marital sexual acts is revolting.

But I can't see how merely using NFP is itself a serious/grave/etc. reason, and the language he uses implies NFP is a positive good that must be practiced, rather than tolerated knowledge which is "ad libitum" of the spouses.

This grave/serious/etc. reasons language of the Church applies most especially to those couples who are avoiding their duty to society to have at least four children for some reason. Once you have done that, this same criteria does not apply. No one is obliged to have as many children as physically possible.

The shirking of the four children teaching by modern NFP promoters is the cause of all the confusion over this issue. If people clearly understood the traditional teaching laid out from 1860-1960 which I have brought to your attention before, that there is only a duty to society to provide for the replacement rate of reproduction (taking into account sterile couples and unmarried persons) plus some modest growth, this wouldn't even be an issue.

The whole NFP brouhaha is greatly clarified by sticking to the former consensus of moral theologians discarded by the anti-Humane Vitae heretics, and ignored by the "you must have 12 children" crowd.

I think this attitude supports what many traditionalists (including myself) find objectionable about NFP - not it's inherent qualities but how it is presented and taught in today's world; i.e., the requirement for grave reasons are a thing of the past. As with liturgical license, the exception is substituted for the rule.

Some dioceses and parishes require NFP training before Catholic weddings. Is the presumption that all (or most) couples will encounter grave reasons and need NFP or is it (like Popcak and the other NFP zealots portray) a normal practice for a "healthy" marriage?

Because of this requirement, my wife and I underwent a diocesan-sponsored NFP course two years ago for our marriage preperation. This was at the most conservative parish in the archdiocese (by far). There was much mention of "making the marriage work first", "overpopulation", "providing for college education" and "proper spacing", but not even a suggestion that what we were learning was to be reserved for rare circumstances. Giving the instructor priest the benefit of the doubt, I waited until the end of the course to see if it would come up and it didn't. In response to the "any final questions?" request, I asked whether the Church teaches that NFP is only acceptable for "grave causes." He laughed and said that was a "pre-Vatican II" teaching, and that the new catechism defines it as "just reasons", which meant any reason not sinful or evil. When asked for an example, he cited the example of a mother not wanting to give birth due to the effects it may have on her figure.

Now, that is not to say that all NFP instruction is so deficient. I have heard of groups and courses which are careful to stress the moral aspects of NFP. Even such, the most vocal NFP promoters (Steubenville, EWTN, etc.) are loath to mention such moral requirements, and even demean those who don't use NFP as savages or "providentialists". As such, my objections to the NFP industry stand.

Any comments?

Polycarp, thanks for posting this. I was out of town for the past week and couldn't respond sooner. You are correct that Fr. Hogan is promoting his own personal speculation and pretending that it is the "quiet" teaching of the Vatican. The Church has clearly taught the requirement for grave reasons numerous times in the past.

Nor is it an acceptable moral line of reasoning to say that it's okay to use NFP in an illicit manner because it will eventually lead you to a better understanding. You cannot encourage 1 sin to replace a greater sin. That would be just like the people who say that pro-lifers should encourage contraception in order to eliminate abortion.