So you agree with the "providentialists" and see as "inferior" those using NFP?
I agree with Pope Pius XII. In his famous "Allocution to the Italian Midwives" he warned that any use of periodic continence which was not justified by grave reasons was "a sin against the very nature of married life."
Then in his "Address to Large Families" he encouraged Catholic families to accept children from God "in whatever number He chooses to send them."
If agreeing with Pope Pius XII makes me a "providentialist," then fine, that sounds like a pretty complimentary term. And as for those using NFP being "inferior," their consciences can tell them if they are really justified by sufficiently grave reasons. But Pope Pius XII had no problem denying any equality between large families and those reduced by family size limitation:
Large families are the most splendid flower-beds in the garden of the Church; happiness flowers in them and sanctity ripens in favorable soil. Every family group, even the smallest, was meant by God to be an oasis of spiritual peace. But there is a tremendous difference: where the number of children is not much more than one, that serene intimacy that gives value to life has a touch of melancholy or of pallor about it; it does not last as long, it may be more uncertain, it is often clouded by secret fears and remorse. It is very different from the serenity of spirit to be found in parents who are surrounded by a rich abundance of young lives. The joy that comes from the plentiful blessings of God breaks out in a thousand different ways and there is no fear that it will end.
So you agree with the "providentialists" and see as "inferior" those using NFP?
Using NFP is licit only for those clearly defined periods of time whereby a couple has grave reason for having recourse to NFP. Providentialism is NEVER illicit, because recourse to NFP is never demanded. Heroic virtue may eliminate any need of NFP, substituting heroic abandonment to Divine Providence. But heroic virtue is never demanded; only morally licit behavior is demanded. In certain cases where grave reasons for recourse to NFP exist, its use is no more nor less "moral" or licit than providentialism.
Any blanket condemnation of NFP is just as wrong as any blanket approval of NFP for any reason whatsoever.
We teach there are 4 main reasons for having recourse to NFP.
1--Physical/ mental health---a pregnancy could kill you or so physically impair you as to prevent your fulfillment of your duties in your state in life---NOT because of a widening wasteline or drooping skin! Or psychological health, i.e., mom would literally have a nervous breakdown if she became pregnant---not because she "just couldn't stand being home with the little kids all day without the personal fulfillment of her professional job..."
2--Financial constraints---your child will starve if you have another. Wanting a bigger house or designer SUV just does not cut it!
3--work on the mission fields by one or both spouses that would proclude having children temporarily
4--active persecution or war---i.e., you or your child likely to die by coercive abortion, in concentration camp, in acts of war, etc.
Clearly we say these reasons must be SERIOUS, not trivial. Only the couple and their confessor can truly decide what truly constitutes grave reason.