On NFP and a Unique Contribution to the Arena of Ideas:(Musings of your humble servant at
Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I cannot believe I forgot the title and footnotes for this post yesterday. But then again, if you take into account that it was "Friday" for me yesterday all the way until around 6pm, hopefully these oversights can be understood. (What occasioned this is in retrospect rather hilarious but I have no time to discuss it at this point.) Nonetheless, I have added the title and footnotes to this post that were intended and apologize for their omission. -ISM 7/16/04 11:07am]Though I have not said much of anything on my weblogs about the matter thus far,{1} the subject of NFP{2} is one which I have approached in some of my web writings -particularly my treatise which was promulgated to the web
four years ago last D-Day. In that work, I dealt with the subject as it pertained to certain Jansenistic outlooks on sexuality and also certain contemporary realities that were often not taken into account by those who were of the "traditionalist" persuasion. (In the case of NFP, the "traditionalists" are not infrequently quick to scoff at this practice.) Here is some what I noted on the matter then -though this section received a little touching up in last year's revision viz. the approach taken towards this position (though not the arguments utilized to sustain it):
There are also an often very rigorous (often fanatically so) attitudes of 'traditionalists' with certain warped concepts of modesty. A woman not wearing slacks is one concept that comes to mind. Never mind the degree of modesty that a given pair of pants may have (there are after all, immodest and modest pants), comments such as "the Blessed Mother never wore slacks" are thrown out which are indicative of a gross stupidity. First of all, in apostolic times both men and women wore long flowing garments. In fact, the actual attire was quite similar between women and men back then (except women covered their heads often time of course). Another warped concept is one of an exaggerated Puritan concept of marriage and also the relationship between the spouses. When it comes to husband and wife relationships, 'traditionalists' take an exaggerated view of the submission owed by a wife to her husband and makes it equivalent to a near-servitude (if not explicitly stated as such).Then there is the subject of conjugal love and procreation. Ignoring the manifold factors that make excessively large families less congruent to modern society, there is the condemnation of NFP and other family planning methods (that are intrinsic ally congruent to the Divine Law) by the 'traditionalist' movement both implicitly and explicitly. The facts that (i) we live in a more urban and industrialized culture so (ii) the need of large families to support an agriculturally based society is no longer necessary are not factors that are ever taken into consideration. Further still (iii) with the death rate being overcome in the late nineteenth century, the same degree of emphasis on the need to preserve the species is not in existence. This is due in no small part to (iv) numerous advances in medicine that aid in the cure of many ailments that were fatal to infants and young children even a century ago along with (v) a lower degree of miscarriages today primarily since we have greater knowledge of the types of stress that causes a miscarriage: knowledge that did not exist in previous centuries. In other words, the same number of conceptions today would result in a vastly higher rate of both births and survival to adulthood of many children who due to the particular circumstances in previous centuries were either miscarried, stillborn, or died before the age of five.The Church in her timeless wisdom has recognized in certain situations (because of the changes in times and circumstances and the advance of medicine and knowledge) there are natural God-given means of addressing these matters. There is of course nothing wrong with having a large family of course. (Nor is it being implied in this paragraph that there is.) However at the same time it is not and never has been a Catholic understanding that one was to have as many children as they could. The difference in the industrial-technological society of today is that family sizes that were common in centuries past are often not as practical as they once were and (because of our advances in medicine and knowledge) it is often necessary to be regulated as long as such regulation is conducted in a morally licit manner. There are legitimate and illegitimate means of limiting and/or spacing births and the judicious use of NFP is just such a means, which is in no way contradictory to the Divine Law. Nevertheless, many 'traditionalist' groups erroneously ascribe such methods to "Modernism."While these methods of consistent natural regulation were not unheard of in previous centuries; using philosophical approaches predating the twentieth century to analyze discoveries of the twentieth century is what is known as a "non sequitur." These methods only became known with enough information to be reasonably consistent in their application around the turn of the century (becoming better known in the 1920's), it involves having recourse to more recent decisions of the Magisterium in this vein to have a proper perspective on these matters. Initial methods of natural regulation (such as rhythm) were not as efficient as the more advanced ones developed since the early to mid 1970's (and refined since then), but the principle is the same. It appears to be God's answer to the contraception mania that has erupted this century since Lambeth in 1930. (Since reasonably consistent natural regulation was only discovered before the evil of contraception became more prominent.) This is not to say that a contraceptive mentality should be employed in utilizing NFP of course, but there are legitimate reasons for its usage which the Church has approved of. Even predating Vatican II we can find this principle outlined in Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii: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. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. (Pope Pius XI: Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii §59 circa December 31, 1930)The intrinsic nature of the act is not deterred through sexual abstinence; therefore methods such as NFP which utilize period of abstinence cannot be accused of acting against nature. However, there are many so-called 'traditionalists' who would mark such people as 'untraditional' and demonstrate in doing so the very kind of rigorism that is another parallel to Jansenism. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XIII (c. 2000, rev. c. 2003)]I never presumed that those were the only arguments to sustain a cogent support for NFP mind you; however, I *did* in the context of that multisubject work find them adequate for dealing in short order with that matter. Some who identify themselves as "traditionalists" would give at most a grudging acknowledgement of NFP as a kind of "lessor of two evils." However, as I have often noted when it comes to the almost pathological nature of many people to try to
box people into various categories, that this can work on the other side as well -with the way those who call themselves "traditionalists" are approached by other people.
With this subject, I have an opportunity to demonstrate my assertions in this vein{3} with a real life example.{4} That therefore is what this weblog entry will endeavour to do in pointing out a person who identifies in many respects with the "traditionalist"
weltanschauung but who has shown that they can think outside the box. That personage is one Charles De Nunzio.
When surfing over at Charles De Nunzio's weblog yesterday, I found
him supporting NFP for many of the same reasons I noted in the writing quoted above. He also posted additional reasons -some of which to a degree go beyond the ones that I noted in my treatise of four years ago.
Now, my concern in writing the material above was to explain this from predominently the area of modern physical issues which pertain to the matter -advances in science, adjustments in the economies of scale, and preservation of the species essentially. Charles goes beyond this and advances the theory that the
spiritual climate of society since (roughly) the mid twentieth century is a good argument for the judicious usage of NFP. I am not sure I completely concur with his analysis but I find myself intrigued enough to ponder this point further. And having noted that, a development that has long been latent has come to fruition in my mind.
For I have been monitoring Charles' site for a while with considerations of adding it to my scroll of links. This line of argumentation he has set forth on NFP -being very original and presenting some rather compelling points to ponder- was the cincher for me on that matter. Henceforth, you will find after this post is added, Charles' weblog link added to the side margin under
Ecumenical Jihad all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:{1} If you check the archives, you may find a post or two on the matter but I do not believe I blogged on this particular subject before prior to now.
{2} Natural Family Planning in case you are unfamiliar with the term.
{3} The assertion that the indiscriminate usage of labels is a woefully inadequate (and often inaccurate) way of trying to separate various distinctions of outlook from people with differing operative presuppositions.
{4} Mr. De Nunzio is far from "garden variety" in his particular views on this or numerous other matters.
Labels: Expository Musings
