This is NOT the Faith – An "Updated" Book's Devious Distortion

I’ve never heard this issue addressed from the pulpit or in a talk at a retreat or conference….only in a space where a woman feels comfortable alluding to the fact that her (conservative practicing Catholic) husband pressures her to have sex during the “red light” time of Natural Family Planning. This seems to be an issue that no one wants to touch with a ten foot pole, but along with its corollary – that it’s actually more virtuous to let someone’s sex drive determine how many children to have than to decide using reason, free will, and self control – this issue is going to come to head at some point. (Hopefully sooner than later, and I’m happy to say that Fr. Mike Schmitz addressed a wife’s right to say “no” in his Bible in a Year Podcast, Episode 165)

In the meantime, there are nominally Catholic materials that give credence to these misconceptions. Canon Francis Ripley’s This Is the Faith was originally published in 1951. Since I’ve never seen a copy of the original version, I can’t say what Canon Ripley actually wrote about marriage and having children. However, the version of This Is the Faith currently published and sold by TAN Books and “updated” in 2002 is deeply troubling.

For one thing, there’s no way to tell what is an update and what is original text. In the introduction the unnamed publisher writes about how he or she “added to, augmented, clarified, fleshed out” Canon Ripley’s work. This person comes right out and says, “And in the chapter on marriage, we expanded the section on birth prevention to express more clearly the Church’s traditional teaching.” (I would say it was distorted rather than expanded.) Interestingly, the book has an Imprimatur – Church’s declaration that the book is free of error in terms of Catholic belief – from 1951, but the publisher’s “updates” do not appear to have an updated Imprimatur.

This “updated” version of the book is marketed as a reliable guide to Catholicism. Seton Educational Media, for example, says, “This Is The Faith A Complete Explanation of the Catholic Faith belongs in every Catholic home. It is unparalleled as a review, as a catch-up course for the poorly informed, or as an introduction to the truth of the Catholic Faith for converts.” For myself, I can say first-hand that at least one person’s problematic thinking was influenced by the misinformation this book!

In Chapter 33, This Is the Faith states that God's plan is for married women to have as many children as they biologically can, spaced only by breastfeeding, a number which the author estimates will be from four to twelve. Furthermore, it states, “This is God's plan for the control of births! This is the size of family He wants! The Almighty, All-knowing and All-provident God created human beings without man's advice and obviously in the way He intended.”

Every time I read this I am struck by the unfeeling attitude toward women and families. It’s hard not to conclude that this was written by someone who knew (even if he wasn’t consciously thinking about it) that he was biologically exempt from living out the consequences of this viewpoint in his own body. Yes, children are absolutely a blessing from God. And yes, child-bearing takes a physical, emotional, and psychological toll, and a woman’s welfare should not be callously disregarded by someone claiming to know the plan of God! (And if the writer is privy to “God’s plan” for women having as many children as possible, why does the book later acknowledge the legitimacy of “periodic continence” at all?)

Not only is this attitude contrary to Church teaching expressed in Gaudium et Spes and Humanae Vitae (quoted below), but it ignores the fact that God also created human beings in such a way that a couple can discern when they are mutually fertile (a man being always fertile and a woman having periods of infertility). God also gave both men and women the intellect and free will necessary to make moral decisions about child-bearing. Couples cannot pretend to be ignorant of their circumstances, nor can they rightly excuse irresponsibility and imprudence by calling it “trust in God” or “God's plan for our family.” Marriage is not an excuse for tempting Providence whether it be by refusing to seek employment or by making love because we feel like it even when having another child would go against right reason because of the needs of existing children, a parent's mental health situation, the family’s financial circumstances, and so on and so on.

Gaudium et Spes clearly states that spouses themselves must discern and act according to their own good and the good of their entire family in this matter. The quote below also shows the fallacy of the narrow and problematic interpretation of “serious reasons” in This Is the Faith, which deigns to give a rigoristic interpretation of what Pope Pius XII really meant when he referenced “serious reasons, such as those often provided in the so-called ‘indications’ of the medical, eugenical, economic, and social order.”

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted...Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. It further states – This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. Emphasis added. (Gaudium et Spes 50)

This Is the Faith updated version also says that couples are not ever required to practice periodic abstinence (the term it insists on using instead of Natural Family Planning). Extreme examples immediately come to mind that show this to be problematic – a couple living under a totalitarian regime whose child would be forcibly aborted, a family that is already destitute – not to mention the less dramatic situations that would make practicing NFP the morally correct decision. Pope Saint John Paul II himself addressed this very point.

Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood on this point, as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so. Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. Emphasis added. (John Paul II, “Parents Are God's Co-Workers” Sunday Angelus meditation, July 17 1994)

Based on conversations and opinion pieces I’ve experienced, this attitude toward NFP is not as uncommon as one might think, and a book like this gives it credibility. On this topic, libido is suddenly canonized as the ultimate arbiter of decisions regarding the sexual aspect of marriage. Per This Is the Faith, waiting to have sex because tomorrow’s not a fertile day is only moral under some pretty extreme circumstances, but having sex today because someone is horny...and consequences be damned...is always perfectly fine.

Now for one of the most problematic pronouncements of all. Again in Chapter 33, the book lists as a condition for the moral use of periodic continence, “That this continence not be the near occasion of mortal sin for either party.” This statement, which is not qualified or elaborated upon, is highly troubling. If one or both spouses struggle with sexual morality during the time of abstinence, obviously the answer is not to discard Church teaching on responsible parenthood and risk reducing one's spouse to an object of lust. After all, we don’t believe that the end justifies the means! Neither is it just or charitable for one spouse to be obligated to have sex against right reason (and possibly to one’s own spiritual, psychological, or physical detriment!) due to another’s struggle with sin. Not to mention, conceiving imprudently can negatively impact the marriage, the child conceived, other children in the family, and one or both spouses. In a case like this, the Catholic approach would be for the struggling spouse(s) to seek the means to overcome difficulties through God's grace, not to try to avoid one sin by another flawed action.

The term “Natural Family Planning” also comes under fire for promoting “the right of the couple to 'plan' their family,” and Cardinal Ottaviani is quoted favorably for having said of a Vatican II text, “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 Church.” The book then goes on to say that this is backed by 2000 years of Church teaching, including Humanae Vitae. In fact, rather than proposing family planning through discernment and – when appropriate – periodic abstinence as a dubious right, Humanae Vitae presents it as a duty of married couples.

Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects. With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9) With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them. With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time. (Humanae Vitae 10)

This quote states the duty of being aware of how human fertility works, of discerning one's situation, and of planning accordingly to either “prudently and generously” (not driven by hormones alone!) invite God to send another child or to refrain from doing so for good reasons. This quote from Humanae Vitae also shows that it can be morally praiseworthy for a couple to “determine the number of children they are to have” by abstaining during the fertile times for the remainder of their marriage.

Gaudium et Spes also states -

Those too who are skilled in other sciences, notably the medical, biological, social and psychological, can considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family along with peace of conscience if by pooling their efforts they labor to explain more thoroughly the various conditions favoring a proper regulation of births. “Proper regulation of births” certainly sounds like couples “planning” their families!

The book even makes something of the fact that the specific words, “Natural Family Planning” are not used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However, the message of the Catechism is not the message presented in This is the Faith. On the contrary, the Catechism acknowledges the need for couples to plan their families -

A particular aspect of the responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality...Periodic continence, that it, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, [This is Natural Family Planning!] is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.

So…what can we do about the “updated” version of This Is the Faith being published and promoted as a reliable guide? Contact TAN Publishing (you can also simply email them at customerservice@tanbooks.com) and ask them to stop publication and sale of This Is the Faith until this “updated” version has been reviewed, corrected, and approved by the appropriate diocesan office. I encourage you to use “This Is NOT the Faith” for the email subject line and to spread awareness of this issue on social media.