By: Father Anthony
“Catholics must no longer be in any doubt: the influence of the global population control movement on the Vatican is very strong indeed” [Voice of the Family, 10/12/15].
Father James Morrow did not foresee a Green Pontiff making common cause with population control zealots. Otherwise he would have qualified his foregoing description of natural family planning (in his Memorandum to Participants in the UN Conference on Population and Development), to avoid the least possibility of it being misconstrued as the sort of ‘Catholic contraception’ touted by Pope Francis and his close advisors.
Cardinal Turkson, for one, who believes “birth control” can help alleviate “food shortages” arising from supposed overpopulation. “[T]he Holy Father on his trip back from the Philippines also invited people to some form of birth control,” he reminded the BBC, “because the Church has never been against birth control and people spacing out births and all of that.”
Ever since Humanae Vitae undermined the clear primary end of marriage (the procreation and education of children), NFP has been prey to this contraceptive mentality: a pragmatic, naturalistic outlook peddled as “responsible” parenthood. The latest wink and nod to this worldly mindset is the praising of the direct prevention of children as a virtue rather than a lesser evil. In challenging this notion, the following rejoinder makes a fine distinction, albeit one, it is argued, with major Catholic and demographic repercussions.
__________________________________________________________
Early last year, an interesting debate occurred between Joseph Fessio, S.J., and Michel Fauteux on whether contraception is objectively a greater evil than abortion.[1] During the course of the debate, Fr. Fessio conceded Prof. Fauteux’s point that, although the
omission of procreation through contraception must be excluded, according to Paul VI… this does not mean that the omission of procreation is itself a moral evil… On the contrary, it can be a moral evil not to omit procreation, in the case for example in which generating a new life would be irresponsible. Omitting the procreation of a new life can be very praiseworthy morally, even if contraception must be excluded as a means for reaching this end.
Virtuous act or venial sin?
I am sympathetic to Fr. Fessio’s point about the objective gravity of the evil of artificial contraception. However, I question whether the scholarly Jesuit should have conceded the professor’s premise that the omission of procreation can be praiseworthy morally, and a fortiori that it can be morally obligatory.
My point is that procreation is objectively an unqualified good, and therefore its directly intended omission (that is, within marriage… outside of marriage would be fornication) can never be virtuous.
To this point, I would ask if, prior to 1965, any Magisterial authority or Church Father or Doctor can be found who has upheld the use of abstinence in order to prevent the conception of children as a virtue?
I suspect not. That upholding the direct prevention of children as a virtue was an innovation was indicated by Cardinal Ottaviani, who intervened at the Second Vatican Council and affirmed:
I am not pleased with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church.
I tend to agree with Fr. Fessio’s position that contraception can be objectively a greater evil than abortion, inasmuch as to exist is always better than to never have existed, even if one’s life were to be violently cut short by the crime of abortion. At worst, such a soul would presumably live in a state of Limbo, a state of natural happiness, but perhaps not quite the Beatific Vision. Yet to never have existed, when otherwise God wills a soul to cross the threshold of existence, is the ultimate privation of a good that ought to be, which is the very definition of evil.
Some will claim that to speak of souls that never existed is to speak of nonsense. However, it may help to conduct this thought experiment: Given the evidence that Catholic school enrolment has dramatically decreased since the onslaught of the sexual revolution, imagine for a moment that the same number of Catholic schools with the same number of classrooms and the same number of desks existed today as in 1960. It follows that a dramatic number of those desks would be empty. Suppose that God willed that only one half of those desks be filled with children, who were otherwise never conceived through several generations because of the use of contraception.
In other words, if artificial contraception had not been used (and assuming that the parents would not have resorted to abortion), at least one half of those desks would be filled today. Then, at least half the empty desks represent the souls that never existed because of the preventative effect of contraception.
Therefore, I hold that the concept of “omitting procreation” is problematic, both because it attempts to hide the action taking place (the prevention/avoidance of children), and because of the premise that such action can be morally virtuous. If children are a blessing (the supreme gift of marriage), then preventing or avoiding them cannot be virtuous: whether it be child #1 in the family (like me), or child #23 (like St. Catherine of Siena).
To uphold procreation and education of children as the primary end of marriage implies that any act which directly frustrates the end must needs be disordered, with different levels of seriousness according to the circumstances involved. Furthermore, the additional aspect of education regarding the primary end of marriage describes an obligation incumbent upon the parents, rather than a qualifier about the objective goodness of the existence of children.
Thus, I think we are dealing with at least venial sin when either periodic continence or total continence is used solely to prevent/avoid children, even for serious reasons.
Total and periodic continence
Now, total continence can be used for other reasons; such as a form of mutual sacrifice or penance. And this is virtuous continence. Such would be the case with the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph, who sought to preserve Mary’s virginity. Such is also the case with those who voluntarily choose the celibate life. In other words, there is a higher motivation to abstain from sexual relations, which also means that more children will not be conceived. (This, by the way, is another reason why Catholics must have larger families: not only to produce celibate vocations, but also to offset the loss of children that these celibates would have provided to the community.)
This is why I asked above: Prior to 1965, can any Magisterial authority or Church Father or Doctor be found to support the notion that using abstinence for the sole purpose of preventing/avoiding children is a virtuous act? If I recall correctly, Pope Pius XII (in his Allocution to the Italian Midwives) affirmed that periodic continence can be permissible (“può essere lecita sotto l’aspetto morale”) under certain circumstances, but he stopped short of upholding it as virtuous.
It is my respectful opinion that the Magisterium since 1965, while correctly affirming the infallible prohibition of artificial contraception, has inadvertently made a doctrinal error in upholding the use of abstinence for the purpose of preventing/avoiding children as a virtue, rather than granting its use as merely permissible under certain conditions.
Periodic continence may accurately be defined as the exclusive use of sexual relations during the infertile times for the purpose of preventing/avoiding the conception of children. Furthermore, it must be admitted that total continence can also be used for the purpose of preventing/avoiding children. In both cases, the procreative end of marriage is being directly intentionally frustrated, not by interfering with the conjugal act, nor by suppressing the generative faculty of one or both spouses, but by deliberately abstaining during the fertile times.
Thus, it follows logically that periodic continence and total-continence-for-the-purpose-of-avoiding-children differ only in degree, but not in kind (plus et minor non mutant species). Whereas both periodic continence and total-continence-for-the-purpose-of-avoiding-children differ in kind from artificial contraception. Artificial contraception always involves grave matter since it always implies the frustration of the conjugal act, either by not completing the act (barrier or interruption), or by the suppression of the generative faculty of one or both spouses.
One of the differences between periodic continence and total continence is that the former is always used for the purpose of preventing/avoiding children (even if only temporarily to optimise the chances of conception at a later date), while total continence may be used for other purposes than the prevention of children, as mentioned above.
The other difference is that periodic continence could actually be described as incontinent, since it implies the use of marital relations beyond the need for procreation. But this incontinence (such as having sexual relations when the wife is known to be pregnant) within marriage, was held by St. Augustine to be only venial sin at worst.
Breastfeeding
Some will argue that God has built a naturally contraceptive mechanism into the woman’s cycle of fertility. A woman who breastfeeds regularly (exclusively, in the case of so-called “ecological breastfeeding”) is less likely to ovulate. Thus there is a built-in contraceptive effect that naturally spaces the birth of children. However, if the parents are using ecological breastfeeding for the purpose of preventing the conception of children, then having sexual relations during this time would also be incontinent, since this constitutes the use of sexual relations beyond the need for procreation.
On the other hand, if the mother is using breastfeeding for the benefit of the child and mother (such as: nutrition, immunisation against disease, mutual bonding, economic reasons), then the preventative effect is not necessarily directly intended. Furthermore, in such a case, pregnancy could be a possibility and therefore there would be both no direct contraceptive intention and no incontinence, for such a couple who has conjugal relations during the time the mother is breastfeeding for the benefits that accrue to mother and child from breastfeeding.
Direct intention
I think that most NFP promoters would agree with the definition of periodic continence given above (exclusive use of sexual relations during the infertile times for the purpose of preventing/avoiding the conception of children), although they would probably insist on the word “avoiding” rather than “preventing.”
Most promoters of NFP will also defend it on the basis of the fact that periodic continence does not separate the procreative end from the unitive end of sexual intercourse.
Nevertheless, having long struggled with understanding the deficient nature of periodic continence, my error was this: to fail to recognise that periodic continence is contraceptive not with respect to the act of sexual intercourse, but with respect to the procreative end of marriage. In other words, the word “contraceptive” or “contraception” has to do with the direct intention. Therefore, if a married couple abstains completely with the direct intention of preventing/avoiding the conception of children, then their sexual abstinence is contraceptive.
On the other hand, if a married couple abstains completely for ascetical reasons, then the prevention of children is not directly intended and their abstinence is not contraceptive. In both cases children are prevented, but only the case where children are directly prevented is the abstinence properly described as contraceptive.
Analogous to this scenario is the case where one of the spouses is rendered infertile due to the removal of some pathological reproductive organ. The person has been sterilised, but the sterilisation was not contraceptive because the direct intention was to remove the danger to his/her health, rather than the direct intention of preventing children.
So abstinence for the purpose of preventing/avoiding children is contraceptive, whether it’s a little (periodic continence) or a lot (total continence), but it can be at least venially sinful… and a very light sin at that, depending on the circumstances involved.
It should be noted too that if a couple find themselves in a truly serious situation (such as the case when pregnancy could be a danger to the mother), then they can still choose to abstain for a purpose other than preventing children… “We have mutually decided to abstain from sexual relations for 10 years out of love for God and in reparation for sins against chastity.” In such a case, their abstinence would not be contraceptive, yet children would not be conceived. However, the couple could not say the same thing about periodic continence, since the use of the periodic continence necessarily betrays the contraceptive intention (while it is being used).
To restore the primary end of marriage
So, it is very important to recognise the moral difference between artificial contraception (which is always grave matter of mortal sin) and periodic continence (which can be only venial sin). If you blur that distinction, then you risk diminishing the gravity of sins against marital chastity. But in order to restore the hierarchical importance of the procreative end of marriage and of conjugal relations in current Catholic Magisterial teaching, the contraceptive nature of periodic continence must be admitted, and its practise must not be upheld as virtue, but rather only tolerated as a lesser evil under certain conditions. “As we may say plainly nothing can make unrighteousness righteous.” (St. Augustine).
[1] http://cal-catholic.com/?p=18360
The writer is a diocesan priest in the United States, and a longtime supporter of akaCatholic. This article appeared in the January 2016 edition of Christian Order.
Father Hesse said it best, “In this life, we have to walk a tightrope”.
I have read this debate between Joseph Fessio and Michael Fauteux and I remember contributing some comments in the comment box back then. I always got the feeling that this arguement was brought up in order to downplay the gravity of NFP when it plans to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children during conjugal relations by trying to put it on par with complete abstinence as sinful. This debate was trying to make it look as though this hypocritical sinful contraceptive practice of NFP were just the same as complete abstinence in silfulness. I get the impression that you are trying to promote this same error as they ended up doing,
Didn’t our Lord say that it were better that Judas had never been born? Therefor I disagree that all lives or possible lives are a guaranty to be better to have existed than to have never existed at all. I know you say that even all aborted lives go to purgatory so therefor it appears that you are insinuating that this is better than not existing at all from complete abstinence or contraception.Does this really justify saying that therefor abstaining completely from sex is sinful no matter what because it has the intent to avoid a conceiving a life which is sinful because life itself trumps all no matter how, when where or why it is conceived. Really?
Let us just say that complete abstinence for whatever reason is a different beast all together than the beast of periodic continence as you wish to label it but I call it playing hypocritical sinful Russian Roullette with NFP that tries to suck out all the benefits and effects of sex minus the gift of procreation under the disguise that it is not sinful and then maybe only a venial sin according to you. Wasn’t Onan killed on the spot for trying to take advantage of the effects of sex while misusing procreation whereas our Lord only punished the other man in the Bible who refused to consumate his marriage to his deceased brothers with public humiliation.
Of course people have been known to abstain for selfish reasons. Selfishness of course is not virtuous and should be avoided.Grave reasons such as infidelity, severe health and mental issues and abuse certainly should be seriously considered for complete abstinence. When someone is completely abstaining there is no sex going on so there is no possiblity of misappropriating the sex act or separating the procreative effects from the unitive effects of sex or subordinating procreation to unity because there is no sex act occuring. I will post what Scripture says , the Church Fathers say and Saints about separating procreation from sex in act, word ,or deed. What goes on in the mind counts as sin just as looking at a woman with lust is even considered to be adulterous from Scripture. Contraceptive NFP certainly goes on not only in the mind but in act, wird and deed when it separate sex from procreation during conjugal relations as a direct intention.
The Holy Bible, Tobias 6:22; 8:9 “And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias said:] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.”
Tobias 6:16-17 “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.–On the Procreation and Education of Children)
St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 468-542): “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN…WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)
St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, A.D. 419: “It is one thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the sole will of generating [children]: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage: this has venial fault [that is, venial sin as long as one is not against procreation].” (Book I, Chapter 17.–What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?)
St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? … He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God and of his wife].” (Book 1, Section 20; 40)
St. Augustine, De Conjugiis Adulterinis, A.D. 396: “Since, therefore, the institution of marriage exists for the sake of generation, for this reason did our forebears enter into the union of wedlock and lawfully take to themselves their wives, only because of the duty to beget children.” (Book II, Chapter 12)
Pope St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.): “But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.” (Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)
Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.” (A Plea For the Christians, Chapter XXXIII.–Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage)
St. Finnian of Clonard (470-549), The Penitential of Finnian #46: “We advise and exhort that there be continence in marriage, since marriage without continence is not lawful, but sin, and [marriage] is permitted by the authority of God not for lust but for the sake of children, as it is written, ‘And the two shall be in one flesh,’ that is, in unity of the flesh for the generation of children, not for the lustful concupiscence of the flesh.”
St. Athanasius the Great (c. 296-373), On the Moral Life: “The law of nature recognizes the act of procreation: have relations with your wife only for the sake of procreation, and keep yourself from relations of pleasure.”
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): “For it [the Holy Scripture] regards it not right that this [sexual intercourse] should take place either in wantonness or for hire like harlots, but only for the birth of children.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XVIII.–The Mosaic Law the Fountain of All Ethics, and the Source from Which the Greeks Drew Theirs)
St. Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30, A.D. 400: “For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.”
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 5:8, A.D. 307: “There would be no adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution of women, if it were known to all, that whatever is sought beyond the desire of procreation is condemned by God.”
Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Moreover, the passion of lust is implanted and innate in us for the procreation of children; but they who do not fix its limits in the mind use it for pleasure only. Thence arise unlawful loves, thence adulteries and debaucheries, thence all kinds of corruption. These passions, therefore, must be kept within their boundaries and directed into their right course [for the procreation of children], in which, even though they should be vehement, they cannot incur blame.” (Chapter LXI.–Of the Passions)
Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Let lust not go beyond the marriage-bed, but be subservient to the procreation of children. For a too great eagerness for pleasure both produces danger and generates disgrace, and that which is especially to be avoided, leads to eternal death. Nothing is so hateful to God as an unchaste mind and an impure soul.” (Chapter LXII.–Of Restraining the Pleasures of the Senses)
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to “be fruitful and multiply.” [Gen. 1:28] He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word of Ezekiel: “Put away your fornications.” [Eze. 43:9] Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.” (The Paedagogusor The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.–On the Procreation and Education of Children)
St. Augustine, On The Good of Marriage, Section 11, A.D. 401: “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children] no longer follows reason but lust.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604): “The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.” (St. Gregory the Great, “Pastoral Care,” Part 3, Chapter 27, in “Ancient Christian Writers,” No. 11, pp. 188-189)
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 597 A.D.): “Lawful copulation of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties.” (Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli [English], Book XI, Letter 64)
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “Again, vice is the wrong use of our conceptual images of things, which leads us to misuse the things themselves. In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her. And the same is true with regard to other things and one’s conceptual images of them.” (Second Century on Love, 17; Philokalia 2:67-68)
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “There are also three things that impel us towards evil: passions, demons, and sinfulness of intention. Passions impel us when, for example, we desire something beyond what is reasonable, such as food which is unnecessary or untimely, or a woman who is not our wife or for a purpose other than procreation.” (Second Century on Love, 33; Philokalia 2:71)
St. John Damascene (c. 675-749): “The procreation of children is indeed good, enjoined by the law; and marriage is good on account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to be inflamed into unlawful acts. Marriage is good for those who have no continence; but virginity, which increases the fruitfulness of the soul and offers to God the seasonable fruit of prayer, is better. “Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” [Hebrews 13:4].” (St. John of Damascus, also known as St. John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chap. 24)
Gratian, Medieval Marriage Law (c. 1140): “Also, Jerome, [on Ephesians 5:25]: C. 14. The procreation of children in marriage is praiseworthy, but a prostitute’s sensuality is damnable in a wife. So, as we have said, the act is conceded in marriage for the sake of children. But the sensuality found in a prostitute’s embraces is damnable in a wife.”
Venerable Luis de Granada (1505-1588): “Those that be married must examine themselves in particular, if in their mind thinking of other persons, or with intention not to beget children, but only for carnal delight, or with extraordinary touchings and means, they have sinned against the end, and honesty of marriage.” (A Spiritual Doctrine, containing a rule to live well, with divers prayers and meditations, p. 362)
Thank you, Louie for posting this, and thank you Father Anthony for writing it. I have been wavering on this issue just lately and I’m grateful to read this very full, clear explanation.
I guess it really is difficult to be a good Catholic – er, that would be the Cross, right? All the difficulties seem such high barriers and when we feel overwhelmed it’s hard to remember Jesus is with us, and it is HE that will carry most of the load.
Thanks again, Father – terrific piece – lots of think about.
Here’s what I understand a reliable Thomistic moral theology manual has to say on the subject:
“All theologians agree that the use of marriage during the sterile period is not per se illicit. The act is performed in the natural way; nothing has been done positively to avoid conception; and the secondary ends of matrimony, mutual love and the quieting of temptation, have been fostered. ‘If the carrying out of this theory means nothing more than that the couple can make use of their matrimonial rights on the days of natural sterility, too, there is nothing against it, for by doing so they neither hinder nor injure in any way the consummation of the natural act and its further natural consequences’ (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951).
“‘If, however, there is further question–that is, of permitting, the conjugal act on those days exclusively–then the conduct of the married couple must be examined more closely’ (ibid).
“The following points summarize papal teaching on this aspect: 1) A premarital agreement to restrict the marital right and not merely the use to sterile periods, implies an essential defect in matrimonial consent and renders the marriage invalid. 2) The practice is not morally justified simply because the nature of the marital act is not violated and the couple are prepared to accept and rear children born despite their precautions. 3) Serious motives, (medical, eugenic, economic and social), must be present to justify this practice. When present, they can exempt for a long time, perhaps even for the duration of the marriage, from the positive obligations of the married state. 4) The married state imposes on those who perform the marital act the positive obligation of helping to conserve the human race. Accordingly, to make use of the marital act continuously and without serious reason to withdraw from its primary obligation would be a sin against the very meaning of conjugal life (ibid).
“Pope Pius explicitly confirmed the common teaching of theologians: 1) Rhythm, by mutual consent, for proportionate reasons, and with due safeguards against dangers would be licit. 2) Without a good reason, the practice would involve some degree of culpability. Not expressly confirmed, but simply an expression of common moral principles is the common agreement: 3) That sin could be mortal by reason of injustice, grave danger of incontinence, serious family discord, etc.
“Since the Allocution, the more common opinion in this country [USA] asserts that the Holy Father taught: 1) that married people who use their marital right have a duty to procreate; 2) that this duty is binding under pain of sin; 3) there are, however, reasons that excuse the couples from this obligation and, should they exist for the whole of married life, the obligation does not bind them at all; 4) the sin does not consist in the exercise of marital rights during the sterile periods; but in the abstention from intercourse during the fertile periods precisely to avoid conception, when the couple could have and should have made its positive contribution to society. Sin is present when the practice is unjustifiedly undertaken; 5) the formal malice of illicit periodic continence is not against the sixth commandment; i.e., against the procreation of children or the use of the generative faculty, but against the seventh commandment, i.e., against social justice. The couple is not making its contribution to the common good of society; 6) from 4 and 5 above, it follows that the individual acts of intercourse during a period of unjust practice of rhythm do not constitute numerically distinct sins. Rather, granting the continuance of a single will act to practice rhythm, there is one sin for the whole period of illicit abstention during the fertile periods” (McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, Vol. 2, Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: 1960).
I am often wearied by the many things I hear and read, but in You is all that I long for.
Thomas a Kempis
Dear Sobieski,
This is precisely the Novus Order theology from your so called reliable 1960’s manual on moral theology that sum up what I am calling to task. This theology manual along with all the NFP defenders incessantly and insistently quoting from a vacillating “bring in Bugnini” Pope Pius XII’s fallible private letter to the Italian midwives that for the first time ever contradicted the Church’s teaching on the primary purpose of marriage being primary and inseparable from the unitive purpose with the unitive purpose being subordinate to the primary purpose. This Novus Order NFP defender group and manual insist on using only this fallible contradictory letter along with Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae as their be all and end all to justifing their contradictory teachings on moral theology that clearly go against the Church’s magisterium, Scripture, and Church fathers and saints since the beginning of the Church all the way up to Pius XII reign.
I have repeatedly quoted from Scripture the Church fathers and Saints on how they condem this NFP mentality and you can still manage to ignore these reliable quotes over a swinging 1960’s manual on moral theology. I am seeing more and more, as I try to open peoples eyes to truth, how our Lord must suffer with man’s stubborness to sin and his blindness.
@Anastasia
Your response to my comment shows your presumption, arrogance and lack of charity. I surmised this disposition from other of your posts and so usually don’t pay much, if any, attention to them. My point was to show that this Magisterial teaching on periodic continence was not an innovation with Humanae Vitae or “groovy” manuals, which predate said encyclical, as you so ignorantly put it. I understand your position and that of the good father’s, but it seems to me they do not have a problem with Humanae Vitae or Novus Ordo theologians, but with the Magisterium going back at least to the mid-19th century. As Fr. Brian Harrison explains:
“The first time Rome spoke on the matter [of periodic continence] was 1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, ‘Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?’ The reply was: ‘After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation’ (quoted in J. Montanchez, Teologia Moral 654, my translation). By the expression ‘impedes generation,’ it is obvious the Vatican meant the use of onanism (or coitus interruptus, now popularly called ‘withdrawal’), condoms, etc. Otherwise the reply would be self-contradictory.
“The next time the issue was raised was in 1880, when the Sacred Penitentiary issued a more general response. The precise question posed was this: ‘Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to take occur?’ The response was: ‘Spouses using the aforesaid method are not to be disturbed, and a confessor may, with due caution, suggest this proposal to spouses if his other attempts to lead them away from the detestable crime of onanism have proved fruitless.’ (This decision was published in Nouvelle Revue Theologique 13 [1881]: 459-460 and in Analecta Iuris Pontificii 22 [1883]: 249.)
“One could not ask for a more obvious and explicit proof that more than eighty years before Vatican II, Rome saw a great moral difference between NFP (as we now call it) and contraceptive methods, which Catholic moralists then referred to as onanism.
“This was the doctrine and pastoral practice that all priests learned in seminary form the mid-nineteenth century onward. Before Pius XI was elected, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Benedict XV all clearly approved of this status quo established by their own Sacred Penitentiary and never showed the slightest inclination to reverse its decisions of 1853 and 1880” (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6452).
He goes on to explain that the Magisterium of Pope Pius XI also agreed with this teaching when after the promulgation of Casti Connubii it answered a question pertaining to periodic continence and cited the response from 1880 in answer to it. All this is not to say that periodic continence is fine and dandy for just any reason, only that it is allowable in certain circumstances for serious motives and as such, wouldn’t be sinful.
So the fact is you are disagreeing with the Magisterium going way back before Pius XII and acting like a Protestant in promulgating and attempting to bind your interpretation of Tradition on other Catholics, and also by ridiculing, judging and condemning them. It is for the Magisterium ultimately to determine the status of any teaching(s) that contradict or apparently contradict one another.
As far as Scripture goes, well, even heretics and the devil himself can use it to their advantage. That’s why Catholics turn to the Magisterium for judgment in matters of controversy and when no judgment is forthcoming, humbly wait for said judgments to be given. Private judgment in matters of faith and morals by laymen binds no one.
As far as the Church Fathers go, we should certainly regard them with honor and deference, but they are not individually infallible even when certain of them agree on a certain teachings. St. Augustine, for example, disagrees with St. Thomas on limbo. The former said unbaptized infants go to hell and experience a mild pain of sense, whereas the latter held the later, more prominent scholastic view that the souls of unbaptized infants experience perfect natural happiness in limbo. St. Anslem, another doctor of the Church, held that the ontological argument for God’s existence was cogent; St. Thomas did not. St. Augustine and many of the Church fathers were Christian Platonists, but one can make a strong argument that the Church, following St. Thomas and Aristotle, infallibly taught the hylomorphic view of human nature. These are only a few examples; the Church Fathers, in fact, do not agree on quite a number of issues. This is not to say any of them are heretics or evil, but only to say that on certain points, some of them could have been wrong in good faith, i.e., because they are human and fallible.
From what I understand this Sacred Penitentiary that you quote was not an officially declared arm of the Church as was the officially and newly founded Apostolicae Sedis that replaced this unofficial arm. It was this arm of the Church that became to be the official arm on matters of contraception during these restless times to redefine marriage and its hierarchial purposes.
Here is the response of the Holy Office, written and recorded officially for the public to read in it’s Holy arm the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, to the following question put to Rome on April 20th, 1944: The question was the following: “May one subscribe to the opinion of certain modern authors who deny that the principle end of marriage is the begetting and education of children, or who teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary ends, but are equally primary and independent?” The Holy See’s reply was “No.”
In the sources you quote from your unofficial arm of the Sacred Penitentiary back at this time the first question on whether having conjugal relations in perceived and thought to be known infertile periods was a sin the answer was no. As we have said before that it is not a sin in itself to have conjugal relations in periods perceived to be infertile.However this question was not direct in it’s boldness to say that they were also doing this in order to avoid having children although one gets the feeling that it would be only a matter of time before they would head towards this in their next question. And low and behold the early “itching ears for new doctrines” ventured to ask whether it was licit to give into ones spouse who wishes to have recourse to the infertile because one of the spouses fears conception and is threatening to use Onism if they refuse this NFP practise. This Answer given that says yes to this question appears to be trying to justify using what appeared to them the lesser of the two evils for someone who is being held hostage by their spouse. Like I said a private answer to a personal question for a situational couple who is trying to stop the evil of withdrawal from an unofficial penitentiary in no way justifies to say that the Church now accepts and has always accepted the separation of procreation from unity in order to avoid having children.
It is so frustrating and sad to see the stubborness and extent that one will deny natural law, ignore Scripture, and unanimous teachings from Church fathers and many saints by unabashedly quoting personal contemporay unofficial teachings from Popes who waver or contradict not only what they previously upheld but the official teachings on the hierarchy of marriage that they previously upheld.
Please try to remember that the late 1800’s was the beginning of the end for marriage as we know it. Don’t fool yourself that this period prior to Saint Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi was all filled with balanced strong pius Catholics. His enclyclical was written for an urgent reason and it was this insidious early beginning small push during the late 1800s towards the destruction of purity, morals, marriage and male and female roles that was festering for decades before that prompted him write his encyclical against modernism and to try, and may God bless him forever for this, to stop the wave of modernism and its new perverted fake theologies.
If you would have read Fr. Harrison’s article, you would have seen that he anticipates your objection to these teachings “not being official”:
“At this point we need to clarify what sort of document does in fact constitute a genuine Vatican intervention. Some rigorists, including Ibranyi, refuse to accept as official — or even as authentic — any Vatican statement that is not published in its official journal, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The error on this point evidently is based on a misapplication of canon 9 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (paralleled by canon 8 in the 1983 Code), which states, among other things, that ‘universal ecclesiastical laws’ must be promulgated in the AAS in order to be binding.
“‘Ecclesiastical laws’ are exercises of the Church’s governing office. They are concerned above all with practical decisions, establishing that something specific is to be done or not to be done. Such decisions need to be distinguished form those of the Church’s magisterium, or teaching office, which are above all concerned with the theoretical task of clarifying the difference between true and false doctrine.
“As anyone familiar with standard Vatican procedures knows, since the AAS was established by Pope St. Pius X in 1909 there have been many official statements and decisions of the popes and Vatican congregations — including doctrinal documents form the Holy Office and Sacred Penitentiary (which addresses moral questions especially relevant to confessors in the sacrament of penance) — that are not published in the aforesaid journal. Often they are sent privately by Rome to bishops, and perhaps only years later get published in some Catholic journal. Apart from ‘universal ecclesiastical laws,’ which do indeed have to be published in the AAS, the inclusion or non-inclusion of other types of papal and Vatican statements in the AAS is a measure not of their official or non-official character but rather of the degree of public importance that the Holy See attaches to them.”
Regardless, the popes and Vatican since the 1850s have been teaching that periodic continence is morally acceptable in certain circumstances, so you have to hold that the Magisterium since that time has either countenanced or taught error and sin in this regard. Further, despite much discussion and debate over the matter of periodic continence, during the time between Casti Connubii to Pope Pius XII’s allocution:
“Moralists were agreed that it was permissible to practice periodic continence systematically, that is, with the direct intention of avoiding conception for considerable periods of time, (1) provided that both parties were willing to do so. This meant that they were mutually agreed, and neither party forced the practice on the other. (2) Provided that both parties were able to do so. This meant that the practice did not involve either one in the unjustifiable occasion of sin, for instance solitary sin, or other sins against chastity, etc., and did not expose the marriage to other unjustifiable dangers. (3) Provided that there existed a legitimate reason for avoiding conception. The theologians were in agreement, further, that a violation of either of the first two conditions was per se mortally sinful. There was a debate about the gravity of the third condition. A small minority held that to practice periodic continence, at least for a long time, without a legitimate reason, was mortally sinful. But there was no justification for allowing a confessor to impose this view on penitents, when the opposite view, that it was only a venial sin, was so obviously probable and so much more widely held. Consequently, for confessional practice, there should have been common agreement on this point: that the third condition could not be imposed on penitents sub gravi. Departures from this norm which may have occurred can hardly be squared with sound theological principles, universally admitted, on the proper use of probabilism” (http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/23/23.4/23.4.3.pdf).
Even though that quote comes from a pre-VII, pre-Humanae Vitae article written by some “groovy” theologians in a theological journal, it’s highly unlikely, impossible in fact, that the majority of theologians of the time would agree that (3) above is morally licit given serious motives if it were really sinful in every instance.
The question “May one subscribe to the opinion of certain modern authors who deny that the principle end of marriage is the begetting and education of children, or who teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary ends, but are equally primary and independent?” is not to the point because that is not what is under discussion here. That’s not the same question as to whether periodic continence is morally licit in certain cases. I agree completely with the answer given by the Magisterium, which has always been taught by the Church. Novel theological positions to the contrary are erroneous.
As far as the rest of your comments go, it’s clear these teachings were official per Fr. Harrison’s explanation above and that they were concerned with the question of periodic continence:
1853: “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”
1880: “Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to take occur?”
With respect to the interpretation of Tradition, which includes Scripture and the unanimous teachings of the Fathers, you are setting yourself up as the judge over against the judgment of the Magisterium in this case just like Protestants do with respect to the interpretation of Scripture in various matters.
I will stick with as I advise you to stick with the Truth,common sense, Scripture, Church fathers, Apostolicae Sedis, what most saints said along with the magisterium that doesn’t contradict the unanimous immemorial teachings on sexual morality in marriage and hierarchy of marriage in regards to the sin of the intent to separate procreation from unity during conjugal relations in thought word and deed over your so said “groovy ” late 19th century and 20th century modern theologian situational ethics revolutionary destruction of God’s meaning and order for marriage any day..
I also need to add that the distinction between being completely continent for a period of time,let us say two years, and the distinction of having planned exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children for a period of time is the distinction that has to be clearly identified when speaking of periodic continence. This distinction was not made back then and left imprudently up to those modernist to use this definition of periodic continence to how they see fit. This is where the trickery set in the minds of the modernist movement. They reason that if I can abstain for grave reasons then I can abstain anytime I want i.e. during infertile periods only. Periodic continence could imply that a couple wishes to be continent for a period of time let us say two years. During these two years they completely abstain from conjugal relations with no gymnastics or hypocritical Russian Roullette of NFP. Then again periodic continence could mean for some abstaining when I see fit. If one was defending periodic continence as defined by a complete abstinence from all sexual relations for a period of time without ever trying to have recourse to the infertile period during this time this would not be wrong. This however is not what I beleive you are defending. I believe your periodic continence encompasses also having planned recourse exclusively to conjugal relations during infertile periods in order to avoid having children. This is how NFP ers justify the non sin of separating sex from procreation. This is where they contradict Church teachings on marriage and sexual morals. This is precisely the trickery that was used to redefining God’s order and laws on marriage. This is precisely why we are in the mess we are in today because of this messed up perverted trickery on making the misappropriation of conjugal intercourse a non sin.
@Anastasia
No your view is not common sense. It’s absurd. The simple fact is you are setting up your own magisterium, like any cafeteria Catholic or Protestant. Since the 1850s and with the onset of better knowledge of human physiology, the popes and Magisterium have taught that recourse to the infertile periods for marital relations is permissible (i.e., not sinful) given serious motives. The idea that the popes prior to Pius XII weren’t involved in this teaching or weren’t aware of or approving of it is utterly absurd and destructive of the Catholic faith. It was official teaching as I have shown, but that point is really irrelevant insofar as on your view, one still has to hold that popes, like St. Pius X, sat by idly or cluelessly while their own Magisterium taught this error and never corrected it, making them complicit in heresy.
Further, on your view, couples who are naturally infertile due to physical defect or menopause, couples who are pregnant, etc. could never engage in the marital act.
The teaching of the Church on marriage is complex, but the teaching on periodic continence (i.e., the approval of marital relations during periods of infertility to avoid conception for serious reasons) is fully compatible with the citations from Tobit because the Church has always taught that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage and that any couple who determines to never have children prior to marriage, whether by contraception or systematic recourse to infertility, will not contract a valid marriage. (I will leave aside the question of those who are married but forego the marital right for a higher purpose as I don’t think we disagree on that matter.) We have to leave the final interpretation of Scripture up to the Magisterium and interpret Scripture in accordance with what the Magisterium teaches, not according to personal preference whether liberal or rigorist.
The Church’s teaching on periodic continence is also compatible with some of the quotes from the Fathers and theologians you cite, but not all, like ones from St. Augustine, for example. But as I said, the Fathers are not infallible, and they could have been mistaken with respect to certain points regarding marriage. The thinking on periodic continence has developed within the Church over time, but that is not a problem unless the there is a contradiction between infallible Magisterial statements, which you haven’t shown. St. Augustine himself said, “Rome has spoken. The case is closed.” Rome has spoken. The case is closed. You should follow his example.
Ok, I’m no theologian. But I think we may be going a bit too far the with idea that having sex during pregnancy is a sin, even if venial. I love St. Augustine, but not every word he wrote is Magisterium. He thought unborn children not baptized went to hell.
I am not a fan of our sex saturated culture and it’s about time we put procreation as the primary and most important aspect of marriage. But if having sex during pregnancy is a sin, then fertile couples would only be able to engage in the marital act maybe one month of every year, if that. And that’s without the usual pious devotion of abstinence Lent and Advent. When Scripture describes marriage as “two become one flesh” it’s more than just having children. The unitive aspect does exist and it IS important. Thus denying access to marital relations, the unitive act of marriage itself, for 90% of the time is insane and must probably mess with the spiritual unity of the couple. St. Paul was clear in Scripture that mutual consent be established if marital relations were to be ceased and then only for a short time and for prayerful purpose.
It would also mean that infertile couples could have continuous marital relations and even get to choose how many children they have via adoption. Infertility then would be seen as some perverse gift rather than the bane that St. Ann, Sarah, and Hannah saw it as.
I think the Church needs to present Her teaching in this area with the support of magisterial documents citing saints, Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and Sacred Scripture. It would also be good to study up on the unitive aspect of marriage as the Church has always taught it too.
God bless~
“It would also mean that infertile couples could have continuous marital relations and even get to choose how many children they have via adoption. Infertility then would be seen as some perverse gift rather than the bane that St. Ann, Sarah, and Hannah saw it as.”
Interesting. The barren womb in the modern age may see itself as blessed and free to indulge rather than cursed by God. This indicated to me that something is amiss.
“I think the Church needs to present Her teaching in this area with the support of magisterial documents citing saints, Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and Sacred Scripture.”
Yes. The Church needs to present this clear and forcefully because right now young people see a confused, albeit complex, teaching and throw up their hands and reject it en masse. A trip to the pharmacy solves everything or for those who listen to their priest, an NFP method accomplishes the same thing.
I think what has happened is that there are legitimate exceptions that allow periodic continence or no continence at all, as with infertile couples, but the exception has become the norm. People are latching on to the loopholes to control the whole process.
I liken this discussion to what a debate on usury might be like. Usury use to be a mortal sin, now the official magisterium says that usury is just fine as long as it’s not excessive, with “excessive” never being defined. It would seem that we have to make allowances for such a thing in a modern economy so says the respected church theologian. But do we really? Perhaps if usury were outlawed again, income would be distributed more fairly and people would have fewer excuses to avoid having children. It’s all connected. I think we can go overboard with making fine point distinctions in theology and lose sight of God’s unchanging laws, which are always the best bet.
Why is it I feel like I am talking to deaf ears. One who is married and infertile for no fault or act of their own can certainly have the right to conjugal relations as long as they DO NOT SEPARATE IN ACT WORD OR DEED or subordinate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and education of children for God’s glory to the secondary purpose. They must intend in act, word or deed to respect the divine and natural order and plan for procreation God has for conjugal relations. No fault Infertility is not an impedement to following this rule. NFP however does not respect this in its intent to separate in act, word and deed procreation from conjugal realtions and it does not follow this rule. End of story.
It is unbeleivable that you can honestly read Tobit and say that Tobit is fully combatible with having planned exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children when Tobit from Scripture says the following Holy Bible, Tobias 6:22; 8:9 “And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias said:] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.”
Here is an interesting fact that I almost forgot. If one looks up Tobit in the new revised American Catholic Bible you will see that the inovators went so far as to change the wording in Tobit when they boldly took it on themselves to erase any remnant of this teaching on the primary purpose of marriage by substituting those problematic words “but only for the love of posterity” for “that of a noble reason”. If that doesn’t prove an agenda and how far it will go than I don’t know what else will convince you.
Tobias 6:16-17 “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
Really, to say that Reading in Scripture from Tobit is fully compatible with” having planning to have recourese exclusively to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. You have got to be kidding me. Smd to say that the Church doesn’t interprete the way the Church fathers and saints have forever interpreted it
The above comment was meant to be a reply to Sobiesky.
@Anastasia
You, of course, are avoiding my reductio against your position showing its absurdity insofar as the Magisterium on your view has been teaching and permitting error regarding periodic continence for the last 160 years. To me, this shows you are being either intellectually dishonest or in over your head.
You said: One who is married and infertile for no fault or act of their own can certainly have the right to conjugal relations as long as they DO NOT SEPARATE IN ACT WORD OR DEED or subordinate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and education of children for God’s glory to the secondary purpose…
But they can’t procreate, and so they can’t be engaging in the act for the purposes of procreation because that is impossible. They have to be doing it for other reasons. On your view, couples who are infertile should either 1) not marry or if married, practice perfect continence. Here’s a sample of what you quoted:
St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? … He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God and of his wife].” (Book 1, Section 20; 40)
St. Augustine, De Conjugiis Adulterinis, A.D. 396: “Since, therefore, the institution of marriage exists for the sake of generation, for this reason did our forebears enter into the union of wedlock and lawfully take to themselves their wives, only because of the duty to beget children.” (Book II, Chapter 12)
Pope St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.): “But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.” (Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)
So the logical result of your position is that couples can only marry if they are able to procreate and engage in the marital act when they are reasonably sure procreation is a possibility (i.e., outside of pregnancy, menopause and infertile times of the month, which is most of the month).
As for Tobit, what is incompatible? Morally licit periodic continence according to the Magisterium does not mean people are marrying purely for the sake of lust or to never have children or because they dislike children. If that is the case, i.e., that they never intend to have children prior to marrying by systematically making use of infertile periods, using contraception, etc., then it would be sinful, and the marriage would be null. The teaching on periodic continence only means that for serious motives some couples may opt to avoid pregnancy by making use of infertile times. You keep asserting that this undermines the primary end of marriage, but the Church doesn’t see it that way because it teaches both things as compatible. Those engaging in licit periodic continence are not denying the primary purpose of marriage and under normal circumstances have a duty to have children.
A couple who is infertile most certainly can love, respect, accept God’s plan and order for the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory. I beleive they even mourn in their hearts that the chances of a child being conceived is most unlikely. If I was infertile I would be totally insulted if someone would say that I could never possibly desire procreation from my conjugal relations because I knew that I was infertile. To come to the conclusion that I had no right to conjugal relations is wrong and is utilitarian in its view. One must see that it is the assenting to God’s order and plan for conjugal relations in ones mind, act and words and deeds that one has to be in the state of regardless if whether the conjugal act will be successful in attaining conception through no fault or planning on their part. It is the rejection during conjugal relations that NFPers who plan not only through their thoughts, but words and deeds that they desire, hope and even pray that a child be not conceived. Even infertile couples are still acountable for rejecting God’s order for procreation that is attached to conjugal relations if they reject this order or disrespect it or are contraceptive in their heart.
Pius XI said in Casti Connubii that those people who because of no fault of their own are infertile can benefit from the unitive effects of conjugal relations AS LONG AS THEY RESPECT AND DO NOT REJECT in their heart and minds the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory. Miracles are also known to happen for those who perceive themselves to be infertile and we have many examples of this not only in Scripture but in our own day and age.
To say that the Church has for over 160 years embraced and taught that planning to have recourse to the infertile period exclusively ( and I am not talking about complete abstinence here just so we are clear on this) is a stretch indeed. Just look at how the questions started out. First question was whether it is wrong to have conjugal relations during perceived times of infertility? Remember this was the era where people were just beginning to talk more openly about this more newly known knowledge of mans fertility cycles. The question did not mention for reasons to avoid conception. This would have been shameful to say out loud. The teachings back then were well known if not through the Church’s teaching than through natural law that the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children. You can even fast forward to an interview in the early 50s that Mike Wallace had with Margaret Sanger, the pioneer of the abortion mills. He, playing the devils advocate asked her in his interview, …”but Margaret doesn’t the Church teach that the primary purpose of marriage is the procretion of children. ” Of course her answer was, Well yes this is what the Church teaches but they are wrong. The purpose of marriage is love. People get married for love. Ask anyone born prior to the 60s and they will have to tell you, that is if they are honest, that it was commomn knowledge that the accepted truth on marriage was that the primary purpose was the procreation and education of children, Like I said before the revolution that started chipping away at marriage certainly began in the late 1800s. It began publicly with these quiet little letters to the sacred penitentiary. Fast forward to today and the seeds of this revolution that wished to redefining and reinvert the hierarchy of marriages primary purpose to be the unity of the couple has been wildly successful . Just look at this Ziki scandal. We now have Francis embracing contraception for grave reasons.
I am curious that you did not comment on the fact that the reframers on marriage even went so far as to tamper with the words from Scripture in Tobit from the Douay Rheims when in the new revised American Catholic Bible they changed words of the purpose of marriage from “procreation” to a “noble purpose”.
My quotation marks from Margaret should have begun with the words “Well yes…” and have ended with the words “married for Love”. Sorry also for the lack of commas in the needed appropriate places.
Is this an example of the letter of the law in a false set up against the spirit of the law? I think we all agree on what the Church teaches on the primary purpose of marriage.
Where I see the split is this: the Church in her wisdom sees times – and they must be GRAVE times, when the spirit of the law would allow continence during fertile times. I think we agree, too, that modern couples have taken the law and thrown it out, letter and spirit. The modern Church has allowed the very rare times when the letter may be put aside for the spirit, and allowed her children to sin in ignorance of the truth.
Newchurch doesn’t care about abortion. NFP is the least of our problems.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2345-the-pope-and-the-baby-killer
Love covers a multitude of punctuations….
@Anastasia
I didn’t respond to your point about translations because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I was responding to the Scripture verses from Tobit that you quoted, not from some other translation. I don’t really care if the translators had an agenda or not. If wouldn’t directly prove anything regarding the issue of periodic continence one way or the other. To me, it is a diversion.
As far as infertile couples go, the passages from the Fathers you cited argues that only those who are capable of having children can morally engage in the marital act because it is only for the purpose of procreation. Any other motive is sinful. So either you hold that view, or you are being a hypocrite because you cited those passages. Infertile couples may want to have children, they may respect the primary end of marriage, but in the end, they can’t procreate. So per your citations, they should either not marry or be perfectly continent. If you don’t agree with the Fathers, then you are admitting that 1) they can be wrong and 2) your position doesn’t line up with theirs. I could just as easily argue that fertile couples who respect the primary end of marriage, but for serious reasons can’t have children (say for life of the mother), could likewise engage in the marital act because their situation presents an exception to the norm of the obligation to have children. The argument has never been about using NFP as a lifestyle or for any reason whatsoever because outside of serious motives that would be wrong.
To say that the Church has allowed periodic continence for serious reason for the last 160 years is not a stretch, it’s a fact. If it’s wrong, then all the popes since that time have been complicit in teaching and encouraging sinful behavior, which for faithful Catholics is an absurd proposition to hold. The answers to these questions would have been known to all the bishops of the world and taught in the seminaries as part of training for the confessional, not to just one bishop in private.
At this point, I think we have basically reached an impasse, so I am not sure continuing the conversation is going to be worthwhile.
NFP is the problem.
Anastasia–My wording was not accurate. My point was Newchurch doesn’t give two hoots about abortion. Should we expect the Modernists in Rome to be (aka) Catholic when it comes to NFP?
“To say that the Church has allowed periodic continence for serious reason for the last 160 years is not a stretch, it’s a fact. If it’s wrong, then all the popes since that time have been complicit in teaching and encouraging sinful behavior, which for faithful Catholics is an absurd proposition to hold.”
I see that this is a “trump card” position for you, and yes the Church teaches such, but it is not the ideal. The ideal is what we should strive for. Jesus said in Matthew 19:2-9 that “Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away… Because of the hardness of your heart.” So the Church, is now permitting certain practices, but it is not the ideal. And what I think Anastasia is saying is that the ideal should always be kept in mind and worked toward. The Last Gospel reads:
“But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Sexual relations, in all cases, is “of the flesh.” Married people do not get a pass, as it were, from not being born of the will of the flesh. The act is redeemed in marriage by the procreation of children because that’s the only way one can have children, but outside of this stipulation, one might say that marital relations are, at the least, venially sinful. This is the Catholic ideal of marriage. Sure it is not pleasant. The important thing is to strive, because we all fail, and to not deny the ideal.
I see.
Anastasia:
I respectfully disagree with your position for the reason I stated in my article that periodic continence shares more likeness with total-continence-for-the-purpose-of-preventing-children , than with artificial contraception. Your position runs the real risk of diminishing the gravity of sins against marital chastity (such as artificial contraception), which always constitute grave matter of mortal sin.
Three questions for Sobieski:
1. Would you agree that periodic continence is contraceptive abstinence?
2. Would you agree that the fact that “serious reasons” are needed to justify the use of periodic continence implies that the practice is not virtuous of itself, but rather a lesser evil that is tolerated (venial sin)? The greater evil to be avoided is the likely possibility that the couple would resort to gravely immoral means of birth prevention. In which case, the Sacred Penitentiary could assure priests that penitents could peacefully (without being disquieted) have resort to the infertile periods, without making a determination as to whether or not the practice is of itself virtuous.
3. How do you explain the comment of Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council that never before has it been of heard of in the Church that couples may determine the number of children they are to have, keeping in mind that, at the time, Cardinal Ottaviani was Prefect (head) of the Holy Office? Is there evidence that proves him to be wrong on this point?
For MMC & John314:
I agree that St. Augustine established a very high ideal for perfect continence in marriage (one that would probably not be a boon for Viagra sales). And perhaps he may be mistaken in certain other areas, but could he be correct on this point? Keep in mind that he was facing a demographic and cultural crisis not dissimilar to our own. Please note too that there is an aspect of mystery involved in a woman’s fertility, obviously more so in the past, prior to the advent of charting, pregnancy tests, etc. Furthermore, there is precedent in salvation history for miraculous conceptions, (when the woman was otherwise thought to be sterile).
Perhaps this quote is apropos, regarding another area where perfection is very difficult to achieve:
“There are many who judge the commandments of the Lord by their own weakness, and not by the strength of His Saints; and so deem Him to have commanded things impossible… It behoveth them to know, that this which Christ commandeth is not impossible, albeit perfect.” (St. Jerome on the Love of One’s Enemy, Matins on Saturday after Ash Wednesday).
I beleive you steadfastly hold to your position that planning to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children is only a venial sin as would be complete continence for avoiding children because it is oh so much easier to defend this error when trying to sooth the conscience of those who practice it and because to call NFP a grave sin when it plans to have recourse exclusively to the infertile period in order to avoid having children while benifiting from all other possible effects of the conjugal act is a much harder pill for our sex saturated mancentered world to accept.
1. No, I would not.
2. No, I would not. I have some background in Thomism and would need to do more research on and give more thought to this matter to offer an explanation on sound moral principles as to why it is not. I have been engaging in a more dialectical argument. For example, I have a hard time believing the Magisterium would ever authorize Catholics to sin, even if venial and as an alternative to mortal sin, because sin is always prohibited. Further, the article by Fr. Ford and Fr. Kelly that I cited above explains that none of the theologians of the time thought that periodic continence for serious motives was sinful. This was at a time during Pope Pius XII’s reign.
3. I don’t know, but I don’t know the full context from which the quote was taken. It was clearly a question among theologians prior to the council as to how many children couples were duty bound to have under normal circumstances. Most theologians thought 4-5 back then as a minimum. I would humbly suggest you read Fr. Ford’s and Fr. Kelly’s article from Theological Studies available online for more background on the history and discussion of periodic continence prior to the issuance of Humanae Vitae (http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/23/23.4/23.4.3.pdf).
To follow up, here is a salient passage from the Theological Studies article:
“…The fact that the licit use of the sterile period was already at that time a common doctrine of theologians, the fact that the phrase ‘through natural reasons . . . of time’ was used, rather than ‘reasons of age’ or some similar expression, and the fact that the immediate context of the Encyclical [Casti connubii] itself was concern for the difficulties of married people tempted to onanism—all these considerations convinced the great majority of theologians that Pius XI was here referring to the permissible use of the sterile periods as a means of avoiding conception. Pius XII, incidentally, explicitly confirmed this view in 1958, thus dispelling what little doubt had existed on this point.
“But though the quoted passage of Casti connubii ratified the position that use of the sterile periods was not contrary to nature, it did not say anything explicitly about the systematic use to avoid conception, or about the circumstances and conditions under which this systematic avoidance could be permissible. During the two decades 1931 to 1951 an immense amount of literature on this topic appeared in Catholic publications, both scholarly and popular. So many points were debated and so much disagreement expressed that many of the laity, not to mention the clergy, were confused. Some lost sight of the fact that underlying this diversity of opinion there was always general agreement on certain important, practical, moral conclusions concerning the use of periodic continence.
“Moralists were agreed that it was permissible to practice periodic continence systematically, that is, with the direct intention of avoiding conception for considerable periods of time, (1) provided that both parties were willing to do so. This meant that they were mutually agreed, and neither party forced the practice on the other. (2) Provided that both parties were able to do so. This meant that the practice did not involve either one in the unjustifiable occasion of sin, for instance solitary sin, or other sins against chastity, etc., and did not expose the marriage to other unjustifiable dangers. (3) Provided that there existed a legitimate reason for avoiding conception. The theologians were in agreement, further, that a violation of either of the first two conditions was per se mortally sinful. There was a debate about the gravity of the third condition. A small minority held that to practice periodic continence, at least for a long time, without a legitimate reason, was mortally sinful. But there was no justification for allowing a confessor to impose this view on penitents, when the opposite view, that it was only a venial sin, was so obviously probable and so much more widely held. Consequently, for confessional practice, there should have been common agreement on this point: that the third condition could not be imposed on penitents sub gravi. Departures from this norm which may have occurred can hardly be squared with sound theological principles, universally admitted, on the proper use of probabilism.”
So this passage explains that moralists at that time did not think that periodic continence was sinful given serious motives.
@John314
I never said it was ideal. Being a Carthusian monk is the ideal, but most people can’t do that, and if they were required to do so on pain of sin, would fail, rebel, etc. Absurdities and evils would abound. That’s why our Lord spoke of evangelical counsels. They are counsels rather than precepts. Further, we need to show compassion towards couples who find themselves in difficult circumstances, rather than assume everyone is using or abusing NFP as a lifestyle to avoid children. Just because some people abuse a thing, doesn’t mean it is altogether evil.
Thank you, Father, for replying:+) Yes, Our Lord sets the standard high…at least according to our fallen flesh:+) What doesn’t make sense is that the standard would not apply to infertile couples, unless our Lord blessed them with children and then they would no longer be infertile, yes? St. Augustine may be right or he may be wrong. I think both John314 and I agree that the Church needs to clarify teaching in this area so that we can follow accordingly.
The concept of assuming that the strictest and most narrow of ideas and practices are necessarily the right ones needs to be fleshed out some. If Mother Church and Scripture have taught me anything, it’s that there are times and seasons for abstinence and celebration. And that temperance is a virtue that avoids extremes, is guided by wisdom, promotes chastity/self mastery, and seeks charity above all things:+) Asking fertile couples to refrain from relations over 90% of their married life seems a bit extreme to me. So I will wait until the Church hopefully teaches more clearly in this area and submit to it when it does. Thank you for bringing this subject into the light, though. I think it’s about time we nail down true teaching in this area so as to live and spread it’s freedom to others:+) God bless~
“Asking fertile couples to refrain from relations 90% of the their married life seems a bit extreme to me.” No one is asking fertile couples to refrain from relations 90% of their married life. It is our faith and respect for God’s laws and purity that challenge us to sacrifice the conjugal act for noble reasons without resorting to NFP when it tries to separate sex from procreation through act, word or deed when it plans to have conjugal relations during infertile periods only in order to avoid having children because one doesn’t want to renounce the conjugal act and at the same time lacks faith and fears the sacrifices that come with the the conjugal act’s God ordered primary purpose the procreation and education of children for God’s glory.