By Randy Engel
“Should Catholics Continue to Use the Word ‘Contraception?’”
As noted in my introduction to this series on Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, which first appeared in the AKA Catholic column of June 27, 2018, there are still many unanswered questions which need to be directly answered by the Holy See concerning the 1968 encyclical and the ill-fated Birth Control Commission whose majority of members including laymen and clerics ultimately came out in favor of “contraception.”
During my five years of research for my upcoming book on that Commission, the most nagging question that has yet to be answered is – “At what point in time did the Commission members (and the Pope and the Church Fathers) come to understand that “the Pill” exerted three modes of action (1) as a contraceptive agent (2) as a sterilizing agent and (3) as an early abortifacient?”
It has always puzzled me, why, in the lengthy ongoing debate on “the Pill,” prior to the issuance of the Commission Majority and Minority Report in 1966, the question, “How did the damn thing work?” ( if you’ll pardon my French), was never definitively answered by the proponents of change who favored “contraception.”
Today, of course, we know the answer to that $64,000 question. “The Pill,” does in fact, possesses abortifacient properties which act at various stages of the human embryo’s early development. This accounts for the high degree of efficiency of “the Pill” in insuring the non-pregnant state at the end of each menstrual cycle.
But, why was NOT the first order of business of the Commission (and the Pope and Church Fathers) to rule out “the Pill” as an abortifacient as well as a sterilizing agent?
Why were most of the Commission members including several Princes of the Church, so quick to adopt the ludicrous medical myth propagated by Dr. John Rock and Co. that “the Pill,” was “safe” and mimicked Nature, when, in truth, it keeps women in a constant state of castration and adversely affects dozens of normal female bodily functions including the implantation of the early human embryo in the mother’s womb.
And why does the Vatican continue to talk about a change in Church doctrine on the matter of “contraception,” when, in fact, the most common means of “contraception” are the abortifacient “Pill” and all its other “morning after” and “days after” abortifacient chemical handmaidens; and the intrauterine device which was known to be an abortifacient as far back as the Marie Stopes trials in England in the mid-1920s.
Considering what we know about the abortifacient effects of “the Pill,” the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae is not so much a cause for celebration of this deeply flawed encyclical; rather, it is the perfect time for Catholics to give thanks to the Holy Ghost for preventing the recalcitrant Pope Paul VI from coming down in favor of “contraception.”
From HV: “As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.” Montini fails to reaffirm the Churches perennial teaching that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and rearing of children.
Could be the recalcitrant Paul VI thought it would be pretty cool to sit back and watch the vast majority of lay Catholics join him in recalcitrance; using the pill, while his Priests remained silent or approving. Recalcitrance loves company.
Exactly Tom. All Catholics need to recognize that HV is NOT in accordance with Catholic teaching. This is the same man, Paul VI, who was responsible for Vatican II. Hello!
Exactly! Way to go Tom. Of course yours truly couldn’t agree with you more on this one ☺️.
You should see the gargling that is going on to celebrate HV with the Knights of Columbus’ periodical called “Columbia” magazine that I just received.
This, hot off the press periodical on HV, is, as we speak, endorsing and espousing, BIG TIME, precisely this above quote from Tom’s comment and the wonders of this fabulous HV. I felt so sick to my stomach at having to read their following articles, “How NFP saved my life”, “Celibrating Life and Love”, ” The Prophetic Vision of Blessed Paul VI”, “NFP: Truly a Godsend”, ” NFP vs Contraception: What is the Difference?”, “The Science and Methods of Fertility Awareness “, “5 Ways the Order Has Carried on The Legacy of Humanae Vitae” (their #1way, quote from KoC “The Us bishops launched the Diocesan Development Program for Natural Family Planning with financial sponsorship from the Knights of Columbus in 1980”)
Believe me the whole periodical was about how wonderful HV was because it gave us NFP which allows us in thought ,word, and deed to plan to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children while benifiting from all the effects of sex. They once again are still shoving down our throats that the “meaning” or “goods” or even sometimes “purpose” of marriage ( but they must be very cautious as to stay clear of that word “Primary purpose” because then they will be caught in their web of deceit) is two fold ( and notice very carefully that they always say unity first).
Example, the Columbia periodical says that “Paul VI writes in HV section 12 of his encyclical: The conjugal act possesses two meanings-the unitive meaning and procreative meaning.” The New Cathechism of the Catholic Church gargles on this game too. Notice that unity is ALWAYS the first. This is intentional and should signal to EVERYONE that the NO modernists are subordinating INTENTIONALY the primary purpose of marriage, the procreation and education of children for God’s glory, to the secondary purpose of unity which is to be subordinate to and at the service of the souls being born from and for the sake of the couple’s in the sacrament of marriage.
This is what they gargle on and they have the audacity to tell us, as Janet Smith (a big supporter of Christopher West) says in this most recent KoC periodical the following “Intentionally preventing the life-giving potential of sexual intimacy is not the same as the prudent reliance on periodic abstinence (the following in brackets are my words), (which she means NFP, which of course is the same as contraception when it in thought word, and deed plan to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children while benifiting from the effects of the sex act).
They take us for fools and they don’t care because the majority of Catholics want to be told lies, sweet big lies.
This is the elephant in the room, HV’s endorsement to contracept through NFP, even the NO know this. I hope Randy Engle will underline this.
“Notice that unity is ALWAYS the first. This is intentional and should signal to EVERYONE that the NO modernists are subordinating INTENTIONALY the primary purpose of marriage, the procreation and education of children for God’s glory, to the secondary purpose of unity which is to be subordinate to and at the service of the souls being born from and for the sake of the couple’s in the sacrament of marriage.”
Wouldn’t want to have too many Catholics in the world…especially those that actually hold the Catholic Faith as it was taught for centuries!
Thank you, dear Anastasia, for your intrepid service to Holy God, His Laws, the Holy Faith, unchangeable objective truth. God bless and strengthen and protect you. You do invaluable work for the Church and the many souls abandoned by the clergy. I hope you and your family are well. It’s been a very long time.
This combox is madness again, the comments are off topic. NFP is OK per the Catholic Church and very very, VERY difficult as anyone who has tried can tell you, it is not contraception what is WRONG with you people. Also if you say it is bad tell how many kids you have. It is 7 to ten kid? No? I didn’t think so, hypocrites, how dare you tell other people how many children to have and condemn them when you are not quiver full maniacs like the Protestans. I see sweepinthefilth is not here probably because she is Randy Angle and not wanting to troll her own blog. Please stay on topic NFP is super hard but it is ok and this article is not about that. Oh and yes I said sweepinthefilth like Fleur I’m not Fleur but he/she is right you want to sweep filth in and are full of the filth.
Also why do you Anastasia and Melanie and Vermonter and Troma, care about who is having sex with who it’s like Pope Francis said you are obsessed with sex or not having sex or too much sex. I hope you all find peace and stop being obsessed with sex it’s not healthy or moral. Gross and/or nasty.
Kilts,
It’s actually simpler than that. Notice how few comments this post has compared to others say about Pope Francis? That’s not for nothing. There are roughly 4 groups of people who will oppose NFP.
1. You have what I call the “miserable moms”. These are your pre-menopausal women who decided to take kids as “God gives them”. These(and their husbands) are the ones that often tip their hand by saying things like “If everybody goes to Heaven, why did I have all these kids”. It’s a simple case of misery loves company.
2. You have the folks that are post-menopausal. These are the ones that claim they never would have used birth control or practiced NFP if it wasn’t for that darn watered-down teaching all these years. Convenient, right?
3. You have the Incels(involuntary celibates) and the young crusader Catholics. These are those you see on Catholic message boards proclaiming they will *certainly* have many kids and will never practice NFP. Most of the time the ones who actually get married will be gone from the message boards by kid 3 rather than admit they were wrong.
4. Finally, you have the very few good honest folks who really believe this is the will of God in their lives and they end up with large families. This latter group is very small and almost never knows what’s going on in Rome as they are busy with their families. I only knew 2 families in my SSPX days that I would put in category 4 and, of course, they didn’t participate on boards like Fisheaters back in the day.
Group number 4 has my utmost respect. So much for those who say I have nothing but disdain for trads.
Good points Ganganelli, you illustrate well that people have been robbed of the beautiful Catholic Eternal Truth.
Hold on for a minute Skilts, I never mentioned NFP. My only point is that Montini changed the purpose of marriage in HV. He elevated unity to the same (or higher) purpose as procreation. That is certainly “on topic.”
Of course our points are still on topic, Tom. Our posts are about comparing the new religion to the Catholic Faith. And given Paul VI promulgated the new religion at Vatican II, his encyclical HV should be questioned as well.
I have noticed that there are usually lower number of posts when the writer is a guest contributor rather than Louie himself.
@Ganganelli, …..truth is hard to face, for it is a narrow path…..
“There was a preacher once who was saying to the congregation,
‘It is wrong to steal horses.’ The congregation answered, ‘Amen, amen.’
‘It is wrong to steal cows.’ ‘Amen! Amen!’
Then he said, ‘It is wrong to steal chickens.’ And someone shouted back, ‘Now he is meddling.’ Up to that point, conscience was not touched.’
~ Archbishop Fulton Sheen
That is a very good point. Most people here are definitely number 2, maybe some are first category. Alphonse is definitely number three Incel. I have rarely met number fours but when I have yes they are very brave and sincere and do not go around lecturing or spitting fire on the Internet because they know it is a sacrifice but instead focus on their families. God bless them.
I hope I’m not walking on egg shells here, but I once read from a truly Catholic source (wish I could remember where) that the primary goal of marriage is the eternal salvation of the spouse. This does not downgrade the procreation and rearing of children. On the contrary, it reinforces the Catholic upbringing when the parents safeguard the salvation of the spouse. There are countless married couples who, for various medical reasons, are unable to conceive. This primary goal applies to these marriages and all marriages. It just makes sense to me.
So who exactly is going on and on about the “off-topic” again?
my2cents, I don’t think you are wrong when speaking of the primary end of the Sacrament of Matrimony. However, I have been referring to (and I believe Tom as well) the primary purpose of the “marital/conjugal act” .
“Every man is stronger for knowing the worst he can about himself and then acting on that knowledge…….For it is far better to come face to face with our own ugliness than to live in a fool’s paradise…….For they justify their own wickedness on the ground that ‘they did nothing against the law’…..For no man is living who is resting on his own laurels…..The oak is a judgment on the acorn; the harvest is the judgment on the seed that was sown.”
~ Archbishop Fulton Sheen
The primary end of ALL human beings is to get to heaven. One does not need to be married in order to attain holiness . One would not say that the primary end of the priesthood is for the priest to personally get to heaven. The priesthood’s primary end or purpose is to administer the sacraments so we can all get to heaven.
We need to make the distinction on the sacrament of marriage itself as a distinct institution whose “raison d’etre” is God’s plan, His way and His unique design to bring souls into the world for which, goes without saying, is for all of these souls to reach sainthood and heaven.
Once again just because a couple, WHOM FROM NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, are not conceiving, can through God’s grace in thought, word and deed still respect God ‘s plan for the conjugal act and its primary purpose.
Thank you Lynda. After all these years please permit me to consider you a dear friend. May God continue to bless you.
Exceptions to category would of course include Michael Matt (Remnant), Steve Skojec (1Peter5) and Dr Joseph Shaw (LMS England) – all have large families with at least seven children and all write about what’s happening with the Catholic Church.
Excellent point My2Cents.
As an Eastern Catholic , the Scriptures and St John Chrysostom’s extensive writings from his homilies on marriage took precedent over over the modern HV , 60% of which was penned by Cardinal Woytola of TOB fame.
In hindsight , Pope Francis’ comments about being “obsessed with sex” is really a criticism of his predecessors in their more recent Magisterial emphasis .
St Chrysostom states the primary purpose of marriage is love and chastity , referring to the Word of God , so that neither will be tempted to the sin of fornication. Children are the fruit of that love .
The purpose for which is the mutual journey in life to attain their eternal salvation in heaven. Trusting in Divine Providence through the Sacrament that where the man is spiritually weak the woman will be strong and vice versa.
He also teaches that abstinence must be equally agreed upon and that communication between man and wife is of the utmost importance. He wrote extensively on the topic .
Mrs Engel is a Roman Catholic , I am an Eastern Catholic and we have corresponded on the topic over the years.
I agree with all her strong arguments against the b/c pill and artificial contraception. I also believe TOB is a ridiculous attempt to clarify for moderns what has already been taught by and in the universal Church.
Some of the posts above re enforce the need for comment Moderation on this site , especially the accusations of “off topic” being made by those who are perpetually “off topic” and habituate in ad hominem attacks.
This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them “Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.
OR, further explained……
https://trcthoughts.com/2016/06/the-sacrament-of-marriage-and-its-primary-purpose/
As an Eastern Catholic I can honestly say the question of primary ,secondary etc. purposes to marriage never came up. Our pastors explained the Eastern Tradition focuses more on the spiritual rather than the human nature of Christ . In doing so in everything and at all times we should focus on the very purpose of our Creation which is to journey most perfectly towards our Eternal goal to join Him in Heaven through prayer ( which includes reading the Scriptures daily) partaking of the Sacraments and avoidance of sin.
As a Home school mother I do remember Cardinal Trujillio’s redefinition of parents as the primary educators of their children, based on this encyclical….
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html
One side used the definition of the word “primary” to support the right to home school one’s children, the other side ( The late Bishop McHugh and company ),
used the definition of “primary” to limit the meaning to the birth to preschool period in order to elevate the need to enroll one’s child in a Parochial Diocesan school.
It appears to me that the Church defines and redefines now to suit it’s own purposes both financially and politically whereas, prior to the Second Council Vatican Two, the Magisterial teachings focused more on the spiritual good for souls in their care.
Very appropriate quotation Anastasia, but you should have provided the rest. Here is the entire decree, taken from Denzinger:
“The Purposes of Matrimony [Decree of the Holy Office, April 1, 1944]
.
“Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.
.
“In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as FOR EXAMPLE: THE COMPLEMENT AND PERSONAL PERFECTION OF THE SPOUSES THROUGH A COMPLETE MUTUAL PARTICIPATION IN LIFE AND ACTION; MUTUAL LOVE AND UNION OF SPOUSES to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.
.
“In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.
.
“This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them ‘Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,’ have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.” ~ Denzinger 2295.
.
The primary purpose of marriage is the generation of the offspring. All other ends are secondary.
When the contracept mentality had really taken hold even among those professing to be Catholic and during the reign of Pope John Paul 2, there was an emphasis on having large families to prove one’s fidelity. I saw and heard it in the catholic home schooling movement. It became a horrible pitfall to sin when certain persons condemned others who had less than say five children.
I recall a very pretty young woman who had three children who received the brunt of that kind of gossip. In tears she told me how she was forced into a hysterectomy thanks to the infidelity of her husband who had given her an STD. Meanwhile, some of the other holier than thous responsible for her condemnation were taking in foster children to prove they loved having lots of children. Hence, you cannot always judge a book by it’s cover.
Thanks, 2Vermont. This is an important distinction not made by other commentators. Of course, the goal of every human being, married or not, should be to be saints. This is only achieved by being worthy of Heaven. Married couples should be an instrument of their spouse’s eternal salvation. What could possibly be a better gift to their children?
Thanks for the help. Deo Gratia
Dear Sweep,
Hear is a Scripture passage you should read then.
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.”
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.” (Tobias 6:16-17)
The primary purpose of marriage is not something new but is etched not only in natural law but in Sacred Scripture and supported since the beginning of time by our Creator and his Church fathers and followers.
Exactly. And where are those holier-than-thou types now? How many still practice the Faith. And how many of their children do?
The sad truth is this. That particular holier than thou mother of six was left a widow with six children. I did attempt to introduce a practice of grocery donation for those families in our group where the primary bread winner had lost his job or died. Sadly , certain women complained that a family in any of these predicaments had more money than they and they did not like the practice.
Anastasia I know the Book of Tobit well and we are on the same page as far as being open to life . However , back in the forties the Church itself was solicitous to large Catholic families who found themselves in one of the predicaments I described above. That has changed markedly. One of my best friends ,a mother of nine, called her Diocese in PA asking for help after her husband had broken his back in a car accident. She remembered that her Diocese owned houses they rented at a low price to people in this exact situation . Sadly, she was informed they now required fair market value rent and do not help large families in need anymore. A DRE told me she was directed by the Diocese that if any parishioners call in need they were to just give them the number of the local food bank.
In the time of Tobias , it was common practice to aid families in your Tribe. Indeed, even the Apostles preached that a portion of the Church’s donations should go to widows and orphans. In the SSPX chapel I briefly attended , the priest preached no education for women beyond High School. I thought of them as widows with many children but never heard of a collection being taken for the same.
Common sense dictates that now women should be educated and have a career to fall back on should they find themselves without a husband as breadwinner for the family and or the Church should go back to all the Christian societal dictates of instruction given to the Early Church.
Quoting Pope Pius XII, he explains that the Church has always infallibly taught that procreation is the principal end of marriage: “The truth is that marriage, as a natural institution, by virtue of the Creator’s will, does not have as its primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the spouses, but the PROCREATION and education of new life…”
And our Lord teaches us through the Holy Scripture, the book of Tobit:
“Accipies virginem cum timore Domini, amore filiorum magis quam libidine ductus”
(“Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children [offspring] than for lust”)
(Tob 6, 22 Latin Vulgate – The official Bible of the RCC)
This places from Tobit are cited by the Catechism of the Council of Trent in the chapter about marriage (when talking about the reasons why men and women enter into the sacrament of marriage), and remarks:
“And this is also a reason why God established from the beginning the marriage. For this reason, it is the most difficult crime of those who, together in marriage, are preventing conception, or doing abortion: this should be considered as evil conspiracy of the killers.”
It is worth repeating here again the purpose of marriage according to the Code of Canon Law from 1917 (Can. 1013 § 1):
“The first purpose of marriage is procreation and raising children; second, the mutual help of a spouses, and a cure against the lust.”
The modernists (especially Cardinal Suenens) took a real war against this doctrine, at the Second Vatican Council. Unfortunately, the progressives have partly succeeded in putting some ambiguity into some documents.
A result of this is the new Code of Canon Law which came in 1983., which has mixed purposes of marriage, so that puts an abstract concept of “common good of the spouses” in front of the procreation and raising children!
And they have even changed the very words from the Holy Scripture because of this but also other important Church’s teachings which they don’t like.
In this case it’s easy to check with your own version of the Bible. Just take your own print edition, whatever you have and read the book of Tobit chapter 6 and 8, and then compare it with the same book of Tobit 6 and 8 chapter from the official Catholic Bible translated from Latin Vulgate – Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA).
In support of this point.
“The Church should go back to all the Christian societal dictates of instruction given to the Early Church.”
http://www.lepantoinstitute.org/catholic-relief-services/catholic-relief-services-major-funder-contraception-lobbyists/#comment-64045
Thank you, dear sister in Christ. How truth is despised in a world where most are darkened in the intellect and hardened in the heart due to unconfessed mortal sin.
Amen.