|
|
Posted on 09/23/2003 5:55:18 PM PDT by Polycarp
|
|
|
|
Question from Kari Beckman on 08-18-2003:
Dear Fr. Hogan'
In an article dated 7/30/03 you stated at the end that the Church as "quietly" dropped the serious reason for using NFP, could you please sight your source as I can not find anything to that affect. This is of great concern to me as a Faithful Catholic who out of obiedence to the teaching on marriage has been open to life, I have read Humani Vitae as well as parts of the Theology of the Body and they both refer to NFP as only being used in grave reason, this recently as been brought up by a friend of mine and if true that serious reason is not needed, then many of us are in error of what the Church teaches and need to be corrected. I too thought that this teaching could never be changed as it is a matter of faith and morals. Please answer quickly as this has me greatly concerned about the state of our Church. Pax Christi, Kari Beckman
Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 08-19-2003:
Perhpas I should not have said "quietly dropped" without qualifying the statement more. They have been "dropped" as a PREREQUISITE for "having recourse to the infertile periods." See the FAQ on this site regarding this whole issue.
To summarize: NFP is the study of the language of the body. The body is the manifestation of the person--our bodies reveal who we are and so they can be said to speak a langauge. The most profound language the body speaks is the language of love because the body is the sign, expression of an image of God, a person. An image of God is called to do what God does, i.e., love, and express those acts in and through the body. So the most profound language the body speaks is the language of love. And the body speaks this language through the sexual powers. NFP is precisely the study of these sexual powers. So, NFP is reading the language of the body.
When this language is understood, i.e., when NFP is known properly, both the husband and the wife come to understand the awesome nature of God's gift of life to each of them and the incredible gift the other is. In other words, the body reveals the person which in turn reveals God because the body reveals an image of God and when an image of God is revealed, something of God is revealed. This newfound respect and awe leads to gratitude, then to love (because having received such an awesome gift, naturally one is grateful and wants to respond) and to generosity (because love is always generous).
With this generosity, NFP couples usually desperately WANT to give of themselves, and to give this awesome gift of life to new human persons. They understand in a profound way the privilege of procreation and want to share in this activity with God. They will only postpone a pregnancy for the most weighty of reasons. Thus, NFP leads couples to "serious reasons" to postpone a pregnancy.
In practical terms, if a couple understands NFP properly, uses it properly, has their life in order (taking care of family obligations, Church obligations, work, social responsibilities, community responsibilities, etc.) then if they decide to postpone a pregnancy, the Church ASSUMES that they have sufficient reasons.
It is not so much that the reasons are not needed, it is that they come as a RESULT of the proper use of NFP and are not required as a PREREQUISITE.
John Paul does not mention serious reasons as a prerequisite for using NFP in his Apostolic Exhortation on the Family.
For more information, see the FAQ on this site on this point.
Thanks for writing.
******************************************
NFP and serious reasons plus HPR article Question from Bill Foley on 08-10-2003:
Father Hogan:
You do wonderful work with your forum. Deo Gratias!
The July 2003 issue of homiletic & pastoral review has an article on page 24 and following, How to Preach against Contraception, by Frederick Marks. If you get a chance, would you please critique this for me; I think that the author appears to be negative toward natural family planning. One of the statements is: "NFP advocacy, of its very nature, tends to undercut some of the best arguments against artificial contraception."
On the other hand, I do not believe that the magisterium has abandoned its teaching that couples must have a serious reason to practice NFP. Ramon Garcia de Haro quotes Pope John Paul II in his Marriage and the Family in the Documents of the Magisterium on page 359. The remark was taken from the Pope's Address to the Participants in the International Meeting on the Theme "The Natural Regulation of Fertility: The Authentic Alternative," December 11, 1992. The quotation was reported in L'Osservatore Romano (December 12, 1992). The Popes words are: "The Church recognizes that there can be objective motives for limiting or spacing births, but she insists, in accord with Humanae Vitae, that couples must have serious reasons in order licitly to refrain from the use of marriage during fertile days and to make use of it during infertile periods in order to express their love and to safeguard their mutual fidelity."
Bill Foley
Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 08-12-2003: It is not that serious reasons are not required. It is that instead of the Church requiring serious reasons as a PREREQUISITE of using NFP, it has come to understand that the proper and informed use of NFP builds these reasons.
If a newly married couple begins to use NFP with a general attitude which is selfish and even contraceptive, they will either abandon NFP for a better contraceptive or they will change their general attitude. A couple using NFP in an informed and proper way knows that each and every conjugal act is "open to the transmission of life." Thus, each act is holy and without sin. Their specific attitude each time they use the privileges of marriage differs from their general more selfish and contraceptive general mentality. But people cannot continue to act one way in specific acts and another way with regard to general attitudes. If the general attitude "trumps" the specific, they will abandon NFP. If, more likely, the specific attitude changes the general attitude, then they will become generous regarding life and when they do need to limit their family, they will only do it because it is the only thing to do in their situation (serious reasons). NFP helps couples read the language of the body--helps them understand their great dignity and value, see that same dignity and value in others, especially their children, and in turn leads them to genuine love which always and in every case includes life. This is why so many couples may begin using NFP with the intent on having a small family and then, a few years later, they see a friend that they have not seen in a while, and the friend remarks on their four children--all single births. Now, not everyone is called to have a larger family--but the point is that NFP leads to true love which is life-giving and to an abundantly generous love.
I do not usually see the HPR and so I cannot comment on the article you cite, but I profoundly disagree with the line you cite from the article. I doubt that the author understands the Theology of the Body very well. According to this wonderful teaching of Pope John Paul II, one of the key differences between NFP and contraception is that contraception in each and every case alters the body in some way. NFP does not do this and this fact alone points to a radical difference between NFP and contraception.
Thanks for writing.
COPYRIGHT 2003
*************************************** Padre Pio
Question from Richard Hogan on 07-04-2003: Did Padre Pio ever express his opinions on contraception to Pope Paul VI?
Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 07-04-2003:
I asked this question of myself so that I could post the following letter written by Padre Pio to Pope Paul VI. This was at the suggestion of a correspondent.
Here is the text of the letter:
Your Holiness: Availing myself of Your Holiness' meeting with the Capitular Fathers, I unite myself in spirit with my Brothers, and in a spirit of faith, love and obedience to the greatness of Him whom you represent on earth, offer my respectful homage to Your August Person, humbly kneeling at Your feet. The Capuchin Order has always been among the first in their love, fidelity and reverence for the Holy See. I pray the Lord that its members remain ever thus, continuing their tradition of seriousness and religious asceticism evangelical poverty, faithful observance of the Rule and Constitutions, renewing themselves in vigorous living and deep interior spirit—always ready, at the least gesture from Your Holiness, to go forward at once to assist the Church in her needs. I know that Your heart suffers much these days on account of the happenings in the Church: for peace in the world, for the great needs of its peoples; but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the lofty teachings which You, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, have given us. I offer Your Holiness my daily prayers and sufferings, the insignificant but sincere offering of the least of your sons, asking the Lord to comfort you with His grace to continue along the direct yet often burdensome way—in defense of those eternal truths which can never change with the times. In the name of my spiritual sons and of the "Praying Groups" I thank Your Holiness for the clear and decisive words You have spoken in the recent encyclical, "Humanae Vitae", and I reaffirm my own faith and my unconditional obedience to Your inspired directives. May God grant truth to triumph, and, may pence be given to His Church, tranquility to the people of the earth, and health and prosperity to Your Holiness, so that when these disturbing clouds pass over, the Reign of God may triumph in all hearts, through the Apostolic Works of the Supreme Shepherd of all Christians. Prostrate at Your feet, I beg you to bless me, my Brothers in religion, my spiritual sons, the "Praying Groups", all the sick—that we may faithfully fulfill the good works done in the Name of Jesus and under your protection. Your Holiness' most humble servant, PADRE PIO, Capuchin San Giovanni Rotondo, 12th September, 1968."
***************************************
Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 07-01-2003:
The requirement of grave reasons (or serious reasons) has been quietly dropped as a PRE-REQUISITE for having recourse to the infertile times of the feminine cycle. Grave or serious reasons was the language of the Church that asked couples to exercise the supternatural virtue of prudence, i.e., to judge as God would judge, in determining the size of their families. Over the last thirty or so years, the Church has learned through the experience of couples that NFP, when properly taught and exercised, actually BUILDS virtue.
Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 11-21-2002:
What the Church taught before Vatican II was that couples needed to be conscious of sufficient reasons BEFORE they used only the infertile periods. Trhough the experience of couples actually using the modern NFP methods, the Church has discovered something about NFP and married couples not known before, i.e., that the proper practice (informed) of NFP BUILDS virtue. In other words, if a couple is practicing their faith, teaching their children the faith, fulfilling their responsibilities to family and friends and work (job), praying together regularly, then, if they decide to postpone a pregnancy, the Church presumes that they will have a good reason BECAUSE the proper practice of NFP leads to virtue and generosity in love. So instead of requiring virtue as a prerequisite (serious reasons as was required by Pius XI), not the Church knows that NFP builds virtue.
when NFP is known properly, both the husband and the wife come to understand the awesome nature of God's gift of life to each of them and the incredible gift the other is. In other words, the body reveals the person which in turn reveals God because the body reveals an image of God and when an image of God is revealed, something of God is revealed. This newfound respect and awe leads to gratitude, then to love (because having received such an awesome gift, naturally one is grateful and wants to respond) and to generosity (because love is always generous). ,/i>
With this generosity, NFP couples usually desperately WANT to give of themselves, and to give this awesome gift of life to new human persons. They understand in a profound way the privilege of procreation and want to share in this activity with God. They will only postpone a pregnancy for the most weighty of reasons. Thus, NFP leads couples to "serious reasons" to postpone a pregnancy.
In practical terms, if a couple understands NFP properly, uses it properly, has their life in order (taking care of family obligations, Church obligations, work, social responsibilities, community responsibilities, etc.) then if they decide to postpone a pregnancy, the Church ASSUMES that they have sufficient reasons.
It is not so much that the reasons are not needed, it is that they come as a RESULT of the proper use of NFP and are not required as a PREREQUISITE.
I have found no Church documents that would verify that these statements are anything more than Fr. hogan's own personal beliefs and pious opinions. Do any of you know of any Church documents that support his thesis here, or is Fr. Hogan out on a limb by himself making these assertions?
This is my own opinion:
It appears that this is his personal theological opinion. I have never seen an official Church document that maintains or supports Fr. Hogan's position here. This is the first time I have even seen it argued this way!
Therefore, I disagree with his central thesis; i.e., its OK to teach NFP void of the requirements of "grave reasons" in the hopes that in the future virtue will develop in the context of which the proper grave reasons will ipso facto exist in that coupls' marriage. This is "doing evil that good may come of it" in my opinion.
I will be doing some further research over the coming days to ascertain whether this is an emerging consensus among NFP supporters or simply the pious and personal opinion of one sole priest.
I suspect it is the latter.
Any comments?
Wow, that IS good. Kippley IS the NFP movement in America. I'm glad to see the mainstream (CCL) moving in a direction opposite that of Fr. Hogan, who appears to be out on a limb here.
Pastors, above all, should be the ones to categorically reject society's assumption against children, and to encourage true self-giving in marriage. Of course, priests and bishops should be taking many firm stands that they are avoiding ...
It's harder for people out on the front lines of anti-contraception ministry, because the anti-children mindset is so strong. Sometimes just persuading someone against sterilization, or against abortifacient birth control, is the best one can do.
I think Fr. Hogan is recognizing this point at some level ... the practice of NFP generally does result in a less selfish marriage, and in a conversion to family, although there are some exceptions. In that sense it is a "positive good," both compared to artificial contraception, and compared to providentialism, what the Protestants call the "quiverfull" mindset. I find that both those ways of thinking encourage sexual gluttony, a lack of consideration for the spouse, and a view of marriage that is overly physical.
Some dioceses and parishes require NFP training before Catholic weddings. Is the presumption that all (or most) couples will encounter grave reasons and need NFP or is it (like Popcak and the other NFP zealots portray) a normal practice for a "healthy" marriage?
Because of this requirement, my wife and I underwent a diocesan-sponsored NFP course two years ago for our marriage preperation. This was at the most conservative parish in the archdiocese (by far). There was much mention of "making the marriage work first", "overpopulation", "providing for college education" and "proper spacing", but not even a suggestion that what we were learning was to be reserved for rare circumstances. Giving the instructor priest the benefit of the doubt, I waited until the end of the course to see if it would come up and it didn't. In response to the "any final questions?" request, I asked whether the Church teaches that NFP is only acceptable for "grave causes." He laughed and said that was a "pre-Vatican II" teaching, and that the new catechism defines it as "just reasons", which meant any reason not sinful or evil. When asked for an example, he cited the example of a mother not wanting to give birth due to the effects it may have on her figure.
Now, that is not to say that all NFP instruction is so deficient. I have heard of groups and courses which are careful to stress the moral aspects of NFP. Even such, the most vocal NFP promoters (Steubenville, EWTN, etc.) are loath to mention such moral requirements, and even demean those who don't use NFP as savages or "providentialists". As such, my objections to the NFP industry stand.
Polycarp, thanks for posting this. I was out of town for the past week and couldn't respond sooner. You are correct that Fr. Hogan is promoting his own personal speculation and pretending that it is the "quiet" teaching of the Vatican. The Church has clearly taught the requirement for grave reasons numerous times in the past.
Nor is it an acceptable moral line of reasoning to say that it's okay to use NFP in an illicit manner because it will eventually lead you to a better understanding. You cannot encourage 1 sin to replace a greater sin. That would be just like the people who say that pro-lifers should encourage contraception in order to eliminate abortion.
John Kippley has written some very good things in the past, and his wife Sheila has a book that is much better than NFP, "Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing." Now that is Natural Family Planning, not charting, etc.
However, I don't believe Kippley has much influence on what's promoted by CCL. For years now Kipply has been encouraging the reading of Casti Connubii, while the CCL website is promoting Christopher West, Mr. "Naked Without Shame" himself.
I wish that were true. But the reality is that he doesn't even represent the mainstream of CCL. His columns are usually very good, but the rest of the CCL newsletter never mentions the requirement of grave reasons. When they publish some woman's chart, maybe they could also mention the grave reason for why she' using NFP. I find a family planning mentality to be present in the CCL literature, although Kippley himself comes across as much more authentically Catholic.
I have never known of any that were not. As you say, if even Steubenville and EWTN are avoiding the subject, then who would that leave that would be providing morally sound guidance?
demean those who don't use NFP as savages or "providentialists".
Check out the post immediately above yours where Tax-chick attacks "providentialists" calling them "sexual gluttons" and lacking in consideration for the spouse.
Hermann the Cherusker: The shirking of the four children teaching by modern NFP promoters is the cause of all the confusion over this issue. If people clearly understood the traditional teaching laid out from 1860-1960 which I have brought to your attention before, that there is only a duty to society to provide for the replacement rate of reproduction (taking into account sterile couples and unmarried persons) plus some modest growth, this wouldn't even be an issue.
The whole NFP brouhaha is greatly clarified by sticking to the former consensus of moral theologians discarded by the anti-Humane Vitae heretics, and ignored by the "you must have 12 children" crowd.
5 posted on 09/23/2003 9:54 PM EDT by Hermann the Cherusker.
Maximilian,
Comments? Hermann would seem to come under the same criticism you level against TaxChick's post.
Yes, you are right on the substantive issue, but Tax-chick used the exact buzz words under discussion.
Far be it from me to leave Hermann out of the well-deserved criticism. I find that Hermann gets some idea in his head and becomes a monomaniac on the subject and it's useless to debate with him. One example is when he carelessly tosses around numbers about baptisms, showing a lack of rigor with the statistics.
Another example is his 4-child rule. There's no such thing, one way or the other. The relevant moral principles are not based upon numbers. Hermann says "which I have brought to your attention before." Yes, you have Hermann, ad nauseum, but it's still just as bogus as the first time you mentioned it. He mentions the period 1860 - 1960, during which time the Vatican released "Arcanum," "Casti Connubii," "Allocution to the Italian Midwives" and "Address to Large Families" on the subject. None of them mention a 4-child rule. Neither did contemporary moral manuals of the time aimed at the average layman and woman. Several are available on EWTN, and the concept of a 4-child replacement rule is never mentioned.
The "old enough" question could have relevance in relation to the courage of back-office generals who don't have to fight the front-line battles and face the bullets of the enemy. There are people like Michael Novak who were pro birth control until they turned 45 and then decided they were going to stand with the Holy Father from then on. But if someone has generously responded to God's offer to send them blessings, then their age is irrelevant, if for no other reason than that the parenting days are never over. Parents of 8 or more children rarely if ever have to experience the "empty nest" syndrome.
The NFP teacher training question is relevant because it means that you've been indoctrinated. The moral issues do not require training and experience teaching NFP. I don't believe that Pope Paul VI had either. But once someone has gone through one of those programs, then they will have had the party line drilled into them, and it will be much more difficult for them to be objective.
I never said there was. I said clearly it was the near unanimous consensus of American moral theologians during the 1950's and 1960's in regards to this teaching. This number would necessarily vary society to society and age to age.
Anyone who has been to China or India, where 1 billion people are shoe-horned into an area smaller than the US east of the Mississippi could tell you there is no "need" for everyone there to have even four children anymore.
The relevant moral principles are not based upon numbers. Hermann says "which I have brought to your attention before." Yes, you have Hermann, ad nauseum, but it's still just as bogus as the first time you mentioned it.
Bogus for what reason? Will you actually address the arguments put out by the Catholic Moral Theologians? Or are you just another person who rejects guidance by the Holy See like the infamous busybody Mrs. Jeanne Dvorak?
He mentions the period 1860 - 1960, during which time the Vatican released "Arcanum," "Casti Connubii," "Allocution to the Italian Midwives" and "Address to Large Families" on the subject. None of them mention a 4-child rule.
Nobody ever claimed they did. What happened is that the Vatican clearly approved of periodic continence on five seperate occasions - rulings of the Sacred Penitentiary in 1853 and 1880, Casti Conubii in 1930, Pius XII's Allocution in 1951, and Humane Vitae in 1968. The four child rule is a practical application to modern America of when the obligation to have recourse to grave reasons ceases, i.e. when are the duties of marriage to society are fulfilled. The duty to have children is one of social justice, not sexual morality.
Neither did contemporary moral manuals of the time aimed at the average layman and woman. Several are available on EWTN, and the concept of a 4-child replacement rule is never mentioned.
This is like claiming that because Catechisms for the laity prior to the late 1800's did not commonly mention Baptism of Desire and Blood, it is therefore a false teaching. It doesn't really demonstrate anything.
Magisterium
Question: Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month when conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days, to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?
Response: Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.
-Sacred Penitentiary, Decree of 2 March 1853, Response to the Bishop of AmiensResponse: Married couples who use their marriage rights in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.
-Sacred Penitentiary, Decree of 16 June 1880Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
-Pope Pius XI, Encyclical "Casti Conubii", 59, 31 December 1930Today, besides, another grave problem has arisen, namely, if and how far the obligation of being ready for the service of maternity is reconcilable with the ever more general recourse to the periods of natural sterility the so-called "agenesic" periods in woman, which seems a clear expression of a will contrary to that precept.
You are expected to be well informed, from the medical point of view, in regard to this new theory and the progress which may still be made on this subject, and it is also expected that your advice and assistance shall not be based upon mere popular publications, but upon objective science and on the authoritative judgment of conscientious specialists in medicine and biology. It is your function, not the priest's, to instruct the married couple through private consultation or serious publications on the biological and technical aspect of the theory, without however allowing yourselves to be drawn into an unjust and unbecoming propaganda. But in this field also your apostolate demands of you, as women and as Christians, that you know and defend the moral law, to which the application of the theory is subordinated. In this the Church is competent.
It is necessary first of all to consider two hypotheses. If the application of that theory implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. In this case they do not hinder or jeopardize in any way the consummation of the natural act and its ulterior natural consequences. It is exactly in this that the application of the theory, of which We are speaking, differs essentially from the abuse already mentioned, which consists in the perversion of the act itself. If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.
Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If, one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid, because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.
However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.
The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the "bonum prolis". The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
-Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, 29 October 1951Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
-Pope Paul VI, Encyclical "Humane Vitae", 16, 25 July 1968
Popular Theological books. I'll provide one simple example.
It is a popular misconception that the Church requires Catholic parents, under pain of sin, to have large families; the only thing insisted upon is that they should not exercise the marriage act in a sinful manner. If, for any reason whatever, married people agree to live in mutual continence, they commit no sin and their restraint may even be virtuous. It is also the considered judgment of the Church that married persons may be prudently allowed to use their marriage rights at those times when conception is less likely. ("The Teaching of the Catholic Church", [Fr. E.Mahoney] Fr. G. Smith, Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1956, p 1091)
Specific teaching from Moral Theologians
MORAL THEOLOGY: A Complete Course * Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities * By JOHN A. McHUGH, O.P. And CHARLES J. CALLAN, O.P. REVISED AND ENLARGED BY EDWARD P. FARRELL, O.P., Vol. 2"PART II SPECIAL MORAL THEOLOGY (Continued)
THE DUTIES OF MEMBERS OF SOCIETY
Art. 2: THE DUTIES OF MEMBERS of DOMESTIC AND CIVIL SOCIETY ...2622. Is Birth-Control Ever Lawful? -- (a) If this refers to an * end * (viz., the limitation of the number of children or the spacing of their arrival), it is not unlawful in itself (see 2617) ; and it is sometimes a duty, as when the wife is in very poor health or the family is unable to take care of more.
But in view of the decline and deterioration in populations today, it seems that couples who are able to bring up children well should consider it a duty to the common welfare to have at least four children, and it should be easy for many to have at least a dozen children. The example of those married persons of means who are unable to have a number of children of their own, but who adopt or raise orphaned little ones, is very commendable. ...
Since the * Allocution *, the more common opinion in this country 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 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.
Since the Pope abstained from an explicit statement on the gravity of the sin, the controversy of whether the practice intrinsically is a mortal sin or not continued. The opinion in this country which holds the greatest authority states that mortal sin is involved in the ease of continued practice with a total exclusion of children and frequent use of marital rights during the sterile period.
Diversity of opinion has arisen as to the means of estimating when a serious sin has been committed. Some have used a temporal norm, e.g., unjustified use of rhythm for five or six years would constitute a serious matter. Undoubtedly most of the proponents of this norm would not accuse a couple of certain mortal sin if they already have one or more children; after that, indefinite use of the practice without excusing causes would not be a mortal sin. (This is admitted by most theologians.) Others have proposed a numerical norm as a basis to determine whether or not a couple has made its contribution to the conservation of the race. Concretely the proponents of this theory regard four or five children as sufficient to satisfy the obligation in such a way;
a) that the use of rhythm to limit the family to this number is licit provided the couple is willing and morally able to practice it;
b) that the limitation through rhythm to less than four requires a serious justifying cause. The intention involved to prevent conception would be seriously sinful in itself, since it causes great harm to the common good and involves in practice subordination of the primary to the secondary end or ends of matrimony. At the present time this opinion seems to be more favored in America than the first which places the gravity of the sin in the unjustified practice of rhythm for five years. (For a survey of recent opinion, see * The Conference Bulletin of the Archdiocese of New York *. Vol. XXXIV, No. 1, pp. 36 ff.)
On the other hand, some European theologians have denied that the practice constitutes a mortal sin in itself, independently of circumstances such as injustice and danger of incontinence.
A final summation showing how widespread this teaching was:
Rather the problem arises with those who try "to impose an obligation on all married couples that is not to be found in the teachings of the Church, viz., that unless prevented by nature or emergencies, all married couples ought to have large families; and, correlatively, no couple should make use of NFP, except in very rare cases...."(1)In the first place, let us consider the traditional primary end of marriage. As put in a standard pre-Vatican II theological manual, "Finis principalis Matrimonii est generatio et educatio prolis,"(2) that is, "the principal end of marriage is the procreation and education of children." Now the important thing to note about this for our purposes is that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. And of course education here means much more than schooling. Perhaps it could best be rendered as formation, the entire spiritual, moral, intellectual, social and physical shaping of a child, so that he can serve God in this world and attain eternal life in the next. Obviously in order to be educated a child must first be generated and born. But, as we see too evidently around us, not all children who are procreated are educated. And if parents are indeed the first and primary educators of their children,(3) then the state of their health, both physical and psychological, has a great impact on their ability to educate their children. Thus if parents are stressed or constantly tired or overworked, they are not apt to be the best educators of their children. I am not speaking of their ability to ferry their children around for the latest in art or music lessons or sports camps or whatever. No, I am thinking of the daily interaction of parents and children and the strength needed by parents for the sometimes arduous task of rearing their children. It does not conduce to forming children psychologically if their parents are frequently irritable or overly critical. Yet, as is obvious, fatigue and stress tend to bring out such negative qualities in human beings.
Of course, one might argue that the best lesson that parents can give their children is that of generous sacrifice to God. And I certainly do not deny the value of this lesson. But I question the ability of anyone to look into anyone else's heart or into the privacy of any other family and pronounce whether those parents are living up to the high calling of the sacrament of matrimony or yielding to self indulgence and taking the easy way out.(4) Everyone knows mothers who bear eight, ten or twelve children and who manage such large households with aplomb. But not everyone has their emotional and physical resources and no one else can rightly criticize those who do not have such physical and emotional gifts.
The second line of argument I want to pursue involves a discussion of the purpose of child bearing in conjunction with God's original command to Adam and Eve, "Increase and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). One of the chief insights in the Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophic tradition is that every action has an end. Things exist for a purpose. God's command to Adam and Eve was to bring about the peopling of the earth. And certainly the birth of every human being is a good. But the duty of married couples to have children is rationally related to the population needs of the world and the Church.
A very interesting discussion of this question took place in the 1950s and early 1960s by moral theologians entirely orthodox and loyal to the Church's Magisterium. In particular, let us look at a work written by Jesuit Fathers John C. Ford and Gerald Kelly, volume 2, Marriage Questions, of their Contemporary Moral Theology, published in 1964.(5) Frs. Ford and Kelly opine that, even with absolutely no excusing cause based on health, economics, etc., no married couple is bound by the law of God to have more children than is necessary for the general conservation and gradual increase of the human race. They state, "There may be difficulty in determining the exact limit for various countries; but certainly today in the United States a family of four children would be sufficient to satisfy the duty."(6) Such an approach to the question of use of natural family planning was not limited to these two authors. As they state, "Verbal acceptance of the theory was expressed by a great majority of some thirty moral theologians who discussed it at Notre Dame in June, 1952, on the occasion of the annual meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America."(7) I am not here holding up the minimum as an ideal. But we have no right to criticize someone else for what is in fact not a sin. Nor can we confuse a counsel of perfection with a duty or expect others to achieve what might be for them heroic virtue.
-Thomas Storck, Marriage and the use of Natural Family Planning, the University Concourse, Volume VIII, Issue 1, September 30, 2002
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
