Posted on 09/01/2003 7:03:21 PM PDT by Polycarp
As the quotation concludes, the practice is "tolerated", meaning it is morally neutral. The use of it is what you make of it. You are ultimately the judge of your own consicience on such matters. The Church points the way to heaven, but does not carry you there without your own locomotion. The Church, of course, is not about to tell you an exhaustive list of what the "grave reasons" or "just causes" are that permit using this, and how this applies to your particular circumstances. Hence, "work out your salvation in fear and trembling".
As far as women having children is concerned, women should keep in mind the text of St. Paul - "Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2.15). Motherhood is intimately linked to the salvation of the ordinary married laywoman. Why? Because each child of a Christian mother is an "arrow" (Psalm 126.4) to be shot at the "enemies" - Satan and the fallen Angels. Each will be baptised and redeemed from the slavery of original sin, so each is a confounding of the plans of the Evil One. Each child born to a Christian mother will become another image of Christ after its second birth from "the immaculate womb of the divine font, reborn new creatures ... by grace, their spiritual mother" (Tridentine Easter Vigil, prayer over Baptismal Font), thus also fulfilling in another way the words of God "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between her seed and your seed." (Genesis 3.15). Each is therefore a work of satisfaction in reparation for the sin of Eve in the Garden, which is why childbearing has physical pain associated with it, and each helps to conform the women to Blessed Mary, and by conformance to Blessed Mary, to God Himself.
It would be non-binding if there was some big dispute about its contents within the Church, but I don't think you'll find that to be the case, if you look from Theologian to Theologian.
The consensus of the Theologians in this regard, as noted in the excerpt I previously posted, is a testimony to a widely held truth, not a mere opinion of a couple of priests. Here is another reference to this consensus concerning four children:
Mrs. van Schaijik discusses the opinions of those who believe that licit use of NFP is very rare--e.g. when there are serious health problems on the part of the mother, serious financial difficulties, etc. Those who take this view would say that to postpone or avoid a new child for such reasons as stress, depression or fatigue would be selfish and sinful. Neither Mrs. van Schaijik nor I have anything to say against those heroic couples who freely and lovingly choose to accept as many children as God wishes to send them; indeed, we both think that such couples have a special place in our Lord's Sacred Heart. 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.
This discussion by Frs. Ford and Kelly took place against a backdrop of generally large Catholic families and a healthy birthrate in society at large. Today we have the opposite. The population of some European countries has already fallen in absolute numbers, and in many others will soon begin to fall drastically unless those countries consent to be overwhelmed by Muslim immigrants. One could thus argue that, at least in Europe, Catholic families ought not to consider their duty to Church and state as fulfilled with four children. And I think there is something to be said for arguing thus. Therefore I include this discussion less for the specific numbers that Frs. Ford and Kelly calculated nearly forty years ago than to bring forward the principle that licit use of natural family planning depends on many factors and cannot be reduced to a simple formula of 'Have as many children as possible, unless you have a grave reason not to.'
Lastly, let us look at what Pope Paul VI actually said about this question in Humanae Vitae, no. 16.
"If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions...."The Latin original of the first part of the sentence runs, "Si igitur iustae adsint causae generationes subsequentes intervallandi, quae a coniugum corporis vel animi condicionibus...." I have italicized the word usually translated as "serious," and it is in the Latin "iustae," that is, just. So it would appear that Pope Paul was simply stating that the causes for making use of natural family planning must be just causes, i.e., not frivolous.(8)
Its a serious mistake is to so discount the morally unanimous teaching of the Theologians. The Theologians are the Bishop's authorized expositors of the faith. They are not mere priests or deacons or laymen pontificating on some topic, but rather are expressing the Magisterial teaching of their particular Bishop.
"highly acclaimed and groundbreaking" (in the secular press) Seinfeld episode
I don't watch TV, so this allusion to some episode on that show is completely lost on me. Sounds like I didn't miss anything.
That will make a good tagline;-)
In all honesty, my wife and I are on the verge of resigning from the NFP instruction apostolate.
Mostly the latter. We are discerning.
I would submit that the latter, thanks to Hugh Hefner & Co., came before the former, and created the conditions for it to work.
If women feel they are mere sex objects for men, why should they need 'em, except as sperm donors?
THEN even the remaining good men felt/became "unneeded in the traditional role of protector and provider" (according to many women).
So..... many of remaining good men crossed over and said "OK, if we're of no constructive use to you, we might as well treat you as objects. We're looking out for #1 from now on."
And the circle goes round....
The conditions for it always existed, as even the likes of Jack LaLaine once stated in an interview, "sex is the greatest driving force in the universe". Hugh Hefner took advantage of this element of human nature to make money, but he didn't create it. Women let down their moral guard in their great quest to be 'liberated', this nobody can deny. And women have always been the guardians of morality in most cultures. Just as Satan tempted Eve, and then Eve tempted Adam in Genesis, the same formula still applies today. As a man I think I can speak for the majority of men when I say that, deep down, most of us profoundly admire a woman of dignity and morality. However, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
If any change is to take place, it will never happen by men suddenly turning their backs on easy women, it's got to be women who lead the way in this particular battle. I don't pretend to know why, perhaps God only knows, but this seems to be human nature according to what I have observed throughout my life.
LOL! In those days there were no such thing as a Catholic, or a Protestant but you may believe what you wish. The word "church" is the body of believers. Catholic as you misuse it is not in the Bible at all.
You: In ONLY ONE of these 54 uses is it even POSSIBLE that it refers to the NT itself : (2 Peter 3) "And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. Isn't it INTERESTING that the SOLE SCRIPTURE reference for Scripture having to do with the New Testament POSITIVELY REFUTES SOLA SCRIPTURA and private interpretation of scripture?
You completley lost me here. What is your point?
Are you suggesting that Scripture denies itself. Are you also suggesting that the Bible is not plain enough for a person to read? Please explain because the Bible does NOT suggest either.
Unfortunately you are incorrect.
Ignatius of Antioch wrote only 80 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, in his letter to the Smyreans:
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a PRIEST]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the Bishop to baptize or celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid." (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
This proves the early Church had authority, hierarchy, an institutional structure, and a sacramental system, long before the Church had a Bible. The canon of scripture was closed hundreds of years after Ignatius wrote here of the "Catholic" church and the authority of its bishops to lose and to bind.
Ignatius was himself a disciple of John the Evangelist, the Apostle of Jesus Christ Himself. He received his teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as well as the authority and hierarchy of the Catholic church, directly from John, an Apostle of Jesus.
Clearly the corporate structure of the Catholic church existed long before the New Testament was gathered together in the form in which you know it today. The celebration of the early Christians was of the agape, the Holy Eucharist. It was not one of reading and preaching on scriptues. Early Christians were sacramental Christians whose PRIMARY focus was the Real Presence of Jesus christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Bible only Christians ("protestants") would not yet exist for another 1500 years. You can't argue with simple facts.
Are you also suggesting that the Bible is not plain enough for a person to read?
Certainly. If it were otherwise, there would not be 20,000 competing protestant sects.
The plain sense of scripture could be no plainer here:
2 Peter 3: "And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
Also see Acts 8:
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
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.