IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)

When we hear the Church's teaching on the transmission of human life coming under attack, the attackers are usually those who want to justify contraceptive practices. They denounce especially the alleged "rigorism" or "obscurantism" of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, who have continued to insist, like all their predecessors in the See of Peter, that it is always gravely sinful for spouses to manipulate, pervert or interfere with the conjugal act in such a way as to impede the possibility of procreation.

However, in recent times there has also been a growing tendency among some traditionalist Catholics to attack the encyclicals of the above Popes from the opposite direction. There are now quite a few magazine articles, booklets, and websites which loudly complain that recent papal teaching on this subject is not too severe or rigoristic, but too lax and permissive. They denounce Paul VI and John Paul II and "the post-conciliar Church" for explicitly permitting and encouraging those procedures now known generically as 'periodic continence' or Natural Family Planning (NFP). As is well known, these expressions refer to the identification and exclusive use of the naturally infertile period of the wife's cycle for having conjugal relations, in circumstances where a married couple has sufficiently serious reasons for wanting to avoid the conception of a new child. Ironically, such traditionalists often join forces with those at the opposite end of the theological spectrum – the liberal 'Catholic' dissenters – in claiming that there is no moral difference between NFP and the use of condoms, pills and other contraceptives. Using the self-same epithet employed by many of their liberal arch-enemies, they refer sarcastically to NFP as "Catholic contraception", claiming that if the Church were logically consistent she would either allow all methods of birth regulation (the liberal proposal) or forbid all methods (the traditionalist proposal).

This 'traditionalist' criticism of NFP exists in various degrees. And I should begin by acknowledging that, in its milder forms – that is to say, when it is directed more against some modern pastoral policies and practices rather than at the Church's authentic doctrine about NFP as such – the criticism seems to me reasonable and just. From what I have seen and read in my years as a priest, I agree with such critics that, among those promoting NFP, there is sometimes a one-sidedness or lack of balance. Married or engaged couples are often taught the legitimacy and the technique of the ovulation or sympto-thermal methods of NFP, but with little or no mention of that other part of the Church's teaching which insists that couples need "just reasons" (Humanae Vitae, 16; Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], #2368) for using NFP if they wish to be free from blame before God. (Indeed, quite frankly, I think we really need now from the Magisterium some less vague and more specific guidelines as to what actually constitutes a "just reason".) Very often, such couples hear nothing at all of the fact that "Sacred Scripture and the Church's teaching see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents'generosity" (CCC no. 2373). Still less frequently are they informed that, according to the Magisterium, merely temporal or worldly considerations are in themselves inadequate criteria for deciding when NFP can be justified: "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny" (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 51, cited in CCC no. 2371). Taking into account the whole spectrum of biblical and Church teaching in this area, I personally think that we need to bring back the word "grave" into the discourse about family planning. That is, we should be teaching that the temporal or worldly problems to be anticipated by another pregnancy and birth (mainly of health or poverty) need to be really grave in character before a married couple is entitled to conclude that they have a "just reason" for them to use NFP. (I said "bring back" above, because, as I shall show in this article, that key adjective, "grave", has in fact been used by the Magisterium in this context, in certain decisions that have been generally forgotten, but by no means repudiated.)

Having said that, we must now go on to point out the serious error of those Catholic "traditionalists" who go much further than simply to rebuke an unduly lax, permissive and one-sided pastoral approach to NFP, and who claim that the practice is, in principle, immoral, and that it also stands condemned by the previous ordinary (or even extraordinary) magisterium of the Church. Never has the use of quotation marks around the word "traditionalist" been more apt than in this case, because, as we shall see, there was never at any stage a Catholic "tradition" – not even a lower-level, 'non-infallible' tradition – against the use of periodic continence. Practically as soon as the first rudimentary methods of estimating the infertile period arose, with the advance of medical science in the mid-19th century, the See of Peter immediately and explicitly gave its blessing to this practice!

Ignorant of this fact, not a few "traditionalists" are now claiming that, from an orthodox Catholic viewpoint, the very notion of "regulating" or "planning" births and family size is an affront to God, and betrays a lack of trust in his loving Providence. They claim that married couples are always morally obliged either to engage in regular conjugal relations without any intention of "planning" their family size (and so leaving that entirely up to God's Providence); or, if they are really convinced there are grave reasons for avoiding another pregnancy, to abstain totally from conjugal relations for as long as that situation lasts, without making any attempt to identify, and make use of, the naturally infertile moments of the wife's cycle.

Perhaps the most outspoken and uncompromising proponent of this pseudo-traditional view is Mr. Richard Ibranyi, a prolific 'sedevacantist' writer whose booklets, bulletins and website articles ceaselessly denounce the "apostate" Church of Vatican II and the "anti-Popes" who lead it. Ibranyi has recently published a 32-page booklet¹ whose conclusions are nothing if not forthright and unambiguous. He declares: "All those who use Natural Family Planning commit mortal sin. There is a natural law upon all men's hearts and the practice of NFP violates the natural law. Pope Pius XI [in the encyclical Casti Connubii] teaches there are no exceptions and no excuses. No exceptions, even if your priest or bishop says it can be used."²

Well, did Pius XI in fact teach this doctrine in his 1930 document? To answer that question, we first need to set Casti Connubii (CC) in its historical context, since that encyclical was by no means the first statement coming out of the Vatican on this subject.

At this point we need to open a little parenthesis in order to clarify what sort of document does in fact constitute a genuine Vatican intervention. This is because some "traditionalists", including Ibranyi, refuse to accept as official, or even as authentic, any Vatican statement which is not published in its official journal, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS). Many readers will be aware that in recent years there has been something of a revival of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney's rigorist interpretation of the dogma "outside the Church, no salvation". And those who have kept abreast of this controversy will probably be aware that one of the main Feeneyite strategies is to deny the official character, and even the authenticity, of the famous 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. Since this Letter, which rejects Fr. Feeney's doctrinal position, was never published in the AAS, his followers claim that it simply doesn't count as an authentic intervention of the Magisterium. (The Fathers of Vatican II obviously thought otherwise, since they cited it along with other magisterial sources in the Council's most solemn document.³) In another of his many publications, Richard Ibranyi, who happens to be a Feeneyite as well as a sedevacantist, refers to this document as "the so-called Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney" and brands it (in large, bold type) as "fraudulent".⁴

The Feeneyite error on this point is evidently 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. Now, "ecclesiastical laws" are exercises of the Church's governing office. They are above all 'practical' decisions, establishing that something specific is to be done, or not to be done. Such decisions need to be carefully distinguished from 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. Now, the 1949 Holy Office Letter clearly fell into the latter category. It decreed no penalty for Fr. Feeney or his 'St. Benedict Center', and issued no command to the Archbishop of Boston to take any specific action in this case. It limited itself to distinguishing authoritatively between true and false interpretations of the dogma under discussion. So there was absolutely no requirement for this Letter to be published in the AAS in order to be both genuine and official.

The fact is, as anyone familiar with standard Vatican procedures knows, that ever since the AAS was established by Pope St. Pius X in 1909, there have always been a great many official statements and decisions of the Popes and Vatican Congregations, including doctrinal documents from the Holy Office and Sacred Penitentiary (in moral questions especially relevant to confessors in the Sacrament of Penance), that never get to be published in the aforesaid journal. Often they are first sent privately by Rome to bishops, and perhaps only years afterwards (as in the case of the 1949 Letter) get published in some Catholic journal or other. The fact that such a journal is not itself an official Church publication by no means implies (as Feeneyites often claim) that the Roman document which it publishes is unofficial. 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 which the Holy See attaches to them.⁵

Let us now return to the subject of Natural Family Planning. It was first necessary to clarify the question about the necessity or non-necessity of AAS promulgation, in order to forestall a ready-made 'traditionalist' objection to the argument that follows below. For it so happens that several key magisterial documents approving NFP were never published in the AAS. And since they were never even published in the English-language version of Denzinger (a key source of pre-Vatican II doctrine for laymen such as Mr. Ibranyi, who has publicly admitted his own ignorance of Latin), these decisions have apparently remained unknown to those Catholics who denounce NFP as a recent 'modernist' aberration or heresy. At least, I have never seen any of those decisions cited, or even referred to, in 'traditionalist' attacks on the use of periodic continence.

The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 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 Vatican reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation"⁶ By the expression "impedes generation", it is obvious the Vatican meant the use of onanism⁷ (or coitus interruptus, now popularly called 'withdrawal'), condoms, etc. For otherwise the reply would be self-contradictory and make no sense.

The next time the issue was raised was in 1880, when the Sacred Penitentiary on June 16 of that year issued a more general response (i.e., not directed just to an individual bishop). This time the Vatican goes further: not only does it instruct confessors not to "disquiet" or "disturb" married couples who are already practising periodic continence; it even authorizes the confessor to take the initiative in positively suggesting that method, with due caution, to couples who may not yet be aware of it, and who, in his prudent judgment, are otherwise likely to keep on practising the "detestable crime" of onanism. One could not ask for a more obvious and explicit proof that already, more than eighty years before Vatican II, the Holy See saw a great moral difference between NFP (as we now call it) and contraceptive methods (which Catholic moralists then referred to globally as 'onanism' of different types). 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 occur?" The response is: "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."⁸ The editorial notes in Denzinger indicate that this decision was made public the following year (1881) in the respected French journal Nouvelle Revue Théologique, and in Rome itself in 1883 in the Vatican-approved series Analecta Iuris Pontificii.

Now, this was the doctrine and pastoral practice that all priests well-formed in moral theology learned in seminary from the mid-19^th-century onward. So 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. The future Pius XI himself was not born until 1857, four years after the initial Vatican permission was given for periodic continence. So, like all other obedient and studious priests of his era, Fr. Achille Ratti would have learned and accepted this authentic Vatican-approved teaching which allowed NFP as a means of avoiding offspring. Hence it is seems most unlikely a priori that after being elected Pope he would have had any intention of condemning that practice. It is well known that the main thing prompting him to speak out about contraception at all was the fact that the 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglicans had scandalized all morally upright folks by teaching, for the first time ever in the history of those claiming the name "Christian", that unnatural practices, i.e., 'onanism', could be morally acceptable. Periodic continence simply was not the issue in 1930, and in fact, Pius XI did not choose to address that issue in Casti Connubii.

The clearest proof that Richard Ibranyi's interpretation of CC – namely, that it condemns NFP as just another form of contraception – is incorrect is the fact that Pius XI himself very obviously did not interpret his own encyclical that way. Only a year and a half after it was promulgated, the Sacred Penitentiary yet again issued a statement on periodic continence, dated July 20, 1932. (Quite possibly this was because someone, somewhere, was trying to give an Ibranyi-style rigorist interpretation to CC.) This time the ruling, which simply referred back to the same dicastery's previous and positive response of half a century earlier, was eventually made public in the Roman documentary journal Texta et Documenta, series theologica (vol. 25 [1942], p. 95). The decision reads as follows (my translation):

"Qu. Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons.

"Resp. Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880."⁹

Now, it would clearly be preposterous to plead that perhaps Pius XI "never knew" about this 1932 decision, right up to his death seven years later! In all probability he was the first to know about it! Certainly, it was made right under his own nose in the Vatican, and would have been mailed out promptly to the bishops of the world for the benefit of their moral theologians teaching future priests in their seminaries! How could the only Catholic bishop in the world not to know of this 'heretical distortion' (in Ibranyi's view) of his encyclical be the Bishop of Rome himself? Approved moral theologians everywhere continued to teach this settled and authentic doctrine about the legitimacy of NFP for just and grave reasons.¹⁰

If we look at what Pius XI actually says in CC, it is clear why he himself saw no contradiction whatever between his own encyclical and the settled doctrine of the Sacred Penitentiary decisions, both before and after the encyclical, which approved NFP. To begin with, if the Pope had wanted to get through a clear message to theologians and the Church in general that he was reversing the doctrine of his four predecessors, i.e., condemning that NFP which they had all permitted, he would never have used the language that he does in fact use in CC. He would almost certainly have used, for the sake of clarity, the accepted language of the theologians of that time, which was practically universal in speaking of sinful onanismus on the one hand (sub-divided into "strict" or "natural" onanism, meaning 'withdrawal', and "artificial" onanism, meaning condoms, chemical means, vaginal sheaths, or any other such 'appliances'), and on the other hand, continencia periodica or usus exclusivus temporum agenneseos, to refer to what we now call NFP. The Pope would have stated unambiguously that the latter, as well as the former, was now to be judged sinful and unacceptable.

It is interesting to note the difference between what Ibranyi says in order to expound his personal (and un-Catholic) doctrine on this matter, and what Pius XI says to expound the true and Catholic doctrine. Ibranyi's doctrine¹¹ again and again repeats words like "plan" and "goal". It is summed up on p. 7, where he says that the essence of sinful contraception (defined by Ibranyi so as to include NFP as well as 'withdrawal' and condoms, pills, etc.) is "the desire to have marital relations while having deliberately planned to prevent conception". But nowhere does Pius XI stress "plans" or "goals" to avoid having children. He does not teach that such a "desire", or such a "deliberate plan", is essentially sinful. What the Pope brands as sinful is "frustrating the marriage act"¹², that is, "frustrating its natural power and purpose". But when couples carry out conjugal acts on the infertile days exclusively, they are not "frustrating" the "natural power and purpose" of those acts which they perform on those days. For those particular acts do not have any "natural [procreative] power and purpose" to begin with! You cannot "frustrate" a non-existent power or purpose – or a non-existent anything!

The point comes through clearly in the most solemn (and, in my judgment, infallible) passage of the encyclical. After referring to the recent decision of the Anglicans to permit contraception (though without mentioning them by name), Pius XI declares:

The Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and the purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately deprived of its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.¹³

The above is for the most part the standard English translation of this passage. However, I have used the words "deprived of" at the point where that translation uses the words "frustrated in". This makes the Pope's true meaning a little clearer. The Latin verb which he uses here is destituere. And as Latin dictionaries show, this verb, when used with the ablative, as in this case (naturali sua . . . vi), means precisely "to deprive of", "to strip" or "to rob". In such constructions, the accompanying noun in the ablative case is that thing of which the rightful owner has been "deprived", or which has been "stripped" or "robbed" from him. Now, of course, you cannot "deprive" anyone of something he never possessed to begin with. You cannot "rob" a man with no money, any more than you can "strip" him if he is already naked. Likewise, since conjugal acts carried out precisely in the infertile period do not, by the very nature of the case, have any natural procreative potential to begin with, it is obvious that they cannot be "deprived" or "robbed" of that potential.

Hence it is clear that Pius XI's solemn censure cannot be referring to NFP (periodic continence). He must be referring only to those conjugal acts which, if it were not for the unnatural intervention of one or both spouses, would have retained the said "natural power to generate life". In other words, the Pope's condemnation applies exclusively to conjugal acts carried out during what the spouses understand to be the wife's fertile period, but which they deliberately pervert (whether by 'withdrawal', condoms, pills, or any other technique) so as to deprive them of that fertility. They thus dare to raise their hands, as it were, against the approach of the Creator Himself; as if they were traffic policemen with the right to signal orders to the Lord, obliging Him to take a detour: "Stop! Halt! Go back! Not now! No entry allowed here for you!" Couples using NFP, on the other hand, are not guilty of any such presumption. They are respecting God's sovereignty over human life and death, and are simply following their God-given instincts, and using their God-given conjugal right, at those times when the Creator Himself has already made it clear, by the way He has fashioned human female biology, that He has no will to use their spousal love in order to create new life.

Pius XI's successor, Pope Pius XII, confirmed yet again the moral acceptability of NFP, for "grave reasons", in two allocutions of 1951 (on October 29, to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives, and on November 26, to the National Congress of the 'Family Front' and the Association of Large Families). Since then, of course, we have had still further confirmations of the same doctrine from Popes Paul VI (in Humanae Vitae) and John Paul II (in Familiaris Consortio and many other statements). We are looking here at a long and totally unbroken tradition by which the See of Peter has approved the use by spouses of periodic continence in order to avoid conception, when their personal circumstances truly constitute a just cause for that avoidance. That sort of Catholic tradition ought to be enough to satisfy any Catholic traditionalist.

Endnotes

"Resp.: Coniuges praedicto modo utentes inquietandos non esse, posseque confessarium sententiam de qua agitur, illis coniugibus, caute tamen, insinuare, quos alia ratione a detestabili onanismi crimine abducere frustra tentaverit" (DS 3148, present writer's translation given above). This decision was published in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 13 (1881), pp. 459-460, and then in Analecta Iuris Pontificii, vol. 22 (1883), p. 249.

"Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?

Good, then you should know that there is more than one purpose. Matrimony is not only about procreation.

285. Q. Which are the effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony?
A. The effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony are: first, to sanctify the love of husband and wife; second, to give them grace to bear with each other's weaknesses; third, to enable them to bring up their children in the fear and love of God.
-Baltimore Catechism, No. 2

Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?
A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:
(1) To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
(2) To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
(3) To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.
-Baltimore Catechism, No. 3

I have to chuckle when you call Calvin a Saint. He was a heretic. Now don't take that personally. I would not not read your post just because you insulted a Catholic Saint I would just say you were wrong. You have some good comments and ideas but you are confusing a method with a principle. The principle is that no one accept God has the right to say when life begins and ends but individuals do have the right to abstain from sexual relations if they are married this is not a barrier method although this can be wrong to if the purpose is to say "No God I just don't want to have anymore children because its to much work."

IF the primary purpose of marriage IS procreation which is what all of the early Church Fathers taught then a barrier method thwarts the primary purpose of marriage and sex becomes a selfish man centered act instead of allowing God to have a part to play in the Union of the husband and wife. God is the one that gives the couple the child- they are co-creators with God. With a barrier method- they tell God go take a walk- we don't want you in on this act at all. If we are going to be God's children- we have to let him in on every act- no matter how small or large into are lives. Sex is a part of the life of a married couple and it should not be lustful either. Contraception is lustful because it uses sex for pleasure instead of being open to God and the possibility of a baby. The reason why most people do not want to see this is because they practice these methods of birth control and so they would have to give up there control and that scares them.

B.S.

"Just reasons" are spoken of quite often in NFP classes.

I taught NFP for 10 years, and I know that grave reasons were thoroughly discussed in the classes I taught.

However, multiple members of the Catholic Caucus here, not just trads, have related hearing NFP presentations at Pre Cana classes where no mention whatsoever was made of "just reasons." Furthermore, I know that locally, since our bishop gutted the NFP office and we had to go independant, the NFP courses officially offered by this diocese were at times taught by instructors trained by Planned Parenthood, and that no mention whatsoever of Catholic morality was made in these classes.

Furthermore, I seem to recall Catholic FReepers relating taking NFP instruction in which NFP was taught with no reference to "just reasons."

So, given my personal experience as an NFP instructor who has seen values free NFP taught in his own diocese, and judging by the stories of others, I must correct you. These are indeed occasions where little or no mention of that other part of the Church's teaching which insists that couples need "just reasons" are made in the context of NFP presentations and instruction.

I stand corrected ... and appalled.

I know that locally, since our bishop gutted the NFP office and we had to go independant, the NFP courses officially offered by this diocese were at times taught by instructors trained by Planned Parenthood,

Oh my!

However, multiple members of the Catholic Caucus here, not just trads, have related hearing NFP presentations at Pre Cana classes where no mention whatsoever was made of "just reasons."

Pre Cana is not the place to learn about NFP. While it doesn't take much more effort to mention the just reasons, it comes as no surprise that it is not during this event.

It would certainly seem to me that there is a significant difference between a couple who use it to avoid having any children or more than just one or two children versus those who use it to say, give a wife a year or two of a breather, or to let the man have a year or two to let his salary catch up to the family's expenses, who has had four kids in six years before they go on to another. Would you not agree that there is a moral difference in such a set of cases even though the motive is identical?

This is a good question, and I honestly have to answer that I haven't thought it through. I'll try to give it some consideration, because it is clearly a relevant issue.

the duty of married people to reproduce at a rate that sufficies to grow the population and provide for the Church. Those who are not attempting to fulfill this duty are not only cheating society but are probably questionably married. It is not so much that every sexual act of theirs is sinful but that their whole life is one large sin that just keeps getting bigger with each act - their determination to live their life in opposition to the needs of the Church and the Nation.

You're making an excellent point. My only exception would be to point out that you are defining the lower limits of minimal justice, below which one is committing actual sin. There is also the larger spiritual issues of trust in God, reliance on Divine Providence, generosity, and fruitfulness which would encourage one to go beyond the minimum demanded by justice alone.

Each individual act of the stingy married couple using NFP is not that great a crime. The determination to vitiate the meaning and force of their marriage out of some confused beliefs about childbearing is.

This is another very good point. When do individual actions reach the level of "frustrating the natural power and purpose of the marriage act"? It's a tricky question.

That's why practicing NFP feels to me so much like walking a tightrope or making one's way through a minefield. There are all these subtle moral difficulties. But all those moral quandaries are eliminated once one makes a commitment to generosity and fruitfulness and reliance on Divine Providence. It removes such a burden from one's conscience.

The Church is not opposed to Birth Control. The Church is opposed to the frustration of the marital act by illicit means.

Casti Connubii is certainly the most authoritative statement issued by the magisterium on the topic. Even the original article that started this thread was willing to concede the status of infallibility to Casti Connubii, specifically with regard to the issue of birth control. And please note, Casti Connubii never discusses "illicit means." The words "artificial," "contraception," or even "birth control" are not used. Instead Pope Pius XI said:

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances .
54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Pope Pius XI did not focus on, or even mention, the means used; instead he focused entirely on the ends intended.

The question remains as to what he intended by the phrase "virtuous continence." Pope Pius XII said that "periodic" continence could qualify as long as it was justified by sufficiently grave reasons. This is not at all the same as supporting "birth control."

"Be fruitful and multiply" was spoken with respect to "filling the earth and subduing it". In some places, we have certainly reached that point. For example, the eastern US, Holland, the Chinese coast, and the Ganges valley in India.

Really? The question would have to be, "What does God mean by 'Fill the Earth and subdue it'?" Is he satisfied, and does he desire no more souls? We certainly cannot judge, as we can see by the fact that all the judgements of men on this topic going back to Thomas Malthus have been grossly and ludicrously wrong.

Did "Neo-Catholicism" start in 1853?

"Neo-Catholicism," on this topic at least, started when a concession granted by Pope Pius XII to those in great difficulty was taken out of context and extended to every couple in the world, in a classic example of "the exception swallowing the rule." More specifically, "neo-Catholicism" on the topic of marriage began in 1965 with the promotion of the novelty "responsible parenthood" by the Vatican II document "Gaudium et Spes."

A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:
(1) To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
(2) To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
(3) To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

I hope that you weren't deliberately causing confusion regarding the purpose of marriage when you posted this excerpt from the Baltimore catechism in this way. It has been dogmatically stated by the magisterium many times that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. All other purposes must be subordinated to the primary purpose. Here is what Pope Pius XII said about it:

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.
It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

Like the language used by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, this language of Pope Pius XII could be seen as invoking infallibility, since he calls upon the witness of every source of Catholic theology and states that he wishes to make a definitive declaration that puts a stop to all deviant opinions. All other purposes of marriage must remain subordinated to the primary purpose which is the procreation and education of children.

Then following your logic, the only way to have intercourse and not sin is for procreation.

Yes, every act of intercourse should share in an intention of fruitfulness.

NFP, rhythm methods, or any other form of birth control would violate your logic.

Yes they would if they were used to prevent conception of new life without a corresponding grave reason.

Also, people that can not have children should be forbidden to marry.

Yes, impotence has always been considered an impediment to marriage. Sterility has not because who can ever say for sure that someone could not conceive. The examples of Sarah and Elizabeth have probably influenced the magisterium towards caution on claiming that someone could not have children. But they must at least be able to complete the marriage act.

I hope that you weren't deliberately causing confusion regarding the purpose of marriage when you posted this excerpt from the Baltimore catechism in this way.

I just quoted the old Catechism Max. Any confusion is on the part of others who wish to confuse things.

It has been dogmatically stated by the magisterium many times that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. All other purposes must be subordinated to the primary purpose. Here is what Pope Pius XII said about it:

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life.

Quite so as far as Marriage as "an institution of nature" as the Pope carefully qualifies his words. As far as Christian Sacramental Marriage as an insitution of the supernatural goes - which is what the Baltimore Catechism discusses -, the primary end of the Sacrament of Matrimony is the sanctification of the spouses/recipients through mutual aid, since the primary purpose of all sacraments is the sanctification of the recipients by joining them closer to God.

Marriage as an institution of nature and marriage as a sacrament are two different but closely related things. With respect to contraception, the question involves the natural purposes of matrimony. With respect to the unity and sanctity of marriage, the question also involves the Sacrament and sacramental grace itself.

I think the problem is the modern assumption of "birth control" necessarily having to mean artificial contraceptives/sterilization to limit family size while continuing to enjoy unlimited use of the sexual faculties. I don't think that a couple that has had two severly handicapped children, for example, is doing something wrong by refraining from conceiving any other children provided they do nothing more than practice periodic or permanent continence. Doing so is a form of birth control. Similarly, the Catholic Church long held that married men ordained as Priests were to abstain permenantly from sexual relations with their wives. This is also a form of birth control.

I don't want to pretend to answer. However, I do believe that underpopulated regions like Paraguay need more children than do a heavily populated region like Hong Kong or Singapore. The needs of the Nation are rationally linked to its present circumstances in this regard, and the available resources families have at their disposal, along with their ability to move to a place with more resources. As I've pointed out before, in North America, moral theologians settled upon the number of 4 to 5 as being a bare minimum to meet the perceived needs of the Church and Nation in the US and Canada for additional people. Up to that point is your obligation, while above it is your generosity.

Vatican II (or Pius XII and his Allocution) did not say anything that was not already long current in moral theology manuals. This is why Pius XII is said to have confirmed the existing consensus with his Allocution.

This is another very good point. When do individual actions reach the level of "frustrating the natural power and purpose of the marriage act"? It's a tricky question.

I don't believe there is a cut-and-dried answer to these points, nor should there be. Christ gave us His law to free us, not to burden us.

I think there are three primary considerations. (1) One's ultimate aim and goal with respect to child-bearing. (2) The realism of achieving that aim. (3) The means used to achieve it.

Although I say there is an obligation to have 4 children, for example, lets suppose a couple marries late in life (say age 39) to avoid being able to have more than 2. While I won't applaud their motive, I don't think they've committed a mortal sin, although their stinginess is probably an indication of a venial fault. However, another couple who married at 29 with the same goal of avoiding child-bearing until age 39 has comitted a mortal sin because they both can and should have had more children than 2 for the Nation and Church.

Looked at another way, a young couple who use NFP for two years to put their financial house in order prior to embarking on the creation of a large family should hardly be condemned for anything in my view, because the realism of their obligation of 4 children, for example, is just as possible at age 24 as at age 22. On the other hand, for an older couple, such a delay is probably unrealisitic and wrong - a couple with two children by 35 who decide to wait 5 years to get those two into school is being highly unrealisitic in concluding they will still be able to make their necessary contribution to society - they are acting then out of bad motives.

I think as long as people are looking to ultimately be generous and the generous intention is realistic and not mere wishful thinking, we shouldn't go after them for using NFP as they see fit during the course of their marriage.

y only exception would be to point out that you are defining the lower limits of minimal justice, below which one is committing actual sin. There is also the larger spiritual issues of trust in God, reliance on Divine Providence, generosity, and fruitfulness which would encourage one to go beyond the minimum demanded by justice alone.

Well, that is the point. There is a threshold for sin, and above that, all acts are various shades of neutrality and goodness. Therefore, they are best left to those to worry about who wish to worry about how much grace they are receiving.

The issues you mention might be properly thought of as works of supererogation for married people. No one is required to do more than the minimum, but it is very good if you do. Rather like receiving Holy Communion. You must receive at least once per year, and that is sufficient to avoid sin and achieve salvation. It is however very beneficial to receive once per week and even better once per day. But no one is required to do that.

Just because I said that sex in marriage is primarily for procreation doesn't mean that there is not a secondary feature which is the intimacy between husband and wife. There is nothing in the Bible or Catholic teaching which says that an infertile couple may not have sex. God is the only one who should have control over who is sterile or who is not due to and act of nature i.e. something inherently wrong in a man or woman’s reproductive system. There is nothing wrong with a couple who is more infertile to try drugs to enhance there reproduction however, the Catholic Church teaches that when you disrupt the marital act and try to grow a baby in vetro fertilization thise is wrong because it is outside of the human act of the partners and involves the performance of the act without the consumation of the man and the woman as Jesus said becoming one flesh.

Infertility among people is within at the least God's permissive will that some people are sterile. He has his reasons for permitting this.

There is nothing wrong with my logic. Most people before they marry do not know whether they are sterile or not. If they knew before they really got into a more serious courtship they may say well I want children and this person can not give me children and will not adopt so I will not develope my relationship with them. Most people do talk about children before they get married because they want to know how the other person stands on this important issue. The average person, however really doesn’t know if his future wife is fertile or not. Most people leave this up to God's providence also. God has put in mankind the natural desire to want to reproduce offspring. I speak in generalities- there are always people who do not want to have children and it seems that more and more people are opting out or limiting their families to one or two. This is sad because we are not even maintaining our population. Particularly in Europe. We were sold a bill of goods that the population was exploding in the 1960's and many people still buy into it today.

Good points. If you think however that the Catholic religion is heretical than you should be honest enough to say it. It is good to have an open and honest debate- the truth is never harmed by that. I do not believe in all of this false ecumenism. God wants us to respect the humanity of a person not the false religion he is into. There is only one truth and that is God's truth and the Church which his son Jesus established- the one, Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church as the ancient Apostles creed says. The last time I checked it didn’t say Baptist or Lutheran as these were not in existence at that time. Your earliest ancestors were Catholics as were everyone who is not a descendent from a Jewish or Eastern religion or Animist religion of some kind.

Now there are degrees of falsehood but this idea that all roads lead to heaven or are more or less "good and praiseworthy" is purely Masonic. I do not mean that you are saying that I am simply making a statement about what is false ecumenism. Satanism is not good and praiseworthy and the Catholic faith has never taught that error has any rights at all.

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.