Revisited: NFP and grave reasons: Serious reason "quietly dropped"?

EWTN Ask the Experts Forum ^ | various | Fr. Richard Hogan

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The word translated above as "serious" in Humane Vitae is really the word "just". The Vatican website translates it "well-grounded".

Si igitur justae adsint causae generationes subsequentes intervallandi, quae a coniugum corporis vel animi condicionibus, aut ab externis rerum adiunctis proficiscantur, Ecclesia docet, tunc licere coniugibus sequi vices naturales, generandi facultatibus immanentes, in maritali commercio habendo iis dumtaxat temporibus, quae conceptione vacent, atque adeo nasciturae proli ita consulere, ut morum doctrina, quam modo exposuimus, haudquaquam laedatur.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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.

I think I've adequately answered your objections on this topic, especially your assertion that the modern increase in the baptism to marriage ratio is based on Hispanic influx. As I pointed out before, most Hispanics in this country are not registered Catholics, and the numbers of Catholic Hispanics are declining as a percentage of the total even as the numeric total increases. It is relatively straightforward to show that many Hispanics are not Catholic by comparing Catholic registrations in their neighborhoods versus the total population. Look here at the Archdiocese of Philadelphia as an easily demonstrated example.

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/a.PDF
Archdiocese - 182,727 Hispanics, 44,819 registered Catholic

The City of Philadelphia Parish clusters below encompass 95%+ of the city's Hispanic population. ~34,000 of 116,000 are registered Catholics.

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/14.PDF
Parish Cluster 14 - 5,966 Hispanics, 384 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/15.PDF
Parish Cluster 15 - 13,850 Hispanics, 2,298 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/16.PDF
Parish Cluster 16 - 18,367 Hispanics, 1,533 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/19.PDF
Parish Cluster 19 - 50,100 Hispanics, 23,344 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/20.PDF
Parish Cluster 20 - 3,278 Hispanics, 797 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/22.PDF
Parish Cluster 22 - 7,774 Hispanics, 1,012 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/24.PDF
Parich Cluster 24 - 2,837 Hispanics, 407 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/25.PDF
Parish Cluster 25 - 14,448 Hispanics, 4,337 registered Catholic

Out in Chester County, where there is a large Mexican farm worker population, the situation improves somewhat for that area, but not for the Hispanics of the steel town of Coatesville or in the county seat of Norristown, Montgomery County.

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/41.PDF
Parish Cluster 41 - 8,031 Hispanics, 5,625 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/42.PDF
Parish Cluster 42 - 2,330 Hispanics, 400 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/52.PDF
Parish Cluster 52 - 3,605 Hispanics, 691 registered Catholic

http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr2/72.PDF
Parish Cluster 72 - 4,569 Hispanics, 706 registered Catholic

These data are also broken down by Parish. They utterly demolish the unfounded assertion by some, such as some HLI spokesman, that you seem to join yourself to, that the Hispanic immigrants are "replenishing" a "dying" American Catholic population.

If you feel you have some actual contribution to make, as opposed to gratuitous and unsupported assertions, I would be interested in hearing it. I may try to publish the findings, so I am interested in all valid and factually supported criticism.

[Maximilian]

I may try to publish the findings, so I am interested in all valid and factually supported criticism.

I'm sorry, but that's not true. You rejected out of hand the criticism that was supplied by several posters at the time you first published the numbers. It's not my job to keep track of whatever you posted several months ago, but I recall that your data was extremely suspect, and there were several replies that pointed out gaping flaws, but you rejected them out of hand, without seriously considering the implications. It is no personal criticism to say that you are not a statistician, not many people are, but you should have made the effort to consider the criticisms that were offered.

[Maximilian]

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.

We know that the magisterium has approved the use of periodic continence with certain restrictions, that's not in question. But the use of periodic continence always requires grave reasons. The requirement does not cease when you've had a certain number. None of your numerous sources claims otherwise.

The duty to have children is one of social justice, not sexual morality.

Both are involved in the issue. There is a question of social justice, but there is also an issue of sexual morality, because it involves frustrating the primary purpose of marriage. In your selection from Allocution to the Italian Midwives, some good and valid points are highlighted, but there was also this statement:

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.

Here Pope Pius XII points out the moral dilemma of wanting sex without wanting the consequent procreation which is its purpose. Presumably one could make the argument that a couple could adopt what Pope Pius XI called "virtuous continence" after having 4 or 5 children and feel confident that there was no injustice done against society. But to continue having sex, while avoiding procreation, without grave reasons is wrong according to Pope Pius XII.

It doesn't really demonstrate anything.

It clearly demonstrates that this 4-child rule never existed as a Catholic moral principle, except perhaps as the opinion of a couple of theologians regarding one particular aspect of the question. It was never "unanimous" nor widely disseminated nor binding on consciences if it was never mentioned by the Vatican nor even proposed in the moral guidance given to Catholic couples. So it demonstrates exactly what I said it demonstrates.

[Maximilian]

"Brevity is the soul of wit." The FR poster with the longest posts doesn't win some sort of contest. Please try to limit yourself to relevant points, since reading FR is not a full-time job for most people. It is a method of debate that is inherently dishonest when you try to burden the opponent with irrelevant arguments that are too numerous to answer.

The question under discussion was the existence or non-existence of a 4-child rule. None of your selections from Vatican documents mentions any such thing. So skipping over the first couple pages of your post, we get down to some examples where 4 children are mentioned. What do they say?

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. ...

Clearly this does not in any way recommend using NFP without grave reasons, but rather stipulates an opinion concerning a minimum level of justice.

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.

After wading through such a huge amount of documentation, this statement actually says what you claim to be the "unanimous opinion." But note carefully: it is presented simply as a theological opinion proposed by some, in contrast to opinions proposed by others. There is no evidence that it is taught by anyone. Also note that the subject here is the question of "grave matter," when does NFP become a serious sin? This is a very high standard, one that would not be the norm of recommended practice. Simply avoiding mortal sin is not the essence of the spiritual life.

The theologians are considering this question,"If a couple has 4 or 5 children and then uses NFP, does the existence of such a number of children represent a satisfaction of the debt to society such without additional grave reasons their use of NFP would not be seriously sinful?" According to this article, the opinion is mixed, "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."

Thomas Storck's article from the Steubenville magazine is contemptible, and disappointing because I've liked other things I've seen by him. Pope Pius XII specifically condemned the old canard that having more children is detrimental to the value of the "education" of children. To discuss "the education of children" as a reason to limit one's family is antithetical to the true Catholic view. As Pope Pius XII said:

Now the value of the testimony offered by the parents of large families lies not only in their unequivocal and forceful rejection of any deliberate compromise between the law of God and human selfishness, but also in their readiness to accept joyfully and gratefully these priceless gifts of God-their children - in whatever number it may please Him to send them.

This kind of attitude frees married couples from oppressive anxieties and remorse, and, in the opinion of outstanding doctors, creates the ideal psychological conditions for the healthy development of children born of the marriage. For, right at the beginning of these new lives, it eliminates all those worries and disturbances that can so easily leave physical or psychological scars on the mother or child.

Far from being a "social malady," large families are a guarantee of the moral and physical health of a people. Virtues flourish spontaneously in homes where a baby's cries always echo from the crib, and vice is put to flight, as if it has been chased away by the childhood that is renewed there like the fresh and invigorating breath of spring.

So let the weak and selfish take their example from you; let the nation continue to be loving and grateful toward you for all the sacrifices you have taken upon yourselves to raise and educate its citizens; just as the Church is pleased with you for enabling her to offer, along with you, ever healthier and larger groups of souls to the sanctifying activity of the divine Spirit.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I believe I considered them and answered them on the two or three times this topic has come up. They certainly did inspire me to look more deeply into the phenomenena of apostasizing Hispanics.

[narses]

In fact, the whole notion of consulting ones confessor for instructions in frequency of marital sexual acts is revolting.

At first glance your comments seem reasonable. Then the questions. Are you suggesting my consultation with my confessor and my wifes with hers, regarding our use of NFP (that would be specifically "instructions in frequency of marital sexual acts", as that is intrinsic to NFP) is revolting? Are you suggesting that sex is not a subject for the confessional?

[sinkspur]

Are you suggesting that sex is not a subject for the confessional?

Asking a celibate priest about sex is like asking a vegetarian about proper portion size for filet mignon.

[narses]

Asking a celibate priest about sex is like asking a vegetarian about proper portion size for filet mignon.

Do you still claim to be in Holy Orders? Your comments clearly mock the Confessional. It is illogical. You could just as easily claim that asking the opinion of an Oncologist who has never had cancer is like asking a vegetarian about proper portion size for filet mignon. It is clearly insulting to the entire celibate Priesthood. And it cannot be squared with the teachings and dogmas of the True Faith.

[sinkspur]

It is clearly insulting to the entire celibate Priesthood.

I don't know any celibate priests who give advice about sex, narses. They know better.

Come on. Fess up. Do you really talk to your confessor about the ins-and-outs of sex? What pointers does he give you? Do you wonder where he got them? Is it hard advice, or does he sometimes go soft?

[narses]

I don't know any celibate priests who give advice about sex, narses. They know better.

So the priests on EWTN who give advice on NFP are NOT celibate? HH JP II who wrote a BOOK on marital sex, he is NOT celibate? Are you DRUNK?

Come on. Fess up. Do you really talk to your confessor about the ins-and-outs of sex? What pointers does he give you? Do you wonder where he got them? Is it hard advice, or does he sometimes go soft?

You descend into ugliness here Sinky. Yes, when I commit sins of the flesh I confess them. The advice I get involves prayer and understanding the graces God gives married men and women. You ought to be ashamed of yourself tonight. You CLAIM to be a Catholic in Holy Orders. I cannot reconcile your denigration of the Faith with your claims.

[sinkspur]

So the priests on EWTN who give advice on NFP are NOT celibate? HH JP II who wrote a BOOK on marital sex, he is NOT celibate? Are you DRUNK?

They're celibate. They're also not "giving advice" about sex. The Pope praising sex is not "giving advice."

I cannot reconcile your denigration of the Faith with your claims.

I'm not "denigrating the Faith," narses. I'm poking fun at church ladies.

[narses]

You are one sick pup, get help.

[cubreporter]

Please remove me from your list. Thank you.

[cubreporter]

Please remove me from your list. Thank you.

[narses]

Done.

[cpforlife.org]

"Come on. Fess up. Do you really talk to your confessor about the ins-and-outs of sex? What pointers does he give you? Do you wonder where he got them? Is it hard advice, or does he sometimes go soft?"

sink, This is really TOO MUCH! If you are a deacon(?) please behave like one. How you behave reflects on Mother Church. You are suppose to always and everywhere behave with dignity and lead by example.

Take your ordination with serious gravity. Your "joke" is disgraceful.

CCC: 1570. "Deacons share in Christ's mission and grace in a special way.[Cf. LG 41; AA 16.] The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint ('character') which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the 'DEACON' or servant of all.[Cf. Mk 10:45 ; Lk 22:27

[Aquinasfan]

I am wondering how many posters on this thread are now old enough to know that they are no longer going to have more children.

My wife and I got married relatively late in life. In the ten years that we've been married we've never used birth control. We have two lovely children. At age 45, I doubt that my wife will have any more. Why anyone wouldn't want to have lots of children is beyond me. They're a great joy in our lives. We're homeschooling because we want to spend as much time with them as possible. If we can swing it financially, we may adopt some more in the future.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

Bump.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

At first glance your comments seem reasonable. Then the questions. Are you suggesting my consultation with my confessor and my wifes with hers, regarding our use of NFP (that would be specifically "instructions in frequency of marital sexual acts", as that is intrinsic to NFP) is revolting? Are you suggesting that sex is not a subject for the confessional?

There is no reason for married people to discuss the frequency of their perfectly legitimate and moral sexual acts with their confessor.

Discussion of NFP is only required if one wishes to avoid one's duty to society by having fewer children than is justly required of all. In that case, the discussion should be about the reasons why one is doing so ("medical, eugenic, economic and social" in Pius XII's list), and not about the sexual acts to be used or their frequency.

Pius XII's Allocution specifically says to the Midwives: "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."

Sexual acts about which there is no moral issue are not a topic for the confessional and should be completely excluded from the discussion in the interests of the holy purity of the Priest-Confessor.