Posted on 09/23/2003 5:55:18 PM PDT by Polycarp
My wife and I have attended NFP classes, used NFP, and have been trained to teach NFP.
We have been NFP instructors for 10 years now. I have also given presentations on NFP to pre-cana classes, and I have written about NFP.
The questions and discussions on this thread are important to me. The concepts Hermann and Maximilian raise will have an impact on how I teach NFP.
I'm beginning to question whether or not "grave reasons" is anywhere to be found in the Magisterium.
"legitimate reasons" - Sacred Penitentiary, Decree of 2 March 1853
"just reasons" - Pope Paul VI, Encyclical "Humane Vitae", 16, 25 July 1968
"just reasons" - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2368
It is only in Pius XII's Allocution that says "grave reasons", and I am wondering if this is a mistranslation. I think I am going to the library today to find the AAS and see the original.
But the use of periodic continence always requires grave reasons.
Pius XII specifically says: "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."
"Grave reasons" are only required if it can be shown that mankind has a claim upon the couple to produce children. I believe it is up to you to show the rest of us where the Church teaches that you MUST have as many children as physically possible as a duty to society, excepting "grave reasons". As I pointed out before, the Catholic moral theologians do not teach this, and it is from here that the minimum of 4 children rule in America came about.
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.
Such a dilemma only occurs if you exit the act from a "reasonable and equitable judgment". Such a judgement is not merely based on the motives of the couple, but also upon the just claims of society upon them. You deny the latter, but Pius XII and the Moral Theologians quite rightly point directly to both.
You also seem to have the erroneous position that for sex, "procreation ... is its purpose". If that were true, then it would be illegitimate to have sex at infertile times, during pregnancy, and after menopause. Does it suddenly become okay after menopause to have sex without wanting procreation, since it is impossible? It is a truism that one cannot want what one cannot possibly achieve.
Correct me if my impression of your position is wrong.
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.
"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." (John C. Ford and Gerald Kelly, Contemporary Moral Theology, volume 2, Marriage Questions, 1964)
"great majority of some thirty moral theologians" is a lot more than "couple of theologians". Are you saying Frs. Ford and Kelly are lying?
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.
Of course not in the sense you are taking it! It is a teaching specifically for North America by a moral unanimity of American Moral Theologians. They openly state that it is not a teaching for Europe or Africa or Asia, where the Theologians there must consider the situation of their continent from their own perspectives to come up with a concrete determination of what social justice requries.
As to the second gratutious assertion, if it is proposed in handbooks of Moral Theology, it is certainly being proposed for the guidance of couples. What is more these same handbooks claim "Pope Pius explicitly confirmed the common teaching of theologians" in his Allocution (cf. McHugh and Callan). The widespread publication of books with such assertions on authority of the Church certainly indicates to a faithful Catholic that the Theologians are expressing the mind of the Holy See.
I will trust a America's faithful Catholic Moral Theologians over the wild assertions of you, the SSPX, and the Mr. Michael Malone's and Mrs. Jeanne Dvorak's of the world in explaining Catholic teaching to people.
Your theories without any basis in Catholic teaching that all must have as many children as possible except for "grave reasons" are disturbing people, sicne you are essentially accusing them of sin. I'll leave the final world to the Apostolic See regarding whether couples who "do not use the marriage right except on [days ... when conception cannot occur] if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act":
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)Married couples who use their marriage rights in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed ... (Sacred Penitentiary, Decree of 16 June 1880)
Your entire understanding of the concept of teleological purpose is defective. Try this from the same section of "Allocution to the Italian Midwives":
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.Once you make the effort to understand this, you may be able to grasp the concept. First of all, procreation is always the primary end of every sexual act. Secondly, this applies even to sexual acts which are presumably infertile, "just as every eye is designed to see, even if it is blind due to circumstances." In the above quote, Pius XII talks about the primary end of marriage, but this applies to each individual act, as was reiterated by Humanae Vitae, and cannot be said to apply only to a "totality."
You mark yourself as an illegitimate debater, concerned not with seeking the truth, but rather with winning your point by means of dishonest tactics, when you post this kind of calumny. You make 2 statements in the above sentence, neither of which is accurate with regard either to my own often-stated position, nor to the teaching of the Church.
Because artificial birth control is a material sin which is always gravely evil, and because NFP is not intrinsically grave matter but depends upon the subjective intent of the couple, it is always worthwhile to encourage them to move from the one to the other. He said that he would take a more philosophical stance in the pulpit, but in the confessional one must act secundum modo penitentiae, that is at the level of the penitent, trying to move them one step at a time.
Also, the difference between mortal sin and venial sin can open an opportunity for sanctifying grace to begin a transformation in their souls. So a priest should not actively encourage venial sin, but it can be a legitimate tactic if he is doing it out of a pastoral concern to prevent mortal sin, helping the penitent's soul avoid spiritual death so that it can progress further.
Based on this discussion, I wanted to clarify to you (and to Polycarp but he's no longer with us) that you were correct that there could be times when it would be appropriate to encourage NFP even if you knew that the proper Catholic understanding of generosity and grave reasons was lacking.
I also wanted to reiterate what I mentioned in another post, that the relevant question does not revolve around mortal sin. The question "When does a selfish use of NFP rise to the level of a mortal sin?" is a very difficult one, as we saw from the lack of consensus among the theologians quoted by Hermann. To me, the spirit of family limitation, aka "the contraceptive mentality," is simply not Catholic, not virtuous, not generous, not sacrificial. When it becomes a mortal sin is a different and more challenging question.
Actually, the priest's basis of action is those two decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary that I quoted to you. They note that the method SHOULD be suggested to Onanists, to get them to desist from their sins.
I also wanted to reiterate what I mentioned in another post, that the relevant question does not revolve around mortal sin. The question "When does a selfish use of NFP rise to the level of a mortal sin?" is a very difficult one, as we saw from the lack of consensus among the theologians quoted by Hermann. To me, the spirit of family limitation, aka "the contraceptive mentality," is simply not Catholic, not virtuous, not generous, not sacrificial. When it becomes a mortal sin is a different and more challenging question.
I think we are much closer to a consensus with what you say above.
The Theologians I quoted do not say that a contraceptive mentality is a positive good. Rather, they explicitly say that many families should have no trouble with having as many as 12 children (as an numeric example, not an upward limit).
What they also say is that if there are additional circumstances, such as economic issues, or ill-health, or the like, family limitation can be considered without fault, provided one has already had four children. If one does not have four children, one has not done one's duty to society, in which case a much more serious examination of the conduct of the person needs to be made.
Essentially, they maintain that everyone, barring truly extraordinary circumstances, should be able to have four children, and that many should be able to have more, provided the physical means are there.
Let me give a simple example. My father-in-law is a millionaire. He had only four children. I am just a working stiff making do with what I have, and currently have three children. He could easily have afforded three times the number of children he had. That he did not have them, though, is just a venial fault, even if it was done with explicit intent (I don't know personally). I, on the other hand, would have a much more difficult time affording 12 children than he would. Therefore, if I stopped at six, say, there would be no venial sin in the same way. If I stopped at where I am with three, there is likely to be a mortal sin, because I have no good reason not to do my duty to society of having AT LEAST four children, and my wife and I are still fertile, not yet being 30. On the other hand, we have some friends who married at age 38. They only have one child, but not because they did not try to have more. They have no mortal or venal sin, because their lack of even the bare minimum of four children is due to their age, and not their will.
The four child rule the American Theologians agreed upon is rather like the Church rules on receiving Communion and Confession. The Church tells us we must go once per year. Apparently, this is sufficient for salvation, otherwise, we would be told to do more as a necessity. However, who among us would purposefully limit ourselves to receiving the sacraments once per year, unless constrained by physical inability (we live hundreds of miles from a Church, for example, or we cannot easily move about because we are handicapped)?
It is virtuous to have as many children as possible. It is not sinful to merely have four. But let us strive for virtue, and not merely the avoidance of sin.
Well said. But one has to start somewhere. For many people, even to consider NFP requires a huge change in perspective. "You mean there are moral requirements in the use of our sexuality, besides 'Thou shalt not get caught with thy neighbor's wife'?"
And then there's another conversion required to recognize children as a positive element, rather than a burden, and to commit to sacrifice in marriage and parenthood. Man doesn't want his wife to breastfeed, because it inconveniences him, or interferes with her job. (I know this man.) Man (or woman) insists babies be put in daycare at 6 weeks, because lifestyle requires two incomes. Wife won't nurse babies because she expects a two-week vacation (alone) each year. (I know this woman.) There are so many levels of cultural expectations, and personal sin, to be overcome
On the one hand, you have to agree with Maximilian, the spirit of family limitation, aka "the contraceptive mentality," is simply not Catholic, not virtuous, not generous, not sacrificial. On the other hand, it can be very difficult for people even to start going in the right direction.
There's a huge, unmeet need for appropriate instruction and formation in this area, emphasizing "positives." The GIFT of children, the GIFT of sacrifice, the GIFT of (relative) poverty, etc. Kimberly Hahn's new book, "Life-Giving Love," is an excellent resource. It really disturbs me that other Catholics are so surprised at my family (going on 7 children, oldest is 12, two miscarriages). I know there are plenty of legitimate reasons - infertility, or "grave reasons" for avoiding conception, unknown to me - for people to have smaller families, but the fact that they are astonished at our really-not-that-large family (I know a couple with 11 children, oldest is 12; another with 14 children, oldest is 15 ...) suggests that they've made a deliberate decision to severely limit their family, and simply don't give it any thought from a moral standpoint.
My wife and I were just discussing this today. I'm always happy when someone asks me about the size of our family because it opens an opportunity for evangelization. But I don't get such opportunities very often, whereas my wife can hardly go out in public without someone making a tactless remark, which makes her a bit less patient and charitable.
What we were discussing is that our family is considered extremely large, but we didn't do anything extraordinary, either by choice like bottle-feeding which will space children more closely together, or involuntarily like having twins or triplets. We just kept having another kid every 2 years. It didn't seem like anything special. But now without even trying we've had more kids than most of the big families we grew up with in the sixties. Even among Catholic supporters of a pro-life mentality, having a dozen kids is considered extreme, but the reality is that under normal circumstances it's hard to avoid doing so.
We have a family like that in our parish. They look more like a day care, a whole bunch of kids all about the same size. They have 7 kids and none have made their first communion yet.
Is He a loving Father who designs everything for our good? If so, then we can have confidence in Him, whether or not he rewards us with children.
This expresses it perfectly. On another thread this week I put a link to TAN Books' "Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence." This book has been a life-changing experience for me. It's more like a booklet, pocket size, but it packs a punch.
How is it that you can recognize this in your own life, and then tell me I am wrong for observing that the "widespread large Catholic family" of the 1960's was mostly a myth, if meant to imply families were generally more than 4 or 5 kids?
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.