Birth control

[sonofourlady]

Say it as many or as little times as you want. The Church teaches that subordinating the primary purpose (begetting of children) to the secondary purposes(mutual self-giving, pleasure, etc…) is intrinsically evil, under any circumstances.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“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 powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious… As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10)…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

Who’s Church? Certainly not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Shall I cite to you official Catholic doctrine substantiating NFP?

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Who’s Church? Certainly not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Shall I cite to you official Catholic doctrine substantiating NFP?

It’s going to be hard to substantiate NFP while not contradicting the Church Teaching I have just cited.

 

[sonofourlady]

It’s going to be hard to substantiate NFP while not contradicting the Church Teaching I have just cited.

Its going to be impossible to substantiate what you say while not contradicting Current Catholic Church teaching.

 

[SourGrape]

My wife hears it from CATHOLICS! She attends this special Mass sometimes for Fillipinos and many approach her and learn she is carrying her fifth child and ask her if she will get a tubal ligation as they have all done…

If they heard from the pulpit that all of this is sinful, evil and mortal sin maybe it would all change.

Ken

Ken,

God bless you and your wife for your generosity, trust, and openness to new life!

Frankly, I am appalled that Catholics confronted your wife about having so many children and suggested she have her tubes tied! Ugh! I agree, wholeheartedly, that our priests should address this issue every once and awhile from the pulpit! I’ve only heard one priest do so and let’s just say, people were shifting in the pews, which is a good thing! We all need to be woken up and told straight out “What YOU are doing is sinful! It’s against God’s Commandments and, thus, you are killing yourself!”

 

[DavidPalm]

It’s going to be hard to substantiate NFP while not contradicting the Church Teaching I have just cited.

Not hard at all. In the very document you cited, Casti Conubii (section 59) the Pope states:

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

 

[manualman]

Don’t worry abot Jogues and his ilk. Their position is utterly unsupportable unless you believe that every pope since Paul Vi has been a phony.

Humanae Vitae and MANY time JPII have clarified that the meaning of the quotes he raised is that couples must never take a positive action to frustrate or sterilize their lovemaking. NFP does nothing to sterilize the lovemaking act. It merely makes use of the infertile times that GOD built into the normal and healthy woman’s cycle.

The END of avoiding conception is not inherently evil. It CAN be evil is done for selfish reasons. But it is not an inherently selfish end. Taking a positive action to sterilize the act of love is an inherently evil MEANS to this end. The end becomes irrelevant when an always sinful means is used.

BTW, mark me and my wife up as another couple who were are first merely obedient and now believers in church teaching on contraception. And we know of at least 10 other couples under 40 who do the same.

Keep the faith.

 

[DavidPalm]

BTW, mark me and my wife up as another couple who were are first merely obedient and now believers in church teaching on contraception. And we know of at least 10 other couples under 40 who do the same.

Yes, I should have added my wife and me into this category too. We began to follow the Church’s teaching before we became Catholics.

 

[LJN21]

Say it as many or as little times as you want. The Church teaches that subordinating the primary purpose (begetting of children) to the secondary purposes(mutual self-giving, pleasure, etc…) is intrinsically evil, under any circumstances.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“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 powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious… As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10)…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

Changed the emphasis, this is talking about contraception only … DELIBERATELY FRUSTRATING the act. You can not deliberately frustrate what can not happen. Onan pulled out, that was deliberately frustrating the act.

As someone else quoted this same document states at the very beginning periodic abstinence is perfectly acceptable to control births of children.

 

[Walter_X_Mitty]

I know my wife takes the pill but I don’t know anything about where she is in her cycle. If I am open to new life, but i also know she is on the pill, does that mean I need to abstain?

 

[manualman]

You should probably get better advice than any random forum poster can give. For what it’s worth, it is my understanding that you are not required to be celibate if your spouse insists on using ABC, but you can’t cooperate or encourage her to it.

Personally, I’d do some medical sniffing around. I would think there would be some medical info out there regarding what pill# range is most likely to allow breakthrough ovulation (assuming traditional pill dial packet here). Perhaps peek at her med packet once in a while and refrain from those days as a fast. Use that fast as a time to pray for your marriage. AFAIK, this is NOT required, but I’d want to do as much as I could to avoid the remote chance of the pill being an abortifacient.

Some object “Why not abstain when you know there is a chance that an abortion could result?” My answer to them is “How can you ever put your children in a car when there is a chance that an accident could kill them?” In both cases, there is a small risk and you’ve taken as many precautions as you can. But the family needs groceries sometimes and a marriage needs intimacy once in a while.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Not hard at all. In the very document you cited, Casti Conubii (section 59) the Pope states:

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

How does this in any way substantiate NFP. Pope Pius XI is saying that it is alright to engage in the marital rite even if the female cannot bring forth any children so long as nothing is done to subordinate the Primary means to the secondary.
In this case the couple is not taking a pill etc…, or calculating the cycles to purposely not have kids.
Don’t be deceived by the devil into believing that the only reason BC is evil is because it is artificial. It is evil because of the intentions of the couple whether they use artificial or natural means of birth control. To not use the act for the purpose it was intended for is intrinsically evil.
NFP is just another form of Birth Control.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Changed the emphasis, this is talking about contraception only … DELIBERATELY FRUSTRATING the act. You can not deliberately frustrate what can not happen. Onan pulled out, that was deliberately frustrating the act.

As someone else quoted this same document states at the very beginning periodic abstinence is perfectly acceptable to control births of children.

Can someone avoid having children throughout their whole marriage using NFP?

 

[LJN21]

Can someone avoid having children throughout their whole marriage using NFP?

If they have just (example: serious heart problem that would make having children extremely dangerous or older persons who may be at the very end of there natural fertility) reason sure. Can couples that know they are infertile for natural reasons still get married?

 

[manualman]

Can someone avoid having children throughout their whole marriage using NFP?

They cannot enter into marriage with that intention. It is perhaps possible that after marriage a couple will find themselves confronted with a serious reason to avoid throughout their entire marriage without sin (say a woman who finds she has serious liver disease that would make it fatal to get pregnant).

Again, the END of avoiding conception is not always sinful. If a couple uses NFP to avoid because the man is up for a big promotion and knows that his competitor will get it if he has another kid - yeah. That would probably be a sinful occasion to use NFP to avoid.

But even a just end (say our liver damaged woman) doesn’t justify sinful means (contraception). NFP is a morally acceptable MEANS of avoiding conception.

Mind you, this isn’t MY opinion. This is the teaching of the catholic church and has been confirmed by popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Go argue with them.

 

[slyboots]

My daughter has gone back on them because the doctor (another practicing Catholic) ran out of options for her to help with her reproductive problems. No one including her is happy that it came to this.

 

[LJN21]

How does this in any way substantiate NFP. Pope Pius XI is saying that it is alright to engage in the marital rite even if the female cannot bring forth any children so long as nothing is done to subordinate the Primary means to the secondary.
In this case the couple is not taking a pill etc…, or calculating the cycles to purposely not have kids.
Don’t be deceived by the devil into believing that the only reason BC is evil is because it is artificial. It is evil because of the intentions of the couple whether they use artificial or natural means of birth control. To not use the act for the purpose it was intended for is intrinsically evil.
NFP is just another form of Birth Control.

Thats your opinion, and not the historical opinion of the Church.

In 1853 the Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Penitentiary:

“Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?”

March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Pius IX) answered as follows:

“Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.”

In 1880. Fr. Le Conte submitted the following questions to the Sacred Penitentiary:

“Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?”

“Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him, or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?”

The response of the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Leo XIII), dated June 16, 1880, was:

“Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”

 

[LJN21]

Pope Pius XII Address to Midwives: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

Birth Control

"Today, besides, another grave problem has arisen, namely, if and how far the obligation of being ready for the service of maternity is reconcilable with the ever more general recourse to the periods of natural sterility the so-called “agenesic” periods in woman, which seems a clear expression of a will contrary to that precept.

You are expected to be well informed, from the medical point of view, in regard to this new theory and the progress which may still be made on this subject, and it is also expected that your advice and assistance shall not be based upon mere popular publications, but upon objective science and on the authoritative judgment of conscientious specialists in medicine and biology. It is your function, not the priest’s, to instruct the married couple through private consultation or serious publications on the biological and technical aspect of the theory, without however allowing yourselves to be drawn into an unjust and unbecoming propaganda. But in this field also your apostolate demands of you, as women and as Christians, that you know and defend the moral law, to which the application of the theory is subordinated. In this the Church is competent.

It is necessary first of all to consider two hypotheses. If the application of that theory implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. In this case they do not hinder or jeopardize in any way the consummation of the natural act and its ulterior natural consequences. It is exactly in this that the application of the theory, of which We are speaking, differs essentially from the abuse already mentioned, which consists in the perversion of the act itself. If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.

Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If, one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid, because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.

However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the . The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles."

 

[DavidPalm]

How does this in any way substantiate NFP. Pope Pius XI is saying that it is alright to engage in the marital rite even if the female cannot bring forth any children so long as nothing is done to subordinate the Primary means to the secondary.

As I suspect you’re already well aware, access to the infertile times in a woman’s cycle were already declared morally licit in the Sacred Penitentiary, once in 1853 and again in 1880 (see here.)

Pope Pius XII explicitly interpreted the passage of Casti Conubii I cited above contrary to your view:

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. (Is Natural Family Planning a ‘Heresy’?)

I suspect that you are a sedevacantist, else that much support from the Popes would convince you. Tell us plainly, please, if you are or are not a sedevacantist. If you are not, please tell us why you reject the repeated teachings of the Roman Pontiffs on this point.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Birth control, ie the controlling of births is not immoral… it’s how you control the births that is the moral problem. Total abstinence is a moral from of controlling births. Periodic abstinence is a moral form of controllling births. Contraception is an immoral way of controlling births. The secular world has taken the word “birth control” and says it means contraception and we all often use the word that way, however, that’s wrong. I think we need to be careful with our terms for the sake of clarity.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Thats your opinion…

Pope Pius XII Address to Midwives: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

Birth Control

…

As I suspect you’re already well aware…

Show me an infallible teaching contrary to Pius XI’s teaching that any sexual intercourse is immoral where there is an intention of not having children.

Just because a Pope gives his private opinion on something (and while doing it scandalizes the faithful) does not mean that it is infallible or even beneficial for Catholics.