M
Memaw
Guest
Some people think the know more than God. Personally I think your here just to cause trouble. God Bless, Memaw
- Status
A
Aaahm28
Guest
All that is quoted below is Pope Pius to midwives.
I have read theology of the body, love and responsibility, the acting person, most of the modern encyclicals, yet I don’t understand what is written below.
Please explain it to me
"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.
"
I have read theology of the body, love and responsibility, the acting person, most of the modern encyclicals, yet I don’t understand what is written below.
Please explain it to me
"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.
"
A
Aaahm28
Guest
Please tell me what exactly is false, that I said is church teaching.
It’s easy to call somebody a troll, good luck to you. If you can’t see what Jesus taught and what the Church should be then please read the gospel again, all 4 books.
It’s easy to call somebody a troll, good luck to you. If you can’t see what Jesus taught and what the Church should be then please read the gospel again, all 4 books.
M
MomaMary8
Guest
It seems that this has been explained quite clearly in many of the previous posts. Could you be more specific as to which part you do not understand? I am sure we all would love to help you fully understand (and love!) the teachings of the Church.
I’m sorry you have not had a more positive experience with the nuns and priests in your life. They are human as we all are.
God bless.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Summary: It is moral to have sex during the time of the month the wife is infertile. However, if you are only having sex during these infertile times there are a few extra things that need to be considered to tell whether or not it is moral.
This paragraph is a little harder because it is making a very very technical distinction that is of little importance to pretty much anybody except perhaps on very rare occasions those in charge of determining annulment cases, so I’m going to skip it for now.
Summary: Even though having sex during the infertile time isn’t sinful in itself (as opposed to contraception which is sinful in itself) it can still be sinful in a particular situation if the couple is only having sex when infertile without a sufficient reason.
Summary: The reason a couple needs sufficient reason in this case is because those who get married take on the responsibility of fulfilling God’s commandment to “go forth and multiply”. Because of this they can’t just completely and purposefully avoid this responsibility without a sufficient and proportionate reason. However, if they do have a sufficient reason, then they may morally use NFP to avoid kids.
[cont…]
T
thewanderer
Guest
… cont]
So, to sum it up, this passage is not at all claiming that all couples are required to have 1-2 kids at a minimum or else they sin. It also does not claim that the intention to avoid children is always sinful, in fact, it clearly states the opposite more than once, that such intentions are moral when a couple has sufficient reason. If you wan’t to claim the Church teaches something it is your responsibility to provide proof that the Church, does, in fact teach what you claim it does. Instead, the passage you provided us explicitly contradicts more than one of your claims about Church teaching.
Summary: Since humanity depends on fruitful marriages for its existence it would be seriously wrong to disregard this aspect of marriage without a sufficient reason.
Summary: Some examples of sufficient reasons to avoid children which are common (ie ‘not rare’) are medical, eugenic, economic, and social. And so, NFP is moral if used for sufficient reasons. However, if the couple using NFP doesn’t have sufficient reason to avoid children this is a sign that they have a false appreciation of life and their motivations are not consistent with good moral principals.
So, to sum it up, this passage is not at all claiming that all couples are required to have 1-2 kids at a minimum or else they sin. It also does not claim that the intention to avoid children is always sinful, in fact, it clearly states the opposite more than once, that such intentions are moral when a couple has sufficient reason. If you wan’t to claim the Church teaches something it is your responsibility to provide proof that the Church, does, in fact teach what you claim it does. Instead, the passage you provided us explicitly contradicts more than one of your claims about Church teaching.
B
bubba1358
Guest
Couldn’t have said it better myself.Pay special attention to what he teaches regarding just/serious/grave/(insert your own adjective here) reasons, which are (with examples):
Social (another child would compromise the ability of the couple to care for the existing children due to housing, proper care, etc.)
Eugenic (there are birth defects, a high degree of miscarriages, etc.)
Economic (insurance is **** and you’d enter into hardship or poverty with another delivery)
Medical (the mom has had several C-sections and another pregnancy is unsafe, OR there are legitimate concerns over the psychological/spiritual health of the parents or the existing children)
So does having another pregnancy SEEM just?
Only through prayerful discerning can a couple decide that. Hearken back to your OP, I would say unequivocally YES - that couple is justified, in the pope’s own words, from postponing pregnancy for as long as that litany of difficulties persists.
B
bubba1358
Guest
Has this hypothetical woman looked into temperature-only methods of NFP? Also, does the infection and/or genetic condition have a name?
Sorry if these questions have been answered. I’m a little late to the party on this one.
FWIW:
My wife and I have practiced NFP through PCOS, post-partum hormones (twice [and incidentally, my first two were a pill fail and a condom fail]), a back surgery, irregular cycles from 30 to over 90 days in length (with 40-60 days being the norm for her), and low income. We postponed for 6 years until we discerned we didn’t have to anymore. Three months after we stopped charting came child #3.
We had our first when I was 21, she was 20. We stretched my financial aid rebate checks far enough to the point where I could work nights at the local wire factory, drive an ice cream truck, and teach guitar lessons, until the next semester. I finally got an hourly job - 80 miles from home. Counting the commute, I worked 12+ hour days through it all.
So there’s my story in brief. Ya know, for street cred and all that.
M
marymary1975
Guest
^^^^ this!
The OP is very far from reality. Unless this couple married at 15…how many people today marry at 15? Or had two set of triplets, this is just looking to create a general rule based on rarity. Geez not even the duggars had 6 kids by 22! Josh duggar married I think super young and he only has two kids. And how you know that the wife cantbfollow NFP if she has been constantly pregnant since she was 15 or 16? The solution to the OP is not for the church to relaxvthe rules. The solution is don’t get married when you haven’t been breach adulthood and prepare responsibly for marriage.
B
berniemcken
Guest
Women’s cycles are wonky like that after breastfeeding and the Marquette method, which involves using ovulation test kits, are used to determine fertile times to abstain during.
R
Rau
Guest
Resurrected Thread 2 years old.
R
Rau
Guest
Yes.
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
This post sounds a bit personal. And is also a serious edge case. 6 kids at 22??
First of all, the Church teaches the truth. It has no obligation to research NFP, though of course it would encourage scientists to research such things. A couple can choose to use NFP or abstain in difficult circumstances, but the church has no, literally no, control or ability to change what is objective truth. The reasons why contraception is wrong have been discussed ad nauseum on here. No pope or bishop has the power to change that teaching, any more than they have the power to say the sky is green and make it true. Would it be hard for the couple? Yes. Very. But if they love each other they will rise above it. Seriously if a marriage cannot survive without sex, it was not built on a solid foundation to begin with. What if a spouse became disabled? What if sex became very painful for the woman due to some condition? What if the guy became impotent?
Next, mucus is not necessary for all methods of NFP. In fact during lactation it is very difficult to read mucus signs and other methods tend to work better. The temp rule in STM can be used with checking cervical position or something to pretty much guarantee ovulation. There are also methods like ladycomp and other monitors that basically do all the work for you and do measure hormone levels… not sure why you think that mucus is the be all and end all… perhaps you weren’t aware of the other methods?
Next, if a couple cannot have children for a good reason (such is the case in this scenario), then there is no sin for them to intend on never having children again unless something changes. Being open to life does not mean being open to pregnancy in any and all scenarios.
There are dozens of threads on here about how contraception and NFP are never the same no matter what the mindset of the users are, so look those up to get an answer to that issue.
Also the couple will not sin if they get pregnant by accident. They do not have to raise the child themselves if the children will be neglected as a result or if the mother will go insane.
sorry I didn’t catch the date before I posted.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Yes just start a new one!
The reason for this is that many of the persons on a thread that is about a year or more old have disappeared and no longer post here. The new thread ensures that people currently active on these forums can talk back and forth with the original poster.
Also every person is unique. You may think you are just like someone else, but really there are always at least subtle differences that change how posters would choose to reply to the Original Poster.
- Status