NFP and contraception

[ahs]

This could come as a surprise to you, but Sam and Bethany Torode retreated their statements about blessings of NFP. They concluded NFP poses a threat to stability of marriage (similary as report to pontifical commission of Humanae Vitae). If I remember correctly, Torodes had four children, two of them unplanned and concieved during breastfeeding. They are now divorced. Their story is considered one of the biggest flaws of NFP support.

Someone linked an article detailing the Torodes’ split and their blaming of NFP.

My opinion (which I won’t pretend to be able to defend with any solid evidence…you can take this how you want) is that NFP was not the problem, NFP just brought pre-existing issues to light when they were suddenly forced to communicate with each other (as NFP forces couples to do). I beleive they didn’t want to put the effort into resolving the issues and that is what led to their fall-out.

I also beleive they found that abstaining was too difficult because NFP, in its very nature, makes it nearly impossible for a couple to abstain during the fertile period unless there really is a grave circumstance. As protestants, they weren’t concerned with grave circumstance, they just wanted to be “natural” or “green”…however they put it. But NFP is not some badge to wear for some couple wanting to show how natural they can be. NFP is commitment for a period of time by the spouses to one another that they will abstain during the period when they most want each other (in that way) because some grave circumstance has come up.

Again, I don’t know where that article link is…maybe even somewhere in this thread…I would just encourage you to take some time and research that yourself.

-ahs

 

[Chrono13]

Someone linked an article detailing the Torodes’ split and their blaming of NFP.

I had a better one, but this one should do for the time being: squarezero.org/2006/open-embarrassment/

My opinion (which I won’t pretend to be able to defend with any solid evidence…you can take this how you want) is that NFP was not the problem, NFP just brought pre-existing issues to light when they were suddenly forced to communicate with each other (as NFP forces couples to do). I beleive they didn’t want to put the effort into resolving the issues and that is what led to their fall-out.

You are right. You should not pretend.

Sorry if I sound too lax, but it seems to me the promoters of NFP are usually using the same tactics when discussing the actual practice. If couple uses and praises technique, then they are natural and great. If they brag about it, or claim it is not working for them, then they have “issues they don’t want to resolve”. This is not searching for answers Church needs, but seeking how each and every outcome of the matter will make it look right. And we should not strife to look right, as much as we are to be right, for we serve Jesus.

I also beleive they found that abstaining was too difficult because NFP, in its very nature, makes it nearly impossible for a couple to abstain during the fertile period unless there really is a grave circumstance. As protestants, they weren’t concerned with grave circumstance, they just wanted to be “natural” or “green”…however they put it. But NFP is not some badge to wear for some couple wanting to show how natural they can be. NFP is commitment for a period of time by the spouses to one another that they will abstain during the period when they most want each other (in that way) because some grave circumstance has come up.

Again, I don’t know where that article link is…maybe even somewhere in this thread…I would just encourage you to take some time and research that yourself.

-ahs

 

[Chrono13]

That this confused egotist is quite unable to give up his prejudices, and therefore unable to assent to the infallible doctrine of Christ’s Church against contraception, clearly and constantly from the beginning, is the major lesson to be learned as to how reason and faith are denigrated by selfists.

To answer with similar intensity would interfere with my Catholic faith. I am taught to love those who wish me harm. How less am I to rage over somebody who doesn’t? Yet, I believe my arguments have done enough to disapprove your idea of “constant teaching”. That story is not entirely how you present it, is not the matter of my pride, or of anybody else. If I were ten times less selfish, they would disapprove you.

That the use of NBR, like all morally valid methods that make use of God’s created nature for mankind, has been affirmed since the 1800’s even before the scientific developments that have made it so useful.

These methods were known to Church Fathers and were labeled contraception. To deny this will only lower the credibiliy of Holy Mother Church.

The obvious weaknesses in the assumptions are:

1. That “pontifical decisions” of discipline, or strictures applicable to those who knowingly rejected the faith, are confused with infallible doctrine, by the blind.

The matter whether sex is only for procreation or not, is not matter of discipline, but morality.

1. That prejudice and selfism are huge satanic barriers to truth –we know that pride was the reason for the FALL.

I have no prejudice, and if I were more selfish, you would still be a person rejecting Church history regarding tracking menstruation for birth regulation.

That the effects of the dissent following Vatican II still leave scars. The idea of the pet “majority opinion” favoured by some here, in the commission formed to study the “Pill”, is a case in point.

I have acknowledged that majority does not make contraception moral or not. However, if I remember correctly, majority report addressed that contraception was banned because of belief sex is only approved for procreation, and that this nature of teaching should not be ignored. The minority report was too afraid to address the subject, and it is more or less the tactics used today by defenders of vatican doctrine. Taking you as an example, you speak a lot about recent Church documents, but don’t even want to hear about how Saints of the first ages held NFP. And then you conclude there is “Magisterium” in the decision, as long as we don’t talk about beliefs of this important body in the past.

1. That the birth dearth that has overtaken the Western world and is now showing up in the rest is a salutary reminder to the grave evils of contraception and abortion.

The politicians are the ones forcing the layman to use contraception. If you want to fight those evils, support politicans who will give living conditions for large families, health care, education and supportive salaries.

Contraception is simply an economic tool, just as NFP. And we are to preach in these economy, just as in feudal times.

 

[Nate13]

This could come as a surprise to you, but Sam and Bethany Torode retreated their statements about blessings of NFP. They concluded NFP poses a threat to stability of marriage (similary as report to pontifical commission of Humanae Vitae). If I remember correctly, Torodes had four children, two of them unplanned and concieved during breastfeeding. They are now divorced. Their story is considered one of the biggest flaws of NFP support.

haha in my opinion it doesn’t matter. The book was still powerful and the thinking was well laid out. NFP is only as strong as the people using it. I’d also add that they were not Catholic and therefore were not receiving the sacraments and the grace that goes with it.

 

[sacredcello]

To answer with similar intensity would interfere with my Catholic faith. I am taught to love those who wish me harm. How less am I to rage over somebody who doesn’t? Yet, I believe my arguments have done enough to disapprove your idea of “constant teaching”. That story is not entirely how you present it, is not the matter of my pride, or of anybody else. If I were ten times less selfish, they would disapprove you.

Your arguments have not disproven Church teaching on the prohibition of contraception. Abu has quoted many different sources throughout this lengthy thread to show the integrity of the Church’s ban on contraception. He may have done so with intensity, but I share his frustration that fellow Catholics such as yourself would go to such lengths to confuse others.

I have benefited enormously from Image of God, Good Daughter and Abu. On the contrary, I have found myself scratching my head and wondering about your confusion on this matter, Chrono13. I know you are a single person, so much of this is theoretical to you at this point. But, if you should choose to marry, you may want to consider that your wife may not want to be used sexually as an object through contraception. She may not wish to poison herself with pills, shots or hormonal devices which lead to an increase in cancer, bloodclots, hardening of the arteries, heart disease.

I feel that many in this thread have tried to reach out to you, Chrono13, but you keep hitting your head against a wall, so to speak, and insisting on things your way. You refuse to acknowledge a development of doctrine or that the advancement of the science of NFP (which did not exist in the time of the Church Fathers) has required a new theological response: The Theology of the Body by Blessed John Paul II. I respect that you are interested in Church history, but you are skewing it and refusing to see it in the context of current infallible teaching. The ban on contraception has been a constant teaching, and I don’t understand why you, as a Catholic, are continuing to argue otherwise. Are you trying to lead others into sin? It certainly appears that way.

 

[Bookcat]

From the Document issued in 1997:

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, emphasis added].

There is no question that Catholics are to assent to this teaching…it is not up for grabs.

 

[Abu]

Great posts sacredcello and Bookcat.

St Escriva points out that “Jesus is moved by hunger and sorrow, but what moves Him most is ignorance. ‘As He landed He saw a great throng, and He had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things.’ ” (Mk 6:34). Christ Is Passing By, Josemaria Escriva de Belaguer, Scepter Press, 1990, p 152 (Christ’s presence In Christians)].

Warrior1979, #1047
having sex solely during the infertile period is most certainly not recommended when it it used to avoid having children.

There is no question of “recommendation”. The Magisterium teaches that it is praiseworthy when the reason is serious enough.

It is clear only to the Church and those who start with the assumption the argument is correct. When one assumes the argument is correct, logic is irrelevant.

Even the theologian is blameworthy if he publicly opposes the Magisterium:
*Donum Veritatis *(On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian), C.D.F. 1990:
“38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.

“The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme Magisterium of conscience in opposition to the Magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised(38).” [My emphasis].
38. Cf. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Paterna Cum Benevolentia, n.4; AAS 67 (1975), 15.

 

[Warrior1979]

There is no question of “recommendation”. The Magisterium teaches that it is praiseworthy when the reason is serious enough.

It is true the current Magisterium teaches this. However, as noted in CC #54:

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.

Some will argue that this refers specifically to contraception. However, the reason that contraception is shameful and intrinsically vicious is because of deliberately frustrating its natural power. Also,

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.

explicitly states no reason, however grave. NFP clearly is an attempt to supress the primary purpose of marriage. Hence, there is no reason grave enough…at least prior to HV.

Interestingly enough, CC #20 notes that God can relax laws (obviously, since He wrote them). Because of the way infallibility is treated, this is problematic, unless God will never relax any laws again. Any relaxation in law would show up as a contradiction.

I will now leave and do something productive rather than have a futile attempt at a discussion, such as Tie Tou Gong (Iron Head Exercise, Training Methods of the 72 Arts of Shaolin, Jin Jin Zhong, 1934):

This training method is as follows: wrap several dozens of layers of a soft fabric (silk) round your head, add one or two layers of plate above, and hit your head against a wall.

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979, #1218
NFP clearly is an attempt to supress the primary purpose of marriage. Hence, there is no reason grave enough…at least prior to HV.

False. As medical knowledge grew of infertile periods from the 19th century, Rome spoke, as seen from Post # 390:
‘The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, 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 reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
[cmri.org/03-nfp.htm]](http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.htm])

So as shown repeatedly, NBR does not “impede generation”, and is licit for serious reasons precisely because the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

With NBR the couple is simply using God provided infertile periods – there is nothing to contracept as seen from Casti Connubii (II, 59), post #150, where timing, or infertile impediments, are all considered:
“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.”

 

[Warrior1979]

False. As medical knowledge grew of infertile periods from the 19th century, Rome spoke, as seen from Post # 390:
‘The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, 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 reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
[cmri.org/03-nfp.htm]](http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.htm])

So as shown repeatedly, NBR does not “impede generation”, and is licit for serious reasons precisely because the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

You’re quote doesn’t include “serious reasons.” Since the link doesn’t work, was “serious reasons” included in that statement, or was that tacked on a later date.

With NBR the couple is simply using God provided infertile periods – there is nothing to contracept as seen from Casti Connubii (II, 59), post #150, where timing, or infertile impediments, are all considered:

“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.”

The reason people practice NFP is not just subordinate the primary purpose, but subvert it as completely as possible. When having sex during the infertile period, in practice, it is for making the secondary ends primary. If that were not the case, they simply wouldn’t have sex at all, as would be the case for a couple that didn’t want children and have no sex drive.

Quite frankly, this is all common sense.

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979, #1220
was “serious reasons” included in that statement, or was that tacked on a later date.

I apologise for a worthless link in post #1219. The first time Rome spoke on NBR was in 1853: tinyurl.com/3vaw54x

“Serious reasons” were not quoted in that reference.
The Holy See teaches that “serious motives,” and “proportionately serious reasons,” are needed in order to use NFP to avoid, or to decrease the likelihood of, conception.

Pope Pius XII taught that if there are serious motives to space out births, which are derived from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infertile periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending moral principles. (Pope Pius XII. AAS XLIII, (1951), p. 846).

Pope Paul VI said that responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth. Serious reasons are required, Humanae Vitae, 10 and in
16. “Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”

The reason people practice NFP is not just subordinate the primary purpose, but subvert it as completely as possible. When having sex during the infertile period, in practice, it is for making the secondary ends primary. If that were not the case, they simply wouldn’t have sex at all, as would be the case for a couple that didn’t want children and have no sex drive.

The assumed “reasons” for the practice of NBR shows bad formation in doctrine or wrongful intention.

Being subordinated to the primary end means that the primary end is the primary consideration in marriage and that NBR cannot be legitimately employed without such consideration, resulting in the justification for serious reasons.

Certainly it is commonsense that if a couple practices NBR without serious reasons they are culpable of subordinating the primary end – failure to understand, or subverting, the valid reasons, and the doctrine, will result in a false view and produce illicit results.

The “intrinsic nature of the act” is prostituted by contraception.

 

[Chrono13]

haha in my opinion it doesn’t matter. The book was still powerful and the thinking was well laid out. NFP is only as strong as the people using it. I’d also add that they were not Catholic and therefore were not receiving the sacraments and the grace that goes with it.

Your opinion should be respected, as long as it is fair and objective to the matter. There seems to be a strong point in fact that people who laided the advantages of NFP so sincerely and openly, ended in claiming they were ignorant at the time. And that technique is not just difficult, but somewhat dangerous to marital stability.

If sacraments are required for NFP to work, then we should share that fact with “people of good faith”. However, Church teaches morality based on natural law, and while nothing is beyond God’s will, it seems reasonable that even atheist can embrace teaching based on his own nature.

 

[Chrono13]

Your arguments have not disproven Church teaching on the prohibition of contraception. Abu has quoted many different sources throughout this lengthy thread to show the integrity of the Church’s ban on contraception. He may have done so with intensity, but I share his frustration that fellow Catholics such as yourself would go to such lengths to confuse others.

Abu is constantly repeating the same quotes from same sources. While his work is appriciated, the points are not over-run by such acts.

I feel that many in this thread have tried to reach out to you, Chrono13, but you keep hitting your head against a wall, so to speak, and insisting on things your way. You refuse to acknowledge a development of doctrine or that the advancement of the science of NFP (which did not exist in the time of the Church Fathers) has required a new theological response: The Theology of the Body by Blessed John Paul II.

The issue here is that I am not insisting things to go “my way”, but in objective, truthful way. NFP did exist in time of Church Fathers, and it was forbidden. To counter this fact is not countering me, but objective truth of Church History and medical knowledge of the time.

Are you trying to lead others into sin? It certainly appears that way.

At the beginning of this conversation, I said my intentions were not to rise speculation or dissent. I wished, and still wish, to talk about mentioned topics in polite and constructive way. That, fundamentally, doesn’t mean I can’t hold my points firmly, especially when they are proven to be of thicker argumentation then the opposite side.

It is right of every Catholic layman to ask questions and demand answers. If this is denied, the whole idea of evangelisation comes to question. Sometimes, faith comes instead of knowledge. But never instead of truth.

 

[Chrono13]

I apologise for a worthless link in post #1219. The first time Rome spoke on NBR was in 1853: tinyurl.com/3vaw54x

Once you recall the teaching of St. Gregory, things are more complex. When St. Augustine of England issued request on nature of sexual intercourse, the answer was that pleasure is evil in itself and that sex was only for procreation.

“Serious reasons” were not quoted in that reference.
The Holy See teaches that “serious motives,” and “proportionately serious reasons,” are needed in order to use NFP to avoid, or to decrease the likelihood of, conception.

Interesting thing to be noted here is the so-called “Nives paradox”.

Three questions are to be answered…

1. If pair has intercourse on fertile day, will they concieve a child God doesn’t want to be conceived?
2. If pair has intercourse on infertile day, will they avoid concieving the child God wants to be concieved?
3. If answer on both questions above is “no”, then what is the mechanism which makes NFP work?

To make a logical conclusion, in world where God reigns over nature, NFP is useless. You will not evade God’s will. So much for “decreasing the possibility of conception”. I mean, what are we to believe? That we can postpone God’s will or avoid it? If He wants a child, He will make it. If not, He will not.

Pope Paul VI said that responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

But what happens in case of irresponsible parenthood? Couple has too much sex, or sex on the wrong day, and God gives them a child He won’t back up in their lives?

 

[copperblade]

Interesting thing to be noted here is the so-called “Nives paradox”.

Three questions are to be answered…

1. If pair has intercourse on fertile day, will they concieve a child God doesn’t want to be conceived?
2. If pair has intercourse on infertile day, will they avoid concieving the child God wants to be concieved?
3. If answer on both questions above is “no”, then what is the mechanism which makes NFP work?

To make a logical conclusion, in world where God reigns over nature, NFP is useless. You will not evade God’s will. So much for “decreasing the possibility of conception”. I mean, what are we to believe? That we can postpone God’s will or avoid it? If He wants a child, He will make it. If not, He will not.

The only logical conclusion is that God leaves the possibility of children an open question, and not a matter of predestination. Otherwise, contraception wouldn’t work either.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13
To make a logical conclusion, in world where God reigns over nature, NFP is useless. You will not evade God’s will. So much for “decreasing the possibility of conception”. I mean, what are we to believe? That we can postpone God’s will or avoid it? If He wants a child, He will make it. If not, He will not.

As God has created human nature with fertile and infertile periods for the woman, as well as a mind and free will, He has created us with the purpose of exercising our mind (reason) to rightly use what He has given us.

Thus, as His Church teaches, when we use that mind and free will to act according to our nature we praiseworthily may use NBR for serious reasons, acting according to His Will.

Thus man proposes and God disposes.

The false idea of God rendering our mind and free will useless is a product of the Stoics, pantheism.

 

[Chrono13]

The only logical conclusion is that God leaves the possibility of children an open question, and not a matter of predestination. Otherwise, contraception wouldn’t work either.

A sharp mind you have there

The thing is, such important thing as creation of human being is certainly not “open question” to mercyful and omnipotent God. It is a fact that NFP lowers the possibility of begetting, but how this activity interferes with God’s will is yet unknown.

 

[Chrono13]

As God has created human nature with fertile and infertile periods for the woman, as well as a mind and free will, He has created us with the purpose of exercising our mind (reason) to rightly use what He has given us.

Are infertile periods given to us because God has lowered the possibility of exercising His own will? Certainly not.

Fundamentally, it is His choice whether child will be conceived or not. Or are we to suggest that sex during fertile period will conceive a child he doesn’t want to create?

Please, consider this question as a part of mutual search for answers. I am not trying to rise doubts in Church teaching, but it is simply something that needs to be answered if we are to proclaim this teaching as natural, and binding, to people of good faith.

I mean, if for nothing else, if infertile period was given to us so to limit fertility, it would be perfect. And it is not. Also, once again we should recall the question why animals who have no ration have this period as well.

Thus, as His Church teaches, when we use that mind and free will to act according to our nature we praiseworthily may use NBR for serious reasons, acting according to His Will.

As was already prompted, what aspect of nature makes the use of thing “only for serious reasons”? And why Church did not accept such interpretation of nature prior to 19th Century?

The false idea of God rendering our mind and free will useless is a product of the Stoics, pantheism.

I am not suggesting that. I say that mind and free will are at odds with idea that NFP has any real effect in world where God reigns over outcome of natural activities. That this is not so in practice, is a matter of experience, not of theoretical background.

God is not making our will useless, however he produces it to shape us as He pleases -as Paul is strong to note in one of his epistles. Sometimes it seems spicy. If God wants child to be begotten, He will produce a desire of couple to beget one. He will certainly not inspire them to use NFP.

 

[mathematoons]

82 pages of fighting over this? How stupid!

Both contraception and NFP are acts done in the name of the contraceptive mentality. Both are acts done in an attempt to thwart God’s will that sex must be for procreation. Therefore NFP is sinful unless done for grave reasons. Anyone who disagrees is just trying to justify their own sin by claiming to know more than God; you’re either with God or against Him. Case CLOSED.

My priest agrees with me that blaming contraceptives for small families is like blaming spoons for obesity.

 

[Chrono13]

82 pages of fighting over this? How stupid!

More like 50 years.

Or 1600, if we are to check St. Augustine.