J
Jocelyn
Guest
Did the church speak about spacing of children before NFP was sanctioned by the church in 1951?
Jocelyn – Sorry I can’t answer your question. I add a question to your question. How and in what way did the Church address the subject of spacing children in 1951? I should know this but I do not.Did the church speak about spacing of children before NFP was sanctioned by the church in 1951?
My parents used the rhythm method in the 50’s and 60’s. They even had a circle guide. The days of the month were on the inside circle, then you moved the indicator to the first day of a woman’s menstral cycle and your fertile days appeared in a window on the upper circle.Did the church speak about spacing of children before NFP was sanctioned by the church in 1951?
Thanks Fergal! Great document. I’ve bookmarked it in my apologetics file.It was called Holy Abstinence and that is exactly what NFP is based on only post 1951 it has become more scientific!!
The message has always been the same.
All your questions answered here rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html don’t be put off by the heading and make your way to the paragraph that starts “The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853…” which is 12 paragraphs down the document.
my mother, a Methodist at the time, received instruction in NFP (they called it rhythm back then and they did not have newer techniquest to measure fertility as accurately either) when she married my Catholic father in 1943. She had a little booklet, chart, and wheel to track her cycle. In the late 50s her CFM group studied a newer method, I believe the Billings method. she also breastfed all her children and that was considered to delay the return of fertility. They had a child every 3 years, the 7th and last pregnancy ended in miscarriage and emergency hysterectomy. My father also told my brothers that a Catholic husband who loves his wife gives her time after the baby is born to recover, and that the priest told him not to resume relations until at least 6 months after the baby was born. It was called periodic abstinence, just as know, but technology has given us a lot more help in our generation.Did the church speak about spacing of children before NFP was sanctioned by the church in 1951?
Great link.It was called Holy Abstinence and that is exactly what NFP is based on only post 1951 it has become more scientific!!
The message has always been the same.
All your questions answered here rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html don’t be put off by the heading and make your way to the paragraph that starts “The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853…” which is 12 paragraphs down the document.
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, 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 Vatican reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation"6
Thank you… i was just about to post this… www.ccli.org has some wonderful information… NFP is NOT the rhythm method!!!And the average Joe on the street still thinks NFP is rythm, and that it has the same reliability. Sad and irritating both.
I think the point is both reflect the postion that one has recourse to the natural cycle to space births and it is not a recent invention of the Vatican.Thank you… i was just about to post this… www.ccli.org has some wonderful information… NFP is NOT the rhythm method!!!![]()
As far as I know Catholics were using the rhythm method back in the day, which is just an ineffective form of NFPDid the church speak about spacing of children before NFP was sanctioned by the church in 1951?
DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.
Associate Professor of Theology,
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico
Introduction
kolbecenter.org/harrison.eve.htmlThe purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows: