What is periodic continence?

[Geremia]

Pope Paul VI advocated “periodic continence” in Humanæ Vitæ.

Value of Self-Discipline

1. The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.

If the underlined sentence above were something like “This is especially clear in the practice of continence in marriage,” this section of Humanæ Vitæ would make sense, but Pope Paul VI seems to say that we should only be selfless and continent sometimes.

Where does this “periodic continence” concept of self-discipline originate, that those married should be continent sometimes and not other times? The whole validity of Natural Family Planning (NFP) appears to rest on this.

 

[1ke]

I don’t understand what you are driving at. Your statements don’t make any sense to me.

 

[LJN21]

Reposting my reply to the same question form the previous hijacked thread:

If the underlined sentence above were something like “This is especially clear in the practice of continence in marriage,” this section of Humanæ Vitæ would make sense. It seems to me that Pope Paul VI says that we should only be selfless and continent sometimes.

It makes perfect since as it is. You argument is flawed in the idea that a couple practicing periodic continence is acting selfishly and that the ONLY purpose of sex in marriage is to make babies. I refer back to part of my previous quote form with slightly difference emphasis.

Humanae vitae

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.

Yet another source: Familiaris consortio

Fecundity is the fruit and the sign of conjugal love, the living testimony of the full reciprocal selfgiving of the spouses: “While not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior, who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.”(82)

However, the fruitfulness of conjugal love is not restricted solely to the procreation of children, even understood in its specifically human dimension: it is enlarged and enriched by all those fruits of moral, spiritual and supernatural life which the father and mother are called to hand on to their children, and through the children to the Church and to the world.

What the USCCB says about NFP

Whence does this “periodic continence” concept of self-discipline originate, that those married should be continent sometimes and not other times? I know there are other discussions on CAF on this, but maybe you can provide a concise answer? The whole validity of NFP appears to rest on this. Thanks.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
2370:

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

1 Corinthians 7:5

Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

 

[bilop]

1 Corinthians Ch. 7

1 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

Periodic continence, i.e. refraining from the marriage act, comes directly from St. Paul.

It can’t get more clear than this, that it is permitted.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

1 Corinthians Ch. 7

Periodic continence, i.e. refraining from the marriage act, comes directly from St. Paul.

It can’t get more clear than this that it is permitted.

God Bless

 

[newbetx]

1 Corinthians Ch. 7

Periodic continence, i.e. refraining from the marriage act, comes directly from St. Paul.

It can’t get more clear than this, that it is permitted.

God Bless

Would periodic abstenance be analogous to fasting only at the couple level?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Reposting my reply to the same question form the previous hijacked thread:

It makes perfect since as it is. You argument is flawed in the idea that a couple practicing periodic continence is acting selfishly and that the ONLY purpose of sex in marriage is to make babies. I refer back to part of my previous quote form with slightly difference emphasis.

Humanae vitae

Yet another source: Familiaris consortio

What the USCCB says about NFP

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

1 Corinthians 7:5

:tiphat:

:clapping:

Just wanted to say that this was a GREAT answer!

 

[Geremia]

Would periodic abstenance be analogous to fasting only at the couple level?

Maybe, and if so, it would be a good analogy.

 

[newbetx]

If the underlined sentence above were something like “This is especially clear in the practice of continence in marriage,” this section of Humanæ Vitæ would make sense, but Pope Paul VI seems to say that we should only be selfless and continent sometimes.

Where does this “periodic continence” concept of self-discipline originate, that those married should be continent sometimes and not other times? The whole validity of Natural Family Planning (NFP) appears to rest on this.

As I understand it, it is not good to go without sex for the duration of the marriage or only have it to “make a baby” and it is not good to “do it” all the time either. To do so can lessen the value of the gift.

Hmmm. We should be selfless all the time… is that the issue? Are you thinking sex is selfish?

 

[bilop]

Would periodic abstenance be analogous to fasting only at the couple level?

I think that is a fair analogy, although I haven’t seen it stated that way formally.

God Bless

 

[LJN21]

:tiphat:

:clapping:

Just wanted to say that this was a GREAT answer!

Thanks!

 

[LittleDeb]

Maybe, and if so, it would be a good analogy.

The word ‘fasting’ was precisely the word I used in the other thread. It isn’t just an analogy. It IS. For Eastern Rite Catholics, strict Friday abstinence refers to all things “of the flesh.” Many fast from meat and sexual relations on Fridays throughout the year. (I know quite a few Latin Rite Catholics who do so also.) It isn’t because meat or sex are bad. It is precisely in the giving up that we sacrifice.

In 1 Cor 7:5 St. Paul speaks of continence “for a time.” It protects us from over-indulgence. This is the one area where I disagree with those who are able to have surprise babies. Since they have no need to abstain, do they? Period continence has brought blessings to my marriage. It reminds us that we are the subjects of each other’s affection, not objects of affection.

 

[CuriousInIL]

As I understand it, … it is not good to “do it” all the time either. To do so can lessen the value of the gift.

How did you come to that understanding?

 

[newbetx]

How did you come to that understanding?

If I told you, it might annoy you.

Instead, let’s try to discuss what you find concerning or objectable about the statement.

 

[thistle]

**As I understand it, it is not good to go without sex for the duration of the marriage **or only have it to “make a baby” and it is not good to “do it” all the time either. To do so can lessen the value of the gift.

Hmmm. We should be selfless all the time… is that the issue? Are you thinking sex is selfish?

Better not let Mary and Joseph hear you saying that!!

 

[rlg94086]

Humanae Vitae
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Recourse to Infertile Periods
16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances,** the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained**. (20)

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.

 

[CuriousInIL]

If I told you, it might annoy you.

Instead, let’s try to discuss what you find concerning or objectable about the statement.

As I understand it, … it is not good to “do it” all the time either. To do so can lessen the value of the gift.

I think that I Certainly understand What you are saying; thanks for not annoying me.

I guess that a lot of it depends on what you mean by the phrase “to ‘do it’ all the time.” Is that being used literally to mean that sex is taking up so much time that other necessary activities are suffering? I took it more as sex should not be an every day activity.

So we have a common ground to discuss, what did you mean by the phrase? As its proponent, you get to define it.

 

[newbetx]

I think that I Certainly understand What you are saying; thanks for not annoying me.

I guess that a lot of it depends on what you mean by the phrase “to ‘do it’ all the time.” Is that being used literally to mean that sex is taking up so much time that other necessary activities are suffering? I took it more as sex should not be an every day activity.

So we have a common ground to discuss, what did you mean by the phrase? As its proponent, you get to define it.

Frequency of sex is always a topic for hot debate. While Certain people advocate When a couple has sex it is likened to communion, then daily certainly should be considered a good thing! However, some of us are not at that level (yet) and we need to purposly take a “break from the action” to reflect on it’s goodness lest we forget.

I always felt slighted with statements like “Abstainence makes the heart grow fonder” but I’m getting to understand the basis of the old joke. Many things that make such jokes funny, is the basis of truth behind them. And it is the Truth on which we need to focus.

“all the time” is an interesting measure. There was the couple who when the wife was discussing such private matters with her friends commented “My husband and I have sex all the time. We do it two or three times a week!” Meanwhile the husband complains to his buddies “We NEVER have sex. Maybe only two or three times a week!”

My personal opin here is: When sex frequency itself becomes a preoccupation, then, yes, the couple has lost the meaning of the gift. I really can’t put it much better than Little Deb’s St. Paul reference. The reason we are called to fast is to help us focus on the value of the gifts we are given by God. Certainly When the act has ‘Gift of God’ level of appreciation, no matter the frequency, it is good.

 

[SirOscar]

Hey,

Just want to ask how many couples actually have remained abstinent for a long period of time? I am sure there are couple who choose abstinence, but it is not something that is discussed often. What are your reasons?

What effect has it had on their marriage?

How long is too long?

What if one partner wishes to be sexually active with their partner and the other does not for various reasons.

What if one partner feels denied and anger starts to divide them?

What is consider a justifiable reasons to remain celibate for a long period of time?

 

[1ke]

What if one partner wishes to be sexually active with their partner and the other does not for various reasons.

What if one partner feels denied and anger starts to divide them?

What is consider a justifiable reasons to remain celibate for a long period of time?

Continence can only be by **mutual **agreement. One may not deny their spouse the right to sexual intercourse.