[kittycat496]

I have only been a Catholic for 2 months and I have some questions that I was hoping to get answered.

What about cases when the mother would die in the process of trying to carry another baby? Is a mother allowed to be sterilized (or have her partner clipped) if she's been told that it's this or death? What about cases when birth control is used to get pregnant? (Both me my brother and more cousin's then I can shake a stick at were all created while mom was on the pill.) Am I allowed to use it when I decide I want kids? If I know my odds of having a baby without using the pill are very low is it considered NFP if I do that without?

[Matthew]

[parentsfortruth]

I have only been a Catholic for 2 months and I have some questions that I was hoping to get answered.

What about cases when the mother would die in the process of trying to carry another baby? Is a mother allowed to be sterilized (or have her partner clipped) if she's been told that it's this or death? What about cases when birth control is used to get pregnant? (Both me my brother and more cousin's then I can shake a stick at were all created while mom was on the pill.) Am I allowed to use it when I decide I want kids? If I know my odds of having a baby without using the pill are very low is it considered NFP if I do that without?

The mother can get a dispensation to use NFP for that reason, but in Casti Connubi, Pius XI cites "heroic fortitude."

As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.

The primary purpose of the marital act shouldn't ever be frustrated. I didn't see anything in this thing mentioning "artificial" means.

Doesn't matter which way you do it, if you're using any method, you're frustrating the means, whether it's with a piece of plastic, or something hooked up in your womb to intercept, or if you just say, "Honey, we shouldn't do it tonight because I am fertile." What's the flipping difference? Nothing, really. Actually, if NFP is used "correctly" it has a 99% success rate, better than pieces of plastic, or pills. And like I said, don't be fooled. NFP has been around since the ancient Egyptian times. IT IS NOT NEW.

If you use the method to determine when you can get pregnant, I don't see how morally, there could be something wrong with it, since it no longer is "birth control," but a way in which to predict when your body is capable of conceiving a child. On the other hand, the way I know people use it is for so-called "spacing" and as a DIRECT MEANS to frustrate the PRIMARY END of the marital act, which Pius XI said should NEVER BE FRUSTRATED, and he didn't qualify it with "natural" or "artificial" means. It is a grave sin to frustrate the primary end of the marital act. Period.

Never heard of someone actually being conceived whilst on the pill on purpose. The pill is there to make the environment for a child toxic in order so that the embryo does not join to the uterus, and it also causes one not to have cycles and ovulate at all. I've heard of more tubal pregnancies that happen on the pill, and put the woman's life in even MORE danger than if they weren't on anything, and just abstained, or were continent.

[parentsfortruth]

[kittycat496]

I know that most families wouldn't consider using the pill to make a baby, but with our family things worked out a little different. Due to a genetic disorder the women in my family don't have regular cycles (we cannot create the hormones for it). Most of us got on the pill in some cases as young as the 6 grade in order to create for us the cycles our bodies just weren't making naturally. So naturally many women in my family found out (mostly by accident) that using the pill ups our odds because it creates a normal cycle.

I was technically also conceived on the pill, but I think that Saint Lucida of the little flower had more to do with that than the pills. (My mother is infertile and the mother of two)

I know that it's a pretty weird way to get a baby, but it seems to have worked pretty well amongst my older relatives. So I was wondering if it would be wrong to use it in this method. I was also wondering would it be wrong to do the act without since technically speaking I would most likely not be able to create a baby having no cycle.

[Matthew]

parentsfortruth --

It just sounds like "private interpretation" to me. I'm sure there's a context to these statements.

I've simply never read anything saying that Catholics must have children 10 months apart, or as many children as they are theoretically capable of having. The Catholic Church -- unlike many cults and false religions -- doesn't work that way. Many things are left to the discretion of a priest, or even to one's own conscience. For example, the amount of money you should give to the Church.

With many things, we are given latitude based on our own generosity -- and we will be judged on that, of course. So we always have to be honest with ourselves, and will never REALLY know (with 100% certainty) how we stand with God until the day of our death. Hence it behooves us to be as generous as possible. You don't want to "mess up" and pay the price for all eternity.

Back to the discussion -- If nothing is physically used, then you're not gravely tampering with the nature of the act. Remember, it was God's design that a woman not be fertile at all times.

Just to clarify: I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD TAKE PART IN THE MODERN ABORTION/BIRTH CONTROL MENTALITY. The average family size is WAY too small these days, even among Catholics. No one should claim economic hardship unless they've already downsized as much as they can, they've eliminated modern "necessities" like cell phones, cable TV, soda, 70-degree houses in the middle of summer, vacations, wasted electricity and food, etc.

It reminds me of an old joke,

"What do you call a woman who uses NFP for birth control?"

"Mom"

[Matthew]

I know that most families wouldn't consider using the pill to make a baby, but with our family things worked out a little different. Due to a genetic disorder the women in my family don't have regular cycles (we cannot create the hormones for it). Most of us got on the pill in some cases as young as the 6 grade in order to create for us the cycles our bodies just weren't making naturally. So naturally many women in my family found out (mostly by accident) that using the pill ups our odds because it creates a normal cycle.

I was technically also conceived on the pill, but I think that Saint Lucida of the little flower had more to do with that than the pills. (My mother is infertile and the mother of two)

I know that it's a pretty weird way to get a baby, but it seems to have worked pretty well amongst my older relatives. So I was wondering if it would be wrong to use it in this method. I was also wondering would it be wrong to do the act without since technically speaking I would most likely not be able to create a baby having no cycle.

Cases like this are so odd, they just muddy up the discussion. I've seen other, equally odd "excuses" brought up for birth control -- really, cases like this are neither here nor there.

We're talking about the morality of various kinds of birth control -- not "What if a man holds a gun to my head? Can I use birth control then?" or "What if I took birth control thinking it was a vitamin? Did I commit sin?"

Those kind of "exceptions" make a mockery of the discussion.

Matthew

[parentsfortruth]

parentsfortruth --

It just sounds like "private interpretation" to me. I'm sure there's a context to these statements.

I've simply never read anything saying that Catholics must have children 10 months apart, or as many children as they are theoretically capable of having. The Catholic Church -- unlike many cults and false religions -- doesn't work that way. Many things are left to the discretion of a priest, or even to one's own conscience. For example, the amount of money you should give to the Church.

With many things, we are given latitude based on our own generosity -- and we will be judged on that, of course. So we always have to be honest with ourselves, and will never REALLY know (with 100% certainty) how we stand with God until the day of our death. Hence it behooves us to be as generous as possible. You don't want to "mess up" and pay the price for all eternity.

Back to the discussion -- If nothing is physically used, then you're not gravely tampering with the nature of the act. Remember, it was God's design that a woman not be fertile at all times.

Just to clarify: I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD TAKE PART IN THE MODERN ABORTION/BIRTH CONTROL MENTALITY. The average family size is WAY too small these days, even among Catholics. No one should claim economic hardship unless they've already downsized as much as they can, they've eliminated modern "necessities" like cell phones, cable TV, soda, 70-degree houses in the middle of summer, vacations, wasted electricity and food, etc.

It reminds me of an old joke,

"What do you call a woman who uses NFP for birth control?"

"Mom"

The only circuмstances (and I got this from my confessor) that were allowable, were grave danger of the mother (in becoming pregnant, it could cost her life), woman being beat up by husband that could result in the murder of the child, and "economic catastrophe." (Whatever that means.)

And I wasn't amused by that joke.  :sad:

[parentsfortruth]

Pius XII says in his address to midwives:

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.

The first underlined part, is saying, that you can't restrict people from the marital act on the days the woman is infertile, HOWEVER, the second part states that something is wrong when people restrict their times of intercourse to ONLY the time where they're infertile.

He continues:


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.

This is saying to the mother that says, as her husband asks to consumate: "Hey honey, I'm fertile right now, can we not do it right now?"

Then he continues again:

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.

He's saying here, there has to be a MORALLY SURE reason (like the ones my confessor gave.)

And he continues again:

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 bonum prolis. 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 circuмstances, 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.

[Matthew]

By the way, the Pope did NOT say "something is wrong" -- he said "it needs to be looked at more closely."

You don't want to put words in his mouth!

In fact, the Pope said nothing about using NFP to "put a bit of space" between children.

In fact, in the current economy, with usury, inflation, and confiscatory taxation rampant, "economic motives" are present in a lot more cases today than in "normal times".

It takes a lot of help (family/friends), luck, hard work, and talent to support a family on one income these days.  But if you need two incomes (both spouses), it because VERY difficult, if not impossible, to raise what would be considered a "large family", especially with children spaced 11 months apart.

Because if the wife can't stay home, kids ARE expensive. You have daycare (wife can't watch little ones), dining out (wife can't cook), new clothes (wife can't mend old ones), higher food bills (wife can't clip coupons), 2nd car, wife's wardrobe, husband & wife lunch expenses, etc. And kids who go to public school want more things, need more things such as clothing, etc.

Again, the Church doesn't tell us how many kids to have or how to space them -- that is left up to the individual -- it is a private matter between him/her, the spouse, and God.

Matthew

[parentsfortruth]

By the way, the Pope did NOT say "something is wrong" -- he said "it needs to be looked at more closely."

You don't want to put words in his mouth!

In fact, the Pope said nothing about using NFP to "put a bit of space" between children.

In fact, in the current economy, with usury, inflation, and confiscatory taxation rampant, "economic motives" are present in a lot more cases today than in "normal times".

It takes a lot of help (family/friends), luck, hard work, and talent to support a family on one income these days.  But if you need two incomes (both spouses), it because VERY difficult, if not impossible, to raise what would be considered a "large family", especially with children spaced 11 months apart.

Because if the wife can't stay home, kids ARE expensive. You have daycare (wife can't watch little ones), dining out (wife can't cook), new clothes (wife can't mend old ones), higher food bills (wife can't clip coupons), 2nd car, wife's wardrobe, husband & wife lunch expenses, etc. And kids who go to public school want more things, need more things such as clothing, etc.

Again, the Church doesn't tell us how many kids to have or how to space them -- that is left up to the individual -- it is a private matter between him/her, the spouse, and God.

Matthew

The reasons you list are not "grave," so it can't constitute legitimate use of NFP.

[parentsfortruth]

Day care is about the most bunk excuse I've ever heard. What traditional catholic puts their children in Day Care, honestly?!

If you were working a minimum wage job, your entire paycheck would go to the care of the children in day care. Patently absurd.

As for "new clothes." Goodwill? Consignment? Saint Vincent de Paul?

Food? That's a lack on the part of the mother. She should learn to cook. If you have a woman that doesn't know how to boil water, then you have a problem, don't you?

These things should be considered appropriately before you get married in the first place. All these arguments are NORMAL for the challenges involved in being married in the first place. None of it is extraneous.

Second car? I don't even have one now. We can't afford it. We'll get one in God's time.

There are charity organizations that basically make it free for you for school supplies. Some even give you an outfit and a pair of shoes. And if you're that destitute where you can't afford to feed them/pack a lunch, there is the "School Lunch Program" which is FEDERAL that will pay for your children's lunch, or offer it at a substantially reduced price. So that's not an argument, either. Also, as I said above, Goodwill, Salvation Army, Consignment Shops, whatever. You can get clothes very cheap.

Why does no one ask their Churches for help anymore? The money that we put in the collection plate, is what that's for. To help the poor, and the support of the Church. If you're in desperate financial straights, and you've cut all your unnecessary expenses, I bet you could go in and ask your confessor if they could help you out.

These arguments are "modern day strawmen" trying to make it difficult for God to fill heaven, which is what the job of the married couple is.

Were these methods used and sanctioned by the Church 500 years ago? No? Well... I would say the answer is pretty clear cut then.

The Egyptians knew about cycles thousands of years ago. If it were fine, it would have been promoted as fine. It's only in the last couple of hundred years that this has been brought up. It's worthy of note, that around then, the eugenics movement, the "national birth control league" and other ANTI CATHOLIC organizations were founded, and the communist agenda was revealed back in the 1950's, and they've been working on this agenda for longer than we even know.

Bella Dodd said back in the 1950's, they were already in the highest positions in the Vatican. Clue, anyone?

I like what Padre Pio said, "Pray, hope, and don't worry."

Saint Matthew 6:26-30

26 Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they? 27 And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature by one cubit? 28 And for raiment why are you solicitous? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. 29 But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these. 30 And if the grass of the field, which is today, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, God doth so clothe: how much more you, O ye of little faith?

[MaterDominici]

I know that most families wouldn't consider using the pill to make a baby, but with our family things worked out a little different. Due to a genetic disorder the women in my family don't have regular cycles (we cannot create the hormones for it). Most of us got on the pill in some cases as young as the 6 grade in order to create for us the cycles our bodies just weren't making naturally. So naturally many women in my family found out (mostly by accident) that using the pill ups our odds because it creates a normal cycle.

I was technically also conceived on the pill, but I think that Saint Lucida of the little flower had more to do with that than the pills. (My mother is infertile and the mother of two)

I know that it's a pretty weird way to get a baby, but it seems to have worked pretty well amongst my older relatives. So I was wondering if it would be wrong to use it in this method. I was also wondering would it be wrong to do the act without since technically speaking I would most likely not be able to create a baby having no cycle.

Given the unique nature of your situation, you'd probably want to discuss and get approval from a competent priest if the need arises.

[clare]

[clare]

As far as I can tell, these quotes are referring to artificial methods of birth control --

When discussing broad ideas and concepts, you shouldn't let personal experience dictate everything. I'm sure there are plenty of Catholics with a worldly mentality, but it doesn't mean that ALL Catholics are so materialistic.

This is not good logic:

Some A is B.
B is always bad.
Therefore all A is bad.

Matthew, with all due respect, I'll quote this one more time, so that there's really no "illogic" about it.

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right 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.

You MUST be subordinated to the primary end of marriage. If you're not, then you're doing it wrong....
 

So, taking your reading of Casti Connubii to its logical conclusion parentsfortruth, couples should only engage in marital relations when the wife is fertile, otherwise they are frustrating the primary end.
 
 :confused1:

Nonsense!