[clare]

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."

So your reading of Casti Connubii is mistaken then, because if you concede that there are grave reasons to justify NFP, then the quote you give from Casti Connubii:

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature...

clearly does not apply to NFP! Otherwise even the reason you give would not justify it!

NFP is not "intrinsically against nature".

And, no, I'm not a great supporter of NFP. I object to how it has become a lifestyle choice, it seems. But, to make out that it is "intrinsically against nature" is just wrong.

[parentsfortruth]

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!

You're trying to twist what I said here.

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.

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.

That sounds, to me, like he's saying, that you can have relations  whenever you want, (how novel, and exactly what I said) but if you ONLY have them "exclusively during those periods" in which you can't get pregnant, then your conduct has to be "examined more closely."

Why would you have to "examine" someone's conduct "more closely" if they weren't doing anything wrong?

Also, Pius XII says:

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.

And, of course, I'm not making the absurd statement you imply above:

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.

He says here that if someone planned this out before they even got married, got married, and only had relations on those days in which they could not get pregnant, THAT is enough to make the marriage INVALID.

Obviously there's something wrong with it, unless there's a GRAVE reason. And no, Pius XII lists the grave reasons.

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.

[parentsfortruth]

Just for the record...

As I mentioned, this is number five child for me, and guess how old my youngest is?

5. Just turned 5 at the end of May.

Did I use any "birth control" or "NFP?"

Nope. Didn't need to. God sent one when HE wanted to.

[trent13]

Well, that is wonderful for you, but a woman I know has had 8 children in 10 years - with severe sickness and post partum depression.  One would think it would be acceptable for her to use NFP at the very least to allow her body to build up a nutritional base to have another child.

[clare]

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!

You're trying to twist what I said here.

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.

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.

That sounds, to me, like he's saying, that you can have relations  whenever you want, (how novel, and exactly what I said) but if you ONLY have them "exclusively during those periods" in which you can't get pregnant, then your conduct has to be "examined more closely."

Why would you have to "examine" someone's conduct "more closely" if they weren't doing anything wrong?

The point I was making was that NFP is not "intrinsically against nature". So you cannot cite Cast Connubii's condemnation of acts which are "intrinsically against nature" (which can never be justified even for the gravest reasons) as though that condemnation applies to NFP (which can).

[parentsfortruth]

God gives different crosses to different people.

That would be like if I were a millionaire and I told everyone that they should be able to pay for all of their childrens' college tuition.

That's not what I'm saying here.

Perhaps that's the suffering God wants her to endure for her own sanctification.

The Bible says:

1 Timothy 2: 14-15

14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. 15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.

I know that we're in a marginal neighborhood in a relatively large city, with no yard. Does that mean I should refrain from having children until we get a farm?

[spouse of Jesus]

Sorry a question: How much does NFP reduce the 'risk' of having a child? Some NO websites say that there is 1% possibilty of having a child even when one uses NFP.So if God wants to give you a child, He can use that 1%.
How do trads answer them?

[parentsfortruth]

Pius XII and Pius XI have answered them already.

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.

You have to have a grave reason to use NFP. Period.

[spouse of Jesus]

In some eras of the church, there were couples who had 18 or even 23 children. So it seems to me that if one doesn't use that NFP and doesn't practice mutual continence, he will reach that number.
BUT how is it that many married saints had less than 10 children?  :shocked:
Did all married Saints really have more than 18 children?

[parentsfortruth]

In some eras of the church, there were couples who had 18 or even 23 children. So it seems to me that if one doesn't use that NFP and doesn't practice mutual continence, he will reach that number.
BUT how is it that many married saints had less than 10 children?  :shocked:
Did all married Saints really have more than 18 children?

I have five. I was married at 21. I'm 32 now. I have never used NFP. God decides when he wants to send them.

If I held the position that you should only have relations on the days you are fertile, I'd have a lot more than five children already.

As for saints that are married, here are some of the most well known ones.


Saint Thomas More had four children, but then his first wife died. He married a widow several years his senior, and she had one child which he raised as his own.

Saint Elizabeth of Hungary had 3 children. Her husband died when she was just 20 years old, and she already had three children. Then she became a nun.

Elizabeth Ann Seton had 5 children (declared Venerable in 1959) and her husband died of an illness.

Saint Isidore and Saint Maria had one child, who died very young. They lived in separate houses. They took a vow of continence.

Saint Monica had three children, one of whom was Saint Augustine. Her husband was quite abusive, she eventually converted him too, and he calmed.

Saint Frances of Rome had six children, and two died of the plague. She founded an order of oblates. She practiced continency with the permission of her husband. Her husband fought in the war that was raging between antipopes and the pope.

Saint Edward the Confessor married a woman but had taken a vow of chastity, so before they were married, he required an agreement from her that they would live as brother and sister.

Saint Stephen of Hungary was canonized along with his only son, Saint Emeric.

Saint Henry and his wife took a mutual vow of chastity.

Saint Elizabeth of Portugal had two children. Her husband was unfaithful to her, and was guilty of unfounded jealousy. Also, she was 12 when she got married. She eventually turned him to become a righteous man, and when he died, she wore the habit of the Third Order of Saint Francis, because her people couldn't do without her.

Saint Perpetua and Saint Felicity both had infants when they were martyred.

Saint Bridget of Sweden had eight children.

Saint Margaret of Scotland had eight children.