CathInfo.com

From Tom:

So did Pope Pius XII in his Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession on October 29, 1951:

 

 Perhaps you will now press the point, however, observing that in the exercise of your profession you find yourselves sometimes faced with delicate cases, in which, that is, there cannot be a demand that the risk of maternity be run, a risk which in certain cases must be absolutely avoided, and in which as well the observance of the agenesic periods either does not give sufficient security, or must be rejected for other reasons. Now, you ask, how can one still speak of an apostolate in the service of maternity?

    If, in your sure and experienced judgment, the circuмstances require an absolute "no," that is to say, the exclusion of motherhood, it would be a mistake and a wrong to impose or advise a "yes." Here it is a question of basic facts and therefore not a theological but a medical question; and thus it is in your competence. However, in such cases, the married couple does not desire a medical answer, of necessity a negative one, but seeks an approval of a "technique" of conjugal activity which will not give rise to maternity. And so you are again called to exercise your apostolate inasmuch as you leave no doubt whatsoever that even in these extreme cases every preventive practice and every direct attack upon the life and the development of the seed is, in conscience, forbidden and excluded, and that there is only one way open, namely, to abstain from every complete performance of the natural faculty. Your apostolate in this matter requires that you have a clear and certain judgment and a calm firmness.

    It will be objected that such an abstention is impossible, that such a heroism is asking too much. You will hear this objection raised; you will read it everywhere. Even those who should be in a position to judge very differently, either by reason of their duties or qualifications, are ever ready to bring forward the following argument: "No one is obliged to do what is impossible, and it may be presumed that no reasonable legislator can will his law to oblige to the point of impossibility. But for husbands and wives long periods of abstention are impossible. Therefore they are not obliged to abstain; divine law cannot have this meaning."

    In such a manner, from partially true premises, one arrives at a false conclusion. To convince oneself of this it suffices to invert the terms of the argument: "God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible." To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: "God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able".

    Do not be disturbed, therefore, in the practice of your profession and apostolate, by this great talk of impossibility. Do not be disturbed in your internal judgment nor in your external conduct. Never lend yourselves to anything which is contrary to the law of God and to your Christian conscience! It would be a wrong towards men and women of our age to judge them incapable of continuous heroism. Nowadays, for many a reason,—perhaps constrained by dire necessity or even at times oppressed by injustice—heroism is exercised to a degree and to an extent that in the past would have been thought impossible. Why, then, if circuмstances truly demand it, should this heroism stop at the limits prescribed by the passions and the inclinations of nature? It is clear: he who does not want to master himself is not able to do so, and he who wishes to master himself relying only upon his own powers, without sincerely and perseveringly seeking divine help, will be miserably deceived.

    Here is what concerns your apostolate for winning married people over to a service of motherhood, not in the sense of an utter servitude under the promptings of nature, but to the exercise of the rights and duties of married life, governed by the principles of reason and faith. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

     
To quote my former colleague John Vennari, "There you have it." For anyone to assert that it is "impossible" for a married couple to maintain complete marital abstinence by mutual consent if truly extraordinary circuмstances require it, whether for reasons of being remarried invalidly after having received a decree of nullity from a conciliar tribunal or for the reasons outlined by Pope Pius XII in 1951, that it is "too tough" for them to do so, perhaps it would be more than little wise to become familiar with these words of Pope Pius XII cited just above:

   In such a manner, from partially true premises, one arrives at a false conclusion. To convince oneself of this it suffices to invert the terms of the argument: "God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible." To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: "God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able". (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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.  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

I thought Casti Connubii was the good guy and Pius XII allocution was the bad guy, but they both seem to be in agreement in regards to coming together even when procreation is not possible.

Yes, Pope Pius XI taught that married couples could use their marriage right in the infertile periods of the wife (or when there is a defect of nature or age which prevents new life from being conceived). But he did not teach that they could designedly restrict the marital act ONLY to the infertile periods to avoid a pregnancy, as in Natural Family Planning.

Contraception or NFP does not just subordinate the primary end of childbearing to the quelling of concupiscence, but it eliminates the primary end altogether by the spouses’ refusal to fulfill the primary end or purpose of marriage while engaging in the marital act.

And this is why, in the very passage above, Pope Pius XI reiterates that all use of the marital right – including when new life cannot be brought forth due to time or nature – must keep the secondary ends of marriage subordinate to the primary end! This teaching is the deathblow to NFP, as NFP itself is the subordination of the primary end of marriage (the procreation and education of children) to other things (lust). So, in summary, the passage above does not teach NFP, but merely enunciates the principle that married couples may use their conjugal rights at any time.

Notice how clearly and unambiguously Pope Pius XI teaches that married people are not even allowed to “consider” the secondary ends of marriage unless they are subordinated to the primary purpose of marriage (procreation) and unless “the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved” which means that one may never perform anything other than the normal, natural and procreative marital act itself. The secondary purposes “such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence” can follow after the primary end or purpose of begetting children if the spouses choose this, but the secondary ends or motives are not absolutely needed to lawfully perform the marital act in the same way as the primary purpose of begetting children, nor is the secondary motive of quieting concupiscence meritorious even though it is allowed.

1.  The deliberate frustration of the marital act is always wrong.

2.  Periodic Continence can be okay under certain circuмstances but certainly is not mandated.

3.  Only engaging in the marital act during the infertile times under the four categories for the grave reasons laid out by Pius XII.

Number 3 is the point of contention.  This won’t change any minds but I will throw my 2 cents in here anyway.  Because I’m Irish and like to debate, and like saying Saint John Vianney plastered on the screen and like a nice cup of coffee with the right amount of sugar.

A secondary purpose of marriage is the alleviation of concupiscence.  

A couple goes into marriage with a Catholic attitude wanting as many children as God gives them.  One or both of them had habits of impurity before they got married though they straightened that out for some time before they met, got engaged and were married.  They had a completely chaste courtship and engagement, got married have 12 children ages 1 – 12 but the last two pregnancies were miscarriages where the wife almost died and very likely will die this time.  

Here are the questions I would like answered on this debate.

Is it better for the wife to die and leave the raising of those 12 souls to be raised and ultimately damned by the government while the dad works?

Is it better for the husband and or wife to engage in repeated mortal sins because they completely refrain from the marriage act rather than abstaining during the fertile times for legitimately grave reasons?

The Church does not ask the impossible and is not unreasonable.  It would seem to me it is better to do all one can to make sure 12 souls stay on the path to Heaven than to let them go astray so one more can exist (only to die in the womb without being baptized) at the expense of the life of the wife and mother.

It seems to me that if it is impossible for one or both parties to remain chaste for an extended period of time that it is better to engage in the marital act when conception is unlikely than to be in a state of mortal sin.  

Is it agreed that the alleviation of concupiscence is a secondary end of marriage or not?  

Are the parents obliged to do all in their power to make sure their existing children stay on the path to Heaven or not?

1.  We do not try to avoid children for grave reasons but live in a state of mortal sin.

2.  We do not try to avoid conception but allow our existing 12 children to be damned.

Add to this that the husband insists on having his marital rite acquiesced to at least once a month and then you have the whole obedience and the marital right of the husband and both having to agree come into play.  
In the above two scenarios can a case be made for trying to avoid pregnancy while also alleviating concupiscence?  The reality for the above couple is one or the other, they will not remain chaste for long and or their children will surely be damned.  I’m not interested in speculation saying their children still might be saved or the parents might remain chaste.  The above scenario is how it is laid out, what is the best alternative?

I grant that the ideal Catholic couple would be able to abstain completely without falling into habitual mortal sin again.  But in this instance this is not the case.  

What say you?

What say you?

To me your arguments sound like moral relativism and "lesser evil" thinking.  You can't just argue from a "which is better" standpoint.  Question is whether practicing NFP is mortal sin.  If so, it cannot be justified even if used to prevent other greater moral sins.