Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: AnonymousCatholic on October 09, 2018, 11:58:55 PM
-
It's not even a question that sex outside of marriage is not only sinful but a terrible idea, but where the water gets cloudy is sex within marriage. The catechism says that the purpose of marriage is twofold and should couples interfere with the natural process of sex (birth control natural or other) they are compromising the spiritual aspect of the marriage. Why does the catechism teach this and on top of this are couples who are sterile or beyond their child bearing years supposed to have sex?
Is it explicitly prohibited in the bible or is this exclusively Catholic and in that case which Catholic figure made this clarification? Anything anyone can offer is appreciated.
Some background on where I'm coming from, I've always held the understanding that sex serves the purpose of giving humans an outlet to express intimacy (obviously within marriage because being intimate with a variety of people is an obvious way to drive yourself insane) and this intimacy gives rise to children thus continuing our existence as a species. But when women go beyond child bearing years or one of the partners is sterile they can still have sex as an intimacy outlet.
-
I am not very educated in the doctrines and such, but am married and feel like replying.
I think that the spiritual violation of this is that basically God commanded us to multiply...fill the earth with lots of babies to raise to love and serve him.
I’m not currently aware of any prohibitions on sterile/infertile couples against the marital act, as it fosters intimacy and prevention of a multi syllable word, starts with c (can’t recall right now) but is essentially sex or intimacy outside of marriage.
Again, I’m a new Catholic, so do not quote me. If I am wrong let the shredding of myself begin. :fryingpan:
-
You well, that’s actually a good question... I’ve heard that if a man is impotent that marriage won’t be allowed because it can’t be consummated. People who are sterile shouldn’t be finding out they are sterile until after they are married I suppose. (Unless they had some health issue that lead to its discovery) So, I’m assuming marriage is allowed. Plus, miracles happen all the time!
-
I've always held the understanding that sex serves the purpose of giving humans an outlet to express intimacy (obviously within marriage because being intimate with a variety of people is an obvious way to drive yourself insane) and this intimacy gives rise to children thus continuing our existence as a species. But when women go beyond child bearing years or one of the partners is sterile they can still have sex as an intimacy outlet.
.
This is essentially correct. Marriage and the marital act have multiple ends. Secondary ends of each include mutual bonding and the satisfaction of concupiscence. As Casti Conubii states, these ends are lawful to pursue so long as they are pursued naturally (i.e., without contraceptive intervention), and therefore duly ordered to the primary end of procreation (Denz. 2241).
.
There are a variety of different sources one can use to prove the point. The Code of Canon Law enumerates a many different impediments to marriage, but does not regard marriage between sterile persons as invalid or unlawful (marriage between impotent persons is, however, invalid; this is because in such an arrangement there is an actual inability to copulate, not merely a natural defect to conceive). Casti Conubii also describes such relations as lawful (see Denzinger citation above). Theologians since the 1850s have occupied themselves with questions of marital relations during sterile periods ever since periodic continence became known to man, and they have all affirmed its morality, including multiple decisions of the Holy Office dating back to before Vatican I. Prior to the 1850s or so it's more difficult to find detailed theological treatises on the morality of sterile relations simply because the biology behind conception was not yet particularly well understood, but since then there is a plethora of material. You might look up the work of Griese, Wayne, and especially Vermeersch (who drafted Pope Pius XI's Casti Conubii) if you'd like even more information.
-
Mith has the right answer from Pius XI's Encyclical Casti Conubii.
Pope Pius XI teaches that there's the primary end of marital relations (procreation) and the secondary (fostering mutual affection, allaying of concupiscence). He explicitly states that if the primary end is not possible (e.g. infertility), marital relations may be had for the secondary ends. The principle is that the primary end can never be positively or willfully excluded while seeking the secondary ends, i.e. that the primary can never be made subordinate to the secondary (which is why IMO NFP is wrong, based on this teaching).
-
You well, that’s actually a good question... I’ve heard that if a man is impotent that marriage won’t be allowed because it can’t be consummated. People who are sterile shouldn’t be finding out they are sterile until after they are married I suppose. (Unless they had some health issue that lead to its discovery) So, I’m assuming marriage is allowed. Plus, miracles happen all the time!
Impotency and sterility are not the same thing. Impotency is the physical inability to have marital relations. Sterility is the inability to have children.
Impotency is an impediment is marriage, and a moral man would know if he impotent prior to marriage.
Sterility is not an impediment to marriage (a man or a woman could be sterile), and, absent some health issue, a moral person generally wouldn’t know of their sterility prior to marriage.
-
Impotency and sterility are not the same thing. Impotency is the physical inability to have marital relations. Sterility is the inability to have children.
Impotency is an impediment is marriage, and a moral man would know if he impotent prior to marriage.
Sterility is not an impediment to marriage (a man or a woman could be sterile), and, absent some health issue, a moral person generally wouldn’t know of their sterility prior to marriage.
I did use both words, and explained them as such. You said exactly what I did, but just felt like correcting me.
-
I did use both words, and explained them as such. You said exactly what I did, but just felt like correcting me.
It would appear you need to grow a thicker skin. I didn't interpret his post as hostile towards you at all, as I read this entire thread.
I interpreted his post as clarifying for third party readers, since both terms were thrown out there.
We don't believe in micro-aggressions around here. We believe in having skin thicker than 1 cell.
-
I did use both words, and explained them as such. You said exactly what I did, but just felt like correcting me.
Right, but you were merely "assuming" that marriage would be allowed in the case of infertility because you wouldn't know about it until after marriage, and because miracles happen all the time.
That has nothing to do with it. Even if you knew before marriage that you were infertile, and could safely assume that no miracle would change that, the condition would still not be an impediment to marriage. Under no circuмstances is infertility an impediment to marriage.
Now, if a person knew of his own infertility but refused to disclosed that to a prospective spouse, that could invalidate the marriage, not because of the infertility, but because the consent of the partner would have been obtained by fraud. Had the other person known of the infertility, would she have married him?
-
Mith has the right answer from Pius XI's Encyclical Casti Conubii.
Pope Pius XI teaches that there's the primary end of marital relations (procreation) and the secondary (fostering mutual affection, allaying of concupiscence). He explicitly states that if the primary end is not possible (e.g. infertility), marital relations may be had for the secondary ends. The principle is that the primary end can never be positively or willfully excluded while seeking the secondary ends, i.e. that the primary can never be made subordinate to the secondary (which is why IMO NFP is wrong, based on this teaching).
Under ordinary circuмstances the primary end shouldn't be subjugated. But in extraordinary circuмstances, with serious reasons, couples may practice periodical abstinence
-
Under ordinary circuмstances the primary end shouldn't be subjugated. But in extraordinary circuмstances, with serious reasons, couples may practice periodical abstinence
False. There's no exclusion in Pius XI's teaching for "extraordinary circuмstances". The burden is to explain with any particular practice how the primary end is not subordinated to the secondary. That has never been done for NFP. Closest anyone comes is to claim that this isn't the case if someone is "open to life" (code language for ... would not have an abortion if NFP failed). But one could say the same thing of someone who would not have an abortion after a child is conceived because of a faulty condom.
-
False. There's no exclusion in Pius XI's teaching for "extraordinary circuмstances". The burden is to explain with any particular practice how the primary end is not subordinated to the secondary. That has never been done for NFP. Closest anyone comes is to claim that this isn't the case if someone is "open to life" (code language for ... would not have an abortion if NFP failed). But one could say the same thing of someone who would not have an abortion after a child is conceived because of a faulty condom.
.
"Openness to life" is a post-conciliar concept introduced by Paul VI. Right or wrong, it's not something that has ever been commonly stipulated by the pre-conciliar theologians or popes who affirmed the morality of periodic continence.
.
The poster in question had the right conclusion but the wrong explanation, or at least a vague one. What does "subjugate" mean? In Casti Conubii, Pius XI taught that no reason excuses from the negative precept to not deliberately frustrate the marital act. This is in reference to contraceptive behavior, as is made clear by his simultaneous affirmation of the intrinsic morality of sterile relations precisely because they entail a due ordering of ends. At any rate, whatever the poster meant by "subjugate" it would not be correct to say that Pius XI made any exceptions to the necessary ordering of ends; he affirmed the morality of sterile relations (and periodic continence directly and specifically shortly after CC's publication) precisely because in such relations there was no intrinsic disordering. It's not an exception, it's a completely different thing.
.
The relevance of grave necessity is that grave necessity can excuse from affirmative precepts, like the precept to go out and multiply. A separate but contributive point to the morality of periodic continence.
-
NFP is a piece of junk, "we must perform on this day of the month", takes all the fun out of it. More importantly the woman naturally has no interest during those days. At best it is only an avenue of relief for the man. If there is danger of death to the woman, and the NFP method is used as an "escape valve", from total abstinence, maybe 6 times a year (that means having intercourse only 6 times in one year), it likely is not a very serious mortal sin? Maybe a venial sin? Anyhow, if practiced as I described, at most 6 times a year, it is a sacrifice in and of itself.
-
NFP is a piece of junk, "we must perform on this day of the month", takes all the fun out of it. More importantly the woman naturally has no interest during those days. At best it is an avenue of relief for the man. Practicing NFP is a sacrifice in and of itself. If their is danger of death to the woman, and the NFP method is used as an "escape valve", from total abstinence, maybe a 6 times a year, it likely is not a very serious mortal sin? Maybe a venial sin?
.
The popes and theologians who taught periodic continence (which is really its proper name, not NFP), Pope Pius XII most notably, were careful to point out that the mere presence of a sufficient reason is not enough to make its practice allowable; the motives of the couple must also be good (though if they are not, the unlawful use of periodic continence doesn't "become" contraception; it's a different type of sin, a sin against marriage as opposed to nature). The Novus Ordo practice of imposing NFP as though it's something that should indiscriminately be used flies in pretty stark contrast against what the pre-conciliar authorities taught.
-
Pope Pius XII most notably, were careful to point out that the mere presence of a sufficient reason is not enough to make its practice allowable; the motives of the couple must also be good
What are these good motives?
-
The “good motives” had to be agreed to by the couple’s priest and they couldn’t use “the rhythm method” (the pre-V2 term) without permission or they would commit sin.
-
Sorry Tradicahan, what I said was redundant. I meant to say that (Pope Pius XII said) the mere fact that periodic continence is not an offense against the nature of the marital act is not enough to "guarantee the rectitude of intention and the unobjectionable morality of the motives themselves" (from his address to the Italian Midwives). In other words it isn't enough that periodic continence isn't contraceptive-- its lawful use depends on a serious and legitimate reason, since there is a positive precept in marriage to multiply.
-
The “good motives” had to be agreed to by the couple’s priest and they couldn’t use “the rhythm method” (the pre-V2 term) without permission or they would commit sin.
.
Yes, it was typically the sort of thing that could not be undertaken unless and except the couple's pastor approved, and at that, at least one priest argued that the morally safest scenario would include a couple already known to be especially virtuous and pious. See Fr. Calkins (1948 ) article on the subject: https://sspx.org/en/nfp-unhappy-compromise
-
False. There's no exclusion in Pius XI's teaching for "extraordinary circuмstances". The burden is to explain with any particular practice how the primary end is not subordinated to the secondary. That has never been done for NFP. Closest anyone comes is to claim that this isn't the case if someone is "open to life" (code language for ... would not have an abortion if NFP failed). But one could say the same thing of someone who would not have an abortion after a child is conceived because of a faulty condom.
Why no exclusions or exceptions? Even before Pius XI couples were allowed to postpone sex to infertile periods. And Pius XII taught the same.
-
Why no exclusions or exceptions? Even before Pius XI couples were allowed to postpone sex to infertile periods. And Pius XII taught the same.
.
There are no exclusions or exceptions to negative precepts. Negative precepts are, as the name implies, precepts which instruct you not to do something. The proscription against sinning against the natural law (which is what contraception is) is not something that can ever be excused from, just as it can never be excused to sodomize, etc. The non-excluding nature of negative precepts is a very old principle, probably most popularized by Aquinas. It is crucial to moral philosophy in general.
.
But what is crucial in the discussion over periodic continence is that it (having sterile relations) simply isn't against the natural law. So it isn't included in the types of behaviors which would be condemned by Casti Conubii ("the pill", condoms, etc.). The marital act itself is conducted in the natural way which is what counts for purposes of evaluating its intrinsics, and intrinsics are what Pope Pius XI is talking about in Casti Conubii. There is no negative precept against periodic continence. What one is being excused from in the case of periodic continence is not the negative precept against contraception, but the positive precept to procreate. Positive precepts are distinguished from negative ones in that they command you to do something. E.g. "go to mass on Sundays." The nature of positive precepts is that they can, in principle, be dispensed with. As Aquinas says, they bind always but not in all cases. A serious enough reason can excuse someone from the duty to procreate ("be fruitful and multiply"), just as a serious enough reason can excuse someone from the duty to attend mass.
.
ETA: to be clear, you have the right conclusion (i.e., that periodic continence is lawful). It's just the way that you're getting there that doesn't work. It's not lawful because contraception is allowed in extreme situations, it's lawful (in brief) because it isn't contraception and because the duty to procreate can, for a sufficient reason, be dispensed from.
-
The “good motives” had to be agreed to by the couple’s priest and they couldn’t use “the rhythm method” (the pre-V2 term) without permission or they would commit sin.
What are these good motives for using NFP?
-
Sorry Tradicahan, what I said was redundant. I meant to say that (Pope Pius XII said) the mere fact that periodic continence is not an offense against the nature of the marital act is not enough to "guarantee the rectitude of intention and the unobjectionable morality of the motives themselves" (from his address to the Italian Midwives). In other words it isn't enough that periodic continence isn't contraceptive-- its lawful use depends on a serious and legitimate reason, since there is a positive precept in marriage to multiply.
Very few people will understand this language, it is not clear communication, you'll have to spell it out. I asked what are the "good" motives.
-
Under ordinary NO circuмstances can the primary end shouldn't be subjugated. (As in the case of contraception)
But in extraordinary circuмstances, with serious reasons, couples may practice periodical abstinence. (because this isn't contraception).
Conclusion: In the case of period abstinence, the primary purpose isn't subjugated, which is why it's allowed in extreme cases.
This is how Mithrandylan's excellent explanation affects your original statement.
-
What are these good motives for using NFP?
There are no virtuous motives for using NFP, if that's what you're asking. But there are "good" motives in the natural sense by using NFP (in extreme cases only). For example, if a woman's life would be in danger by having a pregnancy, then IN THEORY, a priest could give permission to practice NFP FOR A SPECIFIC TIME, in coordination with a doctor, so that the couple would not sin against chastity. In this case, the use of NFP could prevent death and mortal sin...only for a certain, specific time period.
-
Very few people will understand this language, it is not clear communication, you'll have to spell it out. I asked what are the "good" motives.
.
There's no exhaustive list but in general this is what Pope Pius XII mentioned:
"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." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12midwives.htm
.
Serious risk of death to the mother seems an obvious one. Or, if the family would literally become homeless if another mouth needed to be fed. As was mentioned earlier, it was not the sort of things couples could just "do"-- they would need to consult with their pastor so he could gauge their genuine need and also their disposition. Putting off procreation because you need a new yacht or because you don't want to cut cable are obviously not legitimate reasons.
-
... there are "good" motives in the natural sense by using NFP (in extreme cases only). For example, if a woman's life would be in danger by having a pregnancy, then IN THEORY, a priest could give permission to practice NFP FOR A SPECIFIC TIME, in coordination with a doctor, so that the couple would not sin against chastity. In this case, the use of NFP could prevent death and mortal sin...only for a certain, specific time period.
That's it then? That is the only good motive, averting death? Your time factor "only for a certain, specific time period" would not apply to a person in danger of death, since that danger remains for years (Elizabeth mother of St. John was in her 80's). You must have other "good" reasons in your list that are "only allowed for a certain, specific time period", please spell them all out.
-
.
There's no exhaustive list but in general this is what Pope Pius XII mentioned:
"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." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12midwives.htm
.
Serious risk of death to the mother seems an obvious one. Or, if the family would literally become homeless if another mouth needed to be fed. As was mentioned earlier, it was not the sort of things couples could just "do"-- they would need to consult with their pastor so he could gauge their genuine need and also their disposition. Putting off procreation because you need a new yacht or because you don't want to cut cable are obviously not legitimate reasons.
Pius XII was a door opener to Vatican II, the new mass and much more, I do not use him as a source for anything. If what you say is true, there must be other popes in the prior 1900+ years for you to quote. Please continue without Pius XII.
-
That's it then? That is the only good motive, averting death? Your time factor "only for a certain, specific time period" would not apply to a person in danger of death, since that danger remains for years (Elizabeth mother of St. John was in her 80's). You must have other "good" reasons in your list that are "only allowed for a certain, specific time period", please spell them all out.
I agree with you, I’m just pointing out what Pius XII said, which is not contrary to the natural law, even if it “toes the line”. The # of couples which would “qualify” to use Rhythm/NFP under Pius XII’s rules is EXTREMELY LOW. Much like the # of legitimate annulments which happened when the Church was orthodox was NEAR NIL. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t reasons for annulment nor for use of NFP.
-
This is how Mithrandylan's excellent explanation affects your original statement.
That makes a ton of sense. Thanks
-
#1) subjugated is the wrong word (it's subordinated)
#2) gratuitous assertion that periodic abstinence doesn't subordinate the primary end to the secondary is not proven
In deliberate "periodic" abstinence, the formal intent is to enjoy the secondary ends of marital relations while precluding the primary. Consequently, the secondary ends of marriage become the primary end.
One thing to keep in mind is that back in the day, the science of periodic abstinence was not established. Now they have it down to the point where it has the same rate of conception prevention as artificial birth control. That's also must be taken into account. It's one thing to make it "less likely" to conceive vs. making it practically impossible.
-
Agree. I assumed by periodic he meant a time period like 1-2 months (ie during Lent). NFP isn’t periodic, it’s scheduled, (this week, but not that week) which is why it’s wrong.
-
Pius XII was a door opener to Vatican II, the new mass and much more, I do not use him as a source for anything. If what you say is true, there must be other popes in the prior 1900+ years for you to quote. Please continue without Pius XII.
.
The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX (before Vatican I), the Holy Office of Pope Pius XI (who is responsible for Casti Conubii) both affirmed the morality of periodic continence. As has every theologian who's ever treated the issue. If you have a problem with Pope Pius XII over it you need to take it up with a hundred years worth of popes before him, including all the popes who didn't "correct" what you seem to regard as papal error, and who also failed to rebuke all of the theologians who agreed. The Church has affirmed the lawfulness of periodic continence since 1854. That's 1854. It's not a novelty, despite so many ill-informed traditionalists thinking otherwise.
.
-
#1) subjugated is the wrong word (it's subordinated)
.
If you're talking about the language of Casti Conubii, "subordinated" appears in the Pieran Press compilation of papal encyclicals (edited by Mrs. Curan, I believe, circa 1990). The passage you're referring to is probably this one, and this translation:
[Sterile relations are intrinsically lawful because] 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. (CC §59, link to Pieran Press translation (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm))
.
It sounds as though you are reading this as though subordination of ends is distinct from the preservation of the intrinsic nature of the act. However, this translation, while not awful, suffers when compared to the original Latin:
.
...dummodo salva semper sit intrinseca illius actus natura ideoque eius ad primarium finem debita ordinatio (AAS 22, 539)
.
A closer literal translation is what we find in Defararri in Denzinger, which is what preconciliar theologians relied on. The difference is subtle but significant:
.
[Sterile relations are intrinsically lawful because] in matrimony itself, as in the practice of the conjugal right, secondary ends are also considered, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which spouses are by no means forbidden to attempt, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is preserved, and so its due ordering is towards its primary end. (CC §59, Denzinger translation)
.
Neither the Latin nor the commonly used English translation makes the distinction between subordination and the preservation of the marital act's nature; rather, since the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, the ends are duly ordered. If there is doubt on this point, consult Fr. Vermeersch who ghost-wrote Casti Conubii:
.
As long as the act takes place normally it remains objectively directed toward its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. (What is Marriage? A Catechism arranged According to the Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1932, p. 44, emphasis added)
Barely two years after he wrote Casti Conubii, Pope Pius XI affirmed the (1880) Holy Office rulings of Pope Leo XIII affirming the morality of periodic continence. This would be a very curious act of approval if he meant what you think he means.
.
Now, of course the primary ends must be subordinated to the secondary ends-- we agree on this. My point is that Casti Conubii regards this subordination as manifest when the act occurs naturally. There is no distinction to be had between the intrinsic preservation of the act and the ordering of ends. They are one and the same. If the ends are properly ordered, it means the act is preserved, and if the act is preserved, it means the ends are ordered.
.
In deliberate "periodic" abstinence, the formal intent is to enjoy the secondary ends of marital relations while precluding the primary. Consequently, the secondary ends of marriage become the primary end.
.
I think you are skipping over the crucial distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic. Casti Conubii, when it teaches on marital relations, concerns itself very squarely with what is intrinsic to the act. Motives, intentions, and so forth are all extrinsic. Even if one is motivated insufficiently (for lawful use of periodic continence), the sin committed is not one against nature. That would be like saying if two couples had relations during fertile periods but one of them didn't want anymore children, that person sins against nature. I'm sure you realize that would be a silly thing to argue. Intentions, even if deplorable, have no bearing on intrinsics, nor could they. As to your comment about gratuitous assertions viz. periodic continence not being contraception, the assertions have not been gratuitous. Many reasons have been given.
.
-
.
The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX (before Vatican I), the Holy Office of Pope Pius XI (who is responsible for Casti Conubii) both affirmed the morality of periodic continence. As has every theologian who's ever treated the issue. If you have a problem with Pope Pius XII over it you need to take it up with a hundred years worth of popes before him, including all the popes who didn't "correct" what you seem to regard as papal error, and who also failed to rebuke all of the theologians who agreed. The Church has affirmed the lawfulness of periodic continence since 1854. That's 1854. It's not a novelty, despite so many ill-informed traditionalists thinking otherwise.
.
Let's speak so people can understand clearly. What is periodic continence? What does it entail, what does one do? We are talking about NFP here no? What does "the morality of periodic continence" have to do with NFP?
-
Periodic Continence is the term used in the theological literature in pre-conciliar times to describe what is also called "rhythm" in secular literature (the term "rhythm" is used in some theological literature, too) and which has become known more popularly, especially since Vatican II, as "NFP." I am sorry if that was unclear, although I did draw attention to the meaning of the term ("periodic continence") in an earlier post.
.
In terms of theoretical applications, there is no difference between periodic continence, rhythm, and NFP. All indicate the practice of abstaining from marital relations except during times of sterility.
.
While there is no intrinsic difference in the meaning of these three terms, there is quite a bit of accidental difference. NFP, as popularly conceived, describes the wholesale and indiscriminate (and even mandatory) teaching of periodic continence to prospective married couples, which is almost completely the opposite of the policy set by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, policies which were also set at diocesan levels and which forbade periodic continence from being taught publicly or favorably. It (periodic continence) was the sort of thing that could be used on a case by case basis, with the knowledge and approval of one's pastor, who would be able to assess whether or not the couple's motives and reasons were serious enough to suspend them from the obligation to procreate.
.
I have no defense, nor any interest in offering any defense, for this gross abuse the Novus Ordo practices. However, I have quite a bit of interest in defending all of the popes of the last hundred years, dating back to Pius IX, who all affirmed the lawfulness of periodic continence, as well as the popes who supervised the theologians who all taught that it was lawful.
.
I like to use the term periodic continence because a) that is it's proper name if we are to value tradition over novelty and b) it serves as a useful lingual tool to distinguish it from "NFP" since NFP is a term which elicits quite a few knee-jerk reactions which often prove difficult to overcome in these discussions.
.
I hope that clarifies some things for you.
-
NFP is very precise and if correctly used, the method is advertised to be as good as the pill. They say today that one is still open to life if they use NFP, but since it works as good as the pill, one could say the same about the pill, it is a big lie.
The rhythm method on the other hand was a 50/50 affair at best. Anyone in danger of death by pregnancy that used the rhythm method was really taking a chance. I’d call them nuts.
Two different animals.
-
As one who has practiced the sin of NFP in the past I challenge anyone who goes to the trouble of practicing it, in its increasingly scientific and technical forms to say in all conscience that they are in their hearts ‘open to life’ and that in the breaks in ‘periodic continence’ that the union between husband and wife is as God designed it !
No Christian wife and certainly no woman who calls herself a traditionalist Catholic can practice birth control, natural or otherwise without being aware that she is in sin. In marriage we surrender our womb to God.
-
Both of you have brought up openness to life, and I must confess to having no idea what this actually means. From Pius IX to Pius XII (that's a hundred years of papal teachings and theological explication on the issue) "openness to life" is never listed as a criteria for the lawful practice of periodic continence. It's a term that was introduced by Paul VI. I think at best it's fluff, at worst it's sentimental double speak. It's what you get when you abandon Thomism, objectivism, and the natural law. But perhaps one of you can better define and develop the term to make a case around it. Note that it'll be a case leveraging ideas introduced by the Novus Ordo against the teachings of orthodox popes and theologians from 1854-1958. So good luck :)
-
Right, most people who practice NFP, which has a high rate of success (like 99%) tell themselves, "Ok, God, I'm trying not to have children, but if you send me one i'll accept it." ...This helps to silence their conscience on the matter.
-
.
There are no exclusions or exceptions to negative precepts. Negative precepts are, as the name implies, precepts which instruct you not to do something. The proscription against sinning against the natural law (which is what contraception is) is not something that can ever be excused from, just as it can never be excused to sodomize, etc. The non-excluding nature of negative precepts is a very old principle, probably most popularized by Aquinas. It is crucial to moral philosophy in general.
.
But what is crucial in the discussion over periodic continence is that it (having sterile relations) simply isn't against the natural law. So it isn't included in the types of behaviors which would be condemned by Casti Conubii ("the pill", condoms, etc.). The marital act itself is conducted in the natural way which is what counts for purposes of evaluating its intrinsics, and intrinsics are what Pope Pius XI is talking about in Casti Conubii. There is no negative precept against periodic continence. What one is being excused from in the case of periodic continence is not the negative precept against contraception, but the positive precept to procreate. Positive precepts are distinguished from negative ones in that they command you to do something. E.g. "go to mass on Sundays." The nature of positive precepts is that they can, in principle, be dispensed with. As Aquinas says, they bind always but not in all cases. A serious enough reason can excuse someone from the duty to procreate ("be fruitful and multiply"), just as a serious enough reason can excuse someone from the duty to attend mass.
.
ETA: to be clear, you have the right conclusion (i.e., that periodic continence is lawful). It's just the way that you're getting there that doesn't work. It's not lawful because contraception is allowed in extreme situations, it's lawful (in brief) because it isn't contraception and because the duty to procreate can, for a sufficient reason, be dispensed from.
About the "negative" aspect: what about the 5th commandment? Thou shalt not kill? It's a negative one, and yet we all know it has exceptions.
-
About the "negative" aspect: what about the 5th commandment? Thou shalt not kill? It's a negative one, and yet we all know it has exceptions.
.
Not exactly. "Thou shalt not kill" is really "Thou shalt not murder." It has a more specific meaning than just generally not "killing." It is lawful for an individual to kill in self defense, but as St. Thomas explains it by the principle of double effect, such a killing is simply not murder because there is no intent to murder in such a case, merely to defend. If defense means inadvertently killing the person, that is OK-- it's not murder. Murder, properly-called, (which is what the commandment concerns itself with), is never permissible, ever.
-
.
Not exactly. "Thou shalt not kill" is really "Thou shalt not murder." It has a more specific meaning than just generally not "killing." It is lawful for an individual to kill in self defense, but as St. Thomas explains it by the principle of double effect, such a killing is simply not murder because there is no intent to murder in such a case, merely to defend. If defense means inadvertently killing the person, that is OK-- it's not murder. Murder, properly-called, (which is what the commandment concerns itself with), is never permissible, ever.
Ohh yea, you're right.
-
Right, most people who practice NFP, which has a high rate of success (like 99%) tell themselves, "Ok, God, I'm trying not to have children, but if you send me one i'll accept it." ...This helps to silence their conscience on the matter.
Yep. And if my condom fails, then I won't abort the child begotten as a result. So you can be "open to life" even with artificial contraception.
-
I'm glad someone brought up killing vs. murder.
In some circuмstances, killing can be morally justifiable and even morally required (to save the life of an innocent third party if possible). This means that killing is not intrinsically evil. It's the formal intent that determines the morality of the act.
Lots of people argue for NFP by saying that it's not intrinsically evil to have marital relations during infertile periods. This is true, but irrelevant. When there's the formal intent to restrict relations to ONLY the fertile periods, there's a formal intent to preclude the primary end of marital relations. So, like with killing, it's the formal intent that determines the morality of the act.
-
I'm glad someone brought up killing vs. murder.
In some circuмstances, killing can be morally justifiable and even morally required (to save the life of an innocent third party if possible). This means that killing is not intrinsically evil. It's the formal intent that determines the morality of the act.
Lots of people argue for NFP by saying that it's not intrinsically evil to have marital relations during infertile periods. This is true, but irrelevant. When there's the formal intent to restrict relations to ONLY the fertile periods, there's a formal intent to preclude the primary end of marital relations. So, like with killing, it's the formal intent that determines the morality of the act.
.
There's formal intent not to conceive, surely. Which is in part one of the reasons the idea of periodic continence being lawful on the conditions that the unions are "open to life" seems so silly. Again, "openness to life" is Paul VI's idea. It's not found in Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI, or Pius XII-- all popes who affirmed the morality of periodic continence and who supervised a body of theologians who taught the same.
.
But it's a logical leap to go from "formal intent not to conceive" to "it's contraception." We have a formal intent not to conceive every time we're not having sex (i.e., there's nothing intrinsically wrong with not wanting to conceive). Recall in my other reply to you I pointed out the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic, and how intentions are extrinsic while Casti Conubii is concerned very explicitly only with what is intrinsic to the act. So are you still arguing that periodic continence is contraception, or are you arguing that it's sinful for a different reason?
-
So are you still arguing that periodic continence is contraception, or are you arguing that it's sinful for a different reason?
NFP is called "catholic contraception" for a reason, because the INTENT of NFP is the same as contraception - to avoid children. This is why NFP is wrong - the intent is to subvert the purpose of relations.
Secondly, it is false to call NFP 'periodic continence'; this term means the same thing as "abstinence" and refers to a voluntary celibacy of the couple. It would be better to call NFP "STRATEGIC continence" for the couple using it is PURPOSEFULLY trying to avoid children by using science to avoid God's command to bear children.
-
NFP is called "catholic contraception" for a reason, because the INTENT of NFP is the same as contraception - to avoid children. This is why NFP is wrong - the intent is to subvert the purpose of relations.
Secondly, it is false to call NFP 'periodic continence'; this term means the same thing as "abstinence" and refers to a voluntary celibacy of the couple. It would be better to call NFP "STRATEGIC continence" for the couple using it is PURPOSEFULLY trying to avoid children by using science to avoid God's command to bear children.
.
As to the nomenclature, you'll have to take it up with literally all of pre-conciliar Catholic theology. I didn't make up the term. The Novus Ordo made up the term "NFP" just like they make up a lot of terms, no doubt because they realize that what they're teaching-- or at least how they're teaching it-- is something different.
.
Yes, periodic continence is used to avoid having children. You must have missed the part where it can be lawful to not have children. Even when you're married. Check the last two pages, we just covered all of that. Positive versus negative precepts. There are conditions under which the precept to procreate can be suspended, just as there are conditions under which the precept to go to mass can be suspended.
.
And I don't understand why you only quoted that one question of mine, since you didn't actually answer it (you're of course free to, even though it was addressed to Ladislaus).
-
Mith, I'm not arguing with you. And yes, I did answer the question. Periodic contraception is not wrong because we're arguing it's contraception; it's wrong because the intent is to SYSTEMATICALLY and STRATEGICALLY have relations while avoiding children. Unless one has permission from their priest for some grave reason, then it's wrong. NFP, as it's practiced today by most couples, is 'catholic contraception'.
-
Mith, I'm not arguing with you. And yes, I did answer the question. Periodic [continence] is not wrong because we're arguing it's contraception; it's wrong because the intent is to SYSTEMATICALLY and STRATEGICALLY have relations while avoiding children. Unless one has permission from their priest for some grave reason, then it's wrong. NFP, as it's practiced today by most couples, is 'catholic contraception'.
.
Alright, yes, I certainly agree that periodic continence is unlawful without a sufficient (i.e. grave) reason. And that "NFP" is aptly and colloquially dubbed "Catholic contraception." Sorry, thanks for the clarification.
-
Positive versus negative precepts. There are conditions under which the precept to procreate can be suspended, just as there are conditions under which the precept to go to mass can be suspended.
.
And I don't understand why you only quoted that one question of mine, since you didn't actually answer it (you're of course free to, even though it was addressed to Ladislaus).
Of course there's not an absolute precept to have children. One could in fact abstain from marital relations by mutual consent for various just reasons ... e.g. for spiritual reasons, penance, etc. Under those conditions, one would not be procreating. But that's a separate issue.
What we're talking about is engaging in marital relations for the secondary ends of marriage (to be generous, because it's most often just for pleasure) while deliberately attempting to preclude the primary end. That is the disorder condemned by Pius XI.
Pius XI laid down two conditions, 1) that the inherent potential of the act itself cannot be deliberately frustrated (i.e. ruling out contraceptives of any kind) and 2) that the primary end can never be subordinated to the secondary ends (ruling out modern NFP at least).
Pius XII in his Allocution cited #1 but omitted #2. He was clearly not teaching anything authoritatively, and certainly not to the Universal Church ... as his language was filled with references to these "theories", and so it's obvious he's merely speculating. Beside that, as has been pointed out, rhythm back then was a 50-50 proposition at best, so it simply made conception LESS likely, whereas modern NFP is touted to be as effective as artificial birth control.
-
Pius XI laid down two conditions, 1) that the inherent potential of the act itself cannot be deliberately frustrated (i.e. ruling out contraceptives of any kind) and 2) that the primary end can never be subordinated to the secondary ends (ruling out modern NFP at least).
.
I addressed this in my previous reply to you (reply no. 32) https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/questions-on-sex-and-specifically-the-role-of-procreation/msg630779/#msg630779
.
Those are my reasons for not regarding the distinction as valid or based in Pius XI's teaching. What is your rebuttal to my reasons?
-
Mith, if a couple practices NFP "naturally" are you arguing that Pius XI said that the ends are ordered, so there is no intrinsic sin? Based on your comments in reply 32, it seems you are. And I would agree.
However, if a couple is practicing NFP to avoid children, without grave reason, then EXTRINSICALLY, they are sinning. Doesn't matter if their intrinsic relations are moral; their external motives are immoral.
Eating meat is not an immoral act. If I eat meat on Good Friday, without a grave reason, I sin due to the motive of laziness or of ignoring the Church's laws. Circuмstances/motives can change a moral/neutral act into an immoral one.
-
Mith, if a couple practices NFP "naturally" are you arguing that Pius XI said that the ends are ordered, so there is no intrinsic sin? Based on your comments in reply 32, it seems you are. And I would agree.
.
You've got it in a nutshell. What Pope Pius actually says-- if you compare the Latin to the traditional English translation found in pre-conciliar Denzinger and used by the theologians-- is that if the act is performed naturally, then the ends are duly ordered. The two go hand in hand with the one following from the other, they're not two separate conditions like Ladislaus is contending (but in his defense, I think he's basing his reading off of a translation which could be read that way, he didn't make it up out of whole cloth).
.
However, if a couple is practicing NFP to avoid children, without grave reason, then EXTRINSICALLY, they are sinning. Doesn't matter if their intrinsic relations are moral; their external motives are immoral.
.
If they lack a sufficient reason to use it, then they sin, just like if you lack a sufficient reason to miss mass, you sin (this is the common thread in all positive precepts: when you're commanded to do something, you sin in not doing it unless you have a sufficient reason not to).
.
The whole reason I was talking about intrinsic/extrinsic was to help illustrate that whatever periodic continence is, it isn't forbidden by Pius XI's Casti Conubii, since Casti Conubii only concerns itself with what is intrinsic to the act (i.e., onanism and contraception proper). This is a point which is less relevant at this stage of the conversation (at least between you and I, since we seem to agree on it) but which was relevant earlier when at least to me it sounded as though some people were arguing that periodic continence is condemned in Casti Conubii. It isn't. Which doesn't (by itself) prove that its lawful, but disarms the most common argument that it's unlawful, for sure.
.
-
To sum up, we can say that NFP/periodic continence is not against the natural law.
But, the purpose/intent of NFP/periodic continence is what determines its morality. Without grave reason, its use is just as immoral as contraception (i.e. both are mortal sins).
-
To sum up, we can say that NFP/periodic continence is not against the natural law.
But, the purpose/intent of NFP/periodic continence is what determines its morality. Without grave reason, its use is just as immoral as contraception (i.e. both are mortal sins).
.
Yup. I'm not sure that it would always be a mortal sin to abuse it (not that that makes it advisable-- we must avoid all sin in any event, I'm just not personally sure if it would always be a mortal sin). It easily could be and probably would usually be, just looking at face value.
-
Now, of course the primary ends must be subordinated to the secondary ends-- we agree on this. My point is that Casti Conubii regards this subordination as manifest when the act occurs naturally. There is no distinction to be had between the intrinsic preservation of the act and the ordering of ends. They are one and the same. If the ends are properly ordered, it means the act is preserved, and if the act is preserved, it means the ends are ordered.
I think you are skipping over the crucial distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic. Casti Conubii, when it teaches on marital relations, concerns itself very squarely with what is intrinsic to the act. Motives, intentions, and so forth are all extrinsic. Even if one is motivated insufficiently (for lawful use of periodic continence), the sin committed is not one against nature.
With all due respect, this is complete nonsense.
First, I suspect it was just a typo when you wrote that "of course the primary ends must be subordinated to the secondary ends". Presumably you mean the other way around.
[Mith:] "Motives, intentions, and so forth are all extrinsic. Even if one is motivated insufficiently ..., the sin committed is not one against nature."
So what if the sin committed isn't against nature? Of course, to a degree, any subordination of the primary end is "against nature" to some extent, since the naturally-intended end of the act is procreation. But, the term contra naturam isn't applied strictly this way. So what? Unmarried couples who fornicate also do not sin against nature (in this sense), but they sin mortally nonetheless.
Certainly the relations that takes place in the context of NFP are not against nature.
But I've already addressed this. We're human beings, not animals, and our intentions clearly inform the morality of our actions. Morality is primarily in the intellect and will. Our Lord taught precisely this when He said that the man who lusts after a woman commits adultery in his heart. If I pocket a $100 bill that belongs to someone else, thinking mistakenly that it's mine, I commit no sin ... even though objectively (intrinsically speaking) I have committed theft. Conversely, if I pocket a $100 bill that in fact belongs to me, thinking mistakenly that it belongs to someone else, I commit a grave sin. Motives have everything to do with the morality of our actions.
Here are the ends that a couple might intend or seek or pursue in marital relations:
I) Procreation
II) Secondary Ends (mutal affection, allaying of concupiscence, etc.)
III) Carnal Pleasure
There are many venial-sin degrees of subordination, where people might be "insufficiently motivated" to use your term.
It's a rare thing for a couple to have perfect motivation which would be: "We are doing this primarily to have children, but in doing this together it also happens that we grow closer to each other, and the pleasure is part of that closeness and the act of procreation itself." That doesn't happen too often, only in the case of the great saints, such as Sts. Joachim and Ann in conceiving Our Lady.
Most couples are primarily thinking of end II or even end III. Depending on the degree of disorder, we're talking about imperfection or varying degrees of venial sin. But there's a whole continuum of imperfection and even sin here.
But even when a couple are entirely focused on III and give I and II no thought whatsoever, perhaps considering II a consequence of III, there isn't grave sin there.
Why? Because there's still the principled virtual intention present in the intellect and will by virtue of the fact that the couple know they're married and lawfully engaging in marital relations, the primary end of which is to conceive children. Similarly, a priest can be said to have a virtual intention when consecrating during Mass. He doesn't have to explicitly think the proposition: "I hereby intend to consecrate this bread." He has virtual intention because he knows in his intellect that he's offering Mass, during which transubstantiation happens as a result of his saying the words of consecration. Same kind of thing happens with a married couple in the heat of passion when they're not giving the primary end a second thought. Now, a husband could even, for example, think, "boy, I really hope she doesn't get pregnant, because that would be hard for us financially right now" -- and not commit a mortal sin. This would be a graver degree of venial sin, but in his intellect he still acknowledges ... and does not actively prevent ... the primary end, even if emotionally he doesn't want it. Similarly, I could get up on Sunday morning really tired and say, "I really don't feel like going to Mass." ... but then you go anyway because in your intellect and will you intend to meet your obligation, even if you don't particularly like doing it that day. In fact, there could be greater merit in that than if you go because you are just loving the experience. BECAUSE human actions are informed of their morality in terms of the intellect and will, rather than the emotions.
Even if an infertile couple have relations or a fertile couple have relations in an infertile time, they still intellectually acknowledge and accept in principle that the primary end of the activity is procreation ... even if that end is not possible to ACHIEVE or to actualize for them. You could have a couple intending procreation but not have it work out for them at any given time. They still INTENDED the end, at least in principle, even if they could not attain it in actu.
None of these types of examples you cited has any bearing on the morality of NFP. With NFP, unlike all these scenarios, where the motivation or intention is either imperfect, present only virtually, or partially disordered (to the extent of venial sin), the couple actively rejects and seeks/intends to thwart the primary end. This is a completely different animal than these other situations. You're rejecting it in your intellect and will and actively attempting to exclude it. That entails a mortally sinful rejection of the primary end. You are seeking the secondary ends (or usually just mere carnal pleasure) TO THE POSITIVE EXCLUSION of the primary. That's mortal sin. It's one thing for the primary intention to be lacking (to a degree) negatively, as long as it's present virtually (in the intellect and will), but quite another thing when a couple intends to exclude it completely.
And that's where we address the 1880 Holy Office ruling. Recall that rhythm in the day meant a lower likelihood of conception and not a complete elimination of the possibility. Consequently, it's a venial-sin degree of insubordination that the Holy Office stated could be tolerated (very carefully, under strict circuмstances, so as never to give the impression of allowing a lesser evil in the prevention of a greater) ... a matter to be handled very delicately by Confessors in the case of someone who might otherwise practice Onanism. If it were not sinful to a degree, there would be no need for the advice of caution and delicacy in allowing the practice. But lessening the likelihood of conception entails a PARTIAL rather than COMPLETE (therefore a venially-sinful vs. mortally-sinful) subordination of the primary end. With NFP we're talking about its elimination.
-
To sum up, we can say that NFP/periodic continence is not against the natural law.
But, the purpose/intent of NFP/periodic continence is what determines its morality. Without grave reason, its use is just as immoral as contraception (i.e. both are mortal sins).
I'll get back to this another time, but I do not even accept a "grave reason" exception to the rule, for that would be an end justifies the means ... another reason I don't buy the reasoning of Pius XII. There has to be a demonstration of how in a grave circuмstance the principle no longer holds. One cannot set aside the principle in an exception. Why? Because it's harder to uphold then? That's like saying you can't commit a mortal sin but it's OK if you're doing it to save your job or save your life ... end justifies the means. You have to explain how those circuмstances affect the actual nature of the activity so that it has somehow taken on a different moral aspect. I don't see it with the NFP "grave reason" exception.
-
I agree with you. I was just using the “common understanding” of what Pius XII said. I think that these “grave reasons” were a type of “sentimental theology” watering-down of the natural law, just like “invincible ignorance” is a watering-down of EENS for emotional reasons.
-
With all due respect, this is complete nonsense.
--snipped--
.
I think that's dramatically overstating the point. I provided quite a bit of evidence to support my view. It might be wrong but it's hardly nonsense, nevermind of the "complete" variety.
.
On the whole issue of subordinating ends, you've not addressed my central assertion which is that the subordination is manifest when the act occurs naturally. The subordination which Pius XI insists upon is a subordination of intrinsic ends, while the entirety of your argument is about the subordination of extrinsic ends. So while you're "using the language" you're using it in a way that none of the theological material does. I don't think you should even use the word subordinate to describe what you're arguing, given it etymologically suggests a proper ordering, while what you're talking about is probably better described as "mental prioritization." At any rate, I'd like to see you support your view rather than just assert it. That would make for a more commensurate exchange.
.
I do agree-- just to assure you-- that in principle, motives can be more or less noble and that they can even be sinful.
-
On the whole issue of subordinating ends, you've not addressed my central assertion which is that the subordination is manifest when the act occurs naturally. The subordination which Pius XI insists upon is a subordination of intrinsic ends, while the entirety of your argument is about the subordination of extrinsic ends.
There's only ONE intrinsic end of the physical activity, not multiple ends. That's why I said this was nonsense. There's no other intrinsic end for this to be subordinated to. Clearly he's speaking about the extrinsic ends (the formal motive). When he listed the secondary ends, they were all extrinsic ends. So the discussion of subordination clearly involves the extrinsic ends.
That's why there are TWO principles ...
1) the inherent potential of the action (i.e. the intrinsic end) ... the material act
2) the subordination of ends (secondary to the primary extrinsic) ... the formal motives
Primary formal motive lines up wit the intrinsic end of procreation. Secondary formal motives are only extrinsic.
Just because someone will to allow the act to have its natural completion does not mean that he does not will to frustrate the PURPOSE behind this natural completion, the formal motive, which is procreation. Genital organs have no intellect or will, and can therefore neither sin nor be virtuous. That's all in the intentions.
-
Lad, I get your argument. I anticipated everything you're saying several pages ago and gave an argument which I believe is supported by the relevant material. I'd like to know what your rebuttal is to my objection. Here it is again: https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/questions-on-sex-and-specifically-the-role-of-procreation/msg630779/#msg630779
-
Lad, I get your argument. I anticipated everything you're saying several pages ago and gave an argument which I believe is supported by the relevant material.
You did nothing of the sort. At this point in the argument, you need to explain how the subordination of ends refers to the intrinsic end when there's only one intrinsic end.
I countered your position with this argument, and instead of addressing it, you simply refer back to your original argument.
-
You did nothing of the sort. At this point in the argument, you need to explain how the subordination of ends refers to the intrinsic end when there's only one intrinsic end.
I countered your position with this argument, and instead of addressing it, you simply refer back to your original argument.
.
The reason it is important for you to respond is that I deny your premise (i.e., that CC conditions the lawfulness of relations on the two principles you've laid out). I deny it based on what the encyclical says both in Latin and English, as well as the explanations of the docuмent from the man who drafted it. Moving forward when you've not sufficiently defended the premise would be a mistake.
.
If you want to continue arguing that two principles exist then you need to prove it. Quote CC where it agrees with you, or quote something else. Give me some reason to accept the premise besides your say-so.