Penitentiary goes Planned Parenthood?

 

"NFP" is as old as the hills, and has always been condemned by the Catholic Church because the essence of marriage has procreation alone as it's primary natural purpose.

In the Old Testament, God warned husbands to consider their wives “unclean” (and therefore legally unapproachable) for the duration of her menstrual period and for the following seven days (Leviticus 15:28). The twelfth day, as we now know, is often the day of ovulation ... In other words, the Jewish law is a prescription for optimum fertility for most couples.

In 388, St. Augustine charged, in his 

Morals of the Manichees

"Is it not you who used to warn us to watch, as much as we could, the time after purification of the menses, when a woman is likely to conceive, and at that time refrain from intercourse?" This eminent “Doctor of Grace” further argued against these heretics that “there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; consequently, neither is there a wife”; therefore, he declared that such a union “makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress.” Pius XI repeats St. Augustine's words on December 31, 1930 in his encyclical Casti Connubii #65.

Meanwhile, because of  the advancement of more precise fertility knowledge, in 1853, the Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary:

“[Q.] Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?”

On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary answered as follows:

“[A.] Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.” 

Obviously, this response is not meant to condemn artificial contraception yet endorse NFP, because artificial contraception is not needed when "conception cannot occur." The response simply indicates that it is not against nature to use marriage when conception cannot occur, but it is against nature to take measures to avoid/thwart/exclude/impede conception. This is articulated in Casti Connubii 59: "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...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.." ..the marriage act [] will always be evil unless it be excused by [offspring]." Aquinas/Summa q. 49 Art 5. 

To "impede conception" is to subordinate the primary purpose of the act. So, the infertile window can be used as long as conception remains the primary purpose, not the purpose being avoided. The decree does not mention any specific type of impediment. It condemns all impediments, including deliberately-timed infertility.

 The 1853 response says that no action may be taken by the spouses that would impede conception: The goal of NFP is to impede conception via timing when the spouses engage in their carefully-timed marital act. The purpose of NFP is "to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result." Humanae Vitae 16.

 The 1853 response said they can abstain from fertile relations if they have legitimate reason to do so, so long as that reason is not to avoid conception. This motive is not mentioned in the 1853 question and is even condemned in the last sentence, which says, “providing that they [spouses] do nothing to impede conception.” This is because "increase and multiply" is nature, not duty. There is obligation to produce children.

In 1880, NFP advocates tried again, this time with an overt purpose requested - to avoid "having numerous children."

Fr. Le Conte submitted the following questions to the Sacred Penitentiary in 1880:

“[Q.] Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?

“Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him, or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?”

The response of the Sacred Penitentiary dated June 16, 1880, was:

“[A.] Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”

1. There is no sin in having marital relations during known infertile periods, provided conception is not avoided deliberately.

2. The response does not permit NFP for spouses who shrink from having numerous children, but only for the sin of Onanism.

The second part of the response which supports NFP only allows it in case of Onanism: “...and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.” The only permitted use of NFP, according to this response, would be if the husband obstinately commits the sin of Onanism. If not, the confessor cannot even suggest the use of NFP. This is articulated in Casti Connubii 59."Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order (secondary over primary). In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin." #59 is not referring to artificial contraception as decreed by the Sacred Penitentiary in 1916.

VADEMECUM FOR THE USE OF CONFESSORS 1997

13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive [conjugal] act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

1. when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47

2. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;

3. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).

(47) 3 Cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 2795, 3634.

NFP/Onanism is not "already illicit" like artificial contraception is, so it can be tolerated initially, but rejected as sin finally. Footnote 47 is to the Sacred Penitentiary rulings above. There can be no cooperation with the sin of artificial contraception. There can be cooperation with the sin of NFP.

Casti Connubii 53-54 "Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good." Pius XII adds "Spouses, who make use of their matrimonial rights, have the positive obligation, by virtue of the natural law of their state, not to exclude procreation." 1958 International society of Hematology. "

Conclusion: the responses of the Sacred Penitentiary allow for the infertile only window when the reason thereof is circumstantial, and not purposed to avoid pregnancy. If the couple is avoiding pregnancy through complete continence, yet one spouse pursues Onanism, then said [NFP] window can be "reluctantly allowed" by the innocent spouse. However, said innocent spouse must "not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin" (of the perversion of the right order -- seeking the secondary end of marriage independent of the primary). St. Alphonsus Liguori: Counseling the Penitent:    "It is lawful to persuade to a lesser evil, if otherwise he is already determined to execute a greater. The reason is that then the one persuading does not seek evil, but good, namely, the choice of the lesser evil". This is why the sin of Onan is improved by the lesser sin of NFP. To quote St Francis de sales: sometimes it kills it effectually by mortal sin, as when the order appointed for the procreation of children is violated and perverted; in which case according as one departs more or less from it, the sins are more or less abominable, but always mortal :

"During Pregnancy Is Gay"

 

Here's why. The only essential purpose of the conjugal act is procreation. Obviously during pregnancy, the essential purpose cannot be considered. "both in marriage itself and in the use of matrimonial law, secondary ends are also contained, such as mutual help and mutual affection to be fomented and the quiet of concupiscence, ends which the spouses are not prohibited from wanting, provided that it is the intrinsic nature of the act is always respected and, consequently, its subordination to the main purpose." Casti Connubii (Latin translation). Therefore, nature is offended by relations during pregnancy.  it is unnatural and unreasonable to sow one’s seed when one “awaits the harvest.”

Athenagoras the Athenian “After throwing the seed into the ground, the farmer awaits the harvest. He does not sow more seed on top of it. Likewise, to us the procreation of children is the limit of our indulgence in appetite.”

 St. Clement of Alexandria “To…a spiritual man, after conception, his wife is as a sister and is treated as if of the same father.”

St. Augustine, in his book On The Good of Marriage (A.D. 401), likewise agreed with the Church’s tradition that performing the marital act during pregnancy is unreasonable and unnatural since “necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children] no longer follows reason but lust…” (Section 11) He also taught that marital relations during pregnancy “are the sins of the married persons themselves, not the fault of marriage.”

"the desire for union does not prevail, but ceases when there is no prospect of generation.” (St. Augustine, Against Julian, Book III, Chapter 21:43) Thus the conception of children is “the one alone worthy fruit… of the sexual intercourse.” (St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Section 1)

St. Ambrose: "For even the young who temper their hearts to prudence by divine fear, generally renounce the works of youth when progeny [offspring] have been received. And is this remarkable for man, if beasts mutely speak a zeal for generating, not a desire for copulating? Indeed, once they know the womb is filled, and the seed received by the generative soil, they no longer indulge in intercourse or the wantonness of love, but they take up parental care. Yet men spare neither the embryo nor God. They contaminate the former and exasperate the latter. "

"even in the elements and the beasts it is a shame to nature not to cease from generating.” - St. Ambrose

"even these acts themselves are performed to the glory of God if they are attended to with a view to posterity [offspring] alone.” - Origen

"..only for the love of posterity" (Tobias 8:9)

"I would like to know, dearly beloved, what kind of a harvest a man could gather if he sowed his field in one year as often as he is overcome by dissipation and abuses his wife without any desire for children. If those who are unwilling to control themselves plowed and sowed repeatedly their land which was already sown, let us see in what kind of fruit they would rejoice. As you well know, no land can produce proper fruit if it is sown frequently in one year. Why, then, does a man do with his body what he does not want done with his field?” St. Caesarius of Arles

If NFP-ers seek self-control and discipline, look no further.

"Married people, then, must mutually abstain...after the wife has conceived he shall not have intercourse with her until she has borne her child, and they shall come together again for this purpose, as saith the Apostle. But if they shall fulfill this instruction, then they are worthy of the body of Christ… and there they shall receive the thirty-fold fruit which as the Savior relates in the Gospel, he has also plucked for married people." St. Finnian of Clonard

"It is lawful for you to take sensual pleasures only from your wife in order to beget legitimate offspring, for only these pleasures are lawful according to the Word.." St Clement of Alexandria

"continence after conception preserves the fruit of the womb from many sinful impulses" Anne Catherine Emmerich

“Men shall be… lovers of pleasure more than of God.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

"But the act of fornication is always evil. Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused by the aforesaid goods [begetting children, or of paying the debt]. - Aquinas

 St. Bridget was allowed to communicate with this tormented soul. She asked the man about the specific reasons why he escaped Eternal Hell. He answered saying: “The third [reason I escaped being eternally condemned to burn in Hell] is that I obeyed my teacher who advised me to abstain from my wife’s bed when I understood that she was pregnant.” (The Revelations of St. Bridget

"[Our Lord] rigorously commanded perfect continence after the period of conception." Anne Catherine Emmerich

Aquinas says the husband has no right to the debt during menses because there is no good of children in view. Marriage contract rights are only for "acts suitable for the generation of children."

My understanding is that if there is no remedy for one's concupiscence at these times (pregnancy/menses) that is can be allowed. I think venial sin though - gotta research.

“Those who have intercourse with the pregnant are murderers. I do not want the work of a man and woman to take place from the time when the root of a little child has already been placed in a woman, lest the development of that little child be polluted by excessive and wasted semen” St. Hildegard, doctor of the Church

Casti Connubii 59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order [NFP/ "during pregnancy"]. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. 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." "During pregnancy" is acting against nature because it is neither defect, nor "time" (menopause). The right order is procreation purposed first, and secondary ends dependent thereon.

This blogpost is primarily my summation from a much longer article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c6F6ac7tPNQgBetg0Aojyjz1833JzaB2krzvGvWASj0/edit?usp=sharing

Coexist with contraception?

 

Any priest will tell you that if one spouse imposes contraception on the marriage, the innocent spouse may passively cooperate provided they inform the other of the sin. Previous Church promulgations are cited, especially the the Holy See's Vademecum For Confessors - 1997. It is taught to all seminarians that for grave cause, the VFC permits reluctant cooperation w/ the sin of contraception by the innocent spouse.

Lie too big to fail? The VFC describes the conjugal act as the "unitive act." The cooperation w/ contraception is justified today by classifying contraceptive relations as "marital relations." This is accomplished by de facto making the "unitive aspect" the primary purpose of the act. Thus contraceptive acts are "not already illicit," but become so after procreation is thwarted.

The text of the VFC states  "This cooperation can be licit when...the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself; 47."

47 footnotes to Denzinger 2795 and 3634 which is

 Holy Office of April 19, 1853: 

 Q. “whether a wife can be knowingly passive in condomistic intercourse” 

A. “negative; for it would be an involvement in something intrinsically unlawful”

This means that any act which is intrinsically unlawful can never be cooperated with, because said act is "already illicit." 

One example of an act which is not already illicit would be the sin of Onan, because it begins naturally, but ends unnaturally.

Sacred Penitentiary April 3rd, 1916 regarding the imposed sin of Onan on the wife.

"..on her part she addresses herself to a lawful thing and

action, she is but permitting the sin of the husband for a serious cause which

excuses her:"

This means for grave cause she can reluctantly permit the sin of Onan because it is initiated as a "lawful thing." It is not "already illicit," but only concludes illicit.

The Vademecum For Confessors condemns any cooperation with contraception if procreation is the primary purpose of the act. The VFC allows (wink) cooperation with contraception if "love" is the primary purpose of the conjugal act.

 "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children." Casti Connubii 17

 "The primary end of marriage is "to express a most profound spiritual communion through the body." Christopher West. 

Catholics can never cooperate with contraception because it is "already illicit" since procreation is primary. Modernists can reluctantly cooperate with contraception because to them it is "not already illicit" since they say love is primary.

Last nail in the NFP coffin

Game over. Check mate. Irrefutable proof that NFP is condemned by the Church.

The 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii #59 speaks of the marital act:

 "Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin."

This "perversion of the right order" mentioned is not, and cannot be referring to artificial contraception.

Here's why. Contraception is intrinsically evil and can never be cooperated with, participated in, or allowed under any circumstances. 

Consider this judgement by the Holy Office from April 19, 1853.

Can a wife be knowingly passive in condomistic intercourse?

Response: Negative; for it would be an

involvement in something intrinsically unlawful.

Any method of artificially thwarting the

telos of the act (procreation) is evil

because it renders the act "non marital"

and violates it's intrinsic nature. For

an act to be "marital," it must be

"suitable for the generation of children."

100% of contraception is unsuitable,

so it can never be tolerated by the

innocent spouse.

OK, but NFP is "natural." Fine - hold on.

What is "the perversion of the right

order?" It is the subordinating of

procreation to the secondary ends

of the conjugal act. Q.What "sin"

can the wife allow in CC 59? A. Onanism.

This is because Onanism is not immediately

illicit, but becomes so upon completion.

It is natural in execution, and unnatural in conclusion.

April 3, 1916 Sacred Penitentiary:

"Question: Whether a woman can lawfully

cooperate with a husband who, that

he may indulge in pleasure, wishes to

commit the crime of Onan or of the

Sodomites, and who threatens her

under the pain of death or grave

troubles, unless she complies?

Response: a) If in the use of marriage

the husband wishes to commit the

crime of Onan, namely, by losing his

seed outside the vas after intercourse

has begun, and likewise threatens his

wife with death or grave troubles,

unless she conform to his perverse

wishes, according to the opinion of

approved theologians the wife may

lawfully have intercourse with her

husband in this

case: to be sure, since on her part

she addresses herself to a lawful

thing and action, she is but permitting

the sin of the husband for a serious

cause which excuses her: since

charity, by which she is bound to

impede the sin, does not

oblige in so great inconvenience."

CC 59 is repeating this ruling when it says "for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order."

In 1997, the Pontifical Council for the Family promulgated the Vademecum for Confessors.

Directly addressing our question, section 3:13:1 of the VFC states: "Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund...This cooperation can be licit when...the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself."

IOW, only deliberate "natural" infecundity can be reluctantly allowed by the innocent spouse, because to passively allow artificial contraception would be "already [immediately] illicit" and forbidden as non-marital. 

So we have established conclusively that contraception can never, under any circumstances, be passively, reluctantly cooperated with, and that Onanism can be reluctantly cooperated with, because it is not initially unnatural. However, all measures which are taken to render the act infecund, are grave sin.

So how does this pertain to NFP? CC 59 "Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order."

If the only sin which SHE can tolerate is onanism, what is the only sin that HE can tolerate?

Answer? NFP! The reason is because NFP, like onanism, is natural in execution - unnatural in conclusion (infecund). We know that CC 59 cannot be referring to artificial contraception, so that leaves only the natural perversion of the right order, aka NFP. CC 54 "the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children." So when timing is used to render that conjugal act infecund (onanism or NFP), this sin can be tolerated because it is not "already illicit" (not immediately, but finally). The innocent spouse must communicate in charity to the guilty spouse that such infertility timing is grave sin. 

The only way NFP flies today is by turning marriage on it's head and placing life at the service of love. If we can create a new essence of marriage based on love, then contraception is not immediately illicit, because then a "marital act" is redefined as suitable for the generation of love, with children being a secondary, dependent end on the primary and independent end, which would be love. Enter Vatican II: "Marriage...is not instituted solely for procreation." GS 50

Wrong! The conjugal act has only one instituted purpose, with other secondary purposes. When the secondary are made "institutional" purposes, procreation automatically becomes a secondary purpose because love is 24/7/365 but fertility is intermittent.

Everything "trans" today is simply a redefinition of nature (essence) which has it's genesis in modernism obfuscating marriage law to allow primary infecundity. Pius XII was the first to do this in his 1951 address to Italian Midwives. Ironically, Pius XII stated via his Holy Office decree of 1944 that making infecundity primary was a "revolutionary way of thinking and speaking [which] aims to foster errors and uncertainties."

In summary, NFP cannot be Catholic because Casti Connubii 59 says that the husband can reluctantly tolerate the sin (perversion of the right order) of the wife, and said sin cannot be contraception because contraception violates intrinsic nature, and is never to be cooperated with per the Holy Office, Sacred Penitentiary and Vademecum for Confessors. The only perversion of the right order (secondary over primary) remaining is calendar infertility aka NFP; and Casti Connubii says that this is a sin. One must either must trans essence and create a new hierarchy of ends, or abandon NFP as simply organic contraception. Vatican II did it's best to eliminate the hierarchy of ends, but no pope can change the essence of marriage.

                                             Counterarguments encouraged.

-John Farrell

Seattle's Bishop condemns NFP in 1935

 

Bishop Gerald Shaughnessy of Seattle suppressed the "rhythm method" device & pamphlet in his territory as stated in this letter from March 15th, 1935. The letter also refers to the "propaganda with regard to the rhythm theory" which is countered by "the decision of the Sacred Penitentiary of 6 June 1880." The Sacred Penitentiary then ruled that [NFP] may not be used to avoid "having numerous children."

Also prohibiting the "notorious and malodorous rhythm system" info was Archbishop Murray of  St. Paul, MN in this 1940 letter. Culture of death cannot become culture of life with the passage of time.

Why the bonum coniugum does not pertain to validity

CCC 1664 "[Fidelity], indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage."

Yep.

What about the good of the spouses??

The Church has always taught the doctrine of procreation as the primary end and the mutual help/remedy of concupiscence (bonum coniugum) as the secondary ends of marriage.

The first voice to change this hierarchy was the 1930 Anglicans at Lambeth when they abandoned prior statements of procreation primary = contraception evil // to make way for legitimizing contraception with a new hierarchy of bonum coniugum as "co-primary." (An oxymoron)

Now that "love was in the air," Pope Pius XII issued a clarification of doctrine via the Holy Office in 1944. 
Regarding making a secondary end primary, he said:

"This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties"

After Vatican II remained silent on the hierarchy of ends, Cardinal Staffa, then head of the Apostolic Signatura in 1971, pointed out that granting annulments based on making a secondary end an essential (and therefore primary) one, reached the same conclusion: "this wrong doctrine makes it impossible to establish whether a marriage is valid or not." 

It is impossible to define the right to charity.

 

The 1983 code also remained silent on primary/secondary/hierarchy. Because doctrine does not change, neither can the essence of marriage nor it's hierarchy of ends. What is secondary cannot be essential.

Father Anthony Ostheimer stated the matter in his far-reaching dissertation, The Family: A Thomistic Study (Catholic University of America, 1939):

"The primary end of anything is that principal good for which the thing exists; it is the end that first arises from the very nature of the thing and is sufficient to account for the essential perfection of the thing, apart from any other contributing ends.
The secondary end, however, is some added or accessory purpose for which the thing exists. It may proceed from the primary itself; or from the nature of the thing itself, but only for its integral, not its essential perfection. Of itself it is insufficient to account for even the essential perfection which the nature of the thing demands" [p. 32]

"Rotal jurisprudence" cannot change doctrine. An annulment based on contra bonum coniugum is illegal. All the new paradigms, Theology of the Body, Rotal decisions or doctrinal developments in the world cannot move the bonum coniugum from the secondary to the primary column. 

Never in the history of Christianity has an annulment been granted on the ground of contra bonum coniugum - until Vatican II. This is because the object of consent had always been defined as the "right over the body for acts." Now it's defined as to "give and accept [the right to] each other." There is no right to the bonum coniugum because there is no right to a secondary end. The legal object of marital consent is in cement. A new and different description does not change the reality of it. Marriage did not suddenly acquire an additional right to the bonum coniugum on December 8, 1965 or on January 25, 1983. This is because the essence (and rights) of marriage are immutable. 

"[Procreation] is so primary and predominant that it does not depend on any other intended ends, even ones indicated by nature, indeed it cannot be made equivalent or confused with them." Vatican II schema

No pope or court can change the essence of marriage or it's hierarchy of ends. Since Vatican II made no binding statements regarding faith and morals, we must defer to all prior teaching regarding them. 

I realize that my position runs counter to the status quo praxis. I am offering $10k to any canonist who can refute it. Tell your friends. Henry VIII could have simply used contra bonum coniugum instead of having to fabricate charges of her adultery, incest, and plotting to kill the king in order to make his marriage to Anne Boleyn go away.

Sincerely,

John Farrell 

seattlesuit@gmail.com

PS, how long does it take to consummate interpersonal communion - the new Vatican II object of consent?