Loading ...
I was reading the other day that a law has just been enacted in Germany to allow women to take an entire year off with two-thirds of their normal pay, following the birth of a child. This rather incredible measure is one of many that European countries have enacted in recent years, in an effort to beg and cajole their citizens into having offspring. So far the results have been pretty abysmal. Fewer babies were born in Germany in the last year than in the final year of WWII, when the country was war-torn and many of the men killed or absent from home. This trend can be seen all across the continent. European society has simply lost the will to reproduce itself.
Everyone recognizes by now that this is a demographical problem. Much less is said about the spiritual sickness of which the low birth rate is symptomatic. Of course, if you asked them, Europeans would probably say that they have few children because they value their careers and their creature comforts, and even now, I imagine a great many would claim that they “can’t afford” to have more. But the fact remains that the society that prefers the covered porch or the office job to the blessing of progeny is desperately ill. I thought I might post a few quotes from Archbishop Sheen’s “Three to Get Married”, which deals with this subject quite profoundly. This is a very good book on love and marriage generally, and I’ve been meaning to post some quotes from it on the subject of marriage itself (not a subject we’ve discussed much on this blog), but in this case I was reminded of Sheen’s words on generation. Of course, the Archbishop lived before the era in which people were assured that it would be virtuous of them to forgo parenthood, since the world was becoming overpopulated. (Can you believe that this view was still being aggressively promoted even when I was in high school, less than a decade ago?) But it seems to me that his words are eerily relevant to the situation we see today, as if he were clairvoyant about the culture that was soon to come.
Nothing is more religious in nature than procreation; it is the sign both of unity and continuity. The disjointed, separated, and egotistical have no use for the child. The men and women who think of their lives as bounded by the time limits of a cow cannot wait for the future; the craving for immediate pleasure and repose kills the willingness to plant a flower and wait for its maturity. Only those who have immortality in their hearts really yearn to prolong that immortality through the child. An impoverished heart has nothing to contribute to another but its emptiness and, therefore, nothing to transmit to posterity. No one can transmit what he has not got. The will not to prolong life is a confession that one lacks life. When the spirit has become sterile, then even human life seems worthless. And if one cannot bear the ennui and boredom of his own life, there is no urge to give life to others. The denial of offspring is a sign of the deadening of the spirit.
Can it be any surprise to us, then, that a society steeped in secularism and liberalism will also find itself declining in population? As Europe’s spiritual fruits wither, so too do the physical. Of course, the liberal wishes to identify procreation with the animal, and hence to see himself as somehow above it. I have not room to rehearse the whole of Sheen’s perceptive response to this error, but for now it suffices to say that the will to create and diffuse goodness is not primarily animal. It is first and foremost divine, and everyone, without exception, is expected to be fecund in one way or another.
Since God is goodness, and goodness tends to diffuse itself, God hates voluntary barrenness and sterility. Those who refuse to bring new life into the world will not be blessed by God. The priest who goes before the judgment seat of God without having brought souls to Christ, either through active ministry, in which he saves them directly, or through a contemplative ministry, in which he saves them indirectly, will be frowned upon by God. God will ask each person on judgment day, “Where are your children?
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Vicki,
What’s the name of your FSSP pastor?
I’d like to report him to his superior for gross malpractice.
Also could you take that manual that is in front of you, give the title and author, and type out a few lines to support your comments…
Vicki, would you care to address or respond to the remarks I gave you from Pope Pius XII?
Pius XII:
The primary end of marriage
Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.
JSP,
I am not going to argue over your post because there was absolutely nothing in it which contradicted what I said.
I quote, “Married people who are able to raise offspring have the obligation of bringing into the world that quota of children which is necessary to maintain the current level of population. Parents who beget three children surely fulfill this obligation. Married people, however, should be generous with God. They should have as many children as their health and financial circumstances allow….” Instructions Before Marriage, Very Rev.Wenceslaus Hertvik, OFM CONV. Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur.
The confusion here is between what is a duty and what goes beyond duty (generosity). The Church, much to some people’s dismay, always sets the bar low so that many may live within Her fold, even the weak.
“The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.”
In the light of the above quotation from Pope Pius XII, are you saying that a couple who has 3 children, and thereby fulfilled their duty, as you say, can decide to use periodic continence from then on, in order to avoid having future children and, that this would be morally licit?
Please answer the above question, but I also wanted to point out to you that the root of your error is the following:
“The Church, much to some people’s dismay, always sets the bar low so that many may live within Her fold, even the weak.”
You have a fundamental (and heretical) misunderstanding about the relationship between God Almighty and His Church. You give the Church too much power over the things of God.
In the instance of Holy Matrimony - this is an institution created by God. God created it. He defines the rules. No man, no pope, no Church, no Council, can redefine Holy Matrimony or mess with “the bar”, as you say, no matter how noble the purpose (in your instance, to keep more people with the fold.) The Church can only teach and explain what has already been laid down by God Almighty. Her job is to teach what God has ordained. That’s it. She does not and cannot make the rules regarding Holy Matrimony. She does not and cannot make slight changes to the rules.
For the record… when I posted that, I really had no intention of steering us into another argument about NFP. Really.
But, even though it’s a shame to hear of pastors berating engaged couples who are eager to have many children, I am overall in favor of requiring NFP courses for engaged couples. (Maybe you don’t need to make them submit their charts if they don’t want to, but at least you could explain the basics.) I’ve known many many many many young Catholics who think that 1) NFP doesn’t work, 2) it’s more suggested than required, because 3) the Church pretty much winks at contraception these days anyway.
That being the case, I think requiring NFP classes can only be a step up and it would be great to have more priests who ask engaged couples bitingly, “What, are you planning to CONTRACEPT?!” Most would probably be stung in the right sort of way, and I hope that thought could lessen your natural indignation at the insult, Tim.
Is it the business of the Church to be instructing couples in NFP, let alone MANDATİNG such instruction?
Clara - you seem to say, yes.
Pope Pius XII disagrees - ‘It is your function ((midwives and medical professionals)), not the priest’s, to instruct the married couple through private consultation or serious publications on the biological and technical aspect of the theory, without however allowing yourselves to be drawn into an unjust and unbecoming propaganda.’
Why do you think Pope Pius specifically says that it is not the job of the priest to instruct the couple of these techniques?
The Church today clearly is entering into an area that Pope Pius thought they should not - this obession with periodic continence.
We cannot force our way into salvation by altering God’s laws and changing the nature of Holy Matrimony or by giving bad Catholic couples simply another means (albeit not intrincically evil means, but pontentially evil means) to change the nature of Marriage - thereby fooling ourselves into thinking that they are somehow better off.
Mr Joe VI Pack,
You are claiming that NFP should not be taught (i.e. promoted) by the Church just because Pope Pius said that priests should not teach it, but leave it to medical professionals.
I have an alternative explanation: it is better left to midwives and other female medical professionals in order to protect the modesty of both priest and betrothed virgin.
Very few young ladies would want to talk to their priest and/or confessor about the consistency of their vaginal mucus, and very few priests are experts in the subject. It is simply out of their realm of expertise.
Not every Church duty must (or should) be done by the priests.
I would rather attend an NFP class provided by the church, with an emphasis on the ethics and morality involved, than one in a ’secular’ context where Catholic caveats are inadequately explained, or worse, ridiculed.
-Virgin, Unbetrothed.
Indeed, JSP:
The Church can provide courses not instructed by priests — indeed, a priest would be a poor choice to teach an NFP course.
I believe Pope Pius is saying that a couple should come upon this information as any other medical necessity. A problem arises (serious financial hardship, or serious health problem) and then they are given the information from a Catholic medical professional. This, I think, was the Pope’s point.
Your method rather is to pre-empt the need, and have some gal in a NFP parish ‘ministry’ teaching all the young ladies about to get married what gets sold as ‘the church’s approved method for avoiding pregnancy.’
1. The Church can and does make rules about marriage. Check the Code of Canon Law.
2. Perhaps the concept of setting the bar low as regards duties can be better understood thus: it is the duty of every Catholic to confess his sins once a year. I suspect that most people would consider that a pretty minimal requirement. One needs grave reasons for not confessing once a year or one is guilty of neglect of duty, which (with full knowledge & consent) is a serious sin. But one does not need any reason at all for only confessing once a year. One might rightly be considered a weak soul for only doing the minimum (although even in this we should be very careful not to judge; one might be much closer to holiness, thru humility in sincerely acknowledging one’s weakness, than many a weekly confesser). So the Church does not fault those who muddle thru by doing the minimum. She acknowledges that they have done their duty while gently encouraging them to be more open to grace and receive the sacrament more frequently.
Likewise with children. The purpose of marriage is to beget children so one needs grave reasons for being married and not doing so, even if one only uses natural means to avoid them (see Pius XII quote). The maintenance of the population seems to me to be a very sensible and realistic duty for married people but, naturally, the Church encourages those who can be generous without faulting those who cannot.
You did not answer this question:
In the light of the above quotation from Pope Pius XII, are you saying that a couple who has 3 children, and thereby fulfilled their duty, as you say, can decide to use periodic continence from then on, in order to avoid having future children and, that this would be morally licit?
OK one more time and then I give up -
From Pius XII:
“The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.”
The entire lecture by Pius XII, taken together with Humane Vitae and Casti Connubii represent the most authoritative teaching on the Church regarding sexual morality within marriage. NO WHERE IN THESE DOCUMENTS can it be inferred that a couple can morally use periodic continence, barring no other grave reason, simply because they have produced already a certain number of children - be that number 3 or 13. The number of children in itself does not constitute grave reason.
Pius XII clearly lays out what constitutes grave reason for using NFP - no where does he say these are the grave reasons for using NFP prior to achieving X amount of births. He just says these are the reasons for using NFP.
You take this issue of sexual morality with regard to periodic continence very lightly (similar to how casually you took the issue of pornography several months ago). You must consider that souls can go to Hell over misuse of periodic continence within marriage. This would give me pause, personally, before I cavalierly launched into speculative arguments regarding it. But like the issue of the objective evil of pornography (which you disagreed was objectively evil), you continue to prance around these issues like a school girl, rather than what I would expect from an experienced traditional Catholic mother.
Put down the Charlotte Bronte or whatever other protestant trash you’re reading (as far as I can divine from your webpage), and pick up a copy of the sermons of the Cure of Ars or the Catechism of the Council of Trent or get a copy of Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ lengthy lecture series on Catholic Sexual Morality - which is available on audio cassette or CD through Inter Mirifica.
Vicki wrote: “”actively trying to produce more than nature otherwise would provide” - huh? Please explain how one can produce more than nature would provide. Nature can provide about one a year.”
What did I mean? I mean that people naturally enjoying their conjugal rights might not conceive for 2-3 years. In order to have *as many children as possible,* the mother wouldn’t breast-feed and they would use NFP in an attempt to conceive at every single possible opportunity, as soon as possible after each birth. That is the difference between the two. One involves trying to maximize a number, the other let’s God and nature take their course.
I too think the number thing could be a little dangerous. I’m not sure I understand how it could mean what you’re saying it does Vicki - I’ll have to get my hands on a copy of the work to see the context, though. But my goodness, JSP, let’s give the jackassery a rest.
Whoops, I brought up a topic that’s been banned. Mea culpa, Ambrosius — I shan’t “go there” again.
I’ve never read Charlotte Bronte - I should get around to it I suppose. Today I’m rereading passages from that trashy pagan author, Vergil. I’m a sorry case.
Actually, the purpose of this comment is to recommend a fun read to those who are cavalier enough to put down the Cure of Ars for a couple of days and indulge their dramatic/funny bones. ‘The Endless Knot’ by William Biersach was sent to me for Christmas by a well-respected moral theologian (who, in fact, has just single-handedly saved Limbo from the trash heap). It is a comedy/detective story about a cop turned Trad priest who must investigate the serial murder of LA’s auxiliary bishops! Most satisfying!
Fr. Brian Harrison?
Vicki - so the discussion will end as you obviously cannot answer my questions — you continue apparently to hold to a poisonous view of periodic continence, not in line with Church Teaching — that being that periodic continence can be morally used after a couple reaches a certian number of children without any other grave reason (as defined by Pope Pius XII) being present.
Furthermore, how you can recommend to put down a book on the sermons of the Cure of Ars for a book by William Biersach is appalling.
To save any poor fool out there the time and money - a friend of mine loaned me Mr. Biersach’s books and asked me to read them. They are tired, boring, and predictable.
Finally, to İacobus - thanks for your kind words -
I ought to have cut this discussion off much earlier: but this is really going nowhere, and so I ask no one else to post any more comments in this thread on NFP. Try rereading our Rules for a Good Time.
Ambrosius,
Thank you for reminding us all of the Rules of Engagement. I’m going to try a quick comment (not NFP related) before this thread shuts down (usually I’m too late).
The Rules mention the “hard sayings” of Christ and I find it interesting to ponder people’s reactions to those sayings. Since the beginning the “hard sayings” have been met with either acceptance, rejection or indifference. The rejection, however, takes two forms: there are those who find the sayings too hard, and there are those who find them not hard enough. This latter group have aptly been called ultrasupernaturalists, or enthusiasts.
But the Church follows the via media; on the one hand She remembers that “if you love me you will keep my commandments” and on the other, the righteous anger of the Psalmist who admonishes those who “create burdens under the guise of law”.
The fact is that following this via media and finding this delicate balance is much harder than it sounds (what we call a well-ordered life, which includes a well-ordered intellect) and if any of us achieve it before the hour of death we will die saints.
Just some philosophical musings; I hope some out there get the relevance.
Actually, I’m rather sorry this turned into another NFP debate, this being a subject that’s been thoroughly hashed out elsewhere on this blog. What I really wanted to talk about was low fertility in Europe… which is a problem only very tangentially related to NFP, since I seriously doubt that overuse of NFP is a major contributing factor in the decline of European population. Nay-saying contraception is good as far as it goes, but a much more comprehensive solution will be needed to stem the shadow of death hanging over the European continent.
Iosephe, your take on the ex nihilo debate in the contemporary climate made me smile.
Clara,
My apologies for sidetracking your post. I assume that I am among a fair number of people who visit this site periodically but cannot keep up with the daily stuff. This makes it difficult to know what has/has not been said before. It sounds like the NFP issue has been tackled before!
As to Europe: what can one say? It seems that a conversion, a sincere change of heart, will be necessary but that, in the meantime, we will witness a massive cultural, demographic & religious movement (in the wrong direction). Not much else for it but prayer & sacrifice.
I’m happy to see that this unfortunate head-butting has concluded; Vicki has asked (privately) that we give Pope Pius XII the last word, in restating a paragraph quoted by JSP which, she maintains, provides the interpretive framework for understanding that Pontiff’s elaboration of the duties of the Catholic couple vis a vis procreation. To avoid inciting riots, I will provide no comprehensive gloss on the following words; I will merely ask the reader to consider for himself — WITHOUT FURTHER COMMENTING — using the pope’s words here as a guide, whether the considerations offered incline more to Vicki’s position, viz., that a Catholic’s duty to procreate is real, but limited to that amount of procreation necessary to maintain the public good; or to Joe Six Pack’s stance, viz, that a good Catholic, believing God Himself should be the sole determinor of the public good, should trust God alone to bring about any spacing of births: ie, that any conscious planning on the part of a Catholic couple, outside of abstinence in the most dire of situations, is a sin against trust in God’s providence; which implies that the pope’s words below are merely a reinforcement of the general duty to procreate, but do not constitute a directive or guidance to couples in deciding how many children they ought to have which, on JSP’s view, is a decision that they are not typically to assume for themselves.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages
I think in Germany employers are also required to give employees 5 weeks minimum of vacation a year.