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

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.

Iosephe, your take on the ex nihilo debate in the contemporary climate made me smile.

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.

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 -

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.

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.

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.’

The Church can provide courses not instructed by priests — indeed, a priest would be a poor choice to teach an NFP course.

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.

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.

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.

“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.