Why is birth-control wrong?


fm((e>r, Dov\a(<f va .

U Kv UrVV* ~cc
ADU 3567

WHY IS

firth Omtro!
WRONG?

:&
ia**J
>5 *<m
s ##*4

.... .

,

v
tt'

s
mmisI

F. Miller

mi iil



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/whyisbirthcontroOOmill



^ 3 5 0

Why Is Birth-Control

Wrong ?

by

DONALD F. MILLER

COPYRIGHT 1959

Liguorian Pamphlets
Redemptorist Fathers

Liguori, Missouri



This pamphlet is written for the

benefit of the married, those about to

be married, and those who counsel
the married. It is a clear, frank
discussion. It should not be read by
those whose state of life frees them
from the need of knowledge of the
topic.

—

s

Imprimi Potest:

John N. McCormick, C.SS.R.
Provincial, St. Louis Province,

Redemptorist Fathers

July 22, 1959

Imprimatur

:

St. Louis, July 29, 1959

^ Joseph E. Ritter
Archbishop of St. Louis

OGScfdiffdd



Why Is Birth-Control
Wrong?

Donald F. Miller

WE ARE asked the question in the above
title often. Sometimes by good, conscien-
tious Catholics, who know that their Church
considers birth-control seriously sinful, but
who do not know and could not explain to
others just why it is considered so wrong.
Sometimes by disloyal Catholics, who have
deliberately adopted the position that birth-
control is not sinful, and whose question
implies the assumption that it cannot be
proved to be sinful. Sometimes by persons
in mixed marriages, whose partners have
plied them with arguments in favor of birth-
control that they cannot adequately answer.

There are several reasons for the fact
that many Catholics find themselves hard
put to give a good explanation of why
birth-control is always seriously sinful.
They may have had few opportunities for
receiving thorough instruction on this mat-
ter. They may have received instructions
before they were married, but, because the
issue as yet had no personal, practical ap-
plication to their lives, they may not have
been impressed with the force of the argu-

— 3 —



ments, or may have forgotten them soon
after.

By far the most important reason for
ignorance or mental confusion on this point,
however, is the fact that Catholics find
themselves in the midst of a constant stream
of propaganda against the uncompromising
position of their Church on this important
point of morality. It assails them in books,
magazines, newspapers and dodgers. It is
brought to bear on them by friends, neigh-
bors, co-workers, relatives, sometimes even
members of their own family. It is sup-
ported by the tendency to find an easy way
out of their own problems, contrary to God's
laws, that is a part of the effect of original
sin upon their mind and will.

Very often they fail to see the connection
between the arguments in favor of birth-
control and basic concepts about life and
its purpose that not only offer people free-
dom from strictures in their marriage rela-
tions, but also destroy every last vestige of
religion and morality. Many Catholics who
defend and practice birth-control still want
to be Catholics. They miss the point that
every argument in defense of the goodness
of birth-control has its origin in one of two
theories. The first is the theory that there
are no fixed, unchangeable moral laws; that
all laws are merely adjustments to circum-
stances, to be changed as circumstances
change. The second is the theory of secu-
larism, which admits of no immortality or

— 4 —



eternity or other-world destiny for man,
and therefore measures everything by its
temporary value in this world. Both these
theories do more than justify birth-control;
they make untenable and foolish all reli-
gion and all morality.

Despite this fact, the propaganda in fa-
vor of birth-control does make for mental
confusion and serious temptations in the
lives of married Catholics who have not
learned how intimately the right attitude
toward birth-control is bound up with all
the truths of their religion. They are
scarcely married when they receive book-
lets from birth-control organizations offer-
ing them information on why and how they
should practice birth-control. After the
birth of a second or third child, they are
sure to be advised and even scolded by
friends to the effect that they should now
put a stop to the business of having chil-
dren. Even so-called reputable but morally
illiterate physicians to whom they go for
medical attention will often suggest ways
and means of preventing conception. In
each case they are tom between their knowl-
edge that, in the eyes of their Church, birth-
control is considered a serious sin, and the
prodding of the world around them that
they make use of it anyway.

Only a clear knowledge of God’s law,
clear convictions of the tremendous issues
at stake, and the constant use of God’s
ready graces, can preserve Catholics, and

— 5 -



all good Christians, from succumbing to the
forces of evil. Too many have already suc-
cumbed. This is an effort to save some of
them, and to make all others ready for the
struggle that is nothing less than a battle
for heaven.

I. Wrong Answers

In answer to the question, “Why is birth-
control wrong?” — wrong answers are often
given. The propaganda of the birth-con-
trollers themselves is filled with misstate-
ments concerning why the Catholic Church
maintains that birth-control is wrong.
Catholics themselves are very often misled
and misinformed in this regard.

1. One of the most common misstate-
ments is this: “Birth-control is forbidden
to Catholics only because the Catholic
Church has made a law against it, some-
what like the law by which she forbids
them to eat meat on Friday.”

This idea, that the Catholic Church has
made a positive law forbidding birth-con-
trol, is evident in the way many Catholics
and non-Catholics speak about the matter.
They say: “When is the Catholic Church
going to change her stand on birth-control?”
“Why doesn’t the Pope get wise and repeal
the law forbidding birth-control?”

The truth is that the Catholic Church
has never made a positive law concerning

— 6 —



birth-control. She has repeatedly pointed
out the truth that birth-control is contrary

to the natural law, the law written on the
nature of man and woman, the law that is
unchangeable so long as human nature re-
mains the same. And she does not hesitate
to state that, because birth-control is con-

trary to the natural law, it is sinful for

everybody, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
No Pope will ever be able to change this
law, because no Pope will ever have the
authority to change the natural law of God.

Of course the fact that the Catholic
Church tells her members that birth-control
is a mortal sin is sufficient evidence for
every loyal Catholic, even though he has
not yet studied the matter sufficiently to
know why the Church must speak thus.
But the point we are making is that it is
not the Church that makes the law. The
Church merely re-affirms it as a natural
law of God.

2. Another misstatement about birth-con-
trol is this: "Catholics are forbidden to
practice birth-control because the Catholic
Church maintains that Catholic parents
should have as many children as possible”

This is nonsense. The Catholic Church
does not command Catholic husbands and
wives to have even one child. She considers
it more than normally meritorious for them
to have no children, if they mutually and
perpetually give up the use of the marriage

— 7 —



right for the love of God. She only main-
tains that the free use of the marriage
right involves the acceptance of whatever
children God may send them. She also sets
down reasons for which it is lawful for
husbands and wives to practice temporary
abstinence from the use of the marriage
right, with the result that there may be
fewer children than would otherwise have
been bom.

3. Still a third common misstatement is
this: “Catholics are forbidden to practice
birth-control because the Catholic Church
frowns on sex as something evil, and wants
to limit its use as much as possible” The
answer to this false statement may be
found in any manual of Catholic theology,
or any approved instruction for the mar-
ried. The very definition of marriage ac-
cording to Catholic principles refutes it: it
is the state in which a man and a woman
give to each other the right to their bodies
for those actions that are necessary for the
procreation of children. Both husband and
wife are bound by the contract of marriage
to accede to the request of their partner for
marriage relations whenever it is seriously
and reasonably made. There is no sign of
prejudice against the proper use of sex in
that principle.

II. What Birth Control Is

The right answer to the question of why
birth-control is wrong requires a clear un-

— 8 —



derstanding of what is meant by birth-con-
trol in the question. Wrong ideas are very
prevalent in this regard.

The sin of birth-control means using the
privilege of marriage while directly and in-
tentionally doing something to render it
incapable in itself of resulting in concep-

tion. This “rendering it incapable in itself
of resulting in conception" may be done by
the use of instruments, medications, tem-
porary or permanent mechanical gadgets;
or by imperfect union (withdrawal) while
perfect satisfaction is sought; or by at-
tempts to prevent union of the two prin-
ciples necessary for conception by the re-
moval of one right after marriage relations
(douching).

It is not the sin of birth-control, but a
greater sin, for a wife to take medication
or other measures to stop the progress of
a conception that is suspected to have al-
ready taken place. This is the intention of
committing abortion, and is always a mor-
tal sin, whether it be successful or not,
whether the suspicion was justified or not.
If it successfully terminates a true concep-
tion it is a sin punished by excommunication

It is not birth-control, nor is it a sin for
husband and wife to use the privilege of
marriage when they know they are sterile,
or after their child-bearing years are over,
or even for some time after conception has
taken place, so long as it is always a proper

— 9 —



act, in itself designed to fulfill the purposes
of marriage. The one thing that is always
wrong is to make it a sterile act in itself
in one of the ways mentioned above.

III. Why It Is Wrong

There are several angles from which one
can come to see the intrinsic evil of birth-
control. We shall take but two.

A. From the basis of all natural laws.
That birth-control is wrong, is intimately
bound up with the same principles that
force us to conclude that any other action
is contrary to the natural law of God. Many
who practice birth-control are still convinced
that lying is always a sin, that murder is
always a sin, that adultery is always a sin.
These things they recognize as contrary to
an actual eternal natural law. They blind
themselves to the fact that the same prin-
ciples that make these actions always evil
make birth-control always a sin.

All natural laws are the expression of an
obligation to permit certain actions, obvi-
ously designed for a necessary purpose, to
fulfill that purpose, and to take whatever
enjoyment is connected with those actions
as a reward for accepting their purpose.
That may sound abstract, but it can also
be expressed very concretely by examples.

Most people admit that telling a delib-
erate lie is a sin against the natural law.

— TO —



It is such for these reasons. The purpose
of speech is to bring about confident and
cooperative social intercourse among human
beings. Lying destroys that purpose,
making for mistrust, quarrels, hatred, dis-
honesty and many other evils. At the same
time one of the great enjoyments of life is
association, friendship, cooperation with
one’s fellow-men, made possible especially
by speech. This enjoyment may never be
sought through lying. It is a reward for
the right use of speech, which is clearly
designed for the communication of truth
alone.

Instinctively most people would realize
that to enjoy eating and then deliberately
to vomit for the purpose of being able to
enjoy more eating, is contrary to the nat-
ural law. The necessary purpose of eating
is to sustain the body. The enjoyment con-
nected with it is obviously intended to be an
incentive to sustain one’s body, and a re-
ward for so doing. To make this enjoyment
an end in itself by removing food from the
stomach before it can nourish the body is
surely wrong.

In these, and in every natural law, there
is, then, the threefold element of action,
purpose, pleasure. The action is lawful so
long as the purpose is not deliberately sep-
arated from the pleasure. It is unlawful
if the purpose is deliberately eliminated or
destroyed. And in no case is this more
clear than in that of the use of sex in
marriage.

— n —



Indeed, the evil of every form that impur-
ity may take is revealed through these
principles. The purpose that God clearly
established for sex relations, and for any
use of sex, is procreation, and procreation
in a state in which children can not only
be bom, but also reared properly to adult-
hood. The pleasure attached to the use of
sex is clearly an incentive and a reward
for those who accept this important pur-
pose. That is why the use of sex outside of
marriage is always wrong. That is why,
even within marriage, it is against the nat-
ural law to take the pleasure and deliber-
ately to interfere with the divinely estab-
lished purpose of sex relations.

It may be, and often is, objected that
there are other purposes that the use of
sex in marriage can fulfill. Those who ob-
ject thus say that it adds to the happiness
of husband and wife; it helps them to avoid
sin. Then they argue that the fulfillment
of these purposes sufficiently justifies the
use of sex even when procreation is made
impossible. The answer to this is that these
purposes are clearly subordinate to the pri-
mary one for which God ordained the use
of sex; nay more, the happiness and secur-
ity from temptation of which they speak
are more truly to be called a part of the
reward for accepting the first purpose than
purposes in themselves.

God’s evident plan leaves ample room
for the happiness of the married through

— 12 —



the proper use of sex: they do not have to
limit that use by any consideration except
one, viz., that its own possibility of fulfill-
ing its primary purpose be left intact. Their
actions must be “apt for generation,” no
matter what circumstances of time or age
or bodily condition may actually prevent
conception from taking place.

B. From the nature of marriage. An-
other way of perceiving the evil of birth-
control is through a consideration of the
nature of marriage itself. In short, the ar-
gument is this: if birth-control were law-
ful, there would be no necessity for the
institution of marriage at all.

All but a few grossly perverted minds
accept the institution of marriage as the
one state that justifies and even glorifies
the use of sex. The reason for this is that
the human conscience instinctively perceives
that the use of sex ordinarily means the con-
ception and birth of children, and that this
must, by an inescapable design of God and
nature, be limited to a state in which the
children can be properly reared. Even apart
from the spiritual elevation of marriage by
Christ, the mind can perceive that marriage
is demanded by the inevitable relationship
between these three things; the use of sex,
the birth of children, the rearing of
children,,

Anyone who states, therefore, that the
second and third of these three things may

— 13 —



be lawfully eliminated from marriage, even
though they are not always eliminated, is
thereby laying the foundation for the des-
truction of marriage. He is saying that
sex-enjoyment is a proper and lawful end
in itself. If this were true, marriage would
not be needed to justify it, because marriage
is necessary only on the assumption that
the use of sex does involve essentially the
birth and education of children. If sex
pleasure were an end in itself, it would be
perfectly lawful for men and women to in-
dulge it without benefit of marriage. But
it is not an end in itself; it is related to
the necessary purposes of the procreation
and education of children, and that is why
nearly all the world demands that people
be married before they indulge in the use
of sex.

The viciousness of the argument based
on the right to sex-pleasure for itself can
be seen in other logical conclusions. If sex
pleasure is an end in itself, as those who
favor birth-control argue, then there is no
rational argument to be raised against any
form of what is called impurity. If it is
lawful to remove the purpose from sex rela-
tions, on the ground that an individual has
a right to sex-enjoyment for its own sake,
then no one can say that there is anything
evil about self-abuse, fornication, adultery
or even the various forms of perversion.
That is what St. Augustine referred to
when he said, about 1500 years ago, that
the husband who insists on birth-control

— 14 —



makes a prostitute out of his wife; and the
wife who insists on it makes an adulterer
out of her husband. The truth is clear;
birth-control is the same evil as prostitu-
tion and adultery; if one of them is lawful,
the others are lawful too.

IV. The Christian Outlook

It is to be expected that all this will have
but little force for those who have had no
contact with Christianity, who possess no
convictions about heaven and hell, who have
decided to live for this world alone. Not
recognizing God, they are given up, as St.
Paul says, to a corrupt sense, so that “they
abuse their bodies amongst themselves.”

The attitude of the true Christian is far
different. He knows that the most impor-
tant thing in life is to do God's will, to
obey God's laws. He knows that his ever-
lasting happiness depends on this. Once He
recognizes God's law in regard to birth-con-
trol, as made known to him through his rea-
son and through the affirmations of the
Catholic Church, he starts out with the de-
termination that this law is going to be
kept, and that he will find a solution to any
difficulties that arise in something other than
disobedience to God.

His fidelity will involve one of two things.
It may mean a large family, in the midst
of pagans and hypocritical Christians who
ridicule those who refuse to make use of

— 15 —



the many methods and gadgets they have
invented for sterilizing the joys of mar-
riage. He pays no attention to this ridi-
cule. He remembers that Christ said to all
His followers not only that they would be
ridiculed but that “the world will hate you.”
He even sympathizes with those who scorn
him, because he knows that they have given
up heaven, and in the process have lost
many of the natural joys that he will have
on earth.

Or his fidelity may involve considerable
self-denial in the form of renunciation of
the joys of marriage for short or long pe-
riods of time. His wife may become ill, or
his economic situation may make it prudent
for him to “plan” carefully the birth of his
children. In any case he faces the problem
with the unshakable conviction that the only
lawful way to limit his family or to space
his children or to spare his ill wife is by
periodic or continued abstinence from the
use of the privilege of marriage.

Nor does he complain that this is a ter-
rible injustice, or permit it to make him
bitter and impatient and mean and unkind.
He has heaven to think about, which is the
one reality that can make any hardship or
sacrifice easily bearable. He has prayer and
the sacraments and the constant inspira-
tions provided by his religion, with which
to face his day-to-day temptations and prob-
lems. He has a secure conscience, and a
realization that his example and his loy-

— 16 —



alty to God are not only saving his own
family, but winning merit for the world
and helping to save society from the pagan
decadence into which it has fallen. He is
the kind of Christian the world needs in
large numbers today.

May Newlyweds Put Off Having
Children?

Problem: We are just recently married.
My wife wants to insist on not having any
children for a few years. She wants to keep
her job and to save up money until we have
a solid bank account. She is also quite in-
terested in not being tied down right away
by reason of pregnancy and the demands of
a family. I feel that this is wrong because
it is going to lead us into sin, and because
I don't want my wife to be working. I am
confident that I can support both of us and
whatever family we may have, even though
we may not be on easy street. How can I
convince her of this?

Solution: Alas, this is the kind of prob-
lem that should have been gone into thor-
oughly before marriage. A couple who get
married with the intention of putting off
the business of marriage “for a few years"
have no business getting married. They
should know each other's mind on this point
before they kneel at the altar and give over
to each other “the right to their bodies for
the actions necessary to the generation of
children." There is something of that odi-

— 17 —



ous thing called “companionate marriage” in
going through the motions with the reser-
vation that the essential purpose of mar-
riage will be put off for a few years.

Almost certainly such a determination
will bring upon marriage the blight and
curse of contraception. This is the most
important point, but there are other con-
siderations. Records of divorce indicate that
the most dangerous years for married cou-
ples are the first few, and that the danger
of “incompatibility” or dissatisfaction with
each other multiplies greatly when there
are no children during the first few years.
Nature intended that just about the time
when a husband and wife are getting used
to each other, becoming fully acquainted
with each others faults, finding the strong
attractions of courtship leveling off under
the effect of familiarity and routine, a child
should appear on the scene to restimulate
and seal their affection for each other. If
no child appears “for a few years” famili-
arity can too easily breed contempt. More-
over the graces granted through the sac-
rament of marriage will have become in-
effective to offset the danger because of the
many deliberate sins.

— 18 —



The Dangers of Child-Bearing

Problem: “What is the duty of a hus-
band and wife when a doctor warns the wife
that it will be dangerous for her to have
another child? We have three children, and
I suffered considerably with the last one.
Both my husband and I feel that it would
be wrong to risk my life when I already
have the three children to raise. But we
also know that it is wrong to practice birth-
control. We are confused, and badly in need
of guidance.”

Solution: With due respect for the many
upright physicians who are practicing ob-
stetrics, it may be stated that there are
many doctors who recommend the sin of
birth-control whenever they foresee that a
wife will have the least bit of difficulty in
child-bearing. It is our experience (and we
have had more than 20 years of it, much of
it dealing with the moral problems of mar-
ried people) that 1) many doctors do a
great disservice to their patients by making
them fear child-bearing because of minor
or unimportant complications; and 2) that
they are often influenced in this by the com-
mon desire of wives for any excuse for
practicing birth-control. There is solid
ground for the opinion, recently expressed
in high medical circles, that the process of
gestation and child-bearing often cures cer-
tain physical and nervous disabilities of
women. On the other hand, there is no
question that the practice of birth-control

— 19 —



causes many nervous and physical disorders
among women.

This is not to imply that there are no
cases in which a certain pathological con-
dition would render child-bearing a grave
danger to life. Serious heart trouble, ad-
vanced kidney infections and such like,
would be examples. In such cases a doctor
can be quite certain of his diagnosis and
quite certain of the degree of danger, and
has the obligation of giving a warning that
is proportionate to the facts. But when a
doctor speaks in rather vague terms to a
wife of danger in having another baby, or
tells her to “be careful” because she had
trouble with a previous child, she and her
husband should 1) ask for the specific rea-
sons for the danger; 2) consult another
physician to check on the matter; 3) if
doubt remains, lead a normal married life
and, with perfect trust, leave the issue in
the hands of God. We know of innumerable
cases in which such trust was wonderfully
rewarded. In all situations of this kind,
a good Catholic doctor is of the utmost im-
portance, since three out of four non-Cath-
olic doctors are quick to recommend birth-
control.

— 20 —



How a Wife Must Resist Sin

Complaint: What can a wife do to induce
her husband to give up practices of birth-
prevention? I'm not afraid to have a large
family and I am afraid to go on through
married life committing sin. He claims that
we cannot afford to have more children
than the two we have; he protests that he
will not put more burdens upon me. He
maintains that he is a Catholic, but refuses
to obey God's law in this regard.

Solution: This is another of those prob-
lems that we believe should be thoroughly
discussed before marriage, at least at the
time when the instruction is given to a
couple as to what is right and wrong in
marriage. In many dioceses a definite state-
ment must be signed to the effect that the
persons to be married will not make use of
contraceptive practices. It would be a good
thing if the Catholic young woman (and
also the Catholic young man) would make
sure before marriage that their partner-
to-be is sincere in promising that there will
be no sinful misuse of marriage.

When the problem arises after marriage,
the loyal Catholic partner is of course
bound to use every persuasive means to
win the other away from sin, and not to
give the appearance of consent to wrongful
actions. For a wife to convince a husband
who is stubborn in this matter requires pa-
tience, intelligence, prayer and persever-

— 21 —



ance. She should inform herself thoroughly,
by reading and consultation, on the differ-
ent aspects of the subject: why it is con-
trary to nature; why it is harmful to mar-
ried happiness

;
why it can have worse

results than the bearing of many children.
She should make a point of the fact that
God does not command married people to
have many children, but does demand that
if they freely use their privileges they must
be willing to bear the responsibilities that
accompany them. She should convince her-
self that a large family is not a curse but
a blessing; that even among the poor it will
reward a mother and father with a happy
and secure middle life and old age, as exem-
plified to the last degree by an article in
the American Magazine of December in
which a mother of fifteen children tells how
at the age of 49 she thanks God for every
one of her children and for the health and
happiness and good times that are hers.
Then patiently a wife must try to transfer
her convictions into the mind of her hus-
band. Where one partner has real love and
true Catholic convictions, backed by knowl-
edge of the subject, the problem will never
be insurmountable.

— 22 —



How a Husband Must Resist Sin
Complaint: It seems to be assumed that

the husband is usually at fault for prac-
tices of contraception in marriage. What
about my case (and I know there are many
more like it) in which my wife is almost
neurotic for fear of having another child?
What can a husband do in such a case?

Solution: It is not right to assume that
only, or even mostly, husbands are at fault
in the matter of contraception. Apart from
those cases in which both husband and wife
have equally agreed to live in rebellion
against God, the predominant blame is
probably to be laid to a wife as frequently
as to a husband. In fact it probably be-
longs oftener to the wife, because one of
the chief reasons alleged by husbands for
contraception is a false sense of “consid-
eration” for the wife, which has usually
been carefully cultivated in him by the
wife herself.

Wives are far more subject than hus-
bands to the influence of human respect
and popular opinion in regard to limiting
their families. If, in her circle of women
friends, eyebrows are raised or sarcastic
comments are made at any mother having
more than three children, many a wife is
inclined to permit the fear of such things
to become almost a mania. A thousand
mortal sins are as nothing to her if they
can prevent one snub from a socialite or

— 23 -



one buzz of amazed comment from a “career
woman.”

Wives are also subject, as is natural, to
varying degrees of fear with regard to
child-bearing and -rearing. More often the
fear involves the latter rather than the
former: with a powerful but erroneous im-
agination they picture themselves sur-
rounded by babies, all of the same age, all
clamoring for attention, none ever growing
up to be a helper and comfort in any sense
of the word.

What can a man do about a wife who
has become obsessed with such inhibitions?
Heart and head must work together to over-
come the fears. Heart must work first, to
win and hold the kind of love that from
time immemorial has made women willing
to suffer anything for those they love. Then
the head, i.e., reason, understanding, con-
viction, must put across the lesson that
true love can remain neither “true” nor
“love” in the midst of sin.

The Morality of Rhythm

Problem: There is so much discussion
of the morality of rhythm of late that we
are confused as to what is right and wrong
concerning it. Some say it is all right un-
der any circumstances and others that it
is permissible only under exceptional cir-
cumstances. Still others say it should never
be adopted as a practice by Catholic cou-

- 24 -



pies. Can you give a simple statement that
will clarify the matter?

Solution: One simple statement can be
made about the use of rhythm in marriage
and it is this: Every case in which it is
considered at all is an individual case, and
should be presented, with all the attendant
circumstances, to the judgment of a con-
fessor. The confusion arises from the fact
that a decision given for one case is so
often passed around as a norm for other
cases, and these other cases may not be
similar to it at all. Another difficulty is
that advertisers of rhythm charts and book-
lets have so often made general statements
affirming the universal acceptability of the
practice, for the sake of making sales. Of
course they do not take into account any
of the many circumstances that can make
the practice evil

According to the natural law, it is not
sinful for husband and wife voluntarily
and mutually to limit the use of their mar-
riage privileges to certain times for a vari-
ety of reasons, some of which may have
nothing to do with the possibility or expec-
tation of conception. The natural law de-
mands only that there be no interference
with the proper method and end of the
marriage privilege whenever it is used.

Circumstances that can, and frequently
do, make limitation of the use of marriage
to certain times wrong are the following:

— 25 —



1) If this is dictated by one partner alone,
so that the other is unwillingly made to fol-
low it. This forcing of one’s will on the
other is contrary to the very essence of
the marriage contract. The unwillingness
of one partner may be expressed or merely
implied, and may be temporary or perma-
nent; but wherever such unwillingness is
present, the partner may not insist on
rhythm without a grave and objective rea-
son. 2) If the limitations demanded by
rhythm lead to frequent sins at times when
it has been decided not to use the marriage
privilege. The adoption of the rhythm sys-
tem becomes a serious and unnecessary oc-
casion of sin when it leads to sins of adul-
tery, self-abuse, and other forms of impur-
ity during the fertile periods, and as such
is wrong itself. 3) If it leads to quarrel-
ing, bickering, unhappiness in the home,
and even the possibility of divorce. Rightly
to take into account all these circum-
stances demands of married people that
they have the right attitude toward chil-
dren. While it is true that there is much
selfish avoidance of the responsibilities of
children in modern families, it is also true
that if all husband and wives would take
a serious view of the responsibility and
mutuality of their duties to each other,
they would at the same time be cultivating
the right attitude toward the size of their
families.

— 26 —



Is ‘‘Rhythm” Birth-Control?

Problem: It is frequently thrown up to
us Catholics that the practice of rhythm
in marriage is the same thing as the
practice of contraception, and that our
Church is inconsistent in forbidding the
latter while it permits the former. What
is the difference between them? It does
seem to us that the same end is attained
by rhythm as by any other form of
contraception.

Solution: There are few subjects on
which there is more confusion of thought
than on this topic of limiting offspring.
Ihe reason for the confusion is that the
publicists for birth-control have aban-
doned all the logic and reason that support
the natural law, and have made up a mor-
ality of expediency on the question of con-
traception. Therefore the best way to
arrive at an understanding of the above
question is by starting out with simple, uni-
versal principles and then applying them
to the morality of rhythm and contra-
ception.

First of all, the Catholic Church, in pro-
mulgating the natural law, does not blindly
object to limitation of offspring on the part
of parents. Sometimes she even advises
and urges such limitation, as for example,
in cases of severe or contagious disease on
the part of parents, extreme poverty, etc.
She does maintain, according to the nat-

— 27 —



ural law, that such limitation may be ef-
fected only by limitation of intercourse,
because, it is contrary to the natural law
ever to use the marriage right while frus-
trating its primary purpose.

Secondly, the Catholic Church does not
maintain that the sole purpose of inter-
course is the begetting of children. She
maintains that that is the first and primary
purpose — the one that may never be de-
liberately avoided through the manner of
exercising the marriage right. But the
Church states the natural law that there
are secondary purposes of intercourse,
which are the showing of mutual love be-
tween husband and wife and the avoidance
of the wrong use of sex. These purposes
may still be sought and fulfilled in the use
of the marriage right, even when the pri-
mary purpose cannot be achieved because
of age, sterility, etc., so long as the mar-
riage act is properly performed. In other
words, a husband and wife are bound
always to act in their relations with each
other in cooperation with the primary pur-
pose of sex, even though they know it can-
not be attained.

Contraception, therefore, is wrong be-
cause it means attacking the primary pur-
pose of the marriage act in the very man-
ner of performing it. The use of rhythm
may be justified in certain circumstances
because in this no attack is made on the
primary purpose of the marriage act in

28 —



the way it is performed. It should be re-
marked that rhythm is not universally per-
missible to married persons; they must
have a reason for using, and should ordi-
narily subject that reason to a confessor’s
decision.

How “Rhythm” is Justified
Problem: Is it true that a husband and

wife, after having three or four children,
have by that very fact sufficient reason for
adopting the practice of rhythm during the
entire remainder of the time in which they
might have children? A married friend of
mine stated this recently and was surprised
when I expressed a doubt about it. Will
you clear up the matter for us?

Solution: It seems to be clear from the
Pope’s recent pronouncement on the mor-
ality of the so-called rhythm practice that
the mere fact of having had a certain num-
ber of children does not justify a husband
and wife in deciding to use rhythm con-
tinually thereafter. In fact the Pope seems
to have made his statement on this matter
just to correct erroneous views that were
becoming widespread and were being fol-
lowed by many married people.

The pertinent point of the Pope’s in-
struction is that only a serious motive or
reasonf deriving from external circum-
stances, can make it lawful for husbands
and wives to adopt the practice of rhythm

— 29 —



for either a short or a long time. He even
goes so far as to set down a list of the
kinds of serious reasons that are to be con-
sidered sufficient to justify the use of rhy-
thm. The reasons must be either ) 1 medi-
cal (e.g., ill-health of wife) ; 2) eugenic
(e.g., great probability of bringing forth
defective children) ; 3) economic (e.g., pov-
erty)

; 4) social (e.g., inescapable depend-
ence on others, or being dependent on
others.)

Nothing is said in this connection about
the mere fact of already having children as
constituting a reason for attempting never
to have any more. It is very true that in
many cases in which a couple already have
several children, one of the above reasons
may be clearly present. But if it is not
present, then there is not a good reason
deriving from external circumstances for
the continuous adoption of the rhythm
practice.

It must always be noted that, even in
cases in which there are reasons that might
make the practice lawful, two other condi-
tions must be fulfilled before it actually
becomes lawful. The first is that both hus-
band and wife agree to it (unless the rea-
son be so serious that it would be clearly
unreasonable for one of them not to agree
to it.) The second is that there be little
danger of deliberate incontinence during
the fertile periods. It is these conditions,

together with the importance of a serious

— 30 —



reason, that make it prudent for every mar-
ried person to consult a confessor for a
decision when there is question of practic-
ing rhythm.



Send for a free copy

of the complete list

of popular

LXGUGRIAN PAMPHLETS.

Over 400 titles.

Write to:

LIGUORIAN PAMPHLETS
Liguori, Mo., U. S. A.





Published by

LIGUORIAN PAMPHLETS

REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

LIGUORL MISSOURI