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

reason
f
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