This is the last post I'm going to make in regard to the issue of the "Rhythm Method". This discussion is absolutely ridiculous. Forlorn and Ladislaus, these men quoted below have forgotten TEN TIMES the moral theology you will ever know. To imagine that you are more knowledgeable than they are is either the height of pride, or the depths of stupidity. Take your pick. Either way, you are espousing a position that falls under anathema by the Council of Trent - and I don't care what your personal interpretation is. Catholic moral theologians have already interpreted the Church's teaching on the Rhythm Method. Ergo, I have absolute confidence in the position I espouse here.
In his "Handbook of Moral Theology" (1921), Fr. Prummer states:
“To make use of the so-called safe period (i.e., to refrain from the conjugal act during the period when the woman is fertile) has been declared lawful by the Sacred Penitentiary, but it is not a certain means of preventing conception, since there is no infallible way of determining the safe period.”
Notice Fr. Prummer's reference to the judgement of the Sacred Penitentiary as the basis for his position. Likewise, Fr. Tanquerey references the judgement of the Penitentiary:
"Totally different from onanism is the practice of having conjugal relations only at those times when conception rarely occurs... Such a practice is not sinful, according to the Sacred Penitentiary (June 16, 1880)." ("Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et Pastoralis", 1933).
And again, as I mentioned in the lengthy post on this topic, Fr. Tanquerey's books were the most widely used seminary textbooks of the era. As to the morality of the Rhythm Method, Fr. Gerard Kelly, S.J., explains in his book, "Medico-moral Problems":
“The Church teaches that contraception is a sin because it means doing what is evil. It is not the same with rhythm. Those who practice the rhythm do nothing evil. They simply omit doing something good — that is, they abstain from intercourse at the time when it might be fertile. Therefore, the morality of using rhythm must be judged in the same way as other omissions: if the abstinence from intercourse is a neglect of duty, it is sinful; if it does not imply a neglect of duty, it is not sinful.”
In The Administration of the Sacraments by Fr. Nicholas Halligan, O.P., there is yet another reference to the morality of rhythm:
“As regards the conjugal act spouses are free to choose whatever time they wish to use their marital rights or also to abstain by mutual consent. Thus they are not obliged to perform this act only during the fertile period, neither are they obliged to refrain during the sterile period.
“God has endowed the nature of woman with both periods. Deliberately to limit the use of marital relations exclusively to the sterile periods in order to avoid conception (i.e., to practice periodic continence or rhythm) is, according to the common teaching of theologians, morally lawful in actual practice if there is mutual consent, sufficient reason, and due safeguards against attendant dangers.
“It is also common teaching that this practice of family limitation without good and sufficient reason involves a degree of moral fault. This fault certainly could be mortal if serious injustice is done or there exists grave danger of incontinence, divorce, serious family discord, etc.”
It is also incorrect to say that Pope Pius XI had not referred to rhythm in his encyclical when he taught:
“Nor are those married couples to be considered as acting against the order of nature who make use of their right in the proper, natural way, even though through natural causes either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot thence result.”
In Moral Theology by Fr. John C. Ford, S.J., and Fr. Gerard Kelly, S.J., we find an interesting answer to those who would doubt whether this quote of Pope Pius XI was referring to rhythm:
“The fact that the licit use of the sterile period was already at that time a commonplace among theologians, the fact that the phrase ‘through natural reasons... of time’ was used, rather than ‘reasons of age’ or some similar expression, and the fact that the immediate context of the encyclical itself was concern for the difficulties of married people tempted to onanism — all these considerations convinced the great majority of theologians that Pius XI was here referring to the permissible use of the sterile periods as a means of avoiding conception. Pius XII, we may mention here, explicitly confirmed this view in 1958 (Address to Hematologists, 12 Sept. 1958, A.A.S., 50 [1958] 736), thus dispelling what little doubt had existed on this point.”
Nor is it correct to say that conception cannot occur while using the Rhythm Method. It certainly can. And has. As quoted above, Fr. Prummer says the Rhythm Method is in no way a sure means of preventing pregnancy since there is no guaranteed way of determining the safe period. On the same note, in Marriage Guidance by Fr. Edwin F. Healy, S.J., S.T.D., we find:
“Rhythm cannot be looked upon as a certain method of avoiding offspring... The reasons for lack of certainty are: (1) It is difficult to be sure of the strict regularity of a particular woman’s ovulation periods. (2) Fertilization at times occurs during the periods which this theory regards as absolutely sterile.”
I would add here that most everyone who practices rhythm knows full well it is not a sure means of preventing pregnancy. Ergo, to argue that the fact a couple uses the Rhythm Method absolutely means they are not open to conception at other times, is fallacious reasoning. Conception can occur whether one wants it or not. A monkey knows this.
Nor is it required under the moral law for a couple to explicitly desire babies every time they have relations. The simple fact that they refuse to use anything that might frustrate the marriage act is itself proof of openness to conception. No couple has an explicit desire for children every time they have relations. Nor do couples that use Rhythm have an explicit desire not to conceive every time they engage in relations.
Finally, I would add that neither of you have one single quote to support your objection to this teaching. Not one. All you can produce are quotes which speak of the immorality of anything that frustrates the marriage act. That's all you have. And no one is arguing against those teachings. But you will not find one single statement anywhere condemning the Rhythm Method in any book of Catholic moral theology. Instead, the universality of Catholic moral theologians, along with Pius XI, have decided on the morality of the Rhythm Method.
All you have is your opinion. And that, according to Catholic theologians, is wrong.
Topic: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life (Read 4812 times)