WHY IS NFP WRONG?
NFP is wrong because it’s birth control; it’s against conception. It’s a refusal on the part of those who use it to be open to the children that God planned to send them. It’s no different in its purpose from artificial contraception, and therefore it’s a moral evil just like artificial contraception. Since the Church infallibly teaches that “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children” and that “those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #54) in addition to teaching that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin” (Ibid), this makes it perfectly clear to us that NFP is not only a very serious mortal sin according to the teaching of the Church, but also a sin against the Natural Law that can never be excused or changed.
The Catholic Church has always been officially opposed to contraception or birth control in all its forms, but contrary to the practice of the Catholics of the first 1900 years of the Church, the great majority of self professed Catholics living in our debauched era in time, ignore this prohibition. However, as we will see from the teaching of the Church in addition to the Natural Law and the Holy Bible as well as the teaching of all the Saints and Church Fathers, the Catholic Church infallibly and officially condemns all forms of contraception as a heinous mortal sin against God, life and nature, thus firmly declaring that those who practice any kind of contraception, such as NFP, will lose their souls.
Indeed, The Holy Bible directly commands spouses when they perform the marital sexual act that “thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children” (Tobias 6:22), and this totally condemns all contraceptive acts, such as NFP. As a matter of fact, the Holy Word of God in the Bible explicitly condemns spouses who are opposed to procreation, teaching that “the devil has power” over all spouses who selfishly come together for the purpose of gratifying their fleshly pleasures, giving “themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding” instead of being “moved rather for love of children than for lust” (Tobias 6:17) when they perform the marital act that Our Lord commands.
The best biblical example of God’s utter hatred of all forms of contraceptive acts is found in The Book of Genesis, where God Himself directly killed a man named Onan for practicing contraception: “He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.” (Genesis 38:8-10) Notice how clearly the biblical text shows that the reason he did this “detestable thing” was “lest children should be born in his brother’s name”, thus showing us that the act of performing the marital act while taking steps to hinder procreation is hated by God.
PROCREATION IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE
It is a divine law, a dogma of the faith (de fide), that the primary end of marriage is procreation (bearing children) and the education of children. Pope Pius XI decrees it “is beyond the power of any human law” to teach otherwise.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 8), Dec. 31, 1930: “To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words ‘Increase and multiply,’ is beyond the power of any human law. … This is also expressed succinctly in the [1917] Code of Canon Law [Canon 1013]: ‘The primary end [or purpose] of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.’”
A Practical Commentary on Canon 1013 explains that: “there can be no controversy over the primary object of marriage. The perpetuation of the human race is willed by the Creator, who from the creation of mankind appointed the means for this purpose… The Holy Office condemned the opinion defended by some recent authors who deny that the procreation of children is the primary end of matrimony, and regard its secondary ends not subordinate to its primary end but independent of it.” (April 1, 1944; Acta Ap. Sedis, XXXVI, 103.)
It could not be more clear from both the Natural Law as well as the teachings of the Church that “The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children.” (The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1013) Therefore, it is heresy to teach that procreation and education of children is not the only primary end of marriage. Any deliberate plan by man to frustrate the marital act by attempting to make conception impossible is a grave sin against this primary purpose of marriage.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1081: “The matrimonial consent is an act of will by which each party gives and accepts the perpetual and exclusive right to the body for the performance of actions that of their nature pertain to the procreation of children.”
A Practical Commentary on Canon 1081 explains that: “The Canon, in specifying the purpose for which the right to the body exchanged, also indicates what is lawful and what is unlawful in this matter for married persons. Whatever contributes to the procreation of children is licit, while whatever use of each other’s body impedes procreations is illicit.” Any plan by spouses to prevent conception when they engage in the marital act is illicit. Since it impedes procreation, it does not contribute to the procreation of children, but works against it.
THE TEACHING OF THE SOLEMN AND INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONDEMNS ALL FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL AS WELL AS THE INTENTION THAT IS OPPOSED TO PROCREATING CHILDREN AS A MORTAL SIN AGAINST NATURE
A pope can teach infallibly, not just in matters of faith, but also in matters of morals.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4. Definition of infallibility: “… we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”
A doctrine of faith or morals becomes part of the Solemn (Extraordinary) Magisterium when a pope infallibly defines it and hence makes it a dogma of faith or morals. Not only the Ordinary Magisterium (non-infallibly defined doctrines) but also the Solemn Magisterium (dogmas of faith), by an infallible definition from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii in 1930, condemns the contraceptive intent and hence any method used to carry out that intent (which includes any new methods that science and medicine had not yet invented, such as birth control pills that were introduced to the public in the early 1960’s.)
Casti Connubii is an encyclical addressed to the entire Church. In this encyclical, Pius XI plainly states what the Faith of the Church is on Christian Marriage. When a Pope plainly and authoritatively states what the Faith of the Church is in an encyclical to the entire Church, that represents the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, to which a Catholic is bound. His teaching shows that all forms of birth prevention are evil. (We quote a long excerpt from his encyclical which sums up the issue below.) In addition, there is solemn language used by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii which constitutes a solemn and infallible (ex cathedra) pronouncement. Note the bolded and underlined portions.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of the family circumstances.
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).’
“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, TO WHOM GOD HAS ENTRUSTED THE DEFENSE OF THE INTEGRITY AND PURITY OF MORALS, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: ANY USE WHATSOEVER OF MATRIMONY EXERCISED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE ACT IS DELIBERATELY FRUSTRATED IN ITS NATURAL POWER TO GENERATE LIFE IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW OF GOD AND OF NATURE, AND THOSE WHO INDULGE IN SUCH ARE BRANDED WITH THE GUILT OF A GRAVE SIN.”
These sentences fulfill the conditions of an infallible teaching regarding a doctrine of morals. The Pope is addressing the Universal Church, “the Catholic Church.” He makes it clear he is proclaiming a truth, “Our mouth proclaims.” The topic deals with morals, “the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and the purity of morals.” And lastly, he binds Catholics to this teaching under pain of grave sin, “those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” This is infallible, ex cathedra language; anyone who denies this simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. This also serves to refute those many voices today who say things such as: “there have only been two infallible statements in Church history, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.” That is complete nonsense, of course, but one hears it quite frequently.
One can see that Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful because they frustrate the marriage act. Does this condemn NFP? Yes it does, but the defenders of Natural Family Planning say “no.” They argue that in using Natural Family Planning to avoid conception they are not deliberately frustrating the marriage act or designedly depriving it of its natural power to procreate life, as is done with artificial contraceptives. They argue that NFP is “natural.”
Common sense should tell those who deeply consider this topic that these arguments are specious because NFP has as its entire purpose the avoidance of conception. However, the attempted justification for NFP – the claim that it doesn’t interfere with the marriage act itself and is therefore permissible – must be specifically refuted. This claim is specifically refuted by a careful look at the teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage and ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the primary purpose of marriage (and the marriage act) which condemns NFP.
Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage, such as mutual aid, the quieting of concupiscence and the cultivating of mutual love. But these secondary purposes must always remain subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children). This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END [THAT IS, PROCREATION OF CHILDREN] and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.
NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.
To summarize, therefore, the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).
THE HOLY BIBLE INFALLIBLY CONDEMNS ALL FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL AND TEACHES THAT BOTH THE INTENTION AS WELL THE ACT AGAINST PROCREATION OF CHILDREN IS DAMNABLE AND A MORTAL SIN
The best example of God’s utter hatred and detestation of all those who perform the marital act while trying to thwart the procreation of the children that God wanted to bless them with, is found in The Book of Genesis, where God Himself directly killed a man named Onan for practicing contraception. The reason Onan in The Book of Genesis was killed was because “He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.” Notice how clearly the biblical text shows that the reason he did this “detestable thing” was “lest children should be born in his brother’s name”, thus showing us that the act of performing the marital act while taking steps to hinder procreation is hated by God. This absolutely proves that the act of trying to hinder conception (in action or thought) is condemned and sinful according to God’s Holy Law.
Genesis 38:8-10 “Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: ‘Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.’ He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.”
What deed was Onan killed for by God? Obviously, he was killed for the wicked and selfish deed of having sexual relations while practicing contraception; and for being against conception; for, “As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).’” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii # 55; St. Augustine, De Conjugiis Adulterinis, Book II, Chapter 12)
Since Onan wanted to selfishly and lustfully enjoy the sex act without intending having children as God’s holy law requires, the evil angel Asmodeus that kills lustful and wicked people, was permitted by God to slay him (cf. Tobias 3:8). Haydock commentary explains: “[Genesis 38] Ver. 10. Slew him, perhaps by the hand of evil angels, Psalm lxxvii. 49. Asmodeus, &c., who slew the libidinous husbands of Sara. (Tobias iii. 7[8].) (Menochius)”
In addition to this irrefutable biblical example from The Book of Genesis that shows that contraceptive marital sexual acts are hated by God, we read in the biblical Book of Tobias or Tobit (which not surprisingly is missing from most protestant “bible” versions, whereas in the few versions they are included, these verses shown below are nevertheless missing) that the holy youth Tobias was explicitly commanded by almighty God through the Archangel Raphael to never perform the marital act for the sake of lust and that “thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children.”
Tobias who was a holy and virtuous person consented to this admonishment by the holy angel and answered God in his prayer that “not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity”.
The Holy Bible, Tobias 6:22; 8:9 “And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias said:] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.”
This makes it perfectly clear that spouses must approach the marital sexual act with a will to beget children “moved rather for love of children than for lust” as well as with a “fear of the Lord” so that they do not allow their lust to erupt or gain a control over their minds by acts of non-procreative, unlawful or excessive sexual acts, such as sensual kisses and touches between two married spouses performed “for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss” which is condemned as a mortal sin for both the married and the unmarried people alike (Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Morals Condemned in Decree #40, September 24, 1665; Denz. 1140).
The holy youth Tobias approached his bride Sara after three days of prayer in chastity and abstinence from the marital act, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity, having been instructed by the Archangel Raphael that to engage in the marital act he shall “be moved rather for love of children than for lust”.
According to God’s will, spouses are to engage in the marital act for the “love of posterity” (children), not for lust. No, contrary to what most people today say, the Holy Bible is clear that spouses are to come together “only for the love of posterity” if they want to please Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Word of God in the Bible is indeed true when it says that “the devil has power” over all spouses who selfishly come together for the purpose of gratifying their fleshly pleasures, giving “themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding” instead of being “moved rather for love of children than for lust” when they perform the marital act that Our Lord commands.
Tobias 6:16-17 “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
Haydock Commentary adds about: “Verse 17. Mule, which are very libidinous, [Showing excessive sexual drive; lustful.] Psalm xiii.”
The interesting thing about the sexual connection of a horse and a mule is that they cannot produce offspring, thus making their sexual relations completely sterile and unproductive. So what does this mean for marriage? It means that this verse alone proves that God’s Holy Word in the Bible condemns as sinful and unlawful all human sexual relations or acts that (1) are performed for the sole sake of lust; (2) that cannot produce offspring naturally (not referring to natural infertility or defects); and (3) that are done with an intention or mindset opposed to procreating offspring. St. Paul in the New Testament also connects the will to bear children to salvation, teaching that a woman: “shall be saved through child-bearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” (1 Timothy 2:15)
We also see in The Book of Tobit that the Holy Bible teaches that both the intention as well as the act against procreation of children is damnable and a mortal sin since we see described in the Bible that the devil is able to both gain control and prevail over those vile and wretched people who commit lustful acts of birth control either in thought or deed. And so, it is certain that all spouses who are opposed to procreation while at the same time desiring to perform the marital act are committing a mortal sin. In truth, “I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail” and who “give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding” that the “the devil hath power” over. “For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.” (Tobias 6:16-17)
God’s words are clear. Spouses are to engage in the marital act moved rather for love of children than for lust. So when a married couple goes out of its way to avoid children by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times, they are committing a sin against nature – they are sinning against the God whom they know sends life. NFP is therefore a sin against God and nature, since God is the author of life, and NFP thwarts His designs. This is so obvious that one can only marvel at how utterly unreasonable and stupid all those NFP defenders are who claim that one can practice birth control in one way, but not in another; and that by doing it in one way (which they deem lawful) one is not committing a sin, but while doing it in another way (which they deem unlawful) one is committing a sin! But is not the motive, purpose or intention exactly the same in both cases? Of course they are! How then can one be lawful and the other not lawful? Greater stupidity and unreasonable thinking is hard to imagine!
It is not a complicated matter to understand that using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy is wrong. It is written on man’s heart that such activity is wrong. It is also clear from the infallible word of God and the Bible that all forms of birth control are inherently evil and against nature.
Genesis 30:1-2 “And Rachel seeing herself without children, envied her sister, and said to her husband: ‘Give me children, otherwise I shall die.’ And Jacob being angry with her, answered: ‘Am I as God, who hath deprived thee of the fruit of thy womb?’”
We all know that God is the One who opens the womb, the One who killeth and maketh alive. “The Lord also remembering Rachel, heard her, and opened her womb.” (Genesis 30:22) In truth, “The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell, and bringeth back again.” (1 Kings 2:6)
So why would a woman who desires to fulfill the will of God make a systematic effort to avoid God sending her a new life? What excuse could such a person possibly make for going out of her way to calculate how to have marital relations without getting pregnant with the child God was going to send? Why would a woman (or a man) who believes that God opens the womb try to avoid His opening of the womb by a meticulous and organized effort, involving charts, cycles and thermometers? The answer is that those who engage in such behavior as NFP selfishly turn from God (which is the essence of sin) and refuse to be open to His will.
God, and not man, is the only one that can lawfully decide whether a couple shall receive a child or not. Can you imagine what Jacob would have said to Rachel if she had discovered a new way to avoid “the Lord opening her womb?” He would probably have rebuked her as an infidel.
Is the purpose of marriage to have children? Yes. The answer to this question can be found right in The Holy Bible. “And God blessed them saying: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Genesis 1:28) “Be fruitful and multiply” is a command of God, indeed the first command to a married couple. Birth control obviously involves disobedience to this command, for birth control attempts to prevent being fruitful and multiplying. Therefore birth control is evil, because it involves disobedience to the Word of God. Nowhere is this command done away with in the entire Bible; therefore it still remains valid for us today.
Contrary to the many heretics of our times, The Holy Bible does have quite a lot to say about the greatness and blessing of receiving children from God. The Bible presents children as a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5), a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5), a blessing from God (Luke 1:42), and a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6). God sometimes blesses barren women with children (Psalm 113:9; Genesis 21:1-3; 25:21-22; 30:1-2; 1 Samuel 1:6-8; Luke 1:7, 24-25). God forms children in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16). God knows children before their birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15).”
Birth control is a contravention of God’s purpose for marriage and that all children conceived during routine sexual intercourse (without regard to time of the month during the ovulation cycle or other matters) should be welcomed as blessings. Based upon Bible verses that describe God acting to “open and close the womb” (see Genesis 20:18, 29:31, 30:22; 1 Samuel 1:5-6; Isaiah 66:9), all members of the Christian Church must believe that Divine Providence alone should control how many and how often children are conceived and born. It is a sad fact of our times, but use of birth control is directly and intimately connected with modern feminism, an anti-child mentality, worldliness, as well as abortion, because birth control is used for the same reasons why a woman aborts her child. When people who use birth control get pregnant, the chance for them getting an abortion is undoubtedly much higher than for those good and virtuous spouses who wish to get a child.
If you were to list all the reasons why so called Christians use birth control, you would see that they are the same reasons why a woman aborts her child. The number one reason (according to all studies ever done) a woman aborts her child is because the child is an inconvenience. The child interferes with the mother’s (or the father’s) pursuit of happiness or possessions. When we use birth control, we are embracing the same anti-child mentality. We are saying that our pursuit of so called happiness, our pursuit of possessions, is more important than obeying God. The question is, “How can we abrogate God’s design for marriage and expect to really be happy?”
The first thing we must recognize is that children are a gift from God (Psalm 127:3-5). They are not burdens to bear, but blessings to receive with joy. From a biblical perspective, every married couple should “expect” to have children and at least be prepared for the possibility. The inability to have children was considered a curse, and the ability to conceive a joy. No one was ever recorded in the Bible as being unhappy about bearing children.
The Church and the fathers infallibly and unanimously condemns all forms of birth control as evil and a mortal sin
Second, we must also learn about the truth about that the Holy Fathers, Popes and Saints of the Catholic Church unanimously condemns all forms of birth control and contraception (in deed as well as in thought) as not only intrinsically evil and mortally sinful, but also as an act worthy of hellfire, since it is of the divine law that “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii). Thus, anything or any act that is opposed to the primary end of marriage, is a sin against nature.
St. Augustine, De Conjugiis Adulterinis, Book II, Chapter 12, A.D. 396: “… intercourse, even with one’s lawfully wedded spouse, can take place in an unlawful and shameful manner, whenever the conception of offspring is avoided. Onan, the son of Juda, did this very thing, and the Lord slew him on that account. Therefore, the procreation of children is itself the primary, natural, legitimate purpose of marriage. Whence it follows that those who marry because of their inability to remain continent ought not to so temper their vice that they preclude the good of marriage, which is the procreation of children.”
St. Epiphanius, Medicine Chest Against Heresies, A.D. 375: “They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption.” (Panarion or Medicine Chest Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 26:5:2.--Epiphanius Against the Gnostics, or Borborites)
St. Epiphanius, Medicine Chest Against Heresies, A.D. 375: “There are those who when they have intercourse deliberately prevent having children. They indulge in pleasure not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy their passion. To such an extent has the devil deceived these wretched people that they betray the work of God by perverting it to their own deceits. Moreover, they are so willing to satisfy their carnal desires as to pollute each other with impure seed, by which offspring is not conceived but by their own will evil desires are satisfied.” (Panarion or Medicine Chest Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 26:5:2-3.--Epiphanius Against the Gnostics, or Borborites)
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus (c. 198 A.D.): “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children)
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5, A.D. 391: “… and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [by birth control methods such as NFP or contraception].”
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24, A.D. 391: “Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit [NFP], where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? [birth prevention] You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well… Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder...”
St. Caesarius of Arles [A.D. 468-542], Sermon 51:4: “They sin still more grievously when they kill the children who are already conceived or born, and when by taking impious drugs to prevent conception they condemn in themselves the nature which God wanted to be fruitful. Let them not doubt that they have committed as many murders as the number of the children they might have begotten. … As many as they kill after they are already conceived or born, before the tribunal of the eternal Judge they will be held guilty of so many murders. If women attempt to kill the children within them by evil medicines, and themselves die in the act, they become guilty of three crimes on their own: suicide, spiritual adultery, and murder of the unborn child.”
St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 1:12, A.D. 522: “Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in Hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.”
St. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9:7, A.D. 225: “Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time!”
St. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9:12, A.D. 225: “… the so-called faithful want no children [but want to have sexual relations]… [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered.”
John the Faster, Patriarch John IV of Constantinople (6th century): “If someone to satisfy his lust or in deliberate hatred does something to a man or woman so that no children be born of him or her, or gives them to drink (pharmakon), so that he cannot generate or she conceive, let it be held as homicide.” (Penitential of John IV Nesteutes)
St. John Climacus (c. 525-606 A.D.): “God neither caused nor created evil and, therefore, those who assert that certain passions come naturally to the soul are quite wrong. What they fail to realize is that we have taken natural attributes of our own and turned them into passions. For instance, the seed which we have for the sake of procreating children [which is the natural attribute of the sexual act] is abused by us for the sake of fornication [or by any sexual act without intending having children].” (The Ladder of Divine Ascent, "Step 26: On Discernment," by St. John Climacus, p. 251)
Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter 23, A.D. 307: “God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [generating] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.”
St. Jerome, Letter 22:13, To Eustochium, A.D. 384: “Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception.”
St. Caesarius of Arles [A.D. 468-542], Sermon 44: “Moreover, women must not take diabolical draughts [contraceptive drugs] with the purpose of not being able to conceive children. A woman who does this ought to realize that she will be guilty of as many murders as the number of children she might have borne.”
St. Epiphanius, Medicine Chest Against Heresies, A.D. 375: “The like of this fornication and licentiousness may be seen in the extremely dreadful snake the ancients called the pangless viper. For the nature of such a viper is similar to the wickedness of these people. In performing their filthy act either with men or with women they forbear insemination, rendering impossible the procreation God has given his creatures—as the apostle says, "receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet" [Rom. 1:27], and so on.” (Panarion or Medicine Chest Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 26:5:19:2-3.--Epiphanius Against the Gnostics, or Borborites)
St. Epiphanius, Medicine Chest Against Heresies, A.D. 375: “But if the apostle says to bear children [1 Tim. 5:11; 14], but they decline procreation, it is the enterprise of a serpent and of false doctrine. Because they are mastered by the pleasure of fornication [fornication is often mentioned by the Fathers as the desire for sexual relations but without desiring or intending having offspring] they invent excuses for their uncleanness, so that their licentiousness may appear to fulfill Paul’s commandment. Really these things should neither be said nor considered worth mentioning in treatises, but buried like a foul corpse exuding a pestilent vapour, to protect people from injury even through their sense of hearing. And if a sect of this kind [which teaches the heresy that non-procreative sexual acts are moral or that they are without sin] had passed away and no longer existed, it would be better to bury it and say nothing about it at all. But since it does exist and has practitioners, and I have been urged by your Honors to speak of all the sects, I have been forced to describe parts of it, in order, in all frankness, not to pass them over but describe them, for the protection of the hearers—but for the banishment of the practitioners.” (Panarion or Medicine Chest Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 26:5:14:3-5.--Epiphanius Against the Gnostics, or Borborites)
Thus, since the Fathers of the Church unanimously teaches that contraception or birth control in all its forms are mortally sinful in deed as well as in thought, this doctrine is infallible according to the councils of Trent and Vatican I. And this is not even mentioning the fact that the Holy Bible and the Papal Magisterium of the Church infallibly condemns birth control as well, as we have seen!
The Church and the fathers infallibly and unanimously teaches that spouses who intend to get married and have sexual relations must desire to beget and educate children
Third, we must also learn about the truth that the Fathers, Popes and Saints of the Catholic Church all teach that people who choose to get married (and that desire to have sexual relations) must also desire to beget and educate children in the Catholic religion for the glory and honor of God, since it is of the Divine Law and the teaching of the Church and of Pope Pius XI that “Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God’s household, that the worshipers of God and Our Savior may daily increase.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #13)
This is also expressed succinctly in The 1917 Code of Canon Law: “The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children.” (Canon 1013) The following Fathers and Saints of the Church teach the same as Pope Pius XI and The 1917 Code of Canon Law.
St. Augustine, Sermons on the New Testament, Sermon 1:22: “The [marriage] contract is read... in the presence of all the attesting witnesses... that they marry "for the procreation of children;" and this is called the marriage contract. If it was not for this that wives were given and taken to wife, what father could without blushing give up his daughter to the lust of any man? But now, that the parents may not blush, and that they may give their daughters in honorable marriage, not to shame, the contract is read out. And what is read from it?--the clause, "for the sake of the procreation of children." And when this is heard, the brow of the parent is cleared up and calmed. Let us consider again the feelings of the husband who takes his wife. The husband himself would blush to receive her with any other view, if the father would blush with any other view to give her.”
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 29 (c. 160 A.D.): “We Christians either marry only to produce children, or, if we refuse to marry, are completely continent.”
St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 347-407, Homilies on Colossians: “Thou marriest a wife for chastity and procreation.” (Homily XII; PG 62.386; NPNF p. 318)
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter IV, A.D. 107: “For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind.”
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus (c. 198 A.D.): “The procreation of children is the remit and ordinance of those who are joined together in marriage; and their objective is that their children be good.… It is lawful for you to take sensual pleasures only from your wife in order to beget legitimate offspring, for only these pleasures are lawful according to the Word.... For this reason, Moses himself prohibited his people from sleeping even with their own wives in cases where they were subject to menstrual flows.… For pleasure alone, when experienced in marital intercourse, is unlawful, unjust and foreign to reason. Again, Moses ordered men not to sleep with pregnant women until they gave birth.… In fact, it [sexual pleasure] spreads a cloud over the senses and weakens one’s strength.... However, marriage is indeed allowed and accepted: for the Lord wishes the human race to be replenished; but He does not say, "Be lustful", nor is it his will that you be dedicated to pleasure as if you were born for intercourse.... However, to have intercourse for purposes other than to beget children is to do an injury to nature.... Marriage constitutes an endeavour to beget children, not an undisciplined ejaculation of semen, which is unlawful and foreign to reason....”
St. Robert Bellarmine, The Art of Dying Well, Chapter XV, On Matrimony, A.D. 1619: “There are three blessings arising from Matrimony, if it be made a good use of, viz: Children, fidelity, and the grace of the sacrament. The generation of children, together with their proper education, must be had in view, if we would make a good use of matrimony; but on the contrary, he commits a most grievous sin, who seeks only carnal pleasure in it.”
St. John Damascene (c. 676-749 A.D.), On Marriage: “Marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children.” (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XXIV)
St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 470-543 A.D.), Sermon 44:3: “A man takes a wife for the procreation of children, not for the sake of lust. Even the marriage rite mentions this: ‘For the procreation of children,’ it says. Notice that it does not say for the sake of lust, but ‘for the procreation of children.’ I would like to know, dearly beloved, what kind of a harvest a man could gather if he sowed his field in one year as often as he is overcome by dissipation and abuses his wife without any desire for children. If those who are unwilling to control themselves plowed and sowed repeatedly their land which was already sown, let us see in what kind of fruit they would rejoice. As you well know, no land can produce proper fruit if it is sown frequently in one year. Why, then, does a man do with his body what he does not want done with his field?”
St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Section 6, A.D. 401: “Therefore married persons owe one another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself for the begetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the human kind in this mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining one another’s weakness, [that is, paying the marital debt when it is asked for] in order to shun unlawful intercourse.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (c. 180 A.D.): “God made the male and female for the propagation of the human race.” (Book I, Chapter XXVIII, Section 1)
St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 347-407, On Virginity, #19: “So marriage was granted for the sake of procreation...”
St. Clement of Alexandria, On Marriage (c. 199 A.D.): “Marriage is the first union of man and woman for the procreation of legitimate children.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XXIII)
St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Section 32, A.D. 401: “Therefore that marriage takes place for the sake of begetting children, the Apostle is a witness thus, "I will," says he, "that the younger women be married." And, as though it were said to him, "For what purpose?" Straightway he added, "to have children, to be mothers of families." … All these are goods, on account of which marriage is a good; offspring, faith, sacrament. But now, at this time, not to seek offspring after the flesh, and by this means to maintain a certain perpetual freedom from every such work, and to be made subject after a spiritual manner unto one Husband Christ, is assuredly better and holier...”
St. Clement of Alexandria, On Marriage (c. 199 A.D.): “For every one is not to marry, nor always. But there is a time in which it is suitable, and a person for whom it is suitable, and an age up to which it is suitable. Neither ought every one to take a wife, nor is it every woman one is to take, nor always, nor in every way, nor inconsiderately. But only he who is in certain circumstances, and such an one and at such time as is requisite, and for the sake of children, and one who is in every respect similar, and who does not by force or compulsion love the husband who loves her.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XXIII)
St. Methodius (died c. 311 A.D.), On Genesis 1:28: “Increase and multiply is the command, and we may not spurn the command [if we are married and intend to perform the marital sexual act].” (Symp., 31; SC 95, p. 70; Musurillo (1958), p. 49)
St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 347-407, Homilies on Timothy: “Shall not women then be saved? Yes, by means of children. For it is not of Eve that he says, "If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." [1 Tim. 2:15] What faith? what charity? what holiness with sobriety? It is as if he had said, "Ye women, be not cast down, because your sex has incurred blame. God has granted you another opportunity of salvation, by the bringing up of children, so that you are saved, not only by yourselves, but by others." [cf. 1 Tim. 2:15]” (Homilies on the First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, Homily IX, 1 Timothy 2:11-15)
St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Section 19, 32, A.D. 401: “Marriage itself indeed in all nations is for the same cause of begetting sons, and of what character soever these may be afterward, yet was marriage for this purpose instituted, that they may be born in due and honest order… Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting [children], and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place...”
The main reason why the Church and Her Popes and Saints all teach that a man and a woman who intends to marry and have sexual relations must also desire to beget children and educate them in the Catholic religion for the glory and honor of God, is that a “marriage” without this desire would be similar to the cohabitation of unmarried people who only live with each other for the motive of gratifying their sensual desires. In truth, “the aforesaid [marital sexual] act does not differ from the act of fornication... But the act of fornication is always evil. Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused...” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 49, Art. 5) Thus, what separates fornication from a true marriage is the active wish to beget and educate children for the love and honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is also why St. Augustine writes that “the [marriage] contract is read... in the presence of all the attesting witnesses... that they marry ‘for the procreation of children’” (On the New Testament 1:22).
A good advice to all men and women who intend to marry (or who are already married) is that they read the marriage vows several times either with their future spouse or by themselves, and seriously considers the reason for their marriage, so that they know what is obligated of them when they get married. It is important for all who intend to marry to know that marriage is about a lot of obligations, and that spouses many times are forced to be without sex for the rest of their life if the other spouse dies, or gets hurt or suffer some other debilitating problem or illness that hinders them from being able to perform the marital act, so that this does not come as a shock when trouble happens. Marriage was never intended to be about selfishness or sensuality, but rather about family, companionship and responsibility, so people who intend to marry must make sure that they adopt the life of marriage in order to love and serve their spouse, instead of seeing or treating their spouse as a fleshly object given to them to satisfy their sensual longings. “Marriage constitutes an endeavour to beget children, not an undisciplined ejaculation of semen, which is unlawful and foreign to reason... It is therefore not just to be held bound by sexual things, nor to cling stupidly to lusts, nor to be moved by appetites that are foreign to reason, nor to desire to be defiled. It is permitted to him alone who has married a wife... to sow his seed, when the time allows him to sow.” (St. Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, A.D. 198)
The necessity to beget and educate one’s offspring in the true Catholic Faith cannot be understated; and especially so today since almost all people reject the true Catholic Faith, which is also why the world has been allowed to fall into such degradation. Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Arcanum (on Christian Marriage) teaches that: “the Christian perfection and completeness of marriage are not comprised in those points only which have been mentioned. For, first, there has been vouchsafed to the marriage union a higher and nobler purpose than was ever previously given to it. By the command of Christ, it not only looks to the propagation of the human race, but to the bringing forth of children for the Church, ‘fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God’; so that ‘a people might be born and brought up for the worship and religion of the true God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’”
St. Clement of Alexandria further explains that, “for the married He [the Lord] goes on to say, "My elect shall not labour in vain nor bear children to be accursed; for they are a seed blessed by the Lord." [Isaiah 65:23] For him who begets children and brings them up and educates them in the Lord, just as for him who begets children by means of the true teaching, a reward is laid up, as also for the elect seed. … Those who are in truth the Lord’s elect neither teach doctrines nor beget children to be accursed, as the [heretical] sects do.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book III, Chapter XV, Section 98)
If we take upon us the heavy burden of Matrimony, we are obligated under pain of mortal sin to educate our children in the Catholic Faith. “For a person does not become a father simply because he helped to bring about the birth of a child, but by raising the child correctly.” (St. Chrysostom, Sermon regarding Anna, Homily 1, PG 54, 636) In truth, St. Chrysostom is completely right in saying that those who refuse to educate their children in the true Catholic Faith are the very reason for all kinds of evils in society. “The reason for the overturning of all things is that we aren’t caring for our own children. We take care of their bodies, but we ignore the upbringing of their souls.” Chrysostom goes on to ask, “Do you want a child that is obedient? From their first steps, feed them on the wisdom and counsels of the Lord.” If we showed the same interest in the spiritual education of children as we do in their education in other spheres, we would forestall many evils. “When the father of a very gentle child only gives him sweets, refreshments, and whatever he likes when he’s ill, but not what he actually needs for his sickness; or if a doctor checks him out and confesses, "What can I do? I can’t stand to see the child cry." Poor, foolish traitor! The only name I can’t give such a person is that of father. How much better it would be for you if you upset your child a little bit so that he might be healthy for all time, rather than making this fleeting pleasure the foundation for continuous sorrow.” (St. Chrysostom, On the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 30, PG 60, 226) With the satisfaction of the child’s every desire, we make him egocentric, and with such a character, he will be unhappy in the world. The Saint encourages us to “be like sculptors and make every effort to make your children wonderful sculptures that look like God. It will happen if you take away everything that is unnecessary, if you add whatever is necessary, and if you check daily to see what physical defects they have that you can fix.” (St. John Chrysostom, On Vanity and the Upbringing of Children)
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles also teaches us that all parents who disregard correcting and educating their child in the Lord “will be guilty of their souls”, thus showing us that educating our children in the Lord is not something we choose to do, but something we are obligated to do under pain of mortal sin:
“Ye fathers, educate your children in the Lord, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and teach them such trades as are agreeable and suitable to the word, lest they by such opportunity become extravagant, and continue without punishment from their parents, and so get relaxation before their time, and go astray from that which is good. Wherefore be not afraid to reprove them, and to teach them wisdom with severity. For your corrections will not kill them, but rather preserve them. As Solomon says somewhere in the book of Wisdom: "Chasten thy son, and he will refresh thee; so wilt thou have good hope of him. Thou verily shalt smite him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from death." (Prov. 29:17, 19:18, 23:14.) And again, says the same Solomon thus, "He that spareth his rod, hateth his son;" (Prov. 13:24) and afterwards, "Beat his sides whilst he is an infant, lest he be hardened and disobey thee." (Ecclus. 30:12) He, therefore, that neglects to admonish and instruct his own son, hates his own child. Do you therefore teach your children the word of the Lord. Bring them under with cutting stripes, and make them subject from their infancy, teaching them the Holy Scriptures, which are Christian and divine, and delivering to them every sacred writing, "not giving them such liberty that they get the mastery," (Ecclus. 30:11) and act against your opinion, not permitting them to club together for a treat with their equals. For so they will be turned to disorderly courses, and will fall into fornication; and if this happen by the carelessness of their parents, those that begat them will be guilty of their souls. For if the offending children get into the company of debauched persons by the negligence of those that begat them, they will not be punished alone by themselves; but their parents also will be condemned on their account. For this cause endeavour, at the time when they are of an age fit for marriage, to join them in wedlock, and settle them together, test in the heat and fervour of their age their course of life become dissolute, and you be required to give an account by the Lord God in the day of judgment.” (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book IV, Section II, Chapter XI.--On Domestic and Social Life Of Parents and Children)
Pope Pius XI also teaches this noble truth in great detail in his marvelous Encyclical called Casti Connubii, which means “Chaste Marriage”.
Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii (#’s 10-13), Dec. 31, 1930: “Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death: “These,” says St. Augustine, “are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament.” And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: “By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”
“Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.” As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy when he says: “The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?,’ he immediately adds: ‘To bear children, to be mothers of families’.”
“How great a boon of God this is, and how great a blessing of matrimony is clear from a consideration of man’s dignity and of his sublime end. For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. Besides, God wishes men to be born not only that they should live and fill the earth, but much more that they may be worshippers of God, that they may know Him and love Him and finally enjoy Him for ever in heaven; and this end, since man is raised by God in a marvelous way to the supernatural order, surpasses all that eye hath seen, and ear heard, and all that hath entered into the heart of man. From which it is easily seen how great a gift of divine goodness and how remarkable a fruit of marriage are children born by the omnipotent power of God through the cooperation of those bound in wedlock.
“But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God’s household, that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase.”
The 1917 Code of Canon Law also accurately describes the nature of the Sacrament of Marriage: “Marital consent is an act of the will whereby each party grants and accepts a permanent and exclusive right over the body regarding its acts which are of themselves apt for the generation of offspring.” (Codex Iuris Cononici, 1081.2) Thus, marriage is understood as a lawful contract in which the two parties handed over to each other the right to use one another for acts suitable for the generation of children. If two persons were to use the vocabulary of the Church’s canonical definition in their wedding vows, the bride and groom might say to each other, “I understand our marrying as an act in which I hand over to you the right to use my body for acts that are apt for generating children. I want to do this in a contractual context before these gathered witnesses.” Canon 1013 fittingly combined the teachings of both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, teaching that: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; its secondary end is mutual help and the remedying of concupiscence.” (Codex Iuris Cononici, 1013)
St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Section 1, A.D. 401: “The first natural bond of human society is man and wife. Nor did God create these each by himself, and join them together as alien by birth: but He created the one out of the other, setting a sign also of the power of the union in the side, whence she was drawn, was formed. For they are joined one to another side by side, who walk together, and look together whither they walk. Then follows the connexion of fellowship in children, which is the one alone worthy fruit, not of the union of male and female, but of the sexual intercourse. For it were possible that there should exist in either sex, even without such intercourse, a certain friendly and true union of the one ruling, and the other obeying.”
Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Mirari Vos, which exposed liberalism and religious indifferentism explains that those marriages that are devoid of the “thought of the sacrament and of the mysteries signified by it [that is, the procreation and education of children, faithfulness, and mutual love and help]” or that was entered into because of “concupiscence alone,” will have “an unhappy ending” since these kinds of selfish, lustful and impious “marriages” in effect are nothing but fornication in disguise of a marriage, thus firmly contradicting and exposing the modernistic and heretical teachings of certain impious men and women who dared to assert that one could marry for mere selfish, lustful or worldly motives, rather than for pious and good motives that a true and honorable marriage always is based on.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 12), Aug. 15, 1832: “Now the honorable marriage of Christians, which Paul calls "a great sacrament in Christ and the Church,"[Heb. 13:4, Eph. 5:32] demands our shared concern lest anything contrary to its sanctity and indissolubility is proposed. Our predecessor Pius VIII would recommend to you his own letters on the subject. However, troublesome efforts against this sacrament still continue to be made. The people therefore must be zealously taught that a marriage rightly entered upon cannot be dissolved; for those joined in matrimony God has ordained a perpetual companionship for life and a knot of necessity which cannot be loosed except by death. Recalling that matrimony is a sacrament and therefore subject to the Church, let them consider and observe the laws of the Church concerning it. Let them take care lest for any reason they permit that which is an obstruction to the teachings of the canons and the decrees of the councils. They should be aware that those marriages will have an unhappy end which are entered upon contrary to the discipline of the Church or without God’s favor or because of concupiscence alone, with no thought of the sacrament and of the mysteries signified by it.”
In truth, Pope Gregory IX (1145-1241) also affirms the Church’s teaching on the sacrament of marriage, saying that: “As much as the contract of marriage is favored, it lacks effect if conditions are stipulated against the substance of marriage. For example, if one says to the other, “I contract with you if you will prevent the conception of children,” or, “until I find another woman more worthy in honor or riches,” or, “if you will sell yourself in adultery for money.”” (Gratian, Marriage Canons From The Decretum, Case Thirty-Two, Question IV, Conditions Set in Betrothals or Other Contracts)
Pope Gregory IX’s three examples here shows us the three goods of marriage: proles (offspring), sacramentum (indissolubility), and fides (fidelity) without which a marriage contract is invalid. “It seems evident that a woman taken merely to have sex is not a wife, because God instituted marriage for propagation, not merely for satisfying lust. For the nuptial blessing is, “Increase and multiply.” [Gen. 1:28] … It is shameful for a woman when her marriage bears no fruit, for this alone is the reason for marrying. … bearing children is the fruit of marriage and the blessing of matrimony is without doubt the reason that [the Blessed Virgin] Mary’s virginity defeated the Prince of this World [the Devil]. Thus anyone who joins himself to another, not for the sake of procreating offspring, but rather to satisfy lust is less a spouse than a fornicator. … As no congregation of heretics can be called a Church of Christ because they do not have Christ as their head, so no matrimony, where one has not joined her husband according to Christ’s precept, can properly be called marriage, but is better called adultery.” (Gratian, Marriage Canons From The Decretum, Case Thirty-Two, Question II)
St. Augustine, Against Julian, Book V, Chapter 12:46, A.D. 421: “Nevertheless, because human soundness agrees that the motive in taking a wife is the procreation of offspring, regardless of how weakness yields to lust, I note, in addition to the faithfulness which the married owe to each other so that there be no adultery, and the offspring, for whose generation the two sexes are to be united, that a third good, which seems to me to be a sacrament, should exist in the married, above all in those who belong to the people of God, so that there be no divorce from a wife who cannot bear, and that a man not wishing to beget more children give not his wife to another for begetting, as Cato is said to have done [Plutarch, In vita Catonis; Lucan 2]. … I say that there is another way in which marriage is good when offspring can be procreated only through intercourse. If there were another way to procreate, yet the spouses had intercourse, then they evidently must have yielded to lust, and made evil use of evil. But, since the two sexes were purposely instituted, man can be born only from their union, and thus spouses by their union for this purpose [of procreation] make good use of that evil [of lust]...”
Thus, Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604), in his work “Pastoral Rule”, which deals with sexual sins from a biblical perspective, could rightly admonish Christians to never marry or perform the marital act for carnal or lustful motives: “The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure. For hence it is that the Apostle, skilled in heavenly medicine, did not so much lay down a course of life for the whole [of humanity] as point out remedies to the weak when he said, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman: but on account of fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:1-2). For in that he premised the fear of fornication, he surely did not give a precept to such as were standing [in the greater and more blessed life of chastity], but pointed out the bed to such as were falling, lest haply they should tumble to the ground. Whence to such as were still weak he added, "Let the husband render unto the wife her due; and likewise also the wife unto the husband" (1 Cor. 7:3). And, while in the most honorable estate of matrimony allowing to them something of pleasure, he added, "But this I say by way of indulgence, not by way of command" (1 Cor. 7:6). Now where indulgence is spoken of, a fault is implied; but one that is the more readily remitted in that it consists, not in doing what is unlawful, but in not keeping what is lawful under control.
“Which thing Lot expresses well in his own person, when he flies from burning Sodom, and yet, finding Zoar, does not still ascend the mountain heights. For to fly from burning Sodom is to avoid the unlawful fires of the flesh. But the height of the mountains is the purity of the continent. Or, at any rate, they are as it were upon the mountain, who, though cleaving to carnal intercourse, still, beyond the due association for the production of offspring, are not loosely lost in pleasure of the flesh. For to stand on the mountain is to seek nothing in the flesh except the fruit of procreation. To stand on the mountain is not to cleave to the flesh in a fleshly way. But, since there are many who relinquish indeed the sins of the flesh, and yet, when placed in the state of wedlock, do not observe solely the claims of due intercourse, Lot went indeed out of Sodom, but yet did not at once reach the mountain heights; because a damnable life is already relinquished, but still the loftiness of conjugal continence is not thoroughly attained... married life is neither far separated from the world, nor yet alien from the joy of safety... They are therefore to be admonished that, if they suffer from the storms of temptation with risk to their safety, they should seek the port of wedlock. For it is written, "It is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor. 7:9). They come, in fact, to marriage without blame, if only they have not vowed better things [chastity].” (Pope St. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, Book III, Chapter XXVII.--How The Married And The Single Are To Be Admonished.)
While there are many dangers and temptations in marriage, there are also good things, such as faithfulness, offspring, and the Sacrament: “Now this is threefold, faithfulness, offspring, and the Sacrament. For faithfulness, it is observed, that there be no lying with other man or woman, out of the bond of wedlock: for the offspring, that it be lovingly welcomed, kindly nourished, religiously brought up: for the Sacrament, that marriage be not severed, and that man or woman divorced be not joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This is as it were the rule of Marriages by which rule either fruitfulness is made seemly, or the perverseness of incontinence is brought to order.” (St. Augustine, On Genesis, Book 9, Chapter 7) However, even though marriage is good, the marital act is still intoxicating and shameful, which are truly evil defects that men must endure, and this shows us that children “is the one alone worthy fruit... of the sexual intercourse”. Thus, the motive of “children, which is the one alone worthy fruit, not of the union of male and female, but of the sexual intercourse” must excuse the marital act. (St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Section 1)
In A.D. 191 St. Clement of Alexandria (a Greek theologian of considerable influence in the early Church) referred to Onan’s evil act in these words: “He broke the law of coitus.” (St. Clement of Alexandria, Comments on Genesis 6, PG 69:309) He went on to explain that “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.” (St. Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogus, "The Educator", 2.10.91.2)
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) agrees with the Popes and Saints of the Church in this regard concerning the procreation and education of children, teaching us that: “it remains for us now to consider the restriction of sexual intercourse to those who are joined in wedlock. Begetting children is the goal of those who wed, and the fulfillment of that goal is a large family, just as hope of a crop drives the farmer to sow his seed, while the fulfillment of his hope is the actual harvesting of the crop. But he who sows in a living soil is far superior, for the one tills the land to provide food only for a season, the other to secure the preservation of the whole human race; the one tends his crop for himself, the other, for God. We have received the command: "Be fruitful" [Gen. 1:28], and we must obey. In this role man becomes like God, because he co-operates, in his human way, in the birth of another man.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X) And so, it should be absolutely clear to all pure servants of Christ that “Marriage is the first conjunction of man and woman for the procreation of legitimate children. Accordingly Menander the comic poet says: "For the begetting of legitimate children, I give thee my daughter."” (St. Clement of Alexandria, "On Marriage", The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XXIII)
Origen (a theologian of the early 3rd century Alexandrian Church considered by many to be the most accomplished biblical scholar of the early church) refuted the teachings of the pagan philosopher Celsus by reference to God’s people in the Old Testament: “nor were there among them women who sold their beauty to anyone who wished to have sexual intercourse without offspring, and to cast contempt upon the nature of human generation.” (Origen, Contra Celsum, Book 5, Chapter 42) In the early Church it was clear that to have sexual intercourse without wishing to beget offspring was to commit an evil act.
One of the earliest extant documents of formal Church legislation (that we know of) on the use of contraceptives comes in the sixth century. Its originator in canonical form was St. Martin, Archbishop of Braga in Spain (520-580). Drawing on previous episcopal synods of the East and West, he simplified the existing laws and codified them for the people of Portugal and Spain.
Martin’s condemnation of contraception and the contraceptive intent first occurred in the famous collection Capitula Martini. It was later incorporated in the laws of the Second Council of Braga (June, 572), at which he presided as the head of twelve bishops.
His reference to earlier more severe penalties implies that ecclesiastical authority had condemned the practice long before the sixth century.
St. Martin, Archbishop of Braga, Second Council of Braga, Canon 77, June, 572: “If any woman has fornicated and has killed the infant who was born of her; or if she has tried to commit abortion and then slain what she conceived; or if she contrives to make sure she does not conceive, either in adultery or in legitimate intercourse—regarding such women the earlier canons decreed that they should not receive communion even at death. However, we mercifully judge that both such women and their accomplices in these crimes shall do penance for ten years.” (Mansi IX, 858)
In truth, “she (the wife) is the only one with whom it is lawful to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh for the purpose of begetting lawful heirs. This is to share in God’s own work of procreation, and in such a work the seed ought not to be wasted nor scattered thoughtlessly nor sown in a way it cannot grow.” (St. Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children, A.D. 198)
THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA EXCOMMUNICATED ALL PRIESTS THAT DELIBERATELY CASTRATED THEMSELVES
The First Council of Nicaea (which is the first Ecumenical Council in Church history) rejected already in the Fourth Century priests who had consented to the act of castrating themselves. This teaching is very relevant for our time since many people nowadays perform operations or undergo different procedures castrating themselves.
The First Council of Nicaea, Canon 1, A.D. 325: “[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy.”
SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS CONDEMNS NFP AND BIRTH CONTROL AS A SIN SECOND IN NATURE ONLY TO MURDER
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who is considered as one of the most important doctors of the Church, is abundantly clear on that any completed sex act without the proper goal of procreation is sinful.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Section 1.3.122: “Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin.” He concludes: “… the inordinate emission of the semen is repugnant to the good of nature, which is the conservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of murder, whereby a human nature already in actual existence is destroyed, this sort of sin seem to hold the second place, whereby the generation of human nature is precluded. The above assertions are confirmed by divine authority. The unlawfulness of any emission of semen, upon which offspring cannot be consequent, is evident from such texts as these: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: Thou shalt not lie with any beast (Levit. xviii, 22, 23): Nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, shall possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor. Vi, 10).”
Thus, it is clear that St. Thomas teaches that: “Matrimony was instituted for the begetting of children.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp., Q. 42, Art. 2) “Therefore, since in matrimony man receives by Divine institution the faculty to use his wife for the begetting of children, he also receives the grace without which he cannot becomingly do so.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp., Q. 42, Art. 3)
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT CONDEMNS ALL FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL AS A “WICKED CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER”
We also find some references in the 16th century Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, designed for parish priests. In the section on the Sacrament of Matrimony, the section on the use of marriage teaches spouses to abstain from the marriage debt before they will receive the Body of Our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist. For instance, there is to be no marital sexual relations before Communion since, “The dignity of so great a Sacrament also demands that married persons abstain from the marriage debt for some days previous to Communion. This observance is recommended by the example of David, who, when about to receive the showbread from the hands of the priest, declared that he and his servants had been clean from women for three days.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Preparation Of Body) Married as well as unmarried are also taught to “approach the Holy Table fasting, having neither eaten nor drunk anything at least from the preceding midnight until the moment of Communion.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Preparation Of Body) The unitive and natural aspect is mentioned, under the Motives and Ends of Marriage: “First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship.” Desire of family and avoiding lust is also mentioned. Though there is a reminder that “marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord” and “therefore married persons who, to prevent conception… are guilty of a most heinous crime—nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Motives And Ends Of Marriage) Wikipedia also makes the interesting claim that “[all] Canon law until 1917 labeled contraception as murder.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “The faithful are moreover to be taught, that there are three advantages of marriage — offspring, faith, the sacrament — which alleviate, by compensating for, those disadvantages which the Apostle points out in these words: "Such [that is, married people who perform the sexual act] shall have tribulation of the flesh " (1 Corinthians 7:28); and by which sexual intercourse, which, without marriage, would be deservedly reprobated, becomes an honourable union. The first advantage, then, is offspring, that is, children begotten from a true and lawful wife; an advantage so highly appreciated by the Apostle, that he says: "The woman shall be saved by bearing children" (1 Timothy 2:15). This, however, is not to be understood solely of the procreation of children, but also of the education and discipline by which children are reared to piety. Thus the Apostle immediately subjoins: "If she continue in faith;" for the Scripture admonishes: "Hast thou children? Instruct them, and bow down their neck from their childhood" (Ecclestiasticus 7:25). The Apostle teaches the same; and of such an education the Scripture affords the most beautiful examples in the persons of Tobias, Job, and other Patriarchs eminent for holiness. But what are the duties of parents and children shall be more fully explained in the exposition of the fourth commandment.
“… Matrimonial faith also demands, that husband and wife be united by a certain singular, and holy, and pure love, a love not such as that of adulterers, but such as that which Christ cherishes towards his Church; for this is the model which the Apostle proposed, when he said: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church" (Ephesians 5:25); and very great indeed was the love with which Christ embraced his Church, not a selfish love, but a love that proposed to itself the sole interest of his spouse...” (Catechism of Trent – What Are The Advantages Accruing To Married Persons From This Sacrament)
One of the earliest extant documents of formal Church legislation (that we know of) on the use of contraceptives comes in the sixth century. Its originator in canonical form was St. Martin, Archbishop of Braga in Spain (520-580). Drawing on previous episcopal synods of the East and West, he simplified the existing laws and codified them for the people of Portugal and Spain.
Martin’s condemnation of contraception and the contraceptive intent first occurred in the famous collection Capitula Martini. It was later incorporated in the laws of the Second Council of Braga (June, 572), at which he presided as the head of twelve bishops.
His reference to earlier more severe penalties implies that ecclesiastical authority had condemned the practice long before the sixth century.
St. Martin, Archbishop of Braga, Second Council of Braga, Canon 77, June, 572: “If any woman has fornicated and has killed the infant who was born of her; or if she has tried to commit abortion and then slain what she conceived; or if she contrives to make sure she does not conceive, either in adultery or in legitimate intercourse—regarding such women the earlier canons decreed that they should not receive communion even at death. However, we mercifully judge that both such women and their accomplices in these crimes shall do penance for ten years.” (Mansi IX, 858)
In truth, “she (the wife) is the only one with whom it is lawful to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh for the purpose of begetting lawful heirs. This is to share in God’s own work of procreation, and in such a work the seed ought not to be wasted nor scattered thoughtlessly nor sown in a way it cannot grow.” (St. Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children, A.D. 198)
THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA EXCOMMUNICATED ALL PRIESTS THAT DELIBERATELY CASTRATED THEMSELVES
The First Council of Nicaea (which is the first Ecumenical Council in Church history) rejected already in the Fourth Century priests who had consented to the act of castrating themselves. This teaching is very relevant for our time since many people nowadays perform operations or undergo different procedures castrating themselves.
The First Council of Nicaea, Canon 1, A.D. 325: “[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy.”
SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS CONDEMNS NFP AND BIRTH CONTROL AS A SIN SECOND IN NATURE ONLY TO MURDER
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who is considered as one of the most important doctors of the Church, is abundantly clear on that any completed sex act without the proper goal of procreation is sinful.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Section 1.3.122: “Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin.” He concludes: “… the inordinate emission of the semen is repugnant to the good of nature, which is the conservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of murder, whereby a human nature already in actual existence is destroyed, this sort of sin seem to hold the second place, whereby the generation of human nature is precluded. The above assertions are confirmed by divine authority. The unlawfulness of any emission of semen, upon which offspring cannot be consequent, is evident from such texts as these: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: Thou shalt not lie with any beast (Levit. xviii, 22, 23): Nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, shall possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor. Vi, 10).”
Thus, it is clear that St. Thomas teaches that: “Matrimony was instituted for the begetting of children.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp., Q. 42, Art. 2) “Therefore, since in matrimony man receives by Divine institution the faculty to use his wife for the begetting of children, he also receives the grace without which he cannot becomingly do so.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp., Q. 42, Art. 3)
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT CONDEMNS ALL FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL AS A “WICKED CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER”
We also find some references in the 16th century Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, designed for parish priests. In the section on the Sacrament of Matrimony, the section on the use of marriage teaches spouses to abstain from the marriage debt before they will receive the Body of Our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist. For instance, there is to be no marital sexual relations before Communion since, “The dignity of so great a Sacrament also demands that married persons abstain from the marriage debt for some days previous to Communion. This observance is recommended by the example of David, who, when about to receive the showbread from the hands of the priest, declared that he and his servants had been clean from women for three days.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Preparation Of Body) Married as well as unmarried are also taught to “approach the Holy Table fasting, having neither eaten nor drunk anything at least from the preceding midnight until the moment of Communion.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Preparation Of Body) The unitive and natural aspect is mentioned, under the Motives and Ends of Marriage: “First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship.” Desire of family and avoiding lust is also mentioned. Though there is a reminder that “marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord” and “therefore married persons who, to prevent conception… are guilty of a most heinous crime—nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Motives And Ends Of Marriage) Wikipedia also makes the interesting claim that “[all] Canon law until 1917 labeled contraception as murder.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “The faithful are moreover to be taught, that there are three advantages of marriage — offspring, faith, the sacrament — which alleviate, by compensating for, those disadvantages which the Apostle points out in these words: "Such [that is, married people who perform the sexual act] shall have tribulation of the flesh " (1 Corinthians 7:28); and by which sexual intercourse, which, without marriage, would be deservedly reprobated, becomes an honourable union. The first advantage, then, is offspring, that is, children begotten from a true and lawful wife; an advantage so highly appreciated by the Apostle, that he says: "The woman shall be saved by bearing children" (1 Timothy 2:15). This, however, is not to be understood solely of the procreation of children, but also of the education and discipline by which children are reared to piety. Thus the Apostle immediately subjoins: "If she continue in faith;" for the Scripture admonishes: "Hast thou children? Instruct them, and bow down their neck from their childhood" (Ecclestiasticus 7:25). The Apostle teaches the same; and of such an education the Scripture affords the most beautiful examples in the persons of Tobias, Job, and other Patriarchs eminent for holiness. But what are the duties of parents and children shall be more fully explained in the exposition of the fourth commandment.
“… Matrimonial faith also demands, that husband and wife be united by a certain singular, and holy, and pure love, a love not such as that of adulterers, but such as that which Christ cherishes towards his Church; for this is the model which the Apostle proposed, when he said: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church" (Ephesians 5:25); and very great indeed was the love with which Christ embraced his Church, not a selfish love, but a love that proposed to itself the sole interest of his spouse...” (Catechism of Trent – What Are The Advantages Accruing To Married Persons From This Sacrament)
POPE SIXTUS V CONDEMNS BIRTH CONTROL
In the late sixteenth century, Pope Sixtus V (1521-1590) passed a series of laws to curb the immorality of his day. Among these laws was one that simultaneously covered abortion and contraception.
There is nothing new about the legislation, except the added solemnity of its being passed by direct order of the pope. Abortion and contraception are equally called crimes.
Pope Sixtus V, Bull Effranatum, Oct. 27, 1588: “Who does not abhor the lustful cruelty or cruel lust of impious men, a lust which goes so far that they procure poisons to extinguish and destroy the conceived fetus within the womb, even attempting by a wicked crime to destroy their own offspring before it lives, or, if it lives, to kill it before it is born?”
Pope Sixtus V: “Who, finally, would not condemn with the most severe punishments the crimes of those who by poisons, potions and evil drugs induce sterility in women, so that they might not conceive or, by means of evil-working medication, that they might not give birth?” (Quoted in Bullarium Romanum, Vol. 1)
THE HOLY OFFICE UNDER POPE PIUS IX CONDEMNS CONTRACEPTION AND THE CONTRACEPTIVE INTENT AS A SIN AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW
During the pontificate of Pius IX (1792-1878), at least five decisions were made by the Holy See with regard to contraception in one or another form. The following was made by the Holy Office and approved by the Pope. It touches on one type of contraception, but in doing so clarifies two important elements: that Onanism is against the Natural Law, and that confessors have a duty to inquire about this practice if they have a good reason to suppose that it is being done.
The question is asked what theological note the following three heretical propositions deserve:
It is permissible for spouses to use marriage the way Onan did, if their motives are worthy.
It is probable that such use of marriage is not forbidden by the natural law.
It is never proper to ask married people of either sex about this matter, even though it is prudently feared that the spouses, whether the wife or the husband abuse matrimony.
The officials of the Holy Office ordered the following to be stated:
The first proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural right of matrimony.
The second proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and elsewhere implicitly condemned by Innocent XI: “Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Therefore if God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin” [Condemned Statement by Innocent XI] (March 4, 1679).
The third proposition, as it stands, is false, very lax, and dangerous in practice (Decisiones S. Sedis de Usu et Abusu Matrimonii, Rome, 1944, pp. 19-20; May 21, 1851).
THE CHURCH ALWAYS PUNISHED THOSE WHO COMMITTED THE SIN OF BIRTH-CONTROL WITH EXCOMMUNICATION FOR A LONG TIME
From the very beginning of the Catholic Church, anyone who dared to commit the act of birth-control while they chose to perform the marital act had to do penance for a long time since this was considered such an evil act.
Around the year 1000, The Decretals of Burchard was compiled by Burchard, (965-1025) Bishop of Worms in Germany. This collection of canon law called the Decreta exercised great influence for centuries in the history of the Church. Several features of the following legislation are significant. The penalty is less severe than it had been, i.e., ten years of penance instead of pardon only at death; abortion and contraception are equally reprehended; and a distinction is made in the culpability (always grave) of a woman who aborts or interferes with conception because she is poor, and a woman who does the same to avoid the humiliation of having a child out of wedlock:
“Have you done what some women are accustomed to doing when they fornicate and wish to kill their offspring; they act with their poisons (maleficia) and their herbs to kill or cut out the embryo, or, if they have not yet conceived they contrive not to conceive? If you have done so, or consented to this, or taught it, you must do penance for ten years on legal ferial days. Legislation in former days excommunicated such persons from the Church till the end of their lives. As often as a woman prevented conception, she was guilty of that many homicides. It makes a great deal of difference, however, whether the woman in question is a pauper who acted the way she did for lack of means to nourish (her offspring) or whether she did so to conceal the crime of her fornication.” (The Decretals of Burchard, Decreta, num. 19; PL 140, 972)
The evilness of all forms of birth-control cannot be understated, and that is also why the Church from the beginning severely punished all Her children who committed this crime. It is an act that is similar to playing God, an outright mockery of God and His creation and a perversion of nature. Just as we ourselves wish to continue to live, so we have no right to hinder another soul from also living. Thus, “He who does this [that is, he who drinks a contraceptive potion] in order not to have children shall do penance for twelve years. (Poenitentiale Vigilanum, num. 79-80 (A.D. 850); PL 129, 1123ff.)
CONCLUSION
The Fathers as well as the tradition of the early Church are so unanimous in interpreting the Bible as condemning as sinful and forbidden the evil use of birth control that it is unbelievable how some people calling themselves “Christian” or “Catholic” can deny that it is sinful, evil or condemned, and especially so, since The Councils of Trent and Vatican I infallibly teaches that the Fathers must be obeyed when their teachings unanimously agree with one another. In this context, Saint Jerome condemns all those who see nothing wrong about fornication, or contraception or even abortion. St. Jerome’s letter to Eustochium contains a typical patristic condemnation of contraception. It is associated with the defection from the Church of those women who find the Church’s position on chastity too demanding.
First he cites those who have intercourse out of wedlock, but make sure they do not become pregnant by taking appropriate drugs to prevent conception. Others become pregnant and then commit abortion to avoid exposure of their guilt.
Most pertinent is Jerome’s quoting such women as saying they see nothing particularly wrong about fornication, or contraception or even abortion. Their conscience approves of what they are doing; so how can these be sins?
The final reference to food and drink points out the fact that these women are critical of those who practice mortification. Consistent with their attitude on sex, they argue that all of this is God’s gift—so why not use it?
St. Jerome, Letter 22:13, To Eustochium, A.D. 384: “It becomes wearisome to tell how many virgins fall daily; what important personages Mother Church loses from her bosom; over how many stars the proud enemy sets up his throne [Isaiah 14:13]; how many rocks the serpent makes hollow and then enters through their openings. You may see many who were widowed before they were wed, shielding a guilty conscience by a lying garb. Did not a swelling womb or the crying of their infant children betray them, they would go about with head erect and on skipping feet. But others drink potions to ensure sterility and are guilty of murdering a human being not yet conceived. Some when they learn they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the rulers of the lower world guilty of three crimes: suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child. These are the women who are accustomed to say: “‘Unto the pure all things are pure.’ [Titus 1:15] The approval of my conscience is enough for me. A pure heart is what God desires. Why should I abstain from foods which God created to be used with thanksgiving?” [1 Timothy 4:3] And whenever they wish to appear bright and festive, and have drowned themselves in wine, they say—adding sacrilege to drunkenness: “God forbid that I should abstain from the blood of Christ.” And whenever they see a woman pale and sad, they call her a poor wretch, a nun, and a Manichean: and with reason, for according to their belief fasting is heresy.”
Another good quotation from St. Caesarius of Arles condemns all spouses that are against procreation and that practice abortion and says that “the only sterility of a very pious wife is chastity”. The second passage from Caesarius deals with abortion, but of a contraceptive kind. Some women took medication to destroy unborn life already conceived in the womb. Others took drugs by anticipation; they would not mind becoming pregnant, but provided that the child would not reach viability.
St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 52:4: “Does not the Devil clearly exercise his deceits still further, dearly beloved, when he persuades some women, after they have had two or three children, to kill either any more or those already born, by taking an abortion draught? Apparently, such women fear that if they have more children they cannot become rich. For, what else must they think when they do this, except that God will not be able to feed or direct those whom He has commanded to be born? Perhaps some are killed who could serve God better or obey those same parents with a perfect love. Instead, by an impious, murderous practice women take poisonous draughts to transmit incomplete life and premature death to their children through their generative organs. By such an exigency they drink a cup of bereavement with the cruel drug. O sad persuasion! They maintain that the poison which has been transmitted through their drinking is unconnected with them. Moreover, they do not realize that they conceive in sterility the child which they receive in death, because it was conceived in their flesh. However, if there is not yet found a tiny infant that could be killed within the womb of its mother, it is no less true that even the natural power (of generation) within the woman is destroyed. Why unhappy mother—or, rather, not even the step-mother of a new-born son—why did you seek, from outside, remedies that would be harmful for eternity? You possess within you more salutary remedies, if you wish. You do not want to have a child? Settle a pious agreement with your husband; let him agree to an end of childbearing in accord with the virtue of chastity. The only the sterility of a very pious wife is chastity.”
All other quotations from the Popes, Fathers and the Saints of the Church unanimously teach the same on the subject of the primary end or purpose of marriage and the marital act. Not a single one of them teaches that God allows spouses to have marital relations while also hindering conception from taking place.
Saint Augustine sums it up as follows: “It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin. Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband’s harlot; or the man the wife’s adulterer.” (St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 1, Chapter 17, A.D. 419.--What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?)
The intention, deed or desire of the spouses that conception does not occur during conjugal relations is the crux of the matter, the root of the mortal sin of contraception. Even before conjugal relations, spouses have committed the mortal sin of contraception if they had planned or only desired that conception should not take place during conjugal relations. Jesus teaches that sin is first committed in the heart even before a man carries out his sinful deed. He says, “You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28)
Tragically, however (as if the proof wasn’t clear enough already), some bad willed people will indeed try to excuse themselves and object to these clear statements, some perhaps by saying that the Holy Bible and Apostolic Tradition, as well as all the Popes, Fathers and Saints of the Catholic Church couldn’t have referred to the modern practice of NFP (since it was invented by modern science), and hence that their condemnation couldn’t have been about NFP, but about something else, such as Onanism, sterilization, drugs and potions.
However, this objection is easily refuted for just because men have invented new ways to commit murder, such as with modern weapons that didn’t exist in the days of many of the saints and Catholic writers, doesn’t mean that men who commit murder with these weapons are not guilty since the saints or Church tradition did not specifically condemn murder by the use of these new killing methods. (St. Augustine however did condemn a timing-based method of contraception, as we saw before.) It is the same with NFP. Spouses commit the mortal sin of contraception no matter what weapon (method) they use to attempt to prevent conception during conjugal relations. If people cannot see this, it is because they are like the evil, blind, and obstinate Pharisees during Jesus’ first coming who made laws to break God’s laws and thus lost all common sense. NFP contradicts reason, the law in our heart, the Word of God (the Bible) and the teachings of the ordinary and solemn magisterium. The gift of many children from the Lord is truly a great blessing, and it is truly vile and unnatural to try to hinder this blessing from Our Lord by selfish and lustful acts inspired by the devil. “Far more excellent, in my opinion, than the seeds of wheat and barley that are sown at appropriate seasons, is man that is sown, for whom all things grow; and those seeds temperate husbandmen ever sow. Every foul and polluting practice must therefore be purged away from marriage; that the intercourse of the irrational animals may not be cast in our teeth, as more accordant with nature than human conjunction in procreation. Some of these, it must be granted, desist at the time in which they are directed, leaving creation to the working of Providence.” (St. Clement of Alexandria, "On Marriage", The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XXIII)
St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 1, Section 27, A.D. 393: “Adam was first made, then the woman out of his rib; and that the Devil could not seduce Adam, but did seduce Eve; and that after displeasing God she was immediately subjected to the man, and began to turn to her husband; and he points out that she who was once tied with the bonds of marriage and was reduced to the condition of Eve, might blot out the old transgression by the procreation of children: provided, however, that she bring up the children themselves in the faith and love of Christ, and in sanctification and chastity… For if the woman is saved in child-bearing, and the more the children the greater the safety of the mothers, why did he add "if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with chastity"? [1 Tim. 2:15]”
No comments:
Post a Comment