THE “RHYTHM” IN MARRIAGE AND CHRISTIAN MORALITY Including a discussion of practical cases in married life BY N. ORVILLE GRIESE, S.T.D., J.C.L. THE NEWMAN BOOKSHOP Westminster, Maryland 1944 NIHIL OBSTAT: Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., Censor Deputatus IMPRIMATUR: ψ Paul Peter Rhode, D.D , Episcopus Sinus Viridis June $, 1942 COLLEGE MBRARV Copyright 1944, by N. Orville 'Griese This study formeris was printed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in S.icred Theology, under the title: "The Morality of Periodic Continence." The author wishes to acknowledge the kind assistance of the Catholic University of America in connection with both the writing and publication of the original manuscript, and the present republication. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ut Ecclesia Chnsti Civitas Regis Magni Sit Gratia Plena, Prole Fecunda PREFACE The unnatural practice known as birth-control is working havoc in the United States. If it continues at its present rate, the American people will not long survive. Unfortunately, most Americans are in­ different to the harmful effects of this loathsome vice. Indeed, the only organised attack on the crime of contraception is that which is being made by the Catholic Church. In addition to the many positive methods of frustrating nature, classi­ fied under the general term contraception, there is a way of limiting con­ ceptions whereby married persons restrict the use of their conjugal , rights to the sterile period of the month. Modern medical science is able to determine this period with considerable accuracy. This system is known as the “Rhythm,” or more technically as the “method of per­ iodic continence.” Unfortunately, the idea is quite common that the use of “Rhythm” is acknowledged by the Catholic Church as something perfectly legiti­ mate under all circumstances. In fact, the practice of periodic continence for the purpose of avoiding conception is sometimes called “the Catholic birth-control method.” The purpose of the present study, which first appeared as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Sacred Theology at the Catholic University of America, is to rectify this notion and to point out just what is permitted and what is forbidden in the use of “Rhythm,” according to Catholic moral principles. The conclusions reached by the author are the fruit of a thorough and unbiased study of all aspects of the question, and are supported by sound and logical argu­ ments. The decrees of the Holy See relative to the subject are quoted and explained in detail. It is worthy of note that subsequently to the appearance of this thesis, corroboration was given to one of its basic themes by a decision of the Holy Office declaring that the primary pur­ pose of marriage is the procreation and the upbringing of children. Priests and doctors will discover in this work helpful information for those who seek their professional advice m reference to family limitation. It is hoped, too, that many married couples will avail themselves of this scholarly treatment of a problem that frequently arises m domestic life at the present time. From it they will learn, on the one hand, that there is no Catholic ethical principle to the effect that a married couple must have as many children as is physically possible. On the other hand tncy will learn that tn entering the married state they eominiitcd them;cl\Cs to a very noble task for the welfare of the hum.m lace and that apait from grave reasons, it is sinful to adapt their conjugal life to the avoidance of this task the task of collaborating with God Himself in bunging into the world human beings destined to be citcens of Christ's eternal kingdom. B.ev. Francis J. Connell, C. SS. R., S.T.D. Associate Professor of Moral Theology Catholic University of America INTRODUCTION The discovery of the Ogino Knaus theory has created a very unique and important moral problem. Considering the many advantage? of such a method of fertility control, many leaders among both the laity and the clergy have not hesitated to hail this new discovery as a providential solution to many of the eviK- domestic, moral, social, economic—-of our spiritually impoverished doth, century. For the theologian, however, attention should be centered primarily on the question of how any scientihc discovery m its application and divui gation, squares with the “ pure law of Christ." In the words of the great Pius XI: ... it is necessary, first of all, that men’s minds be illumin­ ated with the true doctrine of Christ regarding it (i. e. marriage); and secondly that Christian spouses, the weakness of their wills strengthened by the internal grace of God, shape all their ways of thinking and of acting m conformity with that pure law of Christ so as to obtain true peace and happiness for themselves and for their families.' To that end, it is necessary to suppress all enthusiasm ox er the safe period” method until we have investigated caimiv and thoroughly whether or not the application of such a method in itself involves any culpable opposition to the laws whn h God has established for the married state. We must "shape «til our ways ot thinking and acting in regard to this new discovery m conformity with the conclusion of such an investigation. Since the publication of this discovery about twelve years ago, several outstanding theologians have expressed and defended the opinion that the application of this safe period method in marital life. is. objectively unlawful- - lawful in a particular case only if there is an objectively? sufficient reason for not. having children, it is pci se illicitum, per accidens autem heitum. Such an οριηκ n voinudvs with the general feelini’ of the fervent faithful who sens'. that there is 1 Papal encyclical, “C.asti Comuibn" (Dec. 31. 1930), cf. Acta Aposim Hess Sedis, XXII (1930), 539-Ί92. Above ttan-lation taken from Four Great Encyclicals, New York: Paulist Pres?, p. 73- vin “something wrong” about any practice in marital life which is de­ signed to exclude the procreation of children. Although the majority of contemporary theologians seem to hold that the application of the "safe period” method is objectively indifferent from a moral view­ point, the above opinion should not be discarded without having re­ ceived serious and thorough consideration. If such an opinion is judged inacceptable by some, the arguments upon which it rests might at least be of some value in prompting those who hold the opposite opinion to be more prudent and cautious in dealing with the delicate question of "voluntary sterility.” Since the Holy See has indicated no approval or disapproval of the practice of the "safe period” as such, it is highly desirable and advantageous to discuss the practice carefully from all possible angles before deciding on our own personal attitude toward this modern, moral problem. During the past decade, the arguments of those who hold the opposite opinion have been presented and discussed widely in numerous articles and treatises. This study represents a humble attempt to bring the arguments of the minority opinion back into the active discussion of the “rhythm” question. The two-sided dis­ cussion of the moral aspects of the Ogino-Knaus discovery is bound to lead to a more thorough understanding of a very real and in­ creasingly serious moral problem. Our study is divided into two parts; a moral and a pastoral section. Chapter 1 is devoted to a brief presentation of theological and bio­ logical concepts which arc essential to a complete understanding of the moral problem involved. Chapters II, III and IV of the moral section are devoted to a study of the objective morality of the practice of the safe period method; chapters V and VI present a discussion of the morality of such a practice in individual cases. In the pastoral section, chapter VII is designed to induce pastors of souls to adopt a prudent and cautious attitude regarding this practice: chapter VIII consists of practical suggestions and conclusions. The author wishes to express his gratitude to his bishop the .Most Reverend Paul Peter Rhode, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin, for the opportunity of spending the past few years in the study of Sacred Theology at the Catholic University of America, and to the chancellor of the diocese, the Reverend Delbert IX Basche for his kindness in arranging the many details incidental to a struggle for the degree of Doctor in Sacred Theology. Special ac­ knowledgement is due to the generous and patient, guiding light in this scholastic undertaking, the Reverend Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. as well as to the other condescending readers, the Reverend Raphael M. Huber O.F.M. Conv., and the Reverend Joseph B. Col­ lins S.S.,—all members of the teaching staff of the Catholic Univer­ sity’s Faculty of Theology. Thanks are due also to Dr. John Cavanaugh, M.D., professor of pastoral medicine at the Catholic University of America, who examined the manuscript for errors and discrepancies in the biological and medical field. May the finished product justify the assistance and attention of these and many7 other collaborators who contributed arguments, objections, statistics or merely their interest toward the development oi this study. The very nature of the subject under discussion necessitates the use of certain terms and concepts which ordinarily might scandalize the average reader. Recourse to Mary Most Pure must be the anti­ dote for any danger which may accompany the perusal of these pages, and it will suffice for anyone who reads with a view to becoming better equipped in the noble ait of leading precious, human souls on to salvation. TABLE OF (X INTENTS Introduction.................................. -... vu Co-relation of Terms : “Periodic Continence, The Rhythm History of the “Safe Period” Theory..................................... Evaluation of the “Safe Period” Theory....................... 1 2 5 Chapter I — Preliminary Notions PART ONE— MORAL CONSIDERATIONS A — Objective Morality of Periodic Continence (the 'Rhythm ) Chapter II — Moral Principles Involved............................. 11 Chapter III—Thesis: The practice of periodic contin­ ence according to the “safe period method” is “Per se illicitum, per ack .ide ns autlm iicitum.” a) —Theological Opinion ............................................... b) —Proof; From Holy Scripture..................................... From the Fathers of the Church................ From Ecclesiastical Documents..................... From Reason .......... Analysis of Objections................. ».............. IS 25 30 36 42 44 Chapter IV — The Sin Involved in the Unwarranted Practice of Periodic Continence. a) —Species ......................... b) — Gravity ....... -............................................................. c) — Nature of this Sin............................................. Conclusions to the Past Three Chapters................. B — The. Morality of the Practice of Periodic Continence in Individual Cases. 50 53 56 5’7 Chapter V —The Influence of Attendant Circumstances and Consequences. a) — In Extra-ordinary Circumstances............................. b) — In Ordinary Circumstances..................................... Dangers for the Man and Wife............................. Dangers for the Child.................... Dangers for Society as a Whole............................... 61 62 62 65 66 VI Chapter VI — Justifying Reasons.......................................... a) — Sufficient Motives ..................................................... b) — Doubtfully Sufficient Motives..................... c) — Insufficient Motives ................................................. 75 76 78 79 THE "RHYTHM” IN MARRIAGE, AND CHRISTIAN MORALITY Chapter I PRELIMINARY NOTIONS • Î '!! PART TWO PASTORAL DIRECTIVES AND CONCLUSIONS Chapter VII — Attitude :J i ■ i ; : of the Pastor of Souls.............. a) —■ Necessity of Extreme Caution....... .......................... b) ■— Dangers Associated with the Divulgation of This Method Decline in the Prestige of the Church as Guar dian of Morals ... -........................ Weakening of Christian Ideals.............................. Tendency to Deny the Efficacy of Grace................ Tendency of Confusion, and Laxity in Morals... Chapter VIII — Pastoral Conclusions and Applications a) — General Norms......................... .. ............................... b) — Specific Norms ............................................. In the Pulpit.............................................................. In the Confessional........................................... c) —Practical Conclusions ..................................................................... d) — Practical Applications ............................................. Correlation of Terms: “Periodic Continence,” the “Rhythm" 82 82 84 85 87 91 94 94 96 96 97 102 105 General Conclusions.................................. Ill < Bibliography ................................................................................... 113 ■ ;i Alphabetical Index .................................... 125 As a theological concept, continence is that part of the cardinal virtue of temperance which is concerned with the resisting of irregu­ lar and immoderate sexual desires and impulses. Like the virtue of chastity, continence is concerned exclusively with sex; but whereas chastity undertakes the most difficult task, that of moderating and restraining desires and longings for sexual pleasure m their very source (“in appetitu concupiscibili"), continence is entrusted with the important but less difficult task of keeping the trill firm in re­ sisting the force of sexual impulses and desires which may arise despite the vigilance of chastity. Since it is more perfect to prevent such irregular impulses from arising in the sensible appetite itself than to resist such impulses once they have risen, continence is com­ pared to chastity as the imperfect is compared to the perfect.1 For the purposes of our study, we might make a distinction be­ tween permanent continence (i.e., abstaincnce from all sexual pleasure forever), and temporary continence. Temporary continence may oe conceived as either occasional (e. g. during Lent, during periods of sickness, etc.) or periodic continence, i. e. abstinence from xw pleasure at fairly regular, recurrent intervals. Periodic contr.wnce may be cither indiscriminate or discriminate depending on whether such recurrent periods of sexual abstinence are observed irrespective of the possibility of conception during those periods, or whether ab­ stinence from sexual pleasure is observed exclusively during certain periods precisely because such periods arc considered to be sterile oi fertile for the woman. We are not concerned here with the pi active of abstinence from marital union during periodic, sterile periods, but only with the systematic practice of abstaining from sexud plcasuiu only during fertile periods, whereby the performance of the manu 1 Ci. St. Thomas. Suinaia Theolocica. ΠΊΙ. Q. III. Q. VII, a. 2. ad 3. 155. a 4 '■"’p . and 2 Rhythm in Marriage act is restricted exclusively to periods when conception is most un­ likely. As an actual system of fertility control, the practice of periodic continence Involves the application of the Ogino-Knaus theory;—a scientific discovery which is due to the independent studies and in­ vestigations of Dr. Kyusaku Ogino of Niigata, Japan, and of Dr. Hermann Knaus of Prague, Czechoslovakia. The theory is based on the rather common view that woman is capable of conceiving only during a certain period each lunar month (28 days). Their dis­ covery enables the average woman to determine that period with sufficient accuracy to have reasonable assurance of freedom from conception in marital life, i. c. by' abstaining systematically from sexual union during that monthly period. An attempt to condense an explanation of the biological aspects of this theory into a few paragraphs would lead to confusion rather than to enlightenment. Others who are fully competent to speak on this subject have pub­ lished clear and precise expositions of the theory in popular editions.2 Of primary interest to us is the fact that there is a “rhythm” in the recurrent periods of physiological fertility and sterility' in women which is based on established, biological laws and that those married couples who carefully regulate their marital life according to “the rhythm” can with a considerable degree of probability, conceive or avoid children at will. History of the “Safe Period” Theory The principle involved in what we now know as the Ogino-Knaus method was nothing new to the Jews and other ancient peoples. The Book of Leviticus prescribed (chapter XV) that all Jewish women should abstain from marital union during approximately 12 days, beginning with the onset of each “monthly flow" or menstruation,— 2 Cf. Dr. Leo J. Latz, The Rhythm of Sterility and Fertility in Women, 6th. revised edition (Chicago: Latz Foundation, 1940); Dr. K. Ogino, Conception Period of Women (Harrisburg, Pa.: Medical Arts Publishing Co.. 1934); Dr. J. G. J. Holt, Marriage and Periodic Abstinence (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1939); Canon Valere J. Coucke and Dr. J. J. Walsh, The Sterile Period, in Family Life (New York: Wagner), and many other shorter treatises as listed in the bibliography of this study. Preliminary Npti ons a period which covers the first sterile period for mcn-drua! cycles of about 31 days or less according to the C'gmo ku.ius tncory Hence the Jews used “rhythm in reverse” and resumed sexual relitionship each month at a time when conception was most hkJy to ·. wur. In view of that fact, it is not difficult to explain the exceptional fertility of the Jews throughout the centuries. The Talmudic scriptures like­ wise show that the Jews had definite ideas concerning the duration of the fertilizing capacity of the male cells of generation (the spetmatazoa). Medical writings of the Hindus reveal that those people also knew that woman is capable of conception only once during the menstrual cycle,—during the period immediately' following ovula­ tion.3 Among the Gentiles, however, certain erroneous theories led to rhe conclusion that menstruation and ovulation coincide. Accordingly the period immediately preceding and following menstruation was considered to be the most propitious time for conception? Such erroneous ideas were embodied in the so-called Pflügcr 1 heory (pub­ lished in 1863), which seems to have been accepted by practically all physicians of the late 19th. century. Dr. Carl Capellmann s popu­ lar book on pastoral medicine shows that he also adhered to Pflüger s Theory, for he establishes as the fertile periods the first 14 days fol­ lowing menstruation as well as the three to four days immediately' preceding the next menstruation. He adds that such facts were known quite generally in his time (189s') ’ Pflugcr s 1 heory was 3 For a more complete sketch of the Jewish and Hindu ideas on human fertility, see Holt, op. at.. p. 5 and 6, a-> well as an artiJe bv Dr A F. MLash in the Journal of Obstetrics and (iynecolo'cs (\<Ί . n 1. J“n 1928) entitled “The Gynecology <4 the Ancient', p · 4 Many animals actually bleed dutmg the so-called rutting period, which is the time when conception i< most likely to occur (their ovulation period), and in many animals, the only time when the female will accept t.ie male. This fact led many medical authorities of the 19th century to conclude that menstruation in women is analogous to "rutting in animals Ct the widely circulated book of Dr. Gallus Poiuiiet entitled Th<-w:e Pcnttve de la Fécondation des Mammifères base »ur Γ Observatum de Tonte la Sviic Animale, published in 1842. 5 Medicina Pastoralis. 7th. ed (Aquisgranr Sumptibus Rudolphi Barth, 1890), p. 135, 136. 4 Rhythm in Marriage refuted by Knauer in 1898 and by Halban in 1901, bringing the medical world to the realization that the relation between menstrua­ tion and ovulation in women was still a mystery. Since those who observed the prescriptions of Dr. Capellmann and others generally met with little success, the whole idea of “safe periods” came to be looked upon with distrust. New interest and hopes were awakened with the publication of the investigations of Dr. Hermann Knaus of Prague (1929) and of Dr. Kyusaku Ogino of Japan (1930). To quote Dr. Ogino: Human conception can occur in a certain limited period between two menses (from the twelfth to the nineteenth day before the subsequent menses) and this conception period can be predicted practically in most cases. Since 1924 I have advocated this view, which is just the reverse of the view heretofore expressed.6 In other words, menstruation does not coincide with ovulation­ menstruation rather indicates that ovulation has failed to result in conception. The beginning of the time of ovulation (i. e. the period when con­ ception is most likely) can be computed with considerable accuracy by counting bad{ 19 days from the anticipated beginning of the next menstruation.7 That, in substance, is the “safe period” theory as evolved by Doctors Ogino and Knaus, and advanced today by many highly resoected members of the medical profession. s Op. at., foreword. 7 For example, if the period between two menstruations (the menstrual cycle) consists of 31 days, the first, day of the fertile period is the 13th day of that 31 day cycle. The last day of the fertile period would be 12th. day counting back. from the anticipated beginning of the next menstruation, i.e. the 20th day of the 31 day cycle. The fertile period for that menstrual cycle, therefore, is from the 13th to the 20th day of the cycle inclusively, 8 days in all. The remaining days would make up the sterile periods. Due to the normal irregularity in the length of successive menstrual cycles, however, the fertile period would have to be considered as including several days more than eight days in the actual application of the “safe period” theory. Preliminary potions An Evaluation of the “Safe Period'' Theory Most physicians will admit that the “safe period” theory is based on established, biological principles. Although space does not permit us to cite the opinions of various leaders in the medical profession, it might suffice to mention that most physicians seem to adopt an encouraging but cautious attitude in regard to this discovery, voicing the hope that further clinical evidence will justify a more enthusiastic attitude later on.8 It must be admitted, however, that among the few but influential physicians who tend to discredit the theory, some are opposed to it simply because it does not fit in with their precon' ceived notions concerning ovulation and menstruation; or as Dr. Hartman expresses it: For three quarters of a century, gynecologists tried to prove that ovulation occurred only at the time of menstrua ­ tion, and promptly stifled or ignored voices raised against this view, on the basis of findings that, failed to fit.9 A perusal of medical opinion in general clearly indicates that many of the more influential members of the medical profession have little interest or patience for any birth control measure which does not involve contraception. This was made clear in the course of the birth control hearings before three congressional committees in 1932 and 1934.10Il One of the most zealous preachers of contraception. Pro­ 8 We might classify members of the medical profession as either en­ thusiastic, cautious or sceptical in their attitude toward this discovery. Aonong the “enthusiastic” we find Doctors Latz, Sniulders, De Guchtencere., Georg, Miller and associates, Holt. Pedersen, Sutherland, etc.; among the “cautious,” we may list the names of Doctors Hartman, Vignes and Robey, Estor, Roehat, and the majority of contemporary physicians. 1 he ‘sceptical group includes Doctors Dickinson, Emgc, Araya, Turennc, as well as Professor Norman Himes of Colgate University. The. opinions of these authorities may be found in their books or articles as listed in the bibliography of this study. 8 “Facts and Fallacies of the Safe Period,” Journal of Contraception Il (1937), p. 51; Cf. also Dr. Leo Latz, The Rhythm of Sterility and Fertility in Women (Chicago: Late Foundation), 1939, p. 69. 18 Birth Control Hearings before a sub-committec of the committee on the judiciary, U. S. Senate (72nd. congress. 1st. session), on S. 4436. May 12, 19, and 20, 1932; also similar hearings before a committee on the 6 Rhythm in Marriage lessor Norman E. Himes of Colgate University, voices the sentiments of this group when he says: This method (i. e. the “safe period’’ method) has no place among rational people when other birth control techniques, not having its disadvantages, are readily available to the masses of the population.11 There are others, however, who appear to object to the theory on strictly scientific grounds, e. g. Dr. Rafael Araya of Argentina (cf. bibliography). As proof that the “safe period” method is actually being used as a measure of fertility control, we might mention a recent survey which indicates that of 2005 women questioned, 11 % stated that they used the “safe period” method.12 Such considerations combined with a study of the mass of medical opinion on the subject, justify the following conclusions: 1— Although, the medical profession as a whole seems to accept the basic principles of the Ogino-Knaus discovery as scientifically \ sound, the fact that several recognized medical authorities seriously question pivotal principles such as the spontaneity of ovulation and fthe brevity of the life span of the spermatazoa in the vagina, should ^prompt us to adopt an attitude of caution regarding the scientific land medical aspects of this theory. 2—The reports of Dr. Leo Latz and others demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the careful application of the “safe period” theory is as effective as the most dependable contraceptive. In presenting popular expositions of the theory, however, the painstaking judiciary, House of Representatives (73rd congress, 2nd. session), on H. R. 5978, serial 2, Jan. IS, 19, 1934; also a third series of hearings before a sub-committec on the judiciary, U. S. Senate, (73rd. congress, 2nd session) on S'. 1842, March I, 20 and 27, 1934. These documents have been printed at the U. S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Practical Birth Control Methods (New York: Modern Age Books, 1938), ρ. 124. This attitude is understood without difficulty if we keep in mind that many or the advocates of contraception contend that the purpose of sex is not procreation but. recreation. Cf. The Conspiracy Against Chastity by Samuel Saloman and Dan Gilbert, San Diego, Danielle Publishers, 1939. 12 John Winchell Riley and Matilda White, “The Use of Various Methods of Contraception, u he American Sociological Review V, n. 16 (Dec. 194Û), p. 890'903. Prelimmary potions Ί vigilance, competent medic.il guidance and spirit of sacrifice necessary for a successful application of the theory have often been over­ looked or unduly minimized. 3— Since the theory is being applied with success m thousands of cases, it merits the name “method” as much as any other tried, scientific discovery. 4—The successful use of such a method as a means of avoiding conception will be most difficult for those who are not accustomed ■· to self-restraint in marital life. Unless such a method is adopted be­ cause of some higher, supernatural motive, it will be unnatural, and as such, at least spiritually harmful. 5— —The use of the “safe period method in reverse is a highly efficacious means of promoting conception. Part One Moral Considerations The Moral Problem under consideration revolves about two ques­ tions: A—Can the practice of periodic continence, objectively con­ sidered, be accepted as a lawful procedure in marital life7 B—if such a practice is objectively unlawful, in what circumstances could it be justified or permitted? The answer to the first question will be presented in chapters II, HI and IV. Chapters V and VI will he devoted to a discussion of the second question. A—Objective Morality Of the Practice of Periodic Continence (the “Rhythm” Practice) This question may appear to be one of pure speculation. The answer, however, is bound to color the attitude of every priest and confessor in dealing with cases which involve marriage and the family It makes a great difference if we say: "Such a practice m itself is perfectly lawful,” or: "Such a practice is objectively unlawful " The first answer might easily be interpreted by the faithful as an official approbation of the practice as such, and the general tendency would be to conclude that as long .1« the practice is not objectively unlaw ful, no Catholic should hesitate to avail himself of such a favorable concession. Many mistakes, misunderstandings and evil consequences can be avoided by deciding first of all whether or not the practice, considered apart from all circumstances and motives, is good, bad or indifferent, or as Father Salsmans S. J. says: "It is very important, especially in moral matters of this kind, to speak most accurately ac­ cording to truth (‘secundum veritatem').”1 1 “Sterilitas Facultativa Licita?” XI (1934), p. 566. Ephemerides Theologiae Lovunienses, 10 Rhythm in Marriage In our attempt to throw light upon this delicate but important moral problem our procedure will be the following: a brief review ot the theological principles involved in this question (Chapter 11), a presentation of our position in this matter, in thesis form (Chap­ ter III) a brief consideration of the species and gravity of the sin involved m the unwarranted use of periocJ·. method (Qb^ fer Ay ), CiKPri.R H MORAL PRINCIPLES The Problem ■/As stated in Chapter I, we are concerned only with the application of the “safe period” method as a means of avoiding conception, i. e. discriminate, periodic continence whereby the marnage act is per­ formed exclusively on sterile days. Furthermore, this practice con­ stitutes a moral problem 'only if considered as a system,— a system in which every act of sexual indulgence or abstinence becomes a part of an ingenious attempt to avoid the normal and natural consequence of marital union,— conception. There is no moral judgment to be passed on isolated acts of marital union on sterile days or of abstin­ ence on fertile days objectively considered. Those who are united by the bonds of matrimony are not restricted “per sc” to cither sterile or fertile days in the use of their marriage right. Nor do we wish to imply that the practice of periodic continence is unnatural in the sense that contraception is unnatural. The practice is perfectly in accordance with nature as far as the biological aspect is concerned. The point at issue is whether or not it is according to man's rational nature to take advantage of such biological laws so as to avoid the realization of the end which is indicated clearly by divine command and by the very nature of sex, as the primary purpose ot marital union.1 Is such a practice considered objectively (apart from cir­ cumstances and motives) and æs u system, good, bad or indifferent from a moral viewpoint? Reason, and Moral Good Man is obliged to ordain every human act to a good which is in conformity with reason,— a “ bonum honestum.” Whatever acts arc according to reason “arc according to the order of God Himscli. 1 Cf. Si. Thomas, Summa Theologica. I-Il, Q. I. a. 1 et scq. tor tne fundamental difference between “actiones humanae” and “actiones hominis · The moral problem involved in this quc.-tion i-· -Cited dearly and pronely by Rev. A.’f. Kaoer C. PP. S. in the Fcrtntghtly Rraac. XLI p. 123, 124. 2 St. Thomas, op. cit.. Ϊ-Π, O. 72, a. 4, corp., also II-II, Q· 1 W a. 2, corp. CL also The Tgamrcd Morel Law According to St Thomas and Suarez. 12 Rhythm in Marriage Reason tells me, for instance, that certain acts such as blasphemy and contraception are intrinsically evil, while other'acts such as missing Mass on Sundays or eating meat on Fridays, are wrong only because of a divine or authoritative human precept. Reason likewise tells us that other human acts, even though not intrinsically evil or contrary to an explicit, binding precept, are morally wrong simply because they are not in accordance with the divine plan. We know from the very nature of things that eating is intended by the Creator primarily as a means of conserving the life of the individual; that recreation is meant primarily as a means of keeping the individual in condition to fulfill the duties of his or her state of life; that the performance of the marital act is intended primarily as a means of realizing the conservation and propagation of the hu man race. Considered in themselves, isolated acts of recreation, eating or marital union are morally indifferent,— they could be good or bad depending upon attendant motives and circumstances. But if we would consider, for example, the idea of recreation all day long, not as an isolated act but as a consistent practice, there would be reason to doubt whether or not the primary purpose of recreation is being realized. The practice might be called objectively suggestive of evil rather than of good, i. e., '■'male sonans.” In the question of eating, we might conceive of a practice of eating only during hypothetical periods when assimilation and nutrition would be impossible. Such a manner of eating and abstaining (i. e. the system as a whole) would appear to be not merely “male sonans,” but objectively wrong, since it is designed to lead to the non-realization of the primary purpose of eating. Considered as a mere series of physical acts, such a practice would be outside of the realm of morality; but since we are speaking only of moral acts, we must presuppose that such a practice proceeds from a free and deliberate will, and hence from an intention to realize the same end which is indicated by an objective consideration of the procedure in question. We are not saying, however, that such a practice could not be justified in con' crete cases, e. g., if nutrition would be injurious temporarily to the a Thesis for a Doctorate in Sacred Theology by Walter Farrell Ο. P. (Ditchling: St. Dominic’s Press, 1930), p. 133, 134. Moral Principles 13 health of the individual. In that case, attention could be centered exclusively on the secondary ends of eating, e. g., the alleviation of the pangs of hunger. It is not a mere hypothesis but an actual fact that there are periods within the menstrual cycle of woman when conception is highly improbable.3 The practice of limiting the use of the marriage right exclusively to such periods is designed to lead to the avoidance of the primary purpose of marital union as indicated by nature and intended by the Creator. Although there is always a slight possl· bility of conception, the practice considered “in suo esse rnorah” essentially includes a deliberate intention to avoid conception. Conforming to the Divins Plein We know that God has attached legitimate pleasures to the per> formance of natural functions such as eating, drinking and marital union. Besides serving as a means of sustenance, eating and drink' ing affords a definite pleasure of sense which makes the task of sustaining strength and conserving human life less burdensome. As we have said before, eating and drinking likewise is a means of alleviat? ing the pangs of hunger, conditioning man tor the performance of the duties of his state of life. Sexual indulgence affords a pleasure of sense which is sufficient to invite man and wife to perform the sexual act; it also serves to temper sexual concupiscence and to strengthen the bond of love and unity between man and wife. But such pleasures intrinsically are ordained and subordinated to the performance of the functions in question so that the primary purpose of such functions may be realised more easily and more securely. * 3 We cannot say “impossible", for since the method is based on biological (not physical) laws, exceptions are always possible. * “nam propter delectationem attentius et decentius operationi insistimus in qua delectamur” St. Thomas, Contra Gent.. ΠΙ, ch. 26. Cf. also Merkelbach, O.P., Summa Theol. Mor I, n. 15S. 3 (p. 15'3); III, n. /6S st seq.; also Salsmans, S. J., loe ca.. p. 5'66. Vh are avoiding the piesent controversy concerning the ends of marriage,—it !*· too vast a question to be discussed here. No Catholic theologian will contend that procreation is not the primary end of marriage, but some deny that it is the unique primary end. For an enlightening and sane discussion of this question, cf. an 14 Rhythm in Marriage In other words, God's plan calls for the maintenance of a definite hierarchy of ends in marriage, in which procreation holds the pri­ macy. We know, however, that this order of ends docs not have to be intended cxplicilely in every act of marital union; it suffices that the primary end is not excluded either explicitly or implicitely. Providing that nothing is done to prevent conception, the normal performance of the act of sexual union is implicitely ordained to the realization of the divine plan. 'Hence those who use their mar­ riage right without even thinking about procreation, but doing noth­ ing to prevent conception nor positively excluding it as an end m marital life, are well within the law. On the other hand, wc know from two propositions condemned by Pope Innocent XI th.it those who eat or drink or perform the act of sexual union merci)' tor the sake of pleasure arc guilty of sin.5 Such acts are wrong not because they arc contrary to the lower nature of man, but because they arc contrary to reason,— they are not even implicitely ordained to the primary purposes of such natural functions. Although those who use their marriage right exclusively during sterile periods may be intending one of the legitimate secondary ends of marriage, it docs not follow that they are maintaining due regard even implicitly for the hierarchy of ends in marriage as established by God. In a certain sense, they are positively excluding the primary purpose of marital life. The Positive Exclusion of Procreation The primary end of sexual union might be excluded either nega­ tively or positively. Negative exclusion means simply that procrea­ tion is not. .realized due to circumstances which are beyond the control of the parties concerned, i. e., those who are physically sterile due to age (past the menopause) or physical defect, or who unintentionally happen to use their marriage right only during sterile periods. Positive exclusion means that the parties themselves intend to avoid conccparticle by Father Lavaud, O.P., in the October (1939) issue of the T/to-mist “The interpretation of the Conjugal Act and the Theology of Marriage,” p. 360-380. 5 Denzinger-Banmvart-Umberg, Enchiridion Symbolorum, ed. 18-20, Friburgi Brisgome: Herder, 1932, n. 1178, 1179. Moral Principles B tion. This might be indicated by the express decision: "i intend to avoid conception,” or it might be indicated simply by the deliberate placing of an obstacle to conception. This obstacle may be cither or a material or of an intentional order,— in both cases there is a deliber­ ate and efficacious attitude “contra conceptionem.” In the former case (material contraception) the act is contrary to nature and grievously sinful. An example of positive but intentional exclusion of procrea­ tion would be the adopting of periodic continence as a system or poljcy in marital life, whether it be for many years or only for a period of a few months. It is positive because it proceeds from a free and deliberate decision of the formal element of every human act,— the will.6 Can wc say that such positive but intentional exclusion of procreation is always unlawful? It is clear that if there is a just cause, it is perfectly lawful to give up the pursuit of primary ends of human functions and center at tention solely on legitimate secondary ends, or as Father Lavaud expresses it: One can stop at these secondary ends for the goodness which is proper to them, for motives which arc proportion­ ate to the importance of the end which is no longer pur­ sued, and which is even excluded from the invention, with­ out, however, using any means in itself unlawful to avoid that end.7 If the primary end cann , le.mon; this will be discussed presently. 'Le Monde Moderne et le Mariage (Pans: Dcwlee de Brouwer. 19 3S), p. 419. 8 “Haec est enim vis finium secundanorum, ut rationabile sit, ac protn honestum in eis sistere, dummodo ad hoc ipsum detur ratio conveniens.” Salsmans, S. J., loc. at.. p. 565; Cf. also Lavaud, Ο. P.» the TJunnist (Oct., 1939), p. 367, 368. 16 Rhythm in Marriage excusing circumstances, reason itself seems to rebel against the idea of considering such a deliberate and ingenious means of enjoying the pleasure without the “onus” as objectively lawful. It is evident that the practice in question differs considerably not only from onanism, and material contraception, but also from the practice of total abstinence in marital life. In the latter case, there is no objective indication that the persons concerned primarily intend to avoid conception. The procedure is objectively indifferent, and might be ordained to any number of noble and praiseworthy ends, e. g., as a work of penance or mortification. If such persons are moti­ vated by pure selfishness, however, the practice of total, sexual ab­ stinence in married life would be sinful. Similarly, if a man marries a sterile woman purposely in order to avoid offspring, he would be guilty of sinful selfishness, but the mere fact that the woman of his choice happens to be sterile by no means indicates the presence of such a selfish, sinful intention. In the above instances, there is no objective indication that procreation is excluded in marital life, except in a negative manner. In the practice of periodic continence, however, it is clear that the primary purpose is to avoid the realization of the primary end of marriage. If such married persons were motivated primarily by other considerations, e. g., the observance of virtuous continence for higher motives or merely the tempering of human concupiscence, there would be no reason in the world for choosing a studied and complicated system which is designed to lead to sterility.9 In concluding these remarks, it may be well to add that when theologians say that there is no obligation to procreate children, they mean that man and wife are not obliged per se to use their marriage right, and not that it is per se lawful to perform the marriage act exclusively on sterile days, systematically and deliberately abstaining on fertile days.10 St. Augustine expresses the same thought when 'J Substantially the same argument is developed by Craisson in the Revue /Je·; Sciences Ecclésiastiques. XXVII (June 1873), p. 594; Cf. also L'Awi Du Clergé (Nov. 8, 1934), p. 745. 1° Ci. Lavaud, O.P., Le Monde Moderne et le Mariage. It must be re­ membered that marriage consists essentially in the mutual giving of the m.? triage right, not in the actual use of it. Cf. De Smet, De Sponsalibus et Matrimonio, 4th ed. (Bruges: Car. Beyaert, 1927), p. 75-82. Moral Principles he says that fellowship in children "is the hic worthy fruit not of the union of male and female. but <4 rc\i;.d mti:ro>.irsc 11 De Bono Conjugali, Corpus Scriptorum tcclr\iauirr·rum Latinorum (In future to be referred to as C.S.E.L.), XL.I (Pragae: f. fempsky, 19u0), p. 187, 188. Cf. also La Doctrine du Manage Seton Saint Augustin by Bernard A. Periera O.F.M. (Paris: Beauchesne, 1930), p. ?3. Chapter III Thesis: THE PRACTICE OF PERIODIC CONTINENCE ACCORDING TO THE “SAFE PERIOD” METHOD, CON SIDERED AS A SYSTEM IN MARITAL RELATIONS, IS OBJECTIVELY UNLAWFUL,—although it can be justified in in­ dividual cases if there is a just case. In other words, such a practice, objectively considered, is PER SE ILLICITUM, PER ACCIDENS AUTEM LICITUM.” The conclusion refers to the use of the “safe period” method in general, whether it is applied for life, for a few years, or merely for a few months. The second part of the conclusion, “per accidens her tum,” will be discussed in Chapters V and VI. a)—Theological Opinion 1)—In the 19th century The moral aspects of periodic continence were discussed quite thor­ oughly about 71) years ago. The discussion seems to have been oc­ casioned by the publication of a book entitled: De L'Ovulation Spontanée de L’Espèce Humaine dans ses Rapports Avec la Théologie Moderne wherein the author, a certain Father Le Comte, expresses the opinion that the use of the marriage right during such sterile periods is not unlawful. But he adds: Nevertheless they would sin per se if, doing nothing which might be an obstacle to conception, they would posi­ tively form the desire to see their marital relations sterile.1 It is evident, however, that both the biological and moral aspects of this question were known prior to 1873, for an outstanding 19th. century theologian. Thomas Cardinal Gousset, seems to have settled the moral issue temporarily in the lS60's. He stated that conjugal relations during sterile periods are not wrong in themselves, but that they could be if accompanied by a deliberate intention to perform 1 The book was published in Pans (Victor Palmé) and tn Louvain (Pccters) in .1873. Needless to say, the biological calculations in this book are based on the erroneous Pilüger Theory. The text cited above is found in the Revue des Sciences Ecclésiastiques, XXVII (June, 1873), p. 591. Practice of Periodic Continence Objectively Inkuojui 19 the sexual act only during such periods." It is to he noted that neither Father Le Comte nor the Cardinal gave serious consideration to the use of the marriage right during sterile periods as a system, tor the former admits that the determined intention to restrict the use or the marriage right to such periods presents difficulties, and the latter states expressly that he would like to give special study to that aspect of the question, but that in the meantime, those who perform the marriage act only during determined periods should not be disturbed.3 The theologians of the time seem to have accepted the opinion of Cardinal Gousset, as evidenced in an article of the Analecta Juris Pontificii.4 An opposite opinion was advanced, however, in a Spanish review entitled Consultor de los Parrmos, i. c., that the use of such sterile periods for the performance of the act of marital union can never be justified since such couples arc positively impeding and ex­ cluding the procreation of children/' A 19th century canonist, Crais*Cf, the Analecta Jims Pontificii (12th series, 1873), col. 721, note 1; also the Isjowvelle. Revue Theologigue, V (1873), p. 442-443. The Cardinals opinion is printed and analyzed in the Revue de Thérapeutique Medico Chi­ rurgicale Feb. 15, 1867, p. 96, and July 15, p. 366, 367. Cardinal Gousset was a courageous adversary of rigorism and Jansenism, and an ardent propagator of the moral theology of St. Alphonse; he even wrote a book in justification of the moral principles of St. Alphonse, cf. Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, art. “Gousset,’’ Vol. VI, 2, col, 1525-1 527. As evidence that the biological aspects were known long rente 18"?, wc might mention the book of Dr. Pouchet referred to in chapter II, as well as other works such as the book of Baer de Koenig4'erg, De Or; et Hominis Genesi published in 1827 (Lipsiae). 3 Concerning Father Le Comte, cf. the text aheady cited and also the Revue des Sciences Ecclésiastiques, loc. ctt., p. 592. Concerning the Cardinal cf. the Nouvelle Revue Théologique. V ( 1873), p. 443, and also the book of Father Le Comte, p. 24 2 b? 2 43. 4 12th. scries ( 1873), col. 721: "Dum deficiente legitimo motivo, nihilo­ minus positive appetunt sterile esse suum commercium, certo peccant, wd venialiter tantum, si tamen ad votum naturae actum matrimonii complete perfecerint.” 5 ’’Copula habetur quidem, sed tempore in quo scitur conceptionem esse ferre impossible, et non est hoc generationem impedire. . . . Non est hoc m casu positiva ac prava voluntas generationem excludendi aut impediendi7 Ita, sane.” reprinted in the Analecta juris Pontificii. 1 3th series (1874), coi 996. The Analecta describes this opinion as "sévère a l'excès.'’ 20 Rhythm in Marriage son, assumed a less severe attitude in saying that such use of the mar­ riage right cannot be justified even if there are serious reasons, but that it may be permitted as the lesser of two evils to those onanises who otherwise cannot be deterred from their criminal ways? The Nouvelle Revue Théologique published a lengthy analysis of a case in which the man and wife restrict the use of the marriage right exclusively to sterile periods for the simple reason that they are both young, and fear “lest too many children be born to them." After citing the authority of many theologians and doctors of the Church on questions relating to marital life, the author concludes that the restriction of the use of the marriage right to sterile days is lawful if there are upright motives and no danger of incontinence;—if the motive is “minus honesto,” the parties sin venially. He adds that if there is no fitting purpose (“fine debito”) for such a procedure, the parties are likewise guilty of venial sin. In such a case, the con­ fessor should do everything in his power to suggest more perfect motives. If such attempts fail, the practice may ber permitted as the lesser of two evils.7 2) Theological Opinion Among Contemporary Theologians The preceding sketch of the controversy of 1873 offers historical background for an understanding of the two principle opinions on this matter found in the writings of theologians of the late 19th. and early 20th. century. The fundamental difference between these two opinions consist in this that the first group considers the prac­ tice of the “safe period” as a system or way of life, which essentially involves a positive act of the wall to exclude and impede procreation as an end in marital relations. The other group centers attention on the lawfulness of marital union on sterile days as such, considering the positive intention to exclude procreation as something quite pre­ valent in individual cases, but not necessarily included in a purely 8 Revue des Sciences Ecclésiastiques, XXVII (1873), p. 595-96. Comparing the opinions of Craisson and the Spanish author to that of Gousset and Le Comte, we see that the former were considering the procedure in question more as a system in manta! life. 7 Cf. l^ouvelle Revue Théologique, V (1873), p. 439-443. The author cites St. Alphonse, Sanches and others in support of the contention that such a practice may be allowed as the lesser of two evils in such circumstances. Practice of Periodic Continence Objectively Unlawful 21 objective examination of the practice of periodic continence as such. Our stand in this matter is upheld by a considerable number of well known, contemporary theologians, such as Father J. Salsmans S.J. of Louvain, Belgium, Father Benedict Lavaud O.P. of Fneburg, Switzerland, Father Albert Doodkorte O.P. of Holland, the anonymous author of a lengthy article in the French theological periodical, L’Ami du Clergé, etc? Their attitude concerning this delicate moral problem may be summed up in three points: I) The practice of periodic continence must be regarded in its true moral light,—as a system or way of life in marital relations. Father Salsmans S.J. stresses this in the following words: That which occurs materially in periodic continence by reason of the external act, is not evil; married couples arc allowed to have marital relations normally during sterile periods, and likewise by consent, to abstain on fertile days, ... but this is not “periodic continence'' in its entirety. There is also in this system, and that by its essence and not merely for extrinsic reasons, a diligent choice of the will, a choosing of days or “observance of times" by which certain fertile days are precisely passed over and other days chosen because they are sterile days. Now the act of the will diligently choosing should be “honestus"; — in this choice as in every human act, man should be led on by a good, or a reasonable end? - Lavaud O.P., op. cit.. Thomint. Ï, n. 3 (Oct. 1939 ), p. 36UOS'1· H n. 4 (Oct. 1940), p. 45’9-5'18; Revue Thomice XLiV (Oct 1938). p. 3;-76>, Salsmans, S.J., loc. cn., Doodkorte, OP, Artsenhlad. July 193·». p P' --"i. Anonymous author, L'Ann du Clergé, Nov. 8, 193-1. p. 73/ i1'- kaiser C.PP.S., Fortnightly Revieu.·, XLi ( 1934), p. 123-124. Joseph Mayer of Paderborn, whose book entitled, Eriaubte Geburtenbesdirankung7 (Paderborn. Bonafatius Druckerei) is reviewed by Dr. Heilwcck in the '1 bed PmR „fuar tai., LXXXV (1932), p. 649-650; cf. especially Father Mayer’s article: “Praktische Bedenken gegen die Natiirliche" Methode der Empfangnisvcihü tung," Théologie und Gkmbe, XXIV ( 1932), P. 295-31 3. Ae may also mention Father Genicot S.J., Cusus Conscientiae 7th. cd (Brua-ellk- I. Edi lion Universelle, S.A., 1938) in several cases which arc actually the work of Father Salsmans S. J , but prepared according to the principles of Father Genicot S.J. 9 Loc. cit., 562, 563; cf. also L'Ami du Clergé, loc. cit., p. 744, tnc author calls such a practice an “état de vie." 22 Rhythm in Marriage Speaking of acts of sexual abstinence or indulgence as parts of the system or practice of periodic continence. Father Lavaud O.P. says: ... If they are viewed as human acts, dependent upon and determined by the will of the spouses, they are vitiated acts . . . (des actes viciés, ‘truqués’)· They imply a fixation on the secondary end and as such, a reversal of the hierarchy of ends, which surely is, excepting for a justifying motive, a disorder.” 10 2) Such a use of the “safe period” method might, in a certain sense, be classed among the human artifices condemned by Pius XI in the encyclical Casti Connubii: The premeditated choice of sterile days because they are sterile, the act of the will by which one establishes himself in this state of sterility, cannot be reconciled with the prim­ ary purpose of marriage. It is to be classed . . . among the “human artifices” of which the encyclical disapproves. This will which repudiates the primary end of marriage infects with its venom the entire matrimonial life taken as a whole.11 3) The practice of periodic continence considered as a system amounts to a positive opposition to procreation, the primary end of marital relations in the divinely-established order. Father Salsmans S.J. expresses this thought in the following words: They not only do not explicitly intend to have children, or prescind from procreation,—which everyone admits as lawful,—but by the very fact that they deliberately and exclusively select sterile days by their own proper will, the disposition · of the will is positively hostile to generation . . . and thus they procure the frustration of their married life.12 The author of the article in L'Ami du Clergé says that by such intervention of the will, the conjugal act is absolutely destined to failure,—“the material, objective relation of the regular conjugal act to its normal end is . . . positively rejected by the will of the man and wife.” 13 10 Op. etc., p. 418. 31 Lavaud O.P., op. cit·, p. 418; cf. also L'Awii du Clergé, loc. cit., p. 744. 12 Loc. cit.. p. 563, 564. 1S Loc. cit.. p. 745. Practice of Periodic Continence Objectively Lnkmjul The Opposite Opinion Whereas the former group mainCiui.·· ! hat ibe pr.ictic.· <4 the "sate period method is per se libation, per accidens demon, the niajnntv of contemporary theologians who have given attentum to this que?' dons contend that the practice is per se hcitum, per mcidens dher . turn. ;. Capellmann, in his Mediana Pastoralis, cites Father BaHenni S.J. as saying that such a practice is not unlawful any more than it is unlawful for those who are sterile due to age or physical defect to continue their marital hfc.!i This same attitude was taken up by Father Vermeersch S.J. and a large nunihr oi contemporary theo­ logians.’'' Father Vermeersch S.J holds that such a practice is ' m itself indifferent or objectively good." lfj Others appear more in14 Capcllmann, Medicma Pastoralis. 7th. ed ( Aqinsgram. Sumptibu.·· Rudolphi Barth, 1890), p. IV: cf. al-o GuryBailenni. Conipcndimr. 1 VoUgiue Moralis, 9th. cd., Vol. II (Romae; 1887). r 917 (n. 923. note 4). 15 Gennaro, S.S., De Periodica Ci'ntir.entm Matrnnomah (a 124 page treatise, Augustae Taurinorum: R. Berruti U Co, 19.-8); Hcymeier, S.J· author of the moral supplement of Dr. Smuldet's popular book, Penodiely· OntJiouding in Het ΗιητιΙπξ (Utrecht; Nijmec ie Mjnjze (Paris French under the title. De la Continence Pern d Letouzey, 1933). Father Htymctcr i> atn the at; subject, among them “Pcriodischc Enthaltunn m Lier Ehc. btnnn.en d"» 1933, p. 532; Couckc, S.J . Honnlctn ami (1932), p. 20'24; Couckc and \\ al-h, The. Su \'..rk- She cd and York); Davis S.J., Moral and Pastoral 9 hen!, , IV M lie II, 13th. cd. Ward, 1935), p. 249-259; Aei 396. Banett-S.ibctn. 1 m pen cl.: cm Theo(Romaci Marictti, 1938). p logiae Morulis. (New \ork. Periodica. XXV (1936), p 171 LXXXIX (July I R E.J (June, 1936), p. 591. M-gr ■>■·! (Champaign, 193-3), p. 28-39, Rev. Job. Λ O'Brien. .X Ill: The Newman Co.. 193S ). etc ... ,Λ What is .Marriage, a pamphlet, tran-kitcd from th<- ( ■ Bouscaren S.J. (New York; The Arncnca Pre-s. 1932). Γ· v_ ζ '° eu' odicu, XX.1I1 (1934), p. 238’-'-248'. XXIV (1935), Γ· ° z lco 24 Rhythm in Marriage dined to accept a less lenient view. Father Genicot S.J. for instance says that “people who use such a theory do nothing grievously wrong;”17 Father Merkelbach O.P. says that such a practice, al­ though indifferent in itself, is suggestive of evil rather than of good (“male sonans”).18 The position of the majority of contemporary theologians on this subject might be stated as follows: Every act of marital union which is performed according to nature with due respect for the hierarchy of ends in marriage, is morally lawful. In the practice of periodic continence, the act of marital union is performed as always;—there is no precept or law restricting the use of the marriage right to either fertile or sterile periods. Conception may not follow from such marital relations, but this is not the fault of man and wife. It is due solely to the fact that God has ordained that such periods should be biologically sterile for the woman. To cite an outstanding de­ fender of such an opinion: In having recourse to temporary continence, even with the intention of avoiding or limiting births, the spouses do not oppose the finality even of the sexual function. They perform the act in conformity with nature; there is no con­ tradiction among them between the finality of the act and the manner in which they perform it. There is no destruc­ tion of an essential order of our nature as God has intended it. As a matter of fact, fecundation will not follow. Nature herself is the cause. During this period she refuses all fecundation to the wife. The act performed at this prelogische Prak- Smarted, LXXXIX (1956), p. 47-65; Ecclesiastical Review. XCIV (1956), p. 588-589. 17 “Nihil graviter pravum agunt conjuges qui, spe vitandae prolis numero­ sioris, a copula abstinent eo tempore quo major est fecundationis probabilitas." Theologiae Moralis Institutiones, 6th. ed., II (Brussels: Dewit, 1909) p. 568, n. 551, 4. In the Casus Conscientiae of Genicot-Salsmans (prepared by Salsmans S.J. according to the principles of Genicot S.J.) such a practice is presented as objectively unlawful. 18 "In casu, copulam conjugalem co solum tempore voluntarie exercere quo conceptio fieri non possit, non est actus contra naturam, sed de se indifferens, at male sonans, qui ut in concreto licitus et honestus sit, exigit rationem cohonestantem.” Angelicum, XI (1934), 93, Practice of Periodic Continence Objectively Unlawful 25 cise moment lacks the efficacity to procreate a new life because nature is made that way by <>od. and ma because nature is deprived (i. e. of such efficacy) by the craftiness of men. Man purposely chooses this period, excluding entirely the fertile days; this choice, mutually agreed to, is by no means unlawful in itself.Iy Such citations indicate that there is no special effort to see the practice of periodic continence in its true moral light,—as a definitely planned system in marital life. These theologians deny that such a practice could be classed among the “human artifices’ condemned in the encyclical “Casti Connubn"; they insist that the practice in­ volves a mere negative exclusion of procreation in marital life. Some of them clearly state that those who avail themselves of such a sys­ tem in marital life are merely trying to harmonice their marital lite with the divine scheme of things."0 b)—Proof 1)—In Holy Scripture There is, of course, no text m Holy Scripture which states explicitely that the use of the marriage right exclusively on sterile days is objectively unlawful. But there are passages which clearly imply that any attempt to interfere with human fertility even by natural means, cannot be considered as per se beyond reproach from a moral viewpoint. All through the Old Testament, fertility is presented as a singu­ lar blessing of God;—natural sterility is presented as a sort of dis­ grace. Any voluntary interference with the cherished, God-given capacity to procreate would have been considered by any God­ fearing Jew as a definite rejection of divine goodness. A recognised authority on the subject tells us that among the Jews, procreation was considered as “an obligation derived from the law which God 19 W. Heymeier, S.J., De la Commence Périodique Dans le MamiX (.Moral Supplement), p. 176; cf. also V. Concke, Hom. and Past. Review, ΧΧΧΙΠ (1932, 33), I, p. 21-22. 20 Cf. Mayrand O.P., Un Problème Moral, p. 6Ï; also Verrnecrsch S.J , Periodica. XXIII (1934), p. 242 .* 26 Rhythm in Marriage promulgated from the very beginning of humanity, when he said, "Increase and multiply.' To be found lacking in this obligation was equivalent to suicide,—equivalent to diminishing the divine likeness in the world.” 2122 We read in Genesis, I, 27, 28: "Male and female He created them. And God blessed them saying; increase and multiply and fill the earth.” Two beings were created, sexually complementary one to another. It is to be noted that the capacity to realize procreation as a result of sexual union is presented as a blessing. Similarly (nd bestowed upon Abraham one of the greatest blessings when He said: “and I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth” (Gen. XIII. 16). The practice of periodic continence implies a voluntary and deliberate interference with the divine gift of fertility. It is true that the patnarchs of old were under a special obligation to procreate, so as to in­ crease the number of God's chosen ones; it is likewise true that fertil­ ity was cherished among the Jews because the Messia was to be born of that race. A similar obligation exists for the members of Christ s Mystical Body, the Church, to co-operate in the work of salvation begun by the Messias. The part of those who use their marital right is clearly to furnish the numbers necessary for the spread of the “City of God” here on earth by at least doing nothing positive to avoid procreation. This is a favorite thesis of the author of the “City of God,” St. Augustine. Sterility was looked upon as a reproach in the Old Testament.'’2 The reason for such an attitude is found in the 23rd. chapter of Exodus, verse 26; God promised the Israelites that “there shall not be one fruitless or barren Jn the land” (cf. also Deut., VII, 14). The fulfillment of this promise, however, depended upon whether or not the Jews lived up to their part of the covenant by keeping the “precepts and ceremonies and judgments'/’ which the Lord had given them (Deut. VII, 11, 12). In the 20th. chapter of Genesis, verse 18, sterility is presented as a punishment for moral wrong (cf. also Osee IX, 14; Is. XLVII, 9). What faithful Jew would 21 Bonsirven, S.J., Le Judaiisme Palestinien au Temps de Jésus Christ. II (Paris: Beauchesne, 1935), p. 207. 22 I Kgs., i. 6; also Is. IV, 1; Osee, IX, 14; etc. Practice of Periodic Continence Obiectivelv Lhilatuful 27 have even thought of interfering with human fertihty m any manner whatsoever?23 In accordance with the directives found in the Bth. chapter of die Book of Leviticus, the Jews refrained from sexual union pre­ cisely during what we know to be the post-menstrual sterile period ôf the woman’s menstrual cycle. Father Bonsirven S.J. denies that such observances were merely for the sake of legal cleanliness;—-a very definite moral issue is involved: Jewish tradition tends to see in ritualistic purity, a step towards moral holiness. . . ■ Physical cleanliness leads to separation or ritualistic purity, and this (leads) to holiness.2425 Chastity in marriage among the Jews meant that the marriage right was not to be used “except with a view to procreation (ibid.). Father Hummelauer S.J. denies that such observances were born ol superstition as they were among other nations such as the Hindus and Persians.23 If those who lived before the redemption were ex. pected to observe such prescriptions for the sake of moral holi­ ness,” it would seem strange if those w-ho partake of the endless graces flowing from the redemption of Christ would be free to bring about sterility in marital life, voluntarily and deliberately, witnout incurring some moral guilt. 23 When St. Elizabeth conceived St. John the Baptist after years of sterility, she exclaimed; "Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein He hath regard to take away my reproach among men” (Luke, Ï, 25). In com­ menting upon this text, Father Knahenbauer SJ says: "Cum esset stenhs ent:,ihendun> esse matrimonium, ut plurcs ad Deum adducat 'rnatres familias esse' ■ . . hisce curis remedium affertur otiositati ceterisquc malis ci o rguncti·. " Knabenbauer, S.J., Cursus Scripturae Sacrae. C.unnu in S. P.wh Epotoiw. \’ (Paro. Lethiel· leux, 1913), p. 260. 28 “salutem non pendere a generatione ΐόοι,Γ·. patet p» r sr 3 -'<7 ' AD) speaks of the shame which is associated with sexual union in «1.10-3 where conception is impossible, referring to St. Elizabeth's sense ci shame at finding herself with child in her old age.0'’ Surely he would speak of more than shame if he were to pass judgment, on those who deliberately restrict conjugal intercourse exclusively to periods when there is the least possibility of conception. St. John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.) tells the fallen Theodore that one who rears no children, has taken a wife to no purpose, in one oi his homilies, he says that the child is the bridge which joins man and wife together 32 *34* St. Cyril of Alexandria (about ?"ό-444 .A.D.) in commenting upon the wedding feast of Cana, says that ah those holy personages are present at each chaste and honorable wedding, along with Jesus, to perform another miracle; — - to sanctify that new source of human generation that their offspring might be holy."' In the 6th century, we find Pope St. Gregory the Great asserting the traditional doctrine that married people are joined together tor the procreation of children. The statement is naind m his Regube Pûstoruhs Liber, which served as a practical guide lor the clercy throughout the early centuries and middle ages.3*' 32 Liber de V'irgm-.ute. n. 38 ( P. G , XXX, co! 746). 3:: Expositio Evangdu Sec. Lucam, (C. S E. L.. XXXH, 4, p. 38 el sqq ) 34 Ad Tiieoduitim Lapium. II, c 5 (P G., XL\ II. col. 514): Niolestum est liberos suscepisse, molcstim non suscipissc ·. illud enim est frustra dux­ isse conjugem, huc amare servituti subjectum es'e" In Ep ad Colos c. 4, Hom, XII (P. G., LX1I, coi. 388); . . . "ties hunt una caro, infante utrimque utrosque conjungente.'" cL also lb'.d , coi. 385, ‘’Vinum datum est St. John Chrysostom attaches special importance to the curbing of con­ cupiscence as a purpose of marriage, but not as the. primary purpose except in the sense that hue who cannot remain continent must look to marnage more as a. means of avoiding sin than as a means of procreating children •oS In Joann is Evangelium, IL 1-4, (P. G., 1XXIII, col. 223-226). :>’:Ch. 27 (P. L., LXXVII, col. 102), 32 Rhythm in Marriage St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) The teachings of the other Fathers of the Church concerning mar riage are confirmed and clarified in the writings of the Great Bishop of Hippo. Since the recent encyclical of Pope Pius XI on "Cliristian Marriage'' is based to a large extent upon the writings of St. Augustine, we feel justified in attributing special authority to those writ­ ings. The doctrine of St. Augustine concerning marriage and procreation may be summed up in the following three points: a)—The Creator instituted marriage primarily for the procreation of children Commenting on the divine command “Increase and Multiply," St. Augustine says: For our part, we have no doubt that, according to the blessing of God, to increase and multiply and fill the earth is the gift of marriage, which God established from the be­ ginning, before the sin of man, in creating male and female . . . since it appears most clearly that they were created male and female with bodies of different sexes so that they might increase and multiply and fill the earth, it is highly absurd to be unwilling to accept such a fact?7 He stresses the fact that conjugal intercourse would have been the means of procreation even if our first parents had not sinned;— the procreation of children is not a punishment for sm but “pertains to the glory of marriage.” 37 38* Despite abuses which may have crept in, marnage was instituted among all peoples for the chaste pro creation of children; the holy patriarchs such as Jacob used the mar­ riage right only with a view to procreation.33 37 De Ciwtate Dei, II, Bk. XIV, c. 22, (C. S. E. L„ XL, 2, p. 45, 46. the initials C. S. E- L. refers to the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latin­ orum. Vindobonae, 1866 . . . ). 38 De Civ. Dei, Bk. XIV, c. 21 (C. S. E. L., XL, 2, p. 45); also c. 23 (Ibid., XL, 2, p. 45, p. 47); also Bk. XXII, c. 24 (ibid., p. 642). 33 De Adulterinis Conjugiis. (C. S. E. L., XLI, p. 395); De Civ. Dei, Bk. XVI, c. 38 (C. S. E. L., XL, 2, p. 194); De Bono Conjugali. (C. S. E. L., XLI, p. 211, 212, 226, 227). Practice of Periodic Continence Objcctivel\ Unlawful 3J b)—God’s plan for the peopling of the Heavenly City is to be realized through procreation It is not necessary to read much of St. Augustine’s "De Civitate Dei'’ to discover the fundamental reason why the human race should be propagated. Marriage is the "seed-bed” of the Heavenly City which will sojourn here on earth until the time comes when “it will be gathered together, all rising in their bodies, when the promised kingdom will be given to them, where they will reign with their Leader, the King of Ages, forever.” 40 We might say that the City of God here on earth is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. Although God will see to it that the number of "saints” necessary to people that Heavenly City is realized in due time, those who voluntarily cause their marital relations to be sterile without a just cause are realizing neither the life of virtuous continence which the King of Ages desires, nor the unselfish procreation of children which He blesses.41* Instead of conforming their lives to the divine plan, they are rather prolonging the sojourn of the City of God here on earth, and preferring their own pleasure and convenience to the glory of the King of Ages. c)—The ideal, beyond what is necessary for procreation, is virtuous continence Conjugal intercourse is justified only if it is either necessary for the procreation of children, or necessary as a means of avoiding in­ 40 De Civitate Det. Bk. XV, c. 1 (C. S. E. L. XL. 2, p *9, 60). Th>s view is developed by Father Bernard A. Pericra. O.F.M. in hi;-, study entitled: La Doctrine du Mariage Selon Saint Augustin J Pans: Beauchcsne), p. 1. etc 41 Even though many might resort to periodic continence, God would attend to the realization of His plan by other means, e. g. by giving the blessing of fertility to those who arc sterile, and desire children. St. .Augus­ tine makes a distinction between “propagatio” and "conformatio " "Propa­ gatio” refers to the capacity of man to reproduce other human beings. “Con­ formatio” is the actual divine cooperation, by which intercourse is rendered efficacious in the procreation of offspring;—a blessing which is sometimes refused to individuals, but which has remained with the human race in general ever since God pronounced that blessing in paradne: "Increase and multiply." Cf. De Civ. Dei, Bk. XXII, c. 24 (C S. E. L., XL, p. 642, 643); also Periera, O.F.M., op. cit., p. 8, 9. 34 Rhythm in Marriage continence. In the latter case, the use of the marriage right is al­ lowed by St. Paul as a concession to human weakness.42 That is, one spouse may grant the “debitum" to the other who is in danger of incontinence. But it would be a “culpa venialis” for cither spouse to demand the “debitum” beyond what is necessary for procreation.43 It may be disputed whether St. Augustine speaks of actual sin or of mere imperfection, but it is evident that this “culpa venialis” is excusable;—“secundum veniam conceditur.” (I Cor. VII, 6). Father Periera O.F.M. throws a bit of light upon this question: Again, it is the honesty of marriage which makes this failing excusable, without however taking away all of its malice. ... It is, in fact, to conserve conjugal faith, that marriage excuses the abuses of man and wife, without how ever approving of them.44 St. Augustine considers concupiscence as something of an evil. By using this evil with a view to the procreation of children accord­ ing to the divine plan, that evil is turned into good. The fact that the performance of the marital act is ordained to procreation not. only compensates for such surrender to incontinence in marriage, but it gives to carnal incontinence a certain dignity and goodness, tempering the concupiscence of the flesh by presenting to the man and wife the pleasant prospect of future paternity and maternity."54 4S De Continentia (C. S. E. L., XLI, p. 177); De Bono Viduitatis (Ibid., p. 309) 13 . . . reddere vero debitum conjugale nullius est criminis, exigere autem ultra generandi necessitatem culpa venialis. ...” De Bono Conjugali (C. S. E. L., XLI, p. 195, 196, 203, etc.). 41 Periera, op, cit., p. 96. St. Augustine compares such excusable indulgence in sexual pleasure to immoderate indulgence in lawful food; De Bono Ccmjugah (C. S. E. L., XLI, p. 211). Such a use of the marriage right, however (i. e. to avoid incontinence) can be excused only “si magis m sua conjunctione diligunt quod honestum est quam quod inhonestum est.” Ibid., p. 203. 13 “liliorum quidem propagatione compensatur, quod incontinentiae nu­ bendo ceditur.” De Adulterinis Conjugiis, (C. S. E. L., XLI, p. 395); also De Bono Conjugali, (C. S, E. L., XLI, p. 191). cf. alsa Periera, O.F.M., Practice of Periodic Continence Objectively L'nLiu fui What if the marnage right is used merely as a remedy for con­ cupiscence? St. Augustine answers that such a procedure could be called marriage providing that the man and wife arc not unwilling to have children born to them, and do nothing evil to prevent con. ception. He clearly implies that if the married parties arc unwilling to have children born to them, their marital union cannot be called a marriage.46 This gives us an idea of just how severely St. Augustine would judge the practice of periodic continence, objectively con­ sidered. There is “per se” nothing to make such marital union good and honorable; not their acts of continence, for their careful ob­ servance of restraint during fertile periods is inspired by selnsh motives; not the procreation of children, for the practice essentially is designed to lead to sterility. On the other hand, it is easy to see how he would permit or at least tolerate such a practice if a seri­ ous, compensating reason is present, just as he permits the use ot i.æ marriage right beyond what is necessary for procreation it it is a ' matter of avoiding a great evil such as incontinence, infidelity, etc. It seems that he would not have approved positively of even the war­ ranted practice of periodic continence, but we can safely say that he would have permitted it as a concession to human frailty,-- secun­ dum veniam." To summarise the Augustinian doctrine, wc may say that the divine plan prescribes that all who cannot live in virtuous contin­ ence, should marry and make of their incontinence an occasi, n tor the numerical increase of the Heavenly City. ur 05 .b i/.u.-t·.>■..■ himself cries out in his Confessions·. Oh that . . . the tides of my youth imcbt Have e.o-t thci selves upon the marriage shore, it they , onld w'1 ’v v 1 PK and kept within the object of a family, l' thy aw pt scribes, O Lord.47 46 *’· potest quidem fortasse non absurde bo- appoLiri connulnum ,t prdis generatmnem . . . nun . . . VUvciHt‘ m fj ,.bj :,aSCl xe etiam opere aliquo malo agant ne nabantur. ,ete:i.ia -i vel utron.qw w unum horum desit,non invenio quemadmodum has nuptias appellare possimus.' omio Conjugali. (C. S. E. L ΧΠ - wu l)c X’ww. w C u.-■,-·< Lch. XV (C. S. E. L„ XLH, r. 220), etc. ' S. Aug. Confessionum. Bk. 11, ch 2 (Q. S. E. J-, XXXIII, p, 10). 36 Rhythm in Marriage Except for a sufficient, objective reason, it would seem that those who practice periodic continence would not be excused from failing to contribute to the realization of that divine plan. 3)—Ecclesiastical Documents The Holy See has issued only two pronouncements which have a direct bearing on this question of periodic continence. A careful study of the text and context of these documents indicates a dis­ approval rather than an approval of the systematic practice of pen odic continence as such. Decree of 18)3 In the 1850’s, the Bishop of Amiens, France submitted the follow' ing question to the Sacred Penitentiary: Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month on which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days, to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act? On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary answered as follows: “Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.” 48 The expression : "non esse inquietandos”, frequently found in decrees of the Sacred Con' gregations, indicates no more than the words imply; “Such are not to be disturbed.” The answer refers to “those spoken of in the request," and the request expressly refers to those who have “legiti­ mate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act.” This response is not a definite pronouncement on the objective morality of I‘ ‘ • ( 4S Question : “Quidam fideles conjugati, peritorum opinione medicorum innixi, persuasum habent plures esse in singulis mensibus dies in quibus con­ ceptio mulieris locum habere non potest. Suntne inquietandi illi qui matri­ monio non utuntur nisi in illis diebus, saltem si legitimas habent ratione^ abstinendi ab actu conjugali?” Answer·. “Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur." Decree reprinted in the book of Father Gennaro, S.S., De Periodica Con­ tinentia Matrimoniali, p. 112- Practice of Periodic Continence Objectively Unlawful 37 periodic continence, but a mere pastoral directive for pastors ofsouls in treating individual cases. Surely the time was not npe for a definite pronouncement in 1853, when the theory concerning sterile periods was too undeveloped to merit the confidence of mar­ ried couples in general. Decree of 1880 Puzzled by the divergent views on periodic continence occasioned by the publication of his book on Spontaneous Ovulation, (cf. sec­ tion a), 1) of this chapter) Father Lc Comte submitted the follow­ ing questions to the Sacred Penitentiary': 1) Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin 2) Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him; or to cither spouse who shrinks from having numerous children. 3) Whether we must beware of the danger of decreas­ ing the number of children, and whether this danger is to be considered of secondary importance in comparison with the advantage of avoiding sins and bringing about peace of conscience. The response, dated June 16th., 1880, appears to be a direct answer to only the first part of Father Le Comte’s second question: Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion m question, cautiously however, to those married people whom he has tried m vam by other means to dissuade from the detectable crime ot onanism. 48 The questions: “1) Utrum conjuges ab que pe.catv nivrtah aut veniali ita se gerere possent; 2) Utrum contes>arno hunc agendi modum suadere posset sive uxori manti onani.nu detestanii nc. .ουοη· salenti. i.trique conjugi numerosam prolem refugienti: 3) Num »awndim·. a pciiculo mmuendae prolis, an periculum istud p o.g.m.of Munster sent to the vicar general of the dtoce· p. 648, and also on p, 99 of Father Lavauds book. <>p^ )■ as L ‘ frank and sane denunciation of such publicity by a Cat la.num Fortnightly Review, XL (1933 ), p- 230. also vol. XLI (1934), p. . . ,legis naturae, . ·..< w Quantum ad, prima principia -c nattnae <-t omnino immutabilis; quantum autern ad secunda praecepta. 4-a'· tixunus _sse qua , . , . ‘-’•e lex naturalis quasdam proprias conclusiones propinquas primi' «.,η ρ>’“ iru'. > , , . , ί(·η ver quod lex naturalis non immutatur, quin ut in pluribus sit, rectum seu-i ,habet; , , propter potest tamen mutari ct in aliquo particulari rci. m paucioribus i ». .. , l praeceptorum. ot. aliquas speciales causas impedientes observantiam ia·· > r Thomas, Summa Theol., l-II. Q. 94, a. 5, corp Summa Theol. Mor.. I, n. 258; Prammer. O P . Hth. ed., 1, η. 154-1 57. Ά a“n_l, & V e le“ A ,i, . o 44 Rhythm in Marriage reasonable and detrimental to return such a trust.62 The >1 2)—Voluntary Sterility and the Common Good St. Thomas and the theologians who followed him have made it clear that matrimony is one of the sacraments which were instituted for the common good; in the word^ of St. Thomas, it is the sacrament which perfects man “as far as natural propagation is concerned," which is not only a sacrament “but a duty of nature." 3 There must be per se some obligation on the part of some married couples to realize the end for which the sacrament was established. Now we know from the constant practice and teaching of the Church that on the one hand, it is not unlawful for a couple to practice com­ plete continence for a good and noble motive;—that on the other hand, the positive, material frustration of the marriage act is sinful. — Likewise, all theologians agree that with a good reason, the practice of periodic continence is lawful. Hence that natural obligation to procreate would seem to apply in a very special manner to those who make use of their marriage right, and at the same time have no sufficiently serious reason for avoiding children, i. e. including those who use the “safe period" method without a just cause. To express this in the words of Canon Dermine ; The law of fecundity obliges those who have voluntarily engaged themselves in marriage. . . . For if one admits that procreation or fecundity obliges the human species as a law, one must conclude that certain categories of persons are affected by that law . . . and who could these individuals be if not those who. being engaged in the state of marriage, have not renounced the use of the conjugal right for super­ ior motives.4 Such a shirking of a natural obligation is a violation of legal justice;—“the virtue which inclines man to give to the community, that which is due." 5 It is a question of allowing natural, selfish inclinations for a private, particular good to overcome the influence 3 Summa Theo!., Ill, Q. LXV, a. 1, corp, and a. 2, ad 1. 4L’Bgli$e et le Mariage (by various authors, Paris: Editions Manage et Famille, 1937), art. “La Morale Conjugale, Neomalthusianisme, Méthode Ogîno-Smulders," p. 64. 5 Cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Π-ΙΙ, Q. 58, a. 6; Me.rkelbach, C.P., Summa Theol. Mor.. II, p. 260, ru 259. ' ’ >I ii II j I I 1 ) ’I II I I j| I J I1 {« If I Ù I 52 which the intellect normally exerts in rational beings in the interests of the common good. It is true that the common good is realized ... to some extent even in the unwarranted practice of the "sate period" method, in as much as sensual concupiscence is tempered and mutual love is fostered,8 but the fact remains that the primary end of mar riage as established by the Creator is excluded,—therein lies the moral deordination. I 1 i II <ί I , I' f . I 3)—Voluntary Sterility and Inordinate Self-Love Those who love themselves are reproached in as much as they love themselves according to their sensible nature . . . which is not really loving oneself according to rational nature, i. e. that they would desire those "bona” which per­ tain to rational perfection (“ad perfectionem rationis")7 I J , Ii This inordinate “seeking of self” to the detriment of rational per- fection is known as egoism,—an excessive love of self whereby one strives principally or exclusively for private advantages and conveniences, giving only secondary consideration to the glory of God and the welfare and advantage of others.8 “For all seek the things that are their own; not the things that are Jesus Christ’s.” (Phil., II, 21). In a more realistic vein, Father Salsmans S.J. remarks: 1 I, I; | I id It seems wrong that one should be able to enjoy a pleasure during an entire life-time, about half of the time (i. e. half of the menstrual cycle) without ever intending or realizing the intrinsic, primary finality of this pleasure, and that without serious sin (“sine gravi reatu.”)9 I 1 i ‘ , j , ’S 1 If inordinate love of self is morally wrong, so also is the unwarranted practice of the “safe period.” The entire procedure bespeaks a selfish quest for private pleasures and advantages. ' ] v ii ÿ i Rhythm in Marriage . 6 Cf. Vermeersch, S.J., Periodica, XXIV (1935), p, 168 ; * De Castitate et de Vitiis Contrariis, p. 268, 269. 7 St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, Q. 25, a. 4, ad 3. 8 Cf. Merkelbach, O.P., Summa Theol. Mor.. I, n. 888; Prummer, O.P., Manuale Theol. Mor., I, n. 568, d. 9_Ephçm. TfieoL Lovan., ioc. cit., p. 567; also L’Ami du Clergé, loc. cit., P· ■ The Sin Involved in Unwarranted Practice b)—Gravity of the Sin Involve!» The Minority Opinion Father Layaud O.P. clearly states that the prohinged practice of peri^Gc'.çpntinençe. without a sufficient, objective reason, would be a mortal sjr,. > <-’.Ά it would be only a venial sin to give oneself up to f this practice temporarily, for a few months or even for an entire year, but it would be a grievous sin to wish, without any good reason, to give oneself up to the practice during an entire lifetime, or for as long a time as the wife remains liable to conceive. The common feeling of the faithful can­ not but see in such a resolution a greater disorder than in an occasional serious failing in any matter. The consequences are much more dreadful for both the common good of the fatherland and of humanity. It it were only a slight sin, many of the less conscientious Christians would allow them­ selves the practice too easily, and a general lowering of morality among Christian married people would result.w Father Doodkorte O.P. of 'Holland and Father Kaiser C.PP.S. of the United States of America also state clearly that the unwarranted practice of periodic continence would amount to a mortal sin, if it is used as a means of avoiding any and all children.11 Others, such as Father Salsmans, S.J., and the anonymous author of the article in L'Ami du Clergé incline toward the above opinion, stressing the argument that if the disposition of the will to restrict the use ct the marriage right to sterile periods might invalidate the marriage con­ tact, as some authors maintain, a similar disposition of the will in the married state would seem to be more than vemally sinful.10 *12 They 10Le Monde Moderne et le Manage. p 421. Salsmans, S.J . Le. ci:., p. ?6’Ύ· uDoodkorte, Ο.Ρ., Artsenblad, (July. 1935 ), p 197-205. Kaiser, C PP S., Fortnightly Review, XLI ( 1934), p. 1 23, 1 24; “I can see how couples who without sufficient reason limit their offspring to one or two. can be excused from mortal sin, but for the life of me, I cannot see how a permanent and effective use of the safe period can ordinarily he excused from grave sin." 12 Ephem. Theol. Lovan.. loc. cit., p. 568; also Lavaud, O.P., op. cit.. p. 422 and L'Ami du Clergé, loc. cit, p. 751. Canon Mahoney, for exampie, says that it is not impossible that the right to conjugal intercourse might be excluded by a pre-marital pact or agreement even m the case of the "safe period" method,—if the right is actually restricted, the marriage is invalid. Rhythm m Marnage 54 "I ί also mention the argument previously cited, i. e. that the faithful would consider such a deordination as more serious than missing mass once on a day of precept, and that dangerous conséquences are associated with such a procedure for both the individual and society.13 .i I j Majority Opinion The majority assert that the practice of periodic continence might be sinful in particular cases not because of any deordination included in the practice as such, but because of attendant motives or circumstances. To cite Father Vermeersch S.J. : I’ p I I· 11 " 4 ■ ! I j 1 ; J! ! j ! i “ i ,f η ( bi‘ :f' ‘A I‘ j J ; : 1 Î 'i i I q q J ; ■ i i ‘ί . ; ■ ■ 't ; Those who limit the use of matrimony because of an cxcessive love of an easy life, contempt for children, disdain for the destiny of marriage, sin by such motives, but this independently of the object of their action. These sins can be venial or serious depending upon how seriously they are . opposed to the order established by God.14 j All will admit that certain circumstances such as a serious danger .of incontinence, lack of mutual consent, etc., may make the practice seriously sinful in particular cases, but some theologians clearly imply that abstracting from such circumstances and possible dangerous consequences, the practice of periodic continence without a just cause Cf. Clergy Review, XIII (1937), 121-131; XIV (1938), 184-185, XV ( 1938). 398. Other discussions found in the Ecclesiastical Review, C (June, 19 391. 481-498; CI (Aug 1939), 131-149; Irish Ecclesiastical Record, XL1X (193"). Vermeersch. S.J., Periodica, (1934), p. 241; Mancini, S.S., Palaestro Del liero, ( 1935), p. 71; Noldin-Schmitt, Summa Theol. Mor., Ill (ed. 1935), i. 631, etc. cf. also the Analecta Juris Pontificii, 12th. series (1873), col. 721-723. iJ Others, such as Father Gennaro, S.S., attach little importance to such arguments “ex sensu communi fidelium.” He says: “Quin imo, ea potius a sensu quam a ratsone suaderi videntur . . . Nostra autem intersunt nun quidem difficultates hujusmodi, sed asserti rationis.” De Periodica Continentia Matrimoniali, p. 79 and 81. 14 Periodica. XXIII (1934), p. 243 ; * also Mayrand, O.P., op. cit.. p .65. Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, p. 595, n. 897, and the others listed in chapter IV (i. e. under the heading: “the opposite opinion”). The Sin Involved in Unwarranted Practice 5Î would not be more than venially sinful. Father Merkelbach O.P., for instance, says: Generally it is not lawful to adopt this as a practice and perform the sexual act only at this tunc so as to avoid ah conception. But it is not in itself gravely wrong, m itself and excluding dangers.13 *15 The ..general tenor of these opinions leads us to conclude that, with the possible exception of Father Merkclbach O.P., the above theo­ logians would not consider the practice of periodic continence as unlawful per se if couples adopted it merely because of some indifferent motive, e. g.. because they simply have no special desire for children, or because there is na explicit precept obliging them to raise a family, except perhaps if it were used so as to avoid any and all children. In the latter case, it is difficult, to decide whether they would consider the practice as xcniallv sintul pc.-· .w, or be­ cause of the dangers associated with a childless. married hie. Our conclusion is in accordance with the opinion of Father Lavaud O.P., it e. that the unwarranted practice of periodic continence for a few months or even for a year or two would not per se amount to more than a venial sin; but to adopt such a practice tor a period of many years without a just cause, would per se amount to a mortal sin. Such a procedure would indicate a very advanced oegree of selfishness with a serious and culpable neglect cat obligations ,,i char­ ity and justice. If the practice is adopted for such a rn'longed period for an objective reason which per >c would ju-ttfv rnily a brief recourse to the “safe period method, (c g dJ.nate hca'-tn of the wife), it seems that the moral dcurdmation wi-uld not exceed a venial sm. In such a case, there is at lca-t ouc x did. ob-wtive reason for not realizing the primary end ot marital union even though that reason is insufficient u> justify the prolonged <.a permanent ex­ clusion of procreation. It. however, the pnut’.w i> ad..pied t..r more ■ ‘ 13 CL Eccl. Retuir. XCIV ( W56L ? ÎUÎ’. *nd Amidicipn. Π (19,4). P. 9Î; cf. also Ter Haar. C.SS R - Û-'.;<■> L a..,. 11. . 6 i . i 1 -1 y 1 ■_ Ryan, Ecd. Review·. LXXX1X (Ju’.v l-'.'.D. r 5'1· >'■!■·>! 1 ......n-, S J. America, XLVIII (Feb 2L 1W). y 4<»6. 4^7. ar.ù apranraly al-> NoMin, S J.. De Sexto Pia^'i't. •Jm-S.mmtt), n S. 3 ( P b 3 > n. 75, 2 (p. 79). 56 Rhythm in Marriage than a few years without any valid, objective reason we believe that the persons concerned would per se be guilty of mortal sin. It is possible that such couples might be excused of serious sin because of their good faith. c)—Nature of This Sin Father Lopez S.J. indicates the precise nature of the sin involved > in the unwarranted practice of the “safe period” method when he says that those who are determined to adopt such a practice because of mere egoism, sin “not in single acts, but in that will persevering against the natural end of marriage.16 In the words of Father Lavaud O.P.: This will which repudiates the primary end of marnage infects with its venom the matrimonial life as a whole if the acts (i.e. isolated acts of sexual abstinence or indul­ gence) are considered as human acts, dependent upon and determined by the intention of the man and wife, they are vitiated acts.17 The Sin Involved in Unwarranted Practice object of the will.” 18* Numerically there is but one sin, knitted out of a multiplicity of isolated acts by one perverse and persevering act of the will. Would the moral deordination involved in the practice of periodic continence be greater if conception were not only improbable but absolutely impossible during the sterile periods? 14> The question is one of pure speculation, for this method is based on biological laws, —laws which are always subject to changing causes and disturbing influences. Hence conception is never impossible.20 If the method were 100% fool-proof, the choice of such a procedure would in­ dicate a greater determination to avoid procreation, but that same determination (although in a lesser degree) is indicated by the choice of "Oginism” even though there were only a 50-50 chance of success. A mere difference of degree would not constitute a distinct moral problem. Conclusions to Section A of Part I (The objective morality of Periodic Continence) \Lr-The practice of periodic continence according to the "safe period’' ’ method, considered merely as a number of unrelated acts, cannot be said to be wrong, since it consists of a series of acts of continence and sexual indulgence which are in themselves perfectly lawful. II—This same practice, considered as a series of related acts apart from attendant circumstances and motives, but as the object of a posi­ tive, deliberate act of the will, essentially indicates that the will of the person concerned is positively disposed to exclude procreation m a consistent and deliberate manner, as an end in marital life. The obstacle to procreation is not a physical act or instrument of frustra­ tion but it is none the less positive and effective, i. e. of the intentional order. Every isolated act of sexual abstinence or indulgence becomes as it were a part of the general strategy designed to prevent the realiza­ tion of the primary end of marital union. We might liken this situation to that of a person who decides to steal $100.00, but takes it in small installments of twenty-five cents each day over a period of about one year. Although the matter of each theft is in itself slight, the intention of accomplishing serious damage to another links each isolated theft into one serious sin com­ mitted distributively. The same applies if a person reads a torbidden book in short installments of a few pages each day These are ail applications of the accepted moral principle: "There are as many sins as there are acts morally interrupted regarding the same 16 "Peccatum non in singulis actibus, sed in perseverante ista voluntate contra finem naturalem matrimonii.” Eccl. Review, XCIV (June, 1936), p. 591. 17 Le Monde Moderne et le Mariage. p. 418; cf. also L'Ami du Cierge. (Nov. 8, 1934), p. 744; Salsmans, S.J., Ephem. Theol. Lovan. XI ( 1934), p. 567. Π ) 18Cf. Prummer, Ο. P., Manuale Theologiae Moralis. I, η. 378 and 379. Merkelbach, O.P., Summa Theologiae Moralis, I, n. 439, p. 366, 367, Gem­ cot- Salsmans, Institutiones Theologiae Moralis. I, η. 165, p. 123. 19 Cf. Lopez, S.J., Periodica, XXV (1936), p. * 475 ;171 Ryan (Msgr ), Eccl. Review, LXXXIX (1933), p. 29·.-—both authors introduce this question indirectly. »Cf. Hurth, S.J., Eccl. Review, XCIV (1936), p. 592-593. 53 Rhythm in Marriage III— Under the influence and direction of this persevering will to avoid procreation, the practice of periodic continence heroines a definite system or way of life in marital relations, - a consistent, studied policy which is designed to result in the non-reahc.ition of that which is indicated by the very nature of sex and of sexual union as the primary purpose of marital life. IV—Viewed as a way of life in marital relations, the practice of periodic continence is properly considered as per se illicitum, per accidens autem licitum, i.e., lawful if there is an objectively sufficient reason to justify the positive, intentior I exclusion of procreation in marital life. V—The practice is not intrinsically evil in the sense that blasphemy or contraception is evil, but it is unlawful because of the precept of the natural law which insists that the primary end of marital union, as established by God and clearly indicated by nature, must not be positively excluded in marital life without a justifying reason. If there is a justifying cause, it is perfectly according to reason to make use of the “safe period” method as a means of excluding procrea­ tion in marital life. VI—The unwarranted practice of periodic continence would seem to be primarily a sin of inordinate self-love, including as well a violation of social justice and an offense against the love and grati­ tude which is due to God, who is responsible for both the blessing of fertility and the circumstances and conditions favorable to the realization of procreation as an end in marriage. VII— This deordination would not amount to more than a venial sin if the practice is adopted temporarily,—for a few months or even for a year or two. It would be sinful not in the sense th.it each act of the series is a venial sin, but in the sense that every isolated act of continence or sexual indulgence is impregnated by that per­ severing. perverse disposition of the will, uniting them all into one moral whole, one sin. VIII— The prolonged, unwarranted practice of this method indi­ cates an advanced degree of selfish-egoism which per se would be a mortal sin. Such an opinion is also confirmed by the common feeling and estimation of the fervent faithful. The Sin Involved in Unwarranted Prmtve c9 IX_ The assertion that the practice ot periodic continence ob­ jectively considered is per se illicttutn, ['er jiudcns nation merits the title of a probable opinion. X—All will admit that in individual cases, due to attendant cir­ cumstances or consequent dangers, the practice could be grievously sinful, e.g. lack of mutual· consent, serious danger of incontinence, etc. B—Morality of the in Practice of Periodic Continence Individual Cases We have concluded that the practice of periodic continence according to the “safe period” method objectively considered, is per se unlawful but lawful per accidens, i. e. if there is a sufficient, justify­ ing cause. In order to determine just what reasons might be con­ sidered sufficient to justify such a practice in a particular case, we must consider not only the moral deordination implied in the prac· tice as such, but also the evils and dangerous consequences which might follow from or accompany such a practice. Before consider­ ing the objective reasons which might justify this practice in indi­ vidual cases (chapter VI), we ought to review the various circum­ stances and consequences which might make even an otherwise good reason insufficient to justify recourse to the “safe period” method (chapter V). Chapter V CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSEQUENCES WHICH MIGHT MAKE THE PRACTICE OF PERIODIC CONTINENCE UNLAWFUL IN INDIVIDUAL CASES W a)—In Extraordinary Circumstances 1 Serious evils may be so closely associated with the practice of periodic continence, that no objective reason could be considered sufficient to justify the procedure. Such is the case if the method is used contrary to the legitimate protestations of one of the parties, or if there is moral certitude that the husband or wife will not remain continent during the ‘'unsafe'’ periods. The same prohibition would apply if it is morally certain that such periodic abstinence from marital relations will lead to separation, infidelity or divorce, e g the husband’s love for his wife might disappear with such a restric­ tion of sexual pleasure, even though he would not oppose her wishes ii\ this matter. There is no need to insist upon these considerations, -r-they follow from commonly accepted principles.1 We do not wash to imply however, that the danger to sin in cases such as these can­ not be rendered remote by recourse to prayer and other superna­ tural aids. We might add that certain circumstances would justify one of the parties in refusing marital intercourse during fertile periods. There is no sin of injustice in such cases, for the one party temporarily loses his or her right to demand the ‘'debitum'’, c g if the wife knows from past experience or from reliable medical authority that another pregnancy will be a serious threat to het health, etc." Although the 1 To cite Father Merkelbach, OP . "Etiam si hm- ad^it icctus. artus non erit bonus nisi fiat cum debitis circumstantiis ac proinde de mutuo consensu, absque periculo incontinentiae, et sine detrimento .m.ori' et fidelitatis con­ jugalis." Angelicum, XI ( 1934), p. 94 sCf. Merkelbach, O.P., Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1Π, n 961, especially "d” and note 2 (p. 963) In this regard, Msgr. Ryan writes: danger to health, economic hardships or other inconveniences ■ ■ might ea-dv justify the wife in refusing the debitum outside of the sterile period. Eccl ■Review. LXXXÎX (1933), p. 36.. Rhythm in Marriage 62 wife could grant the “debitum” out of charity, she would not be obliged to do so in justice in such cases, even though the husband would otherwise be in a serious danger of incontinence.3 There are other extraordinary circumstances which might anse from exterior, social conditions. For instance, if the human race or a particular nation would be decreasing so rapidly as to be in serious danger of extinction, married folks would be obliged to use their marriage right in a manner favorable to conception. The same necessity might arise if the peace and security of a nation depended upon the birth of an heir to succeed the king, etc. The population question as it appears today in ordinary circumstances will be dis­ cussed presently. b)—In Ordinary Circumstances Just what dangerous consequences are associated with the practice of periodic continence in our present day and age? The following is a conservative estimate of such dangers, not only for the couple concerned, but also for their children, bom and unborn, and for society as a whole. The individual would have to consider well the relation between his conduct and these *consequences before deciding whether or not his reason is sufficient to justify the adoption of the “safe period” method in marital life. 1)—Dangers for the Man and Wife Normal marital union is a powerful factor in fostering conjugal love. “Intercourse in marriage,” says a noted physician, “is an ex­ pression and a bond of love that helps married people over many difficulties and conflicts and can lead them back to deeper unity."4 3 “Si copula sit causa gravis periculi seu incommodi extrinsici vel pre reddente, vel pro petente, vel pro prole jam concepta, . . . (cessat obligatio debitum conjugale reddendi) . . . sufficiente tamen accedente ratione (v.g. vitandis disidiis vel sui aut compartis incontinentia) posset aliquis, ex caritate, comparci reddere et proprio periculo se exponere, nisi tamen ex copula mors immineret.” Merkelbach, O.P., ibid., n. 961, “c”, p. 963. 4 Words of Dr. E. Glasmei», cited in Dr. Holt’s book: Marriage and Peri­ odic Abstinence, p. 91, n. 1. For an excellent analysis of the question of "sex instinct and love," see a chapter of the same title in Dr. Jacques Leclercq’s book: Marriage and the Family (New York: Pustet, 1941; translated from Circumstances Which Niight MaV the Practice Unlawful 6$ The application of the “safe period" method invehas a way of man tai lite which is not altogether normal l:\cn ammie tho-c '■'‘Γιο ox perience normal sexual impulses, the love between man and wiU normally depends at least to some degree, on normal sex relations. “The complete human love, that which must find its nourishment in marriage,” says .Dr. Leclercq, “is one in which the three forms of love combine to take hold of the enure man. It ought at one and the same time to be spiritual, sentimental and physical, engaging mind, heart and senses.” 5 It is the contention of some authorities that one of the periods of greatest sexual desire in many womenJs precisely “about the time of greatest likelihood of conception. Such women would naturally experience little increase ot conjugal love if such periods arc systematically avoided m conjugal life. There is also the danger that one spouse will begin to suspect the fidelity of the other; a common source of quarrels and jealousy. We must conclude that unless there is a real danger to lite or health in child bearing, or some other serious inconvenience, the woman has little to gain and so much to lose in practicing periodic continence,— normal sexual gr.nffication. the joy or children, pta< that the use of this method (without a ju-titying re.oon) leads to a less of , mutual respect, and is characterized by a “lack of spontaneity. ' 5 Ibid., p. 12?, 124 0 Dr. Robert . Edward Roberts tury, 1931), p. J George Allen & L. Dukinwn, Contr.il <’ Conception. 2nd. cd., p. 5Î; Moure, The Case Against C\ r.tn I (New York: Cen­ 43; Claud Mulhn·,, Marnage. Children and God (London; Unwin Ltd., 1933), p. 124, 12>. 64 Rhythm in Marnage tice of periodic continence often tends to make a slave of the woman, while awakening the beast in the man. The danger of incontinence in the ordinary application of the "safe period” method is not to be under-estimated. Those who use this method because of a materialistic view of life "are led after a short time to violate the rights of their partner, who is perhaps in danger of incontinency, and they end by perverting God’s law: being perpetually in pursuit of pleasure and fleeing all burdens, they practice onanism and commit self-abuse, and this they do especially when they find out that fecundation is at no time entirely impos­ sible.”7 A similar danger may exist in the practice of complete con­ tinence, whether temporarily or permanently, but there is no re­ current return to sexual union to foster positively the sex impulses pf man and wife as there is in the practice of periodic continence. It is much like the case of a man accustomed to strong dnnk who resolves, for reasons of health, to have his liquor only once each day. In many cases, it would be easier to abstain completely, than to remain faithful to such a restrictive resolution. Monsignor Ryan remarks that those who practice periodic con­ tinence are not only depriving themselves of that which is often a necessary condition to a happy and virtuous marriage (i.e. children), but they are exposing themselves to "many and various moral evils involved in a selfish and pleasure-loving existence.” 8 That remark is self-explanatory to anyone who has observed the records of the 7 Canon Valere Coucke, “Birth Control and the Tempus Ageneseos,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review. ΧΧΧΙΠ (Oct. 1932), p. 23. Wc believe that this danger is present to at least a slight degree in the average appli­ cation of the “safe period" method, especially in the case of newly-wedded couples. “The prevention of conception causes the sex instinct to concen­ trate itself in a most unwholesome manner, upon mere barren pleasure.” those are the words of an eminent authority, Dr. Foerster; although he is speaking especially of contraception, the phrase is not without meaning especially for young “Oginists." Marriage and the Sex Problem (New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1936), p. 94. Cf. also Birth Control, (a pamphlet by John M. Cooper, published by the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Wash., D. C.), p. 22, 23. 8 Eccl. Review LXXXIX (1933), p. 35; the Monsignor is speaking especi­ ally of those who use this method to avoid any and all children, without a justifying cause. Circumstances Which Might Make the Practice Unlawful 65 divorce courts during the past score of years. The following words from the book of Dr. Lcck-rcq arc also self-explanatory : . . . from the standpoint of the union or husband and wife, statistics have been gathered which show that divorce is practically non-existent among parents of large families, and they multiply as the number of children decreases . . . nothing so developes the solidarity of husband and wife as the multitude of their children.910 * Childless marriages are particularly disappointing for the woman, for “once a woman's sex life has been awakened she cannot find complete happiness until she has gratified the primordial longing implanted in her very being,— to have a child' .‘ The dangers associated with a life of idleness and ease are very real, especially for the wife: gossip, dangerous reading and com­ panions, growing selfishness, etc.11 For both man and wife, there is the strong tendency to accept modern views and standards con­ cerning marriage and morality in general, to grow lax and luke­ warm in their religious practices and convictions, to lose their trust in Divine Providence, to suspect the fidelity of one another, etc. Such defections will become embedded m the hearts of the faithful as time goes on, creating a formidable obstacle to the spread and maintenance of truly Christian ideals in public and private morals. No one will deny that the. present age stands sorely in need of a Christian reformation beginning with the home. -2) -Danger fur the Child Last but not least, there is the danger that the child which may be conceived despite the precautions prescribed by the "safe period" method, may never be allowed to see the light of day. In the words 9 Marriage and the Family, p. 219. One careful survey showed that 57.1 % of the divorced had no children,---20.4rr had hut one child cf Ccr.tempjrary Social Problems, by Harold Phelps, revised edition (New York: Prentice Hall and Co., 1938), p 476 10 Dr. Halliday Sutherland, The Laics of Life p. 10 Father Gd'et, O.P., remarks that even the man is not complete m marriage, unless there are children. L’Egltse et la Famille (Descleê de Brouwer, 1917), p. 86. u St. Paul, I Tim., V, 13. Rhythm ir» Marnage 66 of the 5th. Provincial Council of Malms: “this practice easily leads them ... to the crime of abortion, in case an unexpected conception occurs." 12 Nor can we underestimate the danger for the one or two children already born, who are often destined to be smothered in misplaced maternal tenderness; a tenderness, says Father Vermeersch S.J., which “prepares for us a gilded youth, useless to others as to itself,—a youth which scarcely succeeds in amusing itself.”13 How often that is true in our modern restricted families! Dangers for Society as a Whole Scandal Catholic couples who make use of the “safe period” method with' out a sufficient, objective reason usually are not a source of edification to the fervent faithful nor to the suspicious and sceptical non­ Catholics. It is true that childless couples may be physically incapable of child bearing, or they may be living in total abstinence. In gen­ eral, however, the reason why married women have no children usually becomes known to a small circle of friends and acquaintances, and in many cases reaches the ears of hard-working, self-sacrificing mothers who are engrossed in the noble task of raising a good-sized Christian family. It is easy to imagine what doubts and perhaps misgivings might enter the minds of such Christian mothers who had always believed that God alone has the right to limit the families of couples who live normally as man and wife. Scandal is defined as: “a less righteous word or deed which pre­ sents an occ.isi-m of downfall (to others).”14 St. Thomas mentions the case of a Christian who would be seen in a pagan temple. “Al­ though this," he adds, “is not in itself a sin, if it is not done because of a corrupt intention, yet because it has a certain appearance of evil or the resemblance of the veneration of idols, it can be the occa­ sion of downfall for another.”15 We presume that spiritual harm 3) et Décrets Ju Cinquième Concile Provincial de Malines, p. 37, 3S. 13 La Peur de L’enfant Dans les Classes Dirigeantes (Louvain: F & R. Ccuterick, )9n9), p. 23; also Leclercq, Mumnge and the Family, p. 219-221. Summa Theologica (St. Thomas), II-II, Q. 43, a. 1. corp. 15 Ibid., a. 1, ad 2. I J 1 i Circumstances Which Might the Practice Unlawful 67 toothers is not intended in the practice of pen-.du c ntim-ncc 0 e. no direct scandal), but spiritu.il harm f; permitted K the very tact that such a procedure (which many theologians regard as at least ‘minus rectum') is chosen in marital relations. Othcts wh-> have no reason whatsoever for avoiding children might, f.-llow such an example and use the “rhythm” or even contraceptive methods to avoid procreation (indirect scandal). Such couples must not forget that charity imposes definite obligations in this regard: By the law of charity, by which wc arc bound to do good to Others, there is also imposed the obligation, in general a serious one, of avoiding passive scandal, i.e., cf omitting those things from which another might take occasion t>> un. whenever the-e is not a sufficient reason for performing the act and permitting the spiritual downfall of another.”‘ξ ft stands to reason, however, that if another conception presents a ‘serious danger of death or poor health for the mother or a real threat of degrading poverty, etc., the use of this method would not be wrong or even “minus rectum”;—the avoidance of such grave dangers or inconveniences offers a sufficient reason tor going ahead with the practice, even though others may take scandal. In such cases, the individuals concerned are obliged to do whatever is con­ veniently pci-'inle to remove the dangei of scandal, c.g. indicate in some manner that there is a reason tor restricting the use. of the marriage right to sterile periods. This would not be necessary, how­ ever, if the reason is casilv perceptible bv others, e. g poverty, ap­ parent poor health, etc. Such unfortunate circumstances should he sufficient of themselves to convince anyone who is in g . The existence of the safe period is of profound sociologi­ cal importance. Its significance has not been fully recog­ nized by statisticians who are disposed to interpret the recent decline of the birth-rate in European countries as ex­ clusively due to the spread of contraceptive methods. If there actually exists a period in which conception cannot take place, changes in frequency of sexual intercourse . . . . must be regarded as possible contributory factors to a de­ clining birth-rate.21 To cite another authority, Dr. Leclercq: « 1\ \ . I i I ... in a world obsessed with the dread of offspring, the rhythm technique overturns one of the last barriers against depopulation ... in the world today nearly all couples are persuaded that they have good and sufficient reasons for being content with one or two children. In this respect, Catholics differ little from the rest. Hitherto . . the pro­ hibition of Neo-Malthusian practices was borne with illgrace by a certain number of Catholics who still accepted die child rather than commit sin. . That is why they have hailed the rhythm theory as a deliverance.22 Mr. Ο. E. Baker, noted Senior Social Scientist of the C' S. Bureau § I of Agricultural Economics shows graphically that the decline in 4'' îlBnid Charles, Ph.D., The Menace of Underpopulation (Vvatts and Co.. ..Tendon, 1936), p. 165. ^Marriage and the Family. p. 257. 70 Rhythm in Marriage European population since 1920 paints a black future for certain nations, unless the birth-rate is raised.2324“In the United Sûtes," writes Mr. Baker, “the crest of births was reached in 1921, when nearly 3,000,000 children were born (fig. 3). . . . Since 1924 the decline in births has been notable until now the number is only 2,200,000 to 2,300,000. . . . There are about 12 per cent fewer children under 10 years of age in the nation than there were 8 years ago when the census was taken (Ibid, p. 2). ... If births continue to decline, but at a slackening rate, and immigrants from abroad do not increase, the crest of the Nation’s population will be reached probably between 1950 and 1960, when the population of the Na­ tion may be 10,000,000 more than at present . . . the population of the Nation seems likely to be almost stationary for several decades to come, increasing most rapidly—700,000 to 800,000 a year during the next few years, and falling rapidly a half century hence.” (Ibid, p. 3) « This decline seems to increase with the progress of urbanization and industrialization. In view of the fact that rural sections main­ tain the highest birth rate, the present trend to come to the city for work is an important factor in the decline in births. Today a little over 20% of our people are engaged in agriculture, as com­ pared to 50% in 1870. The 1940 census shows that in cities of over 23 Population Trends in Relation to Land Use (Extension Service Circular 311, June, 1939), U. S. Department of Agriculture; Bureau of Agricultural Economics, cf. Figure No. 2. Cf. also the Threat of American Decline, a pamphlet by Edgar Schmiedler, ChS.B.; and Birth Control, a pamphlet by John M. Cooper (1923), both published by the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, D. C. Mr. Baker's graphs show that the lowest birth-rate in Europe since 1920 ■was in France,—the highest, in Germany; undoubtedly a significant factor in the recent humiliation of France. 24 In a recent circular, entitled The Population Prospect in the South, a reprint of an address before the Second Annual Convention of the Catholic Conference of the South, Birmingham, Alabama, April 21, 1941, Mr. Baker supplies substantially the same information as above, adding that “since about 193 2, the number of births has not been sufficient to maintain permanently the population of the Nation. The 1940 census revealed a deficit of about 4 per cent The crest of population seems likely to be reached about two decades hence.’’ (P. 4). Circumstances Which Might Mafye the Practice Unlawful 71 100,000, 10 adults are rearing about 7 children: in smaller nines, about 8 children, while in village and suburban se.no:'.>, Π adults raise about 13 to 14 children."5 Of what significance are these tacts and figures in relation (a) to the common go id of our nation, (b) to the welfare of the Church? (a) Dr. Leclercq concludes his excellent study in Marriage and the Family saying. “For individuals the breakdown of the family means the gloomy despair of a life without happiness, of a life which not even pleasure can light up. For nations it means slow death through sterility, and it can even mean this for the human race. ' (p 387). If France was deficient in number.-, and m the spirit of sacrifice m meeting her hostile neighbor not so long ago, America, with its long and vulnerable coastline must be assured of adequate numbers and a glowing spirit of sacrifice to meet, potential enemies of the future. Although the practice of periodic continence contributes to a numerical decrease in births, the most serious indictment against . Jit is that it fosters and spreads a spirit of selfish individualism, which is bound to undermine the security and morale of a nation. America still has the numbers for defense, for the children born before the decline are just reaching military manhood; there is still a Christian sense and spirit of social obligation among a good portion of the middle-aged Americans; but if these growing tendencies of selfish individualism are not stopped among married folks. America will have neither the numbers nor the spirit to meet the enemies of the future, a few decades from now. On the other hand, overpopulation lias never been proved to have hindered a people’s development. “Peoples have been known to die out through failure to reproduce themselves,” says Dr. Leclercq. “None however, has ever been known to perish or even lai! into * ri Cf. The Population Prospect in the South by Ο. E. Baker (cited above), p.4 and figure 5, and Population Trends in Relation to Land L’sc, figure 13, for the graph concerning shifts in occupation between 1870 and 1930. This latter circular contains another graph indicating that, according to a compila­ tion completed in 1929 (i.e. based on 1910 census figures) the least number of children are reared among the professionals and business people; the most (over twice as many) among farm laborers (Figure 7). 72 Rhythm in Marriage Circumstances Which Might Mal(e the Practice Unlawful decay owing to overpopulation. And all periods of ascending civil? zation are periods of population growth." (Op. Cut., p 222, 23) "To confront the facts of population decline with the assertion that there are too many people in the world or that it docs not matter if the human race dies out, is merely flippant and generally insincere.” 26 Neither the unfounded fear of overpopulation nor a flippant attitude of indifference over the welfare of future generarions is sufficient to justify any couple in adopting a manner of marital life (i. e. marital relations) whereby procreation is excluded, unless they have a justifying cause for so doing.27 All the arguments which are given in countless books of recent years against contraception as a cause of numerical decime in births, can be applied to the unwarranted practice of limiting the number of births by the use of the "rhythm”. For if there is no serious justifying cause, valid in view of the best interests of both the in­ dividuals and society, the choice of any means of interfering with the generative function is unlawful; and the evil moral, social and economic consequences which should and could have been for seen and avoided can justly be attributed to the devotees of Oginism as well as to the addicts of Onanism and contraception. (b) It would not be out of place to suggest that Catholics, as members of Christ's mystical body, have a certain obligation to work for the increase and perfection of that mystical body by co-operating with the God-given gift of fertility and raising other members fur His honor and glory. That may be a matter of counsel, not of command. But what if there is a definite danger that the numerical decrease among Catholics will lead to a serious loss of the influence of the Church in public life, social morality, education, etc., making it ever more difficult for her (humanly speaking) to gain souls for Christ! 28 Charles, Enid, op. cit., p. 106. For a general survey of the population question throughout the world, cf. Murray and Flynn, Social Problems. F. S. Crofts & Co., New York; 1938, p. 272-286. 37 For an argument against the fear of overpopulation, cf. Moore, Edward Roberts, Ph.D., The Case Against Birth Control, Century Co., New York, 1931, chapter VII, "The Recurrent Fable of Overpopulation,” p, 71-87. 73 It may be said that one of the main reasons why the rights of the Church are respected in many countries is simply because the Cath­ olics form a numerically strong group,— a considerable portion of the voting public. We have seen the figures furnished by Mr. Ο. E. Baker con­ cerning the decrease in the birth rate in urban centers. Dr. Edgar Schmiedler, O.S.B. reveals that “all but 19.4 per cent of the Catho­ lics of the U. S. live in urban centers.”28 29 In view of such facts, it is not hard to accept the statement found in the August 2nd (1940) edition of Commonweal, p. 301: "the urban Irish have long since stopped reproducing themselves; the urban Italians and Slavs are rapidly following their example." Another cause for alarm is furn­ ished by the fact that the highest birth rate in the country is in the South, which is to a great extent non-Catholic, if not anti-Cathohc.2® The day may come when the Church in the United States will be without sufficient vocations to cany out the work of Christ, without Catholic population of sufficient strength to stem the growing tide of materialism and irreligious individualism. The current idea that the number of children should be gauged entirely according to the desire of the parents for progeny or accord­ ing to the inconveniences of childbirth and rearing, is entirely foreign to traditional Catholic thought and theology. We have gone over the inspiring words of St. Augustine concerning the “City of God, ’ prepared and begun here on earth. We know the traditional teach­ ing of the Church as re-echoed by the great Pope Pius XI m his encyclical on Christian marriage. “But Christian parents must un38 Op. cit., 7th page from the back (pages are not numbered). ** Baker, Mr. Ο. E., The Population Prospect in the South, (already cited) p, 4 says: “I think it entirely safe to say that in many areas in the South, notably in the Appalachian Mountains, 10 adults are rearing 20 children. Were there no migration from these areas and assuming this birth rate per* sisted, population would double in a generation, or in about 30 years. . . The South seems destined to contribute an increasing proportion, perhaps ’ ultimately a dominating proportion, of the future citizens of the Nation. Father Mayer of Paderborn remarks that in Germany entire cities, once Protestant, became predominantly Catholic because the Catholics continued to have children while the Protestants practiced the "suicidal two-or-one.3 child system.” loc. cit. (Théologie und Glaube. XXIV), p. 311. Rhythm in Marriage derstand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed, not only to educate a.uv kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become mem' bers of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow citizens of the Saints and members of God’s household that the worshippers of God may daily increase.” 30 It is difficult to see how those couples who resort to the practice of periodic continence for flimsy, insufficient reasons can be said to be loving God as they should. It would seem that the very self -love implied in such a practice involves a sin against the love of God, indicating as it does a disregard for His glory and an appar­ ent indifference for the salvation of souls and the welfare of His Church. If Catholic couples would only resist the temptation to an easy life suggested by this practice, and have recourse to such a procedure only in cases of real necessity, Catholics would have the honor of upholding a birth rate required for at least a stationary population. This would give power and prestige to the Church, glory to God, moral, economic and social stability to the nation, and last but not least, individual couples would be brought back to the only true, material source of lasting marital security and happiness. 50 Four Great Encyclicals, p. 78. Chapter VI JUSTIFYING REASONS ^The excuses which usually are given in justification of the prac*eti< of periodic continence may be grouped under four heads; medicophysiological reasons, social and economic reasons, domestic reasons and eugenic reasons. There may be considerable latitude of opinion concerning just w’hat reasons are just causes for adopting this practice. Those who have had long years of experience as spiritual guides of the faithful would be better qualified to decide such matters. If the motive for using the "safe period method is based on an objectively sufficient reason, the practice would not be un­ lawful. An idea of what reasons might be considered sufficient may béTnciîcâted by listing the various motives which we consider to be sufficient, doubtful or insufficient to justify the practice m question.1 It is evident that if the practice is adopted out of hatred for child­ ren, contempt for the law of God etc , despite the presence of an objectively sufficient reason, the individual concerned is guilty sub­ jectively of moral wrong. Others who are m good faith might avoid sin subjectively (although not objectively or materialiter) because they erroneously think that they have a sufficient reason for avoiding children the “rhythm way.” Such conclusions tollow trom generally accepted moral principles. Finally, if the practice is adopted without an objectively sufficient reason, the subjective reason or motive tor such a procedure as indicated by a purely objective analysis of the practice is one of culpable self-love:· it is wrong Matenaater. non quidem in suo ‘esse’ physico, sed in suo 'esse morali. We will list the various motives as sufficient, doubtful or insuffi­ cient motives. Some of the motives listed as sufficient for the tem­ porary application of the “safe period method may suffice for the tin determining such objectively sufficient reason? we had recourse to the authority of theologians, and also, in particular, to three recent studies of the social aspects of marriage: Marriage end the Family by Jacques LeJercq (New York: Pustct, 1941), Marrw^ and the Sex Problem by F. W. Foerster (NewYork: Frederick Λ. Stokes, 1936), and Scend Problems by Raymond W. J Murray, C.S.C. and Frank T. Flynn (New York: F. S. Crofts Co., 1938). 76 Rhythm in Marriage permanent use of the method, and vice versa. That would have to be decided in accordance with existing circumstances and possible consequences in each individual case. a)—Sufficient Motives Ordinarily Sufficient for the Permanent Practice of Periodic Continence 1) —Because conception will very probably result in death or a permanent state of bad health for the mother.2 2) —Because it is almost certain that the mother cannot bring forth living children. 3) —Because the mother can bring forth only abortive children (i. e. miscarriages). 4) —Because it is practically certain that the children will be bom with serious and incurable hereditary defects, especially insanity.0 ■y 2 Father Lavaud O.P. makes the following observation: “Considering the uncertainty and the difficulties in applying the Ogino-Knaus-Smulders Method, it seems that that if the life of the mother would really be endangered by pregnancy, a husband who truly loves the mother of his children will not rely upon any fallible method, but have recourse to the only method which is absolutely sure and irreproachable,—not periodic but continuous contin­ ence." Le Monde Moderne et le Manage, p. 100; also Vermeersch, S.J., Periodica, XXIII (1934), p. 246 .* -247 3 Theologians are cautious in suggesting eugenic reasons as a cause for using the “safe period” method. We ought to restrict our definition of “de fective children" to those who suffer from an incurable physical or mental deficiency which renders them unfit for the exercise of normal, social functions Dr. Sutherland maintains that “of the great diseases, insanity alone is in­ herited and inheritable,” (Laws of Life, p. 71) and that there is no inherited predisposition to tuberculosis or to cancer. Syphilis is not inherited, al­ though it may be transmitted, and responds to treatment more easily than is generally believed (Murray and Flynn, op. cit., p. 193, 194). The following words of the learned Dr. Foerster merit serious consideration: “Parents with weak physical health are quite capable of producing children whose spiritual qualities are such as not only to convey an increment of inner-most life-energy to the race, but to preserve the efficiency of a weak body, nay gradually regenerate it. . . . With regard to the whole problem of heredity, it should always be borne in mind that dangerous tendencies on the part of one parent may be balanced by healthy tendencies derived from Justifying Reasons ~!Ί 5) —Because it is morally impossible for the husband to support another child. 6) —Because the mother has proven to be utterly incapable of fulfilling the usual maternal duties relative to the care and training of children either physically or morally. 7) —Because one of the spouses is absolutely opposed to having children or another child. If there is no just cause for such an attitude, the other party (not the opposing one) would be justified in using the “rhythm” method. If the opposing party cannot be per' suaded to change that attitude, the practice may be permitted to that party as the lesser of two evils. 8) —Because it is the only way of stopping or preventing the use of onanistic methods in marital relations. The remarks made in reference to the above motive (no. 7) are applicable in this case as well. 9) —Because it is morally certain that one of the parties will otherwise fall into sins of incontinence (cf. remarks concerning motive no. 7). Ordinarily Sufficient only for the Temporary Practice of Periodic Continence 1) —Because of a temporary physical weakness or period of con' valescence on the part of the mother, e. g. gaming strength after childbirth or after an illness. 2) —Because of the extraordinary inconveniences and expenses associated with childbirth in an individual case, e. g Caesarean de­ liveries. 3) —Because of the exceptional fecundity of the mother·, necessary to “space” births.4 4) —Because of difficult financial conditions at the present time, unemployment, misfortunes, etc. the other ... it is only in the rarest cases that we find two parents who are both of them, physically and psychically so equally and heavily tainted or defective that anything could be safely predicted with regard to their chil­ dren.” Op. cit., p. 96, 97. 4 This would be true especially of a woman who is not strong physically, so that a large family would be a serious strain on her health. Ordinarily, how­ ever, many births rather fortify than weaken the health of both mother and children. Cf. Leclercq, op. cit., 220, 299. 78 Rhythm tn Marriage 5) —Because the young wife is not yet physically hi to assume the cares of motherhood. 6) —-Because of a temporary nervous strain on the part of the wife; simply cannot bear the thought of another child. 7) —-Because the birth of another child will actually render the mother incapable of properly rearing the children already born, at least for the time being.5 8) —Because the wife has to work and help support the family­ husband’s salary is insufficient, or employment irregular, etc. b)—Doubtfully Sufficient Motives 1) —Because the man and wife wish to train just one or two children for special careers or social standings in life.® 2) —Because the wife wishes to work for a while after marriage in order to help pay for the furniture, help the husband pay his debts, etc.T 8 Cf. Lavaud, O.P., op. cit., p. 100. 8 Such couples might often be excused from sin because of their good faith (L'Ami Du Clergé, loc. cit., p. 750), but it must be remembered that such a desire for small families often proceeds from motives of vain glory, envy, jealousy, fear of sacrifice, etc. cf. Lavaud, O.P., op. cit., p.420-421; also Gillet O.P., L'Eglise et Lu Famille (Desclée 6? Brouwer, 1917), p. 94. Dr. Jacques Leclercq makes the following observation concerning such two-child families; “. . . . they do not desire these children for the purpose of accomplishing a task which transcends them, but for their own personal pleasure. It may be stated that the first two children are products of selfishness; speaking more or less generally, children begin to give evidence of some generosity on then parent's part after the birth of the third child." op. cit., p. 217. Of course, we are speaking only of those couples who have no other valid reason for using the “rhythm.” 7 Such an excuse should not be admitted too easily as a sufficient reason, for besides the possible presence of a selfish motive, there is a danger that the natural love and greed for money and conveniences will smother any desire for children. Often the wife continues working until childbirth becomes too dangerous due to advanced age, or until selfishness has made both hus­ band and wife look upon the prospect of children as an unjust intrusion upon their “happiness." Justifying Reasons 79 J)—Because the wife wishes to have only one or two children and keep her career; nurse, teacher, beauty specialist, singer, etc.8 c)—Insufficient Motives 1) —Because the wife has an unfounded fear of the ordinary pains and inconveniences of pregnancy and childbirth,—"too delicate." 9 2) —Because the man and wife wish to "enjoy life * while they are young,—they will settle down later on; or any other motive which indicates an excessive love of ease and comfort, or which indicates a spirit of avarice, vanity, etc.; e. g. they shrink trom the sacrifices normally associated with the rearing and education of children, or they simply have no desire for children, or they desire only one or two children so that their wealth will stay tn the family, or because it is the “style" to have a child or two. 5)—Because of any malicious motive such as hatred of children, contempt for the divine plan or for the authority of the Church, etc. : ’The remarks concerning the above two motives would apply to this one as well, and also the remarks which Pope Pius XI makes in "Casti Connubii" concerning the "so-called emancipation of women," cf. Four Great Encyclicals, p. 98, i.e. that women should be free to pursue their own careers. Such a motive (without some other valid reason) would certainly m t justify the permanent practice of the “rhythm," whereby children are avoided altogether. ’The discovery of the "Safe Period" method has not changed the obvious meaning of those solemn words of the Creator, found in Gen . HI, 16-19: “I will multiply thy sorrows and thy conceptions : in sorrow sha!t thou bring forth children, . . Part Two Pastoral Directives and Conclusions The priest will be confronted with the problem of the morality of periodic continence not only in the confessional but also in his pas' toral and social life as a religious leader of the community. The subject may come up for discussion in the course of sodality meet' ings, study clubs, premarital instructions, etc. He may be inclined to settle the doubts and difficulties of the faithful in this regard by word or pen, in the pulpit or parish hall or simply by referring to one of the popular moral and medical expositions of the "safe period” method. How is the pastor of souls expected to handle this delicate and important moral question? It must be stressed that although theologians disagree on the question of the objective morality of this practice, they are practically unanimous in saying that it must not be suggested or permitted “in praxi" unless there is a sufficiently serious reason for not having children. It is unfair, therefore, to say that those who uphold the view defended in this study are imposing ngoristic and less probable opinions upon the faithful The only aspect of the question which should be made known to the faithful is the practical and not the speculative aspect. To broadcast openly either the view that the practice is objectively unlawful or the view that it is in itself lawful would only lead to misunderstanding and confusion. It is most important, however, that the pastors of souls decide the speculative question for themselves, lest they go beyond the bounds of prudence in prescribing this practice to the faithful. Regardless of what opinion is held concerning the speculative question, there are cer­ tain considerations which should temper the zeal of any advocate of “Oginism.” Before going on to a discussion of practical norms for the priest as confessor (Chap. VIII) let us review briefly the considerations which should be of special interest to the priest and pastor of souls in forming his attitude toward the “safe period" method in general (Chap. VII). ■ 1 “i. Attitude of the Pastor of Souls S3 the majority stress the necessity of extreme caution in tins regard To cite Father Vermeersch, S.j.; Chapter VII ATTITUDE OF THE PASTOR OF SOULS There are two considerations, already presented in previous chapters which merit special emphasis here: a)—that the Holy See, ecclesiastical superiors and theologians urge extreme caution regard­ ing the pastoral aspects of periodic continence; b)—that there are serious dangers associated with the imprudent divulgation of the “safe period” method. In view of our remarks in Chapter III, the first point demands no more than a brief consideration here. a) The attitude of caution which characterizes the pronouncements of the Holy See and individual members of the hierarchy in this regard is unmistakable. As evidence of this, we might cite another portion of the decree of the Fifth Provincial Council of Malines: The priests, lest they appear to be giving in to materia! egoism (which is) universally increasing, should abstain from any indiscreet exposition of’this system, be it from the pulpit, or in any assembly whatsoever. . . . The editors, authors and sellers of books or periodicals which popular­ ize or recommend this method “ex professo” must be re­ proved.1 Patrick Cardinal Hayes of New York forbade “the discussion of the question in any Catholic publication intended for the laity,” and also “the appearance of any advertisement of the theory in a Cath­ olic magazine.” a Except for a few priests and theologians who seem to advocate the wide-spread divulgation of this method among the faithful,123 1 Actes et Décrets du Cinquième Concile Provincial de Malines (1937), p. 38, 39. 2 Conference Bulletin of the Archdiocese of 7^ew ΎοτΙ{, XIV (1936), p. 78; cf. also the other documents mentioned in chapter III. 3 E g. Father Henry Davis, S.J., Clergy Review, V (1933), p. 405; Father J. A. McHugh O.P., Ibid, XIII (1937), p. 358, and XIV (1938), p. 92-94; Father John A. O’Brien, Natural Birth Control (Champaign III·. Newman By no means do we approve of every reason tor which the method of Ogino-Knaus is propagated. ... It is to be feared that the Catholic Church would seem to have her own way of advising sterility, contrary to the primary end of matrimony, especially since the public is accustomed to focus attention on the effect, rather than on the procedure by means of which the effect is obtained. Furthermore, to­ day, if this method is spread all over, the number of births will be decreased too much, which is much to the detriment of the common good and of the particular good of nations.4 Father Merkelbach, O.P., admits that the authors concerned had the highest motives in publishing their books, but adds: ket vve do not venture to approve of such a wide diffusion oi the new theory; nor has the esteemed Dr. Smulders won unqualified appro­ bation in this regard.” 5 Company, 1938), p. 73, and Hom. and Past. Review, XXXIII (1933). p. 693 701, etc. Needless to say, these authors advocate such a course for the very highest motives, e.g. to stem the tide of onanistic practices. Among Cathoia laymen who advocate widespread divulgation of the method, we might men tion Dr. Sutherland (op.cit., p. 49); Dr. Frederick \\ . Rice. EcJ. RetuMCIII (1940), p. 60-67; cf. also the Fortnightly Review XL ( lv39), p. 179, 180, and 254, and the approving words of a clergyman, ibid., p. 2Û9 and 226. We may add the names of Dr. Smulders, Dr. Lau and others who have pub lished expositions of the method in popular form. 4Cf. Theol. Prak· ^uartJschrift, LXX.X1X (1936), p 63, and Periodica. ΧΧΙΠ (1934), p. 247 , * also Lavaud O P , op. cit., p. 422; Aettnys-Danien, Theologia Moralis, 13th. ed., 11, p. 596; Gennaro, S S., op. cit.. Ρ· 102, n 1, Salsmans, S.J., Ephem. Theol. Lovan., loc cit., p. 568; Genicot-Salsmans, In­ stitutiones Theol. Mor., II, (1936 ed.) p. 503, n. 4; Dr. J. Leclercq, op. cit.. p, 257 etc.; Clergy Renew, XIII ( 1937), p 131; Irish Ecci. Record. XLI1I (1934), p. 417; . . . Bonnar, O.F.M., The Catholic Doctor. 2nd Ed. (New York. Kennedy, 1939) p. 67, etc. ’Angelicum XI (1934), p. 92. Cf. also the book which Dr. Radermacher wrote to counteract the evil effects of the imprudent divulgation of the safe period” method; The French title (translation from the German) is Prudence çt Réterve, Tournai : Casterman, 1937. ‘1 84 Rhythm in Marnage B) The dangers which are associated with the individua! use of the “Safe period" method (cf. chapter V) naturally will become social evils with the spread of the practice, especially the danger of scanda’ and depopulation. There are other dangers of a more general char acter which are associated with the very divulgation of the method as such. 1)—A Decline Prestige of the Church Guardian of Morals in the 85 Attitude of the Pastor of Sauls as the The open enthusiasm over the “safe period” discovery has been viewed by a good number of non-Catholics as a weakening in the Catholic position regarding birth control in general. To express this in the words of Dr. Leclercq: We now behold a growing number of young Catholics marrying under the sign of Ogino-Knaus. They view their married life as destined to be regulated by that method. They may deviate from it once or twice, when they con­ sider conditions appropriate for having a child. Without exaggeration such a conception of the use of rhythm may be called Malthusianism. Non-Catholics are not tooled by this procedure, and they reproach us with having found a way of acting as they do, without admitting it.6 8 Op. cit.. p. 247. In the same vein, Father Mayer says that the Church­ hating sex reformers will laugh at us saying: “They do the same as we do. hut they hang a little pharisaical mantel around their manner of proceeding We cite Father Mayer: “Schon spotteln die kirchenfeindlichen Sexuaheformer: Sehet da die katholischen Sophisten! Sie tun dasselbe wie wir, aber sie hângen um ihr Tun ein pharâisisches Mantelchen! Mit ihren spitihndigen Forinalistik ist es ihnen gelungen, einen Ausweg zu finden, um Gott in seinern Schopfungsplan ein Schnippchen zu schlagen . . . Sie tun also dasseibe wie wir, aber sie tun es raffinierter und unter dem Vorvand, es sei morahsch1" loc. ctt. (Théologie und Glaube, XXIV), p. 310. Father Mayer continues on page 311: “Schon Idingt auch der Ruf der Kirchenfeinde: Wo blemt n m die hochstehende katholische Moral, welche entweder Enthaltsamkeit ur.d Keuschheit um Christi willen oder aber die Bürde der kindererzeugung bisher verlangte?” As proof that the Protestants do regard such a meth * d as a Catholic birth control measure, cf. the American Mercury Review. Spring. 1936 (article by Anthony Turano), p. 63; Lancet, November, 193 5, article by Dr. Sophia Kleegman; Claude Mullins, Marriage, Children and God (Lon­ don: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1933), p. 140. Even many of the intellectual class are slow to see the difference between material contraception and the “safe period" practice 7 Unfortunately, the private opinion <>! i nc priest is often interpreted by non-Catholics as the official teaching of the Church. The Church, champion of Christian morals, ha.> nothing to gain by manifesting undue enthusiasm for any discovery which is designed to lessen the number of her children. 2)—Weakening of Christian Ideals Purity “Human purity,” says Dietrich Von Hildebrand, “involves a dis­ tinctive attitude to the important domain of sex. According to the attitude which a man adopts to sex he is pure or impure. ' Besides the fact that the public divulgation >f such a method might !es^n the traditional Christian respect tor sex and marital life. there is always the possibility that young folks will be tempted to take up the banner of oginism and indulge m sexual relations before mar riage. Especially those who are forced to postpone then marriage for several years may argue that if the Church allows such a t tice to married people as a guarantee against· infidelity and mwn tinence, it would not be such a serious sm it fhey avail tluni"»·ivy of the same method before marriage tor the same purpo.-cs. in ·’·· cases, there is the danger of recourse to or pmna1> abortion if the “rhythm” fails. ,v from onanism to oginism it As to the hope of converting must be remembered that tho.-c who M-e utile love for religion and ,.. o- legion) will not heed a deep love of materialism (and iho ■th< d ■ ·η purely moral grounds '* the advice to turn to the “rhythm m 7 For instance, we read tn a book of Pt oteuaG Morals for Old (by V. Λ Holme-Gore. London: 1938); “Birth control i> often attacked on the il· * ’ But the Church has always permitted the -ate natural." p. 82. Sin Defense of Purity (New York Sfæed and V ό \n. i.J Co. .t, atm ai ’ 8 Cf. Vcrmeersch S. J. Periodica XXXHI (1 )r, S. J., Ephem. Theol. Lovan.. loc cit., p. 56b. Germ···’’ - ■■ ·■ >’i Genicot-Salsmans, Casus Conscientiae, p. 7 5·· l 86 Rhythm in Marriage Many have not a chaste attitude toward sex. These hardly can be expected to observe the complicated prescriptions of oginism without placing themselves in serious danger of incontinence or onanism during the fertile periods. Many are not convinced of the malice of onanism as compared to oginism. Can such people be expected to resist the temptation to onanism once the regulation of marital life according to the calendar becomes burdensome? 8b The mere fact that a few who are disgusted with the mechanical masturbation of contraception may become converted to oginism would not justify the general divulgation of such a method with all its dangerous consequences. Last but not least, the divulgation of such a method would result in the spread of the contagious, selfish spirit described by Father Salsmans, S.J., as the “pessimum spiritum delectationis sine onere. ιυ It seems that the best way of inculcating and maintaining a love of purity among the faithful and a respect for the position of the Church in this regard among non-Catholics is to defend the dignity of marital union as a means of coOperating with God in the procrea­ tion of children. The practice of periodic continence can and should be proposed privately as a means of deterring both Catholics and non-Catholics from contraceptive practices, and Catholic members of the medical profession should do all in their power to persuade their fellow physicians to expose and recommend this method to those who are determined to avoid conception. But the mainten­ ance of our Christian ideals of purity is of more importance than the particular good of the relatively few couples who may not have heard about this method and might choose it in preference to contra­ ceptive practices if it were publicly exposed and recommended. Trust in Divine Providence It is true that those who find it advisable or even imperative to limit or avoid conception would be guilty of presumption if they continued to indulge in regular marital union saying “God will provide” when legitimate means of avoiding harm or disaster are afforded m their case, by permanent or even periodic continence. It *>*· Cf. also Mayer, loc. cit., p. 312. 10 Casus Conscientiae (Genicot'Salsmans), p. 754, casus 1124, bis. 1 Attitude of the Pastor of Souls 87 would seem, however, that those who have no sufficient reason for avoiding children have no right to expect ( lod to "protect them from the burdensome effects associated with the enjoyment of marital life, nor to arrange their marital life in such a way as to oppose the divine plan regarding procreation. Christian couples ought to real· ize that it is a singular, providential blessing to be able to bring forth new life, thus assuring man and wife of a deeper, more lasting union, offering them means of personal sanctification and of con­ tributing to the strength and growth of both Church and State. The ‘mere fact that the future looks a little uncertain or that the child might be frail or sickly is no reason for substituting faith in the biological computations of the "safe period" method for trust in God. St. Thomas points out that as long as the present circumstances are not against us, we should not be solicitous about what might happen, but trust in God "by Whom even the birds and the blades of grass are sustained." Otherwise we are like the Gentiles who deny divine providence.11 We ought to repair the damage already done by the imprudent divulgation of this method by preaching practical applications of those words of the Master: ... If God so clothes the grass which today is alive in the field and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more you, O you of little faith.” (Luke XII, 28). 3)—Tendency to Deny the Efficacy of Grace In their enthusiasm over a biological discovery, the advocates of the “safe period" method might be reminded of a fundamental Catholic teaching on marriage which is clearly expressed by Father Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. in one concise sentence: "According to Cath­ olic belief, every marriage of two baptised persons, irrespective of their particular creed, is a sacrament, that is, a medium of super­ natural enlightenment and strength, elevated to this dignity by Jesus Christ.12 In describing the nature of this sacramental grace, Pope 11 Contra Gentiles. Ill, c. I3Î, sub fine. 18Birth Control (pamphlet printed by the Mission Church Press, Boston, Mass., 1939—reprint of an article which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, Oct. 1939) p. 12; cf. also Marriage, Human or Divine (New York: Paulist Press, 1939), a pamphlet by the same author, who is at present an associate professor of moral theology, Catholic University of America, Wash., D. C. Rhythm in Marriage Pius XI says: “if . . . doing all that lies within their power, they co operate diligently, they will be able with ease to bear the burdens of their state and to fulfill their duties.” 13 We cannot deny that if this method is not widely divulgated, many who may have a suffi­ cient reason for using this method will go on bearing heavy burdens and trials simply because they have not heard about the “rhythm way”;—but we must insist that the grace of God will be present to sustain them if they go to Him with their troubles.14 We may safely add that if the knowledge of this method is needed urgently as a means of avoiding serious material or spiritual harm, Divine Providence will see to it that the well disposed couple learns about the “safe period” discovery in due time, e. g. through the confessor. To assert categorically that this discovery .is the providential means of limiting or avoiding children for 20th. century couples is to attempt to scrutinize the inscrutable ways of God. '3 ' J i Continence is Possible If the individual is responsive to the workings of grace, continence is not a threat to either physical or psychical health : It is now accepted not only in medical circles, but also in the mass of enlightened public, that continence offers no danger, provided that it is the physical expression of a moral attitude. For the pretended sexual need of young folks is too often an artificial creation of their nervous sys­ tem submitted to repeated stimulations of an erotic natum ... It is therefore psychical chastity which makes possible and facilitates bodily- continence while immorality m thought or intention makes it precarious and intolerable." 15 There are times m the life of every man and wife when absolute 13 Encyclical '■‘Casti Connubn," Four Great Encyclicals (Paubst Press), p 87; cf. also p î 13. 14 Cf. St. Augustine, De Patura et Gratia (P. L. XLIV, 271) c. 43, r>. 50. «■ame text found in Denuger, Enchiridion Symbolorum . . ., n. 804; aU. m Casti Connubn. op. cit., p. 93. Among the Fathers cf. Tertullian, P. L.. 1. c. 1299: S Ambrose. P.L . XIV, c. 442; Origen, P.G.. ΧΙΠ, c. 1 230; S Athan asius, PG. XXVI, c. 1173, 1 174. ’5 De Guchteneere, La Limitation des paissances (Paris; BeauJiesne, 1929) p 179, cf. also Casti Connubn, op. cit., p. 107. I | ’ Attitude of the Pastor of Souls 89 continence is presupposed, e. g., during the last months of preg­ nancy, for about three months after child birth,16 during periods of sickness, absence of one of the spouses, etc. It frequently happens that the husband’s work keeps him away from cohabitation during several months each year. At least eight years ordinarily intervene between the age of puberty and marriage, and Christian ethics de­ mand perfect continence during that period even though the sex instinct may have been awakened by pre-marital sexual indulgence.17 Widows and widowers are likewise expected to live without sexual gratification, and every husband and wife is expected to be prepared to live in continence after the death of one of the spouses. No God­ fearing Christian will deny that continence is possible in all these cases with the help of God's grace. The divulgation of the "safe period” method has the appearance of an invitation to use "natural" means to settle the problem of incontinence associated with the regu­ lation of conception, whereas Christian tradition has constantly been advocating recourse to supernatural means in like circumstances. Evett if there is recourse to supernatural help to observe the restrictionk of periodic continence in cases where there is no justifying reason for not having children, the procedure objectively considered would have all the earmarks of a moral anomaly: “O Lord, confirm my selfishness!” We are not saying that perfect, permanent continence during married life is to be generally recommended Such constant vigilance would often be injurious to the physical and psychical health of cer­ tain temperaments.lh Dr. Foerster appropriately warns, however, that: ‘Our ethical position with regard to the problem of sex must not in any case be allowed to depend upon the variable theories of18 18 Dr. Halliday Sutherland, Laws of Life. p. 68. 17 Cf, an excellent chapter on the subject of chastity in Marriage and the Family, by Dr. Leclercq, especially p. 98-10'5. 18That is the opinion of Dr. R De Guchteneere, La Limitation Des pais­ sances, p. 181. Compare this to the usual opinion of non-Catholic doctors, as expressed by Dr R. L. Dickinson . “In the close relationship of married life, the effects of continued abstinence may be crave for persons of certain ' temperaments ... it is impracticable for the majority of young married people. As a birth control measure for frequent recommendation by the physician, abstinence is negligible since it presents a practical solution only where both 90 Rhythm in Marriage medical science—whether these theories are favorable or otherwise to continence.” 18 Today the medical world might decide that sexual abstinence is harmless and tomorrow a new discovery in physiology, biology or psychology might turn all in favor of the very opposite opinion. Dr. Foerster prudently and respectfully concludes that “there is nothing really conclusive, either positive or negative, to be said as to the hygienic effect of sexual abstinence.” He explains that one who observes continence may suffer nervous crises, but acquire in return a firmness of character which would “place him beyond the power of nerve-disturbing results of a more serious nature;" sexual indulgence may save him from nervous troubles momentarily, creating at the same time a weakness of the will “which would put him at the mercy of all the hidden pathological tendencies to which he might be subject, and would, above all else bring him into situa­ tions incomparably more injurious to his psychic health than any of the lesser difficulties, the avoidance of which had been the domin­ ating principle of his sexual conduct.” 20 The practice of periodic continence is a remedy for exceptional cases,—it must not be preached to all. The general remedy for mari­ tal trials and difficulties is indicated in Pope Pius’ masterful treatise on Christian Marriage: ... if ever they should feel themselves to be over-bur­ dened by the hardships of their condition of life, let them not lose courage, but rather let them regard in some meas­ ure as addressed to them, that which St. Paul the Apostle wrote to his beloved disciple Timothy regarding the Sacra­ ment of Holy Orders, when the disciple was dejected through hardship and insults: ‘I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of sobriety.21 husband and wife are in a large measure physically frigid or impotent, or spiritually ascetic. Control of Conception, p. 89. Dr. Leclecq presents a reassuring picture of the possibility of continence, Marriage and the Family, p. 129-137; also Ignatius W. Cox (S.J.) in a pamphlet entitled Is Sexual Abstinence Harmful (New York: Paulist Press.) 19 Marriage and the Sex Problem, p. 111. 20 Marriage and the Sex Problem, p. 11 J, 114 21 Four Creat Encyclicals, p. 113, end of last paragraph. Attitude of the Pastor of Souls 91 4)—Tendency to Confusion ano Laxity in Morals Even if the practice of periodic continence without a justifying cause is presented as venially sinful, the mere fact that the method is publicized will induce many to make light of the '"slightly sinful” character of such a practice; “Let's take advantage of that,—it’s only a venial sin; we will not go to hell for that.” 22 It seems at least just as dangerous to preach periodic continence as it would be to preach the doctrine of occult compensation or expose publicly the cases in which recourse to mental restriction or "double talk” (amphibologia) would be lawful. Many of the faithful arc too quick to conclude that their case is the exceptional one. As far as the average Catholic is concerned, the practice of periodic continence differs little from other existing or possible methods of birth prevention, excepting perhaps contraceptive methods. Let us suppose, for instance, that science would discover that eating during certain periods could render the husband or wife sterile for a short period, or that a hot bath immediately before performing the act of marital union could produce the same effect. Likewise, it would seem that if the woman arises and walks about immediately after the performance of the sexual act or changes her position in a cer' tain manner, the semen would very probably not reach its natural destination. Many of the faithful might argue that if the practice of periodic continence is objectively lawful, the same would have to be said about the practice of eating during such hypothetical periods or taking a hot bath before performing the marital act, etc., even though such practices would normally lead to sterility. One theologian passes judgment on the case of a woman who would “madefacere (i. e. drench) os uteri cum medicamento” before intercourse, causing the womb to close and prevent the sperms from entering. The act would be performed as usual; in fact since the womb is closed naturally during the nine months of pregnancy, the man and wife would be imitating nature in adopting the above pro­ cedure;—reasoning which is slightly suggestive of the arguments of the advocates of “rhythm.” After stating that such a procedure would be unlawful, the author makes the essential distinction beMCf. L’Ami du Clergé, loc. cit., p. 751. 92 Rhythm in Marriage tween tne “esse formale" and the “esse materiale i>t such a pro­ cedure; the distinction which is the key to an understanding of our position concerning the objective morality of "rhythm." In the words of the author, A. Eschbach: “there is no question here oi the moral­ ity of carnal intercourse as such, but of the lawfulness of the act by which the ‘drenching’ is done in order to avoid conception.' He adds that if such a practice is considered in its “esse formale,” (i. e. regarding the intention or motive) it is somewhat like onanism. Viewed in such a light, we see that children are excluded from marital life.23 Another source of confusion is indicated by Canon Mahoney in an article in the Clergy Review (April, 1937) entitled “Matrimonial Consent and the “Safe Period" (p. 131): It would seem that the excellent people who have been propagating the theory of the “safe period” as though it were a new gospel, have never for a moment adverted to the grave results which could possibly ensue, whenever this theory is used for the purpose of limiting matrimonial con­ sent. Not easily, indeed but quite possibly, the result might be an invalid marriage, the consummation of which would be a grave sin.23b Most of the confusion already created by the imprudent divu.'y.ition of this method arose from the fact that the Church seemed to be assuming a favorable or at least indulgent attitude toward the ques­ tion of the restriction of human fertility. The traditional teaching on marriage and the family 24 would appear to be giving wiv to a new doctrine on “marriage and the ego.” Such false impressions would only be confirmed and spread by the general divulgation ot 23 Disputationes Physiologico-Theologicae (Romae. Le Fevre 6? So.ii, 1001 ), p. 58O-Î81. 23b Cf. also Mayer, loc. cit., p. 312. 24 For instance, how would the ordinary Catholic reconcile the 'approval' of the “safe period” method (by theologians, etc.) with the teaching that it is unlawful for married folks to “se inhabiles reddere ad copulam aut genera­ tionem nimiis laboribus, vigiliis, austeritatibus.” Cf. Merkelbach, O.P., Summo Theol. Moralis, III, n. 961,1 (p. 964); cf. also Ibid., n. 956,6 (p 958). Would they not see the “safe period” practice as something more serious than merely causing sterility by over-work, etc.? Attitude of the Pastor of Souls 9? the “safe period” method. This would lead to confusion and perhaps a weakening of faith among the fervent faithful, and to laxity and perhaps to license among the worldly and luke-warm Catholics and Christians. Chapter VIII PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS a)—General Norms Since many of the faithful have already heard about the “safe period” method, any complete exposition of the Church's position concerning marriage and birth control ought to include a reference to the practice of periodic continence. Otherwise silence may be interpreted as an unconditional approval of such a practice. The matter must be discussed in the light of Christian ideals and not in a manner which suggests competition with other birth control measures or a loosening of Catholic moral standards to suit the weakness and depravity of our age. In speaking or writing about the “safe period method, the following points ought to be kept in mind: 1) This method must never be presented as something which is lawful for any or even the average married couple, but as a "last resort” remedy for exceptional cases only. Father Salsmans S.J. lays down two rules for priests in this regard; never to speak about “facultative sterility” rashly, and if it must be mentioned, "they should show that they are opposed to it.”1 2) Even for those who have justifying reasons for using the "safe period” method, recourse to voluntary and complete continence temporarily or permanently (as the case may be) is per se more praiseworthy. 3) Even the most careful application of this method assures only relative, not absolute freedom from conception. 1 “Nec nos tempus scribendo perditum arbitramur, si haec duo obtinueri­ mus, ut scilicet sacerdotes prudentes sint ne verbo aut scripto cognitionem sterilitatis facultativae temere pervulgent, et ut, si loquendum est potius aver­ sos se ostendant a continentia periodica’ utpote per se illicita et non nisi bona ratione cohonestanda.” Ephem. Theol. Lovan., XI, p. 570. cf. also Ter Haar C.SS.R.; “Nunquam idcirco publice aut privatum simpliciter com­ mendent continentiam periodicam, ac si esset opus per se honestum et licitum, quod quisque pro libitu peragere possit . . . etiam in scriptis popularibus de hac delicata materia non nisi magna cum cautela ac reverentia debitisque cun distinctionibus tractandum est. De ea tamen omnino silere in universum certe non expedit. Casus Conscientiae, II. p. 159. Pastoral Conclusions and Applications 9> 4) Even when there is a justifying cause for the use of the method, special recourse to supernatural help is necessary in order to remain continent during the sterile periods;—the practice must be based on a spirit of self-sacrifice and it must be supernaturalued, otherwise it may often be the occasion of serious spiritual harm. , one should presume to adopt the method without first presenting the case before the confessor and abiding by the decisions of the doctor of souls, in a matter of such importance, no one ought to consider himself to be a competent judge in his own case. 6) To avoid doubts and anxieties in the minds of the faithful it would be well to refrain from expressions which classify periodic continence as “Catholic birth control,” or misrepresent the practice as something intrinsically wrong. To say that the practice is lawful only under certain circumstances is more prudent than to brand the practice as objectively wrong in articles and books intended for gen­ eral circulation. The distinction between objective and subjective morality and between intrinsic and extrinsic evil is familiar to only a very restricted minority of the general public. In stressing that the: practice is not contrary to nature and hence different from con­ traceptive practices, it would be highly imprudent and confusing to present the practice as “perfectly according to nature” or as “natural” or “legitimate birth control.” These are all half-truths, for on the one hand, the practice establishes a rather abnormal status between man and wife physiologically speaking; on the other hand, it is allowed in specific cases not primarily as a birth control measure, but rather as a solution to serious spiritual and material difficulties. r 7) Until the Holy See takes a definite stand in this matter, it would be dangerous and unwarranted to present the practice as either approved or disapproved of by the Church. It might be well to stress that any deliberate meddling with human fertility among those who use their marriage right is foreign to Catholic ideals and tradition. 8) Since no one should use this method without first consulting a competent physician, priests ought to refrain from presenting any detailed explanation of this method in writings which are intended Pastoral Conclusions and Applications 96 for general circulation. A pastor of souls should not pose as an ex· pert in the biology of sex. A brief exposition ot the general prin­ ciples involved would suffice. b)—Specific Norms The above suggestions may serve to guide the priest not only in conferences and discussions with the faithful, but also in pre marital instructions. In the latter case, if it is noticed that only the “safe period” would prevent the couple from continuing or adopting un­ natural practices or protect them from serious dangers or incon­ veniences, the practice might be suggested but with the greatest cau­ tion and reserve. The strongest temptation to speak of periodic coninence, however, would come to the priest in the pulpit and in the confessional. Let us discuss briefly the most priestly manner of pro­ ceeding in those two cases. faskmal and to the altar rail than by suggesting loop-holes to the bewildered faithful from the pulpit.2 2)—In the confessional Our decisions in this matter must be based largely upon the de• crees of the Sacred Penitentiary spoken of in chapter III. The sub­ stance of these two decrees may be summed up as follows·. 1) Those who perform the marriage act “only at times when fecundation is considered to be more rare” (decree of 1880) or “on days ... on which conception cannot occur” (decree of 185 3) are not to be disturbed ( inquie­ tandos non esse”—same in both decrees). 2) The confessor may cautiously suggest the use of the “safe period” method (“insinuate . . . caute tamen ) to those whom he has tried in vain to dissuade from the prac­ tice of onanism (decree of 1880). Supplementing our remarks in chapter Ul, the following observations will be in order; "Inquietandos non esse" The phrase is explained by Father Lavaud O.P. in the following words; The Sacred Penitentiary said that those who observed periodic continence were not to be disturbed, but did not authorize the indiscreet recommendation of facultative ster­ ility; she permitted only that it be indicated with precau­ tion and as a last resort to married couples who otherwise had been persuaded in vam to turn away for conjugal frauds.3 Nor does the phrase mean that the penitent who confesses that he or die uses the “safe period" method is to be deprived of prudent pas- 1)—In the Pulpit Ordinary · pastoral prudence should prompt the clergy to refrain from mentioning the “safe period” method explicitely m the pulpit. The Christian ideals of marriage, family life, purity, self-sacrifice, trust in Divine Providence, recourse to supernatural helps, etc., must always be presented as our first line of defense against the growing immorality of the present age. It might be well to stress that there is only one absolutely sure means of protection from any serious harm which may be associated with child birth,—total abstinence for the duration of the emergency. Above all, the faithful must be urged to bring their difficulties in this regard before their spiritual guide in the confessional. The current idea that the confessional is only a place for unloading grievous sins must be corrected. Those who say that they would still be laboring under unbearable difficulties if they had not found out about the “rhythm” method acknowledge by their own words that they are not in the habit of confiding their moral difficulties to the doctor of souls in the confessional. Surely more can be realized by advising frank and frequent visits to the con- ‘'Ίν.-ύ 97 Rhythm in Marnage , sCf. Ter Haar C.SS.R., Casus Conscientiae, II, n. 168, 3 (p. 160), also Genicot-Salsmans, Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, Π, η. 5 51, 4, ρ. 501; and Casus Conscientiae, p. 7 54, casus 1124, bis, sub hne. Worthy of note is a decree of the Bishop of Liege: “Sacerdotes . . . abstineant ab omni in­ discreta expositione illius systematis in concionibus ad plebem necnon in coetibus et conventibus piarum associationum.” Text found in Gougnard, D· Matrimonio 8th ed., (Dessain: 1937), p. 315. 3 cf. Le Monde Moderne et le Mariage, ρ· 101. 98 Rhythm in Marriage toral direction. If the confessor has good reasons to believe that the penitent is guilty of selfish or malicious motives, a tactful investiga­ tion of the case would be in order. If he finds that the penitent has no objective reason sufficient to take away the tinge of sinful selfish­ ness otherwise implied in such a practice, he must have recourse to his most effective powers of persuasion to induce the penitent to either live a normal sexual life (i. e. without observing the “periods") or to observe complete continence. If the penitent really betrays a disposition of excessive self-love, there is no reason why the con­ fessor should not point out the sinfulness of such a procedure, em­ phasizing the dangerous consequences which might follow from the practice in that particular case. If, however, the penitent reveals a reason which, considering all circumstances, appears to the con­ fessor as sufficient to justify the practice, he should not disturb the peace of mind of the penitent by making her feel that she is living in sin; e. g. a woman mentions that she already has five or six children and that the strain of rearing and educating them is getting to be too much for her especially for the time being. It seems evident that the phrase “inquietandos non esse” refers only to those who already use the method, and who are not particu­ larly uneasy about it, indicating that they consider the practice as lawful at least in their case. Such penitents would ordinarily never mention that they use the method in question, except perhaps in answer to the confessor's general question concerning the existing state of affairs in their marital life. If the practice is mentioned as matter for confession, the penitent is not to be disquieted unless a prudent investigation reveals the absence of a justifying cause. The word in the decree is not “disquietandos” but “inquietandos non esse.” “Insinuare—Caute tamen” The careful wording of the decree of 1880 clearly indicates that this method is to be “insinuated” * only to those who otherwise can­ not be deterred from the detestable crime of onanism, and only * the word "insinuated” is defined in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (5th ed.) as: “to introduce gently or gradually; hence to introduce or work (in) artfully, indirectly, ... to hint indirectly; suggest, imply." Pastoral Conclusions and Applications 99 after the confessor has tried in vain every other means of dissuading such penitents from onanistic practices: . . . caute tamen insinuare quos alia ratione a detesta­ bile onanismi crimine abducere frustra tentaverit . . . (cf. chap. III). In virtue of the accepted dictum; “favores ampliandi sunt, odiosa autem restringenda" theologians agree that this practice can be' al­ lowed and even suggested also to those who have serious reasons for not having children, even though there is no danger of falling into onanistic practices.5 The full import of the phrase: “insinuare potest” is briefly in­ dicated in the second volume of Genicot-Salsmans' Institutiones Theologiae Moralis: The confessor can secretly propose this practice ... to those married people who really have a good reason for not desiring children. . . . The confessor is not forbidden to cautiously insinuate this practice to onanists even to those who have not that good reason (at least as a lesser evil, be­ cause there is no indication of a grievous sin, but in these circumstances only of a venial sin) after he otherwise has tried in vain to draw them away from onanism.6 For those who have no reason for not having children but who are nevertheless determined to avoid them, the “safe period" practice is the only means of avoiding serious sin. It is true that they still bear a selfish, sinful disposition toward the primary end of marital union as established by God, and there is no objective reason sufficient in itself to justify the practice (per se). Yet the fact that this practice is for the time being the only means of avoiding certain and serious sin ’ furnishes an objective reason which is sufficient in the circum­ stances (per accidens) to permit the practice as the lesser of two evils.7 5 E. g. cf. Monsignor Ryan, Ecclesiastical Review, LXXXIX (1933), p. 37. 8 Institutiones Theologogiae Moralis, II, p. 503 (n. 551, 4). 7 The principle that the lesser evil can be suggested or permitted as a means of avoiding a greater evil has become a common teaching among moral theologians. St- Alphonse justifies such an opinion by saying: “Licitum esse minus malum suadere, si aliter jam determinatus fuerit ad majus exsequendum. Ratio, quia tunc suadens non quaerit malum, sed bonum, scilicet, electionem 100 Rhythm in Marriage Some might object that if the prolonged, unwarranted practice of periodic abstinence is a mortal sin, it could never be permitted even as the lesser of two evils. In such cases, however, the practice is allowed not as an evil but as the only means of avoiding sins which are cer­ tainly mortal. Furthermore, it is at most a probable opinion that a mortal sin is involved in even the prolonged but unwarranted use of * this method. Finally, the practice is allowed not as a permanent concession, but ordinarily the mind of the confessor should be to al­ low it only until the penitent can be weaned away from his or her selfishness. As the Analecta Juris Pontificii expresses it, there is a sin in such cases, but the confessor does not advise but merely permits such a remedy. The moral defect lies in the bad disposition of the will of the penitent.8 As long as that evil disposition endures (i. e. to avoid children by fair means or foul) we might say that the penitent is obliged to adopt the “safe period’’ method as the only means, in his individual case, of avoiding serious sins. Hence Father Salsmans S. J. is justified in saying: “non constat de gravi peccato, sed in his adjunctis de levi tantum.”8 It would seem that this method may be permitted also if it is the only means of avoiding other moral evils besides onanism, e. g. in­ continence or infidelity on the part of either spouse, or even the practice of “copula dimidiata.”10 It stands to reason, however, that minoris mali.” Theologia Moralis, I, (Taurini: Marietta, 1847). Lib. 11, Traci. Ill, n. $7, p. 251; for a thorough discussion of this question, cf. Father L. Bender’s article: “Consulere minus malum” in Ephem. Theol. Lovan, VIII (1931), p. 592-614. 8 Analecta Juris Pontificii, 12th series, (1873), col. 723: “Huic peccato permissive se habet confessarius, cum id non suaserit, sed defectus ex indispositione poenitentis proveniat.” 0 Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, II, p. 503, η. 551, 4. 10 “copula dimidiata" might be considered as a middle-course between oginism and onanism. All the elements of lawful intercourse are present (i. e. penetratio vaginae, effusio seminis intra vaginam, retentio seminis a muliere) at least substantially, but in such a “half-way” manner that con­ ception is rendered less probable. The bishops of the Netherlands received a response from the Holy Office in 1922 (Dec. 1) saying that: 1) Confessors may not of their own accord teach this practice or advise it promiscuously to all penitents who fear the birth of more children; 2) That the confessor is to be reproved (“carpendus est ’) who, having tried in vain every other Pastoral Conclusions and Applications 101 the practice may never be allowed if the penitent has no intention of abandoning onanism or other immoral practices. It may be well to cite a few theologians concerning the pastoral aspects of “rhythm”. In the words of Father Merkelbach O P. : ... such a practice must not be publicly proposed nor even privately and positively advised, because it is liable to cause scandal or even to lead to onanism . . . but the confes' # sor may sometimes cautiously suggest that practice; thus if there is a sufficient reason for avoiding ail conception, and the penitent is not able to observe continence, the con' fessor can say that it is not wrong in this case; or if an in' veterate onanist is incorrigible, to whom such a procedure could be proposed as a lesser evil.11 Father Vermeersch S. J. says that the practice should be suggested to incorrigible onanists, but “cautiously and prudently ... by no means commending it but permitting it as if unwilling . . . neither means of dissuading the penitent from abusing the marriage right, tells the penitent to have recourse to such a practice as a means of avoiding mortal sins; 3) The confessor is likewise to be reproved if he advises the practice to such a penitent who already knows about the practice, or if he answers to an inquirer that such a practice is allowed without adding any restriction or explication. That the practice of “copula dimidiata” is not intrinsically wrong is seen from the fact that it may be allowed if there is a proportionately serious reason,‘‘e. g. if “penetratio completa” is physically impossible. It would seem, that this practice, objectively considered, ordinarily is not to be permitted because it indicates (although not necessarily as in the “safe period” prac' tice) an intention to avoid the realization of the primary end of marital union. We might say that it is “male sonans.” This response of the Holy Office may be considered as a pattern of what may be expected if the Holy See ever sees fit to issue a more definite response concerning the practice of periodic continence. For more information concerning this decree of the Holy Office (Dec. 1, 1922), cf. Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, Π, η. 896, Quaer. 5, p. 594; Merkelbach O.P., Summa Theologiae Moralis, III, n. 938, b and note 1, p. 938; Noldin S.J., De Sexto Praecepto de le Usu Matrimonii, p. 70, n. 68, 1. 11 Summa Theol. Moralis, III, n. 956, 3; note 1, 4; d and e (p. 957); cf. also Angelicum, XI ( 1934), p. 94, n. 4tf5; also Gennaro, §.S., De Periodica Continentia Matrimoniali. p. 105, 106; Salsmans, S.J., Ephem. Theol. Lovan., XI, p. 569; also L’Ami du Clergé, loc. cit., p. 752; Noldin-Schmitt, De Sexto Praecepto et de Usu Matrimonii, p. 79; Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis. II, p. 596. 102 Rhythm in Marriage promising nor affirming anything as certain." He adds that if child birth presents a really serious threat to the life of the mother, the practice cannot be advised in preference to simple continence unless there is assurance on the part of a competent physician that there is no danger in performing the marital act during those specified sterile periods.12 ^Father Ter Haar C.SS.R. states that the confessor should not say simply that the practice is not sinful, but rather admonish the penitent that it is at least venially sinful if there is not a just, ex­ cusing cause for not having children. He adds: If, however, the married couples have reasons and diffi­ culties . · . the confessor should listen to them benignly and patiently and try to solve them as far as possible. ... If he does not succeed or if he himself judges the reasons to be really serious,—as they often are—he can propose that they use the marriage right only during sterile periods according to the new method. Furthermore, if those reasons seem to be truly serious and urgent and the confessor thinks that the married folks who are loaded down with difficulties are in serious danger of committing onanism—as will often be the case—he not only can but should earnestly recommend periodic continence, unless more serious reasons advise against (such a procedure.) If the confessor notices that the reasons given are no reasons at all or light reasons and he has tried in vain to deter them from the detestable crime of onanism ... he surely may “cautiously insinuate" this practice to them: which seems to mean not that this practice should be recom­ mended as positively good in itself—in this case, it is at least venially sinful (“leviter prohibita")—but it is per se only a venial sin, and thus as a remedy for concupiscence it can be used without sin by those who would otherwise commit onanism.13 c)—Practical Conclusions The attitude of caution and reserve which pervades the theologi­ cal opinions just cited ought to become a part of pastoral prudence in treating this delicate, moral question. In the following conclu™ Periodica, XXIII (1934), p. 247*. 13 Gasus Conscientia*:, Π, π. 168, 5 and 169, f (p. 160, 161). —w Pastoral Conclusions and Applications 103 sions, the word “onanism" is taken to include all consequences and practices which might be called “conjugal frauds,” e. g. contraception, infidelity, incontinence, as well as other irregularities such as “copula dimidiata,” “copulae abruptio cum periculo pollutionis,” etc. 1) In no case may absolution be given if the penitent is deter­ mined to continue or to adopt onanistic practices in the event that the “safe period” method fails, or to do away with the new life which may be conceived despite all precautions imposed by the “safe period” method. Such a perverse attitude must first be recti­ fied by earnest persuasion on the part of the confessor. If such attempts fail, the penitent is not disposed for absolution. 2) In every case, the permission or insinuation of the method should be regarded as a “last resort” means of avoiding either onan­ istic practices or a really serious danger or inconvenience. It should never be permitted or insinuated before all other means have been suggested and either definitely rejected or found to be too hard to accept in the individual case, e. g. a poor husband already has a large family (six or seven) and could observe total abstinence but considers that to be an almost unbearable sacrifice in his difficult life of toil and hardship. 3) If there is no sufficient reason and the penitent is really disposed to accept the suggestion of the confessor either to have marital relations without respect to the time (i. e. the sterile periods) or to practice complete continence, the practice may never be permitted or insinuated, either verbally or tacitly. 4) If there is no sufficient reason but the penitent is determined beyond human persuasion either to accept or to continue the practice of periodic continence with all its uncertainties (i. e. definitely rejecting onanism) or to continue or adopt onanistic practices, the practice can and should be permitted or insinuated as the lesser of two evils. 5) If the reason presented by a penitent who already knows about the “safe period” method is only doubtfully sufficient to justify the practice in question, the confessor ought to stress the Christian ideals of marriage and family life and leave the penitent to de- ! j | | I 1 i | j I | | | 104 Rhythm in Marnage cide according to his or her own conscience.11 Ii is difficult to see how the confessor could be justified in insinuating the practice in a similar case to a penitent who is ignorant of the “safe period” method, or speak approvingly of such a practice to one who is in' quiring about it with a view to adopting the “safe period" pro­ cedure in marital life. 6) Penitents who merely inquire about the morality of periodic continence should be told that such a practice employed as a means of limiting or avoiding conception is lawful only in exceptional cases; that such a procedure in itself is far from the Christian ideal of marriage; that the “safe period” method as such has received no official approbation of the Holy See. 7) In every case where the confessor prudently judges that the practice can be permitted or insinuated either as lawful (m the in­ dividual case) or as the lesser of two evils, the following points ought to be emphasized: (a) —That the penitent must be disposed to accept and rear any “surprise” child, i. e. born despite “safe period” precautions. (b) —That the practice may not be adopted against the reasonable opposition of the other spouse or if there is a serious dan­ ger of incontinence, infidelity, etc., for the other spouse. (c) —That even the careful application of the “safe period” method assures only relative freedom from conception. Conception is always possible although quite improbable if extreme care and vigilance are exercised. (d)—Stress the importance of a spirit of self-sacrifice and re­ course to supernatural help in order to observe continence during the fertile periods.14 15 14 Cf. Lavaud, O.P., Le Monde Moderne et le Mariage; p. 421, who adds that the confessor must never consider such doubtful reasons sufficient to authorise or much less to advise it. Cf. also L’Ami d,u Clergé (Nov. 8, 1934), p. 750. 15 Cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Π-Π, Q. 156, a. 3, ad. 2: “ad sanationem incontinentis non sufficit sola cognito, sed requiritur interius auxilium gratiae concupiscentiam mitigantis, et adhibetur etiam exterius remedium admoniti­ onis et correctionis, ex quibus aliquis incipit concupiscentiis resistere, ex quo concupiscentia debilitatur.” ""R·· Pastoral Conclusions and Applications 105 (e) —Urge the penitent to go to a competent and morally reputable Catholic physician for detailed information concern' ing the “safe period" method, warning the individual to beware of being guided solely by the general information contained in popular expositions of the method. (f) —Make it clear to the penitent that the practice is allowed in this specific case only because of the circumstances,—hence the individual must be careful not to tell others about this personal matter unless such a revelation is necessary in order to avoid causing spiritual harm to others (i. e. scandal). (g) —Urge the penitents to keep their confessors informed of their condition in this regard. (h) —Stress the Christian ideals of marriage, families, sacrifice, trust in Divine Providence, etc., lest such penitents become too satisfied and too lenient with themselves in the enjoyment of voluntary sterility. d)—Practical Applications The following cases are intended to represent the most common confessional cases which would involve the considerations and con­ clusions presented throughout this study. The solutions ought to be given in each individual case along with the other admonitions men­ tioned under number 7 of the preceeding conclusions. Case 1)—Sufficient Reason—Nfi special Danger of Onanism or Incontinence, etc. Martha, a frail and nervous individual, complains to the confessor that she already has four children and that her husband keeps the family so deeply in debt by drinking and gambling that it is extremely difficult to rear, clothe and educate those four children properly. She has to take in washing in order to help support the family. Her husband rs sufficiently faithful to Catholic principles not to stoop to contraceptive practices, but he simply insists upon his right to intercourse saying that as far as he is concerned, he pre­ fers a large family. Solution: The confessor should urge Martha to have recourse to prayer and prudent persuasion to make her hus- 106 Rhythm in Marriage band realise his obligations toward his wife and family. He should add that if the situation does not improve and total abstinence remains morally impossible because of the hus­ band's attitude, she should persuade him to restrict inter­ course to those periods which are unfavorable to conception. Case 2)—Sufficient Reason—Danger of Onanism or Incontinence, etc. (a)—Penitent is quite well disposed Martha, the wife of a non-Catholic and mother of four children, confesses to have used contraceptives. Although she knew that such a practice is wrong, she considered that it would be only venially sinful in her case; i. e. the doctor said that another child would mean a grave danger to her health, her husband’s salary is insufficient to support a larger family, and if she insisted on total abstinence he would be in a serious danger of adultery, or might even try to get a divorce. Solution: The confessor should prudently ascertain whether those reasons are based on groundless fear or fancy, or on actual fact. If such unfortunate circumstances really exist, he should permit or suggest the practice of periodic continence, as the case may be. He must point out the seri­ ousness of contraception and make the penitent understand as well as possible that periodic continence differs greatly from the unnatural practice of contraception.18 Case 3)—(b)—Penitent is badly disposed Luke, an incorrigible onanist, confesses to have com­ mitted the detestable crime of onanism ever since, his fourth child was born. He thinks that four children constitute a ija 18 The above case is found in the June 1936 issue of the Ecclesiastical Review (Vol. XCIV, p. 587-593) along with the solutions of the following theologians: Fathers Vermeersch, S.J.; Capello, S.J.; Lopez, S.J.; Merkelbach, O.P.; and Hurth, S. J. They all agree that the “safe period” method could prudently be insinuated in such a case, and that such a woman can never be left in good faith, thinking that conception would be only venially sinful in her case. Cf. also Genicot-Salsmans, Casus Conscientiae, case n. 1124 for a similar situation in which a husband, who has a sufficient reason for avoiding con­ ception, is uneasy about his habit of "abruptio copulae." The solution given is that even though such a manner of intercourse is not accompanied by "effusio seminis extra mulieris vaginam,” the "safe period" could be per- Pastoral Conclusions and Applications 107 sufficiently large family for a common laborer to support. Besides his wife is absolutely opposed to another child. Being a convert, Luke does not see why the Church should be concerned about his marital affairs. To please the priest he has abstained from intercourse entirely for two weeks or so following each annual confession,—he is certain that he will do no better this year. Solution: The confessor must try to convince Luke of the evil of contraception, and ask him if he could not restrict intercourse to only about two weeks each month when con­ ception is unlikely, rejecting contraception for good. If Luke seems willing to try such a solution, the confessor should instruct him to see a competent and reputable Cath olic physician and get the necessary information about the “safe period" method, reminding him that although the ap­ plication of such a method demands sexual abstinence for about two weeks or ten days each month, it will be a mor­ ally lawful solution in his case. If Luke answers that he knows all about that method, but will have nothing to do with it, or if he expresses the determination to continue onanism if the method fails or becomes too restrictive, etc., the confessor can do nothing else but paternally inform Luke that he cannot give him absolution while such an attitude prevails.17 Case 4)—?^o Sufficient Reason—Danger of Onanism, etc. (a)—Penitent is fairly well disposed Luke, a mixed-marriage convert, who would like to do all that is “reasonably" demanded of Catholics, confesses mitted or insinuated: “Immo in his angustiis praestaret vacare ‘periodicae continentiae’ correcte et cum bona ratione exercitae." ( p. 7 53). 17 For a similar case cf. Ter Haar, C.SS.R·, Casus Conscientiae. II, (case found on p. 129, solution on p. 169). The case involves an inveterate onanist who considers his family of four sufficient, and who purposely practiced onanism except for a while after each annual confession. "Si poenitens serio dicit, sibi videri usum matrimonii per binas fere hebdomadas singulis mensibus sufficere, confessarius hoc medium ei enixe commendare debet; eique etiam statim absolutionem concedere potest, simul paterne euna exhortans ut brevi ad ipsum redeat suique experimenti rationem reddat.” (p. 169). In this case, as in the one above, the penitent seems to have a quite sufficient reason, for the penitent says of his four children “eos juxta conditionem suam educare non potest." (p. 129, n. 4). 108 Rhythm in Marriage that he has often tried to avoid onanism, hut without suc­ cess. He adds that neither he nor his wife have any desire for children, nor can he see why the Church should oblige them to have a family. He also says that he would be will­ ing to reject onanism for good, if there was some other method permitted by the Church, by which children could be avoided or at least limited. Solution: Luke’s opposition to procreation bespeaks cul­ pable selfishness, but his willingness to adopt another method even with the relatively small possibility of an occasional conception, indicates that he is not altogether in bad faith. His attitude might be blamed partly on the fact that he is a convert. The confessor should try his best to change that attitude (which is at least “materialiter" culpable). It all persuasion to live in total abstinence or to have children fails, the confessor can and should insinuate the practice of periodic continence at least as the lesser of two evils, with­ out however implying the least approval of Luke's strange attitude.18 Case 5)—(b)—Penitent is badly disposed Bertha has such an abhorrence of pregnancy that she cannot be persuaded to perform the marriage act in any manner which might lead to conception. Although child birth would certainly present no special danger to her health, she insists upon limiting intercourse to a few times each month, and uses a contraceptive each time. Uneasy about such a procedure, she tells all this to the confessor, making it clear that she is determined to avoid conception by fair means or foul, and that her husband will not hear of total abstinence. Solution: The confessor should tell Bertha that her atti­ tude (per se) is undoubtedly sinful,—that even if concep­ tion meant certain death, she would not be allowed to per­ form the marriage act in a manner contrary to nature. If all attempts to dispell the unfounded fears of pregnancy are unsuccessful, he should tactfully suggest that she at least restrict intercourse to periods when conception is quite im­ probable, stressing that even in using this method, there is a slight possibility of conception. Hence that voluntary 18 For a slightly similar case cf. Ter Haar, C.SS.R., Casus Conscientiae. Il, (case î on p. 130, solution on p. 170); also Periodica, XXV (1936), solu­ tion by Father Lopez, S.J.. on page 171*-175*; case on p. Pastoral Conclusions and Applications 109 opposition to any conception (i. e. that disposition to resort to contraception if necessary) must be overcome before she can use the “safe period ' method even as the lesser of two evils. Bertha's abhorrence of pregnancy may be the result of an abnormal, nervous condition,—the fact that she seems to be prepared to abstain if her husband would con­ sent might indicate that she is otherwise a good Christian. In her case, therefore, the practice of the “safe period” may not even be a “lesser evil.” 19 Case 6)—Doubtfully Sufficient Reason—T'Jp Special Danger of Onanism, etc. Martha, a little uneasy about her conjugal life, tells the confessor that she and her husband have mutually agreed to use the “safe period” method regularly. They are of the more wealthy class and feel that all the attention which Martha can spare away from her social activities should be directed to the special rearing and educating of their two children. She assures the confessor that there is no danger of onanistic practices in their case nor of any unpleasant consequences of restricting intercourse. Solution : The confessor ought to make it clear that the above attitude is ordinarily dangerous, and often sinful be­ cause of selfish motives:—that the two-child family often results in spoiled children, scandal for other fervent Chris­ tians, etc. If they are anxious to do the best thing and yet limit their family, propose total abstinence as a test of their generosity. Harsh words or severe judgments might cause Martha to stop frequenting the sacraments altogether. Hence, after stiessing the ideal, (i. e. a larger family or total continence) the confessor ought to leave Martha decide according to her own conscience.20 Case 7)—Insufficient Reason—Ήο Special Danger of Onanism, etc. Luke, when questioned about the order of his conjugal life, mentions that he and his wife have agreed to use the 19 Genicot-Salsmans, Casus Conscientiae, for a somewhat similar case (case no. 1131). 29 Similar decision in L’Ami du Clergé (Nov. 8, 1934), p. 770, and in Lavaud OP., Le Monde Moderne et le Mariage, p. 421; also in Ter Haar. C.SS.R., Casus Conscientiae. Π, case on p. 128 (n. 3), solution on p. 168 (n. 176). The solution is substantially the same as the one presented above. 110 ' -it Rhythm in Marriage “safe period” method. Prudent investigation reveals that friends passed on to him the knowledge of this method, with the remark that it was approved by the Church; that both he and his wife were physically and financially capable of raising a family, but that she simply had no desire for children. Besides she was too active in social and charitable affairs to find time for raising a family. Both are fairly good Christians, and neither would stoop to contraception. There is no special danger of incontinence.21 Solution : The confessor should make it clear to Luke that he and his wife have not a justifying reason for adopt­ ing the practice of periodic continence; that the greatest social and charitable work which his wife can do is to have a family, giving glory to God and true lasting happiness to their maniagc union. If she insists upon having no children for such an insufficient reason, even total abstinence would not be according to the Christian's ideal of marriage. Stress the fact that such a practice can be allowed only in excep­ tional cases, and urge him to prudently persuade his wife to enter the blessed career of motherhood. If he answers that such persuasion would surely make her antagonistic and quarrelsome, etc., the confessor may tell Luke that the continuance of the practice would be permissible for the time being, but that he must not give up the tactful cam­ paign to gradually make her see marriage in the proper light. Case 8)—Penitent Simply Inquires about the Morality of this Practice. Martha, a newlywed, mentions to her confessor that friends told her about a certain book approved by the Church, which proposes a method of realizing sterility in marital life without having to abstain entirely from conjugal intercourse. Her mother assures her that the Church would never allow any procedure which amounts to interference with human fertility, this “Rhythm” method included. “What about it, Father?” Solution: The confessor should point out that since such a practice is not contrary to nature it can be justified, but only in cases where married folks are in such unfavor­ able circumstances due to poor health, genuine poverty, etc., 21 For a similar case, cf. the Nouvelle Revue Théologique, V (1873), 424-443. s Pastoral Conclusions and Applications 111 that restricted intercourse seems to present the only accept' able solution;—that no one should presume to think him' self or herself entitled to such a special remedy without first laying the case before the confessor, and abiding by his decisions.22 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 1) —Regardless of what opinion may be held concerning the objective morality of periodic continence, the majority of theologians agree that for all practical purposes this method must be regarded by the priest and confessor as a "last resort" measure for exceptional, individual cases,—not as a solution for general recommendation. This is the only conclusion which is in keeping with traditional, Christian ideals and with the spirit of all available ecclesiastical docu­ ments on the subject. 2) —The practice may be permitted or suggested as lawful only in those individual cases in which there is an objectively sufficient reason for not having children. It may be permitted or suggested as the lesser of two evils in individual cases in which such a reason is not present if it is the only acceptable means of avoid­ ing a greater moral evil, e. g. incontinence, infidelity, etc. 3) —The fact that some might abandon onanism in favor of "oginism" as a result of the general divulgation of the "safe period" method would hardly compensate for the dangerous consequences which are ordinarily associated with such imprudent publicity, e. g. the loss of the Christian ideals of marriage and purity, weakening of trust in Divine Providence, spread of a general spirit of selfish­ ness, etc. 4) —Any spontaneous divulgation of this method from the pulpit or in any public gathering would per se be opposed to pastoral pru­ dence and to the evident import of all ecclesiastical documents on the subject. The divulgation of the method when demanded by circumstances must be individual as far as possible. In no case 22 “Ubi confessam circa illam praxim interrogantur, aperte dicant esse pro vita christiana et pro ipsa vita conjugali valde periculosam; proinde eam recipi non posse, nisi adsint rationes proportionate graves.” A. Verhamme, “De Licietate Sterilitatis Facultativae,” Collationes Brugenses, XXXIV (1934), 471. 112 Rhythm in Marriage would the pastor of souls and custodian of Christian ideals be justi­ fied in manifesting unqualified approval of the “safe period" method as such, whether in public or in private. 5)—-The easiest way to be assured of a consistent attitude of due caution regarding the practical aspects of periodic continence is to view the practice of the “safe period” method as it really appears under a purely objective scrutiny,—as per $e illicitum, per accidens autem licitum. Those who consider such an opinion as untenable may be inclined to say: “If the method is good or indifferent in itself, why should the knowledge of the “safe period" be kept from the faithful in general?” 6)—These considerations should not prevent the priest and con­ fessor from regarding the Ogino-Knaus discovery as a most suitable remedy for specific and individual material and moral ills, nor from prudently co-operating with Catholic physicians in convincing the medical profession of the practicability of such a method as a sub­ stitute for contraceptive practices. A. M. D. G. BIBLIOGRAPHY Sources Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale, Romae, 1909 (Tomus I) sqq. Actes et Décrets du Cinquième Concile Provincial de Malines (translation from the Latin original). Louvain: Editions de L’A. C. J. B., 1939. Codex Juris Canonici Pu Pontifias Maximi jussu digestus Benedicti XV auc­ toritate promulgatus, Romae: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academiae litterarum Caes­ areae Vindobonensis, Vindobonae, 1866 (Tomus 1) sqq. (68 Vols., 1866-1936). Denzinger, Henr., et Bannwart, Clem., et Umberg, Joan., Enchiridion Sym­ bolorum, Definitionum. et Declarationum be Rebus Fidei et Morum. 21-23 ed., Friburgi Brisgoviae: Herder, 1937. References and Articles L’Ami du Clergé, “Un Nouveau Problème de Morale,” Nov. 8, 1934, p. 737-752; cf. also March 12, 1931, p. 177-190; March 19, 1931, p. 193201; 1933, p 269 et sqq. Anonymous, "L'Ovulation Spontanée,” Analecta Jutis Pontifiicii. series 12 (1873), c. 706-724 ------------ , Reprint of an article which appeared in the Spanish theological review Consultor de los Parrocos. in the Analecta Juris Pontifiicii. series 13 I 1874), c. 993 1001 ------ ——, Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, Analecta Juris Pontifiicii, series 22 ( 1883), c. 248-249. — ----------, "Consultation I," Nouvelle Revue Théologique, V (1873), p. 424-443. Aquinas, St Thomas, Sutnmj Theologica. Taurini: Marietti, 1937. -------------, Summa Contra Gentiles, Taurini; Marietti, 1938. Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, 13th ed , 2 vols., Taurini: Marietti, 1938. Antonelli, Joseph, Medicina Pastoralis. 5th ed., Romae: Pustet, 1932. Araya, Dr. Rafael, Ovulation y Menstruacion, Buenos Aires, 1933. ---- - ------- , “El Método Anti-conceptional de Ogino y Knaus, Su Valor Cientifico y Practice,” La Prensa Medica Argentina. XXVIII (1941), p. 37-58. Ballerim-Palmien, Opus Theologicum Morale. 7 vols., Prati, 1889-1893. Batsill, O.S.B., Decisiones Sanctae Sedis De Usu et de Abusu Matrimonii, Taurini: Marietti, 1937, i i j I I 114 Rhythm in Marriage Bender, L., O.P., Vermin^en en Onvruchtbar ma\en (Serie: Waarhcid en Leven), Hilversum: Paul Brand, 1939. Bonnar, A., O.F1M, The Catholic Doctor. 2nd ed , New York: Kennedy, 1939. Bonsirven, J., S.J., Le Judaïsme Palestinien au Temps de Jésus Christ. 2 vols., Paris: Beauchesne, 193?. Bouvière, Pierre, S.J., Les Décisions du Saint Siège et le Devoir des Confes­ seurs Circa Abusum Matrimonii, Paris: Letouzey, 1929. Brouillard, René, “Causerie de Morale, Mariage et Continence Périodique. La Méthode Ogino-Knaus et La Morale Catholique," Etudes, CCXIX (June, 1934), p. 771-787. Capellman, Dr. C., Medicina Pastoralis, 7th ed., Aquisgrani: Sumptibus Ru­ dolphi Barth, 1890. Capellmann, Dr. C., and Bergman, Dr. W., Pastoral Medizin, Paderborn: Bonifatius Druckerei, 1923. Capellmann, Dr. C., and Niedermener, Facultative Sterdaat Ohne Verletzimg Der Sittengesetze, Limburg: a. d. Lahn, 1931 (Gebriider Steffen). Cappello, Felix, M., S.J., Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, 4th ed., 3 vols, in 4, Romae: Marietti, 1939. ------------ , Ecclesiastical Review, XCIV (1936), p. 589-Î91 (opinion in a case involving the “rhythm”). Chaput, Charles, S.J., and Dumas, Paul, M.D., La Méthode Ogino Knaus (Extraits du Journal de L'Hotel-Dieu de Montreal), 193V. Charles, Enid, The Menace of Under Population. London; Watts and Co., 1936. Claeys-Boùùaert, "Quid Censendum de Nova quadam Methodo impraegnationem vitandi?" Collationes Gandavenses (August, 1931), p. 176 et sqq. Clement, Dr. G., Le Droit de L’Enfant à Naître. 4th ed., Bruges: Charles Beyaert, about 192? (no precise date given.) Cyclopedia of Medicine, Surgery and Specialties, vol. 4, Philadelphia. F. A. Davis Co., art. ‘Safe period," p. ÎÎ8-56O. Cohauz, Otto, S.J., The Pope and Christian Marriage (Commentary on ‘Casti Connubii," translated by George D. Smith), New York: Benziger, 1933 Colli-Lanzi, Camillus, Theologia Moralis Universa, 3 vols., Taurini; Marietti, 1927. Connell, Francis J., C.SS.R., Birth Control—The Case for the Catholic (pam phlet), Boston: Mission Church Press, 1939. ------------ , Marriage—Human or Divine? (pamphlet), New York: Paulist Press, 1940. Conway, Bertrand L., C.S.P., The Christian Family. New York: Wagner, 190$. Coucke, Canon Valére J., “Birth Control and the Tempus Ageneseos,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, XXXIII, 1 (1932), p. 20-24; 133-138. Bibliography 115 ------ ——, "De Tempore Ageneseos,” Collationes Brugenses, XXX (1930), p. 360-368; p. 443-452; XXXI (1931), p. 178-181. Coucke, Canon Valére J., and Walsh, Dr. J. ]., The Sterile Period in Fam­ ily Life, New York; Wagner. Cox, Ignatius W., S.J., Birth Control, Birth Controllers and the Perversion of Logic (pamphlet), New York: Paulist Press, 1936. Cralsson, "Réponse a l’auteur de L'Ovulation Spontanée,’* Rev. des Sc. Bed.. XXIX (1874), p. 205-208. Craisson, “De L'Ovulation Spontanée Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques, XXVII (1873), p. 586-596. Culligan, E., Controlling Birth lawfully, Courtney Co., Fort Wayne, Ind., 1934. Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1885-1892. Dauwe, Dr., "La Question de la Continence Périodique,” S. Luc Médical, 1934, p. 42 et sqq. Davis, Henry, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, 4 vols., New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935. ——----- , Clergy Review, V (1933), p. 403-407 (reviewing recent theologi­ cal works). Dayes, A., "Encore à propos de la méthode d'Ogino,” S. Luc Médical, 1933, 494 et sqq. De Guchteneere, Dr. Raoul, La Limitation des Naissances, Paris: Beauchesne, 1929. —---------- , “Les Variations Cycliques et la Fécondité Feminine," Revue Française de Gynécologie et d’obstétrique, 1933, p. 283 et sqq. ------------ , Revue Médical de Louvain. 1931, nos. 2 and 5, p. 17 and 65, et sqq· Delevoy, Dr. A., Périodes de Fécondité et de Stérilité Physiologiques Chez la Femme, Paris; Amedée Legrand, 1935. De Muyser, Dr. R , L'Amour et la Conception, Paris: E. Figuiere, 1935. Dermine, Canon, "La Morale Conjugale, Néomalthusianisme, Méthode OginoSmulders," L’Eglise et le Mariage (a book by various contributors), Paris: Editions Mariage et Famille, 1937, p. 56-70. De Smet, Aloysius, Tractatus Theologico-Canonicus De Sponsalibus et Matri­ monio. 4th ed., Brugis: Beyaert, 1927. Dickinson, Dr. Robert Latou, Control of Conception, 2nd ed., Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1938. ------------ , "The ‘Safe Period' as a Birth Control Measure,” American Jour­ nal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, XIV, (1927), p. 718-729. Doncoeur, Paul, Retours en Chrétienté, Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1933. Doodkorte, OP, R X Artsenblad, July, 1935, p. 197-205. Dorsaz, A., C.SS.R·, Le Contrôle Rationnel Des Naissances, Paris: Dépôt Mignard, 1935. 116 Rhythm in Marriage Douglas Gilbert F., M.D., "The Safe Period," The Mousuppi Doctor, XVIII (1941), p. 566-570. Dowling, M. P., S.J , Race Suicide and Birth Control (pan.pi.I, t ). 7th print­ ing, New York: American Press. Emge, Ludwig A., M.D., “Is the So-called ‘Safe Period' Tiunworthy?” Transactions of the Pacific Const Society of Obstetrics and i l-oiec dogs·. V (1935) published by the Western Journal of Surgeiy. Portiand, Ore. Eschbach, A., Disputationes Physiologico-Theologicae. Romae: Desclée, Lefebre Ê# Socii, 1901. Estor, H., “Y a-t-il des Périodes de Fécondité et de Stérilité Physiologiques Chez ia Femme?" Languedoc Medical, XXII ( 1939), p. 1 33-144. Farrell, Walter, O.P., The Rfatural Moral Law According to St. Thomas and Suarez. Ditchling: St. Dominic’s Press, 1930. Ferreres, Joannes, S.J·, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, 14th ed . 2 vols, Barcinone: Eugcnius Subirana, 1928. --------- —, 'Onamsmi Remedium,” Estudios Eclesiast.cos. XI\ ( I 93ç, p 270-274. Fielding, Michael, Parenthood: Design or Accident? New York: Vanguard Press, 1938. Flieser, Dr. Joseph, Ehewille und Bonum Prolis,” Theol. Prak.. Quartal·, XC (1937), p. 425-441. Foerster, F. W., Marriage and the Sex Problem, New York: Frederick A Stokes, 1936. Geis, Dr. Rudolph, S.T.D., Principles of Catholic Sex Morality. New Vork: Wagner, 1930. ------ ——5 "Moraltheologisches und Pastoraltheologischec Zur Fr...;c OginoKnaus,” Oberrheinisches Pastoralblatt, XXXIV ( 1932), p. 164 et sqq. Genicot, Edwardus, S.J., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones 6th cd., 2 vois., Brussels: A. Dewit, 1909. Genicot-Salsmans, Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, 13th cd.. 2 νι>ί-, Bins sels: L’Edition Universelle, S.A., 1936. ----- ------ , Casus Conscientiae, 7th ed., Brussels: L’Edition L’nnetw.'.e, SA.. 1938. Gennaro, Sac. Doct. Andreas, S.S., De Periodica Continentia Matrimoniali Augustae Taurinorum: R. Berruti & Co., 1938. Georg, Dr. I. E. Ebeleben und Ffatürliche Ceburtenregelung (a translation from the original Bohemian), Pragi: Adolf Otto Czerny, 19^4 Gerrard, Thomas John, Marriage and Parenthood, New York: Wagner, 193~ Gillet, James M. S., O.P., L'Eglise et la Famille, Desclée de Brouwer, 1917. Gillis, James M., The Catholic Church and the Home. New York: Macmillan. 1928. Godefroy, L., “Marriage in Sacred Scripture,” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (Vol. IX, part 2, Paris.· Letouzey, 1927), art. “Manage," c. 2045-2077. Bibliography 117 Gougnard, De Matrimonio. 8th cd., Mcchliniae: Dessain, 1937. Grosam, Rev. Wenzel, “Geburtenregelung nach der Theone von OgmoKnaus und praktische Seelsorge,” Theol. Pra\ Gfuartal., LXXXVI ( 1933), p. 262-280; also LXXXIV (1931). “Pastoraltheologische Einstellung Zu den Neusten Forschungen Uber ‘Fakultative Sterilitat,” p. 280-287. Gury-Ballerini, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, 9th ed., 2 vols., Romae: Ex Typographia Polygraphia, 1887. Hamilton, Virginia Clay, M.D., “The ‘Safe Period’—A Report on 36 Cases,” Human Fertility (formerly the Journal of Contraception), V (1940), p. 165-169. Hayes, Patrick Cardinal, “Official Monitum on the Rhythm Theory,” Con­ ference Bulletin of the Archdiocese of New Tor\, XIV, (1936), p. 78. Hartman, Carl G.. Time of Ovulation in Women, Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1936. ------------ , “Catholic Advice on the ‘Safe Period’,” Birth Control Review, XVII (1933). ------------ , “Facts and Fallacies of the Safe Period,” Journal of Contraceptian, II, (1937), p. 51-61. Heil week, Dr., “Hat Sich Die Methode Smulders Bewahrt,” Theol. Pra\. guartai.. LXXXVII (1934), p. 790-797; cf, also LXXXV (1932), p. 649-650. Heymeijer, Wilhelm, S.J., “Periodische Enthaltung in Der Ehe,” Stimmen Der Zeit, CXXVI (1934), p. 406-413. —--------- , Moral Supplement to the French edition of Dr. Smulders’ book. De La Continence Périodique Dans le Mariage, Paris: Letouzey, 1933. Hildebrand, Dietrich Von, In Defense of Purity, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1936. Himes, Norman E., Practical Birth Control Methods, New York: Modern Age Books, 1938. Hittmair, Dr. Anton, “Die Fakultative Sterilitât Der Frau,” Theol. Pral{. guartai., LXXXIV (1931), p. 277-280; LXXXVI (1933), p. 256-261. Holmes-Gore, Rev. V. A., Morals for Old, London: Longmans Green, 1938. Holt, J. G. H., M.D , Marnage and Periodic Continence, London: Long­ mans Green, 1937. Hurth, Franz, S.J., "Der Will Zum Kind,” Chyrsologus. LXXJI (1932), p. 816-827; p. 880-900. ------------- , “De Sterilitate Physica,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Vol. LVIII, (1931), p. 673-689. -------------, Ecclesiastical Review, XCIV (1936), p. 592-593 (opinion in a case involving the “rhythm”.) Knaus, Dr. Hermann, Die Periodische Fruchtbar^eit und Unfruchtbar^eit Des Weibes, Vienna: W. Maudrich, 1935. —--------- , “L’Index de Fécondité au cours du Cycle Menstruel,” Revue 118 Rhythm in Marriage Médical de Louvain, 1931, p. 24 et sqq. Kaiser, A. F., C.PP.S., “Abuse of the ‘Safe Period’ In Marnage," Fortnightly Review, XLI (1934), p. 123424. Lash, A. F., M.D., “The Gynecology of the Ancients,” The American Jour­ nal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, XV (1928), p. 262-287. Latz, Leo. J., M.D., The Rhythm of Sterility and Fertility in Women, 6th revised ed., Chicago: Latz Foundation, 1939. cf. also an article of the same title in the Fortnightly Review, XXXIX (1932), p. 261 et sqq. —--------- , cf. also. Linacre Quarterly, VI, 80; Fortnightly Revifw, XL (1933), p. 37. Latz, Leo M.D., and Reiner, Emil, C. E., “Natural Conception Control," Journal of the American Medical Association, 1935, p. 1241-1246. ------------ , “Failures in Natural Conception Control and their Causes,” Illinois Medical Journal, March, 1937. ------------ , “Further Studies on the Sterile and Fertile Periods in Women,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, XLIII (Jan., 1942), p. 74-79. Lavaud, Benoit, O. P., Le Monde Moderne et le Mariage, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1935. ------------ , “Sens et Fin du Mariage," Revue Thomiste, XLIV, (1938), p. 737-765. ------------ , “An Interpretation of the Conjugal Act and the Theology of Marriage," The Thomist, I (Oct. 1939), p. 360-380. ------------ , “Toward a Theology of Woman,” The Thomist, II (Oct., 1940), p. 459-518. Leclercq, Dr. Jacques, Marriage and the Family, (Translated from the French by Thomas R. Hanley, O.S.B.), New York: Pustet, 1941. Le Comte, De L’Ovulation Spontanée de L’Espèce Humaine dans ses rapports avec la Théologie Morale, Louvain: Peeters, Paris: Palme, 1873. ------------ , "De L’Ovulation Spontanée de L’Espèce Humaine dans ses rap­ ports avec la Theéologie Morale, "Revue des Sciences Ecclésiastiques, XXIX (1874), p 98-103. Lehmkuhl, Augustinus, S.J., Theologia Moralis, 11th ed., 2 vols., Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1900. Liguori, St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, 2 vols., Taurini: Marietti, 1847. Lopez, Ulpianus, S.J., Periodica . . . . XXV (X Novae series) 1936, p. 475 .171 * ------------ Ecclesiastical Review, XCIV ,1936), p. 591 (opinion in a case involving the rhythm.’) Mahoney, Canon E. J., “Matrimonial Consent and the ‘Safe Period’,” Clergy Review, XIII (1937), p. 121431, p. 412-413; also XIV (1938), p. 184485, (a reply to the letter of Father MicHugh, O.P.). Mancini, Dr. A., S.S., Palestra del Clero. 1935, p. 60-78; 1932, p. 357; 1933, p. 523. Bibliography 119 Mausbach, Dr. Joseph, Ehe und Kindersegen Von Standpun^t der Christlichen Sittenlehre. University of Munster: Volksvereins,—Verlag ευ M. Gladbach, 192?. Mayer, Alex., De Rapports Conjugaux. Paris: 1860. Mayer, Dr. Joseph, Erlaubte Geburten—Beschrdnfaing? Paderborn: Boni' fatius-Druckerei. McHugh, J. A., O.P, Clergy Review, XIII (1937), p. 358; XIV (1938), p. 92-94; p. 184-185 (in letters to the editor.) Merklebach, Benedictus, O.P., Summa Theologiae Moralis, editio altera, 3 vols., Paris: Desciée & Brouwer, 1936. ------------ , Divus Thomas. 1934, p. 313. ------------ , Angelicum, XI (1934), p. 92-94 (review of Dr. Georg’s book). ------------ , Ecclesiastical Review, XCIV (1936), p. 590-592 (opinion in a case involving the “rhythm”). Migne, P. J., Patrologtae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, 161 vols., Paris, 1856-1866. ------------ , Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, 221 vols., Paris, 1858-1864. Miller, Arthur G., M.D., "Progress in the Study of Physiologic Sterility,” Clinical Medicine and Surgery, XLII (1935), p. 19-22. Miller, A. G., M.D.,Schulz, M.D., Anderson, M.D., Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, “The Conception Period in Normal Adult Women,” LVI (193), p. 1020-1025. Montrucchio, Gius, Regulae a Sacerdotibus atque a Confessariis Servandae cum iis qui Matrimonio Abutuntur, Augustae Taurinorum: Via Parini, 1934. Moore, Edward Roberts, The Case Against Birth Control, New York: Cen­ tury Co., 1931. Muckermann, Hermann, Der Sinn Der Ehe, Bonn: Verlag der Buchgemeinde, 1938. Mullins, Claud, Marriage, Children and God. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1933. Naussaux, "La Période d’Agenese Chez la Femme,” Collationes Diocesis Tornacensis, September, 1931, p. 528 et sqq. Noldin-Schmitt, De Sexto Praecepto et de Usu Matrimonii, 23rd ed., Oeniponte: F. Rauch, 1935. Noll, Very Rev. J. F., A Catechism on Birth Control, Huntington, Ind. : Our Sunday Visitor Press (a pamphlet). Murray, Raymond W., C.S.C., and Flynn, Frank T., Social Problems, New York: F. S. Crofts and Co., 1938. O’Brien, John A., Natural Birth Control, 3rd ed., Champaign, Ill.: The Newman Co., Publishers, 1938. -------- - —, “Moral Causes of Catholic Leakage,” Homiletic and Pastoral Re­ view, XXXIII (1933), p. 693-701; 813-823; "Private judgment and family Limitation," ibid-, p. 917-926. 120 Rhythm in Marriage O’Connell, John, C.S.C., “Birth Control Clinics Needed," Ecclesiastical Re­ view. CI (1939), p. 246-254. O'Donnell, Reynolds J., M.D., “Contraception and Rhythm," The Nebraska Medical Journal, ΧΧΠ (April, 1937), p. 132-134. Ogino, Dr. Kyusaku, Conception Period of Women, (translated from Jap­ anese by Dr. Yonez Miyagawa), Harrisburg, Pa.; Medical Arts Pub­ lishing Co., 1934. Parsons, Wilfred, S.J., America, Feb. 25, 1933 (vol. XLVIII), “Is This ‘Catholic’ Birth Control,” p. 496-497. Pedersen, Victor Cox, M.D., Nature's Way of Birth Control. London : Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1934. Pereira, .Bernard Alves, O.F.M., La Doctrine du Mariage Selon Saint Augus­ tin, Paris: Beauchesne, 1930. Peterman, Dr. H-, Matrimonio e Fecondita in Armenia colle Leggi Della Natura, Berinsonae in Helvetia: Officina “Grafica Bellizona,” 1937. Pius XI, “On Christian Marriage,” (translation of the encyclical “Casti Connubii), Four Great Encyclicals, New York: Pauiist Press. Prummer, Dominic, O.P., Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 8th ed., 3 vols., Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1935. -------------, Birth Control, (pamphlet), New York: Pauiist Press, 1933. Racot, “Temps Agénesique et Moral Catholique," St. Luc Medical, 1931, p. 75 et sqq. Radermacher, Dr., Prudence et Réserve, 2nd ed. (translated from the Ger­ man), Tournae: Casterman, 1937. Rauch, Dr. Wendelin, “Erlaubte Geburtenbeschrankung und Die Scholastik,” Pastor Bonus, XLIV (1933), p. 125-136. ------------ , "Thomas V. Aquin; ein kronzeuge gegen die "Fakultative Stenlitàt,” Pastor Bonus, Sept., 1932, p. 321-335. Rice, Frederick W., M.D., “Biological Sterility and Fertility in Women,” Ecclesiastical Review. XCIV (1936), p. 582-586. ------------ , “A Catholic Physicians' Views on Family Limitation,” Ecclesiasti­ cal Review, CIII (1940), p. 60-67. Ruland, Rev. Ludwig, and Rattler, Rev. T. A., Pastoral Medicine, St. Louis Herder, 1936. Ryan, Msgr. John A., “The Moral Aspects of Periodical Continence,” Ecclesiastical Review, LXXXIX (1933), p. 28-39; cf. also vol. XCIV’ (1936), “The Morality of the ‘Rhythm’ Theory,” p. 595-597. Rochat, R. L., “Remarques Sur Quelques Cas d’Echecs de la Méthode KnausOgino,” Helvetica Medica Acta, Band 7 (1940-1941), p. 8-10. Rovella, Dr. Joannes B., “De Periodo Anticonceptionali Mulierum,” Apol­ linaris, 1937, p. 107-111Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, 34th ed., New York: Pus· tet, 1939. Bibliography 121 Saloman, Samuel, and Gilbert, Dan, LL.D., The Conspiracy Against Chastity, San Diego: Danielle publishers, 1939. Salsmans, S.J., “Sterilitas Facultativa Licita?” Ephemerides Theologiae Lovanienses, XI (1934), p. 562-570. —--------- ·, S. Luc Medical. 1933, p. 17 et sqq. Schmiedler, Edgar, O.S.B., Christian Marriage (a commentary on “Casti Connubii”), 2nd ed., Washington, D. C.: Catholic Conference on Family Life; published by Our Sunday Visitor Press.. ----------- -, The Threat of American Decline (pamphlet), Wash., D. C.: National Catholic Welfare Conference. Scott, George Riley, Facts and Fallacies of Practical Birth Control, London: T. Werner Laurie, Ltd., 1935. Smulders, Dr. J. N. ]., De La Continence Périodique Dans le Manage, Pans: Letouiey, 193 2. Stein, Irving F., M.D., and Cohen, Melvin R., M.D., “An Evaluation of the Safe Period," J ournal of the American Medical Association, CX ( 1938), p. 257'261. Stix, Regine K., M.D., and Notestein, Frank, Ph.D., Controlled Fertility. An Evaluation of Clinic Service, Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Surbled, Dr. Georges, La Vie a Deux, Paris: A. Maloine & Fils, 1918. Sutherland, Dr. Halliday, Laws of Life, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1936. Ter Haar, Franciscus, C SS.R., Casus Conscientiae De Praecipuis Hujus Aetatis Peccandi Occasionibus. Taurini: Marietti, 1939. Titmuss, Richard, Poverty and Population, New York: Macmillan, 1939. Turenne, "Por Que fracasa ei metodo anti-conceptional de Ogino-Knaus?” Archives Uruguayos de Medicina Cirugia y Especiahdades, XIII, (1938), p. 657-667. Van Mierio, M S C , Huwehjl(sdoel en Periodicae Onthouding, Ruraemundae, 1933. Verhamme, A., “De Licietate Sterilitatis Facultativae” Collationes Brugenses, XXXIV ( 1934), p. 459-472. Vcrmecrsch, .Arthur, S J , De Castitate et de Vitiis Contrariis, Romae: Umversita Gregoriana, 1919. --------- , La Peur de L'Enfant Dans les Classes Dirigeantes, Louvain: F. & R. Ceuterick, 1909. ------ , La Problème de la Natalité en Belgique, Brussels: Maison de L’Action Catholique, about 1910. __ , What is Marriage? (commentary on “Casti Connubi,” translated from the original by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J.), 2nd printing, New York: America Press, 1932. . ------- , Periodica . . . XXIV ( 1935), p. * -170 ;165 XXIII (1934), p. * 238^-248 (“de prudenti ratione indicandi sterilitatem physiologicam”). _________ Ecclesiastical Review, XCIV (1936), p. 588-589 (opinion in a case involving the “rhythm”). 122 Rhythm in Marriage ------------ , "Actuelle Fragen Des Eherechtes und der Eheinoral," Theol. Prak- Quartal., LXXXIX (1936), p. 47 6$. Vignes, H. and Boros, E., Presse Medicale, 1934, p. 1002-1006. Vignes, H., and Robey, M., Période de Fécondité et Périodes de Stérilité Chez la Femme, 2nd ed., Paris: Masson et Cie., 1938. Waidemann, Dr. M., “Die Periodische Enthaltung in Der Ehe vor dem Richterstuhl der Katholischen Moral,” im Korrespondenz—und 0§ertenblatt f. d. ges Kath. Geistlichkeit Deutschlands (Regensburg), XLII (1932), p. 97-99. Walsh, James J., M.D., "The ‘Safe Period’ In Family Life," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, XXXIII (1932-1933), I, p. 258-265. Wanenmacher, Francis, “Some Questions on Vitiated Marital Consent, Ecclesiastical Review, C (June, 1939), p. 481-497; CI (July and August, 1938), p. 31-49; p. 131-149. Wayne ,T. G., Morals and Marriage, London: Longmans, Green and Co., 19336. Welton, Thurston Scott, The Modern Method of Birth Control, New York: Walter J. Black, Inc., 1938. Miscellaneous and Minor References The Acolyte, 1933, Apr. 15, 1929; July 22; Aug. 19; Oct. 14, 1928; Nov. 25, 1934, Feb. 3. Clergy Review, VI (1933), p. 140, 141; XIII (1937), p. 150-153; p. 155157; p. 273-274; p. 412-413; XIV (1938), p. 184; p. 470. Ephemerides Theologiae Lovanienses, XVI (1939), p. 555 & 841; 842 Fortnightly Review, XL (1933), p. 11, 12; 37; 50. 71; 155; 179, 180; 194; 209; 226; 230; 254. XLI ( 1934), p 75, 76: 101, 103; 114; 156; 207. Hearings on Birth Control before a Sub-committee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate (72nd Congress, 1st session), on S. 4436, May 12, 19, 20, 1932. Also similar hearings before a Committee cm the Judiciary, House of Representatives (73rd Congress, 2nd session), on H. R. 5978, serial 2, Jan. 18, 1934. Also similar hearings before a Sub-Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate (73rd Congress. 2nd session), on S. 1842, March 1, 20, 27; 1934. All three documents have been printed at the U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington. D C. Irish Ecclesiastical Record, XLIII (1934), p. 414-418. ïïlustracion Del Ciero, 1933, p. 278, 299, 313, 333; 1934, p. 12, 29, 40, 88, 318; 1935, p. 310, 350. \ederlandsche Katholie^e Stemmen, Feb., 1931. Nouvelle Revue Théologique, ΧΠΙ, p. 458-460. Population Prospect in the South (a circular, reprint of an address delivered by Ο. E. Baker, before the Second Annual Convention of the Catholic Bibliography 125 Conference of the South, Birmingham, Alabama, April 21, 1941), United States Department of Agriculture (Washington, D. C.), Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Population Trends in Relation to Land Use, by Ο. E. Baker, Senior Agri' cultural Economist, Extension Service Circular 511, June, 1959, Wash' ington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Extension Service. Studien, Maart, 1950. Scuola Cattolica, 1935, p. 251, et sqq. Studium, 1934, p. 665'667; 1936, p. 630. S. Luc Médical, 1931, p. 31 et sqq. Revue de Thérapeutique Medico Chirurgicale. (Paris, Feb. 15, 186 * 7, p. 96, 1867, and July 15, 1867, p. 366 « 367.