Transcript

Today we'll pick up again on our series of sermons considering the Church's teaching on marriage.

We're only hitting the topic periodically because I estimate there'll be about 12 sermons all in all just to hit the major topics.

One thing to keep in mind is since we can only focus on one aspect at a time, we've got to keep in mind that any individual sermon is incomplete and inadequate without reference to others.

So they'll just all be spread out over time, but they'll all fit together.

That's what we're working on.

Why is it like that?

Because marriage is only one thing, and so we can only look at it because it's too big to take in one sermon.

But when we're done, we'll kind of have a broad overview.

You don't need me to tell you that being faithful to your duties in state life—and that's any state in life, whether you're married or single or, like myself, as a priest or religious—to be faithful in our duties in state life without trying to wiggle our way out from under them or kind of ignore some is not easy.

Thanks a lot, Adam, because we're all struggling with original sin and actual sin, and in this toxic culture we're in, it's certainly true with marriage.

Remember what that Redemptorist Father Miller said: Reason by itself will never be able to overcome the emotional objections and obstacles to carrying out God's will that are made powerful by the effects of original sin.

For that reason, the married and the about-to-be married must look upon their marriage contract as a part of their commitment and surrender to Christ as their God, as their Redeemer, as their only hope of salvation and happiness.

They must be mindful that through baptism they were reborn as children of God.

They must look upon carrying out Christ's will in marriage not merely as observing legal formalities but as the joyous fulfillment of a commitment they have made to Christ for time and in eternity.

So it's true for any state of life.

We must accept those hardships as a small price to pay for the new life, this divine life, this supernatural life that gives us the power to get to heaven and to live there once we get there.

We must accept that as a small price to pay for this infinite gift that's been given to us by Christ our Lord, even though we didn't deserve it, even though we've offended Him, that He loves us so much to give it.

Okay, let's get started.

We've seen the key idea of marriage as a new creation, the groom as a new Adam and the bride as a new Eve, who by conferring the sacrament of marriage on one another are placed then into a state of holiness and given the same incredible blessing that God gave to our first parents to be fruitful and to multiply.

We've seen that the mission of the newly married is to take that holiness out of the sanctuary, out into the world and into the sanctuary of their home.

We've seen the centrality of Christ and His cross, that that recreation in holiness takes place in the shadow of the cross.

We've seen that God created marriage with two specific purposes.

The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children, and the secondary purpose of marriage is mutual help and comfort of the spouses and remedy for concupiscence.

So the primary is procreation and education of children; the secondary is mutual help and comfort and remedy for concupiscence.

We've seen that these two purposes, primary and secondary, are legitimate.

It means that acts between the spouses are good to the degree they conform to those two purposes of marriage.

The general principle is everything is conforming with these two purposes.

The primary and secondary purpose of marriage is good and permissible; anything opposed to them is evil and forbidden.

We've seen that the marriage contract has spiritual terms, physical terms, temporal terms, educational terms, and indissoluble terms.

We've started by considering the physical terms of the marriage contract.

We've seen that the marriage contract means that a man and woman give and accept an exclusive and perpetual right for acts which are themselves suitable for the generation of children.

We've seen that God has given each spouse rights, which means the other spouse has a corresponding duty before God to accept a reasonable request.

We've seen this as a serious duty owed in justice to the other spouse.

It must be paid generously or it's not being paid.

We've seen that to refuse to pay the debt without a very serious reason is a mortal sin against justice, and it's also a mortal sin against charity.

Debt must be refused insufficient privacy or if you're asking and resisting on cooperation in sinful actions such as contraception.

That may be refused for the following serious reasons: first, when one of the partners has committed adultery and it's not yet been forgiven by the other partner; second, when one partner is not in the right mind, for example, drunk; third, when there's a real danger of causing miscarriage; fourth, when there's a grave danger of injuring the other spouse; and fifth, for up to six weeks after birth.

We've seen that other questions should be referred to the confessional.

So much for the review.

Today we're going to finish up on the physical terms of marriage before we start going on to the spiritual and the temporal and the educational and the dissoluble.

So we'll review something we covered over three years ago.

We're going to consider a distorted notion sometimes associated with a practice known as periodic continence, a practice which involves periodically abstaining from marital rights.

This practice, periodic continence, is also popularly known as NFP, natural family planning.

An example of the distorted notion is found in an article entitled Small, Medium, Large, Extra Large: What Size is Right for Your Family?

The author is a Mr. Gregory Popchak.

He seems to be a devout Catholic, but he starts by asking, Is God calling you to have another child or not?

The Church, in her wisdom, does not give a pat answer to this question, but she does give some very simple practical advice for couples who are sincerely seeking the Lord's will about this, and some of her tips may surprise you.

That's fair enough, but now let's consider his tip: The best way—this is the best way in this article—the best way to actively discern this question—remember this is a question about whether we should have another child—the best way to actively discern this question on an ongoing basis is to practice NFP. NFP should not be primarily a method of avoiding pregnancy; it should primarily be a discernment tool.

It encourages the couple to consider their relationship and God's plan for their future throughout the month, so they're always placing God at the heart of the decisions that most deeply impact their marriage.

The NFP couple is always open to the possibility that God could say, 'This is the month,' and they're constantly seeking to prepare their hearts and home for that possibility, however remote it may seem to them at this particular moment.

What's he saying here?

He's saying that if a couple is wondering whether or not God wants them to have another child, the best Church-approved method to answer this question is to practice periodic continence, NFP. He warned us that some of the tips should surprise us.

That particular tip should surprise us a lot because it's completely wrong.

Let's see why.

We'll refer to a 1997 article published in L'Osservatore Romano—that's the newspaper of the Holy See, the Vatican newspaper.

The title of the article gives us a clue: Serious Motives Justify Couples' Use of Periodic Continence.

This article cites Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II. Because his answers are so detailed, we rely largely on the explanation of Pope Pius XII. He's not speaking to theologians, Pius XII; that's why it's nice for this situation because it's an address to midwives, so it makes it especially useful.

Now, as usual, for the sake of time and clarity, I've cut and pasted and smashed things together and condensed them and all that so we can get through it without going through them, but it's readily available.

It's addressed to Italian midwives.

Before we go through any of this, let's remind ourselves once more that the Pope is not making up rules.

God hasn't given anyone authority over the nature of marriage or its rules.

God makes the rules; no one else has authority—not the couple, not the state, not the Church, not the Pope.

And I hate to inform them, but not even Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Nobody has authority over the rules of marriage, not even the governor of California.

So what is the Pope doing?

The Pope is explaining the rules; he's not making the rules.

Okay?

He's explaining how God made things.

Everything the Pope says can be reasoned out from the marriage contract and the purpose of marriage already.

We'll see that first point: Pope Pius XII: The moral lawfulness of practicing periodic continence should be determined by whether or not the couple's intention is based on sufficient and worthy moral grounds.

The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child who is born in spite of the precautions they have taken would not of itself alone be a sufficient guarantee of a right intention and of the unquestionable morality of the motives themselves.

This is the Vicar of Christ.

I'll repeat the important part: The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child who is born in spite of the precautions they have taken—they're open to life—would not of itself alone be a sufficient guarantee of a right intention and of the unquestionable morality of the motives themselves.

So the first point is there must be sufficient and worthy reasons to practice periodic continence or NFP. We'll get to those reasons in a moment, but before we do, in the second point, the Pope will explain why this is true.

Second point: now the Pope explains why there must be sufficient and worthy reasons.

Now notice before we get going that the Pope's explanation is based upon the marriage contract, which confers rights upon the couple, and also on the primary purpose of marriage, which is the corresponding duty of the couple.

Pope Pius XII: The marriage contract, which gives the spouses the right to satisfy the inclinations of nature, established them in the married state.

The married couple who use that state by carrying out its specific act have the duty imposed by both nature and God of providing for the conservation of the human race.

God has so established the order of nature that the existence of the individual in the society, the people in the state, and even the Church herself depends upon fruitful marriages.

Therefore, to be married and to make frequent use of the right proper and lawful only in the state of marriage and at the same time to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

The Vicar of Christ: important part: To be married and make frequent use of the right proper and lawful only in the state of marriage and at the same time to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

What did the Pope just say?

That the marriage contract gives spouses the right to the marital act, and the use of that right implies a corresponding duty to use the great creative power.

Why?

In order to conserve the human race, which we've already seen is the primary purpose of marriage.

Furthermore, the Pope notes that without serious reasons, it is a sin to frequently exercise the marital right while avoiding the marital duty.

We're already familiar with this concept.

It's our duty to go to Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

Without serious reason, if we miss Mass on those days, then it's a sin.

If we have serious reasons, there's no sin at all, right?

It's exactly the same concept.

The Pope makes this clear: Pius XII: If there are serious reasons, limiting the act to the inferior periods can be lawful.

If, however, in the light of a reasonable and fair judgment, there are no such serious reasons, then habitual attention to avoid pregnancy while at the same time as far as possible continue to fully satisfy sensual desires can only arise from a false appreciation of life and from reasons that have nothing to do with true standards of moral conduct.

The Vicar of Christ: when serious reasons are present, periodic continence, NFP, is lawful.

But if there are no serious reasons, then the habitual intention to avoid pregnancy while at the same time, as far as possible, continue to fully satisfy sensual desires arise from a false appreciation of life and false standards of moral conduct.

Now it's clear from what the Pope says what the faulty reasoning is in Mr. Popchak's argument.

By promoting the idea that the couple should continually practice periodic continence as a means of discerning whether or not to have another child, what he's done is he's basically flipped upside down the primary and secondary purposes of marriage, as if the primary purpose of marriage is the mutual help and comfort of the spouses and quiet and concupiscence, and the secondary purpose of marriage is procreation and education of children.

Third point: now that the Pope has explained why a couple has to have sufficient and worthy reasons to practice NFP, periodic continence, now he's going to explain what those reasons are.

Pope Pius XII: Serious motives often put forward on medical, eugenic, economic, and social grounds can exempt husband and wife from the obligatory positive debt of the procreation of children for a long period or even for the entire duration of the marriage.

The Vicar of Christ: the Pope is just pointing out as long as this serious reason is present, the couple are legitimately exempted from procreation, even if that lasts for the whole duration of marriage.

Later, he points out the couple may morally avoid procreation in one of two ways: periodic continence or total abstinence.

Now it's important to realize the word serious does not mean life-threatening; they're not the same.

We need a serious reason but not a life-threatening reason to miss Mass, and it's the same kind of idea in this case.

What are serious reasons?

Let's give some typical examples.

Medical: serious, real, and objective dangers to the physical or even psychological health of one or both partners, usually the woman.

Eugenic: real possibility of serious and incurable hereditary defects in the child.

This may last for the duration of the marriage or maybe for a period of time.

For example, when a woman must undergo medical treatment with certain types of drugs, it will cause birth defects.

If she gets TB, she's going to have about a year's course, you know, the people I know that have had TB, a year's course of drugs that can cause some serious problems.

That's a serious reason, you know, right there, right there for a whole year.

Economic: this refers to true financial hardship.

True financial hardship in such a profoundly materialistic society like ours, this one requires brutal honesty before God.

Fifty years ago, Frank Sheed had some thoughtful remarks in this regard.

The reason must be serious; trifles are not enough.

That the birth of other children might mean buying a less expensive car or sending the children to a less fashionable school would not justify the decision to have no more, for that would be making the ornaments of life more valuable than life itself.

And not only could no Christian see things so, but only the devitalized could.

Indeed, for one who has grasped what a human being is made in God's image, immortal, redeemed by Christ, only the most serious reason would be strong enough to support such a decision.

But where such serious reason exists, husband and wife may agree to abstain from the marital act for a time or permanently, or they may agree to have it only at times when conception is most unlikely.

Social grounds include problems of social order, like the tyrannical Chinese one-child policy or floods, famine, fire, wars, and so forth.

So there may be serious medical, eugenic, economic, or social reasons to practice periodic continence.

Now, besides serious reasons, there are actually a couple additional conditions that must be present in order to lawfully practice periodic continence, NFP. They're really easy to understand since they flow immediately from the marriage debt, and so they're rooted also in the contract of marriage and the purpose of marriage.

First, the agreement to practice periodic continence must be truly mutual and freely agreed to by both spouses.

Made a deal in front of God, it has to be mutual.

One spouse can't have a unilateral no, okay?

That goes right back to the marriage debt we've already talked about.

So that was what we've already talked about.

So it has to be mutual.

And although agreement must be made by both spouses together, it can be terminated by either one alone.

Although this agreement must be made by both spouses together, it can be terminated by either one alone.

As the Pope says, Pius XII: This is because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a constant right, uninterrupted and not intermittent, of each of the partners in respect of the other.

So once you see the marriage debt, you can see this.

It just flows from it.

All the Pope's doing is telling us how it is.

He's not legislating; he's just telling us here's how it is and here's why it is.

Second condition: there must be reasonable assurance this practice will not lead either of the spouses to sin.

The more probable the danger of serious sin, the more serious the reason must be for practicing periodic continence.

Marriage is a partnership to get to heaven, and one has to take reference to the other spouse in that.

So in order for periodic continence, NFP, to be legitimate, it must be mutually and freely agreed to by both spouses, with the provision that either spouse can cancel at any time by making a reasonable request to honor the debt.

There must also be a reasonable assurance this practice will not result in serious sin for either spouse.

Let's review.

We've seen if there are serious reasons, a couple may legitimately practice periodic continence, NFP. These serious reasons include serious and objective medical problems with the parent, real likelihood of serious birth defects in the child, true conditions of financial burden, and disturbances in social order like war or famine.

We've seen that this practice must be mutually and freely agreed to by both spouses, with the provision that either spouse can cancel it at any time by making a reasonable request.

And we've seen that there must be a reasonable assurance that this practice will not result in serious sin for either spouse.

Now that we've taken a look at periodic continence, we can see once again this important idea that God has blessed man with a power, and when He gives the power, we have to use it according to the rubrics He's given.

I have a sanctifying power.

I don't get to say Mass the way I like; it's a terrible abuse.

I have to follow the rules, the confessional, when I'm confecting the sacrament, and so forth, to bring the life of sanctifying grace in the world, supernatural life.

I have a mission from God to bring supernatural life into the world, and the married have a mission from God to bring natural life into the world if it's His holy will.

And we all do what we're supposed to do, and the cross comes as a package deal for me or for you.

When I was ordained, I laid there in front of the altar.

When you were married, you knelt there in front of the altar.

It all starts from the cross and comes outward.

We have to embrace the cross.

Okay, now let me make a few more comments.

We can see that NFP, if we say that it can be constantly practiced without serious reasons, is an actual abuse.

Are we saying that it is the moral equivalent of direct sterilization or contraception?

No, we're not.

Direct contraception and direct sterilization are intrinsically evil practices; they can never be justified.

NFP is not intrinsically evil; there are reasons we just went through them.

It can be done.

Are we saying that this argument then that Mr. Popchak puts out in our article is trivial?

No, we're not.

Let's be clear.

As we pointed out years ago, if we don't follow God's rules, NFP can result in the loss of souls and not just in health.

And what do you mean by that?

Well, we did a thought experiment a few years ago, and we'll do it again.

Just imagine a large family—pick the number 10 for the sake of example—so we can imagine a family where the father is the son of a tenth child, the mother is the daughter of a tenth child, and the kid is the son of a tenth child.

So dad is the son of a tenth child, mom is the son of a tenth child, and the son is the son of a tenth child.

It's easy to see that if any of the preceding generations had fallen for Mr. Popchak's error of constantly practicing NFP without serious reasons throughout the marriage, it's super unlikely that you'd end up with ten children in any one of those three families, huh?

It'd be super unlikely.

Okay, so what would we say?

Somebody like that wouldn't even come into existence.

In other words, his soul would be lost.

But don't you think if we could ask a person like that, he'd be the first one to tell you that he's thankful to exist?

He'd be thankful his ancestors were generous in doing their duty before God, embracing the cross.

He's thankful to have a shot at heaven.

Doesn't everyone here think someone like that would be thankful to exist?

I am.

I am very thankful to exist.

I'm not saying that everyone has to have at least 10 kids or you're doing something wrong; that's not the message.

It doesn't work like that anyway.

It's going to be a bell curve.

If people are faithful to the teaching of Christ, they'll be everywhere from zero kids to up in the 20s, and it'll be a bell curve, or most of them being somewhere in the mean, which is going to be five to seven, and it goes up and down.

That's how it works.

If we're just doing things, I'm not saying everybody has to have 10 kids, no.

But my point is this isn't just theoretical.

I'm not descended from rich, powerful people; I'm just a regular American, just like most of the rest of you, descended from normal, poor, working-class Catholic folks.

My dad's dad grew up in a sod house in western North Dakota.

I keep a picture of it on my desk to remind me.

It's got him; he's a little kid, and he's got one of my great-uncles here, and they've got a big bunch of flowers, prairie flowers they picked to give to their mom.

And I keep it there on my desk to remind me of who I am so I don't get too proud.

But I knew his mom too; she was a good Catholic woman, pioneer woman, raised that family in a sod house.

She was the 19th kid in her family.

This stuff has consequences.

You go back 150 years in my family, and I'll bet a lot of families here, if you look at it, I looked it up yesterday.

I knew great-grandma was from a big family; there are 22 kids.

She wasn't a baby; she's 19. People like this don't come into existence with theories like that.

It matters; it's not just theoretical.

God has a plan; we've got to trust Him.

It doesn't mean you're going to have 19 kids; that's pretty exotic, huh?

But we've got to trust Him.

He has a plan; He loves us.

God loves us.

He wants us to become saints, and the key to heaven is the cross.

The cross for me in my state of life is different than the cross for you, but we don't want to be as scared of the cross when the cross is babies.

You know, I see people die.

That's one of the neat things about being a priest.

I have yet—and I can tell you this—I haven't heard anybody regret their children.

I meet people that regret not having them; I meet that a lot.

But I haven't met anybody that regretted having them.

Let's close with some reflections from Pope Pius XII: One of the fundamental demands of true moral order is that to the use of the marriage rights there corresponds sincere internal acceptance of the function and duties of motherhood.

With acceptance of the function and duties of motherhood, the woman walks in the path traced out by the Creator towards the goal which she has assigned as creature.

He makes her, by the exercise of this function, partaker of His goodness, wisdom, and omnipotence.

According to the angel's message, thou shalt conceive, and thy woman shalt bring forth a child.

It's urgent to maintain, reawaken, stimulate the sense and love of the function of motherhood.

The Vicar of Christ: God makes a mother a partaker of His goodness, wisdom, and omnipotence.

And if I might insert, He never sends any more children to a family than the number He wants you to have.

He's God.

One of the fundamental demands of the true moral order is that to the use of the marriage rights there corresponds a sincere internal acceptance of the functions and duties of motherhood—the duties of motherhood.

That's what the word matrimony means.

Matrimony comes from a Latin phrase, matris munis, which means the duty of motherhood—the duty of motherhood.

It is urgent to reawaken and stimulate the sense and love of the function of motherhood.

I pointed that out before.

Have you ever noticed there's two times where all of us together genuflect at the Mass?

There's two times.

And when is it?

It's during the Creed and the Last Gospel.

And why are we genuflecting?

Because a woman, the perfect woman, said yes to her duties of motherhood.

Pius XII, at the moment she understood the angel's message, the Virgin Mary replied, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word.

A burning yes to the call to motherhood.

The Blessed Virgin Mary gave a burning yes to the call to motherhood.

She gave a burning yes.

Let's kneel down and ask Our Lady to reawaken and stimulate the sense and love of the function of motherhood here and throughout the world, and grant that more couples will have the grace to say a burning yes to the call to motherhood.