![\"Kevin](\"https://catholicstand.com/wp-content/uploads/Kevin-Aldrich-Fatherhood2-480x274.png\")
[This article is the continuation in the Kevin Aldrich\’s Humanae Vitae series.]
The moral evil of intentionally separating the unitive sexual act from its procreative end is at the heart of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae.
In 1968, in a well-orchestrated media event, dissident Catholic theologians condemned and distorted Paul VI’s encyclical before it was even released and before they had even read it. Sad to say, those who dissented from Humanae Vitae were wildly successful in preventing so many Catholic married couples from hearing and living the truths which Paul VI reaffirmed. Many of the problems facing the family, society, and the Church today stem from not appreciating, and not living, the doctrinal and pastoral principles Paul VI heroically taught. Instead, we are living in a society in which people want and get every form of sexual pleasure without procreation, and even get procreation without sex when they want a baby and can’t generate one in the natural way.
This series of columns for Catholic Stand will reflect on what Paul VI actually taught in Humanae Vitae. They will be geared specifically for Catholic fathers. We wish to foster an authentic love with our wives. With our wives and our children we (humbly) want to be living witnesses to the beauty, goodness, and truth of what Paul VI taught, and the Magisterium teaches about the intrinsic goodness and inherent requirements of the marital sexual act.
Responsible Parenthood
We’ll begin with the concept of responsible parenthood. In the writings of the Magisterium, the term ‘responsible parenthood’ first appeared in Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes and was later explained in depth in Humanae Vitae. According to Paul VI,
“Responsible parenthood is exercised either by the mature and generous decision to raise a large family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with respect for the moral law, to avoid a new birth for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period” (§10).
Thus, contrary to what some people still (erroneously) say, a Catholic married couple may, under the right circumstances, try to space their children and limit the number they have. There is no moral obligation to have as many kids as possible. Of course, it is critical to be clear about what these “right circumstances” are.
Responsible parenthood is the attitude of spouses toward having children, taking into account (1) the duties of spouses toward themselves, each other, their family, and society and (2) God’s plan for marriage and the family. In other words, it can be morally licit for a married couple to space their children when they have good reason to do so and when their actions to do so conform to the objective criteria of morality.
In subsequent columns, we will explore exactly what constitutes an adequate reason to limit family size, and what means conform to the moral law.
Planned Parenthood?
It is worth pointing out that the term ‘responsible parenthood’ in the context of Humanae Vitae means the same thing secular society usually refers to as ‘birth control’. However, the Church doesn’t normally use ‘birth control’ because it is Planned Parenthood code for fostering intrinsically evil acts like contraception, abortion, and sex outside of marriage.
Let’s note what responsible parenthood is not. It is not the decision to not have children at all. If a couple goes into marriage with the intention of never having children, we can’t talk about responsible parenthood because there is no parenthood to be responsible about! Indeed, the Church teaches that if one or both spouses go into marriage with the intent to never have children, there is, in fact, no marriage.
Supernatural Family Planning
A final note is that it is not an absolute requirement that a Catholic couple even think about responsible parenthood in the sense of birth control. A couple can simply get married, have normal relations, and have children or not depending on their fertility and God’s will, just as husbands and wives have done for thousands of years. It’s what my wife and I call supernatural family planning.
In subsequent columns, we will explore the following questions:
- What are the unitive and procreative meanings of sex and why should my wife and I not separate them?
- What is the “question of conscience” my wife and I need to answer when it comes to responsible parenthood?
- Just why are natural family planning and contraception so different, even though they kind of look the same?
- Should my wife and I actually intend to have many children if we can?
Resources
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church: §§2366-2372
33 thoughts on “Humanae Vitae: Responsible Fatherhood”
We have free will. Choose life.
Pingback: Humanae Vitae and Family Size—Should We Have a Big Family? - Catholic Stand : Catholic Stand
Pingback: Humanae Vitae: Questions of Conscience - Catholic Stand : Catholic Stand
Pingback: Humanae Vitae: Bonding and Babies - Catholic Stand : Catholic Stand
Mr. Aldrich please do us all a favour (including yourself) don’t let your unexamined dogma condemn the human species to extinction.
Mr. Aldrich,
I thank you for this article, and I look forward to your next installment.
1. It is a “moral evil”, to use your term, to promote unprotected sexual activity and condemn the use of effective birth control measures, in a world that is so over-populated with humans that they are killing their species and many other species as their increasing drives for food production, heating sources and transportation create radical climate change. What is even more reprehensible is the Catholic proselytizing in third world countries where the level of subsistence is already precarious.
2. There are many well-documented uses for sexual activity in addition to its procreative and even unitive functions that people living millennia ago were not aware of. Perhaps Pope Pius VI was not aware of these uses but the fact he ignored all of his advisors suggests that at least some of the advisors were aware of other uses of sexual activity.
3. It is unethical, perhaps even morally evil to make infertile couples feel unworthy because of one man’s out-dated adherence to a belief system founded on errors when those errors have well-documented by science.
4. There was no marriage in the garden of eden, just two people having sexual relations.
The prevailing response to your statement is the question, “Are YOU overpopulation?”
Your response does not seem to be very Christian (or even intelligible).
When one uses the “over population” argument as a defense of artificial birth control, one usually does not consider one’s self as over population. How one excludes one’s self from that argument, I consider unintelligible.
So I ask, “Are you ‘over population’?” If not, how do you justify declaring another to be ‘over population?’
If you do consider yourself to be ‘over population,’ then, as you put it, it is a “moral evil” for your continuance. You are creating a precarious existence for others.
I do not agree with the theory of ‘over population’, and I do not consider you ‘over population’. I do, however, fundamentally disagree with you.
I’m sure that gibberish seemed to make sense in your mind and that you also disagree with climate change “theory”, but none of that has anything to do with the “moral evil” of demanding that sexual activity be undertaken only for procreative and unitive uses.
The moral evil is the separation of the conjugal act from its procreative nature.
The “moral evil” is to promote unprotected sexual activity and condemn the use of effective birth control measures, in a world that is so over-populated with humans that they are killing their species and many other species as their increasing drives for food production, heating sources and transportation create radical climate change. What is even more reprehensible is the Catholic proselytizing in third world countries where the level of subsistence is already precarious.
I notice that you do not disclose whether or not you agree that climate change is a threat to the existence of humans and other species. For you it must be most inconvenient when the truth gets in the way of your ingrained religious beliefs regarding sexual activity.
Outside of marriage, the Catholic Church teaches abstinence. This teaching, when followed, protects sexual intercourse.
Unrestricted sexual activity is mere animalism, hedonism, and/or many other isms.
I did not introduce climate change and have not discussed climate change because I do not see it as pertinent to any topic I have discussed. The theory of global climate change is unproven, unscientific and unworthy of discussion.
You, however, did introduce ‘over population’ and have not answered my question. Are You ‘over population’?
The point, of course, is that the Catholic Church is dead wrong at the very least because it arbitrarily restricts sexual activity to only “unitive” and procreative uses when science has proven that sex has many other uses and benefits. Instead the Church relies on tribal prejudices of thousands of years ago. it is time for the Church to grow up and become civilized instead of tribal.
I will pray for you.
Thanks. And I hope you overcome your reliance on tribal prejudices.
Occupy.
Northern Witness, please state your purpose here. If it is to harm the faith of Catholics, please know that no one is obliged to tolerate your harmful intentions.
You can ignore truth but it would not be wise to do so.
Please do not presume to speak for all Catholics. I personally know many Catholics who agree with me. Of course, they worship in an Oblate church.
You are aware that the Vatican has asked the laity to comment on these very issues are you not?
Some of us who practice “supernatural birth control” do so because we trust God in our love and feel that a new child is actually worth more than winning the Mega-lotto. We also believe that our earthly life is only a test, selfishness vs. self-giving. We are storing up our treasures in heaven, as we are convinced that heaven is not over-populated, and we wish not to deprive our potential offspring from eternal bliss with our God because of some earthly discomfort or extra work. My wife bore 10 children, we have over 3 dozen grand-children and 4 great grand-children and four more half cooked. We are overwhelmed by the love in our lives. I am 67 and have never been bored, never a lack of friendship. Loneliness is non existent around here.
To begin with, American citizens hav e constitutional/legal/and civil rights over their own bodies…..MALES WHO IMPREGNATE VARIOUS FEMALES IRRESPONSIBLY SHOULD BE LEGALLY SUED FOR EVERYTHING THEY ARE WORTH–TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT COSTS FOR each CHILD THAT THEY IRRESPONSIBLY BRED/BE LEGALLY TAKEN TO COURT BY THE FEMALES THAT THEY IMPREGNATED FOR BACK WAGES/LOST BENEFITS AND/OR LEGALLY FORCED TO BE CASTRATED– THE SAME WAY THAT HORSES(STALLIONS) ARE GELDED not TO PRODUCE UNWANTED PROGENY AND/OR DOGS ARE CASTRATED.
Pingback: EDICION CUARTA SEMANA DE NOVIEMBRE I | Big Pulpit en Espanol
Pingback: I Felt as Though My Heart Was Leaving My Body - BigPulpit.com
My wife and I, in addition to another child, care for a totally disabled 27 year old….non-verbal, non-mobile, doubly incontinent, and very medically complex and fragile. I intentionally separate the sexual act from procreation….so I guess that makes me morally evil in your eyes. I would choose my worthy life over your (RCC’s) definition of morally evil. To not separate the two functions, would be morally evil on my parr, in my opinion. The position of Humanae Vita is wrong and the vast majority of RCC agree.
Why would keeping your marital relations open to procreation be morally evil, Phil?
Your post: “The moral evil of intentionally separating the unitive sexual act from its procreative end is at the heart of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae.” It’s either abstinence or possibly have another overwhelming responsibility…I reject both.
Phil, Have you ever heard of periodic continence or NFP?
(1) Can’t take the .1% risk; (2) I am sure God will overlook this simple evolutionary imperative given the greater good (3) Contraception is a pagan interpretation of NFP…same goal with less risk.
Is what you want the number one principle in your personal system of morality?
All contraceptives, and even sterilization come with the “risk” of pregnancy. The only method of “family planning” that doesn’t is abstinence from sexual relations. Just sayin’
You are a brave man and your family is doing God’s work. Keep it up.