Kelly, Gerald

English

epublications@Marquette

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 19 | Number 2 Article 35-1-1952Official Statement on RhythmGerald KellyFollow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqPart of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Medicine and Health SciencesCommonsRecommended CitationKelly, Gerald (1952) "Official Statement on Rhythm," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 19 : No. 2 , Article 3.Available at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol19/iss2/3as 'l'HF� J.INACllE QUAll'l'ERLY medical school. 4. He must practice one year with a licensed physician before he be allowed to take up practice on his own account. 5. If the medical student desired to take up surgery, he must have made special intensive studies in anatomy. 6. This thirteenth century law for the protection of the health of Fredrick's realm is especially interesting because it also regulated the purity of drugs. In that respect it anticipated our own federal pure food and drug law by seven centuries. 7. It also had passages which would not allow a druggist to substitute or to have any financial' connection with a physician. Although we do not know definitely just when the medical school was founded at the University of Salerno, we do know that a hospital was established there as early as 828. We have only to read Garrison's History of Medicine to appreciate this background. I quote from page 131 of the Third Edition: "The growth of the Christian virtue of compassion toward weakness and suffering, and the more elevated and enlarged conception of the position and miss·ion of women that grew out of it, led to new departures in medicine along untried paths, particularly in nursing the sick and in erecting hospitals every­where for their care. Only idle bigotry could affirm that the Pope and Emperor did not do a great deal for medicine in the advancement of good medical legislation, in the chartering and upbuilding of the medieval universities, in the great hospital movemetit of the middle ages, and in the encourage­ment of individual medical talent in many cases." The same historian had this to say specifically about the relations between churchmen and medical men at Salerno: " • • •  The whole character of the school -- that is the medical school at Salerno -- was that of an isolated laical institution -- a medical city in the midst of purely clerical foundations • • •  But the city itself was a bishopric -- after 974 an arch­bishopric -- where the Benedictines had a cloister and a hospital. The friendliest relations are said to have existed between the clergy and the physicians of Salerno." (Page 137, Third Edition) So much for this part of the early story. I will follow with a few of the other developments in the midst of these "Dark Ages" which have been of a great deal of interest to me. William� Chester, M.D. THE LINACRE QUARTF'RLY 39 Official Statement on Rhythm GERALD KELLY, s. J. I N HIS DISCOURSE to Italian midwives (Oct. 29, 1951) Pope Pius XII spoke at some length on the morality of using �hythm as ameans of family limitation. It is my purpose here to putlme what he said on this subject, then to compare his remarks with the article, "Morality of Rhythm," which is published in Medico-Moral Problems, II, 26-31. What the Pope Said The ,Pope opened the third part of his discourse by exhorting the mid­wives to try to-inspire married women with an appreciative love of mother­hood. Realizing, howeve�, that many women would want to avoid children, the Holy Father pointed out to the midwives their duty to know the teaching of the Church on the moral aspects of family limitation. He recalled the official pronouncements against contraceptive practices and that more far-reaching form of contraception, direct sterilization. As regards the scientific aspect of rhythm, he said it is expected that midwives should know this and be able to instruct others either verbally 01·by means of serious professional publications. On the juridical side, he posed a question familiar to canonists; is a marriage valid if the parties contract it with the intention of limiting intercourse to the sterile periods? And his answer to the question was given with a distinction that is also familiar to canonists. The marriage would be invalid if the parties intended to restrict the right to intercourse to those periods, because this would mean that they were not giving a perpetual right, which is essential to the con­tract. If, however, they merely intended to restrict their use of the mar­riage act to the sterile periods, the marriage would be valid; but this intention would be licit only according to the principles governing tl1e useof rhythm. In a final preliminary statement, the Pope pointed out that there can be no moral problem in the use of marriage during the sterile periods, when the use is not limited to those periods. For intercourse had at these periods is in itself a natural act and nothing is done by the parties themselves to frustrate its natural consequences. The moral problem, therefore, arises only when intercourse is restricted to the sterile periods. This is the prob­lem ordinarily meant when we speak of using rhythm. The Pope then40 THE L!NACRE QUARTERLY proceeded to give the first official papal statement on the morality of tl1i procedure. The very nature of their state, said the Holy Father, imposes on mar­ried people who choose to exercise the marital act the duty of making some contribution to the preservation of the race. This duty is not sufficiently fulfilled ( i. e., when the marriage act is restricted to the sterile periods) merely by placing the act in a natural manner, with the willingness tc accept children if they are conceived. On the other hand, as an affirmativf duty (i. e., a du.ty to do something), it admits of excuse for proportionate!) serious reasons. The habitual use of rhythm without such reasons is a sir against the duty to contribute to the preservation of the race. Speaking of the reasons that might justify rhythm, the Holy Fathe1 referred to the "so-called indications" of a medical, eugenic, economic, 01 social nature. Obviously he had in mind the conditions that are sometimef proposed as "indications" for therapeutic abortion, contraception, or steril­ization. The Church has consistently asserted that, since these acts an intrinsically immoral, there can never be any "indication" to justify them But the Pope here suggests that these same reasons might sometimes be sufficiently serious to exempt married people from the duty of havinf children, and thus afford a justification for the use of rhythm for a lonf time or even throughout married life. Such are the general principles concerning the morality of using rhythm Having stated them, Pius XII then referred to extreme cases in w hicl sound medical reasons absolutely contraindicate pregnancy and the use O • rhythm is not feasible. In such cases, he said, the parties are not to b,· counseled, much less commanded, to run the risk of pregnancy. (In sayin1: this, he hardly intended to say that the married people themselves would never be justified in running such a risk after they had prayerfully con­sidered· the matter). F.ven in these extreme cases, they are not to h · aided in any of the intrinsically evil practices. The only permissible wa:· of avoiding the risk is continuous abstinence fr,om intercourse-a course of action which, though tnily l1eroic, is certainly possible with the grace of Gori. The foregoing is a digest of the Pope's statement on rhythm, as con­tained in the third part of his address to the midwives. About a monf1 later (Nov. 26), in an address to the National Congress of the 'Famil_,· Front,' he again pointed to the essential difference between rhythm anJ contraceptive methods, and added: "One may even hope (but in this matter the Church naturally leaves the judgment to medical science) that science will succeed. in providing this licit method with a sufficiently secure basis, and the most recent information seems to confirm such a hope."· THE LINACRE QUAR'!." 1.· 41 Comparison with Ar· !de I should like now to make a brief compari,, 1 between the Pope's remarks and tlie article, "Morality of Rhythm,'" iii Jfedico-Moral Problems, II 26-31. :The article is divided into three sediuu.�: ( l) points on which theo­logians agree; (2) points of disagreement; and (3) some conclusions fordoctors. The first and third parts are not affected by the papal pronounce­ment-except in the sense that much of what is said in these sections isexplicitly confirmed by the words of the Holy Father .. The material inthese two sections is extremely valuable for doctors, and I would encouragethem to read and re-read them.The second section of the article outlines two points of controversy, among theologians: the reason why the practice of rhytl1m, without justi­fying cause, is sinful; and the gravity of the sin. Both points should be carefully scrutinized in the light of the recent papal statement. As regards the first point, there were many theologians who held that married couples have 110 pos.itive duty to procreate. This opinion will no doubt become obsolete, because it is not consonant with these words of the Holy Father: " . . .  matrimony obliges to a state of life which, while carrying with it certain rights, also imposes the fulfillment of a positive work con­nected with that state of life ..  The matrimonial contract, which confers upon the parties the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, the state of matrimony. Now, upon the parties who make use of this right by the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the conservation of the human race. This is the characteristic contribution from which their state of life derives its peculiar value: bonurn prolis-the blessing of offspring." As regards the second point of controversy, tl1e majority of theologians held that the practice of rhythm, without sufficient reason, is not in itself seriously sinful, but it would be seriously sinful only by reason of special circumstances-e.g. injustice, if one party would unjustifiably impose it on the other; and unwarmnted danger, if the practice of, or att�mpt to prac­tice, the rhythm . would involve the unjustifiable and serious danger of incontinence, discord, or divorce. A minority opinion held that the use of rhythm, without serious reasons, would in itself be a serious sin if continued over the space of five or six years. Some proponents of this minority opinion have evidently concluded that Piux XII has "settled" this controversy in their favor. To me, and to several very competent theologians with whom I have discussed this matter, this seems a hasty conclusion. It is true, we belieYe, that the papal statement calls for some modification in what was formerly tile majority opinion. The 42 THE LINACRE QUARTERLY Pope definitely said that married people who exercise their marital right·: have a positive duty to provide for the conservation of the human race. H,: called this a primary duty, a duty expressing the very meaning of conjuga ilife, a duty very important to society, a duty that calls for serious reason; to exempt from it. It is hard to reconcile these statements with the opinion that the practice of rhythm can be mortally sinful only by reason of special circumstances of injustice or danger. In this sense, therefore, the majorit,• view needs some modification. But it is one thing to say that the practice of rhythm, without seriou, reasons, can be a serious violation of the duty to procreate; and it is quit: another thing, to say that the gravity of the violation is to be measured i 1 terms of five or six years. The Pope did not assert this time rule; and it i, at least debatable whether he even implied it. One proponent of the time rule claims that it is implied in the followin � words of the Holy Father: "Therefore, to embrace the married state, cor­tinuously to make use of the faculty proper to it and lawful in it alone, anc, on the other hand, to withdraw always and deliberately with no seri01: s reason from its primary obligation, would be a sin against the very meaning of conjugal life." To some theologians (including myself) this passage refers, not to the practice of the rl�ythm over any given period of tim '., but rather to the total or almost total shirking of the duty of parenthooc: e.g., by completely avoiding a family or by limiting the family to one r r 'two children, when serious reasons do not call for such limitation. vVe conot propose this interpretation as certain; but we believe it is of at lea .tequal merit with the view that any given length of time would constitute amortal sin. Moreover, we believe that the point should be carefully di;­cussed by theologians before any practical rule is publicized.Conclusion In conclusion, I should like merely to indicate one topic that will ve:·y likely become the object of interesting and profitable discussion, now that the Pope has definitely stated that married people who use their rights , have a positive duty to contribute to the preservation of the human race. The question now arises: is this duty in itself a limited one, or is it limit d only by the existence of one or more of the serious reasons that justify fie practice of rhythm? An example will clarify the point of discussion. Suppose a married couple, leading a normal married life, could have ten children during the ' sp�ce of their childbearing years. Would such a couple be justified in�smg rhythm, without any of the justifying reasons mentioned by the Pope,r m order to limit their family to four or five children? THE LINACRE QUAR':,->,T.Y 43 Before indicati11g the possible trend of enswers to the question, Jet me make it perfectly clear that the problem concerns only the matter of duty. If this couple is healthy, if childbirth offers no exceptional danger to the mother and no special danger of defective offspring, if there is no special difficulty about housing, educating, supporting the large family­then certainly it is in keeping with sound Catholic idealism to have the large family of ten ( or more) children. The problem, therefore, concerns merely the duty; and specifically the duty of "providing for the conservation of the human race." Is this duty limited only by the excusing causes mentioned by the Pope; or is it, inde­pendently of these causes, limited to the making of a reasonable or averagecontribution to the preservation of the race? If only the words of the Pope are considered, one might argue, I think that, for those who choose to exercise their marriage rights, the only lim­itation on the duty to procreate is to be found i11 the serious reasons of a medical, eugenic, social, or economic nature. Consequently, in the absence of these reasons, the couple who can have ten children by leading a normal sexual life are not justified in using rhythm to limit their family to less than that number. On the other hand, if the duty to procreate is considered in the light of similar obligations toward society, as well as toward one's neighbor, it is in _itself limited. It would bind each couple to make an ordinary, or an average, contribution in terms of the. population needs. This would mean that every fertile couple that chooses to use their marriage rights should have a family of perhaps four or five children, if they can, because that seems to be approximately the number required of each couple in order to make proper provision for the population n_eeds.If the second interpretation of the duty to procreate were taken as a sort of working norm of obligation, it would allow for the following practical rules: To have more than four or five children is an ideal which should be encouraged. To use the rhythm to limit the family to four or five children is permissible, even without spet:ial excusing causes, provided both partiesare willing and able to practice it. To use rhythm to limit the family to· less than four children requires one of the justifying rcaso11s mentioned bythe P�pe.I would favor the second interpretation. But I would not propose it ascertain. And, even supposing that the general idea of a limited duty toprocreate were certain, I would not say that the norm I have suggested here-four or five children-is not open to debate.

Official Statement on Rhythm

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4369&amp;context=lnq

Official Statement on Rhythm

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette