Rhythm - the Unhappy Compromise!

Catholic tradition as shown from St Augustine forbids any sex that does not want a baby.  So does the Catholic Bible in the book of Tobit where the hero is praised for having sex with his wife not for desire but for a baby.  Even praying that conception may not happen is a sin even though this is not trying to force God but merely asking him.  The Bible is clear God always knows what he is doing when new life appears.  The idea behind family planning being kept natural but avoiding contraception is that the sex then has a chance at being unselfish.  Contraception is linked with selfishness and a refusal to trust God to do the right thing by you no matter how difficult this is for you.

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The Church holds that the primary purpose of sex is to create new life. Against those who say the main reason for sex is that the husband and wife love each other the Church argues that creating a new life is the supreme act of love so it is the primary reason. If the husband and wife really love each other they will want to let God give them this supreme gift, a child, if he so wills. If God wishes to cement them closer, he will send them a child.
The Catholic Church allows the natural method of birth control, having sex only during the time of the month when a woman cannot often conceive, but only when the parents cannot absolutely afford to have another child. But the Church says you will always manage for God sends babies and can look after them and if anything bad happens it is his will. So the only justification would be to prevent the mother having a pregnancy that could destroy her health. The Church is more flexible than that however. It is impossible to see how anything other than abstinence could be enjoined in the case of a couple in which the woman becoming pregnant could kill her.

Strictly speaking the natural method is not birth control at all for it is still open to life – but life is less likely to happen when it is used. This is why the Church affirms that contraception and the natural method are different for they have different purposes. The first is to prevent life and the latter is just to delay it.
Some Catholics use the method without intending to have a child. If they were godly, they would have their sex open to life and intend God to make a baby for them if he so wills. But if they intend it then why do they have sex in such a way as to reduce the chances? The answer is that they say that they intend it if God does. God can do the unlikely. It must be a sin for Catholic couples to ever have sex while intending that no baby will come.
Many users of the natural method have sex that is open to life and intend not to have a baby. For the Church, their action is good but their intention is bad. The Church says that doing good with the wrong intention is wrong. It defiles and mocks the good.
The Church says that actions are good or evil even if you always mean well by them. That is to say, your maths homework could be bad though you did it with the best of intentions. That is to say, the homework is objectively wrong and bad but you are just a good person who has done bad things without meaning to. But you would still be a bad person - it would just be your heart that is good. A doctor who thinks vitamin pills cure all ills is a bad person for he is doing harm even if he doesn't realise it.
What is more important then being good and meaning to be or merely meaning/intending to be good while misguidedly doing great harm? It is easy to intend to be good no matter what you do. Hitler certainly believed he was doing the world a favour by destroying the Jews. So being good would be more important. If Hitler thought he was doing God's will and was sincere then he would have gone to Heaven.
The Church allows the use of the contraceptive pill by women to regulate the menstrual cycle so that the safe period would be found easier but not to prevent conception and thermometers and other devices are allowed to help work it out too.
The natural method is not really natural when it cannot work without calendars and thermometers and machines and so on. The contraceptive pill may even be needed to regulate the safe time. That the Catholic Church allows it then, bears witness to its inconsistency. And when human beings are not subject to mating seasons like animals it shows that sex in us is about love and pleasure and not just making babies.

The Church doctrine is that God created the safe time for people who had no choice but to have sex but also limit their family. In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI wrote that God in his wisdom had created a safe time in the menstrual cycle in which a woman could have sex and not have children so that she has some control over her fertility (page 424-425, Vicars of Christ). The safe time was meant to leave it open to God if he decided the husband and wife were wrong and a baby should be caused by his power through them. Using contraceptive pills and other contraptions to make the method work denies this doctrine. To be consistent the Church should forbid all helps in the method.
There is no doubt the doctrine that God has prepared a time in the menstrual cycle which alone is to be used to regulate births is behind the whole Roman opposition to contraception. Using pills and thermometers to work out the safe period would be denying this doctrine for it implies that God did not do enough to make this period safe. It would be seeking more protection than the method is meant to allow. It would be trying to blasphemously do better than God. The Catholic to be consistent should be using the safe period under exactly the same conditions as women in pre-scientific times, say the 1200s, would have used it. When God wanted women then to use the period without thermometers and pills to regulate the cycle then it is good enough for women today. Catholics who proclaim the accuracy of the safe-period method give up any right to do so when they use modern helps.
No matter what Rome says, a man who has his wife using the popes method of family limitation is putting religious theory before his wife and should not have a wife.
The Church says that artificial birth control is bad for sex is primarily for making babies. If that is true then hoping to avoid contraception in the natural method is sinful. The Church is deceiving because the Church lets people who are barren or past the age for having children have sex in marriage. She says that these are open to life as far as the will goes for they would have babies if they could and that justifies the sex. But it doesn’t for they did not need to get married and the Church should check that only fertile couples can marry. And who would intend his seventy-year-old wife to get pregnant? You have to intend it under the existing circumstances for it is no use if you intend it only if your wife turns into a thirty year old for that means you don’t will the pregnancy under the present situation.

It is like claiming to be open to murdering when you shoot at a car there is nobody in. Still the Church says that male homosexuality is no less a sin if you wish your partner was female.
In Roman Catholicism, tradition that allegedly goes back all the way to the apostles is what has authority as a revelation from God. The modern popes’ claim that the doctrine that only the safe period is to be used for spacing out births and that the Church has always taught this is not true and the Church knows it. There was no proof that the safe period existed until modern times. Many thought it did in the past and few had any success with it but that is all. But how could a tradition based on something only found out recently have always been the tradition of the Church? To hide the truth about something so important and what has many tragic consequences is unspeakably cruel.

The permitting of the natural method of the Catholic Church was introduced by Pius XII. Tradition was wholly against him so modification of the contraception ban was heresy.
It was only permitted because the encyclical of the previous pope, Pius XI, Casti Connubi was misunderstood. The pope permitted sex if the couple was sterile or too old to reproduce. This permission was misinterpreted without warrant to refer to the Rhythm Method or the use of the safe period. The encyclical says: “Nor are these considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth” Pope Pius XI. It is stretching the meaning to think he meant the safe period. It contradicts what he said that nothing whatsoever must be done to prevent conception. He did not mean the safe period because it is not fully safe. He speaks of a condition in which new life cannot be brought forth so he is not thinking of it at all.
The natural method denies that sex is for forming a bond between man and wife. It makes them go to bed when they may not be feeling very loving. It is cold and clinical. The fear of it going wrong would be enough to turn sex into a chore. The woman especially would have more fear than the man for she will suffer the worst if she gets pregnant and has a baby. Feminists often see it as a scheme to turn sexual love into sexual abuse of the female.
The Church decrees that sex must always be open to life which is why this “natural” method is allowed. There is still a small but very significant chance that pregnancy will result.

Nearly all methods of birth control can be said to be open to life for they might fail.

If the Church knew the meaning of the word truth it would order you to have sex during the most fertile times only. Yet it has been known to boast that its methods are even better than artificial means.

The Catholic Church has done grave and unforgivable injury to the world, especially to its poor, by forbidding birth control and sterilisation. There are too many people in this world as it is. The Church says we should be feeding the poor instead of giving them birth control. But why can’t it tell us to do both? There would be fewer people to starve if contraception were available. We will all starve and die if the birth rate soars on up.
If a man needs to have his sperm analysed to see why he cannot father children the Church decreed he could use a perforated condom during sex with his wife so that there would be a little sperm in the condom for medical tests (page 433, Vicars of Christ). This makes no sense for if sperm belongs in the vagina to create life as the Church says then it is evil to take sperm that might make the woman pregnant instead of the sperm inside her. The rule that sperm belongs in the vagina which is natural if sex is mainly for creating life forbids testing sperm.
With natural family planning and artificial contraception, the husband and wife hold their fertility from one another. It has been pointed out that in natural family planning, as the man and wife have to restrict sex, this amounts to them holding themselves not just their fertility from one another.
The first ever pope to state that sexual intercourse in marriage is about uniting husband and wife in every way and making them one and not just about procreation was Paul VI. This contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius XII who like all his predecessors stated that sex is about procreation and nothing else really matters. Paul had no choice for as a woman can’t get pregnant during lactation and is fertile only for a little while every month that nature does not imagine that sex is only about procreation.
Pius XII “Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it.”

NPF is about sexual control more than preventing conception.  But if you restricted sex to once a month with a condom that would still be contraception regardless of the restriction and self-control.
Natural family planning is based on an arrogant desire to make marriage a nightmare and on papal lies, particularly the doctrine that the papacy has constantly taught the same principles on the subject. The consequences of those lies have often been tragic.


Few know that the Church has a shocking attitude towards attempts by married couples to be responsible about how many children they will have. It says it is a morally neutral issue! The Church allows “natural” family planning despite banning contraception. It merely permits it and does not praise it. That is warped! Those who have children they cannot feed are bad eggs end of story! This is the same hypocritical faith that claims to be against contraception as it allegedly indicates that the birth of a child is a burden and a mistake!  See Catechism of the Catholic Church 2368, 2370, 2399). It says the motive to regulate births is neither good nor evil, as long as there is an openness to new life. Nothing would be better than seeing a child as a curse than this kind of teaching!


A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society, Westminster, 1985
A Teenager’s Answer to “Shall I Go to the Prom?” Sherry Burgess, Guardian of Truth Publications, Kentucky
A Work of the Flesh: Sexualism, Weldon E Warnock, Guardian of Truth Publications, Kentucky
Believing in God, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
Biblical Dictionary and Concordance of the New American Bible, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington DC, 1971
Contraception and Chastity, Elizabeth Anscombe, Catholic Truth Society, London
Contraception, John T Noonan, Jr., A Mentor-Omega Book, New American Library, New York, 1965
Courtship and the Dangers of Petting, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1943
Divorce, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1946
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke Heinmann, Penguin, London, 1991
God Is Not Great, The Case Against Religion, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
Moral Questions, Bishops Conference, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1971
New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
Papal Sin, Structures of Deceit, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London, 2000
Pornography – A Psychiatrist’s Verdict, Melvin Anchell MD, Liguori Publications, Missouri
Preparing for a Mixed Marriage, Irish Episcopal Conference, Veritas, Dublin, 1984
Questions and Answers on Sex and Marriage, Natural Fertility and Responsible Parenthood, Luton Good Counsel, Catholic Truth Society, London, 2007
Rediscovering Gay History, John Boswell, Gay Christian Movement, UK, 1982
Rome has Spoken, A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements and How They Have Changed Through the Centuries, Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben (Editors), Crossroad Publishing, New York, 1998
Scattered Vows, Exodus From the Priesthood, David Rice, Blackstaff Press, Belfast, 1990
Sex & Marriage A Catholic Perspective, John M Hamrogue C SS R, Liguori, Illinois, 1987
Shall We Dance? Dick Blackford, Guardian of Truth Publications, Kentucky
Son of Joseph, The Parentage of Jesus, Geoffrey Parrinder, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1992
The Emancipation of a Freethinker, Herbert Ellsworth Cory, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1947
“The Lord Hateth Putting Away!” and Reflections on Marriage and Divorce The Committee of the Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1985
The Pope and Contraception, Brenda Maddox, Counterblasts 18, Chatto & Windus, London 1991
The Puzzle of Ethics, Peter Vardy and Paul Grosch, Fount, London, 1994
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi, London, 1993

No Copyright