tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post2883375646334706323..comments2024-03-21T00:15:48.886-07:00Comments on Philothea on Phire: Questioning NFPJayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-60648719571387608052013-07-19T15:27:46.774-07:002013-07-19T15:27:46.774-07:00Thank You for the explanation. Since you wanted mo...Thank You for the explanation. Since you wanted more children I am sorry you could not have more. God bless in all you do, especially for the church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-41085115743113602642013-07-17T18:26:37.358-07:002013-07-17T18:26:37.358-07:00Anonymous, there are other reasons than infertilit...Anonymous, there are other reasons than infertility. I have been a Catholic for 11 years. Before that, I freely used various forms of contraception to prevent pregnancy. When my daughter was born, I was almost 40, and the doctor had exerted some pressure on me to have my tubes tied because of my age. At the time, I thought it was a good idea, because I "didn't want" more children. However, had anyone explained to me the Catholic teaching, I likely would not have gone through with the tubal ligation. In fact, I sincerely desired to cancel the procedure, but could not formulate what I thought would be a logical reason.<br /><br />I have always regretted my decision to have my tubes tied. I prayed for years that a pregnancy would result anyway, as I know tubals do "fail". We did not have the financial resources to attempt a reversal of the operation, and my fertile years were coming to an end anyway.<br /><br />People make mistakes. That doesn't mean that they can't come to see the truth, and even proclaim it.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-28920005151163098402013-07-17T15:47:23.961-07:002013-07-17T15:47:23.961-07:00Dr. Boyd, Since you are against all forms of fami...Dr. Boyd, Since you are against all forms of family planning, why do you have only 2 children? Short of an infertility problem, you seem not to practice what you preach. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-4956190272168293322013-03-16T13:53:20.339-07:002013-03-16T13:53:20.339-07:00Dear Dr. Skocovsky:
Thank you for your kind comme...Dear Dr. Skocovsky: <br />Thank you for your kind comments. They are appreciated very much. I do recognize your good will and good intentions. That's why I invested the effort to discuss these issues with you. I apologize that I got too heated. <br /><br />In your role in the priesthood you will be able to influence a very large number of people. This is a great privilege but also a great responsibility for which God will hold you accountable. You need to be sure that you are truly communicating to people the will of God and not just "tickling their ears" with words they want to hear. <br /><br />I do presume your good will, and I can see that it is evident in your words. I would also like to warn you, however, that "15 years of study" may or may not have led you to the truth. Someone can be a miner for 15 years and never strike gold. In God's eyes, 15 years of study might be a precious treasure, or it might be worthless in His eyes, "fool's gold" as they say. I am not directing this at you personally, any more than at anyone else, and I need to remind myself of the same thing all the time.<br /><br />-John GalvinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-55507737051191780822013-03-15T15:35:38.648-07:002013-03-15T15:35:38.648-07:00Dear John (Galvin), if I wrote something insensiti...Dear John (Galvin), if I wrote something insensitive against your family, I want to apologize for it.<br /><br />I had no idea of your "backgroud". Let me tell you again: I really apprecitare big families. I love them. I wanded to have such a big family. Fortunately, God called me to Catholic priesthood to have much bigger family. :)<br /><br />And, I would like to ask you: at least try to understand my background: I come form the Czech Republic, we had to face 40 years of communism. The Catholic Church in our country is in minority.<br /><br />At least try to presume my good will. I invested my last 15 years into study of theology of marriage, NFP, TOB, family promotion etc. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906353670604457052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-65771992820438647182013-03-14T19:03:17.854-07:002013-03-14T19:03:17.854-07:00Thank you all for your comments. I think this is a...Thank you all for your comments. I think this is a fruitful discussion...for me at least!Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-65027260797283887422013-03-14T18:47:32.748-07:002013-03-14T18:47:32.748-07:00I read over what I wrote. I wasn't intending t...I read over what I wrote. I wasn't intending to be be mean referring to Margaret Sanger but this argument about men without self-control and women fearing children is exactly the argument she puts forth in her autobiography. Sue Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-32721820300435090252013-03-14T18:32:12.175-07:002013-03-14T18:32:12.175-07:00John Said, "I believe this attitude is comple...John Said, "I believe this attitude is completely wrong. Accepting children lovingly from God is the essence of marriage; it is not an option that MAY be approved after you have pronounced judgment upon the virtue of the couple."<br /><br />Exactly right. And of course, the growth in virtue comes with the acceptance of children. Couples need to dig in their heels and say. We're just going to have children come what may. With that attitude it would easy to discern real "serious reasons" should they occur.<br /><br />"Believe me, anyone who actually has a family of 12 children faces this kind of prejudice on a daily basis and the worst of it comes from the modern Catholics who have accepted family planning"<br /><br />This is so absolutely true. At least in my case. Not from the secular world, from other "Orthodox" Catholics.<br /><br />"What I see from my limited experience is that the so called "providentialiam" sometimes (not alwas) is a lack of self-control (inability to control libido) on side of a husband, masked as "marital debt", and permanent fear of pregnancy and impossibility to relax during marital embrace on side of a wife."<br /><br />READS LIKE: a line out of Margaret Sanger's Eugenics playbook.<br /><br />But granting that there is such a woman.<br />Then this couple has serious problems and her fear of children is a symptom of something far deeper. NFP is not the panacea for marital problems. It will only mask the symptoms for a while. They need a good priest and a good marriage counselor.<br />I sort have to laugh about this characterization of providentialism as an excuse for a lack of self control on the part of the husband... <br /> Do you have any idea what it is like to live in a house with a bunch of small children? When you do actually get a some privacy from them all when no one is sick or having a nightmare or colic, you find you are both just too exhausted. <br />The truth is quite the opposite, the father of a large family must have a lot self control. Sue Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-14982386821359172472013-03-14T13:22:28.128-07:002013-03-14T13:22:28.128-07:00As I was writing the above message, it occurred to...As I was writing the above message, it occurred to me that often it is difficult to communicate across the divide between providentialists and NFP supporters because we start from different first principles. Our generosity in accepting children from God (or lack thereof) is primarily a symptom of our larger view of God and of life. One point of view makes sense to the person living in one world, and the other point of view makes sense to the person living in the other world, and only with great difficulty can they communicate with each other because for each of them their own view is apodictic. <br /><br />About 10 years ago I wrote an essay for a newsletter of "Simple Living for Catholics" which explains some of my own mindset, and perhaps that of other providentialists as well. It is available on the internet at this link:<br /><br />http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031118.html<br /><br />This is the conclusion of the article:<br /><br />"Religious live out vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and Catholic families likewise live out these same virtues in a way appropriate for our own state in life. Simple living for Catholic families can be a protest against the materialist values of modern consumer society. It can be a way to afford to live a life of grace, since material concerns too often crowd out any attempt at a spiritual life. It can be a way to live out the virtue of generosity in accepting children, since those who chase after material success generally find themselves unable to "afford" more children. It can be a way to live out a spirit of self-sacrifice and mortification.<br />But it can only be these things if we put grace first, if we are Catholic first, if we make prayer and the sacraments our first priorities, if we make the effort every day to discern the will of God in our lives and to live out whatever He wants for us, not what we want for ourselves."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-72943732951424467332013-03-14T12:51:21.860-07:002013-03-14T12:51:21.860-07:00Karel wrote: "Of course I agree with the poss...Karel wrote: "Of course I agree with the possibility of "non-planning providentialism", if accepted with liberty, love, and virtue of prudence on both sides. It CAN be a vocation for selected couples."<br /><br />I believe this attitude is completely wrong. Accepting children lovingly from God is the essence of marriage; it is not an option that MAY be approved after you have pronounced judgment upon the virtue of the couple.<br /><br />Procreation and education of children is the primary purpose of marriage. All other purposes must remain secondary to this primary purpose. To interfere with this primary purpose is something that can only be justified in extreme circumstances. <br /><br />But you have reversed the situation. You have placed interference with the primary purpose of marriage as the default, and you have made God's plan for mankind to be fruitful and multiply into a possible option which you might allow only under certain conditions.<br /><br />When Pope Pius XII delivered his "Allocution to Midwives" there were at that time still millions of people displaced by WWII living in camps and places of transit. During the next few decades there were millions of Catholics living behind the Iron Curtain. Even today there are many Catholics living in Communist China who may face life-threatening persecution if they have another child.<br /><br />These people have "grave reasons" to practice periodic continence. Catholics living in affluent Western countries generally do not. Making the right judgment on this question is not a small matter. Pope Pius XII said that it is "a sin against the very nature of married life" to avoid the primary duty of marriage without sufficiently grave reasons.<br /><br />-John GalvinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-54444571041769650052013-03-14T12:32:57.505-07:002013-03-14T12:32:57.505-07:00"When the wife tells you that she has permame..."When the wife tells you that she has permament fear of pregnancy, it is not my prejudice."<br /><br />You are not talking to "providentialist" women. By your own description you live and work in a different milieu. Your description is accurate for NFP-using women but it is not accurate for women who "accept children lovingly from God." You are confusing two totally different kinds of people -- those who accept what comes from God's divine providence and those who do not.<br /><br />In our parish of traditional Catholics all the women who already have large families are trying hard to have more children before their time runs out. It is exactly the opposite of your prejudice which you get from talking to NFP-using women combined with anti-Catholic stereotypes.<br /><br />To compare it to a non-Catholic example, think of Orthodox Jewish women such as the Hasidim. Do they live in "permanent fear of preganancy"? No, they very much desire more children from God, even when they already have a large family. There are other non-Orthodox Jewish women who have only 2 or 3 children but live in "permanent fear of pregnancy" because they don't want any more. It is a serious error to confuse these two groups.<br /><br />"I have no prejudice against large familes. I ALWAYS supported them, defended them. And, I always will."<br /><br />Even when you put "always" in ALL CAPS it doesn't make it true. Just yesterday right here on this blog you repeated slanders against large traditional Catholic families. That does not equal "supported and defended them."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-66709913570688950832013-03-14T07:12:50.343-07:002013-03-14T07:12:50.343-07:00No, John, it is not my prejudice. When the wife te...No, John, it is not my prejudice. When the wife tells you that she has permament fear of pregnancy, it is not my prejudice.<br /><br />I have no prejudice against large familes. I ALWAYS supported them, defended them. And, I always will.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906353670604457052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-7584366918899652272013-03-13T08:41:26.004-07:002013-03-13T08:41:26.004-07:00I forgot to post my name at the end. -John GalvinI forgot to post my name at the end. -John GalvinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-34789161461684899632013-03-13T08:39:00.966-07:002013-03-13T08:39:00.966-07:00Karel wrote: "What I see from my limited expe...Karel wrote: "What I see from my limited experience is that the so called "providentialiam" sometimes (not always) is a lack of self-control (inability to control libido) on side of a husband, masked as "marital debt", and permanent fear of pregnancy and impossibility to relax during marital embrace on side of a wife."<br /><br />At last the real agenda is revealed -- Those Catholics who pretend to follow true Catholic tradition and accept children lovingly from God and who pretend to embrace the joyful spirit of Pope Pius XII's "Address to Large Familes" rather than searching for loopholes are in reality just hypocrites who actually are sex-crazed brutes enslaving their wives.<br /><br />Believe me, anyone who actually has a family of 12 children faces this kind of prejudice on a daily basis and the worst of it comes from the modern Catholics who have accepted family planning. Secular people just think of you as an oddity like the Duggars or the Amish, but modern Catholic priests who have justified birth control in their hearts and in their advice to their parishioners have a personal animosity and an active agenda to discredit you.<br /><br />I'm not sure how a seminarian could have seen from his experience the "impossibility to relax during marital embrace on side of a wife," but I assure you that precisely the opposite is the case, and that it is NFP that causes "permanent fear of pregnancy" and makes it "impossible to relax," and that there are no such inhibitions for "providentialists." <br /><br />Karel has revealed what is obvious to anyone who studies the matter that at the root of the NFP project are anti-Catholic stereotypes which present the Catholic father as a sex maniac and the mother as an oppressed drudge. In a movie like "My Left Foot" which is set in Ireland, you see these prejudices used against Catholics by Protestants, but since "Humanae Vitae" these same prejudices have become institutionalized in the modern Catholic Church against all those who still believe and practice what was taught by Pope Pius XII in 1958, the last year of his reign and only 4 years before Vatican II.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-48248129086521502862013-03-13T01:38:59.184-07:002013-03-13T01:38:59.184-07:00Well, "NFP is NOT required of couples, and no...Well, "NFP is NOT required of couples, and not every word every said or written by JPII is to be considered "infallible".<br /><br />I agree. I never wrote that.<br /><br />What I see from my limited experience is that the so called "providentialiam" sometimes (not alwas) is a lack of self-control (inability to control libido) on side of a husband, masked as "marital debt", and permanent fear of pregnancy and impossibility to relax during marital embrace on side of a wife.<br /><br />As I wrote, I strongly oppose the use of NFP for selfish reasons, I never met anyone in NFP-professionals group who would promote this approach. The NFP-instructors I know are the most faithful and generous couples with over-everage number of children and opennes to a new life. All of them are "funs" for large families. They welcome children as blessing. They love the Church.<br /><br />Of course I agree with the possibility of "non-planning providentialism", if accepted with liberty, love, and virtue of prudence on both sides. It CAN be a vocation for selected couples. But not every couple is able to educate and take care of 6, 7 or 12 children. There are periods of exhaustion, bad health, financial insecurity. In such a case, the NFP chosen after solid moral discernment, may be extremely helpful.<br /><br />This is my experience. To find a "traditional" Catholic who is able co communicate with patience, understanding, sense of humour, without demeaning jokes is very rare experience.<br /><br />Of course, both sides are sinners... But we have to learn how to live together and not to combat one against other as do pagans. <br /><br />Dear Jay, if I may ask you to delete the "holy cow" joke - which I find extremely demeaning - I would be very happy. <br /><br />This discussion was very interesting for me. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Catholic teaching on marriage, NFP, TOB etc. But it is, I hope, a friendly disagreement.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906353670604457052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-46927858763853817592013-03-12T15:14:23.175-07:002013-03-12T15:14:23.175-07:00The true choice we must make is the choice present...The true choice we must make is the choice presented by Moses: "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live."<br /><br />Today's Catholics are choosing death -- spiritual death by committing mortal sins, physical death by failing to fulfill the primary purpose of marriage.<br /><br />Will you join them in death, or will you be like Joshua and say, "As for me and my house, we will serve the lord."?<br /><br />Why are you afraid? Trust in God. As Pope Pius XII said in his "Address to Large Families":<br /><br />"But God also visits large families with His Providence, and parents, especially those who are poor, give clear testimony to this by resting all their trust in Him when human efforts are not enough. A trust that has a solid foundation and is not in vain! Providence — to put it in human words and ideas — is not a sum total of exceptional acts of divine pity; it is the ordinary result of harmonious activity on the part of the infinite wisdom, goodness and omnipotence of the Creator. God will never refuse a means of living to those He calls into being."<br /><br />-John GalvinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-68178802046025918932013-03-12T14:50:31.324-07:002013-03-12T14:50:31.324-07:00I know that English is not your first language, an...I know that English is not your first language, and so I thank you for the extra effort you are making to engage in a constructive discussion. I might point out, however, that your reply is dismissive, rude and misses the point of the original post. <br /><br />As for "the other part of the papal allocution," we should remember that it is not the case that the "marital rights" are possessed simply between the two partners. Pope Pius XII said rather "The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages," and therefore they have a right to expect that they not be defrauded. The number of people coming to the window of the bank and being turned away and denied their rights are much greater than just two. Society, the Church, even God Himself are coming up to the window of the bank and are being told "the bank is only open when there isn't any money and there is only any money whenever the bank is not open." What Pope Pius XII called "a sin against the very nature of married life" has resulted in population collapse in every formerly Christian nation. We are just beginning to witness the catastrophic consequences of the failure to fulfill the primary purpose of marriage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-23104655716839297332013-03-12T14:08:00.843-07:002013-03-12T14:08:00.843-07:00Heh heh...DR, I meant! I've ordained you befor...Heh heh...DR, I meant! I've ordained you before your time!Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-66232861358509632852013-03-12T13:57:31.536-07:002013-03-12T13:57:31.536-07:00False dichotomy, Fr. Skocovsky! I can accept that ...False dichotomy, Fr. Skocovsky! I can accept that the Church CURRENTLY permits periodic continence in the form of NFP; I hope and believe that this will be clarified somewhere down the line, and "grave reasons" will be defined more closely. I also hope that the immodesty and un-chastity encouraged by some promoters of NFP will be corrected, and that NFP will be seen as an emergency provision, not as a "life-style". NFP is NOT required of couples, and not every word every said or written by JPII is to be considered "infallible". I think John Galvin makes very good points, and if one considers those analogies, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that NFP is a Trojan horse in the Catholic bedroom that encourages a contraceptive (birth control) mentality, and neglects to foster an appreciation of the value of the little lives and souls that a couple denies existence by intentionally orchestrating their marital embrace to exclude the fertile times.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-49190526451826157472013-03-12T13:49:42.213-07:002013-03-12T13:49:42.213-07:00Dr. Boyd: you are inconsistent: you simply cannot ...Dr. Boyd: you are inconsistent: you simply cannot accept "the NFP for morally just reasons" AND the "absolute providentialism for all" of John Galvin.<br /><br />You have to choose: Pope or Galvin? :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906353670604457052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-80308529804426384412013-03-12T13:47:16.937-07:002013-03-12T13:47:16.937-07:00"such a denial of marital rights". This ..."such a denial of marital rights". This is NOT the case of NFP use for morally just reasons. Read the other part of the papal alocution.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906353670604457052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-65259554637846494312013-03-12T11:39:39.688-07:002013-03-12T11:39:39.688-07:00John, you should have written my book!John, you should have written my book!Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-39678594868406050002013-03-12T11:22:29.484-07:002013-03-12T11:22:29.484-07:00All of the many casuistic questions raised by NFP ...All of the many casuistic questions raised by NFP proponents can be compared to a man who is engaged in financial speculation when someone comes along and tells him, "Usury is a mortal sin." <br /><br />The man's mindset is so completely imbued with the spirit of making money from money that he says,<br /><br />"If you tell me that usury is wrong, that means that you must have another, even more complicated system of making money from money which you call something other than 'usury.' Tell me how your system works and what are all the complications and in what way you manage to make a profit without falling under the sin of usury."<br /><br />But the other man answers, "No, I have no other complicated system that makes money from money without calling it usury. I simply earn my bread by the sweat of my brow and I live a simple, frugal life without any of the luxuries that I could buy if I were to make money from money."<br /><br />The first man says, "I borrow money at 5% and lend it out at 10% and so the more money I can borrow, the more profit I can make. You must have some sort of system which involves some even more brilliant scheme which might even make me happier if I could make money without the stress and headaches of my current usury business."<br /><br />But the other man answers, "No, I don't borrow at either 5% or 10% nor do I lend any money at interest. I don't make any profits in this world, but only in the next. I don't know of any brilliant way to make your own system work even better, I simply live a completely different kind of life."<br /><br />-John GalvinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-27288715165631195982013-03-12T11:05:35.021-07:002013-03-12T11:05:35.021-07:00To simplify things even further, when we examine t...To simplify things even further, when we examine the several long lists of numbered questions submitted by Karel, they appear to be questions about the feasibility of questioning the NFP project. However, a closer look reveals that every one of these casuistic issues is created by the "contraceptive mentality" embedded in NFP. There are no such questions for the "providentialist" couple.<br /><br />Two young Catholics get married. On the day of their wedding they agree to accept whatever children God sends them. Then they don't think about it again. They don't worry about fertility cycles, either pro or con. They don't make any temperature charts or measure their mucus or try to count to 14. They are relieved from the entire burden of stress. They don't have an obligation to have as many children as possible any more than they have an option to exclude children while still enjoying the privileges of the matrimonial state. These questions never come up. They just do what comes naturally and accept the consequences.<br /><br />To modern man who wants to control every aspect of his own life, this approach might seem unthinkable. The reality, however, is that this is the way that most people have lived throughout history, and it continues to be the only way in which married men and women can enjoy God's blessings and free themselves from the needless anxiety that destroys peace of soul.<br /><br />-John GalvinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-10685337595285147432013-03-12T10:46:21.842-07:002013-03-12T10:46:21.842-07:00Karel wrote: " if one spouse does NOT want to...Karel wrote: " if one spouse does NOT want to engage in the marital embrace (due to headache or whatever), it would seem virtuous for the other spouse to take that into consideration and perhaps forego the marital embrace at that time."<br /><br />I think you could apply this "logic of love" or "logic of virtue" on moral NFP use."<br /><br />No, there is a crucial difference between the two situations. One is a temporary inconvenience. The other is a denial of a fundamental right which results in the frustration of the primary purpose of marriage.<br /><br />You could compare it to a bank, a small bank with only one teller, and when you come to get your money, the teller is out eating lunch. Then you come back a few minutes later and get your money. This was not a denial of your rights nor did it frustrate the purpose of having a bank in the first place.<br /><br />But if you come to the bank and they refuse to give you your money, then this is theft. This is a denial of your right to your money. This frustrates the primary purpose for having a bank.<br /><br />But let's say that there is a bank (again a very small bank) which has money available only on Tuesdays and Thursdays, So you say to yourself, "Okay, I will just plan ahead to make sure I am ready to go to the bank on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But when you go to the bank, they tell you that they are closed on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and they are only open on Mondays and Wednesdays. <br /><br />"This is crazy," you say. "The bank is only open on Mondays and Wednesdays, but it only has money on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so the bank is never open when it has money. You are denying me the right to access my money."<br /><br />"On no we're not," says the bank. You can come in any Monday or Wednesday and we will be happy to talk to you. And we would be happy to give you your money on any Tuesday or Thursday if only the bank weren't closed on those days."<br /><br />As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "That's some catch, that Catch-22."<br /><br />Pope Pius XII said that such a denial of marital rights by one party to the marriage could even invalidate the marriage:<br /><br />"If one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid, because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other."<br /><br />-John GalvinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com