Chastity and Rhythm
A Mother's View
"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women." Mary was troubled at the Angel Gabriel's words. Why? According to St. Alphonsus, it was due to her profound humility that she was troubled by his words of high praise. The angel, knowing this, reassures her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a Son; and thou shalt call His name Jesus."
Mary's only question was, "How shall this happen, since I do not know man?" She was making sure this apparition was truly of God for He would protect her solemn vow of virginity. Then the angel once again reassures her with the awesome truth. "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; and therefore the Holy One to be born shall be called the Son of God."
Mary's response was beautifully simple. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." And the Infinite became a Babe confined in her womb for love of us. Her simple "God's will be done" brought us salvation.
But what is this to me and thee? We are all quite familiar with the Annunciation and are thankful for it, no doubt. But what else can we draw from this first Joyful Mystery? Ah, Mary's perfect example shows us the way for our own motherhood and the relation we must have with God. When asked by God to welcome another soul into our families through whatever means, but usually by our husband's amorousness, when we know conception is most likely, what do we say? Certainly Mary's one question isn't applicable since we do "know" our spouse. The problem is, she didn't ask any others! She didn't even say, "What will Joseph think?" or "Let me consult my mother or my cousin to see if they think I can handle a child right now." She didn't put up the excuse that their house just wasn't big enough or that they were having to go off to Bethlehem in nine months so this would be inconvenient. How about waiting three or four months and checking back then?
No, our God-given perfect example of motherhood, our own Mother, just said, "Whatever your want, dear Father." In her humility, she recognized that God knew better than she did what was good for her, her spouse and all humanity. She acknowledged with these words that if God asked this of her, He would take care of the details. One of the most pressing would be St. Joseph's understandable confusion at his wife's growing tummy.
And so, may we pray to trust our Heavenly Father in all things unreservedly, knowing He is all-loving and all-wise, wanting only our eternal happiness and that of our spouse and family. Mary's "yes" gave us Christ. Perhaps our trusting "yes" will be rewarded with a saint for our family.
Now, I'd like to share a bit from an out-of-print book that has both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur, and was copyrighted 1962. Written by a fellow mom, who obviously had a deep love of God and the grace of surrendering all to Him—the sign of the saints, and isn't that what we all want to be? Let's ponder this together. It is a bit long but with each paragraph my eyes opened wider in wonderment and I longed to share it with some friends. I couldn't leave anything out—it was all so shockingly significant and the antithesis of modern society's thinking. How could something so old be so new to me? Anyway, forgive its length but won't you please spend a few minutes with me and our guardian angels, to discover the Church's teachings on the beautiful responsibility in parenting—sharing in creation.
Chastity and Rhythm
Periodic abstinence from marriage relations, or rhythm, although not a deliberate frustration of the natural purpose of the conjugal act, does not always add to the sanctity and happiness of marriage. As a matter of fact, there are some circumstances which make the practice of rhythm sinful. And so, before we commend ourselves too highly on our virtuous self-control, we should pause to realize that such self-control is merely allowed if there are justifiable reasons; and whether these justifiable reasons are temporary or without time limit.
For example there are certain circumstances which would justify the use of the safe period only temporarily and among these would be: the temporary weakness or illness of the mother; after a recent pregnancy; because of frequent pregnancies too close together; temporary economic difficulties and for the establishing of mutual agreement between partners who may agree over intercourse but not over a new pregnancy in the near future.
Only more serious circumstances justify the use of the safe period without time limit and among these are: a grave endangering of the wife's health from pregnancy; the likelihood of children being stillborn or defective; reasonable fear of miscarriage; incurable, hereditary disease; grave economic difficulties resulting from an addition to the family.
Although most of us have a fairly good idea of the circumstances which govern our lives, we often have the habit of letting a false sense of values color these circumstances. So, before we whimsically resort to the practice of rhythm for whatever reason, and however justifiable it may seem to us, we should take the problem to our confessor for advice and guidance.
We should ponder, too, the words of Pope Pius XII as he warns those who would resort to the use of rhythm as a means of escaping the responsibilities of marriage:
If, however, in the light of a reasonable and fair judgment, there are no such serious personal reasons, or reasons deriving form external personal reasons, or reasons deriving from external circumstances, then the habitual intention to avoid the fruitfulness of the union, while at the same time continuing to satisfy sensual intent, can only arise from a false appreciation of life and from motives that run counter to true standards of moral conduct.
Another quote of Pope Pius XII on the use of rhythm is worth interjecting here:
Nevertheless, the moral licitness of such conduct on the part of the couple would have to be approved or denied according as to whether or not the intention of observing those periods [of sterility] constantly was based on sufficient and secure moral grounds. The mere fact that the couple do not offend the nature of the act and are prepared to accept and bring up the child which in spite of their precautions came into the world would not be sufficient in itself to guarantee the rectitude of intention and the unobjectionable morality of the motives themselves.
And so our marriage cannot be conformed to God's plan if rhythm is whimsically used solely to foster the material success of our marriage. We cannot truthfully call our marriage virtuous if we deliberately time our love-making with the intentions of combining a fruitless marriage with a successful career. Although it is true that such a discreet way of avoiding pregnancy does not frustrate the natural end of the conjugal act, it is just as true that it can frustrate the primary end of marriage—raising a family.
The transgression here is against charity rather than against chastity. We cannot profess to love God if we continually refuse to conform our marriage to His divine will. Perfect charity, since it must be devoid of selfishness, demands that our conjugal love be a means of cooperating with God's creative plan as well as a means of expressing conjugal love by physical union. If the intentions motivating the practice of rhythm are primarily selfish, having as their sole end the avoidance of pregnancy, it naturally follows that we may also tend to seek and obtain this end by an uncharitable disregard for our spouse's spiritual well-being.
Lacking mutual consent, the imposition of abstinence by one spouse upon another is also a sin against justice. Justice is violated because the very contract of marriage is violated. Since the marriage contract is an agreement whereby those married freely yield to and accept from each other the exclusive right to the marriage act, neither married partner has the right to impose continence upon the other against his or her reasonable wishes. This can be a grave injustice if one partner's wishes happen to be conformed to God's will in regard to accepting any children He may choose to send.
Wives, especially, often deserve a reprimand for this transgression although we hear of husbands who are so solicitous for the things of the world that they refuse their wives nothing—except the privilege of motherhood.
Paradoxically, rhythm can be a potential threat to the virtue of chastity, especially to the chastity of the spouse upon whom continence is imposed. If, within marriage, the legitimate satisfaction of the concupiscent appetite is denied a partner, he or she may fall prey to the temptations to commit adultery or any of the various other sins against chastity. Here again, if the practice of rhythm is motivated solely by a selfish desire to avoid pregnancy, our presumably virtuous abstinence may turn against us and become no more than an excuse either to resort to the use of contraceptives, or to the un-protested consent of their use.
Finally, a deliberately prolonged avoidance of pregnancy, even by voluntary continence, shows our lack of faith in God and trust in His divine Providence. Christ has emphatically told us who have such little faith: "But seek first the kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be given you besides" (Mt. 6:34).
God proves His loving paternal care for us over and over when even the most grave reasons for avoiding pregnancy miraculously improve for those who offer their conjugal love as a pure unselfish gift to Him as proof of their love for Him and trust in Him.
Current Issue
