Host: In other words, if the Catholic Church teaches family planning, why allow only the natural method? Why not the condom, the pill, etc?

Guest: As long as the Church spokesmen give the impression that the regulation of birth is a doctrine, then their stand is identical with that of the UN. The difference is only on the “how".

Host: How did they send these wrong signals?

Guest: One letter of instruction was entitled “The Regulation of Birth,” the doctrinal basis was vague and the spiritual end of marriage that will justify the regulation of birth was nowhere.

In a later letter of instruction, the doctrine was clear and the concession was clear. But the document profusely praised those who observed the concession but had no praises for those who observed the doctrine.

If you were the reader what impression would you get?

Host: That the regulation of birth is the doctrine.

Guest: If this is so, the use of the condom is closer to the teaching of St. Paul on marriage than the Natural Method, since it fulfills the purpose of marriage in “rendering the debt” when needed, which the Natural Method cannot fulfill.

Host: St. Paul said: “If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?” Does the Church’s trumpet sound unclear?

Guest: Yes. Catholics are being called to make a stand but the doctrinal basis of the stand is not clear.

Host: In this interview, I hope we can clarify this issue once and for all. How do you intend to go about this?

Guest: First, let us explain Christian Life and its goal. Without this, nothing in Church teachings make sense.

Then, secondly, we shall see the role of marriage in Christian Living.

Then, thirdly, we shall see how we can abstain without going against the purpose of marriage and the principles of Christian living.

B. CHRISTIAN LIVING

A brief Bird’s Eye-view of Christian Living.

Host: What is the Catholic way of life?

Guest: It is a way of life made in heaven and brought down to earth for imitation.

Host: Is this why Christ became man?

Guest: Yes, since no man can teach this way of life, it being a life OVER and ABOVE the nature of man.

Host: No wonder the Fathers called it the “Angelic Life”.

Guest: And St. Augustine called it the “Happy Life”.

Host: And because this way of life was written down in the Gospel we ordinarily call it the Evangelical Life… ?

Guest: Yes.

Host: Now, briefly describe this way of life.

Guest: It consists in the observance of ALL the commands of Christ.

Host: The 10 commandments?

Guest: Heavens NO! The 10 Commandments were for the Old Testament. Christ gave a new set of commandments in the New Testament; they are more perfect than the old 10 Commandments.

Host: But I am still struggling through the 10 Commandments.

Guest: That makes you a fine Jew, but far from being a good Christian.

Host: Without going through all the commands of Christ, what is the first command – sort of the first step in Christian living.

Guest: To deny oneself.

Host: Deny oneself? Now, why should we do that?

Guest: Because, if we don’t, we will end up choosing our own will rather than God’s will.

Host: And what’s wrong with that?

Guest: That’s what some angels and Adam and Eve did.

Host: O…oh.

Guest: And this is the test we undergo every moment here on earth.

Host: So the reason we should deny ourselves is…?

Guest: To develop self-discipline so that, faced with a test like Abraham, we shall choose God’s will.

Host: What must we deny ourselves of?

Guest: Firstly, of all evil things; then of indifferent things; then we must give up GOOD THINGS

Host: I understand why God wants us to give up evil things. But also good things…?

Guest: God commanded Abraham to give up his only son, Isaac; a son is a very good thing, isn’t it?

Host: Well, yes.

Guest: And Christ commanded us to leave father, mother, wife and children… which are good things.

Host: Why?

Guest: Because God wants us to love Him above all good things.

Host: And He told us to be willing to give up our own lives.

Guest: Which are also good things… yes. And He also told us to give up marriage, a good thing, for the sake of the kingdom.

Host: Didn’t God tell us to go and multiply.

Guest: You seem to be bogged down with Old Testament spirituality. Yes, that’s so in the Old Testament but NOT in the New Testament. By His example, Christ introduced to us the life of Virginity.

Host: Come to think of it, the model for all the Catholic families is the Holy Family; and all of them were virgins.

Guest: And even though Joseph and Mary were married, ”they behaved as if they were not, " ab initio".

Host: Then why was marriage allowed in the New Testament and blessed by Christ at Cana?

Guest: As a concession for the weakness of human nature. But it must be embraced according to the norms of the New Dispensation and not apart from it. This way, marriage becomes a great help in Christian living.

C. CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

The Role of Marriage in Christian Living.

Host: Is there a difference between marriage in the Old Testament and marriage in the New Testament?

Guest: Oh yes. Their goals are different.

Host: Really? I thought all men marry for the same reason. What was the goal of marriage in the Old Testament?

Guest: The first purpose was the spiritual hope of every Jewish girl to be the mother of the Messiah. The second was to fill the earth.

Host: And these are no longer the purposes of marriage?

Guest: The Messiah has been born and the earth is full.

Host: What is the purpose of marriage in the New Testament?

Guest: The primary and spiritual purpose of marriage in the New Testament is – as an AID in the attainment and preservation of CHASTITY resulting in children born for the Kingdom of God.

Host: Is it marriage that makes husband and wife chaste?

Guest: No, no. Christian living makes couples chaste; marriage is an aid to Christian living for the attainment and preservation of chastity.

Host: Is this what St. Paul meant when he said “to keep the marriage bed undefiled?”

Guest: Yes. For chastity is the foundation of a blissful and happy relationship between husband and wife and the perfect ambiance for the upbringing of children.

Christians must have some degree of chastity before marriage.

Host: The members of the Holy Family were all chaste.

Guest: A figure of the Church, a foretaste of heaven. Without chastity, marriage becomes an intolerable burden.

Host: How does marriage help in the attainment, preservation and even in the perfection of chastity?

Guest: God gave man the desire to marry . But because of his fallen nature this desire got “out of hand”. St. Paul describes this as “burning” with passion.

Host: And this leads to…

Guest: Serious sins of adultery or fornication.

Host: So God allowed marriage in the New Testament…

Guest: …to weaken down this “burning” passion so it will be easier for man to control it and attain chastity.

Host: Is chastity the mere avoidance of fornication and adultery?

Guest: No. Chastity is MORE.

Host: What is it in marriage that weakens the passions?

Guest: The “rendering of the marital debt, ” St. Paul states.

Host: How serious is this obligation to ”render the marital debt?”

Guest: It is so serious Paul called it a “debt;” you owe it to the other. It belongs to the other by right; and you have no say in this. And not to render the debt is “defrauding”. (This is the word used in the Vulgate.)

Host: The Fathers of the Church, I recall, even say that he who refuses to render the debt is already guilty of adultery. How come?

Guest: Because this is why you marry – to avoid adultery. By refusing to render the debt you are driving your spouse to adultery.

Host: Would I still be guilty even if my spouse does not commit adultery?

Guest: Yes.

Host: Are you saying the “marital debt” must be rendered ALWAYS as long as the other NEEDS it?

Guest: Not only when the other needs it, but even if the other merely WANTS it. The one who "burns" has the right which the other must oblige under pain of sin.

Host: My, this looks more like self-indulgence rather than self-denial which you mentioned as the first step of Christian living.

Guest: Submission for the spiritual welfare of your spouse by rendering the ”marital debt,” being an act of obedience to St. Paul’s admonition, is an act of self-denial.

Host: And this will help me develop self-discipline?

Guest: Yes, in that you are training yourself NOT to do what you like but to do what has to be done in accordance to God’s commands.

Host: And where will self-discipline lead me?

Guest: To the virtue of chastity, the GOOD in marriage.

D. THE DOCTRINE AND THE CONCESSION

Abstention is a Concession to the Concession

Host: Briefly, what is the teaching of the Church on the Regulation of Birth.

Guest: The “Gospel of Life” states it thus:

“Obedient to the Lord’s Call

“Faithful interpreter of God’s Plan.

And God’s call and command is that we follow Christ who came a virgin in body and soul. So we should do like wise. This is the doctrine.

NOW, this is the concession. If you cannot be a virgin in body and soul, like Christ, then you may marry. But be “open to new lives,” not merely because it is life but more because they are probable candidates for heaven. In other words, do nothing to prevent or postpone the birth of a child. If God says, “Have a child,” be obedient. Because if that is God’s will, you will have a child whether you like or not.

And to attain the goal of marriage, you must NEVER abstain… EXCEPT for a “serious and moral reason”* and ONLY with the consent of the spouse.

(*"Gospel of Life" by Pope John Paul II)

Host: So abstention is a concession to the concession?

Guest: Yes. And knowing human nature, give it much concession and it will abuse. So this concession must be advised under very strict norms.

E. ABSTENTION

Abstention is NOT allowed unless for a serious and moral reason. To regulate birth is NOT a Moral and serious reason.

Host: Are you saying couples should not abstain?

Guest: Yes. Because abstention defeats the purpose of marriage. But if one has a moral and serious reason, one may abstain, of course, with the consent of the other spouse.

Host: What is a moral reason?

Guest: A reason that is spiritually more beneficial and, therefore, superior to the original purpose of marriage.

Host: Be more specific.

Guest: Marriage is for the avoidance of evil and the attainment of good. Abstention is allowed for the avoidance of a GREATER evil or the attainment of a GREATER GOOD.

These two are the moral and serious intentions for abstention, NOT the regulation of birth.

Host: Is the attainment of a greater good SUPERIOR to the avoidance of evil?

Guest: Yes. In other words, we may expose a spouse to fornication or adultery in our quest for a greater good. After all, avoiding evil merely saves us from going to hell but it is doing good that brings us to heaven.

Host: Can you give an example wherein abstention is allowed for the avoidance of a GREATER evil?

Guest: To discourage unnatural acts, or bestial and perverted practices in marriage, one may abstain.

Host: But won’t that drive the perverted spouse to adultery.

Guest: Yes, but bestiality is worse than adultery.

Host: What if the spouse commits adultery?

Guest: In life we often have to settle for the lesser evil.

Our attitude towards our spouses must be ‘If I cannot lead you to heaven, I won’t let you drag me to hell.’

Host: Can you give a reason of Charity.

Guest: The example of Barbie Acarie, a housewife who had a backbone defect that made rendering the debt extremely painful. Out of charity for her, the husband observed perpetual abstinence.

Host: Wasn’t that difficult for the husband?

Guest: Impossible… if he were not a religious man. But being a holy man himself, like his wife, St. Barbie, it was easy.

Host: Everything is easy for saints. But what if he had a difficult time at self-control…

Guest: Then Barbie was obliged to submit.

Host: Is there a MORE charitable reason for abstention?

Guest: An even nobler reason is St. Paul’s encouragement “to abstain” IN ORDER TO PRAY that our prayers may be made more pleasing to God.

Host: Does St. Paul specify whether the abstention should be during the fertile period or not?

Guest: No; precisely because this was NOT meant for the regulation of birth but for prayer.

Host: What if one is unable to control?

Guest: St. Paul states that they must go together immediately “lest Satan tempts you” to adultery.

Host: Having seen the nobler reason, I suppose there is a ‘NOBLEST’ reason for abstention.

Guest: Yes. Love of God. It is total abstention for the attainment of holiness. It is becoming eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.

Host: Just like the Holy Family.

Guest: Just like the Holy Family. Thus, St Paul told the unmarried “to remain as I am,” in imitation of the members of the Holy Family, while encouraging the married to behave as if they were not married that they may approximate the Holy Family.

Host: I have some friends who practice the Natural Family Planning method. Do they have a moral and serious reason for abstaining?

Guest: Why do they abstain?

Host: Mainly for financial reasons; they cannot afford to support a child yet. Or there is the popular mentality that they can attend to their children better if properly spaced.

Guest: These are NOT moral and serious reasons; these are excuses.

Keep in mind that the rules of marriage are instituted by God. When we die our marriage will be judged by the rules of God and not by the laws of men.

F. CAPITALISTIC MATERIALISM

The Breeding of Modern Sexual Morality and Family Planning

Host: What do you think of the Family Planning movement?

Guest: A heresy initiated by those with exultant energy who are resolved to enjoy themselves with neither Pope nor conscience to hold them back.

Host: Where did this come from? From Paganism?

Guest: No. From the heart of Christians with a narrow and limited view of sexuality.

Host: What is sexuality?

Guest: It is an instinct that produces an institution. Being a creation of God it is positive, not negative; it is noble, not base; creative, not destructive.

Host: And what institution does it create?

Guest: The FAMILY, which once established has nothing sexual in it. Instead worship, justice, festivity, decorum and response dwell in it.

Host: How is sexuality related to the family.

Guest: Sexuality is like the gate of the house; the family is the house and larger than the gate. Modern man tends to stand by the gate without entering the house.

Host: Talking about the origins of Family Planning, undoubtedly man had been doing this since he was created. But modern family planning, as practiced today and even propagated by the U.N., where did this come from?

Guest: From the breeding grounds of Materialistic Capitalism. Man’s thrust towards a capitalistic economy is what battered the family, making family planning desirable.

Host: And what is it in Capitalism that is anti-family, specially anti-child?

Guest: Their idea that the birth of a child is bad for the economy.

Host: Is there really a surplus in the population?

Guest: Over population is the rationalization of the capitalists. And their conclusion is that everybody else is surplus except themselves. If they want to reduce population why don’t they all jump into a lake.

Host: Isn’t Family Planning based on the Malthusian theory on the geometric growth of populations?

Guest: Man had been killing for the weirdest reasons. Some killed babies as offerings to their gods , others to fatten their pigs for their fiestas. Now I am told to kill my baby for the sake of a theory by a weirdo. Do you know who he is?

Host: Well, I have heard of him in my Economics class. But, really, no.

Guest: He was a man who wanted to enhance capitalism by oppressing the poor. He was against social reforms; he discouraged giving to the poor. He did not want the poor to attain a better status.

Host: What was his theory?

Guest: In short, he stated that the poor must be discouraged from breeding so that poverty will not spread.

Host: Putting it another way, we must not propagate so we can prosper materially.

Guest: Right. I don’t know how a theory that hates social reform becomes a battle cry for social progress.

Host: How did this happen?

Guest: Well, like everybody else, the people at that time wanted to devise a social reform program to make life less miserable and, if possible, more prosperous for their offspring. But like most social programs, it turned sour due to the bungling of corrupt bureaucrats. Unable to reduce the misery of the population they decided to reduce the population.

Host: Why, that’s like saying if you can only feed 10 out of 50, kill the 40.

Guest: That’s putting it kindly. What they are saying is if they have a toothache chop off their heads.

Host: If you cut off their heads, they don’t need a dentist.

Guest: Precisely. If there are no children you don’t need a social program: you only need homes for the aged.

Host: What do you say is Malthus’ theory on the geometric growth of population?

Guest: It was an arbitrary statement without any basis in fact and totally inapplicable to living creatures, specially man who possesses free will.

Host: Come to think of it, animals who are ruled by pure instinct do not grow geometrically and plants that produce sometimes thousand of seeds, like papaya, do not grow geometrically either.

Guest: And primitive tribes who never heard of family planning are NOT over-populated. In fact, their numbers are very reasonable. It is capitalist nations that practice birth control who have “problems” on population.

Host: Would you consider Malthus the precursor of family planning?

Guest: No. He was just a capitalist propagating a capitalistic theory to increase profits.
Proponents of Family Planning are not capitalists but use capitalistic rationalizations to propagate their views.

Host: Do you mean to say Malthus’ theory was just an economic theory?

Guest: And a very bad one at that. His reasoning went this way:

If you give a laborer a high wage, he will have surplus and, therefore, he will marry and have children. Capitalism will be forced to raise his wages further to provide for those children, thus reducing profits. So don’t give them high wages so that they won’t marry and have children.

Host: This is how family planning entered the picture of capitalism.

Guest: From the laborer’s point of view it goes this way: right now, with my salary, I am just renting a room. If I want to have my own house, I must postpone having children, otherwise I would be renting forever.

Host: And since man’s worldly desires are interminable, he could postpone having children indefinitely.

Guest: When he gets his house, he will now say, “If I want a bigger house I will have to postpone further having children.” Well, at least, Malthus’ theory stops here.

Host: And the proponents of Family Planning…?

Guest: They went one step further. They say: “If while aiming for a bigger house you happen to bear an unwanted child, get rid of the darn thing.”
Between not wanting to have a child and killing the child is a very thin line.


G. FAMILY PLANNING TODAY

The New Holocaust

Host: How do they think?

Guest: They say: “Since we are not willing to deprive ourselves of the pleasures of life, so let us deprive ourselves of children.”

Host: Before, only the poor thought this way but now even the moneyed think this way.

Guest: The poor never thought this way. It is the lovers of pleasures, whether rich or poor, who think this way.

Host: But they still blame economics, saying that the state cannot sustain more children.

Guest: By the devil’s name, the state never sustains children. It’s the parents who do this and without any help from the state.

Host: Would you say capitalism, nevertheless, is the fertile breeding ground for this mentality?

Guest: This is how I see it: fallen nature struck at the human race; capitalism struck at the family; and hedonism struck at the child.

Host: How did capitalism strike at the family?

Guest: The husband spends most of his time with his officemates, the wife obeys somebody else’s husband in the office rather than her own. The children are educated by other parents rather than their own.

Host: How can you develop family ties that way?

Guest: You cannot. And this encourages family break ups because the domestic virtues are treated with contempt.

Host: It seems the family has no chance of surviving in this modern world.

Guest: It is all out war on the family; and as in any war the first victims are the children.

Host: I feel something more sinister and evil in family planning. Can you put your finger on it?

Guest: The proponents of family planning are men without self-control. What motivates them comes from those dark forces within man, forces so unclean, so unpleasant, so unnatural that has made man, more often than not, worse than beasts.

But those same forces placed under the control of God’s grace can make man like unto angels.

Host: What made those dark forces come out of man?

Guest: They are born of a society living in excess, a sign of dying industrialism.

Host: What kind of human beings does this kind of society produce?

Guest: Young boys and girls floating in a sea of sentimental sloppiness where painting one’s face is natural and having no children is courage, where friendship is dreary hypocrisy.

Host: How does this affect their view on children?

Guest: Unable to handle their meaningless lives, they see children as meaningless burdens.

Host: This is despair.

Guest: Only the Catholic Faith has the optimism that makes life meaningful for ourselves and for our children.

Host: And the proponents of Family Planning purport to deliver a happier future.

Guest: A dismal hope. The future promises neither to be happier nor more humane.
These people who are promising the garden of Eden are victims of a thoroughly bad psychology of which the world had gone weary two thousand years ago.

Host: To whom can you compare them?

Guest: To the Epicureans who vomit at intervals what they have eaten so that they may eat as much as they want. Similarly, they vomit the child to have as much pleasure as they want.

Host: It’s like striking a match and hating the light.

Guest: Or throwing a stone into a pond and hating the ripples.

Host: Why, this is a perversion!

Guest: And like all perversion, nowadays they are given socially acceptable names. The Epicureans would have called it DIET CONTROL.

Host: So what is the of philosophy behind Family Planning?

Guest: They have no philosophy. Theirs is an act of pure sentimentalism from thwarted minds produced by a corrupt society.

Host: I am witness to priests who write and speak out in the defense of Family Planning.

Guest: Some statements of churchmen are enough to cause an archangel to be cast out of heaven or for a young boy to have his mouth washed with soap. These churchmen should never have become priests.

Host: Why do they speak that way?

Guest: Because of their inner cravings for marriage and poor spirituality. These are causing them to lose control of their lust. These in turn are reflected in their opinions.

Add to this their laziness to consult the Traditional Church doctrine and neglect of their responsibility as spiritual fathers.

Host: Why do they still speak out when they have nothing to say?

Guest: For the vanity of outshining others and to challenge traditional doctrines resulting in a state that reflects loose thinking and confused morals.

H. CONCLUSION

Host: What must we do?

Guest: Catholics must improve in their knowledge and practice of their Catholic religion. Or, at least, adapt the Christian concept of Capitalism. Modern capitalism is not only anti-family; it is anti-Christ.

Host: And this successfully destroyed family life?

Guest: Yes: now it is aiming at the unborn child.

Host: How does this un-Christian capitalism attack the family?

Guest: The way the devil attacked the first family… by concentrating on Eve, the wife. Capitalism kills the motherhood in mothers by convincing them that women are free when they serve economics but slaves when they serve their families. And so their desire to land a job outside the home is their escape from motherhood to become slaves of total strangers.

Host: This can suppress the mother’s instinct. Is this what makes them eventually dislike children?

Guest: Yes, and they euphemistically call it BIRTH CONTROL supporting their dislike through quack medicine and backyard science… ignoring the fact that God alone is the author of life and death, that God alone chooses who will have children and who will not.

Host: And if God continuously thwart their wills by giving them children…

Guest: They are left with the easier alternative – to kill the unborn child.

Host: We seem to be engaged in that eternal battle between good and evil, between God’s will and man’s will; and man’s continuous rebellion against Him who knows best.

Guest: It is sad that the family, the basic unit of the state, is attacked by this very state as it aims at capitalism. And the family, the basic unit of the Church, is left unprotected by the very Church that encourages it to be like the Holy Family.

Host: How do you foresee the final battle between the proponents of family planning and the defenders of the Papal teaching will turn out.

Guest: The more the proponents of family planning practice birth control, the fewer they will be in the final battle.

Host: Can you say your parting words.

Guest: Thank you.

The family is a divine institution ruled by divine laws. And God established it to be our harbor of safety and repose in this ever evil-growing world.

For our family to be so, it must approximate the Holy Family where LIFE was brought forth without LUST, so contrary to today that promotes LUST without LIFE.

Host: The least we can probably do is equal the animals who LUST with LIFE.

I don’t think many Catholics will like this Papal teaching on the regulation of birth.

Guest: The Pope, like Christ and His Church, is legislating ONLY for those who wish to go to heaven. Those who do not care what happens to their souls would not bother with these teachings.

The Church must come out with her pure and uncompromising teachings to see, once and for all, who are her true children. There are many Christians who do not want to compromise. They want to walk the full mile. These are the ones who could be the backbone, the elite of the Church. But they are left without direction.

Churchmen speak about the regulation of birth but rarely on chastity in marriage. They present the Holy Family as the model family but do not teach how to be chaste virgins like Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Gratitude and praises are lavished on those who promote the “natural method” but none for those couples “who behave as if they are not married.”

It is wise pedagogy that we legislate for the lost sheep for Christ, Himself, left the ninety-nine to go after one lost sheep. But we don’t have ninety-nine. In the Church, we must first have true apostles and disciples, those who live the fullness of the commands of Christ. For they make up the Church and they alone can go after the lost sheep.

(updated 01-03-02)