Dear George:

I do not have the time to examine Casti Connubi thoroughly but I did do a word search and the word "contraception" is not in that document. The word "conceive" is in the document twice, but does not refer to permitting contraception.

In glancing over the document, I did catch a few statements that apply to this subject (passages in bold are my emphasis:

58. As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.

59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those 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 of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

60. We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children.

61. However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian Faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent. "Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you."[48]

63. But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic "indication." Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the "indication," which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

64. As to the "medical and therapeutic indication" to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: "Thou shalt not kill:"[50] The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the "law of extreme necessity" which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

I suspect that the interpretation you mentioned comes from the beginning to paragraph 59: "Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin."

This passage must be interpreted in light of the rest of the document. The Pope later says "No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil." In addition, other papal documents must be considered, such as Humanae Vitae. ALL documents must be interpreted in the context of all other documents. We cannot interpret out of context or in isolated consideration of passages. This is what is typically done by Protestants to twist Scripture to fit what they have already decided to believe.

I cannot see where the Pope is saying that contraception is okay because the husband insists upon it.Indeed the Pope could not make such an authorization since the prohibition of contraception is an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Thus, this teaching cannot be altered by anyone, not even a Pope. If the Pope did in fact make an exception to the teaching on contraception, then please let me know the paragraph number in the document so I can read it.

Otherwise, contraception is a moral evil and cannot be justified under ANY circumstances. Sometimes we have to make hard decisions. If a husband (or a wife) insists upon contraception the only moral decision to make is to refuse -- even if it causes martial discord.

The following old cliches accurately illustrates the Catholic position on moral decisions:

the ends do not justify the means (even if there is a good result, how that result is facilitated matters. We cannot permit an immoral means even if it results in a good end.)

We must seek a good end, but we must always reach that end by moral means. Not getting pregnant may be a good end for a woman who is in medical danger if she becomes pregnant. But, the good end of avoiding pregnancy in this case cannot be achieved through immoral means.

Rather couples in this situation can either use Natural Family Planning or they can abstain from sex. Either of these options are acceptable. Contraception or sterilization are NEVER acceptable.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary