Notes on Casti Connubii and rhythm

Casti Connubili in 1930 DID approve rythm which this website eroneously states otherwise,Verse 59
"Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of time or of certain defects new life cannot be brought forth,For in matrimony as well as in the USE OF MATRIMONIAL RIGHTS there are secondary ends such as mutual aid,mutual love.........so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved"

I know the church^s teaching on marriage & sexuality has changed & I^m not getting involved in the NFP vs ABC debate but don^t spread misinformation.Look it up if you don^t believe me,Verse 59 Sincerely
Cardinal Ratzinger

It was not at all apparent to the theologians of this time that the use of the sterile periods was a natural act and therefore obviously morally correct. Orville Griese, an American moral theologian, asked himself whether rhythm as a way of life could be considered objectively good or indifferent. He answered that in a way of life "in which sterile days are chosen precisely because they are sterile, and fertile days avoided precisely because they are fertile, the human will does positively and efficaciously exclude the primary purpose of marriage in the use of the marriage right." ("Objective Morality of the Rhythm Practice", p. 477) And he distinguished this practice from that of couples who are sterile due to age or physical defect. For Griese rhythm is per se illicit but can be permitted if there is some excusing cause. Somewhat the same opinion was held by the Louvain theologian Salsman who also felt that the exclusive use of the marital act on days known to be sterile positively excluded the primary end of marriage. The couple not only prescind from generation but positively exclude it.

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions… [Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 16]

For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality. [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2368]

So, clearly, is it not often illicit for NFP'ers to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions?

I see many large families living on the edge of poverty and yet, with God's grace and their own hard work and determination, raising their children to be responsible, productive and faith-filled adults. What are the physical or psychological or external conditions that are providing the serious motives to most NFP'ers nowadays in so far as average family size seems to be shrinking across the board?

At any rate, this NFP logic is consistent with the view that NFP IS contraceptive.

I've just checked what the web page actually says about this, which follows: The encyclical was ambiguous in condoning natural forms of contraception, affirming the importance of love between husband and wife, "provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a while and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof."

That doesn't seem to be saying that Casti Conubii forbade rhythm, and it does acknowledge that there was some ambiguity about this which needed to be clarified.

Unless I can be shown another reference on the web site where it is stated that CC forbade rhythm, I won't be changing anything.