"ASCETICS" OF THE SO-CALLED "NATURAL FAMILY
headline of the article on page four of the Italian newspaper,
Filrouge-Filo diretto con, caught our attention:
"Natural family planning methods as a way to humanization."
After having affirmed "the precision as well as the
validity" of the so-called natural methods of contraception,
the article goes on to illustrate the "...depth of
the value of these methods, which are not to be considered
as a simple technique, free of side effects, (and) specifically
meant to avoid procreation."
matter of fact, the article explains, these methods constitute,
or are to be understood as being methods of asceticism:
of self-control, that is, the ability to restrain our
instinctive sexual urges, not for the sake of repressing
them outright, but...in order to submit them to the control
of reason and to direct them in view of that which is
what is that "view of that which is good"? It
is simply that interpersonal love shared by the spouses
themselves, "...only he or she who is able to dominate
his or her sexual urges is able to love," since, "...those
instinctive sexual urges press every human being to satisfy
both his physical and emotional needs, and to come together
in fruitful union of his beloved 'spouse.'" And this
is why it is necessary:
self-control which is able to achieve a self-renunciation
in favor of a much higher and greater good: the love shared
by the husband and wife….. This interior attitude predisposing
one to sacrifice in view of a higher good is a characteristic
mark of a liberated person: free of external as well as
of internal (sexual urges) conditioning and also free
to fulfill their love-centered way of "conjugal"
therefore - being much more than a form of birth control
technique - consist in a couple's way of life with regard
to their sexuality…People can become educated to this
lifestyle by instruction in these natural (birth control)
methods, which thus become an opportunity for (spiritual)
growth for those married couples who take this road with
commitment and who place themselves under the direction
of qualified counselors for guidance in these methods...
so, here we are in the presence of a Malthusian mentality
which considers the "good of posterity" (bonum
prolis) as an evil to be avoided, a mentality presently
spread unchecked far and wide in that Catholic world which
is now becoming more and more "an enemy of the Cross"
(St. Paul). Moreover, this contraceptive mentality is now
going about disguised, all the better to seduce souls, in
the habit of an ascetic.
way, birth control is presented sub specie boni,
that is to say, under the facade of respectability and of
righteousness. However, under the "ascetic's"
garb, flashes a devil's tail: for, in fact, this is a question
of an "asceticism" which flies in the face of
the most elementary principle of true Catholic asceticism,
a false austerity taking no account whatsoever of the Magisterium
of the Church and which is unmistakably oriented towards...contraception!
Rightly understood, this is self-discipline in all its
forms, particularly those voluntarily undertaken out
of love of God and desire for spiritual improvement.
INAPPROPRIATE AND UNJUSTIFIABLE PROPAGANDA
observe, however, right from the outset, that the "apostles"
of conjugal "asceticism," with their undiscerning
and, even worse, unconditional propaganda of so-called "natural
methods," are trudging wearily along a path long ago
condemned by the Magisterium.
Pius XII, tackling the problem of the licit or illicit nature
of those "natural methods" in his famous address
to midwives (Oct. 29, 1951), alerted and strongly warned
the faithful against letting themselves "be carried
along by an inappropriate and deceitful propaganda"
of such methods. And the reason for this is clear as crystal:
such methods are deemed licit "only in cases of absolute
necessity" (Pius XII, ibid.), cases the gravity
of which must be examined most attentively, given the danger,
for the majority of spouses, of widening beyond measure
those motives being invoked in favor of periodic continence.
Hushing up the truth of these motives as well as their gravity,
which alone can justify or make licit what are known as
"natural methods," simply constitutes an incitement
to a life of sin under the pretext of "asceticism."
"natural methods," we are told, are not to be
considered as just a technique specifically aimed at avoiding
procreation (i.e., avoiding having children), without
the risk of side-effects.
methods"? And why not come out with it in all honesty
and admit frankly that they are, in fact, speaking of "natural
methods of contraception"? Because, in the final analysis,
this is what is really meant when a couple sets about calculating,
with contraceptive intent, the wife's monthly fertile and
infertile periods in order to avoid the first while taking
advantage of the latter. The systematic abstinence from
conjugal relations, limited to the married woman's fertile
period, is a clear indication of a will not to procreate,
that is, of not wanting to fulfill or accomplish the primary
ends of matrimony.*
sacrament of Matrimony
is a contract between a man and a woman, both of whom
are baptized and free to enter into the contract, to
live together for the purpose of begetting and rearing
children, and of cherishing one another in a common
life. The ends of matrimony are, therefore, primarily
the procreation and bringing up of children; secondarily,
mutual support and affection and the satisfaction of
desire. - Translator's note.
if this will of the couple is not justified through a moral
or physical impossibility of fulfilling this duty (an essential
condition "swept under the rug" by our "ascetics"),
the so-called "natural methods" remain precisely
"a simple technique, free of any side-effects, of avoiding
having children" and the alleged effort at this type
of "asceticism" finally reveals itself for what
it really is indeed: a selfish plan, as well as a systematic
seeking after free and unfettered sensual pleasure; in a
word, the sin of "hedonism presented under the guise
of a pseudo-mysticism." 1
however, according to a reasonably and equitably formed
judgment, there are no such serious reasons, personal or
deriving from external circumstances, the will habitually
to avoid the fecundity of their union, though continuing
fully to satisfy their sensuality, may only derive from
a false evaluation of life and from motives not in harmony
with sound ethical canons (Pius XII, Address to Midwives).
cry, indeed, from an ascetic "lifestyle"!
OR SHARED SELFISHNESS?
what kind of "asceticism" is this, anyway - we
are still wondering - which seeks the perfection not of
the love of God, but of a puny self-centered love? Of course,
one's love for his or her spouse, when raised to the level
of Christian charity, does become a means of elevating oneself
to the perfect love of God, but it remains a means, not
an end in itself, and often tends to become, as a consequence
of original sin, an obstacle to our love for God: "I
have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come" (Lk.14:20);
whence the evangelical counsel of perpetual chastity .
love of one's spouse "the be-all and end-all"
of one's asceticism is simply putting a creature in God's
place; this is nothing but a form of idolatry, not of love.
Moreover, within the "couple's wilfully barren union"
meant to constitute an "exercise in self-control"
through "natural birth control methods," there
is no place for children [this is quite logical, since we
are dealing with natural methods of contraception - Ed.].
Who has not heard the refrain over and over again: "the
beloved you"; that "love" for one's husband
and for one's wife; freedom for the starry-eyed spouses
to lead a life of endless paradisiacal love, etc….
As though the love between husband and wife is rekindled
and cemented not by a generous attitude regarding procreation,
but by a selfishness bent on avoiding having children in
the first place! And, above all, as if conjugal love had
its own grounds for existence in itself and not in the procreation
and education of children.
the contrary, it is precisely in procreation, and not in
a shared sterile and selfish sexual satisfaction that:
a salutary defeat as the couple concentrates its attention
on a third person who is also the weakest and most fragile
of all (the new baby). Thus will love become more binding,
there will be less sensual attraction; there will be a
greater unity of souls, of hope and of intentions.2
this same communion of souls will, in turn, serve to carry
out a task transcending the persons making up the couple:
Not only their
common task of an exterior life, but also all of that
personal enrichment, including all that is most profound
and spiritual in wedded love as such, has been placed,
by the will of nature as well as that of the Creator,
at the service of the couple's offspring.
very nature, perfect married life also entails the spouses'
complete self-sacrifice for the children's benefit, and
that conjugal love, in all of its strength and tenderness,
constitutes in itself a prelude of a most sincere solicitude
with regard to the children as well as a guarantee of its
fulfillment (Pius XII, ibid.).
THE ROMANTIC TALE: AN ERROR ALREADY CONDEMNED
this pseudo "asceticism" of "natural methods"
of birth control, we are facing the full-fledged error of
"personalism," an error which, contradicting the
traditional doctrine of the Church, places the primary end
of marriage in the personal satisfaction and development
in the couple's mutual love. In this mistaken perspective,
...if, from this
complete union of the spouses, a new life is generated,
this is a result which remains outside, or, at best, only
at the surface of the "growing baby's personal worth
or value"; a result although not refused, but which
many do not want to consider to be at the very heart of
the spouses' sexual relations (Pius XII, ibid.).
error, which first appeared in Germany in the first half
of this century, has been promoted and encouraged by numerous
present-day authors of the "new theology,"
Guardini, Max Scheler, etc.3
This same error was also condemned by the Holy Office
(March 29-April 1, 1944) which repeated:
That which is manifest
by the internal structure of natural disposition, also
that which forms a part of Christian tradition together
with that which has so often been taught by the sovereign
pontiffs (Pius XII, ibid.)...
is, that the primary end of marriage is the procreation
and education of children, while the secondary end of marriage
(fulfillment and mutual love of the couple) is oriented
toward and subordinated to the primary end of matrimony.
Pius XII, who had already sounded the alarm against the
"deadly consequences" of the "personalist"
novelties in his Allocution before the Sacred Roman Rota
(Oct. 3, 1941), personally took up the same question once
again in his famous Address to Midwives on Oct. 29,1951:
Now, the truth
of the matter is that marriage, as a natural institution
and in virtue of the Creator's holy will, has as its primary
and most intimate end, not the spouses' personal fulfillment,
but the procreation and education of new life. The other
goals in marriage, although also designed and intended
by nature, are not to be found at the level of the primary
end of marriage and, even less, are they to be considered
superior to them, but are indeed essentially subordinated
This holds true
for each and every marriage, even when barren or infertile;
just as in the case of every eye we may affirm that it
has been formed and destined for sight, although some
unusual cases do sometimes occur where, through some circumstances,
either interior or exterior, it happens that an eye may
be struck by blindness.
case of the "personalist" error, on the other
couple will have recourse to a whole litany of enticing
remarks and observations as a foundation to a rosy pipe
dream of a married life wherein the spouses wastefully
use up a whole wealth of particular natural gifts, qualities
and energies which nature, together with God's grace,
have so evidently designed and directed toward the continuation
and multiplication of human life.4
beneath the "romantic" veneer of such a "love
life" with one's "beloved," it is easy to
perceive the miserable reality of the double-headed monster
of twofold selfishness against which Pius XII alerted newlyweds
as being "the greatest enemy," "the deadliest
poison" of conjugal love:
This shared selfishness
on the part of the spouses abhors the very thought of
self-sacrifice and prevents the establishment between
husband and wife of that holy friendship where they share
the same ideals, where they hold everything in common,
pain and joy, comfort and sorrow, need and help. Pride
leads to dissension between the spouses; and if the selfishness
of the husband is not equal to that of his wife, the upshot
will be that these two egotisms will form an alliance
in this grievous fault.5
this is exactly what can be expected when a married couple
resorts to the use of unjustified natural
methods of contraception.
AND DEFAMATION OF MARRIAGE
the "ascetics of natural birth control methods"
speak, those who do not systematically resort to such "methods"
but who, on the contrary, give life to children wanted by
God as He wants, would not have the opportunity of "growing,"
nor a chance of exercising their "self-control,"
and would therefore be destined to remain at the mercy of
their "sexual urges" without the possibility of
"submitting them to the control of 'reason' and of
directing them towards that which is good."
what idea do these "ascetics" have regarding marriage,
and especially marriage as a sacrament? Do they see marriage
as an authorization favoring the unbridled gratification
of their "sexual urges"? Marriage, already seen
as a simple natural contract, constitutes a victory of reason
over instinct, because it subjects those sexual urges to
the law of morality, precisely "...not to reject them,
but to subject them to the control of reason and to channel
them in the direction of that which is good..." a good
which is not the couple's selfishness, but the bonum
prolis, the good of those children whom the "natural
methods" seek to limit, if not to eliminate altogether.
It was not without reason that Jean-Baptiste Vico, whose
philosophy is called to mind by Ugo Foscolo in I Sepolcri
(The Tombs) - "Marriage, tribunals, and the
altar have made humanity charitable towards itself and neighbor"
- places marriage as one of the fundamental steps in the
process of civilization by which man subjects instinct to
reason, and from a "savage," he is made human.
Christian marriage is yet much more: it is a sacrament conferring
upon the spouses an increase in sanctifying grace together
with a right to all of the essential actual graces needed
to lead a holy life in the state of matrimony. And it is
that sacramental grace in particular - and not the so-called
"natural methods" - which enables the couple to
acquire the virtue of self-control.
With the Christians
we are able to behold a sound as well as sensible self-control,
continence is exercised, monogamy (one wife, one husband)
is observed, and chastity is esteemed and practiced...
without fear of contradiction, the apologists to the pagans,6
and those Christians were innocent of such "natural
methods," while simply following St. Paul's teachings:
But for fear of
fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let
every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render
the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner
to the husband.... Defraud not one another, except, perhaps,
by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to
prayer [This is the only "periodic continence"
or rather, temporary continence, allowed by the Apostle
- Ed.]; and return together again, lest Satan tempt
you for your incontinency (I Cor. 7:2-5).
way - yes, a natural way - as well as by the heroic way
of true ascetic continence, the first Christians together
with all good Christians were able to attain to a sound
self-control, exercised continence, practiced chastity according
to their state in life, and thus succeeded in transforming
a pagan society into one steeped in Christianity. And if
today, this state of affairs no longer holds true, the reason
is that Christians, no longer living their Christian life,
have also neglected and put aside Christian marriage.
as it may, marriage does not consist in giving free rein
to one's unbridled sexual instincts, but in controlling
them in view of the end for which God created human sexuality,
which is the procreation and education of those children
of whom -in contracting marriage - the spouses assume such
an important responsibility before God and men. And herein
indeed do we have "responsible paternity," which
is light years away from "natural methods" of
birth control. In marriage, the means (sexual urges) are
ordained to their end (procreation). With the systematic
use of "natural methods," on the contrary, we
have disorder entering the scene and separating the means
from their natural end. All of which has absolutely nothing
to do with heavenly-minded asceticism!
AND BELITTLING OF FRUITFUL MARRIAGE
what is, therefore, such an asceticism which teaches married
couples to avoid the accomplishment or, at least, the generous
accomplishment of their duties in the married state?
is not an end in itself, it is but a means: its goal is
to dispose the faithful to respect and carry out God's will,
even when this costs a personal effort or sacrifice. The
love of God, however, does not lie in an "exercise
in self-control," but rather in the accomplishment
of God's holy will.
then, where are we to find signified, expressed and concretely
manifested this same God's will for each person? This is
known or, at least, it should be: God's will is concretely
expressed and manifested in each person's duty of state
in life, which determines for every soul how
to observe, in a concrete manner, the commandments of God,
and in which measure we are to practice the
evangelical counsels, which even lay people must, in a certain
measure, love and practice in order to save their souls.
And this is precisely the measure dictated by one's own
duties of state in life.
the spouses' duties of state, their "specific obligations,"
consist in becoming authors and educators of new lives7
and it is along this path that they are to attain
their sanctification and salvation. "He who remains
a slave to his instincts does not love," declare the
"ascetics" of natural (birth control) methods.
True enough, but it is also true that each and every married
person is called to liberate himself from his instincts
and egoism (or selfishness) through the procreation or generation
and education of children (c.f., I Tim. 2:15). This liberation
is realized according to the measure of generosity with
which we take up our daily cross of responsibilities, of
burdens and sacrifices involved in fatherhood and motherhood,
and certainly not be resorting to those so-called "natural
methods" which are meant, on the contrary, to avoid
or at least to limit those responsibilities, burdens and
sacrifices. The pretended "exercise of self-control"
based on "natural methods" is thus seen for what
it really is: a thinly veiled pretext to shirk those duties
pertaining to the married state, in which God has placed
a superabundance of occasions for the spouses to exercise
"self-control." Such "self-control"
can include that temporary continence due to pregnancy and
childbirth, and which can even go so far as to require the
sacrifice of the mother's life, and even up to the very
last act of love for her children, thus crowning a life
spent for them in the generous giving and forgetting of
life, the indissoluble bonds of marriage, require from the
spouses that they sacrifice their pride on the altar of
duty and of the love of God. They are to sacrifice their
self-esteem to that love of God, Who has elevated and consecrated
the beating of their two hearts, and to the love of their
children, for whom they have received both the priest's
and heaven's blessing….Before your child's cradle, dear
young married couples, may your love receive a new consecration
in the sacrifice of your pride and of all its dreams (Pius
XII, Address to Young Married Couples, June 17, 1942).
fact, the very essence of our love for God is really unique,
both for spouses in the married state and for those consecrated
to the religious life, and it consists in sacrificing one's
own will, one's own selfishness, in order to embrace the
will of God in the fulfillment of one's duties of state
Our poor duties
of state!….How often they are ignored!...and so poorly
understood!...distorted and even perverted by illusions
caused by self-interest!...How often do people invent
and impose upon themselves special duties, not at all
legitimate, while putting off or brushing aside their
certain and well-grounded duties! Ah! if only I knew very
well the duties of state in my life….Is God's will not
wholly contained in my own duties of state? And outside
my duties of state, what am I seeking if not my own will
while neglecting God's will?..Herein lies the treachery
of the devil combined with the stupidity of my own pride.
Presented in the false light of a greater good, I am persuaded
to do my own (selfish) will while losing sight of that
one and supreme law grounded on the will of God.8
by these means of illusion and lies that the "ascetics"
of "natural methods" shirk and teach others' to
shirk that total self-denial required in raising a large
family, if such be God's will, with all of the sacrifices
(including the economic ones) involved. We are looking here,
therefore, at an "asceticism," known as "natural
methods," which is actually at the service of selfishness,
and which even dares pretend its "self- control"
is superior to that of those married couples who, generously
and in a Christian manner, faithfully fulfill their duties
of state, without seeking to avoid responsibilities, expenses
far such a mentality - we declare together with Pope Pius
XII - is opposed to God's ways and thoughts as well as to
the language of Scripture, and even to sound reason and
to natural human feelings! If there arise conditions and
circumstances where parents, without violating God's laws,
are allowed to avoid the blessing of bringing children into
the world, it must always be kept in mind that such cases
of absolute necessity do not authorize anyone at all to
pervert ideas, to depreciate or belittle moral values, nor
to ridicule and sneer at the mother who has had the courage
and honor of giving birth to each and every one of those
children wanted by God.9
When Pius XII,
on Oct. 29, 1951, delivered his famous address to midwives,
he closed down that "wide road" which certain
"theologians" wished to leave wide open by approving
the systematic use of natural methods of birth control,
simply because they are natural. l0
Pius XII explains:
The simple fact
that the spouses do not violate the nature of the act
of procreation and are even ready to accept and raise
a child who, despite their precautions, should be born,
is not in itself able to guarantee the rectitude or rightness
of their intentions nor of the absolute morality of such
motives (Pius XII, Address to Midwives.)
it is possible to respect the laws of nature, yet sin against
the duty of procreation; it is possible to not sin in the
means, while sinning with relation to the end in mind. Marriage,
Pius XII repeats, grants rights because it also imposes
the duty of procreation, which is exclusively proper to
the married state, and consequently spouses are excused
from this duty as from any other duty, only in those cases
where, despite all of their good will, they find themselves
in the physical or moral impossibility of meeting this particular
those theologians in favor of the "wide and easy road"
have banished from their minds Pius XII's wholesome reminder
of the bounden duty of procreation inherent to the married
state, where the large family is meant to be the rule, except
in "cases of absolute necessity."
Today's conjugal morality has been reduced to the one problem
of family "planning," that is, how to limit the
number of children by reconciling morality, convenience,
and pleasure. With this goal in mind, more and more married
folk are having recourse to those "indications"
(eugenic, medical, social) referred to by Pope Pius XII,
while also forgetting that such "indications"
must be proportionately grave in relation to the duties
from which they are dispensed, duties which consist in the
obligation of procreation which is proper to the married
peculiar mentality of the "absolute minimum to be believed
and practiced" (Cardinal De Lai) is nothing short of
the "broad way that leadeth to destruction, and many
there are who go in thereat" (Mt. 7:13).
our Lord Jesus Christ said: "Be you therefore perfect,
as also your heavenly Father is perfect," He was not
only speaking to the clergy and religious: He was speaking
to absolutely everyone, including married couples.
He says: "Blessed are the poor in spirit!...Blessed
are the clean of heart...Blessed are the meek," He
is not speaking only to those living in convents and monasteries.
No, He is speaking to everyone indeed, including
those living within the bonds of marriage. All Christians,
even married couples, must, in order to be saved, love and
practice, not the three religious vows, but the three virtues
to which religious tend through their vows: poverty, without
renouncing possessions and property; chastity, without renouncing
the state of marriage; obedience, without giving up one's
legitimate independence. And, everyone, in order to be saved,
must love these virtues since they combat the three great
concupiscences of worldly goods, of the flesh and of the
pride of life, virtues which preserve us from sin as they
sweep away the three obstacles especially opposed to the
love of God and of our neighbor, and therefore to our own
eternal salvation. Consequently, if the number of children
obliges a family to eliminate unnecessary luxuries and unjustified
expenses, truly Christian spouses will accept this situation
as an occasion for practicing the virtue of poverty according
to their state in life, while carefully avoiding having
recourse to the non-existent pretext of a "socio-economic
indication" (i.e., excuse).
to prove that such a "socio-economic indication"
is, as a general rule, non-existent, we only need to think
about this: How come a large family did not frighten our
materially much poorer grandparents, while their present-day
grandchildren, although much better off materially-speaking,
are terrified at the very prospect of raising a large family?
Why is this? Evidently, the reason lies in the fact that
their grandchildren have set their hearts on their physical
comforts and are therefore fearful of bringing children
into the world because they are afraid of no longer being
able to afford their dream automobile (or their several
autos), their modern conveniences, expensive holidays, etc…..
In a word, they fear not having enough money nor liberty
in order to enjoy this earthly life to the fullest possible
the same may be said with regards to what is called the
"medical indications" (i.e., excuses).
How then explain that numerous pregnancies did not frighten
our grandmothers who nevertheless could not count on medical
or hospital assistance which their grandchildren can take
for granted nowadays? Obviously, because our grandmothers
were more generous and more willing to sacrifice themselves
than their grandchildren are at the present time.
not discussing here about pathological cases, and therefore
truly exceptional cases diagnosed by a qualified
Catholic doctor and in which sincere Christians will perceive
a call, even heroic, to the virtue of chastity according
to their state in life (see Pius XII, Address to Midwives).
to mention, either, that pretext of not being able to provide
their children with a suitable "education," a
pretext beneath which lurks a fatherly as well as a motherly
pride whose ambition is to see their children setting out
on a future lifestyle outside of that which was marked out
for them by Divine Providence, often with the temporal ruin
of those same sons and daughters. The same may be said about
the pretense termed the "eugenic indication"*
an excuse utterly opposed to the truth: "...that men
are born not for this earth nor for fleeing time, but above
all for heaven and eternity" (Pius XI, Casti Connubii)
likelihood of having sickly offspring. – Translator’s
not deny the possibility that, apart from those exaggerations
of a "science" too often atheistic and puffed
up with pride, there can be, and, in reality, there are
cases which need to be examined with all the seriousness
owed to science, but also and especially to the light of
superior moral norms.
however, emphasize once more that such cases constitute
an exception, and not the general rule, and that, therefore,
when these various economic, social, medical and eugenic
"indications" are advanced by most people, not
to say by everyone, we are led to believe that Christians
are no longer Christians, but Malthusians: Malthusians in
their hedonism (i.e., pleasure-seeking or sensuality),
and Malthusians in their lack of trust in Divine Providence:
categorically affirming or declaring an impossibility in
this domain, we must make sure whether selfishness, the
desire of a quiet undisturbed life, yielding to the instinct
of sensual pleasure and to the law of the least effort are
not, when all is said and done, the determining causes of
so much birth control.11
of genuine, "absolute necessity," the feeling
of good Christian spouses, the sure sign of their "good
will" and of their sincere willingness to fulfill God's
will in their marriage, this feeling of theirs will be one
of deep regret, just as in the case of those couples suffering
from a physical impossibility of having children.
so aptly put it:
in being able to avoid, thanks to natural methods (of birth
control), those whom the self-indulgent language of our
modern world labels as so many "burdens," is not
the characteristic of good Christians...12
of thoroughgoing Malthusians.
Courrier de Rome, Jan. 1998)
a further treatment of this issue see see article "Rhythm
the Unhappy Compromise," The Angelus, May, 1993,
p.12; also included in, Raising Your Children, p.91.
[Both are available from Angelus Press.]
P. Palazzini, I SaCTamentt; A Piolanti, ed. Coletti, Rome,
Ibid, p.728, note
Pius XII, Address "Se grande" to Newlyweds,
Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autol, III, 15; cf. Minucio
Felice Octavius, 31,5.
See Pius XII, Address to Midwives.
F. Pollien, la vita interiore simplificata e ricondotta
al suo fondamento [ The Interior Life Simplified and Brought
Back to Its Fundamental Principle]).
Address to Midwives.
Cf. G.B. Guzzetti, Matrimonio, Famiglia, Verginita,
ed. Marietti, 1957, pp.319 sq.
A. Christian, Focolare, casa di Dio, trans. Italian,
Marietti, Turin, 1956, p.187 .
Duval-Aumont, I problemi della natalita nella famiglia,
ed. Paoline, Alba, 1950, p.7..
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)