Are you unaware that couples who suffer from fertility issues are able to chart their fertility to help time relations to increase the chance of conception?  If you are, shame on you for assuming poorly of Pope Pius XII.

If you're not, now you know, so you can correct yourself.

Pope Pius XII pontificate was probably the worst Modernist disaster. Everything we experience in the Church today can be easily tracked to Pius XII.

From my understanding, Pius XII said the 'rhythm method' was ok in GRAVE CIRcuмSTANCES.  NFP is a modernist program, which abuses this limited 'rhythm' exception and which was furthered under Paul VI to what it is now - catholic contraception.

Am I missing something about Pius XII?

From my understanding, Pius XII said the 'rhythm method' was ok in GRAVE CIRcuмSTANCES.  NFP is a modernist program, which abuses this limited 'rhythm' exception and which was furthered under Paul VI to what it is now - catholic contraception.

Am I missing something about Pius XII?

Pius XII NEVER approved of NFP/rhythm or whatever in any way at all analogous to birth control devices today, or to the Novus Ordo practice of abstaining from relations during fertile periods frivolously.  Read his address to the Italian midwives.  He says the exact opposite as what people claim him to have taught.  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

He said that for a grave reason, a couple can plan marital relations around the fertile period.  He explicitly says that it is a sin against marriage to misuse God's design by excluding fertile marital acts without grave reason.  If one has a decent handle on the Church's teachings regarding marriage, this isn't controversial at all.  Marriage has legitimate, lawful, secondary ends: the satisfaction of concupiscence.  As St. Paul says, "better to marry than to burn."  No husband or wife has ever sinned by requesting the martial debt outside the fertile period (supposing that the request was not wholly informed by its coincidence outside the fertile period sans a grave reason).  But husbands and wives who refuse the marital debt outside of a grave health reason or some other legitimate excuse (among which natural sterility has NEVER been considered) commit a grave sin.  Why do you think the Church, her laws, and her theologians teach this?  

There is no possible way to actually read what he wrote and conclude that any of it is against Catholic doctrine.  He literally warns against and disagrees with virtually everything that "trads" in 2016 accuse him of teaching.  Read what he wrote.

An abuse of a lawful activity or teaching is just that, an abuse.  If these people lived at the time of St. Nicholas, they'd call St. Athanasius an Arian because he believed that Christ had a human nature.  These people end up with a whole host of goofy ideas because they're incapable of distinguishing between teachings and abuses of teachings.  They think that if a teaching can be abused, there's something wrong with it.  Hello!  Every heresy and schism has justified itself by appealing to what the Church teaches.  Heresy, schism, and theological error are all intimately connected with abuses of legitimate teachings.  

They're Feeneyites and Dimondites, most of them.  Their own confidence in the truth is so shaky that they dress it up with lies and sensations to make it more intimidating.  The truth doesn't need falsehoods to protect itself.  

And I doubt many of them are married, or in healthy marriages (i.e., where both husband and wife are practicing Catholics).  All of the people I've met who've ever believed the nonsense about Pius XII advocating birth control or Novus Ordo style "NFP" were single, or married to a non-Catholic or a bad Catholic.  They're people with no concept or handle on what a Catholic marriage is in the first place.  They're learning from the Dimonds and from other goofball trad publishers and apologists, not from the Church.

Anyways, those who say it is a sin to have relations outside the fertile period should REJOICE at any opportunity to chart fertility, since then they can make sure that they avoid the mortal sin of having relations when the wife isn't ovulating.  

It is a fact that Pius XII approved of natural family planning, which goes contrary to all of tradition since the beginning* who teaches that children must be kept in mind and intent while having marital relations, in addition to contradicting the infallible encyclical of Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii.

However, he may have had the thought of helping infertile to conceive. If not, that would be an absolutely horrible thought and statement he made.

If other pope(s) have been condemned, I see no reason why Pius XII could not be condemned. However, I would like not to make that judgment (I also do not understand exactly if Honorius was a heretic, since there is so much contradictory statements and evidences in his case).

* To give just one opinion of a Father concerning this matter:

St. Augustine, On the Morals of the Manichaeans 18:65, A.D. 388: “Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife.”

St. Augustine, Against Faustus 15:7, A.D. 400: “… [the Manichean heretics] directly opposes the next precept, "Thou shalt not commit adultery"; for those who believe this doctrine, in order that their wives may not conceive, are led to commit adultery even in marriage. They take wives, as the law declares, for the procreation of children; but… their wives is not of a lawful character; and the production of children, which is the proper end of marriage, they seek to avoid. As the apostle long ago predicted of thee [the heretic Faustus], thou dost indeed forbid to marry, for thou seekest to destroy the purpose of marriage. Thy doctrine [against childbearing] turns marriage into an adulterous connection, and the bed-chamber into a brothel.”

Well, I'm sure that Pius XII did think that the benefit of being able to chart ferility would be a good thing because of the aid it would offer couples who are struggling to conceive.

As to your quotations of Augustine, here are the full quotes without the omissions and trimmings that your quotes have:

65. Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable chastity consists.  For though you do not forbid sɛҳuąƖ intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse.  No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers—that is, those in the second grade among you—are allowed to have wives.  After you have said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation?  Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh?  This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.  In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children.  Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.  Where there is a wife there must be marriage.  But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife.  In this way you forbid marriage.  Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit.

66.  Moreover, when you are so eager in your desire to prevent the soul from being confined in flesh by conjugal intercourse, and so eager in asserting that the soul is set free from seed by the food of the saints, do you not sanction, unhappy beings, the suspicion entertained about you?  For why should it be true regarding corn and beans and lentils and other seeds, that when you eat them you wish to set free the soul, and not true of the seeds of animals?  For what you say of the flesh of a dead animal, that it is unclean because there is no soul in it, cannot be said of the seed of the animal; for you hold that it keeps confined the soul which will appear in the offspring, and you avow that the soul of Manichæus himself is thus confined.  And as your followers cannot bring these seeds to you for purification, who will not suspect that you make this purification secretly among yourselves, and hide it from your followers, in case they should leave you?  If you do not these things, as it is to be hoped you do not, still you see how open to suspicion your superstition is, and how impossible it is to blame men for thinking what your own profession suggests, when you maintain that you set free souls from bodies and from senses by eating and drinking.  I wish to say no more about this:  you see yourselves what room there is here for denunciation.  But as the matter is one rather to repress than to invite remark, and also as throughout my discourse my purpose appears of exaggerating nothing, and of keeping to bare facts and arguments, we shall pass on to other matters (CCEL Library, St. Augustine, Against the Manicheans and Against the Donatists, Chapter 18, paras 65-66).

I think that if you knew what the Manicheans taught and believed, you wouldn't find these quotes very relevant.  The Manicheans habitually, as a rule, and as a matter of their faith, avoiding conception.  They were dualists, and they saw pregnancy as a great evil, because the spirit was impeded and confounded by the flesh; to bring forth new flesh through the marital act was a terrible thing.

That is why St. Augustine rebukes them for sinning against marriage, rather than for sinning against the natural law (as would be the case with onanism and its derivatives like artificial birth control).

Pius XII continually rebukes those who subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end, and he continually reaffirms that the primary end of marriage is the production of offspring through the marital act.  

Pius XII NEVER approved of NFP/rhythm or whatever in any way at all analogous to birth control devices today, or to the Novus Ordo practice of abstaining from relations during fertile periods frivolously.

Absolutely agree.  GRAVE circuмstances, and the approval of one's priest, is required.

I think that if you knew what the Manicheans taught and believed,

I know what they taught and believe.

That is why St. Augustine rebukes them for sinning against marriage, rather than for sinning against the natural law (as would be the case with onanism and its derivatives like artificial birth control).

Yes, that also. But he also points out that marriage was for the procreation of children, and not the avoiding of children through sterile periods, as in the practice of rhythm. That was the point also.

This is how St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 468-542 A.D.) put it: “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN...WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)