No, you are clearly wrong. The Pope even mentions those instances that you brought forward and condemn people who used these excuses. Natural Family Planning is contraception. Therefore, it cannot be practiced for any reason. Pope Pius XI condemned contraception for any reason, no matter how grave, specifically mentioning the medical excuse of “difficulties… on the part of the mother” and the economic excuse of “difficulties… on the part of family circuмstances.”

Pius XI condemned artificial birth control and abortion in Casti connubii. The conjugal act is a single act. ABC frustrates that act.

Now please go away.

On the Question of Natural Family Planning

http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html

On the Question of Natural Family Planning

http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html

It's amazing how you people only cling to fallible sources, denying the infallible. It's called bad will. Also, it should be revealing for honest people, that these demonic teachings which tries to make God to a pimp, was unheard of before in the Church, prior to the end of the world (when certain heretics and people outside of the Church, spread false doctrines and false teachings). This fact alone (that these demonic teachings which tries to justify child avoidance or child murder, and mortal sins of lust), that it was unheard of since the creation of the world till the last 150 years or so, should, for any honest person, tell him it's false.

But, however , I will respond to the arguments brought forward in the article.


The evidence is neither official nor certified as authentic

Mark. A. Pivarunas'- main evidence that defends NFP is neither infallible nor official nor certified as authentic. It is also ambiguous and contradictory.

There was a need in the Church for an organ that contained the official decrees and responses from the Roman Congregations because many decrees and responses were fraudulent or doubtful.

Therefore, the Roman Congregations needed an official organ in which to publish their decrees and responses that would guarantee authenticity. Authentic and official decrees and responses from the Roman Congregations are found in the Acta Sanctae Sedis (ASS) from 1904 to 1908 and in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) from 1909 onward:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, Acta Sanctae Sedis: ―A Roman monthly publication containing the principal public docuмents issued by the Pope, directly or through the Roman Congregations. It was begun in 1865, under the title of ‘Acta Sanctæ Sedis in compendium redacta, etc.‘, and was declared, 23 May, 1904, an organ of the Holy See to the extent that all docuмents printed in it are ‘authentic and official.‘…
On the Roman Congregations: Editors of periodicals on ecclesiastical subjects have been allowed for several years back to publish in their magazines the acts of the Congregations, and one of these periodicals, Acta Sanctae Sedis, has received the privilege of being declared ‘authentic and official for publishing the acts of the Apostolic See‘ (S.C. de Prop. Fid., 23 May, 1904).

The 1917 Code of Canon Law: ―Canon 9: The laws issued by the Holy See are promulgated by being published in the official organ of the Holy See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation is prescribed….

A Practical Commentary… : ―The publication of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis began in January, 1909, and from the very beginning it was declared the official organ of the Holy See. [Footnote: The Constitution ‘Promulgandi‘ of Pius X, Sept. 29, 1908; Acta Ap. Sedis, I, 5.]

Consequently, any so-called Holy Office decree or response that exists outside these organs, the ASS from 1904 and the AAS from 1909, is not certified as authentic and is not official. (Hereafter I will simply refer to these docuмents as unofficial while understanding that they are also not certified as authentic.) Hence, Mark. A. Pivarunas‘ argument has no credibility because it rests on responses that are not official and cannot be certified as authentic.

Official Roman Congregations’ decrees and responses are also fallible

Even if Mark. A. Pivarunas‘ produced official Roman Congregations‘ decrees or responses defending NFP, that does not help his case because they are also fallible:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Infallibility: ―Proof of Papal Infallibility - The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements...

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Acts of the Roman Congregations: ―…(b) Authority of doctrinal decrees - Doctrinal decrees are not of themselves infallible; the prerogative of infallibility cannot be communicated to the Congregations by the Pope.

Mark. A. Pivarunas‘, I believe, would agree with this; consequently, he would also have to believe that the unofficial evidence that he uses to defend NFP is likewise fallible.

The 1853 response

The source
The 1853 response is one such piece of incredible evidence. The source quoted, a local moral theology book, is not a first hand source for a Sacred Penitentiary (a Roman Congregation) response. Therefore, it is an unofficial and fallible response. And even if it were an official response, it would still be fallible. That is the main point: the evidence is fallible.

The meaning
The meaning of the response is ambiguous. While it has two interpretations, heretical and orthodox, one cannot be certain of either:

Mark A. Pivarunas ― The very concept of “rhythm” was first considered by the Catholic Church in 1853. The Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Penitentiary:

―[Q.] “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?“

―The Vatican reply was,

―[A.] “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.“

The first part of the response seems to allow for the contraceptive method of NFP; but the second part does not by saying the spouses can ―do nothing that impedes generation.

The purpose of NFP is to impede generation when the spouses have conjugal relations. If spouses come together only during the infertile period with the purpose of preventing conception, then they are attempting to impede generation. Therefore, the heretical first part of the response contradicts the orthodox second part.

I will now present a possible orthodox interpretation:

First: There is a legitimate reason that spouses may want to know when the wife is fertile and infertile so that they can make a greater effort to have conjugal relations during the wife‘s fertile period because of the greater probability of conception.

Second: There are non-sinful reasons that spouses cannot have relations during known fertile periods, such as the husband is on a business trip or one spouse is sick, etc. Because they did not deliberately impede the fertile period for the purpose of preventing conception, they can have relations during the known infertile period without sinning, even though they did not have relations during the fertile period. For instance, if a husband is away from home during his wife‘s known fertile period and returns to his wife during her known infertile period, he can still have conjugal relations with her without sinning as long as he did not deliberately avoid the fertile period for the purpose of preventing conception (which would be a mortally sinful act of impeding conception, an intrinsic evil). In this case the spouses did not sin, even though they had marital relations only during the wife‘s known infertile period. Pope Pius XI refers to this:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: ―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 matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation 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.

Pope Pius XI says that the ―primary end, child bearing, which is ―the intrinsic nature of the act, must be desired and preserved; therefore, the spouses must do all that is within their means, even if just by prayer, to procure conception when they have conjugal relations.

Nowhere does Pius XI teach that spouses can deliberately avoid the wife‘s fertile period in order to prevent conception when they come together during the infertile period. He is only teaching that spouses can have conjugal relations during the known infertile period or if one of the spouses has a defect, a barren womb or sterile seed. And, he clearly adds that even then they must desire that conception occurs—―as long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

The spouses must conform to the intrinsic nature of the act by hoping conception occurs; if not, they are denying the intrinsic nature of the act.

The last part of the 1853 response, ―provided they do nothing to impede generation, supports the orthodox interpretation. There can be no act, plan, or desire to impede conception when the marital act takes place. The spouses must always desire that conception occurs during conjugal relations, even if conception is improbable or impossible (such as in a barren womb). The 1853 response clearly says that no action may be taken by the spouses that would impede conception: ―[A.] After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation. ―All impediments are condemned. The goal of NFP is to impede generation (conception) when the spouses engage in the marital act.

The decree does not specify any specific type of impediment. It condemns all impediments. The point of the response is if spouses are going to have relations during known infertile periods, they must still desire that conception takes place and thus cannot do or have done anything that would impede it.


The 1880 response

The source
No doubt, there were those like Mark. A. Pivarunas who interpreted the 1853 response in a heretical way. Yet, NFP defenders knew they needed to be more specific so there would be no doubt that NFP, according to them, is not sinful. The 1853 response did not say anything about the spouses deliberately avoiding the fertile period and only having conjugal relations during the wife‘s infertile period with the purpose of preventing conception. This motive is not mentioned in the 1853 question and is even condemned in the last sentence, which says, ―provided they [spouses] do nothing that impedes generation.

Therefore, the NFP defenders needed a decree or response that specifically mentions and justifies the motive of preventing conception while leaving out the part about spouses not impeding generation. Digging deep in their hat of tricks, they found what they believe defends their heresy in one response (found in two unofficial sources) that supposedly refers to a response from the Sacred Penitentiary.

The meaning
The NFP defenders have another serious problem with this incredible evidence, this 1880 response. It is ambiguous, confusing, and contradictory; and it even condemns Mark. A. Pivarunas‘ idea of NFP.

Pivarunas ― Another reference to rhythm appeared in 1880. Fr. Le Conte submitted the following questions to the Sacred Penitentiary:

Q ― “Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?”
“Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him, or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?”
The response of the Sacred Penitentiary, dated June 16, 1880, was:

A ― “Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”

1) If this response is meant to allow NFP, it only allows it as a substitute for the husband‘s obstinately sinful Onanism (withdrawal during the marital act by the husband), which presents serious dilemmas.
2) If the husband is not obstinate and repents of his sin of Onanism, then the spouses cannot use NFP, which is how this response has to be interpreted. The only non-sinful use of NFP, according to this response, would be if the husband obstinately commits the sin of Onanism. If not, the confessor cannot even suggest the use of NFP. Therefore, according to this response, NFP cannot be used for any other reason put forward by NFP defenders.
3) By implication the response condemns NFP as contraception by comparing it as a viable substitute for Onanism. The sinful purpose of both remains the same: the deliberate attempt to prevent conception when spouses perform the marital act. The response replaces one evil with another that it perceives as less evil. Man cannot arrive at a good, by the use of an evil means (Rom. 3:8). It is like saying that it is better for a single man to fornicate with an unmarried woman than a married woman because there is no additional sin of adultery. Both actions are mortally sinful. It is like a confessor telling an alcoholic who drinks hard liquor that he will not sin if he gets less drunk by using soft liquor, such as beer or wine. The purpose, getting drunk, remains the same in both cases.
4) The response implies that the use of NFP in this case is a lesser evil (or, even worse, not evil at all) because of the higher probability of conception while using NFP rather than Onanism. In other words, there is no sin as long as conception can occur, even if the spouses do not want it to occur; thus disregarding the motives of the spouses who do not want conception to occur. This motive is precisely when and where sin is first committed. If that were true, then no contraception method is sinful because all are open to conception. None are 100 percent guaranteed to prevent conception. As a matter of fact, NFP has been proven to be one of the most successful forms of contraception other than birth control pills. Hence, even according to this heretical theology, NFP must be considered one of the most sinful methods of contraception because it is more successful in preventing conception than Onanism, which is the least effective contraception method. The following are some testimonies to the great effectiveness of NFP in preventing conception:

Birth control with LadyComp is safe, reliable and natural!
Birth control with LadyComp focuses mainly on the long-term health and well-being of the woman.
LadyComp is programmed with all available natural family planning research data and uses biomathematical forecasting calculations as well as the very latest computer techniques. LadyComp contains the first medical expertise to help provide safe, reliable and natural birth control.
The fertile and infertile days can be determined without any bothersome or harmful interventions in the body's natural functions. Many women suffer from side-effects of the birth control pill. LadyComp offers Contraception without drugs or side-effects…
Safe and reliable:
99.3 percent reliable (Based on independent clinical studies docuмented by the manufacturer)…

Natural Family Planning
What is natural family planning?
Natural family planning is a way to help a couple determine when sɛҳuąƖ intercourse can and cannot result in pregnancy…
How effective are these methods in helping a couple avoid pregnancy?
These methods can help a couple avoid pregnancy if the couple receives training from a specialized instructor and if they carefully follow all of the instructions provided. (Ask your doctor how to find an instructor who is specially trained in teaching natural family planning.) Both methods can be 90% to 98% effective (2 to 10 pregnancies per 100 couples) when they are practiced correctly…
Copyright © 2001-2004 American Academy of Family Physicians

5) The 1880 response appeases stiffnecked sinners by rewarding their obstinate disobedience to God and their confessors. If the obstinate sinner does not listen to the confessor, the confessor must pander to the sinner. Instead of punishing him, the confessor rewards him with another sinful contraceptive method. Since when do God and His representatives compromise faith and morals by appeasing obstinate sinners? The proper action for a good confessor in such a case is to forbid the wife/husband to have relations with her husband/wife under pain of sin until he/she repents of his sin and thus promises to no longer use Onanism, NFP or artificial contraception. If the husband should force himself on his wife (rape her), then that is a reason for separation according to canon law. There are times when a spouse cannot prevent the other spouse from sinning during the marital act; in these cases, the spouse sinned against does not sin. For instance, a husband can pretend he repented of his sin of Onanism and can promise his wife he will no longer use it; but he could still use it, and the wife would not be able to prevent it. Or, one spouse may do something immoral previous to, during, or after the marital act; and the other spouse may be helpless to prevent it. In these cases the spouse sinned against does not sin. Pope Pius XI mentions this:

Casti Connubii: ―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.

To conclude, this 1880 response is not only unofficial and fallible, it is also illogical and heretical, and it does not even defend the current practice of NFP.

St. Pope Pius X testifies to the impossibility of a pope’s inspecting every imprimatured book, even with the help of the Holy Office, and also testifies that there were many bad books that were given imprimaturs by either heretical or unvigilant bishops:

St. Pope Pius X, Pacendi Dominici Gregis, 1907: “51. We bid you do everything in your power to drive out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books that may be in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to put down writings of this kind, but the number of them has now grown to such an extent that it is impossible to censure them all…”

So the perverted theologians opinions is worth nothing, even if their book has Church approved Nihil obstat, if what they say speak against Catholic dogma, moral and the natural law. Their heretical or perverted theories must then be condemned and disregarded.

Let's take a look at one such perverted theologian with a supposed Nihil obstat approval from a perverted Bishop. Only someone who is sick in his head and who is a heretic against the natural law, would say that is it nothing wrong with what he is saying here.

Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, 1951: “I. Imperfect Sodomy, i.e., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted: Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution…” (“3. The Sins of Married People,” Section 757.)

Fr. Heribert Jone, in every edition of his book Moral Theology from 1929 onwards, teaches that a husband can sodomize his wife and his wife can allow it and neither commit mortal sin as long as he consummates his act naturally with the intention to procreate. And the pervert Jone teaches that this act is not sodomy at all because the husband does not spill his seed when sodomizing his wife. Note that the term “imperfect sodomy” used by Fr. Jone means the mortal sin of sodomy between persons of the opposite sex, and “perfect sodomy” is the mortal sin of sodomy between those of the same sex.

Hence the pervert Fr. Jone says that rectal intercourse between a husband and wife is not a grave sin as long as the husband does not spill his seed when sodomizing his wife. And according to the pervert Fr. Jone, this is not even sodomy! One must ask, then, “What is it?” and “What is the purpose of this filthy perverted act?” It is sodomy, plain and simple! And the purpose is to mock God and to degrade and disgrace the wife. Not only is this sodomitical act by the spouses contrary to nature and the natural law and cries out to God for vengeance, but it is also physically destructive to the health of both spouses.

Hence, as we can learn, books approved by bishops is hardly of any worth at all. That's why dogma, or Councils are the key point in defining Church teaching!

So yes, its perfectly clear that all the perverted theologians and all non-official decrees who approve of the sinful practices of child avoidance and mortal sins of lust are worthless in view of these facts, and only bad willed heretics would choose to build his Faith on what has be proved to be erroneous, and even contradicting Church dogma. When we have a dogma condemning all deliberate practices of child avoidance, then is this a law directly from God and must be followed under pain of mortal sin and excommunication. Only people who are of bad will, chose to disregard the infallible, by choosing the fallible.

Pope Pius XI, [speaking infallibly from the Chair of Peter], Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.  Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
     “Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death.  As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’  Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).”

This agrees with Hietanen's grammatical analysis of the subject locution, i.e., as he illustrated with his example, "A marriage cannot take place without a bride or a groom": in which the meaning is obviously that both a bride and a groom are necessary.

Anyone who cares to comment, please do. Thank you.

Thank you for confirming what I've been trying to say all along. Honesty is rare to find today. Hopefully, some will be converted and be turned from their errors, when they see the truth being spoken and confirmed.

Denzinger 2241

Casti connubii 59

What were you trying to say with those quotes? That the mortally sinful practice of NFP is allowed? Or, was there something else you were trying to say?

For you know, you cannot quote anything authoritatively which approve of the mortally sinful practice of child avoidance. You can only quote perverted theologians or non approved (non authoritative) church docuмents by perverted priests, bishops, cardinals or theologians. All of these have already been dealt with thoroughly.

You are avoiding the quotes.  

No, I have already addressed them. Its you who simply refuse reading my responses. So now I have to repeat my self. After I have once again repeated what I wrote before (that refutes you), we shall see who are the one avoiding the quotes, arguments, and questions... Yes, let's see who will avoid answering, and only bring forth nonsense to direct the attention elsewhere...

---------

The Pope mentioned the natural infertile periods specifically, and said one could use his right then too, but he never said one could have relations only during the infertile periods while avoiding relations during the known fertile periods. To do so would be contraception.

The key phrase is deliberate, as defined infallbily by Pope Pius XI below. When a deliberate plan is made to avoid children, the mortal sin of contraception occurs. It's not a deliberate plan or contraception to have relations with your wife during known infertile periods so long as your intention is NOT to avoid children. The sin thus lies with the intent. Contraception is thus in your mind or heart, and occurs when you wish for no children during relations. When your intention is to avoid children during relations, God judge this as an contraceptive act in the very same way as He would judge you to be an adulterer if you cherished such (adulterous) thoughts in your mind. You see, you don't have to make a physical adultery to be an adulterer, it's enough to be an adulterer in your heart. The same logic implies with child avoidance.
That's why Pope Pius X infallibly mentioned the deliberate plan to avoid conception as mortally sinful and unlawful. He did not mention that having relations during known infertile periods was wrong (so long as the couples did not deliberately restrict the martial act exclusively to those days - for then it would have become a deliberate plan to avoid conception, as infallibly condemned by Pope Pius XI below).

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.  Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."

So, it's perfectly clear from above. What the Pope condemns is the deliberate plan in avoiding children that a couple consents to during the act. He is not condemning having relations on known infertile days, he is only condemning the evil intent of child avoidance. Therefore, even if you have relations during known infertile days, but during the marital act wish for no children to occur, you would fall under the same condemnation by Pope Pius XI, since the fault lies with the intent, and not particularly on the fertile/infertile day.
Thus, all the people who only have relations during the infertile days, and deliberately avoid relations during all fertile days, falls under this same divine condemnation by Pope Pius XI, since their intent is against conception. Also a barren couple, who wish for no children during relations, would fall under the same condemnation, since their intention and will is against conception. Only a total liar headed for Hell can disagree with these facts!

When a married couple goes out of its way to avoid children by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times, they are committing a sin against the natural law – they are sinning against the God whom they know sends life.  NFP is therefore a sin against the natural law, since God is the author of life, and NFP thwarts His designs.  Can one imagine what Jacob would have said to Rachel if she had discovered a new way to avoid “the Lord opening her womb?”  He would probably have rebuked her as an infidel.

Stop this nonsense now, and let God decide the number of your children!

It is intrinsically evil when spouses plan to have sɛҳuąƖ relations while also having planned to make conception impossible. It does not matter in what way the spouses plan to prevent conception. The principle is the same in all cases—the deliberate prevention of conception (child bearing) by the spouses while engaging in the marital act. The goal of contraception is to eliminate the possibility of conception while engaging in the marital act. Contraception takes place during the act by physical obstruction, or before the act by obstructing the fertile period by planning to only commit the act during the infertile period. In both cases the goal of the plan is to perform the sɛҳuąƖ act without the possibility of conception. Guilt of mortal sin occurs when these two conditions are met, either in the mind or in the act. Our Lord teaches us that all sin proceeds from the heart, and manifests itself in men’s actions. “The things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.” (Mt. 15:11, 18-19)

What is a plan? A plan is the words of a man that proceed from his mouth that come forth from his heart that he seeks to put into action. The root of every plan is in the heart. What is in the heart of spouses who plan to use physical contraceptive devices during the marital act, or plan to withdraw so as to make conception improbable, or plan to have marital relations only during the infertile period? In the heart of these spouses is the desire to have marital relations while having deliberately planned to prevent conception. Pope Pius XI describes what is in their heart, he says, “Offspring… they say is to be carefully avoided by married people… by frustrating the marriage act… [They] deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose.” Sin originates from what is in the heart. I ask spouses who practice NFP, “What is in your heart when you practice NFP?” While engaging in the marital act, after having planned to do so only during the infertile period, ask yourself in the heat of your lust, “Am I not committing this very act with the explicit, deliberate, premeditated planned intention of preventing conception while fulfilling my lust?” If your wish or prayer is to have relations and that conception does not occur, then you committed the mortal sin of contraception.

St. Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]: “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility… Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.”

You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand.  

Like I said, I thought you would have acted as you did, for you are dishonest. You cannot answer the arguments and the questions, you cannot face the dogmas and the truth exposing you; that is why you are hiding from the truth.

On judgment day will your dishonesty become apparent, but then, it is already too late for you.

I do hope you will be converted till then, for as now, you are already in Hell. Your soul, is already in Hell, the thine veil of life, the weak body, is all that is keeping you from feeling the eternal hellfire that burneth both body and soul.
In Hell, will you regret your filthy lust. You sought after what will perish and be eaten by worms. What idiocy!

Please, read this chapter, and see, what Jesus thinks of you.


Book 1 - Chapter 6
The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden.

“My enemies are like the most violent beasts that can never be filled or have rest. Their heart is so empty of my love that they never allow the thought of my suffering into it; and not once has a word like this been uttered by their inmost heart: “O Lord, you have redeemed us, may you be praised for your bitter suffering!” How could my Spirit remain with the people who have no divine love for me, and who willingly betray others in order to satisfy their own will? Their heart is full of vile worms, that is, full of worldly desires. The devil has left his filth in their mouths, and that is why my words do not please them.

Therefore, I will sever them from my friends with my saw, and just as there is no more bitter way to die than to be sawn asunder, so there will not be a punishment in which they will not partake. They will be sawn in two by the devil and separated from me! They are so abhorrent to me that all who cling to them and agree with them will also be severed from me.

Therefore, I send out my friends in order that they might separate the devils from my members, for they are truly my enemies. I send my friends like knights to war. Anyone who mortifies and subdues his flesh and abstains from forbidden things is my true knight. For their lance, they will have the words that I spoke with my own mouth and, in their hands, the sword of the true faith. Their breasts will be covered with the armor of love, so that no matter what happens to them, they will love me no less. They shall have the shield of patience at their side, so that they may suffer and endure all things patiently. I have enclosed them like gold in a vessel; they should now go forth and walk in my ways.

According to the ways of justice, I could not enter into the glory of majesty without suffering tribulation in my human nature, so then, how else will they enter into it? If their Lord endured pain and suffering, it is not surprising that they also suffer. If their Lord endured beatings and torture, it is not too much for them to endure words and contradictions. They should not fear, for I will never abandon them. Just as it is impossible for the devil to touch and divide the heart of God, so it is impossible for the devil to separate them from me. And since they are like the purest gold in my sight, I will never abandon them, even though they are tested with a little fire, for the fire is given to them for their greater reward and happiness.

http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/st-bridget/st-bridget-of-sweden.php

You don't or won't understand. The quotes stand.  

So SJB, can a couple decide to have zero (0) children during then entire course of their marraige if they use the approved NFP plan or another "natural" form of birth control?

By the way.. NFP ends with "Family Planning"....
Isn't that the term Planned Parenthood uses? :confused1:

Hietanen, how many accounts have you had on this forum? Have you been banned from here before?

Perhaps just a coincidence, but there have been at least two other forum accounts posting from Sweden promoting certain websites which are notable the same, merely different web addresses which are the same that you promote.


doomsday2012 --- banned

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=profile&w=954


ProphecyFilm

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=profile&w=450


http://www.prophecyfilm.com/

http://www.catholic-saints.net/