CathInfo.com

I don't see the inconsistency in this case. All of the theologians pinesap kept referencing, such as Fenton, promote the exact issue that Br. Peter was trying to show him was erroneous, namely, that non-Catholics can be saved.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/msgr-fenton-book-the-catholic-church-and-salvation/

For example, I have seen one such inconsistency on their part when it comes to NFP, where they note that Pope Pius XII taught it was permissible and refer to him as in error for the teaching. Yet, if Pius XII, as a legitimate Pope, is protected on matters of faith and morals, then him saying NFP is permissible (in certain situations, mind you) couldn't possibly be heretical nor would it contradict Pius XI's condemnation of "frustrating" the marital act, of which, I don't believe NFP can be said to be a "frustration", maybe an abuse of the natural infertile period of a woman's cycle, but not a frustration. But they object to that and say it was fallible because it was a public speech. Even though it, by their estimation, directly contradicts Pius XI's statements on the matter of birth control; therefore, to be consistent, Pius XII should be considered a non-Pope and heretic because of this act of manifest heresy.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/natural-family-planning-nfp/#3

As for the cut in the debate, I don't believe that was malicious, but a technical difficulty, as both admitted it shortly after the fact.