CathInfo.com

A quick perusal of your posts suggests you can't make it far without bringing up your failed doctorate attempt.  That must qualify you to post about baptism of desire more than four thousand times.  If we go drop out of CUA will we be worthy of your attention?  Rhetorical question, we're just ignoramuses!

Again, another high-quality argument.  An actual perusal of my 15,000+ posts on CathInfo will find this degree of mine mentioned perhaps 2 or 3 times, and only when it's relevant to the discussion being made.  So this absurd ad hominem is also calumny.  I guess that 2 or 3 posts among 15,000 backs your assertion that I can't make it far without bringing it up.

Yes, not only are you idiots, but you are of bad will, spending lots of energy attacking Catholic dogma.

Crawford argues that it is contraception and therefore condemned by Casti Connubii.  If it's contraception then its use is intrinsically evil, permitted under no conditions.  Talk about strawmen!

Something can be contraception intrinsically (by virtue of the act itself) or extrinsically (by virtue of the formal motive) ... and it's under the second aspect that it's condemned by Casti Conubii.  But you untrained bad-willed morons wouldn't understand such a distinction if it hit you in the face.  Has either author ever even taken a class in formal logic?  In scholastic philosophy/theology?

Then the ignorami argue that Trent teaches that the supernatural virtues begin before Baptism, speaking of the faith, hope, and charity which lead to justification.  False.  All theologians who treat of this subject teach that Trent here refers to incipient faith, hope, and charity, the natural analogues to the supernatural virtues of the same name, what they call fides initialis, etc.  The actual SUPERNATURAL virtues arrive in the soul at the exact same time as justification, not before ... and they all arrive together at the initial justification, not first one, and then the other.  This is all universally taught by theologians.

But then the authors claim to be refuting the position of Father Feeney, and Father Feeney himself felt that these supernatural virtues (and justification itself) could arrive before Sacramental Baptism.  Evidently Crawford changed his position away from that of Father Feeney to the more Dimondist view.  Nevertheless, the book's authors equivocate between attempting to refute Crawford and Father Feeney ... even though their positions are not identical.