Author Topic: A Defense of Pope Pius XII Against a False Allegation That He Taught Error (Read 12223 times)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #30 on:** November 11, 2013, 05:57:22 PM »

I am beginning to suspect that some posters don't actually know what NFP is. It is the practice of discerning a woman's pattern of ovulation by certain (variable) methods.

In the newchurch, they teach it as a form of birth control. My wife an I were subjected to this by the diocese, being "required" to go to the home of our married deacon so he and his wife could explain to us how wonderful NFP was. They even asked how many children we planned to have. They were a little surprised by the answer.

Anyways, that's how newchurch uses it. Make no mistake. They treat it as Catholic birth control. At our "retreat for engaged couples" (sponsored by this very same diocese) we learned there are three things that make a succesful marriage: God, NFP, and something else. By the very fact that they require it to be taught they are not teaching it correctly, since it's something that is only to be used in very extraordinary instances.

NFP is sinful when a couple uses it to avoid having children without a grave reason. When used in order to conceive, or when used with a grave reason (which is a decision that is always made after much prayer and discussion with a priest) to not conceive, it is licit and moral.

Couples engage in marital relations with virtually no chance to conceive all the time. Conception only occurs when a woman ovulates. At any other time, conception will not occur (medical anomalies and miracles aside). The only difference between a couple (licitly) using NFP who have marital relations between periods of ovulation and a couple not using NFP who have marital relations between periods of ovulation is that the couple using NFP (presumably) knows that the woman is not ovulating, or at least the woman knows this.

The reason that NFP is permitted is that marital relations have more than one end. They only have one primary end (procreation) but there is a secondary end, which is the satisfaction of concupiscence. This is a licit end of the marital act. Now, the primary end cannot be frustrated in order to bring about the secondary end but the secondary end does not become illegitimate just because the primary end is not or cannot be realized through no fault of the couple. Catholic couples are not obliged to only have relations when they can conceive-- in fact, if they were, they would be required to use NFP because that's the only way to find out if they're ovulating!

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #31 on:** November 11, 2013, 06:06:24 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: 2Vermont

Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,

No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.

Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:

Quote
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by 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 power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".

The thing is, bowler, engaging in the marital act between periods of ovulation is not frustrating anything, nor does it go against nature.

Binechi · « **Reply #32 on:** November 11, 2013, 06:58:11 PM »

Quote

I am beginning to suspect that some posters don't actually know what NFP is. It is the practice of discerning a woman's pattern of ovulation by certain (variable) methods.

Why would you even want to know when the ovulations start and stop , if it wasn t for the fact that you want to know when you can do the marital act, supposedly so you can escape having Children. (NFP).

If you follow the teaching of he Church and PPXI, it wouldn t matter when they fall. Every desire to copulate by both should be to that God will give you another member to your family. If that is not your desire , then contenience is the only way to go. That s what the Church teaches.

It all starts with what is in the Plan. Whats in your mind before the action.

songbird · « **Reply #33 on:** November 11, 2013, 07:03:03 PM »

Mithrandylan: Thank You for your post. I agree with what you say. Rhythm was guess work til Mucus was understood. NFP was a named dubbed what God had designed. The federal gov't couldn't wait to get their noses in and to make it a money making project and with reading material and teaching with secular/modernism in mind. God will judge the hearts of us married couples. Serious Reason needs to be understood. The Church has always used "reason" besides traditional, scriptual, apostolic and etc.

bowler · « **Reply #34 on:** November 11, 2013, 07:20:23 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: 2Vermont

Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,

No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.

Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:

Quote
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by 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 power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".

The thing is, bowler, engaging in the marital act between periods of ovulation is not frustrating anything, nor does it go against nature.

That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated [/u]in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".

The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.

The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #35 on:** November 11, 2013, 07:58:10 PM »

Quote from: Director

Quote
I am beginning to suspect that some posters don't actually know what NFP is. It is the practice of discerning a woman's pattern of ovulation by certain (variable) methods.

Why would you even want to know when the ovulations start and stop , if it wasn t for the fact that you want to know when you can do the marital act, supposedly so you can escape having Children. (NFP).

If you follow the teaching of he Church and PPXI, it wouldn t matter when they fall. Every desire to copulate by both should be to that God will give you another member to your family. If that is not your desire , then contenience is the only way to go. That s what the Church teaches.

It all starts with what is in the Plan. Whats in your mind before the action.

If you had read my whole post, you would have read where some couples use NFP so that they know when to have relations, rather than when to avoid them.

As to the bolded, it should be the desire, yes. But the Church does not teach that married couples must be motivated by an explicit intellectual assent to conceive in order to have licit marital relations. Their motivation for relations does not need to be driven by a front-most desire to have children.

This is why St. Paul says it is better to be married than burnt. Yes, it is better to be a virgin (and not to marry at all) but for those who cannot abstain, better they be married where they can exercise their passions licitly and to a good end, rather than to carry on in fornication. He describes marriage as a way to exercise concupiscence without any reference to procreation.

Furthermore, St. Augustine teaches the same:

"...what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh— and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book I ch. 16)."

So, the Church does not teach that marital relations must always be motivated by a desire to conceive. Of course, willfully frustrating conception is a grave sin against the natural order, but there is a difference between willfully frustrating conception and simply not thinking of it, or even being afraid of it.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #36 on:** November 11, 2013, 08:04:57 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: bowler
Quote from: 2Vermont

Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,

No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.

Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:

Quote
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by 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 power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".

The thing is, bowler, engaging in the marital act between periods of ovulation is not frustrating anything, nor does it go against nature.

That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated [/u]in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".

The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.

The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.

Frustrate: "to prevent (efforts, plans, etc.) from succeeding : to keep (someone) from doing something (Merriam-Webster)."

Nothing is being prevented from happening when a couple has relations between ovulation because nothing can happen in the first place.

If a couple uses NFP habitually because they don't want to conceive and don't have a grave reason, that is a sin against marriage, and IMO usually a mortal sin because they are abusing marriage.

But that is NOT what Pius XII taught. That is what the NewChurch teaches. Pius XII taught that for a grave reason, couples may practice NFP. He did not say they must, or that they ought to, but that they may. And that is because even without a reasonable chance to conceive, sɛҳuąƖ relations have a secondary end in satisfying concupiscence. See my previous post in response to Director for more on this.

bowler · « **Reply #37 on:** November 11, 2013, 09:33:49 PM »

my reply in read:

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: bowler
Quote from: 2Vermont

Clearly if the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile,

No one has shown any authority teaching that the majority of Church Fathers taught that it was sinful to have marital relations when no longer fertile. This subject shift is a poor distraction. Take it to another thread, in the Ridiculous Comments Section.

Pius XI Infallible declared CLEARLY in Casti Connubi:

Quote
…"No reason, however grave, may be put forward by 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 power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious … any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".

The thing is, bowler, engaging in the marital act between periods of ovulation is not frustrating anything, nor does it go against nature.

That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated [/u]in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".

The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.

The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.

Frustrate: "to prevent (efforts, plans, etc.) from succeeding : to keep (someone) from doing something (Merriam-Webster)."

Nothing is being prevented from happening when a couple has relations between ovulation because nothing can happen in the first place. (you are in denial. They ARE deliberately avoiding the fertile periods!!!)
If a couple uses NFP habitually because they don't want to conceive and don't have a grave reason, that is a sin against marriage, and IMO usually a mortal sin because they are abusing marriage.

But that is NOT what Pius XII taught. That is what the NewChurch teaches. Pius XII taught that for a grave reason, couples may practice NFP. He did not say they must, or that they ought to, but that they may. And that is because even without a reasonable chance to conceive, sɛҳuąƖ relations have a secondary end in satisfying concupiscence. See my previous post in response to Director for more on this. (Pius XI's teaching is infallible and it is clear. Pius XII's teaching is a fallible opinion expressed to some midwives convention and is opposed to Pius XI's infallible teaching. This is a matter of reading clear language on both sides.)

Ambrose · « **Reply #38 on:** November 12, 2013, 12:51:49 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I actually brought up on the other thread that Ibranyi's analysis was wrong.

Nevertheless, Pius XII DID depart from the teaching of Pius XI on the subject of NFP, but for different reasons. I too shall start my own thread on the subject, starting with my analysis of the differences. You're right that the other thread has disgressed onto issues regarding infallibility and the nature of papal authority.

You may find it interesting to note that a majority of Church Fathers taught that it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times (e.g. when the wife would be pregnant or too old to conceive, etc.) Pius XII has "come a long way, baby."

Pius XII did not depart from the teaching of Pius XI, he just explained it in more depth.

Do you have a source which supports your assertion that "a majority of Church Fathers taught it is sinful to have marital relations during infertile times."

Ambrose · « **Reply #39 on:** November 12, 2013, 12:54:43 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
There was no confusion on this issue, until the liberals twisted Pope Pius XII's teaching, and using the new renamed term, Natural Family Planning, allowed the floodgates to open with all sorts of novelties.

Pius XII was the one who opened the floodgates.

I just prayed for you that God will forgive you for this arrogant and unjust statement against Pope Pius XII.

There used to be a day when Catholics stood up in unison and defended the pope, past and present from Protestant sectarians, now it is fellow Catholics who fill in for the Protestants in their attack against the popes.

Ambrose · « **Reply #40 on:** November 12, 2013, 01:06:52 AM »

Quote from: bowler

My observations in red:
Quote from: Ambrose

There was no confusion on this issue, until the liberals twisted Pope Pius XII's teaching, and using the new renamed term, Natural Family Planning, allowed the floodgates to open with all sorts of novelties. (giving Pius XII's teaching the name "planning" does not change anything. You have not explained anything)

The second problem came about when certain writers, not content with correcting modernist abuse of the teaching on the lawful use of the rhythm, actually attacked the orthodox teaching of Pope Pius XII. (I thought you opened this thread to gett off the "Pius XII errors issue", and explain his rhythm method?)

The truth can be found if you read Casti Connubii Pius XI, and in the Address to the midwives by Pius XII, October 29, 1951, AAS 43 (1951). Do not let anyone confuse on this point, Pope Pius XII's teaching on this is authoritative, therefore it is safe, and it does bind Catholics under pain of serious sin to believe it. (What is his teaching that Ibranji has not expalined? You have to address Ibranji's point, and not just say "Pope Pius XII's teaching on this is authoritative, therefore it is safe, and it does bind Catholics under pain of serious sin to believe it". Here's the two sides: Ibranji says the couple can only abstain or else engage in the marital act without "consulting charts". You say that it is OK to "consult the charts", and not have children for financial reasons, among other reasons. The Novus Ordo says the same.)

1. Yes, the term, "plan" does change the meaning of what Pope Pius XII taught. One does not plan something that is only allowed for grave reasons, and it's licitness may change at any time based on the presence or ack of the grace reasons.

2. I started this second thread on the issue, because Director posted an attack on the orthodoxy of Pope Pius XII. It was not his writing, but he posted it, and he has not yet answered me about whether he agrees with Ibranyi or is asking for help to see why Ibranyi is wrong.

Any attack against Pope Pius XII should be resisted by all Catholics, as we have a duty to defend our beloved and saintly deceased Holy Father, who served God and the Church magnificently and admirably his time as Christ's Vicar on Earth.

3. Ibranyi is wrong and is leading Catholics to sin. It is a mortal sin to reject Pope Pius XII's teaching.

Ambrose · « **Reply #41 on:** November 12, 2013, 01:10:24 AM »

Mithrandylan,

Great posts!

Ambrose · « **Reply #42 on:** November 12, 2013, 01:17:44 AM »

Bowlers wrote:

Quote

That's true, however, you overlooked "deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God".

The thing is, Mithrandylan, that deliberately engaging in the marital act only between periods of ovulation is frustrating the generation life , and does go against nature. Specially when it is 99.99% accurate.

The precision of Pius XI infallible decree leaves no room wiggle room.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting Pope Pius XI's teaching or have you just not read it, and relying on Ibranyi's explanation? Pope Pius XI taught exactly the opposite of what you are saying he taught.

Pius XI taught:

Quote

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 the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating 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.

Casti Connubii #59.

Ambrose · « **Reply #43 on:** November 12, 2013, 01:58:40 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'll repeat this from the other thread.

Pius XI taught that TWO principles applied in ascertaining the moral qualities of the marital act:

1) that the "natural power" or "inherent force" of the action cannot be violated (artificial birth control, Onanism, etc.)

AND

2) that the primary end or purpose of marriage cannot be subordinated to the secondary ends.

Pius XII in the Allocution DROPPED the second condition or consideration enitrely. I'll go fetch my juxtaposition of Pius XI and Pius XII's paraphrase of Pius XI.

NFP is different from ABC in that it avoids violating principle #1. In other words, it's not INTRINSICALLY immoral, whereas ABC IS because by its very nature it inherently violates the first principle.

But just because something isn't intrinisically immoral doesn't mean it can't be immoral for other reasons, i.e. because it's FORMALLY immoral, i.e. due to the intent.

Pius XII argued that since one may abstain from marital relations, it's OK to abstain from marital relations ONLY during fertile times. His reasoning is just plain wrong. That does not necessarily follow. In abstaining altogether, the couple actually tacitly respects the primary ends of marriage.

HOWEVER ... when a couple abstains from the marital act only during fertile periods, they are clearly trying to exercise the marital act for the secondary ends while DELIBERATELY ATTEMPTING TO EXCLUDE REALIZATION OF THE PRIMARY END.

If that isn't subordinating the primary end to the secondary ends (which Pius XI condemned), then I don't know what is. Ambrose has not yet come close to explaining how one can engage in selective abstinence during fertile periods and NOT be doing exactly what Pius XI condemned. I'm all ears.

And just because Pius XII put a condition of "serious reasons" on NFP doesn't mean that his principles didn't open the floodgates on NFP. Because we're just talking about various interpretations of "serious". When Pius XII lists among "serious" reasons things like "eugenic" and "social" and "economic" considerations, that clearly opens the floodgates. Serious doesn't have to mean "grave" or "dire"; it only serves as a contrast to "light" or "trivial". So, based on Pius XII, if I'm having some trouble paying my bills or I'm psychologically worn down by having lots of loud children, or I'm older and have increased risk for having a child with Down syndrome ... all that could easily qualify me for NFP. Or we're having relationship problems, so it would be unhealthy for a child to be in this environment. There's no clear, hard, solid line here from the Pius XII teaching.

I'll dig up my contrasting Pius XI vs. Pius XII quotes.

PS -- Ibranyi got it wrong for the same reasons I'm citing here, his failure to distinguish betwen #1 and #2 as listed above. Ibranyi conflated the two considerations.

Ladislaus,

You do not understand this. Pius XII did not drop anything, his teaching is identical to that of Pius XI, with the exception that he gave a more detailed explanation of the lawful use of the sterile times in marriage.

He expanded the explanation, but he did not contradict or drop anything as taught in Casti Connubii.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** November 12, 2013, 02:47:36 AM »

Ambrose, you're clearly not honest. I juxtaposed the texts and showed the differences. You explain how they're not different and explain how NFP does not cause the primary end to become subordinated to the secondary ends.

Since you're not even intellectually honest, I'm not going to waste my time posting in response to you anymore.

Carry on planning your family, Ambrose.