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."

On the prev page there is a remark by Ambrose that the term NFP was not in use until after the death of Pius XII. If this is correct then there is no way that Pius XII can be said to have departed from Pius XI on 'NFP' because it didn't exist.  :confused1:

You guys are just playing word games and semantics, thus turning this thread into a joke.  Everyone knows that we're using NFP as shorthand for allowing abstinence deliberately during fertile-only period, OK?  I'd prefer to type NFP than to describe it long-hand in ever single post.  Paul VI actually referred to this method as birth control in Humanae Vitae -- I believe that the phrase was a "method for controlling birth."

I don't like the term either, it's just a euphemis for "Natural Birth Control".  So if I post on this matter in the future (I'm bailing out of this thread due to the fact that Ambrose is just wasting everyone's time with intellectual dishonesty.), I'm going to use NBC instead of NFP, since that's precisely what this is.

It's just like when I asked Ambrose whether he was a Traditional Catholic, and he just kept writing "I'm a Catholic." when he knows full well that I'm using the term Traditional not as the designation for a separate sect or denomination but just to distinguish from a mainstream Novus Ordo Catholic.  This is utterly pointless.

As I said, you may now carry on planning your families with your consciences undisturbed.

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.

Nobody's even talking about THAT use of NFP.

Ambrose, you started this thread as a "defense" of Pius XII, but at no point have you offered anything even resembling a rational defense of that position.  You simply spout, ad nauseam, that it cannot depart from previous papal teaching because all papal teaching is infallible.  You have not addressed the obvious differences between the two teachings which I demonstrated by juxtaposing the relevant quotes from the two docuмents under consideration here.

Again, you lack an understanding of this.  I never said all papal teaching is infallible, most of it is not.  I said you are bound to believe the pope's non-infallible teaching on matters of Faith and morals given to the universal Church.

Did you read the excerpt I just quoted to Bowler from Casti Connubii?  

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.

But your analysis of Pope Pius XII as compared to Pope Pius XI on this point is wrong.  You do not understand it, and from what you have written, it appears to me that you have not even read both docuмents in their entirety.  

You can call me dishonest if you wish, but I assure you that your false accusation against myself is untrue.  The only thing I care about is the truth.  I will pray for you in my Rosary today.

There is certainly a difference between an "heretical" Pope or is it an heretical "Pope" and a valid Pope that lacked intelligence, courage or common sense or was a private heretic.  In the list of Popes since the begging, some would be ranked in the top 50 in regards to their personal sanctity, what they did for the Church and regarding how their actions and or inaction's may have harmed the Church.  The martyred Popes might make enlarge the top list to a top 75 or 100. The top Popes vs. the least great Popes could be in regards to going to war or not going to war, punishing sinners or not punishing them, telling Catholics to lay down their arms when they would have won a victory for the Catholic Church or telling them to pick them up when it would result in a big blow for the Church.  Consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary the right way?  There would also be a top 50 list of great popes with the combination of holiness, courage and common sense that bettered the Church in every way with in and without.  Then there would be the vast majority in-between who were neither outstanding nor terrible.  

But in a whole different category are the none-Popes who claim to be Popes.  

Claiming Pius XII was not perfect though still a decent, intelligent and courageous Pope is not the same as lumping him in with anti-Pope Paul 6.  Some people seem to miss that key distinction.  Truly apples and oranges.

Pius XII did not teach error regarding marital relations while Paul 6 constantly talked about "responsible parenthood" and down-graded the primary ends of marriage.  In his encyclical on the topic he only had one Catholic statement in the entire docuмent and everyone says "See, he's Pope."  They don't seem to realize that anyone can make a Catholic statement.  But that was the least of Paul 6 problems which are well-docuмented as he did things Popes cannot do while Pius XII did not do things a valid Pope cannot do.

So in reality there are no blurred lines.

There have been

1.  Great Popes
2.  Good Popes
3.  Average Popes
4.  Bad Popes
5.  Terrible Popes [in regards to being sinners, placing their relations in high places etc.]
6.  Non-Popes (John 23 [or certainly Paul 6 - Franky]  

Some Popes have been strong in some areas and weak in others.  Some may not be good speakers.  Others may be diplomatic in either a good or not so good way.  Some may not have been diplomatic in a good way such as Pope Saint Pius X.

Pius XII may have been a good Pope that allowed bad things but he was Pope.  He was not in the category of Pope Saint Pius V who was a great Pope, but that does not somehow mean that those who claim he was not perfect put him in the same category as Paul 6.

An objective historical look at the Papacy will prove my point.

I just thought that should be clarified though it will no doubt be misinterpreted as unCatholic.  Catholics are realists even in objectively describing the history of the Church and those who ruled it.  It is okay to do so for the right reasons such as showing those who believe the Catholic Church is not the One, True Church that we do not hide our blemishes or pretend the human element of the Church is perfect.    We do not make the Church more than it is or deny unfortunate realities.  But neither do we deny her Divine Foundation and the fact that she cannot err and has not erred in her official capacity nor has she bound the unbindable on the Faithful.  There is a large number of things that have been bound that are found within the range of good and prudent to allowable but perhaps imprudent.  My point has always been that a valid Pope does not always do the best possible thing.  He sometimes does things he shouldn't or does not do things he should, he sometimes allows things that are not the best choice or prevents the best choice from happening.  This is far different than saying a valid Pope can

1.  Approve a heretical council
2.  Doubtful and invalid sacraments
3.  An incentive to impiety Mass
4.  Heretical Canon Law
5.  Teach heresy
6.  Repeatedly engage in heretical acts.

If people accuse Pius XII of any of the above we have a problem.  But the fact that a valid Pope can do something imprudent that falls short of that is a reality that should be accepted and rather obvious if these were not such confusing times.

0

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.)

OK, so are they avoiding or frustrating?  Pius XI teaches that it is a grave sin against the natural order to deliberately frustrate it's natural power or purpose.  He does not say it is a grave sin against nature to deliberately avoid it's natural power or purpose.  Obviously you can see the error in contending this.  If it was a grave sin (against nature, no less) then not only would clergy be bound to engage in the marital act, it would contradict scripture and the fathers, which teach that the virgin state is a higher calling than the married state.

Marrying and then never having sex during fertile times indefinitely to avoid having children without grave reason is a sin against marriage, because the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and rearing of children.  To enter into that state without an intention of having children actually invalidates the marriage (which means that the couple are fornicating); and to marry and indefinitely and deliberately and "put off" having children (without grave reason) is a mortal sin against marriage because it is a failure to fulfill your duty of state as well as a breach of the contract, a contract that has the primary end of generating and rearing children.

But it is not a sin against nature.  It is key for you to understand this.  It may be contraceptive, but it is not the act of contraception.  Whether done in a sinful or licit manner, having sɛҳuąƖ relations when a woman is not ovulating does not frustrate the natural power to conceive, because the natural power to conceive does not exist at that time.  There is nothing to frustrate.  

Pius XII actually says all of this in his address to the midwives:

If the application of that theory [NFP] implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. In this case they do not hinder or jeopardize in any way the consummation of the natural act and its ulterior natural consequences. It is exactly in this that the application of the theory, of which We are speaking, differs essentially from the abuse already mentioned, which consists in the perversion of the act itself. If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.

Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If, one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid, because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.

However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.

...

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circuмstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

Pius XII teaches:

1) Birth control is wrong (not quote in this passage, but occurs earlier in the letter)
2) By itself, sɛҳuąƖ relations during natural sterility are not wrong
    2.1) The morality of such relations is determined by the intentions of the couple
    2.2) Even if determined to have immoral intentions, it is not the same sin as b/c.
3) Delegating relations to sterile periods may be lawful if the requisite conditions are met.

What more do you want?  He clearly doesn't teach what you are saying he does, or if he does, you are wrong and shamefully prideful for rejecting it, as it does not at all conflict with Pius XI.  

C101,

I agree it is a mortal sin.

If you have been following this thread, you would know that whether or not it is a mortal sin isn't the issue.  The issue is:

Did Pius XII teach that a couple can deliberately avoid having relations during fertile periods with a grave reason?  (To which I answer, no he did not).

Is doing so a sin against nature, and the same sin that Pius XI described in Casti Conubii? (to which I answer it isn't).