Is it any wonder that the same people who are unable to make proper distinctions on this matter also are sloppy and simplistic in their thinking on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?

Do you see the pattern?

I have.  It is interesting that these are the same folks.

Stubborn wrote:

The SV opinion is that a true pope cannot teach heresy - period. A true pope cannot lose his office by virtue of doing that which he cannot do, namely, teach heresy. The SV opinion is that if a true pope were able to teach heresy, that act of teaching heresy from a true pope would destroy the doctrine of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church - is this not so?

In order to lose one's membership in the Church, the heresy must be both public and pertinacious.  

If the public heresy of a Pope was professed to a private audience, in a sermon, etc., then it would not conflict with the indefectibility of the Church.  If the Pope attempted to bind Catholics to a heresy or a grave error against the Faith by authoritatively or especially infallibly teaching it to the universal Church, then we could have certainty that he was not a Pope.  This act of the "Pope" would conflict with the indefectibility of the Church.

o for any SV who believes that PPXII is a true pope, they have no need or reason to question his teaching on NFP, rather, they are bound to "blindly" accept it completely, having full confidence that his teaching on NFP is guaranteed free from the possibility of error. End of story.

The term, "blindly," is not an accurate term, but otherwise, I agree with your point.  Catholics are duty bound to give their assent to the Pope's universal non-infallible teaching on matters of Faith and morals taught to the universal Church.  To refuse to give assent is the matter for mortal sin.  

The Pope's teaching on the lawful use of the sterile times was not an ex Cathedra pronouncement, therefore it is not infallibly true, but it is infallibly safe.  

As I have said before of this forum, and will keep saying, Pope Pius XII never used the term, "natural family planning," or "NFP," so this term should not be attributed to him or used for a description of what he taught.  The term is vague, and it means different things to different people.  

OTOH, SVs who question or otherwise believe that his teaching on NFP is  heretical, should agree that since no true pope can teach heresy, that PPXII was never a true pope to begin with.

Those who refuse to accept Pope Pius XII's teaching on the lawful use of the sterile times, in marriage, for certain grave reasons, are absolutely wrong, and have no ground to stand on.

They look through the Fathers in support of their attack against Pius XII's teaching but among the Fathers, there is no specific teaching directly and explicitly stating that the use of the sterile times is a form of blocking procreation.  

Our Lord gave us this divinely created and protected office to give us a constant voice of authority for situations just like this.  When Pope Pius XII taught, and therefore bound, the universal Church to this teaching, he used the power Our Lord gave him when He said "he who hears you, hears me." (Luke 10:16). To refuse to assent and believe Christ's Vicar, Pope Pius XII, is to refuse to hear Christ.

This teaching given by pope Pius XII cannot be used as a demonstration that Pius XII taught heresy to the universal Church.  Those that make such allegations are fomenting schism, they, through their grave ignorance are further dividing the Church.

There can be no such a thing as a true pope "losing his office because he taught heresy" - either he was the pope and his teaching is true or his teaching is heretical and he was never a pope.

This is a disputed point.  St. Robert Bellarmine thought as a pious opinion that a Pope would never become a heretic, and thereby fall from office.  But, the matter is not certain.  

It seems likely that St. Robert was right on this, and that a Pope who is a manifest public heretic was never Pope to begin with.  I believe this is the case with Paul VI.

Although I don't agree entirely, thanks for the clear reply.

Thanks for giving him credit where it is due.  There is new doubt that the Allocution to Midwives is an authoritative docuмent.  Some people may not completely understand what it says and what it does not say and how it applies or does not apply and this can be true regarding other papal docuмents on the topic from other Popes.  

So long as we accept what Pius XII has authoritatively taught on the topic even if we do not fully understand what it is we are good.  If we don't accept it we are in trouble.

Allmonks and C101

The reason I brought up sterility is that a couple who are sterile will be using the marital act the same way that couples who are "using NFP" are using it.  At a time when, naturally speaking, we do not expect conception to occur.  And a sterile couple (or an older couple, for that matter) by marrying give an exclusive and perpetual right to their spouse over their body.  In other words, when the Church approves of their marriage, the Church says "you may lawfully engage in relations for your entire life, even though you will never realize the primary end of it."  The Church allows this couple to perform the marital act perpetually even they will never realize the primary end of it.  

You have already said that no reason justifies observing sterile periods only, because your contention is that such observance subordinates the primary end to the secondary end (I'll get to this shortly).  You cannot now say that there are reasons which can justify the observance of sterile periods only without undermining your rejection of what Pius XII taught completely, which is that no reason at all can justify observance of sterile periods only.  


Couples, by marrying, give their bodies to each other perpetually and exclusively.  We call this the marriage debt, which St. Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 7, where he says

"Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency."

And of course, this is only the chief example.  Any canon law commentary will tell you that the marriage contract holds this right as it's essential object.  

Also, as St Paul (and St. Augustine, as I've quoted) teaches, the marital debt serves to allay concupiscence.  "Better to marry than to burn."  Do you agree that it is lawful for married couples to engage in the marital act when their doing so is motivated by concupiscence?  I am not asking if this is sinful or if it is the most virtuous, I am only asking if you agree that having relations motivated by concupiscence is proper to marriage.  

Hopefully you agree, because if you don't, you're disagreeing with scripture.  I'll assume that you agree.  In which case, you should easily be able to see that while the act may be chiefly motivated by something other than an explicit intellectual assent and desire to procreate at that very moment, the act is in no way actually subordinated to this end, so long as nothing is done to frustrate this end.  

When you sit down to a meal and are motivated to eat chiefly by the deliciousness of the food, do you sin against nature (or at all?) by having your mind focusing foremost on the pleasure of the food rather than the sustenance (primary end) which you derive from it?

You should be able to see by now that there is no subordination of the primary end owed to the mind's focus or motivation by the secondary end if the primary end is left unhindered, which it is both by marital relations during sterile periods and by eating.

Also, it is observable from the natural order that the pleasure found in marital relations exists in order to encourage the commandment "go forth and multiply."  Being motivated to perform the only act suitable for generation by the pleasures which the act supplies is perfectly in accord with nature.  

So, do you agree both that the marital debt must be rendered to the spouse when the spouse asks for it and that the motivation for requiring or reciprocating the debt does not need to be an explicit and predominant wish to procreate in order for the relations to be licit?  

If then, the marital debt is to be rendered when the spouse asks for it, and if it may be rendered or asked for without a predominant desire to procreate so long as procreation is not positively excluded by their own act (i.e., "frustrated") then relations during sterile periods, for whatever reason are licit.

Do you also agree that the couple may, with mutual consent, refrain from marital relations for a time?  Do you further agree that what times they choose to abstain, as well as what times they choose to return, are their prerogative?  I.e., that there is no Church law that obliges them to have relations or abstain from relations at any particular time whatsoever?

If there is no Church law which requires them to have relations or to abstain from relations during any given time, I do not see how you can possibly contend that it is sinful for them to come together at a particular time for any reason.

Anyways, I'm going to wrap it up, but I'll end by re-iterating what SJB said before.  You are failing to differentiate a particular single action and a course of ongoing actions.  With respect to the "use of NFP" (as taught by Pius XII) an ongoing and indefinite observance of only sterile periods without a grave reason is a sin, and IMO a mortal one at that, but it is a separate sin from the one that Pius XI described in Castii Connubi.  The relations themselves are still lawful, because one spouse requires the debt from another for the allaying of concupiscence.  It is assumed that they want children by the very fact that they are engaging in the act, just as it is assumed that a man is hungry if he eats a meal.  If they "do the deed" and do not frustrate the end of it then it is reasonable to assume that they desire the outcome of it, at least implicitly or habitually.  

(Hope you don't feel dejected, Allmonks.  C101's post was much easier to reply to with the twenty minutes I had before work this morning).

I used to commit sɛҳuąƖ sins when I was a virtual pagan before I converted, but now, if I marry, I would never dare to touch my wife without the desire for children, let alone take active steps to avoid procreation. In my mind, to do so would be no better than my past life of fornication.

 If then, the marital debt is to be rendered when the spouse asks for it, and if it may be rendered or asked for without a predominant desire to procreate so long as procreation is not positively excluded by their own act (i.e., "frustrated") then relations during sterile periods, for whatever reason are licit.

I read it this way...

It is not illicit for one of the couple to ask for the debt, as long as both agree implicitly or explicity that is for increasing the family. In other words another child will result, Gods will.  
There is however a Sin involved if one of the partners doesn t really want another Child , but is willing to accept it if that should occur.  The debt is fulfilled (by less say the women), and no sin on her part , as long as she lets the man know that he is committing a sin, because it is against her will.
The Man goes thru with the act and he sins because it wasn t a mutual agreement for procreation.  
That is what I take from PPXI, content...

I have made a mistake in continuing to discuss this.  I should have stopped pages ago.  At the end of the day, if you think it's OK to reject the teaching of Pius XII, then you will.  Your walls of quotes aren't impressive, not a single one of them proves what you are trying to prove.  You are interpreting in light of your position, but we should allow the Church to interpret things for us.  Moral theologians and popes teach NFP.  I'm sure you'll understand that their opinion is far weightier than yours.  I will not reply again, because I have made my case.  After reading your last reply, it would appear that you have made yours.  I am not going to repeat myself any longer, and I don't think you will either.  

Ad hominem attacks ALWAYS win debates.