Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Kephapaulos on November 13, 2022, 09:58:12 PM
-
Is NFP technically contraception even in grave circuмstances then? Mr. Farrell says here Pius XII was contradicted himself on the matter.
I am in the midst of reading a 1948 Integrity Magazine article that was republished by the SSPX called "Rhythm: The Unhappy Compromise" that says that the Church merely tolerates reluctantly the rhythm method.
https://youtu.be/GDEyEGF5qEs
-
Whoever this John Farrel is, he's absolutely right on target.
In the "Allocution to Midwives", Pius XII cites Pius XI but actually leaves out the crucial part where Pius XI in Casi Conubii effectively condemned NFP.
Pius XI taught that TWO things are required for the licitness of the marital act --
1) that the inherent power of the marital act be preserved (vs. artificial birth control)
AND
2) that the primary end can never be subordinated to the secondary
Pius XI LEFT OUT the second condition, citing only the first. It's this second condition that precludes the licitness of NFP. Why doesn't he cite that?
You can clearly tell in the language of this long, rambling speech that Pius XII was doing nothing more than speculating, and that he was not teaching anything authoritative (as opposed to those who claim that this authoritatively decides the matter).
See, with Pius XII, he didn't actively impose anything harmful, but he "opened the door" (and later the floodgates) to both NFP as Catholic Birth Control and also to Evolution. Simlar to NFP, Pius XII never taught that it was acceptable, falling short of that, just "permitted' Catholics to debate the subject.
Pius XII's papacy was, alas, THE watershed that led directly to Vatican II and all its evils. Pius XII --
1) opened the door to Evolution
2) opened the door to NFP
3) opened the door to Liturgical Experimentation (first appointed to Bugnini to begin the experimentation, push out the "reformed" Holy Week Rites, Psalter, New Vulgate translation, and permitted abominations like "The Mass of the Future"
4) failed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
5) consecrated nearly every bishop who would go on to bring us the glories of Vatican II
6) allowed the heresiarch Cushing to persecute Father Leonard Feeney for simply reiterating defined Church dogma, thus allowing THE core error (EENS-denial, the resulting non-Catholic ecclesiology that would manifest itself explicitly at Vatican II, and rampant religious indifferentism) to fester and gain the upper hand
7) failed to curtail or curb the spread of Modernism in any way
Pius XII was consecrated a bishop on the exact day (May 13, 1917) that Our Lady appeared at Fatima. He also claimed to have seen the miracle of the sun in the Vatican Gardens. So it was said that he was "The Fatima Pope".
Well, probably so, but only in a tragic sense. Could he have been the one depicted in the released part of the Secret who led the faithful to the slaughter? He was the last Pope who by consecrating Russia could have prevented Vatican II, but he refused to do so. Our Lady could very well have appeared on the exact day of his episcopal consecration to indicate that he was the last Pope who could prevent the evils of Vatican II by heeding her requested and consecrating Russia, to prevent the evils she came to warn about when the Jєωs, Communists, and Masons would take over the visible structures of the Church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFSQrKrrQqw
-
So, who is this guy? I looked at his Youtube video, and he also had several videos condemning Faustina and "The Divine Mercy" devotion as contrary to Catholicism.
How can he say that if he's a Conciliar Catholic, since Wojtyla "canonzied" her and officially approved the Divine Mercy devotion. He mentioned the spread of Modernism a couple times.
-
OP, you may find this previous discussion on the matter useful: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church useful/article-on-nfp-from-introiboadaltaredei/
The above-linked thread references even previous threads that you may also find useful.
Whoever this John Farrel is, he's absolutely right on target.
In the "Allocution to Midwives", Pius XII cites Pius XI but actually leaves out the crucial part where Pius XI in Casi Conubii effectively condemned NFP.
Pius XI taught that TWO things are required for the licitness of the marital act --
1) that the inherent power of the marital act be preserved (vs. artificial birth control)
AND
2) that the primary end can never be subordinated to the secondary
Pius XI LEFT OUT the second condition, citing only the first. It's this second condition that precludes the licitness of NFP. Why doesn't he cite that?
.
I believe you are wrong to make the distinction you are making. Pius XI teaches that if the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, the ends are necessarily subordinated. We have argued this specific point about once a year since 2018 or so. Do you have any new arguments or evidence to back up this distinction?
-
Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
Yes.
Whatever grave reason you can think of, if it is grave enough that you must not get a child now, then you are obliged to make that certain by complete abstinence.
So, if you have a grave reason like the government will kill all your children after the first one, you must practise abstinence and not NFP.
There is no case in which NFP is justified because it necessarily subordinates the primary end of marriage, which is condemned.
There's really no getting around this. As I mentioned, if you read Pius XI's Casti Conubii, he clearly states those TWO principles for liceity. Yet Pius XII, in the Allocution, when he cites Pius XI, is mysteriously silent about that second condition of the non-subordination.
So, if the situation is grave enough to permit NFP, then complete abstinence would be called for. So it's THAT serious, but you would still risk conceiving a child by using NFP (as it's not 100% foolproof)?
Look, there are LOTS of other scenarios that require abstinence. If I am not married. Or if I'm married and my wife runs off and leave me. There's this absurd undercurrent that implies that people have some kind of inalieable God-given right to the marital act. If your wife is ill or crippled, that's another situation where you must abstain. So if there's a serious situation, then abstinence might be warranted.
But if attempting to enjoy the secondary end of the marital act while actively attempting to exclude the primary end is not to subordinate the primary to the secondary, then there's really no such thing as subordinating it. Although ... they're not fooling anyone. They're not really about this "secondary end" either, but about pleasure which, although it is tangetially realted to the allaying of concupiscence (part of the secondary end), very few are actually looking at it from such an exalted perspective.
-
I believe you are wrong to make the distinction you are making. Pius XI teaches that if the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, the ends are necessarily subordinated.
Utter hogwash. He teaches nothing of the sort. That is your spin on it, and your spin is absurd and ridiculous. You're really going from bad to worse in terms of the types of things that you defend here.
As for my "arguments," I need merely cite the text of CC. Since it is YOU who make the claim (that's nowhere in the text), the burden of proof is on YOU to make the argument. But the argument is utter garbage.
-
Utter hogwash. He teaches nothing of the sort. That is your spin on it, and your spin is absurd and ridiculous. You're really going from bad to worse in terms of the types of things that you defend here.
.
I'm not going anywhere. I've maintained this literally for years, and you and I have discussed it many times.
.
Each time I've based my critique of your explanation on the original Latin (among other things), something I would hope you--of all people-- would be appreciative of. Your case stands and dies on a very specific, and not typical translation of Casti Cannubi. Do you remember?
-
Here's the actual text of CC:
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.
He says that the secondary ends of marriage may be preserved so long as A AND B conditions are met. There's nothing in the text that asserts that the former is automatically met when the latter is met. So the burden of proof is quarely on YOU to prove this.
His grammar makes it quite clear ... SO LONG AS [non-subordination] AND SO LONG AS [nature of the act is preserved]
Simple logic (Logic 101) dictates that the act is not forbidden if A AND B are in play, meaning that if EITHER condition is missing, it's forbidden.
What you claim Pius XI is teaching is nowhere to be found in this text. So the burden is squarely on you to prove it.
It's quite clear that he's speaking about the FORMAL aspect (ends) along with the MATERIAL aspect (intrinsic nature of the act). For acts to be human acts, they require both the material act AND the formal intent. You can sin by formal intent even when the act itself is not intrinsically evil.
If you take $100 off a table thinking it's yours, whereas in reality it belongs to someone else, there's a grave material injustice there (it's intrinsically unjust), but you commit no sin due to lack of formal intent. If on the other hand, you take $100 off the table thinking it belongs to someone else (whereas it's actually your own), while the act is not intrinsically unjust (as it's actually your money and you are not in unjust possession of it), you still commit the grave sin of theft due to your formal intent.
For you to claim that the material aspect alone ensures compliance with the formal aspect is utter absurdity and contradicts all Catholic moral theology.
-
Mithrandylan, even if you're right, and you're definitely not, you can do little good by convincing someone of your position but you can do immense harm.
Also, name one reason grave enough for NFP to be allowable but that doesn't obligate you to abstain.
.
What a strange thing to say. Do you believe that truth paves the way for error?
-
Ladislaus, here is the Deferrari translation of the passage in question:
[Sterile relations are intrinsically lawful because] in matrimony itself, as in the practice of the conjugal right, secondary ends are also considered, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which spouses are by no means forbidden to attempt, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is preserved, and so its due ordering is towards its primary end.
.
Contra the translation you are using, the one I have produced says that if the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, then the ends are duly ordered. So, which translation is correct?
.
As an accomplished Latinist, I imagine you will appreciate the original Latin as well:
.
...dummodo salva semper sit intrinseca illius actus natura ideoque eius ad primarium finem debita ordinatio (AAS 22, 539)
.
The affably erudite Fr Vermeersch, who was Pius XI's chief moral consultant and the principal ghost-writer of the encyclical, was commissioned to release a small catechism of commentary on it. There is no greater human authority on the meaning of the encyclical, and he explains:
As long as the act takes place normally it remains objectively directed toward its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. (What is Marriage? A Catechism arranged According to the Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1932, p. 44)
.
That is my case in brief. I have given it to you in this thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/article-on-nfp-from-introiboadaltaredei/msg671775/#msg671775) and this one (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/questions-on-sex-and-specifically-the-role-of-procreation/msg630779/#msg630779). What is your rebuttal?
-
Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=69282.msg855786#msg855786) 11/14/2022, 10:00:41 AM
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which 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 powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).
~ Pope Pius XI: Casti Connubii
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/natural-family-planning-nfp/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/natural-family-planning-nfp/)
Not gonna lie... having reference to the Dimond Brothers does NOT help your case any.
Aside from Creation and a few other basics ("a broken clock is right twice a day", plus we Catholics agree with Mormons, Baptists, and many other heretics on countless elements of the Natural Law), they get just about everything else wrong. They are the modern-day Pharisees, with all the same faults Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for: Making up laws, condemning others unjustly, rash judgment, cutting themselves off from God, forgetting Charity, etc.
If you want to make your point, I would avoid bringing the Dimond Brothers into it. Unless you want to have the opposite effect :)
I'm not kidding. The Dimond Brothers are SO bad, that if a Catholic immediately dismissed your criticism of NFP as "Oh, that's more Dimond Brothers extremist nonsense" THEY WOULD BE JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD IN DOING SO. Even if that was their only reason.
If I dismissed something being pushed by (((Red Sea Pedestrians))) and God wouldn't hold it against me for failing to look into it, the same would apply to other villains like the Dimond Brothers.
After all, when a mouthpiece has been proven vile and wrong 100 times, you can be at least MORALLY certain (maybe not metaphysically or scientifically certain) that they are wrong the 101st time. It's about moral certainty -- enough to base one's actions on.
I would sooner follow a Novus Ordo priest, or maybe even some conservative protestant pastor, before I'd give any ear to the Dimond Brothers on anything. Their reputation has been utterly annihilated beyond repair in my opinion. I consider them schismatic (for cutting themselves off from the One True Church -- by presuming to excommunicate good Catholics who are part of the Mystical Body of Christ) and heretical.
-
By the way, that Dimond Bros. link quoted some heartbreaking letters to the editor of Seattle Catholic…
Yeah, that's the Dimond brothers for ya. All about emotion, rhetoric, and being wrong SO OFTEN. But their worst crimes are those against Charity, where they presume to cut off Catholics (by excommunication) who are objectively part of the Mystical Body of Christ. That makes THEM schismatic. That's what a schismatic does -- they cut themselves off from the Church.
When you take a chainsaw to the Mystical Body of Christ like some demonic villain in a horror movie -- then YOU are the bad guy. It's simple.
Controversy is fine. Rhetoric is fine. Arguing is fine. But condemning and excommunicating others? That is over the line.
The Dimond Brothers have plenty of zeal -- but 100% of it is BITTER ZEAL which works against God's goals and interests, not for them.
-
If I may butt into this debate:
https://classicalpoets.org/2022/07/26/elegy-for-the-child-never-conceived-by-joshua-c-frank/
Elegy for the Child Never Conceived
His would-be parents had but days;
The procreative ship sat docked,
And with the passengers’ delays,
That ship is gone, forever locked,
But if, instead, he’d been conceived
And been allowed to live and die,
His soul could one day be received
In the embrace of God Most High.
And hence it grieves my heart to see
A child-shaped space unoccupied,
Not running in the grass with glee,
Nor leaning on his mother’s side,
And no one in his space in bed
To kiss goodnight while tucking in;
No smiling face, no heart well-fed,
No warm caress from hands to skin.
When weighed against one human soul,
No sacrifice too great to give
Could ever be for such a goal
That one’s own child may simply live.
Whether or not NFP “is” contraception, the end result is the same.
By the way, that Dimond Bros. link quoted some heartbreaking letters to the editor of Seattle Catholic…
.
Are we utilitarians? Is 'the end result' what makes something moral? Is there no moral difference between keeping a thief locked up in your basement and handing him off to the authorities? Imprisonment is the end result in both cases.
-
I'm not a theologian, I don't play one on TV (or on CathInfo), and I won't presume to rule anything "definitively" in this NFP debate. I just want to point out ONE piece of stupidity from the Dimond Brothers, to make my point about them. This was quoted from their page against NFP:
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which 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 powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).
This is CLEARLY talking about artificial birth control, not NFP. Just saying. Carry on...
-
Reminds me of a joke I heard years ago...
"What do you call a woman who uses the Rhythm Method for birth control?"
"Mom"
-
.
Are we utilitarians? Is 'the end result' what makes something moral? Is there no moral difference between keeping a thief locked up in your basement and handing him off to the authorities? Imprisonment is the end result in both cases.
A better analogy might be murder with a weapon vs. with one’s bare hands.
-
A better analogy might be murder with a weapon vs. with one’s bare hands.
But both are mortally sinful in all cases. Are you allowed to use your bare hands to close off someone's airway on some days of the month, but not others? ;)
As the Scholastics say, "All comparisons limp, except in the point of comparison."
-
I'm not a theologian, I don't play one on TV (or on CathInfo), and I won't presume to rule anything "definitively" in this NFP debate. I just want to point out ONE piece of stupidity from the Dimond Brothers, to make my point about them. This was quoted from their page against NFP:
This is CLEARLY talking about artificial birth control, not NFP. Just saying. Carry on...
I must be missing something, why is it clear that he is talking about "artificial" birth control?
The purpose of NFP is to prevent the conception of offspring.
Seems clear to me.
-
Ladislaus, here is the Deferrari translation of the passage in question:
.
Contra the translation you are using, the one I have produced says that if the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, then the ends are duly ordered. So, which translation is correct?
.
As an accomplished Latinist, I imagine you will appreciate the original Latin as well:
.
.
The affably erudite Fr Vermeersch, who was Pius XI's chief moral consultant and the principal ghost-writer of the encyclical, was commissioned to release a small catechism of commentary on it. There is no greater human authority on the meaning of the encyclical, and he explains:
.
That is my case in brief. I have given it to you in this thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/article-on-nfp-from-introiboadaltaredei/msg671775/#msg671775) and this one (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/questions-on-sex-and-specifically-the-role-of-procreation/msg630779/#msg630779). What is your rebuttal?
I will look into it. It sounds like the most coherent argument I've heard so far.
Still, we're keeping in mind that the Magisterium is protected and the intention can only clarify something if it is unclear, I'll have a look at the Latin.
-
But both are mortally sinful in all cases. Are you allowed to use your bare hands to close off someone's airway on some days of the month, but not others? ;)
As the Scholastics say, "All comparisons limp, except in the point of comparison."
That would be a valid argument if our position was that you must not perform the act during the infertile periods which is not our position. What matters is the purpose of the act.
-
I will look into it. It sounds like the most coherent argument I've heard so far.
Still, we're keeping in mind that the Magisterium is protected and the intention can only clarify something if it is unclear, I'll have a look at the Latin.
.
I'm sure Ladislaus can tell you what the Latin means ;)
-
If NFP is a moral good, then why have I seen marriages and relationships destroyed because couples had trouble being open to life, or if they felt they had too many children as is? Now, I have actually seen this happen over the years and so I know what I am talking about here. If the marital act is not in order and the spouses are not open to procreation, nothing but sorrow and anger enters the household. If you remove the purpose of something, you are left empty. All kinds of vices enter the home such as the husband having an addiction to pornography. I wonder if it was because the marital act was not being performed the way God intended?
I knew of one fertile couple. They had been married a good ten years. She had no miscarriages and conceived only once. They had an eight year old son. They were too busy openly talking about how NFP has changed their marriage and how it has helped them “get to know their bodies.” Did they mean her safe days? Safe from what…pregnancy? It makes you wonder. But when I looked at them, I could see quite clearly that the both of them could die of terror. Preventing pregnancy with INTENT TO DO SO is still preventing pregnancy, no matter how you do it! It is sinful to prevent because you do not want the responsibility of another child.
I would be very careful when parties debate on Natural Family Planning because neither of us are the creators or “deciders” of the marital act. God has laid down rules for this stuff. Remember we are even wounded by Original Sin, if we have used NFP selfishly at least one or twice, we will do it again and then it is only a matter of time after that. sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is very powerful, I suggest we all stick with the Natural Law on this one. I understand that there are grave reasons for using NFP, but how many ACTUALLY have grave reasons? Almost none. Planned Parenthood does recommend NFP as a preventer. It makes me very sick to the stomach to think in using something that an evil organization recommends to women who clearly would use it to PREVENT PREGNANCY, so that they could have pleasure. sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is passing by but the souls of your children and the the souls which God wants to give you DO NOT.
It’s funny because when I was ten years old, I actually frowned upon any kind of natural prevention of a pregnancy. I still frown today.
-
You got me curious -- does any major bishop, priest, or group share the Dimond Brothers view on NFP? Of course there is also the Dimonds' personal collection of Scripture and Papal quotes, which they claim backs up their position -- but (I hate to break it to them) that is very much open for debate.
But that brings me back to my first question -- does anyone else of note agree with the Dimonds regarding the interpretation of those quotes? And for that matter, how many DISagree meanwhile?
Because some men fall to the devil's temptation to take their own private convictions & interpretations and create a new religion around it. They try to bind the consciences of others with something that is NOT absolute or dogmatic -- or even true. Protestants did this all the time after the 1500s. It's how we ended up with thousands of Protestant sects. Each heresiarch was convinced he was right. He couldn't see it any other way. So he had no choice but to break off on his own, and condemn everyone who disagreed with him.
-
MHFM
Most
Haughty
Flatulence
Masters
Most
Haughty
Farting
Morons
Mangey
Hairy
Farting
Moons
or
Mostly
Heretical
Fake
Monks
Malicious
Hatred
Fake
Monks
Because they aren't actual religious "brothers" nor are they a real monastery. A website is not a monastery. Then what is CathInfo, the Inquisition?
Or maybe
Mostly
Here
For
Money
Because
https://buffalonews.com/news/monastery-accused-of-taking-mans-1-6-million-former-postulant-files-suit-claiming-fraud/article_c28d909e-fc5c-58b6-af28-9587ef079df7.html
-
If NFP is a moral good, then why have I seen marriages and relationships destroyed because couples had trouble being open to life, or if they felt they had too many children as is? Now, I have actually seen this happen over the years and so I know what I am talking about here. If the marital act is not in order and the spouses are not open to procreation, nothing but sorrow and anger enters the household. If you remove the purpose of something, you are left empty. All kinds of vices enter the home such as the husband having an addiction to pornography. I wonder if it was because the marital act was not being performed the way God intended?
I knew of one fertile couple. They had been married a good ten years. She had no miscarriages and conceived only once. They had an eight year old son. They were too busy openly talking about how NFP has changed their marriage and how it has helped them “get to know their bodies.” Did they mean her safe days? Safe from what…pregnancy? It makes you wonder. But when I looked at them, I could see quite clearly that the both of them could die of terror. Preventing pregnancy with INTENT TO DO SO is still preventing pregnancy, no matter how you do it! It is sinful to prevent because you do not want the responsibility of another child.
I would be very careful when parties debate on Natural Family Planning because neither of us are the creators or “deciders” of the marital act. God has laid down rules for this stuff. Remember we are even wounded by Original Sin, if we have used NFP selfishly at least one or twice, we will do it again and then it is only a matter of time after that. sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is very powerful, I suggest we all stick with the Natural Law on this one. I understand that there are grave reasons for using NFP, but how many ACTUALLY have grave reasons? Almost none. Planned Parenthood does recommend NFP as a preventer. It makes me very sick to the stomach to think in using something that an evil organization recommends to women who clearly would use it to PREVENT PREGNANCY, so that they could have pleasure. sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is passing by but the souls of your children and the the souls which God wants to give you DO NOT.
It’s funny because when I was ten years old, I actually frowned upon any kind of natural prevention of a pregnancy. I still frown today.
.
The Novus Ordo has done considerable damage by imprudently imposing NFP as though it were some kind of moral duty. Such rampant abuses are indeed crimes against marriage, but are distinguishable from the question the OP asked: is NFP contraception? It isn't, and the Church has expressly permitted its usage since the 1860s (that is not a typo) under narrow conditions.
.
The article the OP mentioned (by Fr Calkins) is commendable warning against casual, indiscriminate use. The Holy Office long imposed rather strict guidelines for confessors to follow when the topic came up-- they (confessors) were only to recommend it cautiously, and only for couples who were spiritually mature enough that the priest could be confident the practice would not be abused. I can't remember if it is Fr Calkins or someone else I read who said that if a couple asks about NFP, their solicitation is a warning sign that they are not suitable for using it.
.
Of course, this great care and concern was abandoned quickly after Vatican II.
-
Serious Reason, and attitude.
NFP (words, accronym) should not be used. This is a labeling of the liberal ways. What we truly have is God's Design, anatomy physiology since Adam and Eve. Why this long to see the beauty of God's design is questioinable.
Federal grants got a hold of God's Design and made it rotten. So, when taught, there is no mention of God in any way. Planed Parenthood called it High tech Rhythm when condoms are added. When PP teaches condoms, it is right over the cervical mucus and creates pregnancy to abortion to the person going to contraception and abortion pills. Come to find out New Order teaches the same way only saying condoms maybe needed by a married couple. What lies. Whether it be AIDS or such, condoms do no salvation.
Dr. Billings stated, and I was there to hear him, "This is not yours! This is God's!" He was furious, because attitude was rotten of those taking federal dollars. I was offered to sign papers to the affect and I refused knowing the enemies.
We will be judged of our heart, attitude. We regret that there may come a time to postpone or such, but the object of God's design it not mortal sin, sin is of the person, soul that makes sin occur, from the heart. So, I agree with the use of God's design when in serious reason.
-
Dr. Billings stated, and I was there to hear him…
You are known for false accusations. I can only wonder if this is a false accusation against Dr. Billings. I'd like to hear the testimony of someone trustworthy.
-
So you don't condemn heresy? Why are you a traditionalist again? Oh, maybe you do condemn heresy but not with "BITTER ZEAL"? I hate to inform you that everyone in the Novus Ordo thinks you are a demonic villain with "BITTER ZEAL". If they are wrong about you, then maybe you are wrong about the Dimonds.
Is that your logic?
"They're wrong about you, so you are wrong about them!"
Apples and oranges.
I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you can't tell the difference between fidelity to the Catholic Faith as it was always taught, and Bitter Zeal, then I can't help you. I would be wasting my breath.
-
I’ll take the Dimond Bros. over liberal “Catholics” any day!
I wouldn't. Quite the opposite, actually. At least liberal "Catholics" are over-emphasizing "love" and Charity (distorted into "chawity") at the expense of truth. But they COULD be made aware of their errors and correct them.
The Dimonds, on the other hand, are self-righteous Pharisees who are full of pride and who would never apologize for anything. So I'd place their chance at salvation at: "lower than the average liberal Catholic".
I must confess: I got this idea from Our Lord. He said "harlots and publicans will go into heaven before you" to the Pharisees.
Apparently, according to The Truth Himself, it is WORSE for one's salvation to be a self-righteous, proud Pharisee full of bitter zeal than it is to be a sinner weak against the flesh, or other weaknesses (like human respect, which is rampant in the Novus Ordo).
-
"ServusInutilisDomini", "Clemens Maria" and "Polymath" have been banned for promoting/supporting the Dimond Brothers on this site.
I don't want their poison on CathInfo.
Apparently their poison is somewhat subtle, that not everyone can perceive it. But I certainly can. I know Traditional Catholic like the back of my hand, and the Dimond Brothers aren't it.
They are a Pharisaical, demonic distortion of what it means to be Traditional Catholic.
The Dimond Brothers are my enemy, because they are against what I stand for: the Traditional Catholic position WITH ALL CHARITY as personified by Archbishop Lefebvre. I am against the needless division that dogmatic Home Aloners like the Dimond Brothers stand for. I want *some* of the same goals they do -- at least on paper -- but in the same way that the Pharisees technically were promoting God's interests ON PAPER. -- but Jesus Christ had very choice words for the Pharisees, did He not!
-
As for "The Dimond Brothers have some good stuff", certain others (who foolishly miss the point) say that Vatican II is 90% Catholic. ;)
It's that pesky 10% poison that's the problem. If it weren't for the compelling true stuff that resonates with people, they wouldn't be able to make any "child[ren] of hell twofold more than yourselves".
The truth is the LURE that brings people in.
You come for the truth. You stay for the heresy, schism, and divisive dogmatic home-aloneism.
-
(https://i.gifer.com/B9Vx.gif)
-
The Diamond Brothers in that NFP video states how breastfeeding could be used as a contraception (which Planned Parenthood promotes as natural birth control) if it's used with that mindset of spacing kids out and not for feeding your baby. However, would it be contraceptive if you plan on breastfeeding for more than a year or two, and of course, there are other benefits to it?
-
The Diamond Brothers in that NFP video states how breastfeeding could be used as a contraception (which Planned Parenthood promotes as natural birth control) if it's used with that mindset of spacing kids out and not for feeding your baby. However, would it be contraceptive if you plan on breastfeeding for more than a year or two, and of course, there are other benefits to it?
To answer your question --
A woman has to breastfeed exclusively (no formula or other supplemental food) to suppress fertility. At least that's what some older women told us years ago. And guess what? Babies start needing solid food around 9-12 months old. They just can't get enough nourishment from just breast milk at that point. You can do extended or "ecological" breastfeeding, yes, but the baby ceases to use breast milk as the PRIMARY source of nourishment after a certain point. Past a certain point, it's more for emotional/psychological benefit.
Another interesting tidbit -- when do babies' teeth come in? Hmmm....
Long story short, you get some spacing, but don't expect miracles. (A miracle would be "I'm getting married at 20, but I'd really only like 2 kids...")
Also, to make matters even more complicated, it varies by woman.
-
To answer your question --
A woman has to breastfeed exclusively (no formula or other supplemental food) to suppress fertility. At least that's what some older women told us years ago. And guess what? Babies start needing solid food around 9-12 months old. They just can't get enough nourishment from just breast milk at that point. You can do extended or "ecological" breastfeeding, yes, but the baby ceases to use breast milk as the PRIMARY source of nourishment after a certain point. Past a certain point, it's more for emotional/psychological benefit.
Another interesting tidbit -- when do babies' teeth come in? Hmmm....
Long story short, you get some spacing, but don't expect miracles. (A miracle would be "I'm getting married at 20, but I'd really only like 2 kids...")
Also, to make matters even more complicated, it varies by woman.
Thanks!
-
Ladislaus, here is the Deferrari translation of the passage in question:
Contra the translation you are using, the one I have produced says that if the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, then the ends are duly ordered. So, which translation is correct?
:facepalm: I guess it's time for another logic and grammar lesson.
Uhm, I'm using the traslation on the vatican.va site. And, guess what ... BOTH are actually correct (with different emphases).
In the passage there is both a principle and a practical application thereof to the situation cited, and both are embedded in the same sentence.
So, in context, Pope Pius XI is teaching that it is not forbidden for a couple to make use of their matrimonial rights during times of interfility (on infertile days, when they're older and no longer fertile, or if the couple were just never fertile to begin with, etc.) if they do not obstruct the intrinsic nature of the act, and SO THEREBY (ideoque) do not subordinate the primary ends to the secondary.
So the ultimate guiding principle is that the secondary ends may not be subordinated to the primary. That would be forbidden. In periods of INVOLUNTARY infertility, as in the scenarios given by Pope Pius XI, simply not frustrating the intrinsic nature of the act suffices to prevent a subordination of the primary to the secondary end of marriage rights. But the actual KEY MORAL PRINCIPLE here is that the primary ends of marriage rights cannot be subordinated to the secondary ... IN THESE PARTICULAR CASES OF INVOLUNTARY FERTILITY being satisfied simply by not frustrating the intrinsic nature of the act.
Thus the vatican.va correctly lists FIRST the PRINCIPLE, and then second the requirement in the situation of involuntary infertility. So IMO it is the better translation, as the ideoque clearly indicates a subordination of the concrete application (not frustrating the intrinsic nature of the act), the first being a concrete means to the end fo non-subordination. This is completely lost by the Deferrari rendering, although the latter is not incorrect. This is in fact the force of the Latin ideoque.
Consider the following analogous construct:
It is not forbidden to shoot at targets in the woods with guns so long as one stops shooting when people enter the range, so as to avoid killing someone. (analogous to Deferrari translation)
What's the key moral principle indicated? Obviously it's to avoid killing someone, and the stopping of shooting is subordinate to that principle, and carried out precisely in order to abide by the principle. And the ideoque has the very same force as the "so as to..." portion of my English sentence above.
If I were to rearrage the sentence as follows:
If is not forbidden to shoot at targets in the woods with guns so long as one avoids killing someone and stops shooting when people enter the range.
(analogous to vatican.va translation)
As you can see, the two sentences in BOLD above mean the exact same thing, with a different emphasis. So, as indicated at the very beginning of my post here, BOTH are actually "correct" and BOTH mean exactly the same thing. And the fact that both means exactly the same thing actually clarifies that the formal motive or formal moral principle is to avoid kiling someone (and, in the case of NFP, to avoid subordinating the primary end of marriage rights to the secondary).
Now let's go ahead and lop off the last part of each sentece:
It is not forbidden to shoot at targets in the woods with guns so long as one stops shooting when people enter the range.
If is not forbidden to shoot at targets in the woods with guns so long as one avoids killing someone.
#1 expresses the practical application (with the principle implied?)
#2 expresses the principle (the practical application of which can vary depending on the scenario)
Both effectively mean the same thing, where one is expressed with emphasis on the guiding moral principle, whereas the other expressed in terms of the practical/concrete action in this scenario.
Now, if you look at the first (practical) expression, it would be technically permitted to shoot with guns, so long as you stop shooting the guns when people enter the range. But when people enter the range, the individual stops shooting, but instead picks up a bow and starts firing away at the targets with arrows, resulting in someone's death. Technically speaking, he didn't do anything than "forbidden" as expressed in the first concrete/practical expression of the same thing. Whereas with the second, principled expression, that second person did violate the moral expression.
So clearly GUIDING MORAL PRINCIPLE of the liceity of exercising marital rights has to do with not subordinating the primary end of marital rights to the secondary (or even lesser ordered) ends.
So with that ignorant and sophistic nonsense of yours out of the way, I've said this before and say it again now --
IF ANYONE CAN EXPLAIN HOW ATTEMPTING TO ATTAIN THE SECONDARY ENDS OF MARITAL RIGHTS WHILE DELIBERATELY ATTEMPTING AND INTENDING TO EXCLUDE THE PRIMARY END DOES NOT COSTITUTE A SUBORDINATION OF THE PRIMARY END TO THE SECONDARY, I WILL ENTERTAIN THE NOTION THAT NFP IS LICIT.
Until such a time -- and thus far no one has met the challenge -- NFP is clearly grave sin.
But your absurd sophistic argument implies that it is PERMITTED to subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary (which, uhm, seems to render absurd that we even bother to enumerate them as such), so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is not violated.
-
The Diamond Brothers in that NFP video states how breastfeeding could be used as a contraception (which Planned Parenthood promotes as natural birth control) if it's used with that mindset of spacing kids out and not for feeding your baby. However, would it be contraceptive if you plan on breastfeeding for more than a year or two, and of course, there are other benefits to it?
It's about ends and intent. Most human moral acts are about formal intent. If the INTENT is to breastfeed for the sole or even primary purposes of postponing the recovery of fertility, that indeed would be gravely illicit, just a step short of taking various hormone pills to render the woman infertile. If a woman simply HAPPENS to breastfeed for a longer-than-normal time due to OTHER REASONNS, such as believing that the child will be healthier as a result, or because she has trouble weaning the child, or because they're poor and maybe can't afford as much food as they woudl need, etc. ... then that's no sin because, once again, there's no INTENTION (formal intent) to exclude the primary end of marital rights while being able to take advantage of the secondary.
-
As per my previous post, the INTENT of artificial (unnatural) birth control is ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL to the INTENT of using natural "family planning" (aka birth control). Both actions are morally identical from the aspect of formal INTENT, which is what determines the morality or lack thereof (i.e. sinfulness) of human acts.
Take note of the fact that they DELIBERATELY EUPHEMIZE the natural means as "family planning" while demonizing the artificial as "birth control". Meh. We have artificial birth control and we have natural birth control.
We should begin calling it NBC (Natural Birth Control) to call out this sleight of hand deceit. In both cases it's BIRTH CONTROL, as the FORMAL INTENT is, in both case, to CONTROL BIRTH.
-
Not gonna lie... having reference to the Dimond Brothers does NOT help your case any.
Ah, that's just ad hominem fallacy. We evaluate arguments on their own merits regardless of the source. Appealing to negative emotions (hostility) against the Dimond Brothers does not make any kind of substantive or rational rebuttal of what they had to say.
I didn't particularly care for Father Cekada personally, but then that didn't stop me from listening to what he had to say. Sometimes I agreed, and at other times I did not. Sometmies I agree with the Dimond Brothers, and sometimes I do not. I could replace these people in the previous sentences with just about every person in the Traditional movement ... some of whom I like very much and respect, and others whom I do not. I really like Bishop Williamson personally, but man I have problems with SOME of his positions / logic / arguments, whereas others I find absolutely brilliant. But because I like him a great deal, I am not going to slavishly accept anything he has to say as if he were some kind of infallible divine oracle. Same with Archbishop Lebvre. Who does not LIKE Archbishop Lefebvre? But infallible God he was not. There are others I don't like AT ALL, but even they often speak the truth.
So the "evil" of the Dimond Brothers is neither here nor there.
-
Are we utilitarians? Is 'the end result' what makes something moral? Is there no moral difference between keeping a thief locked up in your basement and handing him off to the authorities? Imprisonment is the end result in both cases.
:facepalm: Indeed, it's the "ends" of an action that determine its morality, i.e. the formal end of the intent. But then you simply conflate "end" with the "net practical effect", but they're not the same thing.
Your objection to the passage cites is beginnig to reveal your motivations for defending Natural Birth Contorl tooth and nail.
-
I'm not a theologian, I don't play one on TV (or on CathInfo), and I won't presume to rule anything "definitively" in this NFP debate. I just want to point out ONE piece of stupidity from the Dimond Brothers, to make my point about them. This was quoted from their page against NFP:
This is CLEARLY talking about artificial birth control, not NFP. Just saying. Carry on...
Not quite. They use a specific term natural power AND PURPOSE, with the purpose being a reference to primary ENDs of marriage. Had they stopped at natural POWERS and not added "AND PURPOSE", then indeed it would have been referring to Artificial Birth Control, but as formulate it could (and does) apply to both, to ABC and to NBC, Natural Birth Control.
-
Reminds me of a joke I heard years ago...
"What do you call a woman who uses the Rhythm Method for birth control?"
"Mom"
That one priest who left CMRI over this matter (and another theological dispute), his name escapes me at the moment, produced an extremely well written letter from a US Bishop banning the promotion of "Rhythm Method" from his diocese for all the right reasons.
Stats show that ABC fails as often as NBC -- "NFP" proponents cite these stats to promote their nonsense -- but in neither case does the fact that the methods are not foolproof justify the immoral action behind the INTENT and ATTEMPT to prevent birth while enjoying marital rights.
-
.
I'm sure Ladislaus can tell you what the Latin means ;)
After a long day at work, I've had to take the time to mansplain it to you. Read and learn from the above post.
Unfortuately, I should have better things to do with my time than to refute your promotion of that evil. It never ceases to amaze me how many Traditional Catholics promote some of the same evils that are promoted by the Conciliar Church.
-
I will look into it. It sounds like the most coherent argument I've heard so far.
Still, we're keeping in mind that the Magisterium is protected and the intention can only clarify something if it is unclear, I'll have a look at the Latin.
It's nothig but sophistry that he's promoting in order to justify Natural Birth Control. See my post explaining how both translations are correct and why, the force of the Latin ideoque, and the fact that despite Myth's hell-inspired bluster, it remains that the chief governing moral principle of the liceity of marital relations has to do with the primary and the secondary ends of marriage.
-
If NFP is a moral good, then why have I seen marriages and relationships destroyed because couples had trouble being open to life, or if they felt they had too many children as is?
Thank you for raising the "by its fruits" argument ... which is always valid, per Our Lord, barring some kind of post hoc proper hoc[//i] fallacy ... which isn't the case here.
-
.
The Novus Ordo has done considerable damage by imprudently imposing NFP as though it were some kind of moral duty.
Oh, BS. Nobody's imposed any such thing. They only present it as such based on the premised assumption that people WILL use Artificial Birth Control, so they preset it as a mora duty COMPARED TO Artificial Birth Control, the use of which is simply assumed or taken for granted ... and they're not all that wrong given the Conciliar mentality.
Natural Birth Control is pernicious and evil at its root, not simply because it was "abused" by the Conciliars.
-
You got me curious -- does any major bishop, priest, or group share the Dimond Brothers view on NFP? Of course there is also the Dimonds' personal collection of Scripture and Papal quotes, which they claim backs up their position -- but (I hate to break it to them) that is very much open for debate.
I've actually known a fair numer of priests who did agree about NFP being wrong (more than who agree with them about Baptism of Desire), including R&R priests, and even NO priests.
I honestly can't see any moral principle why they would be justified.
I recall when listening to the book "Rhine Flows into the Tiber" being read at STAS, there were a lengthy section about how one of the huge revolutions of Vatican II was to eliminate the notion of the procreation of children being the primary end of marital rights and the mutual affection, allying of concupiscence, etc. as teh secondar ... and replace it with making them Co-Primary Ends.
So why is this important? Who cares, right? In fact, with Co-Primary Ends, there's no more order or subordination of one end to another end, opening the door to justifying all manner of sins against the 6th and 9th commandments?
Why is that? Well, that's precisely because THE chief argument of moral theologais against varous sins of impurity is that they are not ordered properly toward the procreation of children.
To me, this is not even a particularly difficult question.
PRIMARY END OF MARRIAGE: Procreation of Children
SECONDARY ENDS OF MARRIAGE: Mutual Affection / Bonding, Allaying of Concupiscence, etc.
Of course, let's be honest, most people "appeal" to the "Secondary Ends of Marriage" as cover for ... pleasure. They want to experience the pleasure of marital relations while not having to deal with the possible raising of children. But that's a side note. For the vast majority of people, "Secondary Ends of Marriage" is just a "euphemism" to set up a condition of non-sinful lust.
Pius XI clearly stated, and it isn't just he who said it, but all Catholic theologians taught this, that it's forbidden to subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary.
So I am at a loss to understand how it's possible that attempting to attain these Secondary Ends while deliberately intending and attempting to exclude the Primary does NOT constitute such a subordination.
False Argument:
1) It's permitted to seek the Secondary Ends even when the Primary End is not attainable (permanent infertility, on interfile days of the month, when the couple are older and past their fertile days, etc.) In other words, it's permitted to have relations on infertile days. Ergo, NBC is permitted because it's just having relations on infertile days.
Fallacy: While in both cases, the activity is materially the same, i.e. having relations on infertile days, these actions are formally different due to the intent. In one case, the intent is simply to seek the secondary ends (without heed to the primary), while in the other the intent is to ONLY have relations on infertile days with the FORMAL INTENT to thwart the primary end ... thus the subordination or subversion.
Let's make an analogy. I am eating a delicious meal. I only really care about the fact that it's delicious and take great enjoyment of eating it. I pay no heed to its primary end to nourish the body. That thought never enters my mind. And yet it IS nourishing the body, and I have no intent to PREVENT that from happining, and if I did sit down to think abotu it, I'd acknowledge that it is doing that and would agree that it's a good thing. But then you have another person savoring the meal, but then, being a bulemic, she goes and deliberately purges after eating, to prevent the food from attaining it's. That there is in fact a subordination or subversion of the ends of eating, where I want to have the pleasure associated with eating but want to prevent its primary end, the nourishment of the body. So, to carry over the teaching of Pius XI, it's permitted to eat a meal for pleasure, but it's not permitted to seek exclusively the pleasure while intending to thwart the main purpose of eating, nourishment.
2) It's permitted so long as one is "Open to Life". This is a vague principle invented by the Novus Ordites. What does it mean to be "Open to Life"? If there was a hole in the condom, I won't have an abortion? Is that being "Open to Life"? If "NFP" fails, I won't have an abortion? No. You're still INTENDING and ATTEMPTING to sobordinate. You're simply willing to accept the consequences failure and are not willing to cross the line into even a greater sin of taking a life. It's like saying that while I am trying to cheat on a test in order to get a good grade, I am "Open to Failing" because I'd accept the consequences of getting caught, and saying that if the teacher catches me, I won't killer her to prevent her failing me.
So excuse me if I'm not seeing either one of these as remotely valid.
Someone needs to articulate why seeking the secondary end while attempting to prevent the secondary is not to subordinate the primary to the secondary end. One could even say it goes farther, where you're trying to prevent it altogether rather than subordinate it. And maybe that's where "Open to Life" comes in. You're willing to accept the birth of the child as the consequene or effect of the secondary end, you're merely subordinating ... which is still sinful ... whereas if you're not "Open to Life", you're going farther by attempting to COMPLETELY exclude altogether.
No one has explained, given the Catholic theology of primary vs. secodary ends, on what basis this would e permissible.
-
I don't see the difficulty here. If you intend to avoid pregnancy, you are already acting with bad will. Regardless of the method. If you want your jollies, you may wind up with a baby. That's how God designed it.
-
It sounds like we need more Traditionally trailed, Traditional priests on CathInfo. What are we at right now, 0?
The problem with this argument is that NONE of us are priests, and even those with some decent seminary and/or theological training can't claim to be unbiased on this issue, since they are married and have their own particular circuмstances.
I can see that it would be *very* difficult to be truly objective on a controversial issue like this. Unless one was a priest. Then you'd have both the training AND the objectivity to make a good opinion. But even then -- who's going to start ruling about which Pope was right and which one was wrong, which Pope started the deep slide into Vatican II, etc.? Ladislaus, for example, listed several bullet points basically arguing that Pius XII should be rejected and declared anti-pope by every Sedevacantist. Ladislaus doesn't say that himself, but he attempts to demonstrate how far-gone the papacy was during the reign of Pius XII. He certainly attempts to convince the reader to some conclusion along those lines.
Aren't we touching on the Crisis on the Church again here, which is the most tangled and confused situation the world has ever seen?
Ladislaus has his strong opinions about this issue, but considering the fact that even Ladislaus himself seems to admit that Trad priests and bishops are divided on the issue, what are the Faithful to do? (BTW, Thanks Lad for answering my question "Do ANY others agree with the Dimond Bros on NFP?") But the next problem is, it seems to be a disputed question at best. Just reading this thread, there is tons of rhetoric being thrown around. A real mess.
It sounds like we need more Traditionally trailed, Traditional priests on CathInfo.
-
Let's make an analogy. I am eating a delicious meal. I only really care about the fact that it's delicious and take great enjoyment of eating it. I pay no heed to its primary end to nourish the body. That thought never enters my mind. And yet it IS nourishing the body, and I have no intent to PREVENT that from happining, and if I did sit down to think abotu it, I'd acknowledge that it is doing that and would agree that it's a good thing. But then you have another person savoring the meal, but then, being a bulemic, she goes and deliberately purges after eating, to prevent the food from attaining it's. That there is in fact a subordination or subversion of the ends of eating, where I want to have the pleasure associated with eating but want to prevent its primary end, the nourishment of the body. So, to carry over the teaching of Pius XI, it's permitted to eat a meal for pleasure, but it's not permitted to seek exclusively the pleasure while intending to thwart the main purpose of eating, nourishment.
I'm going to give your analogy an F, Lad.
"Purging" after a meal is a positive action in your analogy -- so it would mean some kind of contraceptive in the real world. Doing something proactive to "exclude" the primary end. Licit normal eating doesn't involve gagging yourself on purpose to throw up -- ever. It would be a sin of gluttony in every case.
You're talking about the intention being the issue -- at least you're on to something there. But your analogy doesn't reflect that at all. Your analogy is talking about something completely different, like a woman taking a potion, doing an exercise, or some other attempt at artificial contraception.
-
Ah, that's just ad hominem fallacy. We evaluate arguments on their own merits regardless of the source. Appealing to negative emotions (hostility) against the Dimond Brothers does not make any kind of substantive or rational rebuttal of what they had to say.
I didn't particularly care for Father Cekada personally, but then that didn't stop me from listening to what he had to say. Sometimes I agreed, and at other times I did not. Sometmies I agree with the Dimond Brothers, and sometimes I do not. I could replace these people in the previous sentences with just about every person in the Traditional movement ... some of whom I like very much and respect, and others whom I do not. I really like Bishop Williamson personally, but man I have problems with SOME of his positions / logic / arguments, whereas others I find absolutely brilliant. But because I like him a great deal, I am not going to slavishly accept anything he has to say as if he were some kind of infallible divine oracle. Same with Archbishop Lebvre. Who does not LIKE Archbishop Lefebvre? But infallible God he was not. There are others I don't like AT ALL, but even they often speak the truth.
So the "evil" of the Dimond Brothers is neither here nor there.
I have to agree with Lad here. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
-
I have to agree with Lad here. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
That is literally what I said earlier.
But like Vatican II, the more seductive and sophisticated an operation is, the more dangerous it is. See: Vatican II, Modernism. Truth is the most seductive, because it is what our intellect was DESIGNED to be attracted to. So "pots" with 90% truth and 10% error are the most dangerous. Why do you think Vatican II worked so well?
If you wish to sift through a garbage dump to find an old toothbrush that's "practically brand new" -- be my guest.
Or if you want to sift through a dunghill looking for kernels of corn, peanuts, and undigested seeds -- no one's stopping you.
But as for me, when I see a huge steaming pile, I steer clear and get my truth from a totally difference source. One that DOESN'T contain a significant amount of garbage/poison for every gem of truth.
You don't think the Pharisees had a lot of things right? They knew the Scriptures. They certainly abided by the Temple laws of the time. But regardless of what you have right, when you become self-righteous possessed by bitter zeal and pride, it's like spraying liquid poop all over everything. Who wants to sort through your stuff then? Certainly not me. I'm outta there. And what did Our Lord think of the Pharisees? Did He acknowledge the % they were doing right, or did He roundly and soundly criticize them on many occasions?
I would direct people to Dr. Dino or some other protestant Creationist over the Dimond brothers. There's actually LESS danger for the average Trad Catholic with a Prot minister. Temptation to become a Prot? Virtually zero. Danger of becoming a modern-day Pharisee? Many times higher -- it varies by individual and temperament. But it's always several orders of magnitude higher danger, at least.
Remember, the devil doesn't tempt everyone the same way. For some, he tempts with crude temptations to sins of the flesh. For others, he tempts with excessive fasting and works of penance. Or pride and hypocrisy. Whatever gets the job done.
-
That is literally what I said earlier.
But like Vatican II, the more seductive and sophisticated an operation is, the more dangerous it is. See: Vatican II, Modernism. Truth is the most seductive, because it is what our intellect was DESIGNED to be attracted to. So "pots" with 90% truth and 10% error are the most dangerous. Why do you think Vatican II worked so well?
If you wish to sift through a garbage dump to find an old toothbrush that's "practically brand new" -- be my guest.
Or if you want to sift through a dunghill looking for kernels of corn, peanuts, and undigested seeds -- no one's stopping you.
But as for me, when I see a huge steaming pile, I steer clear and get my truth from a totally difference source. One that DOESN'T contain a significant amount of garbage/poison for every gem of truth.
You don't think the Pharisees had a lot of things right? They knew the Scriptures. They certainly abided by the Temple laws of the time. But regardless of what you have right, when you become self-righteous possessed by bitter zeal and pride, it's like spraying liquid poop all over everything. Who wants to sort through your stuff then? Certainly not me. I'm outta there. And what did Our Lord think of the Pharisees? Did He acknowledge the % they were doing right, or did He roundly and soundly criticize them on many occasions?
I would direct people to Dr. Dino or some other protestant Creationist over the Dimond brothers. There's actually LESS danger for the average Trad Catholic with a Prot minister. Temptation to become a Prot? Virtually zero. Danger of becoming a modern-day Pharisee? Many times higher -- it varies by individual and temperament. But it's always several orders of magnitude higher danger, at least.
Remember, the devil doesn't tempt everyone the same way. For some, he tempts with crude temptations to sins of the flesh. For others, he tempts with excessive fasting and works of penance. Or pride and hypocrisy. Whatever gets the job done.
Clapping hands emoji is missing, but it applies here for sure!
All of your posts against the MHFM are all spot on Matthew, so far I like this one the best.
-
It sounds like we need more Traditionally trailed, Traditional priests on CathInfo. What are we at right now, 0?
The problem with this argument is that NONE of us are priests, and even those with some decent seminary and/or theological training can't claim to be unbiased on this issue, since they are married and have their own particular circuмstances.
I can see that it would be *very* difficult to be truly objective on a controversial issue like this. Unless one was a priest. Then you'd have both the training AND the objectivity to make a good opinion. But even then -- who's going to start ruling about which Pope was right and which one was wrong, which Pope started the deep slide into Vatican II, etc.? Ladislaus, for example, listed several bullet points basically arguing that Pius XII should be rejected and declared anti-pope by every Sedevacantist. Ladislaus doesn't say that himself, but he attempts to demonstrate how far-gone the papacy was during the reign of Pius XII. He certainly attempts to convince the reader to some conclusion along those lines.
Aren't we touching on the Crisis on the Church again here, which is the most tangled and confused situation the world has ever seen?
Ladislaus has his strong opinions about this issue, but considering the fact that even Ladislaus himself seems to admit that Trad priests and bishops are divided on the issue, what are the Faithful to do? (BTW, Thanks Lad for answering my question "Do ANY others agree with the Dimond Bros on NFP?") But the next problem is, it seems to be a disputed question at best. Just reading this thread, there is tons of rhetoric being thrown around. A real mess.
It sounds like we need more Traditionally trailed, Traditional priests on CathInfo.
The way you have mentioned priests a great deal in your post has in a way worried me a bit because evidently on whatever “happens in the bedroom,” according to married people is NONE OF THE PRIEST’S BUSINESS. It is very sad how I have seen literally everywhere how couples bring up the vow of celibacy in the priest and that he has no experience in the marital act, that he has no right at all to tell them what to do. Again, very sad.
Married couples need to remember that they will always need a priest day in and day out. A priest was there at the beginning of their life at Baptism. He will be there at the end of your life when he administers Extreme Unction. Goodness, they even had to go to him just to get married!
-
I'm going to give your analogy an F, Lad.
"Purging" after a meal is a positive action in your analogy -- so it would mean some kind of contraceptive in the real world. Doing something proactive to "exclude" the primary end. Licit normal eating doesn't involve gagging yourself on purpose to throw up -- ever. It would be a sin of gluttony in every case.
You're talking about the intention being the issue -- at least you're on to something there. But your analogy doesn't reflect that at all. Your analogy is talking about something completely different, like a woman taking a potion, doing an exercise, or some other attempt at artificial contraception.
Yes, indeed it's the formal intent that's the differentiator. As you know, every comparison "limps", i.e. is not perfect. So the typical argument is that because it's OK to have martial relations during times of infertility (when only the secondary end is "in play"), then it's OK to deliberately ONLY engage in marital relations during those times. But the FORMAL INTENT to PREVENT / PRECLUDE the primary end clearly entails at best a subordination of the primary end to the secondary, and at worst an attempt to exclude it altogether. I think that's where the "Open to Life" thing does play a role. If you're "Open to Life" (more than just saying, well, if it doesnt work, I won't have an abortion), it means you'd accept the primary end if it were a consequence of the secondary. That would be a true subordination of the primary to the secondary, where you would accept the primary end as an effect of the secondary ... vs. not being willing to accept it at all, period, in which case it would go beyond mere inversion of the ends to a complete rejection of the primary end altogether.
As I said, I can find no principle that would permit attempting to deliberately pursue the secodary end while attempting to exclude the primary, how this would not be an inversion of the ends of marital relations. I am willing to listent to solid reasons, but I really have seen none. I think that people have different motivations for defending the use of Nature Birth Control, some because they want to use it, some because they have this exaggerated view of papal infallibility, where a long-winded, rambling, and obviously speculative (just look at Pius XII's own langauge where he's talking about "theories") speech to a group of midwives somehow now meets the notes of infallibility (this one actually meets none of the notes, as there's no indication that he's auhoritatively teaching the Universal Church, but simply speculating in public). Pius XII was clearly opining there as a private doctor. But I have not seen an actual solid RATIONAL argument to demonstrate why this would be acceptable.
Of course, we all know that the Catholic idea is to TRUST God and to accept whatever children God gives them. If there are serious circuмstances, then abstaining from relations is the right approach. If the situation is THAT dire, then you wouldn't even "take a chance" with Natural Birth Control, would you? If you would, then IMO the situation can't be that serious. There's an underlying premise here that people have a God-given inalienable right to have marital relations. There's no such right. If your spouse leaves you, or becomes ill so that there can be no such relations, etc. etc. ... then you're bound to abstain. If you're not married, you're bound to abstain. We accept the children that God wants us to have. This refusal to do so is extremely dangerous. I believe it was St. John Vianney who spoke about the gravity of standing before God and having to explain why we blocked from coming into the world children that God would have willed to come into the world. In a sense it's worse than abortion. You're not merely taking a life out of this world, but you're actually preventing a soul from coming into existence in the first place ever. I mentioned the story of my brother, whose father-in-law insisted that he use Natural Birth Control because he didn't have a very good paying job and also felt that his daughter would be burdened by having too many children (and yes, shockingly, this father-in-law was a "Traditional Catholic" of many years, several decades actually). My brother refused. He was living in a small apartment and he was ready to welcome this third child, despite the hardship, and he suddenly found a small investment he had made in some penny stock inexplicably boomed to the point that he ended up getting about a half million dollars (bought a very nice house outright, could pay off all his bills, etc and never had to worry about money again). Meanwhile, his wife's sister and her husband DID use Natural Birth Control. Guess what, both my brother and his wife's sister ended up with FOUR children, as my brother's wife had issues with repeated miscarriages. So both with four children, the difference is that one did it God's way, the others their own way. Materially the same outcome, but formally a world of difference. Of course, not everyone will get a financial windfall from doing God's will, but in this case God did take care of the problem in extraordinary fashion ... very likely to make a statement about how much it pleases Him when people accept His will.
In any case, I'm not sure what that "Pontification" thread is about, but I've also said that this is my opinion. If I were a priest, I would share this opinion but would not impose it on other's consciences because serious Catholic theologians have come to a different conclusion. They're clearly wrong, IMO, but my "arguments" would not suffice to justify my imposing this on others' consciences. I mentioned this during the "annulment" thread. People confuse having a strong opinion about something with imposing it on others' consciences. I am entitlted to my opinion. I am not entitled to impose it on others when the Church has not ruled on the matter, and Catholics have held opposing opinions without being condemned. In other words, I would not refuse absolution to those who used Artificial Birth Control ... unless it didn't even meet the criteria of "grave situation", i.e. if they really were using it just for Birth Control because they didn't feel like having more children. I would share my opinion, attempt to persuade, but would not "impose" it, leaving them with a warning that they were putting their souls on the line. Just as I would with a couple who were walking around with an NO annulment.
And, now, we come back full circle to the Dimond Brothers. I do believe they're right on this issue. Where I believe they're wrong is precisely due to the above, where they attempt to impose their conclusions on others' consciences and denounce people as heretics if they don't agree with their conclusions. This is the PRECISE LINE they cross over from being right (and, IMO they clearly are) into having adopted a schismatic attitude due to effectively excluding people from the Church who don't agree with their conclusions.
-
Again, to underscore the importance of formal intent in determinig the morality of human acts.
I see $100 on the table. Thinking it's mine, I pick it up and take off with it. Turns out it's someone else's. While it's materially a grave injustice to have in my possession something that does not belong to me, I did not formally commit a sin because I did not have the sinful intent.
I see $100 on the table. Thinking it belongs to someone else, I pick it up and take off with it. Turns out it's actually mine (I had forgotten that I had left it there earlier.) While it's materially no sin to have it in my possession, as it does belong to me, I did commit a mortal sin of theft due to the formal intent of stealing someone else's money.
-
Clapping hands emoji is missing, but it applies here for sure!
All of your posts against the MHFM are all spot on Matthew, so far I like this one the best.
Yes, I actually feel that there are a few crucial "missing" emojis. I would occasionally like to just put a plain "smile" in. It's actually one of the most crucial emojis that help distinguish a tongue-in-cheek comment from a serious one. That is the entire reason that emojis were invented. In spoken conversation, it's possible to indicate your intent with tone of voice and other cues, but it's not possible in written text.
So one of the MOST IMPORTANT emojis is not available ... just a simple smile. I see a few laughing icons to pick from, but those aren't always the right fit. In fact, emojis were originally often called just "smilies" and we're missing the "smile".
So I might say, "You dumb fool." But if I add a "You dumb fool. [smilie]" it becomes clear that I'm mostly just teasing or saying it in jest vs. being dead serious. In fact, I often have that issue with written text, where people don't detect my tone. I just write matter-of-fact, and there's often read into it a tone that is not actually there because I don't take the time to make clear my state of mind when writing.
-
I don't see the difficulty here. If you intend to avoid pregnancy, you are already acting with bad will. Regardless of the method. If you want your jollies, you may wind up with a baby. That's how God designed it.
So the way you expressed this here raises another issue. Can a couple just completely abstain because they "wish to avoid pregnancy"? That to me fits more into the discussion of whether you have grave reasons to do so. There are alternative reasons why a couple might abstain. So, for instance, it's OK to abstain for a while for spiritual reasons, i.e., if the couple wanted to abstain during Lent. But if a couple wanted to abstain for a year or two because they wanted to "space out" children, that too could be sinful depending on the intent (convenience vs. grave reason). So that one is more complicated, and that is where the "grave reason" questions might come up.
So it's one thing to not make use of the procreative faculties, and quite another to make use of them in a disordered way. Non-use and mis-use are two different things. Non-use COULD potentially militate against the proper ends of the married STATE in general, while mis-use directly militates against the proper ends of the faculties themselves.
So the problem with using the marital rights is that, as we know, with regard to sins against the 6th and 9th commandments, the misuse of the procreative abilities is inherently a grave sin ... precisely because of the seriousness of the END for which they were created. Procreation is one of the most serious moral issues because it entails cooperation with God in the act of creation. See, God does not create human souls, and then line them up, waiting for bodies to come into existence to send them down into. God creates the human soul simultaneously with conception. So in a sense, human beings determine if and when human beings get creaeted and brought into existence, and they determine the conditions into which they are brought (can decide to bring children into the world outside of a married state, etc.) This extreme gravity of a very real participation in God's at of creation of human souls is in fact why pretty much any sin related to procreation is grave, because the procreative faculties are so extremely important and impactful.
Consequently, we cannot use these faculties in a way that's contrary to God's law without grave sin. So it's very obvious that the PRIMARY reason (the primary end) of these faculties is to create life, to use the human exercise of these faculties to bring human souls into existence. But God also designed the marital union in such a way as to bring other benefits to the couple that are there to foster the subsequent nurturing of human life. Couples become closer and more affectionate, and therefore better suited, to nurture this newly-created human being, due to the way God designed it (there are various hormonal things that take place that create bonding and affection). Also, these animal instincts to procreate, which might otherwise lead to sin, can be satisfied in a context that reders them not sinful, so there's the aspect of allaying concupiscence. But even these secondary benefits (secondary ends) are still ultimatel ordered toward the creation and subsequent nurturing of the new life, and to allow people a place to act on their instincts while still being within the confines of God's will for the procreative acts. So it does all revolve around the creation and nurturing of new life.
So the Modernists at Vatican II decided to claim that God also set up these benefits of mutual affection and allaying of concupiscence as ends in themselves. Let's say that God had invented these types of procreative capabilities and yet the did not actually result in new life being born. According to the Modernists, God would have created this ability to engage in these marital activities anyway, just so people could get closer to each other and allay their concupiscence, etc. That's utter nonsense. Had God not intended for there to be procreation, he would not have created the animal instinct to procreate in the first place, and so there would be no concupiscence. And there are many ways in which people can increase affection toward one another without having to have intercourse. But this opens the door to justifying everything from fornication to sodomy. That's where all this talk from the Conciliars about sodomy being OK because it's an expression of love/affection, etc.
So those who say that Artificial Birth Control is OK, or sterilization procedures are OK, or that sodomy is OK, they're OK with completely EXCLUDING the other (for them the "alterative primary end" or sɛҳuąƖ relations) because these types of things (the affection, etc.) are an end in themselves.
But with Natural Birth Control, it's really the same thing going on, where you hold that it's OK to activities SOLELY for the purpose of these same benefits (fostering mutual affection, allaying concupiscence, etc.), and the INTENT is to have the ONE end while excluding the OTHER, except that the OTHER in Traditional Catholic theology is the PRIMARY end, and so it's being subordinated to the secondary. So with the co-primary ends theology of the Conciliars, this is perfectly OK. With Traditional primary vs. secondary ends theology, it's decidedly not OK. Now this does not mean that every time a husband and wife join in marital union that they have the explicit intention or have it as their PRIMARY intention to create new life. But the virtual intetion is there based on their recognition of their marriage vows, etc. This is similar to a priest offering Mass who may not expicitly intend at every Mass "I wish to consecrate" but has the virtual intention to do so because he has the habitual intention to offer the Mass. So a similar notion of "virtual intention" applies here ... whether or not it's at the forefront of their minds every single time they engage in such relations. But as soon as a couple adopts a mentality of thinkig it's OK to preclude and actively obstruct this primary end, that virtual intention to have procreation be the primary end of their activities completely evaporates.
-
It sounds like we need more Traditionally trailed, Traditional priests on CathInfo.
I'm in favor of this idea. However, since most of the active forum members here are sedevacantist, that seems to mean that a sedevacantist priest would be most at home here. Though a sedevacantist priest might not like the idea that the views of the Dimond Bros are not welcome here.
Just sayin'.
-
"ServusInutilisDomini", "Clemens Maria" and "Polymath" have been banned for promoting/supporting the Dimond Brothers on this site.
I don't want their poison on CathInfo.
Apparently their poison is somewhat subtle, that not everyone can perceive it. But I certainly can. I know Traditional Catholic like the back of my hand, and the Dimond Brothers aren't it.
They are a Pharisaical, demonic distortion of what it means to be Traditional Catholic.
The Dimond Brothers are my enemy, because they are against what I stand for: the Traditional Catholic position WITH ALL CHARITY as personified by Archbishop Lefebvre. I am against the needless division that dogmatic Home Aloners like the Dimond Brothers stand for. I want *some* of the same goals they do -- at least on paper -- but in the same way that the Pharisees technically were promoting God's interests ON PAPER. -- but Jesus Christ had very choice words for the Pharisees, did He not!
That's unfortunate. Especially Clemens Maria. I've seen many members use DB's as support for their views here. Even I agree with them on some things. Were they warned first?
-
That's unfortunate. Especially Clemens Maria. I've seen many members use DB's as support for their views here. Even I agree with them on some things. Were they warned first?
Unless I am unaware of some posts or some posts were deleted, I don't believe that they crossed a line into promoting the Dimond Brothers in any kind of disordered way ... as, for instance, augustineeens was doing.
I mean, I agree with the Dimonds and their position on this subject. Yet I disagree with them on their attitude of imposing their opinions under pain of heresy. I mentioned earlier that I agree or disagree with pretty much everybody out there.
In fact, I believe that I was the first one who posted their video on this thread, so I probably should be banned also for promoting the Dimond Brothers. Many here would be delighted to have that ban imposed on me.
But then I've posted some stuff from Father Cekada that I thought was solid, even though I've been extremely vocal in criticizing him for what I termed "Cekadism" (his idea that theologians are part of the Ecclesia Docens and especially for his conclusions about moral theology, such as the Terri Schiavo case, which I consider deplorable and scandalous).
I agree that there are some Dimond-bots that are very difficult to live with, but I don't see it as an egregious offense to simply agree with the Dimond Brothers on one or more issues. I don't feel that either Clemens or Servus were in that category. They both seemed to be able to think for themselves and did not seem to exhibit the symptoms of being in the Dimond "cult" (and there is a very distinct type of Dimond cult mentality among some of their followers).
So if I agree with the Dimonnd Brothers about the errors of Eastern Orthodoxy and post a video of theirs refuting the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy, should I be banned for that also? If I post the Dimond Brothers' video about Death and the Descent into Hell, which I think is an amazing video that could change lives if people watched it regularly, I should be banned? If I post the Dimond Brothers' video about Magicians and how they're demonic, another awesome video, I should be banned? None of the above 3 videos touch upon any subjects that are particularly controverted among Traditional Catholics.
I get the idea of the "partial poison," but who isn't "partial poison"? Perhaps the next step is to ban anyone who posts anything from Bishop Sanborn or Father Cekada? Nobody is 100% right on anything.
Heck, Archbishop Lefebvre had an element of "poison". He basically taught/promoted religious indifferentism in some of his statements.
Nobody's right about everything.
Matthew, it's absolutely your forum, but if it's a bannable offense simply to agree with the Dimond Brothers on one or more issues and posting links to their videos or website, then I should be banned also.
Here's the evidence where I was the first to post the video from the Dimond Brothers on this thread --
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-nfp-really-contraception-in-any-circuмstance/msg855749/#msg855749
So if those guys (Clemens and Servus), then I should likely be gone as well. If so ... it's been nice knowing you all. :laugh1:
-
That's unfortunate. Especially Clemens Maria. I've seen many members use DB's as support for their views here. Even I agree with them on some things. Were they warned first?
Yes, exactly. As everyone knows, I'm not a big fan of sedevacantism, but I can understand why someone would want to be sedevacantist in these crazy times.
As you say, many members use (have quoted) the Dimond Bros for their views here, with, I might add, very little censure over the last few years. All of a sudden, the Dimond Bros are a wrong thing to refer to. What gives? Or is it just this particular subject of NFP that's the problem?
-
That's unfortunate. Especially Clemens Maria. I've seen many members use DB's as support for their views here. Even I agree with them on some things. Were they warned first?
Doesn't look like it. I should be banned too if that's the case since I've promoted their materials. Sure, I think their method and attitude is reprehensible and agree with what Matthew said about them being Pharisees, but that doesn't make them wrong on NFP or EENS.
-
Yes, exactly. As everyone knows, I'm not a big fan of sedevacantism, but I can understand why someone would want to be sedevacantist in these crazy times.
I am stunned by this statement. But I find it refreshing. Thank you. Now, I don't believe they were banned for sedevacantism per se, but for promoting the Dimond Brothers in particular. I just struggle with the definition of what it means to "promote" them. Does simply agreeing with them on some things, or many things, or posting links to their site qualify as "promoting"? I don't quite see it that way, but if that's the case, then I should be banned also.
Now, there are these (what I refer to as) Dimond-bots out there. They use the same kind of language and just robotically repeat and regurgitate stuff they read or heard from the Dimond Brothers.. Sometimes they produce their own knock-off videos that if it weren't for a different voice you'd think had been written by one of the Dimond Brothers. There are just these certain "catch phrases" that they tend to use that give them away. And some of them have gotten to the point that they consider you a heretic for disagreeing with the Dimond Brothers even on lower-level issues, like whether JP2 was the Antichrist ... as if the Dimond Brothers were their "rule fo faith" and infallible due to the power of their arguments and "materials" and right on all "the issues". Those last two in quotes are some of these "catch phrases" to whcih I earlier refered. So those types do in fact inject chaos and bad attitudes to the point of often being insufferable. But I never got that impression from Clemens or Servus.
-
So if those guys (Clemens and Servus), then I should likely be gone as well. If so ... it's been nice knowing you all. :laugh1:
While I have time to amend that last statement, and if I must bid farewell --
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
-
There are intrinsic ends (the end of an action), and there are extrinsic ends (the end of the agent). Intrinsic ends/purposes are those to which the action tends of its very nature directly and immediately. Extrinsic ends/purposes are those which the agent chooses as the ends of his own action, i.e., motives.
Casti Connubii §59 refers to the ends of the act and preserving the intrinsic nature of the act so that the act is ordered toward the primary end of the act. The primary end/purpose and secondary ends/purposes are intrinsic ends/purposes of the act. It doesn't refer to extrinsic ends/purposes, such as "motives" or "intentions". Concerning this encyclical he helped write, Rev. Arthur Vermeersch says, "in no way does it touch the use of marriage restricted to the sterile period."
"The use of marriage restricted to the sterile days can in no way be placed on equal footing with the neo-malthusian abuse. For, by that abuse, the intercourse itself is vitiated because it is deprived of its natural tendency and positive impediment is placed in the way of its natural fulfillment. The restricted use, on the other hand, is in accordance with nature. Wherefore the condemnation of the Holy Father in his Encyclical 'Casti Connubii' hits indeed the neo-malthusian usage, while in no way does it touch the use of marriage restricted to the sterile period."
-- Vermeersch, Arthur S.J. “Excerpts from an Article by Rev. Arthur Vermeersch, S.J.” The Linacre Quarterly: Vol.6 : No.4, Article 4, p.85. 1938.
-
"Marriage, as the marriage tablets themselves proclaim, joins male and female for the procreation of children. Whoever says that to procreate children is a worse sin than to copulate thereby prohibits the purpose of marriage; and he makes the woman no more a wife than a harlot, who, when she has been given certain gifts, is joined to a man to satisfy his lust. If there is a wife, there is matrimony. But there is no matrimony where motherhood is prevented, for then there is no wife." ~ St. Augustine
For someone to have sinned grievously in the flesh and to then say this, I agree.
-
It sounds like we need more Traditionally trailed, Traditional priests on CathInfo. What are we at right now, 0?
The problem with this argument is that NONE of us are priests, and even those with some decent seminary and/or theological training can't claim to be unbiased on this issue, since they are married and have their own particular circuмstances.
I can see that it would be *very* difficult to be truly objective on a controversial issue like this. Unless one was a priest. Then you'd have both the training AND the objectivity to make a good opinion. But even then -- who's going to start ruling about which Pope was right and which one was wrong, which Pope started the deep slide into Vatican II, etc.? Ladislaus, for example, listed several bullet points basically arguing that Pius XII should be rejected and declared anti-pope by every Sedevacantist. Ladislaus doesn't say that himself, but he attempts to demonstrate how far-gone the papacy was during the reign of Pius XII. He certainly attempts to convince the reader to some conclusion along those lines.
Aren't we touching on the Crisis on the Church again here, which is the most tangled and confused situation the world has ever seen?
Ladislaus has his strong opinions about this issue, but considering the fact that even Ladislaus himself seems to admit that Trad priests and bishops are divided on the issue, what are the Faithful to do? (BTW, Thanks Lad for answering my question "Do ANY others agree with the Dimond Bros on NFP?") But the next problem is, it seems to be a disputed question at best. Just reading this thread, there is tons of rhetoric being thrown around. A real mess.
It sounds like we need more Traditionally trailed, Traditional priests on CathInfo.
.
Here is an excellent summary of Church teaching (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-question-of-natural-family-planning/) on this question by Bp. Pivarunas of the CMRI. This is not a question that is a matter of debate and speculation, but one that the Church has taught authoritatively on numerous times.
I'll paste the article in full:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of Natural Family Planning is certainly one that has been misunderstood and misrepresented. On one hand, there are some who erroneously believe that NFP can be practiced indiscriminately without the necessary conditions listed by Pope Pius XII (i.e. a serious reason, mutual consent, and morally possibly) and on the other, there are some who condemn entirely the practice of NFP, regardless of serious necessity. It would be better, of course, if this delicate matter were treated in private — with married couples and those preparing for marriage. Because it has become so public, however, it is necessary to answer the important question: “What DOES the Catholic Church really teach on this moral issue?” You will find the answer well explained by His Excellency. Once again, let this also serve as a reminder to all couples that a sufficiently grave reason is necessary to make use of Natural Family Planning.
February 18, 2002
Dear N.,
Praised be Jesus and Mary!
Thank you for your recent letter on the topic of “rhythm” and I welcome the opportunity to set this matter straight.
Not unlike the Protestants who misinterpret Sacred Scripture, there are some traditional Catholics who misunderstand past teachings of the Catholic Church and thereby arrive at erroneous conclusions. I believe that this is certainly the situation with “rhythm.”
Consider the following points:
1) The very concept of “rhythm” was first considered by the Catholic Church in 1853. The Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Penitentiary:
“Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?”
On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Pius IX) answered as follows:
“Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.”
a) Please note: “providing that they do nothing to impede conception.” When married couples practice rhythm, they do not do anything unnatural in the act itself.
In Medical Ethics by Fr. Charles J. McFadden, O.S.A, Ph.D., we read:
“In the use of the safe period, married persons do not interfere in any way with the operation of nature. Their marital relationship is carried out in the strictly natural manner… No unnatural action is committed by those who exercise their marital rights in a truly natural manner during the safe period… In marriage, both parties acquire mutual permanent rights to marital relationship. This fact indicates that they have the right at all times. Generally speaking, however, they do not have the obligation to exercise their rights at any specific time.”
b) Conception certainly can still take place even when couples practice rhythm. InMarriage Guidance by Fr. Edwin F. Healy, S.J., S.T.D., we find:
“Rhythm cannot be looked upon as a certain method of avoiding offspring… The reasons for lack of certainty are: (1) It is difficult to be sure of the strict regularity of a particular woman’s ovulation periods. (2) Fertilization at times occurs during the periods which this theory regards as absolutely sterile.”
2) Another reference to rhythm appeared in 1880. Fr. Le Conte submitted the following questions to the Sacred Penitentiary:
“Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?”
“Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him, or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?”
The response of the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Leo XIII), dated June 16, 1880, was:
“Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”
a) Please note that onanism and rhythm are two different things. In Medico-Moral Problems, Fr. Gerard Kelly, S.J., explained:
“The Church teaches that contraception is a sin because it means doing what is evil. It is not the same with rhythm. Those who practice the rhythm do nothing evil. They simply omit doing something good — that is, they abstain from intercourse at the time when it might be fertile. Therefore, the morality of using rhythm must be judged in the same way as other omissions: if the abstinence from intercourse is a neglect of duty, it is sinful; if it does not imply a neglect of duty, it is not sinful.”
b) In The Administration of the Sacraments by Fr. Nicholas Halligan, O.P., there is yet another reference to the morality of rhythm:
“As regards the conjugal act spouses are free to choose whatever time they wish to use their marital rights or also to abstain by mutual consent. Thus they are not obliged to perform this act only during the fertile period, neither are they obliged to refrain during the sterile period.
“God has endowed the nature of woman with both periods. Deliberately to limit the use of marital relations exclusively to the sterile periods in order to avoid conception (i.e., to practice periodic continence or rhythm) is, according to the common teaching of theologians, morally lawful in actual practice if there is mutual consent, sufficient reason and due safeguards against attendant dangers. “It is also common teaching that this practice of family limitation without good and sufficient reason involves a degree of moral fault. This fault certainly could be mortal if serious injustice is done or there exists grave danger of incontinence, divorce, serious family discord, etc.”
c) Furthermore, the above responses of the Sacred Penitentiary (which are quoted in sections 1 and 2 of this letter) were the moral guidelines for the theologians long before Pope Pius XII addressed this issue. As we read in Handbook of Moral Theologyby Fr. Dominic Prummer, O.P.:
“To make use of the so-called safe period (i.e., to refrain from the conjugal act during the period when the woman is fertile) has been declared lawful by the Sacred Penitentiary, but it is not a certain means of preventing conception, since there is no infallible way of determining the safe period.”
3) You misinterpret Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii when he teaches:
“Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the generating of offspring, those who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature, and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.”
a) Married couples do not “deprive it [the marriage act] of its natural force and power” with the practice of rhythm because conception is still possible.
b) The footnotes in Denzinger on this quote of Pope Pius XI refer to the sinful practice of onanism — whether by interrupted copulation or by artificial instruments. There is no mention of rhythm at all.
4) It is also incorrect to say that Pope Pius XI had not referred to rhythm in his encyclical when he taught:
“Nor are those married couples to be considered as acting against the order of nature who make use of their right in the proper, natural way, even though through natural causes either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot thence result.”
a) In Moral Theology by Fr. John C. Ford, S.J., and Fr. Gerard Kelly, S.J., we find an interesting answer to those who would doubt whether this quote of Pope Pius XI was referring to rhythm:
“The fact that the licit use of the sterile period was already at that time a commonplace among theologians, the fact that the phrase ‘through natural reasons… of time’ was used, rather than ‘reasons of age’ or some similar expression, and the fact that the immediate context of the encyclical itself was concern for the difficulties of married people tempted to onanism — all these considerations convinced the great majority of theologians that Pius XI was here referring to the permissible use of the sterile periods as a means of avoiding conception. Pius XII, we may mention here, explicitly confirmed this view in 1958 (Address to Hematologists, 12 Sept. 1958, A.A.S., 50 [1958] 736), thus dispelling what little doubt had existed on this point.”
b) Thus whatever interpretation you may apply to Pope Pius XI’s “Nor are those married couples…”, Pope Pius XII has already confirmed what his predecessor meant.
5) For those who would belittle Pope Pius XII’s teaching on the morality of rhythm on the score that he addressed only mid-wives and nurses, let them realize that this address is contained in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the official Acts of the Apostolic See). Refer to: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1951) 845-46. On two other occasions, Pope Pius XII reiterated this same teaching and these also can be found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1953) 855-60 at 859 and Acta Apostolicae Sedis 50 (1958) 732-48, at 736.
a) It is interesting to note that Fr. Paul Nau, O.S.B., in his article on the “Ordinary Universal Teaching Authority of the Pope” explicitly referred to this teaching of Pope Pius XII on rhythm as an example of an allocution used to promulgate a teaching to the universal Church:
“The pope can use other means for worldwide communication. With extreme care for tact and delicacy, Pope Pius XII has chosen, in speaking of certain more delicate problems of conjugal chastity, to confine his remarks to an audience of doctors, nurses and technicians.
“A good example of this is the allocution Pius XII gave in 1951 to the midwives. Certainly an allocution is not the most solemn means of teaching at the pope’s disposal, but it is just as certain that the pope did intend to teach quite authoritatively in this case.
“There is no question but that such a discourse was intended to have, and in fact has had, a much wider audience than that of his immediate hearers. The same is true of letters and allocutions directed to bishops. As Supreme Pastor teaching other pastors, the pope here exercises a magisterium that is virtually universal. The audiences in these cases are like sounding boards for greater resonance and wider acceptance of the papal teaching.
“When considering such widespread resonance and acceptance of teachings in the Church, we cannot overlook the help of the Holy Spirit given personally to the Successor of Peter. This assistance is meant to prevent the Pastor from leading the flock astray. The pope is endowed with infallibility because he must direct the Church which Christ promised would be preserved from all error till the end of time.
“We can expect the help of the Holy Spirit on any occasion to be in direct proportion to the impact the pope’s words have on the faith of the universal Church. Whatever is accepted throughout the Church must be true, and the greater acceptance a papal declaration finds, the greater reason we have for accepting it as part of the Catholic faith.”
6) It is important to mention that Pope Pius XII placed a condition on the use of rhythm:
“Consequently to embrace the state of matrimony, to use continually the faculty proper to it, and in it alone, and on the other hand to withdraw always and deliberately, without a grave motive, from its primary duty, would be to sin against the very meaning of conjugal life” (A.A.S., 43 [1951] 845-846).
7) Well before Vatican II, moral theologians consistently reiterated the teaching of the Sacred Penitentiary and Pope Pius XII on the morality of rhythm. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone can claim that the pope, the Sacred Penitentiary, and moral theologians have been in error on this issue for some 150 years and that laity have now figured it out.
With an assurance of my prayers, I remain
Sincerely in Christ,
Most Rev. Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
-
Yes, many of the Church Fathers were very strict, and the rejected the later teaching of Pope Pius XI that it's permitted to have relations for the secondary ends alone during times of fertility. They would say that it's a sin to have relations during infertile times. Of course, Papal teaching trumps what some of the Fathers may have said.
-
Here is an excellent summary of Church teaching (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-question-of-natural-family-planning/) on this question by Bp. Pivarunas of the CMRI. This is not a question that is a matter of debate and speculation, but one that the Church has taught authoritatively on numerous times.
That's total crap. We can file this one alongside their article "The Salvation of those Outside the Church."
There's basically the one Holy Office ruling and Pius XII's rambings in front of the midwives.
And those Holy Office issues are completely taken out of context and have nothing to do with the principled acceptance of Natural Birth Control. I'll address those later when I have more time after work.
-
"Marriage, as the marriage tablets themselves proclaim, joins male and female for the procreation of children. Whoever says that to procreate children is a worse sin than to copulate thereby prohibits the purpose of marriage; and he makes the woman no more a wife than a harlot, who, when she has been given certain gifts, is joined to a man to satisfy his lust. If there is a wife, there is matrimony. But there is no matrimony where motherhood is prevented, for then there is no wife." ~ St. Augustine
For someone to have sinned grievously in the flesh and to then say this, I agree.
As Ladislaus pointed out, the writings of St. Augustine and many other pre-medieval writers aren't helpful for this topic, since they held the flawed premise that procreation was not just the marital act's primary end, but its only end. This flawed premise led them to conclude that intercourse was at least venially sinful during pregnancy, menopause, old age, or any time it was used as a remedy for concupiscense when procreation is impossible. In light of Pope Pius XI’s teaching that the use of the sterile period can be lawful due to secondary ends, the opinion and system of St. Augustine on this must be rejected. There are many quotes like St. Augustine's being misused on the internet by those who don't understand this topic.
-
That's total crap. We can file this one alongside their article "The Salvation of those Outside the Church."
There's basically the one Holy Office ruling and Pius XII's rambings in front of the midwives.
And those Holy Office issues are completely taken out of context and have nothing to do with the principled acceptance of Natural Birth Control. I'll address those later when I have more time after work.
Imagine being so haughty and lacking in understanding of fundamental Catholic principles that you reject and even villainize decrees from the Holy Office which require internal assent, not to mention your absurd rejection of Pius XII's teaching on three different occasions which are all in the official acts of the apostolic see. Refer to: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1951) 845-46, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1953) 855-60 at 859 and Acta Apostolicae Sedis 50 (1958) 732-48, at 736.
If you were honest, you would simply anathematize the pontificate of Pius XII and brush off the entire hierarchy as notoriously heretical. But no, you cope into R&R, which is absolutely incompatible with the basic premise of Catholicism. You would see the error in this by acknowledging the fact that those who disagree with this fundamental premise, namely subjection to the Church hierarchy, all differ in matters of faith and morals, such as in the case of NFP and BOD. It's not limited to this either, since of course, you could simply question and opine on anything that came from the hierarchy that is short of infallible.
But no, you keep citing the logic, or rather the lack of, from two laypeople to back up your rejection of Church teaching. If it were 1951, you would be put under interdict and probably excommunicated for pertinaciously combatting the Pope and hierarchy on a matter they officially decreed on. You guys really take R&R to another level of absurd, seriously. I'm sure you know the quotes but I'll just post them again in case you forgot.
“22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith.” CONDEMNED PROPOSITION. Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722.
8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations. CONDEMNED PROPOSITION. Lamentabili Sane (1907)
-
:facepalm: I guess it's time for another logic and grammar lesson.
Uhm, I'm using the traslation on the vatican.va site. And, guess what ... BOTH are actually correct (with different emphases).
In the passage there is both a principle and a practical application thereof to the situation cited, and both are embedded in the same sentence.
.
Right. A principle. Not two principles. The principle is that the intrinsic nature of the marital act must be preserved, and the practical consequence of retaining it is that the ends are therefore duly ordered.
.
-
.
Right. A principle. Not two principles. The principle is that the intrinsic nature of the marital act must be preserved, and the practical consequence of retaining it is that the ends are therefore duly ordered.
.
:facepalm: Re-read my post again, slowly, until you understand it. Bad will has impaired your logical faculties ... as often happens.
There's a FORMAL principle and a MATERIAL aspect. FORMAL principle deals with the ENDS of the marital rights, the MATERIAL principle deals with the concrete.
To claim that a physical act is now the FORMAL principle, while the ordering of ends is the MATERIAL principle is beyond idiotic.
-
Imagine being so haughty and lacking in understanding of fundamental Catholic principles that you reject and even villainize decrees from the Holy Office which require internal assent, not to mention your absurd rejection of Pius XII's teaching on three different occasions which are all in the official acts of the apostolic see.
Imagine being such an idiot that you don't understand that what's in question is someone's misinterpretation regarding the Holy Office decrees ... which I clearly stated.
About half of this forum rejects the Holy Office ruling that it's grave error proximate to heresy to claim that the earth moves.
Pius XII didn't "teach" squat. He opined and theorized. Your absurd exaggeration of the scope of infallibility and the irreformability of Holy Office decrees, and attempting to characterize the opining and theorizing of Pius XII as somehow teaching that binds the Church is some of the idiocy that flows from the moronic dogmatic SV position.
This idiotic "Cekadism" has poisoned a lot of brains.
Of course, Cekada believes that infidels can be saved, despite a Holy Office decree to the contrary, and most SVs reject the Holy Office decree on geocentrism. Also, they claim that the Pius XII Holy Week Rites are tainted with Modernism to the point that they must reject them in conscience, a Liturgy which Pius XII DID impose on the entire Church ... while at the same time babbling on about how a long rambling speech to a group of midwives (and a couple other similar statements) constitutes binding teaching. Pius XII never taught it with any pretense of authority, but he DID impose the Holy Week Rites.
You clowns babble out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.
I'll get back to the context of the Holy Office decrees later, because I have to get back to work, but the only truly authoritative teaching we have on the matter comes from Pius XI in Casti Conubii in which he lays down the principle (that had always been backed by the Church's pre-V2 theologians, and honestly from the beginning of the Church, that THE primary end of the marital act is procreation). He added to it the teaching on the secondary ends (which the Church Fathers didn't really acknowledge). Finally, he teaches the principle that the marital act is forbidden when the primary end becomes subordinated to the secondary.
It's crystal clear and clear-cut, even if the practitioners of Natural Birth Control here refuse to acknowledge it and keep babbling in circles trying to explain it away.
Primary: procreation
Secondary: mutual affection, allaying of concupiscence, etc.
Secondary: may be sought even when procreation is not not possible.
But it is forbidden to subordinate the primary to the secondary.
That is crystal clear from Pius XI, despite Myth's refusal to admit it. Catholic theologians universally acknowledge this, and that's why it caused a huge uproar at V2 among the conservative Fathers at V2 when V2 tried to make them co-primary ends.
Putting all your chaff aside ... [see my next post]
-
Proponents of Natural Birth Control, you must do one of the following --
1) Reject that there's a principle that the exercise of marital rights is forbidden when the primary ends of marriage are subordinated to the secondary.
OR
2) Explain how attempting to attain the secondary ends while deliberately intending to exclude the primary does not constitute a subordination of the primary end to the secondary end.
Despite Myth's attempts at sophistry, no Traditional Catholic can deny #1. There's no doubt but that Pius XI taught this.
And no proponent of Natural Birth Control has ever demonstrated #2.
So those of you who continue to promote this nefarious practice, explain which of the above 2 you reject and prove it.
-
"There's no such thing as periodic continence."‽
1 Cor. 7:5: "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."
-
I didn't particularly care for Father Cekada personally, but then that didn't stop me from listening to what he had to say. Sometimes I agreed, and at other times I did not. Sometmies I agree with the Dimond Brothers, and sometimes I do not. I could replace these people in the previous sentences with just about every person in the Traditional movement ... some of whom I like very much and respect, and others whom I do not. I really like Bishop Williamson personally, but man I have problems with SOME of his positions / logic / arguments, whereas others I find absolutely brilliant. But because I like him a great deal, I am not going to slavishly accept anything he has to say as if he were some kind of infallible divine oracle. Same with Archbishop Lebvre. Who does not LIKE Archbishop Lefebvre? But infallible God he was not. There are others I don't like AT ALL, but even they often speak the truth.
Well put! I think that there are many things to criticize about the Dimonds, but I don't automatically dismiss what they have to say just because of their reputation. They definitely have videos that I wholeheartedly disagree with, or that I think are uncharitable. Their video attacking the late Bishop Dolan (along with Bishop Sanborn) on EENS disgusted me because it amounted to deliberate misrepresentation of what they said and petty cheap shots (I'm considering making a video to fraternally and charitably correct them, though it would probably be a pointless endeavor knowing them). I also think that their video criticizing Return to Tradition was pointlessly petty and prideful (it made me feel really bad for Anthony Stine). I also recall a time that they criticized me in one of my comments that I made on one of their videos because my profile picture had an anime woman in it who happened to be wearing a tie (which was barely visible and not even the focus of the image, but I digress). They frequently do petty nitpicking on people who comment on their videos. Such time would be better spent in prayer or anything else really.
With all of that said, I do understand why Matthew harbors deep resentment of them. They give out some spiritually dangerous advice, especially in regards to the sacraments. They essentially just tell you to stay home, avoid Mass, and pray 15 decades of the Rosary on Sundays. If you're lucky, there might be a "heretical priest" who is "not imposing" that you can go confess to, but your guess is as good as mine to which priests meet this lofty criteria. I can't really recommend MHFM's channel or website to those looking for traditional Catholic information because of how much sifting one must do to separate the bad from the good that they produce. At most, I can only recommend some individual videos, like their Steven Anderson and Jay Dyer docuмentaries.
-
There are intrinsic ends (the end of an action), and there are extrinsic ends (the end of the agent). Intrinsic ends/purposes are those to which the action tends of its very nature directly and immediately. Extrinsic ends/purposes are those which the agent chooses as the ends of his own action, i.e., motives.
Casti Connubii §59 refers to the ends of the act and preserving the intrinsic nature of the act so that the act is ordered toward the primary end of the act. The primary end/purpose and secondary ends/purposes are intrinsic ends/purposes of the act. It doesn't refer to extrinsic ends/purposes, such as "motives" or "intentions". Concerning this encyclical he helped write, Rev. Arthur Vermeersch says, "in no way does it touch the use of marriage restricted to the sterile period."
"The use of marriage restricted to the sterile days can in no way be placed on equal footing with the neo-malthusian abuse. For, by that abuse, the intercourse itself is vitiated because it is deprived of its natural tendency and positive impediment is placed in the way of its natural fulfillment. The restricted use, on the other hand, is in accordance with nature. Wherefore the condemnation of the Holy Father in his Encyclical 'Casti Connubii' hits indeed the neo-malthusian usage, while in no way does it touch the use of marriage restricted to the sterile period."
-- Vermeersch, Arthur S.J. “Excerpts from an Article by Rev. Arthur Vermeersch, S.J.” The Linacre Quarterly: Vol.6 : No.4, Article 4, p.85. 1938.
-
There are intrinsic ends (the end of an action), and there are extrinsic ends (the end of the agent). Intrinsic ends/purposes are those to which the action tends of its very nature directly and immediately. Extrinsic ends/purposes are those which the agent chooses as the ends of his own action, i.e., motives.
Casti Connubii §59 refers to the ends of the act and preserving the intrinsic nature of the act so that the act is ordered toward the primary end of the act. The primary end/purpose and secondary ends/purposes are intrinsic ends/purposes of the act. It doesn't refer to extrinsic ends/purposes, such as "motives" or "intentions". Concerning this encyclical he helped write, Rev. Arthur Vermeersch says, "in no way does it touch the use of marriage restricted to the sterile period."
More Modernist trash.
Pius XI clearly speaks of the primary and secondary ends throughout his Encyclical, well beyond the physical act itself ... and these secondary ends are not simply a function of the act itself.
-
More Modernist trash.
Pius XI clearly speaks of the primary and secondary ends throughout his Encyclical, well beyond the physical act itself ... and these secondary ends are not simply a function of the act itself.
The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic ends is fundamental and basic in moral theology. There's nothing modernist about it.
The relevant statement in Casti Connubii concerning the use of marital rights during sterile times refers directly to the intrinsic nature of the act, and the ordering of the act toward its primary end. It's not talking about motives, which is why Fr. Arthur Veermersch, Professor of Moral Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome, the chief adviser to Pope Pius XI, and the ghost-writer of the encyclical, said about the encyclical, "in no way does it touch the use of marriage restricted to the sterile period." And it's why he said this:
"As long as the act takes place normally it remains objectively directed toward its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end, for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. Of course, the couple are bound to welcome any children that might come, if, as sometimes happens, their plan fails. The conjugal intercourse in any event serves the other ends of marriage." (p.44)
-- Vermeersch, Arthur, S.J. “What is Marriage?: A Catechism Arranged According to the Encyclical ‘Casti Connubii’ of Pope Pius XI.” Translated by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J. Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York. New York: The America Press, 1932.
“The due order among the purposes of marriage is never disturbed as long as the couple performs the copula in the natural way. Thus the intercourse always retains its natural tendency towards procreation, thereby safeguarding the purpose of the act (finis operis).” (p.86)
“This subordination is preserved in as far as the carnal act is done in accordance with the law of nature. Carnal intercourse, correctly indulged, tends to procreation. If that does not result, it is not due to the couple copulating, but it is due to the order ordained by God, which decrees that all days are not fertile.” (p.87)
“For, it is in no way repugnant to the nature and kind of the procreative faculty that an intercourse should take place which, by the decree of nature herself, will not attain the principal purpose of matrimony, but which will be exceedingly useful for its secondary objectives.” (p.87)
-- Vermeersch, Arthur S.J. “Excerpts from an Article by Rev. Arthur Vermeersch, S.J.” The Linacre Quarterly: Vol.6 : No.4, Article 4, 1938.
Vermeersch was no modernist; he was vehemently opposed to modernism. And he was no idiot.
-
Thanks for providing the references to Vermeersch.
-
Vermeersch was no modernist; he was vehemently opposed to modernism. And he was no idiot.
Well, in this case, he was either a moral modernist or else was in fact a bumbling idiot, because the principle of primary and secondary ends is clearly taught by Pius XI, and it's clearly taught that the two ends cannot be inverted. He also clearly stated what those.
Pius XI defined the primary ends of marriage and the secondary ends of marriage.
Pius XI clearly stated that the two ends could not be inverted.
Those principles are clearly understood by all Catholic moral theologians, because on them rests the entire moral theology regarding the 6th and 9th commandments.
In context, in that statement, he was talking about the specific context of a scenario where only the secondary ends were available, and clearly stated that in that case the primary ends would not be subordinated to the secondary by merely not inhibiting or interfering with the intrinsic nature of the act. He said in this situation not inhibiting the act sufficed because thereby would be avoided the inversion of the ends.
And the deviants on this forum who continue to push, promote, and condone Natural Birth Control (very possibly because they practice it themselves), you will answer to God for this ... as I'm sure Pius XII had to answer and very possibly is still answering, and will be answering (for this and for a fair number of other things).
-
Primary End: procreation
Secondary End: mutual affection, bonding, allaying of concupiscence etc.
Principle: one may not subordinate the secondary ends to the primary.
Not one proponent of Natural Birth Control has explained how exercising marital rights with a view to the secondary end (or, basically, just for pleasure and lust in most cases) while deliberately intending and attempting to avoid the primary end does not constitute a subordination of the primary end to the secondary.
I'm still waiting ....
-
Who exactly are all these moral theologians who understand Casti Connubii the way you do? Vermeersch is but one of a plethora who all say the same thing--Griese, Dolan, Wayne, even Calkins; not to mention every Pope's Holy Office since the 1850s, all consistently and without deviation teach that it can be morally lawful to restrict use of the marital act to sterile periods.
.
If one prefers their own reasoning and understanding to that of the authorized teachers and interpreters, then so be it. But let's be honest about where our ideas come from.