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.

"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.

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.

“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?”

“Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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?”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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).

Here is an excellent summary of Church teaching 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.

.
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.
.