Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?  (Read 4421 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 41910
  • Reputation: +23950/-4345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
« Reply #75 on: November 15, 2022, 11:56:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline Geremia

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4127
    • Reputation: +1260/-261
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
    « Reply #76 on: November 16, 2022, 06:35:21 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • "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."
    Logged
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

    Offline Sneedevacantist

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 167
    • Reputation: +85/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
    « Reply #77 on: November 16, 2022, 10:55:49 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 14, 2022, 07:05:52 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Joe Cupertino

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 71
    • Reputation: +66/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
    « Reply #78 on: November 17, 2022, 08:23:30 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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."



    Quote
    "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.


    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23950/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
    « Reply #79 on: November 17, 2022, 08:40:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Joe Cupertino on November 17, 2022, 08:23:30 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Joe Cupertino

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 71
    • Reputation: +66/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
    « Reply #80 on: November 17, 2022, 02:39:59 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 17, 2022, 08:40:53 AM
    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:

    Quote
    "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.


    Quote
    “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.





    Logged

    Offline angelusmaria

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 474
    • Reputation: +280/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
    « Reply #81 on: November 21, 2022, 06:26:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Thanks for providing the references to Vermeersch.  
    Logged
    please pray for me

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23950/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
    « Reply #82 on: November 21, 2022, 11:16:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Joe Cupertino on November 17, 2022, 02:39:59 PM
    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).
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23950/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
    « Reply #83 on: November 21, 2022, 11:19:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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 ....
    Logged

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4452
    • Reputation: +5061/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is NFP really contraception in any circuмstance?
    « Reply #84 on: November 23, 2022, 09:43:17 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
    « previous next »