Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!  (Read 7052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Raoul76

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4814
  • Reputation: +2007/-4
  • Gender: Male
Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
« on: November 25, 2009, 06:36:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Okay, John Gregory, I found your article on the Daily Catholic website where you come out against Natural Family Planning.  

    http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Nov/nov10for.htm

    Do you renounce this article?  Why have you not backed me up?  

    Most likely because you didn't read it carefully or maybe only heard of it in passing, you refer to Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives as somehow being against NFP, when it is the first "Magisterial" statement from the "Church" that promotes it, and leads right into Humanae Vitae ( which you condemn ).  Paul VI even quotes Pius XII, not from Allocution to Midwives, but from a speech he gave the next year, in Humanae Vitae:

    Quote
    "24. Our next appeal is to men of science. These can "considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family and also peace of conscience, if by pooling their efforts they strive to elucidate more thoroughly the conditions favorable to a proper regulation of births." (28) It is supremely desirable, and this was also the mind of Pius XII, that medical science should by the study of natural rhythms succeed in determining a sufficiently secure basis for the chaste limitation of offspring.


    You have since, to my knowledge, avoided all of my essays, screeds and commentaries about Pius XII and NFP, which he taught under the guise of the "exclusive use of the safe period."

    It is also remarkable that almost everyone on this website is ignoring me about this when I am so obviously right -- all credit due not to a middling and average being like me ( 180th or so from the top of my high school class ), but to the Holy Ghost, friend to us all if we would only listen.  How often are you going to pretend that words like "chaste" and "abstinence" can be used in reference to the deliberately non-procreative conjugal act without smelling a rat?

    At the very least, enough contradictions have been shown that people should be at least a little curious that something is wrong here.  

    Droleskey himself ignored me when I wrote to him about it.   He'll yap all day about abortion but to my knowledge he has never said anything about NFP, ever.  Not even to defend it!  This is characteristic of my experiences trying to convince others that NFP is wrong.  No one very enthusiastically defends it, because if they did they would instantly get tangled in hypocrisy which they seem to sense subconsciously.  They mostly just avoid it, or act as if it is unimportant, murmuring something about grave reasons, or how it's natural.  

    The fact that it is Feeneyites who are mostly against NFP also makes it seem like a "Feeneyite problem," not worthy of consideration for mainstream traditional Catholics.  Uh... The so-called Church teaching a mortal sin, and promoting communist thinking, is not a Feeneyite problem.  Like it or not, it's YOUR problem.  

    The whole point of being traditional is to detach ourselves from heretics and heresies which are precisely communist/Satanic in nature.  Pray tell, what is the point of going halfway?  You want to rid yourself of SOME communist heresies but not ALL of them?  Pius XII is somehow sacrosanct despite being from the same mold as Paul VI, and for no reason, "just because" it's what everyone seemed to have arbitrarily agreed?  SSPX breaks away from the conciliar structures because of false ecumenism but keeps the heretical "Popes" and the NFP; the sedevacantists just keep the NFP, the worm in their apple.  

    What I see is that a giant peer pressure has been placed on us.  No one wants to go out on the limb where I am.  But this limb happens to hold the truth.

    *****

    You have shown you can apologize and humble yourself, L_o_T, so I can't accuse you of being ill-willed.   I just don't understand why you are supporting clerics who teach NFP.  In your article you do not mention anywhere that SSPX and the sedevacantists teach NFP almost across the board.  One might get the impression, due to your emphasis on Paul VI, that it is only a Novus Ordo problem.

    You are so close to the truth.  Actually you're not just close, you HAVE the truth.  You are a sedevacantist who is against una cum, and this is the correct -- yet hidden -- Catholic position, which you'd arrived at probably before I was even Catholic.  The problem is that you go to SSPX, which contradicts what you already know.

    So let's look at your position as a sedevacantist against NFP who goes to SSPX, and the paradoxes this entails:  

    ( a ) You have no problem supporting priests who teach what you know is wrong, and --

    ( b ) You have no problem with the una cum.  

    The reason you go to SSPX and not the Indult is to separate yourself from those who hold the heresy of false ecumenism.   But since the heresy of NFP is held at SSPX, you have jumped from one hot lava puddle to the next -- do you see this?  

    By your own logic, you should be attending the Indult like Caraffa.  There you could also ignore the heresies spouted by the priests, and ignore the una cum, while at least being consistent with your recognize-and-resist stance.  

    See, what is happening is that you are not taking what you KNOW to its conclusion, but have stopped halfway, getting tangled in contradictions as will always happen to those who stop halfway.  The SSPX seems to have been practically designed for those who are too timorous to take a stand against the massive wall of lies out there, and who embrace a compromise which they call "moderation."  It relies for its existence on a spurious feeling of "charity," of safety in numbers.  But the Catholic Church cannot be reconciled with its opposite, and you cannot go to an Arian mass while preaching Athanasius.  Not if you want to keep your nose clean, anyway.

    *****

    Perhaps you don't think NFP is heresy but merely "error"?  There has been a fine line between the two for a long time, but frankly, the Pelagian and/or Manichaen aspect of NFP is impossible to ignore, since it relies on fallen human "reason" rather than God's providence, and also encourages the idea that having children in certain cases is undesirable.  In short, it is rationalism, which was warned against by Pius X and has nothing in common with Catholicism.

    Anyway, teaching a mortal sin definitely falls into the heresy category, and in a big way -- and please spare me the "grave reasons" which are communist and eugenic.  

    Don't you realize that by supporting priests who teach NFP that we keep them in business?  Yeah, I know I said I may go back to CMRI -- I changed my mind.  We CAN attend the Masses of heretics in certain cases, but that doesn't mean we SHOULD.  Later in another post I will write in detail about why we should not in this time of crisis.  

    Though I don't doubt that there is a conspiratorial element to all this, I still hope that there are those out there who only go along with NFP out of obedience to what they think is the Magisterium rather than malice.  But when someone defends it like Bishop Pivarunas does, or Father Cekada does, using misleading arguments, and quoting textbooks exclusively from the time of Pius XII and later, these Dr. Frankenstein-style "medical ethics" abominations, that fully reflect Pius XII's own "mad doctor" mindset ( he was the first Pope to talk about medical ethics, and he did so at length )... Let's just say you have to wonder.  A benign way to look at is to say that they suffer from nostalgia for what they think is the Golden Age of their childhoods, the Forties and Fifties.  I hope that is all it is.

    Another fun fact I learned today.  Did you know that Pius XII permitted sterilizations for certain reasons?  For instance, if a woman had an irregular menstrual cycle and the cure entailed making her sterile?  I have to do more research on this one but it is just more proof in the pudding.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #1 on: November 25, 2009, 06:44:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    How often are you going to pretend that words like "chaste" and "abstinence" can be used in reference to the deliberately non-procreative conjugal act without smelling a rat?


    Please read "How long are we..." at the beginning of the sentence instead of "How often are you..."
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #2 on: November 25, 2009, 06:50:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since this post was specifically for Lover_of_Truth but at the same time intended for everyone else -- and thus public -- I have gotten my "wes" and "yous" mixed up, and my "yous" often have an indeterminate object.  I need a proofreader.  

    Just let it be known that when I say "you" it doesn't always mean "you" Lover_of_Truth.  I am talking directly to you in the first section where it pertains to your article, all throughout the second section, and in the first three paragraphs of the third section.  The sections are separated one from another by a line of stars.

    The rest of the "yous" are speaking to a general reader.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #3 on: November 25, 2009, 06:52:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    My "yous" often have an indeterminate object


    I mean subject.  Argh!  I need to get away from this computer.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #4 on: November 27, 2009, 12:13:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    Okay, John Gregory, I found your article on the Daily Catholic website where you come out against Natural Family Planning.  

    http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Nov/nov10for.htm

    Do you renounce this article?  Why have you not backed me up?


    Is this ever interesting.


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #5 on: November 27, 2009, 01:39:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #6 on: November 27, 2009, 02:49:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline CMMM

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 263
    • Reputation: +9/-0
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #7 on: November 27, 2009, 03:30:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • *Noose

    You were close. :wink:


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #8 on: November 27, 2009, 05:23:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: C.M.M.M
    *Noose

    You were close. :wink:


    Thanks for that.   :smile: I was actually going to ask how to spell it on a post, I was so bothered by not knowing how to spell it.  :thinking:
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #9 on: November 28, 2009, 01:41:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BTW - For what I wish to be the last time.  I do not attend an SSPX Mass, nor do I support them.

    If you eventually answer the questions I have raised to you on the issue of NFP more than a month ago I will have more to say about your initial post.

    But I can only explain myself so often.  Eventually I will have to move on and let the Holy Ghost work with you directly.  

    Do you realize that in Catholic Theology that you are allowed to do a good act even if an evil will be the unintended result of that act such as removing a cancerous ovum with the undesired result being the death of the child in the womb.  This is different than directly killing the child.  I think this is called "The Principle of Double Effect".  Of course, in this instance, even if the cancerous ovum were not removed the child and mother would both die anyway.

    One can never do evil that good may come, but one can do good even if evil is the unintended result.  Catholic theology.

    I do not think an irregular menstral cycle warrents sterilization.  But curing an irregular menstral cycle is not evil.  I'm not sure where you are getting your "facts" on Pius XII however.

    I'll ask again, do you think he was a valid Pope?
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #10 on: November 30, 2009, 01:45:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Catholic Martyr
    Quote from: Raoul76
    Okay, John Gregory, I found your article on the Daily Catholic website where you come out against Natural Family Planning.  

    http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Nov/nov10for.htm

    Do you renounce this article?  Why have you not backed me up?


    Is this ever interesting.


    actually no, this is a true case of obsessing over something...what is this obsession with NFP/sex Raoul has??? geesh, just when I thought he was over it and moving on...this is what I get for leaving forum for a few days of R&R..
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic


    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #11 on: November 30, 2009, 01:46:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    I need to get away from this computer.


    No kidding, after 4 posts/response to your own posts in a row....
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #12 on: December 01, 2009, 03:07:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #13 on: December 01, 2009, 03:26:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • St. Hildegard's prophecies that have been taken to refer to the Minor Chastisement seem to actually bear out what I'm saying, about how NFP will be looked at as a scourge.  

    Quote

    After that there will be so few men left that seven women will fight for one man, that they will say to the man: "Marry me to take the disgrace from me." For in those days it will be a disgrace for a woman to be without child, as it was by the Jews in the Old Testament."


    This goes beyond just the need to repopulate.  It's almost as if having children will become a form of repentance or even of grace.  The married state will become much more honorable, I believe, and blessed, at least for a time, precisely because of how it was dishonored in our Noah-like times.

    This prophecy strikes me as accurate, if fuzzy in some details.  It also talks about the total Atlantis-like destruction of America, which I assume is the land "inhabited by people of different tribes."  That this country is under an enormous curse has always been my contention, though that's for another thread.  
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
    « Reply #14 on: December 01, 2009, 06:29:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This thread at Bellarmine Forums absolutely mesmerizes me.  It's three in the morning and I am all wrought up.  

    All these controversies I've been tormenting myself with were discussed briefly in this thread long before I hit the "scene."  I've felt so alone with this, since I thought only Feeneyites were against NFP, that I almost want to weep with joy to see someone like Tommy Short who came to a similar conclusion as me and would not be bullied by John Daly, who he otherwise respects, into backing down.  ( John Gregory, I'm still not sure what your position is and I'm not sure if you've really fully digested the Allocution to Midwives, but I have to go over your essay later ).  He also calls NFP a major error of the traditionalists which is what I've been begging and pleading for people to realize on this website.  The traditional/sedevacantist Church is still not Catholic.  I don't know if it's a conspiracy or what but Allocution to Midwives, flagrantly, is not Catholic, and what Pius XII taught there is nothing like what was supposedly taught in 1853 or 1880.

    It flabbergasts me to see how unconcerned people are about Pius XII's statement that NFP can be used for "eugenic" reasons, let alone the economic ones.  Come to think of it I don't think I've ever seen anyone outside of Feeneyites discussing this at all.  You'd think that a Pope saying that natural birth control can be used for eugenic reasons would at least start some discussions!  

    Even in this thread at Bellarmine Forums for some reason everyone tiptoes around the issue of NFP.  This is truly a textbook case of an elephant in the living room. This heresy should be bewailed to the skies.  

    I actually believe holding to NFP may very easily take people to hell, which is why I'm urgently trying to use whatever time is left to get people to figure out that the traditional clergy, whether well-intentioned or not, has led them astray.  This is a big, big, BIG deal folks.  It is hitting me harder every single day just how big it is.  Birth control is a truly abominable and wretched sin and it is just mind-boggling to me that the Modernists pushed this one across.  But I see how it was done -- slowly and patiently.

    Vince Sheridan in this thread says that Pius X went along with the decision of 1853.  Was he there when Pius X read this decision, if it existed at that time at all and wasn't doctored?  The Baltimore Catechism is heretical and says you can be saved in a false religion if you never even intend to join the Catholic Church; does the blame for that lay at the feet of Pius X who probably never even read it?  Wasn't it enough that Pius X said, in general, that people within the Church were poisoning it at the very heart?  What more does he have to do to warn people not to believe everything they're told by their pastors?  He himself said not even to trust books that have Imprimaturs; he did not have the time to personally check everything that everyone was saying!
     
    John Daly himself says,

    Quote
    "No doubt the decision to restrict the use of marriage exclusively to infertile times has a specific moral character and needs serious reason in each case. But this decision is not comparable to the abomination of voluntarily frustrating the individual act."


    Again, as I've seen with all the defenders of NFP, a stark, screaming contradiction is thrown out there and apparently through some sort of hypnotic technique much like Hitler's "Great Lie" we are meant to buy into it, as if whatever is stated boldly enough must win us over through the sheer confidence with which it is presented.  

    With God's grace I am immune to this hypnosis, and I'd love to see Mr. Daly explain how NFP is not "voluntarily frustrating the individual act" because that is exactly what it is.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16