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:
"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.