Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Raoul76 on November 25, 2009, 06:36:23 PM

Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on November 25, 2009, 06:36:23 PM
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 ecuмenism 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 cuм, 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 cuм.  

The reason you go to SSPX and not the Indult is to separate yourself from those who hold the heresy of false ecuмenism.   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 cuм, 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.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on November 25, 2009, 06:44:27 PM
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..."
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on November 25, 2009, 06:50:00 PM
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.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on November 25, 2009, 06:52:18 PM
Quote
My "yous" often have an indeterminate object


I mean subject.  Argh!  I need to get away from this computer.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on November 27, 2009, 12:13:23 PM
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.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on November 27, 2009, 01:39:52 PM
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on November 27, 2009, 02:49:22 PM
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CMMM on November 27, 2009, 03:30:12 PM
*Noose

You were close. :wink:
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on November 27, 2009, 05:23:29 PM
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:
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on November 28, 2009, 01:41:13 AM
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?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on November 30, 2009, 01:45:34 PM
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..
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on November 30, 2009, 01:46:29 PM
Quote from: Raoul76
I need to get away from this computer.


No kidding, after 4 posts/response to your own posts in a row....
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 01, 2009, 03:07:34 AM
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 01, 2009, 03:26:39 AM
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 Jєωs 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.  
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 01, 2009, 06:29:03 AM
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.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on December 01, 2009, 07:08:44 AM
Quote from: Raoul76
This thread at Bellarmine Forums absolutely mesmerizes me.  It's three in the morning and I am all wrought up.    


why are you surfing the net at 3 AM? do you work shift work or something...could be the reason for your confusion on most things...maybe to your insesant preoccupation with sex and NFP......

tell ya what, lets save up our pennies, fly to Rome, dig up PiusXII and you can personally piss on him and kick him a few times....

is anyone else on this forum really sick of this NFP/sex talk????

is it just me that wonders why an unmarried guy is going on, and on, and on, and on, and on...about sex/NFP..
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 01, 2009, 08:36:26 AM
Quote from: LoT
I will ask you again if you believe engaging in the procreative marital act while your wife is pregnant is birth control?1

The Church teaches that neither spouse can refuse a reasonable request from their spouse to engage in the marital act.  You will notice the word "reasonable" written in though if the sentence was written by you or CM the word "reasonable"
would have to be eliminated because everything has to be black and white for you.
2 There are no exceptions or distinctions and if you cannot understand it it must not be true.

But we are talking about what the Church teaches rather than what you would prefer to believe which leads me to the second question which I have not seen you answer yet which is:

Is it reasonable for a man to request his wife to engage in this act 5 times a day?  If yes, you are crazy, if no, by your standards, "heretic, mortal sinner, birth control"3.


Raoul76, LoT is so chock-full of logical fallacies (1, 2, 3), that I am rather awed at your patient response.

I am also surprised that he did not acknowledge, nor did you point out, will and intention and their bearing on the discussion.

However, his dissection of Pius XI should help you come to grips with reality.  Oh, and do you remember this?

Quote from: Antipope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii,
66. What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it.


He even put those nice little quotations around "indication", a nice vague allusion to who knows what, which served as a foundation upon which Pius XII happily built.

"For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus."

Where was NFP then?  How about the unanimous consent of the Fathers against birth control, and even St. Augustine's explicit condemnation of the very same practice now known as NFP?

Quote from: LoT
Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions!


There certainly are - but a sinful WILL is a sinful will is a sinful will.  The will to avoid conception while performing the act designed to bring it about is a sinful will - inordinate and faithless.

The only excuse I really hear people using is that of poverty.  Well drop it like it's hot!

Quote from: The God-man Himself, while he was yet with us on earth,
Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on December 01, 2009, 08:53:36 AM
get a room you 2!! :roll-laugh1: :dancing-banana: :roll-laugh2: :rahrah:
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: TheD on December 01, 2009, 02:17:08 PM
Quote from: John, 6:53-54
Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life.


Raoul and CM.  Where do you two attend Mass to recieve the sacraments, outside of which there is no salvation?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on December 01, 2009, 02:24:02 PM
Good questions for Raoul, as for CM, he was baptized in Anglican Church (maybe Catholic) as a infant w/proper trinitarian formula and to my memory, he goes nowhere to church (home aloner), has never received sacrements of penance, Eucharist, etc....again, I could be wrong in part of this

Raoul I think went somewhere for short time, now...????
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: TheD on December 01, 2009, 02:31:58 PM
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on December 01, 2009, 02:45:54 PM
rather Screwtape letter-ish
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on December 01, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: Raoul76
 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.


source?, oh, I see-we have to look at pudding.......so there is no medical need ever for the surgery? how about cancer? multiple fibroids?

as you cann give us the writings you cite and no background or conditions for the alleged allowance of sterilization, how about tking my advice some weeks back offered-zip it until you get the facts straight.....oops, your partner in Sede CM likely would be sad and after all, spouting babble is a part of it, no....

you know, you really likely scare people away from sede postiion, no surprised right out of the Church....not that you giv a damn of lost souls and all, proof is in the self-righteous pudding, mmmmmm........
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 01, 2009, 08:27:16 PM
Seeing minor faults and refusing communion is Donatism.  Seeing sins against the Faith and refusing communion is CATHOLICISM.

TheD, your question about the sacraments is very Protestant, in that you take a verse from Scripture and apply to it a meaning that the Church has never professed.  Contrary to what you imply, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, not by a necessity of means (werewith salvation is absolutely impossible without receiving it), but by a necessity of precept, that is, a person must receive it who is able to do so.  But receiving it from the "Orthodox" is out of the question, as is receiving it from "Old Catholics", or Pelagians (including neo-Pelagians, such as the manifold varieties of priests who deny the guilt of original sin in their own "special ways"), since to knowingly receive the sacraments from heretics has been prohibited ex catehdra (Pope Eugene IV, ratified a decree from the Council of Basel (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/07/refuting-dimonds-refutation-against.html) to this effect).
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 01, 2009, 08:30:30 PM
TheD, does it bother you that you are resorting to logical fallacies (strawman) to support your opposition to the position Raoul76 and I hold against communing with men who are knowable as public heretics?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: TheD on December 01, 2009, 09:26:01 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Seeing minor faults and refusing communion is Donatism.  Seeing sins against the Faith and refusing communion is CATHOLICISM.

TheD, your question about the sacraments is very Protestant, in that you take a verse from Scripture and apply to it a meaning that the Church has never professed.  Contrary to what you imply, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, not by a necessity of means (werewith salvation is absolutely impossible without receiving it), but by a necessity of precept, that is, a person must receive it who is able to do so.  But receiving it from the "Orthodox" is out of the question, as is receiving it from "Old Catholics", or Pelagians (including neo-Pelagians, such as the manifold varieties of priests who deny the guilt of original sin in their own "special ways"), since to knowingly receive the sacraments from heretics has been prohibited ex catehdra (Pope Eugene IV, ratified a decree from the Council of Basel (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/07/refuting-dimonds-refutation-against.html) to this effect).


OK, then just tell me who I can recieve it from!  Tell me who is NOT a public heretic by your views!  By the way prots don't belive in the real prescence so I don't see how that quote is protestant.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 01, 2009, 10:17:31 PM
Protestant in methodology, ie taking a single verse, and without any regard for the Church's teaching on the matter, ascribing to it a meaning the Church does not hold.

As for who to go to for sacraments: I don't know.  I have looked around and found no clergy who are Catholic, who hold to no heresies.

Your assertion of "sacraments, outside of which there is no salvation" is correct in a sense and incorrect in another.  It is correct that at least one sacrament must be validly received (baptism is necessary by a necessity of means- and also one of the two sacraments that can be conferred without a Catholic clergyman), but it is incorrect in the implication that a Catholic who is unable to licitly avail himself of the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Extreme Unction is necessarily damned or outside the Church on that account alone.

In fact Church history holds far too many historical refutations of that implication of yours for it to even hold weight.

In other words, you must have recourse to arguments, which prove the Catholicity of the clergy from whom you receive sacraments, rather than attack those who refuse to receive them from men who are objectively and steadfastly heretical.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: TheD on December 01, 2009, 10:59:21 PM
Q. 909. When are we bound to receive Holy Communion?

A. We are bound to receive Holy Communion, under pain of mortal sin, during the Easter time and when in danger of death.

This is from the Catechism.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 02, 2009, 04:46:41 AM
So is a saint who has been cleansed of original sin in baptism and who keeps free from all mortal sins sinning mortally if he is unjustly jailed in solitary confinement on Easter?  How about a man at war and pinned down by enemy forces with no priests around?  A sailor stranded at sea?  An old man who fell and broke his leg in his haste to get to the Church?

Perhaps you would care to revise your statement and admit that one is bound by this PRECEPT of the Church when one is able to lawfully fulfill it?

What exactly are you trying to prove?
 That the sacraments are so necessary that a person is even bound to receive it from Christ's enemies, even if it means knowingly entering in amongst heretics or schismatics?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CMMM on December 02, 2009, 12:34:11 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
... your question about the sacraments is very Protestant, in that you take a verse from Scripture and apply to it a meaning that the Church has never professed.


Sounds a lot like people who take dogmatic pronouncements and apply to them a  meaning that the Church and Holy Ghost never intended.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 02, 2009, 08:50:29 PM
That is called begging the question.  It's a logical fallacy.  The Holy Ghost certainly intended for every dogmatic decree that has ever been pronounced to apply to every situation and every age.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 02, 2009, 08:51:30 PM
Hence the word "irreformable" dogmatically used by Pope Pius IX.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: TheD on December 03, 2009, 07:04:39 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
So is a saint who has been cleansed of original sin in baptism and who keeps free from all mortal sins sinning mortally if he is unjustly jailed in solitary confinement on Easter?  How about a man at war and pinned down by enemy forces with no priests around?  A sailor stranded at sea?  An old man who fell and broke his leg in his haste to get to the Church?

Perhaps you would care to revise your statement and admit that one is bound by this PRECEPT of the Church when one is able to lawfully fulfill it?

What exactly are you trying to prove?
 That the sacraments are so necessary that a person is even bound to receive it from Christ's enemies, even if it means knowingly entering in amongst heretics or schismatics?

How should I know about when there are exceptions?  No I will not revise a statement from the catechism! I don't need to prove anything, I'm trying to help you!  
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: TheD on December 03, 2009, 07:06:02 PM
You are free to accuse everyone under the sun of being a heretic, but if this is the case won't the Church die with you?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 05, 2009, 02:30:42 PM
Hi Raoul,

First of all, I cannot help but admire your sincerity and humility.  The reason you keep bringing the topic up, in my estimation, is because you are a lover of truth and you believe you have found it but have a slight doubt in the back of your mind because, "how can everyone else be wrong, and I be correct?".

I believe you are correct and that we should go through this thing point by point.  I will start by digressing from this formula and bring up several points.  :roll-laugh2:

First of all when you talk about Pius XII encouraging abstinence for the sake of Eugenics I need to get a couple of things strait.

First, am I correct that Eugenics is avoiding pro-creation among the "inferior" such as "minorities", mentally or physically disabled and poor?

If so, and if Pius XII died believing this despite knowing this is not what the Catholic Church teaches we must suppose the man is in hell.  

But I have not seen a quote, or the source of the quote from which you speak of.  If he stated such a thing I am shocked that I have not heard such before and you are rightfully dismayed that no one talks about it.

Now, I will, once again, ask you questions that I hope you will answer honestly:

1.  I have a choice of eating an apple or a bowl of crap.  Is choosing to eat neither as bad a choice as eating a bowl of crap?  Yes or no?

2.  Is it birth control to engage in the marital act with your wife when she is pregnant?  Yes or no?

3.  Is it birth control to go a day without sex?  A week?  How often MUST we have sex according to the likes of you and CM in order to avoid having birth control and being damnable heretics?  

4.  If you wife is in the hospital bed for days MUST I have sex with her during some point during her stay in order to avoid being damned for using birth control?

5.  Do you truly believe that deliberately thwarting the act which is the same as masturbation, drug or plug artificial birth control, early withdrawal, oral sex or sodomy is equally as evil as avoiding the act altogether?  If you say yes we cannot even speak to the issue because the devil is preventing you from seeing the facts as they are which is that doing nothing is not the same as doing an evil act?  My seven-year-old, if I had one would be able to understand that.  And I say that with all due respect.

6.  A mother of 12, ages 1 - 12, knows with relative certainty that she will die if she becomes pregnant and carries to term with the result being the vastly increased likelyhood that her children will lose their souls as they are raised and "educated" by the State.  Better to let her now 13 children be damned than to avoid the act so that she can live to be a mother to her twelve and increase significantly their chance of salvation?

7.  Does not Saint Paul allow for abstinence in marriage when he says something to the effect that they can abstain for a time for reasons of prayer?  Is this not, by your standards, birth control and a damnable sin?  Is saint Paul a heretic in your book?

8.  Are you aware of the principle of double-effect where you can do something morally neutral, SUCH AS NOT HAVING SEX, even if there is an evil result.  But what can never be done is an evil.  

An example of this would be a women who is pregnant and has a cancerous uterus.  She has the uterus removed in order to save her life.  Notice I said she "has the uterus removed" not that she "has her child killed".  The UNINTENDED and UNDESIRED result is the death of her child (who would have died any way).  Here she is not doing an evil - having an abortion.  Nor even something morally neutral, but something good, preserving her life by having a cancerous uterus removed, we will also say she is the mother of 12 young children and obligated to raise them and sanctify them to the degree that this is possible for her rather than let herself die and let them be damned.  So additionally she is doing something morally good by staying to raise her children in a Godly manner rather than leaving their souls to the State when the father is at work.

Having sex and deliberately thwarting the act is evil in every case no matter what the circuмstance.  Every Catholic who knows what he is talking about knows this to be true.

Engaging in the marital act (when married) for the sake of pro-creation and education of children is good.

Doing neither can be either morally good, morally neutral or evil.

It can be morally evil when the result is leaving your 13 children motherless and damned.

It is morally neutral when the proportionate reason for abstaining is equal to the good that would be obtained by having another child.

It is morally evil (from barely a venial sin to an extreme mortal sin depending on the motive, intent and reasoning) if done for selfish reasons and without the advice of the pastor.  Their culpability for the act depends also on their ignorance and whether that ignorance is invincible or not.

Lastly, and just kind of as an aside, a point I would like to raise in regard to you and CM.  I believe if you and he lived during the time of the early Church and you heard that Saint Paul rebuked Saint Peter to his face that you would be going around saying that Saint Peter is not the Pope and that he is a heretic because you do not make the distinctions that need to be made such as the ones I have made above.

Perhaps we can work through this debating just one of the 8 points I have raised though if you disagree with number 5, 7 or 8 I am not sure what I can say to you.

Keep searching and praying.

Your friend in Christ and His Most Holy Mother Mary,
John
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 05, 2009, 02:35:05 PM
4.  If you wife is in the hospital bed for days MUST I have sex with her during some point during her stay in order to avoid being damned for using birth control?

If my wife
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 06, 2009, 02:57:25 AM
What ridiculous sophistry.  Faithless too.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 06, 2009, 02:58:02 AM
Not to mention full of logical fallacies as usual.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 06, 2009, 03:00:52 AM
Quote from: TheD
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
No I will not revise a statement from the catechism! I don't need to prove anything, I'm trying to help you!  


Would you revise a statement from an Ecuмenical Council?  Your previous argument from the catechism seemed to imply that you attribute to it the infallibility proper only to the authority of the Holy See.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 06, 2009, 03:01:24 AM
sorry.

Quote from: TheD
No I will not revise a statement from the catechism! I don't need to prove anything, I'm trying to help you!  


Would you revise a statement from an Ecuмenical Council?  Your previous argument from the catechism seemed to imply that you attribute to it the infallibility proper only to the authority of the Holy See.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 06, 2009, 12:37:03 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
What ridiculous sophistry.  Faithless too.


I expect more from CM.  What was that?  Begs the question.  Can't refute.  Try again CM or admit you cannot answer the questions in a way that supports your newly invented CM faith.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 06, 2009, 06:50:42 PM
Raoul,

Why do you keep doing this to me.  You challenge me and I respond and you just leave me hanging.  Do you have anything to say in regards to my response to you?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 09, 2009, 11:34:55 PM
Catholic Martyr, I have been putting this off for too long and must answer LoT's questions.  But I just read your post from a while back where you quote Pius XI in Casti Connubi.  That is flabbergasting.  

I had said that I disagreed with Ibranyi about Casti Connubi, since he thinks it somehow denies NFP, while I feel it carefully, through a veiled use of language, laid the groundwork for it.  But I hadn't read it all the way through and hadn't seen that part you quoted, where he even talks of a "medical, social, and eugenic 'indication'" with indication in quotes exactly like in Allocution to Midwives!  Apparently Pacelli was quoting Ratti while adding his own more detailed spin on the issue.

What this does is create a Pavlovian reaction.  People look at Allocution to Midwives, then go back to Casti Connubi and see the similar language, and they feel a "natural development" has taken place.  The "Popes" are in agreement and everything is in order!  This is why I brought up the "coincidence" of two "Popes" in a row speaking about conjugal relations when very, very few Popes ever did so before, and certainly never with this much detail.  It is obvious that Pius XI, Pius XII and Paul VI are part of a continuum, that they all shared one mind, and that they were all working towards the new religion.  

I'm not sure Pius XI teaches heresy here, though.  In context, what he's doing is the usual Hegelianism -- he is railing against abortion but setting up an "acceptable" form of eugenics which of course Pius XII would later reveal to us as NFP.  Because the sheep are so easy to lead to slaughter, what they are intended to think is "Hey, he's conservative because he's against abortion!"

How can I say that teaching eugenics is not heresy?  The only way is if a couple decided not to have children and were abstinent.  If a couple went to the doctor and he said their kid would be deformed or handicapped, and for this reason they decided to be sɛҳuąƖly abstinent -- not using NFP but literally abstinent -- then PERHAPS this would be a form of un-heretical eugenics, except I doubt the couple would call it that.  They would probably say they made a sudden decision for mutual celibacy.  And even then it's iffy.  To not have a kid for that reason I strongly doubt would be pleasing to God.  And I doubt even more that God's Church would teach people to behave in this shallow way.  But it is allowed for a married couple to have no children.  So Casti Connubi definitely at least skirts the edge of heresy, and it will take a finer theological mind than my own to determine if it falls in.

Though I don't agree with you about BoD, you certainly saw before I did that the problem in the Church goes much farther back than 1958, and you are correct that catechisms and saints can teach error -- so you may very well turn out to be right that Pius X was the last Pope.  I think a lot of people in the Church at that time felt that way, that that was the end of the Church as we knew it.  Pius XI, as I'm sure you know, sold out the Cristeros and squelched the Action Francaise, so whether or not he taught heresy, he seems to have done whatever he could politically to smother the Catholic religion.    

What he did to the Cristeros is probably the most abominable political decision ever made by a Pope, hardly excusable even if it were an accident.  These people are fighting for the Church against someone who named his children Lucifer, Satan and Lenin and described himself as an avowed enemy of God.  The communists were pillaging churches and destroying everything.  This is about the most clear-cut war between good and evil that you can imagine.  It is the very definition of a just war.  Finally, the Cristeros had them on the ropes, they had won the war, and they were about to restore Mexico to Christ... And what does Pius XI do?  He tells them to drop their weapons, and so they end up getting slaughtered!  

On the bright side, that was probably the greatest batch of martyrs of the 20th century.  Okay, gotta get to LoT's objections.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 09, 2009, 11:50:05 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
What ridiculous sophistry.  Faithless too.


I expect more from CM.  What was that?  Begs the question.  Can't refute.  Try again CM or admit you cannot answer the questions in a way that supports your newly invented CM faith.


You continually fail to address the pertinent issue of the will to avoid children, and the lack of Faith in Divine providence that accompanies such a will, thereby posing questions that are entirely made of straw.

In other words, your responses deserve no more reply than what they received.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 10, 2009, 04:08:02 AM
I just wrote a post JG that topped out at six pages on Microsoft Word.  I want to post it tomorrow though because my mind isn't clear and I need to reflect over it.  

I am getting much more cautious about what I say, since I'm essentially criticizing bishops by name.  Although I have done this routinely in the past, it is now causing me more trepidation.  I don't know if I'm becoming over-cautious or what.  I just don't want to completely burn every bridge, although with my hatred of NFP I don't see how to do otherwise is possible.  

Let's put it this way -- I want to burn my bridges with a certain respect and gentlemanliness, so that people know that I'm doing this out of conviction, and out of a demand for the truth, and not out of ego and armchair bravado.  
 
But this post was not even primarily about NFP.  It was about your first post in this thread.  THEN I will have to move on to NFP.  Keep checking the thread, you will be satisfied that I am answering your arguments.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 10, 2009, 05:12:48 AM
Quote from: Raoul76
Keep checking the thread,


I know I certainly will.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 19, 2009, 07:09:19 PM
Quote from: CM
Quote from: Raoul76
Keep checking the thread,


I know I certainly will.


Still checking.  CM, you can answer my 8 objections if you wish as well.  I don't know that Raoul is ever going to get around to it.  Maybe you can stick to the points rather than hurling the accusations you've been hurling without backing them up. No?  :baby:

Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: 008 on December 23, 2009, 06:39:47 AM
The  anti-NFP freak  is  just a crank; these are rarest of poisoned birds who cannot mind their own business and keep their noses out of other families business and bedrooms.

Just cranks who should be left to their own sordid imaginations.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 23, 2009, 07:23:49 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
1.  I have a choice of eating an apple or a bowl of crap.  Is choosing to eat neither as bad a choice as eating a bowl of crap?  Yes or no?


You're sick and demented.


Quote
2.  Is it birth control to engage in the marital act with your wife when she is pregnant?  Yes or no?


This is not birth control in se.  To imply or assert that I say it is is to invent a strawman, a logical fallacy.

Quote
3.  Is it birth control to go a day without sex?  A week?  How often MUST we have sex according to the likes of you and CM in order to avoid having birth control and being damnable heretics?  


It is birth control to go any period of time without performing the marital act when you are specifically saving up your lust for times when you believe you will not get pregnant.  Again, evidence that you do not address the position I hold, but are still pounding away at your man of straw.

Quote
4.  If you wife is in the hospital bed for days MUST I have sex with her during some point during her stay in order to avoid being damned for using birth control?


You're sick.  This question is completely irrelevant to the issue.  You either realize it and are disingenuous or you don't realize it and are blind.  Again if you imply that my position leads to the above conclusion you are a liar, as anybody with eyes can see if they read what it is I am actually saying.

Quote
5.  Do you truly believe that deliberately thwarting the act which is the same as masturbation, drug or plug artificial birth control, early withdrawal, oral sex or sodomy is equally as evil as avoiding the act altogether?


Simply avoiding the act is NOT the evil  in and of itslef.  PERFORMING IT WITH THE INTENTION TO AVOID CONTRACEPTION IS.

Even a seven year old would understand that.

Quote
6.  A mother of 12, ages 1 - 12, knows with relative certainty that she will die if she becomes pregnant and carries to term with the result being the vastly increased likelyhood that her children will lose their souls as they are raised and "educated" by the State.  Better to let her now 13 children be damned than to avoid the act so that she can live to be a mother to her twelve and increase significantly their chance of salvation?


What kind of depraved monster is she married to that will demand the marriage debt at the risk of KILLING HIS WIFE?  John Gregory you are evil if you are anything like the husband that would do such a thing.

Quote
7.  Does not Saint Paul allow for abstinence in marriage when he says something to the effect that they can abstain for a time for reasons of prayer?  Is this not, by your standards, birth control and a damnable sin?  Is saint Paul a heretic in your book?


Your folly and dishonesty is IMMENSE.  He said FOR PRAYER and YOU are equating this with FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF CONCEPTION!

Quote
8... Having sex and deliberately thwarting the act is evil in every case no matter what the circuмstance.  Every Catholic who knows what he is talking about knows this to be true.


Great!  You finally get it (I wish)!  The couple who ACTIVELY ATTEMPTS TO THWART THE PROCREATIVE POWER OF THE ACT by planning it around times of infertility IS COMMITTING EVIL.

Is having children an evil?  Will God not provide all that is necessary to the holy couples who give themselves to His will?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 23, 2009, 07:32:12 AM
Quote from: CM
PERFORMING IT WITH THE INTENTION TO AVOID CONTRACEPTION IS.


"Contraception" above should read: "conception".
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: oldavid on December 23, 2009, 07:38:39 AM
Quote from: 008
The  anti-NFP freak  is  just a crank; these are rarest of poisoned birds who cannot mind their own business and keep their noses out of other families business and bedrooms.

Just cranks who should be left to their own sordid imaginations.


Sorry...I think that CM is just a strange kind of psyche or (more likely) a plant to destroy or at least disrupt Catholicism.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on December 23, 2009, 07:53:35 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
What ridiculous sophistry.  Faithless too.


I expect more from CM.  What was that?  Begs the question.  Can't refute.  Try again CM or admit you cannot answer the questions in a way that supports your newly invented CM faith.


why do you expect more-true he can make good articles and use of sources,etc-but in the end his MO is to accuse everyone of heresy, faithlessness,etc,etc.......does not really care most of us have been on our own for a few genereations now to learn and study the Faith...
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on December 23, 2009, 07:54:24 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: CM
Quote from: Raoul76
Keep checking the thread,


I know I certainly will.


Still checking.  CM, you can answer my 8 objections if you wish as well.  I don't know that Raoul is ever going to get around to it.  Maybe you can stick to the points rather than hurling the accusations you've been hurling without backing them up. No?  :baby:



best thing to do is put CM and raoul on the HIDE list.....less frustrating.....far less inults and labels.......
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on December 23, 2009, 07:55:20 AM
Quote from: oldavid
Quote from: 008
The  anti-NFP freak  is  just a crank; these are rarest of poisoned birds who cannot mind their own business and keep their noses out of other families business and bedrooms.

Just cranks who should be left to their own sordid imaginations.


Sorry...I think that CM is just a strange kind of psyche or (more likely) a plant to destroy or at least disrupt Catholicism.


I think he means well, but in the end is on his own and flirting with Calvinism and a lot of other "isms" that are leading him out of the Faith.......
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Belloc on December 23, 2009, 08:00:01 AM
Quote from: TheD
You are free to accuse everyone under the sun of being a heretic, but if this is the case won't the Church die with you?


thqat is his MO, notice how he acts humble "that is what ___ says", but me thinks he takes a lot of pride, really, in lording facts over the rest of us that do not have the human time to research...he could help present facts, but choses instead to use knowledge as a weapon, for his own ego....

and in the end, he ignores the saying of Christ to eat his Flesh, drink His Blood"

His escape clause "well, there are no clergy left to receive..."

again, best to HIDE him and Raoul, maybe then the rest of us can help each other learn the Faith and have a conversation that does not always begin, end and middle with SV pushing (Gladius does not feel need to do this in every conversation he has!)and labels like "heretic", etc.......
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 23, 2009, 08:05:21 AM
Quote from: Belloc
I think he means well, but in the end is on his own and flirting with Calvinism and a lot of other "isms" that are leading him out of the Faith.......


Say whatever you want that makes you feel better about hiding from arguments you can't answer, but if you are going to accuse me of Calvinism, you better provide the quote wherein I profess such a heretical belief.

But you will not find it, because it does not exist.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: SJB on December 23, 2009, 08:22:03 AM
Quote from: Raoul76
I had said that I disagreed with Ibranyi about Casti Connubi, since he thinks it somehow denies NFP, while I feel it carefully, through a veiled use of language, laid the groundwork for it.  But I hadn't read it all the way through and hadn't seen that part you quoted, where he even talks of a "medical, social, and eugenic 'indication'" with indication in quotes exactly like in Allocution to Midwives!  Apparently Pacelli was quoting Ratti while adding his own more detailed spin on the issue.


Ibranyi? The guy who was promoted by Thomas Sparks of "Roman Catholicism" website? Here, from the headline of that website:

Quote
Pope Augustine is "Petrus Romanus", Peter the Roman, the last Pope of the Final Times.

At the present time, no docuмents of the Supreme Magisterium have been promulgated by Pope Augustine.  Please see the "Apostolic Archives" for Augustine's epistles.


Quote from: Rauol76
What this does is create a Pavlovian reaction.  People look at Allocution to Midwives, then go back to Casti Connubi and see the similar language, and they feel a "natural development" has taken place.  The "Popes" are in agreement and everything is in order!  This is why I brought up the "coincidence" of two "Popes" in a row speaking about conjugal relations when very, very few Popes ever did so before, and certainly never with this much detail.  It is obvious that Pius XI, Pius XII and Paul VI are part of a continuum, that they all shared one mind, and that they were all working towards the new religion.


What is not in question is usually not addressed by the Popes. When a doctrine comes into question or is being challenged, that is when it is addressed. That is a saner interpretation than the rash one you are making.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 25, 2009, 04:00:23 PM
Quote from: CM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
1.  I have a choice of eating an apple or a bowl of crap.  Is choosing to eat neither as bad a choice as eating a bowl of crap?  Yes or no?


You're sick and demented.

Point #1 has not been refuted.  

Quote
2.  Is it birth control to engage in the marital act with your wife when she is pregnant?  Yes or no?


This is not birth control in se.  To imply or assert that I say it is is to invent a strawman, a logical fallacy.

Point #2 has not been answered.  Engaging in the procreative act while your wife is pregnant is using the infertile time to engage in such an act as is done when your wife is not pregnant.  Is enganging in this act wrong in both instances, one instance or neither instance? Yes or no?

Quote
3.  Is it birth control to go a day without sex?  A week?  How often MUST we have sex according to the likes of you and CM in order to avoid having birth control and being damnable heretics?  


It is birth control to go any period of time without performing the marital act when you are specifically saving up your lust for times when you believe you will not get pregnant.  Again, evidence that you do not address the position I hold, but are still pounding away at your man of straw.

Here an actual attempt at a response is made.  Hurray!  So avoiding the act for "any amount of time" can be "birth control".  A fraction of a second we must suppose.  But the point CM makes is that we intend not to get pregnant.

And CM is correct.  Sarah did not intend to get pregnant when she was 90, but she was open to doing so as are those who engage in creative continence.  But they are open to life when they engage in the act.  They know pregnancy is possible even during this time.  They do not deliberately thwart the marriage act which is what is objectively evil in every circuмstance.  

There are indeed grave reasons to avoid the act.  God has given us the children we already have so that we may guide them to Heaven.  If we know beforehand that having another child will very likely lead to the death of the mother and that the children with then be led to their damnation by the State, the parents have every right to abstain for the sake of the souls of the children they already have.  God put they children they already have into their hands, not so they can carelessly leave them in the hands of the State but so that they could raise them in a godly fashion.  Better to properly form the souls of the ones you have than to risk their damnation by having another.

Quote
4.  If you wife is in the hospital bed for days MUST I have sex with her during some point during her stay in order to avoid being damned for using birth control?


You're sick.  This question is completely irrelevant to the issue.  You either realize it and are disingenuous or you don't realize it and are blind.  Again if you imply that my position leads to the above conclusion you are a liar, as anybody with eyes can see if they read what it is I am actually saying.

I don't see that this objection is answered either.  Again, I am responding to Raoul and have not carefully read everything CM has said to the issue as I tend to skip over his posts.  Though I do not hit the ignore button as I see that as a kind of slap in the face.  From what I have read from Raoul, putting off the marriage act is just as much "birth control" as deliberately thwarting the act.  I say it isn't.  And this conclusion should be obvious.

Quote
5.  Do you truly believe that deliberately thwarting the act which is the same as masturbation, drug or plug artificial birth control, early withdrawal, oral sex or sodomy is equally as evil as avoiding the act altogether?


Simply avoiding the act is NOT the evil  in and of itslef.  PERFORMING IT WITH THE INTENTION TO AVOID CONTRACEPTION IS.

Even a seven year old would understand that.

Good response.  Here we get to the crux of the matter.  This intent can be done for selfish reasons, which is usually the case, which is always sinful.  Or it can be done for grave reasons.  Say, for instance, due to unforeseen circuмstances you find that you need to live in a one room trailer with your daughter.  You choice is to have sex in front of your seven-year-old daughter or to abstain completely.  What would YOU do CM?

Quote
6.  A mother of 12, ages 1 - 12, knows with relative certainty that she will die if she becomes pregnant and carries to term with the result being the vastly increased likelyhood that her children will lose their souls as they are raised and "educated" by the State.  Better to let her now 13 children be damned than to avoid the act so that she can live to be a mother to her twelve and increase significantly their chance of salvation?


What kind of depraved monster is she married to that will demand the marriage debt at the risk of KILLING HIS WIFE?  John Gregory you are evil if you are anything like the husband that would do such a thing.

Then you agree this is a grave reason for abstaining from the marriage act?  Engaging in the marriage act during the infertile time is no more killing your wife than removing a cancerous utereous is willfully killing your child.  I certainly would not demand that my wife engage in the marital act against her will for a grave reason.  Suppose she wanted to more than I, in order to alleviate concupicense so that one or both would not commit a mortal sin with self or a none-spouse?  I have just shown you a grave reason for abstaining.  Do you acknowlege?

Quote
7.  Does not Saint Paul allow for abstinence in marriage when he says something to the effect that they can abstain for a time for reasons of prayer?  Is this not, by your standards, birth control and a damnable sin?  Is saint Paul a heretic in your book?


Your folly and dishonesty is IMMENSE.  He said FOR PRAYER and YOU are equating this with FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF CONCEPTION!

So you admit that we can avoid the act for a reason.  And that avoiding the act is not birth control in this case? I do hope you answer each question I raise.  

Can the reason for prayer be that you can get back on your feet financially so that your children won't be raised in the streets or so that CPS won't take them away and increase their chance of damnation?  Can the reason of prayer be that you regain the mental capacity to raise them in a godly fashion?  Can the reason of prayer be that you regain the physical capacity to raise your children i.e. that the mother will not become paralyzed or die by giving birth? We both know that once conception is achieved that we must carry to term.

Quote
8... Having sex and deliberately thwarting the act is evil in every case no matter what the circuмstance.  Every Catholic who knows what he is talking about knows this to be true.


Great!  You finally get it (I wish)!  The couple who ACTIVELY ATTEMPTS TO THWART THE PROCREATIVE POWER OF THE ACT by planning it around times of infertility IS COMMITTING EVIL.

Is having children an evil?  Will God not provide all that is necessary to the holy couples who give themselves to His will?


Being careless with the souls already entrusted to you is evil.

Point 8 is not responded to as he cut off the rest of my quote.  Which is that deliberately thwarting the act is different than avoiding the act altogether.

So CM, could not respond in any manner to question #1.

Question #2 he left unrefuted.

He attempts to respond to #3.

He admits to a legitimate reason for abstaining in point #4.

He answers #5 but fails to see the difference between deliberately thwarting the act and avoiding the act all together.  Whenever the act is engaged in it is open to life.  Admittedly the intent is to avoid conception, but the act is not deliberately thwarted as is the case with artificial birth control.  And this for a legitimate grave reason which even CM admits exists, such as when carrying a pregnancy to term will likely end with the death of the wife which brings us to:

#6 where he admits that this is a reason for abstinance.

In #7 he admits that Saint Paul allows the married couple to abstain for a reason.  So indeed we see a second reason why the married couple can abstain, according to CM, without committing the sin of birth control.

He refuses to address #8 which shows the distinction between deliberately thwarting the act and avoiding it altoghether.

So #'s 1, 2 & 8 remain unresponded too and the rest unrefuted. Can anyone show where this conclusion is wrong?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 25, 2009, 05:04:32 PM
If you're abstaining because you feel you cannot afford a family, but you engage during the infertile periods, then you are doing so with the intent to thwart the natural procreative power of the act.

Not only do you risk bringing children into what you feel is an unstable situation, your use of the act combined with the will to avoid children is contraception, par excellence.

If you abstain completely until your temporal circuмstances are improved, then you are doing honour and reverence to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony and are not defiled in lust.  But that's not NFP now is it?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 25, 2009, 05:24:15 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
So CM, could not respond in any manner to question #1.


That's a laugh!  Are you for real?  You didn't make any points!  All you did was ask a really stupid and bizarre question.

Quote
Question #2 he left unrefuted.


You didn't make any points to refute, you irrational man!  All you did was ask a question that is far to vague to be of any use to either your position or mine.  Besides, I answered your question fully.  You're supposed to address the answers to develop the argument you introduced with your question.

Do you comprehend logic for goodness' sake?


Quote
He attempts to respond to #3.


But you make no attempt to understand that neither Mike, nor myself have ever stated that we believe that abstinence is evil.  You are not paying attention.

Quote
He admits to a legitimate reason for abstaining in point #4.


NSS!

Quote
Admittedly the intent is to avoid conception,


 :reporter:

A will in opposition to conception?  What would that be in Latin?

contra...

Quote
but the act is not deliberately thwarted as is the case with artificial birth control.


Oh but every effort is made to stop conception.  In fact much more effort and energy is expended with your so-called "natural" family planning method of contraception than with any "artificial" contraception.

So can the BS that nothing "deliberate" is done.

Quote
And this for a legitimate grave reason which even CM admits exists, such as when carrying a pregnancy to term will likely end with the death of the wife which brings us to:


Abstinence and contraception are not the same thing.  Abstinence is a virtuous act, and if there is a legitimately grave enough reason to want to avoid conceiving a child, then abstinence is the way to go.  Why do I say this?  Because abstinence means NO SEX AT ALL.

The instant you start copulating with the desire to avoid children you are contracepting.  And not only that, but as I said before, you are running the risk of bringing a new child into your family DESPITE whatever GRAVE REASON you started to abstain for in the first place, which means that you are potentially imperiling the well being of your family for the sake of LUST.

Quote
#6 where he admits that this is a reason for abstinance.


YEAH!!!

Quote
In #7 he admits that Saint Paul allows the married couple to abstain for a reason.  So indeed we see a second reason why the married couple can abstain, according to CM, without committing the sin of birth control.


Yeah they can ABSTAIN!!!

Quote
He refuses to address #8 which shows the distinction between deliberately thwarting the act and avoiding it altoghether.


Deliberate exclusive use of the infertile periods is HARDLY avoiding it altogether IS IT JOHN?

Quote
So #'s 1, 2 & 8 remain unresponded too and the rest unrefuted. Can anyone show where this conclusion is wrong?


Put your THINKing cap on John.

And next time, would you be so kind as to keep it tidy, your post seems to be about as messy as your mind.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 25, 2009, 05:37:21 PM
I know I've already said a mouthful, but let me get to the rest of your points later on tonight or tomorrow, Lover of Truth. Probably tomorrow.  Actually, it's already tomorrow!
[/quote]

When you talk about "abstinence" for instance do you refer to "the exclusive use of the infertile times of marriage" ( i.e. NFP or deliberately infertile intercourse ) or do you refer to actual abstinence, the times of prayer specified by St. Paul?  Because the Modernists have so confused the terms that they literally call NFP "periodic abstinence," although what is happening is the exact opposite of abstinence.  This is more double-minded doublespeak.

Personally, as it stands now, were there a legitimat grave reason to avoid CONCEPTION, it would abstain entirely.  That being said, I believe, that for grave reasons, a couple can avoid the fertile periods and engage during what is considered the infertile period, so long as they are open to life should it be granted during this time i.e. so long as they do not deliberately thwart the act

For instance, they all cite the supposed 1853 decision of the Sacred Penitentiary about the rhythm method saying that it may be used as long as nothing is done to impede birth.  Well, that is flat-out contradiction.  Obviously timing the conjugal act so that children have less chance to be born "impedes birth."

I believe here that they speak of deliberately thwarting the act as impeding the birth (or more properly, conception) rather than trying to avoid the fertile period for grave reason as in one instance you are deliberately thwarting the act which is always and in every circuмstance is a grave sin while in the other instance you avoid the act during the fertile period and are open to pregnancy during the infertile period should such happen.  That is how I see it now.  Though I was more in line with your thinking in the past.  The difference between you and I right now is that I do not trust my intellect above all the living clergy of our day as you do.

Even if it is a real decision, modern NFP impedes birth just as much as the condom or the Pill and so that decision no longer applies, if it ever did.

But with a distinction.  With drugs or plugs you are deliberately thwarting the act.  With continence you are avoiding it during the fertile time while being open to life during the infertile time.  There is a difference and I believe a truly objective person can see this difference.  In one case you are enganging in what must always be considered a grave evil, in the other instance you are merely avoiding what is considered a good in normal circuмstances.

As for the 1880 decision, that one is easier to explain; it is probabilism.  Since there is a better chance that a woman could get pregnant using the crude rhythm method than through withdrawal, priests are told to "cautiously suggest" it.  This is very much in keeping with a slightly lax and trendy Liguorianism that was in vogue at that time, which had probably gone beyond Liguori's own desires since he only used probabilism to counterbalance the overly rigorous Jansenists.  

I believe the reason why it is "cautiously" suggested is because continence or "NFP" can be used for merely selfish reasons and in a sinful way rather than for the reason you give.  I should only be suggested for grave reasons which do indeed exist, rare though they might be.  Perhaps as rare as BOB/D.

In this 1880 response, the concept of "onanism" is opposed to the rhythm method, and defenders of NFP have latched onto that.  But -- repeat after me -- modern NFP is not the rhythm method of 1880!  The rhythm method of 1929 is not even the rhythm method of 1880, having been drastically improved by Ogino and Knauss.  Still, even the 1880, primitive rhythm method impeded pregnancy, or made it less possible than it would have been otherwise.

Onanism is always and under every circuмstance a grave evil.

If the rythym method can be legitimately used for grave reasons so can "NFP".  Again the distinction is the difference between deliberately thwarting the act and avoiding the act altogether for a legitimate reason(s) which do in fact exist, rare as they might be.

Think about it.  If even the ancient rhythm method were A-OK, why would it need to be "cautiously suggested?"  Why could it not be enthusiastically suggested?  Why is there this shame and stigma attached to it?   Obviously it is cited here as the lesser of two evils but still an evil.  As to whether the lesser of two evils should be counseled by a priest, that is a HUGE can of worms I won't open here.  

"Cautiously suggested".  See above.  The "shame" is not for spacing children for grave reason but for talking about this private act openly and publically rather than in private with your confessor in my opinion.

The "sufficiently sure basis" he hoped for meant that medical science would have made the "regulation of offspring" -- another of his terms for NFP -- foolproof, or nearly so, in which case it definitely becomes birth control and completely severs itself from the ancient rhythm method.  Yet Pius XII hoped and prayed for this.  It is also remarkable how according to him the Church "of course" leaves judgment to medical science.  It's actually supposed to be the other way around, as I'm sure all will unreservedly agree.  

The distinction here is the difference between natural and unnatural CONCEPTION PREVENTION.  The married couple has the right to abstain for grave reasons, rare though they may be.  I believe the "judgment" left to medical science is the "fullproofness" of this method rather than the moral licitness of it.

Defenders of NFP also evade what is the primary issue, that this is no longer just about the problem of the marital bed.   What Pius XII taught was eugenics.  He was telling people they could avoid having children for certain reasons, eugenic, medical, economic, and "social," whatever that means ( sustainable development? global warming? overpopulation? to save the penguins? ) and that adds a whole new angle to this debate.  We're not just talking about the usual human selfishness now, couples who are trying to avoid children at certain times from sloth or sensuality; we're talking about social engineering and communism that is encouraged from the See of Peter itself, or the supposed See of Peter.  It's one thing for couples to try to avoid pregnancy and then, hopefully, repent of it later; it's another entirely for the Church, spotless and immaculate, to actually teach them they can do this without sin.  

The legitimate reasons, according to me (which does not mean much) are as follows:

Lack the physical or mental capacity to do so.

Unable to afford the bare minimum of food, clothes or shelter necessary to raise additional offspring.  That's it.  Some of the things you raise about Pius XII claims rightfully put him in a bad light if he truly gave these reasons as legitimate grave reasons to abstain during the fertile periods.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Catholic Church knows that the idea that couples can block their own births due to poverty is totally antithetical to the religion as it has always been known.  This makes a mockery of the large, poor families who have always been the backbone of the Church.  It is a reversal of Church doctrine and puts man in the place of God, giving him the power of veto over when a child will be born.  This is where Pius XII takes the rhythm method over the moon and back again into terra incognita.  What he taught in the Allocution goes WAY beyond what the supposed decisions of the 1800s said.

It is hard to disagree with the above though I do not hold my intellect above that of our clergy.  I admit that this is over my head and I have not the competence to give a de fide response to this objection.  I still hold, for now, that all of the clergy on the face of the earth are wrong about the issue.  Perhaps we will not find out until after we die.  I do hope a true Pope gets elected and clarifies the issue once and for all.

In the 1880 decision, couples who have determined to sin are given the choice of a lesser evil.  In 1951, in the Allocution to Midwives, Pius XII took ALL shame out of what later became known as NFP and even gave people reasons to use it that are right out of the playbook of Margaret Sanger.  Since in 1880 it was still shameful to use the rhythm method, although preferable to withdrawal, there was still some sin attached.  Now, because of Pius XII, people don't even think NFP, which is far worse than the rhythm method because more effective, is sin at all.  Unfortunately this has led many into heresy because NFP goes against faith and morals, especially morals, as they were always known.  

I truly believe, that for sufficiently grave reasons avoiding the act is not an evil at all but rather a good, or at least morally neutral.  I also believe the shame is openly talking about this sacred act rather than for the avoidance of the act.  Margaret Sanger reason's are not sufficiently grave reason for avoiding this sacred act.  To the extant the Pius XII agreed with her reasoning is the extant in which he was wrong.

"Preferable to withdrawel"  EARLY withdrawel is always and under every circuмstance a grave evil and therefore a damnable sin.  NFP and is not evil if "the rythem method" for grave reasons was not.  There is no distinction from a moral stand point as the intent for both is the avoidance of conception for grave reasons.

If I am going to take the drastic step of avoiding seminary because I don't want to teach this false doctrine, even avoiding going to church with those who teach it, then it would be hypocritical for me not to dissuade others from holding it.  

I do not believe you should avoid the seminary if you are called.  I believe you should attend the CMRI seminary and if you still disagree with their teaching on NFP you should break with the and become independant or do good within as the issue has not been settled (in a manner of speaking) until we get a Pope to settle it once and for all.  This would be up to your conscience as you trust no clergy to set you strait on the matter

So to answer your question about Pius XII, who I used to defend, I am now absolutely sure that he will one day be considered to have lost his office in 1951 or 1952.  Just as Paul VI or JPII cannot be Popes because they taught heresy from the Magistgerium, there is absolutely no way that Pius XII can be called a Pope after he put his Allocution to Midwives into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis which would make it dogma, or attempt to do so.  Either he is not a Pope or the Church failed; and as we know that can't happen.  To throw out Paul VI and keep Pius XII makes no sense, at least not for those who have read Allocution to Midwives, an obvious precursor to Humanae Vitae.  Montini and Pacelli are as inseparable as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.  Montini was his Secretary of State!

I would not put Pius XII and Montini on an even plane.  I would not even put Wojtyla and Montini on an even plane though they are much closer.  Montini destroyed the Sacraments.  We cannot say this about any other purported Pope.  

Other things may not be revealed until they day we are judged, or God willing, we get a Catholic Pope.  That is all I can say on that particular topic now.[/color]

When you figure this out suddenly all of Pius XII's destructive actions make sense, such as appointing Bugnini the head of a new commission on the liturgy, reducing the fast laws, gutting Holy Week liturgy, and so on and so forth.  These are changes in discipline, so they didn't lose him the Office; but NFP is a change in doctrine and cannot be countenanced.  Together they were ultra-destructive.

On the last sentence we disagree for reasons above.  But if Pius XII claimed none-grave reasons were good enough to avoid the act then he is in trouble.  This is far as I can go on this topic right now due to my lack of knowledge on the topic.

That Pius XII was an unmitigated Judas is a truth that will slowly dawn on people who believe that everything in the Church was running smoothly until 1958.  I wonder if people have really thought this through, because their theory denies the clear, repeated warnings given by Pius X about what was happening behind the scenes in his time, about the slow poison being disseminated through the veins of the Church by its own clergy.  Pius X even suggested that the Anti-Christ was walking the Earth when he was Pope!   This man was desperately trying to warn us of something in the early days of the 20th century, exactly like Cassandra tried to warn the Trojans not to let that horse through the gate.

All good points.  They almost got a Mason elected in 1903.  Interesting at the very least.  

Also, if everything were perfectly in order until 1958, what would that say about God? Why would God deliver his innocent, faithful sheep into the hands of heretics for no reason?  Ah, but were they really innocent, faithful sheep, or were they rather heaping teachers to themselves with itching ears?  The more I've been studying NFP, and hearing about calendars being handed out in Church so women could avoid pregnancy, I now fully understand why this Apostasy is really happening.  We have blamed others for too long, instead of looking in the mirror where the blame ought to be directed.  We are the ones who allowed these usurpers to take power, who have gone along with these lies instead of demanding the truth.  NFP is not the whole story, of course.  There is also the question of the Western world's almost total willful naivete about the тαℓмυdic Babylonianism of the governments that run us, another example of the penchant of modern man to stick his head deeply into the sand.  But it is a much bigger part of this Apostasy than most people so far realize.

There is no doubt that we deserve even worse than what we are faced with now even if you are wrong about the evils of NFP under every circuмstance.

The Church until 1958 was riddled with sɛҳuąƖ sins, with the rhythm method which ultimately became NFP, and which is one of the chief reasons why the Apostasy took place.  Instantly after the Minor Chastisement, if such an event is God's will, people will see this, and NFP will be banished as if it were the plague, which it is.  It is an abominable offense to have taught this mortal sin and there is no grave reason for it, any more than there would be a grave reason for artificial birth control.

If NFP is the reason for the Apostasy then you are more knowledgeable than me and all the clergy.  I'm not sure if this is the case.  I would think the reason would be that we became lax in the faith and just went through the motions of going to Mass and Confession without knowing or living our faith.  I'm not sure if this private sacred act being publically talked about and the admittance that the act could be avoided for grave reasons are why the Great Apostacy has befallen us.

Here is a thread from Bellarmine Forums where you can see someone who mostly would agree with me on NFP.  He still wavers a bit on the "grave reasons" but he is almost there.  This shows you a glimmer of the kind of awakening that is in store.  Hopefully partially on this side of the Chastisement!

Perhaps he IS there and YOU are almost there.  Perhaps our clergy do know a bit more about moral theology than you do.  Just a thought and I mean it most sincerely.

I was also encouraged to see that John Lane, who I have had my problems with in the past, does not automatically discount the idea that Pius XII was not the holy man he appeared to be.  I have the bad habit of writing people off when I need to give them more time and space.  

Even before reading stuff from you and CM I had no doubt that Pius XII was not the holiest or best of Pontiffs.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 25, 2009, 06:10:39 PM
 :rolleyes:

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Raoul76
I know I've already said a mouthful, but let me get to the rest of your points later on tonight or tomorrow, Lover of Truth. Probably tomorrow.  Actually, it's already tomorrow!


When you talk about "abstinence" for instance do you refer to "the exclusive use of the infertile times of marriage" ( i.e. NFP or deliberately infertile intercourse ) or do you refer to actual abstinence, the times of prayer specified by St. Paul?  Because the Modernists have so confused the terms that they literally call NFP "periodic abstinence," although what is happening is the exact opposite of abstinence.  This is more double-minded doublespeak.

Personally, as it stands now, were there a legitimat grave reason to avoid CONCEPTION, it would abstain entirely.  That being said, I believe, that for grave reasons, a couple can avoid the fertile periods and engage during what is considered the infertile period, so long as they are open to life should it be granted during this time i.e. so long as they do not deliberately thwart the act

For instance, they all cite the supposed 1853 decision of the Sacred Penitentiary about the rhythm method saying that it may be used as long as nothing is done to impede birth.  Well, that is flat-out contradiction.  Obviously timing the conjugal act so that children have less chance to be born "impedes birth."

I believe here that they speak of deliberately thwarting the act as impeding the birth (or more properly, conception) rather than trying to avoid the fertile period for grave reason as in one instance you are deliberately thwarting the act which is always and in every circuмstance is a grave sin while in the other instance you avoid the act during the fertile period and are open to pregnancy during the infertile period should such happen.  That is how I see it now.  Though I was more in line with your thinking in the past.  The difference between you and I right now is that I do not trust my intellect above all the living clergy of our day as you do.

Even if it is a real decision, modern NFP impedes birth just as much as the condom or the Pill and so that decision no longer applies, if it ever did.

But with a distinction.  With drugs or plugs you are deliberately thwarting the act.  With continence you are avoiding it during the fertile time while being open to life during the infertile time.  There is a difference and I believe a truly objective person can see this difference.  In one case you are enganging in what must always be considered a grave evil, in the other instance you are merely avoiding what is considered a good in normal circuмstances.

As for the 1880 decision, that one is easier to explain; it is probabilism.  Since there is a better chance that a woman could get pregnant using the crude rhythm method than through withdrawal, priests are told to "cautiously suggest" it.  This is very much in keeping with a slightly lax and trendy Liguorianism that was in vogue at that time, which had probably gone beyond Liguori's own desires since he only used probabilism to counterbalance the overly rigorous Jansenists.  

I believe the reason why it is "cautiously" suggested is because continence or "NFP" can be used for merely selfish reasons and in a sinful way rather than for the reason you give.  I should only be suggested for grave reasons which do indeed exist, rare though they might be.  Perhaps as rare as BOB/D.

In this 1880 response, the concept of "onanism" is opposed to the rhythm method, and defenders of NFP have latched onto that.  But -- repeat after me -- modern NFP is not the rhythm method of 1880!  The rhythm method of 1929 is not even the rhythm method of 1880, having been drastically improved by Ogino and Knauss.  Still, even the 1880, primitive rhythm method impeded pregnancy, or made it less possible than it would have been otherwise.

Onanism is always and under every circuмstance a grave evil.

If the rythym method can be legitimately used for grave reasons so can "NFP".  Again the distinction is the difference between deliberately thwarting the act and avoiding the act altogether for a legitimate reason(s) which do in fact exist, rare as they might be.

Think about it.  If even the ancient rhythm method were A-OK, why would it need to be "cautiously suggested?"  Why could it not be enthusiastically suggested?  Why is there this shame and stigma attached to it?   Obviously it is cited here as the lesser of two evils but still an evil.  As to whether the lesser of two evils should be counseled by a priest, that is a HUGE can of worms I won't open here.  

"Cautiously suggested".  See above.  The "shame" is not for spacing children for grave reason but for talking about this private act openly and publically rather than in private with your confessor in my opinion.

The "sufficiently sure basis" he hoped for meant that medical science would have made the "regulation of offspring" -- another of his terms for NFP -- foolproof, or nearly so, in which case it definitely becomes birth control and completely severs itself from the ancient rhythm method.  Yet Pius XII hoped and prayed for this.  It is also remarkable how according to him the Church "of course" leaves judgment to medical science.  It's actually supposed to be the other way around, as I'm sure all will unreservedly agree.  

The distinction here is the difference between natural and unnatural CONCEPTION PREVENTION.  The married couple has the right to abstain for grave reasons, rare though they may be.  I believe the "judgment" left to medical science is the "fullproofness" of this method rather than the moral licitness of it.

Defenders of NFP also evade what is the primary issue, that this is no longer just about the problem of the marital bed.   What Pius XII taught was eugenics.  He was telling people they could avoid having children for certain reasons, eugenic, medical, economic, and "social," whatever that means ( sustainable development? global warming? overpopulation? to save the penguins? ) and that adds a whole new angle to this debate.  We're not just talking about the usual human selfishness now, couples who are trying to avoid children at certain times from sloth or sensuality; we're talking about social engineering and communism that is encouraged from the See of Peter itself, or the supposed See of Peter.  It's one thing for couples to try to avoid pregnancy and then, hopefully, repent of it later; it's another entirely for the Church, spotless and immaculate, to actually teach them they can do this without sin.  

The legitimate reasons, according to me (which does not mean much) are as follows:

Lack the physical or mental capacity to do so.

Unable to afford the bare minimum of food, clothes or shelter necessary to raise additional offspring.  That's it.  Some of the things you raise about Pius XII claims rightfully put him in a bad light if he truly gave these reasons as legitimate grave reasons to abstain during the fertile periods.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Catholic Church knows that the idea that couples can block their own births due to poverty is totally antithetical to the religion as it has always been known.  This makes a mockery of the large, poor families who have always been the backbone of the Church.  It is a reversal of Church doctrine and puts man in the place of God, giving him the power of veto over when a child will be born.  This is where Pius XII takes the rhythm method over the moon and back again into terra incognita.  What he taught in the Allocution goes WAY beyond what the supposed decisions of the 1800s said.

It is hard to disagree with the above though I do not hold my intellect above that of our clergy.  I admit that this is over my head and I have not the competence to give a de fide response to this objection.  I still hold, for now, that all of the clergy on the face of the earth are wrong about the issue.  Perhaps we will not find out until after we die.  I do hope a true Pope gets elected and clarifies the issue once and for all.

In the 1880 decision, couples who have determined to sin are given the choice of a lesser evil.  In 1951, in the Allocution to Midwives, Pius XII took ALL shame out of what later became known as NFP and even gave people reasons to use it that are right out of the playbook of Margaret Sanger.  Since in 1880 it was still shameful to use the rhythm method, although preferable to withdrawal, there was still some sin attached.  Now, because of Pius XII, people don't even think NFP, which is far worse than the rhythm method because more effective, is sin at all.  Unfortunately this has led many into heresy because NFP goes against faith and morals, especially morals, as they were always known.  

I truly believe, that for sufficiently grave reasons avoiding the act is not an evil at all but rather a good, or at least morally neutral.  I also believe the shame is openly talking about this sacred act rather than for the avoidance of the act.  Margaret Sanger reason's are not sufficiently grave reason for avoiding this sacred act.  To the extant the Pius XII agreed with her reasoning is the extant in which he was wrong.

"Preferable to withdrawel"  EARLY withdrawel is always and under every circuмstance a grave evil and therefore a damnable sin.  NFP and is not evil if "the rythem method" for grave reasons was not.  There is no distinction from a moral stand point as the intent for both is the avoidance of conception for grave reasons.

If I am going to take the drastic step of avoiding seminary because I don't want to teach this false doctrine, even avoiding going to church with those who teach it, then it would be hypocritical for me not to dissuade others from holding it.  

I do not believe you should avoid the seminary if you are called.  I believe you should attend the CMRI seminary and if you still disagree with their teaching on NFP you should break with the and become independant or do good within as the issue has not been settled (in a manner of speaking) until we get a Pope to settle it once and for all.  This would be up to your conscience as you trust no clergy to set you strait on the matter

So to answer your question about Pius XII, who I used to defend, I am now absolutely sure that he will one day be considered to have lost his office in 1951 or 1952.  Just as Paul VI or JPII cannot be Popes because they taught heresy from the Magistgerium, there is absolutely no way that Pius XII can be called a Pope after he put his Allocution to Midwives into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis which would make it dogma, or attempt to do so.  Either he is not a Pope or the Church failed; and as we know that can't happen.  To throw out Paul VI and keep Pius XII makes no sense, at least not for those who have read Allocution to Midwives, an obvious precursor to Humanae Vitae.  Montini and Pacelli are as inseparable as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.  Montini was his Secretary of State!

I would not put Pius XII and Montini on an even plane.  I would not even put Wojtyla and Montini on an even plane though they are much closer.  Montini destroyed the Sacraments.  We cannot say this about any other purported Pope.  

Other things may not be revealed until they day we are judged, or God willing, we get a Catholic Pope.  That is all I can say on that particular topic now.[/color]

When you figure this out suddenly all of Pius XII's destructive actions make sense, such as appointing Bugnini the head of a new commission on the liturgy, reducing the fast laws, gutting Holy Week liturgy, and so on and so forth.  These are changes in discipline, so they didn't lose him the Office; but NFP is a change in doctrine and cannot be countenanced.  Together they were ultra-destructive.

On the last sentence we disagree for reasons above.  But if Pius XII claimed none-grave reasons were good enough to avoid the act then he is in trouble.  This is far as I can go on this topic right now due to my lack of knowledge on the topic.

That Pius XII was an unmitigated Judas is a truth that will slowly dawn on people who believe that everything in the Church was running smoothly until 1958.  I wonder if people have really thought this through, because their theory denies the clear, repeated warnings given by Pius X about what was happening behind the scenes in his time, about the slow poison being disseminated through the veins of the Church by its own clergy.  Pius X even suggested that the Anti-Christ was walking the Earth when he was Pope!   This man was desperately trying to warn us of something in the early days of the 20th century, exactly like Cassandra tried to warn the Trojans not to let that horse through the gate.

All good points.  They almost got a Mason elected in 1903.  Interesting at the very least.  

Also, if everything were perfectly in order until 1958, what would that say about God? Why would God deliver his innocent, faithful sheep into the hands of heretics for no reason?  Ah, but were they really innocent, faithful sheep, or were they rather heaping teachers to themselves with itching ears?  The more I've been studying NFP, and hearing about calendars being handed out in Church so women could avoid pregnancy, I now fully understand why this Apostasy is really happening.  We have blamed others for too long, instead of looking in the mirror where the blame ought to be directed.  We are the ones who allowed these usurpers to take power, who have gone along with these lies instead of demanding the truth.  NFP is not the whole story, of course.  There is also the question of the Western world's almost total willful naivete about the тαℓмυdic Babylonianism of the governments that run us, another example of the penchant of modern man to stick his head deeply into the sand.  But it is a much bigger part of this Apostasy than most people so far realize.

There is no doubt that we deserve even worse than what we are faced with now even if you are wrong about the evils of NFP under every circuмstance.

The Church until 1958 was riddled with sɛҳuąƖ sins, with the rhythm method which ultimately became NFP, and which is one of the chief reasons why the Apostasy took place.  Instantly after the Minor Chastisement, if such an event is God's will, people will see this, and NFP will be banished as if it were the plague, which it is.  It is an abominable offense to have taught this mortal sin and there is no grave reason for it, any more than there would be a grave reason for artificial birth control.

If NFP is the reason for the Apostasy then you are more knowledgeable than me and all the clergy.  I'm not sure if this is the case.  I would think the reason would be that we became lax in the faith and just went through the motions of going to Mass and Confession without knowing or living our faith.  I'm not sure if this private sacred act being publically talked about and the admittance that the act could be avoided for grave reasons are why the Great Apostacy has befallen us.

Here is a thread from Bellarmine Forums where you can see someone who mostly would agree with me on NFP.  He still wavers a bit on the "grave reasons" but he is almost there.  This shows you a glimmer of the kind of awakening that is in store.  Hopefully partially on this side of the Chastisement!

Perhaps he IS there and YOU are almost there.  Perhaps our clergy do know a bit more about moral theology than you do.  Just a thought and I mean it most sincerely.

I was also encouraged to see that John Lane, who I have had my problems with in the past, does not automatically discount the idea that Pius XII was not the holy man he appeared to be.  I have the bad habit of writing people off when I need to give them more time and space.  

Even before reading stuff from you and CM I had no doubt that Pius XII was not the holiest or best of Pontiffs.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 25, 2009, 07:11:56 PM
Quote from: CM
:rolleyes:

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Raoul76
I know I've already said a mouthful, but let me get to the rest of your points later on tonight or tomorrow, Lover of Truth. Probably tomorrow.  Actually, it's already tomorrow!


When you talk about "abstinence" for instance do you refer to "the exclusive use of the infertile times of marriage" ( i.e. NFP or deliberately infertile intercourse ) or do you refer to actual abstinence, the times of prayer specified by St. Paul?  Because the Modernists have so confused the terms that they literally call NFP "periodic abstinence," although what is happening is the exact opposite of abstinence.  This is more double-minded doublespeak.

Personally, as it stands now, were there a legitimat grave reason to avoid CONCEPTION, it would abstain entirely.  That being said, I believe, that for grave reasons, a couple can avoid the fertile periods and engage during what is considered the infertile period, so long as they are open to life should it be granted during this time i.e. so long as they do not deliberately thwart the act

For instance, they all cite the supposed 1853 decision of the Sacred Penitentiary about the rhythm method saying that it may be used as long as nothing is done to impede birth.  Well, that is flat-out contradiction.  Obviously timing the conjugal act so that children have less chance to be born "impedes birth."

I believe here that they speak of deliberately thwarting the act as impeding the birth (or more properly, conception) rather than trying to avoid the fertile period for grave reason as in one instance you are deliberately thwarting the act which is always and in every circuмstance is a grave sin while in the other instance you avoid the act during the fertile period and are open to pregnancy during the infertile period should such happen.  That is how I see it now.  Though I was more in line with your thinking in the past.  The difference between you and I right now is that I do not trust my intellect above all the living clergy of our day as you do.

Even if it is a real decision, modern NFP impedes birth just as much as the condom or the Pill and so that decision no longer applies, if it ever did.

But with a distinction.  With drugs or plugs you are deliberately thwarting the act.  With continence you are avoiding it during the fertile time while being open to life during the infertile time.  There is a difference and I believe a truly objective person can see this difference.  In one case you are enganging in what must always be considered a grave evil, in the other instance you are merely avoiding what is considered a good in normal circuмstances.

As for the 1880 decision, that one is easier to explain; it is probabilism.  Since there is a better chance that a woman could get pregnant using the crude rhythm method than through withdrawal, priests are told to "cautiously suggest" it.  This is very much in keeping with a slightly lax and trendy Liguorianism that was in vogue at that time, which had probably gone beyond Liguori's own desires since he only used probabilism to counterbalance the overly rigorous Jansenists.  

I believe the reason why it is "cautiously" suggested is because continence or "NFP" can be used for merely selfish reasons and in a sinful way rather than for the reason you give.  I should only be suggested for grave reasons which do indeed exist, rare though they might be.  Perhaps as rare as BOB/D.

In this 1880 response, the concept of "onanism" is opposed to the rhythm method, and defenders of NFP have latched onto that.  But -- repeat after me -- modern NFP is not the rhythm method of 1880!  The rhythm method of 1929 is not even the rhythm method of 1880, having been drastically improved by Ogino and Knauss.  Still, even the 1880, primitive rhythm method impeded pregnancy, or made it less possible than it would have been otherwise.

Onanism is always and under every circuмstance a grave evil.

If the rythym method can be legitimately used for grave reasons so can "NFP".  Again the distinction is the difference between deliberately thwarting the act and avoiding the act altogether for a legitimate reason(s) which do in fact exist, rare as they might be.

Think about it.  If even the ancient rhythm method were A-OK, why would it need to be "cautiously suggested?"  Why could it not be enthusiastically suggested?  Why is there this shame and stigma attached to it?   Obviously it is cited here as the lesser of two evils but still an evil.  As to whether the lesser of two evils should be counseled by a priest, that is a HUGE can of worms I won't open here.  

"Cautiously suggested".  See above.  The "shame" is not for spacing children for grave reason but for talking about this private act openly and publically rather than in private with your confessor in my opinion.

The "sufficiently sure basis" he hoped for meant that medical science would have made the "regulation of offspring" -- another of his terms for NFP -- foolproof, or nearly so, in which case it definitely becomes birth control and completely severs itself from the ancient rhythm method.  Yet Pius XII hoped and prayed for this.  It is also remarkable how according to him the Church "of course" leaves judgment to medical science.  It's actually supposed to be the other way around, as I'm sure all will unreservedly agree.  

The distinction here is the difference between natural and unnatural CONCEPTION PREVENTION.  The married couple has the right to abstain for grave reasons, rare though they may be.  I believe the "judgment" left to medical science is the "fullproofness" of this method rather than the moral licitness of it.

Defenders of NFP also evade what is the primary issue, that this is no longer just about the problem of the marital bed.   What Pius XII taught was eugenics.  He was telling people they could avoid having children for certain reasons, eugenic, medical, economic, and "social," whatever that means ( sustainable development? global warming? overpopulation? to save the penguins? ) and that adds a whole new angle to this debate.  We're not just talking about the usual human selfishness now, couples who are trying to avoid children at certain times from sloth or sensuality; we're talking about social engineering and communism that is encouraged from the See of Peter itself, or the supposed See of Peter.  It's one thing for couples to try to avoid pregnancy and then, hopefully, repent of it later; it's another entirely for the Church, spotless and immaculate, to actually teach them they can do this without sin.  

The legitimate reasons, according to me (which does not mean much) are as follows:

Lack the physical or mental capacity to do so.

Unable to afford the bare minimum of food, clothes or shelter necessary to raise additional offspring.  That's it.  Some of the things you raise about Pius XII claims rightfully put him in a bad light if he truly gave these reasons as legitimate grave reasons to abstain during the fertile periods.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Catholic Church knows that the idea that couples can block their own births due to poverty is totally antithetical to the religion as it has always been known.  This makes a mockery of the large, poor families who have always been the backbone of the Church.  It is a reversal of Church doctrine and puts man in the place of God, giving him the power of veto over when a child will be born.  This is where Pius XII takes the rhythm method over the moon and back again into terra incognita.  What he taught in the Allocution goes WAY beyond what the supposed decisions of the 1800s said.

It is hard to disagree with the above though I do not hold my intellect above that of our clergy.  I admit that this is over my head and I have not the competence to give a de fide response to this objection.  I still hold, for now, that all of the clergy on the face of the earth are wrong about the issue.  Perhaps we will not find out until after we die.  I do hope a true Pope gets elected and clarifies the issue once and for all.

In the 1880 decision, couples who have determined to sin are given the choice of a lesser evil.  In 1951, in the Allocution to Midwives, Pius XII took ALL shame out of what later became known as NFP and even gave people reasons to use it that are right out of the playbook of Margaret Sanger.  Since in 1880 it was still shameful to use the rhythm method, although preferable to withdrawal, there was still some sin attached.  Now, because of Pius XII, people don't even think NFP, which is far worse than the rhythm method because more effective, is sin at all.  Unfortunately this has led many into heresy because NFP goes against faith and morals, especially morals, as they were always known.  

I truly believe, that for sufficiently grave reasons avoiding the act is not an evil at all but rather a good, or at least morally neutral.  I also believe the shame is openly talking about this sacred act rather than for the avoidance of the act.  Margaret Sanger reason's are not sufficiently grave reason for avoiding this sacred act.  To the extant the Pius XII agreed with her reasoning is the extant in which he was wrong.

"Preferable to withdrawel"  EARLY withdrawel is always and under every circuмstance a grave evil and therefore a damnable sin.  NFP and is not evil if "the rythem method" for grave reasons was not.  There is no distinction from a moral stand point as the intent for both is the avoidance of conception for grave reasons.

If I am going to take the drastic step of avoiding seminary because I don't want to teach this false doctrine, even avoiding going to church with those who teach it, then it would be hypocritical for me not to dissuade others from holding it.  

I do not believe you should avoid the seminary if you are called.  I believe you should attend the CMRI seminary and if you still disagree with their teaching on NFP you should break with the and become independant or do good within as the issue has not been settled (in a manner of speaking) until we get a Pope to settle it once and for all.  This would be up to your conscience as you trust no clergy to set you strait on the matter

So to answer your question about Pius XII, who I used to defend, I am now absolutely sure that he will one day be considered to have lost his office in 1951 or 1952.  Just as Paul VI or JPII cannot be Popes because they taught heresy from the Magistgerium, there is absolutely no way that Pius XII can be called a Pope after he put his Allocution to Midwives into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis which would make it dogma, or attempt to do so.  Either he is not a Pope or the Church failed; and as we know that can't happen.  To throw out Paul VI and keep Pius XII makes no sense, at least not for those who have read Allocution to Midwives, an obvious precursor to Humanae Vitae.  Montini and Pacelli are as inseparable as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.  Montini was his Secretary of State!

I would not put Pius XII and Montini on an even plane.  I would not even put Wojtyla and Montini on an even plane though they are much closer.  Montini destroyed the Sacraments.  We cannot say this about any other purported Pope.  

Other things may not be revealed until they day we are judged, or God willing, we get a Catholic Pope.  That is all I can say on that particular topic now.[/color]

When you figure this out suddenly all of Pius XII's destructive actions make sense, such as appointing Bugnini the head of a new commission on the liturgy, reducing the fast laws, gutting Holy Week liturgy, and so on and so forth.  These are changes in discipline, so they didn't lose him the Office; but NFP is a change in doctrine and cannot be countenanced.  Together they were ultra-destructive.

On the last sentence we disagree for reasons above.  But if Pius XII claimed none-grave reasons were good enough to avoid the act then he is in trouble.  This is far as I can go on this topic right now due to my lack of knowledge on the topic.

That Pius XII was an unmitigated Judas is a truth that will slowly dawn on people who believe that everything in the Church was running smoothly until 1958.  I wonder if people have really thought this through, because their theory denies the clear, repeated warnings given by Pius X about what was happening behind the scenes in his time, about the slow poison being disseminated through the veins of the Church by its own clergy.  Pius X even suggested that the Anti-Christ was walking the Earth when he was Pope!   This man was desperately trying to warn us of something in the early days of the 20th century, exactly like Cassandra tried to warn the Trojans not to let that horse through the gate.

All good points.  They almost got a Mason elected in 1903.  Interesting at the very least.  

Also, if everything were perfectly in order until 1958, what would that say about God? Why would God deliver his innocent, faithful sheep into the hands of heretics for no reason?  Ah, but were they really innocent, faithful sheep, or were they rather heaping teachers to themselves with itching ears?  The more I've been studying NFP, and hearing about calendars being handed out in Church so women could avoid pregnancy, I now fully understand why this Apostasy is really happening.  We have blamed others for too long, instead of looking in the mirror where the blame ought to be directed.  We are the ones who allowed these usurpers to take power, who have gone along with these lies instead of demanding the truth.  NFP is not the whole story, of course.  There is also the question of the Western world's almost total willful naivete about the тαℓмυdic Babylonianism of the governments that run us, another example of the penchant of modern man to stick his head deeply into the sand.  But it is a much bigger part of this Apostasy than most people so far realize.

There is no doubt that we deserve even worse than what we are faced with now even if you are wrong about the evils of NFP under every circuмstance.

The Church until 1958 was riddled with sɛҳuąƖ sins, with the rhythm method which ultimately became NFP, and which is one of the chief reasons why the Apostasy took place.  Instantly after the Minor Chastisement, if such an event is God's will, people will see this, and NFP will be banished as if it were the plague, which it is.  It is an abominable offense to have taught this mortal sin and there is no grave reason for it, any more than there would be a grave reason for artificial birth control.

If NFP is the reason for the Apostasy then you are more knowledgeable than me and all the clergy.  I'm not sure if this is the case.  I would think the reason would be that we became lax in the faith and just went through the motions of going to Mass and Confession without knowing or living our faith.  I'm not sure if this private sacred act being publically talked about and the admittance that the act could be avoided for grave reasons are why the Great Apostacy has befallen us.

Here is a thread from Bellarmine Forums where you can see someone who mostly would agree with me on NFP.  He still wavers a bit on the "grave reasons" but he is almost there.  This shows you a glimmer of the kind of awakening that is in store.  Hopefully partially on this side of the Chastisement!

Perhaps he IS there and YOU are almost there.  Perhaps our clergy do know a bit more about moral theology than you do.  Just a thought and I mean it most sincerely.

I was also encouraged to see that John Lane, who I have had my problems with in the past, does not automatically discount the idea that Pius XII was not the holy man he appeared to be.  I have the bad habit of writing people off when I need to give them more time and space.  

Even before reading stuff from you and CM I had no doubt that Pius XII was not the holiest or best of Pontiffs.


Thanks CM.  That's MUCH better!!!
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Lover of Truth on December 26, 2009, 04:45:03 PM
No response from Raoul again.

Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 26, 2009, 05:32:00 PM
There probably will not be much response because you believe in NFP.  Not only do you believe in it, but you defend it using the exact same doublespeak that Vatican II types use.  And after apparently getting NFP and actual abstinence confused, you now show that you know exactly what NFP is -- your behavior is strange.

Lover of Truth said:
Quote
""Cautiously suggested".  See above.  The "shame" is not for spacing children for grave reason but for talking about this private act openly and publically rather than in private with your confessor in my opinion.


So if someone claiming to be from the Church, and wearing a cassock, said "Okay, gαys can get married," and I decried this, you would say "Leave it to their confessor"?  I'm standing up against a violation of faith and morals which the true Catholic Church cannot teach against.

Do you know how we got into this situation with an untrustworthy "clergy," Lover of Truth?  Because of the millions or billions out there who are apathetic.  They could not have accomplished this if we didn't let them.

Here, I'll show you just one of the many contradictions involved --

Lover of Truth said:
Quote
"But with a distinction.  With drugs or plugs you are deliberately thwarting the act.  With continence you are avoiding it during the fertile time while being open to life during the infertile time."


Why are you calling it "continence," first of all?  Do you think having sex is "continent"?  Start using words in an honest way; this shows just how willing you are to trick yourself.  That is what I see from almost everyone who defends NFP; that they are tricking themselves, using words like "continence" to describe the exact opposite.  It's perverse.  

Okay, so NFP is "open to life," that's what you're saying, despite being more effective than condoms if used properly.  By the way, I was born despite my then-pagan parents using condoms, so shall we say condoms are "open to life" too?

Now let's take a grave reason for using NFP, such as the famous "Woman who has had twelve kids and will die if she has another."  Follow carefully:

*To defend NFP, you say it is open to life --

*That means if you are using it with your wife who will die if she has another kid, you are risking her life to have sex --

* But in reality you are only using it because it is near-foolproof and will PRESERVE her life --

* Therefore it is birth control --

* Therefore you should do what Pius XII said in the FIRST half of Allocution to Midwives and "heroically abstain."

If you can't use condoms with your wife who will die if she has another kid, why NFP?  

Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 26, 2009, 06:03:32 PM
Lover of Truth said:
Quote
NFP and is not evil if "the rythem method" for grave reasons was not.  There is no distinction from a moral stand point as the intent for both is the avoidance of conception for grave reasons.


No one ever said you can use the rhythm method for grave reasons.  The 1880 decision said that if couples were using withdrawal, that the rhythm method could be cautiously suggested.  Why "cautiously," if there is no sin involved?

As for the 1853 decision, I have to research it.  I think it may be a fake.   It says couples using the rhythm method are not to be disturbed, as long as they do nothing to "impede birth."  Obviously this is yet another contradiction, and it fits all too well with the kind of double-minded rhetoric we see in modern times.  

Before these "decisions," the Church had said that to use the conjugal act even while WISHING not to have children was a venial sin.  I mean if you have sex with your wife just for the sake of pleasure, with children not being uppermost on your mind, it is venial sin, even if you do nothing to prevent it -- the same way that eating is venial sin if you eat when you're not hungry, just for pleasure.  How could it suddenly be okay to use the rhythm method, which is an actual attempt to STOP birth?

This 1853 decision was either ( a ) Concocted by Masons or infiltrators at that time ( b ) Concocted by Masons or infiltrators nearer to OUR time, the way the Piltdown Man was concocted or ( c ) The Church at that time did not see the rhythm method as a threat because it was so crude.  It diminished the chances of pregnancy but not by that much.  

Anyway, these decisions are not part of the Magisterium.  Follow them if you wish.  I've done my job and warned you.  And again, the rhythm method of 1853 is not NFP.  The rhythm method of 1853 really was "open to life" -- it lessened said life's chances, but it was still open.

Lover of Truth said:
Quote
The distinction here is the difference between natural and unnatural CONCEPTION PREVENTION.  The married couple has the right to abstain for grave reasons, rare though they may be


Yeah, they have the right to abstain, just not to have sex while preventing birth.

So you admit that it is birth control, which you call by the higher-sounding name of conception prevention.  Well, where exactly did you learn that birth control is okay if it's natural and not okay if it's unnatural?  And how natural is it considering that it took all this time for scientists to crack the code of the female reproductive system in order to inform people when they can have sex without the woman getting pregnant?  Do you think God doesn't know what you're trying to do?  The distinction between natural vs. unnatural is irrelevant.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: gladius_veritatis on December 26, 2009, 06:20:19 PM
Quote from: Raoul76
Why "cautiously," if there is no sin involved?


Maybe the "caution" pertains to speaking to a couple at all about such intimate, personal matters?

FWIW, I have not seen the statement, but thought you MIGHT be thinking the word is being used to modify one idea, when it really modifies another.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 26, 2009, 06:36:24 PM
gladius_veritatis said:
Quote
Maybe the "caution" pertains to speaking to a couple at all about such intimate, personal matters?


Perhaps, but that doesn't change that the rhythm method is spoken of here as an alternate to withdrawal.  This decision suggests that there are several steps that must be taken before recommending this primitive form of rhythm ( not NFP ).  The penitent in question has to be actually impenitent, and intend to go on using withdrawal.  In THAT CASE ONLY, rhythm is suggested, obviously because pregnancy may result more easily using it than with withdrawal.    

But the rhythm method wasn't recommended the way Pius XII recommended NFP, to all and sundry, for various vague, all-encompassing, eugenic reasons.  Those who try to connect this 1880 decision to Allocution to Midwives are either blind or disingenuous.  There is no other option.  


Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 26, 2009, 06:43:36 PM
Actually, you're right LoT, the 1853 "decision" did use the phrase "legitimate reasons."  I smell a big Freemasonic rat here.

St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles,

Quote
"Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin...  Hence, after the sin of murder, whereby a human nature already in actual existence is destroyed, this sort of sin seem to hold the second place, whereby the generation of human nature is precluded."


You could say with NFP that generation is not "impossible," only made dramatically more difficult.  By that logic, though, condoms and the Pill are not sinful, since they also do not render pregnancy "impossible."

Yet we know that condoms and the Pill are sinful, for just the reason stated above; they preclude pregnancy MORE OR LESS.  Therefore NFP is sinful.  What does natural or unnatural have to do with it?

There is no other way to keep sane except to realize that, no matter how you slice it, it is totally contradictory to say that NFP is permissible and not birth control.  Perhaps the rhythm method in the 19th century was one of those things the Church overlooked but didn't teach; but that is a lot different than going out and TEACHING full-blown NFP.

Keep in mind the 1853 decision, if it isn't just a hoax, is not from the Magisterium, nor is the 1880 decision.  Since the 1880 decision was referred to by Pius XI, it has more weight, but look at it again -- IT NEVER SAYS THAT THE RHYTHM METHOD IS NOT SINFUL.  It doesn't say that it is sinful either, I'll give gladius that much, but common sense can tell you that.  

The blithe attempt of the clergy today to just sweep this under the rug shows that something is desperately wrong.  At the very least, any honest man should be able to acknowledge the multitude of contradictions I'm pointing out.


P.S. Well, at least birth control isn't worse than murder according to St. Thomas... I'd almost thought it was after some of what I've read.  
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 26, 2009, 09:04:17 PM
I hadn't read this whole thread until just now.  CM and I think exactly alike on this one.  It is the same with others who are against NFP such as pascendi on AngelQueen.  But I'm not sure many people have really wrestled with this.  

SJB says that it's saner to say that Pius XII was clarifying a point of doctrine after much debate than that he was part of a plot...  While you think it's sane to accept that birth control isn't birth control from someone who was surrounded by many of the key players of Vatican II and was a liberal, was practically the tutelary spirit of said council and was quoted by Vatican II docuмents more than any other source but the Bible, who spoke of the "noble and sincere expressions" of those outside the Church i.e. Protestants, I must beg to differ.  The dude showed every sign of being a proto-Ratzinger.  

I see no reason why I should gouge out my own eyes regarding Pacelli and somehow accept the party line that the trouble began with John XXIII, just because a bunch of liberal clergymen who teach the Baltimore Catechism heresy say so.  
That the Baltimore Catechism could have been taught for 120 years now with barely a peep of protest, except one minor skirmish in Boston in the 40's, shows you just how frozen and apathetic people really are -- and that it is entirely probable that error could have reigned unchecked for over a century.

If I can "depose" Ratzinger, or hazard an educated guess that he will one day be considered to be not a Pope, it makes no sense to ignore that Pacelli might have been part of all this.  I think Ratti was as well, though he didn't teach heresy explicitly as far as I know.  Ratti's decisions with the Action Francaise and Cristeros are enough to put you on your guard about him.  And CM pointed out how he used the same language in Casti Connubi as Pius XII in Allocution to Midwives, like he was setting the stage for that later docuмent.

This is precisely the slow poison that Sarto warned against.  You can literally trace it to its beginnings in the case of NFP, this supposed 1853 decision, which was right in the thick of the era of Masonic infiltration.

*****

My next area of investigation has to be that 1853 decision, to find out if it really existed before recently.  I typed "1853 Sacred Penitentiary rhythm" into Google books and nothing came up before the 1950's -- same with the 1880 decision, though, which Pius XI refers to.  The problem is that I've come to realize Google Books is printing books under copyright so from now on I have to buy everything, slowing down my research.  

The 1853 decision is still nowhere near as evil as Allocution to Midwives, because it doesn't say that the Church should TEACH anyone to use the rhythm method.  It just says to leave couples alone if they are using it.  It's kind of like the letters of Honorius -- it sins by omission.

The most troubling thing about it is that it says it's better if used for "legitimate reasons."  That is true in one sense; it's better to use the rhythm method with a good excuse than with a bad one.  It's better to kill someone out of pity than out of rage, but that's still euthanasia... You see, ultimately this 1853 decision contradicts what Innocent XI taught, when he condemned the following proposition:  

Quote
"Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, Condemned error--# 9. The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect."


And this quote from the Pope outranks the quote from the Sacred Penitentiary.  Someone using the rhythm method is, beyond any doubt, using the conjugal act with pleasure only in mind.  And Innocent XI was not speaking of people who try to stop pregnancy, but only of people who perhaps don't have children foremost in their minds when they use the conjugal act, for instance.  If even WISHING not to have children is a venial sin, then taking steps to actually prevent their birth has to be worse... Like a mortal sin.  

The 1880 decision does teach the rhythm method, but in a defensive as opposed to offensive way.  It is entirely in keeping with the Liguorian probabilism in vogue at that time, suggesting the lesser of two evils for the greater good... It is like saying "If someone is so obstinate that he will leave the Church rather than give up withdrawal, then suggest the rhythm method, because there's a better chance his wife will get pregnant that way."  I don't necessarily agree with this logic, because it's compromise.  But it's not heretical.  Therefore, when Pius XI referred to it, he also narrowly avoided heresy.

However, Pius XII went way beyond what both of these decisions said.  He made a whole philosophy out of NFP, and was extremely aggressive about it, saying that it could be used over the course of a whole marriage for various ill-defined reasons -- he even publicly hoped that science would perfect it!  And this is what is taught by the clergy today.  This I don't hesitate to call heresy.  It's not just passively accepting the old rhythm method, or suggesting it as the lesser of two evils; it's a whole new mindset that almost encourages a near-perfect form of birth control for various reasons that smack of communism.

I am just trying to follow the truth, and there are only two choices here:  Either I convince myself that black is white and white is black, that birth control is not birth control, or I follow reason.  It is not so hard to choose the latter course, as I haven't seen even one pro-NFP argument that is remotely convincing.  

Lover of Truth said:
Quote
"Admittedly the intent is to avoid conception, but the act is not deliberately thwarted as is the case with artificial birth control."


 :confused1:  :confused1: :confused1:  I mean, come on.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 26, 2009, 09:35:32 PM
P.S. SJB, I know that Ibranyi is kind of a crank, and he thinks he's one of the two witnesses of the Apocalypse or something like that.  But a good point is a good point, even if made by a crank.  

He failed to convince me on baptism of desire, since he doctored evidence.  But when I read what he said about NFP, it clicked.

This goes back to what I said in another thread today.  I follow the truth, not personalities.  I take a piece from here, a piece from there.  The truth speaks for itself; it rings a chord in us if we listen.  

I am the son of a lawyer and perhaps I have a genetic predisposition to appreciate a well-made case.  The case made by those who defend NFP is feeble, shifty and evasive.  It mostly consists of "Don't question us, we're the experts," and this is from the guy who defended the Terri Schiavo killing.  Sorry, these Thuc-line priests are not exactly St. Thomas Aquinas -- they are not absolute authorities.  

So far we've had Francis Schuckardt, a Franciscan who thinks he's the only bishop in America, Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada who run some kind of cult, another gαy guy a la Schuckardt who was arrested this year, and so on.  Then you have the SSPX giving Brideshead Revisited to seminarians... While I hope my fears about these men is not true, I'm afraid that I lack the total confidence in them that others seem to have, and yes, I trust myself over them -- that is to say, I trust myself guided hopefully by the Holy Ghost and backed up by the history of the Church.  I think God has given me a pretty good idea of the big picture, at least the general outlines of it.

Whenever I see the kind of stonewalling such as was shown by Bishop Pivarunas and Father Cekada on NFP, I know there is something fishy going on.  The faith and morals of the Catholic Church have always been clear and easily taught.  

Don't think I don't notice how almost everyone on this site avoids me and CM when we talk about this.  The silence speaks volumes.  Because while we may in fact be wrong that NFP is a heresy, there's no way we're wrong that much about it doesn't add up.  Yet look at how silent people are about it in the traditional world.  My theory:  Traditionalists don't want to face the fact that they haven't really escaped from Vatican II, they don't want to have their bubble burst.  
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 26, 2009, 09:41:10 PM
Just to add to my bundle of text here, I regret calling Pius XII "dude."  It doesn't help my case to be flippant or to speak of someone who may have been a Pope at one time disrespectfully or in jest.  
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 26, 2009, 09:57:56 PM
Mike, please read the whole thing.  You have the time.

Quote from: Mike
CM and I think exactly alike on this one.


As far as the doctrine is concerned, yes.  But as you know, I hold that Pius XII never was pope to begin with.

Quote
Ratti's decisions with the Action Francaise and Cristeros are enough to put you on your guard about him.


Politically, he was undeniable an objective enemy of the Catholic Church and faithful.

Quote
And CM pointed out how he used the same language in Casti Connubi as Pius XII in Allocution to Midwives, like he was setting the stage for that later docuмent.


Now what about Benedict XV and the Sodalitium Pianum?  You don't suppose Ratti (Pius XI) was following della Chiesa (Benedict XV) the same way Pacelli followed Rattit?  Hmmm....
 :scratchchin:

Quote
This is precisely the slow poison that Sarto warned against.  You can literally trace it to its beginnings in the case of NFP, this supposed 1853 decision, which was right in the thick of the era of Masonic infiltration.


I said this to you in a PM, but now I will express it publicly:  You are so fixated on NFP as the origin of all the troubles the Church faces - a heresy tied directly to the created good by which God would have the human race generated (the marital act), but I say to you that the origin is laxity concerning another heresy.

The heresy against the sacrament by which God would have the human race REgenerated - Baptism of desire and baptism of blood, which both flew under the radar, possibly only causing moderate spiritual damage (material heresy).

But one we get to the "information age" when almost everyone has access to a great portion of the sum of human knowledge, there is no excuse.

Mike, you can't deny that if there was no belief in baptism of desire, there would be no "pagans can be saved in their false religions" heresy à la Baltimore Catechism.

Quote
Quote
"Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, Condemned error--# 9. The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect."


Right, but you won't get anyone who supports NFP to engage you on this point, because it is so devastating to their case.

And if they do, it will be something along the lines of "Well the Holy Office is not infallible," or some other such attempt to make light of it.

To this, you should remind them that the Holy Office is a Roman Congregation, then hit them with:

Quote from: Pope Pius X, [i
Lamentabili Sane[/i] #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.


Quote
If even WISHING not to have children is a venial sin, then taking steps to actually prevent their birth has to be worse... Like a mortal sin.


 :popcorn:

Quote
The 1880 decision does teach the rhythm method, but in a defensive as opposed to offensive way.  It is entirely in keeping with the Liguorian probabilism in vogue at that time, suggesting the lesser of two evils for the greater good... It is like saying "If someone is so obstinate that he will leave the Church rather than give up withdrawal, then suggest the rhythm method, because there's a better chance his wife will get pregnant that way."  I don't necessarily agree with this logic, because it's compromise.  But it's not heretical.


It's a can of worms.

First of all, the Church may NEVER counsel sin, but those pastors who do so are not of the Church.  If they taught that there was no sin in doing this then, yes they were heretics - itching ears, heap up teachers, etc.

But the Church overlooks evils in the name of the greater good.  For example the pope cannot excommunicate every monarch who is known to be adulterous, or else then the Church would be constantly at war in the temporal realm.  There was enough of that in history as it was.

So if it was proposed by the priest to the couple that what they were doing was mortally sinful, and that the "rhythm method" was also sinful but not as grave, and that they should at least do that instead...  That is still counseling sin.  Maybe the priest would not be a heretic, but I highly doubt he would be in God's grace, and I equally doubt that the couple he "absolves" would be either.

Quote
Therefore, when Pius XI referred to it, he also narrowly avoided heresy.

However, Pius XII went way beyond what both of these decisions said.  He made a whole philosophy out of NFP, and was extremely aggressive about it, saying that it could be used over the course of a whole marriage for various ill-defined reasons -- he even publicly hoped that science would perfect it!


Yeah, he made his true colours known for sure.  Did you know he also taught baptism of desire in that Allocaution?
 :whistleblower:

Quote
And this is what is taught by the clergy today.  This I don't hesitate to call heresy.  It's not just passively accepting the old rhythm method, or suggesting it as the lesser of two evils; it's a whole new mindset that almost encourages a near-perfect form of birth control for various reasons that smack of communism.


Exactly right.  It is near perfect birth control, no two ways about it.

Quote
I am just trying to follow the truth, and there are only two choices here:  Either I convince myself that black is white and white is black, that birth control is not birth control, or I follow reason.  It is not so hard to choose the latter course, as I haven't seen even one pro-NFP argument that is remotely convincing.


Gee whiz Mike, that's how I feel about baptism of desire.

Quote
Lover of Truth said:
Quote
"Admittedly the intent is to avoid conception, but the act is not deliberately thwarted as is the case with artificial birth control."


 :confused1:  :confused1: :confused1:  I mean, come on.


John is very confused...  Is he married?

Quote
I know that Ibranyi is kind of a crank...

He failed to convince me on baptism of desire, since he doctored evidence.


Ibranyi does not believe baptism of desire is heresy.  He believes it's an allowable opinion.

Quote
This goes back to what I said in another thread today.  I follow the truth, not personalities.  I take a piece from here, a piece from there.  The truth speaks for itself; it rings a chord in us if we listen.


This is true, and the proper approach.

Quote
I am the son of a lawyer and perhaps I have a genetic predisposition to appreciate a well-made case.  The case made by those who defend NFP is feeble, shifty and evasive.  It mostly consists of "Don't question us, we're the experts,"


Interesting...  And yet here I've been practically begging you to "audit" the decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, the dogmatic definitions wherein I hold that the Church defines baptism in water alone as the remedy for original sin, the sole gateway into the Church and heaven.

Surely the son of a lawyer would have no problem and might even enjoy such an exercise.  But where have you been?

You say it's not important to you... well then certainly you must regard me as "so close yet do far", and wouldn't you like to help me overcome my "error" by showing me the reasonable understanding of the definitions (and how they interrelate), you know, the understanding that does not call for Orwellian double-talk?

Quote
I trust myself over them -- that is to say, I trust myself guided hopefully by the Holy Ghost and backed up by the history of the Church.  I think God has given me a pretty good idea of the big picture, at least the general outlines of it.


Don't trust yourself.  That is a mistake.

Quote
Don't think I don't notice how almost everyone on this site avoids me and CM when we talk about this.


Hey Mike...  BOO!!! (baptism of desire, Council definitions, the wording thereof...)

Quote
The silence speaks volumes.  Because while we may in fact be wrong that NFP is a heresy, there's no way we're wrong that much about it doesn't add up.  Yet look at how silent people are about it in the traditional world.  My theory:  Traditionalists don't want to face the fact that they haven't really escaped from Vatican II, they don't want to have their bubble burst.


Which is why I am surprised at you Mike.  You seem to have nothing to lose, what could be so troublesome about carefully examining the definitions of the Holy See on the matter of baptism?

Are you afraid to find out that I might be right about what I say, that they leave no room for any other way into the kingdom of heaven but the sacrament?

Is it the fact that Belloc constantly called you "CM's acolyte" and your pride will not allow you to "let me be right"?

I'll say this right now:  Belloc got it all wrong- I have learned from you, quite a bit about NFP, and I am grateful for almost every keystroke you publish on the subject.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 26, 2009, 10:25:59 PM
CM said:
Quote
Is it the fact that Belloc constantly called you "CM's acolyte" and your pride will not allow you to "let me be right"?


1) Considering how few of us there are, it would be insane to feel competitive.  What are we competing for, title of "Last Catholic on Earth"?  Who would want to be that?  It seems kind of lonely to me.

2) I've admitted that I've been wrong many times

3) This may describe you on baptism of desire, not me; that it is your pride keeping you from coming around.

CM said:
Quote
I said this to you in a PM, but now I will express it publicly:  You are so fixated on NFP as the origin of all the troubles the Church faces - a heresy tied directly to the created good by which God would have the human race generated (the marital act), but I say to you that the origin is laxity concerning another heresy."


Yes, the Baltimore Catechism heresy.  NFP and that one are the twin dragons.

CM said:
Quote
But one we get to the "information age" when almost everyone has access to a great portion of the sum of human knowledge, there is no excuse.


So Robert Bellarmine, despite not living in the information age, was unaware of what Eugene IV said?

CM said:
Quote
"Mike, you can't deny that if there was no belief in baptism of desire, there would be no 'pagans can be saved in their false religions' heresy à la Baltimore Catechism."


That doesn't follow.  Just because some Jesuits and others abused a point of faith doesn't mean the point of faith was in itself wrong.  

It's a point of faith that we should approach the Eucharist with reverence, being well-prepared in mind and body, not having unconfessed mortal sins on our conscience.  Yet the Jansenists abused this point of faith to say that one should almost never approach the Eucharist AT ALL.

Does that mean that approaching the Eucharist with reverence is wrong?

CM said:
Quote

Now what about Benedict XV and the Sodalitium Pianum?  You don't suppose Ratti (Pius XI) was following della Chiesa (Benedict XV) the same way Pacelli followed Ratti?  Hmmm....


I haven't studied Benedict XV much.  I do see the Freemasonic tinge of his language, and knowing he was trained by Rampolla, I am inclined to believe what you say.  But I don't think either Ratti or della Chiesa taught heresy in their encyclicals.

CM said:
Quote
It's a can of worms.

First of all, the Church may NEVER counsel sin, but those pastors who do so are not of the Church.  If they taught that there was no sin in doing this then, yes they were heretics - itching ears, heap up teachers, etc.

But the Church overlooks evils in the name of the greater good.  For example the pope cannot excommunicate every monarch who is known to be adulterous, or else then the Church would be constantly at war in the temporal realm.  There was enough of that in history as it was.

So if it was proposed by the priest to the couple that what they were doing was mortally sinful, and that the "rhythm method" was also sinful but not as grave, and that they should at least do that instead...  That is still counseling sin.  Maybe the priest would not be a heretic, but I highly doubt he would be in God's grace, and I equally doubt that the couple he "absolves" would be either."


Words of wisdom.  I agree with all of this.  Christ says what you say in the last paragraph Himself, that those who counsel the flock to disobey even the LEAST of His commandments will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.  I don't think the Sixth Commandment is the least among them either.

The Church cannot counsel sin; individual priests of course can, to their great discredit.  Apparently the Sacred Penitentiary can as well.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 26, 2009, 10:34:14 PM
Am I prideful if I do not accept logical fallacies as valid arguments?  You don't seem to realize that every argument for baptism of desire that I have yet seen on this board is either tenuous and inconclusive at best and a logical fallacy at worst.

In other words, SAYING I am prideful is one thing, but can you please back it up by showing me ONE argument that has been presented to me that has actually been SOUND?  On that logically and conclusively shows my position to be technically unsound and incorrect?

And then can we engage honestly on that ONE argument?

Surely this way we can work through them and discover the one that shows the truth of the matter.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 27, 2009, 12:47:53 AM
As far as pride goes, I'll admit it was flattering to be plucked out of paganism by God, through no merit of my own, and to find not only Catholicism in a time where it is buried, but the sedevacantist truth.  

But I never wanted to be completely on my own like this, mistrusting even the sedes.  You would have to be crazy to want that.  It is all I can do not to lose my mind out of fear.  
This does not flatter me nor do I find it enjoyable, believe me. It's unbelievably draining.

The only other option is to convince myself that NFP is okay, that the Baltimore Catechism is okay, but I am unable to do that.

I will admit something about baptism of desire -- it has been poorly taught.  For instance, St. Thomas saying that BoD only forgives actual sin, not original sin, and that the debt for the latter must be paid in purgatory.  This does, as you said, put the Church in a bad light for refusing prayers for dead catechumens through its history.  It doesn't even make any sense.  Baptism of desire, though not actual baptism, has the same effects, wipes away original and actual sin.  It is "like"  baptism without being baptism.  Why would it only take away one type of sin?

So baptism of desire has been poorly explained sometimes.  But if we get rid of it entirely, it almost makes the Church look foolish.  It would be placing many, many great saints and many, many faithful in material heresy -- again, as you pointed out.  

I thought of a new way to explain it.  This has to do with the other discussion about the infallibility or lack thereof of canonizations.  We could say that POSSIBLY catechumens are members of the Church Triumphant; while only those who are baptized can be said to be members of the Church Militant.  It is notable that the Church is split into two parts like this.  It fully explains how a catechumen can be outside yet inside at the same time without having to say 2 + 2 =5.  There is a heavenly "Church" ( really heaven itself ), that being the Church Triumphant, and an earthly Church, the Church Militant.  The earthly Church has its rules and can't admit anyone who isn't baptized; but the heavenly Church can.

Of course, God doesn't have to save people this way, but I believe He can and does, and that is why the Holy Ghost taught St. Augustine and others to believe in it.

CM said:
Quote
In other words, SAYING I am prideful is one thing, but can you please back it up by showing me ONE argument that has been presented to me that has actually been SOUND?
For the millionth time, I don't see why it's a logical fallacy to believe you can have your sins forgiven without actual baptism anymore than that you can have them forgiven without actual confession.


I'm not saying you're prideful.  I don't think any of us knows if we are or aren't prideful.  I'm just suggesting that it is as possible that you are beleaguered with pride as that I am.

What many have tried to point out to you is that you read certain decrees of Popes according to your own interpretation and then assume that this interpretation is bedrock truth about which there can be no argument.  You have alighted upon your definition of EENS from which you will not budge, even when various saints, doctors and so on have read the same decrees and somehow did not take them in the same sense that you did.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Raoul76 on December 27, 2009, 01:29:16 AM
This is the article where I found the St. Thomas quote above --

http://www.twelvefruits.com/adam/contrahistory.html

It is written by a Vatican II Catholic who seems to be troubled by NFP, and went back and collected information about what was always taught.  He convinced himself that the Church ( or Freemasons within the Church? ) has changed its mind on the conjugal act.  

Quote
"The next Pius, Pius XII, was more explicit in his 1951 Allocution to midwives. Online here, this address appeared in the official proceedings of the Apostolic See, and is thus considered valid by anyone who believes Pius XII was valid."

 :rolleyes:

One goodie that I've never seen is from the Council of Braga, which gives 10 years of penance "if she [ a wife ] contrives to make sure she does not conceive, either in adultery or in legitimate intercourse."
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 27, 2009, 06:19:46 AM
Quote from: Raoul76
As far as pride goes, I'll admit it was flattering to be plucked out of paganism by God, through no merit of my own, and to find not only Catholicism in a time where it is buried, but the sedevacantist truth.


This is not flattering.  It's TERRIFYING!

Quote
But I never wanted to be completely on my own like this, mistrusting even the sedes.  You would have to be crazy to want that.  It is all I can do not to lose my mind out of fear.  
This does not flatter me nor do I find it enjoyable, believe me. It's unbelievably draining.


We think alike here too.

Quote
I thought of a new way to explain it.  This has to do with the other discussion about the infallibility or lack thereof of canonizations.  We could say that POSSIBLY catechumens are members of the Church Triumphant; while only those who are baptized can be said to be members of the Church Militant.  It is notable that the Church is split into two parts like this.  It fully explains how a catechumen can be outside yet inside at the same time without having to say 2 + 2 =5.  There is a heavenly "Church" ( really heaven itself ), that being the Church Triumphant, and an earthly Church, the Church Militant.  The earthly Church has its rules and can't admit anyone who isn't baptized; but the heavenly Church can.


Okay, I'm glad to see you're thinking about it.  Now hold this up against the definitions of the Holy See.

I ask you Mike:  Can a person be IN the Church Triumphant or the Church Suffering BEFORE HE DIES?

Quote
I'm not saying you're prideful.  I don't think any of us knows if we are or aren't prideful.  I'm just suggesting that it is as possible that you are beleaguered with pride as that I am.


I understand.

Quote
What many have tried to point out to you is that you read certain decrees of Popes according to your own interpretation and then assume that this interpretation is bedrock truth about which there can be no argument.


You haven't been paying attention then.  There certainly can and should be argument, sound logical argument, which only can show forth the truth.

Quote
 You have alighted upon your definition of EENS from which you will not budge, even when various saints, doctors and so on have read the same decrees and somehow did not take them in the same sense that you did.


No Mike.  Not "various saints and doctors".  ONE! St. Alphonsus Liguori, who, as we discussed, was demonstrably ignorant of at least one dogmatic definition.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: 008 on December 29, 2009, 06:05:25 AM

Like I said,

 
Quote
Just cranks who should be left to their own sordid imaginations.


God does not command the impossible. If you are forced to live in a (costly enough) two bedroom apartment, you cannot have 15 kids.  Sufficient grave reasons exist.

Forget the cranks who argue endlessly, and do not see that mercy trumps justice (woman caught in adultery!) and grace trumps law,   and that infallible Catholic principles must interpret infallible Catholic principles.  Cranks and pharisees are always scouring others, looking for sin---seeing it everywhere except in themselves. Argument is their religion, sadly.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: CM on December 29, 2009, 09:37:22 AM
Quote from: St. Paul
But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.


Was St. Paul inventing a new religion "008"?

Quote from: St. John
Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


Was St. John inventing a new religion "008"?

Quote
God does not command the impossible. If you are forced to live in a (costly enough) two bedroom apartment, you cannot have 15 kids.  Sufficient grave reasons exist.


Grave reasons for WHAT EXACTLY 008?  Complete and heroic abstinence?

I agree.

Or do you mean sufficiently grave reason for INDULGING LUST WHILE ATTEMPTING TO THWART CONCEPTION?

If you live in that situation, wouldn't ANY use of the marriage act run the risk of increasing your burden?  And if so, would it not be YOU who "binds unsupportable loads" on yourself if you should get pregnant?

Finally, who decides that a large family in a small living space is "IMPOSSIBLE"?  You?
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Matto on September 29, 2016, 06:56:39 PM
I don't usually bump seven year old threads but I was reading this thread from before my time at Cathinfo and thought it was fascinating. If Raoul76 sees it though he might apologize because I believe he changed his opinions on the matters of the thread. I hope some of you read the thread and enjoy it and dont get annoyed at me for bringing back an ancient thread from the dead.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Matto on September 29, 2016, 07:30:03 PM
I am not sure about the whole NFP thing. The first Catholic thought I remember which helped lead to my conversion and I still think this thought was a grace from God, was that sex was for the purpose of procreation and that sex for pleasure was wrong. But if NFP is okay, then my thought was wrong because if NFP is okay then it is not wrong to have sex for pleasure alone while actively trying to avoid procreation. So I don't know which position is right. I thought the argument on this thread was one of the best threads I have ever read on Cathinfo which is why I bumped it.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Ladislaus on September 29, 2016, 07:48:59 PM
I think that you might be missing a step.

1) sex for procreation
2) sex for pleasure
3) sex for the secondary ends of marriage

As Pius XI teaches, sex for the secondary ends of marriage is not forbidden even when the primary ends (procreation) is not possible.

Sex primarily for pleasure can be venial sin provided procreation is not actively prevented.  Sex for the secondary ends of marriage isn't sinful even when procreation is not possible ... as long as it's not actively prevented.

Now, the problem with NFP is that Pius XI also teaches that the primary ends can never be subordinated to the secondary.  But, in NFP, that's exactly what's happening.  Couples are trying to enjoy the secondary ends of marriage (and sometimes just pleasure) while trying to avoid the primary end (even if not actively blocking it).  That subordination is sinful according to Pius XI.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Ladislaus on September 29, 2016, 07:58:56 PM
I believe that Pius XII got it wrong in his Allocution to Midwives.  First of all, that speech isn't very authoritative.  If you read its tone, it sounds like he's doing a lot of speculation.  He hardly has the attitude of teaching authoritatively.  Nor is he addressing the Universal Church.

He quotes Pius XI that the intrinsic nature of the act must be preserved (i.e. no contraception) but then completely forgets about the SECOND criterion stated by Pius XI, that the primary ends of marriage cannot be subordinated to the secondary.  I have never seen a convincing explanation for how NFP does not subordinate the primary ends to the secondary (or even to straight pleasure).
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Matto on September 29, 2016, 07:59:34 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
It would be wrong to engage in the marital act for secondary purposes alone while trying to avoid procreation.

Yes that is what you say and that makes sense to me but Pope Pius XII said otherwise. You are a sedevacantist, arent you? So do you reject Pope Pius XII's papacy also just like John XXIII onwards? (this is what Raoul76 did at one point).

If Ambrose were still posting here he would say we are all in mortal sin for daring to question Pope Pius XII's allocution to midwives.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Ladislaus on September 29, 2016, 08:05:44 PM
Quote from: Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. 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.


Note the two conditions:

1) [secondary ends] are subordinated to the primary

AND

2) the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Pius XII in his Allocution cites #2 (quoting Casti Conubii) but completely omits any reference to #1.  Based on #2 alone, NFP would be permitted.  But not if you consider #1.  So this is a bad theological mistake.  And it has opened the floodgates to the contraceptive mentality among Catholics, the very notion to which you refer, that so long as there's no artificial birth control there can be natural birth control.  Notice of course the euphemism applied to NFP, that it's "family planning" vs. it being "birth control" if it's artificial.  That's just dishonest semantics.  They should call it NBC (Natural Birth Control) to expose what it actually is.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Ladislaus on September 29, 2016, 08:10:41 PM
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: An even Seven
It would be wrong to engage in the marital act for secondary purposes alone while trying to avoid procreation.

Yes that is what you say and that makes sense to me but Pope Pius XII said otherwise. You are a sedevacantist, arent you? So do you reject Pope Pius XII's papacy also just like John XXIII onwards? (this is what Raoul76 did at one point).


That's due to the fact that dogmatic SVs invariably exaggerate the scope of papal infallibility.  See my characterization of Pius XII's Allocution above.  It doesn't come close to meeting the notes of infallibility.

Quote from: Matth
If Ambrose were still posting here he would say we are all in mortal sin for daring to question Pope Pius XII's allocution to midwives.


Yes, again putting on the display the absurd dogmatic SV exaggeration of infallibility.  They confuse "religious submission" with the requirement to grant unconditional internal assent.  Msgr. Fenton has a good discussion of the difference between the two, but this never registers with the dogmatic SVs.  One can respectfully disagree with something like this, a very low-level and low-authority docuмent ... in a speech given to a bunch of midwives.
Title: Lover_of_Truth is anti-NFP!
Post by: Matto on September 29, 2016, 08:16:02 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
I believe that he was wrong on things like NFP and evolution.

Yes, evolution. Learning about Pope Pius XII and the big bang and evolution shocked me greatly. I was looking for proof that Pope Pius XII condemned the big bang and evolution and I found out the opposite. I talk about this to God often. It boggles my mind.