Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Crayolcold on July 19, 2023, 01:16:54 PM
-
When I was catechizing myself as a 19 year old Catholic revert, a hypothetical circuмstance came to me: can a man and his wife have marital relations when there is no chance of having a child? So this circuмstance would have included elderly couples past child bearing age. Originally, my own reason had me deny that they would be able to. Now of course I understand my original theory to be false, but that strain of thought led me into another question which is the question of NFP.
My bias in reason as a catechumen — at a time when my faith was extreme and immensely vivid and fervent — led me to immediately detest the concept of a married couple having marital relations outside of the primary end of having and raising a child. But then I heard of NFP and wondered again if my original ideas were in fact incorrect according to the Church’s teaching.
It has been 2 years and I am still firm in my belief that any form of NFP is effectively contraception. You are subordinating the primary end of marriage (having and raising children) to a secondary end (relieving your concupiscible appetite). This is condemned in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii.
Then we get to the Vatican II years, where in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI addresses the topic of NFP and lauds it as a good and a Catholic form of — let’s call it what it is — contraception.
I am not a sedevecantist, but this point is troubling to me: how can a Pope affirm something as Catholic which has been previously condemned by another Pope? That it impossible. What would be the best way of traversing this seeming contradiction (which we know the Church can never admit)? If it is in fact a contradiction — which is what it seems to be — how could Paul VI have been a Pope?
I am hesitant to toy with these ideas since I do want to give off the appearance that I am presuming take it upon myself to condemn the Pope as an Antipope. I simply don’t know one way or the other but do not have the authority to say they are not the Pope and I believe the position of Archbishop Lefebvre was the same. But I think this is a necessary conversation to had. To sedevacantists this would seem to be tangible proof confirming their position.
So, 1) how can we explain this seeming contradiction between the Popes Pius XI and Paul VI and 2) how should Pastors approach this topic from the pulpit. Since right now, many many traditional Catholics are practicing NFP, and likely, leaving unconfessed grave sins; and priests are not talking about it and the laity seem apathetic or ignorant of the issue.
-
I posted this with the working title which I now wish I could change to something more neutral and in the format of a question. But… too late!:fryingpan:
-
I've never seen a convincing argument about how NFP does not invert the ends of marriage. Pius XII subtly opened the door on this conversation, but Vatican II opened the floodgates with attempting to define the primary and secondary ends of marriage as co-primary ends. That is what can be used to justify any manner of non-married carnal relations, from fornication to sodomy.
In any case, if engaging in martial relations with a view to the secondary ends, while deliberately intending to exclude the primary ends, well, if that isn't an inversion of the two ends that was condemned by Pius XI, I'm not sure I understand what would be. Someone needs to please give me an example of this. Now, there are those who reject that begetting children is an end at all, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about those who still acknowledge that begetting children is AN end of marriage. So, someone needs to provide an example of inverting the two ends (rather than merely eliminating the one entirely).
-
NFP, as it is usually taught and practiced today, is not authorized in Humane Vitae. (https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html) NFP is a bundle of scientifically-based techniques/technologies that help identify, through certain "actions," the wife's fertile time. The "actions" required by those NFP techniques and technologies are, by their nature, "artificial." On this point, Humanae Vitae says,
"Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sɛҳuąƖ intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." (Section 14)
So, if the couple is taking any "action," such as using thermometers and comparing the readings of the thermometers to a scientifically-determined fertility table, and the couple takes such actions with the specific intention to prevent procreation, then the couple has violated the law of the Church, according to Humanae Vitae.
On the contrary, if the couple simply "winged-it," not taking any preparatory, preventative actions before having sex, but just avoided sex on what their common sense told them might be infertile days, then they would not sin, in "deed," because their "inaction" is not an "action," and so, would not be covered under the restriction quoted above.
But Humanae Vitae (Section 16) also teaches that any desire ("thought") to have sex while at the same time wishing to avoid pregnancy requires that the couple have this desire for "well-grounded" reasons, and that their desire to avoid a pregnancy in that particular sɛҳuąƖ act is not a permanent desire, but rather only a temporary desire to "space births" because of some serious physical or psychological reason which is expected to pass.
So, in a roundabout and somewhat vague way, Humanae Vitae does uphold the traditional teaching.
Finally, to be fair, the techniques taught by the NFP books could, theoretically, be used to help determine the fertile window and be used by the couple with the intention to increase the chances of procreation (if they were having infertility issues). In that case, using NFP techniques would not be unlawful because the couple using NFP, in that case, do not intend to prevent procreation.
-
Couple of thoughts.
Good job on intuitively seeing NFP is sinful, I know a couple of people who needed no explaining as well.
You feel free to judge Humane Vitae is wrong but not that the person who promulgated it has no authority? Sorry to break it to ya, but you're already implying he's not the pope by rejecting his teaching authority.
Also, if this is the worst thing that's troubling you... You should go watch Vatican II Council of Apostasy on YT to see some real problems for the papal status of Paul VI.
-
the anatomy and physiology is Gods. the attitude is where it is. NFP is what the world called it, with their attitudes and behavior where things may go wrong. NFP is not sinful, it is the people who sin and it is God who made us. What God has made is His design and Thank you. Keep a prayerful life of the attitudes.
For serious reasons: example: A mother gives birth prematurely. Baby can not be breast fed, it would be too much on the baby's energy. Will end up with bottle and premie nipple. Because the mother has no baby at the breast, the brain will know this and the fertility will return, soon. therefore this would be a serious reason. How long does a couple decided to incorporate what God has given for signs to resume? This couple have the desires for more children, but for this time, it would be best to wait, and still give each other their love.
-
You feel free to judge Humane Vitae is wrong but not that the person who promulgated it has no authority? Sorry to break it to ya, but you're already implying he's not the pope by rejecting his teaching authority.
It is not that I "feel free to judge Humanae Vitae as wrong" but that I have real concerns with the apparent contradiction; which I admit I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to resolve myself. I do not know that Humane Vitae is wrong, that is why I made this thread. To see how (or if) we can justify the words of a supposedly valid text promulgated by a supposedly validly elected Pope.
On the contrary, if the couple simply "winged-it," not taking any preparatory, preventative actions before having sex, but just avoided sex on what their common sense told them might be infertile days, then they would not sin, in "deed," because their "inaction" is not an "action," and so, would not be covered under the restriction quoted above.
But Humanae Vitae (Section 16) also teaches that any desire ("thought") to have sex while at the same time wishing to avoid pregnancy requires that the couple have this desire for "well-grounded" reasons, and that their desire to avoid a pregnancy in that particular sɛҳuąƖ act is not a permanent desire, but rather only a temporary desire to "space births" because of some serious physical or psychological reason which is expected to pass.
So, in a roundabout and somewhat vague way, Humanae Vitae does uphold the traditional teaching.
I have not heard this argument before and on paper it seems good; but you are using a single text to justify itself -- that text being a problematic one as we have seen in my original post. What would be more helpful is comparing Humane Vitae to Casti Connubii and showing how the texts do not conflict. I agree somewhat with the first point quoted. There is no positive duty on behalf of a couple to ensure they ARE performing the marital deed ONLY on days in which the wife IS fertile.
The problem seems to lay in their intention, which is where I have a problem with what you said. You stated: "...[if they] avoided sex on what their common sense told them might be infertile days, then they would not sin." This is an issue. They are intentionally trying not to have a baby. They are subordinating the primary end of the marital act to the secondary ends.
As to the second paragraph, I do not see how a sin against the natural law can be justified by as long as it is not "permanent" or "regular". If, in fact, the primary end of the marital act is subordinated to any other end, then it is a done deal. From Casti Connubii for reference:
"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." - Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii
-
It is not that I "feel free to judge Humanae Vitae as wrong" but that I have real concerns with the apparent contradiction; which I admit I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to resolve myself. I do not know that Humane Vitae is wrong, that is why I made this thread. To see how (or if) we can justify the words of a supposedly valid text promulgated by a supposedly validly elected Pope.
I have not heard this argument before and on paper it seems good; but you are using a single text to justify itself -- that text being a problematic one as we have seen in my original post. What would be more helpful is comparing Humane Vitae to Casti Connubii and showing how the texts do not conflict. I agree somewhat with the first point quoted. There is no positive duty on behalf of a couple to ensure they ARE performing the marital deed ONLY on days in which the wife IS fertile.
The problem seems to lay in their intention, which is where I have a problem with what you said. You stated: "...[if they] avoided sex on what their common sense told them might be infertile days, then they would not sin." This is an issue. They are intentionally trying not to have a baby. They are subordinating the primary end of the marital act to the secondary ends.
As to the second paragraph, I do not see how a sin against the natural law can be justified by as long as it is not "permanent" or "regular". If, in fact, the primary end of the marital act is subordinated to any other end, then it is a done deal. From Casti Connubii for reference:
"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." - Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii
There are two main points that need to be separated:
1. Sin of Deed/Action: Positively "acting" in such a way as to prevent conception is always sinful. That can never be justified, even for, so called, "well-founded reasons." But simply abstaining from the sɛҳuąƖ act is not a positive "action." It is "inaction. So "inaction," by its nature, can never be a sin of "deed" or action. This is related to the "actions" taken to implement the techniques of NFP to avoid conception. Never allowed.
2. Sin of Thought/Intention: Assuming that the couple did not resort to positive "actions," one must still consider their "intentions" driving their desire to abstain from the sɛҳuąƖ act during what might be, by common sense, a fertile period. If their "intention" is to never have any more children, then that "intention," to avoid sex during a fertile period, is sinful. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the pleasure of sex without the responsibility of children. However, the Church has consistently said there are exceptions in certain cases, when grave reasons exist, that a couple may, temporarily, resort to the periods of natural infertility.
For more background on the exceptional cases, look at this:
https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/OCR_layer_only/The%20%E2%80%9CRhythm%E2%80%9D%20in%20Marriage%20and%20Christian%20Morality,%20N.%20Orville%20Giese,%20S.T.D.,%201944_OCR.pdf
-
NFP, as it is usually taught and practiced today, is not authorized in Humane Vitae. (https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html)
Have you read it? Because HV certainly does endorse NFP as practiced today ... in spades. Pius XII was more reserved, but Montini was promoting it as Catholic Birth Control.
-
"Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sɛҳuąƖ intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." (Section 14)
So, if the couple is taking any "action," such as using thermometers and comparing the readings of the thermometers to a scientifically-determined fertility table, and the couple takes such actions with the specific intention to prevent procreation, then the couple has violated the law of the Church, according to Humanae Vitae.
:facepalm: ... not, that's not what the section means.
-
If their "intention" is to never have any more children, then that "intention," to avoid sex during a fertile period, is sinful. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the pleasure of sex without the responsibility of children.
No. Principles hold for each individual exercise of martial rights (marital relations), and not merely if the couple intends NEVER to have any children. You need to stop promoting your errors.
-
NFP, if used continuously for “birth control” would be sin against the spirit for which it was intended. My understanding is that NFP may be practiced only in exceptional circuмstances with permission of a priest. It certainly should not be included in standard pre-marriage counseling as it is in the novus ordo and in some traditional circles. (If statistics are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of novus ordo Catholics ignore it and use regular birth control, which in a sense, is more honest!) If a couple is really in a situation where another baby or pregnancy is not doable or is dangerous, wouldn’t both agreeing to a period of celibacy be the better choice? Yes, each has conjugal rights, but sacrificing those rights for a time or even permanently may be what God calls for.
-
NFP, if used continuously for “birth control” would be sin against the spirit for which it was intended. My understanding is that NFP may be practiced only in exceptional circuмstances with permission of a priest. It certainly should not be included in standard pre-marriage counseling as it is in the novus ordo and in some traditional circles. (If statistics are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of novus ordo Catholics ignore it and use regular birth control, which in a sense, is more honest!) If a couple is really in a situation where another baby or pregnancy is not doable or is dangerous, wouldn’t both agreeing to a period of celibacy be the better choice? Yes, each has conjugal rights, but sacrificing those rights for a time or even permanently may be what God calls for.
There is no circuмstance in which the primary ends can be subordinated to the secondary. If you must not have a baby you must abstain and can't risk getting pregnant in spite of NFP.
-
NFP, if used continuously for “birth control” would be sin against the spirit for which it was intended. My understanding is that NFP may be practiced only in exceptional circuмstances with permission of a priest. It certainly should not be included in standard pre-marriage counseling as it is in the novus ordo and in some traditional circles. (If statistics are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of novus ordo Catholics ignore it and use regular birth control, which in a sense, is more honest!) If a couple is really in a situation where another baby or pregnancy is not doable or is dangerous, wouldn’t both agreeing to a period of celibacy be the better choice? Yes, each has conjugal rights, but sacrificing those rights for a time or even permanently may be what God calls for.
This is something I see a lot when I ask questions and begin arguments on theological or doctrinal issues. People will simply state position of the opposing side and use that as an argument without stating WHY their position is correct.
I am not lumping you in there Seraphina, just a small pet peeve of mine :laugh1:
I would also like someone to explain to me how "temporary" or "non-regular" use of NFP would make it okay; seeing as everyone admits that it would be a sin to use it as a permanent form of contraception. How would the irregularity of its use to prevent children make it okay? A sɛҳuąƖ sin like this would be a sin against the natural law, if you err against a sɛҳuąƖ sin like this a single time you would be committing a grave sin. Repeated sins of this nature would just be compounding. We would never say of self-abuse that "if you do it every now and then to rid yourself of a serious headache, it's fine! The problem lies in the addiction and repeated abuse of the grave action..." It may seem like a silly comparison at first, but I think it holds. What are you doing with NFP? Pleasuring yourself with the intention of no pesky side effects -- like bringing one of God's children into the world.
-
There is no circuмstance in which the primary ends can be subordinated to the secondary. If you must not have a baby you must abstain and can't risk getting pregnant in spite of NFP.
Yeah, this right here. If you do have some grave circuмstances in play, then abstinence is required. People seem to hold as some un-stated premise that everyone has some God-given right to marital relations. If your spouse becomes ill or incapacitated, perhaps in a coma, or just comes down with a serious illness, then you're required to abstain. Similarly, if the situation is grave enough to warrant NFP, then I should think one would need to completely abstain to prevent even the chance of conception. I've heard the claim often enough that the wife's life is at risk if she has another child (typically made by idiot doctors who also agitate for couples to get abortions). But if the wife's life is TRULY in danger, could you even morally take the risk that your NFP might "fail"? It's constantly a case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
-
Yeah, this right here. If you do have some grave circuмstances in play, then abstinence is required. People seem to hold as some un-stated premise that everyone has some God-given right to marital relations. If your spouse becomes ill or incapacitated, perhaps in a coma, or just comes down with a serious illness, then you're required to abstain. Similarly, if the situation is grave enough to warrant NFP, then I should think one would need to completely abstain to prevent even the chance of conception. I've heard the claim often enough that the wife's life is at risk if she has another child (typically made by idiot doctors who also agitate for couples to get abortions). But if the wife's life is TRULY in danger, could you even morally take the risk that your NFP might "fail"? It's constantly a case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
At the end of the day, God knows our hearts and what we are doing... Having children cultivates virtue. From what I'm also seeing as somewhat of a pattern is that even in the trad circles the female being 35 + years of age apparently means the couple doesn't have to cultivate virtue any more because someone doesn't want children any more because it's "hard". I personally think NFP is from Satan, and as stated before, in the grave circuмstance a child cannot be "had", total abstinence will then be required, not NFP.
Do many couples literally not have relations after the mother is 35 if they "decide" to not have children? What a miserable marriage in my opinion, but that's just me. Something seems off about that.
-
Do many couples literally not have relations after the mother is 35 if they "decide" to not have children? What a miserable marriage in my opinion, but that's just me. Something seems off about that.
What’s odd, is that many couples DO have relations after 35, but cease to have children.
While not having relations with one’s wife just to avoid more children sounds miserable, what is more miserable is the idea that, after already have brought children into this life and experiencing all of the joys of parenthood, a couple would decide that they don’t want to relive those joys but instead would use NFP to prevent more children. In a way, to me, it sounds like that couple may have some regrets about having their LIVING children.
Ever since I began this thread, I’ve become more certain that NFP is from the demonic and that anyone who uses it to avoid pregnancy is without a doubt acting against their conscious and very likely committing a grave sin.
-
The intention behind avoidance NFP and onanism are the same. You are abusing each others bodies for pleasure and that’s the end of it. The issue with NFP does not primarily have to do with the “natural powers” argument which disingenuous Novus Ordites bring up, but instead with the “purpose” of the marital act being turned on its head.
-
The intention behind avoidance NFP and onanism are the same. You are abusing each others bodies for pleasure and that’s the end of it. The issue with NFP does not primarily have to do with the “natural powers” argument which disingenuous Novus Ordites bring up, but instead with the “purpose” of the marital act being turned on its head.
I had a (former) N.O. friend at whos bachelor party had a trivia game in which the question was:
"How many children will x and y have"
One of the answers was: 3, with the excitement of being able to use NFP to space our children.
Not too long after that party, him and I stopped talking completely. This is a huge black and white issue for me, and those who go against God's will in this subject are not someone I will voluntarily associate with.
-
Pope Pius XII taught that natural family planning is permissible under certain conditions (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-question-of-natural-family-planning/). This teaching was addressed to midwives initially, but was later placed in the AAS, by which it was addressed to the universal Church. All Catholics must assent to papal teaching on faith or morals when it is addressed to the universal Church.
But Pope Pius XII was not the first pope to teach this. It was addressed by the Holy Office as far back as the mid-19th century.
Fr. Cekada also refuted this absurd idea that NFP is a form of contraception (https://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=6&catname=9).
And from the first article I quoted above:
For those who would belittle Pope Pius XII’s teaching on the morality of rhythm on the score that he addressed only mid-wives and nurses, let them realize that this address is contained in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the official Acts of the Apostolic See). Refer to: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1951) 845-46. On two other occasions, Pope Pius XII reiterated this same teaching and these also can be found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1953) 855-60 at 859 and Acta Apostolicae Sedis 50 (1958) 732-48, at 736.
[...]
Well before Vatican II, moral theologians consistently reiterated the teaching of the Sacred Penitentiary and Pope Pius XII on the morality of rhythm. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone can claim that the pope, the Sacred Penitentiary, and moral theologians have been in error on this issue for some 150 years and that laity have now figured it out.
Indeed.
-
Wow, we have a high number of lay popes in this thread. It would appear many people feel strongly about this issue, for various personal reasons. I clicked on Yeti's link -- the only contribution from an actual priest in this thread -- to see what he had to say about the issue. He made many good points, and I found his arguments convincing. And I'm not normally a fan of Fr. Cekada.
Note the bolded part in Fr. Cekada's introduction. That part is absolutely true. Moral theology IS very complex and that is why we mock "armchair theologians" and "lay popes" who attempt to pontificate with less than a Cracker-Jack-box degree in Moral Theology. They push something as dogmatic, when it's mere opinion, like "Which is better, Pepsi or Coke?" and about as worthless. EVERYONE has their own opinion. And unless you have a theology degree, these private, laymans' opinions are EQUALLY VALID.
My advice stands: ask your TRADITIONALLY-TRAINED, valid Traditional Catholic priest (privately) about this issue, if this question affects or interests you.
Following random armchair theologians on CathInfo, your chapel, or anyplace else is worse than simply following what you FEEL is right. At least in the latter case, you could say you were following your conscience or something.
Natural Family Planning: On Recent Condemnations of NFP
Rev. Anthony Cekada
NOTE: In Fall, 1998 the “Voice Crying in the Wilderness” newsletter, a widely-circulated traditionalist periodical, published an article condemning Natural Family Planning (NFP).The following is a letter to the Editor, written by Father Anthony Cekada. In addition to offering the traditional Latin Mass in Cincinnati and Columbus, Father Cekada is professor of canon law and pastoral theology at Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Warren, Michigan.
To the Editor:
This afternoon I spoke with a parishioner who was very upset over your article on Natural Family Planning (NFP).
I had to assure her (as I will probably have to assure others) that your comments were —and there is no diplomatic way to put this — presumptuous, ignorant and dangerous.
First, you have no business even offering an opinion on the morality of NFP, still less condemning it as sinful in a publication that you send out to tens of thousands of people.
One may indeed (as you do in other articles) catalogue, dissect and condemn the Modernists’ doctrinal errors, since so many of them are obvious and have already been condemned. But the morality of NFP is an issue for moral theology — the branch of theology which analyzes right and wrong, virtue and sin.
The subject matter of moral theology is vast and enormously complex, covering all the general principles of morality and all their particular applications. In the seminary moral theology is one of the major courses. It requires three or four years’ worth of classes conducted several times a week to cover all the material.
Despite the length of this course, it can only impart to the priest-to-be the mere “basics” for the confessional and counselling. Priests who wrote on moral issues before Vatican II — and it was only priests who were permitted to become moral theologians — always had advanced degrees. Their books were carefully checked by their religious superiors and diocesan censors.
If moral theologians did any speculative writing, it never appeared in popular publications such as yours.
You have no training in, and no experience dealing with, a complex moral question like NFP. We traditional Catholic priests have studied moral theology and we apply it in the confessional and in counselling. Leave such matters to us — and leave our people alone.
Second, although moral theology manuals emphasize that NFP is not a topic one should discuss in sermons or mass-circulation publications, The Angelus, The Remnant, and your own publication have spread some dangerous errors on the issue, and it is necessary that someone correct them, lest Catholics wrongly conclude they are committing mortal sin.
The moral aspect of NFP and periodic continence may be summed up as follows:
1. General Principles.
- Spouses are free to choose whatever time they want to exercise their marriage right or abstain from exercising their marriage right by mutual consent.
- Conversely, they are not obliged to exercise their right during fertile periods, or abstain during sterile periods.
- Deliberately to limit marital relations to sterile periods to avoid conception is morally lawful in actual practice, provided the requisite conditions are met.
- Family limitation without good and sufficient reason involves a degree of moral fault.
- Periodic continence is morally permissible because it fulfills the other ends of marriage (mutual love and fidelity, alleviation of concupiscence) and because it does not physically hinder the natural processes of conception.
2. Requisite Conditions.
- Mutual consent or willingness of the spouses.
- Ability properly to observe periodic continence without danger of sin.
- Sufficient justification or cause, just and grave, either medical, eugenic, economic, or social, which justifications are outlined by various theologians.
3. Gravity of the Various Obligations.
- The issues involved with NFP were not fully discussed by pre-Vatican II theologians.
- The gravity of an obligation (if any) to exercise the marriage right during fertile periods was not clearly established.
- Neither was the gravity of the unjustifiable use of periodic abstinence.
Do not presume that the defection of the post-Vatican II hierarchy gives you the right to settle all this, and then tell Catholic couples they are committing sin. Your article was ill-advised and very harmful. I suggest you issue a retraction and an apology to your readers.
-
Again, read this text from Fr. Cekada, and then consider the pedigree, the credentials, of the young men offering firm, dogmatic pronouncements in this thread.
The subject matter of moral theology is vast and enormously complex, covering all the general principles of morality and all their particular applications. In the seminary moral theology is one of the major courses. It requires three or four years’ worth of classes conducted several times a week to cover all the material.
Despite the length of this course, it can only impart to the priest-to-be the mere “basics” for the confessional and counselling. Priests who wrote on moral issues before Vatican II — and it was only priests who were permitted to become moral theologians — always had advanced degrees. Their books were carefully checked by their religious superiors and diocesan censors.
If moral theologians did any speculative writing, it never appeared in popular publications such as yours.
You have no training in, and no experience dealing with, a complex moral question like NFP. We traditional Catholic priests have studied moral theology and we apply it in the confessional and in counselling. Leave such matters to us — and leave our people alone.
-
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right 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.”
Casti Connubii is part of the Magisterium. The Magisterium teaches Catholics directly, therefore, we do not need to consult theologians who two years later all apostatized with V2.
As I said already, there is no circuмstance in which the primary ends of marriage can be subordinated to the secondary, which NFP necessarily does. If you must not have a baby you must abstain and can't risk getting pregnant in spite of your unnatural birth control scheme (NFP).
-
So, let the NFP supporters explain how actively trying to prevent conception in order to enjoy the secondary ends of marriage does NOT in fact subvert the primary end.
If you can't, then you've finally discovered why we know NFP is sin.
It's really not a complex issue, one side accepts the teaching of Casti Connubii and the other side just pretends like it's not there. (Notice how Cekada doesn't address the argument.)
NFP is birth control. NFP is contraception. NFP is condemned by Pope Pius XI.
-
Pope Pius XII taught that natural family planning is permissible under certain conditions (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-question-of-natural-family-planning/). This teaching was addressed to midwives initially, but was later placed in the AAS, by which it was addressed to the universal Church. All Catholics must assent to papal teaching on faith or morals when it is addressed to the universal Church.
But Pope Pius XII was not the first pope to teach this. It was addressed by the Holy Office as far back as the mid-19th century.
Fr. Cekada also refuted this absurd idea that NFP is a form of contraception (https://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=6&catname=9).
And from the first article I quoted above:
Indeed.
Total hogwash. Pius XII was clearly speculating in front of a bunch of midwives, and you can see from his language that he was not teaching or imposing any kind of teaching on anyone. And the Holy Office verdict has been grossly misinterpreted. We've gone through both of these before.
Cekada is dead wrong, as he his about other things.
We have only one Magisterial teaching on the subject, in Casti Conubii, where Pius XI clearly taught that it would be sinful to subordinate the primary ends of marriage to the secondary, and not a single individual who regurgitates Pius XII's speculation has ever expalined how engaging in marital relations for the secondary ends while deliberately attempting to exclude the primary does not constitute such an inversion of the ends. If that doesn't invert the ends, then nothing does.
Pius XII did lots of things, like install Bugnini to begin his liturgical experimentations, opened the door to evolution, permitted the first Ecuмenical gatherings, and appointed nearly every single Modernist bishop who later brought us the glories of Vatican II. Pius XII actively helped usher in the Vatican II era.
-
As for Cekada's screed agains the article, the hypocritical self-contradiction is clear and obvious. He refers to "our people". No Trad cleric has any "people". He has no more authority to impose his views on anyone than any layman does.
As for his touting the fact that priests studied moral theology, I can assure you that the level at which it's taught in seminary does not make any priest qualified as a moral theologian either. They do not get past the point of memorizing and regurgitating the content of the "manuals" and don't engage in any in-depth theological analysis of any given subject. I can assure you that 75 to 80% of the Trad priests out there couldn't even intelligently participate in these debate on CathInfo. I've had discussions with many priests and 6th-year seminarians where I was appalled at their lack of graps on even the basic principles of Catholic theology or scholastic philosophy. They get through their classes (sometimes borderline) by memorizing and regurgitating.
I also like Father's reliance on the pre-Vatican II "theologians," who were already deeply infected with Modernism. Many pre-V2 priests were actually condoning even artificial birth control in the confessional. But, apart from that, Father Cekada, every single pre Vatican II theologian (with the single exception of then-Father Guerard des Lauriers) approved of Vatican II and the NOM as Catholic. So where does he get off rejecting their "teaching"? Hmmm? Father Cekada invented this theory of an effective infallibility of the consensus of Catholic theologians, but then rejects their overwheliming consensus in approving Vatican II and the NOM. So, what 2 days before Vatican II they were infallible, but then 2 days after Vatican II they had all defected from the Church "en masse" and were no longer worth anything, and all these highly touted "qualifications" from their various advanced degrees were suddenly not worth the paper they were written on when before Vatican II they mean everything and imbued them with some practical infallibility.
-
Wow, we have a high number of lay popes in this thread. It would appear many people feel strongly about this issue, for various personal reasons. I clicked on Yeti's link -- the only contribution from an actual priest in this thread -- to see what he had to say about the issue. He made many good points, and I found his arguments convincing. And I'm not normally a fan of Fr. Cekada.
Thanks, Mr. Lay Pope denoucing lay popes.
Yes, you're no fan of Father Cekada ... except when he serves your agenda. Now that you've touted his bogus claims to having some kind of authority, you do know that Father Cekada would hold your R&R position to be objectively heretical and your attendance at una cuм Masses to be objectively grave sin. But, you, as "lay pope", have decided to ignore those teachings of this individual who's "far more qualified" than you are to discern such things.
Father Cekada refers to "our people". No, Father Cekada, you have no "people". No Trad cleric has any authority or jurisdiction over anyone. Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.
For all Father Cekada touts the "authority" of pre-V2 theologians, these same theologians nearly universally have endorsed the teaching of Vatican II as Catholic and the New Mass as Catholic ... with only a SINGLE exception that I know of (then-Father Guerard des Laurier). But Cekada claims that the theological consensus is definitive and for all intents and purposes infallible ... while ignoring it. Of course, these "pre-Vatican II" theologians were authoritative and definitive 2 days before Vatican II and then somehow all defected "en masse" 2 days after, where suddenly all their highly touted degrees and qualifications meant nothing.
It's all utter hypocrisy. Since Vatican II, we're all "lay popes" ... except of course that no one pretends they have any right or authority to impose their opinions on the consciences of others ... well, except, most notably, people like the SSPV who refuse Sacraments to the faithful based on their own theological opinions. They're hands down the most notorious for imposing themselves on the consciences of others and using the Sacraments as weapons for this enforcement.
Not to mention the obvious fact that the Trad clergy disagree among themselves on just about every issue, so which Trad cleric suddenly has this authority to act as a "clerical pope" (without a lick of jurisdiction)?
We have only one Magisterial teaching regarding the subject, from Pius XI in Casti Conubii (but, hey, R&R, what does it matter, since it wasn't an infallible docuмent, so you're free to disregard, eh). I love the temerity of R&R complaining about lay popes when they claim that any papal teaching that doesn't meet the notes of infallibility can be ignored and disregarded. In any case, Pius XI taught that it's sinful to subordinate the primary ends of marriage to the secondary, and if seeking the secondary ends while deliberately attempting to exclude the primary doesn't constitue such a subordination, then there's no such thing. Pius XII, on the other hand, was teaching nothing. He did not address the entire Church but was merely speculating in front of a group of midwives. You can see in his language that he was merely thinking out loud and was not teaching or imposing anything at all on the Church.
But I love it here when R&R and the dogmatic SVs hold hands and sing kumbaya, when ironically the former hold that anything short of solemn papal teaching can be disregarded and the latter absurdly claiming (overreacting to the former) that a Pope is teaching solemnly every time he passes wind through his lips. But suddenly you are a "fan of Father Cekada" when the two groups couldn't possibly be more polar opposities in terms of your principles.
So if you're entitled to reject the teaching of an ecuмenical Council backed by nearly all the bishops of the world, and endorsed by the man you claim is the Pope, Mr. Lay Pope, then I'm entitled to question an obvious speculation of a Pope before a group of midwives. It's shocking to me that the utter absurdity of this contradictions doesn't even leave an impression on your mind. You guys exist in a bizarre schizophrenic state where in principle it's permitted for Catholics to question any Magisterial teaching that doesn't have all the notes of infallibility, but then it's not permitted to question the opinions of the some theologians who were clearly all infected with Modernism in the years leading up to Vatican II. That's from the R&R side. On the Cekadist side, did all these theologians that were practically infallible in their consensus in 1957, suddenly lose this mysterious "charism" in 1962, when they all defected "en masse" from the faith? ... since the overwhelming consensus of these theologians endorsed and approved of Vatican II?
We keep seeing these two absurd extremes between R&R who minimize the authority of Papal teaching (except when it suits their agenda) and the dogmatic SV overraction where Pius XII's long-winded speculative speech in front of some midwives might as well have been a solemn dogmatic pronouncement or even an Encyclical addressed to the Universal Church.
So, by your standards, every Trad is playing "lay pope".
-
Advocates of NFP, do you even acknowledge what NFP actually is? The biology and the very practice of it?
It requires purposeful daily actions by the wife including precise temperature charting and monitoring of other personal physical changes that need not be detailed here (hence it was that female nurses and female midwives were the audience for Pope Pius XII).
It requires literacy, numeracy, and the time and inclination for the woman to follow these steps diligently and correctly. Miss or mess up one critical day, and the whole system falls apart for the current cycle. (Easier for mothers who aren't constantly tending to the needs of numerous little ones.) Sounds modernist enough. Not something our grandparents would have done. The only thing "natural" about NFP is that it doesn't entail chemical or barrier methods.
It requires a state of mind and sustained forethought to prioritize these daily tasks. It requires the husband to follow his wife's lead as to when the conjugal act is permissible. "Not tonight, dear, I have an elevated basal temperature." Feminism much?
As to grave reasons, there's utterly life-threatening circuмstances (and there I'd agree with others here who've said that this is a cross that requires complete abstinence), and then there's the mindset of "oh no, then we'd need a bigger house and a minivan."
In contrast, toward the opposite ends of promoting conception when there has been difficulty with infertility, it can be a form of God-given knowledge about the human body that couples can rely on piously and fruitfully, no different from any other truly life-promoting knowledge that the gifts of inquiry and reason allow.
-
Advocates of NFP, do you even acknowledge what NFP actually is? The biology and the very practice of it?
It requires purposeful daily actions by the wife including precise temperature charting and monitoring of other personal physical changes that need not be detailed here (hence it was that female nurses and female midwives were the audience for Pope Pius XII).
It requires literacy, numeracy, and the time and inclination for the woman to follow these steps diligently and correctly. Miss or mess up one critical day, and the whole system falls apart for the current cycle. (Easier for mothers who aren't constantly tending to the needs of numerous little ones.) Sounds modernist enough. Not something our grandparents would have done. The only thing "natural" about NFP is that it doesn't entail chemical or barrier methods.
It requires a state of mind and sustained forethought to prioritize these daily tasks. It requires the husband to follow his wife's lead as to when the conjugal act is permissible. "Not tonight, dear, I have an elevated basal temperature." Feminism much?
As to grave reasons, there's utterly life-threatening circuмstances (and there I'd agree with others here who've said that this is a cross that requires complete abstinence), and then there's the mindset of "oh no, then we'd need a bigger house and a minivan."
In contrast, toward the opposite ends of promoting conception when there has been difficulty with infertility, it can be a form of God-given knowledge about the human body that couples can rely on piously and fruitfully, no different from any other truly life-promoting knowledge that the gifts of inquiry and reason allow.
It's the "state of mind" you mentioned that urks me. These so called trad hypocrites "JOKINGLY" laughing about not having kids after 35 because I don't wanna get "fat" (had a sede mom tell me this) while living on a huge estate in a super nice house. But.. ya know they wear dresses and don't watch regular TV so they are faithful trads. Give me a break. There are very few families that I know that have children after 33-35... Now, they may have 6-7 kids, but then stop just like a secular woman would and say: "See God, I had more kids than average, I can stop now." All this fuss about childbirth with modern medicine making childbirth more safe than it ever was..
I want to also give a disclaimer that I understand how fertility and age work, and that it's more difficult to get pregnant especially after 33 or so.
-
As to grave reasons, there's utterly life-threatening circuмstances (and there I'd agree with others here who've said that this is a cross that requires complete abstinence), and then there's the mindset of "oh no, then we'd need a bigger house and a minivan."
Indeed, the "grave reason" thing is a very amorphous slippery slope. IMO, if it's grave enough to justify NFP, where great harm would come to you, then it would be wrong to even "take a chance" and not abstain completely. There's no God-given right to have marital relations, which is what NFP theory seems implicitly predicated upon. There are many reasons where you might have to abstain anyway, and if you're in a situation grave enough to warrant NFP, then you're in a situation where it requires abstinence.
I have not seen one remotely plausible explanation for how NFP does not subordinate the primary end or marital relations to the secondary, when the intention is precisely to have the secondary ends while attempting to exclude the primary. While there's a material difference between this and artificial birth control, it's formally the exact same intention, which is why it's rightly referred to as "Catholic Birth Control". I reject the euphemism of "Family Planning" (which is actually contrary to the "grave reason" criterion, making it appear to be a systematic approach to spacing out children rather than a specific situation that might arise). It should be called what it is "Natural Birth Control" vs. "Artificial Birth Control". It should NEVER be referred to as "Family Planning", period, since what's implied by that notion is totally contrary to the "grave reason" criterion. For those who think it's OK, they should at least refer to it as "Periodic Continence" and NOT "Family Planning".
-
Pius XII did lots of things, like install Bugnini to begin his liturgical experimentations, opened the door to evolution, permitted the first Ecuмenical gatherings, and appointed nearly every single Modernist bishop who later brought us the glories of Vatican II. Pius XII actively helped usher in the Vatican II era.
That's a slippery slope argument right there. What they did later is irrelevant to the material in an encyclical or allocution they published years earlier. Just saying.
-
Just a quick story about my brother's situation. When he got married, he wasn't particularly well off in terms of a career, and lived in an apartment (couldn't afford a home). His Trad father-in-law was all over him about using NFP because they couldn't afford a lot of children. He refused out of principle. Right after his second child was born, he made a small investment in some penny stock that just took off, to where he was able to buy a very nice house outright (completely paid for). Without using NFP, he ended up with 4 children despite marrying young (as his wife had some miscarriages, etc.). Meanwhile, his wife's sister and her husband were "spacing" the children out ... and ended up with 4 children. In the end, God arranges matter as He will, and HE "plans" our families. Both families ended up with 4 children, the one doing it God's way, the other their way.
-
That's a slippery slope argument right there. What they did later is irrelevant to the material in an encyclical they published years earlier. Just saying.
Which Encyclical? Pius XII was merely giving a long-winded (clearly-speculative) speech to a group of midwives. There was no Encyclical, no teaching addressed to the Universal Church, nothing to indicate that he was teaching something with any kind of authority, and everything to suggest that he was merely thinking out loud and speculating (I'll cite the language of his speech here).
But what does it matter if you're R&R? He could have issued an Encyclical, right?, and as long as it didn't meet the notes of infallibility it was fair game. After all, it's OK to reject an Ecuмenical Council, right? If I sat down and decided that the Encyclical was wrong or not "Traditional", I would have been within my rights to reject it, no?
That's my problem. R&R are all "lay popes" in their own way. Then you have SVs on the other side who exaggerate the scope of infallibility where a speech given by Pius XII to a group of midwives might have been a solemn dogmatic definition. These SVs are also lay popes vis-a-vis the pre-V2 theologians, since these same theologians all endorsed Vatican II and the New Mass. So where do they get off rejecting this theological consensus. Don't we see the problem here between the imbalance? Both are wrong and are exaggerations. No, a speech given by Pius XII is not necessarily authoritative, infallible, and irreformable. But then many R&R somehow also act as if it is, whereas at the same time claiming it's OK to reject an entire Ecuмenical Council. If you say that's OK, then what's stopping me from rejecting even papal encyclicals, much less a speech to some midwives?
-
Total hogwash. Pius XII was clearly speculating in front of a bunch of midwives, and you can see from his language that he was not teaching or imposing any kind of teaching on anyone.
.
It is not Pius XII's words to midwives that we are talking about here, but the words he put in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (which happen to be the same words) that are the point. When a pope teaches the entire Church (usually through the Acta) on a question of faith or morals (which this is), Catholics are required to accept it.
Moreover, I am not aware of any Catholic theologian who has ever said that NFP is a form of contraception. If your position were correct, there would be dozens. Maybe you could give us just five or ten quotes for now, though. :)
-
Ladislaus,
I don't know where to begin, but I have to correct several points right away.
1. I don't have an "agenda" unless you say that God, the cause of Truth, and the good of souls are "agendas".
2. I'm not a fan of Fr. Cekada, today or yesterday.
3. Due to my love of the truth, however, I will "give the devil his due" and admit that Fr. Cekada was completely right every time he opened his mouth (or got out his pen/keyboard) when he spoke on the topic of "Trads pontificating on matters above their pay grade". His statements about normal Catholic life before Vatican II are spot-on. Do you dispute that Catholics used to need an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat to publish such tracts before Vatican II? Do you dispute the level of education that men used to have who presumed to teach the Church militant about matters of theology, moral or otherwise? Or the oversight the Church placed over them? Truth is truth, no matter who utters it.
4. Is Fr. Cekada a hypocrite? That's another story. He himself pontificated (without any authority) about "Una cuм" being sinful and other nonsense. But that's beside the point. His point about laymen and under-educated Trad priests becoming little Popes is still spot-on.
Someone else complained that Fr. C didn't jump into the public debate. EXACTLY! That was his point! It's matter for practical application, IN the confessional. Without the specifics for an individual soul, there's nothing to discuss, only the general principles involved (which he actually gave). Those principles could excuse or condemn, depending on the individual.
-
It's the "state of mind" you mentioned that urks me. These so called trad hypocrites "JOKINGLY" laughing about not having kids after 35 because I don't wanna get "fat" (had a sede mom tell me this) while living on a huge estate in a super nice house. But.. ya know they wear dresses and don't watch regular TV so they are faithful trads. Give me a break. There are very few families that I know that have children after 33-35... Now, they may have 6-7 kids, but then stop just like a secular woman would and say: "See God, I had more kids than average, I can stop now." All this fuss about childbirth with modern medicine making childbirth more safe than it ever was..
In fairness to the over-35s with no new pregnancies, the female body does go into wind-down mode, so it's best not to infer as to the choices of Mrs. So-and-so's not participating anymore in the local moms' baby gear exchange. Who knows, she might soon turn up again on the receiving end of those hand-me-downs.
At the same time, the odds do increase of a child with Down Syndrome or even some of the more seriously debilitating trisomies that can make life very difficult for the siblings too. There are families who'd think it the worst thing that could happen to them, yet there are families who'd willingly carry that burden should it be given to them. Mindset again, bottom line is that Our Lord knows all of what goes in each person's soul.
-
But what does it matter if you're R&R? He could have issued an Encyclical, right?, and as long as it didn't meet the notes of infallibility it was fair game. After all, it's OK to reject an Ecuмenical Council, right? If I sat down and decided that the Encyclical was wrong or not "Traditional", I would have been within my rights to reject it, no?
Vatican II was a robber council. We are required to reject it. It did not have the protection of the Holy Ghost. You should know this.
You sound like a Trad losing his grip on Tradition.
YES, when something isn't traditional, it's common sense that Trads can KNOW this, and act upon it. I feel like I'm talking to a novus ordo Catholic here. It's not rocket science, nor does it mean we're being too picky. When something goes against the Faith, YES that can be known by a layman. It's pretty clear cut.
God's blessing upon the world of Traditional Catholicism is proof that I'm right.
-
It is not Pius XII's words to midwives that we are talking about here, but the words he put in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (which happen to be the same words) that are the point. When a pope teaches the entire Church (usually through the Acta) on a question of faith or morals (which this is), Catholics are required to accept it.
Moreover, I am not aware of any Catholic theologian who has ever said that NFP is a form of contraception. If your position were correct, there would be dozens. Maybe you could give us just five or ten quotes for now, though. :)
Not everything in AAS is of the same authority. You do realize that, right? You guys treat this speech to midwives, and, yes, that's all it was, not an Encyclical, not addressed as a teaching to the Universal Church ... as if it were in the same category as a solemn dogmatic definition, infallible, irreformable. Msgr. Fenton addresses that even within Encyclicals, you have to look at the language to determine whether a pope is intending to teach something with his authority. Not every word is intended to be taught to the faithful. You could have a Pope go on for 20,000 words in some Encyclical, with various explanations and thoughts, but then there might be one or two points he's actually attempting to teach. Not all of these obiter dicta are even authoritative, much less infallible. It's clear that Pius XI was teaching to the Universal Church with his authority in Casti Conubii, and it's clear from the language where he's teaching something and where he's engaging in explanations. Unfortunately, too many SVs feel that if it's in AAS, then it constitutes something that's being taught to the Church, every word of it, and might as well be a solemn definition. You should read Msgr. Fenton's essay on the authority of Encyclicals where he goes through all the distinctions.
-
But what does it matter if you're R&R? He could have issued an Encyclical, right?, and as long as it didn't meet the notes of infallibility it was fair game. After all, it's OK to reject an Ecuмenical Council, right? If I sat down and decided that the Encyclical was wrong or not "Traditional", I would have been within my rights to reject it, no?
Yes, such "sifting" of the Pope by our subjective notion of "Traditional" it is dangerous. But if we go ahead and decide the Pope isn't the Pope, then all is well. :facepalm:
Like I said -- words like this worry me. Honestly. It's the kind of stuff you hear shortly before a Trad loses it and goes crazy: either becoming a home aloner, Novus Ordo, apostate, etc.
You're taking an axe to the root of Tradition, as it were.
-
Vatican II was a robber council. We are required to reject it. It did not have the protection of the Holy Ghost. You should know this.
You sound like a Trad losing his grip on Tradition.
YES, when something isn't traditional, it's common sense that Trads can KNOW this, and act upon it. I feel like I'm talking to a novus ordo Catholic here. It's not rocket science, nor does it mean we're being too picky. When something goes against the Faith, YES that can be known by a layman. It's pretty clear cut.
God's blessing upon the world of Traditional Catholicism is proof that I'm right.
Of course V2 did not have the protection of the Holy Ghost, but it should have ... if Roncalli and Montini were legitimate popes. There's no reason it wouldn't have been protected by the Holy Ghost if those men were legitimate popes. And you should know this. Every Catholic should know this. But somehow many R&R don't know this.
Old Catholics claimed that Vatican I didn't have the protection of the Holy Ghost.
-
But if we go ahead and decide the Pope isn't the Pope, then all is well. :facepalm:
Like I said -- words like this worry me. Honestly. It's the kind of stuff you hear shortly before a Trad loses it and goes crazy: either becoming a home aloner, Novus Ordo, apostate, etc.
You're taking an axe to the root of Tradition, as it were.
No, it's you who are destroying Tradition by claiming that an Ecuмenical/General Council that had the full approbation of a legitimate Catholic pope could gut the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't hold this, by the way, something lost on most modern R&R. Your authority, Father Cekada, would wholeheartedly agree with me, and you should defer to his seminary training and not play the part of lay pope, right?
-
Of course V2 did not have the protection of the Holy Ghost, but it should have ... if Roncalli and Montini were legitimate popes. There's no reason it wouldn't have been protected by the Holy Ghost if those men were legitimate popes. And you should know this. Every Catholic should know this. But somehow many R&R don't know this.
Old Catholics claimed that Vatican I didn't have the protection of the Holy Ghost.
The Old Catholics were wrong. It's simple.
Do you know what we're talking about when we say "Had the protection of the Holy Ghost"? We're not talking about some subjective thing they had, like "the blessing of God". It's a specific invocation to the Holy Ghost that WAS made at the start of an Ecuмenical council, which was SPECIFICALLY shot down or set aside at the outset of Vatican II.
That is a matter of public record, not subjective opinion.
Almost like a signpost for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. A signpost for those looking for the truth. When I was reading my history books about the history of Vatican II, this point struck me hard, and I never forgot it.
-
No, it's you who are destroying Tradition by claiming that an Ecuмenical/General Council that had the full approbation of a legitimate Catholic pope could gut the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't hold this, by the way
So... +ABL was sedevacantist? News to me. That's what you're suggesting here. That +ABL was destroying Tradition. Otherwise you're saying he was a sede. Gimme a break.
-
Could a Pope have erred in an allocution given to a group of midwives where he showed no indication of attempting to authoritatively teach anything to the Universal Church? Yes. (R&R should agree here, so what's the problem with this?)
Could a Pope have gutted Catholic Tradition in an Ecuмenical Council, destroyed the Public Worship of the Church, produced a large body of bogus canonizations? No. (SVs agree with this).
This is the correct balance. Again, everyone should read Msgr. Fenton's essay on the authority of papal encyclicals to find the right balance.
Many/most SVs tend to promote the notion that the Pope is infallible every time that wind passes through his lips and makes a sound, whereas the R&R think that unless we're dealing with a once- or twice- a century solemn definition, it's fair game for Aunt Helen to decide that it's not Traditional and to reject the teaching. This is a mess, due to the warring sides that have led to exaggerations on the two opposite poles.
-
The Old Catholics were wrong. It's simple.
Why? It's not that simple if you're R&R.
-
If Castii Canubi is a magisterial teaching, (which I believe it to be) then NFP is something a Catholic cannot/should not implement.
Now if Castii Canubi is NOT a magisterial teaching, I would still say NFP is something a Catholic cannot/should not implement.
With this very serious issue, I will bank on the option that forces me to cultivate virtue. I truly believe it's as simple as that. I am not smart as you guys with the theology, I'm simply just not, so I will yield to what the Church fathers and natural law taught/teaches.
-
I still think the Crisis in the Church is BEST dealt with by Traditional Catholicism -- non-Sedevacantist variety.
I'm still convinced that Sedevacantism is as useless as tits on a bull. Especially due to what Fr. Cekada and other dogmatic types have turned it into. Just another point of division, "Rah rah my team".
How about leave the Pope question as a point of personal opinion and speculation -- WHERE IT BELONGS?
We have to trust in God; He will see us through this great Crisis in the Church. There are many mysteries in the meantime. Mysteries I will respect and not attempt to plumb.
-
YES, when something isn't traditional, it's common sense that Trads can KNOW this, and act upon it. I feel like I'm talking to a novus ordo Catholic here. It's not rocket science, nor does it mean we're being too picky. When something goes against the Faith, YES that can be known by a layman. It's pretty clear cut.
You just put the nail in the coffin for NFP. It doesn’t take seven years of moral theology to see that NFP isn’t Catholic. All it takes is being honest with your conscience and reading two lines of Casti Connubii. So by your own logic you contradict Fr. Cekada.
MODERATOR RESPONSE (thread is locked):
Subjective judgment that this-or-that is not Traditional and I must disobey -- that's a matter of PRUDENCE which affects only me, and maybe my children. You're talking about one's private judgment or understanding being enough to condemn others like a literal Pope making a pronouncement. You can't bind or compel others because you UNDERSTAND this or that to be true, or you FEEL this goes against Tradition.
SO, when talking about our fallible perception or knowledge...
Good enough to exercise the virtue of Prudence, to decide a personal course of action? Yes.
Good enough to bind others' consciences or condemn others? No.
Also, let’s not pretend that going through seminary automatically makes you a genius on moral theology. Ladislaus is probably more well studied on questions and controversies in the Faith than 95% of trad priests, so to act like his (correct) position on NFP can be written off because he didn’t get a sticker from his SSPX theology professor is silly. Your argument from authority just doesn’t stand. There could be one lone voice crying out in wilderness that NFP is wrong, against all V2 “theologians”, and he would still be correct. Nobody cares about Fr. Cekada’s “lay pope.” Explain to us how NFP does not subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end.
-
France becomes the first country in the world to make abortion a ‘guaranteed freedom’ for women in its constitution. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13155855/France-country-world-make-abortion-guaranteed-freedom-women-constitution.html)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13155855/France-country-world-make-abortion-guaranteed-freedom-women-constitution.html
https://youtu.be/TD891G2byts?si=j0rSdDkUnXeVAY5J
-
If Castii Canubi is a magisterial teaching, (which I believe it to be) then NFP is something a Catholic cannot/should not implement.
Now if Castii Canubi is NOT a magisterial teaching, I would still say NFP is something a Catholic cannot/should not implement.
With this very serious issue, I will bank on the option that forces me to cultivate virtue. I truly believe it's as simple as that. I am not smart as you guys with the theology, I'm simply just not, so I will yield to what the Church fathers and natural law taught/teaches.
.
There's a third possibility, which is that you misunderstand Casti Connubii.
And consider this -- if Pope Pius XII contradicted Pope Pius XI on a matter of faith and morals in a public teaching to the whole Church, then the Church has failed.
-
Among the more dogmatic SVs, one of the most commonly misunderstood or misinterpreted notions is that of "internal religious assent", where it's conflated with the assent of faith.
Again, here's Msgr. Fenton:
Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’.
Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” Lyons and Phillips use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings.
For most SVs, they conflate the internal assent with the strict philosophical meaning of the term assent. It's internal because it cannot be mere lip-service, but what it amounts to is giving it every benefit of the doubt, assuming it's correct/true ... unless it be discovered to be erroneous. It's not an absolute assent in the "strictest philosophical meaning of the term".
-
Nobody cares about Fr. Cekada’s “lay pope.” Explain to us how NFP does not subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end.
1. I won't be drawn into a debate with you on the subject. I'm simply not interested.
2. You completely miss the point. My point is that every "lay pope" thinks it's so simple, reduced to one angle, reduced to one aspect or point, that their mind sees as "100% crystal clear" and they proceed to push it on others as if it were dogma. And consequently, their opponents who go against this "dogma" are heretics, bad-willed, evil, etc.
That is why such debates by uneducated laymen is so problematic. Each side has a single argument they think is a slam-dunk, mic-drop, "case closed" -- but nevertheless, BOTH SIDES can earnestly and honestly argue about it forever, each convinced that he's right.
For Ladislaus, the "mic drop" argument for Sedevacantism is "A pope can't promulgate a noxious doctrine/Mass". But his opponents are usually focusing on ANOTHER point, which totally DIS-favors sedevacantism.
If you need guidance on this moral issue, see a Traditional Catholic priest. Don't waste your time with Joe Sixpack arguing on some forum from his armchair.
-
.
There's a third possibility, which is that you misunderstand Casti Connubii.
And consider this -- if Pope Pius XII contradicted Pope Pius XI on a matter of faith and morals in a public teaching to the whole Church, then the Church has failed.
Explain Casti Connubii for me, then. And the hierarchy has definitely failed. At least with this issue.
-
Among the more dogmatic SVs, one of the most commonly misunderstood or misinterpreted notions is that of "internal religious assent", where it's conflated with the assent of faith.
Again, here's Msgr. Fenton:
For most SVs, they conflate the internal assent with the strict philosophical meaning of the term assent. It's internal because it cannot be mere lip-service, but what it amounts to is giving it every benefit of the doubt, assuming it's correct/true ... unless it be discovered to be erroneous. It's not an absolute assent in the "strictest philosophical meaning of the term".
Msgr Fenton indeed shows what "internal assent" means and shows that teachings subject to such assent can nonetheless prove incorrect. I don't know of any sedevacantist clergy (laymen can be confused quite often) who would allege that one must give an assent of faith to these things. Also no one that I know of is saying all teachings in the acta are infallible. The point is that while they can contain factually incorrect statements when not strictly falling within the category of infallible teaching, they nonetheless can never teach something sinful or dangerous. Is it not your contention that applying Pope Pius XII's teaching on this matter would be sinful? I leave aside here the point of whether he was addressing the Universal Church when seaking to the midwives. It's inclusion in the acta, AFAIK, should render it "infallibly safe."
-
Explain Casti Connubii for me, then. And the hierarchy has definitely failed. At least with this issue.
.
Pope Pius XII explained it to you already. Actually, you don't need it explained to you anyway; the pope doesn't owe you an explanation; he only must tell you what you must believe, and you must believe his teaching.
If you accept both Pius XI and Pius XII as true popes, then you cannot accept that one contradicted the other on a universal teaching of faith or morals. And you cannot say they failed, either, without denying the indefectibility of the Chuch.
-
.
Pope Pius XII explained it to you already. Actually, you don't need it explained to you anyway; the pope doesn't owe you an explanation; he only must tell you what you must believe, and you must believe his teaching.
If you accept both Pius XI and Pius XII as true popes, then you cannot accept that one contradicted the other on a universal teaching of faith or morals. And you cannot say they failed, either, without denying the indefectibility of the Chuch.
k.
-
.
Pope Pius XII explained it to you already. Actually, you don't need it explained to you anyway; the pope doesn't owe you an explanation; he only must tell you what you must believe, and you must believe his teaching.
If you accept both Pius XI and Pius XII as true popes, then you cannot accept that one contradicted the other on a universal teaching of faith or morals. And you cannot say they failed, either, without denying the indefectibility of the Chuch.
You're a liar. You know the speech to midwives isn't infallible yet you're treating it like it is.
The fact that none of you can give a plausible explanation of Casti Connubii is a as good as an admission that it contradicts your position.
The truth is the you worship man, putting fallible men's opinions over the voice of God speaking through the Magisterium.
The issue is crystal-clear. Pius XII was wrong and ill-informed, just like when he said the Earth could be (or is, I forget) billions of years old. Both times he contradicted Tradition and the Magisterium, but NOT pertinaciously and NOT as supreme Pastor of all Christians.
What would you have believed after CC and before Pius XII's speech?
Explain to us how NFP does not subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end or ADMIT that it does, because that's THE WHOLE POINT OF NFP.
-
You're a liar. You know the speech to midwives isn't infallible yet you're treating it like it is.
The fact that none of you can give a plausible explanation of Casti Connubii is a as good as an admission that it contradicts your position.
The truth is the you worship man, putting fallible men's opinions over the voice of God speaking through the Magisterium.
The issue is crystal-clear. Pius XII was wrong and ill-informed, just like when he said the Earth could be (or is, I forget) billions of years old. Both times he contradicted Tradition and the Magisterium, but NOT pertinaciously and NOT as supreme Pastor of all Christians.
What would you have believed after CC and before Pius XII's speech?
Explain to us how NFP does not subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end or ADMIT that it does, because that's THE WHOLE POINT OF NFP.
Okay in charity I only responded to him with "k." I hope I'm not the only one (looks like I'm not) who thinks that response was a tad low IQ.
-
NFP believers do you also follow Pope Pius XII's "infallible proclamation" that the Earth is billions of years old:
Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "... the work of the omnipotent Creator, Whose power, aroused by the mighty ‘fiat’ pronounced billions of years ago by the Creative Spirit, unfolded itself in the universe and, with a gesture of generous love, called into existence matter, fraught with energy."
Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "Thus this energy, in the course of billions of years, is slowly but irreparably transformed into radiation."
Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "In the course of billions of years, even the quantity of atomic nuclei, which is apparently inexhaustible, loses its utilisable energy and matter approaches, to speak figuratively, the state of a spent and wasted volcano." (https://inters.org/pius-xii-speech-1952-proofs-god)
Or are you hypocrites?
-
Okay in charity I only responded to him with "k." I hope I'm not the only one (looks like I'm not) who thinks that response was a tad low IQ.
Caritas in veritatis. He is excusing grave sin even though faced with clear magisterial teaching against it.
The greatest charity is to do whatever necessary to convince him to reject this grave error.
-
You're a liar. You know the speech to midwives isn't infallible yet you're treating it like it is.
The fact that none of you can give a plausible explanation of Casti Connubii is a as good as an admission that it contradicts your position.
The truth is the you worship man, putting fallible men's opinions over the voice of God speaking through the Magisterium.
The issue is crystal-clear. Pius XII was wrong and ill-informed, just like when he said the Earth could be (or is, I forget) billions of years old. Both times he contradicted Tradition and the Magisterium, but NOT pertinaciously and NOT as supreme Pastor of all Christians.
What would you have believed after CC and before Pius XII's speech?
Explain to us how NFP does not subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end or ADMIT that it does, because that's THE WHOLE POINT OF NFP.
.
I didn't say the speech to midwives was infallible. I said you had to believe it because it was a teaching of the pope to the whole Church on a matter of faith and morals (or at least it became a teaching to the whole Church after he published it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis).
It is a condemned error to say that people are only obliged to accept papal teachings that are infallible. I believe that error is condemned even in Casti Connubii itself.
The "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" is addressed to the whole Church. What the pope publishes in there is binding on all Catholics.
"If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican." -- Jesus Christ.
-
NFP believers do you also follow Pope Pius XII's "infallible proclamation" that the Earth is billions of years old:
Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "... the work of the omnipotent Creator, Whose power, aroused by the mighty ‘fiat’ pronounced billions of years ago by the Creative Spirit, unfolded itself in the universe and, with a gesture of generous love, called into existence matter, fraught with energy."
Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "Thus this energy, in the course of billions of years, is slowly but irreparably transformed into radiation."
Pius XII, Speech To Pontifical Academy Of Sciences, Nov. 2, 1951: "In the course of billions of years, even the quantity of atomic nuclei, which is apparently inexhaustible, loses its utilisable energy and matter approaches, to speak figuratively, the state of a spent and wasted volcano." (https://inters.org/pius-xii-speech-1952-proofs-god)
Or are you hypocrites?
.
I explained the "infallible" issue already. I didn't say that what Pope Pius XII said was infallible. You are claiming that Catholics are only obliged to accept universal papal teaching in matters of faith and morals when they are proclaimed infallibly, and that since Pope Pius XII's teaching on NFP was not proclaimed infallibly, that therefore you are free to reject it. This is an error that has been condemned many times by the popes.
As far as the age of the earth goes, that is not a matter of faith or morals, so Catholics are not bound to accept a statement from a pope on the age of the earth. Neither does it contradict the faith to say the earth is billions of years old, either.
I don't think I can really discuss this with you if you don't understand such basic distinctions, and especially if you think you do not have to accept papal teaching on faith and morals.
-
I didn't say the speech to midwives was infallible. I said you had to believe it because it was a teaching of the pope to the whole Church on a matter of faith and morals (or at least it became a teaching to the whole Church after he published it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis).
It is a condemned error to say that people are only obliged to accept papal teachings that are infallible. I believe that error is condemned even in Casti Connubii itself.
The "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" is addressed to the whole Church. What the pope publishes in there is binding on all Catholics.
"If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican." -- Jesus Christ.
Same old un-nuanced nonsense you get from most of the SVs. So what, in the practical order, is the difference between "acceptance" of the Dogma of the Assumption, and then accepting every word of a 10,000-word speech given to a group of midwives? Without any nuance (and you apply none), they're practicaly speaking the same thing.
You use the term "accept" equivocally, making no distinctions whatsoever.
Msgr. Fenton points out the distinctions. Please read them again. There's no absolute philosophical assent expected of the non-infallible teaching of a Pope (much less some long expositions that do not claim to be authoritatively teaching anything), but a conditional assent, which can be withheld if some proposition is proven to be erroneous. Otherwise, you'd have to just power-dump every single word of AAS into the Enchiridion Symbolorum.
When a Pope is going on for 10,000 words about a "new problem" and multiple times referring to "two hypotheses", before a group of midwives, this doesn't even rise to the leve of an Encyclical Letter, and even about those Msgr. Fenton explains, you have to read the language to determine the intention of the Pope to engage his authority to teach the Universal Church. It's not uncommon for these Encyclicals to go on for hundreds of pages of expository prose where there's explanation of various concepts but no actual teaching taking place.
Please explain the difference between "accepting" a dogmatic definition, and "accepting" every word of an speech given to midwives. This lack of nuance among SVs does as much damage to papal infallibility as the R&R position where anything short of solemn definitions is fair game. There's a nuanced balance between these two extremes that is lost by both sides.
-
I explained the "infallible" issue already. I didn't say that what Pope Pius XII said was infallible.
No, but you're saying that the infallible and fallible pronouncements fall into to same category of needing to be "accepted", without making the distinctions, thereby leading these becoming effectively the same thing for all practical intents and purposes.
There's also no allowance made for the nature of the content, whether it's even teaching, or there's any intent to teach. Here's a concrete example. Pius XII said that it was OK for Catholics to consider "theistic evolution". He didn't teach either for or against evolution. In fact, he taught nothing there. He was making a prudential judgment about whether to allow something ... and that prudential judgment (at the very least in hindsight) was tragically flawed and did a lot of damage. This judgment was not "infallible" but clearly mistaken.
In Mediator Dei, for instance, he praised the notion of "Dialogue Masses". There too he wasn't teaching anything, and his judgment was clearly wrong on the matter. Do you "accept" the fact that "Dialogue Masses" are a good thing now?
-
To go down another avenue with the same subject... I want to pose a question related to the main reason I started this thread.
Assuming if NFP is, in fact, a Catholic version of Birth Control and is objectively, in all circuмstances, morally repugnant to adopt in order to avoid pregnancy -- if this is the case, is Paul VI's explicit approval of it in Humanae Vitae enough to prove, without a doubt, that he could not have been a Pope?
I have heard SSPX priests say that Humanae Vitae is without a doubt and "as a matter of fact" infallible. But, as has been sufficiently proven (in my opinion) up to this point in the thread, NFP is undoubtably a non-Catholic practice and the adoption of it in the marital life has likely led souls astray.
It is my belief that defenders of NFP hold their positions because they would answer "yes" to the above question. And they are not ready to become SV's. Perhaps this is biasing their opinions on the subject: they acknowledge that IF NFP is in fact a mortal sin to use when avoiding pregnancy, then Paul VI's approval of it in his "matter of fact" infallible encyclical would prove that he is not the Pope and subsequently vindicate the sedevacantists.
-
Msgr. Fenton points out the distinctions. Please read them again. There's no absolute philosophical assent expected of the non-infallible teaching of a Pope (much less some long expositions that do not claim to be authoritatively teaching anything), but a conditional assent, which can be withheld if some proposition is proven to be erroneous. Otherwise, you'd have to just power-dump every single word of AAS into the Enchiridion Symbolorum.
.
Fair enough, let's see this again. Before we do, can we agree that the word "assent" means to accept something as true?:
Ultimately, however, this assent [wait, what assent? Ladislaus says we don't have to assent to non-infallible papal teaching if we think it is not true] is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith [Of course it's not. When one believes something by faith, such as something defined ex cathedra, he is believing not only that it is true, but that is divinely revealed and part of revelation]. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. [Not for Ladislaus, apparently] It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be [Ladislaus definitely doesn't accept this last]. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’.
Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements [wait, I thought there was no assent due to such pronouncements? Ladislaus just told us this.] cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, [the assent Ladislaus is giving to this pronouncement is called nihil non-existens] including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” [You mean unless Ladislaus discovers something to be erroneous? That would negate everything that has been said so far.] Lyons and Phillips use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. [But Ladislaus is not required to give assent to the Church's non-infallible teachings if he thinks they are wrong, so Lyons and Philips are wrong here.]
-
Crayolcold,
You're about as interested in a boring academic answer to your disinterested intellectual curiosity, as two street brawlers are interested in exploring the physics of potential and kinetic energy as they try to bash each other's brains in.
You're continuing the fight, slugging for "your side", hoping for a win against "the other side". Like 2 street brawlers fighting with pipes and chains. You're not a scientist, calmly, dispassionately experimenting with potential and kinetic energy.
So let's not pretend.
I can tell your mindframe by how you refer to me as "the other side" even though I haven't argued for or against NFP.
I've only posted that it's not a layman's place to "settle" or make any broad pronouncements, anathemas, or define any new dogmas on this moral theology issue, especially for the Catholic Faithful at large. I posted that Fr. Cekada made some very good points about this. Before Vatican II, you didn't have armchair lay theologians posting their useless opinions before millions of eyeballs with little-to-no theological training and NO Ecclesiastical oversight. The Crisis in the Church does NOT justify *everything*. Fr. Cekada was 100% right about that point.
Arriving at any true position on NFP would involve respecting all the principles and known truths/facts involved, and properly applying them in each case. Fr. Cekada did list some of these principles, and frankly I'd like to know how you would dispute any of those points he listed. They sounded like plain facts to me. Easily proved or disproved.
Anyhow, I made the mistake of posting in this thread, so now that I've been swept into the whirlpool against my will, my only option is to lock the thread.
I repeat AGAIN: talk to a good Traditional Catholic priest, one with a Traditional formation. Forget about getting spiritual direction, or confessional advice, from a bunch of laymen on CathInfo.