Author Topic: Raoul and NFP: Why?  (Read 2468 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23014
  • Reputation: +20161/-243
  • Gender: Male
Raoul and NFP: Why?
« on: October 25, 2009, 07:30:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • First of all, I would like to point out that the "NFP" thread is exactly what I like to see on CathInfo. We have reasoned discussion, and we're all trying to get to the bottom of important issues.

    Of course, we have this Crisis in the Church which means that certain issues will never be resolved definitively -- for example, anything that only existed in the last 10, 20, or 40 years would have existed only after Vatican II. So the Rome of neo-Modernist tendencies will not act as it should -- for example, the Church used to have an Index of forbidden books. Reading books on the Index was sinful. Would a truly Catholic Rome put most movies/TV shows on the Index? You bet. But since they haven't, you have a constant debate about TV.

    When I read Raoul's thread on NFP, a few questions popped into my mind:

    1. Why Raoul, and why this topic? Why is a single man spending dozens (hundreds?) of hours on an issue that affects only those in the married state.

    2. Even though he's not being paid to do this, it's not part of his Duty of State (as it would be for a Priest), and he's not pursuing a degree in that area?

    3. Has Raoul considered that many priests, including holy ones, have thought about these same issues and not come to the same radical conclusions as he? Does that not raise red flags for him? Or is he quick to humbly accept the fact that he is a genius groundbreaking pioneer in the Traditional movement? (Ok, that was a bit of a stretch)

    4. Does Raoul really think that NFP is the central issue, bar none, facing the Traditional Catholic world? That would mean that if everyone stopped using NFP, the world would improve more than if any other one thing was done. But wouldn't all those kids end up in public school, injected with poisons (vaccinated) and sent to die in Illuminati-contrived wars overseas? How can "more Catholics", in itself, be the solution? By itself, it is nothing. Especially if all those Catholics end up in hell because of more serious issues, including spiritual ones, in the world today.

    5. Does he realize the contradiction between his own personal stance ("I'm not ever going to marry or have kids, because the world is going to Hell") and his belief that NFP is the prime issue in the Catholic world?

    6. Does Raoul appreciate the correlation between his own personal status (single man, practicing ongoing abstinence) and his seeming obsession with abstinence for married couples? There is a phenomenon which applies many places -- not just here -- whereby a strong man looks down on the weakling, the money-savvy looks down on the bad-with-money person, the computer nerd looks down on the AOL-user, etc. because, to them, certain things are "easy" and so anyone should be able to do them.

    Whatever a man is strong in, he is less likely to be compassionate about. If a man is convinced of his own sinfulness, he will have compassion on sinners. But if he never had a hard time with drunkenness, for example, he will be especially hard on drunks -- since alcohol was never a difficulty for him.

    More later...

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #1 on: October 25, 2009, 07:46:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But Raoul is not moved by examples of authority, unless of course they fit into his preconceived agenda (note his strange referencing to a book written by a liberal).  Raoul is simply trying to pick a fight and stir up problems where none exist, namely with regard to the old teaching of the theologians and not with the causes of the abuse of this doctrine among certain Catholics.  So extremely unreasonable has he become, so rash and thoughtless, that he has literally deprived himself of the soul saving Sacraments even prior to removing his ignorance on the doctrinal issues.  That is, he refuses communion with other Catholics based upon chimera and mere suspicion!  Can you imagine the degree of pride and ignorance that goes into making such judgments?  This is the classic definition of schism.  The very sad thing obviously is that Raoul will end up in hell alongside the very men he despises, hating them with an even more intense hatred, and cursing the God he now claims to worship and honor.  

    Now if he truly believes that the "novus ordo" Church is absolutely speaking a false sect, then why does he pay so much attention to it?  It would be like your or I spending hours studying doctrinal controversies in the Lutheran sect.  


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #2 on: October 25, 2009, 09:49:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raoul strikes me as someone who might be a very ingenious troll.

    I certainly hope I'm wrong about that.  I don't consider it slander or detraction to say that, because here on the internet, anyone can be anyone - and it is only right to be suspicious of posters.

    Anyway, Raoul does raise an interesting points - the question of certain aspects of the Pius XII Papacy that are problematic.  And NFP promotion is a very serious problem for Catholics.  Many people think they are being "good Catholics" by teaching courses on it and that it should be required to be taught to Catholic couples before they marry.

    Raoul is giving us some issues that need to be worked out.

    In my own view, NFP is something that can become part of a spiritual malaise, but is not necessarily sinful and is not something that can be judged as such.  That it can easily become sinful and lead to perdition is something that should be considered as a serious warning against it.

    Offline Vladimir

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1707
    • Reputation: +494/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #3 on: October 25, 2009, 10:01:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    But Raoul is not moved by examples of authority, unless of course they fit into his preconceived agenda (note his strange referencing to a book written by a liberal).  Raoul is simply trying to pick a fight and stir up problems where none exist, namely with regard to the old teaching of the theologians and not with the causes of the abuse of this doctrine among certain Catholics.  So extremely unreasonable has he become, so rash and thoughtless, that he has literally deprived himself of the soul saving Sacraments even prior to removing his ignorance on the doctrinal issues.  That is, he refuses communion with other Catholics based upon chimera and mere suspicion!  Can you imagine the degree of pride and ignorance that goes into making such judgments?  This is the classic definition of schism.  The very sad thing obviously is that Raoul will end up in hell alongside the very men he despises, hating them with an even more intense hatred, and cursing the God he now claims to worship and honor.  

    Now if he truly believes that the "novus ordo" Church is absolutely speaking a false sect, then why does he pay so much attention to it?  It would be like your or I spending hours studying doctrinal controversies in the Lutheran sect.  


     :applause:



    Offline Vladimir

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1707
    • Reputation: +494/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #4 on: October 25, 2009, 10:05:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I used to despise you Caminus, but now I thank God that you post on this forum.




    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #5 on: October 25, 2009, 10:06:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The problem with Pius XII's doctrine has nothing to do with the doctrine itself, but the worldly men who took it out of context.  If anything, it was a question of emphasis coupled with bad timing, I think he just assumed the good will of his audience, which is a normal and charitable disposition.  The fact that a man may err in this question of fact neither impugns his doctrine or the goodness of his own will.    

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #6 on: October 25, 2009, 10:07:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I beg please do not compliment me.  But if we must, I'll trade one for the other, I would have you know that you will one day be a very holy and wise priest.  

    Offline spouse of Jesus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1903
    • Reputation: +336/-1
    • Gender: Female
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #7 on: October 25, 2009, 10:16:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I would have you know that you will one day be a very holy and wise priest.


     Amen
    I hope the same thing for him.
    May God make you a priest forever. According to the order of Melchizedeck.


    Offline spouse of Jesus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1903
    • Reputation: +336/-1
    • Gender: Female
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #8 on: October 25, 2009, 10:21:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •   As about being a troll, no, I don't think Raoul to be one. I was called a troll by FE people more than once. It is an insult.
      But... I must admit, marriage is an interesting topic, even if you never marry!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23014
    • Reputation: +20161/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #9 on: October 25, 2009, 11:46:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    But Raoul is not moved by examples of authority, unless of course they fit into his preconceived agenda (note his strange referencing to a book written by a liberal).  Raoul is simply trying to pick a fight and stir up problems where none exist, namely with regard to the old teaching of the theologians and not with the causes of the abuse of this doctrine among certain Catholics.  So extremely unreasonable has he become, so rash and thoughtless, that he has literally deprived himself of the soul saving Sacraments even prior to removing his ignorance on the doctrinal issues.  That is, he refuses communion with other Catholics based upon chimera and mere suspicion!  Can you imagine the degree of pride and ignorance that goes into making such judgments?  This is the classic definition of schism.  The very sad thing obviously is that Raoul will end up in hell alongside the very men he despises, hating them with an even more intense hatred, and cursing the God he now claims to worship and honor.  

    Now if he truly believes that the "novus ordo" Church is absolutely speaking a false sect, then why does he pay so much attention to it?  It would be like your or I spending hours studying doctrinal controversies in the Lutheran sect.  


    Raoul DOES have a good intellect, even though I disagree with him on some things.

    As I said before, posts like his are what I'd like to see on CathInfo. I read them, and can see that he makes many good points. He is using his reason -- if only more people did that.

    The whole issue of pride I'm not sure about, since I don't know him very well. I just wanted to point out that certain red flags went off on my end --

    For one thing, I know there's a temptation for someone who has read a few books (or been in the seminary for a few months) to want to run out and start teaching people. Especially for someone well-endowed in the zeal department. Raoul is nothing if not zealous. So am I; therefore I can relate to that. But, obviously, it's best for someone in that position to be patient and just keep reading, praying, listening and learning.

    But to be "pontificating" (which is a good word for it -- his posts read like a cross between a Papal encyclical and St. Thomas Aquinas) when he hasn't been Catholic for very long (how long, by the way? Someone said he was a convert...) seems like it could be problematic.

    And recall that many Protestant "reformers" sounded VERY convincing to the ignorant masses -- who saw countless problems in their own day -- they had their very own Crisis in the Church with priests living with concubines, fathering children, being ignorant of basic dogmas, etc.

    In fact, virtually ALL heresiarchs (founders of heretical sects) will simplify a doctrine, making it "more understandable" to the average man -- which, of course, takes all the truth out of it, but that doesn't matter to the heresiarch. For example, Mohammad took all the mystery out of heaven, describing it as a place of carnal pleasure -- and he went on to delineate the pleasures one could expect there.

    So we should ALL be careful, and watch, because our adversary the devil goes about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Wherefore resist him, steadfast in faith.
    (See my sig line, below, for the Latin version)

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #10 on: October 26, 2009, 01:16:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ChantCd
    But wouldn't all those kids end up in public school, injected with poisons (vaccinated) and sent to die in Illuminati-contrived wars overseas? How can "more Catholics", in itself, be the solution? By itself, it is nothing. Especially if all those Catholics end up in hell because of more serious issues, including spiritual ones, in the world today.


    This quote above is where you begin to show your real issue.

    Quote from: A paraphrasing of the [u
    apparent[/u] intention your proposition could have]Bringing more children into the world today is evil and God will not help them.


    I respond by saying that Catholics do not put their kids through public school unless they WANT them to be damned.  Homeschooling is the only option.

    Quote from: ChantCD
    Does he realize the contradiction between his own personal stance ("I'm not ever going to marry or have kids, because the world is going to Hell") and his belief that NFP is the prime issue in the Catholic world?


    His reasons are his own and I cannot comment there, but simply put, no matter how evil the world is, we cannot presume to reject a Divine command.  Scripture, the saints and the Magisterium exhort the faithful to enter the marriage bed "moved rather for love of children than for lust".

    Quote from: ChantCD
    Does Raoul appreciate the correlation between his own personal status (single man, practicing ongoing abstinence) and his seeming obsession with abstinence for married couples? There is a phenomenon which applies many places -- not just here -- whereby a strong man looks down on the weakling, the money-savvy looks down on the bad-with-money person, the computer nerd looks down on the AOL-user, etc. because, to them, certain things are "easy" and so anyone should be able to do them.

    Whatever a man is strong in, he is less likely to be compassionate about. If a man is convinced of his own sinfulness, he will have compassion on sinners. But if he never had a hard time with drunkenness, for example, he will be especially hard on drunks -- since alcohol was never a difficulty for him.

    More later...

    Matthew


    I know two happily married Catholic couples who would gladly pipe in on the issue of NFP and the fact that it's EVIL.


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #11 on: October 26, 2009, 04:38:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for posting this thread, Chant.  I enjoyed reading this and your points are especially good here.

    Quote
    "For one thing, I know there's a temptation for someone who has read a few books (or been in the seminary for a few months) to want to run out and start teaching people. Especially for someone well-endowed in the zeal department. Raoul is nothing if not zealous. So am I; therefore I can relate to that. But, obviously, it's best for someone in that position to be patient and just keep reading, praying, listening and learning."


    I like to think I'm doing both at once.  If I can explain why I'm speaking out instead of taking more time to learn -- and I'm aware that my education is spotty -- it's that I feel time might be short before a chastisement.  I would love nothing more than to hole myself up, learn Latin and read giant dogmatic and moral theology tomes.  But that isn't what God is telling me to do right now.  

    I might be panicked a little bit.  Okay, I am panicked.  That isn't the best frame of mind from which to teach, I'll grant you.  But I figure that the people here know I am not an authority and can sift the good from the bad.  I am not a canonized saint or Doctor but someone who writes on a website.  When people see a Raoul76 post they are not seeing a papal bull, even if my writing style sounds papal ( that is quite a compliment ), and they're aware of that.  They are grown men and women and they know they aren't obligated to believe what I say.  But if something that I say rings true, then maybe we can start exploring uncharted territory.  

    The way I see this website is that we are all learning and trying to get to the truth, which, like Humpty-Dumpty, lays shattered on the ground.  I am not trying to be a Grand Inquisitor or be like Michael Dimond.  It does sometimes sound like I'm telling people how to think but I'm actually just trying to get them TO think.  I rely on everyone here, if I am in error, to correct me, because believe me, I'm as scared of hell as anyone else.

    Quote

    And recall that many Protestant "reformers" sounded VERY convincing to the ignorant masses -- who saw countless problems in their own day -- they had their very own Crisis in the Church with priests living with concubines, fathering children, being ignorant of basic dogmas, etc.

     
    I am not going to reform anything.  I'm a guy who lives with his mom typing all day.  I don't even believe our time can be reformed unless God steps in and performs a miracle of some kind or, like I said, there's a chastisement.  All I can do is try to rid individual souls of heresies if they're holding onto any.  

    You ask why I counsel against NFP when the world is going to hell.  CM already answered that for the most part ( the law doesn't change based on circumstances ) but I will tell you this; it's not the present-day I have in mind, really.  There might be a prophetic element to my anti-NFP writings.  Because I believe that after the Minor Chastisement, there will absolutely be no NFP, and that those living in that time will look back at NFP as a scourge.  I tend to see NFP as symptomatic of selfish modern man bringing God's wrath down on himself.
     
    Quote
    "Whatever a man is strong in, he is less likely to be compassionate about."


    I'd say my past is worse than anyone's on this board -- I've lived an Augustinian life and have an Augustinian mind.  I was even born in Santa Monica ( the city in California in my case, not the woman ).  So I'm not "strong in" abstinence.  But I do know how God can free you from lust if you do His will and elevate your thoughts.  Considering my past, it's easy for me to see how the "doctrine" of NFP keeps minds very earthy.  

    I remember just a couple months ago when I believed in it I would look around for a girl to marry thinking "It's not like the old days when everything was about children."  I was thinking about sex, purely and primarily.  And this showed in my early posts on this website which were sex-obsessed.
    *

    To answer why I'm obsessed with NFP when it doesn't personally concern me, it's because of this quote from St. Augustine that Thomas Droleskey loves to repeat.

    Quote
    "St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic"


    The way I understand it from St. Thomas is that if we attend the Mass of a heretical priest we are "sharers in his sin."  So if NFP is a heresy, and I believe it certainly goes against the Magisterium as it was known prior to Pius XII, as it has always been known that the obstruction of birth is a mortal sin -- and that modern NFP doesn't obstruct birth is a flagrant lie -- then there is nowhere to go to Mass.  

    By hammering away at this I am hoping that perhaps those more qualified, priests and bishops, will take another look at NFP.  My motive is threefold:  ( a ) I want to help save souls ( b ) I want to find a place to go to Mass ( c ) I want to find a bishop who will teach and ordain me.  Obviously if I think NFP is a heresy I can't sign up with a Pius XII-loving, NFP-preaching bishop in good conscience.

    I think NFP has been ignored for far too long, for many reasons -- but primarily because it is associated with Feeneyism.  Since it is Richard Ibranyi and Michael Dimond who have spoken out against NFP, and they are generally considered extremists and fanatics, that NFP may be a heresy is automatically dismissed.  But if you read their arguments on this subject, they are very convincing.  My dad is a lawyer and I have it in my blood; I know when someone makes a good case.  They are not even remotely convincing when they mangle the Council of Trent to suit their anti-BoD ends; but on NFP they are overpowering.

    Then read Father Cekada or Bishop Pivarunas when they defend NFP.  They come off as evasive, shifty.  They don't refute any of Ibranyi's points but simply call on their authority as priests; "We've had eighteen years of moral theology and you have not," that kind of thing.  Well, then what about Cardinal Haye?  I'm sure he had lots of training in moral theology and he was against the rhythm method, and that was before it became modern, near-foolproof NFP.  

    There are lots of unanswered questions about NFP and Pius XII ( just wait til you see the video I'm going to post in the 'Midwife' thread where he makes a blatant Satanic hand sign ).  I have yet to see a compelling explanation about how its being "natural" somehow excuses the fact that it is birth control.  Doesn't the use of charts, graphs and mucus indicators take it out of the realm of the "natural" anyway?  

    Those who want to defend NFP, though, will have to show that it is a legitimate development of doctrine, that God would be pleased by this "natural" means of birth control.  It is definitely possible that I have a rigoristic blind spot here and that God sent Ogino the Japanese scientist as a gift to Catholics to be able to cram more sex into their marriages using mucus charts -- anything is possible.  But my ears just hear a lot of 2+2=5; "It's non-procreation but not anti-procreation," etc.  

    Here is what I have concluded though.  Even if NFP is not a heresy, and there are occasional times when it can be used -- I don't believe that, but I'm not absolutely sure yet that it is always against God -- Pius XII went much further.  The Allocution to Midwives is absolutely scandalous.  He is teaching Nazi/communist eugenics.  Saying you can use it for "economic" reasons is communism, since they are all about overpopulation and love handing out condoms to the poor and stuff like that; saying you can use it for "eugenic" reasons is like a subtle form of Nazism; no one kills the sick but they are encouraged to stop procreating.  

    I think that this was carefully set up over time, the two responses from the Sacred Penitentiary in the 19th century, Casti Connubi, and then "Allocution to Midwives."  You went from the laity occasionally using the rhythm method, which was mostly overlooked, to the Church actually TEACHING eugenic spacing of births or even elimination of births using a new souped-up form of the rhythm method.  "Rhythm" went from being overlooked to being counselled to being taught from the Throne of Peter itself.  This is pure gradualism, people were indoctrinated slowly.

    And then when the sedevacantist clergy picked up on it, not only did they totally accept the insane "Allocution to Midwives," but went further -- they actually embraced the term Natural Family Planning which is straight from Vatican II.  Why?  Am I the only one who smells a big rat?  Why do the sedevacantists avoid everything having to do with Vatican II except Natural Family Planning?  Is it C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y ( shh! )?  

     If NFP is such a simple matter then why do so many people have a problem with it, why does it lead to feelings of guilt, why were only half the Catholics in the early days of the Ogino method supportive of it, why did Cardinal Haye go against the Archbishop of Chicago, whither the controversy?  Why can't I find just ONE anti-NFP priest or bishop like Cardinal Haye today?  Surely I can't be the only person on Earth who isn't a Feeneyite who sees that the NFP doctrine is as full of holes as Swiss cheese!
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #12 on: October 26, 2009, 05:12:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    They are not even remotely convincing when they mangle the Council of Trent to suit their anti-BoD ends; but on NFP they are overpowering


    Why do I bother to support you if you're only going to end up in hell?

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #13 on: October 26, 2009, 05:13:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ~sigh~

    It's because you're right about NFP and this is not about you or me.

     :cry:

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Raoul and NFP: Why?
    « Reply #14 on: October 26, 2009, 07:06:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You'll have to include Piux XI in the conspiracy as well.


    Quote
    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.[52]

    67. Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.[53]  

    68. Finally, that pernicious practice must be condemned which closely touches upon the natural right of man to enter matrimony but affects also in a real way the welfare of the offspring. For there are some who over solicitous for the cause of eugenics, not only give salutary counsel for more certainly procuring the strength and health of the future child -- which, indeed, is not contrary to right reason -- but put eugenics before aims of a higher order, and by public authority wish to prevent from marrying all those whom, even though naturally fit for marriage, they consider, according to the norms and conjectures of their investigations, would, through hereditary transmission, bring forth defective offspring. And more, they wish to legislate to deprive these of that natural faculty by medical action despite their unwillingness; and this they do not propose as an infliction of grave punishment under the authority of the state for a crime committed, not to prevent future crimes by guilty persons, but against every right and good they wish the civil authority to arrogate to itself a power over a faculty which it never had and can never legitimately possess.
     CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE DECEMBER 31, 1930


     

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