Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: PG on July 05, 2015, 12:14:29 AM
-
This is a great sermon by fr. chazal. I highly recommend it. And, he does a great job condemning nfp. Also, at 18 minutes he reports that cmri openly promotes nfp. And, I suspect that this is not just a rumor, but true. I remember fr. ramolla attacking the cmri, and the topic of nfp was involved. I think it was even the main reason. But, correct me if I am wrong. Do any CI cmri trads care to comment or refute this claim? I am interested in hearing from you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzH5FxNrNQo
-
The more I hear from Father Chazal the more I like him.
NFP is complete garbage. No one has ever explained how it does not violate the principles taught in Casti Conubii.
And, yes, the CMRI actively endorse it. I can't speak to the term "promote", as in the sense of "encourage its use".
-
NFP was promoted by approved books already before Casti connubii.
-
NFP was promoted by approved books already before Casti connubii.
So what? CC trumps these other sources. And it trumps Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives also.
-
NFP was promoted by approved books already before Casti connubii.
So what? CC trumps these other sources. And it trumps Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives also.
It means NFP was allowed before CC.
-
NFP was promoted by approved books already before Casti connubii.
So what? CC trumps these other sources. And it trumps Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives also.
It means NFP was allowed before CC.
1) you've never proven your contention, but just say so
2) Before the definition of infallibility, various Catechisms were out there rejecting it. That means absolutely nothing. What's at issue is the Magisterium and not "approved sources". You've had liberal scuм bishops running around the Church since the beginning of time.
NFP is an abomination before God.
-
NFP was promoted by approved books already before Casti connubii.
So what? CC trumps these other sources. And it trumps Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives also.
It means NFP was allowed before CC.
1) you've never proven your contention, but just say so
2) Before the definition of infallibility, various Catechisms were out there rejecting it. That means absolutely nothing. What's at issue is the Magisterium and not "approved sources". You've had liberal scuм bishops running around the Church since the beginning of time.
NFP is an abomination before God.
Look, when I left Novus Ordo I have been purchasing old catholic books to better know the catholic faith and morals. And as I know all these books in Slovak and Czech from 19 to 20th century tell me NFP is allowed. So, maybe it is justifiable for me?
If I did not know English and internet I would never know someone thinks NFP is sinful, and what EENS really means.
-
So, maybe it is justifiable for me?
Well, the greater sin is on the part of those who taught that it's OK. But you need to look into why it's wrong. Hiding behind some priest might only be an excuse for someone who's completely ignorant. There have long been bad priests and bad bishops in the Church.
-
The woman's body was made by God. It has all the signs, cervical mucus, just like the rain. The farmers know when plant. The signs have been with us since day 1.
BUT serious reason is absolute.
-
The woman's body was made by God. It has all the signs, cervical mucus, just like the rain. The farmers know when plant. The signs have been with us since day 1.
BUT serious reason is absolute.
What does this even mean? Farmers don't plant seed in infertile ground but in the fertile.
-
In the video, the priest mentioned, that NFP was never used in the passed. Medical books of 1900 were noted for stating on the chapter of fertility, to watch for mucus, which keeps the sperm alive and helps in its transport. Indians also were known to know of the signs a long time ago.
-
Here is a great article against NFP -
http://www.oocities.org/athens/troy/6480/nfpcontents.html
It is worth getting to it !
-
Rythm Method is of man, cervical mucus are signs God made.
-
The woman's body was made by God. It has all the signs, cervical mucus, just like the rain. The farmers know when plant. The signs have been with us since day 1.
BUT serious reason is absolute.
What does this even mean? Farmers don't plant seed in infertile ground but in the fertile.
:laugh2:
-
Here is a link to fr. jenkins and fr. kelly discussing casti conubii and the primary ends of marriage on "what catholics believe". Start listening at 18 mins. Whether casti conubii and the ordered ends of marriage is infallible is mentioned and discussed. Rythm and the four conditions is briefly mentioned at the end. Fr. jenkins does say that the church teaches "you cannot limit the number of children by chemical or physical means". But, I suspect that is lip service. Because, observing rythm is a physical act. It is a mess. NFP is the bloody knife. Our Lady said that sins of the flesh are to blame, and that certainly refers to this(onanism under its many forms).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70DiVPtsIQ4
-
To back up Father Chazal:
“Cardinal Ottaviani spoke on the following day. ‘I am not pleased,’ he said, ‘with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church.’ He was the eleventh son in a family of twelve children, he said. ‘My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents’ minds, because they trusted in providence.’” (Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine flows into the Tiber- A History of Vatican II. Tan Books, 1985, p. 269.)
-
This is very interesting. Pius xxi 1951 allocution does a better job condemning nfp than it does supporting it. Pius xii condemns nfp before, during, and after the part where he speaks of its allowed use. It is like V2 rehearsal in ambiguity.
In the beginning he correctly states -
Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical <Casti Connubii>, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no "indication" or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one. This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.
Note the language used - "no INDICATION or need can convert an immoral act into a moral one", because pius xii is going to use the same language to apparently convert an immoral act into a moral one.
Later in the allocution -
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned.
[/i]
The key word again is "indication".
Later on pius xii says this, which in my opinion is damning to nfp rythm -
As with the pleasure of food and drink so with the sɛҳuąƖ they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses. The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally lawful in matrimony only, in the service of and in accordance with the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage with the observing of this rule is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the action whence it derives, and not vice versa—the action to the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance but also the circuмstances of the action, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.
I quote and emphasize "pleasure is subordinate to the law of the action"(the primary end - procreation), and " this law ... concerns not only the substance but also the circuмstances of the action, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed".
This begs the question. What "circuмstance" could he possibly be referring to other than nfp rythm? NFPers argue that nfp is lawful because it does not in other words affect the substance of the act. But, according to pius xii, the "circuмstance" matters, and " it is possible to sin in the way it is performed". NFP has to be what he is referring to.
With such ambiguity present in this allocution, how can we possibly infer and assume it safe to follow the novelty(the 4 conditions) in opposition to the "precept that remains in full force today" proclaimed in casti conubii? A novelty, I add, that is itself surrounded by teaching to the contrary in the allocution itself. Common sense and the plain meaning of words tells me that we cannot assume it safe.
-
Combine this with the anti-nfp teaching of the fathers Augustine and Jerome, and we have a strong argument. Yet, despite this. I still choose to refer to pius xii's four conditions as only doubtful. And, this is because, for one, I do not know of any cleric who does not accept pius xii's four conditions. And, that is important. And two, because Christ said to the gentile woman - "suffer first the children to be filled, for it is not good to take the bread of the children, and cast it to the dogs". Yet, Christ ultimately concedes to her request of exorcism. For that reason, l choose not to condemn the 4 conditions. But, I consider them doubtful.
-
Fr. jenkins does say that the church teaches "you cannot limit the number of children by chemical or physical means". But, I suspect that is lip service. Because, observing rythm is a physical act.
Father Jenkins is referring to the two types of artificial birth control, chemical (e.g. the pill) or physical (e.g. condoms).
-
Here's the basic issue:
CC (an Encyclical by Pius XI) declared the TWO conditions for marital relations to be lawful.
1) the intrinsic potential for the act to create children must never be thwarted (...rules out artificial birth control)
AND
2) the primary ends of the activity can never be subordinated to the secondary ends
It's NUMBER TWO that makes NFP immoral.
Pius XII in his Allocution completely ignores #2. He makes mention of Pius XI but then only cites #1, and it's his omission of #2 that allows him to conclude that NFP might in some cases be permitted.
Clearly the authority of an Encyclical taught to the Universal Church trumps that of an "Allocution to Midwives". And, if you look at the language and tone of the entire Allocution, it clearly shows Pius XII speculating (as a private theologian) and asking the midwives to cooperate in helping explore these issues (a cooperation between science and theology as it were).
But Pius XII trips up in making mention of only #1 and ignoring #2 from Pius XI CC.
No one has yet demonstrated how NFP does not violate principle #2 taught by Pius XI. If you are engaging in marital activity with the intent to enjoy the secondary ends of marriage while deliberately attempting to exclude the primary ends, that CLEARLY subordinates the primary ends to the secondary ends.
Pius XII's "grave indicators" are scandalous ... especially when he throws in "eugenic" considerations. And we also have a big issue with how "grave" is interpreted. "Grave" just means serious / substantial vs. trivial and it's an extremely amorphous term. People like Father Chazal use the term grave in a much stronger way, but Pius XII's term is a dangerous slippery slope without any clear boundaries.
No, if you have an extremely grave reasons not to have children (e.g. the mother would certainly die after conception), then it would be wrong to have intercourse at all, since NFP is not foolproof. In an extremely grave situation, there needs to be abstinence. And the premise for this whole thing seems to be this absurd and perverse concept that everyone has an inalienable God-given right to enjoy the secondary ends of the marital act. This is simply not true. If your spouse is ill or incapacitated or whatever, then you must remain continent. Similarly, if such grave circuмstances present themselves as would make conception impossible, then abstinence is the only acceptable approach. Abstinence does NOT subordinate the primary ends of the marital act to the secondary.
So Pius XII's Allocution gets failing marks; in fact, it's an EPIC FAIL in that it absolutely opened the floodgates to the Natural Birth Control movement.
I love how it's euphemistically called "Family Planning" when "Natural" but "Birth Control" when "Artificial". In both cases you are attempting to CONTROL BIRTH.
Now the main argument for NFP is that it's not INTRINSICALLY evil. But that means nothing. It is not intrinsically evil to take a human life either. So, for instance, one may take a life in self defense or the state may take life as just punishment for crimes. If it were INTRINSICALLY evil, it would NEVER be allowable under ANY circuмstances. But murder is nevertheless EVIL ... EXTRINSICALLY due to the INTENT. Similarly with NFP. Even if there's nothing intrinsically evil about not having intercourse during fertile periods, when combined with the INTENT to frustrate the primary ends of marriage while enjoying the secondary, it becomes EVIL nonetheless.
-
Yes, the secondary ends are only allowable through the primacy and existence of the first end. Well said.
One cannot enjoy the lushness of the field, without first passing through the gate.
Jumping the fence does not count.
-
Ladislaus - you bring up a problem I noticed. What constitutes grave, and who decides - If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circuмstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
Who exactly determines what reasons are "reasonable and equitable"? Who is the reasonable and equitable judge? Did pius xii set up channels and guidelines for this undertaking? Or, is this a case of "follow your conscience" V2 style. And, it seems to me foolish to publish this matter with anyone other than clerics(who judge the petitioners). But, he chose a bunch of women for its introduction.
-
Who exactly determines what reasons are "reasonable and equitable"? Who is the reasonable and equitable judge? Did pius xii set up channels and guidelines for this undertaking? Or, is this a case of "follow your conscience" V2 style.
By not setting up concrete criteria it indeed quickly devolved into a free-for-all.
I recall once, on the EWTN "Ask the Expert" page, someone wrote in something along the following lines:
"I want to limit the number of children I have using NFP because I want to make sure that I can afford an Ivy League education for all of my children, and to make sure they can drive luxury cars."
This was obviously a tongue-in-cheek satirical post, but the "Expert" answered that this would be permissible.