Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life  (Read 4286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Reputation: +964/-1098
  • Gender: Male
Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2018, 05:27:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 20, 2018, 05:09:14 PM
    You don't seem to understand the Rhythm Method. It involves abstaining from marital relations during the time of a woman's fertile period. The Sacred Penitentiary ruled (three times) that this is permissible for virtuous reasons as a means of preventing the conception of offspring.

    And as far as the intent during the infertile times, one necessarily has to be open to the possibility of conception during relations. I don't argue that at all. But to argue that a couple's use of the Rhythm Method means that they have no intention of conceiving at all other times, doesn't follow reasonably at all.
    If someone is using the Rhythm Method, the intent is clearly to avoid conception. Hence why they're using this method of contraception in the first place. So clearly when they do have sex during the infertile(or well, less fertile) periods, their intent is not to conceive. If they wanted to conceive then they wouldn't be using the Rhythm Method. And having sex without the intention of conception is a venial sin as I said. 
    Logged

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #16 on: February 20, 2018, 05:31:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: forlorn on February 20, 2018, 05:27:24 PM
    If someone is using the Rhythm Method, the intent is clearly to avoid conception. Hence why they're using this method of contraception in the first place. So clearly when they do have sex during the infertile(or well, less fertile) periods, their intent is not to conceive. If they wanted to conceive then they wouldn't be using the Rhythm Method. And having sex without the intention of conception is a venial sin as I said.
    This is fallacious reasoning.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #17 on: February 20, 2018, 05:59:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 20, 2018, 05:31:58 PM
    This is fallacious reasoning.
    No it isn't. If their intent was to conceive, then they wouldn't be using the Rhythm Method. The whole point of the Rhythm Method is to prevent conception. If they intended to conceive when they had sex, they would not use it. They would just have sex at any time of her cycle.
    How on earth is it fallacious to argue that those using a form of CONTRACEPTION are trying to PREVENT CONCEPTION? That is quite literally what the word means. Unless you're trying to tell me that they're only trying to avoid conception during her fertile periods but are actively trying to conceive during her less fertile periods, as a pregnancy from a less fertile period is somehow preferable? Nonsense. People using the Rhythm Method are trying to avoid conception altogether, and therefore there is no intent to conceive when they do have sex on her off days, and therefore they are venially sinning. 
    Logged

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11666
    • Reputation: +6994/-498
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #18 on: February 20, 2018, 07:56:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Forlorn, there is no reason to say that a married couple must have the intent to conceive. I think that teaching is "open to the possibility of conception". That's not quite the same thing. Maybe you should use your wording to reflect the Church teaching rather than your own.

    I can honestly say that I never had the intention of conceiving when I was fertile (back in the olden days). In spite of not having the intention of conceiving I conceived and was happy to be a mother.
    Logged
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #19 on: February 21, 2018, 10:22:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: forlorn on February 20, 2018, 05:59:23 PM
    No it isn't. If their intent was to conceive, then they wouldn't be using the Rhythm Method. The whole point of the Rhythm Method is to prevent conception. If they intended to conceive when they had sex, they would not use it. They would just have sex at any time of her cycle.
    How on earth is it fallacious to argue that those using a form of CONTRACEPTION are trying to PREVENT CONCEPTION? That is quite literally what the word means. Unless you're trying to tell me that they're only trying to avoid conception during her fertile periods but are actively trying to conceive during her less fertile periods, as a pregnancy from a less fertile period is somehow preferable? Nonsense. People using the Rhythm Method are trying to avoid conception altogether, and therefore there is no intent to conceive when they do have sex on her off days, and therefore they are venially sinning.

    The embolden part is fallacious reasoning. To posit that a couple is not open to conception at all other times, simply because they use the Rhythm Method during the fertile period, is fallacious. You're making a leap that doesn't follow reason. It would be equivalent to saying that a person who kills someone, legally, has no problem killing at any other time. It doesn't follow. Were the Rhythm Method not allowed by the Church, the Sacred Penitentiary would have said so. You act as if you are more experienced in moral theology than the they were. These men were arguably some of the most knowledgeable moral theologians in the Catholic Church at the time. That's why they were chosen for the post. 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41864
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #20 on: February 21, 2018, 10:32:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 20, 2018, 02:09:44 PM
    It was taught in every seminary on earth for 80 years prior to Pius XI's statement in Casti Cannubii.

    Garbage.  Given your penchant, shown here, for making things up to justify yourself, I'm not inclined to believe much of what you wrote about the Dimonds.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41864
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #21 on: February 21, 2018, 10:35:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on February 20, 2018, 02:12:14 PM
    This clearly means abstinence. Not birth control. Sex is solely for the purpose of procreation.

    Yeah, several people have already debunked this fake strawman argument against the Dimonds (and distortion of Casti Conubii) ... but he keeps repeating it.

    Bottom line.  He was butthurt* by some harsh words written to him by Peter Dimond, so now he's lashing out.

    butthurt*:  An inappropriately strong negative emotional response from a perceived personal insult. Characterized by strong feelings of shame. Frequently associated with a cessation of communication and overt hostility towards the "aggressor."
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41864
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #22 on: February 21, 2018, 10:58:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: An even Seven on February 20, 2018, 02:13:14 PM
    The key word is man. This guy seems like a boy with a larger than normal vocabulary. I've been rebuked by them before as well. Were they correct? Yes.  Did I respond by attempting to discredit them? No. I took a look at what they were saying, and yes, I needed to change.

    That being said, I don't think I disagree with them on anything. EENS, Sedevacante, NFP are the majors though. Like I said before though, this guy is talking to about 4 or 5 people on this forum, he's not going to accomplish anything.

    Yeah, they can be extremely harsh.  But we need to deal with it like men.  I didn't come around to agreeing with them on most of the points they attacked me over ... regardless.  But I have no desire to lash out in a personal way.

    I disagree with their characterization of BoD (straight St. Thomas and St. Robert BoD, not the EENS-denying version) as heresy.  I disagree with their DOGMATIC sedevacantism.  I think they exaggerate the theological notes of their conclusions and don't understand that things are not HERETICAL unless they DIRECTLY contradict dogma.  That's their core problem.  They also sometimes make arguments that have logical holes in them.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41864
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #23 on: February 21, 2018, 11:01:41 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 20, 2018, 05:09:14 PM
    You don't seem to understand the Rhythm Method. It involves abstaining from marital relations during the time of a woman's fertile period. The Sacred Penitentiary ruled (three times) that this is permissible for virtuous reasons as a means of preventing the conception of offspring.

    That's just a flat-out lie.  You're slandering the Church by presenting this as Church teaching.


    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10305
    • Reputation: +6215/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #24 on: February 21, 2018, 11:02:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • If the Diamonds would tone down the heresy accusations just a smidge, they'd accomplish a lot more good.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10305
    • Reputation: +6215/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #25 on: February 21, 2018, 11:06:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Finally, I'll repeat again that there's a clear difference between NFP and the old Rhythm Method.
    Morally speaking, there's no difference - both are wrong, except in VERY specific circuмstances (assuming Pius XII's permissions are moral).

    The only difference between the 2 is the effectiveness of preventing children.  NFP is just a better mousetrap.  But either mousetrap has the same goal - stop life.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41864
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #26 on: February 21, 2018, 11:08:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Nadir on February 20, 2018, 07:56:58 PM
    Forlorn, there is no reason to say that a married couple must have the intent to conceive. I think that teaching is "open to the possibility of conception".
    ...
    I can honestly say that I never had the intention of conceiving when I was fertile (back in the olden days). In spite of not having the intention of conceiving I conceived and was happy to be a mother.

    "Open to Conception" is Novus Ordo crappola; it's basically code-word for, hey, if the condom leaks during intercourse, I won't have an abortion.  So you could be open to life while using artificial birth control ... in their mind.

    Sure, not many people have the explicit intention of conceiving each and every time they have relations, but there's a virtual intention there anyway.  In fact, you could even think, "Boy I really hope she doesn't conceive right now."

    What's at issue is forming the positive intention to avoid conception while having sɛҳuąƖ intercourse.  It's what Pius XI condemns as the subordination of the primary end of marriage.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41864
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #27 on: February 21, 2018, 11:10:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 21, 2018, 11:06:35 AM
    Morally speaking, there's no difference - both are wrong, except in VERY specific circuмstances (assuming Pius XII's permissions are moral).

    The only difference between the 2 is the effectiveness of preventing children.  NFP is just a better mousetrap.  But either mousetrap has the same goal - stop life.

    Unfortunately, Pius XII was very loose in laying out the conditions/circuмstances where it would be licit.  Problem is he never theologically proves why some reasons are sufficient while other reasons are insufficient.  If in principle you've established that it's permitted, then it's just a ridiculous gray unprincipled mess ... which is exactly his legacy on this issue.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41864
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #28 on: February 21, 2018, 11:12:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 21, 2018, 10:22:39 AM
    It doesn't follow. Were the Rhythm Method not allowed by the Church, the Sacred Penitentiary would have said so.

    Again with the lies.  Besides that, those decisions are not infallible.  And the argument from Casti Conubii is rock solid.
    Logged

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #29 on: February 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 21, 2018, 11:12:20 AM
    Again with the lies.  Besides that, those decisions are not infallible.  And the argument from Casti Conubii is rock solid.

    You're right, Casti Cannubii was rock solid on the issue;

    Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 53), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (WHICH CHRISTIAN LAW PERMITS WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT) but by frustrating the marriage act.”

    Again, when practiced for virtuous reasons, "Continence" is a permissible method of regulating birth. Any method that frustrates the marriage act is forbidden - but to refrain from the marital act during the fertile period in an effort to avoid the conception of offspring, is permitted by Christian Law. Rock solid. 

    And, yes, the Sacred Penitentiary ruled on this issue three times, beginning in 1853. Since then, by virtue of its acceptance by the Roman Curia, it was taught in seminaries for 80 years prior to Casti Cannubii - and therefore is precisely the teaching Pius XI is referring to. Frankly, it was the only method known as "Continence" that existed in his day. 

    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
    « previous next »