My main objection is the accusations of Jerome being a sɛҳuąƖ pervert and that it was his sɛҳuąƖ perversion that led to his heresy. For all we know Jerome could have led a perfectly chaste life but he just felt too much pity for the souls of the damned and wished that everyone would be saved. Also I don't think the descriptor "Catholic views of sɛҳuąƖity" means much because of varying views. I do not think you are a heretic, Lad, for rejecting NFP, but only pointed out that you (and others) have been accused of that because you reject the teaching in that allocution of Pius XII (and I think this also shows that Catholics can have differing views on sɛҳuąƖity).

I admit that before I was an observant Catholic I indulged in lust, and yes of course this has a great effect on me. But that was a long time ago and I try to be reasonable and not emotional. Should we reject the writings of Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine because they lived immoral lives before their conversion? Or should we respect their viewpoints because they have experience with sin and overcame it and knew all about its effects on the soul firsthand?

My views are not near Hietnan, as described by Matthew, but Jerome from my interactions with him on the forums and reading his blog seemed more reasonable and not a pervert. And I like hearing such opposing viewpoints even if they are trolls, and I bet a lot of them are trolls.

He meant you are referred to as that by others. He obviously agrees NFP is heretical as a self-described rigorist.

My views are not out in the open and I don't like talking about the details. I have some strange views. I will not say that NFP is heretical, but I totally understand that view. Certain things make me uneasy, though.

This is a protestant article, but in it I think are some interesting ideas:

http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/augustine-and-the-doctrine-of-original-sin-background-about-the-ultimate-std/ 

There are varying false premises behind the rigorism --

-- Pleasure is evil (false) ->Puritanism/Manicheism/rigorism

-- ONLY the primary end of marriage (or ONLY the primary and secondary ends of marriage) are licit for relations (pleasure is not one of these).  This is different from the first one because it doesn't say pleasure is evil, just that it's not allowed when it comes to the activities ordered toward procreation

BOTH THESE ARE FALSE

Now, it's certainly easy for us, laboring under Original Sin, to have varying degrees of disorder, where the pleasure takes on more of a role than it should/would in our unfallen state, and one might argue that this disorder constitutes anywhere from a mere imperfection to venial sin, but there is not mortal sin unless the primary/secondary ends are excluded deliberately.  Even if one doesn't intellectually consider them at all during the relations, as long as one has a persistent VIRTUAL intention, there's no grave sin.

Sounds like pseudo Divine mercy of Vatican II.  Anything to maintain their mortal sins.

Yes, that boils it down to exactly what it is all about, Anything to maintain their mortal sins.

Nothing else need be said.