CathInfo.com

Nor should one think that the opinions of Fr. Couture are isolated, and unreflective of the “esprit d’corps” of the neoSSPX:

-There was the story several years ago (in the “Letter of 37 Priests of the French District?”) which references a conference or retreat attended by Bishop Fellay, in which the retreat master opined that in the modern world it was no longer practical to have more than 5-6 children;

-There was the opinion of Fr. LeRoux to the same effect (and of course he is inculcating his priests with this same “prudential” attitude);

-I have also had direct conversations with two priests on the subject, and both opined that stress of the mother satisfied Pius XII’s “health of the mother” criteria.

-The emailed anecdote I posted above, in which young SSPX women practice NFP commonly as a matter of “prudence.”

Personally, I am prepared to accept that a nervous breakdown definitely affects the health of either parent in a major way, but also fear a dispensation will routinely be given (abuse) where all that was needed was a pep talk.

Of greater concern is the rationale Fr. Couture and the SSPX uses (ie.  We are weaker than before; society has changed; etc) which would seem to displace the large family as the norm, and supplant it with the small family as the “prudential” decision (and for the same worldly reasons Protestants and atheists used to use against Catholics, like being better able to love and educate them):

These reasons for allowing NFP are general, not exceptional, and consequently, a justification made on these reasons will become likewise generally applicable and widespread within the SSPX (as in fact it is!).

How foreign to the thinking of Lefebvre and the Church!

Pius XII opened the door to this Catholic birth control with his ill-considered speculation in his speech to the midwives.  As the article to which you linked stated, it would be ONE thing if under some very specific circuмstances, a confessor might allow/tolerate this practice for a specific penitent, and quite another to publicly declare it as licit.  From there it was just a matter of time before it became widespread.

Pius XII caused great scandal by stating that this practice could be justified by "eugenic" considerations.  In so doing, he adopted the very language of the most ardent proponents of Abortion and Birth Control.  Margaret Sanger, the ultimate originator of Planned Parenthood, was one of the pioneer "eugenicists".  Eugenio should have thought better than to use the term eugenics.

I agree that the reference to eugenics is a bit unsettling (particularly as the parent of a profoundly autistic child):

Is Pius XII suggesting that the world (and parents/families) and Heaven are better off without such persons?  That the greater care they require outweighs their right to life?  That if you risk bearing such children, it is better to abstain?

I will tell you this: For all my rough edges and imperfections, my son has made me a much more compassionate and considerate person than I was before he was born (believe it or not), and his very presence and dependence is a constant opportunity to exercise charity.  He is a great gift from God as a means to sanctification for the rest of us.

But Pius XII seems to represent a pre-conciliar shift in moral theology (which would become dominant at and after the Council), which shifted from “sanctity of life” to “quality of life.”

You see this shift particularly present regarding medical end of life issues, NFP, and abortion rhetoric.

Now the SSPX seems also to have become infected with a preoccupation with “quality of life” considerations (not yet in end of life or abortion issues, but definitely in NFP).

It had never occurred to me that Pius XII’s address to midwives gave the yellow light to the “quality of life” moral theology, but I clearly see it now.

This is the kind of thing which should never have been broadcast publicly, as it would certainly be taken as a general principle (and in former times would have been written in Latin only in theology manuals).

But for the reason stated above (ie., eugenic justifications), there is something at fault in the principles here, and not just the imprudence of having given such a public address.