Monday, February 19, 2018

Marriage And Authentic Natural Family Planning


 Marriage is under attack as never before. We see sodomite "marriages," "no fault" divorces, and Bergoglio giving "communion" to adulterers. As if this weren't bad enough, there are those who give good Traditionalists who are married wrong information which then burdens and troubles their consciences. I see more and more posts, websites, and comments that declare Natural Family Planning ("NFP") to be mortally sinful--an intrinsic evil that cannot be condoned. There are some who claim kissing between a validly married husband and wife to be sinful. Cult leader Richard Ibranyi goes as far as to state that a married couple who engage in sexual relations for the purpose of begetting children, sin mortally if they take pleasure in the act. Like the Manichean heretics of old, they repudiate the true meaning and beauty of marriage. I will set forth Church teaching on the nature of marriage and the use of NFP.


Marriage is of Divine Institution and was Raised by Christ to the Dignity of a Sacrament

 This is not disputed among the "modern day Manicheans" although they go terribly awry in most other areas concerning marriage. (Manicheanism [sometimes spelled "Manichaeism"] was an ancient heresy which taught, inter alia, all marriage is wrong since the body--and all matter-- was the work and effect of evil). As to the Divine Institution of Holy Matrimony, and its establishment as a sacrament; from the Council of Trent:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the New law, instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.

Pope Leo XIII:

"God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." (See encyclical Arcanum Divinae para. # 3; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius XI:

And to begin with that same Encyclical [Arcanum Divinae], which is wholly concerned in vindicating the divine institution of matrimony, its sacramental dignity, and its perpetual stability, let it be repeated as an immutable and inviolable fundamental doctrine that matrimony was not instituted or restored by man but by God; not by man were the laws made to strengthen and confirm and elevate it but by God, the Author of nature, and by Christ Our Lord by Whom nature was redeemed, and hence these laws cannot be subject to any human decrees or to any contrary pact even of the spouses themselves. (See encyclical Casti Connubii para #5; Emphasis mine).


The Primary Purpose of Marriage is the Procreation of Children

Pope Pius XI:
"Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth." As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'." (See encyclical Casti Connubi para. #11; Emphasis mine). 

The Canon Law (1917), Canon 1013 section 1 states, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children.  It’s secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence."  

The Secondary Purpose of Marriage is Mutual Love and Support and to allay Concupiscence

Besides the Code of Canon Law cited above, we have this truth beautifully summed up by Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae:

"Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity." (para. #11)

Artificial Contraception is Intrinsically Evil

Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii: 
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (para. #54; Emphasis mine)

Is NFP Artificial Contraception?

NFP is restricting the times of marital relations to the woman's infertile period, so as to avoid pregnancy. The unanimous teaching of the moral theologians pre-Vatican II teach that NFP is NOT the same (or the moral equivalent to) artificial contraception. It was also taught by Pope Pius XII. 

According to theologian Jone:
 "Abstaining from intercourse during this [infertile] period has come to be known as the Rhythm Method of Birth Control [later NFP]. For a proportionate reason and with the mutual consent of husband and wife it is lawful intentionally to practice periodic continence, i.e., restrict intercourse to those times when conception is impossible...[it is subject to three conditions] (1) Both parties must freely agree to the restrictions it involves; (2)The practice must not constitute an occasion of sin, especially the sin of incontinence; (3) There must be a proportionately grave reason for not having children, at least for the time being." ( See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 542).  

According to theologian Prummer:
"To make use of the so-called safe period has been declared lawful..." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1955], pg. 413).

According to theologians McHugh and Callan:
"(b) If birth control refers to a means of family limitation, it is lawful when that means is continence or abstinence from marital relations, not if it is onanism or the use of mechanical or chemical means to prevent conception." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:604; Emphasis in original). 

Pope Pius XII:
"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...

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. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles." (See Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951). 

The Errors of the Neo-Manicheans

Fred and Bobby Dimond, along with Ibranyi, and trusaint.com (among others) have spread various errors. Here is a refutation of the most egregious.

1.  Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) endorsed NFP in Humanae Vitae. It must be wrong.
 Not everything a false pope says is necessarily untrue. For example, Wojtyla (JPII) often condemned abortion, and on this particular point, he was correct. Roncalli had set up a Commission to "study" whther or not artificial contraception could be used. Clearly, it cannot. It reminds me of Bergoglio "studying" ways for adulterers to receive "communion." The majority of heretics on the Commission wanted to allow artificial contraception. The minority held fast to the prohibition. Fr. DePauw told me that Cardinal Ottaviani had convinced Montini that if he went with the majority report, his "papacy" would be looked upon as illegitimate by many. (Too bad that didn't happen!). So, in 1968, Montini ruled in favor of the minority report.

Paragraph #16 is frequently cited by the Neo-Manicheans: "…married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained." They claim this teaching is "novel." What they omit is the fact that Montini's footnote to this passage cites to the Address given by Pope Pius XII! It was the Traditional teaching of the True Church.

2. Pope Pius XII only taught NFP in an address. It's not infallible.
This argument rejects the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) of the Church. Pope Pius XII was simply expressing what had already been taught by the UOM. That's no surprise as all the proponents of these evil teachings are Feenyites (surprise, surprise). See my post of January 22, 2018 for more on the UOM.

3. There is no difference between NFP and artificial contraception. They both prevent conception and stand condemned by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii. 

NFP makes use of what God placed in human nature. Such couples must have serious reasons, and must practice abstinence during fertile periods. The artificially contracepting couple is using means not intended by God for selfish motives and their own convenience. That's a huge difference. Furthermore, there are decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary (the official Church body that decides definitively questions of morality, especially as they pertain to the sacrament of Penance) which teach NFP. In 1853, the Penitentiary answered a query: "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" The answer was: "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation." This was under Pope Pius IX. The question was raised again in 1880, under Pope Leo XIII, and on June 16, 1880, received the answer that not only may confessors do nothing  to "disquiet" or "disturb" married couples who are already practicing periodic continence; it even authorizes the confessor to advise them about it to prevent onanistic practices (e.g., "withdrawal"). 

Then, in a response dated July 20, 1932, the Sacred Penitentiary answered the following query regarding the exclusive use of the infertile period:

 "Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons." The answer: "Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880." This was under Pope Pius XI, author of Casti Connubii! The Neo-Manichaens would have us believe Pope Pius XI didn't understand his own encyclical. 

According to the eminent canonists Vermeersch and Bouscaren, in What is Marriage?, a catechism based on Casti Connubii, points out: "Let us observe that there is a great difference between the practice of birth control and the restricted use of marriage of which we speak. The abuses of birth control can be practised constantly, they give free reign to passion, they do not demand the exercise of any moral force whatever; whereas this limited use of marriage requires, for voluntary abstinence on certain days, a moral force the exercise of which is not without social value." (pg. 44). 

4. Married couples are required to have as many children as physically possible. St. Catherine of Sienna was twenty-fifth of twenty-five children.

Married couples should be generous and have many children. However, God's plan is different for each couple. According to theologian John O'Brien, "Contrary to the impression that prevails in some quarters, there is no obligation on any couple to beget any specific number of children, much less to give birth to the largest number possible." (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 61-62). 

5. The marital act is sinful if pleasure is taken therein.

Trusaint.com states, "Thus, spouses may never kiss each other in a sensual way or in this way provoke themselves into sexual lust or 'pollution,' either as an act that is separated completely from the marital act or as an act that is committed in relationship to the marital act (such as foreplay), even if pollution or ejaculation is excluded." Yes, you read that wacky statement correctly. Furthermore, the site claims the marital act is evil and can only be "excused" by a positive intent to produce a child. Really? Why has the Church always allowed the infertile and older widows/widowers to marry?  They base this insanity partly on a decision condemning lustful kisses on the part of single people!

According to theologian O'Brien, "Contrary to the assertion of misinformed writers, the Church does not look disparagingly upon sex nor upon the enjoyment of the conjugal relationship by married couples even when there is no probability of conception. It is precisely because she holds sex to be the high creation of Almighty God, the source of mankind's deepest happiness, as well as the divinely ordained fountain whence streams race, that she raises Her voice in protest against its degradation by the unnatural method of contraception. Nothing could be farther from the truth than to picture the Church as viewing sex as merely a necessary evil which must be indulged to keep the race from extinction."  (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 49-50).

Pope Pius XII in his Address to Midwives (1951):

"The same Creator, Who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of the work of man and woman, by uniting them in matrimony, for the preservation and propagation of the human race, has also decreed that in this function the parties should experience pleasure and happiness of body and spirit. Husband and wife, therefore, by seeking and enjoying this pleasure do no wrong whatever. They accept what the Creator has destined for them."

Conclusion
 If you are married, please don't have your conscience burdened by Neo-Manicheans who denigrate the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. You are not forbidden to use NFP (speak to a Traditionalist priest first) for good cause. You are allowed to enjoy the marital act, even if incapable of having children. Nor must you have as many children as physically possible. Use the sacrament as God intended; to bring the two of you closer to Him and beget children insofar as you may be able under your circumstances in life. Let us all remember to be charitable in our thoughts towards married couples who may have few---or maybe no--- children. Don't assume they are sinners, you don't know their hearts--God does. 

First, look to what the Church's approved theologians teach in all matters, ignoring what others say to the contrary. Second, have charity towards all. Put them together, and it's a "marriage made in Heaven."  

Addendum: This post is about AUTHENTIC NFP, as stated in the title. It is not about contraception by means of any natural method, thereby endorsing the contraceptive mentality of being child free on purpose and merely substituting natural means for artificial means. This is often found among "conservative" Vatican II sect types (e.g., EWTN, etc.)

165 comments:

  1. PART 1

    Thanks for your article. I am well aware of the articles and materials and positions of trusaint.com, Ibranyi, and Most Holy Family Monastery.

    I have much pondered the issue of NFP and Sexual Pleasure – what exactly to think about it and what exactly is permitted and not permitted – and I am currently struggling with whether I should embrace more modern day opinions of theologians or hold on to more ancient, strict and rigoristic opinions. My fear is to perhaps become a heretic if I believe wrong on the issue of sexual matters, since it deals with natural law. But since the law of conscience holds true, perhaps one can be mistaken even on sexual matters provided one has a clean conscience and is genuinely seeking for the truth and provided one is not being obstinate.

    Just a note: Ibranyi no longer holds his old position on sexual pleasure as an evil and he now looks upon sexual pleasure as something good. He thus completely reversed his old position, as can be read on his website (which I recommend no one to read).

    Trusaint.com does teach that our shameful sexual pleasure in itself is an evil (since it was a result from the Original Sin) but teach it is not a sin to enjoy this pleasure, provided this act is excused by procreation. This teaching they got from St. Augustine, and he precisely teaches this concept himself, i.e., that sexual pleasure or concupiscence is evil, but that married couple nonetheless use this evil aright for procreation. Augustine teaches that any other use of the sex act except for procreation is a sin. To teach that sexual pleasure is an evil in this sense (as Augustine teaches) is not heresy or an error, but I believe this is the truth, since sexual pleasure as it exists after the fall is evil (i.e., it is not as it was first intended and it tempts us to sin), but is an evil used rightly by married couples.

    St. Augustine: “Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty [through original sin] who are born, not of the good by which marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence [lust], which, indeed, marriage uses aright, but at which even marriage has occasion to feel shame.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence Book 1, Chapter 27).

    Now I have some questions I would like to be enlightened about.

    1. The quote used by trusaint.com to condemn lustful kisses also in marriage does not mention that it applies only to unmarried people, as you say. They where quite clear on this point and it seems you read their article yet you failed to answer this objection. To fail to answer people's points/objections is not actually a good way to refute someone or state a position, but rather, will only look weak to those familiar with the opponents argument since people might be of the impression that their point could not be refuted. Personally, I am currently struggling with this issue but after I have read Alphonsus Moral Theology, I am more inclined to believe Alphonsus and the Church that approved his book and theology (Alphonsus teaches that kisses and touches, even if performed for lustful motives, are permitted in marriage).

    What is your answer to the point that the statement condemning lustful kisses in no way mentioned that it applied only to the unmarried. I would very much like to hear your take on this.

    Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters #40, September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666: “It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.” – CONDEMNED STATEMENT BY POPE ALEXANDER VII. (Denz. 1140)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jerome,
      Thank you for the comments, and I will try to help as much as I can. Much of your trepidation comes from not having an adequate understanding of HOW the Church teaches. For this I ask you to read (or perhaps re-read) my post of January 18, 2018 "The Source Of The Problem" about the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM).

      As to you specific questions:

      1. Thank you for pointing out my need (on certain occasions) to be more explicit when I write. What is obvious to me will not always be obvious to all of my readers. Unwittingly, you have given yourself the answer to the condemned error #40 promulgated by Pope Alexander VII.

      The reason the prohibition is talking to single people and not the married, is because it was already known that such things were permitted to married couples. How do I know this to be true?

      St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, died in 1787. The condemnation was written about 30 years BEFORE HIS BIRTH. Remember, that a Doctor of the Church is such because of his EXCEPTIONAL LEARNING AND ORTHODOXY. We must assume that one of the most erudite and holy saints/doctor of the Church DID NOT KNOW of the prohibition against kissing in marriage, which HE TEACHES TO BE PERMISSIBLE TO THE MARRIED. His works were scrutinized for heresy and error before his canonization and again before being declared a Doctor of the Church in 1871 by Pope Pius IX. No one caught his "error"? They allowed St. Alphonsus to be declared a Doctor and a Saint with his writings used in seminaries around the world with such moral error? What kind of "teaching authority" would the Church have if it can't protect the Faithful from such "grievous errors?" Furthermore, the Holy See declared all of St. Alphonsus' opinions on moral theology SAFE TO FOLLOW IN PRACTICE.

      Therefore, the condemned error does not apply to the married but only to the single.

      (continued below your other comments)

      Delete
    2. I understand people taught kisses in marriage was permitted both before and after this condemnation. However, if one wants to argue (and I know some do) one could argue that they were all wrong and taught error and heresy and were heretics and that this pope settled this issue with this condemnation.

      Besides, what are one to think of this statement by eminent theologian Jean Gerson:

      “… Is it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses between spouses who maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do them openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly [and lustfully] that I cannot be more precise, it is an abominable deadly sin. If kisses are made between strangers and publicly, as a sign of peace, by friendship or kinship, without wicked thought, there is no sin. They could be dangerous between clerics, or people of the same sex or lineage, or in a secret place, and in a prolonged way.” (Jean Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes)

      This is something I struggled with previously. Now I am more inclined to believe St. Alphonsus. However, I know people who reject Alphonsus' teaching on sexuality and considers it heretical; and a particular person I know, since he can't accept Saint Alphonsus wrote what he did wrote (since he is canonized), he claims his book was corrupted. He also says that the Holy Office and the Popes which read his Moral Theology, read versions of his book which did not contain "these heresies" on sexual matters (i.e., the issues he considers to be forbidden for married people). I have found information corroborating facts which indicates his books have been corrupted to some extent (at least certain volumes of newer editions), but when I looked into the issue, some things that was considered heretical on sexual matters was published even on volumes released during Alphonsus own life! This would pretty much remove the claim of "corruption" (at least on those things that can be verified). But this person would even argue those books was corrupted released during Alhpnsus life and in no way could I make him change position or rethink his position.

      What is even worse, this person's position also teach that believeíng kissing and touching for lustful motives even in a marriage is heretical and that people who are mistaken on these issues are heretics since it is of natural law--and he also don't allow people to be mistaken on this issue, essentially making all people damed who believe married people are allowed to touch or kiss for lustful motives (not even in the heat of the marriage act, is it permitted and a deadly sin to touch or kiss for any lust whatsoever, they teach). This would essentially make Alphonsus, the Popes and all Church Ecclesiastics and Laymen etc. in the entire world heretics who agreed with Alphonsus or espoused similar views as he.

      This severe conclusion-position is what made be rethink the whole thing. I simply can't believe or accept that the whole Church after Alphonsus would be heretics on this issue and that laymen theologians in the 20th century found out the truth--and what is worse, in the process of this "new found truth" one would be required to condemn respected saints, theologians, popes, priests etc. and almost the entire world for something so natural as kissing or touching, just because they taught this was permitted, or thought wrong on these issues.

      This also made me rethink the natural law, since if this rigoristic view of the natural law would be correct, who then would be saved? Almost no one! If one must understand that sensual kisses-touches is mortally sinful by itself even in marriage even though the Church and everyone else in the Church teaches it is permitted, then there is a problem, and people who would read Alphonsus Moral Theology and agreed with it would be damned. Therefore, the natural law is not so strict and it permits of error. So even if kisses-touches for sensual motives would be wrong and should be avoided, one can be mistaken without being damned.

      Delete
    3. Jerome,

      Do you maintain it is a sin to drink a Soda? Or eat a piece of candy? If the purpose of eating is to provide nourishment for the body to live shouldn’t we then NEVER eat candy or drink soda since that is basically a mild form of poison?

      Kissing is not against natural law. That makes no sense whatsoever. God make man and women to be attracted to each other on purpose to think that God made marriage a sacrament, but then just laced it with sin is utterly ridiculous and doesn’t require a deep theological analysis. It is intuitively obvious.

      To say kissing in marriage should be avoided would be horrible advice that would not be good for any marriage.

      Delete
    4. Jerome,
      I see that you are a good and sincere man looking for the truth. God is working in your life, and I thank Him for leading you away from the ridiculous positions of these pseudo-Traditionalists.

      When you learn HOW the Church teaches, you will arrive at the Truth in all things. I’m not aquatinted with the work of theologian Gaston, but let’s suppose (taken in proper context), he taught kissing for married couples to be sinful. A solitary theologian can be wrong.

      First we must ask: “Is this matter open to discussion among the theologians?”

      If so, we should Side with the majority view, however, the minority view may be safely held.

      We must also be sure that this is a theological resource used in seminaries to teach the priests of the Church. Why? Because while a single Bishop could allow error, the corporate body of the Successors of the Apostles cannot. To say that the Church could promulgate heresy in the seminaries of the world is to deny the Indefectibility of the Church.

      Gaston, to the best of my knowledge and belief, was NOT a seminary text as I have never heard from him. Even if he was that would only make it an opinion which you COULD but are not bound to follow. Remember, the Holy See, declared St Alphonsus is always safe to follow who permitted kisses and touches in marriage.

      Lastly, I would say that the organic development of doctrine and the Adress Of Pope Pius XII, overruled Gaston’s opinion.

      (Continued below your other comments)

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Hi @Anonymous (February 22, 2018 at 3:48 PM)

      PART 1 OF 3

      You ask: "Do you maintain it is a sin to drink a Soda? Or eat a piece of candy? If the purpose of eating is to provide nourishment for the body to live shouldn’t we then NEVER eat candy or drink soda since that is basically a mild form of poison?"

      God and the Church requires us to sustain our life, so yes, we should eat. Perhaps you meant: since soda and candy is not necessary and superfluous, shouldn't we abstain? If one wish one can abstain for Love of God from all superfluities, and you will receive a greater reward in Heaven for this sacrifice. But it is also permissible to eat, and it is no sin. But the more mortified one lives one's life, and the more sacrifices and penances one does for oneself and for others, the more graces one will receive, and the more souls one will help to save, and the more will one grow in the Love of God and become pleasing to God. That is why the monastic and eremetic way of life is of higher value since their life consists of living on bare necessities, doing constant mortifications and penances, and denying their own will in everything. Hence their life is more pleasing to God since they live according to the Spirit, renouncing the Flesh.

      Personally, I do not eat candy or drink soda for the Love of God.

      St. Alphonsus Liguori wrote the following when explaining what gluttony is: “Pope Innocent XI Odescalchi has condemned the proposition which asserts that it is not a sin to eat or to drink from the sole motive of satisfying the palate. However, it is not a fault to feel pleasure in eating: for it is, generally speaking, impossible to eat without experiencing the delight which food naturally produces. But it is a defect to eat, like beasts, through the sole motive of sensual gratification, and without any reasonable object. Hence, the most delicious meats may be eaten without sin, if the motive be good and worthy of a rational creature; and, in taking the coarsest food through attachment to pleasure, there may be a fault.” (The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, The Mortification of the Appetite, "The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus" (1887), vol. 1, p. 241)

      Delete
    6. PART 2 OF 3

      You ask: "Kissing is not against natural law. That makes no sense whatsoever. God make man and women to be attracted to each other on purpose to think that God made marriage a sacrament, but then just laced it with sin is utterly ridiculous and doesn’t require a deep theological analysis. It is intuitively obvious. To say kissing in marriage should be avoided would be horrible advice that would not be good for any marriage."

      Kissing is probably not against natural law or sinful for the married and I have changed position on this subject. Could married ever commit sin in their kisses and touches? Reason says they should be able. But where this line is crossed, I don't know.

      For most married couples denying them sensuality would perhaps not be good for their marriage, since they are addicted and accustomed to sensuality. But this still does not make it wrong to point out that living a more pure and non-sensual life is of greater worth.

      Even though God allows some sensuality in marriage, He is more pleased with a chaste life and a life of purity. That is why St. Paul teaches the married that they should also live as if they are not married. He also says that they should abstain from time to time in order to pray. Hence sensuality is some form of impediment to prayer and union with God.

      I find it quite natural that more should be permitted for the married than the unmarried, and that marriage gives indulgence to more sensuality for those inclined to it. However, chastity and purity even during sexual relations is always above sensuality, and those who live a sensual life will always loose graces even if this life has an indulgence. The chaste and more pure will also receive a higher glory in Heaven, and the Church dogmatically teaches that chastity is above the married state.

      Whereas spouses lust and desires after their spouse and his or her flesh and physical closeness, religious and virgins lust and desire after God's intimacy and closeness. Whereas the married man and woman are divided and desire flesh and fleshly psychical-spiritual love not set directly on God but on themselves, the religious desire God's Spirit and His Love and are entirely set on Him. That is why, as St. Paul teaches, the married woman and man are divided (since they think of pleasing each other), whereas the Virgin and religious can give themselves to God without distraction.

      Delete
    7. PART 3 OF 3

      Moreover, God is not pleased with spouses who only perform the marital act for lust and do not think of God or try to please Him in anything:

      They seek the warmth and sexual lust that will perish and love the flesh that will be eaten by worms... When the couple comes to bed, my Spirit leaves them immediately and the spirit of impurity approaches instead because they only come together for the sake of lust and do not discuss or think about anything else with each other. But my mercy is still with them if they will be converted to me. Because of my great love, I place a living soul created by my power into their seed. Sometimes I let evil parents give birth to good children, but more often, evil children are born of evil parents, since these children imitate the evil and unrighteous deeds of their parents as much as they are able and would imitate it even more if my patience allowed them. Such a married couple will never see my face unless they repent. For there is no sin so heavy or grave that penitence and repentance does not wash it away.” (Church Approved Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, Book 1, Chapter 26).

      Spouses should think of God also during sex and try to please Him, and it is preferable to Love and think of God God during the sex act.

      but I alone was all their good and pleasure and perfect delight.” (St. Bridget’s Revelations, on Adam and Eve before the fall – Book 1, Chapter 26).

      The meaning of the immediate above passage isn’t that a couple couldn’t delight in or feel pleasure in/from God anymore, but rather that before the fall, God was the only delight and pleasure man ever felt and desired. After the fall, God had to compete with human concupiscence and fleshly lust. God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5), and He wants us to love and desire Him above everything else. So to love God during all times, even during intercourse, is an advice to those couples who wish to be perfect, and for those couples who ardently longs and desires to be united with God through love.

      I will end this response with the Word of God teaching married people how to engage in the sex act in a more holy way:

      Tobias 6:16-17: “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”

      Tobias 6:18, 20-22: “[St. Raphael said to Tobias:] But thou when thou shalt take her, go into the chamber, and for three days keep thyself continent from her, and give thyself to nothing else but to prayers with her.… But the second night thou shalt be admitted into the society of the holy Patriarchs. And the third night thou shalt obtain a blessing that sound children may be born of you. And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.”

      Tobias 8:4-5: “Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God today, and tomorrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock. For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that know not God.”

      Delete
    8. Introibo, you wrote: "We must also be sure that this is a theological resource used in seminaries to teach the priests of the Church. Why? Because while a single Bishop could allow error, the corporate body of the Successors of the Apostles cannot. To say that the Church could promulgate heresy in the seminaries of the world is to deny the Indefectibility of the Church."

      Your argument is that if some theological work is being used in seminaries, this means that such a work cannot contain heresy or grave error, according to you. Is this your position?

      But if theological works used in seminaries are approved by mere bishops, why could this not be a possibility?

      Further, you even stated that a pope in the future may correct or condemn the teaching of Fr. Jone that one can lawfully sodomize one's wife as foreplay provided the act is unconsummated. If so, does this not show that you yourself admit that there is a possible grave error here? Although you don't say it yet, you admit it could be and that it should be censored. But if you admit this, you have proven my point.

      You wrote: "Lastly, I would say that the organic development of doctrine and the Adress Of Pope Pius XII, overruled Gaston’s opinion."

      What do you mean with "development of doctrine". That doctrine on sexual ethics gets developed by time and better understood? If so, one could just as easily argue that as time progresses, morality and sound doctrine on morality is diminished.

      When you refer to an address of Pope Pius XII, what exactly are you referring to? I know of no address of Pope Pius XII where he approves (or disapproves) of kisses and touches.

      What I do know about Pope Pius XII is that he seems to condemn foreplay.

      Pope Pius XII makes it clear that a Christian has “a dignity which restrains the excess of sensuality” even in marriage, and non-procreative sexual acts are precisely “excess of sensuality” as they are not necessary for procreation, and thus are excess of sensual desire. “Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge, in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires, and acts, the whole of marital life, and not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty of husband and wife. This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate itself to a doctrine, inculcating the ardent desire to make always more intense the pleasure, in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law were reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in whatever way it is done, were justified by the expression of mutual affection, were sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, and made worthy of praise and reward before God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity of man and of the Christian -- a dignity which restrains the excess of sensuality.” (Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession)

      How is this teaching of the Pope to be interpreted in view of teachings which permit unconsummated oral and anal sex, or foreplay in general? The above teaching can be interpreted that no foreplay at all is permitted and that only the normal and natural marital act is permitted (I know some people who interpret this quote as such).

      You never answered if you think oral sex is permitted in a marriage (both Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus condemns it). What is your opinion on this, and do you know of any theologians who approve of this practice?

      I know many Traditionalist Priests approve of such practices as foreplay for the married. Where do they get justification for such a position when Saints condemns it? Is the argument that this was just their opinion, and any theologians can teach what they want on the subject and that as time progresses, theologians know better? If so, if people can teach what they want disregarding tradition, it is easy to see how error and heresy will be spread, especially in sexual matters.

      Delete
    9. Jerome,
      I respectfully suggest you start educating yourself on HOW the Church teaches us. For example, in your last comment above this one you quote from private revelations to a saint. No Catholic is bound to believe private revelations even when approved by the Church. No one, for example, is required to believe that Our Lady appeared at Fatima. You also quote from the Book of Tobias. Who interprets the Bible Jerome? You or the Church? Interpreting texts from the Bible for yourself is what Protestants do.

      Likewise, the Church interprets the Fathers. Trent wasn’t saying, “The unanimous consent of the Fathers as interpreted by each individual.”
      The corporate body of bishops are not “mere bishops” they are successors of the Apostles working in union with the Vicar of Christ. Hence, seminary texts must be protected from errors or the Church has defected. Please re-read my post The Source Of The Problem Of 1/22/18 regarding the manner in which the Church teaches us.

      The topics of oral and anal foreplay are open to discussion and until the Church makes a decision, any opinion not condemned may be followed. Remember, that Aquinas was WRONG about the Immaculate Conception. Did that make those who followed his opinion heretics? No! In the development of doctrine (not he Modernists idea of it where dogma changes) the Church must decide what is implicitly taught in the Bible and Tradition. There is no Bible passage or Church Father Who expressly states, “Mary was conceived without Original Sin.” As a matter of fact there are Bible passages and sayings of the Fathers that seem to go against it which is why Aquinas taught against it. Who decides? You or the Church??

      Ditto for theologian Jone. As to the Address to Midwives, I quote Pope Pius XII in my post:

      “The same Creator, Who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of the work of man and woman, by uniting them in matrimony, for the preservation and propagation of the human race, has also decreed that in this function the parties should experience pleasure and happiness of body and spirit. Husband and wife, therefore, by seeking and enjoying this pleasure do no wrong whatever. They accept what the Creator has destined for them." You didn’t read what I Rite very well. Notice the pope talks about EXCESS in marriage, but never explicitly defines it. He also allows for pleasure in marriage as I’ve just written yet again, as you did not read my post well.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo


      Delete
    10. PART 1

      Introibo, you wrote: "I respectfully suggest you start educating yourself on HOW the Church teaches us. For example, in your last comment above this one you quote from private revelations to a saint. No Catholic is bound to believe private revelations even when approved by the Church. No one, for example, is required to believe that Our Lady appeared at Fatima. You also quote from the Book of Tobias. Who interprets the Bible Jerome? You or the Church? Interpreting texts from the Bible for yourself is what Protestants do."

      The Fathers interpret the Bible, and they interpret it just as the words spoke. The Church also inteprets the Bible in this way, which is why they condemn the proposition that the marital act performed only for lust is without sin. I find it a little amazing how you must make the comment above as you did. Does the literal reading of Tobias bother you, or do you have a need to interpret it differently to fit with modern day theologians?

      Also, to reject Fatima or Church Approved Revelations is the height of pride. Of a person can't believe that Jesus speaks His will also through his saints, then such a person doesn't seem to have any faith; and further, he seems to be opposed to what Christ taught through them. The bible and Jesus words through the saints are much stricter than what comes from modern day theologians and priests who permits all kinds of acts, such as oral and anal foreplay.

      Delete
    11. PART 2

      You wrote: "The corporate body of bishops are not “mere bishops” they are successors of the Apostles working in union with the Vicar of Christ. Hence, seminary texts must be protected from errors or the Church has defected. Please re-read my post The Source Of The Problem Of 1/22/18 regarding the manner in which the Church teaches us."

      This is your own conclusion, and I don't know if it is correct. By the way, if you even admit Fr. Jone's teaching on unconsummated anal foreplay may be corrected by future popes (as you wrote), then you already admit it was a potential error. I can easily see how errors can be allowed to be spread in all non-infallible capacities -- especially in the end of times.

      You wrote: "The topics of oral and anal foreplay are open to discussion and until the Church makes a decision, any opinion not condemned may be followed."

      If anal or oral foreplay is permitted in marriage, then I am little confused since all older theologians and saints condemns it. So the mere argument that because newer theologians teach it as permissible, and that those teachings/books also is used in seminaries to train priests, that this somehow makes them not become erroneous (as if infallibility is given to theological books or mere bishops approving books used in seminaries!), because otherwise the Church would have defected (as you argued), seems a little far fetched.

      I can easily admit that God could admit of such things to happen (i.e., of errors being spread in the Church not covered by infallibility such in seminaries, and especially in the end of times) but you don't admit this and you refuse to admit it.

      I hope people can be mistaken on issues like this for otherwise, many traditional Catholics would be damned (both priests and laymen) since they perform (or approve of) at least oral sex in their marriages, and many traditionalist priests also approve of this practice; however, I know some people who would declare people who hold such views or perform such acts as damned since they break the natural law.

      As for my self, I am not sure what to think about this topic, but I am more inclined to believe it is wrong and I side with Saint Alphonsus, Thomas Aquinas and the rest of Tradition.

      The problem is also when traditionalist priests teach that such things are permitted for the married, then married people might get tempted to commit it. And if one already performs those acts or approves of them, then it is more likely one will defend them.

      I am just afraid what to think of oral-anal foreplay since I am afraid to fall into heresy against natural law. But if one can be mistaken, perhaps one can be somewhat open about the issue without being a heretic.

      Before I came across your material, I was of the opinion that one was a heretic against the natural law and damned if one did not know or hold the view that such acts was evil and forbidden. Now, I am more open to the idea that people can be material heretics even if those acts are forbidden, and that people who hold that such acts are permitted (or are unsure what to think about it), may be excused, until the Church makes a definitive statement.

      Delete
    12. PART 2

      Introibo, you wrote: "You didn’t read what I Rite very well. Notice the pope talks about EXCESS in marriage, but never explicitly defines it. He also allows for pleasure in marriage as I’ve just written yet again, as you did not read my post well."

      But I suppose even you agree that there is a difference with just enjoying the lawfyl act, and to perform excesses. His quote that I showed seems to condemn foreplay. Sure, one could argue that "excess" it not well defined, and could mean different things, but would oral and anal foreplay fall under excess, you think? If this is not excess, than what in the earth is?

      But there are more text from Pope Pius XII that can be used, that seems to condemn foreplay. In this instance, it condemns the use of sexual faculties outside of the normal marital act as intrinsically evil.

      Here is the text from the Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility of Pope Pius XII:

      “By the force of this law of nature, the human person does not possess the right and power to the full exercise of the sexual faculty, directly intended, except when he performs the conjugal act according to the norms defined and imposed by nature itself. Outside of this natural act, it is not even given within the matrimonial right itself to enjoy this sexual faculty fully. These are the limits to the particular right of which we are speaking, and they circumscribe its use according to nature…..”
      What has been said up to this point concerning the intrinsic evil of any full use of the generative power outside the natural conjugal act applies in the same way when the acts are of married persons or of unmarried persons, whether the full exercise of the genital organs is done by the man or the woman, or by both parties acting together; whether it is done by manual touches or by the interruption of the conjugal act; for this is always an act contrary to nature and intrinsically evil.”

      This teaching absolutely condemns as intrinsically evil and gravely immoral the idea that the wife may climax before or after the natural marital act, by the use of unnatural sexual acts to completion. The holy Pontiff teaches that neither the husband nor the wife may deliberately choose (directly intend) the “full exercise of the sexual faculty” outside of the natural act. No matter by what means this is accomplished (“by manual touches” or anything else), it is “always an act contrary to nature”, meaning an unnatural sexual act, and is “intrinsically evil”.

      Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by a good purpose (such as the purpose of preparing for the natural marital act), nor by a difficult circumstance (such as that the wife cannot reach climax in the natural act).

      The claim that the wife may reach climax outside of the natural marital act, supposedly because her climax is not related to procreation, is contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII and contrary to the natural law. It doesn’t matter “whether the full exercise of the genital organs is done by the man or the woman, or by both parties acting together,” it is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral to deliberately choose a sexual act to completion, other than the natural marital act.

      Pope Pius XII makes no exception for unnatural sexual acts done shortly before or after the natural marital act. And he does not accept the ridiculous idea that all the sexual acts of one session in the marital bedroom are “one act”. Rather, the natural marital act is one sexual act, and anything done before or after is a separate act.

      Can we infer from his prohibition of sexual acts to completion, outside the natural marital act, that incomplete unnatural sexual acts are permitted? No, we cannot.

      --

      Introibo, what is your take on this information and commentary. Does this condemn foreplay in general, and the climax of the wife outside the normal act? I know many traditionalists say this can be done. But Pope Pius XII seems to condemn it. Alphonsus is also against this.

      Delete
    13. Jerome,
      Your problem is you do NOT ACCEPT HOW THE CHURCH TEACHES US. The older theologians and Fathers suggest that ALL were in sin. This would include Mary. St Thomas Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception, and it was John Duns Scotus, a theologian who was not a saint, who argued for it. In the end, Scotus prevailed. What can’t the same be true for Jone? Likewise, was Aquinas, and those who followed his opinion at the time, heretics? No! It is safe to follow opinions not condemned by the Church.

      Theology is a science. It requires a trained person (theologian) to engage in it. It is not looking over quotes from saints, popes, Fathers, and apparitions to “interpret them,” for this is basically Protestantism. YOU decide what the Fathers meant, not the Church. Would you allow a non-doctor to operate on you? Why not? Would you allow a non-lawyer to give you legal advice in a very important matter? Why not? Then don’t play “theologian.”

      People who do wind up looking foolish (at best) or becoming heretics like Ibranyi (at worst).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. Was this all you had to say? I gave a lot of questions and statement, especially on the Pope Pius XII quote.

      You say I reject how the Church teaches. I don't want to reject how the Church teaches. However, the difference is that I don't yet fully subscribe to your theories that books used in seminaries etc. cannot contain error.

      As we can see in the information presented by me, the issue of sexual ethics is probably not as open as Fr. Jone or perhaps most traditionalists priests believe today. What are one to think of the Pope Pius XII quote, for example, that seems to condemn things most traditionalists perhaps thought was lawful?

      Furthermore, whereas you almost exclusive build your faith on theologians and direct Church teachings (i.e., things that can be shown the Church teaches) I submit my submission to the Church's teaching a little farther, by also considering Approved Private Revelations, the Fathers of the Church and the Saints, and also the Bible.

      Whereas you also believe in the bible, you seem to give more wight to theologians and therefore easily seem to dismiss passages such as from Tobit, if according to you, it does not have to be interpreted like that. But if the Church also condemns sex only for lust, how else are one to interpret it?

      I understand having a wife must be tempting and that one is inclined to have sex for lust, and even to perform non-procreative unnatural sexual acts (oral and anal foreplay), but if we are to follow the Church's teaching, such as the saints and fathers and older theologians, all of this seems to be condemned.

      So whereas I am more inclined to believe Tradition and older theologians backed up with all the Fathers and even the popes, you, on the other hand, seem to dismiss all of this for the newer theologians, even going so far as to claim that perhaps Fr. Jone got it right after all.

      If he was right, than all of tradition and all the saints who taught on the topic was wrong.

      And you give to example of Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception as some proof that people can be wrong. True, theologians can be wrong but the denial of the Immaculate Conception was not taught by all, neither is it a moral topic or deals with sex.

      And the comparison fails, because you will not find any older theologians teaching that oral or anal foreplay is permissible, and furthermore, all the saints condemns it, in addition to that popes such as Pope Pius XII condemns "excesses" in the marital act and masturbatory foreplay, as I have already demonstrated. Is this the Pope's teaching based on his quotes? Do you agree?

      If this is correct, then much more is sinful and forbidden in the marital act that most traditional catholics want to admit, and many are committing grave sexual sins in their marriages. And if they cannot be excused for this due to ignorance or because their priest told them it was "ok", then they would be lost if they died in such a state.

      That is why this topic of morality and sexuality scares me a little -- because of what one must think and believe about it -- for if ignorance is not excusable and this is of strict natural law, then one would be lost for either believing such things could be performed, or by performing those acts. If the natural law is not so strict, even on those matters, then one can be mistaken.

      Delete
    15. Jerome,
      What I have written in my post "The Source Of The Problem" is not a theory. It explains the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) which teaches us as defined by Vatican I in 1870. You reject it. You reject the role of the theologians. So do Modernists, Humanists, Jansenists, and Protestants. Rather unsavory company in which to be. You join the ranks of Feeneyites, Vacancy Pushers, etc. --the modern result of denying the UOM.

      The Fathers unanimously taught that ALL except Christ were born in sin. They made no exception for Mary. Did the decree of Pope Pius IX "prove the Fathers wrong?"

      As I stated above, you are not a theologian. It doesn't matter what Introibo thinks of this document, or what Jerome thinks of it--WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT THE APPROVED THEOLOGIANS TEACH. If it's not decided you may safely choose any opinion not condemned.

      Did St. Alphonsus not know, or reject, what you THINK is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers? You can no more find out what is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers by reading a book than you can become a doctor by reading a medical text.

      Jerome, accept the UOM, and your night terrors will end.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. PART 2

    2. One issue that scares me is that since sexual pleasure deals with natural law, that one can be condemning for not thinking rightly on the subject and for being mistaken. After reading Alphonsus Moral Theology, I have come more to the conclusion that this fear is unfounded, since Alphonsus seems to teach everything is to be judged according to conscience.

    So my question is: If a person did not know masturbation was a mortal sin before being taught it was, could this person be excused from committing a mortal sin for not knowing this, or for committing this sin? and he does not have to “know” from natural instinct that this deed is a mortal sin and if he did not know, he was a heretic and mortal sinner against nature?

    I am asking, because I am struggling with this issue. Before I held the opinion that a person must know masturbation (and similar sexual deeds and sins) is a mortal sin and if he did not know it is, even if he was untaught or mistaken (since this was an issue of natural law, and all people know the natural law in their heart) he was a heretic against the natural law (though a seared conscience) and a mortal sinner.

    Hence this rigoristic position on natural law “requires” people to have absolute knowledge of many issues and requires people to think rightly on them or be condemned, such as that one must “know” from natural instinct that masturbation, dressing immodest etc. is a deadly sin and if people did not know this by nature and by itself, they did not know this because they had a seared conscience and hence, are mortal sinners/heretics.

    After reading Alphonsus, I have started to lean to the position that this rigoristic view is not entirely correct, and that according to conscience, one can be mistaken on many things, even on things dealing with natural law.

    Is this position correct? or do one have to fear for not understanding everything with natural law?

    3. Trusaint.com uses a very strong argument in favor of the rigoristic approach on sexual matters – and that is the authority of the Church Fathers. They quote dozens and dozens of Fathers of the Church and they all teach that sex MUST be had with the intention of procreating children, and that only the procreative sexual act is permitted and hence, from this they conclude that all other sexual acts besides from the normal procreative act is condemned (i.e., foreplay is condemned, NFP is condemned, lustful kisses and touches is condemned etc.).

    Since the Church officially and dogmatically, both in Council of Trent and Vatican I, teach that the unanimous consent of the Fathers must be held and believed and not be deviated from (and all Fathers unanimously teach that sex MUST be had for procreation or be excused for procreation and that only the normal sexual act is permitted), how are this to be reconciled with modern day theologians that teach NFP and foreplay and all kinds of sensuality is permitted in marriage? This is an objection I am struggling with.

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 4, AD 1546, ex cathedra: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners [that is, those who oppose or contradict this] shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

    Note: Sexual matters is of morals, but also faith, and often the Fathers based their conclusion on sexual ethics from biblical commentary or natural reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2. According to theologian Prummer, "(b) In respect to the remote conclusions [of Natural Law] ignorance is possible not only in uneducated persons but also in the learned, so that it is possible to be ignorant that Natural Law forbids the dissolution of all true marriages. (c)In respect of the secondary precepts [of the Natural Law] ignorance is possible for a time...It is also evident from experience that many youths may be ignorant for a time of the evil nature of pollution [masturbation].Such ignorance, can not persist forever because the secondary precepts of the Natural Law (and particularly the precepts of the Decalogue)are so easily known that in the act of transgression man's reason soon begins to rebel or at least to doubt. This again is evident from experience." (See "Handbook of Moral Theology" pgs. 30-31).

      Therefore, one may not fear not understanding everything of the Natural Law, and God will judge guilt--not the Dimond brothers or trusaint.com

      3. The authority of the Church Fathers is misrepresented. According to theologian Schleck, "The early Fathers of the Church, in treating of this end of matrimony [secondary end] spoke of it in a somewhat negative way perhaps because of their entire background." He goes on to cite St. Augustine's former Manichean ties, his Platonic philosophy, and the sordid state of marriage around him at the time as reasons why he wrote so harshly at times. (See "The Sacrament of Matrimony," pgs.45-47)

      According to theologian Van Noort, writing in regard to the Fathers, "...if some of them spoke in such fashion that that in the circumstances they can be said to have spoken in the name of the Church, then they must by all means be followed as far as the substance of their teaching on the point concerned. But as far as their treatment of accessory questions or their more detailed explanations are concerned, the words of Pope Celestine I may serve as a guide, 'The deeper and more difficult parts of secondary questions which they who combated heretics treated in great detail we do not dare brush aside disdainfully, but neither do we consider it necessary to assent to them.'" (See "Dogmatic Theology" 3: 174-175).

      Consider also, Jerome, the teaching of Aquinas and Liguori. Did they not know the proper interpretations of the Fathers? Were they heretics? was Pope Pius XII? Please don't wind up in the Ibranyi cult following Pope Honorius II as the last pope!!

      (continued below)

      Delete
    2. PART 1

      Thanks for the reply. So the theologians of the Church agree with me then that one can be mistaken even of natural law, such as masturbation and things of this nature. Even before I read Alphonsus I suspected this should be true. In that case, as you pointed out, one don't have to loose sleep over not understanding everything of natural law or be so rigiristic about it, and the teaching which claims: "If you don't understand this or that from natural law by itself, or if you are mistaken on the natural law etc. or think wrong about, you are automatically damned."

      Concerning the Fathers. You reply indicates that one can disagree with them even if they are unanimous. Fine, but what then is the point with Council of Trent's or First Vatican Council's decree on the absolute requirement to agree with the Fathers when they teach unanimously and that contraveners, should be punished? Do you not see when there is such a contradiction in the teaching between the fallible vs the infallible (or not so authoritative vs highest authority) that one can be inclined to believe all theologians and even popes etc. who teach something different than dogmas or things of greater worth, are simply wrong and must not be followed? Ask yourself, what would you say if theologians taught something contrary to a well established decree or dogma. Would you not say that such views must not be followed? I assume you would. Why then can the Fathers unanimity be disregarded on sexual morality just because some find it too severe? or just because the Church and theologians teach things from later ages that seems contradict them? If the Fathers are to be followed, then one must always desire children during the act, and only the natural act of marriage and nothing else seem to be permitted.

      And you and many often object with the statement that the Church admits of infertile and old people to marry (as if this would contradict the Fathers or refute the statement that one should have sex only for the sake of children). It is true that the Church permits old people and infertile to marry and have sexual relations (there is also secondary ends to marriage), but that still does not prove one must not perform the act for the motive of children in order to perform the act without sin, since infertile and old people can perform the act for a desire for children. It is this desire that the Fathers of the Church teach must be had in marital relations. It is not a requirement to be fertile or young to have sex or marry, since even old people and the infertile can conceive, provided God grants them this grace. And the Church also condemns having sex only for lust, and almost all old theologians (in accord with the Fathers) teach that one must excuse the act from sin with the desire of procreating for children.

      Some teachings to the point:

      1. The Church teaches that “...the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #54) and that “...the act of marriage exercised for pleasure only” is condemned as a sin for both the married and unmarried people alike (Pope Innocent XI, Denz. 1159).

      2. The Church have always taught in older times that “the generative [sexual] act is a sin unless it is excused.” (St. Bonaventure, Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1) And “Coitus is reprehensible and evil, unless it be excused” (Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris, Sententiarum, 3, d. 37, c. 4) and that is also why all who commit the marital act without excusing it, will always commit sin. “Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused...” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 49, Art. 5)

      Delete
    3. PART 2

      You ask: "Consider also, Jerome, the teaching of Aquinas and Liguori. Did they not know the proper interpretations of the Fathers? Were they heretics? was Pope Pius XII? Please don't wind up in the Ibranyi cult following Pope Honorius II as the last pope!!"

      This is a little contradiction from you, since neither Aquinas or Alphonsus admits of anal sex as permitted (and oral sex) but teach it to be mortally sinful and unnatural, but you defend theologians who teach that this act is permitted provided it remains unconsummated (what is your position on oral sex, by the way?), and you won't even admit that this teaching is wrong or erroneous, for according to your position, since this theologian who taught this was approved and also used in seminaries, this, according to you, would make him essentially infallible or not capable of error, since otherwise, the Church would approve of books or use them in seminaries which teach grave error. But Pope Pius X already made an encyclical statement of the fact that books get approved which tech grave error. Your response was that there is a difference is a theological work is only used in seminaries to train priests. My question to you is, why does this make any difference? An error is still an error even if taught in seminaries, and since we live in the end of times, it is only reasonable to believe such things could occur. But you won't admit this.

      Why can not the Church in fallible capacity (one might even argue that personal approval of books is not even from the Church, but rather from mere bishops etc.), approve of books or use them in seminaries that teach grave error, and especially in the end of times? If all older theologians condemn acts such as these, how come theologians at the end of items have more right? You made a statement in your post on the subject that as times progress, theologians should know more. That might be true, but it is also true that as time progress, morality and faith diminishes.

      Aquinas don't explicitly teach that kisses and touches for the married is permitted, but seems to teach it might not be permitted of it becomes lascivious or impure (whatever that would mean). That is why I said older theologians usually are more strict on sexual matters, whereas newer theologians and especially Alphonsus, are more revolutionary.

      St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 151, Art. 4: “Consequently purity regards venereal matters properly, and especially the signs thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and touches. And since the latter are more wont to be observed, purity regards rather these external signs [i.e., looks, kisses, and touches], while chastity regards rather sexual union.”

      Saint Alphonsus and later theologians are more clear that acts such as these are permitted. And that is why I am inclined to change position on many things according as Alphonsus teaches, even though I understand there seems to be some form of contradictory teachings between new and old theologians on sexual morality and first and secondary principles of the marital act.

      As far as I know, neither Aquinas not Alphonsus admits of NFP or any form of contraception. Granted, one may argue that this teaching was not known to them. But this only shows that this teaching is new and modern, and that it seems to depart from traditional teaching on the first end of marital relations.

      I don't think I will wind up in the Ibranyi cult or similar cults. In fact, positions that would lead me more into positions and views like this is what made me distance my self from such positions. I simply can't accept, for example, that the whole Church erred from Alphonsus Moral Theology and that the Church and Popes formally approved and read heresies against natural law -- that would be automatically damning for anyone who agreed with it -- and yet did not condemn it but rather, seemed to agree with it. If they agree with it, this shows the Church accepts these positions.

      Delete
    4. Jerome,
      Remember St Augustine wrote,
      “While continence is of greater merit, IT IS NO SIN TO RENDER THE CONJUGAL DEBT, but to exact it beyond need for generation is a VENIAL SIN." (See "De Bono Conjugali")

      All sin should be avoided but it was not unanimous among the Fathers that rendering the marriage debt is something that will damn you. Remember too, the Church decides the meaning of the Fathers, not these self-appointed pseudo-theologians.

      Let me also make an important point: the elderly and infertile (e.g. a woman with no uterus) are not required to pray for a miracle before the marital act (which is what it would take). Those who practice NFP for a serious reason and for a time can still desire children but not at this particular time for an important reason. They are willing to accept children should the wife get pregnant nevertheless.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Introibo, you wrote: "Remember St Augustine wrote, “While continence is of greater merit, IT IS NO SIN TO RENDER THE CONJUGAL DEBT, but to exact it beyond need for generation is a VENIAL SIN." ("De Bono Conjugali") All sin should be avoided but it was not unanimous among the Fathers that rendering the marriage debt is something that will damn you. Remember too, the Church decides the meaning of the Fathers, not these self-appointed pseudo-theologians."

      I agree. That is why I mentioned in an earlier post that all older theologians I know of (such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine) teach only two ends excuse the marital act from being a sin -- which is 1) performing it with an intention of having children, or 2) for paying the debt when being asked (demanding the debt without intending children does not excuse).

      That is their teaching, but it seems newer theologians teach differently on this topic (is this correct?). What is your view on the requirements of these two ends for the marital act to be lawful and without sin?

      Since these ends are required it is easy to see why NFP should be condemned. Tradition is clear, whereas NFP contradicts tradition in the primary purpose of the marriage act. If NFP nonetheless is the Church's teaching, then apparently all the fathers, saints and earlier theologians got it wrong, and the theologians in the 19th century and onwards (towards the Great Apostasy), got it right when they started to approve of rhythm or NFP and the deliberate avoiding of the primary purpose of children that has always been required.

      With facts like this, is it not easy to see how people such as my self are inclined to wonder/believe if perhaps the modern concept of NFP is a condemned, modernistic practice and that all theologians, popes, Holy Office replies etc. which teach differently, got it wrong or taught error -- and that God allowed this to occur (even though you say it is impossible) since we live in the Great Apostasy.

      Or is there a way to reconcile the older unanimous teaching of the requirement of a procreative intent in order to excuse the marital act from sin with the teaching of NFP, which completely excludes this end?

      Granted, as time progresses, new theological practices may me developed and hence may prove NFP to be true. But if they are developed, they must also be true and have some basis from Tradition. So the question is: What traditional teaching support NFP or rhythm or having sex with a contraceptive mentality?

      Another thing. You also say that in order to practice NFP lawfully, the contraceptive mentality must be excluded. You wrote: "In my opinion, the reasonable examples you gave would suffice to use NFP for a time if there was no contraceptive mentality present and done in consultation with a Traditionalist priest." But if the couple practice NFP, do they not already have a contraceptive mentality? Of course they do. Their intent is to avoid having children! So how exactly do you reconcile your statement with NFP. Please clarify.

      You wrote: "Let me also make an important point: the elderly and infertile (e.g. a woman with no uterus) are not required to pray for a miracle before the marital act... Those who practice NFP for a serious reason and for a time can still desire children but not at this particular time for an important reason. They are willing to accept children should the wife get pregnant nevertheless."

      It is true that infertile people do not have to pray for a miracle of conception. The point, rather, is that they must not be opposed to having children and they must have a desire for conceiving should God grant them this miracle. (This is the teaching of all the fathers and saints I know of on the subject.) But NFP is opposed to both of these concepts for the present moment, i.e., the desire of having children or being open to children with their will/intent at the present marital act (future acts or desires open to children are a different act/intent from the present, is it not?).

      Delete
    6. Jerome,
      NFP was unheard of when the Fathers and older theologians wrote. Medical technology was virtually non-existent compared to the 20th century. The marriage must be open to procreation. You admit infertile couples can have that intent—-even if impossible without a miracle. The couple has an intent to have children, but for serious reason, makes use of the infertile period for just cause. Conception could still occur as NFP is not 100% effective. The intent must be inherent in the marriage not in each specific act. If it were, then couples would have a duty to find out the infertile periods and AVOID USING THEM which even you admit is ridiculous.

      I hope I’ve helped Jerome!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. PART 3

    4. Since the Fathers unanimously teach that sex MUST be had with the intention to procreate, how is this to be reconciled with Holy Office replies, Pope Pius XII, and modern day theologians' teaching that married couples one can avoid procreation by performing natural contraception?

    5. It is argued that the Sacred Penitential/Holy Office responses teaching NFP/Rhythm could not be certified as authentic and hence may be fake responses. What is one to think about this argument? If correct, these replies teaching NFP does not actually prove anything.

    Also, another thing I have always wondered about. Does Popes always read and personally approve of every single Holy Office response? My private opinion is that he does not (is that correct?). If so, the reply from the Holy Office during the reign of Pope Pius XI on NFP in no way actually proves he agreed with this statement. (In fact, the popes encyclical rather seems to completely condemn all forms of contraception, whether artificial or natural.)

    6. How do we know Pope Pius XI did not mean his encyclical to condemn Natural Family Planning? His words certainly seems to condone the view that all acts contrary to a contraceptive mentality is condemned. The only objections usually brought forward is that the Church seems to have taught NFP before and after his dogmatic encyclical. But if Pope Pius XI infallibly declared against NFP and all contraception, all speculations after this point would be meaningless and heretical.

    My question is, is it possible Pope Pius XI really did condemn NFP and all forms of contraception, and that he based his view on the authority of the Fathers? Council of Trent defined that not even the Pope himself may teach contrary to their unanimous consent, hence, if the Pope did intend to allow for NFP (as did Pope Pius XII), this seems to contradict the unanimous consent of the Fathers and therefore not be permitted.

    But if the Fathers can't be contradicted and they actually hold this more rigoristic view, this would mean popes and theologians and possibly authentic Holy Office replies teach things contrary to Faith, which seems absurd.

    One personal view I have how to solve the issue is that perhaps not all fathers are unanimous and it is hard to know what every single of the hundreds of Fathers wrote on the subject (if they are not completely unanimous, I am unaware of this fact since I have not read a single on teach one can have sex without also intending to procreate children!).

    There might be more points I would like to discuss, but for now, this is enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4. Answered above. The Neo-manicheans are not properly interpreting them. Remember too, that the Church always allowed those too old to procreate to marry and the marriage debt was not denied them. Wouldn't this be sex within marriage that cannot procreate? The same for young sterile couples. Furthermore, you may have the intention to procreate, yet not conceive. You are only using that time period which God built into human nature. Is that not made by God? Does God FORBID sex during infertile periods? That would be the logical conclusion if one can't make use of them, yet never has the Church demanded that you only have sex during fertile periods.

      5. "Fake decisions" I put into the same category as the moon landing was fake and Elvis is alive. The Dimonds had a video up the other day to "prove" the Florida school shooting was fake!!

      Secondly, Pope Pius IX teaches that the decisions of Roman Congregations and authoritative bodies must receive assent. It is irrelevant if the Pope doesn't see each document; its vested with his authority. Yes, decisions of the Holy Office, Sacred Penitentiary, and Pontifical biblical commission are always approved by the pope in an audience prior to publication/promulgation. So, yes, Pope Pius XI approved the decision of 1932.

      6. Because of the decision of the Penitentiary and the fact that a Catechism was approved and distributed to the seminaries and laity by two eminent canonists (Vermeersch and Bouscaren) and not one bishop, theologian, or priest-professor in any seminary considered it in error. The Vatican approved it. To say Pope Pius XI didn't know all this is just wacky. The encyclical was not however, a dogmatic definition. It is of the Integral Catholic Faith, and one could make the argument that it's infallible by virtue of the UOM, but not promulgated de fide by Pope Pius XI.

      I hope this helps my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. You believe in the moon landing? What part do you believe really occurred? Wow Introibo, you are all in. I will pray for you that you will snap out of your trance. As for the school shootings, I am hard pressed to find even one that is likely real. They are staged events. Please tell me you don't think 19 Arab hijackers collapsed WTC #7 into its own footprint in 7 seconds.

      Delete
    3. Of course I don’t believe the Illuminati story about Arab hijackers. It was Bigfoot using explosives he received from aliens on a UFO that was behind 9/11. Doesn’t everyone know that?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. PART 1

      Introibo, you wrote: "Does God FORBID sex during infertile periods? That would be the logical conclusion if one can't make use of them, yet never has the Church demanded that you only have sex during fertile periods."

      No, God does not forbid sex during the infertile periods. But the Church and the Fathers and Saints are quite clear that procreation is the first motive of the sex act; and in addition, all Fathers of the Church and all Saints I am aware of and most theologians (especially older theologians) teach that the marital act must be excused with the motive of procreation.

      So to the question: "Does God forbid sex during infertile periods?" Certainly not. But if we are to follow the Fathers and Saints and older theologians of the Church, what God seems to oppose is to procreate without an intention to conceive children. One other thing that excuses the marital act from sin according to most theologians (except for the end of performing it with an intention of having children), is to pay the marital debt when being asked. So either of these two are needed for performing the sexual act without sin, and I no where have read that one can exclude the intent of having children or that the marriage act can be excused without this motive. But then comes the teaching of rhythm and NFP, and Pope Pius XII who taught it was permitted, in addition to two Holy Office replies teaching one can exclude the intent of having children.

      So the question must be asked, how are one to reconcile these two apparent contradictory positions?

      These obvious contradictory positions is what makes people like me wonder if perhaps all later theologians have got it wrong, and that Pope Pius XII and Holy Office replies taught heresy (although, I am not accusing the Pope of being a heretic) and that Pope Pius XI's encyclical Casti Connubii condemns their position of the primary end of marriage that must be subordinated to the first and not completely excluded, as proponents of natural contraception argues.

      Now I am not saying (as before) that NFP is definitively wrong or that the Church does not teach this practice, rather I am more open about the question now -- and I am looking for answers. If NFP is the Church's teaching, then I must accept it. If it is not Her teaching and is an error that was permitted by God to be spread, then it must be resisted.

      Delete
    5. PART 3

      You wrote: "Secondly, Pope Pius IX teaches that the decisions of Roman Congregations and authoritative bodies must receive assent. It is irrelevant if the Pope doesn't see each document; its vested with his authority. Yes, decisions of the Holy Office, Sacred Penitentiary, and Pontifical biblical commission are always approved by the pope in an audience prior to publication/promulgation. So, yes, Pope Pius XI approved the decision of 1932 [approving rhythm]."

      I understand Pope Pius IX teaches the decisions of Roman Congregations and authoritative bodies must receive assent. That is why I brought up the objection of the Holy Office responses not being certified as authentic. The Holy Office has publications in which authentic replies are published (Acta Sanctae Sedis (ASS) from 1904 to 1908 and in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) from 1909 onward). The Holy Office responses in question teaching NFP was not found on those publications. How then can they be claimed to be authentic? Therefore, the argument goes, they are not certified as authentic and they might never have been released by the Office, nor may the Pope ever have known about them at all.

      So to the question you asked earlier: did not Pope Pius XI know about the decision during his reign allowing NRP? As we can see, perhaps he did not, since it is not certified as an authentic response. Your argument was that the Pope when writing Casti Connubii must have held the same position of the Holy Office reply. But when reading Casti Connubii, one can see that such an understanding seems to be excluded (however, others like yourself read Casti Connubii and see no such thing!). So perhaps Casti Connubii rather proves he did not know of this response, since his encyclical seems to condemn all forms of contraception, whether natural or artificial? Why in your view does Casti Connubii not condemn NFP?

      Besides, you even alluded to that a Pope doesn't read or see each document. If this is true, how can it ever be claimed a Pope ever knew about any decision of the Office? I am a little confused: How can the pope approve of things through the office without him reading what is being confirmed? If this is how it works, errors can be spread in the Pope's name! even though the Pope actually never read the thing or approved of it personally. If Holy Office can spread things authoritatively in their own name without the Pope's personal knowledge, then it is easy to see how errors can be spread.

      Delete
    6. PART 3 (or 4)

      You wrote: "Because of the decision of the Penitentiary and the fact that a Catechism was approved and distributed to the seminaries and laity by two eminent canonists (Vermeersch and Bouscaren) and not one bishop, theologian, or priest-professor in any seminary considered it in error. The Vatican approved it. To say Pope Pius XI didn't know all this is just wacky. The encyclical was not however, a dogmatic definition. It is of the Integral Catholic Faith, and one could make the argument that it's infallible by virtue of the UOM, but not promulgated de fide by Pope Pius XI."

      When you say "Catechism", what do you mean? What Catechism teaches NFP before Vatican II? Perhaps you meant some theological work? I know theological works have taught rhythm or NFP and been used in seminaries, but again, if Casti Connubii was the final decision, all work before and after this dogmatic announcement would be worthless, since the issue would be definitively settled.

      I think I also asked you before: Who approve of books being used in seminaries? If it is not the Pope personally who approves of them (and read the books and know their content), one can always argue that the Pope have been ignorant and that therefore theological errors have been spread.

      I know these arguments sound far fetched (and similar arguments made me distance my self from many earlier positions) but to exclude entirely the possibility of errors being spread without the Pope knowing, or being able to check it, seems unrealistic also. Therefore, there must be some middle ground.

      You argue that books being approved by bishops (and not the pope necessarily) and used in seminaries somehow prove they cannot contain error (or at least grave errors). This is the main argument of yours. I am not entirely sure that your position is correct, because Pope Piux X taught in an Encyclical that many books are being spread with imprimaturs (approved) that teaches grave error (cf. St. Pope Pius X, Pacendi Dominici Gregis, 1907, #51). So books can be approved teaching grave error, but again, you somehow make a distinction when they also are being taught in seminaries, as if that makes the book become infallible safe.

      I would like to ask you this question: Is the teaching that one can sodomize one's wife -- provided the act is not consummated -- infallible safe, according to you? Is this teaching not an error, or a grave error to you; and is your opinion, since Fr. Jone's book was used in seminaries, that this teaching is safe?

      Delete
    7. Jerome,
      The conspiracy theories abound. Let me ask you, How do we know if any papal decree was really seen by the pope? Maybe the decree “Unam Sanctam” wasn’t really signed by Pope Boniface VIII. We should believe the historical record UNLESS there is ample evidence to the contrary.
      The fact is, as anyone familiar with standard Vatican procedures knows, that ever since the AAS was established by Pope St. Pius X in 1909, there have always been a great many official statements and decisions of the Popes and Vatican Congregations, including doctrinal documents from the Holy Office and Sacred Penitentiary (in moral questions especially relevant to confessors in the Sacrament of Penance), that never get to be published in the aforesaid journal. Often they are first sent privately by Rome to bishops, and perhaps only years afterwards get published in some Catholic journal or other. The pseudo-theologians who make such statements don’t understand Canon 9 Of The Code.

      As to theologian Jone, let me begin by explaining that exactly what type of foreplay is permitted has never been explicitly established by the Church. Jone renders an opinion that has many qualifications. Some theologians disagree. Personally, I think that if the Great Apostasy had not happened, Jone would have reversed his opinion due to health risks unknown when he published in 1961.

      Smoking has never been declared a sin, but knowing what we do now, I believe that the approved theologians pre-V2 would have declared it at least venial sin because of the danger to your health.

      You are free to ignore Jone’s opinion, but it is safe to follow if all the attending qualifications are met. I find it repugnant, but I have no Magisterial authority. It reminds me of those who claim Masons must be presumed not to have the intention to do what the Church does if they are clerics performing the Sacraments. The Church teaches otherwise—we must presume them valid unless there is proof of a positive contrary intention. However, “I don’t have a good feeling about this” takes precedence over Church teaching for some. If the Church teaches I must presume the proper intention I will regardless of my feelings. The same holds true for the teaching of Jone being permissible—-not mandatory and if we had a pope, perhaps declared wrong today.

      I hope I’ve helped you my friend!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Great article Introibo! I have a Novus Ordo friend that told me he hopes Frankie will allow the using of contraception methods (condom, specifically) 'cause the planet is in it's population limit... That's the sad state of the NO people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very sad indeed. Soon they will condone abortion (murder). God help us.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. As a reincarnation-believer person told me once, at first he was not against abortion because the spirit of the person would reincarnate anyway...

      Delete
    3. That’s the danger of pagan (or any false) beliefs. They translate into wrong actions as well.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. In a Facebook discussion on the lawfulness of the kiss, I gave the opinion that there would be no problem of a married couple kissing with a certain amount of voluptuousness. Then there was a young man who said that I was wrong and that there should be no kisses among the married. I went to see his profile and soon saw that he was a follower of Fred & Bob. Here in Brazil there are many followers of these heretics. And largely because of them that we, serious sedevacantistas, are practically unseen around us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred and Bobby have done so much harm to souls the world over. They will have much for which to account before God.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Junior Ribeiro, I'm from Brazil too. Another plague are the allegedly traditionalists with ties with Aleksander Duguin views and his damned 4th Political Theory...

      Delete
    3. Expensive, anonymous. I am of the opinion that if a Catholic only talks about politics all the time, this is what he has in his heart, and not charity, the true active way, according to St. Teresa. It is also doubtful that she has the true faith, since Catholicism is taken only as a banner within its political ideology, whether good, or Catholic organic monarchy, be it bad, like liberalism, socialism, Nazism and Eurasianism, as you have mentioned. They say that to pray, to do penance is for those of contemplative life, or for women, and choose a false active life that only leads to useless discussions, anger, pride, and so on. But I understand that Saint Alphonsus spoke to everyone when he said "Who prays is saved, who does not pray is lost", then I am not of that type of person. I even support anyone who wants military to have a really Catholic organic monarchy, but I do not lose the curtissimous time I have in life where I must work for my salvation with such things.

      Note: Peter Kreeft, a novus ordo writer, wrote the greatest current truth about the real active life: that only the saints - and those who seek holiness - really struggle against the New World Order. I'm of the same opinion. He who evangelizes by his acts of charity takes souls to Heaven. And the NOM aims to bring the greatest number of souls to hell, not to dwell 24 hours a day discussing whether Mises is better than Marx, if the Great Monarch goes I came from the House of Bourbon, etc.

      Delete
  6. My personal experiences in the Novus Ordo and then the traditionalist movement is that the people most militant about sexuality as well as EENS are often the ones who end up getting caught later playing with little boys. One who comes to mind is a Long Island Bp who was absolutely militant about EENS and a promoter of Fred and Bob Dimond. He ending up getting caught humping an altar boy in his car. Fred and Bob and their super Puritan positions in their get-away compound make me suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel the same way! What Traditionalist Bishop from Long Island do you refer? I know NY well, having lived here my whole life. Bp. Kelly (SSPV) is sick and stays upstate NY. He is very upstanding. Bp. Santay is also very holy (I know him personally). There has never been any scandal associated with him. I know of no other legitimate Traditionalist Bishops on Long Island.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I don't know is it a sin to name names?

      Delete
    3. Not if it’s true. You’d be doing the public and the faithful a great service by alerting them to stay away from this alleged bishop. Please cite your sources and state whether it is an accusation or a fact. If a fact, he must have been arrested.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Well, it's public knowledge, not like nobody knew of the story. It was Bishop Dennis McCormack of Long Island. Yes he was arrested. It was in the papers at the time. You might still be able to find the story online. I'm not sure who consecrated him.

      Delete
    5. Thank you for the information. I’ve never heard of him. He’s probably a phony “bishop” like the Dimonds are phony “Benedictines.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. I found out this additional information about “Bp.” McCormack from Dr Thomas Droleskey:
      ..., who was ordained by a Duarte Costa line bishop, Patrick Taylor, now a sedeplenist, in 1997 and consecrated as a bishop by one Ryan St. Anne in 2007, on terrible charges of abusing a teenaged child of one of his old parishioners. The horror of this kind of scandal cannot be minimized. (From “Christ or Chaos” blog. Duarte Costa line is dubious, and the consecrating “Bp” is of unknown lineage. He was also allegedly brought up later on criminal charges,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. ... and I forgot to add this important piece of information: Fred and Bob were supporters of that particular bishop and advised people to approach him for sacraments. That is a fact. Way to go Fred and Bob!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Introibo,

    Your article here is not only wrong theologically but another example of how dishonest you are. In your section, ‘The Errors of the Neo-Manicheans’, you dishonestly word it as if the Dimonds agree with all of the things listed in that section, when that is not true at all. You write: “Dimond, along with Ibranyi, and trusaint.com (among others) have spread various errors. Here is a refutation of the most egregious.” This statement implies that all of those groups hold the positions that follow. But that is not true.

    The Dimonds do not hold that the marriage act is sinful if pleasure is taken therein, but you want to imply that they do to make them seem radical. Your tactic is evil, and represents a profound dishonesty in your heart. You bear false witness. This is what I have observed consistently in your posts. You arguments are so weak that you feel you must bolster them with lies about your opponents’ positions.

    You are a documented liar who consistently misrepresents things. That’s why you also believe that souls can be saved in false religions. It is also why you are too cowardly to put your real full name even though you frequently and hypocritically harp on status. If you are going to harp on status, then tell us who you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Dimonds don’t need any help from me when it comes to spreading error and being radical! Nevertheless, it is true that the Dimonds’ don’t believe the sex act of married people to be wrong if pleasure is taken, but they sure do condemn authentic NFP!

      I need nothing more than to present my arguments. If they are weak, I invite you to debate me. If you believe me “dishonest “ why do you read my posts? The Dimonds are Neo-Manichaeans; I do them no injustice by declaring them such.

      I do not believe souls can be saved in false religions. You misrepresent BOD and BOB. I remain anonymous because (a) any good that comes from this blog belongs to God, not me and (b) I wish to spare my family and friends from the attacks of those who would hold my views against them.

      Unlike the Dimonds, I do not seek notoriety nor do I hold myself out to be a phony “Benedictine.” Now THERE’S real dishonesty. The tone of the comment sounds like Fred or Bobby! Hmmm...

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. @Jerome.
    You came with conclusion that Church fathers teach sexual pleasure is permissible only for procreation in marriage, but then you wrote that Pio XII and many modern theologians teach otherwise and you said it is absurd.
    Yes, it is absurd in your faith because you think Holy Ghost would prevent the Pope to take heretical view.
    But it is not truth, bishop from Rome is not infallible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Emil,
      If you wish to debate me on the primacy and Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, I will be glad to oblige. However, I will not allow further denigration of the One True Church. There will be no taking people away from the issue at hand to spread EO heresy.

      Debate me or do not comment here. As we said here in NYC when I was a child, “Put up or shut up, you’re boring me to death.”

      I’m still praying for your conversion and renunciation of your Apostasy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. @emil brusic

      The "Eastern Orthodox" accept contraception and birth control; they also permit divorce and remarriage. The Catholic Church are more in line with tradition then the "Orthodox".
      By the way, how come your sect has not had a single more ecumenical council again ever since they split from the Catholic Church? Answer, because you have no Pope to make a council ecumenical!

      Also, popes can be mistaken, and if NFP turns out to be wrong, Pope Pius XII was simply mistaken. But it is still not certain if NFP is wrong. I have become more open to believe it might be acceptable form of birth control since the Church seem to teach this practise (although, fallibly).

      I still am not certain, however, what to believe since Pius XI's encyclical can be interpreted to condemn all birth controls, whether artificial and natural. And the only authority that teach NFP, is of fallible authority.

      Now Introibo's argument is that even those teaching authorities falls under the ordinary OUM and in a sense, the infallible magisterium, or at least, it falls under the teaching authority which cannot officially teach errors to the faithful. This argument is a strong argument, and it do seem absurd that the Church officially -- through her catechisms or Holy Office replies -- could teach grave errors and heresies to the faithful. But since we live in the end of times, perhaps such things could happen, and God could allow it to occur? I am not yet certain God could not allow such errors to be taught by Popes, catechisms and even Holy Office replies.

      Introibo, why is it not possible -- according to you -- that teaching authorities not governed by infallibility could not be permitted by God to teach grave errors in the end of times (the time of apostasy) when the Church would be in grave spiritual crisis and things of this sort was to be expected?

      Holy Office replies, Popes and Catechisms are more understandable since they are authoritative and universal, but you even extend the mere teaching of theologians who happen to be approved and taught in seminaries, as being protected by some sort of infallibility and as if they cannot gravely err. This I cannot agree with, and I am still not certain Jone did not teach heresy when approving of sodomizing one's wife. Hence, this one example might prove that grave error/heresy might slip through, and that you extend the infallibility/or no grave error possible etc. category, a little to wide.

      Delete
    3. @Jerome
      As I wrote before, I don't have contact with any Orthodox bishop or priest, and I am aware many Orthodox bishops are not really orthodox.
      NFP is sin of Onan, every sin is created in the heart, there is no distinction to throw semen outside vagina, or not to have intercourse on some days to avoid conception. Goal is the same, have intercourse without conception.
      Church fathers and the Bible condemn onanism, for Christians there should be no doubt who should they listen to and follow.

      Delete
    4. Jerome,
      The Church cannot now teach without a pope. There is currently no jurisdiction. However, prior to the Great Apostasy there was and God does not allow His Church to officially teach or sanction that which is erroneous or evil.

      What good is a Magisterium that cannot protect us from error, or is limited to teaching us in rare ex cathedra statements. That’s why it’s called the extraordinary Magisterium. The UOM is how the Church teaches us on a regular or Ordinary basis.

      As theologian Scheeben taught:
      Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'" (Scheeben, “A Manual Of Catholic Theology” 1:83).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. @emil

      Who decides the proper interpretation? You! Are a married couple PROHIBITED from having sex during the non-fertile period? Why or why not? What about infertile couples and older couples? They can’t intend to do something of which they are not capable.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. @Introibo
      I believe to Church fathers. In God's kingdom there is no sexual intercourse, so goal to everyone who wants to belong that Kingdom is to be free of lust during his life on Earth.
      St.Jerome wrote marriages are good because they produce virgins for Heaven, and virginity is better because it produce residents of Heavenly Kingdom.
      So everyone, within marriage or outside marriage, should become virgin before his death, i.e. free from sexual lust.
      That is the teaching of Church fathers.

      Delete
    7. @Introibo
      If goal of marriage is not to have children and raise them as Christians, then there is no reason to condemn marriage of sodomites.
      So, if someone is known that he or she can not have children or sexual intercourse, then there is no sense to let them sacrament of marriage.
      Marriage is not licence to fornication.

      Delete
    8. I allowed your comment to demonstrate to my readers the absurdity of "self-generated" theology away from the Magisterium.

      Both the True Church AND EO allow those who were too old to procreate and the infertile to marry. Such was NEVER condemned by the Church Fathers. Can't an infertile couple ADOPT a child and raise them in the Faith? Sodomites are unnatural and cannot be mother and father to a child under ANY circumstance.

      Furthermore, sterile couples can serve as a witness to how Christian couples should conduct themselves and be good examples to others.

      "Fornication" refers to sex outside of marriage.

      You have no clue about the matters on which you speak.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. @emil

      You believe in the teaching of the Church Fathers? Great! From St. Augustine:

      "While continence is of greater merit, IT IS NO SIN TO RENDER THE CONJUGAL DEBT, but to exact it beyond need for generation is a VENIAL SIN." (See "De Bono Conjugali")

      The Church Father St. Augustine disagrees with you, clearly stating that exacting the marriage act beyond the need for procreation is a VENIAL sin. Even IF what you think about the Fathers is True (and it's not) we have a Father talking about a slight matter (venial sin). Bottom line Emil: The CHURCH interprets the Fathers--not YOU. Otherwise you end up both a heretic and sounding like a lunatic (think: Ibranyi).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Many people need to learn that, Joann!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. Introibo,
    Would the use of medications such as Viagra be permissible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the drug didn’t exist pre-V2, we must look at the basic principles. The drug does not prevent conception and enables a married couple to perform the marital act which can result in conception. I therefore see no reason why Viagra cannot be used by a married man.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. "...it's not) we have a Father talking about a slight matter (venial sin)."

    "Slight matter," eh?

    Go hit the books, sonny! There's much you need to learn about the nature of sin if you think that venial sin in the eyes of God is a "slight matter."

    Signed,
    Cradle-Catholic whom holds sede position and is not a Feeneyite or any other boogey-man you would like to imagine I am to excuse your gross ignorance and liberal attitude to venial sin; a liberal attitude, I might add, which is against all teaching of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Cradle-Sede-Non-Boogeyman (“CSNB”),

      I hit the books, in particular, “Handbook of Moral Theology” By theologian Prummer. It reads on phs. 69-70:

      “1. There are sins which of their nature are venial since their moral object implies a SLIGHT disorder, such as a jocose lie; 2. Other sins are venial because of of parvity of matter, namely sins which in themselves are grave but because of SLIGHT matter become SLIGHT disorders, such as the theft of a shilling; sins may be venial through imperfection in the act when there is wanting full advertence or full consent; e.g. semi-deliberate impure thoughts.” (Emphasis mine).

      I guess one of the greatest pre-V2 moral theologians was “grossly ignorant” and had a “liberal attitude” (even though considered one of the most stern moral theologians approved by the Church).

      Signed,
      —-Introibo (“Sonny”—which I take as quite a compliment for a man in his 50s!)

      Delete
    2. Introibo dear,

      "Sonny" indicates your mental age, not your physical age. Surely you worked that out?

      Listen, sonny, cease quoting theologians when in effect you're quoting them out of context. You make out that you're highly intelligent. Well, didn't you work out that I was alluding to the teaching of the Church that ALL sin is hideous in the sight of God, and that venial sin is no light matter because it's a precursor to mortal sin? Surely you know that all sin is so grievous in the eyes of God that one must be purged of every bit of it before one can gaze upon the Beatific Vision? Surely you worked out that I was suggesting that it's dangerous for a little guy from New York who is waffling on on the Net to be referring to venial sin as being a "slight matter," without making it crystal clear that that is a theological distinction in terms of classification only? Surely you realized that I am aware of the theological classification of the gravity of different sins? C'mon, sonny!

      Here's the point I'm making, sonny. Pay attention now, lest I think you have Attention Deficit Disorder.

      You are not a theologian. No one "sent" you to preach on a free Google blog. Capiche, paesano? So, for God's sake, if you must rabbit on, on your free Google blog, DON'T leave souls under any other impression other than that venial sin is a horrific, ugly offense in the eyes of the Church, and God, and that it is no "slight matter," but instead one that is to be avoided at all costs, DESPITE theologians' correct, careful, categorizations.

      Regards,
      Cradle-Catholic, who knows that to be thorough is to be safe.

      P.S. You should try it, Introibo.

      Delete
    3. While the majority here are playing arm chair theologians, I would like to play arm chair psychologist. The majority sound like sexually repressed misogynists. Like Islamist extremists they want to establish a “pure Catholicism” that is not only puritanical but consists of perfectionism as well. Most here are being very sanctimonious and acrimonious as they build their Gnostic house of negativity to live in. Better beware as this Gnostic house just may be built on sinking sand!!

      Delete
    4. Gosh golly! If my mental age is so low, why are you reading this insignificant blog? I never professed to be a theologian—I’ve repeatedly stated that I am not. However, unless you’re the Pro-Prefect of the New Holy Office, and Grand Inquisitor for Internet blogs, designated as such from “Pope” Michael’s farmhouse , you were not sent by anyone either! Nor are you a theologian. So what does that say about YOUR mental status? I don’t waste my time with MHFM or any other reason-challenged site, unless a reader brings something to my attention. As my father (God rest his soul) taught me not to make fun of the mentally challenged, I decline to do so now.
      I don’t suffer from ADHD, but you may very well want to be tested for dyslexia, as you seem to get things backwards. Let’s see if you can follow along:

      1. Emil thinks the Fathers condemn the use of the marital act except for the express intent AND ABILITY to procreate. Otherwise, you sin gravely. He even likens use of the marital act except for the express purpose of procreation to homosexuality!

      2. St Augustine, clearly stated that exacting the marriage act beyond the need for procreation is a VENIAL sin. This hardly sounds like something the equivalent of homosexual acts which “scream to Heaven for Vengeance.”

      3. This proves his whole contention about the Fathers is incorrect, apart from his rejection of the papacy and the proper workings of the Magisterium. IT WAS IN THAT CONTEXT I REFER TO VENIAL SIN AS SLIGHT. All sin is to be avoided, but as Trent teaches, no one can be free from venial fault except by special privilege of God, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary (and probably St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist).

      In context, I am thorough, but never enough for a boorish, pseudo-educated dolt. I’m not a theologian, but I am both a lawyer and former science teacher. As a former teacher, I know full well the dictum, “You can educate the ignorant, but STUPID LASTS FOREVER!”
      Ciao!
      ---Introibo (“Sunny”—as in my pleasant disposition!)

      Delete
    5. @anonymous 7:42

      The Neo-Manicheans are indeed a house on sinking sand! I'm not a theologian, I merely set forth the teaching of the Church as expressed through Her popes and approved theologians

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo - I am anon. 7:42 and I was not referring to you at all. I was referring to “Cradle Catholic” and “Emil”. Sorry for the confusion. By the way, I am a woman and a lot of these guys on here come across as sexually repressed and misogynists as well as very Gnostic in their verbage. I can’t understand why a lot of “Traditionalist” men are like this??

      Delete
    7. Oh, I realized that you were not referencing me, and I agree with your assessment as I stated above. Unfortunately, some Traditionalists (so-called) don’t understand or reject Church teaching on the dignity of women and the sanctity of marriage. They don’t understand HOW the Church teaches us through the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. While motherhood is a most blessed vocation, a woman can also pursue a career. Most of these Neo-Manichaeans reject this idea as “evil.” It’s sad but not indicative of all Traditionalist men; and I hope my blog makes Church teaching clear so those who don’t understand may see the light.

      My biggest fan is my lovely wife who doesn’t mind my taking time away for writing this blog! And, she is a devout lady who is also a high powered professional!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Introibo,

      Are you saying women can also pursue a career instead of motherhood, along with motherhood, or after motherhood?

      I would argue it is wrong for a women to pursue a career outside the home when she has children to take care of. (i.e. sticking the kids in daycare while pursuing a career)

      Delete
    9. A career along with or after motherhood, not in place of it, unless she chooses to remain single. If the mother can stay at home, I believe she should, at least until the children are older, stay home if possible. This is my opinion, nothing more.

      What you describe, a mom at home until the kids go to college and then she goes back to work full time is an ideal situation.

      Delete
  12. Introibo Ad Altare Dei February 19, 2018 at 9:25 PM

    Viagra could enable a married couple to perform the marital act even when there is no possibility of conception.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, which in the case of an infertile or older couple is fine. It would also be OK for a couple using authentic NFP. To borrow a line from the NRA, “Viagra doesn’t commit sin, people commit sin!”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. Introibo - Is it any wonder that I just read on a website that claims that Traditional Catholics have a mental diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder as they see everything in black and white. I have been accused of being on the “fringe” and one of the “crazy Catholics”. I always wondered why people would refer to Traditionalists by such names. Now I know with some of the bizarre comments made by “Traditionalists” in response to the article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      I share your dismay. The true “lunatic fringe” make the most noise and get the most publicity. (Think of how many people associate us with Fred and Bobby Dimond). They give the majority of Traditionalists a bad name. They do so much damage to the Faith and keep converts out. You wouldn’t believe the comments I cannot even publish. Someone accused me of being a “secret Jew” because (1) I live in NYC (2) I’m a lawyer and (3) I don’t like Adolph Hitler!

      I’ve been accused of being crazy or a liar because I don’t subscribe to every wacky conspiracy theory. I’m “not really Traditionalist Catholic because I don’t condemn Una Cum Masses for those who have no Sedevacantist option. I’m a “dangerous liberal” because I believe in the dignity of women and the proper view of marriage according to the Church.

      However, the vast majority of my readers are like you, Joann—good, intelligent,and sincere people trying to find their True Catholic way through this Great Apostasy. I started this blog in part to push back against those who misrepresent the Faith and give the “silent majority” a voice.

      Remember Joann, in the end the Truth will prevail. As someone said, We follow Him Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life in a world of shortcuts, lies, and death.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. There are many freaks among the traditionalists. It is only to see how romantic some are to the past, Puritans, falsely political activists - as I described in another answer given in this post - and even Gnostics and millenarians. This whole madness is proof that the lack of prayer, which is the exercise of humble par excellence, and of charity, makes the trad that is thought to be the only son of the world. Christ gave us healing in the Gospels, His Church has always ministered to us effectively, and we have always had an example of the most sane souls who have ever stepped on earth, who are the saints. To want to imitate Christ by sacrificing his own will is for the few, I know. But it is in the attempt that we at least become less crazy.

      Delete
  14. You've jumped the shark Introibo with your discussion of Viagra. Why don't you just go whole hog and admit you're a Viagra user. You fit all the criteria. Lol
    Seriously, my only concern about you is that you're clearly a NY liberal who's clearly still infected with a touch of the Novus Ordo virus. Oh! And you most probably secretly admire Hillary Clinton. :D But seriously (this time) you're a joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because,..why? Viagra is not a contraceptive. It can enable a couple to conceive. Could it be subject to abus? Of course. Just like pain killers can be abused. The doesn’t make the PROPER USE illegitimate or sinful. If you want to prove I’m a “joke” you’ll need to do better than that.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Nothing wrong with Viagra. Not sure I understand what the objection to it would be.

      Delete
  15. Seems there is a lot of self-loathing going on from the comments here. Also, seems to be some cult like behaviors and mindsets too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, I agree. That’s the problem without a pope and people who refuse to follow authentic Church teaching.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. Introibo,

    *Firm* teachings such as Viagra is legitimate to use? ROTFLOL!

    I agree: you are a joke. Do you get paid by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures viagra, for using and endorsing it?

    Introibo: "The little blue pill changed my life! I now can look my wife in the eyes without feeling shame and without feeling like I'm only half a rman. Viagra, I guarantee it to be in accord with Church teachings!" ahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  17. Are these people’s comments such as Anon. 8:05 for REAL?? If they are, there are more Puritans than I care to know. No wonder “Traditionalists” are called the “fringe” and carry a diagnosis according to some mental health professionals of Borderline Personality Disorder (from what I understand there is no help available for such Disorder as Borderline).

    ReplyDelete
  18. To my readers:
    I was fraternally corrected by some of you concerning my reply to anonymous @ 8:05 am. As a cultured Traditionalist, I should not have responded as I did. As a NYC lawyer, when someone someone attacks, you go back at them with everything you have—it’s how you win a case. This blog is not a court case, and I’m not giving zealous representation to a client.

    I sincerely apologize for the comment and to any/all who were offended. I firmly resolve to try to maintain the highest of standards I’ve set for this blog. It’s not an excuse, but simply an explanation that I’m human with human failings. The comments section is meant for honest discourse and discussion. Disagreement is fine too. I’ve learned a lot from my readers. I also apologize to anonymous @ 8:05. Let your boorish comment devoid of worth stand to show the fringe that makes the rest of us look bad.

    Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa,

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  19. Actually, Introibo, the 5 comments admonishing you were all me. :D And my POINT was NOT that the use of Viagra is necessarily illicit, but that propriety dictates that Catholics shouldn't be so gauche as to have public discussions that involve spruiking the efficacy of Viagra. Go ask Fr. Jenkins, or Bp. Kelly, or Fr. Baumberger, or Bp. Santay, etc. They'll agree with me - of that I have zero doubt.
    It's been nice acting with you in this (contrived) trad drama. Ciao! ;-) P.S. Will I see you at Mass on Sunday?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In other words you were being dishonest after being vulgar—the same for which you admonished me. Since no one knows who I am except for my family and close friends, and I don’t regularly attend SSPV, You will never see me.

      While I admire the priests and bishops of the SSPV, they are wrong on the Thuc bishops being invalid—and they would also be wrong if they said answering an honest query about the moral use of Viagra. Show them your impure comment and the double meanings and see what they think!

      I had a feeling it was you from the closeness of the comments—but even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours—so my apology to my readers stands.

      There’s only one other big point you have—-but maybe if you comb your hair just right and wear a hat no one will notice😊

      Like I said, ED can be cured but not stupidity!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Anon 12:37 PM, Not sure why you think mentioning Viagra is such a scandal? Is mentioning the purpose of marriage to have children a scandal because it may cause people to think about sex?

      Delete
    3. Introibo, Ran across an article on Viagra which I thought you may like to read. Just like many other things Viagra is being misused and abused as it is intentionally being marketed to young men in the UK. Also, it will soon be available over the counter.
      Spectator.co.uk/2018/03/blue-pill-pushers-why-is-Viagra-being-marketed-to-young-men?

      Delete
    4. Thank you for the information my friend. Yes, I agree that Viagra can be abused--and this article is a perfect example of such. However, many things can be abused, as we both know. It is not intrinsically evil. Pain killers, like Vicodin, can be abused, but it doesn't make them evil. I know I state the obvious (for you), but other commenters here need to be reminded!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  20. To my readers,
    Someone has questioned my policy for publishing comments. That someone is the anonymous poster with the vile comment above. Why did I allow it? Occasionally I will allow such comments to show exactly what the opposition is like. I agree with the lady who sees misogyny—and may I add cultish attitudes and ideas. I commend Jerome for his open minded search for truth. It gives me hope for the rest. I just published a couple of comments that came in very close in time. They agree with my opinions, and I have reason to believe that they come from the vile anonymous commenter. I exepect him to say, “Aha, you’re a hypocrite because you violated your policy against vile comments and only publish those who agree with you.”

    Wrong. I will always publish comments that help or add to the discussion. I do not publish blasphemy or profanity. Occasionally I will allow an off color comment when dealing with pseudo-Traditionalists to show their true character. A man who thinks answering an honest inquiry about Viagra is scandalous, but he makes sexually suggestive comments so doing as well as ad hominem attacks on me.

    My policy stands. You can disagree with me as strongly as you like, but no blasphemy, profanity, or ad hominem claptrap. All this just makes Traditionalists seem bizarre and disturbed. They unwittingly or otherwise work against the Church in this time of near universal Apostasy.

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  21. Introibo,

    Can you give several examples of things that would be considered "grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances"

    Is being poor a reason? How poor?
    Is a woman personally needing a break either mentally or physically sufficient? What is the threshold?
    What about spacing children out?

    I ask because a lot of traditional Catholics that do agree NFP is allowed don't fully understand under what circumstances it is allowed. I am one of those that don't understand.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You bring up an excellent point. This is an area in the Church where the principle is correct but its practical application is not always as clear. If the Great Apostasy had not happened we would not require this discussion.

      On the one hand opponents of NFP will say that since the terms are too vague, NFP can be used as a contraceptive method, only natural. “Conservative” V2 types basically do just that.

      In the law, we have similar terms that are not precise, but we don’t jettison them. We must find someone guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” What constitutes “reasonable”? When is it not reasonable to doubt the defendant’s guilt?

      Authentic NFP cannot be used as an excuse not to procreate. Some good reasons for using NFP temporarily:

      *If the woman had a health condition thet could result in her death (and possibly the unborn child)

      * Unemloyment and the possibility of losing your Home until a new job is found

      * Serious illness of your current child who needs much help and attention in getting better

      This is why you must consult with a Traditionalist priest to discern you are not falling into the contraceptive mentality, but need recourse to use authentic NFP for a time.

      I wish I could give you a more precise answer, but I’m not a Magisterial authority. Without a pope to further define terms and parameters, this is the best we can do.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Consulting with your confessor is always best. Some good news! Bishop Selway was consecrated yesterday in Florida at the Seminary. Deo Gratias!

      Jesus and Mary,
      David

      Delete
    3. I have a friend who attended the consecration! Deo gratias indeed!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo,

      Those all seem like pretty extreme examples (i.e about to die).

      What if a women has Hyperemesis Gravidarum or less just very painful pregnancies and wants a break from the pain, but is not against children or even if she has ok pregnancies, but mentally feels like she can’t handle it at this point?

      I suspect that the threshold is not as close to the “about to die” side as most might think. My basis for this is simply the Church doesn’t seem to hold that level for other things such as fasting. One is not expected to “be about to die” to break a fast and there are actually many excusing reasons to do so.

      Your thoughts on this?

      Delete
    5. You make a very reasonable argument. I believe it has merit. If the contraceptive mentality is not present, I would tend to agree with the examples you gave.

      However, I must respectfully disagree with the analogy to fasting. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation, and this is a matter of both the Natural Law and Divine-Positive Law. Fasting is an Ecclesiastical Law which is subject to change. Pope Pius XII shortened the Eucharistic Fast from midnight before Mass to three hours. No pope, no one whomsoever, can dispense from the Natural Law or Divine-Positive Law. The primary purpose of marriage has been decreed by God, and it is NEVER subject to change.

      Therefore, the standard for using NFP must be high as we are dealing with something of much greater importance and admits of no change UNLIKE an Ecclesiastical Law like fasting.

      The bar for using NFP must be high, but I agree with you that it does not necessarily mean a life and death situation. In my opinion, the reasonable examples you gave would suffice to use NFP for a time if there was no contraceptive mentality present and done in consultation with a Traditionalist priest. We must be careful not to take the matter too lightly as if it were merely a matter of Ecclesiastical Law.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,

      You point about my incorrect analogy makes sense regarding the Natural Law or Divine-Positive Law vs Ecclesiastical Law (thanks for the explanation), but while I agree that based on the reasons you stated nobody can undo the Natural Law or Divine-Positive law I don’t know if that matters to my point of how in general on various topics the Church’s stance is usually in the middle (regarding the amount of “hardship” one must ensure for various things). Fasting was one example I could think of. I don’t think NFP “changes” the primary purpose of marriage.

      Contraception circumvents the primary purpose of marriage, but still allows the marital act. NFP is no marital act. Just as eating a cake and then throwing it up circumvents the effects of eating it, but is not at all the same thing as not eating in the first place.

      Is not a married couple allowed to mutually agree to have periods of mutual celibacy, even for years if they wish? (I thought I have heard about people doing that as a penance or other religious reasons)

      Ok now I am going to ask a question that I know what the answer will be, but I am not sure as to the why, thus I will ask:

      If the primary purpose of marriage is to bring children into the world after a couple has brought 1, 3, 9 children into the world has their obligation been met?

      Delete
    7. As to your first point, NFP can be abused as “natural contraception” —-the contraceptive mentality minus artificial means. That is why this post is about AUTHENTIC NFP. NFP does indeed circumvent the primary purpose of marriage but it is not meant to FRUSTRATE that purpose by a slight matter or to go on indefinitely without very serious reasons. The example of a married couple abstaining for religious reasons is different in that they refrain from ALL use of the marital act to get closer to God, and in the cases I’ve read they had approved from Church Authority when we had a pope. NFP seeks to make use of the marital act when the woman cannot conceive and for reasons devoid of religious dedication to God. This is a significant distinction. However, I do agree the examples you gave were reasonable.

      As to your query, there is no “magic number” of children that a couple which is fertile must have. The general principle is that a couple should be as generous as they can given the totality of life’s circumstances. Theologians McHugh And Callan opine that a couple should strive for at least five if possible. (It’s late and I don’t have the citation at hand, but ask me and I’ll give you the exact source and explanation by Sunday). Remember, that’s the opinion of two theologians in an area where the Church has never made a formal decision and it is open to discussion among the theologians. I think theologian O’Brien, whom I cite in my post, said it best:
      “Contrary to the impression that prevails in some quarters, there is no obligation on any couple to beget any specific number of children, much less to give birth to the largest number possible." (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 61-62).

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  22. Something I have suspected about some of these "fringe" Traditionalists is latent, or perhaps not so latent, homosexual tendencies.
    It is not uncommon that someone who is trying to conceal this will then assume exaggerated and distorted masculine characteristics.
    I will pray for everyone who has posted on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good and true observation Barbara! “Bp.” McMahon is the prime example; condemning everything under the sun as impure including NFP. He gets arrested for having sex with an underage male!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. @Barbara
      Do you think Church fathers had homosexual tendencies?
      It is so stupid to argue like that, you can also in similar way write that anybody who is against NFP is follower of Hitler (if you don't know try to find out what is false argument 'reductio ad hitlerum').
      Sin of NFP is sin of Onan, because to throw semen outside vagina is the same sin as to escape intercourse during 'dangerous' days.
      It is the same sinful intention to have intercourse without possibility to have conception.

      Delete
    3. @emil
      The Church Fathers didn’t teach the made up nonsense you do. There is evidence that super-puritanical people and super-macho men have such tendencies.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  23. This thread is hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comments of the fringe so-called Traditionalists is simply sad, not funny. I’m gratified to see that Jerome has seen his way out, and is beginning to embrace true Traditionalism by the grace of God. The comments of my regular readers are insightful as always.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  24. Introibo - It has been insinuated that women who know they can’t have children should not get married as the purpose of marriage is to have children. I have never head of this before. Is this more of the “fringe” element and their beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Yes. It is sheer nonsense. The Church has always allowed men and women incapable of having children to get married. The Church has always allowed women advanced in age (70s +) to get married knowing full well they won’t be having children.

      What you heard is fringe element baloney, which is not only un-Catholic but hurtful to people that are in such good marriages and pleasing to God. Those who say such things should stop calling themselves Traditionalists.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. So, you think that Church will allow to have sacramental marriage couple who had themselves sterilised or couple who told in public that they don't want to have children?
      Then, there is no reason not to allow sodomites to marriage because they are also sterile.
      If the first purpose to marriage is to have children, then nobody should be allowed to marriage for whom is known that is sterile or sodomite.
      You Introibo teach modernism disguised as traditionalism.
      Your definition of marriage is legalised fornication.

      Delete
    3. As a result of not being able to have children, I am treated like I am less of a woman as a result and almost shunned by certain “Traditionalists”. I am treated like I am some kind of a freak. “Traditionalists” of the fringe element don’t seem to possess much empathy or compassion from what I have experienced.

      It seems that the “Traditionalists” are so bent on being “Traditional” that they have lost the sense of what it is to be CATHOLIC!! (Just my 2 cents)

      Delete
    4. No. You misrepresent me as much as the Fathers and you misrepresent Joann. We are not talking about those who go against nature purposefully getting sterilized. Nor are we talking about those with a contraceptive mentality. What about a 75 year old widower who marries a 69 year old widow? This has always been allowed. I should know, that was the case with my grandfather (age 75) getting remarried 10 years after the death of my grandmother to a 69 year old widow in 1955. Was this the same as a sodomite “marriage”? What of the man or woman that has a medical condition which renders them infertile? Same as sodomite “marriage”?

      What I pass on to my readers is the teachings of the Church. What you pass on is made up nonsense and contrary to Church teaching.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. @Joann
      What you have to say Joann isn’t “two cents” it’s priceless wisdom! I apologize on behalf of all those so-called Traditionalists who hurt you. You are an intelligent and dignified lady. Don’t let the comments of some boor bother you. The majority of us are not like them! Keep the Faith and you will have your reward when all is said and done.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Emil -

      From my observations and experience in Traditionalism, the Traditionalists seem to go off into right field in their response to the Novus Ordoites going off into left field. The Way is “Straight”, not going off into left or right field. The TRUTH is in the MIDDLE!!!!

      Delete
    7. @Joann
      No, I never said neither thought that wife in marriage is less woman if she is barren.
      So, everything I wrote against NFP is not concerning your or anybody fruitless.
      You simply misunderstand me.

      Delete
    8. emil -

      You stated that people who are “sterile” shouldn’t be married.

      Delete
    9. @emil
      It is you who makes up and misunderstands everything. If the marital act is only “excused” (as if it were a shameful and necessary “evil”) for the purpose of procreation, why does the Church allow older people and the infertile to marry? According to you the marital act can’t be “excused.” Not to mention an older couple who had many children; under Your made up rule, they must stop having sex after the wife goes through menopause.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. @JoAnn
      If someone knows he/she is infertile, then he/she should not marry.
      In the case when someone did not tell spouse about infertility, that marriage is consider invalid.
      Introibo wrote that the Church allows infertile couples to marry, but he of course does not have one example.
      Please note that this is case if someone knows before marriage that he is infertile, not the case when he realised that in marriage.
      As I wrote before, if it is known in public that someone is infertile (for example he/she is sterilised or has not normal sexual organ or had some medical treatment which make him infertile) then it is not allowed for him to marry.
      Marriage is for begetting and raising children, not for legalizing fornication or agreement between two people to help each other and get inheritance of property without paying taxes.

      Delete
    11. @emil
      Your ignorance is limitless. I personally know an infertile couple who were married in the Church.
      Answer these two questions:
      1. When the Church allowed my 75 year old grandfather (a widower) to marry a 69 year old widow, wasn’t that “legalized fornication”? They know a 69 year old woman can’t possibly have children. How is that different from a young infertile couple?

      2. When a married couple has children, but the woman reaches menopause, must they stop having sex?

      Your answer will help my readership to see just how looney Neo-Manicheans really are!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    12. emil-
      Since you are adamant that infertile people should not marry, please provide me with proof as to what the CHURCH says on the matter.

      Delete
    13. Joann,
      Emil will respond with quotes if some Church Fathers taken out of context. He openly rejects the institution of the papacy, so HE gets to decide what is and is not “Church teaching.” If he dares to try and answer my two questions above he will hang himself by his own illogical claptrap!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. @Introibo
      Your grandfather who was married again in 75 for widow of 69 was probably married in second half of last century.
      I think it couldn't be case during time of Church fathers.
      What will say st.Paul who recommends Christians not to marry i.e. to be like him, but only if they are not capable of virgin life to marry?
      He recommends widows to stay in that state.
      Probably answer will be: - you old man, prepare for your death and extinguish your lust because you can not enter Kingdom of God with lust.

      Delete
    15. @JoAnn
      Proof is teaching of Church fathers that sexual act is only permissible in marriage and if there is intention or desire to have children.
      If someone already knows he/she is infertile, then his/her sexual act is fornication, that is why infertile persons should not marry.
      But I think there is very small percentage of people who knew before marriage they were infertile.
      Did you realize your infertility before or after marriage?
      It is big difference.

      Delete
    16. @emil
      Women who were known to be infertile according to age existed at the time of the Fathers and were allowed to marry. In St. Luke 1:36, we read,
      “Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month.” St Elizabeth was too old by nature to conceive, but by a miracle of God she conceived St John the Baptist. Granted, she might not have been 69, but the age equivalent for that era.

      The Catholic Church and even the EO since its founding in 1054 AD have allowed those too old to conceive to marry. Unless you have proof of the Fathers stating that widows too old to conceive can’t remarry, your objection is without merit. (There are no such statements from the Fathers, so I’ll save you time looking).

      St. Paul’s admonition is a RECOMMENDATION as you admit NOT A PRECEPT that widows and widowers in old age can’t remarry.

      Again, you hold out your worthless OPINION as if it were Church teaching. Secondly, what difference does it matter if someone is infertile before or after marriage? Shouldn’t those who discover infertility or go through menopause separate and become nuns?

      This is the exact lunacy I expected. Thanks for coming through!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    17. @Introibo
      St.Elizabeth did not know before marriage she is infertile.
      St.Zacharia wouldn't marry her if he knew that.
      So, your example is pointless.

      Delete
    18. The only thing pointless are your so-called arguments based on your own alleged “authority.” Your proof that St Elizabeth didn’t know she was barren before she got married is based on conjecture. You cite no sources. It is a FACT that St Paul permitted widows to remarry and most were beyond child-bearing years. That alone defeats your nonsense. I challenged you to provide a citation to a Church Father who said widows too old to have children cannot get remarried. You provide none because they are non-existent.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  25. What 'fringe element'? Is this place always such a circus?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only when I comments from clowns like you!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  26. "Only when I [SIC] comments from clowns like you!"

    There is something seriously wrong with you and this site!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pardon my grammar (I’m working and reply quickly sometimes). I should have written, “Only when I receive comments from clowns like you.”

      I guess incorrect grammar really gets to you. However, just like NFP it’s not sinful. I promise to try not to get any more typos and such in the comments section of my posts. Neo-Manicheans have enough things to wrongly condemn!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  27. Is it ok for babies to be circumcised? Some say it is ok for health reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure what this has to do with the topic, but I know of no prohibition on circumcision.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I am not Anon 6:46 PM

      I had heard that circumcision was to end with Mosaic Law no longer being in effect? (but that exceptions were made for health reasons)

      Delete
    3. If you mean no one needs to be circumcised for religious reasons, I agree. If you mean babies cannot or should not be circumcised, please cite your source. It sounds like someone’s spreading Internet blather.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Different anonymous here. I think circumcision is a malicious crime against babies and that the practice should be banned. Health reasons? Baloney. Its one of many means used to assert our ownership. I also think it traumatizes infants unnecessarily.

      Delete
    5. Ownership by whom? As this is not a theological problem, you may denounce circumcision. Personally, I do not, but that’s just my private opinion.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. If I say who our owners are you and some of your subscribers will fly into a rage and call me names. I don't feel like hearing it.

      Delete
    7. Lemme guess—-circumcision, owners—another Jewish conspiracy theory. I won’t say anymore.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. I am a different anonymous. I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, but there is definitely something going on. On no less than 5 different occasions I have been verbally attacked by both Jewish Women and Men because I was wearing a crucifix and am Christian. One older woman Clerk at a store pointed to my crucifix and stated vehemently “you people and your GRACE”. I was so shocked I said nothing. Also one time I was wearing a pendant with my name in Arabic which was a gift and was attacked verbally by a Jewish store clerk because of the Arabic. I have never been an anti-Semite but have been on the receiving end of Jewish anti-Christianity. If these Jewish people are saying these hateful anti-Christian things to me, they are doing it to others as well. It is something that just doesn’t get reported, or it gets censored. However, if it was a Christian saying or doing anti-Jewish things it would get front line news as anti-Semitism. Sympathy for the “poor Jews” would come pouring forth with cries of discrimination. When the shoe is on the other foot, I guess it is ok to discriminate against Christians especially if a Jew is doing it.

      Delete
    9. I am yet another different anonymous.

      I was at the library over the course of several weeks and met a fellow who revealed he was a Jew. He was a conservative Jew as opposed to a Zionist. Anyway, we chatted and there was no problem nor even a hint of a problem. One day I noticed that he was going out of his way to look at what I was reading on computer, and in what I was reading the name "Jesus" featured in a major way. Anyway, a few minutes later, and out of the blue, he began to mock me and mock Jesus and mock Christianity. It was really odd - like something came over him and he suddenly turned from being a quiet, well-mannered Jewish scholar and gentleman into a bitter hater of Christ. He eventually calmed down and returned to normal. It was as if he was temporarily possessed.

      Delete
    10. I’m going to assume the two comments directly above are as truthful and not a sick prank. What is described therein is nothing less than deplorable, hateful, bigotry which I condemn in the strongest possible terms. The two clerks in the first comment should have been reported to the manager immediately and FIRED. The behavior of the man at the library was strange, to say the least. Nevertheless, we must remember that THOSE PARTICULAR JEWISH PEOPLE are to be denounced, they are not indicative of ALL Jews. Once, as a teenager, I had my possessions stolen by an Italian-American. I knew it was him but there was not enough evidence to convict him. He got away with it. Was he a crook and a horrible person? Absolutely. Do I hold a grudge against ALL Italian-Americans or consider them a bunch of “crooks and Mafia members?” Of course not.

      I have several Jewish friends who have come with me to Church, and one who will be baptized this year despite the objections of his family! So we must be careful not to generalize our experiences. I know a couple of Traditionalists who I wouldn’t trust as far as I could throw a Manhattan skyscraper. There are some comments I receive from Traditionalists laced with profanity and calling me names I could not publish. This, Deo gratias, is not true of ALL of us!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. This is not a “sick prank”. These unfortunate incidents do happen. I I used to work for a lawyer and one day a Jewish lawyer came into the office to meet with my boss a lawyer who was a secular Jew. The Jewish lawyer who came into the office started attacking the name of Jesus and Christians. There was myself and another girl who was a Protestant in his presence. We were rendered in shock and speechless as a result of his attack. On another occasion, my secular Jewish boss’ wife was in the office and started attacking Jesus and Christians out of the blue in the presence of me and the Protestant girl. The hatred in the voices of the Jews in both instances were unbelievable. I know not all Jews behave like this but I have had enough instances happen to me that I am very wary. The last one was just a few months ago. I was wearing a large St. Benedict Medal when a Jewish Doctor I had an appointment with all of a sudden turned on me and began spouting hate about the “Latin around my neck”, It was almost like he was possessed. I left that Dr. never to return. In each instant I was so shocked I was speechless. Does anyone have any suggestions what to say to these hate filled people when such things happen? Enough of these instances have happened to me that I do know there will be a next time, unfortunately.

      Delete
    12. Introibo - "Once, as a teenager, I had my possessions stolen by an Italian-American. I knew it was him but there was not enough evidence to convict him. He got away with it. Was he a crook and a horrible person? Absolutely."

      I don't get it? If there was not enough evidence to convict him how can you categorically state that you knew he was guilty, a crook and a horrible person?

      Delete
    13. @anon 7:40
      For the Jewish lawyer, you should tell him that if his ignorant attacks don’t cease and desist, you will file a grievance against his law license with the Bar Association in your state for unethical conduct and creating a hostile workplace environment. Then file with the EEOC. If he tried to fire you, he’d be handing you a large sum of money and lose his license. That would put a stop to it. As to the doctor you were correct not to return, and I would report his conduct to the American Medical Association—to ask the appropriate means of filing a grievance against his medical license.

      @anon 7:50
      A neighbor (same age as me) saw him. He described what was taken perfectly. The person in question had spent time in juvenile hall for stealing. He had an axe to grind with me as he came up to me on the street calling me fa***t and other names. When I told him to stop, he started pushing me and asked what are you gonna do about it? I responded by a punch to the solar plexus which put him down gasping for air. The punks he ran with tried to come after me several times (bullies are cowards who will only pick on those unwilling or unable to fight back, so he needed to outnumber me). Luckily, I escaped twice, and had a friend who ran with a tough crowd. He made it known that if they hurt me it would be a fight between them. They didn’t want that so it ended—but not for the punk in question. He had beat up my neighbor who saw the incident, and he was afraid to tell the police. Without an eyewitness he got away with it and got his revenge.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. Ok. That makes sense. Thanks. Had your friend given testimony there was a good chance the thug would've been convicted. Not definitely. Depends on how good his lawyer would have been in planting the suggestion that you and your friend colluded insofar the knowledge of what items were stolen. But if your friend were to have testified under oath, my opinion is that the police would've probably gained a conviction.

      Delete
    15. Introbio,
      I don't have enough faith and trust in either the Bar Association or the Medical Association to take any action against either a Jewish Lawyer or Jewish Doctor with a grievance brought by a lowly Secretary. As for the lawyer, the witness was the Protestant secretary and she would not file anything. As for the Doctor, there were no witnesses, just my word against his. If the shoe was on the other foot and I was the one doing the discriminating and hating against the Jews, I am sure it would have made the 6:00 o'clock news and then some...

      Delete
    16. Being a secretary is an honorable profession, and not “lowly.” You are correct that the news always denigrates Christians and loves to make them the “bad guys.” I know a lawyer who told his secretary Catholicism was a “religion of losers and perverts.” She reported him and filed a grievance against his license. Result? He was fined, publicly reprimanded, and a Vatican 2 sect lawyer offered her a job with her for more money!

      Stand up to those bullies! Jewish or otherwise.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    17. "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Voltaire

      Delete
    18. I'm the Anonymous who related the account of my experience with a Jew at a library.

      To be fair, I've dealt with a few Jews in business. I haven't experienced any problems. Some are very conservative, some are a bit crazy, some are pretty generous.

      Something that should be kept in mind is that many Jews are very clever and talented people. If they converted and were on our side they'd definitely be assets rather than liabilities. The same goes for many Muslims.

      Delete
    19. I couldn’t agree with you more!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    20. I am Anon Secretary. The Jewish people are very talented indeed. I know that from experience as I have worked as a Legal Secretary for Jewish lawyers my whole life. I was treated very good except for the incidents at the one firm I mentioned. Each firm where I worked was quite generous with their staff and associates as well. This is why each time I was verbally accosted by a Jewish person for being Christian, I was so in shock and speechless. I have learned that to be on the safe side and avoid these kinds of verbal assaults is to employ only Christians from now on. Call me what you like for this mindset, but I have had enough of the hate being spewed at me for being Christian. I have never been anti-Jewish, but they are driving me to it. Especially, the Doctor who went ballistic on me for "the Latin around my neck". He actually shouted at me. I did nothing to provoke this in any way as I was talking about my medical condition when he accosted me verbally. I will say no more on the matter. The end.

      Delete
  28. Introbio,
    Could you recommend a book listing the heresies condemned by the Church? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don’t know of a comprehensive book, but “A Handbook Of Heresies” by Cozens and available at Amazon might be a good place to start. The book was written pre-V2.

    God Bless,

    Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is a silly thread. People should practice humility and consult confessor.

    Jesus and Mary,
    David

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,
      You already have the Faith. Some of the people commenting do not, so they will not do the sensible thing you advised. At least I’ve made inroads with Jerome. We are called to bring the truth to others after all!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  31. Great article, but I think it is a mistake to use the term “Natural Family Planning” or “NFP.” This is not an approved Catholic term, and it was not used by Pope Pius XII or the pre-Vatican II theologians,

    While your arguments and sources are air tight, the use of this modernist term weakens your case. Even the qualifier, “authentic” really doesn’t fix things, as Pius XII was not teaching family planning at all, even natural. He was explaining that it is lawful to use the sterile times if one of the conditions were present. It had nothing to do with planning a family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must agree with you. The same was pointed out by another reader. I will have to find a better, theologically sound way of expressing the teaching of the Church without using “Natural Family Planning.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  32. Im a different anonymous than all others. I promisw not to call you sonny. I loved this article and a your responses to Jerome. I somehow stumbled upon trusaint and started hand wringing. I texted my confessor a link and asked for help with the informa9. He was never able to respond. This has to have been since dec. I also emailec him. I cannot get to church or confession for personal reasons but not because Im a feeneyite or follower of fake trads. So this post was an amazing blessing to me. I do wish the church outlined which acts are acceptable within marriage a d which are not. Thankfully, regardless of what armchair theologians say, I have never thought of intercourse outside the um "proper" entrance to be a good idea. However i know many trads who struggle with what is okay.

    Anyway i have a question i posed to my priest and hes never gotten back to me.
    What are the standards of modesty as applied to infants and children before the age of reason? Such as toddlers. Could you do a write up? I had a Catholic mother insist that a baby should never, even in privacy be left in just a diaper for any reason at all because St.Jean Vianney said it was disgusting. My argument in response was just because a saint said something while alive doesnt mean they said the correct thing or they knre everything and i asked for the church's official teaching on modesty in toddlers and infants. And what does the church do about the mentally handicapped who may struggle to keep clothing on? What about sick infants where clothes may be restrictive to recovery? For awhile my two special needs boys were running around in the privacy of our home in just their diapers. This was not due yo negligence. They took a lot longer to potty train than average children and they took their clothes off quickly due to sensory issues or even cognitive reasons. She said theres no excuse whatsoever for a child to be all but naked. I know children who have needs that require them to be in a tshirt and diaper to get to their feeding device which is on the belly just above the diaper. Clothing would be an impediment to that.
    She was angry because i posted a picture of my 3 year old daughter in an ankle length dress but didnt cover her shoulders. So i took it down but i asked her for the official standard from the church or church fathers and all she could do was quote st john vianney, with no context. And i doubt the saint ran into children with severe medical issues. Perhaps he would have had made exclusions? It doesnt seem thag modesty is as hard and fast as she implied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My friend,
      moral theologians distinguish between parts of the body which are "becoming" (e.g., hands and face, not covered by clothes), "less becoming" (e.g., breast and arms, usually covered by clothes), and "impure" (e.g. organs of reproduction and surrounding areas). (See theologian Prummer, "Handbook of Moral Theology" pg. 232)

      Holy Mother Church is wise and reasonable, as Her Founder is Wisdom Itself. Do not be troubled by these people who tell you ridiculous things or trusaint.com which is Neo-Manichean and NOT Traditionalist Catholic.

      I like the way you asked what THE CHURCH teaches. Do this and you will never fail. St. John Vianney was not a theologian, and his personal opinion carries no weight whatsoever. Do we even know if he really said that?

      As to your specific questions, please remember these general principles:

      1. To be sinful there must be an intention on the part of the person to be immodest.

      2. There can always be excusing causes for serious reason.

      For babies, having the genitalia enclosed is sufficient, unless in Church. Obviously, children don't have any immodest intention, nor do the mentally handicapped. Therefore, there is no sin where every reasonable course of action has been taken to prevent the mentally handicapped from undressing. Sick infants likewise may always just have the genitalia enclosed (except for Church--if too sick, don't let them go to Church).

      Anyone who would be offended or aroused by a 3 year old with exposed shoulders is in need of serious help.

      You sound like a very good person and have a lot going on with special needs children. From what you have written, I see nothing wrong that would offend Church teaching.

      Please don't be so hard on yourself, or let some Neo-Manichean dictate what you are to do. Keep doing what you've been doing--you sound very level-headed and devout. You're in my prayers!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hi sorry about my previous comment. It was riddled with spelling errors and other issues. Thankfully you understood it. I have 5 kids (6 due in August!) Our confessor at this time has advised against authentic NFP even though we are "poor" and have two children with disabilities. He knows really well our personal situation and has said he will continue to counsel us but at (this) time he wouldnt advise nfp for us. We are quite obedient. In church the infants, special needs and toddlers are all dressed as well as our money can afford for Sundays. Arms and shoulders covered, veils for girls except ky 11 month old who wouldnt keep it on yet anyway. Ankle length skirts and dresses even for the toddler when i can. Shes so tiny shes usually in a sleep n play. The priest is fine with this.
      The special needs boys wear button downs, vests and slacks. We dont own dress shoes.but discreet tennis shoes nothing flashy is their footwear. The oldest is normal (mentally) and he wears button downs, slacks, belt, plain black tennis shoes. At home the baby is sometimes just in a diaper but usually i toss her in pajamas, nightgowns, onesies and pants.
      But all i got was one quote from St.John Vianney. Nothing specific about childrens attire or whats expected in the home. In public they are fully clothed. Even in our own yard. I said to her at the time "its one picture for my family and friends. I dont add known sex offenders or pedophiles in social media. Its my mom, dad, brothers, local friends from church and some other sedevacantists ive met through online interactions. Modesty isnt just an outward sign to show the world how long your dress goes. Modesty musr be inward too. Not jusg an outward expression. Also the largest reason the church expects modesty is because of giving scandal to others or being an occasion of sin to our neighbors. If my 3 year old is an occassion of sin to you or others over shoulders i would think this is a serious issue for you. Not her." She said i was wrong that sexual attraction and sinful desires arent the reason we cover. But it is the largest reason. Before the fall adam and eve were stark naked. Because they didn't have lust or concuspience. They were pure. We cover now as a result of the fall of man. And yes pedophiles are a product of sinfulness and the fall but i actively vet people before i let them in my life. So if i suspect someone is a pedo or has such tendencies i dont interact at all. No passes. They belong outside of society. Modesty isnt just some practice or discipline the church imposes so we can remind the world we are holy. In a sermon my priest gave he said....modesty is a discipline but it is because we are obligated to not be a cause of sin or scandal for others. Only deviants find the shoulders of a 3 year old appealing. And they should be in exile and ostracized. Not protected.

      Thanks for your answer. The strange thing is this woman isnt a feeneyite. She doesnt deny BOB or BOD. She goes to an SGG church a d i actually really like her. Shes a far better Catholic than i am. No lie or Feancis style humility. She just seems so misguided on what modesty is and why it is important.

      Delete
  33. Isn’t the way people dress left up to the person’s conscience, just so it is modest? I don’t believe it is a dogma. (Correct me if I am wrong). A lot of people from what I have seen in Tradition are just busybodies in other people’s affairs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be modest is a precept of Divine-Positive Law. There are basic standards as theologian Prummer teaches, and as I have quoted in the comment above. They are not as super-puritanical as the busybodies you mentioned try and make people think!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  34. I need to stop typing on my phone. None of my replies make sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I type most of my replies (this one included) on my phone. Takes practice and I still get typos. No worries, I could understand you!

      —-Introibo

      Delete