Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades

Is NFP sinful?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Is NFP sinful?

Post  Guest on Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:12 pm


Back to top Go down

Re: Is NFP sinful?

Post  Guest on Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:15 pm

What do you think of this video by the Dimonds? They raise interesting points about the INTENTION of NFP as well as breastfeeding after births to be the same as artificial birth control. Also the point that NFP subortinates the primary reason of marriage (children) to other considerations, since NFP is so effective.


Back to top Go down

Re: Is NFP sinful?

Post  George Brenner on Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:41 pm

Well the Dimonds are at it again. I do not even like to give them press time. Did you notice that they include Pope Pius XII in their ever growing list of bad Popes by saying that He was setting the ground work for the heretic anti-Popes. He also mentions in this clip that some of the Popes in the 19th century were setting the stage for the countless bad Popes after and/or including them as bad. They have started their own religion. Our Blessed Mother at Fatima said that the "Holy Father" would have much to suffer if Her message was not heeded. The brothers would probably say that She meant to say that the heretic anti Pope would have much to suffer?

As taken from Mari Immaculate Queen... :
"The very concept of “rhythm” was first considered by the Catholic Church in 1853. The Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Penitentiary:
“Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?”
On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Pius IX) answered as follows:
“Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.”
* Please note: “providing that they do nothing to impede conception.” When married couples practice rhythm, they do not do anything unnatural in the act itself.

"For those who would belittle Pope Pius XII’s teaching on the morality of rhythm on the score that he addressed only mid-wives and nurses, let them realize that this address is contained in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the official Acts of the Apostolic See). Refer to:Acta Apostolicae Sedis 43 (1951) 845-46. On two other occasions, Pope Pius XII reiterated this same teaching and these also can be found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis43 (1953) 855-60 at 859 and Acta Apostolicae Sedis 50 (1958) 732-48, at 736.
“God has endowed the nature of woman with both periods. Deliberately to limit the use of marital relations exclusively to the sterile periods in order to avoid conception (i.e., to practice periodic continence or rhythm) is, according to the common teaching of theologians, morally lawful in actual practice if there is mutual consent, sufficient reason and due safeguards against attendant dangers. “It is also common teaching that this practice of family limitation without good and sufficient reason involves a degree of moral fault. This fault certainly could be mortal if serious injustice is done or there exists grave danger of incontinence, divorce, serious family discord etc...."
"Well before Vatican II, moral theologians consistently reiterated the teaching of the Sacred Penitentiary and Pope Pius XII on the morality of rhythm. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone can claim that the pope, the Sacred Penitentiary, and moral theologians have been in error on this issue for some 150 years and that laity have now figured it out."
sedevacantist websites misinterprets Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii when he teaches:
“Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the generating of offspring, those who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature, and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.”
" Married couples do not “deprive it [the marriage act] of its natural force and power” with the practice of rhythm because conception is still possible."
" As regards the conjugal act spouses are free to choose whatever time they wish to use their marital rights or also to abstain by mutual consent. Thus they are not obliged to perform this act only during the fertile period, neither are they obliged to refrain during the sterile period."
From Wikipedia: " St. Augustine. In the year 388, he wrote, "Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time"
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is NFP sinful?

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Father Brian Harrison answers the Dimonds:

In particular,

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Re: Is NFP sinful?

Post  George Brenner on Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:44 pm


Good Find, Thank you. The dimonds are leading soooo many people astray. That is so sad.

I especially liked from your web link:

Hence it is clear that Pius XI's solemn censure cannot be referring to NFP (periodic continence). He must be referring only to those conjugal acts which, if it were not for the unnatural intervention of one or both spouses, would have retained the said "natural power to generate life". In other words, the Pope's condemnation applies exclusively to conjugal acts carried out during what the spouses understand to be the wife's fertile period, but which they deliberately pervert (whether by 'withdrawal', condoms, pills, or any other technique) so as to deprive them of that fertility. They thus dare to raise their hands, as it were, against the approach of the Creator Himself; as if they were traffic policemen with the right to signal orders to the Lord, obliging Him to take a detour: "Stop! Halt! Go back! Not now! No entry allowed here for you!" Couples using NFP, on the other hand, are not guilty of any such presumption. They are respecting God's sovereignty over human life and death, and are simply following their God-given instincts, and using their God-given conjugal right, at those times when the Creator Himself has already made it clear, by the way He has fashioned human female biology, that He has no will to use their spousal love in order to create new life.

I will also bookmark the Living Tradition Website


George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is NFP sinful?

Post  columba on Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:26 pm

I haven't read Jehannes link as yet but even before I hear what Fr Harrison has to say I agree with the Dimonds on this issue.

I have held this same view for many years even before I became involved in traditionalism. I did so because of the fruits of NFP which have led to ever decreasing family sizes and I would suggest even many marriage break ups.
The rejection of the gift of life is mortally sinful and mortal sin in a marriage can only send that marriage in one direction. The fact that a couple can "legally" reject life with the blessing of Church makes it even harder for repentance to come about as the couple do not even realize they are in sin. To me it is Church sanctioned contraception.


Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Is NFP sinful?

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum