GOD'S FAMILY PLANNING
versus
NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING

HAS THE N.F.P. FRUIT BEEN PICKED
FROM THE ORGANICALLY GROWN TREE
OF SACRED SCRIPTURE AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION?

by JOHN R. FOHNE
(June 27, 2002)

The Natural Family Planning (NFP) controversy has been debated in the past and rightly so. Considering the seriousness of morality on our own possible attainment of eternal happiness and the peace and stability of all society I decided to research the topic. To my amazement I thought that the NFP issue has been trivialized by the scarcity of discussion, this is due to the serious consequences of not being understood and a world trying to normalize and rationalize its sinful ways.

THE PEARL OF TRUTH

Using the advice given by St. Gregory Nazianzen who said that in order to be sincere in finding the truth we must do the following: "And since every discourse is of a twofold nature, the one part establishing one's own, and the other overthrowing one's opponents': let us first of all state our own position, and then try to controvert that of our opponents;" ¹ If his advice is followed, the superior argument can be known and must be adhered to if we are lovers of truth because it becomes binding upon our consciences. Heretics and the forces of anti-truth have always used the weapon of attacking the Catholic Church with imaginary errors and crimes without ever really supporting their own position. A new age nihilist can always be discovered by his constant attacks on truth which only the Catholic Church can teach because only she teaches what has been organically grown in the soil of Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Traditions.

Faith demands assent to an argument based upon authority, if the authority is clear. In an argument based upon reason one must choose the most probable until a superior argument presents itself. To be a lover of truth is an act of humility. You earn eternal merit by making a sacrificial act of your intellect and will by submitting to the truth when discarding erroneous thoughts. To sacrifice our own opinions for truth is a daily sacrifice that will accrue great dividends. When one becomes a lover of truth, God will delight in your sacrifice and will present to you truth in multiple ways and means. There shall never be a dull moment for the remainder of your life. When we do not submit our intellect and will to truth we have sinned against God. "And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft, to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch therefore as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord has rejected thee from being king." [I Kings 15:22-23²] The voice of the Lord is His will and it represents TRUTH which all of us must obey if we wish to avoid the sins of idolatry and witchcraft. For the penalty of worshiping the "cult of man" shall be great, "And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity." [2 Thess 2:10-11]

The admonitions of St. Paul, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." [Galatians 1:8-9], "prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [1 Thess 5:21] and "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." [2 Thess 2:14] The last dogmatic council Vatican I teaches, Denzinger, #1836, "The Roman Pontiffs,...have defined that those matters must be held which with God's help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scriptures and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it,"³ Therefore, to be orthodox and followers of the Catholic faith we must understand that our teaching must be "in agreement with Sacred Scriptures and apostolic tradition." We must ever be on our guard. Our Lord Jesus has taught that heretics would come to lead the sheep away from the flock, but we can know who they are by testing their teachings against truth. Next question is: "How do we know if it is in agreement with Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition?"

In these days of "diabolical disorientation", referring to the intellectual aspects of the great apostasy, it has been said that one of the most difficult trials would be "loneliness of faith" because many famous and false prophets would teach error drawing many away from His truth. To belong to the "cult of God" we must be worshipers of the Truth which He has taught us. We must have faith that TRUTH is to be followed and we must not be persuaded by men of rank or title to accept new doctrines. Johannes Quasten in Patrology stated that Vatican I used St. Vincent of Lerins writings for the criterion of tradition which has stood the test of time for the last 1,500 years. It still stands and was held in great esteem by Ven. Cardinal Newman. St. Vincent of Lerins wrote, "I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity (deviation from right); and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church... Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense `Catholic,' which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow UNIVERSALITY, ANTIQUITY, CONSENT. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors." ⁴ (CAPS MY OWN)

Regarding the morality of our deeds, thoughts, and actions, intentions are primary and most essential. Father Henry Davis, S.J., taught in a book printed in 1952, "Ch. III, The Moral Act and its Determinants, Sec. 3. The object is what the will primarily intends to do. (a) This determinant transfers to an act its essential and primary morality, since the object is that which is first in intention, and obviously precedes its circumstances and end in view." ⁵ To deny the intentions in morality is to turn over in a violent revolutionary storm the Church's constant and orthodox teaching based on Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

CHURCH TEACHING
PRESENTED
CHRONOLOGICALLY

The example of Onan is "Juda therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brothers's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. And therefore the Lord slew him because he did a detestable thing." [Genesis 38:8-10] St. Jerome's exegesis is, "Onan who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?"⁶ If intentions are not important and primary in morality do you believe God would have killed Onan? Hopefully, you would not believe God is a ruthless tyrant. It was his deliberate intentions to thwart the procreation process that "the Lord slew him".

To quote St. Jerome marriage populates the earth, but virginity populates heaven. St. Jerome writes, "Whence it is that the Apostle says, `It is good for a man not to touch a woman.' But inasmuch as he who is once married has no power to abstain except by mutual consent, and may not reject an unoffending partner, let the husband render unto the wife her due. He bound himself voluntarily that he might be under compulsion to render it. `Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer.'" ⁷

In the following quote of St. Augustine, he has assumed that a marriage has taken place and the marriage act is with your spouse. Therefore he concentrates on their intentions of begetting children. St. Augustine writes, De Moribus Manichaeorum, "Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? 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, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit." ⁸

The line of orthodox teaching begins with Sacred Scriptures depiction of Onan's evil deed, through St. Augustine, through Pope St. Siricius, through Pope St. Leo the Great, through Pope St. Gregory the Great, through St. Thomas Aquinas, through Pope Pius XI "Casti Connubii", through the Sacred Congregation's 1944 declaration, through Henry Davis, S.J. in 1952 when he states, "The condition of excluding procreation from the contract would invalidate the marriage." The intention of not begetting children when using the marriage act will invalidate the marriage and render the spouses unable to receive the special graces of Matrimony that come from its sacramental character. Therefore, it will become harder and harder to live with your spouse and the marriage bed will be violated because the graces necessary to live the matrimonial life have been withheld due to their intentions of using the marriage as a means of covering up for their lust.

In the Pohle-Preuss series on Dogmatic Sacramental Theology they discuss various theories of what constitutes the marriage contract as follows: "The only tenable theory is that of Bellarmine, Suarez, Sanchez, and other authors, – that both the matter and the form of the Sacrament are contained in the matrimonial contract itself, being the words of consent spoken by the contracting parties, or the signs used instead. These words or signs constitute the matter of the Sacrament in so far as they signify the mutual surrender of the bodies (traditio), and its form in so far as they signify the acceptance (acceptatio) of the same." ⁹ The point I am trying to establish is when popes and saints have stated the sacrament to be invalid is because the spouses have entered marriage with the intention of excluding children. Note however, that spouses entering matrimony with the intention of limiting children are validly married but are displeasing to God. Because it is not a sacrament due to the priests blessing, but due to the intentions of the two entering and making the contract. They must have the correct and proper intentions as the Church requires. This determines the validity of the sacrament. It is possible for the sacrament to be invalid because, "It would be wrong, however, to ascribe to Matrimony a sacramental character in the strict sense. The mark imprinted on the soul by this Sacrament, unlike the character imparted by the other three Sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation & Holy Orders) mentioned, is not physical, but purely moral. From the `quasi-character' of Matrimony flow the two properties of Christian marriage, viz: unity (unitas) and indissolubility (indissolubilitas)." ¹⁰

St. Hippolytus who lived 150 years prior to St. Augustine writes, "in respect of energy of womb, some conceiving quicker, and others slower. And this is not strange, since also women, when themselves compared with themselves, at times are observed having a strong disposition towards conception, but at times with no such tendency." ¹¹ The elimination of births through choosing the time of the marriage act is as old as man. It must be strange to the evolutionists within the Church to find out that the Church indeed has known about natural family planning of birth, and still condemned it in no uncertain terms because the intentions were immoral. The proper use of the marriage act must be for procreation or not to use it at all. It is a good intention in striving for perfection if a couple should choose "for a time" to concentrate on prayer, but they must not use the marriage act. If there is fear for a spouse's health, they would do well to abstain and not use the marriage act until the spouse is healthier. It is not permissible for any reason whatsoever to use the marriage act in such a manner as to plan to eliminate offspring. For a proper respect to exist between spouses there has to be a spontaneous and unrestricted use of the marriage act when within the limits defined by the Church throughout the centuries.

The Synod of Milan in 390 presided over by St. Ambrose condemned the same errors as had Pope St. Siricius. The following treatise written by St. Augustine at the request of Pope St. Siricius to defend his condemnation of the errors of Jovinianus. De Bono Conjugali #3, "Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence, although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting of children, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bring to pass some good. Next, in that the lust of the flesh is repressed, and rages in a way more modestly, being tempered by parental affection. For there is interposed a certain gravity of glowing pleasure, when in that wherein husband and wife cleave to one another, they have in mind that they be father and mother." ¹²

De Bono Conjugali #5, "Also the question is wont to be asked, when a male and female, neither the one the husband, nor the other the wife, of any other, come together, not for the begetting of children, but, by reason of incontinence, for the mere sexual intercourse, there being between them this faith, that neither he do it with any other woman, nor she with any other man, whether it is to be called marriage. And perhaps this may, not without reason, be called marriage, if it shall be the resolution of both parties until the death of one, and if the begetting of children, although they came not together for that cause, yet they shun not, so as either to be unwilling to have children born to them, or even by some evil work to use means that they be not born. But, if either both, or one, of these be wanting, I find not how we can call it marriage." ¹³

De Bono Conjugali #6, "Therefore married persons owe one another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself, for the begetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the human kind in this mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining one another's weakness, in order to shun unlawful intercourse: so that, although perpetual continence be pleasing to one of them, he may not, save with consent of the other.... For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting hath not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, (Ed. note: Passions set free as distinguished from spontaneous association) but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it hath venial fault: but adultery or fornication hath deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting."¹⁴ The Church has long ago recognized the need of balance and moderation in using the marriage act. The marriage act inflames the passions. When done with openness to the begetting of children, the water of God's grace is poured on the fires of passion.

St. Augustine's response to the Pelagian heretics in De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia #8, "A man turns to use the evil of concupiscence, and is not overcome by it, when he bridles and restrains its rage, as it works in inordinate and indecorous motions; and never relaxes his hold upon it except when intent on offspring, and then controls and applies it to the carnal generation of children to be spiritually regenerated, not to the subjection of the spirit to the flesh in a sordid servitude."¹⁵

De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia #15, "It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honorable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practiced in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin."¹⁶ He speaks of natural and artificial birth control when he writes "either by wrong desire or evil appliance" that was known and understood in his times. But also he well understood that planning families would lead to an increase of child abuse. Is that not the truth these days?

Tixeront writes that the following was commonly taught and quoting St. Gregory the Great, St. Isidore and St. Caesarius, "they were forcefully reminded that conjugal relations are fully justified only by the intention of begetting children, and that, outside of that purpose, they always entail some venial fault, because they result from inordinate concupiscence."¹⁷

As we read Pope St. Gregory the Great bear in mind he too has made the same implicit assumptions as St. Augustine that the marriage is sacramental and the marriage act is with your spouse. "The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bounds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they should efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of intercourse by the admixture of pleasure."¹⁸ Pleasure is a competing principle and when left unregulated will consume and supersede the first principle and eventually leads to greater sins. He teaches that man's marriage act is not natural and free from sin just because it is performed in the marriage state.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in Pt. II-II, Q.153,a.1, "I answer that, As Isidore says (Etym. x), a lustful man is one who is debauched with pleasures. Now venereal pleasures above all debauch a man's mind. Therefore lust is especially concerned with such like pleasures."¹⁹ And a.2 "I answer that, A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order of reason. Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its end in a fitting manner....Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal (marriage) acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation."²⁰

The above discourses were made with the intention of saving the souls of women from being destroyed by the stronger sex because they understood human nature. For they remember what God has taught and ordained, "Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety." [1 Tim 2:15] St. Jerome states the more children a women bears the more perfectly she has fulfilled God's will. Hence, a woman that is always open to the begetting of children has perfectly fulfilled God's will even if God should so decide not to grant that woman any children.

Another papal condemnation of family planning from the pen of Pope St. Leo the Great in his letter "To Turribius, Bishop of Asturia, upon the Errors of the Priscillianists. I. Introductory....Therefore as you, beloved, with all the faithful diligence in your power, have dealt under 16 heads with these already condemned opinions, we also subject them once more to a strict examination; lest any of these blasphemies should be thought either bearable or doubtful....VIII (7) In the seventh place follows their condemnation of marriages and their horror of begetting children: in which, as in almost all points, they agree with the Manichaeans' impiety. But it is for this reason, as their own practices prove, that they detest the marriage tie, because there is no liberty for lewdness where the chastity of wedlock and of offspring is preserved."²¹

The above condemnations of Pope St. Leo the Great are clear and were used almost word for word by the first council of Braga, in Portugal, held in 563, as a sufficient exposition of their own position. St. Augustine taught that the Manichaeans did allow their "hearers" to marry and also had a horror of begetting children. The horror of begetting children according to the constant teaching of the Church, as noted in the above quote of Pope St. Leo the Great, makes invalid the marriage if they use the marriage act. St. Leo teaches the horror of begetting children is also to implicitly condemn marriage, just like the Manichaeans. Those who teach the horror of begetting children are actually attacking the sacrament of Matrimony. Denzinger #241, "Anathemas against Heretics, especially the Priscillianists by Pope John III (561-574), Council of Braga...11. If anyone condemns human marriage and has a horror of the procreation of living bodies, as Manichaeus and Priscillian have said, let him be anathema."²².

The apostolic traditions have been handed down to us through the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in Suppl.Q.49,a.2, "One of these is required on the part of the agent and is the intention of the due end, and thus the offspring is accounted a good of matrimony"²³

St. Thomas Aquinas in Suppl. Q.49,a.3, "Secondly, faith and offspring may be considered as in their principles, so that offspring denote the intention of having children, and faith the duty of remaining faithful, and there can be no matrimony without these also, since they are caused in matrimony by the marriage compact itself, so that if anything contrary to these were expressed in the consent which makes a marriage, the marriage would be invalid."²⁴ Pope Pius XI also quotes St. Thomas in "Casti Connubii" that the intention of having children is most important if you wish to have a true sacramental marriage.

St. Thomas Aquinas in Suppl. Q.41,a.4, "Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent,...the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust."²⁵

The Church teaches the importance of disciplining the passions. The passions are disciplined first by the intellect when it chooses procreation and secondly with the intention of being open to the begetting of children.

By many it has been observed that the lives of NFP practitioners are going from bad to worse. Their private sins when serious enough will not be kept a secret any longer and will manifest itself in broad daylight for all to see. God permits such a display so that the faithful may be taught that the NFP way of life is not to be imitated. The same logic should also be applicable to the small families of NFPers compared to families of the past who where not NFPers. So, few children within NFP families is a strong indication that lust is dominant and not procreation. The greatest manifestation that something is wrong in today's families is that we have significantly less of the "goods of matrimony" with fewer children than we have had in the past. This is THE indication that has set many people looking for the root cause of this problem and many have found NFP to be the common link.

St. Thomas Aquinas in Suppl.,Q.49,a.5, "make a marriage honest and holy, so too, in so far as they are in the actual intention, they make the marriage act honest,...but not its act, as though its act were wholly excused from sin, through being done on account of some signification. Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt; otherwise it is always at least a venial sin."²⁶

St. Thomas writes quite clearly that having offspring is the purpose of the marriage act, but you can perform the marriage act at any approved time even if begetting of children is doubtful. That is because you are paying the marriage debt and have agreed to allow the other spouse dominion over your body. The payment of the marriage debt or contract is subordinated to procreation. In order for the Church to elucidate her teaching, the Church realizes that there will be times when it is known that the women most likely will be unfruitful. So the Church adds that it is proper for the marriage act to occur during these infertile periods by stating "to pay the debt" teaching that payment of the marriage debt is permitted. Leviticus 15:19, states ""When a woman has her menstrual flow, she shall be in a state of impurity for seven days. Anyone who touches her shall be unclean until evening.", and 18:19 "You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation" and Ezekiel 18:6 "if he does not defile his neighbor's wife, nor have relations with a woman in her menstrual period" clearly gives biblical instruction as to when not to have relations with your spouse while her time of the month is occurring and for seven days thereafter. Note in Ezekiel that the defiling of menstrual uncleanness equates with adultery.

The Council of Florence in the 15th century from Denzinger #695 & 702 teaches the following: "There are seven sacraments of the new Law: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony...the last two for the government and increase of the entire Church...through orders the Church is truly governed and spiritually propagated; through matrimony corporally increased...Moreover, there is allotted a threefold good on the part of matrimony. First, the progeny is to be accepted and brought up for the worship of God."²⁷ The Council was only teaching what God had decreed in Genesis 1:28 "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth."

The problem with the NFP debate is that an inordinate amount of attention has been placed on the act itself. Instead of concentrating on the inward and spiritual aspects of man, NFP concentrates on the outward and physical man. All previous teaching from Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition as quoted above have taught that THE INTENTION is the primary principle in determining the morality of an act and all other considerations take second place.

The teachers of our faith realized and understood that the marriage act when performed would at the same time inflame our various passions which inhibit and harm us in seeking perfection. Therefore, when the marriage act is done with the intention of being obedient to God, of bringing children into this world, this act of love offered to God would spiritualize the marriage act. The grace required to calm and soothe our animal passions aroused by the marriage act would come from God due to our obedience.

The strength and amount of grace would vary according to how pure our intentions where in conformity with God's will. Once the path of obedience has been tossed over board, our intentions embark upon the slippery path of allowing our unruly passions to gather strength and sway over the soul. Obedience is the means in which we petition God for the cooling waters of grace to chill and discipline our passions so we may continue our pursuit of perfection and the working out of our salvation.

Every marital act with the intention of not having children is always a selfish act and entails at least a venial sin because we have done it for the sole purpose of feeding the passions and desires of our body. Therefore we have excluded the love that is due to God. Denzinger #1159, "Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, Condemned error--# 9. The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect."²⁸ This has been the constant position throughout the history of the Church as the Holy Office has once again condemned the teaching that the marital act can be for pleasure only. Our Lord said, "If you love Me, do My will."

When we are young, our bodies are full of life and strive to live unfettered by any restraints. God understands this, and He desires what is best for us. By performing the marriage act with obedience to God we learn restraint, so when we are older and no longer of child-bearing age, hopefully, we shall have acquired enough discipline and love of God that we shall have enough control as not to let our passions become unruly. It is so important to understand that we seek the infinite in all things, that we spiritualize the marriage act so our spouses do not become mere things or play toys. If we attempt to remove God's will from the marriage act, we are trying to rely on finite things to make us happy. The end result is that it will make us unhappy for as St. Augustine wrote, "O Lord, are hearts are restless until they rest in Thee." The spiritualizing of the marriage act teaches us to love and respect our spouses, for they are here to help us in that climb to heaven.

Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii from Denzinger #2226, #2228, & #2229, "To take away the natural and primeval right of marriage, or in any way to circumscribe the chief purpose of marriage established in the beginning by the authority of God, `Increase and multiply' [Gen. 1:28], is not within the power of any law of man....Thus the child holds the first place among the blessing of matrimony. Clearly the Creator of the human race Himself, who because of His kindness wished to use men as helpers in propagating life, taught this in Paradise, when He instituted marriage, saying to our first parents, and through them to all spouses: `Increase and multiply and fill the earth' [Gen. 1:28]. This thought St. Augustine very beautifully infers from the words of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy, when he says: `So the Apostle is witness that marriage is accomplished for the sake of generation. I wish, he says, young widows to marry. And as if someone said to Him: Why? he immediately adds: To bear children, to be mothers of families'. Indeed, Christian parents should further understand that they are destined not only to propagate and to preserve the human race on earth, nay rather, not to raise any kind of worshipers of the true God, but to produce offspring of the Church of Christ; to procreate `fellow-citizens of the saints and members of God's household' [Eph. 2:19], that the people devoted to the worship of God and our Savior may increase daily."²⁹

Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii in Denzinger #2239 & 2240, "Indeed, some vindicate themselves for this criminal abuse on the ground that they are tired of children and wish merely to fulfill their desires without the consequent burden; others on the ground that they can neither observe continence, nor because of difficulties of the mother or of family circumstances cannot have offspring....Any use of the marriage act, in the exercise of which it is designedly deprived of its natural power of procreating life, infringes on the law of God and of nature, and those who have committed any such act are stained with the guilt of serious sin."³⁰ The proponents of NFP claim that only artificial birth control is condemned, but nowhere in the encyclical does Pope Pius XI mention any kind of specific birth control. His whole focus is on the intentions of the couple having offspring as primary and he finishes the encyclical by stating the example of Onan as an evil use of man's free will.

The following Vatican directive states the begetting of children is still most important and it is 14 years after Casti Connubii in Denzinger #2295, The Purposes of Matrimony, "This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: `Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,' have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative."³¹

And in 1952 Henry Davis, S.J. was still teaching "The condition of excluding procreation from the contract would invalidate the marriage."³²

REFUTATION OF NFP

It has always been Catholic teaching that when the faithful heard new doctrine they must determine if it is real Catholic organic growth of already existing teachings. If the new doctrine is not the fruit chosen from the organically grown tree of Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Traditions it is forbidden. It is my intention in this article of following Christ and His Truth. If this leads me to disagree with our current superiors so be it. I wish to save my soul, not my body or my name. These are most difficult times and the best of men have weaknesses just as the rest of us. The final judgment of popes is reserved only for popes and God. I shall enumerate the various opinions and claims made by Michael Davies written in an article ³³ and shall attempt to refute his claims.

#1) Mr. Davies quotes Vatican II Lumen Gentium no.25, "Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra"³⁴ I do not understand why they quote Vatican II and believe we must give an unconditional consent to its teaching as if we are robots incapable of thought and love of truth is excluded. I have already quoted that Vatican I teachings on faith and morals must be "recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic traditions" because we belong to the "cult of God" which is devoted to truth.

On January 12, 1966 Pope Paul VI in a general audience declared that Vatican II is not a dogmatic or infallible council, it is only a pastoral council. With so many other dogmatic teachings why do they quote an inferior council as compared to the dogmatic and infallible councils such as Vatican I. If they are trying to say that we must give assent due to collegiality, it is but another attempt of Protestantism via democratism imposing its Gnosticism upon the faithful. It is teaching that if the majority approves, then it is crowned by the halo of divinity and those among the majority become more divine themselves. But God the Holy Ghost has already forbidden us to state it is infallible per Pope Paul VI general audience on January 12, 1966. Therefore, I must ask this question. If the Holy Ghost could not purify the council teachings with its very own divine fire, what do you expect mere mortal men to do with Vatican II?

With the Holy Ghost's leery scrutiny of Vatican II, I too must accede to His wisdom and do the same. I am compelled to look for other more reliable teachings of higher authority such as Vatican I which defines the limits of infallibility and the other councils which are infallible. For those who believe the Pope's authority can be by-passed by stating Vatican II is infallible must be warned then to read what Vatican I teaches, Denzinger 1830 & 1831, "Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff....let him be anathema."³⁵

We are the loyal subjects of Pope Paul VI in keeping to his decision when he stated emphatically that Vatican II is not infallible nor is it dogmatic. Those who propose to go over his head and try to state Vatican II is infallible are denying the authority of the Pope. Going over the head of the pope has happened before in history with the Arian heresy which taught that councils and collegiality are superior to papal decisions. I appeal to Vatican I which states in a previous quoted passage in Denzinger #1836, "For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."³⁶ The successors of Peter cannot make new doctrine!

#2) Mr. Davies quoting Vatican II claims that "The reference to the frequent repetition of the same teaching is of the greatest possible importance. When successive pontiffs have reiterated a teaching concerning faith and morals on frequent occasions, it can be considered infallible, even if not the subject of an ex cathedra pronouncement."³⁷ The reference quoted above by NFPers represent one of the more frequent problems encountered. Vatican II has presented the starving children of the Catholic Church not with real bread and real meat, but with a handful of crumbs. This has been accomplished by the council through its presentation of incomplete, partially or poorly explained pastoral advice within an ambiance that presents an appearance of a complete presentation of Catholicism. This incompleteness can only be discovered by understanding the historical and organic growth as passed on and nurtured with papal blessings of the one, true, catholic and apostolic tree of Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Traditions. The incompleteness can be explained by understanding the council fathers' desire for only a "pastoral council" to give only pastoral advice. They have unwittingly excluding the influence of the Holy Ghost because the council fathers wished only to be guided by human prudence.

This was the first time in history that bishops have met together from around the world desiring the Holy Ghost not to interfere. Many speeches and letters could be written to contradict my statement above, but no one can contradict the Holy Father whom on January 12, 1966 stated the council is not dogmatic nor infallible. Therefore we must conclude the Holy Ghost was not able nor could He allow the Holy Father to state He was guiding the council in its discussions, presentations and its final statements. The Holy Ghost was and is always available for guidance to anyone and was available for individuals present at the council. But He was not guiding the council. Once the above is understood then some light can be shed upon how various authors writing about the council have told their story by presenting it as bad guys versus good guys, liberals versus conservatives. Orthodoxy was the not question, for the council resembled a political convention more than a religious council.

As various authors have pointed out the doctrinal deviations of Vatican II from previous teachings I shall ask NFPers a question. Would you move your entire family into a house in which defects have been found in a few rooms without a thorough investigation of the other rooms beforehand? What would the prudent man do? Would you trust your entire family to live in a house built by Vatican II?

When Pontiffs have written in the past on issues affecting the Church due to new circumstances or situations they have always relied on the guidance of already defined dogmas and well established principles. The Church has used the same means and methods throughout each and every century to defend herself in order to build her great storehouse of knowledge. It is common practice for an intelligent man to base his decisions upon sound principles that have been tested and proven. The same analogy is said of Popes. The better the popes understand Church history, her dogmatic teachings and guiding principles, the more quality decisions will be made by them. But in each case they have always provided the faithful with direction and guidance through their encyclicals by supporting whatever cause of action and/or teaching they wished to implement by presenting sound and orthodox principles that have been used before as its foundation. We were never left to obey blindly as robots. The Church is THE shining light of truth for all earth to see and she does not hide this light under a basket. She lets the whole world see it hoping and praying it will be beguiled by her beauty and wisdom so they may become part of the faithful.

Will NFPers please quote an infallible source which clearly indicates we must give blind obedience when we believe its contrary to Faith and Truth. To show the extent of confusion in some NFPers minds an illustration is in order. Regarding supporters of SSPX, concerning its possible schism, who have stated that Archbishop Lefebvre's action was proper in disobeying the pope. Their defense rests solely that within the Church there exists an emergency crisis. Hence, by doing what was right he could not be excommunicated. They have stated correctly that the Church is in an emergency crisis. NFPers are presenting faith and morals as distinct and separated from each other, as if one has no affect upon the other. Your faith or lack of faith directly affects all of your behavior. Your quality of relationship with God is first and foremost and it determines your relationship with your neighbors. It is the foundation for all of your principles that guides your life.

Somehow they see the great one, true, catholic and apostolic Ark of salvation as being many little ships instead of as ONE. NFPers envision a multitude of ships, at the least, one for faith and one for morals. Attacks upon ship "Faith" do not harm ship "Morals". Somehow NFPers believe moral teachings are unsinkable, not at peril from attacks of effeminate dupes of the dogmas made of Play-Do sets of conservative sharks or liberals who have well planned and coordinated diabolical torpedo attacks from properly positioned submarines. — Some may take offense at the usage of the word "effeminate," but I mean the word in the sense of those whose god is "feelings" or "emotions" in opposition to the usage of the faculty of sound reasoning.

St. Athanasius condemned the poetry of arch-heretic Arius, not for a specific heresy, but because it was effeminate. The state of an effeminate mind will have natural tendencies toward error. The mere fact one is effeminate is indicative that he has already consumed many errors and they have become his foundation for the principles that guide and direct his life. So when St. Athanasius condemned Arius's poetry, it was to save the minds of the faithful from being pre-conditioned through an effeminization process unknown to themselves. The danger lies in its tone, structure and quality with its underlying assumptions supporting it that determines its character. It is not the actual words. To read and or follow effeminate men you would naturally take on their qualities of mind. St. Augustine states "Good character leads to right understanding"³⁸ Effeminate men are good men (according to appearance only) who allow evil to prosper.

Very few people have the skills of a St. Athanasius to determine early whether teachings would lead to error. A test of a man's character is to determine if he believes dogmas are made of Play-Do. If they should treat dogmas (truth) with a bend-me shape-me attitude it is as if they have a backbone that acts as a reed in the wind and bends in the direction of any and all winds blown by catering to the latest opinion polls of their peer groups, know then they are effeminate. They are dupes of the liberals. Having an effeminate state of mind they are unable to see the ruses of the liberals and therefore follow along and even defend liberalism. This depends on which group they wish to be loved by and thus discard or accept various liberal teachings, but never ever will they question the various principles of errors which have unleashed such havoc within our Church.

Scripture has stated that a punishment for nations that go bad is that He shall set up women over that nation as a punishment. [Isaiah 3:12] If you have the faith necessary to believe the Church dogma of Sacred Scripture's inerrancy and noticing the great apostasy all around us, you should have no problem understanding that there must be men in high office who are effeminate. It is so easy to fall into the cultural traps of Protestantism via democratism with its abhorrence of Christ the King and truth. If men cannot pursue truth and justice according to Christ the King as taught by the one, true, catholic and apostolic church, they gradually become effeminate. Effeminacy is not necessarily a non-violent character, effeminacy is when a man is ruled by his passions and not his intellect.

A false standard based upon pursuit of happiness (money) has replaced truth and justice. In time all will learn the art of compromise by prostituting themselves to the idols of money. Hence, they are slowly absorbed until they have become full members of the whore of Babylon. Therefore the NFPers conclude it is safe to blindly accept and obey new teachings labeled as "progress" in morals.

What makes me very nervous about quoting Vatican II is how it is being applied by NFPers. If the quote can be taken to mean blind obedience then we really have a problem. Then it is being used as the battle cry of the new church to demand dictatorial power over man's conscience in order to extract blind obedience. My answer to that is "NEVER". Give me either TRUTH or give me DEATH.

Garrigou-Lagrange's teaching on the Summa Theologica explains that Faith and Truth are two cords intertwined to form part of the same rope. Without either one there shall be no rope to climb into heaven. How necessary is truth to have in order to grow in faith? How necessary is truth for salvation? The answer is it is absolutely necessary! St. Augustine teaches "For in very deed, brethren, their faith is corrupted who prefer a lie to the truth. For these men, who appear to honor Christ in such wise as to deny that He had flesh, do nothing short of proclaiming Him a liar. Now they who build up a lie in men, what do they do but drive the truth out of them? They let in the devil, they drive Christ out; they let in an adulterer, shut out the bridegroom, being evidently paranymphs, or rather, the panderers of the serpent. For it is for this object they speak, that the serpent may possess, and Christ be shut out. How doth the serpent possess? When a lie possesses. When falsehood possesses, then the serpent possesses; when truth possesses, then Christ possesses. For Himself has said, `I am the truth;' but of that other He said, `He stood not in the truth, because the truth is not him.' And Christ is the truth in such wise that thou shouldst receive the whole to be true in Him. The true Word, God equal with the Father, true soul, true flesh, true man, true God, true nativity, true passion, true death, true resurrection. If thou say that any of these is false, rottenness enters, the worms of falsehood are bred of the poison of the serpent, and nothing sound will remain."³⁹

Some individual's have a skewed understanding of not only the papacy but also the men who have occupied St. Peter's chair. Degradation and trivialization has occurred due to the naturalization of the supernatural aspects of the papacy's office and power and has become most noticeable. In times past when catholic culture was in a state of confusion, men questioned papal infallibility in search of answers to their present crisis. A catholic culture takes into consideration original sin and its effects, hence the papacy was viewed as less infallible. But the current culture we Catholics find ourselves in is based upon Gnosticism via Protestantism which does not believe nor does it consider original sin and its effects. Hence, the current phenomenon of viewing the occupier of St. Peter's chair as more infallible than is normal as they clothe him with the properties of divinity.

Gnosticism is a systematic philosophical process by which individuals and societies gradually come to believe they are divine, hence their will is supreme and cannot err. It is not a conscious thought, but through our errors of culture, government and economics they bring to bear such an influence that our thought process will reflect the Gnosticism found in our daily lives. Unless we are fervent Catholics by subjecting all things to faith as St. Paul has demanded, we to shall become gnostics.

Gnosticism's most successful propagandist is Protestantism which bestows the crown of divinity on any and all who join their ranks by teaching the divine inerrancy of each individual when interpreting Sacred Scripture. Recent late comers such as New Age and charismatic movements are simply Protestants less inhibited in their claims of divinity.

Gnosticism involves a leveling of the hierarchical world Christ our King has created by bringing God down to our level, this is called naturalizing the supernatural. The "cult of man" strives toward divinization by lowering all of the supernatural by the debasing and vulgarization of God in which there are no mysteries until He has become just one of the common folk. Since man can not be like God, therefore he will bring God down to his level.

For Catholics laboring in that mystical utopian world of Gnosticism, the new age of Aquarius, would easily fall prey to the Medjugorjeian apparitions. The Medjugorje apparitions accomplishes two things;

first

second

This correction is vital for Catholics to be willing to carry their crosses to re-establish all things in Christ the King which only the Catholic Church is capable of accomplishing due to its divine founder. St. Athanasius taught for any council to convene and not correct the errors of its times is to teach implicitly its acceptance.

Any apparition must condemn the errors of our times and lead all back home to the one, true, catholic and apostolic church. It is a key heresy for us to understand our times as the naturalizing of the supernatural. So when Catholics apply the Medjugorjeian mentality which tacitly accepts the tenets of Gnosticism and projects this to the papacy they believe the pope does not need the Holy Ghost to be infallible. They have subconsciously extended their own divine qualities to the pope. In this post-conciliar Aquarian age papolatry is the logical fruit of rejecting church supernatural teachings for the man-made religion of naturalism. Whenever the pope speaks he is divine on his own merits, therefore the Holy Ghost becomes part of the pre-conciliar church and therefore not necessary for modern post-conciliar man. The faithful and true Catholics understand the Popes are only human and have absolute need of the Holy Ghost in defining the truth for the world.

Vatican I states, Denzinger #1839, "that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such DEFINITIONS of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable."⁴⁰

Detailed analysis of the above is provided by Dr. Ludwig Ott, "c) The condition of the Infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required: (I) That he speak as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his supreme apostolic authority; If he speaks as a private theologian or as the bishop of his Diocese, he is not infallible; ii) That he have the intention of deciding finally a teaching of Faith or Morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. Without this intention, which must be made clear in the formulation, or by the circumstances, a decision ex cathedra is not complete. Most of the doctrinal expressions made by the Popes in their Encyclicals are not decisions ex cathedra. d) The source of his Infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost, Who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error. This assistance must be distinguished from Revelation by which some truths or others are communicated by God to the bearer of the Revelation; and from Inspiration, which is a positive influence effected by God over an author, of such a nature that God Himself is the principal author of the writing, and the ideas are consequently the Word of God. The Holy Ghost preserves the bearer of the supreme teaching office from a false decision (assistentia negativa), and leads him, where necessary, by external and internal grace to the right knowledge and correct statement of the truth (assistentia postiva). The Divine assistance does not relieve the bearer of the infallible doctrinal power of the obligation of taking pains to know the truth, especially by means of the study of the sources of Revelation. Cf.D 1836."⁴¹

For any papal teachings to be infallible it must have the qualities of having been stated ex cathedra. Regarding NFP, has the pope(s) spoken as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his supreme apostolic authority? The answer is "NO"! Did the pope(s) have the intention of deciding finally a teaching of Faith or Morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful? The answer is "NO"!

It would be impossible for any pope to make binding upon all the faithful with full apostolic authority the practices of NFP. The Holy Ghost would never permit it because He has already spoken through Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Siricius and others when they condemned the NFPism errors of Jovinianus, Priscillianists, Pelagians and Manichaeans heretics.

NFP does not meet any of the historical criteria provided by the Church involving the use of an exception to be considered an ex-cathedra statement. NFP represents an exception and an allowance. No one is bound to practice it, hence it cannot qualify under Church teaching as binding on one's conscience due solely to the fact that no authority has been used. Proponents of NFP have declared it infallible, not the popes. But when blind obedience is invoked, no supporting documentation is needed. The great weakness of their argument is that they believe this is a legitimate growth from previous teachings. They support their argument by interpreting that Pope Pius XII's NFP statements represent "progress" on morals, but they never ever show me the tree from which Pope Pius XII has plucked the NFP fruit from. To help bolster their argument Mr. Davies claims the popes "In their Encyclicals do not always cover every aspect of every subject that they touch upon, and their teaching is frequently clarified or developed by their successors. Where this takes place, the earlier document must be understood in the light of later ones. The use of the infertile period provides an excellent example of such development in a matter of faith and morals"⁴²

No where in history of the Church can it be said to look forward to the future for current explanations. It has always been to look back to sacred scripture and apostolic traditions to determine if the growth is organic and the new decision of the reigning Pontiff is based on true and faithful principles which have been used before to build, to defend, to establish previous dogma and doctrinal statements. If they believe NFP is organic growth then they must show from what soil and tree this particular fruit comes from or else I must reject as Adam and Eve should have rejected the forbidden fruit. St. Vincent of Lerins on organic growth, "The criterion of tradition does not lead to immobility, given that it is joined with a second criterion, both essential and complementary, of dogmatic progress which operates according to the laws of organic growth. `This progress truly constitutes a progress and not an alteration of the faith, for it is characteristic of progress that a thing grows while remaining the same thing, and characteristic of alteration that one thing is changed into another"⁴³

NFP is a denial of past dogmatic statements by popes. It is not organic growth from the same tree, but it is a whole new tree growing in the soil of heresy. The only logic presented for NFP has been to state that science has discovered (1,000's of years late) women have infertile periods and since it's only natural you are free to use it without any restraint. Their logic follows that they are aware it is a non-ex cathedra statement by the Pontiff in its conception, but since various popes have repeated it this makes it infallible. Orthodox teachings are determined by their harmony with Scripture and Tradition, not by the number of those repeating the same error.

Believing Pope Pius XII can start a new tradition is tantamount to saying they believe he is a reincarnation of an apostle. (Which one?!) The logic of NFPers is if various popes teach the same opinions it becomes infallible without ever proving its worthiness based upon Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Traditions. This is an application of that protestant mentality, via democratism, which teaches truth lies in the will of the majority's opinion, even though it disagrees with previous infallible dogmas and decisions. As I have shown earlier infallible statements are for definitions only, not for every word of an entire encyclical.

The next logical step for NFPers is, after their personal opinions have declared Humanae Vitae infallible word for word, is to state without supporting it that the concept of birth control exists in Casti Connubii. Therefore they have demonstrated to themselves that NFP has a line of tradition indeed which exists for its teaching.

NONSENSE! NFPers display their pagan protestant cultural upbringing when they lower the discussion by concentrating solely on methods used to procure birth control. The highest possible thought level for a protestant culture is to lower everything to a political outlook with pragmatism as its guiding principle. So when NFPers define the parameters, the limits and the ground on which the battle shall be fought, all will fall into their trap of debating the issue in terms of a legalistic outlook. Individuals defining the debate with a legalistic overview and parameters will only understand an issue by what has been specifically and formally condemned in terms of some action performed because protestant cultures have reduced all issues to be seen as affecting the unrestrained use of liberty. Hence, all other practices not formally and explicitly condemned are assumed safe to use.

If you accept the premise that Humanae Vitae explains Casti Connubii then you have taken the bait and have accepted a legalisticly defined debate which they have chosen as ground for the battle to be fought upon. Due to its limitations of only condemning explicitly specific actions performed, Humanae Vitae represented an excellent opportunity for NFPers to impose and start a new way of thinking. By discussing moral issues by using the phrase "artificial birth control" they have with skillful misdirection shifted the battle from the traditional grounds of intentions to a new battle ground consisting of a slavish legalistic mentality. A legalistic mentality believes if no one says no explicitly and formally, just do it because all is assumed to be permitted.

They attempt to use the annotated copy of Humanae Vitae and its references to show NFP is true organic growth of dogma. Well, I have re-read it and reviewed its references. There are 41 numbered footnotes with some individual footnotes containing multiple references. If we were to take each reference and count it as one we would have a total of approximately 65 references. There are four references dating prior to Pope Pius XII and one reference to St. Thomas Aquinas which does not deal at all with marriage but with a minor peripheral issue, and 38 references dating from Pope Pius XII and later. 16 references are sacred scripture quotes of which none pertain to the question of natural and/or artificial birth control. The most famous sacred scripture quote –which has been quoted by so many such as I have shown above that includes St. Jerome, St. Augustine and Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii– is the story of Onan which is conspicuously absent from Humanae Vitae. I ask, "Why"?

There are six references to Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, footnotes 1, 4, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Footnote #1 refers to the teaching authority of the Church. Footnote #4 intends to show there have been previous teachings relatively recent.

Footnote #12 is "every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life."⁴⁴
Footnote #14 is "we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth."⁴⁵
Footnote #15 is "Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman."⁴⁶
Footnote #16 is "Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."⁴⁷

Footnotes #12, 14, 15, and 16 are infallible and constant teachings of the Church. Casti Connubii was written to defend and proclaim once again procreation is good and the proper end for all respectful use of the marriage act. Humanae Vitae is a tale of two cities. It often changes and even contradicts previous infallible papal statements by teaching that the marriage act can even be used to plan the elimination of offspring under unspecified conditions currently interpreted to allow for selfish reasons.

Casti Connubii stands on its own merits as we look back to the past and comparing it to orthodox teaching. It's incredible to believe that Pope Pius XI wrote an encyclical in which no one understood what he was saying and the whole world had to wait 37 years for some one to clear up the problem. This is an example to what lengths some people will stretch things out of proportion in order to have a favorite practice justified. Humanae Vitae does not explain Casti Connubii. Pope Pius XI was restating the orthodox position of morals and no explanation was necessary for that generation. Casti Connubii contains absolutely no explicit or implicit mention of regulating birth or using NFP. Vatican I states, Denzinger #1839, "that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such DEFINITIONS of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable."⁴⁸ (CAPS MY OWN)

Only definitions have been considered infallible because it is a fact of history that supporting documentation of infallible definitions have changed due to better explanations and improvements according to Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Humanae Vitae paragraphs 1 through 15 represents much of what would be considered orthodox teaching. But starting with par. 16 titled "Licitness of Recourse to Infecund Periods" is where we depart company and when the disagreements begin. From this he begins to state family planning is a valid way of life. I have demonstrated that all popes and doctors have taught most vehemently against any planning of families. Starting with footnote #20 in par. 16 through the end of the encyclical the last footnote being #41 all are references from Pope Pius XII and later, except for sacred scripture quotes. Casti Connubii is not quoted for the use of natural family planning in Humanae Vitae.

Some have used Blessed Padre Pio's words to suggest he approved of NFP. The only quote I am aware from Blessed Padre Pio in regards to Humanae Vitae is his stating he appreciated Humanae Vitae because the Church was having recourse to imposing penalties. I have never read anything which even remotely suggests Bl. Padre Pio is actually approving NFP. Naturally, many have thought since he did not oppose NFP discussed in Humanae Vitae that he was therefore approving it. I must disagree most vehemently with such an analysis. First, Bl. Padre Pio never stated he approved of NFPism. It is his absence of criticism that leads some to suggest he approved of NFPism.

In several readings of Humanae Vitae it came to my attention that it appears to have been two separate pamphlets were attached to make one pamphlet called Humanae Vitae. Is it not odd that Pamphlet #1 has nothing in common with, nor references to, or quotes from Pamphlet #2; nor is there any internal logical continuity combining the quotes and references to Pamphlet #2. Pamphlet #1 starts with paragraph 1 and ends with paragraph 15, and Pamphlet #2 begins with paragraph 16, "Licitness of Recourse to Infecund Periods" and continues to the end. I think therein lies the truth, Bl. Padre Pio never saw Pamphlet #2 which contains the novel teaching of NFPism. Consider the Vatican's recent history, especially in the aftermath of Vatican II. Treachery and deceit has constantly been used in destroying our churches, liturgies and the eternal teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles. I state that it is highly probable that Bl. Padre Pio never saw Pamphlet #2 which contains the novel teachings of NFPism.

I personally do not believe the Vatican ever wanted the approval of Bl. Padre Pio for Humanae Vitae, but anticipated writings such as this that would oppose such novelties, and the Vatican had to find a way to obtain a favorable opinion from someone as holy as Bl. Padre Pio. So, the Vatican set about to deceive Bl. Padre Pio by presenting him with only Pamphlet #1, as if it was the whole document. Hence, Bl. Padre Pio's favorable opinion was given only to Pamphlet #1, and none was ever given to Pamphlet #2 which contains the Manichean practice of NFPism. I find it extremely hard to believe the Vatican greatly values the wisdom of Bl. Padre Pio while heretics are given all possible freedom and privileges which are not enjoyed by anyone orthodox. Bl. Padre Pio's statement on Humanae Vitae would be used by the Vatican in its war of propaganda to win converts to the new morality.

#3) Mr. Davies states that "Natural Family Planning not only can but must be accepted as an authentic development and teaching of the papal Magisterium."⁴⁹ As shown above it cannot be accepted as infallible because it has not been organically grown in the soil of sacred scripture and apostolic traditions, but it is an alteration of the faith.

#4) Mr. Davies states that "The only distinction that I will make is that made by the Popes between `frustrating the marriage act' (i.e. resorting to contraception which is intrinsically evil), and using the marriage act only during the infertile period, which can be licit for a good reason."⁵⁰ The popes, doctors and saints made no such distinction between artificial and natural methods because their focus is on the intentions of the spouses. All family planning has been condemned in no uncertain terms.

#5) Mr. Davies quotes Pope Pius XI, "In his encyclical Casti Connubii,...the condemnations of the Encyclical apply only to the use of artificial means of contraception...The Pope is referring here to an actual use of the marriage act in which steps are taken to render conception impossible, but one cannot be said to frustrate the natural power and purpose of the marriage act by abstaining from it."⁵¹ Morality depends upon the intentions as primary in determining their legitimacy. The above statement is pelagianistic in its assumption that all natural use of the marriage act is good and licit because it is natural to man. Whereas, the Church has always taught that man's appetites must be governed correctly to the well-ordered intention of begetting children and no moral act is good just because it is natural to man.

#6) Mr. Davies quotes Pope Pius XII, "In his address Vegliare con sollecitudine to Italian midwives on 29 October 1951, Pope Pius XII taught that the begetting of children is the primary duty of the married state, but that: `Serious reasons, often put forward on medical, eugenic, economic and social grounds, can exempt from that obligatory service even for a considerable period of time, even for the entire duration of the marriage.'"⁵² From the above quote it is not clear that Pope Pius XII is offering his opinion in favor of NFP. But in Humanae Vitae under footnote #20 the source quoted is "20. Cf. Pius XII, AAS XLIII (1951), p.846."⁵³ is his opinion to allow NFPism. Pope Pius XII becomes the first pope in Church history to state you can plan naturally not to have any offspring.

#7) Mr. Davies takes the position that science may bring about a change in the rules related to the faith with its new discoveries. He should read Pascendi Dominici Gregis of St. Pius X. The Church understands that science has been used as a cover by its enemies to attack the Church. The 3rd century produced the famous replies of Origen refuting Celsus who was notorious for using science as a cover for his perfidy. St. Pius X states that "`Blind' they are, and `leaders of the blind' puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which `they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself."⁵⁴ The following condemned propositions of St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, "64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted. 65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism."⁵⁵

#8) Mr. Davies quotes Humanae Vitae, "It cannot be denied that in each case married couples, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and mean to make sure that none will be born."⁵⁶

This entire article has been presented to disprove the above statement.

The pope allows that you can plan not to have children under some circumstances. This is unorthodox teaching and absolutely has no place in Catholic morals. To plan when to use the marriage act with the intentions of not begetting children is very old and a particular hallmark of heretical sects. What was once taught as the good fruit of a marriage has now become evil. The old dualism of Gnosticism, Manichaeanism and Protestantism have found its way into the Church. Man in his rationalism has despaired of truth and no longer believes God is all good, but there must be another god which is evil. Therefore, man has said to himself we cannot trust God any longer to provide us with good things, hence we shall be like God and determine for ourselves.

Marriage was given to mankind as a means to obtain eternal salvation. Couples either seek the things of God or the materialism of Satan, seek truth or follow error, seek perfection or pursue pleasure, seek virtue or find lust, seek procreation or destroy life before it begins. Practitioners of NFP deliver a fatal blow to the family. Not only to one family but they also carry their poison to others. The results desired in any thought, word or deeds are not determined by the warmth of your sincerity. The logical end to all thoughts, words or deeds conceived in error will be destructive. Therefore to determine if it is the will of God it must be tested against the standard of truth which illuminates the world by Christ our King through His Church.

There is an interior sense of justice in all humans. When they have violated the laws of truth subconsciously a change takes place, regardless of how sincere they were. To do the will of God is an unselfish sacrifice. To not do the will of God is a selfishness. As usual, in a group in which selfishness has become dominant, the weaker suffer the consequences more, but all suffer. As the marriage act becomes an act of lust, the woman, unaware of what is happening, subconsciously senses the injustice done to her. Therefore, she reacts to this injustice without understanding it. By striving to make up for her loss of security, she attempts to regain her loss of dignity by rebelling against her husband in a climb for power all the while masking this ambition with the tyrannical mantra of democratism "We are all equal".

Once the man has been removed from his kingship by the woman's push for equal authority, a movement has begun in which all have been bumped from their places creating a chain reaction in the family and society. The man, the other partner in lust, now moved out of his natural place as head of the household, seeks his comfort with affairs, amusements and work. Over time the responsibilities become too much and inevitably a multitude of events will occur to destroy the family unity.

Sister Lucy has warned us all to conform our wills to that of God's by performing the responsibilities incumbent upon us by the place we occupy in this hierarchical universe. Sister Lucy is not referring to a physical place, but to a spiritual place that comes with its own set of personal responsibilities. We must return to our places.

#9) Mr. Davies also quotes "Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II teaches: "...the Second Vatican Council clearly affirmed that `when there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his or her acts,'...(Pope Paul VI), And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral "every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."⁵⁷

By adopting a new principle based on "his or her acts" and "every action" the traditional morality will be affected. First, it lowers the standard from the traditional principle of intentions to a new principle based on physical actions. Secondly, the natural flow of logic of such a principle is a narrowing of previous condemnable behavior to a new legalistic mentality. The shift in emphasis seems to me to represent a certain aspect of despair for recent Pontiffs. A despair borne from a belief the world is unable to understand truth and use the intellect. So a shift in emphasis is needed in order to make a last ditch effort to slow the decaying state of morals in the world. By drawing a new line using action performed as a new principle hoping the world will hear and obey. But alas, without faith there can not be understanding even when the standard is lowered.

Have I correctly assessed the NFP position as a new standard based on physical actions? But are NFPers claiming that the actions of thought are the standard? That seems unlikely. Because they teach it is permitted to use the intellect for eliminating offspring by determining the time when a women shall be unfruitful or fruitful so they may avoid the "evils of marriage". Therefore, it can not be the actions of their thoughts. But when you combine the new objective(?) standard of physical actions with the added criterion of "to render procreation impossible", now you begin to comprehend the new standard of NFPers. To sum it up in one sentence, if any physical act does not "render procreation impossible" it is permitted and allowed to be practiced.

This is a disturbing new standard not derived from Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Traditions. If any and all actions which do "render procreation impossible" is not permissible, then any and all action which do not "render procreation impossible" is permissible behavior and so therefore in accordance with NFP logic. NFPers claim that advancements in science have led us to believe that NFP can be used. In accordance with NFPers fondness for science I wish to discuss recent scientific studies regarding condoms. These studies have shown that approximately 30% of all condoms are defective and pregnancies have resulted. Yes it is true, pregnancies have resulted with condom usage and pregnancies have not been rendered impossible with condom usage. Applying NFPers new standard of any physical act which does not "render procreation impossible" is permitted and allowable you must conclude logically that NFP implicitly supports the usage of condoms because pregnancies have occurred. Results show us that pregnancies occur using NFP and condoms, therefore procreation is not impossible for either NFP or condom usage. Using the new standard NFPers are unable to condemn condoms.

The practice of NFPism and condoms have similar results. Each result in pregnancies. Unlike a condom when a hat is worn on a body part, NFPism uses an invisible condom which is worn on the mind. If the NFPers are to avoid the charge of hypocrisy and using a false standard, they must either condemn NFPism and condoms, or accept both as permissible.

The new objective(?) standard uses "to render procreation impossible" as its key factor in determining the morality of the marriage act is a modification of the old standard by wedding it in an artificial relationship with NUMBERS. Once numbers have been artificially grafted onto the old standard, the logical flow will produce a new primary principle of physical actions in order for it to be harmonized with numbers. The above artificiality begets a new arbitrary standard that overturns the old standard.

Gnosticism bubbles up into our consciousness and displays itself by distrusting the old ways and searching for a so-called objective standard based on NUMBERS. If you use this method and can count babies that method is permissible, if you use another method and can not count the babies it is not permissible. What has subconsciously seeped into the minds of men that numbers are a far better criteria for determining truth than the "Word of God". All previous morality was based upon intentions, not through the NUMBER of babies permitted to have life. This is but another example of how Gnosticism has filtered its way into the Church.

No way should anyone interpret what I am writing that individual(s) within the Church are followers of Gnosticism. Gnosticism has gained admittance to individuals thought process through the subconscious, they are unaware of it themselves. I think the best expose of Gnosticism is St. Hippolytus's "The Refutation of All Heresies". All of the early Fathers of the Church wrote about Gnosticism. Gnosticism has two main parts; 1) Epicurean, 2) Pythagorean.

Epicureanism destroys an individual's confidence and reliance on their senses to understand reality.
Pythagoreanism replaces reality with a artificial and utopian view of the world through NUMBERS.

My usage of the word NUMBERS, except expressions of quantity or numerical position, includes all of its uses and applications such as mathematics, algebra, geometry, opinion polls and truth is infallibly found in the vote of the majority, etc. Using numbers other than for the communicating of quantity or numerical position is a man-made creation. Numbers are to be used on a practical level and as an aid in finding facts. We must not be caught up into the cabbalistic mentality of using the numbers emanating from the compass and square for the objective standard of determining truth.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches truth is to conform one's mind to reality. Gnosticism teaches reality must conform to the thoughts of one's mind. Using numbers has become fashionable to contradict God and declare His prophets and ambassadors as incompetent. As long as you speak numerically correctly you can deny anything taught by God. This has become the great and forbidden apple for the intellectuals; for by speaking with, through, and in numbers they are able to speak infallibly and become members of a special and elect few having the knowledge to manipulate the artificial language of numbers.

Satan has used NUMBERS for centuries to appear infallible and dupe many into following him. If you believe in Church teaching of the inerrancy of the Latin Vulgate and as St. Basil the Great taught that there is not one idle syllable, answer this question. "Why has St. John when writing of the Anti-Christ to come, in his Apocalypse, use 666 to describe him?"

St. John did not use words to describe this person, but he used NUMBERS. That is not an idle statement, but is pregnant with a great deal of information. My guess why NUMBERS were used to describe the anti-Christ is because God wishes us to have some knowledge of the means, method and master plan of how Satan shall attempt to conquer Christ's Church. All of the early fathers of the Church have written of the many errors contained in numbers. Numbers is a philosophical system and is not based upon divine revelation, therefore it can not be infallible for it has not come from God.

The influence of such gnostics adepts as Galileo and Descarte upon the minds of men within the Church is catastrophic when the "Word of God" has been replaced with "the numbers of men". The reason why St. John wrote his Gospel was to combat errors of his time. Was St. John writing to defend the Church specifically from Gnosticism when he wrote "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."?

The Church has become old and tired of the body, not its soul. History shows those who are deprived of secular assistance gradually succumb to conforming themselves to the world. The thought process starts normalizing sin by rationalizing it away. This is the heresy of Pelagianism which is a denial of original sin and teaching that man is naturally good and therefore does not need God and His grace. The Church teaches that original sin demonstrates the inclination of man toward evil.Pelagianism lies at the very root in the concession of NFP.

A pelagianistic understanding of marriage and the marriage act is based on the belief that lust does not play a part when they teach the marriage act is good in itself, as long as they love each other (sentimentalism). This is an attack on the sacrament of Matrimony because modernists implicitly teach that the sacrament eliminates concupiscence. This contradicts the infallible and constant teaching of the Church as quoted earlier of Pope St. Gregory the Great that to have the matrimonial bed at the service of pleasure will always involve at least a venial sin. Past prudential church teaching states we are to stay with what has always been taught and avoid novel teachings, especially in times of crisis.

People reading this article may find it hard to believe its conclusion so I will ask this question. "With the great loss of faith and raging diabolical disorientation inside the Church, what is the more prudent action to take?" Is it easier to believe that we are making authentic "progress" in morals, or to believe that the morals being taught today are in a degenerate state and spiraling downward together with our Liturgies, Sacraments and Catechisms?

Sister Lucy has said many times that we are living through a time of "diabolical disorientation" and it did not start in 1960. It started centuries ago by infecting the intellect with false ideas and bad philosophy. The forces of evil with their overpowering command of secular governments have taken positions of power within the Church and forced concessions from the Church because she no longer has the Catholic monarchs and nobility to defend her. Since Vatican II some of the larger concessions being granted to the enemy have been the Novus Ordo, lay readers, women in the sanctuary, ordinary extraordinary dispensers, and altar girls. These concessions are the most noticeable because they are visible to our senses, but they are not the first.

The "diabolical disorientation" of Gnosticism has seeped deep into our Church. Gnosticism is men goose-stepping towards divinity using evolutionary progress to declare his liberty from and equality with God. Within the Church the effects of Gnosticism shows up in the naturalization of the supernatural by the leveling of all things. In the Church this occurs in leveling matters of faith and morals to a lower level of discipline.

Faith and Morals have a different set of criteria than do matters of discipline. In order for a statement on faith and morals to be ex-cathedra the assistance of the Holy Ghost must be invoked. Dr. Ludwig Ott quoted above states that the Holy Ghost works two ways to protect the faithful, one way is to help the pope to declare truth as infallible and the other way is to stop a pope from declaring an error as truth (dogma). The Holy Ghost will intervene in behalf of the faithful by refusing popes and councils to associate His name with errors.

Regarding faith and morals if popes are teaching new doctrines they must speak ex-cathedra and the authority and power of the Holy Ghost must be used for two reasons:

that the faithful have positive proof the Holy Ghost was involved in the decision, and
in order that the faithful be able to weather the storm created by the sophisms of wolves.

On new doctrines if the Holy Ghost was not invoked the only safe response for the faithful must be to avoid these teachings which do not have the approval of the Holy Ghost and hold to what the Church has always taught. If a statement by a pope is not ex-cathedra then its worthiness must be proven by testing if it has been organically grown from Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Traditions. If it can not be shown to be the fruit of Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Traditions then it must be rejected.

NFPism concerns morals and not discipline. Recent popes have not invoked the assistance of the Holy Ghost and have not met the test of an ex-cathedra statement. Therefore, applying the standard provided by the Church to NFPism it was found to have already been condemned as quoted above.

NFP DENIES GOD'S DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Our Lord Jesus Christ states quite clearly we must love Him in all things, "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment." [Mat 22:36-38] Our Lord said we are to try to be like His Father in heaven, "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." [Mat 5:48] We must strive to conform our will to God's Will in all things, nothing is exempt. The Church's eternal teachings has always taught a hierarchical system of values is necessary for preparing our hearts and minds in order to be pleasing to God in all things, and the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is no exception.

The first, highest and primary principle is that Holy Matrimony is for the procreation of children. This flows from the Church's understanding of God's Divine Providence and His expressed Will to "be fruitful and multiply". When the Church uses the expression that Holy Matrimony is primarily for the procreation of children it is using a dignified and practical manner of speaking that is proper for discussing such a delicate subject. Combined with instructions provided by her pastors that its logical consequences would lead the faithful to place the needs of the soul over and above the intemperate needs of the body, which is expressed in the secondary purpose of Holy Matrimony, as the quieting of concupiscence.

Thus, for matrimony to be holy it is necessary to place the needs and perfection of the soul above the desires and gratification of the body and its senses. When the Church teaches that Holy Matrimony is primarily for the procreation of children she uses an expression that can be used publicly, without being intimate, that what takes place in the bedroom must first and foremost lead to greater holiness. If the conjugal act of love is not meritorious in the eyes of God, then matrimony is not holy. The Church has always understood man better than himself because she understands man has two combatants within doing battle to determine who shall be master.

St. Paul expresses it very well in Galatians, 5:16 & 17; "I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would." It is the powers of the soul that must dominate the passions of the body. It is the intellect that must maintain mastery of the body or it becomes its slave. The powers of the soul and thus the intellect manifests itself through the intentions. It is the intentions that must dominate the body and exercise its influence over it in order to discipline its various appetites. Hence, a couple that has the proper intention of procreating, according to God's will, is submitting one's own will to God's divine will. This is called theologizing all things for the greater glory and honor of God! St. Paul teaches, "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God." [I Cor 10: 31]

The highest and primary principle of procreation is designed to aid in the sanctification of souls by guiding couples to have the proper intentions in order to do all things for the greater glory and honor of God, thus fulfilling the First Commandment. God's Creation is a great act of Love. God's sole motive for Creation is Love, pure Love. When a couple performs a conjugal act of love and does nothing to inhibit the Will of God to create, they are striving to do all things for the greater glory and honor of God.

When a couple uses the conjugal act of love and places or prepares no hindrance, it allows God's Divine Providence full reign for they are imitating God in so much as they too wish to participate in creation through procreation if God so chooses to bless them at that particular moment with children. But, when through either natural or unnatural methods and/or means inhibit God from working His Will, it is a defiant refusal to accept God's Love and blessings.

A couple using natural or unnatural methods and/or means to inhibit procreation have failed to theologize their motives and actions. They have used their conjugal act of love as a means to refuse God's Love and have turned their act into a bodily function for satisfying their passions. Life is simple, and always, ultimately, we have only two choices: to love God or to love self; to choose to follow God's Will or our own will; to choose heaven or go to hell; to choose to sanctify our soul or gratify our bodily passions. There is no middle position between the choices above which man foolishly thinks that somehow he may find and possess if he can make enough clever exceptions.

Reviewing NFP from a general perspective it becomes noticeable that it appears that sexual relations is the dominant theme and overshadows seemingly all other concerns. When NFPers encounter a difficulty, their dominant concern seems to be how best to maintain sexual relations continuing through it all. An NFPer's mind-set emphasizes sexual relations, not how to make matrimony holy by presenting to God more souls in order to populate heaven. NFPers seem oblivious that some difficulties can only be adequately resolved with prayer and fasting. It seems that spiritual remedies and determining the Will of God speaking to the couple through their special circumstances are inconsequential. Thus, the consequences of such advice is that the couple is denied special remedies as presented to them through God's Divine Providence.

How has this happened? By use of a ruse Humanae Vitae created a new paradigm!!! For moral behavior between spouses, the new paradigm has as its standard man-made laws which use methods and/or means for determining proper behavior. The law of man now replaces the law of God. Humanae Vitae replaced objective morality with a standard using methods and/or means. But, it is man who is guilty of sin when he sets his intellect and will against God. In Humanae Vitae man's will supplants God's will in relationship to sexual activity with the stigma of sin now belonging to things. Humanae Vitae changed Holy Matrimony with the new paradigm implying sin is no longer intrinsic, rather, sin is extrinsic, at least when concerned with spousal sexual relations.

Humanae Vitae begins a new morality for behavior within Holy Matrimony through the creation of a Pelagian type marriage. Spouses are unable to sin unless they do not follow the man-made rules. Sin is no longer intrinsic, and since sin is extrinsic, man is unable to sin as long as he keeps the rules. Hence, if sin is extrinsic to man and sin resides in things, does Humanae Vitae implicitly teach that man is now being considered incapable of sin? Is this the new divinized man of de Chardin and de Lubac? Objective morality was replaced with rules and regulations. How is it possible to review the following example and determine two different conclusions? But Humanae Vitae did!

Example: Two couples receive the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. One couple practices unnatural family planning, has no children, and is condemned by the law of Humanae Vitae. The other couple practices natural family planning, has no children, and they are considered to be seeking perfection and on the road to heaven. How can post-Vatican II's teaching be orthodox using the above example?

The eternal teaching of the Church is that couples who use the conjugal act must have good and proper intentions of placing no obstacles to procreation. Both of the couples intentions where to have no children, both couples did not have children, yet one couple is condemned and the other couple is considered good and holy. But, how has either couple fulfilled God's command for the proper usage of the conjugal act by being open to His Divine Providence? Both couples achieved exactly the same results, no children and full use of the conjugal act. A new paradigm has replaced orthodox teaching. Methods and/or means used have replaced intentions, and sexual gratification has replaced children.

The influence of esoteric teachings of the Talmud and Cabbala can be discerned in post-Vatican II thoughts on marital relations. The Talmud defends and even encourages all sorts of deviant behavior as long as the rules, methods and/or means are kept and followed. The Cabbala is an esoteric blueprint which uses sex for the process of divinization in order to become like God. The Talmud's influence can be detected in NFPism when it rejects as primary the spouses' intentions and replaces it with methods and/or means. The Cabbala's influence can be detected when sex has been placed higher than "be fruitful and multiply," and is perceived by NFPers to be a solution for almost all family problems.

The name used to describe sex when it is considered to be most important in peoples lives is called phallic worship. Esoteric societies and phallic worship nearly always go together. The ramifications for the Church for permitting NFPism is much more far-reaching than it is for families. NFPism is a veiled form of phallic worship. Phallic worship's most perfect ritual exercise is found in homosexuality with its unlimited sex with no procreation. The homosexuality crisis within the Church will not be challenged until the phallic worship of NFPism is condemned. The veiled form of phallic worship which exists within NFPism is the one ingredient that makes fighting homosexuality impossible to overcome because the error within NFPism renders opposition to homosexuality ineffective.

So much of the root cause of NFPism lies in the attacks of God's enemies against His Divine Providence; Pohle-Preuss states; "Descartes, King, Stattler, and Kant regard the happiness of the rational creature as the sole object of Creation, irrespective of the glory of God...the happiness of rational creatures, though one of the chief purposes of Creation, is not its highest end, but is essentially subordinate to the glorification of God. In other words, beatitude is merely the secondary object of Creation...In his commentary on the Psalms St. Augustine says:...'Look to the end thou hast in view. If thou dost it in order to glorify thyself, thou dost something which God has forbidden; but if thou dost it in order that God be glorified, thou compliest with His command...' The glory of God and the happiness of His creatures are two ends which can never clash, because the one is subordinate to the other, and the two are so intimately bound up that the attainment of either promotes that of the other. In the last analysis, therefore, Creation has but one adequate end, viz., the glory of God, and this is accomplished by the beatification of His rational creatures, which consists in knowing, loving, and praising the Creator. In fact, the higher purpose is attained in direct proportion to the attainment of the lower--the greater the happiness of the creature, the more ardent will be its love, the more intense its glorification of God. And conversely, the more intense the love and praise which the creature renders to God, the greater will be its own beatitude...2. The Dogma--The existence of an all-governing Providence was formally defined as an article of faith by the Council of the Vatican:...'God protects and governs by His Providence all things which He hath made, reaching from end to end mightily, and ordering all things sweetly.' For ‘all things are bare and open to His eyes,' even those which are yet to be by the free action of creatures. This definition excludes the pagan notion of ‘fate'... and also modern Deism, which either denies Providence point-blank, or represents God as an idle, uninterested spectator of mundane affairs...3. Deism--By Deism we understand a conception of the universe which acknowledges the existence of a personal Creator, distinct from the world, but holds that He does not care for the universe which He has created, simply letting it shift for itself...Deism originated in the seventeenth century, in England...Under the leadership of Toland... Collins... Tindal... Thomas Morgan...and other notorious Freethinkers, it began by attacking the supernatural truths of Christianity and, under Dodwell (1742) and David Hume (+1776), sank deep into the quagmire of religious skepticism. German Rationalism...whose leading champions were G.E. Lessing and Immanuel Kant--like the Freethought of the French Encyclopedists, was merely an offshoot of English Deism...At present Deism is leading a shadowy existence in certain Freemasonic lodges which have not yet adopted rank Pantheism." (pages. 86-94)

Humanae Vitae §10 states that NFP may be practiced due to either physical, economic, psychological or social reasons. The saints quoted above all implicitly agree that man's passions which relates to lust will indeed inhibit or render sound judgment impossible. Pandora's Box is a useful analogy for explaining the strength of man's passion of lust when set free according to man's rationalizations. As the slightest opening of Pandora's Box wreaked great havoc upon the world, so also does man's passion of lust wreak havoc on himself and society when he attempts to rationalize for his NOT being fruitful and multiply against God's expressed Will to, "be fruitful and multiply."

I wish to propose a problematic situation which indeed does happen to priests who advise couples to use NFP. What about women who after being counseled to practice NFP, due to poor health, become pregnant and then die because they are unable to survive the birthing process? Could this have been avoided? YES! Prior to Pope Pius XII, the prudent person would have counseled the family to abstain in order to avoid such scenarios. It seems that Humanae Vitae has reduced the family in importance in order to worship at the phallic-altar which is all for the greater glory and honor of sex.

Because that priest believed sex was the most important part of marriage is why the husband and children no longer have a mother to love and to be loved by. That mother's death would never have happened if the priest was committed to the health and welfare of the entire family and placed sexual relations in its proper place of being only secondary in the life of a family.

The priest's first line of reasoning should be to encourage the husband along the path that is most virtuous, mortification of his senses for love and charity. The priest should attempt to receive from the husband a commitment to at least a short period of mortification. Once obtained, the priest could offer his prayers and mortifications in order that the husband may acquire the ability to mortify himself. For love and charity the father should abstain from having any relations with his wife until her health has been recovered.

A priest lacks faith and does not understand nor see God's Divine Providence was speaking to this couple through the wife's poor health. God's Divine Providence was speaking to this couple that it is God's Will that both should be continent for a period of time in order that they may accomplish God's Will more perfectly. It was God's Divine Providence knocking on their souls desiring a closer relationship with them. He desired that they take this opportunity to concentrate more on spiritual matters at this time of His choosing, and if faithful to His graces it will allow the spouse the opportunity to regain her health that she may live a long life and remain with her spouse and children.

God's Divine Providence is sending a message that, through this opportunity I am offering you I will shower you with many gifts of grace that will allow you to be more continent and through it acquire a more disciplined spirit to better resist temptations in the future. Due to this sacrifice of separation, charity from within will increase and in time will blossom into a greater and more mature love for each other, thus uniting and binding yourselves and children ever closer together. Parents demonstrate their love of God and family by subjecting all things for the greater glory and honor of God.

1 John 2:17; "And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever."
Mat 7:21; "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Romans 12:2; "And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God."

CONCLUSION

An historical perspective for the errors of NFP can be found and its logical development can be demonstrated to come from the same fountain head as evolution, revolution and communism. The principle and first idea from which all subsequent logic flows is that we are all involved in a remorseless and intense struggle for existence which science has actively conspired to demonstrate as truth by providing false theories and mountains of insupportable documents. Once this mentality is accepted as THE basis for interpreting reality then the following products are natural offspring of such logic. Hence a satanic utopia is fostered on unsuspecting mankind.

1) Voltaire in modern history to teach the above, "...a statement in Buckle's History of Civilization (World's Classics edition, ii, 247) that it was Voltaire who first threw out this foundation idea for so many theories."⁵⁸

2) Benjamin Franklin who was a very good friend of Voltaire where "we find Malthus in a footnote referring us to Benjamin Franklin's Miscellany, page 9, as the place to learn about the struggle for existence."⁵⁹

3) Rev. Thomas Malthus in his Essay on the Principle of Population, "The social philosophy of the Rev. T. Malthus was expressed in its most naked form in a paragraph in his first edition, but which he discreetly suppressed in later English editions. As translated back by Mr. Beale from the French edition, it reads as follows: `A man born into a world already occupied, if his family can no longer keep him, or if society cannot utilize his work, has not the least right whatever to claim any share of food, and he is already one too many upon the earth. At the great banquet of Nature there is no cover laid for him. Nature commands him to go and she is not long in putting this order herself into execution.'...The name of Malthus is most prominently associated with the modern practice of birth restriction."⁶⁰ One should be frightened by the above men's violent disposition with their disgust and hatred of all material creation.

4) Marx, Darwin and Ricardo, "From Malthus also was derived in large part the inspiration of David Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy, as Ricardo himself admitted therein. The Ricardain doctrine of every man for himself and devil take the hindmost coloured all nineteenth century economic thought: and, via Ricardo, the Malthusian gospel of the struggle for existence was transformed by Marx into the class war of his revolutionary socialism. Malthus thus helped to provide bloodthirsty Bolshevism with its theoretical outfit. Finally through Charles Darwin the same Malthusian teaching became the foundation of the theory of organic evolution, itself in turn the sheet anchor of materialism and atheism; and with a large percentage of its adherents attached also to the birth-control and Bolshevik fruits of the same tree."⁶¹ The viewpoint of the above men is due to their hatred of God by refusing to follow the truth of Christ in His one, true, catholic and apostolic Church. This hatred leads to seeing all that God has created in material creation as evil while the Catholic Church teaches material creation is good.

St. Thomas Aquinas states in Pt. I,Q.48,a.1 "One opposite is known through the other, as darkness is known through light. Hence also what evil is must be known from the nature of good...Therefore it must be that by the name of evil is signified the absence of good. And this is what is meant by saying that evil is neither a being nor a good. For since being, as such, is good, the absence of one implies the absence of the other."⁶² What St. Thomas is trying to teach which is a constant teaching of the Church is that all material creation is good, hence babies are good just by being created, while the absence of babies is evil because he taught in Pt. I, Q.98,a.1 "the chief purpose of nature is the good of the species; for the preservation of which natural generation is ordained."⁶³

St. Thomas is teaching it is part of natural law to want to propagate the human race. It's part of His laws written in our hearts. Man does evil and therefore sins by not regulating the marriage act for propagating the human race. St. Thomas Aquinas, Book 3:1 Ch.21,a.6 "Furthermore, everything is at its peak perfection when it is able to make another thing like itself; thus, a thing is a perfect source of light when it can enlighten other things. Now, everything tending to its own perfection tends toward the divine likeness. So, a thing tends to the divine likeness by tending to be the cause of other things." ⁶⁴ We show our love for God through having offspring as when married couples use their marital rights for the propagation of mankind or not using the marriage act in order to add spiritual children to God's kingdom.

About the year 1000 A.D. Satan's armies were defeated to such an extent he would no longer be able to make slaves of people. So he had to change his tactics. Instead of making slaves of men's bodies first, he changed his tactics to enslave the minds of men in order to make slaves of the body later.

St. Paul has taught us that all battles are lost or won on the spiritual/invisible level, and that determines the outcome on the physical/visible level of reality. Democracy represents on the spiritual/invisible level of reality a return to paganism for the society of families. The return to paganism for the individual family is NFPism on the spiritual/invisible level of reality. Once Satan has won the battle on the spiritual/invisible level of reality, he will then begin to win the battle on the physical/visible level of reality in which all of mankind will once again become a slave to Satan, just as in the times of old pagan Rome.

NFPism harms and eventually destroys civilization in two distinct ways.

First, just as liberal democracy is an amoral form of government providing its people with the opportunity to spiritually worship Satan through invisible idols, NFPers offer the new pagan sacrifice to Satan through its bloodless and spiritual offering of not permitting children to be born. It represents the new sacrifice of Cain which is fighting to replace the eternal sacrifice of the Mass.
Secondly, by instilling into people the mistrust or even hatred of God's Providence, this shall increase the tendency within society for its draconian lust of blood.

Regarding the first harmful effect mentioned above, once man has become accustomed on the spiritual/invisible level of reality to offering his own man-made sacrifice through NFPism, it will change his thinking and he will desire a sacrifice that is artificial and man-made on the physical/visible level of reality.

Regarding the second harmful effect mentioned above, once society becomes accustomed to murder on the spiritual/invisible level of reality, its thinking will continue to degenerate and its appetite for real, physical blood will increase. Therefore, society had to create abortion and euthanasia to satisfy its lusting and insatiable appetite for blood.

Those practicing NFPism will be alarmed at what I have written, but they must understand that the fruit of the tree is determined by THE eternal standard of truth. Regardless of their misguided good intentions, the truth will determine whether the fruit is good or evil, not the will or intentions. Good intentions that are in error can only mitigate the bad effects of the evil fruit, but they can never make the fruit good if it denies the truth. Amen. May God have mercy on us all.

This article is dedicated to Our Lady of Perpetual Help and to two who were martyred for their faith by the whore of Babylon, Emperor St. Karl of the Habsburg family and King St. Louis XVI of the Bourbon family.

Birth Control and NFP Index

¹ The Third Theological Oration, On the Son., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. VII.
² Douay-Rheims version for quotes.
³ The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 30th ed. of Henry Denzinger's, Enchiridion Symbolorum.
⁴ A Commonitory (advice / warnings), Chap. 2, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. XI.
⁵ Moral and Pastoral Theology, by Henry Davis, S.J., 1952, P.4-5.
⁶ Against Jovinianus, Book I. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., Vol. VI.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ On the Morals of the Manichaeans, Chap. 18, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV.
⁹ The Sacraments, A Dogmatic Treatise by Msgr. Joseph Pohle, ed. by Arthur Preuss, Vol. IV, 1942, p.166-170.
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ The Refutation of All Heresies, Book V., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V.
¹² On the Good of Marriage, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III.
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ On Marriage and Concupiscence, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V.
¹⁶ Ibid.
¹⁷ History of Dogmas, Vol. 3, p.407.
¹⁸ Pastoral Care: Part III, The Remnant.
¹⁹ Summa Theologica.
²⁰ Ibid.
²¹ A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., Vol. XII.
²² The Sources of Catholic Dogma.
²³ Summa Theologica.
²⁴ Ibid.
²⁵ Ibid.
²⁶ Ibid.
²⁷ The Sources of Catholic Dogma.
²⁸ Ibid.
²⁹ Ibid.
³⁰ Ibid.
³¹ Ibid.
³² Moral and Pastoral Theology, by Henry Davis, S.J., 1952, page 393.
³³ The Remnant, April 30, 1995 issue.
³⁴ The Remnant, April 30, 1995 issue.
³⁵ The Sources of Catholic Dogma.
³⁶ Ibid.
³⁷ The Remnant, April 30, 1995 issue.
³⁸ Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, Tractate XVIII. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., Vol. VII.
³⁹ Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, Tractate VII. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., Vol. VII.
⁴⁰ The Sources of Catholic Dogma.
⁴¹ Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
⁴² The Remnant, April 30, 1995 issue.
⁴³ Patrology, by Johannes Quasten, Vol. IV, page 548.
⁴⁴ Humanae Vitae or Of Human Life, by Pope Paul VI, printed by St. Paul Books and Media.
⁴⁵ Ibid.
⁴⁶ Ibid.
⁴⁷ Ibid.
⁴⁸ The Sources of Catholic Dogma.
⁴⁹ The Remnant, April 30, 1995 issue.
⁵⁰ Ibid.
⁵¹ Ibid.
⁵² Ibid.
⁵³ Ibid.
⁵⁴ On the Doctrines of the Modernists, by Pope St. Pius X, printed by St. Paul ed., par. 13.
⁵⁵ Syllabus condemning the errors of the Modernists, by Pope St. Pius X, printed by St. Paul. ed.
⁵⁶ The Remnant, April 30, 1995 issue.
⁵⁷ Ibid.
⁵⁸ The Evolution Hoax Exposed, by A.N. Field, 1st published in 1941, TAN 1984, Chapter 6.
⁵⁹ Ibid.
⁶⁰ Ibid.
⁶¹ Ibid.
⁶² Summa Theologica.
⁶³ Ibid.
⁶⁴ Summa Contra Gentiles.

Birth Control and NFP Index

Links

Suffering in Hell Relating to God God is Love
Entry Page HOME Site Map E-MAIL:

Editor

Books and Religious Gift Items

This web site is produced and provided as a service by Life Enterprises Unlimited.
Contents may be reproduced ?unchanged? provided source, with link, is noted.
Current Debt is in excess of $50,000.00
Please help us to continue this service. Mail contributions to:

LIFE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED
(A 501-c-3 Non-Profit Organization)
P. O. Box 850307
Mobile, AL 36685
U. S. A.