Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life  (Read 4728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Reputation: +967/-1098
  • Gender: Male
Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2018, 02:47:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 21, 2018, 11:08:14 AM
    "Open to Conception" is Novus Ordo crappola; it's basically code-word for, hey, if the condom leaks during intercourse, I won't have an abortion.  So you could be open to life while using artificial birth control ... in their mind.

    Sure, not many people have the explicit intention of conceiving each and every time they have relations, but there's a virtual intention there anyway.  In fact, you could even think, "Boy I really hope she doesn't conceive right now."

    What's at issue is forming the positive intention to avoid conception while having sɛҳuąƖ intercourse.  It's what Pius XI condemns as the subordination of the primary end of marriage.
    Open to conception means no form of contraception is being used during intercourse. To have sex that is not open to conception is a mortal sin.
    However, if one does not have the intention to conceive when they are having sex, they are still committing a venial sin. Sex is for the purpose of procreation, to have sex for the sake of lust even with one's own spouse is still a sin.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2452
    • Reputation: +967/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #31 on: February 21, 2018, 02:51:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 21, 2018, 10:22:39 AM
    The embolden part is fallacious reasoning. To posit that a couple is not open to conception at all other times, simply because they use the Rhythm Method during the fertile period, is fallacious. You're making a leap that doesn't follow reason. It would be equivalent to saying that a person who kills someone, legally, has no problem killing at any other time. It doesn't follow. Were the Rhythm Method not allowed by the Church, the Sacred Penitentiary would have said so. You act as if you are more experienced in moral theology than the they were. These men were arguably some of the most knowledgeable moral theologians in the Catholic Church at the time. That's why they were chosen for the post.
    No you moron, if one is using the Rhythm Method their intention is of course not to conceive. The Rhythm Method is designed to prevent conception, so no one is using it unless that is their intent. IF THEY WERE INTENDING TO CONCEIVE WHEN THEY DID HAVE RELATIONS, THEY WOULD NOT BE USING THE RHYTHM METHOD. It would be COMPLETELY POINTLESS. If you are trying to conceive, you do not limit yourself to your wife's infertile periods. You do not use CONTRACEPTION unless you are trying to PREVENT CONCEPTION. THAT IS LITERALLY THE MEANING OF THE WORD

    There is no such thing as only using the Rhythm Method during the fertile periods. The Rhythm Method is abstaining during fertile periods and having relations only during infertile periods, for the sake of preventing conception. Having sex during infertile periods is part of the method, it is designed to be a way to let couples have sex without conceiving. If the couple had the intent of conceiving, they would not be limiting relations to the infertile period. They would not be using the Rhythm Method. Anyone who is using contraception is CLEARLY not trying to conceive BY DEFINITION, and therefore they are sinning venially
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 44083
    • Reputation: +25620/-4452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #32 on: February 21, 2018, 03:21:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
    You're right, Casti Cannubii was rock solid on the issue;

    Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 53), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (WHICH CHRISTIAN LAW PERMITS WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT) but by frustrating the marriage act.”

    Uhm, you misinterpret this particular passage and then ignore the passage which forbids NFP.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 44083
    • Reputation: +25620/-4452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #33 on: February 21, 2018, 03:22:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
    And, yes, the Sacred Penitentiary ruled on this issue three times, beginning in 1853. Since then, by virtue of its acceptance by the Roman Curia, it was taught in seminaries for 80 years prior to Casti Cannubii - and therefore is precisely the teaching Pius XI is referring to. Frankly, it was the only method known as "Continence" that existed in his day.

    And you persist in your lie.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 44083
    • Reputation: +25620/-4452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #34 on: February 21, 2018, 03:26:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Virtual Continence refers to abstaining from the married act for VIRTUOUS reasons (penance, to attain a higher degree of perfection, etc.) ... and not just skipping the marriage act a couple times a month for the sole purposes of avoiding children.  When you try to have the marriage act (vs. abstaining from it) ... while preventing the primary end of the act, you are in fact FRUSTRATING the marriage act.  Then you put that together with the teaching elsewhere in Casti Conubii that the primary ends of the marriage act can never be subordinated to the secondary ... you get a solid condemnation of NFP.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2452
    • Reputation: +967/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #35 on: February 21, 2018, 03:57:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: An even Seven on February 21, 2018, 02:55:52 PM
    So contraception is only a venial sin? Do something intrinsically against nature is only venial?
    If you'd actually read my post, by "they" I clearly meant those using the Rhythm Method. They are not preventing conception during the act of intercourse, which would be a mortal sin. But when they do have sex they are doing it with the hopes that conception won't occur, therefore they are sinning venially. 
    Logged

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #36 on: February 21, 2018, 05:29:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: forlorn on February 21, 2018, 02:51:55 PM
    No you moron, if one is using the Rhythm Method their intention is of course not to conceive. The Rhythm Method is designed to prevent conception, so no one is using it unless that is their intent. IF THEY WERE INTENDING TO CONCEIVE WHEN THEY DID HAVE RELATIONS, THEY WOULD NOT BE USING THE RHYTHM METHOD. It would be COMPLETELY POINTLESS. If you are trying to conceive, you do not limit yourself to your wife's infertile periods. You do not use CONTRACEPTION unless you are trying to PREVENT CONCEPTION. THAT IS LITERALLY THE MEANING OF THE WORD

    There is no such thing as only using the Rhythm Method during the fertile periods. The Rhythm Method is abstaining during fertile periods and having relations only during infertile periods, for the sake of preventing conception. Having sex during infertile periods is part of the method, it is designed to be a way to let couples have sex without conceiving. If the couple had the intent of conceiving, they would not be limiting relations to the infertile period. They would not be using the Rhythm Method. Anyone who is using contraception is CLEARLY not trying to conceive BY DEFINITION, and therefore they are sinning venially

    So, you are saying that the Sacred Penitentiary was wrong in their judgment?
    Logged

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #37 on: February 21, 2018, 05:31:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 21, 2018, 03:21:17 PM
    Uhm, you misinterpret this particular passage and then ignore the passage which forbids NFP.

    The statement in question: "VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (WHICH CHRISTIAN LAW PERMITS WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT)" was made in the context of avoiding the conception of offspring. Read the paragraph again. 

    Sorry.
    Logged

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #38 on: February 21, 2018, 05:33:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 21, 2018, 03:22:22 PM
    And you persist in your lie.
    You keep calling it a lie, but bring nothing forward to explain yourself (other than your own opinion).
    Logged

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #39 on: February 21, 2018, 05:46:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 21, 2018, 03:26:57 PM
    Virtual Continence refers to abstaining from the married act for VIRTUOUS reasons (penance, to attain a higher degree of perfection, etc.) ... and not just skipping the marriage act a couple times a month for the sole purposes of avoiding children.  When you try to have the marriage act (vs. abstaining from it) ... while preventing the primary end of the act, you are in fact FRUSTRATING the marriage act.  Then you put that together with the teaching elsewhere in Casti Conubii that the primary ends of the marriage act can never be subordinated to the secondary ... you get a solid condemnation of NFP.


    Wrong. As I've pointed out numerous times already, the subject of avoidance of offspring is precisely the context in which Pius XI's statement is made:
    Quote
    Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 53), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (WHICH CHRISTIAN LAW PERMITS WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT) but by frustrating the marriage act.”

    Avoiding offspring is what Pius XI is specifically talking about in this quote. 
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 44083
    • Reputation: +25620/-4452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #40 on: February 21, 2018, 05:54:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 21, 2018, 05:33:57 PM
    You keep calling it a lie, but bring nothing forward to explain yourself (other than your own opinion).

    And you've never produced the quotes.  I've seen them and I know what they're talking about.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 44083
    • Reputation: +25620/-4452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #41 on: February 21, 2018, 05:57:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 21, 2018, 05:46:11 PM

    Wrong. As I've pointed out numerous times already, the subject of avoidance of offspring is precisely the context in which Pius XI's statement is made:
    Avoiding offspring is what Pius XI is specifically talking about in this quote.

    No, he's not talking about the notion of a "virtuous continence" for about one week every month specifically to avoid offspring.  He's talking about how not every marriage has to have the intention fo having children ... when VIRTUOUS continence is practiced.  Nor is he talking about practicing continence for no other purpose than to avoid children.  He's talking about a couple who wish to avoid relations for spiritual reasons (aka virtuous ones) ... such as to seek a higher perfection or to do penance.

    What part of VIRTUOUS in the phrase virtuous continence didn't register to your mind?
    Logged

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #42 on: February 21, 2018, 06:04:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 21, 2018, 05:54:50 PM
    And you've never produced the quotes.  I've seen them and I know what they're talking about.
    Yes I have produced the quotes.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 44083
    • Reputation: +25620/-4452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #43 on: February 21, 2018, 06:06:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: sedevacantist on February 21, 2018, 06:04:30 PM
    Yes I have produced the quotes.

    These quotes do not endorse NFP.

    You need to stop promoting this pernicious nonsense simply to appease your own conscience.
    Logged

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #44 on: February 21, 2018, 06:29:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 21, 2018, 06:06:45 PM
    These quotes do not endorse NFP.

    You need to stop promoting this pernicious nonsense simply to appease your own conscience.
    1) The very concept of “rhythm” was first considered by the Catholic Church in 1853. The Bishop of Amiens, France, submitted the following question to the Sacred Penitentiary:
    “Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?”
    On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Pius IX) answered as follows:
    “Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception.”

    2) Another reference to rhythm appeared in 1880. Fr. Le Conte submitted the following questions to the Sacred Penitentiary:
    “Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?”
    “Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him, or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?”
    The response of the Sacred Penitentiary (during the reign of Pope Leo XIII), dated June 16, 1880, was:
    “Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”

    I'm sorry I don't have the Q&A from the 1930's... even so, these should suffice to prove the point.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
    « previous next »