Posted on 08/27/2003 1:54:34 PM PDT by Akron Al
[Another Freerepublic parody has been posted today, this one at the Splendor of Truth blog site. Unable to defend the very strange words of Greg Popcak, his friends in the NFP cult blog world have gone on the attack. Many folks of all Catholic stripes have denounced Popcak. Rod Dreher of National Review, Patrick Madrid of Envoy, CatholicCitizens.org and even Sinkspur have expressed their misgivings concerning the Popcak novelty of brothers charting their sisters. (e.g. "Ick" in the words of Dreher). Although Madrid later pulled his comments from the Envoy blog.]
[Given the impossible task of defending Popcak's strange words, the followers of Pope Popcak I and his NFP Cult have instead tried to turn this into a dispute between neo-Catholics and traditional Catholics. However, it is not such a dispute. The Freerepublic Catholic community rarely agrees on anything. But they do agree on this. Popcak's statements are very, very weird and scary.]
Popcak in his own words followed by the FR parody:
"I am aware of some families where the brother may chart his sister's temperatures for her, or even some cases where the mother shares her own NFP chart (minus the coitus record, of course) with the intent of acquainting the young men and women of the house with NFP. I also know some families who object to this idea on privacy or modesty grounds."
"You will have to decide whether having boys record their sister's or mother's temperatures is an option for your family, but as long as the person whose chart it is (the mother or sister) is not terribly opposed to the idea (you really have to respect her opinion on this), I feel favorably toward the idea because it decreases the chances that your young teens will eroticize their sexuality."
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/003953.php#003953
|
FreeRadTradPublic.com "Freeper Creepers" Posted on 08/22/2003 2:36 PM PDT by HolierThanPope Unbelievable sexual comments found in church Documents Looking through the source documents for that Koran-kissing Pope John Paul II's icky theology of the body I found these disgusting sexual references in the "Song of Solomon". This is a scandal and obviously a work of the devil. [4] Your neck is like the tower of David, built for an arsenal, whereon hang a thousand bucklers, all of them shields of warriors. [5] Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies. [6] Until the day breathes and the shadows flee, I will hie me to the mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense. [7] You are all fair, my love; there is no flaw in you. [8] Come with me from Lebanon, my bride; come with me from Lebanon. Depart from the peak of Ama'na, from the peak of Senir and Hermon, from the dens of lions, from the mountains of leopards. [9] You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride, you have ravished my heart with a glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace. [10] How sweet is your love, my sister, my bride! how much better is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your oils than any spice! [11] Your lips distil nectar, my bride; honey and milk are under your tongue; the scent of your garments is like the scent of Lebanon. [12] A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed. [13] Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with all choicest fruits,henna with nard, TOPICS:Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; Click to Add Topic
[ Report Use of Charitable Language | Bookmark ]
"Your two breasts are like two fawns" This obsessing on women's body parts and comparisons to animals will lead those Vatican II followers further into degradation and will lead to the acceptance of bestiality.
Posted on 08/22/2003 4:36 PM PDT by LidlessEyesRus
"You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride" Openly endorsing incest. This just goes too far in promoting this ravishing lust of your sister and making her your bride. Have they no shame.
Posted on 08/22/2003 5:01 PM PDT by EmptyChair
"honey and milk are under your tongue;" What kind of sick kinky sexual practices are these. This totally unorthodox promotion of placing honey and milk under your lovers tongue. What were they thinking making these profoundly weird references. This type of comparison has no place in the church at all. "Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies." Posted on 08/22/2003 6:03 PM PDT by StaringIntentlyAtOthers
Where is the imprimatur for these works? And now I see Mark Shea and Fr. Rob Johansen defending the wording in these texts quoting the Fathers of the Church. These so-called conservative voices are leading people astray and further more there both chubby, so there!. There is no way that God would use romantic or sexual language to parallel the life of the Trinity or to compare human love and the relationship between God and man, you know YUCK! These false prophets of Catholic sexuality with references to God are lying teachers who will send many to hell!!! --For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 2nd Timothy 4:3
Posted on 08/22/2003 6:15 PM PDT by BentOnTrent
Looking further into that document I found this. "His cheeks are like beds of spices, yielding fragrance. His lips are lilies, distilling liquid myrrh."
Posted on 08/22/2003 6:45 PM PDT by SchismaticFanatic [ Post Rely | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Use of Charitable Language ]
These people are just sick, sick, sick. "We have a little sister,and she has no breasts.What shall we do for our sister,on the day when she is spoken for?"
Posted on 08/22/2003 7:02 PM PDT by RadTradAndGlad
|
If you like this post you can credit Fr. Rob for the inspiration, otherwise it is all my fault.
Posted by Jeff at August 22, 2003 06:21 PM | TrackBack
See my post # 36.
Beyond that, I honestly agree with you and Maximilian completely, and I'll let this go by saying you're both correct, in what you have said here. Regretfully, deep down I share your concern that my peers in the NFP field overemphasize NFP in their promotional efforts in a seemingly "contraceptive mentality" fashion, because the "grave reasons" argument is lacking in their promotional efforts. But I still maintain that until proven otherwise, it is a common FALSE accusation among extreme trads that NFP is widely taught without reference to the necessity of having a "grave reason" for recourse to NFP.
Patrick Madrid:
Is Sitetest's assertion here true, i.e.:
"Regrettably, it appears that some of these aggressors persuaded Mr. Madrid to remove his own unfavorable citation (at least, unfavorable to Mr. Popcak's endorsement of the bizarre practice) on the Envoy blog, in the interest of promoting "peace". Too bad, it appears that Mr. Madrid was used by his "friends", who succeeded in having him remove his reference to the whole brouhaha, but who did not drop the matter, themselves."
Finally, to all of you, I hope you noticed that I signed onto that blog thread from which this current Free Republic thread began, in order to re emphasize to them the NECESSITY of teaching there must be grave reasons for having recourse to NFP, and to voice my displeasure with their pathetic satire against Free Republic Catholics.
And I signed my name to my comments, and placed a link to my anti-contraception themed profile page here on Free Republic. Have any of you addressed them on their own turf? If not, how about shifting your efforts from me to them?
1. First because we'd rather debate on FR. This is the best forum on the internet. Who has time to waste posting comments to every idiot blogger in the world?
2. There has to be a general agreement on principles before you can engage in a productive conversation. It's only natural that you will argue over that last detail with the person who already agrees with you 99% -- it's just human nature.
3. One reason why I'd rather argue about the Latin Mass, NFP, etc., with someone who shares virtually all of my beliefs is that there's a much higher probability of something productive coming out of the discussion. I might learn something or you might learn something. But who's going to improve his understanding of the world by arguing with a Trotskyite?
4. One thing the Leftists have always understood, and they're right about this, is that you have to nail down your own ideology before you go out and convert the world. People in a small subgroup have to achieve consensus first, then they can spread their message. But if there's no consensus, then what message do you spread? As Jesus said, "Who will respond to the sound of an uncertain trumpet?"
But I still maintain that until proven otherwise, it is a common FALSE accusation among extreme trads that NFP is widely taught without reference to the necessity of having a "grave reason" for recourse to NFP.
Consider it proven. Fr. Hogan is a famous author on the subject, the official EWTN "expert" on NFP, a leading spokesman for the movement. He teaches that the Church has quietly dropped the requirement of "grave reasons." Here are some examples:
Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 07-01-2003:
The requirement of grave reasons (or serious reasons) has been quietly dropped as a PRE-REQUISITE for having recourse to the infertile times of the feminine cycle. Grave or serious reasons was the language of the Church that asked couples to exercise the supternatural virtue of prudence, i.e., to judge as God would judge, in determining the size of their families. Over the last thirty or so years, the Church has learned through the experience of couples that NFP, when properly taught and exercised, actually BUILDS virtue.Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 11-21-2002:
What the Church taught before Vatican II was that couples needed to be conscious of sufficient reasons BEFORE they used only the infertile periods. Trhough the experience of couples actually using the modern NFP methods, the Church has discovered something about NFP and married couples not known before, i.e., that the proper practice (informed) of NFP BUILDS virtue. In other words, if a couple is practicing their faith, teaching their children the faith, fulfilling their responsibilities to family and friends and work (job), praying together regularly, then, if they decide to postpone a pregnancy, the Church presumes that they will have a good reason BECAUSE the proper practice of NFP leads to virtue and generosity in love. So instead of requiring virtue as a prerequisite (serious reasons as was required by Pius XI), not the Church knows that NFP builds virtue.
I apologize for making what has proven to be a false moral equivalency between the Free Republic critics of Popcak and NFP in general, and Popcak's and his defenders' responses.
My criticism of the radtrad resistence to the NFP movement is based solely on their false assertion that NFP is TAUGHT in a contraceptive-mentality manner devoid of mention of the necessity of having "grave reason." I agree that the NFP movement has failed miserably in its promotional efforts to convey this truth that is so intrinsic to the teaching and practice of NFP.
Furthermore, my opposition to this erroneous position of radtrads has clearly confused the debate over Popcak's comments, which are indeed grossly imprudent and immodest, to say the least, and the vicious and slanderous remarks of his defenders on the various blogs, which are a greater offense against charity than any of the remarks that were posted here (with maybe one or two notable exceptions) against Popcak's comments.
On the other hand, Maximilan claims:In contrast to the dearth of "extreme trads" claiming what you say they do...There are many, many examples of non-traditional Catholics who promote:
- NFP for any reason,
- who claim that NFP is superior,
- who claim that NFP is necessary for true "personalist" marriage,
- who claim the requirement of grave reasons no longer applies,
- who claim that those who accept children from God are "providentialists"
- who claim that conceiving children without using NFP is "less than human" and "animal-like."
So it's not really even-handed to equate a non-existent error that's wholly imaginary with an entire industry promoting the opposite error.
Sorry, this blows my bloodpressure through the roof! There is simply no evidence of an entire industry promoting the opposite error. There are individual cases of moronic, even heterodox statements by a handful of well-meaning NFP promoters.
But Maximilian's statement is simply further PROOF of my assertion that radtrads make blanket statements about the entire NFP movement that are just as offensive and wrong as the statement he claims I made that are wrong! These exceptions he lists are not representative of what is taught in 99% of NFP courses or NFP manuals!
As such, I find such statements highly offensive, and misleading if not calumnious!
I hope I have clarified my muddled and emotional opinions previously expressed so poorly. I'm not sure what else I could say to do so.
It appears that this is his personal theological opinion. I have never seen an official Church document that maintains or supports Fr. Hogan's position here. This is the first time I have even seen it argued this way!
Therefore, like you, I disagree vehemently with his central thesis; i.e., its OK to teach NFP void of the requirements of "grave reasons" in the hopes that in the future virtue will develop in the context of which the proper grave reasons will ipso facto exist in that coupls' marriage. This is "doing evil that good may come of it" in my opinion.
I honestly admit that what you just posted I find troubling. I will be doing some further research over the coming days to ascertain whether this is an emerging consensus among NFP supporters or simply the pious and naive personal opinion of one sole priest.
I suspect it is the latter.
If it is the former, I will disassociate myself from the mainstream NFP movement.
Hurrah. I couldn't ask for anything more. This is proof of why it's better to debate on FR than to post comments on blogs.
I'll be anxious to find out the results of your research. Sending a question to the EWTN Q&A would be one way to test the waters, but we already know the answer there. I'm sure you can come up with some other sources where you can test the reactions of "leading NFP proponents."
Some might simply offer it as proof that I'm more of a "closet radtrad" than a Neo ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.