Note from Ville Hietanen (Jerome) of and Currently, I (but not my brother of the “prophecyfilm12” mail) have updated many of my old believes to be more in line with Vatican II and I no longer adhere to the position that Vatican II or the Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists or various Traditionalists Groups and Peoples etc. or the various teachings, Saints and adherents to Vatican II (and other canonized by Vatican II) such as Saint Mother Theresa or Saint Pope John Paul II etc. was heretical or damned or not Catholic (or not the Pope) – or that they are unworthy of this title. I have also embraced the sexual views on marriage of Vatican II, and I no longer adhere to the strict interpretations as expressed on this website and on my other websites. To read more of my views, see these articles: Some corrections: Why I no longer condemn others or judge them as evil I did before. Why I no Longer Reject Vatican II and the Traditional Catholic Priests or Receiving Sacraments from Them (On Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, Natural Family Planning, Una Cum etc.) Q&A: Damnation and Eternal Torments for Our Children and Beloved Ones is "True" and "Good" but Salvation for Everyone is "Evil" and a "Heresy"?

Bishop Francis Schuckardt and Bishop Mark Pivarunas of the CMRI Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices

Bishop Francis Schuckardt (July 10, 1937 – November 5, 2006) was an American self-professed Traditionalist Catholic independent bishop and the first known bishop in the United States to take the position of sedevacantism, which is a position that holds that John XXIII and his successors are not valid popes (they are therefore antipopes). He founded the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) and the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church (TLRCC).

The Latin Rite Catholic Church was an organization formed in 1984 by Denis Chicoine. It was a splinter group from the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church and like its parent organization is built around a rejection of the “reform” of Vatican II.

Under their founder Bishop Francis Schuckardt, the organization was somewhat controversial because of the erratic behavior of this figure and the fact that he illicitly received his orders from the schismatical apostolic line of the Old Catholic Church (Jansenists); though the CMRI has always claimed to espouse the traditional Catholic faith.

The present heretical Superior General of CMRI, Bishop Mark Pivarunas*, derives his apostolic lineage through the line of the heretical Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc**, “Archbishop” of Huế in Vietnam. This means that even if Mark Pivarunas was a Catholic (which he’s not), his consecration by Thuc would still not only be considered illegal (as Francis Schuckardt’s consecration), but also schismatical.

* Pivarunas denies Catholic teaching and believes that souls can be saved in false religions. He is also an apostle of birth control, a vigorous defender of Natural Family Planning[1]; he’s a heretic and a false shepherd who leads souls to Hell.

Read more: CMRI and Bishop Mark Pivarunas Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices.

** Thuc attended the robber’s Second Vatican Council (1964) and signed its documents and there is no record of him ever recanting or abjuring from his heresies, and by that fact alone, he was known to be a notorious heretic who is not Catholic and holds no office in the Church.

Read more: Archbishop Ngo Thuc Bishops and Consecrations Facts and History.

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Clement VIII in his Instruction Sanctissimus of August 31, 1595, stated that those who had received ordination at the hands of schismatic bishops who apart from their schismatic status were properly consecrated—the necessary form having been observed—did indeed receive orders, but not the right to exercise them. In this he repeated the doctrine of the glossators. Benedict XIV in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis of May 26, 1742, confirmed this doctrine of Clement VIII. … Not only was the recognized validity of schismatic orders established, but further points were clarified. Schismatic bishops were not to be admitted for the conferring of orders or for the administration of any of the other sacraments. Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. An appropriate penance was to be imposed on them. If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed. Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred. … [p. 105] On this same matter there was still another response of the Holy Office on November 21, 1709. No Armenian Catholic bishops were available for ordaining priests who were needed in Ispahan, and so it was asked whether sacred Orders could be received from schismatical or heretical bishops. The Holy Office replied that in no way could that be allowed, and that those who had been ordained by such bishops were irregular and suspended from the exercise of their Orders. … The prohibition to receive holy Orders at the hands of a schismatic bishop is contained in the general prohibition against active religious communication as expressed in canon 1258.1. There is also an implicit prohibition contained in canon 2372, wherein it is stated that those who presume to receive Orders from a notorious schismatic automatically incur a suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See.” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., Imprimatur +D Cardinal Dougherty, Phil., April 2, 1948, Catholic University of America Canon Law Series #264, The Catholic University of America Press, pp. 103-105)

By decreeing “in no way could that be allowed,” the Holy Office confirmed that it is a matter of faith that a Catholic may never knowingly be ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop by a heretic or schismatic. The Holy Office condemns the same excuse that some Thucites and other schismatics use for going to the notorious apostate and heretic Bishop Thuc – or any other heretical or schismatical bishop – to be consecrated bishops or ordained priests. They say there are no Catholic bishops; therefore, we can go before a non-Catholic bishop to be consecrated or ordained, but Canon Law condemns this as we have seen. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2372, also condemns them by reaffirming the Holy Office’s 1709 decree.

1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 2372. Reception of Orders from Unworthy Prelates: All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, automatically incur suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such a man, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains a dispensation from the prohibition.”

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. … Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred.”

All those consecrated by Bishop Thuc or by others of his line (or by any other heretic or schismatic) cannot exercise their orders lawfully since they (in addition to being heretics and outside the Church) lack the canonical mission which the Council of Trent dogmatically teaches to be necessary for a bishop to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments: “If anyone saythat those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon VII; Denzinger 967). Plainly no necessity, no claim of epikeia can override, even in an extreme need, an obligation derived, not from human law, but from Divine law infallibly proposed as such by the Church (such as the Divine law that forbids Catholics to communicate in the sacraments with non-Catholics and heretics).

Mark Pivarunas was later consecrated as a bishop by Bishop Moisés Carmona of Mexico in 1991. At present the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen serves 29 churches and chapels in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The organization is growing and now has centers in Europe, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. It also operates the Mater Dei Seminary in Omaha, Nebraska, while the nuns attached to the congregation have a convent at Spokane.

If illegal bishops and priests, such as the Thucites, want to enter the Catholic Church and have their sins forgiven, they must abjure by renouncing their schismatic crime and any heresies they believe in, along with the public crimes of schism and heresy of the non-Catholic bishop who consecrated or ordained them.

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed.”

Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI)

The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) (Latin: Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae) is a self-professed Sedevacantist Traditionalist Catholic religious congregation that rejects the authority of the recent antipopes, including Benedict XVI and Francis. Over the years, the Congregation has also been known as the Fatima Crusaders, Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church of Saint Joseph and Oblates of Mary Immaculate Queen of the Universe.

The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen was formed in 1967 in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, by Francis Schuckardt with Denis Chicoine's assistance. In 1969, with the approval of Bishop Sylvester Treinen, of the Diocese of Boise, Shuckardt formed the group into a religious congregation of sisters and brothers.

With the implementation of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, Schuckhardt and his group came to the conclusion that Paul VI was not a valid pope and therefore sought services from priests who shared his theological position. In the early 1970s Schuckhardt received ordination as a priest and as a bishop from the schismatic “Old Catholic” Bishop Daniel Q. Brown. Shortly after his consecration, he broke all ties and communications with the Old Catholics.

Despite the fact of Bishop Brown’s schism of going to the Old Roman Catholic Church for valid Sacramental Orders, he nevertheless professed that he was not an Old Catholic, but rather a Roman Catholic. (It has also been claimed that Brown would later re-convert to traditional Roman Catholicism and that he made a public abjuration of error and profession of faith before witnesses—and that it was then and only then that Francis Schuckhardt agreed to proceed to receive episcopal consecration from the hands of Bishop Brown, which in fact he did on November 1, 1971.)

In the late 1970s CMRI acquired the old Jesuit scholasticate Mount Saint Michael in Spokane, Washington, making it their congregation's center.

In June 1984, Chicoine, with the backing of the majority of the congregation's clergy and laity, ousted Schuckardt.

Traditional Catholic Community and the TLRCC

Bishop Schuckardt and the Fatima Crusaders saw that the church that came out of Vatican Council II is a new church, with a new set of beliefs, doctrines and liturgy; and is consequently no longer truly Catholic. This new church, however, still calls itself Catholic, as does Bishop Schuckardt and the members of the Fatima Crusade, and this has led to confusion even to this day.

For example, it has been said that when the Fatima Crusade sought to purchase real estate for their growing Church, putting their properties under the title of "Catholic Church" would have resulted in the loss of those properties to the Vatican II Church. Confusion also ensued when the members of the Fatima Crusade simply used the term "Catholic" to describe themselves, as people immediately associated them with the post-Vatican II "Catholic" Church. When the post-Vatican II Church correctly denied that the Fatima Crusade was affiliated with them, some would accuse the Fatima Crusade of deceit, of trying to pawn themselves off as members of the post-Vatican II Church. These and other problems necessitated the use of a different name, but one which adequately expressed the beliefs of the Fatima Crusade. Since one of the hallmarks of the Fatima Crusade was the retention of the Tridentine Latin Rite Mass as promulgated and set in perpetuity by Pope St. Pius V, the name Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church (TLRCC) was chosen.


Back in the 1960s, Francis Konrad Shuckardt was very active in the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima, being elected to its International Council in 1963. While the various liturgical and other changes started coming out faster and faster, he began speaking out against them as a member of that International Council. As the Blue Army found itself unable to go along with both the traditional Catholic faith and the Vatican II establishment's new religion at the same time, and forced to choose, they ejected Shuckardt and, tragically, with him the Catholic faith in 1967. Upon his expulsion from the Blue Army he and a close friend of his by the name of Denis Chicoine founded what they called the "Fatima Crusade" (who would later become to be known as the CMRI) in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.

Over the next three years, these two men went about the lecture circuit advocating some of the doctrines of the traditional Catholic faith and gathering people from all over the countryside to their small but rapidly growing parish in Idaho. During that time, their parish was serviced by priests such as Lawrence Brey, Burton Fraser, George Kathrein (who later joined Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X), Pinneau, and Clement Kubish. That should have been enough, and up until that point one finds it hard to find any fault with the man's career as a prominent spokesman for tradition.

However, he began to feel a need to become a bishop, and was soon willing to do anything to gain an episcopal consecration, even turn to a married priest by the name of Daniel Quilter Brown who was an "Old Catholic" bishop whose orders traced back to the positively disreputable Arnold Mathew who in turn had been condemned by name by Pope Saint Pius X. Brown had been born and raised a Catholic, but disenchanted with the changes at the Second Vatican Council, decided to become an Old Catholic and eventually got consecrated a bishop by them in 1969. Before long, Brown was befriended by Shuckardt who soon persuaded Brown that the Catholic Church was still alive (in himself at least) and that Brown should make him a bishop so that they could cut up the United States into a pair of dioceses presided over by each of them.

Finally, on October 30, 1971, Brown publicly abjured his errors of being affiliated with the Old Catholics and then tonsured Shuckardt while about 40 persons (presumably members of Brown's own congregation) were present to witness the event. The next day, Brown administered all seven degrees of Holy Orders to Shuckardt (Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Subdeacon, Deacon, and Priest). On the day after that (November 1, 1971), Brown consecrated Shuckardt to be bishop, with the 40 persons still present. Shortly thereafter, Shuckardt and Brown parted company.

Always one to take the initiative, Shuckardt founded an order of religious sisters, an order of religious brothers, and a seminary. Before long he ordained his friend Denis Chicoine and a small handful of others to the priesthood. His group came to be known variously as the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, Christ the King Priory, and Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church of Saint Joseph, later shortened to Tridentine Latin Rite Church.

Whatever “good” may be said of the beginning and founding of the CMRI, the present day CMRI and their leaders, however, are not Catholic and deny numerous Catholic dogmas.

The Heretical CMRI

Many traditional Catholics are familiar with the priests of the CMRI. For those who are not, the CMRI is a society of priests which professes to be Roman Catholic, ordains men validly according to the traditional Roman Rite, rejects the New Mass, the Vatican II sect and the Vatican II antipopes. The CMRI has done many good things in favor of tradition and against the Vatican II Counter Church, and for those things it deserves credit.

However, we have pointed out in our newsletters and magazines the unfortunate yet undeniable fact that the priests of the CMRI hold to heresy (as will be shown below). The priests of the CMRI hold to heresy first and foremost for their obstinate denial of the solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. The CMRI holds that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Such a position is heresy. They also endorse the heresy of Natural Family Planning[1] (see Natural Family Planning is Sinful Birth Control).

See the full article: The Heretical Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices


A pope can teach infallibly, not just in matters of faith, but also in matters of morals.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4. Definition of infallibility: “… we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”

A doctrine of faith or morals becomes part of the Solemn (Extraordinary) Magisterium when a pope infallibly defines it and hence makes it a dogma of faith or morals. Not only the Ordinary Magisterium (non-infallibly defined doctrines) but also the Solemn Magisterium (dogmas of faith), by an infallible definition from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii in 1930, condemns the contraceptive intent and hence any method used to carry out that intent (which includes any new methods that science and medicine had not yet invented, such as birth control pills that were introduced to the public in the early 1960’s.)

Casti Connubii is an encyclical addressed to the entire Church. In this encyclical, Pius XI plainly states what the Faith of the Church is on Christian Marriage. When a Pope plainly and authoritatively states what the Faith of the Church is in an encyclical to the entire Church, that represents the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, to which a Catholic is bound. His teaching shows that all forms of birth prevention are evil. (We quote a long excerpt from his encyclical which sums up the issue below.) In addition, there is solemn language used by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii which constitutes a solemn and infallible (ex cathedra) pronouncement. Note the bolded and underlined portions.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), 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 in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of the family circumstances.

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).’

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, TO WHOM GOD HAS ENTRUSTED THE DEFENSE OF THE INTEGRITY AND PURITY OF MORALS, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: ANY USE WHATSOEVER OF MATRIMONY EXERCISED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE ACT IS DELIBERATELY FRUSTRATED IN ITS NATURAL POWER TO GENERATE LIFE IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW OF GOD AND OF NATURE, AND THOSE WHO INDULGE IN SUCH ARE BRANDED WITH THE GUILT OF A GRAVE SIN.”

These sentences fulfill the conditions of an infallible teaching regarding a doctrine of morals. The Pope is addressing the Universal Church, “the Catholic Church.” He makes it clear he is proclaiming a truth, “Our mouth proclaims.” The topic deals with morals, “the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and the purity of morals.” And lastly, he binds Catholics to this teaching under pain of grave sin, “those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” This is infallible, ex cathedra language; anyone who denies this simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. This also serves to refute those many voices today who say things such as: “there have only been two infallible statements in Church history, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.” That is complete nonsense, of course, but one hears it quite frequently.

One can see that Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful because they frustrate the marriage act. Does this condemn NFP? Yes it does, but the defenders of Natural Family Planning say “no.” They argue that in using Natural Family Planning to avoid conception they are not deliberately frustrating the marriage act or designedly depriving it of its natural power to procreate life, as is done with artificial contraceptives. They argue that NFP is “natural.”

Common sense should tell those who deeply consider this topic that these arguments are specious because NFP has as its entire purpose the avoidance of conception. However, the attempted justification for NFP – the claim that it doesn’t interfere with the marriage act itself and is therefore permissible – must be specifically refuted. This claim is specifically refuted by a careful look at the teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage and ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the primary purpose of marriage (and the marriage act) which condemns NFP.

Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage, such as mutual aid, the quieting of concupiscence and the cultivating of mutual love. But these secondary purposes must always remain subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children). This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END [that is, Procreation of children] and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.

NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.

To summarize, therefore, the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).


The best example of God’s utter hatred and detestation of all those who perform the marital act while trying to thwart the procreation of the children that God wanted to bless them with is found in The Book of Genesis where God Himself directly killed a man named Onan for practicing contraception. The reason Onan in The Book of Genesis was killed was because “He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.” Notice how clearly the biblical text shows that the reason he did this “detestable thing” was “lest children should be born in his brother’s name”, thus showing us that the act of performing the marital act while taking steps to hinder procreation is hated by God. This absolutely proves that the act of trying to hinder conception (in action or thought) is condemned and sinful according to God’s Holy Law.

Genesis 38:8-10 “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 brother’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.”

What deed was Onan killed for by God? Obviously, he was killed for the wicked and selfish deed of having sexual relations while practicing contraception; and for being against conception; for, “As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).’” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii # 55; St. Augustine, De Conjugiis Adulterinis, Book II, Chapter 12)

Since Onan wanted to selfishly and lustfully enjoy the sex act without intending having children as God’s holy law requires, the evil angel Asmodeus that kills lustful and wicked people, was permitted by God to slay him (cf. Tobias 3:8). Haydock commentary explains: “[Genesis 38] Ver. 10. Slew him, perhaps by the hand of evil angels, Psalm lxxvii. 49. Asmodeus, &c., who slew the libidinous husbands of Sara. (Tobias iii. 7[8].) (Menochius)”

In addition to this irrefutable biblical example from The Book of Genesis that shows that contraceptive marital sexual acts are hated by God, we read in the biblical Book of Tobias or Tobit (which not surprisingly is missing from most protestant “bible” versions; whereas in the few versions they are included, these verses shown below are nevertheless missing) that the holy youth Tobias was commanded by almighty God through the Archangel Raphael to never perform the marital act for the sake of lust and that he shall be “moved rather for love of children than for lust,” so “that in the seed of Abraham” he “mayest obtain a blessing in children”. Tobias who was a holy and virtuous person consented to this admonishment by the holy angel and answered God in his prayer that “not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity”.

The Holy Bible, Tobias 6:22; 8:9 “And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias said:] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.”

The holy youth Tobias approached his bride Sara after three days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity, having been instructed by the Archangel Raphael that to engage in the marital act he shall “be moved rather for love of children than for lust”.

According to God’s will, spouses are to engage in the marital act for the “love of posterity” (children), not for lust. No, contrary to what most people today say, the Holy Bible is clear that spouses are to come together “only for the love of posterity” if they want to please Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Word of God in the Bible is indeed true when it says that, “the devil has power” over all spouses who come together for the purpose of gratifying their fleshly pleasures, giving “themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding”.

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

Haydock Commentary adds about: “Verse 17. Mule, which are very libidinous, [Showing excessive sexual drive; lustful.] Psalm xiii.”

The interesting thing about the sexual connection of a horse and a mule is that they cannot produce offspring, thus making their sexual relations completely sterile and unproductive. So what does this mean for marriage? It means that this verse alone proves that God’s Holy Word in the Bible condemns as sinful and unlawful all human sexual relations or acts that (1) are performed for the sole sake of lust; (2) that cannot produce offspring naturally (not referring to natural infertility or defects); and (3) that are done with an intention or mindset opposed to procreating offspring. St. Paul in the New Testament also connects the will to bear children to salvation, teaching that a woman: “shall be saved through child-bearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” (1 Timothy 2:15)

We also see in The Book of Tobit that the Holy Bible teaches that both the intention as well as the act against procreation of children is damnable and a mortal sin since we see described in the Bible that the devil is able to both gain control and prevail over those vile and wretched people who commit lustful acts of birth control either in thought or deed. And so, it is certain that all spouses who are opposed to procreation while at the same time desiring to perform the marital act are committing a mortal sin. In truth, “I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail” and who “give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding” that the “the devil hath power” over. “For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.” (Tobias 6:16-17)

Origen (c. 184-254), in his Homilies on Genesis, comments on a similar passage of The Book of Tobias found in Psalm 31:9 (Psalm 32:9), and he says that people who have marital relations for any other purpose than the procreation of children are even worse than “dumb beasts”. Therefore, “Let the married women examine themselves and seek if they approach their husbands for this reason alone, that they might receive children, and after conception desist. For those women… when they have attained conception, do not later assent to copulation with a man. But some women, for we do not censure all equally, but there are some who serve passion incessantly, like animals without any distinction, whom I would not even compare to the dumb beasts. For even the beasts themselves know, when they have conceived, not to further grant opportunity to their males. The divine Scriptures also censures such when it says: "Do not become like the horse and the mule who have no understanding," [Ps. 31:9 (Ps. 32:9)] and again, "They have become stallions." [Jer. 5:8] But, O people of God, "who love Christ in incorruption," [Eph. 6:24] understand the word of the Apostle in which he says: "Whether you eat or drink or whatever else you do, do all to the glory of God." [1 Cor. 10:31] For his remark after eating and drinking, "whatever else you do," has designated with a modest word the immodest affairs of marriage, showing that even these acts themselves are performed to the glory of God if they are attended to with a view to posterity alone.” (Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily V, Section 4, On Lot And His Daughters)

God’s words are clear. Spouses are to engage in the marital act moved rather for love of children than for lust. So when a married couple goes out of its way to avoid children by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times, they are committing a sin against nature – they are sinning against the God whom they know sends life. NFP is therefore a sin against God and nature, since God is the author of life, and NFP thwarts His designs. This is so obvious that one can only marvel at how utterly unreasonable and stupid all those NFP defenders are who claim that one can practice birth control in one way, but not in another; and that by doing it in one way (which they deem lawful) one is not committing a sin, but while doing it in another way (which they deem unlawful) one is committing a sin! But is not the motive, purpose or intention exactly the same in both cases? Of course they are! How then can one be lawful and the other not lawful? Greater stupidity and unreasonable thinking is hard to imagine!

It is not a complicated matter to understand that using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy is wrong. It is written on man’s heart that such activity is wrong. It is also clear from the infallible word of God and the Bible that all forms of birth control are inherently evil and against nature.

Genesis 30:1-2 “And Rachel seeing herself without children, envied her sister, and said to her husband: ‘Give me children, otherwise I shall die.’ And Jacob being angry with her, answered: ‘Am I as God, who hath deprived thee of the fruit of thy womb?’”

We all know that God is the One who opens the womb, the One who killeth and maketh alive. “The Lord also remembering Rachel, heard her, and opened her womb.” (Genesis 30:22) In truth, “The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell, and bringeth back again.” (1 Kings 2:6)

So why would a woman who desires to fulfill the will of God make a systematic effort to avoid God sending her a new life? What excuse could such a person possibly make for going out of her way to calculate how to have marital relations without getting pregnant with the child God was going to send? Why would a woman (or a man) who believes that God opens the womb try to avoid His opening of the womb by a meticulous and organized effort, involving charts, cycles and thermometers? The answer is that those who engage in such behavior as NFP selfishly turn from God (which is the essence of sin) and refuse to be open to His will.

God, and not man, is the only one that can lawfully decide whether a couple shall receive a child or not. Can you imagine what Jacob would have said to Rachel if she had discovered a new way to avoid “the Lord opening her womb?” He would probably have rebuked her as an infidel.

Contrary to the many heretics of our times, The Holy Bible does have quite a lot to say about the greatness and blessing of receiving children from God. The Bible presents children as a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5), a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5), a blessing from God (Luke 1:42), and a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6). God sometimes blesses barren women with children (Psalm 113:9; Genesis 21:1-3; 25:21-22; 30:1-2; 1 Samuel 1:6-8; Luke 1:7, 24-25). God forms children in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16). God knows children before their birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15).”

The first thing we must recognize is that children are a gift from God (Psalm 127:3-5). They are not burdens to bear, but blessings to receive with joy. From a biblical perspective, every married couple should "expect" to have children and at least be prepared for the possibility. The inability to have children was considered a curse, and the ability to conceive a joy. No one was ever recorded in the Bible as being unhappy about bearing children.


[See the full article: Natural Family Planning is Sinful Birth Control]

Related articles:

Free Videos
Free DVDs, Articles and Books