Writing in The Valley Patriot, Paul Murano notes that this past July marked
"..the 49th anniversary of perhaps the most important document written in modern times. It is a simple document, yet profound; something that can be read in less than an hour. It was written in the midst of a burgeoning movement that would later be called the ‘sexual revolution,’ which at the time was a tsunami waiting to be broken open. Future centuries will see this document as the dam that could have kept the tide of evil in check, a tide that would bring about a culture of death by sowing utter confusion on what it means to be a human person. Today, most people ignore this document, reject it, or simply have never heard of it. Non-Catholics see it as exclusively a Catholic thing. It is not. The importance of Humanae Vitae is universal: its object is human nature, it appeals to human reason, and its predictions are truly prophetic. It is addressed not only to Catholics, but “to all men of good will.” Humanae Vitae reiterated the truth about contraception.
Why is HV so important, yet so ignored? Most people know there is something fundamentally askew about how we view life and love today. We can’t seem to put our finger on it, but we see evidence in the ubiquitous drug problem, the numbers of people on prescription meds just to cope, the prominent role that counselors and lawyers have today, the way young people use each other for pleasure both voluntarily and involuntarily, the crises of human sex trafficking and pornography addiction, our divorce culture, the breakdown of the family, the increase in acceptance of homosexuality, a gender ideology that has left young people confused and frightened, and the extraordinarily high suicide rates. Something has gone haywire and we cannot fathom how it happened so quickly.
When the history e-books look back in amazement at how the western world depopulated itself so quickly in the midst of what seemed like unprecedented prosperity, it will be clear that the material catalyst was contraception. Europe, Japan, Canada, Russia, Australia, and other nations are depopulating at an alarming rate, prompting governments to offer incentives for couples to have more children. The average child per family rate has sunk to around 1.3, considerably less than replacement rate. (See www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA.) To fill the economic void, massive immigration, legal and illegal, is being allowed through Europe and the United States. As a result western values, beliefs, and way of life are threatened. While motives for having fewer children are varied, one common motive is economic. Many have come to value money over children, while neighboring peoples who migrate continue to have large families. The numbers will tell the story.
Many internal social viruses have contributed to this cultural suicide, which begins with contraception. For example, the tragedy of divorce cannot be overstated. The death of marriage ignores one crucial metaphysical truth: When two become one, they can never truly become two again. Further, it is not surprising that the divorce culture and family breakdown has coincided with the depopulation crisis. The family is the basic social unit of human society that provides a natural buffer between the individual and the government. Tyranny arises when the family breaks down, as do dysfunctional children and unhealthy adults. Contraception is a large contributor to this growing divorce rate, for it enables couples to hold back on the total self gift of one to the other, a barrier that not only blocks life, but blocks love. In a sense it is an unspoken contract to use each other to avoid their one flesh union. Unaware of its cause, this privation of love eventually erodes the life of the union.
The current “contraception mentality,” that separates the love-making from life-making, lays the foundation for a revolution against human nature. Unplanned pregnancy is now a “mistake” that prenatal homicide (abortion) can ‘fix’. Premarital sex becomes the norm since the permanent bonding it creates is ignored (leading to a plethora of problems) and its power to procreate is denied. No longer is marital commitment seen as important, let alone necessary for one-flesh intimacy, weakening the bond of marriage one enters in the future. Interestingly, people who cohabitate before marriage have a far greater chance of divorce; and in a society that sees a 50% divorce rate, only two percent of couples who practice natural family planning (rather than contraception) ever divorce.
Once the natural purpose of sex is rejected and the notion of the perverted or disordered act has lost its meaning, homosexuality is rationalized. Pornography, which completely guts the act of union of all objective meaning and purpose, has become mainstream; and the practice of masturbation, traditionally understood to be self-abuse, has been proclaimed “healthy” by professional charlatans like Dr. Ruth, et al. on a vulnerable generation of young people, disarmed by their culture.
The contraceptive mentality that occurred as a result of Humanae Vitae’s rejection has led to the rationalization of a false liberty of radical autonomy, which in turn legalized murder – first for the preborn and now in some states the elderly. Over 60 million people, who should have been here today under 45 years old, are missing due to abortion alone. That’s one out of every three of us.
There is no coincidence that the sexual revolution has led to a culture of death in just one generation. The world would be radically different had Humanae Vitae been heeded. It is not too late."
Perhaps not. But the hour is late.
The sexual morality popular in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah brought them to complete and utter destruction. Today we are building a New Sodom, a Moloch State which offers not law and justice but an oppressive demonic order which claims total jurisdiction over man and defies God and His plan for humanity. So it is no surprise that many within the priesthood (as throughout society in general) have succumbed to homosexual ideology as they deny the true God and His Commandments. Rousas Rushdoony exposes the nature of the demonic Moloch State which so many of the clergy now willingly serve: "The Moloch state simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God. Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God. All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God. They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that men can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."
The Devil seduces men through the deceitful tactics of pseudo-saviors. And ours is a perverse age in which many pseudo-saviors pretend to offer liberation through sex without love, violence and drug abuse as well as the occult. As Fr. Miceli, S.J., warned: "In the name of its new secular gods, Progress and Liberty, titles that are false fronts for Rebellion and Licentiousness, many formerly Christian nations are driving their sons and daughters through the demonic fires of sacrificial murder. Thus..so-called Christian nations, having legalized abortion and while preparing to legalize euthanasia, have become Moloch states."
This is the essence of the new anti-Christian sex education in preparation for the Moloch State. As George Kendall explains in Witness for the Truth, this sex education "radically separates sex from the very idea of the covenanted love of man and woman. Sex becomes merely a self-centered appetite to be satisfied and not a gift of self to another. As a result, what this kind of education produces is the lonely, autonomous individual. This is the ultimate in alienation. The autonomous individual is alienated even from his own body, which becomes to him only a thing, too - a thing to be used as a means to his autonomous pleasure. The end result is depersonalization which, if it lasts into eternity without being healed, means eternal loss. Few have put it as eloquently as Randy Engel did: 'Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family?* For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force.' So clearly, centemporary sex education, 'Catholic' or otherwise, is a profound attack on human dignity and on the human person.." (Witness for the Truth, pp. 399-400. citing Randy Engel "The Family Under Siege," Wanderer, March 6, 1980).
And now I would add, satanic. The United States, like the other Termite Nations of the West, is fast-becoming a Moloch State which claims total jurisdiction over man. It is becoming (and some of us would argue has already become) a demon-state which rejects God's Commandments and His plan for the human family. This demon-state (and make no mistake about it, our leaders increasingly have recourse to demons) denies that there is any transcendent, higher-than-human voice or authority that cares for man.
Enter the Man of Sin!
* See here
Related reading here.
Showing posts with label Humanae Vitae. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Humanae Vitae. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 02, 2017
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Monsignor Gilfredo Marengo's revisionist history...
The Catholic Herald reports:
Four theologians specialising in marriage and family life are studying Vatican archival material with a view of telling the whole story of how and why Blessed Paul VI wrote his encyclical Humanae Vitae on married love.
Mgr Gilfredo Marengo, leader of the group and a professor of theological anthropology at Rome’s Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, spoke to Vatican Radio about the study on July 25, the 49th anniversary of the encyclical’s publication.
Some bloggers, writing in the spring about the study group, described it as an initiative of Pope Francis to change the encyclical’s teaching against the use of artificial contraception.
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, chancellor of the John Paul II Institute, categorically denied the bloggers’ reports.
In reply to an email, Mgr Marengo told Catholic News Service that the study 'is a work of historical-critical investigation without any aim other than reconstructing as well as possible the whole process of composing the encyclical.'
'Anyone who imagined any other aim should have simply done their work and verified their sources,' he said.
In view of the 50th anniversary, Mgr Marengo told Vatican Radio, he and three other Italian professors are conducting their research with the goal of showing the encyclical’s place among 'all of the very important and fruitful things the Church has said on marriage and family in the past 50 years.'
Also, he said, from a historical point of view, it is important that theologians formally examine and document the process that led to the encyclical’s publication. What Mgr Marengo called 'the distinct phases' of the encyclical’s development included the work of a small committee appointed by St John XXIII in 1963 and expanded greatly by Pope Paul. The commission’s work ended in 1966 with the leaking of a report by the majority of commission members asserting artificial contraception was not intrinsically evil and minority reports insisting it was.
In the end, Mgr Marengo said, the commission 'was not able to give him [Pope Paul] what he needed to write the encyclical. Therefore, Paul VI almost had to start over alone,' but with the added complication of public opinion, including among theologians, 'polarised between those favourable and those contrary' to the use of the contraceptive pill.
The encyclical itself was criticised by many – and not just by those who advocated for acceptance of artificial contraception, the priest said. 'It is important to remember that in those years many still looked at the regulation of births' using natural fertility rhythms 'as a ‘benevolent concession’ to couples rather than as a positive value to pursue.'
Procreation, he said, was seen by many as the primary purpose of marriage, so Pope Paul’s insistence in Humanae Vitae that sex within marriage is both procreative and unitive was something new..."
Pope Paul VI's teaching that sex within marriage has two elements, the unitive and the procreative, was something new?
This is nothing less than an exercise in bovine scatology.
In his Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii, Pope Plus XI cites St. Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram, bk. 9, chap. 7, no. 12).
Pius identifies the three blessings of marriage as children, mutual fidelity, and the dignity of a sacrament (CC, no. 10). The first and primary blessing is the procreation of children (CC, nos. 11-18; see Gen. 1:28 and 1 Tim. 5:14). With the begetting of children, husband and wife become intimate cooperators with God in propagating the human race. They take upon themselves the task of rearing and educating their children. The noble nature of marriage leaves God’s new children in their parents’ hands.
The second blessing of marriage is the mutual fidelity of the spouses (CC, no. 19). In matrimony, husband and wife are joined together so closely as to become "one flesh" (Matt. 19:3-6 and Eph. 5:32; cf. Gen. 1:27 and 2:24). Husband and wife, in marital chastity and total exclusivity, blend the whole of their lives in mutual support, self-giving, and service to God (see 1 Cor. 7:3; Eph. 5:25; Col. 3:19; and CC, nos. 20-30).
I guess Monsignor Marengo needs to do his work. He should begin here.
I'm betting he won't. Too many "scholars" like him have become lazy. And while proclaiming themselves to be wise, have become fools instead.
I'd like to present this year's Walter Duranty Award for living in denial to Monsignor Marengo.
Four theologians specialising in marriage and family life are studying Vatican archival material with a view of telling the whole story of how and why Blessed Paul VI wrote his encyclical Humanae Vitae on married love.
Mgr Gilfredo Marengo, leader of the group and a professor of theological anthropology at Rome’s Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, spoke to Vatican Radio about the study on July 25, the 49th anniversary of the encyclical’s publication.
Some bloggers, writing in the spring about the study group, described it as an initiative of Pope Francis to change the encyclical’s teaching against the use of artificial contraception.
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, chancellor of the John Paul II Institute, categorically denied the bloggers’ reports.
In reply to an email, Mgr Marengo told Catholic News Service that the study 'is a work of historical-critical investigation without any aim other than reconstructing as well as possible the whole process of composing the encyclical.'
'Anyone who imagined any other aim should have simply done their work and verified their sources,' he said.
In view of the 50th anniversary, Mgr Marengo told Vatican Radio, he and three other Italian professors are conducting their research with the goal of showing the encyclical’s place among 'all of the very important and fruitful things the Church has said on marriage and family in the past 50 years.'
Also, he said, from a historical point of view, it is important that theologians formally examine and document the process that led to the encyclical’s publication. What Mgr Marengo called 'the distinct phases' of the encyclical’s development included the work of a small committee appointed by St John XXIII in 1963 and expanded greatly by Pope Paul. The commission’s work ended in 1966 with the leaking of a report by the majority of commission members asserting artificial contraception was not intrinsically evil and minority reports insisting it was.
In the end, Mgr Marengo said, the commission 'was not able to give him [Pope Paul] what he needed to write the encyclical. Therefore, Paul VI almost had to start over alone,' but with the added complication of public opinion, including among theologians, 'polarised between those favourable and those contrary' to the use of the contraceptive pill.
The encyclical itself was criticised by many – and not just by those who advocated for acceptance of artificial contraception, the priest said. 'It is important to remember that in those years many still looked at the regulation of births' using natural fertility rhythms 'as a ‘benevolent concession’ to couples rather than as a positive value to pursue.'
Procreation, he said, was seen by many as the primary purpose of marriage, so Pope Paul’s insistence in Humanae Vitae that sex within marriage is both procreative and unitive was something new..."
Pope Paul VI's teaching that sex within marriage has two elements, the unitive and the procreative, was something new?
This is nothing less than an exercise in bovine scatology.
In his Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii, Pope Plus XI cites St. Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram, bk. 9, chap. 7, no. 12).
Pius identifies the three blessings of marriage as children, mutual fidelity, and the dignity of a sacrament (CC, no. 10). The first and primary blessing is the procreation of children (CC, nos. 11-18; see Gen. 1:28 and 1 Tim. 5:14). With the begetting of children, husband and wife become intimate cooperators with God in propagating the human race. They take upon themselves the task of rearing and educating their children. The noble nature of marriage leaves God’s new children in their parents’ hands.
The second blessing of marriage is the mutual fidelity of the spouses (CC, no. 19). In matrimony, husband and wife are joined together so closely as to become "one flesh" (Matt. 19:3-6 and Eph. 5:32; cf. Gen. 1:27 and 2:24). Husband and wife, in marital chastity and total exclusivity, blend the whole of their lives in mutual support, self-giving, and service to God (see 1 Cor. 7:3; Eph. 5:25; Col. 3:19; and CC, nos. 20-30).
I guess Monsignor Marengo needs to do his work. He should begin here.
I'm betting he won't. Too many "scholars" like him have become lazy. And while proclaiming themselves to be wise, have become fools instead.
I'd like to present this year's Walter Duranty Award for living in denial to Monsignor Marengo.
Friday, November 25, 2016
The False Prophet advances an intellectual swindle to prepare men for the demon...
Life Site News reports:
"Pope Francis has praised the 1960s German moral theologian Bernard Häring, one of the most prominent dissenters from Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, for his new morality which the pope said helped 'moral theology to flourish.'
'I think Bernard Häring was the first to start looking for a new way to help moral theology to flourish again,' he said in comments, published today by La Civiltà Cattolica, that were given during a dialogue with the Jesuit order which was gathered for its 36th general Congregation on October 24, 2016 in Rome.
Pope Francis gave his comments while answering a question about a morality he has often spoken about based on 'discernment.'
'Discernment is the key element: the capacity for discernment. I note the absence of discernment in the formation of priests. We run the risk of getting used to 'white or black,' to that which is legal. We are rather closed, in general, to discernment. One thing is clear: today, in a certain number of seminaries, a rigidity that is far from a discernment of situations has been introduced. And that is dangerous, because it can lead us to a conception of morality that has a casuistic sense,' he said."
In his book "Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense and Explanation of the Catholic Religion," Monsignor Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D, S.T.D., writes, "Let Catholic apologists..not surrender the cause of Christ...by a milk-and-water philosophy of tolerance. Tolerance is for external conduct; it is not for the mind; the mind cannot tolerate error for an instant." (p. 278). And this because error and truth are not "equally good." In other words, we must always strive to tolerate people [including those who disagree with us; and our worst enemies], but we cannot tolerate error. Differing opinions are not equally valid.
And in his important work "The New Tower of Babel," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "Although the dethronement of truth manifests itself in the most drastic and radical way in Nazism and Bolshevism, unfortunately many symptoms of this spiritual disease are also to be found in democratic countries. For example, in discussions we sometimes hear the following argument: 'Why should your opinion be more valid than mine? We are equal and have the same rights. It is undemocratic to pretend that your opinion is preferable.' This attitude is extremely significant because it reveals the complete absence of the notion of truth, the tacit elimination of truth as the determining norm for the value of an opinion....The immanent theme of every opinion is truth; the only thing that matters here is whether or not it is in conformity with reality..This brings us to another slogan disclosing the dethronement of truth. It is the often repeated statement 'It is true for me, but it may not be true for you.' The truth of a proposition is essentially objective; a truth which as such would be valid for one person only is a contradiction in terms. A proposition is true or false, but it can never be true for one person and false for another. The statement that a certain action is morally good may be true or false; but if it is true, it can never be false for any other person.." (pp. 56-58).
Some might be tempted to believe that the rejection of error and falsehood [ and here, again, we are speaking of ideas not persons] is something "negative" and even cult-like. But such is simply not the case. Again, Dr. Hildebrand explains: "Perhaps never before has there been as much intellectual fraud as there is today. In the mass media - and even in discussions on university campuses - this intellectual fraud appears chiefly as the manipulation of slogans designed to bluff the hearer or reader, and prevent him from thinking clearly. For a typical example, let us consider how the terms positive and negative are now most often used to discredit the refutation of pernicious errors and to give credit to the most shallow speculations. The intellectual swindlers who play such an important role in public discussions will often denominate as 'positive' propositions and attitudes they favor. They thereby seek to forestall questions of truth and value by enveloping their prejudices in a vague suggestion of 'creativity,' 'originality,' 'openness,' 'unaggressiveness.' This is the device of the cuttlefish. The moment one tries to grasp it, it emits a murky substance to confuse and deceive.
In reality, the popular slogan usages of positive and negative is a distortion of the genuine meanings of the terms. In proper usage they can refer to existence and nonexistence or to value and disvalue. They can refer to desirability and undesirability, or to answers to questions and demands, or to results of tests and inquiries. But when these terms are applied to attitudes of mind or to theses - by way of suggesting an evaluation - an intellectual fraud is committed; for they are then being used to evoke vague associations that distract from the question that alone matters - namely: Is this attitude objectively called for? Or: Is this thesis true?...It is the nature of truth to exclude every contradiction of itself. Thus, the rejection of errors and falsehoods can never be separated from the affirmation of truth. The one implies the other...
To give the impression that affirmations are 'positive' and denials 'negative' is to misrepresent completely the nature of judgments and propositions. This abuse of the language transforms the terms positive and negative into deceptive slogans and thus amounts to an intellectual swindle..." (The Charitable Anathema, pp. 45-47).
This is the intellectual swindle of the Masonic False Prophet in Rome, who accuses faithful Catholics of "rigidity" and of seeing only "black and white" rather than right and wrong; this to prepare men to worship the man-god (John 5:43).
Background on Bernard Haring here.
"Pope Francis has praised the 1960s German moral theologian Bernard Häring, one of the most prominent dissenters from Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, for his new morality which the pope said helped 'moral theology to flourish.'
'I think Bernard Häring was the first to start looking for a new way to help moral theology to flourish again,' he said in comments, published today by La Civiltà Cattolica, that were given during a dialogue with the Jesuit order which was gathered for its 36th general Congregation on October 24, 2016 in Rome.
Pope Francis gave his comments while answering a question about a morality he has often spoken about based on 'discernment.'
'Discernment is the key element: the capacity for discernment. I note the absence of discernment in the formation of priests. We run the risk of getting used to 'white or black,' to that which is legal. We are rather closed, in general, to discernment. One thing is clear: today, in a certain number of seminaries, a rigidity that is far from a discernment of situations has been introduced. And that is dangerous, because it can lead us to a conception of morality that has a casuistic sense,' he said."
In his book "Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense and Explanation of the Catholic Religion," Monsignor Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D, S.T.D., writes, "Let Catholic apologists..not surrender the cause of Christ...by a milk-and-water philosophy of tolerance. Tolerance is for external conduct; it is not for the mind; the mind cannot tolerate error for an instant." (p. 278). And this because error and truth are not "equally good." In other words, we must always strive to tolerate people [including those who disagree with us; and our worst enemies], but we cannot tolerate error. Differing opinions are not equally valid.
And in his important work "The New Tower of Babel," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "Although the dethronement of truth manifests itself in the most drastic and radical way in Nazism and Bolshevism, unfortunately many symptoms of this spiritual disease are also to be found in democratic countries. For example, in discussions we sometimes hear the following argument: 'Why should your opinion be more valid than mine? We are equal and have the same rights. It is undemocratic to pretend that your opinion is preferable.' This attitude is extremely significant because it reveals the complete absence of the notion of truth, the tacit elimination of truth as the determining norm for the value of an opinion....The immanent theme of every opinion is truth; the only thing that matters here is whether or not it is in conformity with reality..This brings us to another slogan disclosing the dethronement of truth. It is the often repeated statement 'It is true for me, but it may not be true for you.' The truth of a proposition is essentially objective; a truth which as such would be valid for one person only is a contradiction in terms. A proposition is true or false, but it can never be true for one person and false for another. The statement that a certain action is morally good may be true or false; but if it is true, it can never be false for any other person.." (pp. 56-58).
Some might be tempted to believe that the rejection of error and falsehood [ and here, again, we are speaking of ideas not persons] is something "negative" and even cult-like. But such is simply not the case. Again, Dr. Hildebrand explains: "Perhaps never before has there been as much intellectual fraud as there is today. In the mass media - and even in discussions on university campuses - this intellectual fraud appears chiefly as the manipulation of slogans designed to bluff the hearer or reader, and prevent him from thinking clearly. For a typical example, let us consider how the terms positive and negative are now most often used to discredit the refutation of pernicious errors and to give credit to the most shallow speculations. The intellectual swindlers who play such an important role in public discussions will often denominate as 'positive' propositions and attitudes they favor. They thereby seek to forestall questions of truth and value by enveloping their prejudices in a vague suggestion of 'creativity,' 'originality,' 'openness,' 'unaggressiveness.' This is the device of the cuttlefish. The moment one tries to grasp it, it emits a murky substance to confuse and deceive.
In reality, the popular slogan usages of positive and negative is a distortion of the genuine meanings of the terms. In proper usage they can refer to existence and nonexistence or to value and disvalue. They can refer to desirability and undesirability, or to answers to questions and demands, or to results of tests and inquiries. But when these terms are applied to attitudes of mind or to theses - by way of suggesting an evaluation - an intellectual fraud is committed; for they are then being used to evoke vague associations that distract from the question that alone matters - namely: Is this attitude objectively called for? Or: Is this thesis true?...It is the nature of truth to exclude every contradiction of itself. Thus, the rejection of errors and falsehoods can never be separated from the affirmation of truth. The one implies the other...
To give the impression that affirmations are 'positive' and denials 'negative' is to misrepresent completely the nature of judgments and propositions. This abuse of the language transforms the terms positive and negative into deceptive slogans and thus amounts to an intellectual swindle..." (The Charitable Anathema, pp. 45-47).
This is the intellectual swindle of the Masonic False Prophet in Rome, who accuses faithful Catholics of "rigidity" and of seeing only "black and white" rather than right and wrong; this to prepare men to worship the man-god (John 5:43).
Background on Bernard Haring here.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Francis contradicts the infallible teaching of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae
The Guardian is reporting that, "In a departure from...Catholic teaching, Pope Francis suggests women exposed to the Zika virus could use artificial contraception.."
The article continues:
"Speaking to reporters on the papal plane as he returned to Rome after a visit to Mexico, Francis obliquely suggested that artificial contraception could be used in extreme situations to avoid pregnancy.
Unlike abortion, 'avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil' and in certain circumstances it maybe 'the lesser evil.'"
In the words of Fr. Hardon, "The grave sinfulness of contraception is taught infallibly by the Church's ordinary universal teaching authority [Magisterium]."
It is important for Catholics to understand [and to acknowledge] that the Magisterium can and does teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals in the ordinary day-to-day execution of its pastoral mission provided that some very specific conditions are fulfilled. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Lumen Gentium] of the Second Vatican Council clearly described these conditions:
"Although the Bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim the doctrine of Christ infallibly on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the entire world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely." (LG, No. 25).
And what the Fathers of Vatican II add to this passage is also of critical importance:
"This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose judgments must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith."
And what do the Vatican II Fathers have to say about artificial contraception? In Gaudium et Spes, No. 51, we read:
"...when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. "
Pope Francis is directly contradicting the infallible teaching of Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 14:
"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.
To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life."
The article continues:
"Speaking to reporters on the papal plane as he returned to Rome after a visit to Mexico, Francis obliquely suggested that artificial contraception could be used in extreme situations to avoid pregnancy.
Unlike abortion, 'avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil' and in certain circumstances it maybe 'the lesser evil.'"
In the words of Fr. Hardon, "The grave sinfulness of contraception is taught infallibly by the Church's ordinary universal teaching authority [Magisterium]."
It is important for Catholics to understand [and to acknowledge] that the Magisterium can and does teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals in the ordinary day-to-day execution of its pastoral mission provided that some very specific conditions are fulfilled. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Lumen Gentium] of the Second Vatican Council clearly described these conditions:
"Although the Bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim the doctrine of Christ infallibly on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the entire world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely." (LG, No. 25).
And what the Fathers of Vatican II add to this passage is also of critical importance:
"This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose judgments must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith."
And what do the Vatican II Fathers have to say about artificial contraception? In Gaudium et Spes, No. 51, we read:
"...when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. "
Pope Francis is directly contradicting the infallible teaching of Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 14:
"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.
To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life."
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Father John Catoir and those who produce The Catholic Free Press: the Church's teaching regarding artificial contraception is "beyond the strength" of many Catholics...
Richard Blanchard was documenting this infidelity (within the Worcester Diocese) at the same time I was writing against it in the pages of The Catholic Free Press more than twenty years ago. For example, in his newsletter 'Just The Facts,' No. 6, (1993), Richard noted how a Couple-to-Couple team was teaching CCD students preparing for Confirmation in Leominster, Massachusetts (St. Leo's Parish) that, 'If your conscience convinces you that birth control is right, even if the Church says its wrong, you can practice birth control and not be sinning.' And then Richard explains: 'This has been taught for over 20 years and still is being taught in this diocese [Worcester]. The basis for this teaching is dissent and a dissenting concept of the primacy of conscience which is nothing less than situation ethics.'
In the same newsletter, Richard Blanchard noted that, 'During the episcopate of Timothy J. Harrington...dissent and disobedience has flourished and taken deep roots....in September of 1984 Sister Anna Kane was appointed Vicar of Religious and Director of the then Office of Women, at the same time she became a member of Bishop Harrington's administrative cabinet. She became very militant against Humanae Vitae. Under the administration of Fr. Piermarini, (now Msgr), the religious education department employed Dr. Vincent Forde, Bernard Cooke and Alice Laffey as instructors of the Education in Ministry Program, also known as the Master Catechist Program which has for its goal, master certification for CCD teaching. All [of these instructors] openly strong advocates against the teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae.'
Within the pages of The Catholic Free Press, Humanae Vitae was openly mocked. For example, in his "Essay in Theology" column entitled "Humanae Vitae; a troubling silence (CFP, August 13, 1993), dissident priest Father Richard P. McBrien referred to the Church as "a dysfunctional family" because it will not change its teaching on the sinfullness of artificial contraception to appease those who just cannot or will not accept it.
As a result of 40 years of poor catechesis - or none at all - and outright complacency throughout the Catholic Church in America, too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) have come to view conscience as a sort of fortress built so as to shelter them from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.
For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," February 1984).
In the same address, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."
If anyone is naive enough to think that this mindset isn't to be found within the Worcester Diocese any longer, they deceive themselves. This week's Catholic Free Press features an article written by Father John Catoir. In his article entitled "Birth-Control Revisited," the confused priest does his best to deify the subjective conscience writing, "The condemnation of contraceptives by the Church has led to great turmoil in the past.." Of course, Fr. Catoir neglects to mention why: the fact that Charles Curran and a host of other dissidents led a campaign against Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae. Fr. Catoir continues: "..but no one in authority condemns any individual who is not able to comply with the letter of the law." That is certainly true. The Church doesn't condemn the sinner. The sinner condemns himself or herself in this case by rejecting God's plan for marriage and family.
Fr. Catoir: "The grave responsibilities of raising a large family are daunting, nevertheless the grace of God abounds. Most married couples are generous in doing what they can, even if it is less than the ideal. Our culture makes raising a large family extremely difficult for most couples, consequently, the U.S. bishops issued a pastoral letter, 'On Human Life,' back in 1968 to help them form their conscience. Here is an excerpt from that document: 'In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable, and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests...'
Of course, Fr. Catoir - being the intellectually dishonest cleric that he is - conveniently omits the Church's teaching, as reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, regarding the formation of conscience which Pope Benedict XVI addressed above:
"Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings." (CCC, 1783)
And again:
"The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart." (CCC, 1784).
And again:
"In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church." (CCC, 1785).
So Fr. Catoir is simply regurgitating that devilish and (in the words of Richard Blanchard) that "dissenting concept of the primacy of conscience which is nothing less than situation ethics."
Back to Fr. Catoir, the charitable Catholic priest who would allow married couples to remain in grave sin and so be eternally lost: "The fact that a very high percentage of Catholics have found it necessary to use contraceptives in order to limit the number of their children, is not the issue behind the bishop's reaction to Obama-care. The bishops are not trying to force anyone to do what they deem to be beyond their strength..."
Do you see what Fr. Catoir is saying here? That a "very high percentage of Catholics" has decided to contracept because they deem the Church's teaching [which is Christ's teaching] to be too difficult and that this is "okay" because such people are merely following the dictates of their own conscience, a conscience which is inviolable.
Fr. Catoir is really doing the devil's work here. And so is The Catholic Free Press by publishing his garbage. But then, those who produce the CFP obviously share his defeatist view. This represents a real tragedy. The first Bishop of Worcester, John J. Wright - later made a Cardinal - writing about Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, stated that, "The pressures on Pope Paul VI to speak on contraception other than he did have been massive. They have been pressures of human respect, politics, prestigious opinion, emotional torment, threats that Church unity might be destroyed or ecumenical hopes dimmed....What Pope Paul has done, what he had to do, is recall to a generation that does not like the word, the fact that sin exists; that artificial contraception is objectively sinful; that those who impose it, foster it, counsel it, whether they be governments, experts, or - God forgive them! - spiritual directors, impose, foster and counsel objective sin."
Isn't this exactly what Fr. Catoir - and those who produce The Catholic Free Press by extension since they published his views - are doing? Fostering objective sin?
What of Fr. Catoir's implication that the Church's teaching regarding artificial contraception is "beyond the strength" of many Catholics? Hard yes. But beyond the strength of these Catholics? God always provides His grace, His special help, to those who seek (honestly) to fulfill this law as well as all His commands. The Lord Jesus did not promise anyone an easy, carefree life in this world. In fact, He warned us all - religious, married or single - that there is a price which must be paid to enter the Kingdom of Heaven: "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me." (Matthew 16: 24).
Father Catoir, and those who produce The Catholic Free Press, apparently do not accept this teaching of the Master. For them, it is "beyond the strength" of ordinary Catholics. And when the Lord says [to us all] "My grace is sufficient for thee," He is obviously mistaken.
Pray for them.
Related reading: Catholic Free Press columnist Stacy Trasancos.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sign the Letter of Support for Pope Benedict XVI
For background on the controversy, read Fr. Euteneuer's excellent response here. And the Holy Father's statement on condoms here.
The conduct of the media, in particular, has been offensive. And only serves to confirm what Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), had to say: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax*. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."
"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 17).
* See here for example.
The conduct of the media, in particular, has been offensive. And only serves to confirm what Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), had to say: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax*. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."
"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 17).
* See here for example.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Forces promoting contraception are leading an all-out attack against the Holy Father and the Church
"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 17).
Related reading here.
Related reading here.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Cardinal Martini, legalism and anti-life contraception
In a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium in Philadelphia, Dr. Germain Grisez explained to those present that, "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church’s contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini is one pastor who appears to have succumbed to such a legalism. In a CNS article entitled "Cardinal says ‘Humanae Vitae’ cut off Church from many people," John Thavis writes, "Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini said the 1968 encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae’ (‘Of Human Life’) has cut off the Church from many people who most need its advice about human sexuality. The encyclical, which taught that artificial birth control was morally wrong, caused a large number of people to stop taking the church’s views into serious consideration..’Many have distanced themselves from the church, and the church from the people. Serious damage was done,’ he said..." Mr. Thavis then quotes the Cardinal as having said that, "Today we have a broader horizon in which to confront the questions of sexuality. The needs of confessors and young people, too, need much more attention. We cannot abandon these people.."
The Cardinal’s solution? The Church should adopt "a new vision" and indicate "a better way" than it did in Humanae Vitae. If the Church were to jettison its teaching on the sinfulness of artificial contraception (or at least its emphasis on "prohibitions"), the Cardinal assures us Mother Church would "regain credibility and competence." To which he added, "Knowing how to admit one’s errors and the limitations of one’s previous viewpoints is a sign of greatness of soul and confidence." According to His Eminence, the Church should take a positive approach to human sexuality, with less emphasis on prohibitions.
However, as Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices. Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."
Dr. Grisez goes on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."
Cardinal Martini’s legalism is not a help to the faithful. It offers nothing positive to those who seek to live an authentic Christian life. And his belief that a "more pastoral perspective" regarding contraception would entail "less emphasis on prohibitions" is all the more alarming since contraception is anti-life. It was Pope John Paul II, in a homily given during a Mass for youth in Nairobi, Kenya, who pointed out that, "..anti-life actions such as contraception and abortion are wrong and are unworthy of good husbands and wives."
Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly proclaims, along with Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, that contraception, described as every action, which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, during its accomplishment, or in the development of its consequences, proposes either as end or means to impede procreation, "is intrinsically disordered" (2370).
I believe, with Pope John Paul II, that contraception is an anti-life action. And I believe that the legalistic approach to sin has failed miserably. It has not created saints. Rather, it has contributed greatly to the belief (held by so many of the faithful) that Church teaching is merely a set of rules and regulations. Which makes understanding Cardinal Martini that much more difficult.
I will pray for him.
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini is one pastor who appears to have succumbed to such a legalism. In a CNS article entitled "Cardinal says ‘Humanae Vitae’ cut off Church from many people," John Thavis writes, "Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini said the 1968 encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae’ (‘Of Human Life’) has cut off the Church from many people who most need its advice about human sexuality. The encyclical, which taught that artificial birth control was morally wrong, caused a large number of people to stop taking the church’s views into serious consideration..’Many have distanced themselves from the church, and the church from the people. Serious damage was done,’ he said..." Mr. Thavis then quotes the Cardinal as having said that, "Today we have a broader horizon in which to confront the questions of sexuality. The needs of confessors and young people, too, need much more attention. We cannot abandon these people.."
The Cardinal’s solution? The Church should adopt "a new vision" and indicate "a better way" than it did in Humanae Vitae. If the Church were to jettison its teaching on the sinfulness of artificial contraception (or at least its emphasis on "prohibitions"), the Cardinal assures us Mother Church would "regain credibility and competence." To which he added, "Knowing how to admit one’s errors and the limitations of one’s previous viewpoints is a sign of greatness of soul and confidence." According to His Eminence, the Church should take a positive approach to human sexuality, with less emphasis on prohibitions.
However, as Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices. Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."
Dr. Grisez goes on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."
Cardinal Martini’s legalism is not a help to the faithful. It offers nothing positive to those who seek to live an authentic Christian life. And his belief that a "more pastoral perspective" regarding contraception would entail "less emphasis on prohibitions" is all the more alarming since contraception is anti-life. It was Pope John Paul II, in a homily given during a Mass for youth in Nairobi, Kenya, who pointed out that, "..anti-life actions such as contraception and abortion are wrong and are unworthy of good husbands and wives."
Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly proclaims, along with Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, that contraception, described as every action, which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, during its accomplishment, or in the development of its consequences, proposes either as end or means to impede procreation, "is intrinsically disordered" (2370).
I believe, with Pope John Paul II, that contraception is an anti-life action. And I believe that the legalistic approach to sin has failed miserably. It has not created saints. Rather, it has contributed greatly to the belief (held by so many of the faithful) that Church teaching is merely a set of rules and regulations. Which makes understanding Cardinal Martini that much more difficult.
I will pray for him.
Related reading: Cardinal Martini says that life begins after conception, article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
