The Counter-Cultural Church has a Credible “Yes”
Feb 7, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
Last week’s column on the HHS mandate brought a rash of email from the usual suspects—men and women who feel passionately inclined to inform me that the church is “mysogynistic, women-hating, gay-hating, authoritarian, fetus-idolizing…” well, you get the drift. People who could not begin to accurately articulate the church’s position on most matters are quite sure that her counter-cultural stances are grounded on nothing more than hate.
The dominant narrative of the mainstream is that whatever gets in the way of what you think you should have must be founded on hate, and not just hate, but hate-without-reason. Love, in this narrative, is nice; it always says yes. Alternative points of view offering nuanced philosophies and theologies, reasoned compellingly and with depth through the ages and offered with respect? The very definition of twenty-first century hate.
Aside from revealing a general deficiency in reasoning skills and a stunning lack of curiosity as to why the Catholic church objects to contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, there existed in these emails a general lack of interest in identifying what the conflict between the administration and the church is actually about. What little coverage has surfaced in the mainstream has been framed along predictable lines: those nasty Catholic bishops are trying to deny women contraception, which “even Catholic women” use. The constitutional question of whether the government has the right to define a church’s mission or usurp its conscience is ignored. For my correspondents, at least, it’s “all about contraception and the Catholic Church of No.”
That people are still swayed by headlines and the tired bumper-sticker rhetoric that gets hauled out and tapped into Twitter feeds is not surprising. But it speaks poorly of our academic institutes, where civics classes have been put aside and our students develop only a passing acquaintance with their rights and responsibilities; it suggests that curiosity has been discouraged in an effort to stick to the curriculum and, perhaps, the standardized tests.
That people can willingly believe the church is dishonorable, misogynistic, homophobic, unreasonable, and sexually repressive, however, speaks poorly of the church’s own instruction and her presently strained abilities not just to catechize—although that is important—but to bring light and clarity to issues that have gone murky thanks to distortion and emotionalism, and in doing so, foment genuine conversation instead of name-calling, real understanding instead of memes.
The culture, cognizant of almost nothing about the whys and wherefores of Catholic teaching, is being encouraged to believe that religion is not simply unenlightened and unnecessary, but a socially negative force best driven from the public square. Its historic mission of outreach—its healthcare, educational, and charitable service to surrounding communities in need—is being redefined as not a mission at all, but an intrusion. Her effective and cost-efficient programs, to which the federal government contributed because doing so saved taxpayer monies, are now being cited as justification for wholesale government interference with the church, with who and what she is, and how she serves.
Time is running out; it is up to the Bishops and an informed laity to defend the church from ideological aggression and they must do it by engaging the other side and gently, but firmly, challenging them to learn the church’s teachings before demonizing them.
When someone spits the word “homophobe” at us, we must offer them the USCCB’s pastoral letter, “Always Our Children” and—acknowledging that the document may not be precisely what they like—ask whether, having read it, they can make a credible argument that the church is “anti-gay.”
Then, when they accuse us of misogyny and a lack of compassion, give them the brief but powerful and prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae and then ask: can you credibly call the church anti-feminist or anti-humanist?
Can they read Pope John Paul II’s exhaustive teachings on The Theology of the Body and credibly declare the church to be sexually repressed or disinterested in the full expression of ourselves as sexual beings?
Can they read Gaudium et Spes and credibly argue that the church is out of touch with the Human Person or Society.
Can they read Fides et ratio and credibly argue that the church does not hold human reason in esteem.
Can they learn of the Vatican supporting and funding stem cell research, or read even the briefest list of religiously-inclined scientists and researchers and credibly argue that Christianity is “anti-science?”
The secularist society does not want to hear alternative thought; they want a simple “yes,” to whatever is on the agenda of the worldly world and suits its values. People seem not to realize that far from being an Institution of No, the church is a giant and eternal urging toward “Yes”—a self-actualized “yes” formed through an engagement with what is true, over what is reported; what is real, over what is caricature. A “yes” that is greater than the self, and lives beyond the moment.
The moment to argue the credibility of our church, however, is now.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Last week: Obamacare's Great Gift, Clarification
Six things to know about the HHS Mandate
Sandra Day O' Connor on Civics
HHS Mandate fight under-reported
Always our Children
Humanae Vitae
Gaudium et spes
Fides et Ratio
Vatican Supports Stem Cell Research
Priests and Scientists
On the Theology of the Body
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.7.2012 | 8:14am
Mike Walsh, MM says:
"It is up to the Bishops and an informed laity to defend the church from ideological aggression and they must do it by engaging the other side and gently, but firmly, challenging them to learn the church’s teachings before demonizing them." ????? You are making a large and unsupported assumption about the nature of what we are up against, as if our opponents are well-intentioned, but misguided --but that is not the nature of "ideological aggression". How do we "engage" an MSM that routinely misrepresents our position? How do we "engage" people motivated by unreasoning hatred? How do we "engage" people whose deepest beliefs are radically opposed to our own? Bearing witness --aka, martyrdom-- is what we are called to, not "engagement". Only by direct and uncompromising resistance --and suffering the consequences thereof-- can we demonstrate the gravity of this situation --to those few who might be moved by it-- and, more important, maintain our own integrity. By all means engage whom you can. But do you really believe the majority of our opponents are the least bit interested in "engagement"?
2.7.2012 | 9:07am
James the Lesser says:
Elizabeth - your essay is spot on. The renewed and rabid secularist/anti-Catholic (often the same thing) agenda of today is in fact, centuries old. Today's secularists are right in line with thoughts written down over 100 years ago by English bioligist, T.H. Huxley. While commenting on the merits of Darwinian theory, which he hoped would relegate the notion of a "creator" to the trash heap of history, he wrote,"...it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of mankind, the Catholic Church." ("Mr. Darwin's Critics", 1871, p. 147)
2.7.2012 | 9:09am
Tim says:
This whole HHS mandate fiasco brings to mind Robert George's article published a few months ago regarding "liberal authoritarianism" and the fading of Rawlsian liberalism.
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/06/no-one-is-more-keenly-aware-than-am-i-that-there-are-many-honorable-fair-minded-and-non-fanatical-liberals-since-there-wer.html
I agree with you about arguing the credibility of the Church, but I can't say I know what modern liberals consider "credible" or how they determine credibility. It seems they take the Church's supposed hate as an axiom beyond argument. In that case, arguing is a hopeless endeavor.
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/06/no-one-is-more-keenly-aware-than-am-i-that-there-are-many-honorable-fair-minded-and-non-fanatical-liberals-since-there-wer.html
I agree with you about arguing the credibility of the Church, but I can't say I know what modern liberals consider "credible" or how they determine credibility. It seems they take the Church's supposed hate as an axiom beyond argument. In that case, arguing is a hopeless endeavor.
2.7.2012 | 10:17am
The Moz says:
LOVE your pieces; I am being serious, I think you're brilliant and 1000 times more worth reading than all the MSM editorial columns combined. Thanks for a stimulating article.
2.7.2012 | 10:36am
arty says:
The optimist in me agrees with Scalia, that reasoned and civil engagement is our only option. The pessimist in me suspects, with Tim and Mike(above), that arguments may be futile. Yesterday morning, NPR ran a feature on the HSS mandate that included newscaster's rendition of the arguments made by the anti-mandate side. When the announcer got to the question of abortifacients, the phraseology was as follows "...may thin the uterine lining." May?! May?! This is the kind of thing that brings out my inner pessimist; even when pretending to tell "both sides of the story," a mainstream news outlet like NPR can't bring itself to do something as simple as describe the medical function of a drug. Scalia's reasons are good ones. What good are reasons in the face of power, though? I'm guessing that we are headed towards civil disobedience of some kind, which fights one kind of naked power with another kind of power.
2.7.2012 | 10:38am
David Nickol says:
Elizabeth Scalia,
You say: "When someone spits the word 'homophobe' at us, we must offer them the USCCB’s pastoral letter, 'Always Our Children' and—acknowledging that the document may not be precisely what they like—ask whether, having read it, they can make a credible argument that the church is 'anti-gay.'"
Of *course* the Church is anti-gay. I urge you to look more deeply into the events surrounding the writing of "Always Our Children" and what happened in the aftermath.
If you check the text of "Always Our Children," you will find it was prepared in the Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women, and Youth under the supervision of the above committee. Publication was approved by the Administrative Committee on September 10, 1997. That means it was not approved by all the members of the USCCB. John Allen reports:
-----------
Barely was the ink dry, however, before the counteroffensive began. Nugent pointed out that just as the letter was issued, Bishop Edward Egan of Bridgeport, Connecticut, refused to allow a retreat for Catholic parents of homosexuals on diocesan property. Ironically, Always our Children recommends “participating in a retreat designed for Catholic parents of homosexual children.” Egan later was named archbishop of New York, succeeding O’Connor.
By July of 1998, the Committee on Marriage and Family Life was in the embarrassing position of being forced to revise the letter under pressure from Ratzinger. . . .
While the bishops and supporters of Catholic homosexuals tried to put the best face possible on the situation, it was clear that Always our Children was a dead letter as far as the pastoral priorities of the U.S. bishops were concerned. Moreover, many analysts believe the controversy over the letter helped lead to the Vatican document Apostolos suos, which effectively forbade bishops’ conferences from teaching in the name of the church unless the document enjoyed unanimous support from members of the conference or are approved in advance by Rome.
The impression that the handwriting was on the wall for pastoral outreach to gay Catholics was confirmed on May 31, 1999, when Ratzinger imposed a lifetime ban on pastoral ministry to homosexuals upon Nugent and Gramick [who had played important roles in drafting Always our children]. He also barred them from holding any leadership positions in their religious communities. It was strikingly similar to the ban placed on McNeill in the late 1970s. The decision capped two decades of investigation.
From Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican’s Enforcer of the Faith, pp. 208-210, by John Allen
----------
If by "gay" you refer to those with a homosexual orientation who accept the teaching of the Church that a homosexual orientation is "disordered" and that homosexual acts are acts of "grave depravity, who commit to celibacy, and who keep a secret of their orientation, then the Church is only somewhat anti-gay. Such people can be barred from the priesthood, from the military, and from teaching and coaching jobs based on *orientation alone." If by gay you refer to those who accept their sexuality as a neutral or good thing, then the Church is utterly opposed. The key documents on homosexuality from the Vatican don't even use the word "gay," and they oppose anything that might reasonably be called "gay rights," such as legal protection from discrimination.
You say: "When someone spits the word 'homophobe' at us, we must offer them the USCCB’s pastoral letter, 'Always Our Children' and—acknowledging that the document may not be precisely what they like—ask whether, having read it, they can make a credible argument that the church is 'anti-gay.'"
Of *course* the Church is anti-gay. I urge you to look more deeply into the events surrounding the writing of "Always Our Children" and what happened in the aftermath.
If you check the text of "Always Our Children," you will find it was prepared in the Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women, and Youth under the supervision of the above committee. Publication was approved by the Administrative Committee on September 10, 1997. That means it was not approved by all the members of the USCCB. John Allen reports:
-----------
Barely was the ink dry, however, before the counteroffensive began. Nugent pointed out that just as the letter was issued, Bishop Edward Egan of Bridgeport, Connecticut, refused to allow a retreat for Catholic parents of homosexuals on diocesan property. Ironically, Always our Children recommends “participating in a retreat designed for Catholic parents of homosexual children.” Egan later was named archbishop of New York, succeeding O’Connor.
By July of 1998, the Committee on Marriage and Family Life was in the embarrassing position of being forced to revise the letter under pressure from Ratzinger. . . .
While the bishops and supporters of Catholic homosexuals tried to put the best face possible on the situation, it was clear that Always our Children was a dead letter as far as the pastoral priorities of the U.S. bishops were concerned. Moreover, many analysts believe the controversy over the letter helped lead to the Vatican document Apostolos suos, which effectively forbade bishops’ conferences from teaching in the name of the church unless the document enjoyed unanimous support from members of the conference or are approved in advance by Rome.
The impression that the handwriting was on the wall for pastoral outreach to gay Catholics was confirmed on May 31, 1999, when Ratzinger imposed a lifetime ban on pastoral ministry to homosexuals upon Nugent and Gramick [who had played important roles in drafting Always our children]. He also barred them from holding any leadership positions in their religious communities. It was strikingly similar to the ban placed on McNeill in the late 1970s. The decision capped two decades of investigation.
From Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican’s Enforcer of the Faith, pp. 208-210, by John Allen
----------
If by "gay" you refer to those with a homosexual orientation who accept the teaching of the Church that a homosexual orientation is "disordered" and that homosexual acts are acts of "grave depravity, who commit to celibacy, and who keep a secret of their orientation, then the Church is only somewhat anti-gay. Such people can be barred from the priesthood, from the military, and from teaching and coaching jobs based on *orientation alone." If by gay you refer to those who accept their sexuality as a neutral or good thing, then the Church is utterly opposed. The key documents on homosexuality from the Vatican don't even use the word "gay," and they oppose anything that might reasonably be called "gay rights," such as legal protection from discrimination.
2.7.2012 | 10:39am
SteveP says:
Elizabeth Scalia: It is difficult for me to not consider last week’s Komen versus Planned Parenthood as a marketing test for the HHS mandate: if a single focus charity like Komen can be lambasted as “anti-woman’s health,” what is in store for the Church? In other words, I think you are being too optimistic about the other’s ability to follow the argument.
Thank you for the article – it is succinctly eloquent.
Thank you for the article – it is succinctly eloquent.
2.7.2012 | 11:09am
Sue R says:
Elizabeth - This is more in the nature of a response to your question in the Anchoress piece posted yesterday. As a Protestant very sympathetic to the core values of Catholics, I frequently listen to the Sunday service from the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Diocese of Winona, MN, while driving to my church. This past Sunday the opening of the service included both the reading of a letter from the pastor and a letter from the bishop. I was practically cheering as I listened. People in this parish can not say that their clergy are ignoring the issue.
Tonight we are holding caucuses and I hope and pray that those who listened to the message on Sunday, will consider it as they vote.
Tonight we are holding caucuses and I hope and pray that those who listened to the message on Sunday, will consider it as they vote.
2.7.2012 | 11:18am
CKG says:
"The secularist society does not want to hear alternative thought. . ."
You hit that nail quarely on the head, Ms. Scalia. And all considerations of Truth at such a basic level as 'the way things really are', are unwelcome to a culture for whom 'the Universe is what we say it is'.
Yeah, good luck with that. . .
You hit that nail quarely on the head, Ms. Scalia. And all considerations of Truth at such a basic level as 'the way things really are', are unwelcome to a culture for whom 'the Universe is what we say it is'.
Yeah, good luck with that. . .
2.7.2012 | 11:22am
David Gecks says:
Jesus' own outreach involved proclaiming the gospel. Was this more evident in the past in Christianity and with Catholic institutions? I hope the new evanglization effort will look at how to encourage our Catholic institutions, that have now been unreasonably excluded from constitutional protection, to be more evanglistic so that they are more explicitly Christ centered, catholic and more clearly protected. Are these institutions praying together every day? How do their policies, procedures and management styles reflect our faith? Are staff encourged to bless in word or smile? Are there wonderful sacred works of art and images of Jesus and Mary, the cross etc. all over? Are we still giving in to fears of offending through explicit displays of faith hope and charity including taking down cruxifixes?
2.7.2012 | 11:34am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Rick, I monitor media all day long and I can tell you that until this past weekend there was precious little coverage of the HHS Mandate story (one of the links in the resources section explains) and I saw with my own eyes one piece (from a paper in CA, I think, and I wish I'd saved it) that framed the story precisely as "Catholic Bishops attack Obama over Contraception" and completely ignored the constitutional question. NPR was one of the first outlets to give the story primetime coverage, but it too was framed as a matter of contraception, not conscience, and the tone of the reader (I do so love the tone of NPR! :-) ) left no doubt that this was "just those bishops again, hating on women." I don't make stuff up; that would be lying.
To others cautioning me that I am too optimistic in talking engagement, I'm not actually talking about engaging this administration; they clearly are working on an agenda toward a particular goal and it would be a waste of breath to try. I'm talking about instructing everyday people who are walking around thinking they have the whole story as regards this mandate and as regards our church. And I urge it for their sakes and their salvation.
I do believe that civil disobedience is in our futures, and more. This is going to serve to not only as a reawakening for the church but as a shot of geritol, too.
To others cautioning me that I am too optimistic in talking engagement, I'm not actually talking about engaging this administration; they clearly are working on an agenda toward a particular goal and it would be a waste of breath to try. I'm talking about instructing everyday people who are walking around thinking they have the whole story as regards this mandate and as regards our church. And I urge it for their sakes and their salvation.
I do believe that civil disobedience is in our futures, and more. This is going to serve to not only as a reawakening for the church but as a shot of geritol, too.
2.7.2012 | 11:51am
Patty Hearst says:
Obama supporters on the Catholic left display all the features of the Stockholm Syndrome: Gee, thanks Boss, for the limited conscience protection and we're so happy that you did not further overstep existing boundaries. How can we possibly repay you for your too generous consideration? Just put Sr. Keehan in the Cabinet and then we'll continue and even step up the bishop-bashing campaign
2.7.2012 | 12:29pm
The Moz says:
Civil disobedience will be required, but how much good will it do? America may finally be breaking with its glorious past and embracing a brave new world. Just as Europe appears to be waking up to the effects of 50 years of state socialism, America is falling asleep.
Without religious freedom, the first and most important right, anarchy takes hold and might makes right.
Good luck in the next election, you'll need it.
Without religious freedom, the first and most important right, anarchy takes hold and might makes right.
Good luck in the next election, you'll need it.
2.7.2012 | 12:33pm
Gil says:
"That people can willingly believe the church is dishonorable, misogynistic, homophobic, unreasonable, and sexually repressive, however, speaks poorly of the church’s own instruction and her presently strained abilities not just to catechize—although that is important—but to bring light and clarity to issues that have gone murky thanks to distortion and emotionalism..."
At my parish, Dominican and generally oriented towards orthodoxy, our pastor still supports through his lay ministers gay marriage and lifestyle, the present state of affairs in sex education classes and a host of other destructive forces in our culture. A parishioner who is a pharmacist asked if she could hand out information to parishioners on abortifacients, and the pastor told her only at the side door. And also at the side door he allowed a picture of a human person in a womb-state for a limited time. It is the deafening silence within the Church that is the greatest scandal.
At my parish, Dominican and generally oriented towards orthodoxy, our pastor still supports through his lay ministers gay marriage and lifestyle, the present state of affairs in sex education classes and a host of other destructive forces in our culture. A parishioner who is a pharmacist asked if she could hand out information to parishioners on abortifacients, and the pastor told her only at the side door. And also at the side door he allowed a picture of a human person in a womb-state for a limited time. It is the deafening silence within the Church that is the greatest scandal.
2.7.2012 | 12:38pm
Artaban7 says:
"Barely was the ink dry, however, before the counteroffensive began. Nugent pointed out that just as the letter was issued, Bishop Edward Egan of Bridgeport, Connecticut, refused to allow a retreat for Catholic parents of homosexuals on diocesan property. Ironically, Always our Children recommends “participating in a retreat designed for Catholic parents of homosexual children.” Egan later was named archbishop of New York, succeeding O’Connor." --David Nickol
David, I do not doubt that such stories exist. I do question what the exact nature of the retreat may have been, and stress that for every instance of an Egan I can give you at least three (from my personal experience alone) of the opposite end of the spectrum [a veritable endorsement of gay marriage or blind-eye given to militant "in your face" homosexual activism].
1. At the Catholic, Jesuit run high school I attended a member of my class was routinely allowed to wear gay pride apparel.
2. At a different Catholic high school, where I now teach, we have a student who was adopted by a lesbian couple. They nonetheless choose to send him here.
3. I once had to write a letter of protest to the bishop because a local Catholic parish was going to show a play entitled "As American as Apple Pie" to 3rd-6th graders at the Catholic elementary school. The flyer promoting the play (posted at the Catholic theological graduate school I attended) made no bones about the fact the play was addressing "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Lifestyles".
I would not have objected to the play being presented to adults on a voluntary basis for the purpose of discussion on the Church's teaching. I objected solely on the grounds that it was being forced on kids at a completely inappropriate age. Many give a measure of respect to homosexuals that are at least monogamous, but the fact that mere consideration of Bisexual or Transgendered lifestyles is a flagrant & basic denial of God (who gave each of us our gender), Natural Law and monogamy should have barred the play alone.
The point I'm making is that one cannot claim, as you seem to have, that the Church is anti-gay when it seems more of its American members are actively promoting those lifestyles than are going too far in opposing them.
David, I do not doubt that such stories exist. I do question what the exact nature of the retreat may have been, and stress that for every instance of an Egan I can give you at least three (from my personal experience alone) of the opposite end of the spectrum [a veritable endorsement of gay marriage or blind-eye given to militant "in your face" homosexual activism].
1. At the Catholic, Jesuit run high school I attended a member of my class was routinely allowed to wear gay pride apparel.
2. At a different Catholic high school, where I now teach, we have a student who was adopted by a lesbian couple. They nonetheless choose to send him here.
3. I once had to write a letter of protest to the bishop because a local Catholic parish was going to show a play entitled "As American as Apple Pie" to 3rd-6th graders at the Catholic elementary school. The flyer promoting the play (posted at the Catholic theological graduate school I attended) made no bones about the fact the play was addressing "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Lifestyles".
I would not have objected to the play being presented to adults on a voluntary basis for the purpose of discussion on the Church's teaching. I objected solely on the grounds that it was being forced on kids at a completely inappropriate age. Many give a measure of respect to homosexuals that are at least monogamous, but the fact that mere consideration of Bisexual or Transgendered lifestyles is a flagrant & basic denial of God (who gave each of us our gender), Natural Law and monogamy should have barred the play alone.
The point I'm making is that one cannot claim, as you seem to have, that the Church is anti-gay when it seems more of its American members are actively promoting those lifestyles than are going too far in opposing them.
2.7.2012 | 12:45pm
Artaban7 says:
Just for the sake of clarification on my last post, the instances of homosexual endorsement by members of the Church are, in fact, more harmful than the Church's official position on the issue. It is a misguided type of "compassion" that affirms a person in the sin, disorder, or addiction that has become rooted in their life.
2.7.2012 | 12:58pm
mcasey says:
Well, there are a lot of straw men to defend here, too many really. But you are right that most people (Catholics or otherwise) haven't read the various encyclicals in full (or part). Most people don't have the time, so they rely on what they hear in the pulpit and the media. But there seem to be 2 main concepts opponents of the Church's official position take that seem valid:
1. On matters regarding human sexuality, the Church hierarchy of celibate men have never had much credibility. Since the horrors of the abuse crisis, which we know now reached to the highest levels, they have zilch. Whatever casuistry it gets wrapped in, this credibility gap is a no-brainer to many people. This doesn't mean the Church is wrong on the issue, but nobody asks Charlie Manson for wellness tips, even if he has good ones.
2. Reproductive issues of any sort are best decided by women because they are the ones who have to deal with the consequences (both good and bad). I don't know if Obama had a lot of women on his commission, but if he didn't he's an arrogant fool. As any husband of a pregnant wife knows, your job is to shut up, be supportive of her decisions, and do as you're told. I have to assume, too, that in their wisdom, the Church leaders brought in a team of women of various ages to guide them here. But I think many people fear that this was not the case.
1. On matters regarding human sexuality, the Church hierarchy of celibate men have never had much credibility. Since the horrors of the abuse crisis, which we know now reached to the highest levels, they have zilch. Whatever casuistry it gets wrapped in, this credibility gap is a no-brainer to many people. This doesn't mean the Church is wrong on the issue, but nobody asks Charlie Manson for wellness tips, even if he has good ones.
2. Reproductive issues of any sort are best decided by women because they are the ones who have to deal with the consequences (both good and bad). I don't know if Obama had a lot of women on his commission, but if he didn't he's an arrogant fool. As any husband of a pregnant wife knows, your job is to shut up, be supportive of her decisions, and do as you're told. I have to assume, too, that in their wisdom, the Church leaders brought in a team of women of various ages to guide them here. But I think many people fear that this was not the case.
2.7.2012 | 1:05pm
bill bannon says:
For 1300 years delayed ensoulment stretched from Augustine and Jerome to Aquinas to Trent's catechism ( "By the Holy Ghost" section) to St. Alphonsus affirming Aquinas in the 18th century. That's a majority of the Church's history. At St. Alphonsus' time an opposite school began. Now for about 250 years we are saying ensoulment is immediate and now lately that it's murder to prevent implantation even though the cell mass can divide at c.day 14 into identical twins or triplets which would be impossible had there been an ensouled person there since ensouled individuals cannot divide into identical twins or triplets.
People can do the math. We are implicitly saying that Catholic couples themselves are murdering perhaps over a billion ova-persons in their aggregate marriage lives....and....the Pope is writing best sellers about other topics and no Pope has convened a Council about stopping these one billion murders by Catholics...and more oddly, the Church holds no mourning liturgy for these billion
victims. And maybe 50% of preimplantation blastocysts fail to implant by nature.
This means that half the world's people ( if they are people instead of totipotential cell masses of human matter)...another 7 billion...never attain having a brain or any other organ....and never hear the gospel or make a choice for Christ because they are pre-organ.
Can you see how you might meet with incredulity in Universities? I suspect we have moved up ensoulment so far timewise that Aquinas would need a drink if he
returned and looked at our theory of these latest 250 years.
Abortion is infallibly condemned but as one theologian pointed out...the front end of it...when it is possible to call it murder.... is not. If we call implantation prevention murder, we have to explain why our Popes seem quite blase about our own people murdering a billion "people" through the pill ...convene no council to fight it....and we have to explain why the Church has no mourning for this event which has half the world's population never hearing the gospel because the brain has not even begun to form.
People can do the math. We are implicitly saying that Catholic couples themselves are murdering perhaps over a billion ova-persons in their aggregate marriage lives....and....the Pope is writing best sellers about other topics and no Pope has convened a Council about stopping these one billion murders by Catholics...and more oddly, the Church holds no mourning liturgy for these billion
victims. And maybe 50% of preimplantation blastocysts fail to implant by nature.
This means that half the world's people ( if they are people instead of totipotential cell masses of human matter)...another 7 billion...never attain having a brain or any other organ....and never hear the gospel or make a choice for Christ because they are pre-organ.
Can you see how you might meet with incredulity in Universities? I suspect we have moved up ensoulment so far timewise that Aquinas would need a drink if he
returned and looked at our theory of these latest 250 years.
Abortion is infallibly condemned but as one theologian pointed out...the front end of it...when it is possible to call it murder.... is not. If we call implantation prevention murder, we have to explain why our Popes seem quite blase about our own people murdering a billion "people" through the pill ...convene no council to fight it....and we have to explain why the Church has no mourning for this event which has half the world's population never hearing the gospel because the brain has not even begun to form.
2.7.2012 | 1:31pm
Alex says:
Thank you for the article to Robert George, Tim. Also, "The Closing of the American Mind" is a great read. I was reminded of it when Scalia questioned the efficacy of our schools in teaching us about civic rights and preparing us for humane discussion.
2.7.2012 | 1:43pm
Meggie says:
Who or what is the Catholic church? Is it Phil Donahue and Timothy Dolan? Or is it ALL the Catholics in the US? I would say the latter. ALL Catholics are the heart and soul of the Church. It's the Catholics in the pews who put money in the plate that pays for the hospitals and schools that provide health insurance for employees. And the vast majority of Catholics in the pews want and use contraception. At my very large parish, which includes hundreds of families, we have one family with eight children, one with five, a sprinkling with four apiece, a few with three, and the overwhelming majority with just two -- mostly either strategically spaced closely together ("so they can play together") or about five years apart ("so we can be sure they each get enough attention.") How can humanae vitae be considered essential to the Catholic conscience when only one or two percent of Catholics take it seriously? Even among the bishops and priests, there is disagreement as to the validity of the teaching.
One third of women use "the pill" for non-contraceptive but health-related reasons (particularly menstrual issues.) That alone should salve the consciences of any Catholics that have qualms.
One third of women use "the pill" for non-contraceptive but health-related reasons (particularly menstrual issues.) That alone should salve the consciences of any Catholics that have qualms.
2.7.2012 | 1:53pm
harry says:
The eugenicists (see the documentary Maafa 21), the population controllers, the advocates of abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and those who deny the disordered nature of homosexuality, are working for the destruction of Christianity and of government based upon theism and natural law. They are well funded by the worldly "powers that be." They want to re-make the human race in their own image. They think they can "be like God," knowing for themselves what is "good and evil." Theirs is not a very original sin.
They have made amazing progress. They are no less a threat to Western Civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundation than was the situation historian Thomas Madden described as follows:
"From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.
"In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities — these were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core.
"And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest."
The problem with the current threat to Western Civilization -- godless secularism -- is just that: they do not acknowledge God, so mere mortals must play His role and assume for themselves divine authority. Theists, deists and everybody else who sees that there is some kind of transcendent, superior being, while they may not agree on the true nature of God, do agree that He is certainly not a mere mortal. A theist or deist, and really anybody with common sense, knows that there is such a thing as authority that mere mortals simply cannot wield legitimately, much less wisely. Government based upon theism and natural law acknowledges this fundamental truth. No mere mortal has the wisdom to decide which human lives are worthy of the protection of law and which are not. If all of humanity does not enjoy the protection of law then none of us really do. All of us are only human. Either that is sufficient to merit one the protection of law or it isn't.
The "atheocracy" does not and cannot acknowledge these things. For it there are no "eternal principles." Humanity is just the accidental result of mindless, purposeless processes. That being the case, the atheocracy must insist on the deification of the state -- a state for which inalienable, God-given rights simply do not exist. Human rights are bestowed upon humanity by the state and withdrawn from it by the state. The state will define which lives are worthy of life, what is natural and unnatural, what is ordered and disordered, what is good and what is evil, and do all this based upon whatever theory is in vogue at the time -- there are no unchanging eternal principles to guide it. And it seems modern atheocracies always embrace theories that require massive deception of the public and the obfuscation of the real effect of policies that end in taking innocent human lives by the millions. Hmmm ...
The HHS mandate is only the latest symptom to surface in the disease afflicting Western Man. It will be deadly if "we the people" don't correctly diagnose it in time. Yeah, I'd say civil disobedience is not only appropriate but obligatory.
They have made amazing progress. They are no less a threat to Western Civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundation than was the situation historian Thomas Madden described as follows:
"From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.
"In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities — these were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core.
"And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest."
The problem with the current threat to Western Civilization -- godless secularism -- is just that: they do not acknowledge God, so mere mortals must play His role and assume for themselves divine authority. Theists, deists and everybody else who sees that there is some kind of transcendent, superior being, while they may not agree on the true nature of God, do agree that He is certainly not a mere mortal. A theist or deist, and really anybody with common sense, knows that there is such a thing as authority that mere mortals simply cannot wield legitimately, much less wisely. Government based upon theism and natural law acknowledges this fundamental truth. No mere mortal has the wisdom to decide which human lives are worthy of the protection of law and which are not. If all of humanity does not enjoy the protection of law then none of us really do. All of us are only human. Either that is sufficient to merit one the protection of law or it isn't.
The "atheocracy" does not and cannot acknowledge these things. For it there are no "eternal principles." Humanity is just the accidental result of mindless, purposeless processes. That being the case, the atheocracy must insist on the deification of the state -- a state for which inalienable, God-given rights simply do not exist. Human rights are bestowed upon humanity by the state and withdrawn from it by the state. The state will define which lives are worthy of life, what is natural and unnatural, what is ordered and disordered, what is good and what is evil, and do all this based upon whatever theory is in vogue at the time -- there are no unchanging eternal principles to guide it. And it seems modern atheocracies always embrace theories that require massive deception of the public and the obfuscation of the real effect of policies that end in taking innocent human lives by the millions. Hmmm ...
The HHS mandate is only the latest symptom to surface in the disease afflicting Western Man. It will be deadly if "we the people" don't correctly diagnose it in time. Yeah, I'd say civil disobedience is not only appropriate but obligatory.
2.7.2012 | 2:23pm
Crunchy Con Mom says:
You made some great points, but I think you didn't go far enough. Before Catholics can hand those great documents to their friends and neighbors (and enemies) and debate their merits, we have to obtain them and read them ourselves! Imagine what a powerful force for good Catholics could be then! I think for the most part, however, that's simply not the case. I myself haven't read all those documents (although I claim being a recent convert as part of my excuse!) and I'm fairly well-educated and actually care about such things.
I guess I have some reading to go do now...
I guess I have some reading to go do now...
2.7.2012 | 2:50pm
A.M . says:
Thank you for keeping focus on the issues regarding contraception ..
Many in parishes at the laity level ( since these are issues laity can help to deal with ) have been negligent , in all that can be done , to help those less knowledgeable in this area ; thus , the sudden focus on the topic , in one sense , is God sent .
The Catholic Church esp. has been blessed and given the awesome privilege , through the priesthood , to consecrate the bread and wine, to become the Presnce and power of The Living Lord , in the Holy Spirit ..
Members of such a Church are advised , to trust in the same Holy Spirit , to help them live lives of dignity , sacredness and covenantal fidelity , esp. in marriage too .
Contrcaception , in this regard , is telling the enemy that the couple want to give up or deny that power of The Spirit , for the agent of lust ..
that the man too , is to love the wife , like our Lord does The Church , protecting Her and haviing redeemed Her against enemy assaults and claims ,
giving Her power of Holy Spirit , to teach and guide ..
This is what the enemy want destroyed - the trust in The Lord , in His Spirit , that man is capable of living good , chaste , moral lives of real love that looks out for the welfare of both and the family .
There are even studies that show how teens in families that contracept become more promiscous ..family breakups ..the anger and gult , as well
as burden of illnesses that it brings ..
Very difficult to believe administartion or even Romney is not aware of these - the latter too said , in one debate - "contraception is working just fine " .
Sen Santorum may be the only one with the moral authority among the candidates , to strongly lead teh errant , back to wisdom and just paths ; in that sense , we can aslo hope that this becomes a blessing in disguise for his candidacy too .
Many in parishes at the laity level ( since these are issues laity can help to deal with ) have been negligent , in all that can be done , to help those less knowledgeable in this area ; thus , the sudden focus on the topic , in one sense , is God sent .
The Catholic Church esp. has been blessed and given the awesome privilege , through the priesthood , to consecrate the bread and wine, to become the Presnce and power of The Living Lord , in the Holy Spirit ..
Members of such a Church are advised , to trust in the same Holy Spirit , to help them live lives of dignity , sacredness and covenantal fidelity , esp. in marriage too .
Contrcaception , in this regard , is telling the enemy that the couple want to give up or deny that power of The Spirit , for the agent of lust ..
that the man too , is to love the wife , like our Lord does The Church , protecting Her and haviing redeemed Her against enemy assaults and claims ,
giving Her power of Holy Spirit , to teach and guide ..
This is what the enemy want destroyed - the trust in The Lord , in His Spirit , that man is capable of living good , chaste , moral lives of real love that looks out for the welfare of both and the family .
There are even studies that show how teens in families that contracept become more promiscous ..family breakups ..the anger and gult , as well
as burden of illnesses that it brings ..
Very difficult to believe administartion or even Romney is not aware of these - the latter too said , in one debate - "contraception is working just fine " .
Sen Santorum may be the only one with the moral authority among the candidates , to strongly lead teh errant , back to wisdom and just paths ; in that sense , we can aslo hope that this becomes a blessing in disguise for his candidacy too .
2.7.2012 | 3:02pm
MSM says:
Stockholm Syndrome was originally named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which bank employees were held hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. Saying that Obama supporters on the Catholic left are displaying attitudes like that is fairly extreme analogy.
2.7.2012 | 3:27pm
maineman says:
As David Nickol unwittingly makes clear, there is no place for compromise and education when one is confronting contradicting religious dogma. To take his example, unless the Church embraces the acting out of homosexual impulses -- and thereby implicitly the acting out of all sexual impulses -- the proponents of secular-humanist theology will do everything they can to demonize and stamp it out. Here in Maine, we see the pitchforks out for a priest who has had the audacity to offer a 12-step type group for those who want to opt out of the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual behavior. This is not to be permitted, because it attacks the sacred notion that giving our sexual impulses free reign is a good thing.
And NPR, let's be clear, is a spiritual enterprise, evident in its state-supported status. It belongs in the same category as those artists supported by monarchs and benefactors in other eras. This means that its goals are not material in nature, that it is in the business of conveying what is seen by some as truth, and that everything it does rests on a theological substrate.
NPR is therefore not just an arm of the central government and the associated culture of death but a vector for the dissemination of a dark and destructive religion. This puts it at war with the Catholic Church and us at war with it. Of course it will, while posturing to the contrary, cleave to the secular-humanist first principal that all of reality is material in essence and that morals are entirely in the eye of the material organism that generates them.
And NPR, let's be clear, is a spiritual enterprise, evident in its state-supported status. It belongs in the same category as those artists supported by monarchs and benefactors in other eras. This means that its goals are not material in nature, that it is in the business of conveying what is seen by some as truth, and that everything it does rests on a theological substrate.
NPR is therefore not just an arm of the central government and the associated culture of death but a vector for the dissemination of a dark and destructive religion. This puts it at war with the Catholic Church and us at war with it. Of course it will, while posturing to the contrary, cleave to the secular-humanist first principal that all of reality is material in essence and that morals are entirely in the eye of the material organism that generates them.
2.7.2012 | 4:13pm
david says:
Obama isn't too worried. After all, toward election time the USCCB will return to its status as a subsidiary of the DNC with their usual murky electoral guidance.
2.7.2012 | 5:14pm
Peg says:
I also can see civil disobedience coming down the pike. on Sunday, a lector read the joint letter from the bishops of Arlington and Richmond (Virginia)---a powerful, strongly worded objection to the mandate. They bluntly assert that "We will not comply". Yes!
2.7.2012 | 5:29pm
Judith L says:
Tonight, four friends will come to my house to discuss the book, Bonhoeffer. But, as we pour tea and nibble on cake, one of them will mention one of the hot topics of the last week. I am the only pro-life, pro-traditional marriage member of the group. Finding a place between silence and challenge that leads to hostilities is an art I have yet to develop.
2.7.2012 | 6:27pm
Elizabeth scalia says:
Meggie, here is where critical thinking comes in handy. If a woman needs to go on the pill for a while to regulate her cycle or to treat Endometriosis, that's a medical situation and the pill can be prescribed as a therapy and paid for as a usual medical expense within one's insurance. Are you missing the fact that the HHS mandate is not about that, but about forcing the churches to pay (no co pay) for coverage for not just contraception but sterilization (tubal ligations and vasectomies) and abortifacients? This isn't about women who need the pill for a condition. It's about denying churches their conscience with the false idea that conception is a condition and pregnancy a disease to be prevented. Is that more clear?
2.7.2012 | 6:31pm
David Nickol says:
mainman,
You say: "To take his example, unless the Church embraces the acting out of homosexual impulses -- and thereby implicitly the acting out of all sexual impulses -- the proponents of secular-humanist theology will do everything they can to demonize and stamp it out."
Actually, I have, a number of times, said it would make sense to me for the Catholic Church to treat gay people very similarly to people who are divorced, and gay couples similarly to the divorced and remarried.
I think actually you and I would agree that the Church is "anti-gay" in the sense that I mean it. If the Church is at war with NPR, it certainly is at war with people who advocate gay rights.
Always Our Children was a rather compassionate document, but it has been largely repudiated and ignored. It really would be dishonest to present it to people who accuse the Church of homophobia as representative of the Catholic attitude toward gay people. And of course many people have read Humanae Vitae and not been impressed by it.
You say: "To take his example, unless the Church embraces the acting out of homosexual impulses -- and thereby implicitly the acting out of all sexual impulses -- the proponents of secular-humanist theology will do everything they can to demonize and stamp it out."
Actually, I have, a number of times, said it would make sense to me for the Catholic Church to treat gay people very similarly to people who are divorced, and gay couples similarly to the divorced and remarried.
I think actually you and I would agree that the Church is "anti-gay" in the sense that I mean it. If the Church is at war with NPR, it certainly is at war with people who advocate gay rights.
Always Our Children was a rather compassionate document, but it has been largely repudiated and ignored. It really would be dishonest to present it to people who accuse the Church of homophobia as representative of the Catholic attitude toward gay people. And of course many people have read Humanae Vitae and not been impressed by it.
2.7.2012 | 8:11pm
ms hayes says:
The HHS decision doesn't bother me because I don't think requiring a church-affiliated hospital or university to cover contraceptives in an insurance plan makes that hospital or university - let alone the church - guilty of sin. I've yet to hear a credible explanation for why I may be wrong. At least not any explanation that does not also apply to many other religious institutions/persons. E.g., if I am a Catholic CEO, can I follow the HHS mandate in good faith? If not, how is that situation any different from that of a Catholic hospital? Or what if I am Amish and don't believe in the police due to their reliance on violence? Should I be able to withhold paying taxes on that ground? Should I be exempt from mandatory child abuse reporting requirements? Should I be exempt from compulsory service as a witness in a trial? You get the point.
2.7.2012 | 9:30pm
conservativemama says:
The secular left wants control. They cannot abide God and faith because of the interference it causes. If you seek to control the lives of your fellow man you cannot have them believing in something greater than man.
Is this not what Marx taught? Remember that communist countries always shut down the churches. They could never kill the faith that lived in people's hearts, but they tried. Back in my undergraduate days I took a student trip to the Soviet Union. Chernenko was the Soviet leader at the time. Our Intourist guide referred to every church we passed as a former church that was now a museum.
When my cousin and her husband finally left Cuba in 1998 what was the first thing they wanted to do in the US? Marry again in the church.
The left is jealous. The Church is in their way. It has to be marginalized. Study history. Obama is nothing new. His kind shows up quite often in the history books.
Is this not what Marx taught? Remember that communist countries always shut down the churches. They could never kill the faith that lived in people's hearts, but they tried. Back in my undergraduate days I took a student trip to the Soviet Union. Chernenko was the Soviet leader at the time. Our Intourist guide referred to every church we passed as a former church that was now a museum.
When my cousin and her husband finally left Cuba in 1998 what was the first thing they wanted to do in the US? Marry again in the church.
The left is jealous. The Church is in their way. It has to be marginalized. Study history. Obama is nothing new. His kind shows up quite often in the history books.
2.7.2012 | 10:58pm
edmond says:
The irony that American Catholics find themselves in a situation where they are now "persecuted" by their government brings one to compare that situation with the persecution of the church in communist or muslim countries. History will reveal how much these churches' clergies and congregations fought and died for their faith. We have missionaries who are constantly being sent to these countries inspite of the threats to their lives. Will American Catholics be willing to risk the same in their own country, in their own democracy?
2.8.2012 | 10:03am
Peg says:
Recent developments expose the literal sterility that is the secular left. They hector us for contraception, sterilization, abortion in our health care. They believe that funding Planned Parenthood is imperative, so it can continue its mission of aborting the next generation---300,000 per year. It figures they support homosexual "marriage", which is as sterile as anything can be.
So that's what they are and what they value---sterility, death, duds, infertility, barrenness. That is what they are fighting for. They are on the side of nothingness. Conservativemama is right---we are in their way and must be pushed out.
If Alain de Boton ever builds that Temple to Atheism, mentioned in another First Things article, he should think about having it surmounted by a stunted obelisk. That would suit.
So that's what they are and what they value---sterility, death, duds, infertility, barrenness. That is what they are fighting for. They are on the side of nothingness. Conservativemama is right---we are in their way and must be pushed out.
If Alain de Boton ever builds that Temple to Atheism, mentioned in another First Things article, he should think about having it surmounted by a stunted obelisk. That would suit.
2.8.2012 | 10:49am
Meggie says:
Elizabeth Scalie writes, "Meggie, here is where critical thinking comes in handy. If a woman needs to go on the pill for a while to regulate her cycle or to treat Endometriosis, that's a medical situation and the pill can be prescribed as a therapy and paid for as a usual medical expense within one's insurance. "
Yes, of course I understand that -- it is exactly my point. A woman may request the pill to regulate her cycle while really using it for contraception. Most likely, she will use it for both (easing menstrual discomfort AND contraception.) Her employer will not and does not need to know exactly why she is using it. Hence women will be able to obtain the pill regardless of their employers wishes or beliefs, so any attempt to ban coverage of contraception is simply not going to work.
My other point remains, viz. that the vast majority of Catholics support birth control coverage (in fact, they do so by slightly greater margins than Americans in general,) so it's very difficult to make this an issue of religious freedom. In fact, one could see it as an attempt by a very small, unelected minority (some of the bishops) to restrict the religious freedom of the majority of Catholics.
Yes, of course I understand that -- it is exactly my point. A woman may request the pill to regulate her cycle while really using it for contraception. Most likely, she will use it for both (easing menstrual discomfort AND contraception.) Her employer will not and does not need to know exactly why she is using it. Hence women will be able to obtain the pill regardless of their employers wishes or beliefs, so any attempt to ban coverage of contraception is simply not going to work.
My other point remains, viz. that the vast majority of Catholics support birth control coverage (in fact, they do so by slightly greater margins than Americans in general,) so it's very difficult to make this an issue of religious freedom. In fact, one could see it as an attempt by a very small, unelected minority (some of the bishops) to restrict the religious freedom of the majority of Catholics.
2.8.2012 | 1:53pm
Artaban7 says:
"My other point remains, viz. that the vast majority of Catholics support birth control coverage (in fact, they do so by slightly greater margins than Americans in general,) so it's very difficult to make this an issue of religious freedom. In fact, one could see it as an attempt by a very small, unelected minority (some of the bishops) to restrict the religious freedom of the majority of Catholics. "
Meggie, you make two glaring errors in this paragraph:
1) You believe a skewed and faulty survey that has drawn significant criticism. Even the study that finds the greatest % of Catholics using contraception never claimed, as you do, that "only 1 or 2 percent (of Catholics) take (the teaching on contraception) seriously".
By way of explanation...I am a Catholic man who will never, due to his maleness, be asked a question concerning my opinion on birth control pills or contraceptives. Our culture doesn't care one bit what a male's perspective is on the issue of contraceptives. If it did, there'd be some way for a man to prevent his mate from aborting the child it took the two of them to conceive.
Secondly, in those "surveys of Catholics", a person who grew up in a Catholic household but who no longer attends Sunday Mass or participates in any material way in the Church community is considered just as "Catholic" as someone that is devout and practicing. By some other surveys, 10% or more of those who self-identify as "Catholic" are those who don't practice their faith at all. Taking their word as proof of Catholic opinion is worthless.
Finally, if Catholics didn't take the contraceptive teaching seriously, why is it that I'm asked about it multiple times over the course of the school year by my male high school students?
2) You make the mistake of thinking morality and truth are a matter of democratic vote rather than objective truth bestowed by God.
Your second mistake shows how deeply the tyranny and cancer of relativism has infected our culture. There have been cultures where the majority of people endorsed heinous crimes. For instance, at one point in Samoan history the rite of passage from boyhood to manhood required that the boy commit a homosexual act on a man--something we rightly condemn as a pedophilia and punish criminally. Majority opinion does nothing to validate or invalidate the morality of a particular action.
Further proof of my point...At one time in history the majority of people felt a woman, like a child, was best seen and not heard. If you wish to endorse the morality of something based on consensus, you'd at one point never had the right or freedom to even speak on these boards.
Thank God Morality is bestowed by Him, not voted into existence by Man.
Meggie, you make two glaring errors in this paragraph:
1) You believe a skewed and faulty survey that has drawn significant criticism. Even the study that finds the greatest % of Catholics using contraception never claimed, as you do, that "only 1 or 2 percent (of Catholics) take (the teaching on contraception) seriously".
By way of explanation...I am a Catholic man who will never, due to his maleness, be asked a question concerning my opinion on birth control pills or contraceptives. Our culture doesn't care one bit what a male's perspective is on the issue of contraceptives. If it did, there'd be some way for a man to prevent his mate from aborting the child it took the two of them to conceive.
Secondly, in those "surveys of Catholics", a person who grew up in a Catholic household but who no longer attends Sunday Mass or participates in any material way in the Church community is considered just as "Catholic" as someone that is devout and practicing. By some other surveys, 10% or more of those who self-identify as "Catholic" are those who don't practice their faith at all. Taking their word as proof of Catholic opinion is worthless.
Finally, if Catholics didn't take the contraceptive teaching seriously, why is it that I'm asked about it multiple times over the course of the school year by my male high school students?
2) You make the mistake of thinking morality and truth are a matter of democratic vote rather than objective truth bestowed by God.
Your second mistake shows how deeply the tyranny and cancer of relativism has infected our culture. There have been cultures where the majority of people endorsed heinous crimes. For instance, at one point in Samoan history the rite of passage from boyhood to manhood required that the boy commit a homosexual act on a man--something we rightly condemn as a pedophilia and punish criminally. Majority opinion does nothing to validate or invalidate the morality of a particular action.
Further proof of my point...At one time in history the majority of people felt a woman, like a child, was best seen and not heard. If you wish to endorse the morality of something based on consensus, you'd at one point never had the right or freedom to even speak on these boards.
Thank God Morality is bestowed by Him, not voted into existence by Man.
2.8.2012 | 3:13pm
AKO says:
@Peg In the first 60 hours after the Feb. 1 announcement that Komen was cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood, no fewer than 13 major stories appeared on CBS, NBC and ABC morning and evening news shows with 35 clips and quotes coming from supporters or representatives of Planned Parenthood and only 11 from Komen representatives or supporters.
2.9.2012 | 11:24am
Meggie says:
Artaban7,
1) Don't shoot the messenger. The methodology of the poll was good.
2) No, morality and truth can't be determined by democratic vote, but public policy can be and is. If there is broad public agreement that health insurance should cover contraception, then organizations that receive public funding should comply. It is the decision whether or not to actually use contraception that is and remains an issue of religious freedom. My point remains: who is "the Church. The people in the pews -- the vast majority of Catholics -- who support insurance that covers contraception are just as much "the Church" as the bishops (and even among the bishops, this is a controversial issue.) It's not for any of us to judge them or to doubt the free exercise of their consciences. None of us should presume to interpret "morality and truth" for others.
1) Don't shoot the messenger. The methodology of the poll was good.
2) No, morality and truth can't be determined by democratic vote, but public policy can be and is. If there is broad public agreement that health insurance should cover contraception, then organizations that receive public funding should comply. It is the decision whether or not to actually use contraception that is and remains an issue of religious freedom. My point remains: who is "the Church. The people in the pews -- the vast majority of Catholics -- who support insurance that covers contraception are just as much "the Church" as the bishops (and even among the bishops, this is a controversial issue.) It's not for any of us to judge them or to doubt the free exercise of their consciences. None of us should presume to interpret "morality and truth" for others.
2.9.2012 | 1:53pm
peg says:
Meggie,
the HHS mandate will be forced on all organizations whether or not they get any public funding. Public funding has nothing to do with it, but even if it did, I fail to see why it should trump religious beliefs.
The opinions of disobedient Catholics or others are irrelevant. The concern is for those whose religious convictions are being trampled by the government. The government is forcing them to participate in---and pay for---services that they believe are offensive to God. This is a first amendment issue.
It is the government that has stepped out of its bounds by judging church teaching, which it has no right to do. The US government is forcing its defective version of "morality and truth" on religious believers.
You can get your pills, abortions and sterilization, but pay for it yourself. Don't make people who believe they are evil pay for it. And don't claim that using these things are a religious imperative, as you suggest in your earlier comment, when you said the "unelected minority" are restricting your "religious freedom" by not buying your contraceptives.
the HHS mandate will be forced on all organizations whether or not they get any public funding. Public funding has nothing to do with it, but even if it did, I fail to see why it should trump religious beliefs.
The opinions of disobedient Catholics or others are irrelevant. The concern is for those whose religious convictions are being trampled by the government. The government is forcing them to participate in---and pay for---services that they believe are offensive to God. This is a first amendment issue.
It is the government that has stepped out of its bounds by judging church teaching, which it has no right to do. The US government is forcing its defective version of "morality and truth" on religious believers.
You can get your pills, abortions and sterilization, but pay for it yourself. Don't make people who believe they are evil pay for it. And don't claim that using these things are a religious imperative, as you suggest in your earlier comment, when you said the "unelected minority" are restricting your "religious freedom" by not buying your contraceptives.
2.9.2012 | 2:19pm
Nancy D. says:
------------------------------------J.M.J.--------------------------------------------
David N., you failed to mention that the authors of the document "Always Our Children", are guilty of a sin of omission for failing to acknowledge and communicate to those men and women suffering with a disordered homosexual inclination, that any type of disordered inclination, including a sexual disordered inclination, can be transformed through God's Grace and a purity of heart.
David N., you failed to mention that the authors of the document "Always Our Children", are guilty of a sin of omission for failing to acknowledge and communicate to those men and women suffering with a disordered homosexual inclination, that any type of disordered inclination, including a sexual disordered inclination, can be transformed through God's Grace and a purity of heart.
2.10.2012 | 12:13am
Meggie says:
Peg says, "The government is forcing them to participate in---and pay for---services that they believe are offensive to God. This is a first amendment issue."
I believe the invasion of Iraq and capital punishment are offensive to God. Can I avoid paying taxes to cover government behavior that violates my religious beliefs? Unfortunately not. There are certain decisions we make as a society and not as individuals. Some may not like them and may even object on religious grounds, as I do in the case of helping to pay (through my taxes) for executions, but we render unto Caesar. We are getting to the point where our society feels that contraceptive care should be covered by health insurance. Health insurance is part of a compensation package -- not a freebie. Insurance that covers contraception is becoming widely considered as being as much of a right as, say, receiving minimum wage. Employers don't need to know how their employees choose to use their health insurance. The employees and their doctors make that decision themselves. Employers who are JW and feel blood transfusions are immoral still need to provide standard health insurance -- that includes blood transfusions -- to their employees. The conscience of the JW employer is not violated because he or she is not involved in the decision to accept a blood transfusion. Like it or not, the general public feels the same about provision of contraceptive care, hence the movement of legislation in this direction.
Catholic hospitals and universities certainly receive federal funding, but more than that, you can almost bet your bottom dollar that the majority of those on the boards of those institutions, the majority of those funding those institutions, and the majority of those working for those institutions -- Catholic or otherwise -- do not accept the edicts of the bishops on the subject of contraception. Very few people do. Too much power is being given to a small, unelected group of people who are way, way, way outside the mainstream, and who have very little credibility of the subject of sexual mores. Sorry, I hate to refer to the sex abuse scandals, but seeing how the crisis was handled, I feel more comfortable with the belief that people should trust their own sexual decisions more than those of the Church hierarchy.
I believe the invasion of Iraq and capital punishment are offensive to God. Can I avoid paying taxes to cover government behavior that violates my religious beliefs? Unfortunately not. There are certain decisions we make as a society and not as individuals. Some may not like them and may even object on religious grounds, as I do in the case of helping to pay (through my taxes) for executions, but we render unto Caesar. We are getting to the point where our society feels that contraceptive care should be covered by health insurance. Health insurance is part of a compensation package -- not a freebie. Insurance that covers contraception is becoming widely considered as being as much of a right as, say, receiving minimum wage. Employers don't need to know how their employees choose to use their health insurance. The employees and their doctors make that decision themselves. Employers who are JW and feel blood transfusions are immoral still need to provide standard health insurance -- that includes blood transfusions -- to their employees. The conscience of the JW employer is not violated because he or she is not involved in the decision to accept a blood transfusion. Like it or not, the general public feels the same about provision of contraceptive care, hence the movement of legislation in this direction.
Catholic hospitals and universities certainly receive federal funding, but more than that, you can almost bet your bottom dollar that the majority of those on the boards of those institutions, the majority of those funding those institutions, and the majority of those working for those institutions -- Catholic or otherwise -- do not accept the edicts of the bishops on the subject of contraception. Very few people do. Too much power is being given to a small, unelected group of people who are way, way, way outside the mainstream, and who have very little credibility of the subject of sexual mores. Sorry, I hate to refer to the sex abuse scandals, but seeing how the crisis was handled, I feel more comfortable with the belief that people should trust their own sexual decisions more than those of the Church hierarchy.
2.10.2012 | 9:22am
peg says:
Again, the opinions of disobedient Catholics or others who support contraception are not relevant. Their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion are not being threatened (yet). The "need for contraception" and the need for blood transfusions are not comparable medical conditions. This is not "about" contraception in the larger and more significant sense anyway, it is about freedom of religion. Next year we could be dealing with euthanasia and eugenics or other issues that bother the conscience of people on the board of Georgetown Hospital. We have to see the forest, not the trees.
Regarding opposition to the war, as I understand it a First Amendment claim based on religious beliefs has to spring from a clearly stated church position. The Quakers, for example, object to war on religious grounds. I do not know how or if their First Amendment case was settled. I don't think individuals can win such a case when they personally object to wars.
And again, it makes NO difference if an institution gets federal funding or not. Do you understand that? There is much misinformation on this and many people do ot realize it. The Obaba administration states that even organizations that receive zero public dollars are subject to the mandate.
Regarding opposition to the war, as I understand it a First Amendment claim based on religious beliefs has to spring from a clearly stated church position. The Quakers, for example, object to war on religious grounds. I do not know how or if their First Amendment case was settled. I don't think individuals can win such a case when they personally object to wars.
And again, it makes NO difference if an institution gets federal funding or not. Do you understand that? There is much misinformation on this and many people do ot realize it. The Obaba administration states that even organizations that receive zero public dollars are subject to the mandate.
2.10.2012 | 3:36pm
Artaban7 says:
"The people in the pews -- the vast majority of Catholics -- who support insurance that covers contraception are just as much "the Church" as the bishops (and even among the bishops, this is a controversial issue.) It's not for any of us to judge them or to doubt the free exercise of their consciences. None of us should presume to interpret "morality and truth" for others." --Meggie
There have been times in Church history when the Sensus Fidelium ("sense of the [lay] faithful") has saved the Church from heresies held by some bishops. But far more often it has been the Magisterium's task of calling the laity to conversion of life. Christ gave them that task, and you sin against Christ in suggesting it be abandoned.
Christ told us we were to judge deeds, to encourage and correct and call to repentance. We can't judge souls (which only God can do) but we have a moral obligation to judge actions. Your last sentence in the above quote is a departure from the Gospel and mission of Christ, logical nonsense, and a self-contradiction (to say we can't judge others is itself a judgment of others).
There have been times in Church history when the Sensus Fidelium ("sense of the [lay] faithful") has saved the Church from heresies held by some bishops. But far more often it has been the Magisterium's task of calling the laity to conversion of life. Christ gave them that task, and you sin against Christ in suggesting it be abandoned.
Christ told us we were to judge deeds, to encourage and correct and call to repentance. We can't judge souls (which only God can do) but we have a moral obligation to judge actions. Your last sentence in the above quote is a departure from the Gospel and mission of Christ, logical nonsense, and a self-contradiction (to say we can't judge others is itself a judgment of others).
2.10.2012 | 11:04pm
Meggie says:
Artaban7, this is the same Church leadership that enabled child abuse, so one can no longer accept the argument that these people should be obeyed and revered in all matters. They make mistakes. Heck -- they don't even agree among themselves on the issue of contraception!
Peg, the opinions of the people you slightingly describe as "disobedient Catholics" (remember they too are people of conscience -- they just disagree with you) actually do matter. They form the majority of Catholics and thus FUND the majority of Catholic institutions such as hospitals and charities. The need for contraception can indeed by medically significant. I have a friend who has been told she will likely die if she gets pregnant again, while blood transfusions can be used to treat anemia, etc.
We don't all get to decide exactly which laws our society makes. Those are, in general, made by the majority. By an overwhelmingly majority, the public believes insurance companies should provide contraceptive care. We don't pay taxes selectively to cover only those issues that we feel are ethical. I am opposed to capital punishment and preemptive war on religious grounds. My vote doesn't count very much. I don't get a partial tax refund because some of my taxes have gone to supporting decisions I very strongly oppose. So be it with contraception. We render unto Caesar. In any case, today's compromise should keep everyone happy.
Peg, the opinions of the people you slightingly describe as "disobedient Catholics" (remember they too are people of conscience -- they just disagree with you) actually do matter. They form the majority of Catholics and thus FUND the majority of Catholic institutions such as hospitals and charities. The need for contraception can indeed by medically significant. I have a friend who has been told she will likely die if she gets pregnant again, while blood transfusions can be used to treat anemia, etc.
We don't all get to decide exactly which laws our society makes. Those are, in general, made by the majority. By an overwhelmingly majority, the public believes insurance companies should provide contraceptive care. We don't pay taxes selectively to cover only those issues that we feel are ethical. I am opposed to capital punishment and preemptive war on religious grounds. My vote doesn't count very much. I don't get a partial tax refund because some of my taxes have gone to supporting decisions I very strongly oppose. So be it with contraception. We render unto Caesar. In any case, today's compromise should keep everyone happy.
2.15.2012 | 3:18pm
Ted H says:
All wonderful arguments that medical coverage is the responsibility of the individual. Neither government nor companies should be funding it, controlling it or deciding what should be covered under it. It is time to return it to the marketplace and let individuals purchase the coverage they need/want from whatever source they consider appropriate, even self fund if they wish. The whole concept of government/corporate determination and control of what should be personal decisions is outrages and very 'unamerican'. Remember 'subsidiarity'?
4.3.2012 | 1:36pm
Lara says:
How can human vita be considered essential to the Catholic conscience when only one or two percent of Catholics take it seriously and only 0.01 oo of world population.
I suspect we have moved up ensoulment so far timewise that acquinas would need a drink if he returned and looked at our theory.
I suspect we have moved up ensoulment so far timewise that acquinas would need a drink if he returned and looked at our theory.
Actually, there has been a great deal of coverage of the issue in the mainstream media, and little of what I have seen has been remotely as biased as that. The basic New York Times article relayed the salient arguments from both sides and highlighted the constitutional objections. In his NYT blog on February 2nd, Ross Douthat weighed in solidly against the administration and ridiculed the arguments being used to support the move by HHS. A Wall Street Journal article on January 24th ("Obama Offends the Catholic Left") not only presented the issue objectively, but sounded rather sympathetic to the Catholic side. On the PBS Sunday night program "Inside Washington", the issue was discussed by panelists, the majority of whom blasted the administration for its decision. Nina Totenberg attempted a half-hearted defense by claiming that there were "excellent arguments on both sides", but she was rebuked by the others, including Mark Shields.
I am definitely sympathetic with the religious objections to this ruling, but I am not seeing the issue ignored or Catholic objections ridiculed by the mainstream media.