Kevin O'Brien writes:
My buddy Richard Aleman, tireless warrior for the Church, comes up with not only a great meme, but a great idea for episode one of Stanford Nutting's new internet series, SHARING WITH STANFORD.
This reminds me. A reader of the "We will bury you!" school of Future Worship was remarking in my comboxes recently concerning the fact that the Church is, whatever the National Catholic Reporter demands, simply never going to ordain women priests:
These same naysayers also predicted that the mass would remain forever in Latin, or that Communion on the tongue was eternal and unchanging. No doubt that when the Church eventually allows women priests the announcement will be preceded by "as the Church has always taught....." But for now Catholic women will have to continue to ponder and tolerate the shame of this kind of thought:
Such Triumphalist Emmissaries from the Future really need to learn the difference between unchanging teaching and a reformable discipline. Otherwise they come off like ignorami, not like Time Travellers who know how the story is going to end. Neither Latin nor communion on the tongue were ever irreformable. (The clue about Latin would have been the fact that there are numerous other rites in the Church where Latin is not used at all.) Neither, by the way, is priestly celibacy irreformable. And the priesthood has nothing to do with letting women teach or speak, which is why women have been teaching, and speaking, and doing scholarship, and doing science, and running schools, hospitals, and countries for centuries in the Catholic tradition. You do know, don’t you, O Time Traveler, that there are women doctors of the Church? Really. Try learning before shooting your mouth off.
To which, the Time Traveler replies:
Yes, yes, it’s all quite complicated and mysterious how Church teaching gradually coincided with modern reality to help keep the pews from emptying. Other Christian sects allow birth control? A 20th century Pope fortunately reveals that timing sex to avoid pregnancy is no longer sinful, as long as the couple has a good reason. Women begin to claim their rights as equals to men in society in the 60′s and 70′s? A few women saints are titles Doctors of the Church. And what ever happened to the centuries old teaching that all go to hell except for faithful, baptized, card-carrying Catholics? That one seems to have gone the way of the dodo too. Semantics aside, maintaining first century gender norms shouldn’t be bragging points. You do know, don’t you, that these women doctors have been dead for some time? Only a male dominated hierarchy and cult of celibacy could spin this as a positive message for the gals
The curious way in which the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" critics do not mind contradicting themselves if only they can contradict the Church is impressive. On the one hand the Church is faulted for refusing to change. On the other, she is faulted for changing. And when you point out that some things are changeable and some things are not, the critic waves his hands about how it's all so complicated that he can't be expected to know what he's talking about as he complains and accuses.
Still, those of us capable of intellectual curiosity and not merely of random and illiterate heckling do in fact discern a reasonable pattern in what the Church sees as changeable vs. what is irreformable. Basically, it comes down to apostolic tradition about matters crucial to the nature of the faith and the sacraments, vs. changing cultural norms. It also comes down to knowing enough history so as not to buy into ignorant cartoons. So, for instance, if you are going to say the Church, until just yesterday, said all non-Catholics are damned, you should know that Justin Martyr thought that Socrates was illumined by the Holy Spirit, that Perpetua believed her dead pagan brother had been saved by the prayers of the Church, that there are Arian heretics in the Roman martyrology as saints, and that the Church has always held out the possibility of salvation for people who, through no fault of their own, have not heard the gospel and tried to be obedient to the light of conscience. This goes right back to Romans 2 and Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, which turn out to have been written well before Vatican 2. Fr. Leonard Feeney was rebuked for saying only "baptized, card-carrying Catholics" could be saved in 1949. Similarly, the point about women doctors of the Church manages to overlook the fact that what got them canonized as such was not that their works were suddenly discovered in the 70s, but that they had been teaching for centuries through their work. If women were forbidden to teach, why have Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila been doing it for so long? How did Isabella of Spain or Elizabeth of Hungary wield all that power when women were forbidden by the Church to wield power? And why, as punishment, were these uppity women canonized or highly regarded by the Church? Similarly, the issue is not why Hildegard of Bingen is popular now. The issue is why was she popular in her own lifetime and ever since if the Church is so opposed to brainy women teaching stuff (and brainy Hildy was plenty brainy and, in addition to being one of those herbalist women the Church was supposed to hate and fear as wtiches, also admonished a king)? Why did a pre-Vatican II abbot insist that St. Teresia Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) delay entry into the Carmelites so that she could speak and teach?
As to birth control, it should hardly be a puzzle that the Church did not address which forms of birth control were legitimate before human cultures started asking, on a large scale, about birth control. Similarly, the fifth century church has remarkably little to say about the moral differences between embryonic vs. adult stem cell research. This is what some of us call "common sense". At the end of the day, what this all boils down to is the fact that my Time Traveler doesn't know (because he has no interest in knowing) what the difference is between what is essential and what is negotiable in the Catholic tradition. It's all just a bunch of stupid mumbo jumbo: something something Latin something something priests something something birth control something something celibacy something something unbelievers something something hell something something women. He dips a ladle into the swirling mix of "Catholicism", pulls it out, drops the undifferentiated slop on to the table and declares it to be a confusing mess, therefore women will be priests because communion in the hand and Latin and natural family planning and women doctors of the Church. There is not a clue about the difference between the sacerdotal priesthood, nor what a priest is, nor what a sacrament is, nor why Jesus and the apostles might distinguish between sacred tradition and human tradition. There is, in a word, not the slightest interest in or even awareness of the possibility that the Catholic faith might actually have its own interior structure and logic beyond "What baloney can we say this week that might make people like us?" It's an excellent way to set oneself up to be blind-sided when the Church turns out to not be as dumb as you thought.
Comments
Post a Comment
Something something something brilliant something something something awesome post! :-)
People, whom aren’t properly formed, will grasp at any justification for their desires. They want their will not the Lord’s will. I’ve learned this truth for myself until I truly was converted I thought the Dogma was something that could be changed, instead of a unchangeable bastion of the faith protecting it from heresy. I pray for their conversion.
The difference between the issue of women’s ordination and the communion-in-the-and issue should be quite clear with tiny amount of research: A pope (Pope John Paul II) declared quite clearly, as an unchangeable teaching of the magisterium, that women could not be ordained. He clearly stated that it wasn’t that the male-only priesthood *would* not be changed, but that it *could* not be changed, that no pope, no magisterium, past, present, or future, has the authority to change this teaching, period. This never happened with issues like communion-in-the-hand, Latin-language only, the celibate priesthood, naturally spacing children, etc.
Speaking of which, I question whether the Time Traveler’s implication that that natural family planning used to be not allowed is even true; I seriously doubt that it is. While children were always seen as gifts from God and Catholic couples needed to be open to life, weren’t there always devout Catholic couples who would abstain from sex for awhile if they had good reason to avoid pregnancy or had more children than they thought they could handle??? Of course, artificial birth control is very, very different from the periodic abstinence that NFP relies on and is still condemned and will always be condemned, if I’m reading Pope Paul VI right.
Regarding “No salvation outside the Church”: without going into detailed analysis, may I point out Thomist essayist Jacques Maritain’s strightforward take on this doctrine, which states (as the old Baltimore Catechism indicated) that to be saved, one must belong to the Catholic Church in some way. And altho the Catholic Church is a visible church, and altho visible membership is accordingly the normal (I don’t say the usual) way of being in that Church, it’s nonetheless possible for someone to be in the Church *invisibly*.
“What matters here”, writes Maritain in his book *On the Church of Christ*, “is the declaration itself, not the manner in which one understood it in that epoch [the 15th century]. That in actual fact the Fathers of the Council of Florence themselves understood it ... of a *visible* belonging to the Church, this seems evident to me. The fact remains that the declaration itself does not at all say it.” (Note 1 to Chap. X, Joseph W. Evans’s translation).
Bummer! I was hoping it was talk like a random, illiterate heckler day.
By the way, who are the Arian heretics in the martyrology you mention? Also, did they die while still holding the heresy?
“. . . my Time Traveler doesn’t know (because he has no interest in knowing) what the difference is between what is essential and what is negotiable in the Catholic tradition.”
I think the problem is going to turn out to be that it’s not just the ranting Time Travelers who don’t want to devote the time needed to learn all the history and theology required to understand the Church’s arguments against ordaining women. It is also ordinary Catholics who simply don’t see the need to personally understand the elaborate theological structure supporting an all-male priesthood. (If they did, they might simply reject some of the simplistic premises about the divine meaning of “male” and “female” in the light of our increasingly complex understanding of the chromosomal, hormonal, cultural and psychological elements of sexuality. But nevermind; the average Catholic won’t get that far.)
The widespread misunderstandings about doctrine and law that we saw when Vatican II changed the rule about abstaining from eating meat on Friday highlights the limits on the willingness of the average Catholic to study and think about such matters. In theological terms, this was a very simple distinction between unchanging teaching and reformable discipline. I think it was taken as a simple indicator that anything about Catholicism could be changed.
Once upon a time, the average Catholic didn’t aspire to master Church history and theology, but accepted the authority of Church leaders who had. Now the average Catholic is more apt to assume the Pope is just wrong about the sinfulness of contraception, missing Mass on Sunday for trivial reasons, going for years without the Sacrament of Reconciliation, divorcing and re-marrying, torture, waging pre-emptive war and carrying out capital punishment when it’s not needed to protect society.
Now speaking as a Time Traveler myself, as women increasingly take on the same roles as men in the secular world, it will be natural for most people to see the gender discrimination as more and more inexplicable and prejudicial. But I don’t think the Church will, or can, back down on this issue. The Pope will probably get his wish for a smaller but doctrinally purer Church.
If we go on as we’re doing know, we may see a smaller species. Time Traveler doesn’t know that his antecedents were wiped out in WW III, or denied permission to breed.
Can you guys cancel this guy Shea’s contract? His writing is rude, snarky, offensive, arrogant, unenlightening. Please. I used to enjoy your publication but no longer.
This is an important post- we need to educate ourselves on what is negotiable and what is dogma…I know someone who left the Church (and now practices nothing) with the excuse ‘if the Church can say meat on Fridays is okay now…what more can they change?’ Sad
NCR: More Mark Shea, please!
NCR: Please sponsor a cage match between StephanP and Tim J.
I don’t understand people whose itch to control and dominate is so overwhelming that the mere presence of one voice they dislike in a wide menu of editorial voices renders an entire publication valueless. “I used to enjoy your publication but no longer.” All because of li’l ol’ me? The whole of the Register is now worthless?
Can you guys cancel this guy Shea’s contract? His writing is rude, snarky, offensive, arrogant, unenlightening. Please. I used to enjoy your publication but no longer.
Did somebody call a whaaaambulance?
NCR: please get more interesting time travellers in the combox. I vote for the Doctor.
Would you like to call me a time traveler?
Would you like to call me a progressive?
Would you like to call me an ambulance?
Shea’s not even being mean or over-the-top here, which is something when one is presented with such an easy target; in any case, demanding part of his livelihood doesn’t seem warranted. Calling Time Traveller on his intellectual dishonesty is doing him a favor, which he will likely not appreciate.
they might simply reject some of the simplistic premises about the divine meaning of “male” and “female” in the light of our increasingly complex understanding of the chromosomal, hormonal, cultural and psychological elements of sexuality.
Goody. Perhaps the chromosones and such can also explain why a German spoon is masculine while a German fork is feminine. Or could it be that the matter has nothing to do with chromosomes and originates in something other than biology?
Perhaps once the post-modern world gets over its oppression of women and stops telling them that to be worthy they should behave like imitation men, a clearer notion will emerge. Until then, it’s the Age of Nietzsche: All Power, All the Time.
As to birth control, it should hardly be a puzzle that the Church did not address which forms of birth control were legitimate before human cultures started asking, on a large scale, about birth control. Large-scale birth control is far, far older than Christianity. In fact, the oldest medical work ever discovered (The Kahun Papyrus) describes several ways the ancient Egyptians believed you could prevent contraception, mostly by making pessaries. This isn’t a very reliable form of contraception, but it is contraception. (It also describes some methods that flatly wouldn’t have worked at all.)
@RFlaum, you’re right—birth control is far older than most people think. In the very first book of the Bible, Genesis, Onan is killed by God for the sin of using the method of birth control available at the time, withdrawal. (Perhaps even then there were other methods that were available; who knows.)
RFlaum:
Very true. And the early Church Father, like the Church today are clear that artificial contraception is evil. Contraception isn’t a huge issue in a culture with a) an enormous infant mortality rate and b) a norm of prizing large families. However, with the progress of the sciences, knowledge of human reproduction and natural cycles of infertility becomes widespread. At the same time, a contraceptive culture begins to arise in the west. So eventually the Church recognizes the need to address the matter in Casti Cannubii and reiterate what it has always taught, with one caveat: artificial contraception is wrong, cooperation with nature is not.
I’ll admit that this whole debate hardly interests me, but that in terms of the faith, I feel the least equipped to explain this issue to those who ask. When people want to understand the Church’s stance on artificial contraception, I can defend it passionately, because I understand perfectly why artificial contraception harms souls and marriages.
.
Is there a stronger argument, other than the fact that Jesus had only male apostles, for an all-male priesthood? Personally, I appreciate the attitude of St. Francis of Assisi who didn’t think himself *worthy* to be a priest. The angry, butchy women out there DEMANDING to be ordained are proud and pushy, and many of them spout pro-abortion rhetoric, which proves to me that they are simply pro-themselves. (Like fetal females are trash-worthy, and THEY are priest-worthy??) Yuck.
.
So let’s just put the creeps that give women a bad name aside for a moment. I trust the wisdom of the church on this. I know the priest is supposed to act “In persona Christi”. An effeminate woman makes this connection that much more remote. But how can this be reconciled with the fact that St. Paul calls all Christians a “royal priesthood” and also that “In God there is neither male nor female”?
.
Without having to read an entire book, is there a simple, bullet-proof explanation? I’d like to better explain this to my kids who rightfully question everything.
I have to tell you Mr. Shea, I enjoy your articles and hope NCR lets you write about more things. Your above column is insightful, but I will have to say that people who don’t agree with you will be angry with you, being that the people who shout for tolerance are usually the most intolerant of people.. Go Hawks! We are DangeRuss this year!!
I agree that the writing, the tone, is too snarky, too overheated. It’s hard to read after a while.
cowalker: Thanks once again for sharing your obviously superior *feminist* viewpoint with us poor, “ordinary”, and “average” Catholics. We are so-o-o very grateful to you. Thank you… thank you…thank you again my dear.
“The clue about Latin would have been the fact that there are numerous other rites in the Church where Latin is not used at all”
Often the argument is based on an emotional appeal, lacking substance and thus tossing darts out there to criticize the old men in the Vatican. Without any depth to their argument, the notion is ultimately a self-centered one and not Christ-centered.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-bit-on-random-and-illiterate-heckling#ixzz2HmZjlyU0
Cliff notes—I don’t know if I’d call this “bullet-proof,” but the most common sense thing that always comes to my mind when I think about this question is this. Jesus has a sinless human being available to him for ordination, who had a consistent track record of giving herself over totally and completely to God’s will, a deeply contemplative woman of unquestionable loyalty and humility and charity. That would be His mother. But he didn’t make her a priest. Go figure… :)
Margaret, yes, this must be the strongest argument because she could have been protected and set apart in this role. One hears the argument that the apostles, who were sent out on all the roads of this earth, could do so because they were men, and this would have been too dangerous for women in those times. Mary at least could have gone forth in this capacity with a phalanx of faithful men around her, but this didn’t happen; but surely she, and all women for that matter DO take part in the royal priesthood that St. Paul speaks of. The priest at mass convects the true presence of Jesus, in the Holy Eucharist, but whom brought Him forth more perfectly, than Mary? We, when we consume Him also bring Him forth and take part in this priesthood. The fact that we don’t actually convect bread and wine, into the body and blood of Christ, does not make us lesser human beings, anymore than giving birth makes us more of a parent than our husbands.
Thanks for responding. It helps. My kids are big arguers, and love nothing better than a religious wrestling match.
@Margaret, Thank you. I think you are right and this must be the central argument. I wrote another response but the spam filter caught it. It’s just as well because I just realized that I might fall into the random and illiterate category as my auto correct changed “Confect” (the Eucharist) to “convect”. Oh well, I never claimed to be a theologian…lol.
“[N]o reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
.
NFP has as its entire purpose the avoidance of conception. However, the attempted justification for NFP – the claim that it doesn’t interfere with the marriage act itself and is therefore permissible – must be specifically refuted. This claim is specifically refuted by a careful look at the teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage and ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the primary purpose of marriage (and the primary purpose of the marriage act) which condemns NFP.
.
NFP has as its entire purpose the avoidance of conception. However, the attempted justification for NFP – the claim that it doesn’t interfere with the marriage act itself and is therefore permissible – must be specifically refuted. This claim is specifically refuted by a careful look at the teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage and ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the primary purpose of marriage (and the primary purpose of the marriage act) which condemns NFP.
Note in Pius XI’s above-quoted statement the phrase “deliberately frustrate” the conjugal act’s “natural powers and purpose”. Does NFP amount to a deliberately frustrative exercise of the conjugal act’s natural powers and purpose? This question has already been answered authoritatively in the negative by subsequent popes.
I must admit that for some strange reason, I enjoy reading Mr. Shea’s rants that belittle all philosophies save for his own. It’s a sort of perverse diversion, I suppose, for the same reason I’m fascinated by Mormons or Creationists or those who insist that the moon landing was a hoax. Or watching Fox News. Regardless, I do enjoy his writing style and wit, although we disagree on pretty much everything. I think it’s also worth mentioning that although this article quotes comments I made in early December, my last post to him was “Wishing you and the family a great Christmas and all the best in 2013” on Dec. 24th. I note this merely to suggest that I am not, as Mr. Shea has portrayed me, an “illiterate heckler”. Ironically, the plural of ignoramus is ignoramuses.
-
I think what I find most enjoyable is the vitriol directed not only towards atheists like myself, or at other strains of Christianity, but at The Wrong Sort Of Catholic. It’s endlessly interesting and informing to observe him berate other Catholics who can hardly be blamed for drawing different conclusions from the befuddled teachings and contradictory scriptural mess known as the Bible. Discussion is quickly curtailed with accusations of pretending to know more than the Pope, or a quick citation from the CCC to remind them that they seem to have forgotten What Must Be Believed, and that they’re welcome to take their business elsewhere thank you very much. Even another Catholic publication (The National Catholic Reporter) is easily be dismissed as a rag, despite near unanimous agreement on theology, because of editorial support for the ordination of women (which we’re assured can never, ever happen). As if there wasn’t enough discord between people stemming from competing religious beliefs. But then again, it must be a thankless job being right all the time.
-
Regarding my reference to the article on Bristol University Christian Union, who prohibit women from speaking at events unless accompanied by their husbands, one might have expected some amount of throat clearing, then something along the lines of “well, Catholics have no such objection to women speaking at events” or similar efforts to distance Catholics from such shameful and blatant misogyny. No such luck. No awareness that the basis for such resistance to ordaining women is rooted in women’s shameful role of chattel status in 1st century society. His point seems to be that the modern Church loves women, of which there is no doubt. They can teach, run institutions, and even be named doctors of the Church, but darn in all, Her hands are tied on the matter of allowing them to be priests. And daring to question it would make him the Wrong Sort Of Catholic for whom he has no patience.
I also learned that I am incapable of intellectual curiosity, which is a bizarre assertion from an apologist and enforcer of a religion that saves its members from the intellectual heavy lifting. Confused about what to believe? It’s remarkably easy; in fact, it’s been pre-thought for you and written down. Dissenters need not apply. I especially enjoyed the back and forth comments on last year’s article about Medugorje. Regular readers already know that Shea has pronounced it a hoax. Even those who swear that they have visited the site and experienced visions and miracles get the full-metal-jacket wrath of the Right Sort Of Catholic. They are simply mistaken. Delusional. Possibly heretics. Of course if the Vatican boys in lab-coats decide to put their stamp of approval on this latest ridiculous delusion, is there any doubt that Shea will fall in step?
-
I take it that I’m supposed to be embarrassed that I am unaware that some early Christian believed Socrates was infused with the Holy Spirit, or that Perpetua believed her dead brother had been saved by the prayers of the Church, but frankly, I don’t understand how this pertains to anything being discussed. One might think that a blogger on the Patheos website, a forum which serves the interests of all manner of religious thought from A to Z, would develop a sense of humility about the statistical improbability that this One True Faith is really all that, or at least ponder the possibility that some non-Catholics are not ignorami (sic), or that those who comment on some of his shriller-toned articles are not “illiterate hecklers”. Peace.
My question just above is better worded: Does NFP amount to an exercise of the conjugal act deliberately frustrative of its natural powers and purpose?
Spam filter got the first effort, or was it something more sinister?.....
I must admit that for some strange reason, I enjoy reading Mr. Shea’s rants that belittle all philosophies save his own. It’s a sort of perverse diversion, I suppose, for the same reason I’m fascinated by Mormons or Creationists or other blowhards who insist that the moon landing was a hoax. Or watching Fox News. Regardless, I do enjoy his writing style and wit, although we disagree on pretty much everything.
-
I think it’s also worth mentioning that although this article quotes comments I made in early December, my last post to him (Dec. 24th) was “Wishing you and the family a great Christmas and all the best in 2013”. Prior to that, commenting on what I thought was a very thought provoking piece he wrote on the Christian response to Sandy Hook, I posted “….I must say that musings like these are simply profound and excellent food for thought for religious and secular folk alike….keep up the great work and wishing you and the family a great Christmas.” I note this merely to suggest that I may be not, as Mr. Shea has portrayed me, an “illiterate heckler”. Ironically, the plural of ignoramus is ignoramuses.
-
What I find most enjoyable is the vitriol directed not only towards atheists like myself, or at other strains of Christianity, but at The Wrong Sort Of Catholic. It’s endlessly interesting and informing to observe him berate other Catholics who can hardly be blamed for drawing different conclusions from the befuddled teachings and contradictory scriptural mess known as the Bible. Discussion is quickly curtailed with accusations of pretending they know more than the Pope, or a quick citation from the CCC to remind them that they seem to have forgotten What Must Be Believed, and that they’re welcome to take their business elsewhere thank you very much. Even another Catholic publication (The National Catholic Reporter) is easily dismissed as a rag, despite near unanimous agreement on theology, because of editorial support for the ordination of women (which we’re assured can never, ever happen). As if there wasn’t enough discord between tribes stemming from competing religious beliefs, Mr. Shea seems to have plenty of rage to spare for even The Wrong Sort Of Catholic. But then again, it must be a difficult job being right all the time.
-
I take it that I’m supposed to be embarrassed that I am unaware that some early Christian believed Socrates was infused with the Holy Spirit, or that Perpetua believed her dead brother had been saved by the prayers of the Church, but frankly, I don’t understand how this pertains to anything being discussed. Then again, I am used to the claim that such profundities and a mature understanding of the historical and literary contexts of scripture renders faith perfectly compatible with reason, and any atheist criticism of religion is, therefore, “simplistic,” “dogmatic,” or even “fundamentalist.” In Mr.Shea’s case, these assertions generally come moistened to a sickening pablum by great sighs of condescension. One might think that a blogger on the Patheos website, a forum which serves the interests of all manner of religious thought from A to Z, would develop a sense of humility about the statistical improbability that this One True Faith is really all that, or at least ponder the possibility that some non-Catholics are not ignorami (sic), or that those who disagree with his often shrill rhetoric are often not “illiterate hecklers”. Peace.
FWIW, on NFP Mother Teresa said this back in 1994: “The poor ... can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said: “... natural family planning ... is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other.” And what this poor person said is very true.”—from her speech at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 5, 1994 (available at a post yesterday on the blog Public Catholic).
You might think that someone who masquerades as a champion of rational thought and discourse would allow someone he writes about would to post a response. No such luck. Some “discussion”. How disingenuous, but not that surprising I suppose.
Posted by Rowan Faith Shea on Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 8:07 PM (EDT):
NFP has as its entire purpose the avoidance of conception.”
***********************************************************
Not really, many couples use NFP to actually plan conception, ie. by knowing which times are more likely for conception to result.
It’s incorrect to present NFP as a method only used to avoid conception.
Natural Family Planning is the institutional church at its most intellectually dishonest and inconsistent. NFP clearly and logically violates the church’s own teaching on birth control. Forget about atheist vs Catholic arguments; reason condemns NFP.
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature”
Based on the above statement, the question we must ask about the form of birth control used is does it deliberately frustrate the purpose of the conjugal act (here posited to be the begetting of children,) i.e. is the couple using a form of birth control deliberately (i.e. knowingly) frustrating the natural process of fertilizing an egg?
NFP fails because the couple is making a deliberate conscious effort to determine a woman’s cycle and to limit insemination to those times when she is least likely to conceive. It’s quite clear that a couple following Catholic teaching should have intercourse when the moment takes them with no thought of the outcome. Period.
Oh and all other forms of sex other than those that might freely lead to the fertilization of an egg are verboten as well by the above statement.
Notice that in a comment above, only *intellectual* dishonesty, not necessarily *moral* dishonesty, was being asserted of anyone who thinks that frustrative contraception is wrong but NFP is O.K. What, then, does “intellectually dishonest” mean that “logically inconsistent” by itself does not? The above comment was apparently using the rhetorical trick called “insinuation”, kinda sorta implying moral dishonesty, without actually assering it, of anyone who disagreed with that commenter.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.