We knew that some English government officials were a wee bit peeved about the Pope coming to England. They’ve shown that with their emails suggesting that the Pope visit an abortion clinic or suggesting a new brand of Pope Benedict condom. We know that many Muslims aren’t happy about the visit because a Muslim publication has called for Muslims to “tell the Pope in no uncertain terms what Muslims think of his evil slanders against the last Prophet of God and his message.” What we didn’t know was that some Catholic officials in England aren’t so crazy about the Pope’s visit either. In fact, some Catholic officials are hoping that the Pope doesn’t act too Catholic-y when he visits England.
The Catholic Herald reports:
English Catholic officials are hoping that the Pope will not further inflame anti-Catholic sentiment by speaking out against gay marriage or adoption, or abortion and divorce.
They are focusing on common ground between the Vatican and the British government in such areas as the environment and international development.
So the Pope shouldn’t talk about the dignity of the human person or the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage? But other than that the Pope should feel free to say nice things about the environment ‘cause you know Jesus was a big greenie.
So many Catholics today (lay and clergy both) see themselves as real world ambassadors to the Church. They seek to “modernize” the Church. They seek to “update” the Church or make it “relevant.” Embarrassed by the tenets of the faith they seek to tone down the message to one the world already accepts which I’m not sure I understand why the world needs to be called to be exactly like it already is.
The message of the Church is a radical one and can set the world on fire. But first Catholics have to be willing to carry the message. They have to be willing to be too Catholic-y.
Comments
Post a Comment
This is one of those times when I think about Jesus cursing the fig tree. That was not the act of a greenie. Nor was it the act of someone who would tolerate those who deny fertility because it interferes with a lifestyle (abortion, divorce). And a barren tree would be the poster child for an homosexual union which by definition cannot generate children without intervention. I don’t want to be that fig tree. Do you?
Seriously? This should not be a surprise. The Bishops and bureaucrats of the Catholic Church in England make the U.S.C.C.B. look like the Holy Office.
I am a loyal Catholic, but I have to call the Church out on the belief against contraception. I believe that contraception should be allowed with married couples; telling a married couple that they cannot have sex is like saying that they cannot kiss with their tongues. Just because priests make vows of celebacy doesn’t mean everyone else should too.
My girlfriend will be going to the Mass at Hyde Park on the 18th… I am jealous, I can’t.
Dominus Christus
@Tono
Conctraception for married couples was allowed after 1930, everywhere but the Catholic Church. WHen pressured to allow it, Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae to explain what would happen if he did. He was right. The horrors of modern culture had their seed in contraception. It was convenient to contracept, became it was convenient to contracept so that people could fornicate freely, became it was convenient to kill the ones missed by contraception. Soon, convenient to put aside a burdensome spouse. Now, we face euthanasia as a convenient option for the elderly and disabled. How much proof from history do you need?
It’s not loyal to be loyal to only the teachings you like.
Catholic Brits need to read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, because the Pope is 100% correct regarding the Catholic Faith.
The Church is not to be confused with the Political Community, so international development and the environment are out of the question - unless the topic has to do with salvation of souls or fundamental rights of all men. (CCC 2245 & 2246)
Weren’t British Scientists involved in the global warming scam ? I think some of them are in jail.
@Tono
Tono - The Church hasn’t declared intercourse between married couples a ‘no no’. In fact, the Church advocates for Natural Family Planning, “an umbrella term for certain methods used to achieve and avoid pregnancies . . . No drugs, devices, or surgical procedures are used to avoid pregnancy. NFP reflects the dignity of the human person within the context of marriage and family life, promotes openness to life, and recognizes the value of the child. By respecting the love-giving and life-giving natures of marriage, NFP can enrich the bond between husband and wife.” See http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/index.shtml for more information. And good luck!
Tono’s misguided argument against contraception is much like the comments being made by the English clerics. They just don’t seem to ‘get it’ because they are not looking at the whole picture. They want to make sure everyone is happy and always get what they want. Restraint and self-control, and yes, sometimes a firm ‘no’ towards a moral end just doesn’t fit into their picture.
I hate to add to an unintended tangent but couples who follow the Church’s teaching have sex - a good deal of it - evidenced by all of our large families. However, if you look at the average # of times a married couple who contracepts is intimate vs. the amount of time you’d be asked to exhibit some self-control if seeking to avoid pregnancy w/ NFP you come out about even (or even more to the NFP’ers). You can even be a providentialist in regard to family size which would, feasibly, give you even more days.
But, the point remains - the Pope will be the Pope and the Church will continue to teach the truth. Wether we like it or not, follow it or not is up to us - free will. But then we will also deal with the consequences; either today, tomorrow or eternally.
A clarification.
Priest take a vow of celibacy. Men and women take a vow in marraige to be faithful to each other, to be chaste, allowing their sexual natures to be fully expressed only with each other, and completely with each other. Birth control be it a pill or a condom, a patch or a cream or an implant, means you have opted to eliminate the creative component of your sexual nature, that which is most like the Creator.
The capacity to create a new human being is a powerful and overwhelming gift, and as such, abstinence on occasion may be necessary but self denial is a virtue, whereas self indulgence with caveats (birth control), is a sin.
Abstinence on occasion is not a cross of unimaginable proportions unless one have abdicated all notions that humans are anything but a creatures of apetite. It stands to reason, when we cut off via technology, part of our connection with the Divine, we have trouble understanding any part of ourselves as having a connection with the Divine.
The key word that tells is “feels.” That I don’t feel like being obedient is the oldest explanation for sin that exists.
Great article. Great responses!
Environmentalism is about “fundamental rights of all men.”
Laura, much Environmentalism is junk science.
Lies by scientists to achieve socialist or financial goals, or control people’s lives, such as happened with the lie of “Global Warming” can not be adhered to, or permitted.
The US already has a Clean Air Act, and a Clean Water Act.
States also have environmental laws respective of issues that concern their States.
Everything in sensible moderation.
We don’t need a police state or for taxpayers to be robbed blind.
There’s something nefarious about the Church using or being used for its positions on the environment and international development as common ground for talking to governments. The governments use it as cover for their otherwise very anti-Catholic, anti-Christian policies (sure, we promote abortion, but we agree with the pope on global warming, so all is well, neh?) and certain members of the Church use it to grope for approval from the chattering classes.
Cynicism at its worst, especially when the truly key issues—life, religious freedom, marriage, Jesus himself—all get lost in the shuffle.
I love the responses that everyone is giving, especially about contraception. Sherry, may I copy your response and use it on Facebook? It is very well put! I know too many people who are miffed by contraception and I have a very difficult time explaining why we believe what we do.
And I would be happy if the Pope *did* speak about those things when he comes to England. We need it. It seems people are too afraid to speak about what the Church says. I met a few marriage prep presenters who didn’t want to speak about sexual morality in marriage because they didn’t want to upset anyone. Maybe people need to be upset a little in order to look at the truth. So, all the more reason to pray for Pope Benedict during his visit, and to pray for all Catholics in England, especially our priests and bishops.
@Tono - I would encourage you to look at *why* contraception isn’t allowed. Look at how the pill (or any hormonal contraceptive) works. Hormonal contraceptives can also damage a woman’s body and do age her cervix at a faster rate. While NFP requires some self-control, it doesn’t mean total abstinence, and it’s very effective at both achieving and postponing pregnancy. I can direct you to an instructor if you wish. (Oh, and I’m jealous of your girlfriend getting to go to the service in Hyde Park, too - I can’t go). God bless.
Susan, Aug 25 8:32 AM would you give a reference for your statement that hormonal contraceptives “do age her cervix at a faster rate.” ?
Don’ t get me wrong. I agree with and mostly obeyed the church’s teaching against artificial contraception and was blessed with 9 children to show for it. I just want to know what you mean by “age” a cervix. Older primiparous cervixes are much stiffer and slower to dilate, as a rule. If hormonal contraceptives are accelerating this, it might be a factor in causing the C section epidemic our country is experiencing. But I have never heard such a statement before and I want to know where you got it from.
Thanks,
Another Susan
What of childless marriages, if we condemn Gay Marriage for not being able to produce children in a intement biological fashion, should our condemnation be as loud, and as judgemental for these couples? You do have couples who have chosen for whatever reason not to have children, or who can’t.
What about a couple whose family trees have a history of producing a child with a deformity? Should they have been even been allowed to be married in the first place?
A even more thorny question what of a married couple in which the wife disagrees with the husband on use of contraception. She uses it and than has sex with the husband how does this fit with the primary purpose of marriage?
I raise these questions only to highlight the complexity of the issue. There is not even full agreement between Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II concerning the language of Primary and Secondary purposes of Marriage. Vatican II would not even use the terms “primary and secondary” purposes marriage.
Perhaps it is time for another Vatican Council.
@Susan P. Here’s the source: http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/bulletin/vol24/no2/cervixnotes.shtml It’s from Dr Erik Odeblad’s research. I’ll see if I can find something more detailed.
Darkness hates the Light. I hope that Pope Benedict XVI does NOT censor Christ’s light in any way at any time no matter where he goes.
@Joe, your arguments are red herrings. First, an infertile couple, like us, are not intentionally avoiding life. Ours is an exception to the normal state of affairs through no fault of our own. Second, if there is a a chance of deformity, then they are still called upon to have children. They may use natural family planning to space births, but they can’t contracept to avoid conception. In the case where one spouse wants to contracept, then it is up to the faithful spouse to not have sex. Yes, these situations are difficult, but no difficulty abrogates the moral law.
Trey, I am on your side here.
But moral theology has its ins and outs that we are not all familiar with. I think that if a husband decides to use condoms, the wife does not have to refuse sex with him. And if the woman insists on using a diaphragm, the husband does not have to refuse to have sex with her. The conjugal rights of marriage take precedence. This is orthodox moral theology, pre VII stuff, not the Charlie Curran variety. However I have wondered what is the case if the woman decides to use an abortifacient method like the IUD. I don’t think these existed when moral theologians came to this conclusion.
Susan Peterson
Pope Benedict XVI is exactly the kind of Pope the Church needs now: a superb theologian unafraid to speak the truth even when it makes cafeteria Catholics and unbelievers uncomfortable. They need that, whether they like it or not. And Catholics need to hear the truth, which is being buried in the nonsense and triviality of the mass media. If women want to be priestesses they can meet at Stonehenge with the other pagans. That matter is forever closed in the Catholic Church. Get over it.
Bravo Benedict XVI!!!!!
@Susan, thanks for your reply. I’m curious about exactly which part of the Church’s teaching would support your point about the conjugal act taking precedence. Do tell, please! Just want to know. Even if it is licit to have sex with a partner who is contracepting, then I would still say it’s better not to do so. If the woman is using an abortifacients, I think it is clearly illicit. Plus, if you’re aware that the sex act is being perverted by removing the procreative element, thus rendering the unitive function inert, why would you want to have sex? If it’s just to satisfy your partner’s selfish lust, that’s not good for them or you, since it objectifies you and confirms sex as a base pleasure for them. I just think it’s much clearer than some would make it out to be. Don’t contracept! Don’t participate in evil!
Trey, I found a source that says what I said, and it is a source that seems to cite the catechism a lot, but they don’t give any citations for their statement here, so I don’t know what authority it has.
I believe that this is the case because I was told so by old pre VII Redemptorist priests who studied the great moral theologian St. Alphonsus Liguori in seminary.
You might try asking this question on Catholic Answers. They make a big effort to make sure all of their replies are orthodox.
Here is the site I found that gave this answer, but as I said, I can’t vouch for it. There was one other thing on the page that I really wondered about.
http://thecatholicletter.com/birth-control-abortion-article-subjects-40/100-the-catholic-birth-control-a-sex-faq#5
Susan
The British Catholics should know that there is nothing to hide for the Church. Individual faults or misgovernance by authorities may be there and that does not justify a change in the teaching of the Church. The modern thought that sex is alright everywhere and no restriction is wanted cannot be agreed to by the Church. The Pope as the head of the Church of Christ has to say loudly that gay marriage is no marriage but a sinful living. The Catholics should be proud of their religion and should be firm believers.
@Susan, thanks for the reference. I think I will ask Catholic Answers. I can understand if your spouse isn’t Catholic or doesn’t know the teaching and does something permanent like tubal libation or a vasectomy. But if your spouse knowingly rejects the teaching I think it becomes a bit more complicated. Oh well. We’re infertile so we don’t have to worry!
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.