The time: earlier this year. The occasion: a post-operative tonsillectomy visit with my son’s ENT. She was telling me what to watch out for as his scar sites healed. “You might see some . . . you know? kind-of-thing,” she explained. And then she just looked at me, expectantly.
“Nnnn-no,” I wanted to say. “No, I do not know what kind of thing. Because you . . . you did not say anything!” Grateful to have the printed materials from the hospital, I just bundled up my son and got out of that strange, vague place where they put you to sleep and remove parts of your body kind of thing.
The always-specific Rebecca Teti pointed out this dismally hilarious piece, “What Happens in Vagueness Stays in Vagueness.” A speechwriter searching for interns noticed
Undergraduates ... seemed to be shifting the burden of communication from speaker to listener. Ambiguity, evasion, and body language, such as air quotes—using fingers as quotation marks to indicate clichés—were transforming college English into a coded sign language in which speakers worked hard to avoid saying anything definite. I called it Vagueness.
Not only frivolous undergrads, but professionals of every age speak in this juvenile, coded slang:
[T]hey saw Vagueness not as slang but as mainstream English. At long last, it dawned on me: Vagueness was not a campus fad or just another generational raid on proper locution. It was a coup. Linguistic rabble had stormed the grammar palace. The principles of effective speech had gone up in flames.
Vagueness isn’t only irritating to the rigid and elite—it’s bad news for us all. See how handy vagueness can be, and how difficult to combat: It’s disguised as something harmless. It begins life as something that is normal for children, and all too easily turns into habit for adults. Some of those who fight against vagueness truly are petty snobs looking for an easy way to condemn others, which makes it easy for the Terminally Vague to assume that everyone who craves specificity is a petty snob.
And worst of all, vagueness is everywhere, a hydra with a million indistinct heads. And the next thing you know, doctors are telling patients to watch out for . . . you know? Kind of thing. A trusting patient could be found hours later, lying dead in a pool of his own ambiguity.
Most vagueness comes from carelessness or laziness, but vagueness is at its most dangerous when it’s used intentionally. As Matt Archbold points out, it’s no coincidence that the media says “fertilized egg” for something that already has a proper and specific scientific name: a human zygote, and then a human embryo. Same goes for that inexcusably archaic notion that an unborn child is, at any point in his existence, a “blob of cells” or a “clump of tissue”—and yet, otherwise educated people still use and teach these terms, despite what far more specific and accurate scientific information exists.
Why? Because in vagueness there is safety. You can do whatever you want with someone called “blob.”
Words are important. Specificity is important. Accuracy isn’t some persnickity hobby for people with too many advanced degrees—it’s a matter of life and death. And this is why the Church (who, like so many mothers, will only tolerate nonsense for so long) is so gloriously right to put so much effort into the new translation of the Roman Missal—a translation which, in its increased accuracy, is more beautiful.
That’s the great news: More specific doesn’t mean more dry! As Charlotte Hays explains,
At present, Catholics acknowledge their unworthiness before receiving Communion with the words “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” But with the new translation, Catholics will begin to say, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” The second is closer to the words attributed to the centurion in the New Testament.
Closer, more specific . . . and more profound. As Anthony Esolen says of the team who wrote the 1970’s English translation:
According to their own testimony, the translation they came up with is “faithful but not literal.” That should have made people wary. When one translates poetry, the literal is especially to be attended to, since it is the literal that is the vehicle for whole constellations of meaning.
How lucky we are to be Catholics! How astonishingly fortunate to be seated safely in the one ship that’s moving slowly forward on a definite, specific path, rather than wallowing uncertainly in the shallows of vagueness. We should not fear the literal, or shy away from the specific. The God who can number every hair on our head does not paint with broad strokes, and neither should we.
Comments
Post a Comment
Good article. You gave me something to think about today.
Literally right after reading this, I found this other kind of thing: http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/07/8681526-opinion-human-rights-for-embryos-initiative-at-odds-with-science
Caplan’s argument: because many “fertilized eggs” die before coming to term, they aren’t actually human and thus all “fertilized eggs” can not be called human, therefore abortion is okay.
Which means, by that logic, that because all humans eventually die, none of us can be called human. Makes sense.
I guess vagueness is handy when you wish to blur, lie or cover up. As you have pointed out it dominates our sinful society. It sure beats thinking for many. Maybe next time when someone says something vague you should question, I know I am going to.
I have noticed this vagueness thing in my own family circle.
I have got ants in my pants right now! Is it Advent yet???
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am the family crank, insisting, as I do, among a sea of “thingies”, “you know what I mean”‘s, and air quotes, that words have meanings. The less specific we are, the more we invite the other to provide their own meaning, often with regrettable consequences. You have provided an invaluable service to those of us who try to hold the line against encroaching barbarisms.
Hey Simcha, agree (kinda/sorta/generally like?) with your comments on vagueness. Yet I don’t think the liturgy we’ve known and loved for 40 years was necessarily indirect. Would you have said the old liturgy was better, if you even actually felt so?
Would I have said so if I had thought so? What, and violate my contract with the Register never to state my own opinion? Ho ho ho.
.
To answer your question: honestly, having grown up with the current translation of the Missal (and not being a Latin scholar), I never saw anything lacking in it. But now that I’ve heard the new translation, I like it much better, especially with scholars like Tony Esolen to guide us through the nuances. The point is that the “old” liturgy (what we use now, for another few weeks) is actually the new liturgy; and the new translation is a more faithful rendering of the actual old liturgy.
.
I’m really looking forward to discussing the improved translation with my kids, who, I’m afraid, have gotten into the habit, like many Catholics, of mumbling their way through the responses while their minds are elsewhere. I’m delighted that the unfamiliar words will jolt us all into thinking about what we’re saying, and I’m genuinely baffled at all the resistance the new translation is facing.
Hey Simcha, thanks for the quick answer!
Our parish is running classes on the new liturgy and we have practiced the last few weeks saying key parts of the Mass (penitential rite, Profession of Faith) It has taken some getting used to. It will freshen the meanings behind what we say each week, but I also remember going through this process when this liturgy was released more than 40 years ago. Not that I like the new one less, but (so far) the old one more and it hadn’t lost its strength for me. But in a year’s time…
Yes, yes, yes! I have always felt strongly that words have meaning, and are important, and you should choose the words that best communicate your meaning to your audience.
.
Love this: “Words are important. Specificity is important. Accuracy isn’t some persnickety hobby for people with too many advanced degrees—it’s a matter of life and death. And this is why the Church (who, like so many mothers, will only tolerate nonsense for so long) is so gloriously right to put so much effort into the new translation of the Roman Missal—a translation which, in its increased accuracy, is more beautiful.”
When our pastor was going through the liturgical changes for us, he pointed out that it is especially important that the English translation be precise and accurate because it is from the English translation that the Asian languages receive their translation. There isn’t a translation from Latin to Japanese or Chinese, or Vietnamese, for example. Theirs comes from ours, so it is all the more important for the English to be precise.
As someone who used to attend the Tridentine Mass, I am very excited about the changes and the nuances that will be present to us with the more literal language.
I have to confess to occasionally wanting to drown young acquaintances “in a pool of their own ambiguity.”
I think this way of speaking comes from the same motivation—usually unconscious—that underlies the habit most young people have of raising the inflection at the end of each sentence or phrase: it’s a way of saying, “I kind of think this, but I’m not really sure—do you agree with me? I don’t want to be wrong here…” If you’re vague enough, you can’t ever be quoted as saying something that others might criticize or disagree with.
Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: “The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for” — although in the spiritual realm that isn’t necessarily true, for most of us are hopelessly inapt when trying to describe the love of God.
Thanks Simcha, this gave me a chuckle. So love that with the degree in hand the Dr. got away (well not really) with giving you such casual medical terms as “kind-of-thing” Could you not see this in a Seinfeld episode? I can. Very funny stuff in kind of sad kinda way?
That “new” Mass music hangs around four notes most of the time. It says on the papers that it was agreed to by Choir Directors. They must be the ones who had a choir of four year olds. I do not know of any living Choir Director who attended. Does anyone know any of them, so we can send them an Unhappy Birthday Card?
And this is specifically why the Church, in its wisdom and practicality, remained faithful to the unchanged Latin liturgy for centuries—acknowleging that, not only do words mean things, but that modern language is an evolving thing. To keep the same real, literal, purposeful meaning for something as important and eternal as the Mass, use a language that is not still changing and fluxing. Just another shade of meaning on the vagueness thingy that I thought I’d throw in there…
I’m gonna throw it back. We needed to ditch the Latin to bring the people closer to God during the celebration of the Mass. Using a dead language in a modern world alienated the people from the sacrifice. We need to make our liturgy a living expression of our faith, something that is lost since 99.99999% of the world is not made up of Latin scholars, and never will be. This is from a guy who used to go to the same Mass as Mel Gibson.
While I appreciate the greater accuracy and beauty of the new Mass translation overall, it seems to me that “born of the Father before all ages” is LESS theologically accurate (despite being a more accurate translation of the Latin) than “eternally begotten of the Father”.
JMJ
We forget that in 1970 not only was the translation horrible beyond compare, but that it introduced a hermeneutic of discontinuity. It wasn’t just the use of the vernacular, and a horrible translation into the vernacular, but also a reorientation of the alter, conversation protestantesque “service”, the downplay of the un-bloody representation of Calvary, the killing of tradition music for the banal, and so may other reasons that led to the rupture with tradition.
Our Blessed Lord said to judge based upon the fruits in his parabole. I think the fruits of the 2nd Vatican Council are quite apparent to anyone who does not have their head in the sand. 75% of Catholics used to go to weakly Mass, not less than 25% do (in America, Catholic Europe is far worse). Less than 50% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. Catholics regularly vote for Pro-Abortion candidates and feel there is nothing wrong with doing so. Catholic Bishops conferences have organizations, such as the CCHD, that routinely give money to organizations that directly contradict Church teaching on sexual morality. Over 90% of Catholic contracept and see no problem with it. Quite a few of the NFP Catholics are using it as a Church approved contraception. All this is the fruits of the post-councilor Church. This does not include the rebel clergy and religious.
This new translation is but a very tiny step in the right direction. The Remnant is finally starting to battle back. Trusty me, as bleak as the aforementioned sounds, I still have hope and know that our Lord promised that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. Though, it should be known the this is more of a promise that against the attack of the Church Militent the gates of hell shall not prevail, as in withstand the attack. Thank God for our Holy Father who is leading us in the right direction.
@David
I’m really tired of this sort of nonsense. Not to go off on an NFP tangent, but you couldn’t me more offensively wrong if you tried. Please find me the encyclical that warns faithful Catholics of the evils of NFP. Please find for me in the Catechism the sin of “NFP contraceptive mentality.” Please find for me the data you are using to read the souls of every couple who uses NFP. Don’t have it? That’s because you are stating heretical positions.
It makes my heart skip a beat to think of what I would have thought was important or held dear, had I allowed my friends and popular culture dictate what I believe. I KNOW I wouldn’t have had all of my children. When I realize I would give my life for any one of them, I am overwhelmed with gratitude that the wisdom of the church has “saved me from myself”! As for the new words in the mass; I trust that those who were put in charge did their jobs faithfully. I feel like I don’t have the luxury to worry about it.
Yay! The Jerk! You have such a way with words.
Yeah, I have to agree with the Jerk. The things that went wrong after Vatican II were not the fruits of Vatican II—they were the fruits of a willful misinterpretation of the very necessary reforms of Vatican II. Where do you suppose all the dissenters came from? They were there, allowed to grow and flourish under the cover of all the tradition of the pre-conciliar Church. This reminds me of when people think everyone was all innocent in the 50’s, and suddenly in the 60’s, everything went kablooey for no particular reason. No, the 50’s were rotten under the surface. Kablooey comes from somewhere.
.
When I’m excited about all of the renewal happening in the Church, I don’t indentify myself with this “remnant” David speaks of because, frankly, they are not the ones who did the work. It was John Paul II and Benedict and all the Catholics in the trenches who didn’t spend their time rubbing their hands in gloomy glee over how very, very bleak everything has gotten, but got to work doing a course correction. No, going back to Latin won’t fix anything. Meeting people where they are—you know, the people whose souls need saving TODAY—that’s what will help.
.
Sorry, David, if I’m attributing to you attitudes and opinions that you do not hold; but what the HELL is the point of talking about all the things that are still wrong? We know. We get it. We’re excited about the healing process. Why can’t we be happy about it?
Mind you, I don’t have anything against Latin, and I was thrilled when JPII made it easier for people to celebrate the TLM. I’m just saying that it’s a little bit wearisome when people suggest that English is to blame.
@David, I’ve reread your comments and mine, and I see that I overreacted, and probably directed my vehemence at the wrong person. I’m sorry about that. I think I’m just hungry.
Except for the crack about “Quite a few of the NFP Catholics are using it as a Church approved contraception.” The Jerk is exactly right, and said what needs to be said. See also this recent article from Crisis:
.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/nfp-the-myth-of-the-“contraceptive-mentality”
@ Anna “born of the Father before all ages” is LESS theologically correct.? But that is exactly what the Latin says: et exPatre natum ante omnia saecula. And this Latin formulation goes back to the Council of Nicaea, about, oh, 1700 years, give or take. So what makes it less thologically correct?
I don’t think NFP can ever be likened to contraception, but Humanae Vitae does state that the reason for using it must be serious. Especially in our culture that values THINGS over PEOPLE. When I asked my NFP teacher 25 years ago, how many children she’d had, (she was in her 60s) she said: “None,we never found an opportune time”...(huh?)
Personally, I’ve never had to use it, and am relieved as it seems like a big pain. I used ecological breastfeeding for 25 straight years, and my closest kids were 30 months apart (forty months apart when I was skinny). After half of my kids had been born, I’d only had four menstrual cycles. So yes, even God designed a system for the suppression of fertility when we REALLY breastfeed. (Look up what ecological breastfeeding entails). I’m still wondering why more people don’t seriously become advocates for this??? Childhood obesity, and diabetes have skyrocketed. Most mothers have given up by six months, and I think only 17% nurse at one year. Mother and child bonding has also really suffered…This all may seem off topic, but it really isn’t as “the breakdown of the family” (society) can be linked to the weakening of the parental bond. Please don’t freak out if you don’t agree, as I do understand that there are many different “ways” to be a fantastic mother. Just something healthy to consider. And yes, I nurse anywhere and everywhere with a reasonable amount of discretion. I got over our culture’s strange prudishness after I found myself feeding my baby in a bathroom stall, and considered with a liberating dose of ire what is acceptable for women to wear on the beach! O.K. now I’m on a tangent! N.F.P is not the only way! :)
Just sayin’ (is that on topic?)
@ Mila… “born of the Father before all ages” suggests that there was some point in time (very very early) at which the Father begat Jesus. This is actually quite close to what the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, which is that Jesus is called God’s “son” because he was made first and is the greatest of God’s creations. It’s true that we can refute this on the grounds of the “begotten, not made”, even aside from the time question. But I think, too, that the “eternally begotten” better conveys the fact that the relationships of the Trinity, including Jesus’ being begotten, exist outside of time.
Nooooo! I have already lived in the most ambiguous culture in the world (Japan) for 17+ years. I have gotten used to it, but at least I always knew I could find refuge in my “say it like it is” native culture. No more, you say? This does not bode well…
At least I can still make my way to Mass, in either country, and hear the straight Truth. Thanks be to God!
OK, this is sort of off-topic, but I’m really, really hoping that since we’re tightening up the liturgy, somehow, someway, somebody will make it mandatory to ditch the Our Father hand holding. I love the people, but PLEASSSEEE! Who can concentrate on the Lord (and a prayer some of us desperately need in our creepy sinfulness) when you’re too busy obsessing over whether your hand is hot, cold, sweaty, infected, about to become infected, clenching properly, being clenched improperly, the timing of the “love you” squeeze, the angle and proper altitude of the hand raising…please somebody make it stop.
Yes, ambiguous language is a form of CYA. I do it at work by prefacing things with “as far as I know” or “it appears that,” because of the fear of angry phone calls if we say “yes, definitely” and turn out to be wrong. I have unwittingly gone too far with it, though, and had my chops thoroughly busted for it.
The Jerk: people once learned Latin in greater numbers and will learn Latin again if they have a reason to. I’m willing to bet that the ‘deadening’ of the language goes hand-in-hand with the decline of serious study of ancient philosophy in mainstream schools. Fortunately a great many of them at least require students to learn a foreign language, usually one of the Romance languages (not as in sexy, but as in emanating from Rome). If you ever watch the National Spelling Bee, you know that one of the requests a contestant can make is for the root or language of origin. If a student encounters an unfamiliar word, (s)he is rewarded for a more thorough understanding of etymology by being more likely to win.
Speaking of which, after noting the resemblance in Mila’s post, I confirmed that the word ‘secular’ comes from the Latin meaning ‘of an age; temporal.’ A certain highly popular Chesterton quote now makes more sense than ever. :)
Simcha,
Thank you for the Crisis Magazine link and the Janet Smith article that came after it. It deepened my understanding of responsible parenthood. Yes, The Jerk is right, yes, you were perfectly right to defend him (her?) Oh gosh, I guess if I were a better theologian, I might be guilty of some “ambiguous childbearing” to go along with some “ambiguous language”. Oh my Lord, I guess I’m glad that I don’t have to give those children back for thinking in such ambiguous terms. I’m grateful for my alibi. And no, I’m not being sarcastic. If I were a new 20-something married woman, in today’s economy, I might feel like a deer in the headlights. At 45, after taking some serious financial hits in the last few years, I will continue to err on the side of hope, and REALLY don’t want to use NFP in the final stretch…
The gentleman who wrote that couples msy be using NFP for contraceptive purposes is concerned that couples may be abstaining from sex on fertile days, not for serious reasons, but merely because they just do not want any more children. I wonder myself if people are being told or understand or remember, that being open to having children is a promise they made (or were supposed to make)on their wedding day. NFP is only to be used for serious reasons, otherwise, it too, is a serious misuse of a gift of God.
Another fine and relevant article. I am a big fan of your way with words! Keep that clever and meaningful specificity coming our way. (From a B.A.and M.A. in English)
@ Mary Lark
Nope. You are wrong. That is not what the Church teaches. Please reread
Humanae Vitae. Pay special attention to where it teaches that Catholic couple may space their children, and even put off getting pregnant for “just causes.” The encyclical never mentions “serious reasons.” That comes from people without basic knowledge of Latin trying to read the souls of faithful Catholics.
Here is a link to Humanae Vitae. I am sure you will want to read it so that you may come into line with actual Church teaching.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Anna lisa- you are so so lucky! I have had great success breastfeeding and nurse each baby two years. Despite nursing round the clock my cycles return at 2 months post partum. So NFP is a huge part of our life just to ensure our babies are well fed and that my pregnancies are healthy. I certainly try to embrace it as an opportunity to grow in virtue.
This is why I roll my eyes at Catholics who suggest that NFP should rarely be used. Lots of people have an early return of cycles and like me arestill recovering from a csection. Using NFP in these situations is a life giving decision. :)
So, this is completely unrelated to the theological discussions above, but Simcha’s critique of incoherence and vagueness reminded me of this really brilliant video by performing poet Taylor Mali. He, too, is questioning this most recent generation’s inability to speak without equivocation (as a TA, I see it all the time).
I don’t think this video has any inappropriate content; though some of his others do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKyIw9fs8T4&feature=related
@ The Jerk
Re: “Nope you are wrong,”
You are wrong. And much too snotty. Defensive, eh? You must like that NFP practice so much you think it justifies you to slam a sincere proponent of the actual only licit reason for NFP to be followed.
The Catechism weakened the wording to “just.” Here is what Humanae Vitae actually says. I wonder what the original Latin of the Catechism says. I bet the word “just” has the stronger connotation of “serious.” Anyone know a link where I can look up the Latin text?
<quote from HV>
If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions… [Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 16]
I was a big proponent of NFP until I realized that many traditional Catholics are generally and joyfully accepting the number of children God sends them. Also, think about this. NFP puts the woman into the unfortunate situation where she is only going to be able to be intimate during the times of the month when she has the least desire. Sounds like a purgatory for women, an unequal situation at best. I read somewhere just recently that NFP is actually unnatural because its intention is to avoid conception, even though it doesn’t use barriers or drugs. God built conception into marital intimacy. If we use NFP, we are circumventing that result.
If I were still fertile and married, I would not use NFP. If we were too poor to afford another child, I would trust God. About health reasons, I would trust God.
God wants every little soul that He allows to be conceived, so that child can live with Him forever.
And I agree that too many are using NFP as Catholic birth control, living out all the ideals of planned parenthood. And if the method fails as it sometimes will, is it not more likely that the child will then be an unwanted “by-product of conception” and destined for termination?
Just a few thoughts.
@Roseanne Sullivan: this scholar disagrees that the catechism weakened the wording. It does quote the original Latin. Please do read:
.
http://hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69:humanae-vitae-grave-motives-to-use-a-good-translation&catid=35:older-articles&Itemid=54
.
No one is claiming that NFP is pleasant, fool-proof, or a straight path to holiness (no one in their right minds, anyway). But we really need stronger arguments than “I bet” or “I read somewhere” if we are going to say that the Catechism is wrong. Would you seriously think about what you just said? You haven’t even read the Latin, but you are claiming that people are committing serious sins, even though the Catechism says they are not. WHO are you, again?
.
We have the Church for a reason: so we don’t have to figure these things out on our own—or, worse, to figure them out FOR OTHER PEOPLE. I’ll say it again: you DO NOT KNOW what is in another person’s heart. You do not have the right to make someone defend their motivation for spacing a pregnancy. You are not God, you are not a confessor, and you have no right to tie up heavy burdens for other people.
And you’re damn right people get defensive and snotty about this kind of thing. Just yesterday, someone said I was didn’t “defend the culture of life” and failed to “understand the magesterial teaching of the Church that all life is sacred.” This was stated by someone who knows I’m about to give birth to my ninth child. My offense? I said, in so many words, that some couples have good reasons to postpone a pregnancy, and should not be shamed for prayerfully discerning God’s will in their marriages. I said that trust in God can take many forms. (I can’t quote my exact comment, because the fellow deleted it, apparently because such outrageous verbal assaults against the sanctity of life cannot be borne.)
.
So maybe now you can see why The Jerk gets a little hot under the collar when people misrepresent the Church’s teaching.
Margaret, That’s amazing fertility ! And yes, God knows why his gifts are distributed the way they are. You are the exception, not the rule, and that’s a compliment! (God knows my limitations :) There are some REALLY interesting statistics that can be found at the CCL, (couple to couple league) on ecological breastfeeding, for those who want to consider it as a method of child spacing. The La Leche League also is a font of information. As for the breast milk itself, it had been many years since I had read up on the anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-obesity, immune boosting, brain enhancing, qualities of breast milk, so after reading more articles, I continue to be amazed. I know that in cultures like South America where my husband grew up, among the elite, REAL breastfeeding was not considered “forward thinking” to put it mildly. Nestle corporation has been notorious for dumping free formula in third world countries, where the culture got “hooked”,women could work outside of the home more, and children died by the thousands because of impure water. I could go on an on. If we are pro life and pro family, we should be concerned any time the maternal bond is “messed with”. On a lighter note, maybe I’m an oxytocin junkie. Sometimes I want to go on strike from my frenetic life when I don’t have the benefit of that bliss inducing breastfeeding “drug”. (all hell can be breaking loose and you might find me calmly reading in the corner with my sweet smelling little person from heaven in the crook of my arm.) I am not worried about the consciences of people who use NFP to space or postpone children. This commitment only inspires admiration in me. It is a beautiful form of self sacrifice. The only reason why I am harping on this topic at all is because the topic of fertility,seems to come up frequently, with a lot of angst, and I only want to share my own mostly positive experience that I discovered by braille and what seems like a logical solution for some, if not many. :)
Anna Lisa- Oh yes, I think its a great point to bring up. For many people breastfeeding can really help to space children naturally. I am a big fan of breastfeedng and actually am a lactation educator and did breastfeeding research in the past. :)
I do have great fertility which is an amazing blessing (though a little overwhelming at 2 months postpartum, lol). Haha! I am slightly jealous of people who get some good natural child spacing.
And I also didn’t mean my whole comment directed at you. It just made me think of my example because its an example of how NFP can be used to really give life to a family. Since pregnancy generally results in a big drop in milk supply, using NFP helps my infants get all the breast milk they need while they are still growing and vulnerable. It also gives time for my body to heal and makes for healthier future pregnancies. So I guess I just have a “I don’t get it” reaction to other commenters who suggest that NFP is somehow anti-children or against the purpose of marriage.
I thank God for NFP and how it has helped us to take good care of the children we have so far and has hopefully helped us to have healthier future pregnancies. :)
SO SORRY Simcha, my posts are totally off topic. Back to the topic at hand!Which is awesome by the way. It helps me put my (awful) liberal college experience in some more perspective.
@Roseanne Sullivan
.
“I was a big proponent of NFP until I realized that many traditional Catholics are generally and joyfully accepting the number of children God sends them.”
.
Yes, many Catholics DO joyfully accept as many children as they can have. This is a form of radical providentialism, and it is beautiful to see. There are other forms of providentialism that are also beautiful to behold, such as St. Francis giving away all he had and living as a beggar, or the widow in Luke 21. They trusted God to provide all that they needed, and He did.
.
I would like you to consider the following passage from Scripture (Luke 22:35-36).
.
[Jesus] said to [his disciples], “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied. He said to them, “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.”
.
Jesus had previously given the disciples an exercise in radical trust of God, by sending them out to travel to other towns without bringing any money or even an extra change of clothes. This is very much like trusting God to provide for all of your physical and emotional needs no matter how many children you end up with. And, just as the disciples went purse-less and found that they lacked for nothing on that excursion, so too do many families go NFP-less and find their lives overflowing with an abundance of all they need. Yet Jesus told the disciples, on this occasion, to take their purses with them. This does not mean that they were not trusting God. It means that, this time, God wanted them to use every resource that He had provided for them, and to be cautious where previously He had asked them to throw caution to the winds.
.
It is the same with NFP. Sometimes God asks us to throw caution to the wind and trust in him. And other times, God tells us to use the tools he has given us, to be cautious. And the only way to know which one you should do is to listen to what Jesus is saying to you right now.
.
“Sounds like a purgatory for women, an unequal situation at best.”
.
I could just as easily say that men think about sex more than women, so it is unequally fair to the males. The truth is, both the man and the woman must make sacrifices in order for NFP to work. And that sacrifice is exactly why couples do not engage in it selfishly. People don’t give up sex for trivial reasons. Contraception requires little or no self-sacrifice, and so couples use it selfishly. NFP has a built-in deterrent to selfish use; it’s very very unpleasant to do. This is also why NFP is exceedingly unlikely to result in an abortion if it fails; contraception encourages the couple to be selfish, which makes it more likely that they will choose to put their own concerns above that of a child, but NFP gives the couple practice in self-sacrifice, which prepares them to be parents if they need to. (And every NFP-er I have met has been very very prolife.)
.
“NFP is actually unnatural because its intention is to avoid conception… God built conception into marital intimacy.”
.
God DID build fertile times into the woman. And he ALSO built infertile times into the woman’s cycle. That is the difference between NFP and contraception; with contraception, we are forcing our own way on God’s plan. With NFP, we are working within the limits of God’s design. We are using something that came from Him, not messing with his design.
“SO SORRY Simcha, my posts are totally off topic. “
.
Not at all! I admire your attitude greatly, and as someone else blessed with sometimes overwhelming fertility, I am very grateful to NFP and how it’s helped me take care of my kids.
@Simcha: Thanks for the link to the discussion about the original Latin of the Catechism. That’s just what I needed.
Isn’t it all right in a discussion to use “I bet”? I didn’t have the reference to the quote I mentioned, and I didn’t look up and post the link because I was not writing a scholarly article. I only mentioned what that person said because it makes sense to me. And I thought it might make sense to others.
Why do you think I was accusing anyone of being sinful if they use NFP as the Church allows? Simcha, I love your writing, which I have only recently discovered. I am disappointed in how you jumped all over me.
Now I realize I don’t belong on this forum. I was just writing down my thoughts. Silly me. Why do you ask “Who am I again”? I am a fellow Catholic writer forming my conscience just as you have done.
What’s your issue that you would react so unkindly to me?
BTW, what happened to my follow-on post? I wrote that after I read some more posts and comments I realized that all of you very bright Catholics in the middle of your fertile years have been pondering these issues very deeply and have very strong opinions, and I feared I might be attacked for not agreeing with you. If I could have deleted my comment at that point, I would have.
@Anna. Thanks to you too. I understand the technical difference between NFP and contraception based on barriers and pills. And as I said I used to be a great NFP proponent until I sat down to try to write a letter ot my niece about it, and then realized how much I was in sympathy with the providentialists. Providentialism has been around since time began, NFP is comparatively new. And it is not being presented properly.
I wrote what I did and have the feelings I do because I remember a different pre-Vatican II Catholic Church where there was no NFP and there were not other now-allowed novelties such as annulments for any reason other than non-consumation or force. It is not a sin on my part to wonder if these things are good or if the new dispenations are being applied appropriately. Thought I could share my concerns with you all. My mistake.
Honestly Simcha, I can’t imagine how thick your skin must have to be to wrangle with bossy opinions from the right and the left, and certainly on such a tender topic. I hope I didn’t come off that way either. Your attitude on NFP makes perfect sense. So, all this and it’s also probably pretty hard to get a good night sleep given that abundant fertility right now. I can barely lay flat in the third trimester. I tip my hat to you, and your sense of humor on top of it all. My sisters and I are all “grand, grand multiparras” too. My oldest sister went on to have three more children after a child with Downs AND a bone disease that keeps him in a wheelchair. What faith. One day, when our middle sister had an NFP “slip up” and was not so happy about being pregnant, I asked her: “If someone came to your door RIGHT NOW and asked you for your youngest child in exchange for a billion dollars would you do it?” “Of course not” She said. “See?” I said, “Then you just won the lottery!!!!” Every time I got pregnant after that I would think of that! LOL I’m serious. After all of my family’s financial losses in the last few years I feel truly rich. Your “lottery winnings” are impressive! Though I understand the “overwhelming” part. Ha ha, if you weren’t so busy juggling everything on your plate and challenging everyone to be rational you might be on your way to ruling the world. And your original post made me suppress some bad slang too. Cheers.
@Roseanne
The difference between NFP and contraception should not be dismissed as a merely technical one. It is a deeply profound spiritual difference, one that has such a significant bearing on our attitude and submission towards God’s will, that the Church has declared the one to be morally acceptable and the other to be intrinsically sinful.
.
Who, exactly, do you think is presenting NFP improperly, and what is improper about that way of presenting it?
@Roseanne, First let me say that the Register software often flags comments for no apparent reason, so if there is a comment held up in moderation, I can release it for you, if you like - I’ll leave that up to you.
,
You are, of course, more than welcome to write down your thoughts. I realize that my tone was harsh, but I think you are not seeing how harsh your ideas are. Naturally it is not a sin to wonder, speculate, or muse about Church teaching. But let me quote from your post, and as I go, I will explain why my reaction was so angry.
.
You said: “The Catechism weakened the wording to “just.””
I lean on the Catechism very heavily, and every time I look into it, I’m astonished at the depth of scholarship and profound mystery of thought. You can never get to the bottom of it. So to hear someone say it weakened the wording offended me very much. You acknowledged that you didn’t know the original Latin, and yet implied repeatedly Catholics very commonly interpret it wrong. It’s like someone telling me I’m pronouncing my own name wrong.
.
You said:
“I was a big proponent of NFP until I realized that many traditional Catholics are generally and joyfully accepting the number of children God sends them.”
.
I AM a traditional Catholic. I follow Christ, I follow the Catechism, I strive to understand what the Church is asking of me, and I have often, sheepishly, changed my mind as I come to understand things better. And I joyfully accept the number of children that God has sent me. Is there some other tradition that I’m unaware of? If there is, it doesn’t sound like a very important one.
.
Your contrast of NFP-users and “traditional Catholics” implies that couples who are not providentialsts are somehow lacking in joy in their children. I’m taking this personally because you are saying things which are, by definition, very personal. You’re talking about people’s lives. I understand that you’re just making a comment in a comment box, but you must understand that people who are actually living through these situations are going to be affected by your casual words. This is not because people are oversensitive ninnies; it’s because life is hard enough, without some stranger making blanket statements about what is going on in their hearts.
.
You said:
“Also, think about this. NFP puts the woman into the unfortunate situation where she is only going to be able to be intimate during the times of the month when she has the least desire. Sounds like a purgatory for women, an unequal situation at best.”
This annoyed me because it’s irrelevant. You were arguing that NFP can be immoral; now you’re mentioning that it’s hard. That’s not news for anyone who actually uses NFP. It’s like saying to someone in a wheelchair, “Wow, doesn’t that get boring sometimes?” Yes it does, and thanks for bringing it up.
.
“I read somewhere just recently that NFP is actually unnatural because its intention is to avoid conception, even though it doesn’t use barriers or drugs. God built conception into marital intimacy. If we use NFP, we are circumventing that result.”
.
Anna responded to this very well already.
.
You said:
“If I were still fertile and married, I would not use NFP. If we were too poor to afford another child, I would trust God. About health reasons, I would trust God.”
.
This last part was the part that irritated me the most. There are two reasons this bothered me: One is that it’s very easy for someone who will not be tested to say, I would trust God, I would trust God! Well, you know, if someone chopped my leg off, I would hop around on the other one and not complain, because I would trust God. See, it’s easy for me to say this, because the chances of me getting my leg chopped off are slim to none. In the mean time, I can look at all the other people who have, in their weakness, chosen to get prosthetic legs, and cluck my tongue over their lack of trust.
.
Maybe you would trust God. Maybe it would be the right thing to do. But maybe the right thing to do would be to use NFP. How do I know it might be the right thing? BECAUSE THE CHURCH TEACHES IT MIGHT BE. I wouldn’t presume to know more than the Church.
.
The other problem with your comment is that you are implying that people who use NFP are not trusting God, when the exact opposite may be true. I know some people who long desperately for another baby, but trust that God has a plan for them that includes the use of NFP. Sometimes providentialsm is the easy way out. Sometimes it’s not trust, it’s cowardice. Sometimes people who limit their family size are using heroic self-denial (not only denial of sex, but denial of the pleasure of having a baby!), which may or may not be obvious to the outside world. Or maybe it’s not self-restraint, maybe it’s selfishness. We simply don’t know. This is why the Church never, never asks us to examine anyone else’s conscience, but only our own.
.
You ask: “Why do you think I was accusing anyone of being sinful if they use NFP as the Church allows?”
.
Because you said “I agree that too many are using NFP as Catholic birth control, living out all the ideals of planned parenthood. ” How do you know if they are “using NFP as the Church allows?” How could you possibly know? This is an incredibly serious accusation to make, and you have no call to take umbrage when someone calls you on it.
.
You said:
“And if the method fails as it sometimes will, is it not more likely that the child will then be an unwanted “by-product of conception” and destined for termination?”
This comment, too, was incredibly offensive. You are implying that a woman who has already made the sacrifices you’ve described above, turning aside her own desires when she is most fertile, would then be tempted to kill her own child. I’ve had unplanned pregnancies. I’ve gotten accidentally pregnant at truly horrible times. And I did not consider killing my child. I use NFP. That does not make me more likely to become a murderer; but that is most certainly what you were implying. You see, you are “only sharing your concerns,” but you are talking about actual people, whether you know it or not.
.
I do, however, know providentialists who were extremely gung-ho about trusting God until suddenly one day they couldn’t take it anymore, and got sterilized. Radical trust is not always what it seems. My point is not to paint providentialists as hypocrites or simpletons. I’m just trying to say that some providentialsts are holy people, and some are weak and sinful. Some NFP-users are holy people, and some are weak and sinful.
.
I have had calm, respectful conversations with people who do not understand or accept the Church’s teaching about NFP. I don’t just turn into a raging harpy every time someone says “trust.” I understand that your intention was not to wound; but you must understand, for future reference, that your words WERE hurtful and careless. I hope I have given you a clearer picture of why I was upset by your words.
Some women need life saving medication that would be very harmful to a baby if they were to get pregnant. As in it could result in birth defects or even death. Are you saying, Roseanne, that these couples should just throw caution to the wind and just be open to whatever happens because they should just trust God? That is contrary to what the Church teaches on the matter. (See Simcha’s many comments above :) ) Or what of a couple who will pass along a genetic disease to their children and have decided it is no longer prudent for them to have children of their own but would like to enjoy the marital embrace every now and again? Or a mother who has many children close in age and just need a break from being pregnant for a while?
Also some women, like me, who have lost multiple babies to miscarriage rely on NFP and NaPro technology to help save our babies while they are still in the womb. It is very helpful for couples who struggle with infertility. Just being able to learn so much about my body and how it works is amazing. If anything, it gives me a greater awe and reverence for the God who formed me! At no time would my husband and I ever view it as “contraception.” That’s just ridiculous.
@Simcha, thanks for replying.
I’m sorry I came across as harsh and that I offended you. Please hear me out a bit more.
Obviously, you know the Catechism intimately and you love it for its wisdom. You seem to have reacted because I formed a value judgement that the word just is weaker than serious. I don’t think my opinion is harsh. I wasn’t actually implying any motivation for the Catechism’s word choice, BTW. But I do have a recollection that English translations of Vatican documents have sometimes included nuances not intended in the originals, and I was half wondering if something like that had happened in the NFP section of the CCC and had been overlooked.
> You acknowledged that you didn’t know the
original Latin, and yet implied repeatedly Catholics very commonly interpret
it wrong. It’s like someone telling me I’m pronouncing my own name wrong.
My only intended meaning about Catholics interpreting the use of NFP incorrectly is simply this fact that I’ve seen referenced twice in comments to your posts—that many priests are so eager to deter Catholic engaged couples from contraception that they promote NFP without making clear that it is not to be used to prevent pregnancies as if it was just a Catholic alternative to the birth control pill to be used at whim. Others have commented that the full statement that NFP should be used to delay conception only for Church-approved reasons is not mentioned in NFP classes.
You all have mentioned many serious, grave, just and right reasons why you use or have used NFP, and I am amazed at all the nuances and the sincere struggles you go through. I learned a lot. You Simcha had serious reasons after prayerful consideration for spacing the births of your astoundingly large and laudable total of nine children. I have no criticism of you or other traditional Catholics like you.
> You said:
“I was a big proponent of NFP until I realized that many traditional
Catholics are generally and joyfully accepting the number of children God
sends them.”
> Your contrast of NFP-users and “traditional Catholics” implies that
couples who are not providentialsts are somehow lacking in joy in their
children. I’m taking this personally because you are saying things which
are, by definition, very personal. You’re talking about people’s lives. I
understand that you’re just making a comment in a comment box, but you must
understand that people who are actually living through these situations are
going to be affected by your casual words. This is not because people are
oversensitive ninnies; it’s because life is hard enough, without some
stranger making blanket statements about what is going on in their hearts.
As you quoted me, I wrote that “many” traditional Catholics don’t use NFP. I didn’t say that all do. Or criticize those who are traditional and who do. I just found the providentialist view to be an eye opener. It struck a chord with me. I found that I could not finish the letter to my niece to try to catechize her about NFP because I didn’t believe in it any more as wholeheartedly as I previously had. Look, I simply reported a personal change of heart in my comments and was not condemning anyone. I am always looking for simple rules to live by, like Thou shalt not kill. Or Thou shalt attend Mass every Sunday and holyday of obligation. And I didn’t have the temperament to sort through all the nuances. I"m also sceptical about how lack of clarity can lead to abuse. I’m sure you agree that people who don’t have scruples love to look for loopholes to justify unCatholic actions. I can’t help it, but I’m somebody who would probably want to see that list you were writing about in another post :-).
> You said:
“Also, think about this. NFP puts the woman into the unfortunate situation
where she is only going to be able to be intimate during the times of the
month when she has the least desire. Sounds like a purgatory for women, an
unequal situation at best.”
>This annoyed me because it’s irrelevant. You were arguing that NFP can be
immoral; now you’re mentioning that it’s hard.
I wasn’t arguing that it’s immoral. I was, however, arguing that it’s not completely natural. Even though many are comfortable with the concept that abstaining from sex during fertile periods is not unnatural, I found myself unable to justify it in my own thinking. When a former editor of mine first drew my attention to the fact that a woman’s periods of low desire coincide with the non-fertile periods after he had five children and felt it was time to stop, he seemed to be looking for reassurances in that forum that it would be okay to put his wife in the position of only having sex when she didn’t want it for the rest of her fertile life. As a red-blooded woman, I couldn’t quite agree.
>“If I were still fertile and married, I would not use NFP. If we were too
poor to afford another child, I would trust God. About health reasons, I
would trust God.”
…
> Maybe you would trust God. Maybe it would be the right thing to do. But
maybe the right thing to do would be to use NFP. How do I know it might be
the right thing? BECAUSE THE CHURCH TEACHES IT MIGHT BE. I wouldn’t presume
to know more than the Church.
I agree wholeheartedly that NFP might be the right thing. And okay, since you are in the trenches right now dealing with these questions on a daily basis, I see that it does sound hollow to you that I write my opinion about these things even though I will never be tested again to see if my personal preference for providentialism would hold up.
I have to admit that I have had some convictions like that challenged and failed miserably. For example. I believed whole heartedly in natural childbirth and sought out the only doctors I could find in the San Francisco Bay area in 1970 who supported natural birth when I was pregnant with my first child. To my great chagrin, I gave up my principles after a day of back labor, (which no one had prepared me for) and asked for anesthetic.
BTW, I loved that little phrase you wrote about “the pleasure of having a baby.” Amen to that.
> you said “I agree that too many are using NFP as Catholic birth
control, living out all the ideals of planned parenthood. ” How do you know
if they are “using NFP as the Church allows?” How could you possibly know?
This is an incredibly serious accusation to make, and you have no call to
take umbrage when someone calls you on it.
I meant only the ones who use it like Catholic birth control. And they and God know who they are. I don’t. I was not and am not implying that everyone who uses NFP is in that set.
.>I do, however, know providentialists who were extremely gung-ho about
trusting God until suddenly one day they couldn’t take it anymore, and got
sterilized.
Sounds like the story of me and my capitulation to childbirth anesthesia. Except that sterilization is a sin.
> Radical trust is not always what it seems. My point is not to
paint providentialists as hypocrites or simpletons. I’m just trying to say
that some providentialsts are holy people, and some are weak and sinful.
Some NFP-users are holy people, and some are weak and sinful.
I agree.
God bless. Good bye. How you find time to write, and blog and comment on your blog’s comments is beyond my comprehension. You go girl!
@Roseanne
Have you met someone that you thought was using NFP as Catholic birth control, doing it on a whim, even though it is difficult to do?
I’ll leave Jesus to judge the individual. I just wish I wasn’t the ONLY one, crazy enough to have a family that takes up a whole pew at mass…It’s kind of lonely when the CATHOLICS that actually go to mass look at me like I’ve sprouted a third eye. Then again, they’re always happy to see us. We’re sort of like the floor show.
Them: “Are they ALL yours?”
“You mean ALL of them came out of YOUR body?”
“Same HUSBAND?”
Me: “I actually have two more, one in law school and one in college”
“Are you TRUST FUND babies???”
“Sighhhhhhh….Just hopeless optimists.”
Simcha, I don’t know how you do it: even a blog post with no mention of NFP ends up with an NFP-full combox! You must be meant to be one of God’s prophets on this subject. :)
.
There are many wonders of nature that the human race has only recently discovered, or of which we’ve refined our knowledge. Does this make them less of a marvel within God’s great Creation, or any less “natural”?
.
Keep fighting the good fight for the Truth, Simcha! I’m sure have to be some honest questioners out there.
This was great reading at 5 a.m. on a sleepless Saturday morning. I’m going to echo the “you go girl” with air quotes kinda thingy. And as soon as the comments turned to NFP, I knew the is discussion was going to get, you know. Really, you know. And it did. Someday you’ll have to write a post about how autocorrect adds an even deeper level of vagueness (?). I say that after I just noticed that my apparently misspelled version of discussion had been replaced with cushion. Now THAT would have been vague. Seriously. Thanks Simcha. You are a solid voice in the wilderness. God bless you and that big beautiful family.
@Denise: Even though I sense a veiled sarcastic intent behind this query, let me see
if I can answer. I remember one couple I met after I returned to the
Church. First people I ever met that used NFP. I think they used the
thermal part of the sympto-thermal method. They had a routine down. He
would stick the thermometer in her mouth every morning (she was half awake
because she was a nurse who worked the night shift). She told me he took
care of determining the fertile days since he was the one who was
interested. They “planned” to have four children, had three and then
continued for years after the third child in their NFP routine until they
woke up one morning and realized they had sort of forgotten to have the
fourth. This was unfortunate, in a mildly annoying way, because as he told
me, he had bought her a piece of jewelry with room for four birthstones one
for each of the children they had planned.
Didn’t seem to me that they found it too difficult, once they got the
charting and temp taking routinized and adjusted their intimacy
expectations to their fertility periods. My German mother in law epitomized for me how you can handle anything once you build a routine around it.
Please don’t hate me for sharing my thoughts with you. I would appreciate a friendly discussion that assumes the best about the other person as Christians are required to do and that would perhaps enlighten both sides.
Someone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE introduce me to one of these “NFP but with a contraceptive mindset” people someday. Please. I keep hearing about them in comboxes, so surely they must exist, yet never, ever out in the real world have I encountered one. Ever.
And Simcha said it far better and more diplomatically than I ever could, but Providentialists, another please here—PLEASE choose your words carefully. I’m another one of those grandmultiparas whose fertility always returns nice and early even while exclusively breastfeeding my co-sleeping infant. Needing space between pregnancies for sanity’s sake, for carpal-tunnel surgery’s sake, for put-my-pelvis-back-together-with-18-months-of-physical-therapy’s sake doesn’t reflect a lack of trust in God. Really, truly, it doesn’t.
Bwahaha—my captcha is planning94.
NFP users also vary in the degree of how strictly they use it, so most are also “providentialists” as well. I would tack a few to several months on to my return of fertility just by generally “knowing” when the fertile times were, but didn’t chart or take my temp. I just lost my ninth child in the 36th week. This was devastating. Now look at fertility with far more reverence than in years past. I lost my sixth baby at 22 weeks, and this changed me forever. I really took the gift of fertility for granted until then. I then lost my seventh child to miscarriage at the eighth week. This child had the exact same due date as the sixth. It was such an eye-opener, and a far cry from the day when I showed my spiritual directer my fourth child. He was foreign, and meant to say “So this is your latest? Instead he said “So this is your last?” And I snapped back, “Can I get that in writing?” I had considered my fertility something to be feared and that I tolerated for God, like I was somehow doing HIM a favor. I am so humbled.
@Roseanne: Ummmm… No, there wasn’t any sarcasm. Just a correction. Someone above stated that NFP was unnatural. Quite the contrary, at least as far as the process goes. (Rereading my comment, I can see where it could be read as sarcastic, but I think you have to go into it looking to see sarcasm. It was not intended.)
.
Since I was misunderstood, I’ll go into what I’m thinking in a little more detail: We should all have a true wonder at what God created, and deemed “good”. A woman’s cycle has been around since the beginning. So have all the rather astonishingly amazing features of the human body, many of which have only come to light in the last century. And we’re not done discovering, by any means. So maybe we were ignorant for most of human history about women’s fertile periods or peptides or enzymes - but they are all part of what God deems “good”. They are all natural. And we are allowed to use these natural goods to enhance our lives, where it does not lead us into sin.
.
Re: your example and my last sentence above. All humans are perfectly capable of corrupting all good things. Just because some individuals misuse God’s great Creation for selfish reasons does not make the process - a process put in place by God, and thus *available as a pathway to holiness* (the Church’s position, not just mine) - an automatic evil. This is the greatest error I see in discussions of NFP: not separating the inherent goodness of the *process or method* from the not-necessarily-good *intent* of those using it.
.
The husband and wife who are spacing births for health reasons, or family reasons, or whatever reasons that *come from God due to personal discernment* are a different couple from the example you give, assuming that everything that couple described to you can be taken at face value. A person cannot treat these couples as the same, nor condemn the process itself, without committing a grave injustice. Simcha makes this same point, though more wittily and eloquently than me. Thus my encouragement to her to continue, because I’ve seen from many past discussions in comboxes that this mixing up of *process* and *intent* leaves many faithful Catholics really confused about the validity of NFP, despite the clear teachings of the Magisterium.
.
As for judging intent: This is where everyone treads on thin ice. Jesus tells us firmly that, while we can identify sin in general and encourage our companions on life’s journey to live a life pleasing to God, we should otherwise keep our eyes on our own work. As has been pointed out before, we are all works in progress, struggling to hear God’s voice in a world that seeks to drown Him out. Commentary that confuses the teaching of God’s Church on earth is part of the cacophony.
Oh, I forgot to mention: “I would appreciate a friendly discussion that assumes the best about the other person as Christians are required to do and that would perhaps enlighten both sides.”
.
So would I! And I hope that my comments reflect that. Disagreement is not the same as attack, although admittedly on the Internet it is easy to understand why many of us become automatically defensive and have to fight to maintain equanimity. Too many have been subjected to personal flames; or careless and hasty words; or led into discussions by those who claim they have “an open mind” when they actually have an agenda they are aggressively trying to push. Combox communication is a tricky, iffy thing at the best of times, and it’s good for everyone to remember there are actual, real people on the other side of all those computer wires.
.
And I certainly don’t hate anyone who brings up points in a discussion, whether I agree with them or not. I don’t even hate people who attack me, or assume the worst about me, or judge me harshly. God loves them as much as he loves me, and grieves over their sins as much as he grieves over mine, and hopes for the attainment of Heaven by them as much as by me!
Somebody way, way back up there didn’t like “the new Mass music?” Which setting? We’re learning and using the Mass of St. Michael, which is based on a Ukranian chant, and it’s gorgeous, definitely not “four notes.”
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.