An Urgent Message from Fr. Owen Kearns LC, Publisher
What we deliver with our journalism, we cannot deliver without your generosity.
The National Catholic Register needs your help. Revenue from subscriptions and advertising can't keep up with the rising cost of payroll, printing, postage and other expenses. We must rely on donations to make up the difference. To continue our hard-hitting investigative reporting, we need your financial support. Please donate today.
...or click here to learn about donating to specific projects.
Donations to Circle Media are tax-deductible. (Photo credits/CNS)
July 20-26, 2008 Issue |
Posted 7/15/08 at 11:33 AM
Recently I
heard from someone planning a 40th year conference on Humanae
Vitae that Humanae Vitae is
considered passé — a document of a previous generation; the current generation
is the Theology of the Body Generation.
Count me as a huge fan of the
theology of the body. I certainly marvel at the enthusiastic reception given to
it and the stories of the lives it has transformed.
Yet, there may still be reasons to
pay some attention to Humanae Vitae. For
one thing, it is short! Translations of the theology of the body are nearly 400
pages long and the shorter versions attempting to make it intelligible are not
that much shorter.
I know of one Protestant minister
who gave Humanae Vitae three consecutive readings
and then announced that he wanted to belong to a church that had such a
teaching. The next Easter, he and about a dozen family members became
Catholics.
I heard him tell this story when he
was exhorting a room full of priests to preach Humanae
Vitae. He promised that it would bring people in to, rather than
chase people out of, the Church.
Humanae Vitae needs
to be preached in whatever persuasive form the presenter can devise.
I have heard two young pastors give
several homilies that have utilized Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body or
spoken to the evil of contraception. They were homilies very well received by
the congregation. And even more so by me: I had to physically refrain myself
from doing cartwheels — or some middle-aged equivalent — down the aisle.
In my moral theology classes at
Sacred Heart Major Seminary, I require the seminarians to give homilies that
include reference to some controversial moral issue. Every class experiences
some intense discomfort when we begin this process, I think in large part
because we have never heard “same-sex unions,” “premarital sex,”
“cohabitation,” “in vitro fertilization,” “pornography” or “contraception”
mentioned from the pulpit.
I try to instruct the seminarians
how to introduce these topics in a gentle fashion with full sympathy for the
lack of instruction (or poor instruction) that parishioners may have had and
full sympathy for the difficulties in resisting the lure of the culture to sin.
The seminarians are often appropriately sensitive in their homilies and also
inspiringly passionate about the issues.
They have seen the direct harm done
by sexual immorality, and also know how difficult it is for those who are given
to sexual immorality to advance spiritually. I have come to realize that it is
not the manner of presentation that is jarring; it is the very fact the
morality is being mentioned from the pulpit.
It wasn’t always thus.
In
her book Catholics
and Contraception: An American History, Leslie Woodcock Tentler ably demonstrates that in the first half of the
last century there was an amazing, concerted effort by bishops and priests to
educate Catholics about the Church’s teaching on contraception and that
Catholics complied at an impressive rate, apparently quite happily so. This
passage presents an amazing picture:
“Many laity admired their Church’s
increasingly lonely defense of a procreative sexual ethic. Many shared their
clergy’s anxieties when it came to emancipated views of sex. And a great many
Catholics responded with a visceral surge of tribal loyalty when public
proponents of birth control attacked the Catholic Church. The story was one of
idealism, too, especially after the Second World War, when the teaching was
increasingly presented in personalist terms and in a context of national
prosperity. Young Catholics, then, especially the best educated, were among the
teaching’s most fervent proponents, with birthrates exceeding the burgeoning
national average. Aspiring to domestic sanctity, these young idealists won the
admiration of numerous priests, who were thereby confirmed in their own
commitment to a near-heroic sexual discipline. Undergirding it all was a
devotional ethos that was at once hostile to sex and almost opulently sensual”
(pages 4-5).
I
see something of that now. I know many well-educated young Catholic couples who
understand and embrace the Church’s teaching on contraception. Their witness is
inspiring young priests to see the beauty of the teaching; to understand that
although very difficult for some and not so difficult for others, it is a path
to holiness for all.
We
are also seeing evidence of a renewed interest in this topic by the U.S.
bishops, and many individual bishops.
Those
Catholics who know that their Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and exists
to help us grown in love of Christ and his Father, are eager to learn what we
need to grow in that love.
I
am confident we will see a greater desire of Catholics to embrace Church
teachings in all respects, on contraception included.
And
as fewer Catholics contracept, more will be better evangelizers and eventually
we may succeed not only in transforming ourselves but the culture as well.
Janet Smith
is the
Michael J.
McGivney chair of life ethics at Sacred Heart Major
Seminary in Detroit.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Make a Donation now!
Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.